Psy 250
Biological and Humanistic Approaches to Personality
Theories of personalities have been studied for many decades. The biological and humanistic approaches to personality have both become infamous in studying the science behind personality. Abraham Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs because he did not believe that the conditioning theories adequately portrayed the complexity of human behavior. In analyzing both the biological and humanistic theories, one can see where Maslow may have been right in that assumption.
The basic perceptions of humanistic and biological theories vary significantly. There are some basic ideas behind humanistic psychology. Humanists focus on the present rather than looking at the past or toward the future. Well individuals should take responsibility for themself; regardless of the actions and every individual possess inherent worth. Even negative actions do not negate the value of the person. The achievement of personal growth and understanding is the goal of life (Friedman & Schustack, 2012).
On the other hand biological theorists believe that genetics can determine a person’s personality. Some concepts state that even if biology plays no direct role in personality, the way a person looks affects how one sees himself/herself and how others interrelate with him/her. This unintended affect controls how a person develops into adulthood. Biological viewpoints teach that intelligence and genes could define a person’s personality. Temperament and mental disorders are thought to be determined by biology. Humanistic theories seem to be generalized, though biological theories are overcomplicated. Although they are wide-ranging opposites in their concepts, together they contain the essence of personality.
Abraham Maslow, a humanistic psychologist believed that the people are not controlled by the mechanical forces which include the reinforcement and stimuli forces of behaviorism or some unconscious instinctual impulse of the
Theories of personalities have been studied for many decades. The biological and humanistic approaches to personality have both become infamous in studying the science behind personality. Abraham Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs because he did not believe that the conditioning theories adequately portrayed the complexity of human behavior. In analyzing both the biological and humanistic theories, one can see where Maslow may have been right in that assumption.
The basic perceptions of humanistic and biological theories vary significantly. There are some basic ideas behind humanistic psychology. Humanists focus on the present rather than looking at the past or toward the future. Well individuals should take responsibility for themself; regardless of the actions and every individual possess inherent worth. Even negative actions do not negate the value of the person. The achievement of personal growth and understanding is the goal of life (Friedman & Schustack, 2012).
On the other hand biological theorists believe that genetics can determine a person’s personality. Some concepts state that even if biology plays no direct role in personality, the way a person looks affects how one sees himself/herself and how others interrelate with him/her. This unintended affect controls how a person develops into adulthood. Biological viewpoints teach that intelligence and genes could define a person’s personality. Temperament and mental disorders are thought to be determined by biology. Humanistic theories seem to be generalized, though biological theories are overcomplicated. Although they are wide-ranging opposites in their concepts, together they contain the essence of personality.
Abraham Maslow, a humanistic psychologist believed that the people are not controlled by the mechanical forces which include the reinforcement and stimuli forces of behaviorism or some unconscious instinctual impulse of the
References: Friedman, H. S. & Schustack, M. W. (2012). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Valiunas, A. (2011). Abraham Maslow and the All-American Self. New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology and Society, Vol. 33(), p.93-110.