Introduction
A variety of personality theories have been formulated to determine certain factors, concepts, and circumstances that ultimately form one’s personality and affect behavior. The frameworks relate to an individual’s feelings, emotions, thoughts, and interactions with the external environment. Thus, personality theories exemplify a variety of factors that impact one’s communication with the outside world by highlighting concepts that form the aforementioned processes. Two personality theories that will be discussed in the current paper are behavioral conditioning and gender studies. Behavioral conditioning relates to one’s operation based on reinforcement. Gender studies, on the other hand, illustrate the paradigm in which gender generates societal and cultural factors that impact one’s personality. While the two theories are similar in regard to considering personality as a product derived from the external environment, they differ based on the concepts that create said circumstances.
Behavioral Conditioning
Multiple personality theories accept the fact that one’s self is constructed based on both intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics. Thus, besides genetic predispositions and biological evidence correlating with brain structure explained through physiology, the environment affects behavioral patterns, traits, and decisions. The environment may include multiple concepts, such as family situation, income, race, gender, education, neighborhood, and various additional factors. As a result, a person operates partially due to the environment that surrounds them. Behavioral conditioning is a personality theory that is defined as the exemplification of processes that modify behavior (Overskeid, 2018). These processes impact one’s thinking, operating, and interaction patterns, which, in turn, illustrate one’s characteristics in regard to personality. The difference between behavioral conditioning and a broader concept of societal impacts is the stimulus that facilitates patterns. On the one hand, highlighting that the external environment affects behavior implies that one emulates, observes, and operates based on the factors that surround them. However, behavioral conditioning reflects the relationship between action and consequences.
Operant conditioning was first formulated in the 20th century. Burrhus Frederic Skinner has illustrated that instead of the presence of a free will, individuals behave according to past experiences and ways in which actions were reinforced or punished (Leeder, 2022). The process implies the presence of action, the response, and the person’s understanding of consequences which ultimately influence future decisions. Operant conditioning is directly dependent on the principle of reinforcement (Blackman, 2017). An individual perceives that behavior is reinforced by society and seeks approval through the exemplification of similar behaviors. On the other hand, the lack of reinforcement and its substitute with punishment is perceived as undesirable, which creates a lack of motivation for the person to exercise similar patterns. Thus, reinforcement, which ultimately exemplifies the encouragement of specific actions or practices, is the core of behavioral conditioning as a personality theory.
In regards to the practical appliance, behavioral conditioning is widely applied in behavior interventions. One example is implementing certain principles correlating with the framework in child upbringing. The technique is exemplified as potentially successful if adequately approached by parents (Wagner et al., 2019). For example, parents who would like the child to put toys away after playing can compliment, reward, and thank the child for cleaning after himself. If such behavior does not happen, non-physical punishment can current the pattern since seeking approval is a major motivator. Another practical implementation is training animals, which can be illustrated through the famous Pavlov experiment. A dog that listens to commands is then rewarded with treats and pets, while the opposite creates circumstances in which the owner ignores the dog, hence, not reinforcing negative behavior.
Gender Studies
Similarly to the aforementioned behavioral conditioning theory, gender-based approaches accept the reality in which the external environment impacts one’s self. Various societal and cultural constructs, alongside hierarchies, expectations, and stereotypes, ultimately impact how a person perceives themselves and operates in the world. However, the main factor that, based on gender studies, affects one’s behavior is gender. Both intrinsic and extrinsic concepts correlate with one’s gender in relation to personality. Based on the theory itself, the differences in power and the societal constructs existing to reinforce the differences affect a person’s communication with the outside world (Kelland, 2017). Stereotypes, expectations, norms, and traditions are all components of the constructs that have the role of maintaining inequalities both in the perception and expression of individuals.
The theory does not necessarily deny the presence of biological and psychological traits correlating with a specific expression. However, it has been discussed that men and women are treated differently in society. For example, the psychiatrist and feminist writer Jean Baker Miller highlighted that the power structure is not designed in a way that all genders are equal and treated fairly despite differences (Kelland, 2017). Earlier gender considerations concerning personality were formulated by Freud. The founder of psychoanalysis suggested that women, while affected by social factors in relation to personality development, are impacted by frustration followed by incomplete male development. Horney contributed to the theory by highlighting that while women are unsatisfied with the lack of the physical abilities present in men, they are envied by men as they do not contribute to child upbringing as extensively (Kelland, 2017). Moreover, Horney mentions that as women cannot express themselves creatively to the same extent as the opposite gender, they most masculine traits to overcome certain barriers. Thus, renowned psychologists agree with the theory that gender is a factor that impacts a person’s personality, which is also facilitated by the existing social barriers that reinforce differences.
