psyc320 p5 ip theories of personality

Running Head: PERSONALITY THEORIES: APPLICATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE 1

Theories of Personality: Applications in the Workplace

Cherilyn Formanek

Colorado Technical University Online

PSYC320-1203A-01

THEORIES OF PERSONALITY 2

Theories of Personality: Applications in the Workplace

Introduction

Within every organizational workplace environment there are employees, individuals

with distinct personalities and a need to understand how individuals interact with one another

(American Psychological Association, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, Oliver,

Potter & Gosling, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). But what constitutes individual

personality (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex Publishers

LLC, 1969)? Within the field of psychology there are several approaches regarding theories of

personality; some theories include personality development and attempt to explain personality in

terms of behavior and learning but there is no strict definition of the term personality, not even

within each paradigm (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex

Publishers LLC, 1969). The purpose of this paper is to offer an overview of the paradigms;

introduce leading theorists; offer a broad view of personality, its flexibility regarding change and

offer applications and recommendations on effective workplace interactions (APA, 2003; Olson

& Hergenhahn, 2011; Srivastava, et al, 2003; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969).

I. Understanding Personality: Impact and Implications on Personality

Characteristics

The concept of personality has defied attempts by leading theorists to provide one single

agreed upon by all definition (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008;

Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). Theorists have tended to

provide limited definitions in accordance to the paradigm and their own theories of personality

(Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). That environment, culture, biological factors and temperament


play a part in shaping personality in individuals is undisputed in terms of research studies; by

how much can vary by the paradigm approach and methods of research (Dowbiggin, 2009;

Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011;

Silver, 2009). Most theorists agree that personality is unique and dynamic; that there is a level of

consistency and stability over time (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron & Prinstein,

2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009). Yet there is evidence

of fluidity in terms of personality change as individuals’ age; make personal choices in life

experiences, and seek opportunities for learning (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Heilbron &

Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Silver, 2009).

Key to understanding the impact and implications on characteristics of personality is to

understand that an early focus of the field of psychology involved the study of unhealthy

individuals; personality development in children; and a study of non-human subjects with a

tendency to over-generalize to human populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Later theorists

have attempted to correct these issues by focusing on a study of healthy, adult, human

populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Olson and Hergenhahn, theorists have

approached the study of personality in accordance to the focus of their schools of thought within

the field of psychology; or paradigms (p. 2). These paradigms are psychoanalysis; neo-

psychoanalytic; trait; behavioral-cognitive learning; evolutionary and existential-humanistic

paradigms each with a focus on environment; culture; biology; behavior; cognitive; and

psychological factors often in differing degrees and with exclusions in terms of the factors

(Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). To understand personality one must understand the paradigms; to

understand the paradigms one must understand the theories of personality that shape the

paradigms (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).


According to Olson and Hergenhahn, personality cannot be understood or explained by

any one paradigm or theorist (p. 14-15). The theories vary in terms of their completeness; often

the same theory can be criticized for being both too detailed in some aspects and too vague in

others (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Some theories lend themselves to the generating of research

questions and others do not (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Within the field of psychology the

validity of a theory does not rest on how well it may explain personality logically, but on how

many research questions it can generate for empirical testing (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

It is through the process of generating research questions and testing a theory’s

predictive nature on personality that scientific rigor is established (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

For this reason one should consider the field of psychology as being engaged in a process of

dialogue; of ideas of what personality is and how it can be predicted if at all (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). No theory has been found so rigorously sound as to be able to establish itself

over all other theories; in a way understanding personality is like putting together pieces of a

jigsaw puzzle (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). However the theories have provided useful

applications to society and organizations that should not be ignored (Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011).

II. The Major Paradigms and Theories of Personality

The Psychoanalytic Paradigm: Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung

The key themes of the psychoanalytic paradigm: the principle theorists of the

psychoanalytic paradigm are Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011). Key themes they share are an emphasis on the unconscious in the context of the id; ego;

and superego (Jung substitutes the collective unconscious for the id) (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Each theorized on the psychic energy behind mental processes though those


processes radically differ in description (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud saw

these as biologically inherited processes based on causality; the libido functioning through the

pleasure principle; the ego through the reality principle and the death instinct through the

nirvana principle (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung redefined the libido as a

general life energy directing individuals’ teologically and causally; and conscious and

unconscious states working through the principles of entropy, opposites, and equivalence

(Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Freud and Jung also share an emphasis on dream analysis and word association to

uncover the content of the unconscious but differ on interpretation (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes dream content and word association uncovers repressed

memories relating to fixations on the psychosexual stages of development and the oedipal

complex (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung believes the content represents the

amount of psychic energy devoted to complexes (redefining these as clusters of associated

thoughts) and hints at genetic memories of the collective unconscious (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). For both Freud and Jung personality was considered consistent over time

(Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Personality components in the psychoanalytic paradigm: To Freud the components of

personality consist of the unconscious, preconscious and conscious; the id; the ego; and

superego; the id being unconscious and the ego and superego being conscious and preconscious

(Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud believes personality is the result of heredity;

development according to the psychosexual stages and the oedipal complex; is focused on causal

factors; is preoccupied with biologically driven impulses for physiological needs; driven

primarily by the id but controlled by the ego and superego (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn,


2011). Freud believes individuals could and would repress negative memories and associations;

regress to earlier failed developments at the psychosexual stages of development and employ ego

defense mechanisms as a means of coping with problems (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011). Freud believes that individuals indicate repression of negative experiences through

resistance due to the pleasure principle; seeking pleasure and avoiding pain which accounts for

ego defense mechanisms (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud is pessimistic about

human nature while Jung is optimistic (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

To Jung the personality consists of the ego, superego and collective unconscious; the ego

is conscious, the collective unconscious is unconscious, the preconscious is both; is the result of

heredity and environment; is focused on causal and teological reasoning; is driven by the

principles of opposites, entropy and equivalence; that libido was less a sex drive and more a life

drive and that archetypes, complexes and synchronicity play a role in personality development

(Boeree, 2006; Donati, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung’s components of personality

also include archetypes in a spiritual context such as persona; the self; animus and anima; and

the shadow whereas Freud’s theories explain these elements of personality in the context of

biology, id instincts, and sexual development (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung

believes that individuals could repress negative experiences and that some memories are genetic

memories in the collective unconscious (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung places

an emphasis on attitudes and thinking functions; introversion and extroversion; thinking; feeling;

intuiting and sensing with thinking and feeling considered rational and intuiting and sensing

considered irrational (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Introversion is the focus of

attention turned inward; extroversion was the focus of attention turned outward and this is where


the principle of opposites come into play; when one is thinking one is not feeling; when one is

feeling one is not thinking (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The strengths and weaknesses of the psychoanalytic paradigm: Of all of the personality

theories, Freud’s have been among the most tested; while Jung’s theories have not been as tested

as Freud’s, what has been tested has proven sound on empirical evidence (Boeree, 2006; Olson

& Hergenhahn, 2011). The theories emphasize the relevancy of unconscious mental states on

both personality and behavior, particularly on topics such as aggression and anxiety (Boeree,

2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Both theories describe and explain elements of personality

such as ego defense mechanisms (Freud); conflicts between conscious and unconscious mental

states (Freud and Jung); complexes and attitudes such as extroversion and introversion (Jung); an

explanation of development of religious thought (Freud) and the importance of religious and

spiritual beliefs relative to personality (Jung) (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Additional strengths of Jung’s theory are a focus on teleology, a focus on the importance of self-

realization; and a reinterpretation of Freud’s libido as a more generalized life drive (Boeree,

2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The weaknesses of the psychoanalytic paradigm are: the theories are difficult to falsify;

some elements of the theories defy empirical testing (Freud and Jung) (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud and Jung focus on the study of unhealthy personalities (Boeree, 2006;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud may have been too subjective in analysis and interpretation

of patient reports; took too much credit for the ideas of others; and overemphasized libido as a

sex drive in child development (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Freud’s theory is

criticized for a bias against women (anatomy is destiny); and a dark and pessimistic view of both

religion and human nature (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Jung’s theories place too


much emphasis on religious and spiritual beliefs; and his theories are considered too

contradictory, inconsistent and mystical (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The Neo-Analytic (or Sociocultural) Paradigm: Alfred Adler, Karen Horney and Erik

Erikson

Key themes of the neo-analytic paradigm: The Neo-Analytic theorists share an emphasis

on alternative explanations of child and human development; a focus on the conscious mental

state; consider personality fairly consistent over time; emphasize the present and future rather

than the past (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Differences between men and women

are a result of cultural influence rather than biology; parent-child relationships are highly

influential on personality development and therefore emphasize nurture over nature as an

influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The neo-analytic theorists

are more optimistic about human nature; consider causality and teological influences as valid;

minimize unconscious influences on personality relative to the psychoanalytic paradigm (Boeree,

2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The neo-analytic theorists view religion in varying degrees

as part of the sociocultural influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011;

Silver, 2009). The neo-analytic paradigm theorists view conflicts in early development as being

reversible to a greater extent than did Freud (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Personality components in the neo-analytic paradigm: Like Jung, Adler and Horney

were initially students of Freud and Erikson was an admirer of Freud trained by his daughter

Anna (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Their theories differ from Freud’s in a similar

fashion to Jung’s; agreeing and disagreeing on different points; Adler, Horney and Erikson

disagree on the focus and orientation on unconscious mental states; emphasis on an individual’s

past; on sexuality as a drive in children; and in Erikson’s case his personality development


theory spans the entire human lifetime (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). While each

agree that personality is relatively consistent over time; these theorists are more optimistic

regarding the ability to change personality from an unhealthy state to a healthy state; use word

association and dream analysis in partnership with clients and disagree with the use of

transference as a healthy method of treatment (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Each

of the neo-analytic theorists consider pathology as resulting from conflicts in early childhood

that could be overcome; specifically inferiority, aggression, and anxiety (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Adler emphasizes social interest as an indicator of a healthy mental state

while Horney emphasizes present or future orientation in thinking as healthy and a focus on the

