Personality Theories in Psychology, from Freud to Skinner

This series of articles from PsicologíaOnline, will review a series of theories about personality in psychology, from the famous psychoanalysis of S. Freud to Viktor Frankl's logotherapy. We will include biographies, basic terms and concepts, assessment methods and therapies, discussions and anecdotes, as well as references for additional reading material.

Index

1. Foreword
2. Theory
3. Personality
4. Pitfalls
5. Evidence
6. Philosophical assumptions
7. Organization

Some of you will find the area a bit confusing. First of all, many people ask "who is right?" Unfortunately, this is the least receptive aspect of psychology in research, as each theory displaces the previous one. The area to be reviewed includes issues that are accessible only to the subject, such as his inner thoughts and feelings. Some of these thoughts are not accessible to the consciousness of the person, such as instincts and unconscious motivations. In other words, the personality is still in a "prescientific" or philosophical period and it is very likely that some aspects will remain that way indefinitely.

Another issue that causes some people to put aside the subject of personality theories is that consider the easiest subject of all and believe, especially themselves, that they know all the answers related to these.

Well it is true that personality theories they do not deal with such precise subjects as complex mathematics and the symbolic systems that comprise physics and chemistry (the so-called "strong" courses). It is also no less true that we all have a direct access to our own thoughts and feelings, as well as a vast experience in relationships with others. But we are confusing familiarity with knowledge and much more when we turn what we know over the years into prejudices and predispositions. In fact, the topic of personality theories is probably one of the most difficult and complex to grapple with.

Therefore, at present we are detained in theories (in the plural), rather than in the science of personality. However, as we review the different theories, there will be some that will fit better with your personal and other experiences (which tends to be seen as a good sign). There will be other occasions where various theorists say similar things, even when they use different approximations (this is also a good sign). And we will finally find a theoretical system that supports certain ideas over others (this is a very good sign).

I think what makes personality theories so interesting is that they actually we can participate in the process. We don't need labs or federal funding, just a little intelligence, some motivation, and an open mind.

It would be good to start by establishing a definition about personality theories. First, the theory. A theory is a model of reality that helps us understand, explain, predict and control reality. In the context of the study of personality, these models are usually verbal. Every now and then someone shows up with a graphic model, with symbolic illustrations, or with a mathematical model, or even with a computer model. But words are the basic model.

There are different approaches that focus on different aspects of the theory. The humanists and existentialists they tend to focus on the understanding part. These theorists believe that much of the understanding of who we are is complex enough and so entrenched in history and culture as to "predict and control." Apart from this, they suggest that predicting and controlling people is, to some extent, unethical. At the other extreme, behaviorists and freudians they prefer to dwell on the discussion of prediction and control. If an idea is considered useful, if it works, they go for it. For them, understanding is secondary.

Another definition holds that theory is a guide to practice: we assume that the future will be more or less like the past. We believe that certain sequences and eventual patterns that occurred frequently in the past will most likely repeat themselves in the future. Thus, if we take into account those first events in a sequence or the most intense parts of a pattern, we can consider them as signs and traces. A theory is like a map: it is not exactly the same as the terrain it describes and it certainly does not offer all the details of it, even may not be entirely accurate, but it provides us with a guide to practice (and gives us something to correct mistakes when we commit).

Often when we talk about someone's personality, we are referring to what differentiates that person from others, even what makes them unique. This aspect of the personality is known as individual differences. For some theories, this is the central question. They pay considerable attention to types and traits of people, among other characteristics, with which to categorize or compare. Some people are neurotic, some are not; some are more introverted, some are more extroverted, and so on.

However, personality theorists are also interested in the commonality of people. For example, what do a neurotic and a healthy person have in common? Or, what is the common structure in people who express themselves introvertedly and in those who express themselves extravertedly?

If one places people in a certain dimension (such as healthy-neurotic or introversion-extraversion) we are saying that dimensions are something on which we can place subjects. Whether neurotic or not, all people have the ability to move towards health or disease, and whether they are introverts or extroverts, everyone oscillates between one path and the other.

Another way of explaining the above is that personality theorists are interested in the structure of the individual and above all about the psychological structure; that is, how does a person "assemble", how "works", how does it "disintegrate".