The practical application of gender studies is exemplified in multiple aspects, from toys and colors that adults associate with differently-gendered children to jobs that have a distinct differentiation between male and female demographics. For example, parents often choose extracurricular activities for children based on gender, which is why many girls take on dancing while guys attend martial arts classes. Girls are expected to be elegant, gracious, and feminine, which is reinforced through ballet classes and similar attributes. In contrast, boys are expected to be stronger, more aggressive, and more assertive by learning to fight. This, in turn, may impact how the children subsequently grow up and choose their professions. Evidence shows the presence of disparities in multiple fields of work (Silander et al., 2021). For example, most engineers are male as their curiosity about objects and mechanisms has been reinforced since childhood. Women, on the other hand, are a large demographic in the field of nursing as they are encouraged to be caring, people-oriented, and empathetic.
Similarities
Behavioral conditioning and gender studies theories are similar concerning several concepts that connect the two frameworks. The main factor correlating between the two is the acknowledgment of the external environment as a driver for a personality formation. Behavioral conditioning is based on the concept of environmental reaction to one’s behavior (Overskeid, 2018). Hence, an action is perceived either positively or negatively, which, in turn, allows the person to understand which behavior is rewarded and how negative actions are to be avoided due to the consequences that follow. Gender studies as also based on the paradigm that the environment affects one’s development. Namely, the existing social construct impact one’s decision based on gender and the expectations correlating with it (Coffé, 2018). Thus, the importance of the external environment is primordial in both cases.
Another similarity is the fact that while both theories are based on the concept of environmental stimuli for personality formation, biological factors are not denied. For example, researchers highlight that behavioral conditioning is rooted in evolutionary processes (Abramson & Levin, 2021). For example, a person’s aim to avoid behavior that creates circumstances in which peers dislike them may be linked to survival and avoidance of danger. As a result, the biological factor is one of the elements on which the theory is constructed. Moreover, a similar approach can be exemplified in the gender-based personality theory. For example, as mentioned prior, psychologists recognize that certain gender-related advantages and disadvantages exist on a physiological level (Kelland, 2017). However, this factor does not contradict the main concepts exemplified in the aforementioned theory, which is the major impact of societal constructs on behavior.
One more similarity is the presence of reinforcement in both paradigms and, more importantly, its effect on personality and behavior. Reinforcement is one of the main concepts within the behavioral conditioning theory. Hence, a person operates based on how the actions are either reinforced or punished by others. This creates patterns in which individuals choose a particular strategy because they seek approval and societal recognition through positive responses. The gender-based personality theory generates similar conclusions. Namely, a person tends to fit into a certain agenda correlating with a specific gender. For example, women tend to vote differently compared to men because they lead left and prefer supporting liberal ideals such as equality, social support, and freedom of expression. In contrast, men support economic reforms and freedom as well as non-interference from the government (Coffé, 2018). Such behavior is reinforced as women tend to be associated with compassion and empathy over violence.
As reinforcement and, in the case of gender-based theories, integration into societal norms is the core concept within both frameworks, a similarity that can be highlighted is avoidance of isolation. Researchers mention relational-cultural therapy as correlating with the framework, which implies that isolation is the main driver for behavioral changes (Kelland, 2017). In regards to behavioral conditioning, individuals act accordingly in correlation with reinforcement, which, in turn, relates to societal recognition. These changes are generated through the desire to fit in a paradigm that facilitates the establishment of connections and communities. A person who exercises anti-social behavior that is not reinforced cannot comfortably fit into a particular group. Similarly, a man who does not exercise behavior that society deems manly will have difficulties in regard to social connections because of the existing predispositions and gender-based stereotypes.
Differences
While the two theories under analysis are similar on multiple levels, several differences persist. Initially, it is crucial to determine the main element that the frameworks are constructed based on. Gender studies highlight that one’s experience and, hence, personality development are based on gender. Thus, societal systems and constructs, as well as existing expectations and stereotypes, create circumstances in which individuals grow to act, feel, and express themselves a certain way. Behavioral conditioning, on the other hand, is based on the idea that a multitude of factors impacts one’s personality. Hence, one’s family situation, religious upbringing, friend groups, school, neighborhood, and numerous additional elements create reinforcement and punishment. As a result, the person seeks reinforcement and acts according to the commonly followed rules, policies, and moral guidelines (Kelland, 2017). Gender fits into this paradigm, yet it is the multitude of circumstances in regard to the theory of behavioral conditioning. In one case, there is one motivator, while in the other case, the framework highlights a complex system. It can be summarized as behavioral conditioning being generated through various drivers, yet gender is one of them.