past as unhealthy (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The key components of Adler’s theory are a single motivating drive called the striving for

perfection drive; feelings of inferiority and inferiority complexes, masculine protest (for both

genders), development of lifestyle concepts such as normal, mistaken or negative, personality

types and influence of birth order on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The key components of Horney’s theory center on ten neurotic needs and anxiety as resulting

from a focus on one need to the exclusion of others; on coping strategies; on the relationship

between basic evil, basic aggression and basic anxiety; and on self-realization in healthy

individuals (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Erikson’s theory follows Freud’s

psychosexual theory of development on basic age and logical time progression but differs by

placing an emphasis on social influences rather than sexual influences (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011) Erikson’s theory is called the psychosocial theory of development for this

reason and progresses beyond childhood throughout the human lifetime (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Erikson theorizes that progression through the stages of development could


be positive or negative and were also reversible positively or negatively later in life (Boeree,


The strengths and weaknesses of the neo-analytic paradigm: Adler, Erikson and to

lesser extent in terms of influence for Horney, they are widely influential and stress the relevance

of social and cultural influence on personality (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Horney’s theory contributes to women’s psychology; self-analysis has proven useful in

application; her theory effectively synthesizes the theories of Freud, Jung and Adler; and there is

indirect empirical support for her theory (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Erikson’s

theory provides a framework of reference on human development from birth to death and

provides insight on cultural differences in normative development (Boeree, 2006; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of Adler’s theory are difficulty in testing due to the

subjective nature of operational definitions; they are too simplistic; and difficult to falsify

(Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Horney’s theories are criticized for an over-focus

on unhealthy individuals; minimal direct empirical evidence and lack of originality for

synthesizing ideas from Freud; Jung and Adler even though doing so is also considered quite

original (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of Erikson’s theory are

difficulties in empirical testing; overemphasis of support for social institutions, conformity and

status quo; a too optimistic view of human nature that fails to account for aggression and

violence; overemphasis of Erikson’s moral views; and failure to accurately credit influences on

the development of his personality theory (Boeree, 2006; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The Trait Paradigm: Gordon Allport, Raymond B Cattell and Hans J. Eysenck

Key themes of the Trait Paradigm: Trait theory attempts to describe and explain human

behavior and cognitive processes as the result of characteristics, called traits, which develop in


clusters and grant personality a measure of consistency and predictability over time (Furnham &

Petrides, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to trait theory, traits can be seen and

measured in individual behavior and mental states that represent the causes of the behavior

(Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Traits vary in strength or weakness within individual personalities and account for a wide

variation in human behavior (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). How traits develop; cluster together; and manifest in behavior vary

in individual theoretical descriptions (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com,

2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). How much traits may account for personality consistency

and stability over time vary according to the individual theorist (Furnham & Petrides, 2003;

Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Consistent across theoretical views is that the total number of personality traits may never

be known; but the more that is known; the greater the degree of accurately predicting human

behavior (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011). Relevant to trait theory are research methods, empirical testing and application of

research; Gordon Allport relies on research methods of a more qualitative nature; such as study

of personal documents; while Raymond B. Cattell and Hans J. Eysenck rely on quantitative

measures such as personality inventories and factor analysis (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Olson

& Hergenhahn, 2011). Consistent across theorists is that personality derives from both biological

factors and environmental influence (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com,

2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Empirical testing within Trait theory is more rigorous in

terms of Cattell’s and Eysenck’s theories and less rigorous in terms of Allport’s theories; Allport

disagrees with generalizing to large populations on the subject of personality (Olson &


Hergenhahn, 2011). All three theorists contribute significantly to the popularity of Trait theory;

the design of personality inventory questionnaires; a large body of research regarding traits and

their influence on personality both in terms of individuals and large groups (Furnham & Petrides,

2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The personality components of the trait paradigm: Allport regards personality as real;

unique; dynamic; and organized; temperament, physique and intelligence are the raw materials

of personality and traits structure the personality in terms of motivation and uniqueness that can

be used by individuals to describe and categorize other individuals by type (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Allport individuals have unique traits called personality

dispositions and traits shared in common with groups, called common traits; he further

distinguishes personality dispositions between cardinal; central (five to ten); and secondary

dispositions (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell and Eysenck both use factor analysis to

determine differences between traits; then each deviate on which traits they stress and how they

are stressed (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell classifies some traits as surface traits and

others as source traits and focuses on source traits which explain overt behavior and then

classifies these as constitutional (genetic), environmental mold (culture influence), ability

(genetic), dynamic (motivation; ergs/biological and metaergs/learned), and temperament

(emotions, also genetic) traits (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Using factor analysis Eysenck

describes three primary, genetically based superfactors he called Extroversion; Neuroticism and

Psychoticism; relating each to level of arousal of the cerebral cortex; and did not emphasize

either intelligence (genetic) or the study of Psychoticism (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The strengths and weaknesses of the trait paradigm: Allport was the first to study traits,

values, influence of rumor and prejudice, and expressive behaviors such as body language and


facial expression; he also demonstrates the usefulness of subjective written documents in

personality analysis (Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Cattell and Eysenck’s theories lend significant scientific rigor to the study of

personality; aid the development of useful tools to measure personality such as questionnaires

and inventories and these tools are implemented in a wide range of applications such as

employment selection; career and relationship counseling; clinical diagnoses and therapy

(Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Managementstudyguide.com, 2012; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Allport’s theory is criticized for lack of scientific rigor; circular logic in describing and

explaining traits; is not a fully developed theory; and does not account for personality

development or unconscious motivations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The theories of Cattell

and Eysenck are criticized for over-generalization to large populations and group averages; too

many subjective elements in their theories; suggesting source traits are physically real; and lack

of focus on individuals within their theories (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Allport, Cattell and

Eysenck are criticized for the view that personality is more stable and consistent than empirical

research studies have found; and for the wide-scale assumption regarding the consistency of

personality due to traits resulting in categorizing individuals in applications of the theory in

various fields (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The Behavioral-Cognitive Learning Paradigm: Skinner, Dollard, Miller, Bandura, Mischel

Key themes of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: on determining how humans

learn; most of the theories agree that learning is based on classical and operant conditioning on

behavior and that how one behaves influences personality (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011). Another key theme in Learning Theory is the impact of structured learning; the more an

individual learns through structured learning the more personality is changed (Dowd, 2004;


Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). In Learning Theory, depending on the theorist; there is a focus on

the relationship between stimulus, response, and the organism; emphasis on biological and

environmental stimuli; and consideration or lack of it for cognitive processes (Dowd, 2004;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Learning theory as a paradigm is influenced by the behavioral

school of thought and there is a heavy emphasis on scientific rigor; quantitative research methods

and generalization to large populations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). A key theme in common to

most learning theorists is that personality is a process involving biological factors, genetics;

environmental and social stimuli; learned behaviors through structured learning and modeling;

with varying degrees of de-emphasis on cognitive processes; mental states or even the existence

of the mind (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The personality components of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: The key

theorists of the behavioral learning theory are: B.F. Skinner; John Dollard and Neal Miller

(Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). According to Skinner personality components are

made up of behaviors learned for survival; stimuli and responses favorable to survival are

learned, retained and repeated while stimuli and responses unfavorable to survival are learned

and avoided (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is learned through classical or operant

conditioning; a process of positive or negative primary and secondary reinforcers linked through

associations between stimuli (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is either responsive or

controlled by that which preceded the behavior or it was operant and controlled by that which

comes after a behavior, there is no personality beyond behavior (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Dollard and Miller are collaborating theorists attempting to merge Freud’s psychoanalytic theory

with Clark Hull’s Drive-Reduction Theory (a Behavioral theory); personality components are the


same as Freud’s personality theory and learning explained by the processes of learning behavior

to reduce biological needs (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Bandura and Mischel developed the social-cognitive theory of learning; and the key

components of personality are the result of learned behaviors in a social and environmental

context as well as cognitive processes (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Key to this

theory is that cognitive processes are the main contributors to behavior; influenced by the

personal characteristics of the individual and situational factors of the environment (Dowd, 2004;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011) Learning takes place by classical and operant conditioning,

structured learning, modeling behavior; thinking processes; individual choice on what is given

attention in the learning process and can be learned through experience or by observation

(Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Behavior is self-regulated; determined by

perception of competency (self-efficacy); and motivated by the perception and expectation of

reward or punishment (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Key components to

personality according to Bandura and Mischel are; cognitive and emotional states influenced by

genetics, environment, social situations and learning (Dowd, 2004; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The strengths and weaknesses of the behavioral-cognitive learning paradigm: The

strength of Skinner’s theory is that it is so controversial it inspires a vast amount of rigorous

empirical research and testing and has been widely found useful in application; particularly

positive and negative reinforcement in behavior modification (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Dollard and Miller contribute theoretical ideas well grounded in empirical research; and a theory

that has withstood scientific rigor (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Bandura and Mischel’s socio-

cognitive theory strengthens the paradigm by being well established on empirical research

specifically with human subjects; recognition of cognitive differences between human and non-


human populations; and emphasis on topics of complex and social relevance (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). The weaknesses of this paradigm are: over-generalization to human

populations from nonhuman population testing on the part of Skinner, Dollard and Miller;

Skinner’s theory fails to explain complex human behaviors and Dollard and Miller’s theory is

considered too simplistic; Skinner’s thoughts regarding cultural engineering raises frightening

questions regarding authority and behavior control (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Dollard and

Miller’s theory is controversial on the issue of how well or how poorly it synthesizes

psychoanalysis with Hull’s Drive Reduction Theory; Bandura and Mischel’s theory is criticized

for being overly critical of psychoanalysis; for claims of human behavior being more

inconsistent than it actually is; suggesting mental events can account for behavior; neglecting

unconscious motivations; conflict; motivation and personality development; finally, failing to be

a unified personality theory (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The Evolutionary Paradigm: David Buss

