Parents Influenced on Their Children

bowd of pargonnts to their kidskinren P bental Influences on disposition A Comparison of Trait and Phenomenological Theories Stu Dent SS 123-45-6789 Psych 210 Theories of Personality Dr. Cerv champion Fall, 2001 P atomic number 18ntal Influences on Personality A Comparison of Trait and Phenomenological Theories A betingly obvious point about human nature is that our constitution is influenced by our parents. Intuitively, it seems as if the trend our parents raise us exerts an enduring influence on the nature of our nature.By article of belief certain display cases of behavior and by punishing actions of which they disapprove, parents whitethorn significantly influence the behavioral and emotional dahs of their tiddlerren. This intuition, however, contrasts with a second one. Common knowledge tells us that siblings often differ greatly from one an an new(prenominal)(prenominal). One brother may be outgoing, the other shy. One sister may be conservative, the other liberal . Since siblings undercoat the same parents, and parents tend to treat their children similarly, much(prenominal) examples seem to advise that parents means of child procreation capacity make fiddling discrimination to the spirit of their children.The question of agnatic influences on soulality, then, is an interesting puzzle for scientific surmisal and explore in personality psychology. Theories of personality look at taken opposite viewpoints on the question of parental influences on personality. This paper addresses ii theories that present contrasting views. These are the indication and phenomenological theories of personality. In the singularity theories, the basal variables of the opening are concourses traits, that is, their broad predispositions . . . to respond in particular demeanors (Pervin & John, 2001, p. 26). Most trait theories try to point a common set of traits that can be used to describe the personality of any individual. These nomothetic trait theories rely on the statistical surgical procedure of factor analysis to identify dimensions that can be used restate individual differences in personality traits. Researchers using this technique commonly identify a set of five trait dimensions. These Big Five personality traits include extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness to roll in the hay (Pervin & John, 2001).Once one identifies a set of primary traits in this manner, a primary question is to identify where the traits come from. wherefore do some muckle brook more than or less(prenominal) of a given trait than others? Almost all trait theorists have sought biological explanations for variations in traits. People are seen to inherit a given level of a trait in the same way that they might inherit hair color or height. This viewpoint is coherent with findings on genetics and personality, which indicate that identical twins personalities are far-off more similar than would be e xpected by chance (Pervin & John, 2001).The trait theories, then, have an interesting implication for the question of parental influences on personality. If personality is defined in terms of personality traits, and if traits are thought to be inherited, then parental styles of child rearing would appear to have little influence on childrens personality. The only influence parents would have on their childrens personality is a biological one. They pass their genes on to their children. harmonize to the trait theories, parents interpersonal interactions with their children would exert little effect on the childs personality arrivement.A very different view is put forth by proponents of phenomenological theories of personality. The primary focus of the phenomenological theories is the individuals subjective experience of their world, that is, their phenomenological experience (Pervin & John, 2001). In particular, peoples subjective experience of themselves, or their self-concept, is seen as the core of individuals personalities. Among the most prominent of the phenomenological theories of personality is the self theory of Carl Rogers (Pervin & John, 2001).Rogers contended that peoples psychological experiences are not gibed by objective events in the world, but by their subjective interpretations of these events. These interpretations, in turn, are heavily influenced by a persons self concept. Specifically, people may experience psychological distress when they cannot integrate their fooling experiences with their sense experience of who they really are, as might be manifested by a persons saying that I just havent been acting like myself lately. Alternatively, a person might feel guilty or depressed if their ctions do not meet their ideal self, that is, the persons subjective sense of what they ideally should be like in such circumstances, a person might report that Im baffle with myself. Peoples self-views, then, are a primary determinant of their boi lersuit experiences. With postulate to the question of parental influences, Rogers phenomenological theory has a very different implication than that deriving from trait theory. According to Rogers, self concept, like other aspects of phenomenological experience, is not inherited but instead develops gradually as people interact with the world and the other people around them.Rogers suggests that people develop a overconfident self-concept if they experience unconditional commanding regard, that is, if people consistently respect and accept them for who they really are. People who experience unconditional positive regard, then, should have a positive view of self that enables them to approach daily activities in an open-minded, psychologically flexible and creative manner. In contrast, less positive personality instruction occurs if people experience conditions of worth, that is, if other people establish criteria, or conditions, for what is valued behavior.Such individuals may experience a more damaging view of self that leads them to approach life activities in a more cautious, tentative, self-critical, and unconfident style. Since parents are generally the major source of influence in the earlyish years of child development, the extent to which parents display unconditional positive regard to their children, as opposed to imposing conditions of worth, should influence long-term personality development. A primary question, then, is how one might be able to test these theories one against the other.Since personality theorists are attempting to development conceptions of human nature that can be evaluated by objective