Aspects Of Personality Definition Essay

Short Essay on Personality!

In daily life the term personality is very freely used by people with different meanings. Some people refer to the physical appearance like height, weight, colour, body built, dress, voice, etc. Some other people refer to intellectual qualities like intelligence, activeness, way of speech, thinking and reasoning abilities, etc.

It is also referred to social characteristics like sociability, generosity, kindness, reservedness, etc. On the basis of these characteristics they judge people as strong or weak personalities, good and bad personalities, etc.

In this way we all make personality judgments about the people we know. A major part of coming to understand ourselves is developing a sense of what our personality characteristics are. We even form impressions about personalities of people we do not know, but have only read about. As we shall see, these everyday uses of the term are quite different from the meaning psychologists give to the term personality.

The term personality has been derived from a Latin word ‘persona’- means ‘mask’. In olden days, while playing dramas, in order to give good effects to the roles played by them, the Greek actors used to wear masks.

The psychologists continue to use the term personality to indicate that, the real or inner qualities of a person will be different from, that of the qualities seen apparently. Hence, defining and understanding the personality is not very easy as it appears. It is very difficult to define personality in a precise way. Different psychologists have defined personality in their own ways. Two comprehensive definitions widely accepted are quoted here under:

GW Allport defines that, ‘personality is the dynamic organisation, within the individual of those psychological systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment’.

According to this definition the different psychological traits which determine the adjustment of the individual are organised into a dynamic (changeable or modifiable) unit. So there will be flexible adjustment with the environment.

Eysenck defines that, “personality is the more or less stable and enduring organisation of a person’s character, temperament, intellect and physique which determines his unique adjustment to the environment.”

Most of the definitions of personality have tried to Consider the totality of the person, that means, all the abilities, tendencies and other characteristics, both inherent as well as acquired, which are more or less consistent, and distinguishable from the people are included in the personality.

For other uses, see Personality (disambiguation).

Personality is defined as the set of habitual behaviors, cognitions and emotional patterns that evolve from biological and environmental factors.[1] While there is no generally agreed upon definition of personality, most theories focus on motivation and psychological interactions with one's environment. [2] Trait-based personality theories, such as those defined by Raymond Cattell define personality as the traits that predict a person's behavior. On the other hand, more behaviorally based approaches define personality through learning and habits. Nevertheless, most theories view personality as relatively stable.[1]

The study of the psychology of personality, called personality psychology, attempts to explain the tendencies that underly differences in behavior. Many approaches have been taken to studying personality, including biological, cognitive, learning and trait based theories, as well as psychodynamic, and humanistic approaches. Personality psychology is also divided among the first theorists, with a few influential theories being posited by Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Gordon Allport, Hans Eysenck, Abraham Maslow, and Carl Rogers.

The trait based approach has yielded multiple conceptions of personality, including a number of five factor models, Eysenck's traits, Cattel's traits and Cloninger's temperament and character traits.[1]

Measuring[edit]

Personality can be determined through a variety of tests. However, dimensions of personality and scales of personality tests vary and often are poorly defined. Examples of such tests are the: Big Five Inventory (BFI), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2), Rorschach Inkblot test, Neurotic Personality Questionnaire KON-2006,[3] or Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire (EPQ-R).

Five-factor model[edit]

Personality is often broken into statistically-identified factors called the Big Five, which are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (or emotional stability). These components are generally stable over time, and about half of the variance appears to be attributable to a person's genetics rather than the effects of one's environment.[4][5]

Some research has investigated whether the relationship between happiness and extraversion seen in adults can also be seen in children. The implications of these findings can help identify children that are more likely to experience episodes of depression and develop types of treatment that such children are likely to respond to. In both children and adults, research shows that genetics, as opposed to environmental factors, exert a greater influence on happiness levels. Personality is not stable over the course of a lifetime, but it changes much more quickly during childhood, so personality constructs in children are referred to as temperament. Temperament is regarded as the precursor to personality.[6] Whereas McCrae and Costa's Big Five model assesses personality traits in adults, the EAS (emotionality, activity, and sociability) model is used to assess temperament in children. This model measures levels of emotionality, activity, sociability, and shyness in children. The personality theorists consider temperament EAS model similar to the Big Five model in adults; however, this might be due to a conflation of concepts of personality and temperament as described above. Findings show that high degrees of sociability and low degrees of shyness are equivalent to adult extraversion, and also correlate with higher levels of life satisfaction in children.

