Behavioral And Humanistic Theory Essay, Research Paper

These two theories have created arguments between psychologists for many old ages. Hans j. Eysenck, Ph.D. , D.Sc. , is one of the universe & # 8217 ; s most cited psychologists. He is a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry of the University of London, where he started the subject of clinical psychological science in Great Britain. He is a innovator in the usage of behavior therapy every bit good as research in personality theory and measurings.

The biological theory has to make with his findings that single differences in personality are biological science based. This was based on his theory that there are three dimensions of personality ( ace factors ) . These dimensions of personality were extraversion-introversion, neurosis, and psychoticism. To look into his work by utilizing cross-cultural surveies that produced much the same decision. Han dynasties besides went a measure further in indicating out the consequences of many surveies bespeaking that genetic sciences play an of import function in make up one’s minding the sums of which of the three personality dimensions one might possess. There are many pro? s and con? s to this theory but most psychologist will acknowledge that it is acquiring progressively harder to disregard the obvious nexus between our evolutionary history and our familial make-up. There are some failings to this theory. There is unfavorable judgment that several of the thoughts can? t be tested in existent experiments. The psychologists are prone to utilize sensible tax write-off in many cases, which may non give an accurate appraisal. For illustration several types on direct use would be illegal to execute which makes presentations of cause and effects hard. There are other concerns over the research on disposition. There doesn? T seem to be an understanding on the figure of dimensions. In the EAS disposition theoretical account there are three dimensions identified, but there are several other theoretical accounts in usage that describe extra dimensions. This creates a job for psychologists and pupils likewise in corroborating which is the right theoretical account. Last this theory offers us really small in the country of personality alteration.

In humanistic theory, the motive for developing one & # 8217 ; s full acquisition potency is built-in in each of us. Although there is no existent definition for the humanistic theory the four primary humanistic classs are personal duty, the here and now, the phenomenology of the person, and personal growing.

This theory is unlike the biological theory in which we are animals witho

ut control over our personalities in that it believes that all of us are born with the ability to determine our ain hereafters and are limited merely by our physical restrictions. The here and now is merely precisely what it sounds like. It reminds us that we should populate for the present and non acquire caught up in the yesteryear. This has the inclination to restrict what we may go and go forth us short of our personal ends and or aims. The Phenomenology of the single trades with the construct that no 1 knows you as an person better than you. It is farcical to believe that some physician could hold any hint as to what to rede after merely hearing your job a few minutes before. This could intend that we need to pass on our jobs to person from clip to clip, but one will finally come to his or her ain decision after careful contemplation. The last class is Personal Growth. This procedure has to make with going a to the full working single accomplishing personal satisfaction. All of us strive to run into our immediate demands. This procedure states that one time our immediate demands are met if left alone we continue to endeavor toward this ultimate satisfying province of being.

The job with this theory is that much of it can? t be tested in a scientific ambiance. A big part of this theory relies on the construct of free will. It isn? T discernible or predictable so how can it be testable. The other job with this theory is that it is slackly defined footings like self-actualization and full operation. Many research workers feel that we need more information on these footings before they can be clearly defined.

In decision I feel that both these theories possess credibleness, but personally I think that I would take certain facets from both theories to make something of a montage theory. I can? t believe that we have no control over our personalities but at the same clip I can see some familial sensitivity in our personalities.

Mentions

Eysenck, H.J. ( 1995 ) . Genius: The natural history of creativeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Eysenck, H.J. ( 1997 ) . Rebel with a cause: The autobiography of Hans Eysenck. ( Revised and expanded edition. ) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Guilford, J.P. ( 1967 ) . The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hendrickson, A.E. ( 1982 ) . The biological footing of intelligence, Part I: Theory. In H.J. Eysenck ( Ed. ) , A theoretical account for intelligence ( pp. 151-196 ) . Berlin: Springer.