Background
Are We “Different People” In Different Situations
The current assignment focuses upon the different personality traits between human beings. The Personality development within a person is often influenced by inherent characters along with environmental stimulators. The current assignment discusses the different responses of people to different situations. The situations keep on changing day to day within a person’s life. However, the characteristics of individual responses govern the success pattern.
In the current assignment, the different personality traits are discussed with the help of theories and evidence-based approaches. The study here divides the personality types into malleable and stable. The stable self is nothing but an individual’s view of themselves, which negates any alternative social view. The stable self is unresponsive to variations in the social situations. The malleable self-states that an individual’s view or perception about themselves is changed every time that they interact with a new person or social groups. As mentioned by Roberts and Donahue (1994), an individual has many different social shelves and each seems to have a profound effect on the development of individual personality traits. It is often the dispute between these two personality traits which affects the cognitive and decision-making ability within a person. The stable self fails to take into consideration the social stimulus while particular decision making where has the malleable self-give as much importance to the view of others in different social shelves as much to its own opinion. There have been a number of arguments over the different personality traits. One school of thought mentions that the stable self is more principles oriented and believes in the building of strong foundations, based on personal faith and beliefs. On the other hand, malleable personality approach helps to take into consideration the different environmental stimulus which goes into active decision making. As mentioned by Shirai and Suzuki (2017), malleable approach to cognition and decision making is pivotal to bring about changes in an individual self and organizations.
A man has different social shelves and shows a different side of him to each one of his different social groups. The self-concept is based on interaction with others and is often context specific (Pfundmair, Graupmann, Frey & Aydin, 2015). Therefore, different reactions are drawn from different people in different situations or circumstances which make the science of understanding people difficult.
The current assignment focuses on the different personality traits and also takes into consideration the various factors which dictate the development of a personality. There are different school of thoughts describing the individual personalities and their reactions to different social situations in a different manner. The assignment provides an argument and counter-argument for all these theories and strategies.
Evidence
The purpose of the assignment could be further highlighted with the help of a thesis statement as- “The different limits of exposure to different social situations initiate different reactions in people”
The assignment focuses on the aspect of different personality traits within a person and the factors which modulate the standard pattern of behaviour in a person. One of the basic concepts which had been highlighted over here is that an individual has different social groups. A person is affected differently by each and every social group. For example, a woman will behave differently with her children compared to her boss and colleagues. As suggested by Dweck (1996), the context of communication further guides the different social reaction within a person.
The personality traits within a person are guided by certain inherent traits which have been further defined by concepts of emotional intelligence and places importance upon the biological based psychological tendencies. These have been further supported by behavioural genetics, parent-child relations. As suggested by Reynolds et al. (2010), the kind of relations an individual has with their parents further governs the personality developmental patterns. It has often been seen that one growing up in a disturbed environment often reacts impatiently to situations.
The different social attitudes of a person could be divided into many different themes such as – authoritarianism, social dominance, religious orientation etc. The authoritarianism is governed by stereotyped patterns of thoughts and intolerance towards others. These are the ones with a strict upbringing, which is reflected in their indomitable thought patterns. Some of the authoritarian views and thought process have been supported by some of the old school of thoughts. For example, for generations, people within the eastern countries have limited the role of the women as a child bearer and caretaker of the family. For example, any alterations to these thought process result in social disputes. The social dominance refers to discrimination at the individual level which is often integrated within the institutional thought process. For example, if any business organization is biased to the recruitment of overseas candidates, once recruited the individual is often subjected to discriminatory attitudes from the co-workers or other employees. Therefore, the environment modulates the individual behavioural patterns, as it is not necessary that the person discriminating believes within the concept of discrimination. As suggested by Maltby, Day and Macaskill (2010), the responses of individuals to different situations is often subjected to their nature of responsiveness, which is governed by the firmness of beliefs often influenced by factors such as religiosity.
Empirical evidence
In this respect, an empirical study had been conducted where a sample size of 147 participants had been selected for conducting different cluster studies such as – the ones involving situation independent variables, the ones involving measured personality and attitude independent variables, those involving demographic independent variables and the ones involving situational and individual difference variables. The differential responses to behavioural stimulus were measured of the different personality groups. It was found that situational variables yielded results twice as frequently as individual difference variables (Sarason, Smith & Diener, 1975).
