This paradigm views personality and reality as complex and individual, shaped largely by one's experiences and environment. Reality is seen as unique to each person based on their circumstances, but some realities can be shared among groups. The paradigm draws from diverse theories like Rogerian, Jungian, existentialist, and behavioral views. It emphasizes understanding individuals on their own terms by seeing from their perspective, while also acknowledging commonalities within groups. Personality is understood through one's lived experiences over time and developmental stages, and both objective and projective tests can provide insights.

1. Final Paper
Cassandra Glebavicius
University of Alaska Fairbanks

2. Personal Paradigm.
My view of personality as a paradigm is a complex mix of characteristics and attributes
from other theories, similar to the eclectic approach. I believe personality and reality can be
described and understood individually and socially.
Ontology. Ontology describes what reality is. My ontology follows that reality is circumstantial,
that one individual may experience an extremely different or isolated reality than anyone else,
but that many people can experience similar realities and understand reality in a similar fashion.
Similarly, two people can also have completely different versions of reality, but still understand
them in similar ways, and some individuals have the skill or intuition to understand other
realities than their own.
This ontology relates to many different present paradigms regarding personality. The first
idea that reality is based on the individual follows Rogerian theory in the idea that everyone
should be seen as an individual rather than placed into a boxed style of thinking. Rogers uses this
sort of mindset in much of his theory, he believes this is the way we should understand reality as
through the mind of the individual, and that clinical work or therapy should be tailored to each
individual’s needs and way of thinking.
The second point however is contradictory to Rogerian theory in believing that some
individuals may experience similar realities or that these people or groups can be characterized
and therefore understood based on their shared views and norms. This point relates to Jungian
theory and is strongly influenced by ideas of stereotyping and grouping. This being that some
individuals may not “fit into” a category with others, but many, and possibly even the majority of
society can. This thinking argues that some groups and societies share such emphasized
cognitions, patterns of behavior, and values that it is fitting or even preferred to categorize them

3. together in a group based on similarities and shared importance. Because this idea holds that the
majority of individuals may be categorized according to shared patterns of behaviors and beliefs,
this is a very effective tool in both understanding the world and groups that make up it through
stereotypes and learning how to interact with groups of individuals. In this sense, assessment
methods can be useful as a way of breaking down these groups and subgroups and determining
shared similarities of individuals like the Myers-Briggs assessment.
The third idea presented reflects individuals with differing views of reality, but who
understand their alternate realities through similar lenses. This is a more complex idea that has
vaguely been touched on during class, but not fully understood or described. This thinking
represents an individual who feels connected to the world around them, but may have different
views or understanding that represents their own reality. The closest connection I would make to
this idea would be the view of existentialists. Similar to Rogers, existentialists believe that reality
is primarily understood individually, but they also have a sense of connection to other
existentialists overall. A way to describe this idea is that existentialists believe that life is mainly
about finding meaning in one’s life. Every person’s meaning or way of living can be completely
different, and they can only agree or understand their meaning of life and not understand the
motives or reasoning of another, but they see through a similar lens that tells them this is their
own reality, and their reality is based off of a meaning they hold in life.
The conversation of Buddhism represents my last point in understanding personality.
Linda placed a lot of emphasis on “meeting people where they’re at” in life. My view is that
some people have the capacity to not only see their reality through a similar lens as another
individual, but that some individuals also can understand one’s own view while still being able to
fully understand someone else’s reality in their lens as well. This does not necessarily mean these

4. people hold the same perceptions of reality or share the same lens, but simply that one may step
out of their own ways of thinking and “meet someone where they’re at” to understand their
reality as well without feeling the need to judge or understand according to their own lens. An
example of this could be two individuals, one who has a happy life and is thankful for their
position in the world, and another person who is contemplating suicide due to a lack of caring or
feeling detached from the world and angry. Though the happy person maybe hasn’t ever
experienced thoughts of suicide or this perspective on life, they still may be able to look beyond
their reality and positive lens and see the other individual and understand how they feel and
indirectly experience their motive for suicide. This skill is very valuable in life and a clinical
setting because it allows one to empathize with others and understand different perspectives and
alternate realities.
The ontology to my paradigm of psychology is very dynamic and contains many different
viewpoints and possibilities. One can understand only their own reality and be detached from the
outer world, or individuals can share perceptions and an understanding of life.
Epistemology. One’s epistemology is characterized by the way in which someone understands
or knows reality. In this case the epistemology and “knowing” is based in the experience. One
understands their own reality through life and they become wiser and learn more the older they
get. We as individuals know about life through conditioning also like behaviorists such as
Bandura, Beck, and Skinner. People learn through experiences of actions and the results that
progress. Similar to the conditioning that behaviorists believe in, that is how people make sense
of the world and how opinions and knowledge form. People also develop knowledge and an
understanding of the world through developmental stages, where early life is very important
similar to the views of Freud, Adler, Horney and Erikson. I believe much of what we think when

