PERSONALITY THEORIES: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande

Abstract
Personality is a growing and dynamic entity that influences the behavior of
people, and one of the objectives of organizational leaders is to ensure that
they manage the resources at their disposal, especially human resources, to
achieve organizational goals in the most effective and efficient manner.
However, human beings are very complex; owing to the discrepancies in
personalities. This paper provides an appraisal of the various theories of
personality. These theories tend to have two things in common: they attempt
to explain and understand the characteristics, traits and behavioral
tendencies that are shared by individuals, also, personality theories also
attempt to explain the differences in observable individual personalities.
Lastly, the theories are not without criticisms. Psychoanalytic theory
explains hidden personality dynamics rather than searching for identifiable
patterns of behavior that describe basic dimensions of personality. The
criticism underlying the evaluation of trait personality is that personality
traits are not stable and enduring and is ever-changing, tailored to the
particular role or situation. Some psychologists believe that the humanistic
theory concepts are vague and subjective that they are not scientific
description of personality rather a description of personal values and ideals
of the school of thought. The social-cognitive perspective focuses so much
on the situation that it fails to appreciate the person’s inner traits. Seldom in
life does a single perspective on any issue give a complete picture of another
human being. Human personality reveals its different aspects when it is
viewed from different perspectives, and each perspective can enlarge our
vision of the whole person and helps in the management of organizational
staff.

The type of organization existing in a society defines the development of such a society. The
development of the society or an organization is inherent in the behavior of the people that live in
such a society. The ways humans perceive, learn, remember, think, feel, and develop are linked to
personality. The individual personality is the characteristic pattern of thinking, feeling, and acting.
Personality influences the behavior of people. If a behavior pattern is strikingly distinctive and
consistent – one is likely to have “strong” personality. Personality is seen in individual differences, as
it shapes how people interpret and react to events, and help to create situations to which we react.
Several factors have been considered to be responsible for determining or shaping an
individual’s personality. Robbins & Judge (2009) opined that personality is not determined by one
factor only, such as nature or nurture, but it is believed to be generally shaped by nature (heredity),
nurture (environment) and situational conditions. Research findings on temperaments by Buss &
Plomin (1975) showed that such activities as emotionality, sociability and impulsivity are inherited.

This study examines Personality by looking at eclectic definitions of the concept, appraise the
theories of personality by evaluating the four major perspectives on personality. Sigmund Freud’s
psychoanalytic theory, which proposes that childhood sexuality and unconscious motivations
influence personality; the trait perspective, in which researchers identify personality dimensions that
account for our consistent behavior patterns; the humanistic approach, which focuses on our inner
capacities for growth and self-fulfillment. Lastly, the social-cognitive approach, which emphasizes
how we shape and are shaped by our environment and implications of the study to managers..
Knowledge Review Volume 26 No. 3, December, 2012

49
Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande
Personality Defined
Oladele (2005) defined personality as the unique and distinctive characteristics which set a
person apart from another. In other words, personality includes outward expression of various inner
conditions and processes such as intelligence, attitudes, interests, and motives. In a like mind,
Goldberg (1993) stated that personality also includes one’s observable traits such as politeness,
submissiveness, shyness, friendliness, talkativeness, initiative and so on. In the views of Myers
(2001), personality is an individual’s characteristic pattern of thinking, feeling, and thinking. To
Eysenck & Eysenck (1963), personality is more or less stable and an enduring organization of a
person’s character, temperament, intellect and physique which determine his unique adjustment to his
environment.

From the above considerations, one can accept that personality is an integrated and organized
self-concept, self-attitudes, self-values, ambitions and all behavioral dispositions peculiar to an
individual as a unique being or person. Personality is the projection of individuals to others. It is not
what we think ourselves to be like, but ourselves as others see us.

In the views of Mukherjee (2000), the word ‘personality’ refers to the integrated and dynamic
organization of the physical, mental, and special qualities of the individual, as that manifests itself in
other people in social intercourse. However, this definition of the term personality seems to include a
wide range of behavior aspects of the individual, each of these aspects being integrated to manifest in
dynamic organization relating to interpersonal behavior of the individual. Considering the above
premise of the broad definition of personality, it is no wonder that various theories of personality have
been formulated from time to time to explain particular aspects of the personality ‘pie’ by various
psychologists.

