Trait theorists propose that human personality can be explained through a scale of certain indivisible personality attributes – ‘prime traits’. The balance of these basic human characteristics helps to explain human personality. Frequently these traits can be represented according to a set scale, e.g. from 1 to 100. This aids in the plotting of personality maps, from 2 or 3 dimensions, each representing one personality facet. Some theories suggested there were just 3 of these axes (Eysenck, 1992, 1998) whilst others proposed a 5 scale model (Norman, 1963.) Norman chose for his 5 dimensions extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness to experience. Hans Eysenck contracted this to the axes of extroversion and neuroticism, later adding another - ‘psychoticism.’ By assessing personality on either of these criteria a reasonable model of that individual’s personality can be mapped and hence behaviour predicted. To furt

Additionally, the trait theory with its measurements of personality based on its 2, 3 or 5 axes provides little clue to origins of personality or to future development. Without complex examination of personality changes over a longer timeline the statistical importance of trait theory-based personality cannot be established. There is always the implication that this outlook provides only an increasingly detailed view of personality depending on the number of axes, dimensions or facets studied, but can never provide a full picture of human personality or attempt to explain the driving forces behind the traits it explains.

Trait theory is statistical and impersonal in nature. It relies on self-evaluation and is, like humanistic theory, useful only as a means of assessment rather than providing any real insight into treatment. As a source of preliminary data trait theory can be useful, but further investigation is needed to provide a better understanding of human personality. The nature of trait theory as an introductory technique means that it is not necessarily as exclusory towards humanistic theory as humanistic theory is towards trait theory. Starting from a standpoint of the subject as possessing certain characteristics it is relatively easy to include these in a general picture of a human psyche. However, it is harder from the point of view of a humanist to go from a general view of human personality to viewing the subject in terms of human-defined characteristics.

Both of these methods have their merits, but both also have distinct weaknesses. Firstly, the reservations towards humanistic theory. The general accusation that can be made is of lack of scientific evidence. No investigation can be made into determining the ‘peak experiences’ experienced by Maslow’s historical ‘self-actualisers’. Rogers’s theories on childhood repression seem general and certainly unsupported by meaningful scientific investigation. Accusations can even be made against the usefulness of childhood psychoanalysis in determining future behaviour and personality – is personality stable or not? This is a question in itself; one that Rogers does not address. With the assertion that all human thought essentially derives from free will, it is difficult to formulate an effectiv

Some topics in this essay:
Rogers Maslow, Abraham Maslow’s, , Hans Eysenck, trait theory, human personality, humanistic theory, picture human, towards humanistic theory, nature trait theory, norman 1963, nature trait, towards humanistic, positive goals, 2 3, theory useful,