Relationship between Cognition and Personality in Psychology

Personality in psychology refers to individual differences in traits of thinking, feeling as well as behaving. The view of personality majors on understanding the differences found in characteristics like; ability to socialize as well as irritability. The other view of personality is on how all part of a person connects, to become a whole. For cognitive psychology it consists of studying the mind thus generating information. Psychologists in cognitive develops a model for processing personal information that goes on individual’s mind. Cognitive in psychology majors on sensitivity, interest, language, reminiscence, thinking capacity as well as a person’s consciousness. The key features of cognition such as memory as well as speed changes with age thus; generate substantial between person variability levels of performances (Guimond, 2016).

Humanistic and cognitive are two types of experimental psychology thereby; they are more of concerned with generating and enlarging theories than, they are in implicating those theories on individual’s life. Experimental psychologists in provides theories information from their research in applied aspects of psychology thus; developing them for various usage. However, cognitive and personal psychology has been easily developed about human nature, and is used by clinical psychologists while treating patients. Personality psychology only involves an individual, rather than the entire community. The major aim of personal aspect is to determine why people differ from each other, in terms of abilities, personalities as well as altitudes. With the personality feature one is able to understand how factors like gender, culture and genetics affects individualism (Sternberg R& Sternberg K, 2016).

Cognitive and personality are related in that they are both proposed in explaining human nature thereby; their view in human nature is embodied in unfussy process. The entire concept, in which the psychological aspect is generating, opts to be more than theoretical issues. In a social view of the two aspects, individuals appear to be more creative and organized since they have the power to influence their own actions.  Cognitive and personality are both differentiated by age though; individual’s behavior and thoughts are influenced by their social situations. Personality in psychology opts at examining personal side of being, and social look at the aspects of human personality. Psychoanalytic theories are under personality aspects which are based on belief that, human nature was generally composed by various primary components. The concepts are channeled in the human body by the major role in development which is sexuality. Psychoanalytic therefore; has a connection with cogitative in terms of behaviorism because it stresses the importance of observing human nature. Cognition is highly subjected to nature thereby; behaviorist tends to believe that actions are acquired from conditioning and environmental interactions (Krahé, 2010).

Personality and intelligence are two independent constructs, since they play an essential position in the development of individual’s skills. The two aspects are not only research on human development, but they also include interest in various issues which arises. Several personality disorders have been identified through cognitive aspect; thereby they opt for treatment before they develop a serious impact on personal life. The diseases are deposited as chronically as well as partial mental illness which affects the though as well as individual’s functioning .In personality and cognitive psychology development depends on instincts, as well as environmental impact of people. However, the features of psychology are constructed in terms of depositional characters that give rise to logic, permanence and prediction of communal performance. Structure in personality generates motives which manifest social interaction thus; encouraging cognitive approach on personality to have deeper roots. Human easily regulates their activities through the outcome of their expectations thereby; the behavior generally produces positive results. The outcome creates individual’s sway in the forethought thereby, generating less motivation. The results are generated rapidly after the activity is carried out though, the same behaviors are likely to create different impacts depending with when, where and how it occurs (Guimond, 2016).

Social perspective and personality are both generated in the process of human understanding themselves as well as the surrounding. The two aspects of psychology enables psychologists understand various predictions about observable results. With a closer view of the relationship between cognitive and personality psychology, human capacity to exercise personal thought motivates their personal agency. Human agency has been highly conceptualized in three different ways which are; mechanism, autonomous as well as reaction. Personal action is being socially situated by their personalities whereby; they interplay with situational influences. Social cognitive aspect ensures that individuals are hereditary operators throughout their lives. However, for personality in psychology genetic actions shapes memory developments well as functioning in a human life course. It is therefore genuine that cognitive and personality aspects of psychology, regulates individual motivational activities. Psychologists are able to distinguish between physical thoughts as well as functional properties. Therefore, cognitive processes are not only concerned on brain functioning, but also develop determinative influences (Schwartz, 2012).

