Theory on Formation of Character

Theory on Formation of Character: Everyone starts out the same

way with the same basic elements. There is his Higher Nature
with its knowledge of Right and Wrong. And there is that Lower
Nature with its desires and needs. From a very young age
everyone starts finding his loyalty to Right and Good being
tested. It is tested by temptations, fears, desires, etc.. He
is tempted to lie in order to avoid punishment; to do wrong in
order to gain acceptance by peers, etc.. From a very young age
everyone experiences a never ending series of assaults on his
integrity, honesty, etc.. Assaults that challenge his courage
and mettle. Some people stand up well to these tests, do what
is right, and develop habits of doing what is right. These
people develop one type of character, the character that always
does what is Right; the character that loves Right, Honesty,
Justice, Truth and Goodness. Other people start succumbing to
these tests of their Honesty, Integrity and Goodness at an
early age. They develop habits of succumbing. They lose their
sense of Right and Wrong and become profligate and immoral.
And that type of character is formed.
The formation of character all comes down, in the final
analysis, to that old conflict, that conflict between Right and
Wrong, Good and Evil;
In addition to the above another mechanism is also at work.
Those people who start succumbing on the tests to their
honesty, integrity, etc. immediately start rationalizing their
actions. As they build up habits of succumbing, as they build
up the habit of taking the road opposite to that indicated by
the "Voice of Conscience" and "Knowledge of Right", they start
justifying it to themselves. They start building a framework
of rationale, a philosophical framework, that supports their
actions. And in this way their conscience becomes perverted
and corrupted. In other words, their minds immediately jump to
their rescue and help to further entrench them in the road they
have chosen. Thus they deceive and delude themselves. And in
somewhat the same way those who have the courage to live true
to their consciences and take the right road also rationalize
their actions, build up a philosophical framework and value
system for themselves, and their minds tend to entrench them in
that road (i.e. as you do what is right, you build up habits of
doing right, you build up a philosophical framework and value
system for doing right, and doing right becomes easier and
easier).
The above are some of the mechanisms involved in the process of
character formation. There are others. For example, every
child grows up immersed in a certain climate, a certain
atmosphere, that is studded with values, attitudes and
outlooks. By something like osmosis he tends to absorb these.
At least they present things to be reckoned with, whether he
accepts or rejects them. This is especially true of the
attitudes and values he encounters in the home. The example of

honest, upright, good parents can exert great impact on a

child. They fix in his mind a strong image, knowledge, and
understanding of Right and Wrong. They provide for him a
strong mental image, a model, an ideal of Right and Good.

Character Vs Attitude
Character is something you cannot change. Just as you grow up to become the person
you are, you grow into the character you become.
Attitude it the way you choose to portray yourself. You can choose what your attitude
will be, whether it is happy or sad or any other emotion. Unlike character, attitude can
be changed. It's just a matter of choosing the way you wish to be.
Character is like an operating system of a computer. We have different operating
systems like Mac OS, Xenix, Linux, Windows etc. The software of one is not
compatible with another.
Every operating system has a set of softwares used for the need of the hour. They can
be word processors, spread sheets, graphics, photo editing, etc. Attitude is like the
software used for the need of the hour.
A man's character never changes radically from youth to old age. What happens is that
circumstances bring out characteristics which have not been obvious to the superficial
observer - Hesketh Pearson
Character is higher than intellect. A great soul will be strong to live as well as think
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Classifying the mind of people into types can be found in the folk wisdom of most
cultures. A few persons are called calm type, the majorities are known to have
some degree of nervousness, and the remaining are called unsettled type. Every
person is influenced by the three collective psychic energies in varying degrees.
In Sanskrit, Guna means physio-psychological factor. The Upanishads say that

Satwa(order, symmetry, harmony, illumination, knowledge) represents lightness, is

pleasing, and is capable of manifesting others.