Approaches to Personality
Personality theories have chiefly been concerned with the factors that determine and explain
different individuals' personalities as they are, and the factors which have brought about the given
personality (Gendil, 2010). To that effect, many theories of personality have been developed.

However, these theories tend to have two things in common: First, the theories attempt to
explain and understand the characteristics, traits and behavioral tendencies that are shared by
individuals. In the views of Swanda (1979), this common feature of personality theories is called the
core of personality. Gendlin (2010) opined that the core of personality is relatively stable throughout a
person’s life time and it has an extensive influence on the behavior of individuals in the society, and
that the core of personality is not learnt but are inherited. Secondly, personality theories also attempt
to explain the differences in observable individual personalities. Swanda (1979) called this the
periphery of personality. It contains attributes that are generally learnt rather than being inherited by
individuals.

The Psychoanalytic Perspective

Psychoanalysis is Freud’s theory of personality that attributes our thoughts and actions to
unconscious motives and conflicts; the techniques used in treating psychological disorders by seeking
to expose and interpret unconscious tensions (Myers, 2001). The basic concepts in Freudian writings
are libido, cathexis, sexuality, defense and control mechanisms (Mukherjee, 2000). Libido is an
instinctive drive which arises from a source and aims for a goal for its satisfaction. The manner in
which the drive is channeled is called cathexis. Sexuality has got connotations in Freud’s
understanding, which is beyond the normal usage of the word. For any libidinal drive to be satisfied,
the goal is to be attained. If the drive is restrained or blocked due to some pressure or social restraint,
then it will be manifested in some form of defense behavior of the individual as the original idea will

50
Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis
be repressed (Gendlin, 2010). Repression is thus the cornerstone of all defense mechanisms of the
individual, and it is always accompanied with some displaced behavior.

Underlying Freud’s psychoanalytic conception of personality was his belief that the mind is
like an iceberg – mostly hidden. Our consciousness awareness is the part of the iceberg that floats
above the surface. Below the surface is the much larger, unconscious region containing thoughts,
feelings, and memories, of which we are largely unaware. Some of these thoughts are store
temporarily in a preconscious area, from which we can retrieve them into conscious awareness. Of
greater interest to Freud was the mass of unacceptable passions and thoughts that he believed we
repress, or forcibly block from our consciousness because they would be too unsettling to
acknowledge. Freud believed that, although we are not consciously aware of them, these troublesome
feelings and ideas powerfully influence us. In his view, our unacknowledged impulses express
themselves in disguised forms – the work we choose, the beliefs we hold, our daily habits, our
troubling symptoms. In such ways, the unconscious seeps into our thoughts and actions (Hunsley &
Bailey, 1999).

For Freud the determinist, nothing was ever accidental. He believed he could glimpse the
seepage of the unconscious not only in people’s free associations, beliefs, habits, and symptoms but
also in their dreams and slips of the tongue and pen. By analyzing people’s dreams, Freud believed,
he could reveal the nature of their inner conflicts and release their inner tensions (Myers, 2001).

Personality Structure and Development of the Psychoanalytic Theory

Psychoanalytic theory explains human behavior in terms of the interaction of various
components of personality. In Freud’s view, human personality – including its emotions and strivings
– arises from a conflict between our aggressive, pleasure-seeking biological impulses and the
internalized social restraints against them. Personality is the result of the efforts to resolve this basic
conflict – to express these impulses in ways that bring satisfaction without also bringing guilt or
punishment.
Freud theorized that the conflict centers on three interacting systems undergone by a child: id,
ego, and superego. These abstract psychological concepts are are according to Freud, “useful aids to
understanding” the mind’s dynamics (Myers, 2001:245).

Id stage roughly corresponds with the age period from birth to about two years, and it
manifests in uncivilized behavior pattern of the neonate (Oladele, 2005). Idistic child is impulsive,
and his libidinal drives need immediate gratification. A child at the ego stage experiences his world of
reality from two years of age to about four years. The development of superego of a child takes place
along his age period from about four years to that of about six years. The goals of superego of a child
are determined and dictated by his social values, and that explains why superego of a child is
sometimes equated with his ‘conscience’.