Cognitive is believed to be an external stimulate that can be easily measured, since it easily indicates human response to behaviors as well as deliberation process. There is a contradiction between personalities and cognitive whereby; cognitive psychology seems to have low ecological legality and it creates an artificial environment due to nature control.  The two theories in psychologist have been able to illustrate that people differ differently, especially on terms of alternative constructs they have.  Humanistic as well as cognitive psychologies share a similar goal, since they are both able to apply generative as well as dysfunctional behaviors. The two therapies are able to value personal acceptance, by encouraging individuals from forming negativity. Both values view one’s mistake as part exploration and coping. Cognitive values ensure that a person sticks to his or her behavior, especially during the moment of experience thus becomes more phenomenological. However, individual’s personality is illustrated as a set of scientific processes. The both psychological values ensures that human being‘s behavior is explained in cycle of response to the environment. Personal activities are highly controlled by thoughts as opposed to the generic factors therefore; affects the manner in which we behave (Guimond, 2016).

The two approaches on psychology considers various factors into account, such as the biological loom which concedes influences brought about by generic as well as chemical imbalances on behavior. Cognitive and personality features attempts to generate rules, which explain individual’s performance thus; generalizing to everyone’s behavior. The personality approach is quite different since it assumes the generic consideration, taking into account personal difference that makes people behave differently. For cognitive theory, it tries to apply various scientific approaches on individual behavior. However, cognitive psychology acknowledges the thought process which goes into human activities. Human activity has been illustrated in terms of determinism whereby; cognitive and personality depicts how behaviors are being controlled by nature. These theories elaborate a person’s physical functioning in terms of triadic reciprocal, which suggests that human activities depend on events. Reciprocal causalities are factors of cognitive whereby; biological activities develop a pattern and the environment generate space for the events to operate (Schwartz, 2012).

Environment is not a monumental personality thereby; social cognitive gives illustrations of different environmental structures. Cognitive and personality shows the differences between potential surrounding, with the environment people perform their activities. The surrounding generated by personal behavior does appear potentiality thereby; it must be selected as well as activated. Both cognitive and personality theories shares a common concept, which impacts a common behavior. The relationship between personality and cognitive has not been fully consistence though; they both have similarities on positive and negativity.  However, even though the theories feature contradicts, they appear to be negative in the environment (Sternberg R& Sternberg K, 2016).

Cognitive and personality are able to concede individual and the surrounding affects one another. They both have generated a model of interaction concepts, which encouraged influences on behavior following one direction. Human activities perform a dominant role on how they are influence by nature whereby; it later affects their behavior, emotional reactions as well as thoughts. The two psychological theories encourage individuals’ behavior, to result as an interacting determinant rather than a detached product of situation (Brody & Ehrlichman, 2013).

 

Social cognitive aspect, conceptualizes interactional casual structures as triadic causation. Personality theory often contains variety of dualities that, is rejected by social cognitive. However, there is a conjunction between cognitive aspects of psychology and personality whereby; illustrates how mental events are generated by brain functioning.  For cognitive aspect it rejects fractionation of individual’s bureau in multiple selves. The two approaches in psychology generates a part of dissatisfaction with the how individual’s approaches their activities (Schwartz, 2012). They are easily able to focus on personal actions, by understanding the internal processes that generates it. However, human behavior is based on the principle, which generates stimuli as well as responses. Cognitive and Humanistic theories of psychologist aim at generating rules, as well as explaining individual’s behaviors thus; generalizing everyone’s activity. Both approaches takes into account people’s differences, which makes us behave in different ways. Despite the cognitive approach taking less consideration of the differences in individual’s activities, it majors on scientific attempt on human nature (Guimond, 2016).

 Collective psychology theory interest in casual attribution has impacted, to the hidden gender differences or any other social difference. Moreover, if social gender dissimilar is variable across cultures thereby; it is easy to notice that individual differences vary in cultures. Psychologists suggest that some evidences on gender differences opt to be more essential in some nations, as compared to other countries. However, Personal and cogitative theory provides the conclusion that gender differences happen because what the culture offers to its people. At the same time, they both support the idea that gender differences appear to be uneven (Sternberg R& Sternberg K, 2016).

