Personality is an challenging constituent in psychological science vital for the perceptual experience of human existences. Understanding and specifying personality has proven to be a hard undertaking. It is so complex. in fact. that no individual theory can adequately specify it. If one was to inquire an ordinary person to make so. some of the most common replies might be “a person’s characteristics” or “the feeling ( s ) one makes on others” . Personality Theorists on the other manus position personality as the kernel of the individual. the individual’s true interior nature ( Rathus. 2004 ) . Harmonizing to Carver and Scheier ( 2000 ) . “Personality is a dynamic organisation. inside the individual. of psychophysical systems that create a person’s characteristic forms of behavior. ideas. and feelings” ( p. 5 ) . For this assignment the premises of the Social-Cognitive and Humanist theoretical paradigms of personality will be applied to measure the personality of the instance survey. Myesha.
It will besides discourse personality tests- methods/instruments. used to mensurate whether people are sad. sword lily or bad and how people with certain personality traits respond to life’s demand. Before one can get down to understand and measure this individual’s personality. it is of import to briefly reexamine the Social-Cognitive and Humanist theories of personality with their several theoreticians such as Albert Bandura and for the Humanistic attack. Carl Rogers. Harmonizing to Passer & A ; Smith ( 2007 ) . societal cognitive theory is a position that was developed by Albert Bandura. It “combines the behavioral and cognitive positions into an attack to personality that stresses the interaction of a believing human with a societal environment that provides larning experiences” ( p. 467 ) . It is proposed that an individual’s ideas and actions originate in the societal universe and there is the capacity for ego ordinance and to prosecute in active cognitive procedures ( Bandura. 1999 ) .
The humanistic or phenomenological theories of personality position worlds as innately good. Emphasis is placed on single experiences. relationships and ways of understanding the universe. Human nature includes a natural thrust towards personal growing. We as worlds have the ability to take what we do irrespective of environment and worlds are reasonably much witting existences. We are non controlled by unconscious demands and struggles ( Engler. 2008 ) . Harmonizing to Rogers ( 1951 ) persons possess the unconditioned ability to cognize what is of import to them. what is indispensable for a more fulfilling life. This is known as an Organismic Valuing Process. Myesha demonstrated this as she wanted to analyze Literatures in English. while her female parent wanted her to follow in her stepfather’s footfalls and survey Law alternatively. Rogers would hold stated at this point that Myesha went against her Organismal Valuing Process and conformed to her mother’s wants by analyzing Law.
When important others in an individual’s universe. ( in Myesha’s instance ; her parents ) . supply positive respect that is conditional. instead than unconditioned. the single introjects the coveted values. doing them 1s ain. therefore they get “conditions of worth” ( Engler. 2008 ) . As a consequence. the ego construct becomes based on these criterions of value. instead than on the organismal rating. Harmonizing to Bandura ( 1978 ) . while measuring an individual’s behaviour. there are three interactive procedures to see ; the individual. the individual’s behavior and the environmental scene. These factors all operate as meshing determiners of each other and “it is mostly through their actions that people produce the environmental conditions that affect their behaviour in a mutual fashion” ( Funder & A ; Ozer. 2001. p. 461 ) ( see Appendix 1 ) . This procedure involves a triadic mutual interaction instead than a dyadic conjoint or a dyadic bidirectional 1 ( Schultz & A ; Schultz. 2008 ) .
For case Myesha rapidly realized that Law was non for her. She considered dropping out of the University as she had gotten involved with a spoken word group around this clip. As a consequence. her stepfather threatened to halt back uping her if she dropped out and this placed a strain on household relationships. These are all factors of cause and consequence. which are act uponing each other. Bandura views Myesha as an agentic operator in her life. He would believe that she has the capableness to deliberately do things go on by her actions and that she is non an “onlooking host of internal mechanisms orchestrated by environmental events” ( Bandura. 2001. p. 2 ) . Persons are animate agents of experiences instead than merely undergoers of experience. The centripetal motor and intellectual systems are tools people use to carry through the undertakings and ends that give significance and way in their lives ( Harre & A ; Gillet 1994 ) .
Carl Rogers besides agrees to some grade with Bandura. in the belief that the environment besides affects us and the people in our environment find what our behaviour will be like ( Pervin. Cervone & A ; John. 2005 ) . He besides believes that her experience in the spoken word group can hold an impact on her personal growing and single experiences. The belief is that Myesha’s experiences are alone. and that her perceptual experience of the universe is critical to understanding and accomplishing a peculiar behaviour that would be indistinguishable to her going a self-actualized person ( Gladding. 2004 ; Engler. 2008 ) . Social cognitive theory maintains that most human behavior is self-regulated. Through cumulative direct and vicarious experience. people develop public presentation criterions that they use to measure their ain behavior. Almost invariably the individual compares what he or she does in a state of affairs with some public presentation criterion ( Schultz & A ; Schultz. 2008 ) .
