I’ll be applying theory of personality to my husband, Scott. We are entirely opposite in many ways, but also remarkably similar in some ways as well. We communicate well and never yell at one another when we disagree, but we do have entirely diverse ways of coping and communicating. I’ve done a lot of self-reflection and have learned so much about myself, so I feel like it would be interesting to explore some theories about his personality for this project. I believe it may help me understand him on a deeper level, which is exciting to me.

The first theory I’ll be applying to Scott’s personality is behaviorism, which focuses on observable behaviors. Behaviorists study reflexes and responses that become habits that form a personality (Shiraev, 2016). Living with my husband and seeing him at moments of joy, bliss, sadness, anger, despair, and every other emotion, I can easily see his behaviors and reactions that play a role in his personality. I have a high EQ, so I notice more than most people do when it comes to subtle changes in attitudes and emotions; therefore, I feel it’s appropriate to apply theory of behaviorism to my husband’s personality.

Behaviorism studies the social learning theory which proposes that people learn through observation of other people’s behaviors as well as exposure to certain events (Shiraev, 2016). My husband was born in an area of Wisconsin known for crime and violence. As a young child, he was exposed to drug deals, altercations, and criminal behaviors displayed by those closest to him. His father, being a primary influence in his life and heavily involved in the criminal world, modeled behaviors that were counterintuitive to rational, logical reactions. His mother moved him to Idaho at an early age and ended up married to a man who physically abused my husband often. Scott was labeled a problem child as he was quick to react to situations of abuse. He hit back when he was hit, voiced his opinion without the fear of backlash, and ran away often.

Albert Bandura used an experiment with Bobo dolls to prove how children tend to imitate violence after even brief exposure to similar behaviors (Shiraev, 2016). In his experiments, he showed that children given a Bobo doll to play with without any prior instruction or influence generally were not violent towards the doll; but if the presenter abused the doll before allowing the children to play with it, they were more likely to express violence toward the doll (Shiraev, 2016). This experiment has been recreated in multiple cultures with similar results (Shiraev, 2016). This concept in behaviorism would explain why my husband reacted to abuse in the ways he did- being exposed to crime and violence at such a formative age modeled those behaviors to him. When he encountered mistreatment later in life, he reacted in ways that were previously modeled to him- violence and rebellion.

This habit of reactive behaviors followed Scott into adulthood and has shaped his personality in many ways. He went through a period of rebellion against the law and violence became a normal reaction to many situations. By learning to self-evaluate and create goals, he has been able to reshape this persistent personality significantly. Although he will still react violently if someone is threatening the safety of myself or our children, he no longer reacts to situations that used to set him off, such as ignorant drivers flipping him off. He has renounced the life of crime entirely and works hard to provide for his family. He has a tendency to self-punish too often and self-reward too sparsely, but he is a perfect testament to the malleability of personality.

The second theory of personality I’ll be applying to Scott’s personality is the trait theory. This theory maintains that most traits fall within one of five categories, easily remembered by the acronym O.C.E.A.N., which stands for openness to experience, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Shiraev, 2016). While these traits are usually reported by the person being analyzed and then later measured using a scale, I’ll be analyzing my husband’s traits based on observations alone. This method will be much less empirical/ data driven than typical for trat theory and it is important to note that traits can change based on the environment the person is placed in (Shiraev, 2016). I’ll be noting Scott’s most persistent traits across multiple environments for the purpose of my analysis.

As someone who tends to crave consistency and routine, Scott rates low on openness to experience. Although he comes out of his shell and loves traveling and trying new things with me, he still tends to hold his truths despite contradicting evidence or opinions. He also relies on plans and structure, most consistent with dogmatic traits. I would say he rates in the middle of conscientiousness but leans more toward this trait than the opposing traits of irresponsibility. He can be spontaneous and lack self-control, but overall, he is stubborn and craves control over situations in his life- like an organized closet and a demanded respect from his employer. He would argue that he dislikes people and large social situations, which I agree with, but I would rate him highly in extroversion anyway. He is extremely talkative and tends to dominate conversations when he has them. He has a reply to every sentence and often interjects comments into others’ conversations as well. He is personable and not afraid to converse with anyone, although sometimes he prefers to not engage with others when we’re out. I believe he scores in the middle of agreeableness but leans more on the side of unfriendliness. He tends to make friends as he’s very personable and he trusts others easily if he knows them well. However, he is often combative and is never afraid to speak his opinion. Sometimes he offends others with his truths, and he only cooperates with others if he cares about them, or it benefits him. Lastly, I would rate him highly in neuroticism. He cares so deeply about those that mean the most to him that it can manifest into fear and anxiety. He worries about things out of his control more than the average person and sometimes finds difficulty in finding everyday situations as nonthreatening. While I think he can be emotionally stable in some situations, his reactions and doubts can and do hold him back in many other situations.

A limitation to studying behaviorism is its lack of subjectivity. While it is rich with empirical opportunities, it ignores the inner world of the person (Shiraev, 2016). In Scott’s situation I wouldn’t know if he resented the behaviors that were modeled to him or idolized them without his personal input on the matter. This would make it difficult to study if I wasn’t so close to him. Also, the information provided to me may be subject to psychological distortion if I were asking such personal questions of someone who didn’t have such a close relationship with me.

A limitation in trait theory is its superficial nature that does not account for inner experiences, as well as the fact that people may describe their own behaviors entirely different than other people’s behaviors (Shiraev, 2016). If I were to try analyzing anyone else’s personality based on trait theory I might run into a lot of complications. I only see most people in limited situations, which usually never reveal persistent traits. Scott’s traits I’ve analyzed are traits I’ve seen consistently across many situations and over a length of time. He’s also shared many subjective experiences with me over the course of our relationship that allowed me to identify these traits as well.

Taking a holistic approach and applying multiple theories to a subject would be ideal in analyzing someone’s personality. For example, by combining trait theory and behaviorism, we can see that Scott’s neuroticism may come from a habit of expressing negative emotions like anger, which is best explained by behaviorism (Shiraev, 2016). If we wanted to analyze this further, we may suggest psychoanalysis to understand why his childhood experiences played a role in his adult personality. Additionally, his learned rebellion may have caused the manifestation of his unfriendly personality and might also explain why he can be open to new experiences in some situations. Although this alone would not explain why he has more consistent dogmatic traits- again, this might be better explained using another theory of personality.

In conclusion, personality is persistent. It may be formed in childhood, it may be learned, and it may be inherited. Our environments might affect our personality and our personality might affect our environments. Personality is malleable and, while it requires dedication and effort to change personally, it can be shaped. By approaching personality with a holistic view and applying multiple theories, we can better understand how to navigate the world around us as well as the world within us.

References

Shiraev, E. (2016). Personality Theories: A Global View. SAGE Publications, Inc. (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781506300795