Commissi

ononHigherEducati
on
Techni
cal
Commi t
teef
orPsy chol
ogy(TCP)
Resol
uti
onNo.01-2014

AgreedWei ghtsofBoar
dExam Subj
ect
sforPsy chomet
ri
cians
Subj
ect Wei ght No.ofI
tems
1.Psychol
ogicalAssessment 40% 150
2.Theori
esofPer sonal
it
y 20% 100
3.AbnormalPsychology 20% 100
4.I
ndustri
alPsychology 20% 100
100% 450

Professional Regul atoryBoardofPsychology

Resol uti
onNo.19
Ser iesof2014
TableofSpecifi
cations:Boar dLi censur eExaminat
ionf orPsychomet
ri
cians
Theor iesofPersonali
ty
Outcome Wei ght No.ofItems
1.Recognizeanddi f
ferentiatethebasi c 80% 80
theori
esandper spectiveofper sonalit
y
2.Identi
fythesocio-
cultural and 10% 10
envir
onment alf
actorst hatmayi mpact
personali
ty.
3.Identi
fyrel
evantFili
pino/indi genous 10% 10
conceptsinunderstandi ngper sonal i
ty
100% 100

Pr
esent
eddur
ingt
heTOSOr
ient
ati
on(
August13,
2014)

Theori
esofPer
sonal
it
y Thestudyofper sonalit
y:Theor yandResearch
(20%-100i
tems) a.Psychoanalyti
cTheor y(SigmundFr eud)
b.Neopsy choanalyt
icTheories( Carl
Jung,Alf
redAdler
,Karen
Horney ,
HenryMur ray)
c.Lif
e-spanTheor y(Eri
kEr i
kson)
d.Trai
tTheor i
es(Gor donAllport,RaymondCattel
l
,HansEy senck)
e.Humani sti
cTheor i
es( Abraham Maslow&Car lRogers)
f.Cogniti
veTheory( GeorgeKel l
y)
g.Behav i
oralTheory(B.F.Skinner)
h.SocialLearni
ngTheor y(AlbertBandura)
i
.Fil
ipinoPersonalit
y

Subj
ect : Theor
iesofPer
sonal
it
y
Focus : I
NTRODUCTIONTOPERSONALI
TYTHEORY
By : BennyS.Sol
iman,
RGC.
,
LPT.
,
RPm.

Learni
ngObjectives
Attheendoft helecture,t
hepar t
ici
pant
sareexpectedt
o:
1.defi
nepersonalit
yandat heor y
;
2.di
ffer
enti
atetheoryfrom otherrelat
edconcepts;
3.descri
betheindicat
orsofausef ult
heory;
4.i
dentif
ythedimensionsf oraconceptofhumani ty;and
5.di
scusstheappr oachesoft heori
esofpersonali
ty.

Int
roduct i
on
Thesubj ectTheoriesofPersonal
i
tyisasur v
eyofthemaj ortheori
esofpersonali
tyand
thet heoreti
caland pr acticali
ssuesinvol
ved inthescienti
fi
cst udyand under st
anding of
personalit
yf ormati
onanddy namics(CMONo.34, Seri
esof2017).Specif
ical
ly,
itdeal
swi tht
he
sal
ientf eatures,concepts,designsorstruct
ures,pri
nci
plesandexpl anati
onsofper sonal
ity
for
mat ion.

Thei
ntendedout
comeoft hecour
seistounder st
andandappl ythemaj orfacet
soft he
personali
tyt
heoryinunder
standi
nghumanbehav ior
.Thet heori
esareusuallycategori
zedinto
fi
ve( 5)approachesnamel
ypsy chody
namic,behavi
oral/
sociallear
ning,humanisti
c,tr
ait
,and
cogniti
veapproach.

Whati sPersonal
it
y?
Et
ymologi
call
yspeaking,
thet
erm personali
tywasderi
vedfrom theLati
nword“persona”
whichmeansat heatri
calmaskwornbyRomanact or
sinGreekdrama.Thi ssur
faceview of
personali
ty,ofcourse,isnotan acceptable defi
niti
on.When psychologi
stsuse the t
erm
“personal
it
y,”t
heyarerefer
ri
ngtosomethi
ngmor ethanther
olepeopl
epl ay.

Personali
tyi
sapatt
ernofr el
ati
vel
yper manentt
rai
tsanduni
quechar
act
eri
sti
cst
hatgi
vebot
h
consist
encyandi
ndi
vidual
i
tytoaper son’
sbehavi
or.

Tr
ait
scontri
butetoindivi
dualdi
ffer
encesi
nbehav
ior
,consi
stencyofbehav
iorov
ert
ime,and
st
abi
li
tyofbehavi
oracrosssit
uat
ions.

Char
acter
ist
ics are unique quali
ti
es of an i
ndi
vi
dualt
hat i
ncl
ude such at
tri
but
es as
t
emperament,physi
que,andint
ell
igence.

Behav
iori
sanyact
ion/r
esponset
oint
ernal
andext
ernal
sti
mul
i
.

WhataboutaTheor
y?

Theoryi
sasetofr elatedassumpti
onst
hatal
l
owssci
ent
ist
stousel
ogi
caldeduct
iver
easoni
ng
tofor
mulatet
est
abl ehy pot
heses.
TheoryandIt
sRelatives

Phi
losophy
.Theor
yisr
elat
edt
ophi
l
osophy
,buti
tisamuchnar
rowert
erm.
Specul ati
on.Theories rel
yon specul at
ion,butt heyar e much mor et han mer e armchair
specul ati
on.
Hy pothesis.Alt
hought heoryisanarrowerconceptt hanphilosophy,i
tisabr oaderter mt han
hypothesi s.
Taxonomy .Merecl
assifi
cati
ondoesnotconst i
tuteatheory.Howev er
,taxonomiescanev ol
ve
i
ntot heorieswhentheybegi ntogenerat
et est
ablehypothesesandtoexplainresearchfindings.
Relationshipbetweent heoryandscience.Theor i
esareusefultoolsemployedbysci entiststo
gi
v emeani ngandor gani
zati
ontoobser vati
ons.Inadditi
on,theori
esprovideferti
l
egr oundf or
produci ngtest
ablehypotheses.

WhyDi fferentTheor i
es?
Therear edifferenttheori
esbecauseoft hefoll
owi ngdif
ferencesoft hetheori
sts:
-Personal backgr ound
-Chil
dhoodexper i
ences
-Int
erpersonal relati
onshi ps
-Phil
osophi calorientations
-Uniqueway sofl ookingatt heworld
-Datachosent oobser ve
-Personaliti
es
Psychol ogyofsci ence i
st he empiri
calst udyoft he personalt rai
ts ofscient i
sts
(t
heorists)
.Thepsy chologyofsciencestudiesbothsci enceandt hebehav iorofscienti
sts;that
i
s,itinvestigatest heimpactofani ndiv
idualscienti
st’
spsy chologicalprocessesandper sonal
characteri
sticsont hedev el
opmentofherorhi sscienti
fictheori
esandr esearch.

WhatMakesaTheor
yUsef
ul?
1.GeneratesResearch
2.I
sf al
sifi
abl
e
3.Organizesdata
4.Guidesaction
5.I
sinternall
yconsist
ent
6.I
spar simonious

Dimensionsf oraConceptofHumani t
y
Personalit
yt heori
esdiff
eronbasi ci
ssuesconcerni
ngthenatureofhumanit
y .Each
personali
tytheoryreflect
sitsauthor
’sassumptionsabouthumanity
.Theseassumpt i
onsreston
severalbr
oaddi mensi onsthatsepar
atethevariousper
sonali
tyt
heorist
s.
Thef oll
owingar ethesixdimensionsasaf r
amewor kf
orviewingeachtheor
ist’
sconcept
ofhumani ty
.

Deter
mini
sm peopl
e’
sbehavi
orsar
edeterminedbyforcesoverwhi
chtheyhav
enocont
rol
vs.Fr
eechoi
ce peopl
echooset
obewhatt heywishtobe
Pessi
mism peopl
edoomedtoli
vemiserable,
confl
i
cted,andtr
oubl
edliv
es
vs.Opti mi sm peopl
egr
owi
ntopsy
chol
ogi
cal
l
yheal
thy
,happy
,ful
l
yfunct
ioni
nghumanbei
ngs
Causal
ity behav i
orisafuncti
onofpastexper i
ences
vs.Tel
eology explanati
onofbehav i
orint er
msoffuturegoalsorpurposes
Conscious peopleareordinari
lyawareofwhatt heyaredoingandwhyt heyaredoi
ngi
t
vs.Unconsci
ous peopleactwithoutawar enessofunderl
yi
ngf or
ces
Biol
ogi
cal personalchar
act er
ist
icsareresul
tofheredit
y(Nature)
vs. personalchar
act er
ist
icsareenvir
onmentall
ydet er
mined(Nurtur
e)
Soci
ali
nfl
uences
Uniqueness f
ocusont
hei
ndiv
idual
i
tyoftheperson
vs.Simil
ari
ti
es f
ocusont
hecommoncharacter
ist
icsofpeopl
e