Harmonizing to Bandura ( 1974 ) . these criterions are prescribed by socialisation agents and parents who define the behavior worthy of wages. Responses from these persons are either negative or positive based on the valued degrees. For illustration. if public presentation is achieved or exceeds the criterions. an individual’s parents may respond in a positive mode towards the kid. This kid will see intrinsic support. On the other manus if public presentation falls short of a criterion. the individual experiences intrinsic penalty. as a consequence of the negative reaction exhibited by one’s parents. societal agents or 1s self ( Hergenhan & A ; Olson. 1999 ) . Although Myesha seemed to be able to pull off her public presentation in the Law programme. her determination non to go to her category presentation may be viewed as a signifier of intrinsic penalty.
Bandura and Kupers ( 1964 ) for illustration. found that kids. exposed to theoretical accounts who set high public presentation criterions. reinforced themselves merely for superior public presentation. whereas kids. exposed to theoretical accounts accepting minimum public presentation criterions. reinforced themselves for minimum public presentation. It would be expected so that relevant people in a child’s life. for case parents. siblings and equals. would hold a profound influence on the development of a child’s public presentation criterions. We see that Myesha’s success as a consecutive ‘A’ pupil throughout primary school transitioned to a worsening public presentation upon come ining secondary school. Additionally. we need to see her household relationship as a conducive factor. At this clip. her brother was considered the front-runner by her female parent and stepfather.
Additionally. public presentation criterions must be realistic. In other words. if they are excessively indulgent. they will be excessively easy met. and small. if any. self-reinforcement will ensue from executing in conformity with them ( Bandura 1974 ) . If they are excessively rigorous. one will see defeat or worse. In Myesha’s instance. her stepfather threatened to retreat fiscal support if she dropped out of the Law programme and this farther caused their relationship to go labored. Her brother’s attitude was negative and her female parent became down. Bandura ( 1986 ) says. “In its more utmost signifiers. rough criterions for self-evaluation give rise to depressive reactions. chronic disheartenment. feelings of ineptitude. and deficiency of purposefulness” . Harmonizing to Hergenhan and Olson ( 1999 ) . Bandura observed among the mechanisms of personal bureau. none is more cardinal or permeant than people’s beliefs about their capablenesss to exert control over events that affect their lives.
Self-efficacy refers to what a individual is really capable of making. that is. belief in one’s capablenesss to form and put to death the classs of action required to pull off prospective state of affairss ( Bandura. 1994 ) . This is known as perceived ego efficaciousness ( Bandura. in imperativeness. p. 2 ) . Harmonizing to Pajares ( 1996 ) . these beliefs of personal competency consequence behavior in several ways as they influence the picks persons make and the classs of action they pursue ( 544 ) . Persons engage in undertakings in which they feel competent and confident and avoid those in which they do non. This was exhibited by Myesha with her spoken word group going really popular on the local scene. At this point. harmonizing to Bandura. Myesha has a high ego regard and a high ego efficaciousness. as she enjoys executing with her group ( Pervin et al. . 2005 ) .
In contrast. she considers dropping out of the Law programme. as it is something that she does non bask. but is still capable of making. She knew the stuff for her presentation. but Myesha still skipped it. In making so. she exhibited a high ego regard. because she knew the work and yet at the same clip. she possessed a low sense of ego efficaciousness. as she was unable to accomplish a high class on the presentation as she found it hard to believe about it. Rogers ( as cited in Barone. Hersen. Vincent & A ; Hasselt. 2004 ) stated. an being maps to keep consistence among self perceptual experiences and congruity between perceptual experiences of the ego and experiences.
Harmonizing to Lecky ( as cited in Swann. Griffin. Predmore & A ; Gaines. 1987 ) . ego constructs are of import for endurance because they enable persons to foretell and command the nature of societal world. Thus “individuals are hence motivated to continue their ego positions which they do by thought and behaving in ways that perpetuate their constructs of self” which was demonstrated by Myesha when she skipped the presentation ( Swann. Griffin. Predmore & A ; Gaines. 1987. p. 881 ) .
Rogers provinces nevertheless that if Myesha continues to take part in the spoken word group she is more likely to accomplish her “ideal self” in understanding with the consequence shown from Bandura’s High self efficaciousness ( Friedman & A ; Schustack. 2008 ) . The humanistic or phenomenological. theories of personality suggest that she should hold a positive and optimistic position of her behavior and she should take life into her ain custodies and halt making jurisprudence which is doing her unhappy. She should go on being involved with her spoken word group which she is successful at. Then being able to finance herself in the grade she wants to make as she is old plenty to make so ( Schultz & A ; Schultz. 2008 ) . Harmonizing to Pervin et Al. ( 2005 ) . “Bandura believes that societal and economic conditions influence individual’s beliefs about their ability to act upon events” ( p. 419 ) .
