Nature of Traits:
Interactionism:
Observe a social gathering.
Write a 200 to 300 word response to the following: What influence does culture have on personality? Do you see a person's reaction to something as separate from social experience or as a result social experience? Which one of the four positions of the nature of traits do you agree with the most and why? Compare and contrast your position against on of the four positions of the nature of traits.
How would you like us to help you with this assignment?
Sorry I left out the four positions.
The Four Positions Are:
The first position is that traits literally exist in the central nervous system as what Gordon Allport (1961) called “neuropsychic structures.” These hypothesized patternings of psychophysiology—say, particular brain circuitry or neurotransmitter pathways—exert a causal influence on behavior, accounting for consistencies over time and across situations.
The second position keeps its options open when it comes to psychophysiological substrata but maintains, nonetheless, that traits exist as dispositions that exert a significant impact on behavior. Therefore, both of these positions view traits as causal mechanisms in human functioning. Traits—be they neuropsychic structures or behavioral dispositions—are instrumental in causing behavior to occur and, therefore, in accounting for consistency in behavior across situations and over time.
By contrast, the third and fourth positions argue that traits do not really cause behavior but exist instead as convenient categories for describing the behaviors that people show.
The third position was staked out by Buss and Craik (1983, 1984) in their act-frequency approach to personality. According to this view, traits are merely language categories for the organization of discrete behavioral acts. As such, traits do not influence behavior per se. Rather, traits are the behaviors. The trait of extraversion, for example, consists of the acts that make it up—such acts as “I danced in front of a crowd” and “I entered into a conversation with a group I didn’t know.” Acts may be grouped together into trait families, with some acts more prototypical or representative of a given category than others.
Fourth position asserts that traits do not exist in any objective sense, even in the sense of act categories. Instead, traits are merely convenient fictions that people (and personality psychologists) invent in their efforts to understand social life (Shweder, 1975).
You and I use trait terms such as “friendly” and “conscientious” to simplify and organize reality, but these terms are just words. They have no meaning beyond our shared social construction. Therefore, it makes no sense, from this fourth position, to explain behavior in terms of traits. To say, for example, that Rachel smiles a lot because she is a relatively friendly person is akin to saying that Rachel is friendly because she is friendly. The label explains nothing. Furthermore, the causes of Rachel’s smiling are not likely to be found within the person but rather in the environment in which the person resides. Psychologists who dismiss traits as convenient fictions usually look to the environmental situation for the causes of behavioral consistencies (e.g.,Mischel, 1968).
Strong arguments can be made for all four positions on traits. Each position highlights an important aspect of the idea of trait. The first position suggests that traits have a biological reality; the second points to the dispositional nature of traits; the third suggests that traits connect to functionally similar behaviors; and the fourth points out that trait labels are useful in everyday social cognition. At the same time, the four positions contradict one another in many ways. The contradiction is sharpest between the first and fourth positions: Logic tells us that traits cannot be neuropsychic structures that cause the behavior of actors (first position) if, at the same time, they are merely convenient fictions in the minds of observers (fourth position).
We cannot resolve the inconsistencies among the different views. Different understandings of what traits are or should be have been at the heart of important controversies in the field of personality psychology. Nonetheless, when it comes to the nature of traits, many personality psychologists today seem to have adopted a fuzzy but reasonable compromise view that is probably closest to the second position I have outlined. Most contemporary personality psychologists seem to view traits as dispositions (second position) that have some causal influence on behaviors, though the influences are complex and exist in interaction with situational factors. They tend to see traits as more than mere descriptive summaries of act categories, but they acknowledge that traits line up with certain predictable behavioral acts (third position). Further, personality psychologists are generally open to the possibility that dispositional traits may have neurophysiological concomitants (first position), but they are also cognizant of the fact that dispositions are language categories with socially determined meanings (consistent with the fourth position). The meaning of a trait is partially determined by its cultural context. Friendliness, therefore, may express itself and be understood somewhat differently from one culture to another. Different cultures may have different rules or conventions for being friendly. A certain kind of smile or a certain way of touching another might be considered friendly behavior in one cultural setting and rude or boorish in another.
To understand the influence of culture on personality, it is important first to define the term. Culture encompasses the shared beliefs, values, customs, traditions, and practices of a particular group or society. It shapes individuals' thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and overall way of life.
Culture plays a significant role in shaping our personalities. From an early age, we are exposed to cultural norms, beliefs, and expectations, which in turn influence our development and personality formation. For instance, different cultures may prioritize different values such as collectivism or individualism, which can impact how individuals perceive themselves and others, as well as their behavior in social situations.
Furthermore, culture also affects our social experiences, which, in turn, influence our personality. Social experiences refer to the interactions, relationships, and situations we encounter in our daily lives. For instance, growing up in a culture that values conformity may lead to individuals internalizing these norms and behaving in a manner consistent with social expectations.
In terms of a person's reaction to something, it can be seen as both separate from and a result of social experience. On one hand, innate predispositions and individual differences can shape how people react to various stimuli. On the other hand, social experiences can shape our understanding and interpretation of situations, thereby influencing our reactions.
In considering the four positions of the nature of traits, the one that resonates with me the most is interactionism. Interactionism suggests that personality traits are a product of both genetic factors (nature) and environmental influences (nurture) working together. I agree with this position because it acknowledges the importance of both biological and environmental factors in shaping personality.
By contrast, the other positions differ in their emphasis on either nature or nurture. For example, the hereditarian position suggests that traits are primarily determined by genetics, while the environmentalist position emphasizes the impact of environmental factors such as parenting or upbringing. However, these positions fail to consider the complex interplay between nature and nurture.
In conclusion, culture has a profound influence on personality. It shapes our thoughts, behaviors, and social experiences. While a person's reaction to something can be influenced by innate predispositions, it is also shaped by social experiences. The interactionist perspective, which recognizes the dynamic interplay between nature and nurture, offers a more comprehensive understanding of personality formation.