Compare and Contrast two different approaches to personality.

There is no universally accepted definition of personality but, as defined by Bratton (2010), it could be considered as a relatively enduring pattern of thinking, feeling and acting that characterises a persons response to her or his environment. Banduras Social-Learning Theory (1925-) and Eysenks Two Dimensions of Personality (1973) are differing approaches to personality that I will be discussing. Eysenks theory is a predominantly a Nomothetic approach to personality contrasting to the largely Idiographic approach of Bandura; meaning that the former tends to view environmental and social influences are minimal and personality is consistent, largely inherited and resistant to change whereas the latter believes personality can come from humans thinking about and regulating their own behaviour. Does personality come from inherited characteristics, as Eysenk thought, or does it develop from our environment, as Bandura thought? Banduras theory is supported by his Bobo doll experiments (1961 and 1963) where children proceeded to hammer a doll after witnessing an adult doing the same thing shortly before. The results were further tested by replacing the Bobo doll with a live clown; the children also imitated the violence towards the clown suggesting that observational learning plays a large part in the behaviour and personality of humans. Although Eysenk believed that fundamentally our personality comes from genetic predispositions he accepted that we will pick up habits. For example; learning different ways to socialise. In this way the two theories discussed are similar in that they agree on the influence of observational learning towards our personalities. A fundamental difference between the two approaches is the disagreement about whether or not personality can be measured in terms of traits. Arnold (2010) defined a trait as a dimension upon which people differ psychologically. Traits are stable over time. Bandura believed that the measurement of traits was inappropriate and that it is impossible to compare one persons response to anothers because of the changing nature of an individuals personality. Adopting an opposing school of thought, proponents of the nomothetic approach define personality in terms of traits, types, or trait clusters and as being made of discrete and identifiable elements. As an example of a nomothetic theorist, Eysenk used measurements along two dimensions to categorise people; Unstable-Stable and Introverted-Extraverted. His findings recognized that, once a persons characteristics were established, you could predict certain behaviours within varying situations. His ability to categorise his test subjects supports the above definition of personality being a relatively enduring pattern of thinking, feeling and acting An advantage of Eysenks Nomothetic approach, over Banduras Idiographic, for organisations is that it helps with selection process because managers can get a rough idea about how an employee will fit into the new environment. For instance, will their characteristics cause conflict with the current members of the team? However the theory has been criticised for being too simplistic and many people have argued that condensing human characteristics down to two traits does not provide an accurate reflection of a person consequently reducing its usefulness to organisations.

A flaw in Eysenks Two dimension theory is that occasionally the hypothesized factors will not explain the data for the reason that some people change their behaviour depending on who they are around. This characteristic of human nature would support Banduras theory of Reciprocal Determination (which is the continuous mutual interaction among the persons mind, the persons behaviour and the external environment )because the personality witnessed changes dependent on the persons environment i.e. who is with them. To some extent it can be argued that, similar to Eysenks theory, Reciprocal Determination in this context supports Brattons definition (2010) of personality as a relatively enduring pattern of thinking, feeling and acting that characterises a persons response to her or his environment because the person will, despite acting different amongst different people, will act the same among one group of people; thus establishing more than one enduring pattern but a pattern nonetheless. Although both theories have their downsides they are both more reliable than tests such as Rorshachs Ink blot test and Graphology which have been proven unreliable due to a lack of consistency in repeat tests. My comments: This essay is structured so that each paragraph compares and contrasts the two different approaches using a different criterion. This works well. Remember, as has been mostly done in this essay, if you want to use this structure: ensure that there is a introductory sentence at the beginning of each paragraph, which introduces the criterion; and also ensure that there is a summary sentence at the end of each paragraph, to highlight the contrast on the basis of that particular criterion. Introduction Good to introduce a definition quickly. Clear identification of the two theories that will be discussed. Watch out for spellings: It is Eysenck, with a c, not Eysenk. The other name that is often spelt wrongly is Herzberg (sometimes wrongly spelt as Hertzberg). Paragraph 2 Keep to the same order of topics that you used in the introduction. In the introduction, Bandura was mentioned first- therefore mention Bandura first. Very good comparison of these two approaches I think though that Eysenck is all nomothetic, rather than just predominantly nomothetic. This paragraph could have had a little more detail in possibly providing an example, e.g. that nomothetic approaches are used in personality testing for recruitment and selection; while ideographic theories help teachers and trainers to design learning activities more effectively.

