Theories of Personality

A Systems Approach

David Lester

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780429640490
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Geschichte & Theorie in der Psychologie

Designed as a text for both graduate and undergraduate students, this book, originally published in 1995, presents an intrapsychic explanation of human behaviour – concepts based on psychological processes and 'structures' within the mind. In this context, a unique treatment of personality theory is introduced. It focuses on Freud, Kelly and Angyal: Freud's psychoanalytic theory of personality based on desires, Kelly's personal construct theory for thinking, and Angyal's holistic concepts of personality.

Each theory is given a detailed analysis in separate chapters. Freud's psychoanalytic theory is cast as a theory of motivation, Kelly's personal construct theory as a theory of cognition, and then it is noted that there is no comprehensive theory of personality based on emotion. Although Angyal's holistic theory is rarely described in modern textbooks, Lester includes this because none of the other holistic theorists rival Angyal in their range of hypothetical constructs or descriptive terms. Then, in sections dealing with alternative viewpoints, the author shows how other personality theorists actually endorse and expand upon the ideas expressed by the aforementioned three, albeit with different terminology.

Recognizing the diversity of holistic views in theories of personality, several counterpoint chapters are devoted to the holistic ideas. Lester separates these into three major areas: theorists who have focused on the split in the mind between the real and ideal self; recent theorists who explore the possibility that the mind is a 'multiplicity of selves'; and theorists who, though not having their viewpoints sufficiently articulated in the literature, are still well established in the history of psychology. Other features include a presentation of the material in modern viewpoints, instead of the precise and perhaps outdated style as written by the individual theorists, and boxed highlights in each section, providing students with practical capsule information for easy reading.

1

 

Introduction

 

There are three major approaches to the explanation of human behavior. The present volume is concerned with intrapsychic explanations, explanations that use concepts based on psychological processes and “structures” within the mind. These explanations may focus on the contents of the mind, such as the existence of particular desires, emotions or thoughts, but typically define and utilize more complicated processes and structures such as ‘‘defense mechanisms,” “complexes,” and “system principles.”

A second approach also focuses on the individual, but rather than using mental processes to explain human behavior, relies on the physiology of the brain. Willliam Sheldon and Hans Eysenck have proposed classic physiological theories of personality, and recent advances in biological psychiatry look as if they may form the basis for modern improved physiological theories of personality.

The third approach focuses on the environment (or the situation) of the individual as the source of explanations for human behavior. Simple learning theory, originally proposed by Edward Thorndike (1874-1949), Edwin Guthrie (1886-1958) and Clark Hull (1884-1952), but more recently associated with B. F. Skinner, illustrates one version of this approach. Social learning theory takes into account the fact that humans are more complex than lower animals, and introduces a limited number of intrapsychic processes (mainly cognitive elements) in order to provide a more complete explanation of human behavior. The theories proposed by Albert Bandura and Julian Rotter are good examples of this approach.

It is a truism that the final answer to most questions is a combination of the many different answers that have been proposed. Therefore, human behavior in general is probably best explained by a combination of these three different approaches. However, psychology has typically advanced by individuals first proposing extreme versions of the more limited domain theories, followed by others who subsequently integrate these rival theories into a fuller explanation.

Over the years, the particular theories of human behavior that are included in a textbook on theories of personality have grown to include almost all explanations of human behavior. Yet college courses are still taught on topics, such as learning, physiological psychology, and social psychology, that cover the biological and situational explanations of human behavior comprehensively. The question that arises, therefore, is what unique material should be covered in a course on theories of personality. The choice for this volume is the intrapsychic theories.

Many textbooks start by listing varying definitions of the term “personality,” including both the standard dictionary definitions and those proposed by psychologists over the years. A popular one comes from Allport (1961, p. 28): “Personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behavior and thought,” a definition that falls clearly into the intrapsychic perspective. Personality is concerned with processes within the individual’s mind.

With what general phenomena are theories of personality concerned? First, a theory of personality tries to explain why our attitudes, goals, and, to a lesser extent, our behavior are consistent over time. We behave repeatedly in similar ways, and this could be a result of our psychological processes or structures being stable over time. Second, we behave quite differently from others, and this could be because our psychological processes and structures differ from theirs. The concepts of intrapsychic theories of personality explain both phenomena.

HOW MANY INTRAPSYCHIC THEORIES ARE THERE?

