Skinner warned us against the diversionary effects of
fascination with inner life. I agree
that the possibility is omnipresent.
Mentalistic ideas are so seductive that one is in danger of
being led down
the garden path of introspection and mysticism forever. For that reason perhaps
only a tough-minded behaviourist can afford to entertain the seductress.
--Alan Paivio
 hen reviewing the work of modern day behaviourists one must notice the scarcity of writings
on a learning-based personality theory. Part of this scarcity may be due to the difficulty one
encounters in trying to objectively define the concept of personality. I believe it may suffice
to open Webster's Third New International Dictionary and read: "the complex of characteristics
that distinguishes a particular individual..., (and his tendencies) to interact with, perceive,
react to, or otherwise meaningfully influence or experience his environment." Probably a difficulty
more paralysing than finding a definition for personality is the knowledge that in considering a
personality theory we must deal with that realm forbidden to behaviourists(until relatively
recently), the 'inner workings' of the individual.
It has been said by John Watson, as well as other 'tabula rasa'(blank slate) theorists as early
as the seventeenth century, that the individual is the sum total of his past learning history (of
all his interactions with the environment). I don't believe that there has, so far, been a satisfactory
personality theory based on this assumption. I believe that the personality theory presented in
this article is more than satisfactory, I believe it is virtually unassailable. I can only make
this claim because I consider this model a hypothetical construct to be refined, and completed,
rather than as an absolute. I must admit(with pride, not reticence) that this model was derived
from reason, logic, conceptualisation and introspection along with a heavy dose of the aforementioned
"tough-minded behaviourism". This is consistent with two invaluable recent trends in psychology:
a cognitive behaviourism, and the long needed merging of the humanist-behaviourist movements.
In the last hundred years or so a number of interesting, even useful, personality theories
have been offered by adherents of the various 'schools' of psychology and psychiatry. In general,
these theories have shown considerable insight into the human condition, but none has ever dealt
sufficiently with the full range and complexity of variables which influence human development.
A theoretical construct of personality development was needed which provided a mechanism by which
we could come to objectively understand the influences, both within and without, which determine
the course of our development. Without this knowledge we would never be able to gain control over
our own development by utilising to its maximum the great potential of our free-will.
It is necessary to consider all of the variables in the environment influencing the development
of the personality; and it appears that three sources of input include all of these variables. Of
the three sources of input the first, physical environment, is largely self-explanatory. What must
be explained is why interpersonal communication is considered as a separate source of input rather
than as part of the physical environment. At this point it might be of benefit to diagram the three
sources of input in relation to an individual personality.
Note: the physical environment impinges directly on our various sensory inputs.
Note: Personality B can only communicate (impinge on the sensory inputs) with Personality A
through the manipulation of the physical environment: but; the source self is not empirically
observable, rather it is an abstract concept
Note: inner speech originates within Personality A, becomes a conscious process through
entering the perception: and, as do the other sources, affects the total past learning history
(TPLH).
In addition to considering the affect these three sources of input have on the development of
the personality, this model of personality development makes one further, all important consideration;
and that is we must consider a concept of perception. In essence this says we are not effected by
our environment; but instead, by our perception of the environment. As an example, consider two
people who arrive at a meeting late; they both step through the doorway at the same time; all
those at the meeting stop what they are doing and look at the late arrivals. One may perceive what
is occurring as indicative of negative feedback(input), that the people present are critical of
the late arrival; and, the other may perceive this situation as positive feedback(input), that
the people present consider the late arrival to be appropriately fashionable . On the basis of
this input the first may resolve never again to be late at a meeting, while the second may find
himself arriving late more often. This result could be independent of the true feelings of those
already present at the meeting. Of course the reason the two persons(personalities) perceived
and responded to an identical environmental situation differently is that the two individuals
brought to that environment vastly different past learning histories. Not only does our past
learning history affect our behaviour, but it also affects our perceptions of the environment.
Each input, from whatever source that enters the individual's perception, has an effect greater
than zero on the TPLH; and, each change in the TPLH has an effect greater than zero on the
individual's perception. The effect of any perceived input while always greater than zero will
have a range of effect from negligible to all pervasive. Of course many, perhaps most, of the
inputs from the environment will have a negligible effect on the TPLH, but it is possible for a
single input to have such great significance as to result in a major change in the course of the
development of the personality. It is also the case that any change in the TPLH has the same
possible range of effect on the perception of future inputs from the environment.
I am not disclaiming the effects of our spirituality, physiology, biochemistry, or heredity;
but, their effect is determined by our perception of them and how they alter our interactions
with the environment. In the purest theoretical sense, with this 'tabula rasa' personality
construct, we would have to say that there is a time, probably pre-nataly, when the first sensory
input, probably from the physical environment, is perceived, processed, and stored. The early
inputs would have a greater effect than the later ones since they have less past learning history
to dilute their effect, and they would also have a greater effect because they would be more
influential in determining the perception of future inputs from the environment. This would
account for the presumption common to most personality theories that the basic personality is
formed in the very early years of childhood.
This theoretical model addresses several of the major, but simplistic, challenges to and
reservations about behaviourism. One reservation is the idea that behaviourism is a tautology
since we define our stimuli by their effect on the responses they are made contingent upon. This
is answered in theory, although not in practice(due to the state of the technology) by the fact
that it would be possible to determine 'a priori' with absolute certainty, the effect of any
stimulus in any contingent relationship with a response if we fully knew the total past learning
history of that individual.
A second much asked question is how two people who grow up in a seemingly identical environment
can become two very different people? Those who would ask such a question are taking a naive view
of the environmental variables affecting human development; and, based on this model they have
probably neglected to consider the input from source three, inner speech, Additionally, they have
not considered that the inputs from the so-called 'identical' environments have been mediated by
each individual's unique perception of that environment.
A third and very compelling reservation about behaviourism is that the practical application of
the theory, while changing behaviour, does not change the 'inner' person; and, it is less than a
true therapeutic agent. I think it is clear from this learning based personality theory that as
we affect the individual's behaviour by a manipulation of environmental variables, we are affecting
the 'inner' person, the personality. I would agree, though, that since behaviourists have largely
ignored the inner being, they have not been nearly so effective as they could be in developing
behavioural generalisation from the therapeutic environment to the outside world.
Finally, there are many who believe that since behaviourists say that the individual becomes
the person he is based on his interaction with his environment they are saying that the individual
is not responsible for his actions. I believe this has been misinterpreted. What is actually the
case is that at any given point in time the individual could be no other than he is, based on his
past interactions with his environment; but, it is also true that the humanists were right, that
the individual is responsible for and in control of his own destiny. At any given point in time
the individual is free to choose any of the infinite courses of action available. Our past learning
history may determine the course of action we choose, but we can determine our own past learning
history.
|