The development of personality tries to explain how personality is formed in an individual.

Psychoanalytic personality development explains the various stages of developments that personality
passes through within the individual until it becomes fully developed. Freud believed that humans are
sexual throughout childhood. Personality is formed during life’s first few years. Freud (1935) as cited
in Myers (2001) opined that children pass through a series of psychosexual stages during which the
id’s pleasure-seeking energies focus on distinct pleasure-sensitive areas of the body called erogenous
zones and he proposed five psychosexual stages of personality development:

During the oral stage, the development of dependency, which lasts throughout the first 18
months, the infant’s sensual pleasures focus on sucking, biting, and chewing. If the child is well cared
for, he is gratified and his learning from his gratification is one of trust or dependency. It is postulated
51
Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande
that individuals with this sort of happy experience eventually grow up to be dependent and trustful of
others. Another feature of oral behavior, especially weaning, is that of aggressiveness, and it is
manifested in biting. Myers (2001) opined that later forms of oral aggressive behavior are seen in
adult sarcasm, ridicules, etc. This implies that proper care in rearing children at this stage may lead to
the desired behavior in their personality.

During the anal stage, the origin of possessiveness, from about 18 months to 3 years, the
sphincter muscles become sensitive and controllable, and bowel and bladder retention and elimination
become a source of gratification. According to Freud, this stage is the origin of possessiveness
(Mukherjee, 2000). During the phallic stage, the origin of identification, which is roughly from 3 to 6
years, the pleasure zone shifts to the genitals. At the onset of this stage, the boy realizes that he is
similarly sexed as his father who is his rival in his attempts for having his mother’s love and affection.
He then develops a kind of fear or anxiety, which Freud calls ‘castration anxiety’ (Sechrest et al,
1998). Freud believed that during this stage boys seek genital stimulation and develop both
unconscious sexual desires for their mother and jealousy and hatred for their father, whom they
consider a rival. Given these feelings, boys would also feel guilt and a lurking fear of punishment,
perhaps by castration, from their father. Freud called this collection of feelings the Oedipus complex
after the Greek legend of Oedipus, who unknowingly killed his father and married his mother
(Weston, 1998).

With their sexual feelings repressed and redirected, children enter a latency stage, the period
of acquisition of values. Freud maintained that during latency, extending from around age 6 to
puberty, sexuality is dormant and children play mostly with peers of the same sex. The underlying
contention here is that Freud did not have much to say about the implications of this stage apart from
the fact that this is the stage where the children are likely to acquire values of their contemporary
societies (Mukherjee, 2000).

At puberty, latency gives way to the final stage, the genital stage, the reliving of the phallic
stage, as the person begins to experience sexual feelings toward others. Freud thought that this stage is
actually reliving the phallic stage once again. This is transitional in nature, and has its implications for
sound and normal growth of personality among the children (Mukherjee, 2000). The children at this
stage tend to seek out their mates from opposite sexes, which is a perfectly normal behavior pattern.
Myers (2001) is of the opinion that if children are not helped to be outgoing at this stage there is a
possibility that they may regress to their early stage of Oedipus or Electra complex behavior
manifestations, thus leading to later personality problems.

However, fellow researchers in the psychoanalytic school such as Alfred Adler and Karen
Horney (Myers, 2001) agreed with Freud that childhood is important but they believed that childhood
social, not sexual, tensions are crucial for personality formation. This is because much of our behavior
is driven by efforts to conquer childhood feelings of inferiority, feelings that trigger our strivings for
superiority and power. Also, childhood anxiety, caused by the dependent child’s sense of
helplessness, triggers our desire for love and security.

Lastly, though the ideas of Freud have been incorporated into psychodynamic theory, most
contemporary dynamic theorists and therapists are not wedded to the idea that sex is the basis of
personality (Weston, 1996). He added that they do not talk about ids and egos, and do not go around
classifying their patients as oral, anal, or phallic characters. What they do assume with Freud, is that
much of our mental life is unconscious, that childhood shapes our personalities and ways of becoming
attached to others, and that we often struggle with inner conflicts among our wishes, fears, and values.