Another interesting finding has been the link found between acting extraverted and positive affect. Extraverted behaviors include acting talkative, assertive, adventurous, and outgoing. For the purposes of this study, positive affect is defined as experiences of happy and enjoyable emotions.[7] This study investigated the effects of acting in a way that is counter to a person's dispositional nature. In other words, the study focused on the benefits and drawbacks of introverts (people who are shy, socially inhibited and non-aggressive) acting extraverted, and of extraverts acting introverted. After acting extraverted, introverts' experience of positive affect increased[7] whereas extraverts seemed to experience lower levels of positive affect and suffered from the phenomenon of ego depletion. Ego depletion, or cognitive fatigue, is the use of one's energy to overtly act in a way that is contrary to one's inner disposition. When people act in a contrary fashion, they divert most, if not all, (cognitive) energy toward regulating this foreign style of behavior and attitudes. Because all available energy is being used to maintain this contrary behavior, the result is an inability to use any energy to make important or difficult decisions, plan for the future, control or regulate emotions, or perform effectively on other cognitive tasks.[7]

One question that has been posed is why extraverts tend to be happier than introverts. The two types of explanations attempt to account for this difference are instrumental theories and temperamental theories.[4] The instrumental theory suggests that extraverts end up making choices that place them in more positive situations and they also react more strongly than introverts to positive situations. The temperamental theory suggests that extraverts have a disposition that generally leads them to experience a higher degree of positive affect. In their study of extraversion, Lucas and Baird[4] found no statistically significant support for the instrumental theory but did, however, find that extraverts generally experience a higher level of positive affect.

Research has also been done to uncover some of the mediators that are responsible for the correlation between extraversion and happiness. Self-esteem and self-efficacy are two such mediators. Self-efficacy has been found to be related to the personality traits of extraversion and subjective well-being.[8] Self-efficacy is one's belief about abilities to perform up to personal standards, the ability to produce desired results, and the feeling of having some ability to make important life decisions.[8] However, the relationship between extraversion (and neuroticism) and subjective happiness is only partially mediated by self-efficacy.[8] This implies that there are most likely other factors that mediate the relationship between subjective happiness and personality traits. Another such factor may be self-esteem. Individuals with a greater degree of confidence about themselves and their abilities seem to have both higher degrees of subjective well-being and higher levels of extraversion.[9]

Other research has examined the phenomenon of mood maintenance as another possible mediator. Mood maintenance, the ability to maintain one's average level of happiness in the face of an ambiguous situation (meaning a situation that has the potential to engender either positive or negative emotions in different individuals), has been found to be a stronger force in extraverts.[10] This means that the happiness levels of extraverted individuals are less susceptible to the influence of external events. Another implication of this finding is that extraverts' positive moods last longer than those of introverts.[10]

Developmental biological model[edit]

Modern conceptions of personality, such as the Temperament and Character Inventory have suggested four basic temperaments that are thought to reflect basic and automatic responses to danger and reward that rely on associative learning. The four temperaments, harm avoidance, reward dependence, novelty seeking and persistence are somewhat analogous to ancient conceptions of melancholic, sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic personality types, although the temperaments reflect dimensions rather than distance categories. While factor based approaches to personality have yielded models that account for significant variance, the developmental biological model has been argued to better reflect underlying biological processes. Distinct genetic, neurochemical and neuroanatomical correlates responsible for each temperamental trait have been observed, unlike with five factor models.

The harm avoidance trait has been associated with increased reactivity in insular and amygdala salience networks, as well as reduced 5-HT2 receptor binding peripherally, and reduced GABA concentrations. Novelty seeking has been associated with reduced activity in insular salience networks increased striatal connectivity. Novelty seeking also correlates with dopamine synthesis capacity in the striatum, and reduced auto receptor availability in the midbrain. Reward dependence has been linked with the oxytocin system, with increased concentration of plasma oxytocin being observed, as well as increased volume in oxytocin related regions of the hypothalamus. Persistence has been associated with increased striatal-mPFC connectivity, increased activation of ventral striatal-orbitofrontal-anterior cingulate circuits, as well as increased salivary amylase levels indicative of increased noradrenergic tone.[11]

Environmental influences[edit]

It has been shown that personality traits are more malleable by environmental influences than researchers originally believed.[5][12] Personality differences also predict the occurrence of life experiences.[12]

Cross-cultural studies[edit]