Paragraph 3 Rather than posing a direct question, use wording like: The debate continues as to whether personality is inherited, as Eysenck believed, or is learnt from within our environment. Good example of providing a very brief summary of an experiment here Banduras Bobo doll. Good highlighting of similarities. Good summary sentence Paragraph 4 Good to focus on traits as one way of comparing these two approaches to personality. Good definition of traits it would be good also to include a couple of examples, e.g. extroversion/introversion; submissive/dominant; trusting / suspicious (see slide 6, Lecture 3b for more examples). Good that Eysencks two dimensions are named it would be good to explain a bit about what these mean. This paragraph is not quite as clear as the preceding two. However, it still provides an appropriate comparison between the two approaches. Paragraph 5 It is reasonable to compare nomothetic and ideographic theories in terms of their practical value. However, it would be better to highlight that each approach has different practical applications as stated earlier. Nomothetic theories are focused on the measurement of traits, one practical outcome of which is the design and production of personality questionnaires and profiles; these profiles are used within selection processes in an attempt to predict the fit of an individuals personality to a particular job and / or particular work environment. Ideographic theories help trainers to identify effective learning activities and processes, for example Banduras work emphasised the value of modelling, and has influenced trainers to make more use of role plays (especially where the observers construct the rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour), as well as mentoring and peer learning. Good criticism that nomothetic approaches are too simplistic plus this is very well worded: the theory has been criticised this is better than saying I think this is too simplistic. Paragraph 6 This is a little less clearly structured, and the sentences are not as well written as paragraphs 2 and 3

It might be better to introduce this paragraph with a clearer statement of the criterion being discussed: The enduring nature of personality is understood differently by Bandura and Eysenck. Banduras Reciprocal Determinism describes the continuous reciprocal interaction between the individual (that is individual factors such as individual psychology) , their behaviour and the external environment:

Environment

Behaviour

Individual

Remember to include diagrams if these help to explain a theory as above. In this way, Bandura explains that personality changes because of the dynamic relationship an individual has with behaviour and environment. In contrast, Eysencks two dimension theory does not account for changes in personality. Like other trait theories, his model suggests a more enduring pattern of behaviour. Within organisations, this produces some interesting conflicts in approach: candidates are selected with the help of personality profiles on the basis that the individuals profile will endure; training courses are designed with the often overambitious expectation that participants fundamental approaches to work situations, arguably their personality, will be affected.

Conclusion A comparison with Rorschachs ink block test and graphology rather brings down the tone of this sound essay. It would be better to offer a more clearly signposted conclusion that links the essays content back to the question, for example: In this essay I have compared and contrasted two different approaches to personality, namely ideographic and nomothetic. I have used Banduras social learning theory (1983) as an example of an ideographic approach and Eysencks two-dimention theory (1973) as an example of a nomothetic approach. These two approaches differ in many ways, notably their explanations of personality as regards the influence, or not, of the environment, social interaction; the possibility of measuring personality using traits; the practical contribution of each to learning activities and to selection (respectively). There are also similarities, most notably that Eysenck did allow for the influence of observational learning on personality.

Overall, probably a 2.1

A good essay in so far as it compares and contrasts two approaches, using one paragraph for each topic. Good inclusion of definitions. Good clear referencing. Good brief summaries of the theoriers Provides an introduction and conclusion

To improve:
Include some more discussion of practical applications as in the example I have provided above Include diagrams i.e. the one above for Bandura, and possible one for Eysenck Maybe explain the theories a little more.