In the instance survey Myesha’s emotional ties to her household along with her measure father endangering to retreat his fiscal support led her to go on with the Law programme. In contrast Rogers ( as cited in Kahn & A ; Rachman. 2000 ) . positions Myesha’s determination to go on with the Law programme as a demand for positive respect. which is credence. peace and fiscal support from her household. Myesha’s determination is besides an indicant that the conditions of worth still exists. However based on Roger’s conditional positive respect. she is flexing herself out of form to delight her household ( Schultz & A ; Schultz. 2008 ) . Experiences in conformity with these conditions are perceived and symbolized accurately in consciousness. while those that are non are denied and distorted into consciousness. which may take to incongruence between the ego as perceived and the existent experience of the person. besides ensuing in possible tenseness. confusion and maladaptive behavior ( Pervin. Cervone & A ; John. 2005 ) .
These said experiences can be perceived as threatening by an being without witting consciousness. using a procedure known as subception. which is a signifier of favoritism without consciousness that can ensue in anxiousness. This was displayed when Myesha thrashed in bed. perspiration and her bosom thumping the dark before she was to make the presentation ( Barone et al. . 2004 ) . Carl Roger proposed that Myesha is populating in the here and now as she is involved with the spoken word group which she enjoys. This is what he calls experiential life. which is on the footing that the present is the lone world that one has.
Social cognitive theory disagrees with this impression in that “a primary determiner in an individual’s actions and emotions is in 1s outlooks about the future” ( Pervin et al. . 2005. p. 425 ) . Organisms possess anticipations sing subjects such as behaviors of others. the wagess or penalties that may follow a certain type of behavior. or an indvidual’s ability to manage emphasis and challenges. It is this system of ideas about the hereafter that constitutes the person’s outlooks. In the instance of Myesha. she felt an immediate sense of alleviation when she played hooky player and did non take portion in the presentation. she besides felt guilty and worried over the effects of her failure ( Pervin et al. . 2005 ) .
Recommended Instruments to measure Myesha’s personality When one speaks of personality assignment in psychological science. activities include the diagnosing of mental unwellness. anticipation of behavior. measuring of unconscious procedures and quantification of interpersonal manners and inclinations. Although all of these descriptions may be true for different clinicians working with assorted client groups. this listing may non accurately capture the full scope of modern personality appraisal. Personality appraisal therefore is a complex clinical endeavor where the tools of appraisal are used in concert with informations from mentioning suppliers. such as. clients. households. schools. tribunals and other influential beginnings ( ) .
In order to measure Myesha’s personality. we should briefly expression at her sensed self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as a person’s beliefs about their capablenesss to bring forth designated degrees of public presentation that exercising influence over events that affect their lives. Self-efficacy beliefs find how people feel. believe. actuate themselves and act. Such beliefs produce these diverse effects through four major procedures ( Betz. Klein & A ; Taylor. 1996 ) . They include cognitive. motivational. affectional and choice procedures. We see that Myesha’s battle to take a calling. has affect on her self-efficacy. Therefore. it is suggested that we measure her personality utilizing the ‘Career Decision Self-Efficacy Scale’ ( CDSE ) . The CDMSE is a well-developed concept. Hackett and Betz ( 1981 ) . were the first to use Bandura’s ( 1977 ) propositions about self-efficacy to career behavior in a seminal survey of women’s calling development.
They demonstrated that calling determinations. accomplishments and accommodation behaviors were capable to the influence of self-efficacy beliefs in both work forces and adult females. Taylor and Betz ( 1983 ) developed the Career Decision-making Self-efficacy ( CDMSE ) graduated table to mensurate these self-efficacy outlooks. in footings of end choice. occupational information. job work outing. planning. and self-appraisal. In the procedure. Taylor and Betz demonstrated that participants with lower degrees of efficaciousness for decision-making were besides more open. Another instrument that will be used to measure Myesha’s personality is the Q-Sort. The Q-Sort is a technique used by humanistic theoreticians such as Carl Rogers. to mensurate the ego construct of an person ( Hergenhan and Olson. 1999 ) . The Q-Sort appraisal was developed by Stephenson ( 1953 ) .
This appraisal was used to assist persons to distinguish between the ideal ego and the constructs of the ego. since human existences battle with the constructs of who they truly are as Myesha exhibited in the instance survey ( Barone. Hersen. Vincent & A ; Hasselt. 2004 ) . The Q-Sort consists of a deck of 100 cards. each incorporating reasonably specific characteristic statements within an individual’s personality such as “detail oriented” or “high self-esteem” ( see Appendix 2 ) . Since the single chooses the cards this enables the psychologists carry oning the appraisal to hold some control in the consequences of the appraisal and to happen the beginning of Myesha’s behavior. besides specifying what they want to cognize. The end of this appraisal is to find where a individual is at. comparative to these qualities. at the beginning of intervention and so to re-assess at assorted intervals and at the terminal to find advancement ( Engler. 2008 ) .