Some theorists go a step further, arguing that they are looking for the essence of what makes a person. Or they say they are concerned about what is understood as an individual human being. The field of personality psychology ranges from the simple empirical search for differences between people to a much more philosophical search for the meaning of life.

It's possibly just a matter of pride, but personality psychologists like to think of their field as an umbrella that covers all the rest of psychology. After all, it is true that we are concerned with genetics and physiology, with learning and development, with social interaction and culture, with pathology and therapy. All these issues are united in the individual.

There are some things that can go wrong with a theory and we must keep our eyes peeled for them. This obviously applies even to those theories created by the great minds that we will see. Even Sigmund Freud screwed up at some point. On the other hand, it is even more important that we develop our own theories about people and their personalities. We will look at some of these questions below.

Ethnocentrism

Everyone grows up in a culture that has been there before he was born. Culture influences us so deeply and so subtly that we grow up believing that "things are like that" rather than "things are like that in this particular society." Erich Fromm, one of the authors we will see, calls this thought the social unconscious and, in fact, it is quite powerful.

Thus, for example, Sigmund Freud was born in Vienna, not in New York or Tokyo. He was born in 1856, not 1756 or 1956. There were issues that necessarily influenced both his person and his theory, evidently different from ours.

The peculiarities of a culture can be more easily perceived when we ask ourselves "what are all these people talking about?" and "What is nobody talking about?" In Europe, during the second half of the 1800s, especially among the middle and upper social classes, people did not talk much about sex. It was more or less a taboo subject.

Women were not supposed to show their ankles, much less their thighs, and even the legs of a woman sitting on a piano were called "limbs" so as not to provoke anyone. It was not uncommon for a physician to be called in to visit a newly married couple for instruction in the woman about the "conjugal duties" of the wedding night that she had failed, just because she simply did not know. A little different from our time, don't you think?

By the way, we must consider Freud for his ability to rise above his culture at this point. He was surprised to see how people (especially women) could not be supposed to be sexual creatures. Much of the current openness about sex (for better and for worse) derives from Freud's original reflections.

These days, most people are not mortified by their sexual natures. In fact, we present a tendency to talk about our sexuality all the time, to anyone who will listen! Sex is present on our billboards, it is seen frequently on television, it is an important part of the lyrics of our favorite songs, in our movies, our magazines, our books and of course here, in Internet!. This phenomenon is something peculiar to our culture, and we are so used to it that we hardly realize it anymore.

On the other hand, Freud was misinterpreted by his culture in thinking that neuroses always had a sexual root. In our society we are more concerned with feeling worthless and fear aging and death. Freudian society considered death as a fact and aging as a sign of maturity, both conditions of life accessible to anyone's thought at that time.

Egocentrism

Another potential stumbling block in theorizing is the peculiarities of the theorist as an individual. Each of us, beyond culture, presents specific details in his life (genetics, family structure and dynamics, special experiences, education, etc.) that affects how we think and feel and ultimately, the way we interpret the personality.

Freud, for example, was the first of seven children (although he had had two half-siblings who had had children of their own before Sigmund was born). Her mother had a strong personality and was 20 years younger than her father. She was particularly fond of his son "Siggie". Freud was a genius (not all of us can sustain this claim!). He was Jewish, although his father and he never practiced his religion. Etc.. etc etc.

It is very likely that both the patriarchal family structure, as well as the close relationships that he argued with his mother, they turned their attention to these kinds of issues when it came time to elaborate their theory. His pessimistic nature and his atheistic beliefs led him to consider human life as aimed at survival and in search of strong social control. You, too, have your quirks and these will influence how you will color your interests and understanding, even without realizing it at times.

Dogmatism

A third major stumbling block is dogmatism. As human beings we seem to have a natural tendency to conservatism. We hold on to what has worked in the past. And if we dedicate our lives to the development of a theory of personality, if we have put all our strength and our hearts in it, we can be sure that we will be quite defensive (to paraphrase Freud) with our position.

Dogmatic people do not allow questions, doubts, new information and so on. We can tell when we are in front of these types of people by seeing how they react to criticism: they tend to use what is known as a circular argument.

This argument is the one in which you "justify" your opinion by assuming that things will only be true if you have already considered it as such in the first place. There are tons of examples of circular arguments as everyone uses them. A simple example would be: "I know everything"; "And why should I believe you?"; "Because I know everything."

