You don't need to know a complete biologically-based theory of personality to compare with Freud's psychodynamic model, but you might find it easier to compare approaches if you know a bit more about Eysenck's personality theory.
THE P.E.N. THEORY OF PERSONALITY
|
THE PEN MODEL & THE BRAIN
|
APPLYING PERSONALITY THEORY TO REAL LIFE
|
EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
|
Eysenck takes into account brain plasticity. Someone who is highly extrovert doesn't have to go to night clubs and get involved in cage fighting. They can discipline themselves to get stimulation from books and classical music, but it's just harder for them. They get impatient and distracted more easily.
Someone who is introverted could accustom themselves to stimulating activities (like going to rock concerts). This is why Eysenck argues personality is 75% biology and 25% environment. |
Wolverine: craves stimulation
Beast: not so much |
Objections
A common objection to Eysenck's theory is that it is based on research using questionnaires. The EPI and the EPQ use simple yes/no questions which offer a "forced choice" between an answer which is high in the trait or an answer which is low.
However, more recent versions of the questionnaire offer Likert-style questions where participants tick a box saying whether they "never" or "frequently" feel a certain way or something in between.
The aspect of the PEN Model that attracts the most criticism is psychoticism (P), which is accused of being too vague. Eysenck seems to be lumping very different types of people together as high-P personalities: creative artists, live-for-the-moment romantics and cold-hearted thugs.
If Eysenck's idea of P is vague, his theory becomes non-falsifiable (just how could you prove there isn't a link between P and criminality if P is so vaguely defined it can mean anything). Theories like this lack scientific status, according to Karl Popper.
Teresa Amabile (1993) argues that creativity is really a different personality trait from just having poor impulse-control. Many artists are very self-disciplined.
A common objection to Eysenck's theory is that it is based on research using questionnaires. The EPI and the EPQ use simple yes/no questions which offer a "forced choice" between an answer which is high in the trait or an answer which is low.
However, more recent versions of the questionnaire offer Likert-style questions where participants tick a box saying whether they "never" or "frequently" feel a certain way or something in between.
The aspect of the PEN Model that attracts the most criticism is psychoticism (P), which is accused of being too vague. Eysenck seems to be lumping very different types of people together as high-P personalities: creative artists, live-for-the-moment romantics and cold-hearted thugs.
If Eysenck's idea of P is vague, his theory becomes non-falsifiable (just how could you prove there isn't a link between P and criminality if P is so vaguely defined it can mean anything). Theories like this lack scientific status, according to Karl Popper.
Teresa Amabile (1993) argues that creativity is really a different personality trait from just having poor impulse-control. Many artists are very self-disciplined.
Most psychologists follow the Big Five traits instead of using Eysenck's P trait. Low scores in Openness, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness cover the behaviours Eysenck lumped together as "psychotic" while making them much clearer and easier to measure.
A deeper criticism of personality theory is that there are in fact no consistent traits that define us. Walter Mischel (1968) argues that the apparent consistency in people’s behaviour is an illusion caused by the fact that we usually observe people in similar situations. This is a situationalist view - that situations (environments) produce out behaviour, not personality traits.
Differences
The Exam Board expects you to compare the biological explanation of personality with the Freudian explanation of personality. Freud's ideas are explained on another page. For now, I'll compare and contrast the biological explanation with the situationalist explanation that "personality" is learned.
The biological explanation of personality supports the nativist (nature) view of human behaviour, but the Learning Approach takes the situationalist (nurture) view that all our behaviour comes from our environment.
There are many studies supporting the idea that personality is a learned behaviour. Bandura's "Bobo Doll" studies show that children imitate the behaviours they see in role models. Classical and Operant Conditioning both offer explanations for behaviour on which personality is based.
Strict Behaviourists like B.F. Skinner would argue that ALL behaviour is learned and that human beings are born as tabula rasa (a bank slate), with individual differences like personality being added later.
Biological determinists would argue that ALL behaviour is hereditary and that human beings are born with a genetic destiny they cannot help but obey.
Most psychologists take a middle way between these extremes. Genetics gives us predispositions to behave a certain way, but we can resist these impulses if we try. This seems to be Eysenck's position, but he thinks biology is more influential than learning (75% as opposed to 25%).
There are many studies supporting the idea that personality is a learned behaviour. Bandura's "Bobo Doll" studies show that children imitate the behaviours they see in role models. Classical and Operant Conditioning both offer explanations for behaviour on which personality is based.
- Classical Conditioning shows that aggression is an unconditioned response to some stimuli but may become a conditioned response to a neutral stimuli. This ties in with the Biological Approach because of brain plasticity; because of conditioning, your brain alters in the way it responds to things.
- Operant Conditioning shows that personality may come about through reinforcement, either positive reinforcement (where behaving in an extroverted way brings you admiration and respect) or negative reinforcement (introverted behaviour gets you away from unpleasant situations and psychotic behaviour makes people keep their distance).
Strict Behaviourists like B.F. Skinner would argue that ALL behaviour is learned and that human beings are born as tabula rasa (a bank slate), with individual differences like personality being added later.
Biological determinists would argue that ALL behaviour is hereditary and that human beings are born with a genetic destiny they cannot help but obey.
Most psychologists take a middle way between these extremes. Genetics gives us predispositions to behave a certain way, but we can resist these impulses if we try. This seems to be Eysenck's position, but he thinks biology is more influential than learning (75% as opposed to 25%).
Applications
If the nativist viewpoint is correct, then personality is innate and difficult to change. However, the PEN Model recognises that people have some capacity to change, so the biggest application of this theory has been in psychotherapy (counseling), in particular Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
If the nativist viewpoint is correct, then personality is innate and difficult to change. However, the PEN Model recognises that people have some capacity to change, so the biggest application of this theory has been in psychotherapy (counseling), in particular Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
You normally think of the nativist perspective and the Biological Approach as opposed to counselling, recommending drugs or surgery instead. This just goes to show the crossover going on in neurocognitivism these days.
The PEN model explains why people might have predispositions to feel a certain way or react in a certain way. It also offers reliable questionnaires like the EPQ to measure these traits. If people in therapy know what their traits are, they can work to counteract them. This is because psychoticism doesn't force you to be an inconsiderate jerk and neuroticism doesn't force you to be flaky and passive-aggressive. If you know you've go the tendency, you can work at changing it.
CBT for criminals often focuses on encouraging them to feel empathy and think about the impact of their behaviour on other people. If that turns into a mental habit, their P score will drop and they'll become less unpleasant (and perhaps less likely to reoffend).
Because the EPQ can measure the P, E and N traits, it can be used to test to see if therapy is working.
Of course, it's not too difficult to figure out the EPQ and give the answers you think your therapist is looking for. This is called demand characteristics and it's a particular problem with applying personality questionnaires.
Eysenck was aware of the danger of demand characteristics. He added "lie questions" to the EPQ-R which didn't add to the score on any of the three traits but would "catch out" anyone trying to give ideal answers. Out of the 100 questions in the large-scale (A) version of the EPQ-R, 21 were "lie questions" and the higher the "lie score", the less reliable a respondents results would be.
Of course, it's not too difficult to figure out the EPQ and give the answers you think your therapist is looking for. This is called demand characteristics and it's a particular problem with applying personality questionnaires.
Eysenck was aware of the danger of demand characteristics. He added "lie questions" to the EPQ-R which didn't add to the score on any of the three traits but would "catch out" anyone trying to give ideal answers. Out of the 100 questions in the large-scale (A) version of the EPQ-R, 21 were "lie questions" and the higher the "lie score", the less reliable a respondents results would be.
EXEMPLAR ESSAY
|