Relationship between human personality and socialization


relationship between human personality and socialization

Therefore, personality is shaped and molded by one's culture and sub Socialization makes it possible for a society to perpetuate itself from. An individual's personality is the complex of mental characteristics that due more to socialization and unique experiences, especially during childhood. . Benedict's views were especially popular in the 's among early. brought back covered comparable categories of infancy and socialization. The relationship between patterns of child development and the adult personality. that additional support is given the thesis of a human need for Still.

R has been stressed by psychoanalytic, reality, cognitive, and rational-emotive schools. A has been stressed by behavioristic schools. C has been stressed by family therapies. A continuum of likeness in close relationships The fourth model consists of a dialectical, developmental continuum of likeness that underlies human relationships.

The purpose of this continuum is to describe how people relate with each other in intimate and non-intimate relationships. This continuum was originally postulated L'Abate,p.

No single range can conceivably describe behavior in intimate relationships by itself, isolated from other ranges. Each range needs a dialectical counterpart to define itself according to a combination of two ranges related to each other. For instance, a combination of the two extremes of the distribution, Symbiosis and Alienation, would lead toward an Abusive-Apathetic neglectful interpersonal style AA with individual-relational pathology in close relationships.

At the intermediate level of the distribution, a combination of Sameness and Oppositeness would lead toward a Reactive-Repetitive, conflictful and competitive style RRintra-and interpersonally. In the center of the distribution, a combination of Similarity and Differentness would lead toward a positively collaborative Conductive-Creative style CC. These three styles form the basis for the fifth ARC model see Figure 4with two dysfunctional styles, with AA being the most dysfunctional, RR being intermediate in functionality, and CC being functional.

Hence, in Figure 4vertically, a dimension of psychopathology lies at the bottom and at the two extremes of the distribution. Emotional and mental health lie at the middle, intermediate level, while CC lies in the center. By CC here it means interacting and relating with intimate others in extremely positive ways.

It does not mean creativity in artistic, scientific, or professional endeavors. These two realms, intimate and non-intimate, may well be unrelated with each other. One could be a genius in art or science and a failure as a partner or parent. The theoretical origin of this continuum has been expressed at length in previous publications L'Abate,, a. Conceptually, it predecessors are found in: Briefly, a child develops a sense of self-identity and becomes socialized, at least in part, in comparison with major caretakers, modeling how they relate to the child as well as between and among themselves.

For instance, the child may learn positive or negative behavior from how caretakers relate to him or her and between themselves and intimate others. The child may model without awareness of this modeling process. Early theories describing this process, however, were usually acontextual, monadically non-relational, and rather vague as far as their interpersonal origins.

Personality socialization seemed to develop in a vacuum, without specific relationships with intimate others. Most textbooks and handbooks about personality published in the USA fail to make references to "parents", "mother or father", "marriage", "siblings," or "parents" L'Abate, Furthermore, since similarity was conceptualized according to a simple dichotomy of similar-dissimilar, no other possibilities along a continuum could be considered.

Consequently, this relational continuum was deemed necessary to "describe" and even "explain" self-differentiation in close relationships.

It meant going well beyond a simple-minded dichotomy and consider the possibility of a continuum of likeness along at least six ranges, as shown in Figure 4. Applications of this continuum to various intra-interpersonal relationships are many. Very briefly, starting with the two processes of Approach-Avoidance in distance space and of Discharge-Delay regulation timeit is possible to expand this continuum by applying it to various intra-and interpersonal relationships.

Not all relationships can describe all individuals. For instance, one individual could conceivably be in the middle of the distribution in parental practices, that is, using a CC style in this area, but be at another extreme, even RR or AA in how he or she manages work conditions.

Being in the middle of one range CC does not necessarily predict whether that individual will be within the same range in work activities. Being in one range according to one style RR does not necessarily predict whether the same style will be followed in another area of functioning. More concretely, parents who require blind, uncritical obedience and submission to their values and behaviors i.

Stereotypically, males may eventually rebel and become anti-establishment and join juvenile gangs, learning acting out and behaving impulsively. Females may submit to and follow parental demands for sameness. Individuals or couples at the very extreme of symbiosis will produce offspring that is characterized by alienation and withdrawal from society. Parents who follow a CC style and are characterized by similarity and differentness in their personality and parental practices will very likely produce offspring with the same kind of style CC and positive personality characteristics.

