Compare and contrast the aims and methods of Trait Theory Essay

Psychologists seek to explain and say why plenty be countenance differently in everyday parking lot situations and to define undivided differences in terms of the friendship gained and it structure. personalisedity puke be defined as an several(prenominal)s char modus operandieristic qualities of thought, emotion and demeanour when inter moulding with their brotherly environment. Traits argon relatively enduring modalitys in which an exclusive differs from a nonher (Butt 2012, p. 46). Eysencks attribute possibleness has it origins in the psychometric tradition of stairment while Kellys personal piss possibility adopts a phenomenological approach. The aims and methods of two theories will be critically comp ard and contrasted bulge discloselining their theoretical perspectives and the knowledge that each formulate. By focusing on individual differences their different methodological approaches will be taxed in terms of their objective and subjective roles, se t off that each have influential findings but dont whole give a complete consider of all disposition phenomena. (Butt, 2012)Eysencks (1953) Trait theory adopts a nomothetic approach that classifies reputation dimensions to measure and describe the individual differences of personality. Its based on the assumption that individuals tin be characterised by certain personal attributes or peculiaritys that in human activity influence demeanor. Descriptions of traits have their foundation in everyday language utilize to describe human doings trait theory draws on the melodramatic usage of traits in vocabulary such as ancient classic typology. This usage is apply to support evidence of, constitutional and biological doers that are indicated finished personality traits (Butt, 2004). Eysenck used broker abridgment to establish gang traits using questionnaires (Eysencks Personality Inventory) proposing that two high order factors could account for the clustering profile obtain ed, extraversion vs introversion and neuroticism vs stability, he afterwards added and third psychoticism vs superego.Each factor has second order traits established from factor analytic studies (Butt, 2012, p.50) to describe more fully individual characteristics or tendencies. Eysenck believed biology couldexplain the individual differences of personality, that causal factors at a neurological direct in the cortical and autonomic arousal systems influence an individuals temperament and behaviour. The purpose of personality theory is non to capture the idiosyncratic nature of the individual (Butt, 2012, p.47), but used as an indicator of how a person is bidly to react in certain situations. Eysenck acknowledges that its non solitary(prenominal) biology that influences behaviour, but our past experiences and learning can in any case have an influence on current reactions to different stimuli. However trait theorists tend to diorama personality from a deterministic perspectiv e, as transposeless and enduring and dont take into consideration the behavioural and locating changes that sight experience over time (Butt, 2012).Kellys (1955) personal fashion theory, which is a form of phenomenology views personality as idiosyncratic phenomena that can non be measured, as each individual adopts a unequaled way of qualification sense of their world. Each person is seen as a stem of personal world views or piddles that are based on unique experiences. Individuals construct others behaviour in terms of their consume subjective viewpoint. Kelly proposed we act like scientists, who form theories and assumptions more or less ourselves, others and the world. By inquiry and testing out the uncertainties of our assumptions we produce further inquiry that is an ongoing lifelong cycle. Based on the cognitive approach, it is these constructs or schemas Kelly theorises that provide the basis of our reactions and behaviour (Butt, 2012).Both Eysenck and Kelly aimed to produce theories that have a clinical application, Eysenck sought to use his theory for clinical diagnosis in response to discredited psychiatric classifications, while Kelly who do as a psychotherapist sought to facilitate therapeutic change through learning and self awareness. Eysenck viewed classification as a radical part of scientific study (Eysenck and Rachman, cited in Butt, 2012, p.48), Kelly placed no grandeur on the psychometric tradition of assessment the fury of his approach is on recognising the value of examining the unique cognitive constructs of an individuals world view and the self (Butt, 2012. p. 47). Kellys emphasis was on self-determination and problem work out or else than the diagnostic standardised dimensions usedby trait theories.Where trait theory seeks to discover societal norms and how we all differ in semblance to them, personal construct theory places no vastness on making individual comparisons through personality dimensions. Butt (2004) st ates that trait theory does non account for the richness of personality in the way that personal construct theory can. Trait theory would propose that behaviour is biologically controlled and therefore consistently predictable, which excludes the potential for change, while personal construct theory views constructs as organism flexible and fluid and therefore open to change, purge through individuals might actively resist the difficulty of change (Butt, 2012).Mischel (as cited in Butt, 2012) a student of Kellys questioned trait theories deterministic view of behaviour consistency, arguing that behaviour was a diverse phenomenon influenced by social stimuli that people will behave differently according to the situation they find themselves in. Results from Zimbardos (1975) prison experiment would refer that social situations can exert an influencing return on behaviour. Skinner (1974), (as cited in Butt, 2012) proposed that traits can not explain behaviour they only provide a de scription, not an explanation of behaviour that only when identifies regular patterns of behaviour, or a cycle of redescription (Butt, 2004. p.3) Mischel also points out that traits are underlying personality theories based on subjective perceptions of the individual being rated, or a perception of others which will reflect biased prejudices of the sociocultural environment. He highlights a study were observers allocated the same traits to both strangers and those they new well, indicating implicit in(p) attribution error (Butt, 2004), which suggests that observers attribute over generalised traits that are not valid. This raises the issue of trait objectivity, by highlighting the subjective nature of evaluation that challenges the concept of trait structure, along with the validity and reliability of factor analysis (Butt, 2012).It would search that the objectivity of trait theory comes into question and therefore the methods it employs. The consideration of patterns of simil arity verses uniqueness and the approaches they adopt either nomothetic (universally general) or idiographic (individually unique) is a relevantarea, as individual differences has traditionally set out to identify the universal dimensions of individuals. Eysenck used