Rajas (activity, power) is dynamic, exciting, expansive, but also capable of hurting.
Tamas (darkness,static, inertia, concealing) is characterized by heaviness, and
causes obscurity and sadness.
Persons who are mostly influenced by the lower collective psychic energy are called
Tamo Guna (activities of darkness) type persons. They belong to the unsettled type
according to folk wisdom.

Attitude is the differentiating factor used for a specific purpose. Character is the
integrating factor which defines what a person's mind is.
Character is my inner self. I am made of certain elements which manifest in to ones
thoughts, actions and behaviour. It is a some total of my core values and my learning in
ones life. It defines an individual.
Attitude is on the other hand only a part of Character. It is situational. Attitude helps us
to understand the situation around us and respond in a manner in which we would like
to respond or we are forced to respond.
Only one's closest circle can understand one's character. But attitude can be
predominently assessed in different situations by different people. Each time there is a
conflict in an individual's attitude Vs Behaviour (which is known as dissonace), individual
falls back on his Character - Values to judge whether to change his attitude or behavior

Attitude Vs Behaviour:
Attitude and behavior are two quite different things. Attitude is a person's inner thoughts and
feelings, while behavior is usually an outward expression of attitude, but the two are not always
related.
For instance, psychopaths are people whose attitudes are composed of low morality. However,
this does not mean that they always commit immoral acts. Psychopaths are usually intelligent, so
they know that even though there will be no moral consequences for them, there will still be
legal consequences to deal with. This knowledge, in addition to their attitude, governs their
behavior.
When a person's attitude and behavior differ, dissonance will likely result, and a change in
attitude or behavior will be the probable outcome.
Like the development of attitude and behavior, the change in these characteristics is also highly
influenced by society. The basic rule governing attitude change is the Principal of Consistency.
People expect all things in their mind to agree with each other. They expect that all good things
A state of dissonance
should assemble together against all the bad things, which should also
assemble together. When two items in your mind disagree, dissonance
occurs. The mind does not want to be in a state of dissonance, so
something must happen to resolve this.
An example of a state of dissonance is when a friend dislikes a movie
that you like. Since the friend is a good thing in your mind, and so is
the movie, but the two good things are not associated because your
friend does not like the movie, your mind is in a state of dissonance.
A simple resolution is a change in opinion or behavior toward one of
the items, or for the bond between them to change to a positive one. This means that if you
change your opinion of your friend, or you change your mind about the movie and no longer like
it, the dissonance will have been resolved. It will also be resolved if your friend changes his or
her opinion of the movie.
Other resolutions can occur if you figure out an explanation of why your opinions differ. For
example, you may decide that you friend was not in a good mood when he or she watched the
movie, and did not enjoy it as much as he or she could have.
Simple resolutions of the
Another reason might be that if he or she watched it in a
dissonance
theater, the seating may have been poor. These reasons
differentiate between the two situations, and the two viewings
of the movie are no longer the same item, so the dissonance is resolved. This can also happen
with a live performance if you and your friend saw two different showings, and the acting and
other factors in one were better than the other. The dissonance will only be resolved if you truly
believe in these reasons.
Since attitude and behavior are not the same thing, a person may offer a reason even if he or she
does not believe it. This might be done so others will think that all is well and he or she would
not have to show the dissonance in their outer behavior. However, the dissonance is still present
and his or her attitude must change in a different way in order to remove this dissonance. This