There has been some recent debate over the subject of studying personality in a different culture. Some people think that personality comes entirely from culture and therefore there can be no meaningful study in cross-culture study. On the other hand, others believe that some elements are shared by all cultures and an effort is being made to demonstrate the cross-cultural applicability of "the Big Five".[13]

Cross-cultural assessment depends on the universality of personality traits, which is whether there are common traits among humans regardless of culture or other factors. If there is a common foundation of personality, then it can be studied on the basis of human traits rather than within certain cultures. This can be measured by comparing whether assessment tools are measuring similar constructs across countries or cultures. Two approaches to researching personality are looking at emic and etic traits. Emic traits are constructs unique to each culture, which are determined by local customs, thoughts, beliefs, and characteristics. Etic traits are considered universal constructs, which establish traits that are evident across cultures that represent a biological bases of human personality.[14] If personality traits are unique to individual culture, then different traits should be apparent in different cultures. However, the idea that personality traits are universal across cultures is supported by establishing the Five Factor Model of personality across multiple translations of the NEO-PI-R, which is one of the most widely used personality measures.[15] When administering the NEO-PI-R to 7,134 people across six languages, the results show a similar pattern of the same five underlying constructs that are found in the American factor structure.[15]

Similar results were found using the Big Five Inventory (BFI), as it was administered in 56 nations across 28 languages. The five factors continued to be supported both conceptually and statistically across major regions of the world, suggesting that these underlying factors are common across cultures.[16] There are some differences across culture but they may be a consequence of using a lexical approach to study personality structures, as language has limitations in translation and different cultures have unique words to describe emotion or situations.[15] For example, the term "feeling blue" is used to describe sadness in more Westernized cultures, but does not translate to other languages. Differences across cultures could be due to real cultural differences, but they could also be consequences of poor translations, biased sampling, or differences in response styles across cultures.[16] Examining personality questionnaires developed within a culture can also be useful evidence for the universality of traits across cultures, as the same underlying factors can still be found.[17] Results from several European and Asian studies have found overlapping dimensions with the Five Factor Model as well as additional culture-unique dimensions.[17] Finding similar factors across cultures provides support for the universality of personality trait structure, but more research is necessary to gain stronger support.[15]

Historical development of concept[edit]

The modern sense of individual personality is a result of the shifts in culture originating in the Renaissance, an essential element in modernity. In contrast, the Medieval European's sense of self was linked to a network of social roles: "the household, the kinship network, the guild, the corporation – these were the building blocks of personhood", Stephen Greenblatt observes, in recounting the recovery (1417) and career of Lucretius' poem De rerum natura: "at the core of the poem lay key principles of a modern understanding of the world."[18] "Dependant on the family, the individual alone was nothing," Jacques Gélis observes.[19]

Biology[edit]

The biological basis of personality is the theory that anatomical structures located in the brain contribute to personality traits. This stems from neuropsychology, which studies how the structure of the brain relates to various psychological processes and behaviors. For instance, in human beings, the frontal lobes are responsible for foresight and anticipation, and the occipital lobes are responsible for processing visual information. In addition, certain physiological functions such as hormone secretion also affect personality. For example, the hormonetestosterone is important for sociability, affectivity, aggressiveness, and sexuality.[20] Additionally, studies show that the expression of a personality trait depends on the volume of the brain cortex it is associated with.[21]

There is also a confusion among some psychologists who conflate personality with temperament. Temperament traits that are based on weak neurochemical imbalances within neurotransmitter systems are much more stable, consistent in behavior and show up in early childhood; they can't be changed easily but can be compensated for in behavior. In contrast to that, personality traits and features are the product of the socio-cultural development of humans and can be learned and/or changed.

Personology[edit]

Personology confers a multidimensional, complex, and comprehensive approach to personality. From a holistic perspective, personology studies personality as a whole, as a system, but in the same time through all its components, levels and spheres.[22][23]

Psychiatry[edit]

High neuroticism is an independent prospective predictor for the development of the common mental disorders.[24][25]

See also[edit]

Look up personality in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References[edit]

