In the world of psychology, there is no single right answer when choosing a theory or approach to use as a model: there is only a personal opinion on what the right answer is. With the plethora of available theories and approaches to choose from, it can be overwhelming to choose one, or even two, models to use. For my personal approach to individual differences and understanding the person, I most identify with the object relations theory developed by Klein and Winnicott. The object relations theory analyzes interpersonal relationships, focusing on the images we hold of people in comparison to reality (J. R. Greenberg & Mitchell; M. Klein; Winnicott,; as cited in Funder, 2016). There are four principal themes found in the object relations theory. The first theme is that “every relationship has elements of satisfaction and frustration, or pleasure and pain” (Funder, 2016, p. 402). In a simplified way, the same object can elicit two polar opposite emotions depending on the situation in which the object is encountered. When an object is unable to provide, frustration is elicited, but in situations where the object is able to provide for needs, satisfaction will instead be experienced. The second theme is that objects are viewed with a mix of love and hate depending on the situation and both always exist simultaneously (Funder, 2016). The third theme is distinguishing whether an object is viewed as a whole or in parts: do you love the object for what it is, or do you love what the object provides (Funder, 2016). An example would be loving a boyfriend: is it love for the person he is or love for the security he gives? The fourth and final theme is that awareness of contradictory feelings leads to disturbance of the psyche (Funder, 2016).
One of the original developers of the object relations theory is Melanie Klein who introduced the idea of play therapy for children to better assess how children associated with specific people in their lives, such as their parents. (M. Klein, as cited in Funder, 2016). Klein showed that objects cannot be exclusively divided into good or bad parts, but rather are a whole object. Due to the images created, whether they are distorted or not, people create neurotic defenses to protect themselves. D. W. Winnicott, another original developer of the object relations theory, showed that adults and children “have sentimental attachments to many things that represent important people in their lives” (Funder, 2016, p. 405). He also introduced the concept of false selves, the idea that we create a false image in order to please others around us and in order to be accepted (Funder, 2016).
Personally, I am working towards becoming a mental health counselor, so I feel the object relations theory is beneficial to therapy and understanding the person. The goal of therapy utilizing the object relations theory is “for the client to see the important people in her life as they are, not as the client wishes them to be” (Funder, 2016, p. 406). Similar to reality therapy, the object relations theory shows that there can be inconsistencies in what we believe in relations to reality (B.F. Okun & Kantrowitz, 2015). I feel it is essential to understand where inconsistencies occur in order to better understand a person; these inconsistencies can reveal a lot about the relationship between a person and his or her parent. Rather than following the Freudian idea that everyone possesses some form of “daddy issue,” the object relations theory instead attempts to assess the underlying issues and their origin, righting the misperceptions. A person is defined by their relations, mother, daughter, teacher, provider, but these are only a part of the person. It is important to understand the whole person rather than attempting to deal with only a part of what makes him or her unique. The object relations theory accentuates how important the whole person is to developing accurate images of an object, if not inconsistencies can arise that can lead to issues for the person. It is essential to consider the whole person when assessing personality as well: if a person is only assessed and viewed for their neuroticism, it would be difficult to understand that this trait may be due to past experiences with performing a job sloppily and actually is an attempt to be agreeable.
If I were unable to study or use the object relations theory, I would use the essential trait approach. This approach helps identify which personality traits are the most important: the Big 5 personalities. The Big 5 personalities are openness/intellect, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. These five traits have been found in multiple experiments from a multitude of years of research, across many different sample groups and many different cultures (Funder, 2016). These traits are considered to be orthogonal, meanings that the score of one trait is not supposed to predict the score of another (Funder, 2016). The Big 5 are good predictors of behaviors using the personality and previous behaviors as reference. Extraverts have been found to hold people responsible for their actions, are more popular, are especially sensitive to emotions, and more (Funder, 2016). Neuroticism is associated with the inability to deal effectively with problems, sensitivity to social threats, and a high volume of complaints (Funder, 2016). Conscientious people seek out opportunities, avoid risks in order to protect themselves, and feel guilty when they do not live up to expectations (Funder, 2016). Agreeable people are friendly, nonconfrontational, and are more cooperative (Funder, 2016). Lastly, open/intellectual people are found to be creative, imaginative, and clever (Funder, 2016).
In consideration of the plethora of research showing these five specific personalities to be significantly important, I feel the essential trait approach is very important for understanding people. This is a beneficial approach when considering people from different cultures. Research has shown that many cultures have similar “central attributes of personality,” but they are also “different from one culture to another” (Funder, 2016, p. 212). In the United States of America, where many people are either immigrants, come from immigrant families, or are of mixed cultures, the generalizability of the Big 5 traits is important. Sometimes it is hard to relate with people from other cultures when you possess no personal knowledge of the culture, but the essential trait approach provides a guideline to consider. The Big 5, or similar, traits have been identified time and time again, so there must be some form of validity in its classification. Of course, it is important to remember that they are not the only traits, they are solely the traits found to be most important. I feel in order to better understand a person, a personality trait assessment such as the Big Five Inventory utilized in this class can be used. Based on the responses provided by the client, a very basic picture can be painted on who the person is. The Big 5 personality paper I wrote for this class helped me to see how the Big 5 traits help create a common understanding, a common definition for the traits everyone possesses some level of. For personality, there are too many factors to consider when attempting to classify a person. There are experiences (past and present), genetics, and real or false self. The Big 5 personality traits and the essential trait approach provide a simplified way to begin considering a person: understand who they are as a person and that may then give insight into what behaviors are typical for that type of person.
Neither the object relations theory nor the essential trait approach should be considered an all-purpose approach to personality. Psychologists are constantly adapting or creating new understandings of personality, so any preference may not be eternal. With my current knowledge and experience with psychology, I personally feel the object relations theory and the essential trait approach are some of the strongest approaches to individual differences and understanding the person. They both consider the individual in relation to their surroundings and both work to help develop an understanding of a person’s internal thoughts and external behaviors.