may take the form of a simple resolution, and the person's opinion of the other person may
change, even though he or she does not show it in their behavior.
These are simplistic examples. In actual fact, attitudes and opinions do not change as easily as
this, and change in different magnitudes, depending on the strength of the bonds between items.
For example, if you and your friend had known each other for a long time, chances are that there
is a very strong positive bond between you, and it would not change as much as the bond
between you and the movie. Or perhaps the bond between you and your friend would change in a
different way. Then you would still like your friend, but your perception of him or her may
change. You can read a document on cognitive consistency to learn more, or for a more detailed
explanation of the three major consistency theories, read Cognitive Consistency Models.
Dissonance can also occur between a person's attitude and behavior. If a person acts in a way that
does not agree with his or her attitude, then an attempt will be made to regain balance. This
means that he or she will either correct the behavior and try to make amends, or change his or her
attitude and come to accept that type of behavior. He or she may also attempt to excuse their
behavior and blame it on a temporary lapse brought about by a situation that required him or her
to act out in such a way for a greater good or lesser evil.
The dissonance between attitude and behavior also explains why a person
that continues to behave against his or her morals will find that the morals
become weaker because his or her attitude toward that behavior is no longer
strongly opposed to it.
Fundamental attitude and behavior is a development of imprinting by an animal's social
environment. Imprinting results during the upbringing of an animal and depends on the species
that are in its environment during this time. The innate releasing mechanisms of an animal
govern how it will react to other animals of its own and other species and its ability to distinguish
between them. The mechanisms depend on the species and can range from very general to very
specific. Animals with general innate releasing mechanisms can be imprinted to other species, or
even inanimate objects that roughly resemble the description of the mechanism in shape and size.
Animals that have more specific mechanisms can sometimes only be imprinted to their own
species.
Once an animal has been imprinted to a species (or object, but we will refer to other animals), it
will treat that species as its own. It will follow that species like its own, make mating approaches
toward members of that species, and also direct other familiar behavior towards that species.
Another base of attitude and behavior that is acquired from a person's social environment is
morality. It is a Freudian belief that the morality of a person is shaped by society. However, other
beliefs, such as those of many religions, proclaim that morality is instilled in people by a god or
gods. If this were true, however, it could be argued then that all people would have the same
morals. It could be said that the ideal morality is set by god, then individuals obtain their own
morality from their parents and society. Whether or not this is the case, we will focus on how an
individual obtains their morality, rather than the cause for it.
Morality is largely shaped by parents. Children imitate their parents and gain their morality from
the morality of their parents. If parents try to teach their child one thing, but do another, the child
will more likely copy the actual behavior of its parents. As for punishment as a tool to instill
morals, it seems a distinction has to be made. Physical punishment given as a consequence of
improper behavior does not produce the intended morals in a child. This includes physical

beatings and the common method of denying freedom to the child. It seems that more
psychological means are needed to induce the proper morals in a child. When a child sees a
parent become sorrowful as a result of the child's behavior, it seems to have the desired
moralizing effect. The child then believes that the parent loves him or her less, and will try to
behave in an appropriate manner to get back on the parent's good side. Isolating the child in his
or her room also has a similar effect. If the parents are not very involved with the child's life,
then it is likely that other social sources, such as the people he or she keeps company with, will
have a large influence on him or her.
The strengthening of morals occurs with resistance to temptations. The stronger a person's
refusal to carry out an action, the stronger his or her conscience becomes. Now if the person
were to go against his or her morals, he or she would feel very bad because his or her conscience
would be very punishing. This causes people with strong morals to turn themselves in and admit
to their actions. On the other hand, if a person does something that he or she knows is wrong, his
or her conscience becomes weaker, and it will be easier for him or her to repeat the action.
Therefore, people who behave according to their morals will have strong
consciences and will feel bad even if their transgression is a minor one, while
people with low morality can easily commit an atrocity and not feel bad. The
reason for this strengthening or weakening is the dissonance that occurs
between attitude and behavior.
There are situations in which a person may deliberately attempt to change someone's attitude
with communications. Such situations include an election where candidates are trying to win
votes, and also television commercials, which try to persuade people to buy a product or service.
There are several factors affecting whether or not these communications are successful.
The intelligence of the person may affect how he or she will respond to communications, but it
usually is not a major factor. If the communication uses facts and logical reasoning to prove its
point, the person will be more willing to accept it and be persuaded than if it has no factual base
and the statements are illogical. However, most television commercials and other
communications do not appeal to a person's logic, but rather to other motivations.
The credibility of the speaker is also a variable in determining the effect of a communication.
The higher the credibility, the greater the impact. However, even if the speaker has low
credibility, over time, the ideas separate themselves from the speaker in the mind of the person
that witnessed the communication. Therefore, the ideas may have more of an affect than it would
seem at first.
If a communication is dissonant with a person's attitude, he or she may try to avoid situations in
which exposure to that communication may occur. However, if the person does end up being
exposed to a strong communication, then chances are it will persuade him or her more easily
than if an immunity had been built up by being exposed to weaker arguments before this
exposure .
Perhaps most important is how strongly a person believes in his or her own ideas. If a person
does not have a strong attitude toward something, it is likely that it will be quite easy to change
his or her opinion. However, if a person already has strong convictions, a communication that
tries to change his or her mind will have little effect. Debates between two ideas only seem to
strengthen a person's current beliefs.