52
Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis
The Trait Perspective
Personality of individuals is sometimes expressed in terms of certain traits or characteristics
(Mukherjee, 2000). Psychoanalytic theory attempts to explain personality in terms of the dynamics
that underlie behavior (Johnson et al, 1999). It peers beneath the surface searching for hidden
motives. Rather than explaining hidden personality dynamics, trait researchers search for identifiable
patterns of behavior or conscious motives that describe basic dimensions of personality. A trait or
characteristic of an individual can be represented on a scale or dimension. Allport (1937) as cited in
Myers (2001) prefers to use the term ‘personal disposition’ to that of trait or characteristics. How then
do psychologists describe and classify personalities? Based on children’s physiological and
psychological reactivity, Kagan (1989) classified children’s temperaments into either shy-inhibited or
fearless-inhibited types. Sheldon (1954) as cited in Mukherjee (2000) classified people by body type.

Many trait theorists also view personality traits as biologically rooted. Kagan (1989) attributes
differences in children’s shyness and inhibition to their autonomic nervous system reactivity. Genes
have much to say about the temperament and the behavioral style that help define personality (Myers,
2001).

However, according to Myers (2001), classifying people as one or another distinct personality
type fails to capture their full individuality. So how else could personalities be described? By placing
people on several trait dimensions simultaneously, psychologists can describe countless individual
personality variations. What trait dimensions describe personality?

Trait Dimension
Factor Analysis: One way has been to propose traits, such as anxiety, that some theory regards as
basic. A new technique is factor analysis, the statistical procedure to identify clusters of test items that
tap basic components of intelligence (such as spatial ability, reasoning ability, or verbal skill).
Eysenck & Eysenck (1963) use two primary personality factors – extraversion-introversion and
emotional stability-instability as axes for describing personality variation.

The Big Five Trait Dimension

Most researchers believe that while the Eysencks’ dimensions are important, they do not tell
the whole story (Myers, 2001). A slightly expanded set of factors – dubbed the Big Five – does a
better job (Goldberg, 1993; John, 1990; Wiggins, 1996). Around the world, people describe others in
terms roughly consistent with the Big Five – how agreeable they are, how extraverted they are, and so
forth (Myers, 2001). The Big factors are: Extroversion - this dimension captures one’s comfort level
with relations. Extrovert personality tends to be gregarious, assertive and social. Introverts tend to be
reserved timid, and quiet. Agreeableness - this dimension refers to an individual’s propensity to defer
to others. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, warm, and trusting. People who score low on
agreeableness are cold, disagreeable, and antagonistic. Conscientiousness - this dimension is a
measure of reliability. A highly conscientious person is responsible, organized dependable, and
persistent. Those who score low on this dimension are easily distracted, disorganized, and unreliable.
Emotional Stability - this dimension taps a person’s ability to withstand stress. People with positive
emotional stability tend to be calm, self-confident, and secure. Those with negative scores tend to be
nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure. Openness to experience - the final dimension addresses
one’s range of interests and fascination with novelty. Extremely open people are creative, curious, and
artistically sensitive. Those at the end of the openness category are conventional and find comfort in
the familiar.

The contention here is that some researchers believe that Five is not the last word. They
wonder whether dimensions such as self-consciousness, masculinity-femininity, or positive-negative
emotion should be added. But for now the winning number in the personality lottery is five.
53
Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande
However, the worrisome issue underlying the evaluation of trait personality is that, are personality
traits stable and enduring? Or does our behavior depend on where we are and whom we are with? In
the views of Myers (2001), personality is ever-changing, tailored to the particular role or situation.
This is because our behavior is influenced by the interaction of our inner disposition with our
environment.

The Humanistic Perspective

Led by Abraham Maslow, Victor Franklyn, Virginia Satir, and Carl Rogers, humanistic
psychologists have emphasized the growth potential of healthy people. With personalized methods,
they study personality in hopes of fostering personal growth. Scientific researchers outside the
humanistic tradition have picked up on one idea from humanistic theory – that our sense of self is at
the center of our personality and outlook (Myers, 2001). Basically the humanists hold that humans
possess an internal force, an inner directedness that pushes them to grow, to improve and to become
the best individuals they are capable of becoming (Funder, 1995). This inner directedness is the
primary force behind the development of personality. The personality psychologists belonging to the
humanistic perspective had become discontented both with Freud’s negativity and with trait
psychology’s objectivity. In contrast to Freud’s study of the base motives of “sick” people, humanistic
psychologists focused on the ways “healthy” people strive for self-determination and self-realization
(Borkenau & Liebler, 1993).