When I first came to the study of theories of personality, I was surprised to find that my student textbook apparently contained more than two dozen theories. Instead of conveying a sense of the richness of psychological thought, this led to skepticism on my part that so many different theories could possibly exist. I stifled my doubts, read my textbook, passed my qualifying examination, and later taught the course myself. But after a few years, I decided that I had to “forget” all that I had learned and begin afresh to look at the topic. As part of this process, I read the seminal works of each personality theorist.

I focused on the fact that psychological processes have been divided into one of the three types, depending on whether they focus on desires, thoughts, or emotions (commonly called conation, cognition, and affect, respectively). There were theories of personality that focused on desires (Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, for example) and theories that focused on thoughts (Kelly’s personal construct theory, for example), but none that focused on emotions. Although some psychologists have tried to bring emotions into explanations of personality (e.g., Plutchik, 1962), the efforts have not been as comprehensive as those based on desires and on thoughts.

The decision as to which are the most comprehensive theories of personality based on desires and on thinking is, of course, subjective. I have chosen Freud’s psychoanalytic theory as the most comprehensive theory of personality based on desires and Kelly’s personal construct theory for thinking. These theories have assumed major importance in all textbooks on personality, and I think that both provide more explanatory concepts and, therefore, more explanatory power than other theories of personality based on desires and thoughts.

For Kelly, it was necessary to read his published works. But for Freud, the question arises of whether to read Freud’s original writings or to focus on some of the more modern works in psychoanalysis. Two considerations shaped my choice. The first was that, obviously, Freud began writing over a century ago, and so lacked the knowledge that is available to a contemporary psychologist.

Thus, his original works are more relevant to the history of psychology than to psychology today. An interesting question to ask is how would Freud have written his theory if he were writing it today? The second consideration that shaped my choice was meeting a contemporary psychoanalyst, Walter Toman, and being tremendously impressed by the opening paragraph of his book on psychoanalysis. As an undergraduate in England, I had first studied physics and mathematics before switching to psychology. Furthermore, the types of psychology covered at my university were almost all “experimental psychology,” that is, learning theory, sensation and perception, and physiological psychology. I came to America, therefore, with a low opinion of such areas as personality. Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, in particular, struck me as, dare I admit it now, nonsense. Ids, egos, and superegos seemed to me to be like cartoon characters, unrealistic gnomes fighting battles with one another. In the first paragraph of his book, Toman noted that the basic elements of psychoanalytic theory are psychological forces, with desires being the most common. He said that we can distinguish three subsets of desires—the id, the ego, and the superego. In an instant, my conception of psychoanalytic theory was transformed. An id was not a real object; it was instead a particular subset of a larger field of objects. It should be used as an adjective, not as a noun. The id did not exist, but id desires might.

I was also fortunate in studying under George Kelly, which admittedly might have biased me in favor of choosing his theory as the most comprehensive theory of personality based on thinking. How to incorporate holistic ideas into theories of personality was a more subjective decision. As we will see later in this volume, many theorists have proposed holistic concepts in personality, that is, they have stressed that the mind is an organized and dynamic whole and that an analysis of the mind’s component parts (individual desires and thoughts) will never provide a complete picture. Who has provided the most comprehensive holistic theory?

Again serendipity played a role in my choice. When I met him, Abraham Maslow no longer taught graduate students, only undergraduates. So I took an undergraduate course with him and became his teaching assistant. Because of these experiences, and other personal encounters, I was strongly influenced by him. In particular, he introduced me to the writings of Andras Angyal, a theorist who is often omitted from contemporary textbooks on personality. However, when I reread Angyal’s books, I realized that his theory was extraordinarily comprehensive, although it was rather technical and lacked good concrete examples of some of the processes described.

I then had the basis for my thinking on personality:

the atomistic perspective:

desires/wishes: Freud’s psychoanalytic theory

thoughts/cognitions: Kelly’s personal construct theory

emotions: no theory the holistic perspective: Angyal’s theory

The remaining task was now clear. As I read each new theorist, all I had to do was asked myself one question. Where have I came across this idea before— in Freud, Kelly, or Angyal? And if the answer was that I had not come across the idea before, then I had a new principle, process, or structure. How many new principles, processes, and structures would I find?