Another example that I have personally lived: "You have to believe in God because the Bible says so, and the Bible is the word of God." Now, we can see that it is not inherently wrong to say that God exists and not to believe that the Bible is the word of God. Where this person goes wrong is when he uses the argument that the Bible is the word of God to support the thesis that "you have to believe in God", since the non-believer is not going to be impressed with the first if he does not believe in the second.

Ultimately, this type of issue occurs all the time in psychology and in particular in personality theories. Continuing with Freud, it is not unusual to hear Freudians argue that those who do not believe in Freudian thought are repressing the evidence they need to believe in it (when it is precisely the Freudian idea of ​​repression where we must start). What you need, they say, is to spend a few years in psychoanalysis to realize that Freud was right (when, to begin with, he is going to spend time - and money - on something he does not believe in).

So, if you are going to dedicate yourself to a theory that discriminates against your objections or questions, watch out!

Misinterpretations

Another problem, or set of problems, is unforeseen involvement. It seems that every time we say something, we drop words that can have 100 different interpretations. To put it simply: people often misunderstand you.

There are several situations or acts that further predispose to misinterpretation.

Translation: Freud, Jung, Binswanger, and many others wrote in German. When they were translated, some of his concepts were twisted a bit (something quite natural, considering that each language has its own idiosyncrasy). Freud's It, the Ego, and the Superego *, surely familiar words to you, are words used by his translators. The original terms were Es, Ich, and überich in German. They are, in other words, simple terms. In the process of translation, these words were translated into Greek, sounding unscientific. So the translators, believing that American readers would accept Freud better if the words sounded a bit more scientific, they decided to keep the English terminology, instead of the German, which also sounds more poetics.

This means that when we listen to Freud, it is as if we are hearing scientific statements, establishing the psyche in well-defined compartments, when he actually spoke much more metaphorically, suggesting that these were blurred among themselves.

[* It, I and Over-I in English. N.T.]

Neologisms: Neologisms mean new words. When we develop a theory, we can have concepts that had not been named before, so we find or create words to name them. Sometimes we use Greek or Latin, sometimes we use combinations of old words (like in German), sometimes we use phrases (like in French) and sometimes Sometimes we just use some old word and use it in another new context: anticatexis, gemeinschaftgefuhl, être-en-soi, and self (itself), for example.
I think that it does not need much explanation that words like self or anxiety have hundreds of different meanings depending on the author.

Metaphors: Metaphors (or similes, more correctly) are words or phrases that, while not literally true, somehow capture certain aspects of the truth. Each author, in one way or another, uses models of human personality, but it would be a mistake to confuse the model (the metaphor) with its true meaning.

A good example of our days would be the one related to the operation of computers and the processing of information. Do we function similar to computers?. Sure; in fact, various aspects of our functioning work like them. Are we computers? Of course not. In the long run, the metaphor fails. But it is useful, and that is how we have to look at it. It is like a map; it helps you find the way, but we cannot consider it as the territory itself.

The evidence, or rather the lack of it, is of course another problem. What kind of support does your theory have?; Or was it just something that occurred to him while he was under the influence of some hallucinogen? There are several types of evidence; anecdotal, clinical, phenomenological, correlative and experimental.

Anecdotal evidence: It is a type of casual evidence that is usually offered when we tell a story: "I remember when ..." and "I heard that" are examples. It is, of course, notoriously inaccurate. It is best to use this type of evidence only to promote future research.

Clinical evidence: It is that evidence that we obtain through the clinical experience of psychotherapeutic sessions. Obtaining it is much more accurate when it is collected by expert therapists. Its greatest weakness is that it tends to be highly individual and even unusual, as it describes a patient who is, almost by definition, an unusually individual subject. Clinical evidence does not provide the basis for most of the theories that we know of, although it prompts further investigation.

Phenomenological evidence: it is the result of an accurate observation in various circumstances, as well as introspection relative to the psychological processes themselves. Many of the theorists we will review have developed phenomenological research, either formally or informally. It requires great training, as well as a certain natural ability. Its weakness is that we need a lot of time to be able to say that the author has done a good job.