The key themes of the evolutionary paradigm: The key themes of evolutionary

psychology are a focus on Darwin’s evolutionary theory relative to the structure of the human

brain and adaptive strategies specific to human survival and reproduction; a rejection of Locke’s

theory tabula rasa (personality shaped by experience); human nature is based on evolved

predispositions that manifest dependent on environment, learning, and situation; and that human

nature is shaped by natural and sexual selection (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Evolutionary theory considers the nature versus nurture debate to be false; arguing that it is not a

question of how much is nature and how much is nurture but rather it is both (Halpern, 2008;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Evolutionary theory emphasizes an evolutionary past; the

process of natural and sexual selection; the employment of survival strategies and predispositions


to seek survival within the context of contemporary life (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011). Human behavior is driven by strategies (also called circuits and adaptations) to provide

basic necessities (food, water, shelter); to find a mate and reproduce; and to aid and abet the

survival of others particularly those who share the same genes (Halpern, 2008; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). The evolutionary paradigm is interested in commonalities in behavior and

cognitive processes across cultures and between genders in the effort to trace adaptation in

human nature within the evolutionary process (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The personality components of the evolutionary paradigm: Personality components

begin with genetic predispositions for behaviors such as interest in facial features in infants;

cooperative behaviors (altruism) in family units; aggressive behaviors toward those perceived as

rivals for mates or resources and problem-solving (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

According to the evolutionary paradigm sexual selection for long and short-term mating between

males and females has evolved differences in mating strategies; men and women employ

different strategies designed to attract mates (including deception) according to the desire of a

long or a short term relationship (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Emotions such as

love and jealousy have also evolved to protect mate relationships; and men and women employ

strategies designed to deal with rivals for mates and resources (Halpern, 2008; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Also important are evolutionary processes regarding altruism (kin and

reciprocal); individuals will share resources and make sacrifices to benefit mutual survival

(Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The evolutionary paradigm explains maladaptive

behaviors (dysfunction) as the result of context failure; a response to stimuli that results in

destructive or self-destructive behaviors (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).


The strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm: the strengths of the

evolutionary paradigm are a firm foundation in scientific principles specifically Darwin’s theory

of evolution; connectivity to personality theories from other psychology paradigms; generating

new questions for research study leading to new research findings; and providing an alternative

perspective to the nature versus nurture debate (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The

weaknesses of the paradigm are: accusations of being too creative in explaining evolutionary

scenarios of modern behaviors; engaging in panadaptationism (universal human behaviors as

evolutionary adaptations); for ignoring neuroscience research; and justifying racial and gender

bias status quo (Halpern, 2008; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). However, the author of this paper

agrees that Olson and Hergenhahn have adequately defended the evolutionary paradigm

regarding many of the perceived weaknesses (p. 397). Several research studies are cited

throughout the descriptions of the evolutionary paradigm and lend credibility to the theoretical

ideas of the paradigm; the author of this paper finds it difficult to believe the paradigm’s theorists

ignore neuroscience research or attempt to justify race or gender bias status quo (Halpern, 2008;

Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Furthermore research findings from several non western countries

support theoretical concepts considered as being panadaptationism; this suggests a significant

amount of scientific rigor in research and lack of western cultural bias in the findings (Halpern,


The Existential-Humanistic Paradigm: George Kelly, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow

The key themes of the existential-humanistic paradigm: the key themes of the

existential-humanistic paradigm include a nature and nurture perspective; a wide variance of

theoretical opinions of human nature; existential is known for having a dark, pessimistic view of

human nature while humanistic tends to be overly optimistic (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).


Personality is fairly consistent over time; change is possible; emphasis is on consciousness and

present and future orientations (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The existential-humanistic

paradigm emphasizes sociocultural and environmental influences, cognitive factors, learning and

concepts such as self-actualization (Maslow) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). What drives human

nature and behavior varies according to the theorist; the three most prominent theorists of this

paradigm are George Kelly, Carl Rogers, and Abraham Maslow (other prominent theorists are

Rollo May and Erich Fromm) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Finally, there is an emphasis on the

impact of quality and meaning of life; the theorists share the view that all individuals desire love

and acceptance; attempt to have meaning in their lives; and strive toward an ideal self (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011).

The personality components of the existential-humanistic paradigm: Kelly’s theories

are phenomenological; cognitive; existential and humanistic; involve the study of consciousness;

mental states; emphasize free will and present and future orientation in thinking; are optimistic

on human nature and problem solving ability (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Kelly’s concept of

personality involves constructs (subjective viewpoint structure) and a system of eleven

corollaries that elaborate on constructs; explain how constructs are created, changed or

discontinued in accordance to subjective experience (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Kelly

redefines several terms found in personality theories (guilt; fear; hostility; anxiety); defines

neurotics as bad scientists that make predictions not based on actual experience; and considers

motivation to be a drive all humans are born with (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Roger’s theories

are based on an actualizing tendency and an organismic valuing process that guides individuals

toward or away from experiences based on how well the experience fits the actualizing tendency

(Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers theorizes that individuals live in a subjective reality from


which a sense of self develops; followed by development of a need for positive regard then a

need for positive self regard (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

