Psychology of Personality

This particular article was found in the Shapiro Library. Originally I had done a search on Hans Eysenck, but only turned up with articles of a bibliographic nature. I then decided I must change the nature of what I was searching for and so I changed the “Content Type” and my results were much more applicable to what I wanted to use for this assignment. Having found this article through Shapiro Library and it being a published article within a larger work lead me to the conclusion that it was a reputable article for me to analyze for the purposes of this assignment. The context of this article is somewhat different in the respect that it is actually a comparative review of the personality theories between Hans Eysenck and Jeffrey Gray. I felt like looking at two different theories that were being compared and then comparing the article and the two theories would be a great way to give an analysis. Although there were no specific topics on the biological, anatomical, or physiological aspects of personality it was explained that this course was more of a general introduction into the theories and concepts regarded in the psychology of personality. This made this article even more interesting for me to look at and analyze in order to see a deeper basis for personality. As in one of our discussion board topics we discussed the differences between old and new theories, this was also similar to seeing how we are now able (through the use of technology) test those hypotheses against our newer theories. Another limitation of this article is the terminology and specifications of knowledge in each different field in order to fully understand what is being discussed. It goes beyond simply understanding the psychology of personality, and even beyond what a general medical doctor may have knowledge of regarding the brain’s functions and processes (as well as the anatomical positions of where the physiological roots of each topic is based). The complexities presented seem to require more than a general knowledge into neuropsychology, anatomy and physiology, psychology, and even possibly psychiatry. These two men that the article is based on have both made great contributions to the field of psychology regarding the biological basis of personality traits (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). The basis for this article is to dissect Eysenck and Gray’s theories and provide an explanation of how each of them can be applied to, or used in an explanation of, the behavioral correlations of traits. It then also focuses on how the biological approach may not be a suitable use for the evaluation of personality. For this reason, the article can be particularly important and relatable to the items specifically discussed in this course. It gives the opportunity to see these two theories applied to the portions of personality that we covered during this course. So, this paper then examines data that was gained from studies that sought the related predictions from both men’s theories. In summation it concluded with, and presented the thoughts of, the article’s authors on the topics regarding each theorists view. The beginnings of the article are particularly critical as it delves into Eysenck’s conceptual nervous system for personality. Presented this way Matthews and Gilliland give you the ability, with extensive knowledge on the anatomical and physiological aspects of the brain, to see how Eysenck applied his theory to the underlying biological foundations for personality. It begins with the explanation of the conceptual nervous system in terms of what biological processes occur in distinct areas of the brain: reticulo-cortical and reticulo-limbic circuits. Explaining that these two circuits are controlling arousals and responses to stimuli. That is then applied to the biological factor into why and how extraverts and introverts react to stimuli. But, the details concerned with analyzing studies done on extroversion show that there are problems for testing theories. These problems are the pursuit of a conservative amount of arousal that give the relations between personality and arousal give consideration into the differences individuals have in their seek for or avoidance of stimulation (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). Within this explanation the article also presents not only introversion and extroversion application but also neuroticism. So through the explanation of Eysenck’s conceptual nervous system, it begins a comparative review of both theories. Through out the article it was clear the concentration was on the experimental studies that allowed the theories to be tested. It did stay focused on the extroversion and neuroticism aspects as well as the anxiety and impulsivity concerned with the biological basis for each theory. Each theory presented predictions that were different in each of the topic areas, therefore giving an easier ability for comparison as well as contrasting. The authors discussed and gave assessments of the predictions with conjunctions into the empirical data. The authors also separated the sections into psychophysiological correlations of personality, which was then divided into the CNS and PNS system studies (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). Another aspect of the article that was especially important in grasping what was being discussed was the ways that the article was delineated in such a way that each critical area of both theories was grouped appropriately. This gave the reader the opportunity to grasp each “section” of the theories then incorporate the comparing and contrasting presented by the authors. It moved through each portion of the theories smoothly, continuing to allow assimilation. The article also ‘stayed on task’ so to speak, keeping each section clear-cut and not wavering from the original goal of it. One issue that I did find with this particular article was when the real comparison began. The presentation of Gray’s theory with the introduction of differing degrees in relation to the original proposal of anxiety and impulsivity dimensions becomes difficult to follow (again the limitations for any reader without specific knowledge in each scope). This is certainly where the need for knowledge in the anatomical and physiological terms and understanding of these different systems is necessary. But one thing that allows for better understanding is the description given in conjunction with the visual aid that shows Gray’s conceptual nervous system of personality. This was particularly helpful in giving me more of an understanding of the brake down of Gray’s theory and then relating it to the comparing and contrasting that was occurring, even through I may not have clearly understood some of the other parts regarded in the biological context of the article. The author’s did include many references, which were specifically related to each topic that was presented. This substantiates the belief that the article is credible. There was also the incorporation of many of the research and the ways that this particular research either supported or refuted each theory. It seems that the data that was given was obtained through medical instruments, such as the electroencephalogram, as well as already established knowledge of the human nervous system (both central and peripheral), and anatomical and physiological processes. It is evident, even without the required knowledge to fully grasp all of the presented limitations, comparisons and contrasts, that this article is very thorough. It attempts to cover every aspect that can be associated or not with each theory. Any possible affected topic in these theories regarding personality is presented, and is dissected to determine the applicability of the theories to the information gathered. Through each presentation of the different aspects of psychology, and anatomy and physiology the conclusions drawn show whether the area discussed is more favorable to either Gray’s or Eysneck’s theory. Tying all of the information together was an important aspect that helped me concludes where the article wanted to leave the reader (and learner of course, after all the information that had been presented). It showed how there were challenges in relating (fully) the concepts of biology (specifically the biology of the human body with regard to prior already established knowledge into the functions) to the concepts of personality (in psychological terms). In the concluding section (7.3) it seems to bring the reader (me specifically) back to where personality is being discussed in terms more easily understandable. There is also a clarification into trait psychology and the differences those theories have regarding the social learning theorists are becoming more null and void. Where the recognition of traits are gaining validity in the social learning aspects of personality psychology (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999). It presents the fact that both Gray and Eysneck’s theories do have some success explaining the differences between individuals in biological terms of response to stimuli; but that there are many limitations to both theories that these men were possibly unable to consider during the time of the proposal of their theories due to limited technology. Upon my own conclusion I find that much of the information provided was intriguing but again required more knowledge of the specific areas discussed in order to have a full understanding of all of the material at hand. Having this article for the continuation into finding new and innovative ways to discover the foundations for personality and the behaviors associated with them seems to be integral. The authors express the fact that Eysneck himself requested these evaluations and Matthews and Gilliland also acknowledge Gray himself as being an active proponent in the inner workings of all the information provided them to complete this work. This substantiates finally the work presented here as being more than mere opinion and based specifically on continuing the important role in psychology through the use of new technologies. Works Cited Matthews, G., & Gilliland, K. (1999). Personality and individual differences. The personality theories of H.J. Eysenck and J.A. Gray: a comparative review, 26(4), 583-626. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/science/article/pii/S0191886998 01585