Methods Of Personality Research? Clinical Vs. Experimental Essay, Research Paper

The development of personality has long been an country of utmost involvement to psychologists and psychoanalysts likewise and many different theories of personality have developed over the old ages. From Sigmund Freud to B.F. Skinner, everyone seems to hold non merely an sentiment of what personality is and how it develops but besides an thought as to what is the best manner to mensurate and describe their findings. In order to prove their theories, it was necessary to explicate methods of research that were effectual, ethical and would supply a solid foundation for future personality research.Although both the clinical and experimental methods of personality research have lent themselves to our present twenty-four hours apprehension of the human mind and personality, each has done so in immensely different ways. Freud and his co-workers, who pioneered the clinical research method, chose to detect their clients in an up stopping point and personal manner. A great trade of their research findings came from interviews with psychologically disturbed patients. Personality psychologists who opt for the clinical method of research regard their work as both a method of garnering information and proving hypothesis every bit good as an chance to supply therapy and promote healing. Therefore, the clinical method is really individual oriented and allows for a more intimate survey of the single personality.Proponents of the experimental method are every bit every bit dedicated to their methods of research. Not unlike clinical research workers, experimental research workers regard their methods as the best manner of garnering information to back up hypothesis sing personality. Although their methods are non as up stopping point and personal as those who study utilizing the clinical method, they are surely valuable. Experimental research is frequently regarded as the best signifier of research, due to its rigorous attachment to stiff research guidelines. Although neither of these two methods are infallible, each has its ain virtues and ruins. In order to be best able to review these methods one must hold a general cognition of each method, and an apprehension of what has allowed them their remaining power in the field of psychological research. The Clinical Research MethodThe clinical method of personality research developed literally at the patient? s bedside. During this clip in the life of psychoanalytic research, the topics were normally afflicted with one type of psychotic upset or another. This bedside attack to analysis allowed for the head-shrinker or psychologist to detect the patient in their most natural milieus. It besides allowed the patient the freedom to speak and move without suppression. With this freedom to talk openly, the healer and patient were able to set up a professional relationship built on a common trust. This trust enabled the patient to open up and get down the psychological healing procedure while it allowed the healer the chance to analyze him or her as a alone human being.This regard of individualism is portion of what makes the clinical attack successful. The single attack allows for an highly in depth analysis of the person. Unfortunately, it is besides frequently considered to be the largest ruin of the clinical method. Each individual has a alone history, frame of mention, and province of head and this really individualized survey of one person is non needfully declarative of the state of affairs of many others. In every bit much as this individualistic attack allows for a great trade of hypothesis formation, it does non needfully let for the chance to corroborate or rebut the initial supposition.Clinical research is qualitative research. It is more flexible in its manner and is more intense and less formal than the experimental method. The aim of qualitative research is to develop theories and refine constructs. Clinical research workers focus on persons or little groups in a natural and relaxed ambiance, unlike experimental research workers who focus on larger groups, while commanding certain variables. The healer, from his or her ain observation may happen similarities between persons experiences, and be able to organize a hypothesis sing the cause of these similarities.Clinical healers feel that we can merely genuinely understand a personality by analyzing it through the clinical method. Their R

eason for claiming this is due to their belief that each individual person is unique. They believe that personality is the sum of one?s life experience. Therefore, to genuinely understand personality, one must first understand the person, their experiences, values, and beliefs. In order to do so, the patient must be observed in as natural a situation as possible. That is not to say that a clinical setting is a ?natural? environment, but that the patient will be able to act more naturally, speak more openly and behave more freely than if subjected to deliberate manipulation of variables on the part of the researcher.Experimental Research MethodThe name Pavlov is synonymous with the experimental method. Pavlov?s experiments with animals using the conditioned response and unconditioned stimuli system became a cornerstone for laboratory research on animals and humans alike. The experimental method, because of its adherence to strict protocol, is often thought to be the best way with which to gather and measure research data.Experimental research employs the belief that the scientific method of research is the sole source of true knowledge, because of its high level of replicability. For example, their findings may be tested and re-tested with the same outcome due to the inflexibility of the scientific method. Experimental research is qualitative research. Qualitative research tests theories and hypothesis, looking for measurable data to determine whether or not a specific cause creates a specific effect. Unlike its counterpart, experimental research is structured and formal. It does not leave room, as does clinical research, for evolving investigation. Rather, it focuses on a specific trait or behaviour, and attempts to find statistical similarities among a larger, more controlled group of people to explain that trait or behaviour.In ContrastExperimental methods of research are better able to provide us with a generalized view of distinct areas of personality. For instance, experimental research performs testing on large cross-section groups of people with diversified backgrounds. The researchers have the ability to control certain variable such as the type or amount of medication that a group receives. They are then able to decipher whether or not that variable affects the group, to what degree it affects the group and how, if at all, it this information affects the study of personality.Some would argue that experimental research is free of the potential emotional bias, on the part of the researcher, that the clinical method may be subject to. However, one could also argue that the experimental method is not without its own faults, prejudices and biases. An example of this would be the difficulty in manipulating variables such as emotion. While the clinical method is superior for hypothesis formulation, the experimental method is better able to test them. While the clinical method is superior for analyzing individual cases, the experimental method is better able to generalize these findings and formulate and test theories that apply more universally. The clinical method is preferred for treatment purposes, while the experimental method is superior at obtaining reproducible data.The greatest drawback of the experimental method is that it is virtually impossible to measure the points and issues that are of importance to personality psychologists. Things such as love, anger and disappointment are difficult to chart and even more difficult, if at all possible, to control. The experimental method lacks the detail offered by the clinical method.The clinical method?s disadvantages include trying to generalize the data from one case to apply it to all cases. Also, because of the lack of the rigid controls, the clinical method is more likely than the experimental method to be influenced by the subjective expectations of the researcher.In conclusion, it seems evident that these two research methods are both competing and complimentary. There will be times when one of the two methods will be preferred over the other. However, the data gathered by each is also valuable for future research by the other. As it progresses, the study of human personality may one day be able to develop a method that will incorporate both the clinical and the experimental methods, providing us with a research tool that would be both scientifically valid and personal in nature.