Abstract
Personality theories enhance the understanding of human behaviors and attempt to explain their origins or causes. In reference to Hiriyappa (2012), many scholars developed personality theories in the 1900’s. Moreover, different scholars modified individual theories over time. While some of the theories are still applied today, others are no longer in use. The aim of the current research is to assess behaviorism and psychoanalytic personality theories.
The research analyzes the similarities and differences between the two theories. In this regard, two major similarities are identified. First, the theories are both deterministic as they seek to establish the causes of certain human behaviors. Secondly, the theories pay regard to the role of experiences in shaping human behavior. The differences lie in the fundamental concepts of the theories and the scientific nature of the investigations undertaken by Sigmund and Skinner in an effort to prove their perspectives. Although the theories have been described as polar opposites, this research reveals some similarities.
Introduction
According to Hiriyappa (2012), personality theories attempt to understand the nature of human beings. There are many theories that have been developed by different scholars to understand human behavior and the motives behind their actions. This essay focuses on the psychoanalytic theory by Sigmund Feud, and behaviorism by Skinner. Patterson and Joseph (2007) explain that John B. Watson initially developed the concept of behaviorism in the early 1900’s.
Later, Skinner modified the theory and focused on the principles of operant behavior. In reference to Skinner (1976), the environment plays a critical role in shaping human behavior, and human beings have specific response tendencies. The theory also recognizes time as an important factor in changing behavioral patterns. On the contrary, psychoanalytic theory notes that personality is determined by various conflicts between the conscious and subconscious mind (Schultz & Schultz, 2013).
Sigmund developed the theory in the 19th century, and it recognizes the presence of inner desires and experiences in life, which shape personalities. Generally, both theories seem to identify varying concepts that are responsible for the differences in personalities among human beings. The aim of the current research is to assess the differences and similarities between behaviorism and psychoanalytic theories.
Similarities
The two approaches are deterministic. This means that Feud and Skinner believed that other factors were responsible for human behavior (either internal or external factors). Specifically, behaviorism tends to focus on the environment as an external factor that affects human behavior. Additionally, Skinner recognized the fact that a negative environment results in negative behavior while a positive environment stimulates positive behavior.
Hiriyappa (2012) notes that behaviorism looks at the effects of consequences in shaping the behavior of human beings. Based on Skinner’s experiments, such consequences encompassed punishment or reinforcement. Consequently, the psychoanalytic theory is based on internal forces in the minds of human beings. These forces are conflicting and determine how people behave. Trimboli, Marshall, and Keenan (2013) note that the id, ego, and the superego are the forces identified by Feud, and are recognized as ‘energy systems’ within the human mind. These forces have been described as conflicting as they have contradicting roles.
Hiriyappa (2012) notes that behaviorism and psychoanalytic theories acknowledge the role of experiences in shaping human behavior. According to Schultz and Schultz (2013), behaviorists believe that past conditioning determines the personalities of humans in the present. Patterson and Joseph (2007) acknowledge that punishments and reinforcements can be used in behavior modification. In his experiment, Skinner was able to study operant behavior in rats.
Despite his efforts to reduce the number of reinforcements, the rats retained the conditioned behavior. Additionally, psychoanalysts believe that experiences are found in the unconscious level and determine behavioral patterns. Trimboli et al. (2013) note that the conscious and preconscious minds, as described by Feud, harbor positive experiences that affect future behaviors. Additionally, the unconscious mind is inaccessible and harbors negative motives, immoral thoughts, and selfishness. In reference to Freud (1997), the images in the unconscious mind present in the form of dreams and mannerisms. In summary, it is clear that experiences determine the future actions of human beings, as explained by both theories.
Differences
In reference to Schultz and Schultz (2013), one of the major differences between the two theories is the source of evidence that the two scholars used to support their arguments. Skinner based all his analyses and perspectives on observable behavior. He performed experiments on both humans and animals in an effort to study the motives behind certain behaviors and responses. One of his most common experiments involved the application of operant conditioning on rats (Skinner, 1976).
The theory appears to be more scientific in comparison to the psychoanalytic perspective. Additionally, the observations in behaviorism focused on measurable responses, physical stimuli, and the interaction between the two factors. Skinner subjected rats to certain stimuli and then observed the effects. As a result of the scientific nature of Skinner’s experiments, behaviorism has played a significant role today in understanding human actions. It is important to note that Skinner did not deny the existence of the role of cognition within the human brain. In his experiments, the findings had to be observable and not mere speculations.
