Eysenck's Argumentative Analysis

Sternberg stated in relation to personality - "There are as many definitions of personality as there are personality psychologists" (Sternberg 1994). From this statement we can deduce that personality is something difficult to understand and define. Similarly, Eysenck spoke of personality one of the most general and unclearly defined terms in psychology. (Eysenck, 1967) In broad terms, personality can be defined the enduring characteristics of an individual that describe patterns of thinking, feelings and behaviour. (Myers, 1986; Pervin and John, 2001) The following essay will critically evaluate the trait theories of personality based on the concept of personality as defined by Block, Weiss and Thorne (1979) – In which they state that personality

While the other approaches could be considered taxonomical, Eysenck attempts to identify causality of traits. Eysenck believes, variability in cortical arousal is responsible for the development of extroversive traits (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Eysenck’s use of strict and rigorous methodology as well as empirical evidence throughout his approach strengthens his findings, however an argument can also be made against his approach. Critics believe that Eysenck’s theory is overly simplistic and fails to account for all human behaviour. Another criticism is that perhaps introversion and extraversion are both opposite ends of one dimension rather than two separate dimensions, as Eysenck would have us believe. This would undermine the majority much of the underlying theory which is reliant on Eysenck’s approach being orthogonal. A further criticism is that modern neuropsychological research has disproven the biological basis of the theory (Robinson

Allport’s approach is weak in its use of circular reasoning and is based upon a disputed understanding of wat personality consists. The five factor trait model of personality is arguably the most valid and accepted trait model resulting from its ability to accurately predict experimental results with a reasonably high level of consistency. Its complexity lends itself to simplicity making it an accessible yet comprehensive study, framing personality constructs and informing future research direction. The significant criticism that applies to the trait approach is that its use of surface descriptions in relation to the traits, paired with the disregard of causality leaves little room for future explorations in human behaviour. There is also concern regarding the one dimensional nature of the Five Factor Model and its omission of intelligence as a trait – arguing that its measurements are therefore subjective and subject to change as newer, more extensive approaches to personality