Feelings, how one perceives and experience emotionally-tinged events, and how these feelings are expressed and shared outwardly as emotions develop along a continuum of likeness, transmitted generationally and intergenerationally. Selfhood In addition to an underlying likeness continuum to describe subtle and not subtle or not so obvious development of functionalities CCinternalizations RRexternalizations RRand psychopathology AA in relationships, it was necessary to introduce a sixth model.

This one deals with how intimates interact with each other in fairly obvious ways, if we were able to observe them in private. Here is where the metatheoretical model about levels of observation and interpretation comes into being.

People behave in different ways, in different settings, and at different levels of observation and interpretation. Furthermore, the resource class of importance, already introduced, needs to be expanded into a full-fledged model concerning how the Self manifests itself. This model is needed to describe, if not explain, personality propensities that predict how individuals relate to each other in the privacy of home and not in public settings. Hence, this Selfhood model assumes that attribution, ascription, and assertion of importance is the primary, fundamental resource exchanged among intimates as well as in non-intimates, verbally, non-verbally, and in writing.

Asking to write an article for a prestigious journal is how one's importance is ascribed, for instance. Once the assumptions of approach-avoidance and discharge-delay are brought to bear on how one relates to intimate relationships, four possibilities come to the fore. When there is an appropriate balance of distance and regulation, there is the development of functional relationships, as seen in a personality propensity named Selfulness.

When approach is greater than avoidance and discharge is greater than delay, there is the development of a personality propensity called Selfishness. When avoidance is greater than approach, and delay greater than discharge, there is the development of a personality propensity called Selflessness. When there are extreme, contradictory, and inconsistent imbalances in distance and regulation, there is the development of a personality propensity called No-self.

However, this is just an incomplete introduction sufficient to link this model to the assumptions of the theory. It is still insufficient in terms of how importance is asserted in four propensities. These four propensities are coupled with the resource class of importance to complete the model according to its application to intimate relationships.

Selfhood, in its four propensities becomes the centerpiece of exchanges between and among intimates parents, parent-child, siblings and non-intimates. The self is shown by how one relates intimates in close, prolonged, and committed relationships, away from the scrutiny of occasional outsiders. The self-presentational facade in public cannot last long and be sustained in private.

Eventually this facade gives way to what an individual really is by how he or she relates with intimate others. It is relatively easy to make a good impression in short-lived, superficial, and even contrived relationships.

It is much more difficult to behave positively in the heat of closeness and familiarity. To expand on the four propensities in their interpersonal implications, they are: In Selfulness it is possible to balance appropriately distance and regulation, separating issues of Presence from issues of Power.

Within the context of this propensity mostly functional relationships develop using a CC style. Selfishness tends to rely more on approach than on avoidance, and on discharge more than on delay. Individuals characterized with this propensity tend to push limits on their partners, authorities, and anybody who lets them do that, such as seen in the pathological extremes of this propensity, as seen in addictions and criminalities.

Extremes in selfishness are therefore represented by externalizations, where the self is asserted at the expense of others as in assaults, thefts, rapes, and murders, using a RR style. This propensity tends to rely more on avoidance than approach, and on delay more than on discharge. Individuals characterized by this propensity are unable to draw lines to protect themselves and their bodies "the condom line".

Selfless individuals tend to be gullible, loyal, and responsible, trying to make up complementarily for qualities not usually found in selfish individuals. They are nonetheless attracted to selfish individuals just as the latter is attracted to the former RR.

In the long run, this attraction becomes antagonistic and conflictful, where either depression, suicide, hospitalization, or divorce become the inevitable outcome.

Extremes in selflessness are seen in internalizations, composed by anxieties, depressions, panic attacks, and affective disorders leading to suicide, either slow and prolonged as in some addictions, or sudden and seemingly unexpected. We both must lose". The No-self propensity relies on contradictory and inconsistent extremes in both distance and regulation AAas represented by severe psychopathology as in paranoias, schizoid, and schizophrenic-type disorders, combining both ruthlessness and attack with apathy, passivity, and submission.

Priorities All the previous models are developmental predecessors of those that follow. One model is the basis for the next one. To understand how we allocate space, time, and energy within each setting and from one setting to another, we need to invoke the concept of priorities, a seventh model. Priorities pertain to definite choices we make about who and what is important to us in our lives to survive and to enjoy.

How important is a person, an object, or an activity? How important is one's self in relation to other selves? In a way, the Selfhood model is another way of looking at Priorities.