Humanists hold that reality is subjective i.e. everyone views life in different and highly
personal terms. Key concepts here are the concept of self. This is an individual’s subjective perception
of who he is and what he is like. An individual’s concept of self is learned from his interactions with
others i.e. by measuring himself with others. Underlying the humanistic perspective is an assumption
(shared by humanistic psychologists) that the self, as organizer of our thoughts, feelings, and actions,
is a pivotal center of personality. From our self-focused perspective we too readily presume that
others are noticing and evaluating us.

Humanistic psychologists assess personality through questionnaires on which people report

their self-concept and in the therapy by seeking to understand others’ subjective personal experiences.
However, the humanistic perspective is not without its criticism. Some psychologists believe that the
concepts are vague and subjective. That it is not a scientific description of personality rather a
description of personal values and ideals of the school of thought. Secondly, the individualism
encouraged by humanistic psychology – trusting and acting on one’s feelings, being true to oneself,
fulfilling oneself – can lead to self-indulgence, selfishness, and an erosion of moral restraints
(Campbell & Specht, 1985, Wallach & Wallach, 1983). Indeed it is those who focus beyond
themselves who are most likely to experience social support, to enjoy life, and to cope effectively
with stress (Cranall, 1984). However, the humanistic psychologists in reaction to these objections
believe that belligerence, hostility, and insensitivity are often traceable to a poor self-concept.
Moreover, they argue, a secure, non-defensive self-acceptance is actually the first step toward loving
others.

A final accusation leveled against humanistic psychology is that it fails to appreciate the
reality of our human capacity for evil. Faced with assaults on the environment, overpopulation, and
the spread of nuclear weapons, humans become apathetic from either of two rationalizations. One is a
naive optimism that denies the threat (“People are basically good; everything will work out”). The
other is a dark despair (“It’s hopeless; why try?”). Action requires enough realism to fuel concern and
enough optimism to provide hope. Humanistic psychology, opined that the critics, encourage the
needed hope but not the equally necessary realism about evil (Myers, 2001). In their views, they
believe that evil springs not from human nature but from toxic cultural influences, including the
constricting, destructive influence of our educational system, the injustice of our distribution of
54
Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis
wealth, and cultivated prejudices against individuals who are different (Gendlin, 2010). May (1982)
dissented with this view that humans make up the culture. The culture is evil as well as good because
human beings who constitute it, are evil as well as good.

The Social-Cognitive Perspective

The social-cognitive perspective on personality applies principles of learning, thinking, and
social influence and how they work together to influence behavior in particular situations (Lachman
& Weaver, 1998; Lefcourt, 1982; Presson & Benassi, 1996). Led by Alfred, Gabriele Oetingen,
Martin Seligman and others, the cognitive social learning perspective emphasizes the importance of
external events and how we interpret them. Social-cognitive theorists believe that behaviors can be
learnt through conditioning or by observing others and modeling our behavior after theirs (Miller et
al, 1986). They also emphasize the importance of mental processes: What we think about our
situations affects our behavior. Instead of focusing solely on how our environment controls us
(behaviorism), social-cognitive theorists focus on how we and our environment interact. The main
concern is how to interpret and respond to external events, how schemas, our memories, and
expectations influence our behavior patterns (Rotter, 2000).

Bandura (1986) refers the process of interacting with our environment reciprocal
determinism. He added that behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental influences all
operate as interlocking determinants of each other. Social cognitive researchers explore the effect of
differing situations on people’s behavior patterns and attitudes. They examine for example, how
viewing aggressive or nonaggressive models affects behavior. They access the impact of
dehumanizing situations on people’s attitudes. And they analyze the consistency of people’s
personalities in varying circumstances.

In essence, psychologists that belong to this school of thought believe that the best means of
predicting future behavior is neither a personality test nor an interviewer’s intuition. Rather, it is the
person’s past behavior patterns in similar situations (Mischel, 1981; Oullete & Wood, 1998; Schmidt
& Hunter, 1998). For example, as long as the situation and the person remain much the same, the best
predictor of future job performance is past job performance.