Psychologists have generated cognitive and personality theory suggesting that, they require an integrated theoretical system, which not only classify the person’s activity but also various determination on basic aspects of life. The approached theory creates acute measures whereby various conditions are verified, to generate an effective psychosomatic agenda of modify. Both of the approaches aimed at the aspect of individual report whereby; they are involved in the study of people’s change in behavior. In social theory, people are not controlled by global traits or automatic technology but rather their activity are in the response to the environment. According to humanistic approach, there is a connection with cognitive since, it aids human in contributing to their own motivation, activities as well as creation of interaction network influences. However, nature does not only resolve personal behavior, but also ensure that they are characterized by theoretical perspectives, in terms of individual’s ability (Guimond, 2016).

Higher environmental responses on human wield their impacts, through social as well as humanistic psychology directly. The two approaches moderately determine which nature a behavior is observed thus, it is presented by them. For a human activity to be determined, the two psychological approaches  determines on what emotional motivational power the environment have on people and, also considers how communication is arranged as well as preserved for future. It is the nature of human to use symbols in conveying information thereby; the two approaches of psychology receives brief familiarity to serve as guidance for reasoning as well as actions (Sternberg R& Sternberg K, 2016).

Individuals are easily aroused by emotional expression of others whereby; affective reaction of personality is arouses the second party. The major aim of humanistic approach is to determine why people differ from each other, in terms of abilities, personalities as well as altitudes. With the personality feature one is able to understand how factors like gender, culture and genetics affects individualism. Both approaches in psychologist have been able to illustrate that people differ differently, especially on terms of alternative constructs they have.  Humanistic as well as cognitive psychologies share a similar goal, since they are both able to apply generative as well as dysfunctional behaviors (Brody & Ehrlichman, 2013).

 

 

Humanistic and social approaches in psychology aim on materials, which are actual content of the mind. Both aspects changes direct social learning theories as well as extensional of behavioral speculation. The link of social approach to humanistic theory focuses on how, information is stored in by individual’s brain thus; determining the desirable capacity for behavior in personality. However, cognitive perception of humanistic develops the idea that, human being is who and how they are because; of their thinking capacity that includes how information is dealt with, analyzed as well as retrieved. People tend to generate a habit of thinking pattern, which is termed as personality thereby; individuals humanistic opt to be attributing social patterns (Schwartz, 2012).

 

Both approaches are based on inherent assumption, which is necessary for understanding how actions take places and why in order to make changes. The both focus on elaborating on brain organizations as well as representation of thought thus; creating a dysfunctional activity. With the two approaches in psychology it is easier to understand people’s assessment of activities, which are influenced by rapid experiences of various situations as well as events (Krahé, 2010).

            Personality measure development has highly affected the social measures whereby; human response to behavior has been presented and engages into effortful mental processing. Results deprived by humanistic and social approaches suggest that, individuals with social strategies as well as initiatives opt to have rapid emotional reactions in conjunction to those who react in support of oppositions. .  Humanistic as well as cognitive psychologies share a similar goal, since they are both able to apply generative as well as dysfunctional behaviors. However, for personality in psychology genetic actions shapes memory developments well as functioning in a human life course. It is therefore genuine that cognitive and personality aspects of psychology, regulates individual motivational activities (Schwartz, 2012).

 

References

Brody, N., & Ehrlichman, H. (2013). Personality psychology: The science of individuality. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Guimond, S. (2016). Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup relations, and culture. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Krahé, B. (2010). Situation cognition and coherence in personality: An individual-centred approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Schwartz, N. B. (2012). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN LATIN AMERICA. Annual Review Of Anthropology, 7235-261.

Sternberg, R. J., & Sternberg, K. (2016). Cognitive Psychology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.