("The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View")
(King)
How do accredited psychologists explain the concepts of introversion and extraversion and the behavioral differences between individuals who identify with the two important groups? Do all psychologists view this idea/these ideas in the same way? Recently in psychology class, we have been reviewing personality and the varying views used to both explain and identify it. Within the chapter that we have been reading, our book has mentioned extraversion (and, by extent, introversion) and the different explanations that multiple psychologists have had regarding the classification(s). I feel that it would be helpful if I explained these varying ideas for the sake of my own project so that my audience (also known as you...you are reading this, right?) can understand that the causes behind extraversion and introversion are not always cut-and-dry, but that the majority of them also seem to make sense, even though some may contradict with one another. For today's post, I will be using material from
The Science of Psychology, Second Edition, written by Laura A. King and published in 2011. Some of what I write today may conflict with my past posts; the information that I generally use for my material is that which is accepted by and large, but there are still other theories regarding and methods to measuring extraversion/introversion.
Warren T. (W.T.) Norman ("Warren T. Norman")
One approach to personality is the trait perspective approach, in which the researcher simply means to uncover the individual's varying qualities and thereby assign them a ranking as to the quality that they retain for each trait. The greatest example of a measure that this approach uses is the Five-Factor Model of Personality, derived from the work of W.T. Norman in 1963, who actually worked off of the research of Gordon Allport and H.S. Odbert from 1936. In their approach to personality, Allport and Odbert employed the lexical approach, an approach considered a subcategory of the trait perspective approach. Allport and Odbert "sat down with two big unabridged dictionaries and pulled out all the words that could be used to describe a person," thereby using the lexical approach to personality. While quite simple, this approach is also time-consuming, as it would take forever to list all of the qualities that could be used to describe a specific individual. Thus, when reanalyzing Allport's and Odbert's research, Norman found that almost all of an individual's qualities that could be used to describe their personality can be organized into five categories, which he called the big five factors. These five factors, thought to describe the main dimensions of personality, include neurotocism (emotional instability), extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (which can form the acronym OCEAN). When personality tests are made to assess these five qualities in an individual, their results are often measured as to whether they are low, moderate, or high for a certain trait. As mentioned before, extraversion is used as a category, consisting of multiple other traits within. According to the trait perspective approach, an individual is either high in extraversion (making them an extrovert), moderate in extraversion (making them an ambivert), or low in extraversion (making them an introvert). What is particularly interesting about this approach's view of extraversion (and thereby introversion) is the criteria that it bases its measurements on, those being "social or retiring," "fun-loving or somber," "energetic or reserved," etc. It is true that some extroverts may be social, fun-loving, and energetic, and that some introverts may be retiring, somber, and reserved, and even moreso that individuals from these two groups may appear to have these qualities, but this is not always necessarily true. Even though I would be classified as an introvert, my level of energy depends on my mood, my sociableness depends on both my energy and those who around me, and my level of seriousness depends on how much I believe the situation calls for. The book actually lists such phenomena as one of the criticisms about this approach, it that it makes generalizations and sometimes fails to address the person-situation controversy. The example that the textbook uses is that an individual may be rated as introverted among new people but very extroverted with friends and family. Moreover, this approach addresses extraversion/introversion in the reverse manner that I have; according to the trait perspective approach, an individual is extroverted or introverted because of their various traits, which define which groups they identify with, while I have been addressing the idea that individuals have certain qualities because they are introverted or extroverted. Furthermore, some of the criteria used to rate one's level of extraversion (or lack thereof) seems a bit biased or stereotypical. However, I am not accusing this approach of being incorrect, nor I am implying that my research has been incorrect; rather, I am simply introducing a new view of personality (and extraversion) while showing some of its flaws. No personality theory is without criticism, meaning that there is no perfect approach to personality that has no flaws.