However, in evaluating the social-cognitive perspective, the social-cognitive perspective on

personality sensitizes researchers to how situations affect, and are affected by, individuals. More than
do the other perspectives, it builds from psychological research on learning and cognition.
One criticism is that the theory focuses so much on the situation that it fails to appreciate the person’s
inner traits. Carlson (1984) opined that situation does guide our behavior but in many instances our
unconscious motives, emotions, and pervasive traits shine through.

Implications of the Study

Each perspective teaches us something. The psychoanalytic theory arises out of
developmental considerations of individuals. It draws our attention to the unconscious and irrational
aspects of human existence. The psychoanalytic theory, though attempts to explain the terminal
behavior patterns of individuals from causal considerations, tell hardly anything, and individuals can
make no use of this body of knowledge in the organization. There is, however, one advantage from
the learning of these theories of developmental schools of Freud and post Freudians. They tell about
various abnormal behavior patterns common in many individuals, the understanding of which seems
to be necessary for managers in organizations. The trait perspective systematically describes and
classifies important components of personality. It considers personality of an individual as consisting
of few traits or dimensions of behavior pattern. This theory is useful since a massive amount of
research has gone into their implications for education and organizations (Mukherjee, 2000).
Managers can draw benefit from the readings of these dimensional theories on personality, and hence
55
Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande
their relevance in social psychology. The humanistic perspective reminds us of the importance of our
sense of self and of our potential for self-actualization. The social-cognitive perspective teaches us
that we always act in the context of situations that we help to create.
Human personality reveals its different aspects when we view it from different perspectives, and each
perspective can enlarge our vision of the whole person.

Summary and Conclusion

The psychoanalytic perspective to personality which was proposed by Sigmund Freud saw
personality as composed of pleasure-seeking psychic impulses, a reality-oriented executive, and an
internalized set of ideals. Psychoanalytic theory aims to reveal the unconscious. However, many
researchers accepted many of Freud’s ideas but they also argued that we have motives other than sex
and aggression, and that the ego’s conscious control is greater than what Freud supposed.

Trait researchers describe the predispositions that underlie our actions. Through factor
analysis, researchers have isolated five important dimensions of personality. Genetic predispositions
influence most of such traits. Critics of the trait perspective question the consistency with which traits
are expressed. Although people’s traits persist over time and fairly consistent, human behavior varies
widely from situation to situation.

Humanistic psychologists turned psychology’s attention from baser motives and

environmental conditioning to the growth potential of healthy people, as seen through the individual’s
own experiences. Humanistic psychology helped to renew psychology’s interest in the self.
Nevertheless, humanistic psychology’s critics complain that its concepts are vague and subjective, it
values individualist and self-centered, and its assumptions naively optimistic.
The social-cognitive perspective applies principles of learning, cognition, and social behavior to
personality, with particular emphasis on the way in which our personality influences and is influenced
by our interaction with the environment. They have found that the best way to predict someone’s
behavior in a given situation is to observe that person’s behavior pattern in similar situations. The
theory is faulted for slighting the importance of unconscious dynamics, emotions, and inner traits.

In conclusion, seldom in life does a single perspective on any issue give us a complete picture
of another human being. Acknowledging the fact that there are some shortcomings associated with
each of the perspectives on personality, it is evident that individuals differ in the way they perceive,
relate, feel, act, react, and make decisions, among others. Strategic and human resources managers
should have this in mind in managing people in their organizations. To this end, the recruitment
policies of the organizations should ensure the use of adequate scales to determine the traits that are
compatible with those required to facilitate the achievement of the goals of the organization.

References
Allport, G.W. (1937), Personality, New York: Holt Publishers.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, p.522

Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). “Convergence of Stranger Ratings of Personality and Intelligence
with Self-ratings, Partner Rating, and Measured Intelligence, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 546 – 553.

Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R.A. (1975). A Temperament Theory of Personality Development. New York:
Wiley Interscience

56
Personality Theories: A Comparative Analysis
Campbell, D.T., & Specht, J.C. (1985). “Altruism: Biology, Culture, and Religion”. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 3 (1),33-42.

