In the initial stages of personality psychology much of the research carried out was based entirely within the qualitative realm. The usage of interviews, case studies and other research methods that yielded “deep” data were the norm. It wasn’t until a psychologist by the name of Hans Eysenck began to use more quantitative methods to investigate the field that it began to change. This essay will examine Eysenck’s 3 factor theory regarding personality. To do this, an initial description and history of the theory will be provided. Afterward, an explanation regarding how the theory functions will be given. This paper will then attempt to illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of the theory through the usage of Eysenck’s critics and his proponents.
…show more content…
This was most likely due to Eysenck’s research focus being upon the differences that could be made between people rather than their similarities. Indeed his model may be said by some to pigeonhole others into easy categories, his usage of the classical greek temperaments has been cited as evidence of such inclinations. On a different note, Eysenck’s research has by and large had a long history of discounting the effects of the social context upon behavior. Meaning that most of his research was done within the context of a vacuum, something which nowadays is quite frowned upon by many in the psychological community. This is a problem as it disregards the significant influence that social factors, such as gender, class, race etc. can have on an individual’s personality and behavior. In studying such matters in this context there’s a danger in limiting the thinking regarding personality in human behavior to mere mechanistic thought and explanation. Furthermore, another problem as well as a larger problem within trait psychology is that the labels that are created as a result of the usage of such a model have a tendency to reduce the individuals that were evaluated by the model to the psychological labels Eysenck suggested. This treatment of the subject reduces said subject to an object which has led some to …show more content…
Among these is Gray (1981) who used Eysenck’s research further his own theory regarding behavioral arousal. His theory was highly similar to Eysenck’s so much so that one could create an axis and place both Eysenck’s model and Gray’s model on it and still be able to use both. His theory regarding behavior was based on a more behaviorist slant, specifically that of risk versus reward. Gray’s theory and Eysenck’s though similar, functioned at different levels of explanation for the same phenomena with Gray’s offering more of an insight into the neurophysiology regarding behavior as opposed to Eysenck’s broad biological explanation. Furthermore, Eysenck’s model was praised for its robust and clear levels and distinctions of traits and types, something which many theories even today seem to lack in that they overlap between their respective categories (Costa & McCrae 1986). Finally, despite the strong opinions in modern times regarding the experimental methods usage in psychology, it cannot be denied that Eysenck’s model allowed for clear and testable hypotheses to be developed and used in subsequent
This was most likely due to Eysenck’s research focus being upon the differences that could be made between people rather than their similarities. Indeed his model may be said by some to pigeonhole others into easy categories, his usage of the classical greek temperaments has been cited as evidence of such inclinations. On a different note, Eysenck’s research has by and large had a long history of discounting the effects of the social context upon behavior. Meaning that most of his research was done within the context of a vacuum, something which nowadays is quite frowned upon by many in the psychological community. This is a problem as it disregards the significant influence that social factors, such as gender, class, race etc. can have on an individual’s personality and behavior. In studying such matters in this context there’s a danger in limiting the thinking regarding personality in human behavior to mere mechanistic thought and explanation. Furthermore, another problem as well as a larger problem within trait psychology is that the labels that are created as a result of the usage of such a model have a tendency to reduce the individuals that were evaluated by the model to the psychological labels Eysenck suggested. This treatment of the subject reduces said subject to an object which has led some to …show more content…
Among these is Gray (1981) who used Eysenck’s research further his own theory regarding behavioral arousal. His theory was highly similar to Eysenck’s so much so that one could create an axis and place both Eysenck’s model and Gray’s model on it and still be able to use both. His theory regarding behavior was based on a more behaviorist slant, specifically that of risk versus reward. Gray’s theory and Eysenck’s though similar, functioned at different levels of explanation for the same phenomena with Gray’s offering more of an insight into the neurophysiology regarding behavior as opposed to Eysenck’s broad biological explanation. Furthermore, Eysenck’s model was praised for its robust and clear levels and distinctions of traits and types, something which many theories even today seem to lack in that they overlap between their respective categories (Costa & McCrae 1986). Finally, despite the strong opinions in modern times regarding the experimental methods usage in psychology, it cannot be denied that Eysenck’s model allowed for clear and testable hypotheses to be developed and used in subsequent