The personality development within an individual is influenced by five factors such as – neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience, agreeableness and conscientiousness. To start with, neuroticism is crucial to the personality development of a person. As mentioned by Block (1995), neuroticism refers to emotional stability within a person which helps them deal with varied situations. However as argued by Rauthmann, Sherman and Funder (2015), a person who is high on neuroticism can easily experience negative emotions within a pressurising situation. On the other hand, the extraversion or openness to experiences gives way to a malleable personality. The more people are open to a group, the more is the propensity for their thought patterns to be influenced. However as mentioned by McGaugh (2016), the environmental stimulus plays a critical role in bringing about positive changes within individual personality.
The above discussion places importance upon either of the inherently acquired personality traits or environmental stimulus for affecting the behaviour pattern in a person. However, the ideas presented above fails to take into consideration the factors, which produce different behavioural responses in people put amidst similar situations and surroundings. The differential behaviour could be attributed to past life trauma, as some of the past life experiences have invariably seen to affect the behaviour and responses of people towards certain situations (Li, Huang, Zhang & Ni, 2016).
Conclusions about the validity of the thesis
Through the study, the different personality traits have been highlighted. However, there are a number of contradictory views regarding the individual personality types. As mentioned by Shirai and Suzuki (2017), the malleable personality types are more volatile by nature and could be easily persuaded to change their decisions amidst different social situations and people. However, as argued by Roberts and Donahue (1994), the malleable personality is more open to changes. The flexible behaviour gives them a better social standing.
Argument
On the other hand, the stable personality type has been supported through the five approaches of personality development. As justified by neuroticism an emotionally stable person is supposed to make improved decisions. However, as mentioned by McCrae et al. (2000), neuroticism makes a person more vulnerable to negative emotions. This brings into focus the environmental factors such as situation, exposure, survivability. Some of these factors contributed towards shaping the different behavioural patterns amidst different situations in a person.
Conclusion
The current assignment focuses upon the different personality types produced within people. The individual reactions to different social stimulus are governed by a number of intrinsic as well as extrinsic factors. For example, an individual with a disturbed childhood or inaccessible relationship with parents is often sceptical to social extraversion. However, it could simply be an individual personality trait which varies from person to person. This could be further justified by the concept of emotional intelligence, which takes into consideration both intrinsic personalities along with social factors.
The thesis presented within the assignment has been justified through a number of evidence-based theories and postulates. However, it fails to take into consideration the different social factors which affect each one differently. This could be further attributed to behavioural conditioning in people. Though the thesis has been well supported as well as contradicted through a number of arguments, there are sufficient loopholes. For instance, it fails to consider the different mental patterns of people as there is no universally accepted normal psychology.
References
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187-215. Retrieved from: https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1995-21277-001
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(3), 348-362. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0024
Li, H., Huang, L., Zhang, Y., & Ni, S. (2016). Effects of intuition and deliberation on escape judgment and decision-making under different complexities of crisis situations. Safety science, 89, 106-113. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.006
Lou, N. M., & Noels, K. A. (2017). Measuring Language Mindsets and Modeling Their Relations With Goal Orientations and Emotional and Behavioral Responses in Failure Situations. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 214-243. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12380
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Pearson Education. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/BHUMIK~1/AppData/Local/Temp/Rar$DI08.480/2258468_2118306208_Personalityindividualdifferenc
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., H?ebí?ková, M., Avia, M. D., . . . Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and lifespan development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173-186. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.17
McGaugh, J. L. (Ed.). (2016). Emotions and bodily responses: A psychophysiological approach. Academic Press. Retrieved from: https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3KRGBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=McGaugh,+J.+L.+(Ed.).+(2016).+Emotions+and+bodily+responses:+A+psychophysiological+approach.+Academic+Press.&ots=8okdubXwrn&sig=MQCpvFF_vAp3Y3USSe1aSj7FfgA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Pfundmair, M., Graupmann, V., Frey, D., & Aydin, N. (2015). The different behavioural intentions of collectivists and individualists in response to social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(3), 363-378. Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167214566186
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. European Journal of Personality, 29(3), 363-381. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1994
Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Branscombe, N. R., Mavor, K. I., Bizumic, B., &Subasic, E. (2010). Interactionism in personality and social psychology: An integrated approach to understanding the mind and behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 24, 458-482. doi: 10.1002/per.782
Roberts, B. W., & Donahue, E. M. (1994). One Personality, Multiple Selves: Integrating Personality and Social Roles. Journal of Personality, 62(2), 199-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00291.x
Sarason, I. G., Smith, R. E., & Diener, E. (1975). Personality research: Components of variance attributable to the person and the situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 199. Retrieved from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.199
Shirai, M., & Suzuki, N. (2017). Is sadness only one emotion? Psychological and physiological responses to sadness induced by two different situations:“loss of someone” and “failure to achieve a goal”. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 288. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00288
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