Hans Eysenck ("Psychologist Hans J. Eysenck")
Another approach to personality is the biological perspective approach, which I believe I could personally agree most with (but this does not necessitate this approach is "correct"). According to the biological perspective approach, an individual is an introvert or an extrovert because of the way that their brain is designed. However, even within this approach there is conflict, as different experts have attempted to explain the reasons behind one's introversion/extroversion and, by extent, their underlying behaviors and qualities. The two most well-known theories in regard to the biological perspective approach to personality are the reticular activation system (RAS) theory, proposed by Hans Eysenck in 1967, and the reinforcement sensitivity theory, proposed by Jeffrey Gray in 1987. According to Eysenck's RAS theory, the reticular activation system, an area located in the brain stem that plays a role in wakefulness and arousal, of introverts and extroverts differs with respect to the baseline level of arousal. Even though this is the theory that I often use the most in my explanations of introverts and extroverts, it still has its flaws. Once again, according to Eysenck's theory, extroverts have to be particularly outgoing, sociable, and dominant, whereas introverts have to be particularly quiet, reserved, and passive, which seems to assume just a little too much in regard to the personality/personalities of individuals. However, Eysenck's theory does also note that introverts are often above their optimal level of arousal and therefore keep distractions to a minimum, while extroverts are usually below their optimal level of arousal and therefore "seek out distraction." Some of the behaviors identified as "introvert activities" (being alone, reading quietly, etc.) and "extrovert activities" (spending time with friends, listening to loud music, etc.) are debatable, but it does appear that individuals of these certain groups do show a tendency to prefer such activities. According to Gray's reinforcement sensitivity theory, on the other hand, an individual's level of extraversion (or lack thereof) depends on the strength of their behavioral activation system (BAS) and behavioral inhibition system (BIS). Gray theorizes that a strong BAS, which supposedly underlies high extraversion, causes the individual to be sensitive to environmental reward, thereby leading their emotions to be more positive and for them to seek positive consequences/rewards for their actions. By effect, an individual high on extraversion is thought to take more risks as a result, because they want to attain more rewards. Conversely, Gray also theorizes that a strong BIS, which supposedly underlies low extraversion/high introversion or neuroticism (emotional instability), causes the individual to be sensitive to environmental punishment, thereby leading their emotions to be more negative and for them to avoid negative consequences/punishments. Like Eysenck's theory, Gray's theory seems to have warrant. Moreover, neurotransmitters, a subject that I have touched upon before, have been implicated in personality in ways that fit Gray's model. According to some researchers, individuals with a strong BAS show higher levels of dopamine, which encourages behavior(s) and keeps an individual happier. On the other hand, individuals with a strong BIS seem to show higher levels of serotonin, which generally discourages behavior(s) and keeps an individual more somber or down. Overall, from my research, my findings would likely support the biological perspective approach the most, and particularly they would agree with Eysenck's approach, although I do also find that Gray's theory has some warrant.
Jeffrey Gray ("Jeffrey Gray Book Award")
As stated before, neither the trait perspective approach nor the biological perspective approach to psychology are necessarily incorrect. In fact, it is quite possible that these two approaches may both be correct in their own right, but that one (the trait perspective approach) should be more geared towards identifying whether an individual is an introvert or an extrovert while another (the biological perspective approach) should be more geared towards identifying why an individual is an introvert or an extrovert. Furthermore, both Eysenck's theory and Gray's theory may be correct; this just means that neither of their theories is the end-all-be-all of personality psychology. Despite some apparent flaws in all of the theories explained, they all present interesting perspectives and explanations about introverts and extroverts, and they should all be respected in their own right.
As a side note, I will continue to keep my survey concerning the behavioral differences between introverts and extroverts posted for the next couple of weeks (probably until about the end of March or middle of April). I ask that if you have not participated in my survey yet that you would please do so soon, and that you would please encourage others to participate in it as well. In order to reach my survey, just click on the link below, and I thank you in advance.
Works Cited:
"Jeffrey Gray Book Award." History of Psychology Centre. The British Psychological Society, n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.
King, Laura A. The Science of Psychology, Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2011. Print.
"Psychologist Hans J. Eysenck." Introduction to Psychology. Shaanxi Normal University, 25 Apr. 2011. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.
"The Science of Psychology: An Appreciative View." McGraw-Hill Higher Education. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2011. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.
"Warren T. Norman." The Millennium Project. The University of Michigan, 2011. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment