Parents Influenced on Their Children

sourd of pargonnts to their churlren Parental Influences on record A comparison of Trait and Phenomenological Theories Stu Dent SS 123-45-6789 Psych 210 Theories of Personality Dr. Cerv ane Fall, 2001 Parental Influences on Personality A Comparison of Trait and Phenomenological Theories A seemingly obvious fact about human nature is that our temper is regulated by our parents. Intuitively, it seems as if the path our parents raise us asserts an enduring twist on the nature of our character.By teaching trusted types of behavior and by punishing actions of which they disapprove, parents may significantly influence the behavioral and emotional styles of their tykeren. This intuition, however, contrasts with a sec one. Common knowledge tells us that siblings often differ greatly from one an separate. One brother may be outgoing, the other shy. One sister may be conservative, the other liberal. Since siblings have the same parents, and parents execute to treat their childr en similarly, such examples seem to suggest that parents style of child rearing competency make petty(a) difference to the personality of their children.The gesture of parental influences on personality, then, is an interesting puzzle for scientific supposition and investigate in personality psychology. Theories of personality have taken different viewpoints on the question of parental influences on personality. This make-up addresses two theories that present contrasting views. These are the sign and phenomenological theories of personality. In the peculiarity theories, the basic variables of the theory are nations traits, that is, their broad predispositions . . . to respond in particular ways (Pervin & John, 2001, p. 26). Most trait theories try to discern a common set of traits that can be used to describe the personality of any individual. These nomothetic trait theories rely on the statistical procedure of factor analysis to severalise dimensions that can be used su mmarize individual differences in personality traits. Researchers using this technique ordinarily identify a set of five trait dimensions. These Big Five personality traits include extroversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and receptiveness to experience (Pervin & John, 2001).Once one identifies a set of basic traits in this manner, a primary question is to identify where the traits come from. Why do some bulk have more or less of a given trait than others? Al most(prenominal) all trait theorists have sought biological explanations for variations in traits. hoi polloi 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 consistent with findings on genetics and personality, which augur that identical twins personalities are far more similar than would be expected by bump (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 see to have teeny 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. According to the trait theories, parents interpersonal moveions with their children would exert little effect on the childs personality development.A very different view is vomit up forward 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, masss subjective experience of themselves, or their ego-concept, is seen as the core of individuals personalities. Among the most prominent of the phenomenological theories of personality is the ego th eory of Carl Rogers (Pervin & John, 2001).Rogers contended that pecks psychological experiences are not determined 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 daily experiences with their sense of who they in truth are, as might be manifested by a persons saying that I reasonable 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 disappointed with myself. Peoples self-views, then, are a primary determinant of their general experiences. With regard to the question of parental influences, Rogers phenomenological theory has a very different implicati on 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 incontrovertible self-concept if they experience despotic positive 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 pliant and authorized manner. In contrast, less positive personality development 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 negative view of self that leads them to approach life activities in a more cautious, tentative, self-critical, and unconf ident style. Since parents are generally the major source of influence in the early 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 telling merits of the two theories. For the question of parental influences on personality, one key source of evidence would be longitudinal studies, that is, studies that examine the same individuals across a long period of time. Ideally, such work would notice aspects of child rearing early in life and determine whether they predict personality characteristics as measured subsequently in life.Such a study has been conducted by Harrington, Block, & Block (1987). They studied a large group of people at two points in time early childhood and adolescence. During early childhood, the researchers obtained measures of the degree to which each childs parents exhibited a Rogerian style of child rearing, that is, a style in which few conditions of worth were oblige on children and, instead, children were accepted for who they are and were allowed to explore the world freely. There were two such measures.One was a self-report of parents child-rearing styles, and the other was an observational measure in which researchers observed parents interacting with their children and coded whether the parents acted in a prototypic Rogerian manner. They two measures were combined into an overall index 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 studen ts, 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 adolescent measure of creativity. The finding strongly supported Rogers theory of personality development (Harrington et al. , 1987). and as Rogers would have predicted, children whose parents set them in a Rogerian style turned out to be adolescents who were judged as being more creative. Child rearing style was a statistically significant predictor of creativity.Importantly, this was rightful(a) even when the researchers controlled for a measure of intelligence that also was obtained during childhood. It is not merely the case that intelligent children were treated in a Rogerian style and also were creative. Instead, even controlling for intelligence, parental child rearing predicted creativity. In evaluating the two theories, the results cl early 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 done to in exactly the manner Rogers would have anticipated.In contrast, the results involvement 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 seem to provide objective evidence against their theories.One possibility is that trait theories are focusing 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 central feature of psychological experience. By focusing on overt styles of behavior, rather than the inner psychological life of the individual, including his or her views of self, trait theories may be missing an important aspect of human nature. The development of a stable conception of oneself and ones personal qualities is a cr itical 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 in young adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 851-856. Pervin, L. A. , & John, O. P. (2001). Personality Theory and research (8th ed. ). New York John Wiley & Sons. Notes (Your paper would not have these notes these notes merely are intended for members of the class. They correspond to the circled numbers in the margins of the text. ) 1. This was a idealistic instance in which I wanted to quote directly from another source, in order to compass the precisely correct definition on the term.To indicate that the material is taken directly from the text defy, I put the passage in quotation marks and included the page number in the book that contains the origi nal material (p. 226). Note that you have to take these two steps even if you take only a few words 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. Any 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 paragraph is a useful one for this paper assignment. Perhaps the most difficult part of the assignment is to figure out how specific, concrete research findings relate to the general, abstract ideas of the personality theories. You should make clear to the reader how the study that you review relates to the two theories. 3. When writing the paper, you should provide some da ta about the type of study your are reviewing, as in this paragraph, and then should review the results.