empirical evidence, it should be possible to marshal scientific evidence that bears on the relative merits of the dickens theories. For the question of parental influences on personality, one key source of evidence would be longitudinal studies, that is, studies that get a line the same individuals across a long period of time. Ideally, s uch pee-pee would measure aspects of child rearing early in life and determine whether they predict personality characteristics as measured ulterior in life.Such a study has been conducted by Harrington, Block, & Block (1987). They studied a large assembly of people at ii points in time early puerility and adolescence. During early childhood, the researchers obtained measures of the stagecoach to which each childs parents exhibited a Rogerian style of child rearing, that is, a style in which few conditions of worth were enforce on children and, instead, children were accepted for who they are and were allowed to explore the world freely. There were deuce such measures.One was a self-report of parents child-rearing styles, and the other was an observational measure in which researchers sight parents interacting with their children and coded whether the parents acted in a prototypic Rogerian manner. They two measures were combined into an overall powerfulness of Rogerian child rearing. In adolescence, the researchers obtained a measure of creativity. Teachers were asked to rate the degree to which the research participants, who were their students, approached tasks in an open-minded, creative manner.Since the researchers had measures on the same individuals at two points in time, they were able to determine the degree to which the childhood measure of parenting style predicted the young measure of creativity. The finding strongly supported Rogers theory of personality development (Harrington et al. , 1987). Just as Rogers would have predicted, children whose parents treated them in a Rogerian style turned out to be adolescents who were judged as being more creative. pincer rearing style was a statistically significant predictor of creativity.Importantly, this was unfeigned even when the researchers controlled for a measure of intelligence that alike was obtained during childhood. It is not still the case that intelligent children were treated in a Ro gerian style and also were creative. Instead, even controlling for intelligence, parental child rearing predicted creativity. In evaluating the two theories, the results clearly support Rogers phenomenological perspective, as noted above. Childrens experiences of alternative parenting styles seem to have influenced a significant aspect of their personality and to have do to in exactly the manner Rogers would have anticipated.In contrast, the results conflict with the trait theory position that personality characteristics are largely inherited and that aspects of the environment that are shared by multiple siblings, such as parental child rearing style, exert little influence on personality characteristics later in life. Since the work of Harrington et al. (1987) was conducted a number of years ago, one might ask how trait theorists, in light of these results, could maintain their view that parental styles of child rearing exert little influence on personality. The results would see m to provide objective evidence against their theories.One possibility is that trait theories are focalization only on specific, narrow aspects of human personality, and that parental child rearing styles exert an influence on other aspects of personality that trait theorists have overlooked. Recall that, as described above, the core variables of trait theory are peoples average tendencies to exhibit general styles of emotion or behavior. It is noteworthy that none of these personality trait variables addresses peoples self-concept. Although trait theorists surely do recognize that people have self-concepts, they seem to have eliminated the notion of self-concept from the core of personality.Self-concept is not a personality structure in their view. This seems hard to defend, since peoples views of themselves are such a important trait of psychological experience. By focusing on overt styles of behavior, alternatively than the inner psychological life of the individual, includin g his or her views of self, trait theories may be missing an important aspect of human nature. The development of a perpetual conception of oneself and ones personal qualities is a critical feature of personality, and it may be one that is shaped to a large degree by interactions between children and their parents. References Harrington, D. , Block, J. H. & Block. J. (1987). Testing aspects of Carl Rogers theory of creative environments Child-rearing antecedents of creative potential drop in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851-856. Pervin, L. A. , & John, O. P. (2001). Personality supposition and research (8th ed. ). New York John Wiley & Sons. Notes (Your paper would not have these notes these notes provided are intended for members of the class. They correspond to the circled numbers in the margins of the text. ) 1. This was a sublime instance in which I wanted to quote straightway from other source, in order to get the precisely correct definition on the term.To indicate that the material is taken directly from the text adjudge, I put the line of achievement in quotation marks and included the page number in the book that contains the original material (p. 226). Note that you have to take these two steps even if you take only a few wrangle from the other source. Even though it was only 7 words, Pervin and John wrote those words, not me, so they have to be in quotes. Otherwise, the material would be plagiarized. each material that comes from another source and that appears in your paper has to be in quotation marks, and you must include the page number on the book or journal that contains the original material.In general, you should have very few passages of directly quoted material. The words in your paper should be yours, not somebody elses. 2. This carve up is a useful one for this paper assignment. Perhaps the most heavy part of the assignment is to figure out how specific, concrete research findings tie t o the general, abstract ideas of the personality theories. You should make clear to the reader how the study that you reappraisal relates to the two theories. 3. When writing the paper, you should provide some information about the type of study your are reviewing, as in this paragraph, and then should review the results.