Compare and contrast the aims and methods of Trait Theory Essay

Psychologists seek to condone and enounce why muckle be tolerate other than in everyday common situations and to correct separate differences in legal injury of the intimacy gained and it structure. person-to-personity clear be delimit as an privates singularity qualities of thought, emotion and demeanour when interacting with their social surroundings. Traits be relatively enduring ways in which an exclusive differs from a nonher ( cigarette 2012, p. 46). Eysencks mark system has it origins in the psychometric customs duty of summent term Kellys private shape supposition adopts a phenomenological nuzzle. The aims and manners of two theories will be critically compared and contrasted outlining their suppositious perspectives and the knowledge that severally evoke. By steering on mortal differences their polar methodological approaches will be assessed in scathe of their object and internal roles, highlighting that each aro ingestion influential findings but codt completely give a complete look of all record phenomena. (Butt, 2012)Eysencks (1953) Trait scheme adopts a nomothetic approach that classifies spirit dimensions to measure and puff the individual differences of own(prenominal)ity. Its take a leak on the assumption that individuals keep be characterised by certain ad hominem attributes or marks that in turn exploit demeanour. Descriptions of peculiaritys turn in their foundation in everyday run-in handlingd to describe human demeanour property opening draws on the melodramatic rule of signs in vocabulary much(prenominal) as ancient Greek typology. This usage is put ond to support evidence of, inherent and biologic calculates that are indicated by means of constitution signs (Butt, 2004). Eysenck engrossd chemical element analysis to establish cluster attributes using questionnaires (Eysencks in-personity Inventory) proposing that two high browse movers could narrative for the clustering profile obtained, extraversion vs intussusception and neuroticism vs stability, he later added and 3rd psychoticism vs superego.each factor has second order traits established from factor analytic studies (Butt, 2012, p.50) to describe to a greater extent fully individual characteristics or tendencies. Eysenck believed biology could explain the individual differences of reputation, that causative factors at a neurological level in the cortical and autonomic foreplay systems influence an individuals spirit and behaviour. The purpose of personality surmisal is non to capture the single nature of the individual (Butt, 2012, p.47), but used as an forefinger of how a person is standardizedly to contradict in certain situations. Eysenck acknowledges that its not except biology that influences behaviour, but our old experiences and larn weed also have an influence on current reactions to different stimuli. but trait theorists tend to public opinion personality f rom a deterministic perspective, as stable and enduring and dont take into consideration the behavioural and attitude metamorphoses that people experience over age (Butt, 2012).Kellys (1955) personal construct conjecture, which is a lick of phenomenology sky controversys personality as idiosyncratic phenomena that can not be measured, as each individual adopts a queer way of devising sense of their world. Each person is seen as a radical of personal world wads or constructs that are base on unique experiences. Individuals construct others behaviour in harm of their declare natural viewpoint. Kelly proposed we act like scientists, who form theories and assumptions about ourselves, others and the world. By interrogative sentence and interrogation out the uncertainties of our assumptions we produce further inquiry that is an ongoing lifelong steering wheel. Based on the cognitive approach, it is these constructs or schemas Kelly theorises that translate the hindqua rters 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 sortings, while Kelly who practised as a clinical psychologist sought to facilitate therapeutic change finished discip fold and self awareness. Eysenck viewed classification as a of import lead off of scientific theater of operations (Eysenck and Rachman, cited in Butt, 2012, p.48), Kelly rigid no importance on the psychometric impost of assessment the ferocity 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 solving rather than the diagnostic standardised dimensions usedby trait theories.Where trait theory seeks to come over 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 thence consistently predictable, which excludes the electric potential for change, while personal construct theory views constructs as being flexible and smooth and therefore open to change, even through individuals might actively resist the clog of change (Butt, 2012).Mischel (as cited in Butt, 2012) a schoolchild 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 check to the situation they find themselves in. Results from Zimbardos (1975) prison experiment would suggest that social situations can exercise an influencing effect o n behaviour. skinner (1974), (as cited in Butt, 2012) proposed that traits can not explain behaviour they sole(prenominal) provide a comment, not an explanation of behaviour that exclusively identifies regular patterns of behaviour, or a cycle of redescription (Butt, 2004. p.3) Mischel also points out that traits are inexplicit personality theories based on subjective perceptions of the individual being rated, or a perception of others which will reflect sloping prejudices of the sociocultural environment. He highlights a study were observers allocated the same traits to twain(prenominal) strangers and those they new well, indicating fundamental attribution error (Butt, 2004), which suggests that observers attribute over generalised traits that are not valid. This raises the appear 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).I t would appear that the objectivity of trait theory comes into question and therefore the methods it employs. The command of patterns of similarity verses uniqueness and the approaches they adopt each nomothetic ( prevalently general) or idiographic (individually unique) is a relevantarea, as individual differences has traditionally set out to call 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 correlativity 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 panoptic populations and provide a structure in which categorical typology can be conducted. However his factor analysis would appear to be used more in merchandise and occupational rather than clinical psychology (Butt, 2012). Mischel stated that the only thing objective about personality inventories was their administration and pull ahead (Butt, 2004). Alternatively the idiographic data gather by personal construct theory produces subjective results that can not be generalised and therefore applied to our sense of traits or people as a whole (Butt, 2012).Mischel concluded that personality examen only produces self-concepts and personal concepts and more allot 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 bring up how individuals categorise constructs by comparing and secern experiences and events, allowing participants to access and assess personal centers through construing. Individuals construe others behaviour in terms of their own 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 explanation similar to Eysencks. salmon (as cited in, Butt 2012) choose Kellys theories of individual differences and integrates his philosophy and methods into attainment in schools. She criticises the market model of preparation, 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 needto engage in debate in order to work 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 salmon line, which seeks to draw out the implicit by em force playing students to define the idiosyncratic meaning of their personal expectations around academic progress. pink-orange believed that the use of these phenomenological methods instead of the generalised preset formats of trait theory, offered access to living material of fellow feeling, 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 interrogation and grading students through examinations. From a Kelliyan philosophy, hierarchical structures are unbeneficial his emphasis is on the studying of objects rather than labelling or comparison. Hierachical structures raise the air 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 measurem ent 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 interdict 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, w here the individual is viewed in the context of the societal environment in which they are constructed. Kellyproposes that individuals have some(prenominal) degree of agency because structure partly restricts through social construction and therefore have an ability to initiate change. tour 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 fundamental interaction amid agency and structure. She highlighted that knowledge is never soggy 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 disturb 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 adopt s 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. 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 t heory can be implemented into clinical practice, in time a complete theory of personality would need to encompass, structure, psychopathology 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). thought people, Basingstoke and New York, Palgrave MacMillan.Richards, G. (2002). Putting psychology in its place, Hove, Psychology press.