Rogers explains pathology as an incongruence resulting from the relationship of positive

regard, self regard, and conditions of worth; individuals that do not experience unconditional

positive regard develop a conditional sense of self worth from external perceptions; external

perceptions factor into an individual’s self concept that controls self regard (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). For this reason Rogers emphasizes unconditional positive regard in person-

centered therapy in order to minimize a conditional sense of self worth; bringing an individual

back into congruence with the organismic valuing process and the actualizing tendency (Olson

& Hergenhahn, 2011). Rogers agrees with Bandura and Mischel’s theory of learning; learning

and retention is faster and greater when information is relevant and of interest (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Like Kelly and Rogers, Maslow believes in a motivating process of self

actualization; he did not disagree with psychoanalysis or behaviorism but acknowledges an

over--focus on pathology and over-generalization to human populations from non-human

populations in research (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Maslow focuses on a hierarchy of human

needs ranging from lowest to highest order; from physiological needs to needs for belonging,

self esteem and love and theorizes that once needs are met from bottom to the top self-

actualization can occur (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

The strengths and weaknesses of the existential-humanistic paradigm: the strengths of

the existential-humanistic paradigm are: an optimistic view of human nature (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). Widespread application of theories; for Kelly in industrial-organizational

psychology, career counseling and management development, for Rogers, a new form of therapy

and methods to evaluate the therapeutic process; for Maslow, expanding the domain of


psychology and extensive applied value in general (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Additional

strengths are varying degrees of generativity of research and empirical evidence (Kelly, high

generativity of research, limited empirical evidence; Rogers, high generativity of research and

high empirical evidence; Maslow, some generativity of research and some empirical support for

the hierarchy of human needs and peak experiences) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Weaknesses

of the existential-humanistic paradigm are: an overly-optimistic view of human nature (Kelly,

Rogers and Maslow) (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Criticisms regard generativity of empirical

evidences to support the theories more fully; not addressing all aspects of personality; being too

simplistic (Kelly, Rogers and Maslow); and in the case of Rogers, not giving credit to sources of

his ideas (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011).

III. Applications and Recommendations for the Workplace

From the psychoanalytic and neo-analytic to the behavioral-cognitive learning, trait,

evolutionary and existential-humanistic paradigms there is agreement in part or in whole that

psychological, biological, environmental, and cultural factors have an impact on personality

(Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008;

Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman &

Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Behavior is learned; can be changed by cognitive and learning

processes and can affect change in personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham &

Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell,

2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). What does this

mean for the workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron

& Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009)? Every individual is unique, dynamic; may or


may not be predictable. Genetics, early development, cultural and environmental factors,

interpersonal relationships, education level, personal interests and choice all play a part in

shaping personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron &

Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn,

2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009).

There is no single paradigm or theory that adequately explains everything about

personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein,

2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011;

Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). One can generalize on personality characteristics

and one can study a single individual but there will likely never be a method to accurately

predict human behavior based on personality (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham &

Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell,

2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Nonetheless,

individuals can be taught to change behavior; often a change in behavior can affect a change in



Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). It is better to augment changes in behavior with

cognitive factors regarding behavioral change; this creates a higher likelihood of permanent

change throughout the entire personality, in and out of the workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck,

2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews

& Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009).

The study of personality theories relative to the paradigms helps to clarify why people are

the way they are in general and within society itself (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham


& Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell,

2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The workplace

environment is one of many social environments; social issues such as aggression; prejudice and

bias; the need for resources inside and out of the workplace; a desire for meaning in one’s life;

coping with workplace stress and living up to self perceptions and the expectations of others all

play a part (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein,


Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). How well individuals understand themselves; relate

to others, have an ability to work cooperatively and productively can depend heavily on



Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Essential to the workplace environment is the

ability to either prevent or resolve personality conflict (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008;

Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews &

Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009).

Effective Interactions with Employees of Different Personalities

Research applications of personality theories in the workplace: Research applications of

psychoanalysis and the neo-analytic paradigms are useful to the workplace in consideration of

aspects of personality that deal with anxiety, feelings of inferiority, aggression, ego defense

mechanisms, neuroticism, levels of extroversion and introversion, social interest; and self-

regulation (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein,


Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). Understanding these paradigms can provide insight


into workplace aggression; humor; and coping skills of individual employees and provide new

strategies for detecting and addressing individual behaviors that may be counter-productive in

the workplace environment (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003;

Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews & Campbell, 2009; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The trait, evolutionary,

behavioral-cognitive and learning paradigms offer insights into putting together work teams

likely to be more effective in the workplace; increase competency and self-esteem of individuals;

create opportunities for more challenging work; and modifying problematic behaviors in the

workplace without resorting to termination of employees (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008;

Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Kinman & Jones, 2005; Matthews &

Campbell, 2009; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009). The

existential-humanistic paradigm can offer insight on how to more effectively maintain morale in

the workplace by making work and work relationships more meaningful; combined with

behavioral-cognitive and learning paradigm, behaviors can be more effectively changed for the

better by making better use of reward systems that have real value to employees and the

workplace (Dowbiggin, 2009; Dweck, 2008; Furnham & Petrides, 2003; Heilbron & Prinstein,


Shulman & Hemenover, 2006; Silver, 2009).