Personality - Type theory of personality, Trait theory of

personality, Psychodynamic theory of personality,
Phenomenological theory of personality (Only for Sai
Sridhar Consumption)
behavioral

The unique pattern of psychological and behavioral characteristics by which each person can
be distinguished from other people.

Personality is fundamental to the study of psychology. The major systems evolved by

psychiatrists and psychologists since Sigmund Freud to explain human mental and
behavioral processes can be considered theories of personality. These theories generally
provide ways of describing personal characteristics and behavior, establish an overall
framework for organizing a wide range of information, and address such issues as
individual differences, personality development from birth through adulthood, and
the causes, nature, and treatment of psychological disorders.

Type theory of personality

Perhaps the earliest known theory of personality is that of the Greek physician
Hippocrates (c. 400 B.C.), who characterized human behavior in terms of four
temperaments, each associated with a different bodily fluid, or "humor." The sanguine,
or optimistic, type was associated with blood; the phlegmatic type (slow and lethargic)
with phlegm; the melancholic type (sad, depressed) with black bile; and the choleric
(angry) type with yellow bile. Individual personality was determined by the amount of
each of the four humors. Hippocrates' system remained influential in Western Europe
throughout the medieval and Renaissance periods. Abundant references to the four
humors can be found in the plays of Shakespeare, and the terms with which Hippocrates
labeled the four personality types are still in common use today. The theory of
temperaments is among a variety of systems that deal with human personality by
dividing it into types. A widely popularized (but scientifically dubious) modern typology
of personality was developed in the 1940s by William Sheldon, an American
psychologist. Sheldon classified personality into three categories based on body types:

the endomorph (heavy and easy-going), mesomorph (muscular and aggressive), and
ectomorph (thin and intellectual or artistic).

Trait theory of personality

A major weakness of Sheldon's morphological classification system and other type
theories in general is the element of oversimplification inherent in placing individuals
into a single category, which ignores the fact that every personality represents a unique
combination of qualities. Systems that address personality as a combination of qualities
or dimensions are called trait theories. Well-known trait theorist Gordon Allport
(1897-1967) extensively investigated the ways in which traits combine to form normal
personalities, cataloguing over 18,000 separate traits over a period of 30 years. He
proposed that each person has about seven central traits that dominate his or her
behavior. Allport's attempt to make trait analysis more manageable and useful by
simplifying it was expanded by subsequent researchers, who found ways to group traits
into clusters through a process known as factor analysis. Raymond B. Cattell reduced
Allport's extensive list to 16 fundamental groups of inter-related characteristics, and
Hans Eysenck claimed that personality could be described based on three
fundamental factors: psychoticism (such antisocial traits as cruelty and rejection of
social customs), introversion-extroversion, and emotionality-stability (also called
neuroticism). Eysenck also formulated a quadrant based on intersecting emotionalstable and introverted-extroverted axes.