The correlative research on personality usually includes the creation and application of personality tests. The results of these are compared with other "measurable" aspects of our life and with other tests. Thus, for example, we can create a test for shyness (introversion) and we can compare it with scores on intelligence tests or evaluations on job satisfaction. Unfortunately, these measures do not tell us how they work or even if they are real, and many aspects of the personality are reluctant to be measured together.

The experimental research it is the most precise and controlled form of investigation and if the topics we are investigating are subject to experimentation, it is the method of choice. As you know, experimentation involves a random selection of subjects, careful monitoring of conditions, great concern about the aspects that can negatively influence the sample, as well as measures and statistics. Its weakness is based on the great work involved in obtaining the multiple variables used by personality theorists. Also, how can we control or measure issues such as love, anger or conscience?

That people, even geniuses, make mistakes should come as no surprise to us. Nor should it surprise us that people are limited. There are many questions like those we need to build our theories, which lack answers. There are even some that will never have it. But we answer them anyway, since we need to go on living. We call these questions and answers philosophical assumptions.

Free will vs. Determinism. Are we and the world completely determined?; When we discern, are we living an illusion? Or we can see it the other way; that is, the spirit has the power to rise above all limits; that it is determinism that is an illusion.

Most theorists make more moderate assumptions. A moderate deterministic position would be to consider that we are determined, but we can participate in that determinism. A moderate position of free will would be to consider that freedom is intrinsic to our nature, but we must live that freedom in a world established by deterministic laws.

Originality vs. Universality. Is the person unique or will we eventually discover that there are universal laws that will explain all human behavior? Again, there are more moderate positions: perhaps there are broad limited rules with enough space to consider individuals; or perhaps our individuality exceeds the common we have.

I'm sure you can see that these assumptions are related to the previous ones. Determinism suggests the possibility of universal laws, while free will is a possible source of originality (individuality). But this relationship is not perfect, and even, in more moderate positions, it is quite complex.

Physiological motivations vs. Of purpose. Are we subject to our basic physiological needs, such as the need for food, water or sexual activity or do we carry on our purposes, goals, values, principles, etc... Some more moderate positions include the idea that purposeful behavior is very powerful, but it is based on physiological needs, or simply that both types of motivation are important, although at different times and places.

A more philosophical version of the above is found in the dyad causality and theology. The first states that our current state of mind is determined by previous events. The second says that it is established by our orientation towards the future. The causal position is by far the most widely accepted in psychology in general, but the theological is quite widely accepted within personality psychology.

Conscious vs. Unconscious. Are most or even all of our behavioral expressions and experiences determined by unconscious forces; forces that we are not aware of? Or only by a few unconscious forces? To put it another way: how aware are we of what determines our behavior?

This question could be answered, but the concepts of consciousness and unconsciousness are slippery. For example, if we were aware of something a moment ago and it has changed us in some way, but in At this moment we are not able to realize it, have we been consciously motivated or unconsciously?.

Nature vs. Nurture. * This is another question that we might answer one day. To what degree is what we do genetically conditioned (Nature) or by our formation and experience (nurture)? The question becomes very difficult to answer, since nature and nurture cannot exist independently. Probably both the body and the experience are essential to being a person and it is very difficult to separate their effects.

As you can see, this issue comes in a number of ways, including the possibility of the existence of instincts in human beings and the development of temperament, generating personalities genetically. Currently an important discussion concerns whether even what we call "nature" (like human nature) refers to genetics or not.

[* The term "nurture" in English is accepted in Spanish psychology as "nurtura", although the word is usually substituted as "nurture" or "education". N.T.]

Theories of stages of development vs. Theories that do not include stadiums. An important aspect of the nature-nurture dyad for personality psychology is whether or not we all go through predetermined stages of development. Obviously, we all go through certain stages of physiological development (fetal, childhood, puberty, adulthood, and old age) powerfully controlled by genetics. Should we consider the same for psychological development?

We can see a wide range of positions on the subject, from theories of true stages such as those of Freud, who considered stages as universal and clearly limited, to the behavioral and humanistic theories that consider that what seem stages are nothing more than certain patterns of formation and culture.