Effective use of personality assessments and inventories in the workplace: personality

assessments and inventories can be useful or detrimental to an organization depending on how

they are used particularly in screening potential employees in the hiring process (Berens, 2011;

Daw, 2001). If used for this purpose it is critical that the personality assessment or inventory be

investigated for scientific reliability and validity; human resource personnel should not be


gullible regarding marketing claims on personality assessments or inventories (Berens, 2011;

Daw, 2001). Equally critical is that organizations put such tools in the hands of only highly

qualified individuals; those trained extensively in the personality theories such tests are based on;

trained on administering such tests; interpreting such tests and giving accurate and correct

feedback on results (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Such tests

in the hands of unqualified individuals can be highly detrimental to an organization; wasting

resources and stereotyping employment candidates to such a degree that only certain preferred

personality types are granted jobs; the problem is a lack of correct determination regarding if an

individual truly is or is not the preferred personality type (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers

& Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Furthermore incorrect interpretation of such tests may result in

misplacement of employees in jobs that may not suit their true personality type; resulting in

conflict and counterproductive behavior in the workplace (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001; The Myers

& Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

Well known and available personality assessment tests and inventories: some of the

better known and most widely used tests are the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

(MMPI); the Sixteen Personality Factor Test (16PF); Keirsey Temperament Sorter II; The Big

Five Personality Assessment; the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Berens, 2011; Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.; TypeLogic, n.d.). The MMPI is used

in mental health diagnosis and treatment; in hiring processes for critical job industries such as

law enforcement, public safety and infrastructure (Pearson Education Inc., 2012). The Sixteen

Personality Factor Test or 16PF was developed by Raymond Cattell utilizing both his own

theories and that of Sigmund Freud (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). The Keirsey Temperament

Sorter II; the MBTI; and the Big Five are personality inventories and assessments based on the


personality theories of Carl Jung (Berens, 2011; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.;

TypeLogic, n.d.). Because the MBTI; the Big Five and the Keirsey Temperament Sorter II show

correlations in test results in some research indicating that an individual taking all three tests will

likely show matching results between the three tests (Berens, 2011; The Myers & Briggs

Foundation, n.d. TypeLogic, n.d.).

A closer look at the Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory: the key components of the

MBTI are first as a means of clarifying and applying the personality theories of Carl Jung in a

way that makes sense, encourages individuals to look deeper into their own personalities for self

understanding; and grants a context within which to better understand others around them The

(Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). The MBTI helps individuals understand variation in the way

one looks at the world; externally (extroversion); or internally (introversion); how deeply one

processes information; face value (sensing) or connecting the dots (intuiting) (The Myers &

Briggs Foundation, n.d.). What is most important in decision making; logical consistency

(thinking) or taking people and situations into account (feeling); what is most important to

individuals in terms of structure; quick decisions (judging) or keeping an open mind;

(perceiving) (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). In terms the MBTI’s applications to the

workplace; used correctly this inventory can help an individual determine a career path that best

suits their personality and interests, choose jobs that maximize their personal attributes; and even

indicate areas for further personal and professional development (The Myers & Briggs

Foundation, n.d.). Finally, the MBTI used effectively within the workplace can breed mutual

understanding between individuals; by discussing differences and what they can mean

individuals are able to make use of one another’s attributes for a more cooperative, productive

work environment (The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).


The value of personality assessments and inventories: The greatest value in personality

assessments and inventories are in what individuals can learn about themselves as a result of

taking the tests particularly if the goal is personal development and self understanding (Berens,

2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). For this reason, the author

of this paper would recommend that rather than using them in the hiring process for new

employees; these tests be offered to current employees to promote self understanding and

understanding of others within the workplace (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers

& Briggs Foundation, n.d.). These tests could be used as part of a team-building strategy where

existing employees learn more effective ways of relating to one another and communicating

within the workplace environment (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs

Foundation, n.d.). These tests are also useful for helping individuals make decisions in terms of

academic pursuits and career development (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers &

Briggs Foundation, n.d.). They may also be useful for organizations in terms of personnel

development and matching individuals with more suitable work tasks; an additional benefit is

greater discernment between the results of a test and the individual due to long term interaction

(Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

Recommendations for improving communications and interpersonal relationships

within the workplace: When approaching the hiring process determine the best match between

the job description and work tasks and personality type; do not decide based on what is popularly

considered “most desirable” but on what personality is most effective for the job (Berens, 2011;

Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Do not use personality

assessments in the hiring process unless one has qualified personnel who can distinguish

between a valid and reliable test; can administer the test and interpret the results correctly and


accurately (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Make

use of more than one personality assessment or inventory; compare the results; give feedback,

provide an opportunity for dialogue that can foster further understanding (Berens, 2011; Chen,

2001; Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Use the personality tests with current

employees to foster communications and interpersonal relationships; this can be effective in

giving individuals a means of determining common ground (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001; Daw,

2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.). Capitalize on the opportunity to determine if

individuals within the workplace may be better suited for other job tasks and have a desire to

switch positions that will better suit their personalities and interests (Berens, 2011; Chen, 2001;

Daw, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).

