More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological influences on personality
Esssaty aboyt extraversion and introversion
Biological influences on personality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Biological approach to personality places emphasis on the genetic influences related to the development of an individual’s personality. Some may believe that children and their parents can have very similar personalities, for example a young boy having his father’s anger (Stelmack, 1990). Though this approach has often been questioned by psychologists, it is not disregarded all together. Some believe that genetics do have a role in an individual’s personality development; however environments, as well as personal experiences all work in forming personality. Looking first at the personality traits most associated with the biological approach; neuroticism, psychoticism, and extroversion-introversion. With the extroversion-introversion trait …show more content…
Typically if an individual ranks high at one end of the continuum, scores on the other end tend to be lower. The psychologist that is most associated with the Biological approach to personality is Hans J. Eysenck (Rafter, 2006). It is believed that personality was broken into two different yet basic dimensions; extraversion-introversion and neuroticism (Cale, 2006, p. 251). A third dimension came into play later in Eysenck’s research; this would come to be called psychoticism (Cale, 2006, p. 252). Though the other dimensions are important to personality this paper will focus on the biological factors of only extraversion-introversion. When discussing extraversion-introversion, there does not seem to be a plethora of similarities simply because the two are on opposite ends of the continuum (Peake, 2014, p. 8). Differences on the other hand are identified much easier between the two. One main difference is the way individuals perceive each trait. Extraversion is seen as a good quality and is often used as a positive trait. Although it is not entirely true, introversion is looked at as a negative trait for someone to possess in today’s’ society (Peake, 2014, p. 8). The best way to explain how these two traits differ would be the type of stimuli that motivates …show more content…
Introverts are just as capable as extroverts when it comes to becoming a great leader. It is believed that hard problems in the workforce or any leadership situation need to be given a lot of thought and consideration before making a drastic descision; this is a skill that introverts tend to possess (Murphy, 2013, p. 60). Unlike introverts, extroverts have more of a tendency to form solutions to problems without thinking much about the outcome, and they do not spend a lot of time getting other opinions on the matter (Murphy, 2013, p. 60). An introvert by nature asks more questions and listens closely to others which are great leadership skills (Murphy, 2013, p. 60). Unlike that of extroverts, introverts tend to be more capable at controlling negative emotions (Murphy, 2013, p. 60). By doing this, solutions are not determined by emotion, but by other’s input and serious
The first source that I looked at was the TED talk episode of Susan Cain titled “Power of Introverts”. In her presentation, Susan Cain talks about how she believes that Western culture society is bound to the idea that being an extrovert is less fitting than being an extrovert in school, work force, etc. In the video Susan states that, “in past history, great minds such as Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Rosa parks were all introverts and they were important transformative leaders in society”. Cain’s aim here is not to attack extroverts, or to state that they are not as good as introverts. Her argument is that the introverts have an important role to play in many areas of society that is now often being overlooked. One example would be that, introverts have greater willingness to listen to others and their input makes them better leaders than is commonly known. To conclude, she added thoughtfulness and tenacity of introverts, and their keen capability to work independently, often gives them an advantage in creative enterprises like art and scientific improvement, also in more intellectual industries such as science and engineering. In particular, Cain highlights just how vital it is to encourage and support the introvert’s strange talents, and to be patient in dealing with their intimacy or familiarity. She also stresses the importance of inspiring the introvert to come out of their shell as much as they are able, so they may learn to make their opinions be heard, and to be able to reach their full potential and contribute in a world that is more extrovert friendly. When I think of it, it is kind of sad how society believes that wor...
