Compare and contrast two papers, Glazer & Friedman (2009) and De Raad (1998), with regard to the limitations of the method of assessing personality presented in each paper.
Bioenergetic-Analytic Character Typology vs. “The Big Five” and objectively assessing something we can’t see. Humanistic psychology has been influenced by body-orientated approaches to psychotherapy, yet little empirical research has been conducted upon approaches. Bioenergetic-analysis’ historic origins are traced back to the early psychoanalytic work of Reich (1933 / 1980), in which personality and character structure were related to body armouring. An area of research relevant to the association of body armouring and character has been the study of muscle tension patterns …show more content…
Glazer & Friedman (2009) conducted a multi-method approach for examining the bioenergetic-analysis, obtaining data from participants using both bodily and psychological information. Participants amounted to 25 volunteer students given appointments to be photographed wearing swimwear in the research setting, whilst being directed to take eight stress positions used in bioenergetics analysis to show patterns of armouring. Participants were then given the Adjective Check List (ACL) and Bioenergetic Analysis Measure (BAM) in a group setting, whilst the Thermatic Apperception Test (TAT) was administered independently by those not involved in the photography of the sample. Although body and mind are separate entities, and should be evaluated as such, bioenergetics surmises body and mind are functionally identical differing only semantically: what happens bodily affects mental processes; what happens mentally affects physical expression. From this perspective, an individual’s “character”-istic ways of experiencing and expressing life defines individual personality (Glazer & Friedman, 2009). The pioneering work of Allport and Odbert (1936), along with that of Cattell (1943, 1945) identified all relevant distinguishable traits of personality. The five-factor model was suggested by Fiske …show more content…
The participants, as a non-clinical sample, may have been limited to the diversity of the physical traits. The sample was heavily weighted toward women with limited male participation (22 women & 3 men). A more sex-balanced sample would most likely achieve alternative results. In addition to this, replication with a larger sample is warranted as the degree of difference found could have been significantly constrained by the small size of the sample. Despite the influence of bioenergetics analysis on psychotherapeutic approaches, little empirical research has been published upon its effectiveness. There is a possibility that the bioenergetic-analytic diagnostic system may simply not be a highly reliable procedure regardless of method or sample (Glazer & Friedman, 2009). The “Big Five” structures have evoked criticism in respect of the presumed “superficiality” of the overall approach, partly because of the international character of the model. Criticism has also been directed at the model regarding its simplicity; it’s one sided use of adjectives as lingual carriers. This practically excludes other word categories such as nouns, verbs, and sentences along with the absence of
Bioenergetic-Analytic Character Typology vs. “The Big Five” and objectively assessing something we can’t see. Humanistic psychology has been influenced by body-orientated approaches to psychotherapy, yet little empirical research has been conducted upon approaches. Bioenergetic-analysis’ historic origins are traced back to the early psychoanalytic work of Reich (1933 / 1980), in which personality and character structure were related to body armouring. An area of research relevant to the association of body armouring and character has been the study of muscle tension patterns …show more content…
Glazer & Friedman (2009) conducted a multi-method approach for examining the bioenergetic-analysis, obtaining data from participants using both bodily and psychological information. Participants amounted to 25 volunteer students given appointments to be photographed wearing swimwear in the research setting, whilst being directed to take eight stress positions used in bioenergetics analysis to show patterns of armouring. Participants were then given the Adjective Check List (ACL) and Bioenergetic Analysis Measure (BAM) in a group setting, whilst the Thermatic Apperception Test (TAT) was administered independently by those not involved in the photography of the sample. Although body and mind are separate entities, and should be evaluated as such, bioenergetics surmises body and mind are functionally identical differing only semantically: what happens bodily affects mental processes; what happens mentally affects physical expression. From this perspective, an individual’s “character”-istic ways of experiencing and expressing life defines individual personality (Glazer & Friedman, 2009). The pioneering work of Allport and Odbert (1936), along with that of Cattell (1943, 1945) identified all relevant distinguishable traits of personality. The five-factor model was suggested by Fiske …show more content…
The participants, as a non-clinical sample, may have been limited to the diversity of the physical traits. The sample was heavily weighted toward women with limited male participation (22 women & 3 men). A more sex-balanced sample would most likely achieve alternative results. In addition to this, replication with a larger sample is warranted as the degree of difference found could have been significantly constrained by the small size of the sample. Despite the influence of bioenergetics analysis on psychotherapeutic approaches, little empirical research has been published upon its effectiveness. There is a possibility that the bioenergetic-analytic diagnostic system may simply not be a highly reliable procedure regardless of method or sample (Glazer & Friedman, 2009). The “Big Five” structures have evoked criticism in respect of the presumed “superficiality” of the overall approach, partly because of the international character of the model. Criticism has also been directed at the model regarding its simplicity; it’s one sided use of adjectives as lingual carriers. This practically excludes other word categories such as nouns, verbs, and sentences along with the absence of