To anticipate the answer, I can say that I found only one. I found many different ways of expressing the same idea first described by Freud, Kelly, or Angyal. I found many different proposals for the material contents of the psychological structures proposed by Freud, Kelly, and Angyal. I found theorists who extended and expanded upon the ideas expressed by the three seminal theorists. But I found only one new principle—the principle of balance described by Carl Jung, wherein each complex in the mind must be balanced by a complementary complex.

I was able to teach my course on theories of personality contentedly. Instead of some two dozen rival theories of personality, there were three basic theories of personality and many variants on these three themes.

Remember that claims of who first proposed a concept or a principle is not of concern here. Rather than historic precedence, I am concerned with who formulated the concept best and incorporated it into the most comprehensive theory. Frequently, the formulation of an idea by another theorist has become more popular or been more stimulating than that made by Freud, Kelly, or Angyal. For example, Carl Roger’s writing on the conditions of worth imposed on the child by parents, which leads to the child’s real self being suppressed, have become a much more popular set of terms than Angyal’s pattern of vicarious living. Or, to take another example, Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance has generated far more research than Kelly’s concept of hostility. However, in this volume, having chosen Angyal and Kelly to be among the seminal theorists, the question is whether Rogers and Festinger provide new concepts, i.e., concepts not already described in the earlier chapters on Angyal and Kelly. (For Rogers and Festinger, the answer is no.)

I

THEORIES BASED ON MOTIVATION

2

Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: A Theory About Wishes

Freud’s theory was the first major modern theory of personality. Many later theories were developed by modifying some aspect of Freud’s theory or by rejecting one feature and proposing a new theory that set up a dialectic with Freud’s theory. As such, Freud’s theory is the seminal theory of personality.

However, there are flaws in the way that the theory is presented in many textbooks. The theory as written by Freud has assumed the status of scripture. Authors usually present the theory as Freud described it. However, authors in other disciplines present older theories in the light of modern knowledge. In physics, for example, only historians of science read Newton’s work, and no physics textbook presents physics in the way that Newton did. Likewise, there are modern restatements of Freud’s theory that present the theory in a more systematic, and thus testable way, taking into account modern ideas about psychology. Cofer and Appley (1964), in their classic work on motivation, cite the presentations by Rapaport (1959) and Toman (1960) in particular.

UPDATING THE THEORY

Freud was a genius, perhaps the only genius who has worked in the field of psychology. (This clearly indicates my bias!) Being a genius, if he were writing today, he would not write the theory in the way that he did in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Let me give two examples.

Energizing Human Behavior

Prior to 1949, all theorists felt that they had to explain why humans showed any behavior at all. Using physics as an analogy, they believed an energy source was needed for humans to show any activity. Freud, therefore, felt called upon to propose an energy source. In his early writing he described libido, an energy that fueled all behavior. After observing the massive destruction of human life that occurred in the course of World War I, he proposed a second energy source, destrudo, which also fueled human behavior but which was destructive in orientation. Libido and destrudo, respectively, were said to energize the life and death instincts, or eros and thanatos.

In 1949, Hebb suggested that we did not need to postulate energy sources for human behavior. We could simply assume that, as long as we were alive, we would always be doing something (Hebb, 1949). The question for psychologists to answer was not why we show any behavior at all, but rather why we do this instead o/that. Hence, theories proposed after 1949 did not propose energy sources.

Thus, Freud, had he written his theory today, might not have proposed an energy source for human behavior. Despite this, some textbooks on theories of personality continue to include a discussion of libido (and sometimes des-trudo) and define it as did Freud.

Sexism

Several commentators have criticized Freud’s theory for being sexist. Concepts such as castration anxiety, in which the little boy fears that he will be punished by castration for harboring affectionate thoughts toward his mother, are brought forward as examples of this sexism.

Of course, Freud was sexist by modern standards. However, at the time, he was considered radical and not sexist at all. To judge him by modern criteria seems unfair. Furthermore, had Freud been writing today, he probably would not have written in a sexist way. Rather than naming this anxiety in boys as castration anxiety, he might have written about mutilation anxiety in small children. Both boys and girls fear mutilation. For example, they hate having their hair and finger nails cut, often protesting and crying. If hospitalized, small children fear not only the separation from their parents but also the surgical mutilations that may occur. Freud’s theory can easily be made non-sexist, therefore, by changing the terminology.

Translation Problems

Bettelheim (1982) pointed out that the English translators of Freud had distorted his theory in their translations, and later writers have perpetuated these errors. For example, Freud did not talk of...