(2000) originated from. Jung’s theory laid down the foundation for the concept of introversion/extraversion within personality. His concept of attitudes, the predisposition of an individual’s behavior, is either introverted or extraverted, and his theory believed that this aspect of personality is on a scale; individuals are not one or the other. The study done by Nakao et al. (2000) exhibits Jung’s notion that extraversion and introversion are on a scale by not classifying participants as an introvert or extravert, but how participants score high or low on traits indicating extraversion and placing them on the scale of introversion/extraversion. This study also used concepts from Adler’s theory of personality. Adler believed that birth order plays a role in personality development. Nakao et al. (2000) used birth order in their scale of the aspects of family environment to assess. Also, like Adler, the study focused on the environmental aspects that influence personality. Adler’s theory placed on the nurture continuum in the dimensions of humanity, his theory revolved around the concept that humans are motivated by social interest and the strength of social interest is influenced by social interactions. Thus, the environment plays a role in Adler’s theory along with the study conducted by Nakao et al. (2000). Environment plays a role in developing the introversion/extraversion aspect of personality, but environment, such as a country’s culture, can also be more welcoming to different types of personality
The debate of nature vs. nurture continues today in the world of psychology. The effects of an individual’s genetics and the effects of their environment on their personality and actions is an age old debate that is still inconclusive. However, it is evident that both sides of the argument carry some form of the truth. It can be contended that the major characteristics of an individual are formed by their environment, more specifically, their past experiences. An individual’s past moulds and shapes their identity, if they do not make an effort to move on from it.
Society today favors extroverts. As a society, we see values such as outgoingness and sociability very important. These are all traits of extroverts (Cook). Even schools value these traits, which is, in a way, negatively impacting introverts. Because introverts don’t possess these specific traits, they feel that there’s something wrong with them, and in turn causes them to try and become more extroverted. It doesn’t really work that way. You can’t try and pass as something you’re not. Being an introvert is not a bad thing, though, as Cook talks about in his article. Working in a group causes us to mimic the behaviors of other without realizing we’re doing so. This is called groupthink, when the beliefs of group members conform, often unconsciously, to those beliefs of other group members. Introversion can help solve this problem, though. Since solitude is one of the most important factors for creativity, working on projects solo can help create better and more efficient solutions than if the problem was solved with multiple people working in a group. According to Cook, humans function better along than with others. Introverts are more likely to be motivated by dedication to their
German psychologist Hans Eysenck’s Model of Nervous System Temperament links temperament traits, specifically introversion and extraversion to the Central Nervous System. Introverted people are typically quiet, reserved, and timid whereas extraverts are active, sociable, and outgoing (151). According to Eysenck, introverts have high levels of brain arousal, which is controlled by the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS). Therefore, introverts do not need to seek external arousal leading them to be more reserved. Contrastingly, he argues that extraverts have lower levels of brain arousal and therefore are more sensation seeking in order to make up for it. In this paper, I will aim to synthesize and summarize some of the research regarding introversion and extraversion and their link to the central nervous system and states of arousal. I will synthesize this information to support the idea that while introversion and extraversion are on some level linked to states of arousal, Eysenck’s arousal hypothesis is not alone sufficient to explain the biological differences between introverted and extraverted individuals and their behaviors as such.
Susan Cain, in her book “The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking” explores introversion and extroversion and how introverts are powerful in their own way, using their unique way of working together and thinking skills/styles to influence the world around them, using many sources to back up her information and tell her story correctly. One source Cain uses is Carl G. Jung who studied types of behaviors and came up with introversion and extroversion.
In psychology there are several different approaches. Phycologist use a variety of these approaches to understand and help many different people. One approach being psychoanalytic. This approach looks at the unconscious mind and how it affects different behaviors and personality. The next approach is trait. This approach places individuals along a continuum of various characteristics. Another approach psychologist use is the biological approach. This looks at inherited predispositions can affect personality. All of these approaches can be used in the case study “The Jet-Propelled Couch,” by Robert Linder to understand Kirk Allen’s personality.
Neurophysiology is the study of the brains behavior. Personality affects how a person will behave in certain situations. Human’s attitudes are determined by their environments, personal preferences and dislikes all reflex their everyday actions. Personality is 50%-70% hereditary and that home environment has little impact on child development. Motivated behavior; extraverts demonstrate an increased sensitivity to reward signals. There are three criterions necessary to establish the neurobiological basis of such a personality: a) define the network of neural structures associated with the trait, b) explain how individual differences occur within the functioning of that network and c) identify the sources of individual differences. Neurobiology investigates these questions with a reductionism approach, examining chemical release at synapses and correlating such activity with behavior. Personality research has a long history in the field of psychology. Only in the last forty years, however, have scientists begun to look for biological explanations. Is it possible that eventually neurobiology will be able to explain personality on the same level as motor responses or our sense of hearing? Still, the chemical basis of personality gives us great insight into how and why we behave as we do. It can help explain why different people react differently to similar situations. Perhaps most importantly, it offers the potential to alter such behavior, from treating mild cases of anxiety to severe personality disorders.
Many psychologists throughout many years present theoretical approaches in an attempt to understand personality. Hans Eysenck’s approach of personality differed from that of Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytical theory of personality. Eysenck’s theory of personality relies on the scientific basis of biology in explaining human personality. Although Freud’s theories are intriguing to an open mind, Eysenck’s approach made measurable scientific sense. He relied on the use of trait and factor analysis, which is a statistical method. Freud relied on faith and his personal opinions based on observational research to reach the assumptions that set forth his theories (Feist & Feist, 2009). Eysenck and Freud did not agree on anything about understanding how and why the mind operates the way, it does.
Psychodynamic and behavioural approaches are the two major approaches to personality, however, they view personality from different perspectives. Psychodynamic approach makes the argument that personality is caused by forces in the unconscious that are not learned. The individual has little control over their behaviour as it is predetermined, and early childhood plays a crucial part in shaping a person’s personality. Behavioural approach, on the other hand, recognises personality as learned and focuses only on present behavioural matters. Because of
There has yet to be any determining evidence defines the characteristics of extraversion. The experimenters in this particular experiment have hypothesized that the facets of extraversion are somehow linked by reward sensitivity. This hypothesis was also tested against a model in which they are linked by sociability. There has been much work on this topic in the past, beginning with the works of Jung and James in the early 20th century—to the work of Watson and Clark in 1997. And even after a century of study, they are still unable to truly define the characteristics of the extraversion dimension of personality. In the many attempts to define extraversion, Watson and Clark have defined six basic facets of the personality trait. These are: venturesome, affiliation, positive affectivity, energy, ascendance, and ambition. Researchers Depue and Collins, in 1999, also offered a more succinct depiction of the characteristics of extraversion, this only having three basic parts. The first being affiliation, the enjoyment and value of close interpersonal bonds, also being warm and affectionate. The second, agency, being socially dominant, enjoying leadership roles, being assertive and exhibitionistic, and having a sense of potency in accomplishing goals. The final facet being impuslivity, but this one has been argued upon whether it should be included at all in the characteristics of extraversion at all.
I agree with the biological theory in the aspect that we may already have a “preset” personality. This personality is set up via our genes uniquely given to us by our parents, grandparent, and etc. Being a biology major, I have been taught that upon conception our genes which then lead onto our development in utero are
... have come to the conclusion that genetics is very important for the development of personality but even they have to determine how these genes are investigated for the purpose of determining a particular personality. “What scientists have found is that there does not appear to be a single gene for a particular trait, but that genes show their effects by working together in complex combinations. For example, there is no single gene for dancing or music. Whether a child will be musically inclined will be determined by the way that child's genes interact with one another. Some parents would like to believe that by creating an environment rich in music while the child is young will develop the child's talent towards music. However, despite assumptions like this, there is no evidence that shows long term effects of growing up in a particular environment” (Pinker, 2003).
Undoubtedly, humans are unique and intricate creatures and their development is a complex process. It is this process that leads people to question, is a child’s development influenced by genetics or their environment? This long debate has been at the forefront of psychology for countless decades now and is better known as “Nature versus Nurture”. The continuous controversy over whether or not children develop their psychological attributes based on genetics (nature) or the way in which they have been raised (nurture) has occupied the minds of psychologists for years. Through thorough reading of experiments, studies, and discussions however, it is easy to be convinced that nurture does play a far more important in the development of a human than nature.
I fall into a unique, more introverted and innovative personality type. Generally speaking, leaders are often expected to be extroverts. That seems to be the societal ideal. However, there were some well known introverts such Einstein, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela that obviously were successful leaders and innovators with a mission that suited them. I am motivated to lead if the mission has integrity and is an area of interest to me. Those factors feed my extroverted side. I like to improve systems and processes; one can put specialized projects and problems in front of me or ask me to create a growth opportunity and I will run with it. Our textbook The Art of Leadership by George Manning/Kent Curtis describes the most important traits of leadership as the need for achievement, possessing intelligence, self confidence, initiative, supervisory ability, and decisiveness (Manning). I am an intelligent problem solver and I can see many paths for growth. With right mission I can be very self- confident, I show initiative and supervisory ability. I can sometimes be slow on decisiveness so I try to identify