However, this model goes beyond Selfhood. It includes settings and contexts within each setting. One setting can be enhanced or reduced in importance by increasing or decreasing the importance of other settings.

For example, activities in the leisure arena may become antidotes for the negative effects of stresses at work or at home. How one juggles and counterbalances demands and difficulties to maintain balance in one's life reflects one's priorities.

Priorities motivate people to move toward or away from other people or to negotiate or to avoid negotiation with significant others over important issues in their lives. Love is not enough, just as negotiation is not enough. A person needs both to survive and to enjoy life, the two major priorities from which all the other priorities derive. The priorities can be measured easily by time analysis. How much time does one spend in each setting? What modality of expression - Being, Doing, or Having - is being used in a primary, secondary, and tertiary manner?

For instance, Being is much more relevant in the home setting than Doing and Having. However, without the latter two, one cannot live on being alone. Which of these three modalities is more important than the other two? As shown in the Selfhood model, individuals choose how self is related to other selves, it is an issue of priorities.

For instance, one can choose E at the expense of R and derail the whole process of development. Or chose R at the expense of E and again derail the same process. One needs to balance E with R and with the other components of the model. Without this balance, it will be difficult to fully use one's available assets. Priorities can be divided into vertical and horizontal.

Vertical priorities are developmental and can be differentiated according to the three modalities of Being, Doing, and Having. For instance, personal and interpersonal priorities are ranked according to the relative importance given to the self and significant others. One may value Doing more than Having or Being, stressing the importance of work setting at the expense of home or leisure settings. This stress, for instance, could define the great American workaholic man or woman.

By the same stereotypic token, of course, a woman could be defined by her stress on Being emotionally available at home. Work and leisure time settings may be considered secondary to her emotional availability and closeness with intimate others. Horizontal priorities, on the other hand, exist regardless of how one chooses what is important for the self and intimate others, because they relate to settings and not to a person's level of socialization.

In brief, vertical and horizontal priorities intersect and interact with each other to produce different outcomes. How successful one is in any setting depends a great deal on individual priorities. If one defines oneself primarily in occupational terms, for instance, obtaining a sense of importance from one's job or career "I am an engineer" rather than domestically "I am a partner and parent first and then an employee"it follows that that individual may spend more time and energy at work than at home.

By the same token, avocational pursuits may overshadow domestic and occupational roles. There is a need to balance modalities and settings so that no modality or setting is stressed at the expense of the others. Some priorities are automatic and outside the realm of Aw.

Other priorities are completely conscious and within the realm of Aw. The salience and satisfaction derived from each modality and setting remain the individual prerogative that determines how each modality and setting is ranked in respect to the others. Consequently, we need to differentiate priorities into primary, secondary, tertiary and quartic. Primary priorities are automatic and outside the realm of individual Aw. They are called primary because they are developed earlier in the life-cycle than secondary ones.

Consequently, they are more difficult to change. Secondary priorities are semi-automatic and somewhat within the realm of Aw, depending, of course, on how wide and deep Aw is, since this asset varies a great deal from one individual to another.

Tertiary priorities are within the realm of Aw and within the conscious regulation of the individual. They are voluntary and intentional. Quartic priorities consist of routine, every-day behaviors that are taken for granted as a matter of course like brushing one's teeth, taking a shower, etc. This hierarchy of priorities is similar to the one proposed by Carver and Sheier in regard to goals, a notion that is much more difficult to evaluate than priorities.

Ease of change is greater for quartic priorities and becomes more difficult to change going up the hierarchy. It is much easier to change how one brushes one's teeth or takes a shower than to change developmentally produced, life-long habits that have been established automatically since early age. For instance, approach-avoidance and discharge-delay processes, an example of primary priorities, would be the most difficult to change.

Secondary, semi-automatic priorities include the modalities of Being, Doing, and Having, where, normatively speaking, Being is balanced with Doing and Having being somewhat easier to change. Additionally, within each component of this model, there are choices to be made according to which priority is relevant to the individual.

For instance, with E, one must chose between disclosure vs. Within R, one can choose whether to use it vs.

Hurt feelings and personality socialization in the family

Within A, one can choose whether to be destructive vs. Within Aw, one can choose whether to allow it to intrude vs. Within C, one can choose between its denial or its denial vs. Of course many individuals do not feel they have choices concerning any of these components.