Conclusion

To effectively understand individual personalities and behaviors within the workplace

organizations must first understand there is no single superseding theory of personality (Olson &

Hergenhahn, 2011). There is only a composite view of personality in the form of paradigms;

major personality theorists and their theories (Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Individual

personality is unique; evolving; always becoming; at the same time there is some consistency

over time (APA, 2003; Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011). Some elements of personality can be

observed through behavior; it is affected by and can affect environment; it can be altered through

cognitive processes and education, structured learning; conditioned learning and social learning

(Olson & Hergenhahn, 2011; Sussex Publishers LLC, 1969). While personality within

individuals is not accurately predictable; instruments do exist with which to make assessments

and determine some personality characteristics; how such instruments are used within workplace

environments can be either rewarding to organizations and individuals or detrimental to both


therefore it is critical to make use of them correctly and ethically (Berens, 2011; Daw, 2001;

Chen, 2001; The Myers & Briggs Foundation, n.d.).


References

American Psychological Association (2003). Personality Is Not Set By 30; It Can Change

Throughout Life, Say Researchers. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/05/personality.aspx.

Berens, L. (2011). The InterStrength Group: Personality Assessment-Instruments and Feedback.

Retrieved from

http://www.interstrength.com/content/personality_assesment_instruments_and_feedback/

Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Alfred Adler. Retrieved from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/adler.html.

Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Carl Jung. Retrieved from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/jung.html.

Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Erik Erikson. Retrieved from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Erikson.html

Boeree, C.G. (2009). Personality Theories: Sigmund Freud. Retrieved from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/freud.html.

Boeree, C.G. (2006). Personality Theories: Karen Horney. Retrieved from

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Horney.html.

Chen, C.P. (2001). On exploring meanings: combining humanistic and career psychology

theories in counseling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly (14/4) 317-330. Retrieved

from EBSCOHost.

Daw, J. (2001). Road rage, air rage and now ‘desk rage’: Work stress is leading more people to

engage in counterproductive workplace behaviors. Monitor Staff (32/6). Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug01/deskrage.aspx


Dowbiggin, I. (2009). High Anxieties: The Social Construction of Anxiety Disorders. The

Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (54/7) 429-435. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Dowd, E.T. (2004). Cognition and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychotherapy: Promises and

Advances. Journal of Clinical Psychology (60/4) 415-428. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Dweck, C. (2008). Can Personality Be Changed? The Role of Beliefs in Personality and Change.

Association for Psychological Science (17/6) 391-394. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Furnham, A. & Petrides, K.V. (2003). Trait Emotional Intelligence and Happiness. Social

Behavior and Personality (31/8) 815-824. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Halpern, D.F. (2008). How Much Can Evolutionary Theory Inform the Educational Sciences?

Educational Psychologist (43/4) 203-205. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Heilbron N. & Prinstein, M. (2008). A Review and Reconceptualization of Social Aggression:

Adaptive and Maladaptive Correlates. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev (11) 176-217.

Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Kinman, J & Jones, F. (2005). Lay representations of workplace stress: What do people really

mean when they say they are stressed? Work & Stress (19/2) 101-120. Retrieved from

EBSCOHost.

Managementstudyguide.com (2012). Trait Theory of Leadership. Retrieved from

https://campus.ctuonline.edu.

Matthews, G. & Campbell, S.E. (2009). Sustained performance under overload: personality and

individual differences in stress and coping. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

(10/5) 417-442. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Olson, M. & Hergenhahn (2011). An Introduction to Theories of Personality: eighth edition.

Upper Saddle River, Pearson Prentice Hall. Retrieved from https://campus.ctuonline.edu.


Pearson Education Inc. (2012). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Retrieved from

http://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?

Pid=MMPI-2&Mode=summary

Shulman, T. & Hemenover S. (2006). Is Dispositional Emotional Intelligence Synonymous with

Personality? Self and Identity (5) 147-171. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Silver, H. (2009). Reflections on Alfred Adler: A Social Exclusion Perspective. The Journal of

Individual Psychology (65/4) 319-329. Retrieved from EBSCOHost.

Srivastava, S., Oliver, J.P., Potter, J. & Gosling, S.D. (2003). Development of Personality in

Early and Middle Adulthood: Set Like Plaster or Persistent Change? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology (84/5) 1041-1053. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2003/05/personality.aspx.

Sussex Publishers, LLC (1969). Psychology Today: Second Nature. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/second-nature.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). My MBTI Personality Type: MBTI Basics. Retrieved

from http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). Type Use for Everyday Life-Personality and Careers.

Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/personality-and-

careers/.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation (n.d.). Type Use for Everyday Life-Type in Personal Growth.

Retrieved from http://www.myersbriggs.org/type-use-for-everyday-life/type-in-personal-

growth/.

TypeLogic (n.d.) TypeLogic: BIG 5 and Type. Retrieved from http://typelogic.com/big5.html.

psyc320 p5 ip theories of personality

Recruiting & HR