5. we’re older is shaped by our childhood and years of development, or at least greatly influenced
by these years. The stages of development according to my understanding are present but not
emphasized a great deal like psychodynamic theorists. Many of the stages previously brought up
by psychodynamic theory are relevant and have their place in knowing and understanding reality,
but are not of dire importance to break down development specifically into each stage.
Methodology. A useful methodology at measuring reality and people’s understanding of it
includes both objective and projective measures. To gain a shallow understanding of a person
and the way they understand reality, objective personality tests can be extremely useful, but to
obtain a deeper more clear and meaningful understanding to measure reality, projective tests or
interview tactics are very useful and help to develop a better measure of an individual’s view of
the personality, and reality.
Other Considerations. Additional factors of personality have their place in this paradigm as
well. In understanding through Maslow’s paradigm, people definitely are driven by motivation,
and the acquiring or absence of needs and motivation also plays a part in shaping one’s
personality. Anatomy and biology also play a part in personality such that our biology makes up
who we are and different characteristics and predispositions we carry. Feministic psychology is
not very relevant to this paradigm in that it is not a main focus to understanding one’s own
reality in this perception of personality.
How Personality is Shaped
Nature vs. Nurture. This paradigm focuses mainly on the nurture aspect of personality. Human
nature definitely is a motivating drive in shaping the personality, but this theory places much
more emphasis on the nurturing side of it in that the majority of our personality, at least the
complex portions of it are shaped by our surroundings and experience. This follows the

6. theoretical orientation of behaviorists, stating that the majority of personality is shaped by our
experience of events and reinforced behavior.
Good vs. Evil. I do not believe that this paradigm can argue that all people are inherently good
or evil like Freud or Rogers. Rather, I would argue that it differs for each individual, like
behaviorists might argue. I would argue that this paradigm of personality states that people are
good or evil as a result of their experiences and reinforced behavior, not that nature determines it
first.
Determinism vs Agency. This paradigm is primarily deterministic in the same way that
behavioral theory is deterministic. Personality is determined by experiences and behavior, but
people also have room to choose the type of person they wish to emulate or become. The person
or personality an individual emulates however is likely also shaped by their environment and
therefore this theory argues that people’s personality is determined by their environment and
shaped by their experiences.
Interpsychic vs Intrapsychic. The background of this paradigm, going back to the ontology
argues that personality can be both intrapsychic and interpsychic. Naturally, people understand
their own reality and sense of self internally, therefore the paradigm is primarily intrapsychic, but
it is also possible for interpsychic personalities to exist where people may have connections to
other individuals or understand another’s reality through a different lens. This paradigm
primarily follows the idea of personality being intrapsychic for the most part though.
Depth Psychology vs Individual Psychology. This paradigm is not concerned with unconscious
processes or their results, rather what is most important and most influenced is the conscious
mind. Like Adlerian theory, this paradigm is focused more on conscious processes of
compensation as a motivator for shaping one’s personality. People are heavily influenced by

7. their experiences and situations at hand, and therefore will either emphasize these tendencies and
influences, or they will overcompensate in spite of their environment.
Conclusion
Overall, this paradigm suggests that personality is circumstantial and depends on the
individual at hand to understand reality and the realm it is best understood through. Like
behaviorism, the paradigm argues that personality is shaped mostly by our experience as human
beings and reinforced behavior. There are alternate perceptions of personality and reality within
this paradigm including individuals feeling detached from the rest of the world, or similarities
shared in groups and a connection and similar lens to better empathize with others.

8. References
Boring, E. (2012). Psychology for eclectics. Psychologies of 1930.
Hayes, S. (2012). Humanistic psychology and contextual behavioral perspectives.
Psychotherapy, 49 (4), 455-460.
Moore, J. (2013). Cognitive psychology as a radical behaviorist views it. Psychological Record.
Moore, J. (2013). Three views of behaviorism. Psychological Record.
McBride, W. (2012). The challenge of existentialism, then and now. Journal of Speculative
Philosophy.