Introduction
The research topic chosen for this paper is the significance of the social environment in the development of personality. There is a significant body of literature that posits that the social environment plays a crucial role in personality development (Hibbard & Walton, 2014; Shmurygina, Bazhenova, Bazhenov & Nikolaeva, 2015). Hibbard and Walton (2014, p. 269) explain that the social environment that a child is exposed to influences his or her personality.
The humanistic school of thought has been chosen to explore the topic. The development of personality is a complex process, and different psychologists hold disparate opinions on the issue (Specht et al., 2014, p. 217). Initially, scholars viewed the development of personality through the lenses of psychoanalytic theory by Sigmund Freud and behaviorism by B. F. Skinner. However, these two schools of thought are limited in their scope, which does not consider the role of personal choices and self-determination in the development of personality (DeRobertis, 2016, p. 18).
Main Body
Therefore, Carl Rogers came up with a humanistic model to bridge the gaps exposed by the psychoanalytic theory and behaviorism (Hoffman, 2016, p. 56). Therefore, the humanistic school of thought is embedded in the chosen topic in different ways. First, humanism recognizes the role of self-determination in the development of personality. Apparently, human beings can determine and shape who they want to become through reason. This assertion elicits the question of how social environments influence one’s reasoning and decision-making. The first social environment that a child is exposed to is the family, which again prompts the question of the role of family and one’s upbringing in the development of personality (Blazevic, 2016).
From the humanistic school of thought, personal choices and needs contribute to one’s personality, as opposed to behaviorism. The humanistic psychologists stress that objective realism is less significant than an individual’s idiosyncratic discernment and comprehension of the surrounding. For that reason, as much as the social environment plays a role in personality development, individual choices and needs significantly contribute to one’s personality (Hoffman, 2016, p. 57).
The humanistic approach helps us to gain more insight into our research topic due to the fact that it essentially uses qualitative research techniques that provide an in-depth exploration of a problem at the individual level. This is commonly known as the idiographic principle. In addition, it utilizes exploratory research that is useful in assessing areas that have not been extensively researched (DeRobertis, 2016, p. 20; Hoffman, 2016, p. 56).
Moreover, the humanistic school of thought views not only human behavior from the researcher’s point of view, but also from an individual’s subjective experience (principle of subjectivity). The emphasis is put not just on individual conduct, thoughts, or brain, but on how they discern and construe events (DeRobertis, 2016, p. 21). The behaviorism approach focused on strengthening the induced response and significantly relied on animal studies, while the psychoanalytic approach focused on inanimate and inherent factors that determine an individual way of thinking and conduct. As a result, many researchers consider them as dehumanizing (Haber-Curran, Allen & Shankman, 2015, p. 60).
By applying the humanistic school of thought to our research topic, we will be able to provide a novel set of values for comprehending the influence of the social environment on personality development. The humanistic approach also offers a long-drawn-out horizon of techniques for reviewing human behavior. Lastly, it provides a more efficient approach in exploring different evolutionary contributors that shape an individual’s personality, which include social pressures (Lewis, 2015, p. 63).
Central to the humanistic school of thought is the subjective, cognizant experiences of a person. Hence, more emphasis is placed on qualitative study techniques, for instance, diary accounts, and unstructured dialogue/observation. Furthermore, a researcher can have a one-on-one conversation with an individual, swap experience, and acknowledge their sentiments (Hoffman, 2016, p. 59).
The humanistic approach is the most efficient for studies at the individual level, for example, case studies. In fact, most psychological studies normally involve an individual case and not a group. A number of empirical researches have proved that individuals discern and comprehend their social environment differently. For example, in their study of the prevalence and etiology of personality disorder among children and adolescents, Cicchetti and Crick (2009, p. 686) explain that each and every individual reacts differently to trauma cues. A study conducted by Bradea and Blandul (2015) also found out that the mass media has a considerable influence on children’s personality. However, the response of each and every child to mass media messages is different.
Humanism is against rigorous scientific approaches such as the use of humans and animals for experimental studies, which is ideal for this research. This is because any study involving human behavior can only be realized by giving individuals a free space to express themselves and share experiences (Haber-Curran, Allen & Shankman, 2015, p. 65). Last but not least, most scientific studies are mainly based on existing theories and, therefore, are to some extent biased. Specht et al. (2014) found a significant disparity between theoretical standpoints and empirical evidence concerning what drives adult personality development. For this reason, the humanistic approach acts as the best approach as it mainly relies on primary information and individual cases.
Contribution to society
Numerous scholars have emphasized the importance of the social environment on personality development. The development of personality is a complex process, and different psychologists hold disparate opinions on the issue (Specht et al., 2014, p. 217). Initially, scholars viewed the development of personality through the lenses of psychodynamic theory and theories of human behavior. However, these two schools of thought are limited in their scope. As a result, the humanistic approach bridges the gap exposed by the two schools of thought.
The humanistic school of thought is embedded in the chosen topic in a number of ways. First, humanism recognizes the role of self-determination in the development of personality. Apparently, human beings can determine and shape who they want to become through reason. This assertion elicits the question of how social environments influence one’s reasoning and decision-making. Second, the initial environment that a child is exposed to is the family, which again prompts the question of the role of family and one’s upbringing in the development of personality (Blazevic, 2016). Therefore, some of the questions that need to be answered in this research paper include
- How do social environments shape one’s decision-making?
- What are the roles of family and one’s upbringing in the development of personality?
- What social factors influence self-determination?
As already been stated, the humanistic approach is mainly based on qualitative research, which involves an in-depth exploration of the study problem at the individual level (idiographic). As a result, humanism is the most idiographic and holistic scientific approach. The proposed approach will help psychological experts in coming up with individual-centered therapy and, subsequently treat different psychosocial conditions effectively. This will, in turn, help to improve the current health status.
References
Blazevic, I. (2016). Family, peer, and school influence on children’s social development. World Journal of Education, 6(2), 4-11.
Bradea, A., & Blandul, V. (2015). The impact of mass media on personality development of pupils from primary school. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 205(1), 296-301.
Cicchetti, D., & Crick, N. (2009). Precursors and diverse pathways to personality disorder in children and adolescents. Developmental Psychopathology, 21(3), 682-683.
DeRobertis, E. (2016). On framing the future of humanistic psychology. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44(1), 18-41.
Haber-Curran, P., Allen, S., & Shankman, M. (2015). Valuing human significance: connecting leadership development to personal competence, social competence, and caring. New Directions for Student Leadership, 5(145), 59-70.
Hibbard, D., & Walton, G. (2014). Exploring the development of perfectionism: the influence of parenting style and gender. Social Behavior and Personality, 42(2), 269-278.
Hoffman, L. (2016). Multiculturalism and humanistic psychology: From neglect to epistemological and ontological diversity. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44(1), 56-71.
Lewis, D. (2015). Evolved individual differences: Advancing a condition-dependent model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 84(1), 63-72.
Shmurygina, N., Bazhenova, N., Bazhenov, R., & Nikolaeva, N. (2015). Self-organization of students: realities and development prospects. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214(2), 95-102.
Specht, J., Bleidorn, W., Denissen, J., Hennecke, M., Hutteman, R., Kandler, C., Zimmerman, J. (2014). What drives adult personality development? A comparison of theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. European Journal of Personality, 28(3), 216-230.