Another difference can be highlighted by examining the concept of reinforcement. As mentioned prior, reinforcement is the element on which behavioral conditioning is based on (Wagner et al., 2019). Thus, a person perceives a reaction to action and develops a pattern with the goal of seeking further praise and reward. However, in order for an individual to decide whether an effort is, in fact, beneficial, perceiving adverse outcomes and punishments is crucial. As a result, the framework exemplifies that a person is stimulated through direct experience. Both reinforcement through rewards and punishment through adverse outcomes is cognitively understood, which ultimately facilitates behavioral correction. The circumstances are different when it comes to gender-based theory. In this case, social learning is what enables the formation of the personality. This includes observation rather than having direct experiences with positive and negative responses to an action. Gender-based studies highlight that a person perceives the world without needing a direct encounter with the external environment. Instead, the learned behavior may be a product of perceived family dynamics, media, interpretation of commentary, and similar outside stimuli.
An example is a girl seeing her stay-at-home mother and working father as relationship models that can be reinforced in her personal life later on. In regards to behavioral conditioning, a similar situation would occur in case the girl would voice her lack of desire to have children in the future and be scolded by a parent because of it. Hence, the negative commentary, which has a punishing role, creates a pattern of behavior in which the girl perceives her role as being tied to motherhood.
Such learning processes differ based on their occurrence. In the case of behavioral conditioning, the response is voluntary. The person perceives responses and changes the pattern of their action to receive more positive reinforcements. In the case of gender-based theory, the response is involuntary (Troop-Gordon et al., 2017). The cues that impact a person’s behavior are not necessarily direct or consciously comprehended. Instead, they are indirectly perceived, which ultimately generates behavioral patterns. Such behavior is not managed or shaped by the person but rather exemplified as a result of subconsciously comprehended information from the outside.
One more difference that can be highlighted is the recognition, or, more specifically, the way in which individuals seek reinforcement and societal approval. In regards to behavioral conditioning, individuals emulate the type of behavior that is positively rewarded within their communities. Hence, they do not alter their personality to fit into a certain expectation or stereotype but become the versions of themselves that are more likely to be accepted. In this case, instead of emulating a particular group of people, the behavioral change is designed to allow the person to fit into society in the most efficient way possible. In the case of gender studies, the framework suggests that people act based on the gender they identify with (Silander et al., 2021). As a result, the difference persists in the norms that individuals are trying to fit and create specific behavioral changes and patterns.
Conclusion
Personality theories explain the source of personality development, its characteristics, and the drivers that facilitate changes in behavioral expressions. It has been established that behavioral conditioning and gender studies both highlight the importance of the external environment when it comes to the formation of a personality. In one case, the individual acts based on what is reinforced, and in the other case, one is influenced by societal constructs related to gender differences. Both theories agree on the concept of reinforcement, desire to fit in, and acknowledgment of certain biological constructs. On the other hand, the approaches differ based on the factor that influences personality. In relation to behavioral conditioning, outside responses create patterns in which one aims for approval, while gender studies mention the desire to fit into expectations. Moreover, while the first framework requires the presence of direct experienced, the gender-based theory highlight that the experience can be indirect and perceived. Hence, responses are either voluntary or involuntary. Last but not least, behavioral conditioning implies that one’s behavior is generated through a complex set of expectations on multiple levels, while gender studies focus on gender as the primary driver.
References
Abramson, C. I., & Levin, M. (2021). Behaviorist approaches to investigating memory and learning: A Primer for Synthetic Biology and Bioengineering. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 14(1), 230–247.
Blackman, D. (2017). Operant conditioning: An experimental analysis of behaviour. Routledge.
Coffé, H. (2018). Gender, gendered personality traits and radical right populist voting. Politics, 39(2), 170–185.
Kelland, M. (2017). Personality Theory. OER Commons.
Leeder, T. M. (2022). Behaviorism, Skinner, and operant conditioning: Considerations for sport coaching practice.Strategies, 35(3), 27–32. Web.
Overskeid, G. (2018). Do we need the environment to explain operant behavior?Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Web.
Silander, C., Haake, U., Lindberg, L., & Riis, U. (2021). Nordic research on gender equality in academic careers: A literature review.European Journal of Higher Education, 12(1), 72–97. Web.
Troop-Gordon, W., Sugimura, N., & Rudolph, K. D. (2017). Responses to interpersonal stress: Normative changes across childhood and the impact of peer victimization. Child Development, 88(2), 640–657.
Wagner, M. F., Skowronski, J. J., Milner, J. S., Crouch, J. L., & Ammar, J. (2019). Exploring positive classical conditioning procedure effects on evaluations of children, thoughts about children, and behaviors toward children: Two experiments.Psychological Reports, 123(5), 1753–1784. Web.