Within the following critique the writer will analyse the dynamics of personality and critically evaluate theories of personality. This will be done in terms of their given strengths and weaknesses. The critique will examine the two main approaches of personality studies namely ‘nomothetic’ and ‘idiographic’. The writer will draw succinct conclusions on the basis of these theories and also demonstrate how the nature of learning is a contributing factor to the genetic construct of ones personality, and the traits they display.

In order to critically evaluate theories of personality the term ‘personality’ itself must first be defined, ‘a persons own distinctive character’ or a ‘person with distinctive qualities especially pleasing ones’ Oxford Dictionary.

Burger describes personality as, ‘Those personal characteristics that result in consistent patterns of behaviour’ Burger – 1986

In conclusion the writer can view a balanced and informative argument for each approach, namely idiographic and nomothetic. The manner in which a person develops and conveys behavioural traits can be sourced to a variety of factors as analysed in the body of text. The writer has an informed opinion that personality is eclectic in its very nature and is not an inherent attribute that is unaffected by external factors. The very stimulus that creates a person is the fabric of their personality that is attributed to by social conditioning such as family and peers. The writer would tend to lean toward the notion of the idiographic approach and the work of G.H Mead and C. Cooley, who reinforce the opinion that personality is indeed eclectic and cannot be pigeon holed to suite management selection tools.

Idiographic approaches in direct contract emphasise the development of the individual through their experiences and development. It is regarded as a process open to change from a variety of external factors such as the environment and the people around them, and it is seen that the dynamics of these interactions are the mould in which a person is formed and the personality traits they display. In divergence from the nomothetic approach of Eysenck, the measurement or quantifiable interpretation of personality is inappropriate in that one person’s response cannot be comparable with another. It is further suggested by authorities in the field that personality assessment is not a valid way of understanding the psyche or the dynamics of personality of an individual. The manner in which a person responds to factors in their life can not be surmised by ‘paper and pencil questionnaires’. It is also suggested that the scope of nomethetic approaches is greatly restricted and to narrow in its approach to give a comprehensive account of the personality of an individual.

alysing the notion of nomothetic

Some topics in this essay:
Hans Eysenck, Erik Erikson, GH Mead, THEROIES PERSONALITY, Dictionary Burger, CRITIQUE Critically, Mead Cooley, Oxford Dictionary, personality traits, development individual, experiences development, writer view, manner person, idiographic approaches, nomothetic approach, theories personality, person personality, critically evaluate, evaluate theories personality, critically evaluate theories, kolb learning cycle, direct correlation kolb, personality traits display,