Crandall, J.E., (1984). “Social Interest as a Moderator of Life Stress”. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 47,164 – 174.

Carlson, R. (1984). “What’s Social about Social Psychology? Where’s the Person in Personality
Research?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,1304-1309.

Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. (1963). “The Validity of Questionnaire and Rating Assessments of
Extraversion and Neuroticism, and their Factorial Stability”, British Journal of Psychology, 54,
51-62

Freud, S. (1935), A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis. New York: Washington Square Press, p.
163.

Funder, D.C. (1995). “On the Accuracy of Personality Judgment: A Realistic Approach”,
Psychological Review, 102,652-670.

Gendlin, E.T. (2010). A Theory of Personality Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons,.

Goldberg, L.R. (1993). “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits”, American Psychologist, 48,
26-34.

Harrington, D.M., Block, J.H., & Block, J. (1987). “Testing Aspects of Carl Rogers’ Theory of
Creative Environments: Child-rearing Antecedents of Creative Potential in Young
Adolescent”s. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52,851-856

Hunsley, J., & Bailey, J.M. (1999). “The Clinical Utility of the Rorschach: Unfulfilled Promises and
an Uncertain Future”, Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 266-277.

John, O.P. (1990). The “Big Five” Factor Taxonomy: Dimensions of Personality in the Natural
Language and in Questionnaires. New York: Guilford Press, 504.

Johnson, D.L., Wiebe, J.S., Gold, S.M., Andreasen, N.C. Hichwa, R.D., Watkins, G.L., & Ponto,
L.L.B. (1999). “Cerebral Blood Flow and Personality: A Position Emission Tomography
Study”, American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,252-257.

Kagan, J. (1989). Unstable Ideas: Temperament, Cognition, and Self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Lachman, M.E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). “The Sense of Control as a Moderator of Social Class
Differences in Health and Well-being”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
763-773.

Lefcourt, H.M. (1982). Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, 523.

May, R. (1982). “The Problem of Evil: An Open Letter to Carl Rogers”. Journal of Humanistic
Psychology, 22,10-21.
57
Omoregbe Omorodion and Festus Osayande
Miller, P.A., Lefcourt, H.M., Holmes, J.G., Ware, E.E., & Saleh, W.E. (1986). “Marital Locus of
Control and Marital Problem Solving”. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51,161-
169.

Mischel, W. (1981). Current Issues and Challenges in Personality. Washington DC: |American
Psychological Association, 527.

Mukherjee, A. (2000), Educational Psychology, 3rd ed., Samaru-Zaria: Asakome & Co. (Publishers,
250-273.

Myers, D.G. (2001), Psychology. 6th ed., New York: Worth Publishers, 539-544.

Oladele, J.O. (2005), Fundamentals of Educational Psychology. 5th ed., Shomolu: Johns-Lad
Publishers Ltd.

Ouellette, J.A., & Wood, W. (1998). “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The Multiple Processes
by which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior”. Psychological Bulletin, 124,54-74.

Presson, P.K., & Benassi, V.A. (1996). “Locus of Control Orientation and Depressive
Symptomatology: A Meta-analysis”. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 201-212.

Robbins S.P. & Judge T.A. (2009), Organizational Behavior. Prentice-Hall Inc.

Rotter, J.B. (2000). Generalized Expectancies for Internal Versus External Control of Reinforcement
Psychological Monograph, No. 609.

Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1998). “The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel
Psychology: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings”.
Psychological Bulletin, 124,262 – 274.

Sechrest, L., Stickle, T.R., & Stewart, M. (1998). The Role of Assessment in Clinical Psychology.
New York: Pergamum, 495..

Swanda, J.R. (1979). Organizational Behavior: Systems and applications. Sherman Oaks, CA: Alfred
Publishing Co. Inc.

Wallach, M.A., & Wallach, L. (1983). Psychology’s Sanction for Selfishness: The Error of Egoism in
Theory and Therapy. New York: Freeman, 520

Weston, D. (1998). “The Scientific Legacy of Sigmund Freud: Toward a Psycho-Dynamically

Informed Psychological Science”. Psychological Bulletin, 124,490-499.

58