  1. ^ abcCorr, Philip J.; Matthews, Gerald (2009). The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-86218-9. 
  2. ^Sadock, Benjamin; Sadock, Virginia; Ruiz, Pedro. Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Wolters Kluwer. ISBN 9781451100471. 
  3. ^Aleksandrowicz JW, Klasa K, Sobański JA, Stolarska D (2009). "KON-2006 Neurotic Personality Questionnaire"(PDF). Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. 1: 21–2. 
  4. ^ abcLucas & Baird 2004, p. 473-485.
  5. ^ abBriley, D. A., Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2014). "Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 140 (5): 1303–31. doi:10.1037/a0037091. PMC 4152379. PMID 24956122. 
  6. ^Holder & Klassen 2010, p. 419–439.
  7. ^ abcZelenski, Santoro, & Whelan, p. 290-303.
  8. ^ abcStrobel, Tumasjan, & Sporrle, p. 43-48.
  9. ^Joshanloo & Afshari 2009, p. 105-113.
  10. ^ abLischetzke & Eid 2006, p. 1127-1162.
  11. ^B, Sadock; V, Sadock; P, Ruiz. "Personality Disorders". In Cloninger, R; Svrakic, D. Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Wolter Kluwer. ISBN 978-1-4511-0047-1. 
  12. ^ abJeronimus, B. F., Riese, H., Sanderman, R., Ormel, J. (2014). "Mutual Reinforcement Between Neuroticism and Life Experiences: A Five-Wave, 16-Year Study to Test Reciprocal Causation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 107 (4): 751–64. doi:10.1037/a0037009. PMID 25111305. 
  13. ^Funder, D.C., (2001). Personality. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001. 52:197–221.
  14. ^McCrae, R. R., & Allik, I. U. (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. Springer Science & Business Media.
  15. ^ abcdMcCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American psychologist, 52(5), 509.
  16. ^ abSchmitt, D. P., Allik, J., McCrae, R. R., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 38(2), 173-212.
  17. ^ abChurch, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait psychology. Journal of Personality, 68(4), 651-703.
  18. ^Greenblatt, The Swerve: how the world became modern, 2011:3, 16.
  19. ^Gélis, "The Child: from anonymity to individuality", in Philippe Ariès and Georges Duby, A History of Private Life III: Passions of the Renaissance 1989:309.
  20. ^Funder, David (February 2001). "PERSONALITY". Annual Review of Psychology. 52 (1): 197–221. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.197. 
  21. ^DeYoung, Colin G. (June 2010). "Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structures and the Big Five". Psychological Science. 21 (6): 820–828. doi:10.1177/0956797610370159. PMC 3049165. PMID 20435951. 
  22. ^Murray, H.A. (1938). Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
  23. ^Strack, S. (2005). Handbook of Personology and Psychopathology. Wiley
  24. ^Jeronimus B.F.; Kotov, R.; Riese, H.; Ormel, J. (2016). "Neuroticism's prospective association with mental disorders halves after adjustment for baseline symptoms and psychiatric history, but the adjusted association hardly decays with time: a meta-analysis on 59 longitudinal/prospective studies with 443 313 participants". Psychological Medicine. 46 (14): 2883–2906. doi:10.1017/S0033291716001653. PMID 27523506. 
  25. ^Ormel J.; Jeronimus, B.F.; Kotov, M.; Riese, H.; Bos, E.H.; Hankin, B. (2013). "Neuroticism and common mental disorders: Meaning and utility of a complex relationship". Clinical Psychology Review. 33 (5): 686–697. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2013.04.003. PMC 4382368. PMID 23702592. 

Further reading[edit]

  • Holder, M. D.; Klassen, A. (13 June 2009). "Temperament and Happiness in Children". Journal of Happiness Studies. 11 (4): 419–439. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9149-2. 
  • Joshanloo, M.; Afshari, S. (26 November 2009). "Big Five Personality Traits and Self-Esteem as Predictors of Life Satisfaction in Iranian Muslim University Students". Journal of Happiness Studies. 12 (1): 105–113. doi:10.1007/s10902-009-9177-y. 
  • Lischetzke, T.; Eid, M. (August 2006). "Why Extraverts Are Happier Than Introverts: The Role of Mood Regulation". Journal of Personality. 74 (4): 1127–1162. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00405.x. PMID 16787431. 
  • Lucas, R.; Baird, B. "Extraversion and Emotional Reactivity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 86 (3): 473–485. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.473. 
  • Strobel, M.; Tumasjan, A.; Spörrle, M. (February 2011). "Be yourself, believe in yourself, and be happy: Self-efficacy as a mediator between personality factors and subjective well-being". Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 52 (1): 43–48. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00826.x. 
  • Zelenski, J.; Santoro, M.; Whelan, D. (April 2012). "Would introverts be better off if they acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counterdispositional behavior". Emotion. 12 (2): 290–303. doi:10.1037/a0025169. 
Categories: 1

0 Replies to “Aspects Of Personality Definition Essay”

Leave a comment

L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *