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

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (11)

Semelhante a Psyc320 p5 ip theories of personality

Semelhante a Psyc320 p5 ip theories of personality (20)

Mais de Cherilyn Formanek

Mais de Cherilyn Formanek (10)

Último

Último (16)

Psyc320 p5 ip theories of personality