Discipline-Based Literature Review You Will Research
For This Discipline Based Literature Review You Will Research Peer Re
For this discipline-based literature review, you will research peer-reviewed articles that were published within the last 10 years in the Ashford University Library on the following major perspectives of personality: Psychodynamic, Behavioral, Trait, Learning/Social, and Humanistic. You will utilize your researched articles to create your literature review. The review should be formatted with the headings and content designated below.
Paper For Above instruction
Introduction
This literature review explores five major perspectives of personality—Psychodynamic, Behavioral, Trait, Learning/Social, and Humanistic—by analyzing recent peer-reviewed research articles. Each perspective offers distinct theoretical frameworks and methodologies to understand personality development and expression. An assessment of the research approaches used within each perspective reveals commonalities and differences, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of personality measurement and theory.
Psychodynamic models, rooted in Freud’s theories, emphasize unconscious processes and childhood experiences. Behavioral approaches focus on observable behaviors and environmental influences. Trait theories categorize and measure personality traits that are relatively stable over time. Learning and social perspectives examine the role of interaction and social learning in personality development. Humanistic psychology emphasizes self-actualization and individual potential. Collectively, these perspectives provide a multifaceted view of personality, each with unique strengths and limitations, yet sharing the goal of describing and understanding human behavior.
Discussion
Theoretical Approaches, Research Methods, and Assessment Instruments
The psychodynamic perspective employs theories primarily developed by Sigmund Freud and later theorists like Erik Erikson. These models emphasize unconscious motives, defense mechanisms, and early childhood influences. Research methods include case studies, clinical interviews, and projective tests such as the Rorschach Inkblot Test and The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). These tools aim to uncover unconscious processes, though their standardization and reliability often face scrutiny due to subjective interpretation.
Behavioral approaches are grounded in classical and operant conditioning theories, pioneered by Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner. Research methods typically involve experimental designs, observational techniques, and self-report questionnaires focused on behavior patterns. Common assessment instruments include behavior checklists and frequency measures, which are standardized and reliable but may overlook internal states and thought processes.
Trait theories, notably exemplified by models such as the Five-Factor Model, rely heavily on self-report inventories like the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and other Likert-scale questionnaires. These tools are extensively standardized, high in reliability and validity, and widely adopted in research and applied settings. They assess enduring personal characteristics such as extraversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
The learning/social perspective incorporates social learning theory, with influential contributions from Bandura, emphasizing observational learning, modeling, and reinforcement. Research methods often include experimental and longitudinal studies, along with self-report and peer-report questionnaires. Instruments such as the Social Skills Inventory and the Self-Efficacy Scale are used, with a focus on environmental influences and social context.
Humanistic psychology, founded by Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, centers on self-actualization, personal growth, and subjective experience. Research predominantly employs qualitative methods like interviews, case studies, and self-report measures such as the Personal Growth Initiative Scale (PGIS). These assessments aim to capture personal meaning and subjective well-being, though standardization and reliability can be more variable compared to quantitative measures.
Evaluation of Models: Standardization, Reliability, Validity, and Cultural Considerations
Psychodynamic assessments face challenges in standardization and reliability due to their interpretive nature. Validity concerns stem from the subjective scoring of projective tests, although some newer structured forms attempt to improve scientific rigor. Cultural considerations are significant, as interpretations of unconscious motives can vary across cultures, potentially biasing results.
Behavioral measures tend to have high standardization and reliability, especially when using structured observational methods and validated questionnaires. However, they may inadequately account for internal psychological states. Culturally, behavior norms differ, which can influence assessment outcomes and their interpretation.
Trait assessments like the NEO-PI-R demonstrate high reliability and validity, supported by extensive normative data. Their culturally neutral format is advantageous, yet some critics argue that trait constructs may not fully encompass cultural differences in personality expression.
The social learning approach's assessments capture the influence of environment and social context reliably, provided the instruments are well-validated. Cultural variations in social norms and reinforcement patterns can impact the applicability and interpretation of these assessments.
Humanistic assessments emphasize subjective experiences, making standardization and reliability challenging. Cultural considerations are prominent because concepts like self-actualization and personal growth are influenced by cultural values and individual backgrounds.
Conclusion
The current landscape of personality research underscores the importance of multidimensional approaches. Psychodynamic, behavioral, trait, learning/social, and humanistic perspectives each contribute unique insights and methods, with varying degrees of standardization, reliability, and cultural sensitivity. Polyhedral models like the Five-Factor Model have gained empirical support for their reliability and cross-cultural validity, whereas subjective measures from humanistic psychology remain invaluable for capturing personal meaning but less standardized. Together, these perspectives enhance our understanding of personality, informing both research and practice. With ongoing developments in assessment technology and cross-cultural research, these models remain relevant and vital for advancing personality psychology in diverse contexts.
References
- Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(2), 150–162.