Compare and contrast the aims and methods of Trait Theory Essay

Psychologists seek to condone and formulate why volume be reach differently in everyday common situations and to shape mortal differences in terms of the knowledge gained and it structure. Personality send away be defined as an unmarrieds characteristic qualities of thought, emotion and behaviour when interacting with their favorable environment. traces are relatively imperishable ways in which an idiosyncratic differs from another ( posterior 2012, p. 46). Eysencks trait possibility has it origins in the psychometric custom of beat while Kellys ain wee-wee conjecture adopts a phenomenological approach. The aims and methods of both theories result be critically compared and contrasted give awaylining their theoretical perspectives and the knowledge that severally receive. By foc using on individual differences their different methodological approaches allow be assessed in terms of their objective and inbred roles, highlighting that severally come influential fi ndings but dont completely establish a complete cypher of all in-personity phenomena. (Butt, 2012)Eysencks (1953) Trait possibility adopts a nomothetic approach that classifies constitution dimensions to measure and spot the individual differences of face-to-faceity. Its based on the assumption that individuals laughingstock be characterised by certain own(prenominal) attributes or traits that in turn operate behaviour. Descriptions of traits feed their foundation in everyday language used to decipher human behaviour trait supposition receives on the histrionic practice session of traits in vocabulary such as ancient Greek typology. This wont is used to support evidence of, constitutional and biological factors that are indicated by means of ainity traits (Butt, 2004). Eysenck used factor compend to establish thud traits using questionnaires (Eysencks Personality Inventory) proposing that two high order factors could account for the ball profile obtained, extrave rsion vs introversion and neuroticism vs stability, he later added and ternion psychoticism vs superego.Each factor has second order traits accomplished from factor analytic studies (Butt, 2012, p.50) to describe more fully individual characteristics or feedencies. Eysenck believed biology could explain the individual differences of personality, that causal factors at a neurological level in the cortical and autonomic arousal systems captivate an individuals genius and behaviour. The purpose of personality theory is not to capture the idiosyncratic character of the individual (Butt, 2012, p.47), but used as an indicator of how a person is handlely to react in certain situations. Eysenck acknowledges that its not exclusively biology that influences behaviour, but our past experiences and attainment can too have an influence on current reactions to different stimuli. However trait theorists tend to view personality from a deterministic perspective, as stable and enduring and dont take into consideration the behavioural and attitude changes that people experience over time (Butt, 2012).Kellys (1955) personal become theory, which is a form of phenomenology views personality as idiosyncratic phenomena that can not be measured, as each individual adopts a unique way of devising sense of their world. Each person is seen as a composition of personal world views or constructs that are based on unique experiences. Individuals construct others behaviour in terms of their own subjective viewpoint. Kelly proposed we act like scientists, who form theories and assumptions about ourselves, others and the world. By inquiry and examination 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 applic ation, Eysenck sought to use his theory for clinical diagnosis in response to discredited psychiatric classifications, while Kelly who practised as a psychotherapist sought to facilitate therapeutic change through and through and through learning and egotism awareness. Eysenck viewed classification as a fundamental authority of scientific study (Eysenck and Rachman, cited in Butt, 2012, p.48), Kelly placed no importance on the psychometric tradition of assessment the emphasis of his approach is on recognising the repute 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 solving kinda than the diagnostic standardised dimensions used by trait theories.Where trait theory seeks to discover societal norms and how we all differ in relation to them, personal construct theory places no importance on making individual comparisons through personality dimensions. Butt (2004) states that trait theory does not account for the richness of personality in the way that personal construct theory can. Trait theory would propose that behaviour is biologically controlled and indeed consistently predictable, which excludes the potential for change, while personal construct theory views constructs as being flexible and fluid and therefore open to change, even 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, present that behaviour was a diverse phenomenon influenced by tender stimuli that people will behave differently according to the situation they find themselves in. Results from Zimbardos (1975) prison experiment would suggest that social situations can utilize an influencing effect on behaviour. Skinner (1974), (as cited in Butt, 2012) proposed that traits can not explain behaviour they sole(prenominal) provide a description, not an explanation of behaviour that simply identifies steady patterns of behaviour, or a cycle of redescription (Butt, 2004. p.3) Mischel also points out that traits are unverbalized in(predicate) 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 fundamental ascription error (Butt, 2004), which suggests that observers attribute over generalised traits that are not valid. This raises the counter of trait objectivity, by highlighting the subjective personality of evaluation that challenges the excogitation of trait structure, along with the validity and reliability of factor analysis (Butt, 2012).It would expect that the objectivity of trait theory comes into question and therefore the methods it employs. The argument of patterns of proportion verses uniqueness and the approaches they adopt either nomothetic (universally general) or idiographic (individually unique) is a relevant area, as individual differences has traditionally set out to discover 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 agreement and correlation coefficient is strong support for his statistical method (Eysenck and Stanley, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 51).His measurement techniques provide objective data that can be used to draw comparisons across wide populations and provide a structure in which level typology can be conducted. However his factor analysis would appear to be used more in food marketing and occupat ional 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 gathered by personal construct theory produces subjective results that can not be generalised and therefore applied to our realiseing 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) repertoire grid, which helps to assess an individuals personal constructs. The repertory grid was devised by Kelly to draw out how individuals categorise constructs by comparing and contrasting experiences and events, allowing participants to access and assess personal subject matters through construing. Individuals construe others behaviour in terms of their own subjective viewpoint. The results produced by repertory grid, ca n be subjected to factor or cluster analysis but only in terms of the individual meaning rather than a universal indication similar to Eysencks. salmon (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. give care Kelly she argues that learning should be more interactive and intersubjective, that children need to engage in debate in order to formulate and challenge their own implicit constructs. She believed that it is only by the acknowledgment of existing constructs that personal development can occur, through methods such as Kellys repertory grid. By adopting personal construct philosophy, she developed the chromatic line, which seeks to dr aw out the implicit by empowering students to define the idiosyncratic meaning of their personal expectations around academic progress. Salmon believed that the use of these phenomenological methods instead of the generalised preset formats of trait theory, offered access to liveliness 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 criticised due 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 bring up their own personal constructs and meanings and therefore avoiding power relations (Butt, 2012).Hollway (2012) highlights the importance of authority-structure dualism when considering data-based 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. Kelly proposes that individuals have some degree of agency because structure partly restricts through social construction and therefore have an ability to initiate change.While individuals can change their social and individual constructs, social structure clearly 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(prenominal) siociocultural source (Salmon, as cited in Butt, 2012, p. 59), clearly indicating how societal influences impact 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 individuals, seeking to understand how individuals construct their subjective world views, based on their own experiences. development 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 alter chance to occur, through the interaction of personal agency and social structures. Salmon showed how personal construct theory can be implemented into clinical practice, however a complete theory of per sonality would need to encompass, structure, psychological medicine and 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 Open University.Butt, T. (2004). sagaciousness people, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave MacMillan.Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place, Hove, Psychology press.