ApproachesofPer sonal i
tyTheor i
es
Theori
esofper sonalit
ycov erawi der ange,from thoseprovidingabr oadapplicati
ont o
manydi ff
erentbehav ior
st ot hosel i
mi t
edt ocer tai
ntypesofbehav ior.Eachtheorypossesses
someabi li
tyto expl ainacer tainaspect sofper sonali
ty,andeachexpl anati
oni satl east
somewhataccur ate.
Forconvenience, t
hev ariousper sonali
tyt heor
iescoveredinthiscoursehav ebeenplaced
i
ntofive(5)categor i
es.Eachoft hesecat egories,orapproachestoper sonal
it
y,isdist
ingui
shed
fr
om t heother
sl argelybyi t
sassumpt i
onsandi tsfocus,aswellasbyt hemethodsi tusest o
assesspersonali
ty,andt reatpr oblem behavi
or s.

1. Psy chody nami c-t hisappr oachhol dst hatbehav iorsar einf uencedbyunconsci
l ous
processes.Accor dingt ot hisappr oach,wear ev icti
msofunconsci oussexualand
aggr essiv ei nst i
nctt hatconst antlyi nf
luence ourbehav i
or.Li kewi se,t his appr oach
assumedt hatchi l
dhoodexper iencesshapeourper sonal i
tylaterinl i
fe.
2. Behav i
or al/Soci all earning-t hisappr oachhol dst hatbehav iorsar ei nfluencedby
rewar ds,puni shment s,andmodel sbymeansofi mi tati
on.Accor dingt ot hisappr oach,
weactt hewaywedobecauseofourenv ironment ,notbecauseofourper sonalchoi ce
ordir ection.
3. Humani stic-i nt his appr oach,peopl e ar e assumed t o hav e a gr eatdealof
responsi bil
ityf ort heiract ions.Thi sappr oachst ressest hatal thoughwesomet i
mes
respondaut omat icall
yt oev ent sint heenv ir
onmentandmayatt i
mesbemot ivatedby
unconsci ousi mpul ses,wehav et hepowert odet er mineourowndest inyandt odeci de
ouract ionsatal mostanygi venmoment .Wehav ef reewi ll.Likewi se,t hisappr oach
explai nedt hatabehav i
orisi nr esponset ot hefrust rati
onofsomebasi cneeds.
4. Tr aitappr oach-t hef ocusoft hisappr oachi st oi dent i
fyt y
pesorcat egor i
esoft rait
s
thatdescr i
beal argenumberofpeopl eandt hatcanbeusedt opr edi ctbehav i
or .It
assumest hatal lpeopl efitint ooneoft hecat egor ies,thatal lpeopl ewi thinacat egory
arebasi callyal i
ke,andt hatt hebehav iorofpeopl ei nonecat egor yisdi stinctf r
om t hat
ofpeopl ei nt heot hercat egor ies.
5. Cogni tiveappr oach-t hisappr oachdescr ibesdi f
f erencesi nper sonalityasdi ff
erences
i
nt hewaypeopl epr ocessi nf ormation.Whenpeopl edemonst ratenot iceabl edi f
ferent
patter nsofbehav ioriti sther esultofdi f
ferencesi nt hewayt heyper ceiv et hewor l
dand
i
nt hewayt heyor gani zeandut il
izethisinfor mation.
Ref
erences

Bi
schof,L.
J.(
1970)
.Int
erpr
eti
ngPer
sonal
i
tyTheor
ies2nd Edi
ti
on.New Yor
k:Har
per&Rows,
Publ
isher
s.

Bur
ger,J.
M.(
1986)
.Per
sonal
i
ty Theor
y and Resear
ch.Cal
i
for
nia:Wadswor
th Publ
i
shi
ng
Company.

Fei
st,J&Feist
,F.(
2008)
.Theor
iesofPer
sonal
i
ty,Sev
ent
hEdi
ti
on.Uni
tedSt
atesofAmer
ica:
McGraw-
Hil
l

Ot
herSour
ces

CHEDMemor
andum Or
derNo.34,
Ser
iesof2017

CHEDTechni
cal
Commi
tt
eef
orPsy
chol
ogy(
TCP)Resol
uti
onNo.01-
2014

Pr
ofessi
onal
Regul
ator
yBoar
dofPsy
chol
ogyResol
uti
onNo.
19,
Ser
iesof2014

Prepar
edby:
BENNYS.SOLIMAN, RGC.,
LPT.
,RPm.
Lectur
er,
Theor
iesofPer
sonal
it
y