On the contrary, Trimboli et al. (2013) report that psychoanalytic theories are not scientific and seem to be based on mere speculations. Specifically, Feud developed various hypotheses on the preconscious, conscious, and unconscious forces present in the human mind and their role in determining behavior. He never performed any experiments to prove the existence of these forces. In summary, Skinner’s approach is more scientific compared to the psychoanalytic theory. Despite the absence of scientific experiments in the psychoanalytic theory, it formed the basis for further research on the psychodynamic approach that is used in understanding human behavior.
There are differences in the basic concepts of behaviorism and psychoanalysis. According to Hiriyappa (2012), psychoanalysts believe that human mental functions have both conscious and unconscious levels. Moreover, childhood experiences play a role in determining how an individual’s future will be (Freud, 1997). When children are exposed to psychological stress, they are likely to develop negative behaviors in the future.
Positive experiences are likely to trigger the development of positive behavior. Feud’s experiments involved the interpretation of his patient’s problems based on the information that they provided. Specifically, he tried to make the patients aware of the presence of the conscious and unconscious levels in their minds. In the case of patients who were depressed, Feud believed that investigating the unconscious mind would assist them in overcoming their internal conflicts (depression). A psychoanalyst believes that internal forces within the human brain determine a person’s state of mind (Schultz & Schultz, 2013).
On the contrary, behaviorism does not focus on the internal cognitive aspects of the human brain (Hiriyappa, 2012). The focus of behaviorism is based solely on external observable factors within the environment. Moreover, the id, ego, and the superego aspects are absent in behaviorism. According to Trimboli et al. (2013), the id structure was described by Feud as unconscious and requiring prompt gratification. The ego is also unconscious and relies on the id for satisfaction. Lastly, the superego was described by Feud as a conscious and morally upright structure that regulates the id.
The two theories are different based on the systems that are relied upon, to tell the truth. Behaviorism relies on observable evidence in telling the truth, while psychoanalysis relies on the unconscious mind. Schultz and Schultz (2013) note that the notion of truth in psychoanalysis is explained by the events preceding an action. However, behaviorism looks at the present to uncover the truth. In this regard, it is important to note that behaviorists perceive the truth as obvious and argue that the mind cannot unveil the truth, as it is not observable. Psychoanalysts believe that the subconscious mind has the ability to provide evidence that is likely to lead to the truth.
Patterson and Joseph (2007) indicate that the psychoanalytic theory is ambiguous and difficult to prove. Moreover, these authors note that the absence of scientific methods makes the theory weak, as the hypotheses are just mere assumptions. Additionally, Schultz and Schultz (2013) argue that many psychologists are still applying the notion of operant conditioning, as explained by Skinner. The presence of scientific models in proving behaviorism makes the theory sufficient in explaining human behavior and personality. However, this does not mean that Feud’s theory is entirely useless as some of its aspects are still used by psychologists today.
Conclusion
Personality theories are critical in understanding human behavior and the reasons behind certain actions. Hiriyappa (2012) recognizes the presence of many theories that explain human behavior. This paper focuses on behaviorism and psychoanalytic approaches as personality theories. The research reveals that Skinner is well known for his experiments in behaviorism, while Sigmund Feud was one of the scholars responsible for the psychoanalytic theory.
The psychoanalytic theory acknowledges the role of the conscious, preconscious, and subconscious minds in determining behavior, while behaviorism recognizes the role of the environment (Schultz & Schultz, 2013). While the two theories have been described as polar opposites, two major similarities exist between them. First, the theories are deterministic as they try to explain the factors that result in certain behaviors. Second, both theories acknowledge the important role that experiences play in shaping future behaviors.
Various differences exist between the two theories. One of the most recognized differences in the scientific nature of the methods used to prove the fundamental concepts of the theories. Skinner applied scientific methods while Feud based his analyses on mere hypotheses. Another difference is the concepts that explain the two theories. While behaviorism recognizes the role of the environment in determining behavior, psychoanalysis looks at the conscious and subconscious structures within the human mind. In summary, Skinner’s behavioral theory seems to be more acceptable among psychologists today due to its scientific nature in comparison to Feud’s perspective.
References
Freud, S. (1997). The interpretation of dreams. Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions.
Hiriyappa, B. (2012). Development of personality and its theories. Bloomington, Indiana: Booktago.
Patterson, T. G., & Joseph, S. (2007). Person-Centered personality theory: Support from self-determination theory and positive psychology. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 47(15), 117-139.
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Skinner, B. F. (1976). About behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.
Trimboli, F., Marshall, R. L., & Keenan, C. W. (2013). Assessing psychopathology from a structural perspective: A psychodynamic model. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 77(2), 132-160.