Personal Perspective on Personality Theory

¶ … personality theory is based on the writings of John Watson. Behaviorism, the idea that human actions are the true indicator of human behavior, denies the existence of the mind or related mental activities. In his book, Does the Center Hold, Donald Palmer illustrates three distinct ways of looking at behaviorism: hard, soft and logical. Hard behaviorism is the strictest of the three; it holds that there is absolutely nothing that can be considered any bit related to the mind or mental states because there is no mind. Logical behaviorism purports that all mentally related behaviors must ultimately lead back to their source as an actual, physical act. Soft behaviorism, according to Palmer's (2002) description states that there is "no need to include minds in the scientific study of humans, whether or not minds exist. The study of behaviors and their physical causes is sufficient for a complete psychology" (p. 445).

Both hard and logical behaviorism are difficult to support simply because it seems distinctly possible that there could be mental states. However, soft behaviorism which does not attempt to disprove the existence of all things mental, but rather maintains that such mental states are not critical to the study of psychology is the most precise personality theory.

B.F. Skinner was the most articulate advocate of behaviorism. Through his experiments based on his theory of operant conditioning, he showed that behaviors were modified by consequences. For example, consider the famous Skinner box: the rat pushes the lever and receives a pellet of food. Because of the effect the rat's behavior caused, the rat's future behavior is affected. Thus, when the rat wants the effect repeated, i.e., he wants more food, he will repeat the behavior. Conversely, if the rat were shocked upon touching the lever and did not want to be shocked again, he would avoid touching the lever. It would be difficult to argue such a hypothesis when watching the fat or shocked rats in the Skinner box. The problem comes when people must relate themselves to the rats in the box: for people are surely more complex than lever-pushing rodents? The soft behaviorist would say no.

Consider the multitude of variations that could take place within the box with one rat. The lever could provide a shock or a food pellet. It could do so every time, every third time, at random intervals or at any designated interval. Further, the lever could provide both the food and the shock at scheduled or random intervals. The possibilities are numerous. Now add another rat, or many rats, another lever or many levers and the numerous possibilities now increase exponentially. And, we are observing all of it. And from those observations we can study the rats' behavior. To a soft behaviorist the world is simply a multi-levered, heavily populated Skinner box.

Of course, such an argument would never satisfy the person who does not want to be considered a rat. That feeling, emotive person may liken themselves more of a Freudian or a Jungian. As a Freudian they might argue that they are thinking beings, with ids, egos and superegos. A person that feels things so strongly and deeply that it can not be observed by others. Feelings that are sometimes so strong and deep that they have been repressed so much that even the individual does not know they are there! Only the skilled Freudian psychologist, after many years of leading questions can truly get to those feelings.