Again, it depends on what is more important to them. Within the level of tertiary conscious choices, there are vertical priorities pertaining to self, partner, parents, children, relatives, friends, and neighbors.

These priorities are related to the Likeness continuum by being differentiated, and therefore functional, in the middle of the distribution see Figure 4and undifferentiated, and therefore dysfunctional, toward the two extreme ranges of the same distribution. Quartic priorities consist of every-day habits necessary for self-preservation, self-presentation, and self-survival. Attainment of priorities at the higher level begins with the completion of priorities at lower levels, going up on the hierarchy.

For instance, if the major priority is to advance at work and work is more important than family, then brushing one's teeth, taking a shower, and presenting oneself in acceptable if not elegant clothes, fitting the work setting and tasks to be accomplished at work could well begin before reaching that setting.

At work, in addition to self-presentation, getting along with co-workers and fulfilling well a supra-ordinate's request may be the next step to reach the desired priority. Asking for extra assignments, staying later than other workers, and arriving early may be other ways to enhance one's self-presentation. However, if too much time and energy are expended at work, there may not be sufficient time and energy left to devote it to one's family, home, and leisure time activities.

Priorities become involved in the next, eighth, and last model, where one needs to choose whether E is more important than R or other components of the ERAAwC model, and whether relying on E is made at the expense of the other components of the model. Hurt feelings and fears of being hurt The inability to experience and express hurt feelings and fears of being hurt leads to three dysfunctional roles in intimate relationships, namely: Given that triangle, there are four possible roles on how to deal with hurt feelings: The Rescuer, Savior, or Saint role, trying to make things better for those who are hurting, often at one's own expense, by not valuing one's own feelings, and valuing others' feelings more than one's own instead, leading to the personality propensity of Selflessness, already discussed.

The Persecutor role means inflicting hurts on others, whether intimates or non-intimates, leading to Selfishness. The Martyr or Victim role, keeping hurt feelings inside without ever expressing them, or, at the other extreme, exploding in a destructive manner, assuming all three roles at the same time, that is, stoic Victim, hateful Persecutor, or noble, compassionate Savior, leading to No-self. These three roles are played out in dysfunctional relationships, with each individual switching from one role to another.

The fourth alternative is played in functional relationships: The normalizing role of Sharing hurt feelings with those we love and who love us through crying together, Being together physically and emotionally, leads toward Selfulness. Sharing hurts means not playing the three destructive roles and becoming sane and intimate. Conclusion According to this theory, personality is manifested in relationships, especially intimate ones.

The theory is composed of nine models, one probably non-testable and eight testable, in some cases, tested. In secondary prevention, assumptions and models have been evaluated through mental health workbooks L'Abate, In tertiary prevention or psychotherapy, two tasks have been used to evaluate this theory clinically rather than empirically: Sharing of hurt feelings in couples L'Abate,and hugging, holding, huddling, and cuddling in couples and families L'Abate, in press. Disease, pain and sacrifice: Toward a psychology of suffering.

Concepts and methods for studying the environment of human behavior. The social dimension of sex.

relationship between human personality and socialization

Affect regulation and the development of psychopathology. Stress, coping, and self-regulatory processes. Theory and research pp. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulations of communal and exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, Interpersonal processes in close relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, Personality disorders and the five factor model of personality. The social meanings of money and possessions: In search of a talisman.

An introduction to theories of personality. Its nature and development. Societal structures of the mind.

relationship between human personality and socialization

Approaches to family therapy. Understanding and helping the individual in the family. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 89, The limits of the conventional science of personality. Journal of Personality, 42 Rorer, L. Personality structure and assessment.

Annual Review of Psychology, 34, Mental representations of persons and personality. Handbook of Personality Psychology pp.

The psychosocial construction of generative lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, Annual Review of Psychology, The idea of temperament: Where do we go from here? Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. Validation of the five factor model of personality across instruments and observers.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, Longitudinal stability of adult personality. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, Mood and the mundane: Relations between daily life events and self-reported mood.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, Annual Review of Psychology, 46, Toward an integration of two traditions of personality research. Psychological Review, A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. The five-factor model in personality: Journal of Personality, 60, Friedman and Miriam W.

Social Structure and Personality by Talcott Parsons. Socialization and Interaction Process - Robert F. Theories of Personality Book by Calvin S. Hall, Gardner Lindzey, John B.

Socialization: Crash Course Sociology #14

Campbell Personality by Jerry M. Theory and Research by Joan E. Grusec and Paul D.