Psychodynamic theory of personality

Twentieth-century views on personality have been heavily influenced by the
psychodynamic approach of Sigmund Freud. Freud proposed a three-part personality
structure consisting of the id (concerned with the gratification of basic instincts), the
ego (which mediates between the demands of the id and the constraints of society), and
the superego (through which parental and social values are internalized). In contrast
to type or trait theories of personality, the dynamic model proposed by Freud involved
an ongoing element of conflict, and it was these conflicts that Freud saw as the primary
determinant of personality. His psychoanalytic method was designed to help patients
resolve their conflicts by exploring unconscious thoughts, motivations, and conflicts

through the use of free association and other techniques. Another distinctive feature
of Freudian psychoanalysis is its emphasis on the importance of childhood
experiences in personality formation. Other psychodynamic models were later
developed by colleagues and followers of Freud, including Carl Jung, Alfred Adler,
and Otto Rank (1884-1939), as well as other neo-Freudians such as Erich Fromm,
Karen Horney, Harry Stack Sullivan (1892-1949), and Erik Erikson.

Phenomenological theory of personality

Another major view of personality developed during the twentieth century is the
phenomenological approach, which emphasizes people's self-perceptions and their drive
for self-actualization as determinants of personality. This optimistic orientation
holds that people are innately inclined toward goodness, love, and creativity and that
the primary natural motivation is the drive to fulfill one's potential. Carl Rogers, the
figure whose name is most closely associated with phenomenological theories of
personality, viewed authentic experience of one's self as the basic component of growth
and wellbeing. This experience together with one's self-concept can become distorted
when other people make the positive regard we need dependent on conditions that
require the suppression of our true feelings. The client-centered therapy developed
by Rogers relies on the therapist's continuous demonstration of empathy and
unconditional positive regard to give clients the self-confidence to express and act on
their true feelings and beliefs. Another prominent exponent of the phenomenological
approach was Abraham Maslow, who placed self-actualization at the top of his
hierarchy of human needs. Maslow focused on the need to replace a deficiency
orientation, which consists of focusing on what one does not have, with a growth
orientation based on satisfaction with one's identity and capabilities.

Behavioral theory of personality

The behaviorist approach views personality as a pattern of learned behaviors acquired
through either classical (Pavlovian) or operant (Skinnerian) conditioning and shaped
by reinforcement in the form of rewards or punishment. A relatively recent
extension of behaviorism, the cognitive-behavioral approach emphasizes the role
cognition plays in the learning process. Cognitive and social learning theorists focus

not only on the outward behaviors people demonstrate but also on their expectations
and their thoughts about others, themselves, and their own behavior. For example, one
variable in the general theory of personality developed by social learning theorist Julian
B. Rotter is internal-external orientation. "Internals" think of themselves as controlling
events, while "externals" view events as largely outside their control. Like
phenomenological theorists, those who take a social learning approach also emphasize
people's perceptions of themselves and their abilities (a concept called "self-efficacy" by
Albert Bandura). Another characteristic that sets the cognitive-behavioral approach
apart from traditional forms of behaviorism is its focus on learning that takes place in
social situations through observation and reinforcement, which contrasts with the
dependence of classical and operant conditioning models on laboratory research.
Aside from theories about personality structure and dynamics, a major area of
investigation in the study of personality is how it develops in the course of a person's
lifetime. The Freudian approach includes an extensive description of psychosexual
development from birth up to adulthood. Erik Erikson outlined eight stages of
development spanning the entire human lifetime, from birth to death. In contrast,
various other approaches, such as those of Jung, Adler, and Rogers, have rejected the
notion of separate developmental stages.
An area of increasing interest is the study of how personality varies across cultures. In
order to know whether observations about personality structure and formation reflect
universal truths or merely cultural influences, it is necessary to study and compare
personality characteristics in different societies. For example, significant differences
have been found between personality development in the individualistic cultures of the
West and in collectivist societies such as Japan, where children are taught from a young
age that fitting in with the group takes precedence over the recognition of individual
achievement. Cross-cultural differences may also be observed within a given society by
studying the contrasts between its dominant culture and its subcultures (usually ethnic,
racial, or religious groups).

Further Reading

Allport, Gordon W. Personality and Social Encounter: Selected Essays. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1960.
Eysenck, Hans. The Structure of Human Personality. London Methuen, 1970.
Mischel, Walter. Introduction to Personality. 4th ed. New York Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1986.