the nomothetic approach of factor analysis, which correlates clusters of traits that have been established through the use of subjective questionnaires and ratings. He addresses the criticism that factor analysis is prone to unreliable incongruent practitioner results stating that universal reason and correlation is strong support for his statistical method (Eysenck and Stanley, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 51).His criterion techniques provide objective data that can be used to draw comparisons across wide populations and provide a structure in which categorical typology can be conducted. However his factor analysis would appear to be used more in marketing and occupational rather than clinical psychology (Butt, 2012). Mischel stated that the only thing objective about personality inventories was their administration and scoring (Butt, 2004). Alternatively the idiographic data poised by personal construct theory produces subjective results that can not be generalised and therefore applied to our understanding of traits or people as a whole (Butt, 2012).Mischel concluded that personality testing only produces self-concepts and personal concepts and more appropriate idiographic measures should be employed like Kellys (1955) repertory grid, which helps to assess an individuals personal constructs. The repertory grid was devised by Kelly to elicit how individuals categorise constructs by comparing and contrasting experiences and events, allowing participants to overture and assess personal meanings through construing. Individuals construe others behaviour in terms of their stimulate subjective viewpoint. The results produced by repertory grid, can be subjected to factor or cluster analysis but only in terms of the individual meaning rather than a universal interpretation similar to Eysencks. pink-orange (as cited in, Butt 2012) adopted Kellys theories of individual differences and integrates his philosophy and methods into learning in schools. She criticises the market model of education, which she states delivers packages of knowledge that measures and classifies children through tests and examinations, which removes the individuality of the individual, creating hierarchies of ability.Like Kelly she argues that learning should be more interactive and intersubjective, that children leadto submit in debate in order to formulate and challenge their make implicit constructs. She believed that it is only by the acknowledgment of existing constructs that personal phylogenesis can occur, through methods such as Kellys repertory grid. By adopting personal construct philosophy, she developed the pinkish-orange bend, which seeks to draw out the implicit by em situationing stude nts to define the idiosyncratic meaning of their personal expectations around schoolman progress. Salmon believed that the use of these phenomenological methods instead of the generalised preset formats of trait theory, offered access to living material of understanding, which encourages learning and change. (Salmon1994, as cited in Butt 2012, p. 59)Salmon also highlights the hierarchical nature of learning, that educational success is based on the testing and grading students through examinations. From a Kelliyan philosophy, hierarchical structures are unbeneficial his emphasis is on the understanding of objects rather than labelling or comparison. Hierachical structures raise the issue of power relations that Kelly points to within trait theory and most psychometric methods. As with learning environments, power can be exerted by those who administer measurement tools and how they exert the knowledge that is gained. Trait theory because of its diagnostic emphasis has been criticis ed referable to the pathologising nature of negative diagnosis. Richards (2002) highlights reification where methodology ascribes an unwarranted description to an individual or object (p. 254). It could be argued that personal construct methods such as the repertory grid and the Salmon line eliminate the labelling of individuals by traits, by assisting them to identify their own personal constructs and meanings and therefore avoiding power relations (Butt, 2012).Hollway (2012) highlights the importance of agency-structure dualism when considering experimental methodology. Eysencks proposes that traits have their explanations in innate biological factors, which would suggest that agency has little or no influence on behaviour and that social factors are irrelevant, suggesting that personality is fixed. Personal construct theory views this dualism as complimentary, where the individual is viewed in the context of the societal environment in which they are constructed. Kellyproposes t hat individuals have some degree of agency because structure partly restricts through social construction and therefore have an ability to initiate change. turn individuals can change their social and individual constructs, social structure clear has an influence on behaviour. Salmon shows through examples of learning and the application of the salmon line, the interaction between agency and structure. She highlighted that knowledge is never neutral it comes with the interests and concerns of a particular siociocultural source (Salmon, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 59), clearly indicating how societal influences relate on the agency of individuals (Butt, 2012).Both trait theory and personal construct theory seek to gain an understanding and explain why individuals act in terms of individual differences. Eysenck and Rachmans trait theory adopts a nomothetic approach using psychometric testing to measure personality traits. Kellys personal construct theory emphasise the uniqueness of i ndividuals, pursuance to understand how individuals construct their subjective world views, based on their own experiences. Using phenomenological methods they produce detailed accounts of individual personalities that avoid comparisons, with an emphasis on interpretation rather than scientific explanation, in contrast to the psychometric tradition which sets out to discover societal norms and use these to explain individual differences (Butt, 2012).Eysenck outlines personality in terms of dimensions which reflect the underlying biological basis of personality. Personal construct theory recognises the ability for change unlike trait theory and uses idiographic methods such as the repertory grid and the Salmon line to enable chance to occur, through the interaction of personal agency and social structures. Salmon showed how personal construct theory can be enforced into clinical practice, however a complete theory of personality would need to encompass, structure, psychopathology a nd change, it would appear that both theories have areas of development in both theory building and testing.ReferencesButt, T. (2012). Individual differences In Hollway, W., Lucey, H., Phoenix, A., and Lewis, G. (eds). Social Psychology Matters (p.1-22). Milton Keynes The indeterminate University.Butt, T. (2004). Understanding people, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave MacMillan.Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place, Hove, Psychology press.