updated questions for psychology
jelybe3
week2questions.docxQuestion 1
Theories of personality
This discussion regards an idea of an interesting personality theory. Basically, this discussion is a reflection of why this particular theory resonates with me. This discussion will address the validity of the chosen theory, then provide a real-world example to support the theory. That said this discussion progresses as follow.
However, before proceeding any further, it is important to put into perspective the concept of a personality theory to lay a good foundation for the understanding of theories of personality and particularly the one that resonates with me. Apparently, a personality theory or a perspective, is a way of explaining behavior and the observation of how those patterns of behavior arise. In retrospect, the major theories of personality include trait theory, psychoanalytic theory, social cognitive, and humanistic theory. Having said that, the theory or perspective of personality that resonates with me is the social cognitive theory as developed by Albert Bandura. Apparently, in his theory, Bandura emphasized that learning happens through observation. He theorized that conscious thoughts play an important role in personality, and it includes belief in personal abilities or self efficacy.
The reason I believe the social cognitive theory has validity is because the theory could be advanced depending on a number of factors including an individual's moral value, social environment, and the psychological processes of that individual. Obviously, the only way these factors can advance the validity of social cognitive theory is if they have a positive effect on the individual. Otherwise, a negative influence will decrease the validity of this theory.
A real world example that supports this theory is where an individual, say an adolescent starts showing an aggressive personality trait due to the maltreatment he is receiving from peers. Apparently, when an individual expresses aggression through violent acts, he may trigger a higher level of fear in the mind of that other person who is creating an aggressive environment. By so doing, the maltreated individual will have succeeded in "changing his environment" (Bandura, 2014).
References
Bandura, A. (2014). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In Handbook of moral behavior and development(pp. 69-128). Psychology Press.
Cont.’ question 1
You wrote: " The reason I believe the social cognitive theory has validity is because the theory could be advanced depending on a number of factors including an individual's moral value, social environment, and the psychological processes of that individual. Obviously, the only way these factors can advance the validity of social cognitive theory is if they have a positive effect on the individual. Otherwise, a negative influence will decrease the validity of this theory."
1. How do the factors you listed, advance the validity of social cognitive theory?
2. What do you mean by "advance" the theory?
You also wrote: "A real world example that supports this theory is where an individual, say an adolescent starts showing an aggressive personality trait due to the maltreatment he is receiving from peers."
You believe that maltreatment leads to an aggressive personality.
3. What do you say to the argument that the adolescent may have developed an aggressive personality regardless of the way his peers treated him?
Question 2
Watson
What specific area in modern psychology is the behaviorist theory and treatment valid?
Behaviorist theory according to Watson is a science that specifically involves observable characters of individuals. Based on the theory, only the observable traits of people are of real value when studying human and animal behavior (Harzem, 2004). Even so, there are other non-observable behaviors which have a big impact on humans and animals. The theory is, however, still valid in modern psychology, especially when addressing the issue on people, environment, and behavior. In many occasions, the environment and what is seen physically will influence the behavior of an individual in several ways; making the theory valid in this area of modern psychology.
How is the theory applied?
The theory is applied in two major ways; one is through classical conditioning, and the other one is through operant conditioning. Under classical conditioning, people learn certain behaviors by association; this means that, if two people are friends, they tend to have similar observable behaviors. Operant conditioning, on the other hand, involves learning from the consequences associated with behavior (Harzem, 2004). Having seen the consequences a person could either choose to continue with behavior or refrain from it.
Why do you feel behaviorism is valid in this specific area?
People in most occasions tend to be conformed to the patterns of the environment surrounding the. Whatever is thus observable in a given environment plays an important role in understanding other behavioral patterns of people in that specific environment. The theory provides an excellent manner of generalizing behavior from a broad perspective. People cannot stay together unless they have a common goal to achieve. Friendships are built on such common goals with behavior being a paramount factor under consideration. Behaviorism theory is thus much valid in this specific area and could be used in various analyses.
Harzem, P. (2004). Behaviorism for new psychology: What was wrong with behaviorism and what is wrong with it now. Behavior and Philosophy, 5-12.
Response to questions 2:
You wrote: "Having seen the consequences a person could either choose to continue with behavior or refrain from it."
As a general principle, behavioral theory rejects the idea that human beings have free will. They believe, free will is an illusion. Without free will, we are NOT making choices. Any choices we think we are making are illusions. We are tricking ourselves into believing we are making choices. We are actually controlled and responding to reinforcement from our environment. Your comment about making choices contradicts the theory of behaviorism.
What are your thoughts on the above?
Question 3:
Trait Theory
Why did you select this theory?
Among the various trait theories of personality, I selected Gordon Allport’s trait theory. I did select this theory as a result of its similarity to my personality. Based on this theory, traits are mainly divided into three main categories, which include cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary traits. Cardinal traits are those characters that remain dominant in one’s lifetime. In many occasions, a person becomes known specifically as a result of these traits (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015). Forces of nature and nurture play a big role in the development of such personalities. Central traits are those basic characteristics, which form the foundation of a person’s personality. Secondary traits, on the other hand, are related to attitudes and preferences; these traits appear only in certain situations. The theory, therefore, describes a personality that I fill, which is the main reason I chose it; for instance, I have a dominant personality people can identify me with. I also show certain traits in certain situations, clearly defining my type of personality.
How it enhances the field’s understanding of personality and your career?
Gordon Allport’s theory enhances the understanding of personality by highlighting the fact that there are situations in which people would behave differently from the way they behave on a daily basis. This does not, however, mean that there is a change in their personality, but they are rather reacting to that situation which is characterized by secondary traits. Such occurrences are common in the workplace and are, therefore, crucial in my career.
Drawbacks identified from the theory
Despite the fact a person could have a dominant trait defining him or her, the theory completely fails to address the long-term effect the forces of nature could have on the trait. While a person could generally be described as good, certain environmental factors could end up changing such dominant traits to become something else.
Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 82-92.
You wrote: "Despite the fact a person could have a dominant trait defining him or her, the theory completely fails to address the long-term effect the forces of nature could have on the trait."
1. Is the above your own critique of the theory or did you obtain it from another source?