Cultural determinism vs. Cultural significance. To what extent does culture shape us?; Totally, or are we capable of "rising" (transcending) over these influences? And if so, how easy or difficult is it to do? Note that this is not exactly the same as free will-determinism: if we are not determined by our culture, our transcendence will be nothing more than another form of determinism, whether for example by physiological needs or genetic

Another way of looking at the problem is: if we ask ourselves, how difficult is it to get to know someone from another culture? If it is difficult for us to get out of our culture and communicate as human beings, then perhaps culture is a powerful determinant of who we are. If it is relatively easy to do so, then our culture is not as strong as determining.

Early formation vs. Lateness of our personality. Are our personality characteristics established in early childhood, remaining relatively fixed throughout our adulthood, or rather slightly flexible? Or is it that even though life changes are always a possibility, the older we get the less flexible our personality characteristics can be?

As you might guess, these questions are intrinsically related to the issues of genetics, stage, and cultural determination. However, the first front that we find before finding a solution is to specify what we mean by personality characteristics. If what we understand is that they are things that do not change since we are born, for example, temperament, then personality is formed early. If what we are referring to are our beliefs, opinions, habits, and so on, these can change dramatically until the moment of death. Since most theorists refer to "something in the middle" of these extremes, the answer will also be "middle."

Continuous understanding vs. Discontinuous mental illness. Is mental illness a matter of degree? Are they just people who have taken something to the extreme? Are they perhaps eccentric that disturb us or attack themselves, or is there a qualitative difference in the way they perceive reality? As with culture, is it easy for us to understand the mentally ill or do we live in separate worlds?

We could solve this question, but it is difficult since mental illness is considered as a single entity. There are so many forms of presentation… Some would say that there are as many as mentally ill. We could even stop to debate what is mental illness and what is not. Therefore, mental health is most likely not a one-size-fits-all thing.

Optimism vs. Pessimism. Finally, we return to an issue that is not at all resolved: are we human beings basically good or bad; Should we be hopeful or discouraged about our projects? Do we need a lot of help or would we do better if they left us alone?

This is, of course, a more philosophical, religious or personal question. Possibly the most influential of all. What we perceive in humanity is determined by attitude; but also what we see determines the attitude, and this is related to other questions: If, for example, mental illness is not so far removed from health; if the personality can change late in life; If culture and genetics were not so powerful, and if ultimately our motivations could at least be made aware, we would have more grounds for optimism. The authors we will see at least are optimistic enough to make the effort to understand human nature.

With all its pitfalls, assumptions, and methods, one might think that there would be little to do in terms of organizing "personality theories." Fortunately, privileged-minded people tend to overlap one another. There are three theoretical orientations that stand above the others:

Psychoanalytic or the so-called "1st Current". Although the psychoanalytic refers literally to the Freudians, we will use the word to designate those who have been very influenced by Freud's work, as well as those who share his attitude, despite the fact that they may disagree with the rest of the his postulates. These authors tend to believe that the answers are hidden somewhere under the surface, hidden in the unconscious.

This book will review three versions of this stream. The first is the one concerning the Freudian point of view proper, which includes Sigmund and Anna Freud and the psychology of the ego, whose best representative is Erik Erikson.

The second version could be called the transpersonal perspective, which has a much more spiritual influence and will be represented here by Carl Jung.

The third is the psychosocial point of view and includes Alfred Adler, Karen Horney and Erich Fromm.

Behaviorist or "2nd Stream". In this perspective, the answers seem to fall on a careful observation of behavior and environment, as well as their relationships. Behaviorists, as well as its modern descendant, cognocivism prefer quantitative and experimental methods.

The behavioral approach will be represented in our review by Hans Eysenck, B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura.

Humanist or "3rd Stream". The humanistic approach, which some believe includes existential psychology, is the most recent of the three. It is thought to be an answer to psychoanalytic and behavioral theories and its rational basis is that the answers must be sought in consciousness or experience. Most humanists prefer phenomenological methods.

We will examine two trends in this approach. The first is the humanist proper, represented by Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and George Kelly.

The second is existentialist psychology, defined as a very popular philosophical humanistic approach in Europe and Latin America. We will review two of the most representative authors: Ludwig Binswanger and Viktor Frankl.

This article is merely informative, in Psychology-Online we do not have the power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Personality Theories in Psychology, from Freud to Skinner, we recommend that you enter our category of Personality.