As the name indicates. Myesha will hold to screen the cards in conformity to what she believes are her features and put them in classs. This will enable Myesha and the examiner to be able to see the differences and disagreements between the existent and ideal ego every bit good as examine and highlight the degree of ego regard. Meysha’s existent ego will reflect immediate fortunes. experiences and self word picture. while her ideal ego should enable her to associate to the hereafter by puting ends to which she would draw a bead on. instead than ends that others want her to obtain.
This technique is frequently best used on pupils. Myesha is a pupil and this appraisal will bespeak how empathy. conditional positive respect and genuineness have played a function in her personal growing. This will enable the psychologists to assist her to come to some realisation of who she is and how to work towards who she needs to be. These two instruments will let Myesha to hold an apprehension of who she is and this should besides enable her to successfully get by with. or extinguish. her anxiousness as she strives towards her future ends.
Bandura. A. ( 1994 ) . Self-efficacy. Encyclopedia of human behaviour. Academic Press. 4.
Bandura. A. ( 1986 ) . Social foundations of idea and action: A societal cognitive theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura. A. . & A ; Kupers. C. J. ( 1964 ) . Transmission of forms of self-reinforcement through patterning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 69. 1-9 Bandura. A ( 1999 ) . A societal cognitive theory of personality. Retrieved on 12th Feb 2010 hypertext transfer protocol: //www. diethylstilbestrols. emory. edu/mfp/Bandura1999HP. pdf
Bandura. A. ( 2001 ) Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Position. Annual Review of Psychology. 52. 1-26.
Bandura. A. ( in imperativeness ) . Self-efficacy: The exercising of control. New York: Freeman. Bandura. A. ( 1974 ) . The instance of the Mistaken Dependent Variable. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 83 ( 3 ) . 301-303.
Bandura. A. ( 1978 ) . The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism. American
Psychological Association. 33 ( 4 ) . 344 – 358. Barone. F. D. . Hersen. V. . B. V. . & A ; Hasselt. V. ( 2004 ) . Advanced Personality ( 1st Ed ) . Springer. Betz. N. . & A ; Hackett. G. ( 1981 ) . The relationship of career-related self-efficacy outlooks to comprehend calling options in college adult females and work forces. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 28. 399-410. Betz. N. E. . Klein. K. . Taylor. K. M. ( 1996 ) . Evaluation of a short signifier of the Career Decision- Making Self-Efficacy graduated table. Journal of Career Assessment. 4. 47-57. Carver. C. S and Scheier. M. F. ( 2000 ) . Positions on personality ( 4th Ed. ) Allyn and Bacon. Engler. B. ( 2008 ) . Personality Theories ( 8th Ed ) . Wadsworth Publishing. Friedman. S. H. . & A ; Schustack. W. M. ( 2008 ) . Personality Authoritative Theories and Modern Research ( 4th Ed ) . Allyn & A ; Bacon.
Funder. C. D. . & A ; Ozer. J. D. ( 2001 ) . Pieces of The Personality Puzzle ( 2nd Ed ) . Norton and
Gladding. T. S. ( 2000 ) . Guidance: A Comprehensive profession ( 4th Ed ) . Prentice Hall. Inc. Harre . R. . & A ; Gillet. G. ( 1994 ) . The dianoetic head. Thousand Oaks. Calif. : Sage. Hergenhan. B. R. . Olson. M. H. ( 1999 ) . An debut to theories of personality. 5th erectile dysfunction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Pajares. F. ( 1996 ) . Self efficaciousness beliefs in academic scenes. Review of Educational Research. 66 ( 4 ) . 543-578.
Passer. W. M. . & A ; Smith. E. R. ( 2007 ) . Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behavior ( 3rd Ed ) . McGraw Hill.
Pervin. A. L. . Cervone. D. . & A ; toilet. P. O. ( 2005 ) . Personality Theory and Research ( Eds ) . John Wiley.
Rathus. A. S. ( 2004 ) . Psychology Concepts and Connections. New York: Thomson Rogers. C. R. ( 1951 ) . Client-centered therapy: Its current pattern. deductions. and theory.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Schultz. P. D. . & A ; Schultz. E. S. ( 2008 ) . Theories of Persoanlity ( 9th Ed ) . Wadworth Publishing. Swann. B. W. . Griffin. J. J. . Predmore. C. C. . & A ; Gaines. B. ( 1987 ) . The cognitive affect crossfire: When self-consistency confronts self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Taylor. K. . & A ; Betz. N. ( 1983 ) . Applications of ego efficaciousness theory to understanding the intervention of calling indecisiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 22. 63-81.