Allport, Aristotle and Aquinas: An interdisciplinary definition of personality

IF 2.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL New Ideas in Psychology Pub Date : 2024-06-14 DOI:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101096
Juan Pablo Rojas-Saffie , Nicolás García-Matte , Vicente Silva-Beyer
{"title":"Allport, Aristotle and Aquinas: An interdisciplinary definition of personality","authors":"Juan Pablo Rojas-Saffie ,&nbsp;Nicolás García-Matte ,&nbsp;Vicente Silva-Beyer","doi":"10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Countless definitions of personality have been proposed throughout history. As a consequence, contemporary psychology lacks a definition that elicits broad consensus and avoids ambiguity. To overcome this difficulty it seems beneficial to draw on the field of philosophical anthropology, as an epistemologically prior and more general discipline. Understanding that a single manuscript cannot achieve consensus, an interdisciplinary contribution is proposed through a dialogue between two definitions of personality. On the one hand, that elaborated by the father of personality psychology, Gordon Allport, which is the best known and most cited of all. On the other hand, the one developed by Martín Echavarría, inspired by the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. From this interdisciplinary dialogue, a variant of Echavarría's definition and a brief definition of personality are proposed. It is expected that this contribution would not only help to the study of personality, but also to the interdisciplinary development of the discipline of psychology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51556,"journal":{"name":"New Ideas in Psychology","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 101096"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Ideas in Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X24000242","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Countless definitions of personality have been proposed throughout history. As a consequence, contemporary psychology lacks a definition that elicits broad consensus and avoids ambiguity. To overcome this difficulty it seems beneficial to draw on the field of philosophical anthropology, as an epistemologically prior and more general discipline. Understanding that a single manuscript cannot achieve consensus, an interdisciplinary contribution is proposed through a dialogue between two definitions of personality. On the one hand, that elaborated by the father of personality psychology, Gordon Allport, which is the best known and most cited of all. On the other hand, the one developed by Martín Echavarría, inspired by the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. From this interdisciplinary dialogue, a variant of Echavarría's definition and a brief definition of personality are proposed. It is expected that this contribution would not only help to the study of personality, but also to the interdisciplinary development of the discipline of psychology.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
奥尔波特、亚里士多德和阿奎那:跨学科的人格定义
古往今来,关于人格的定义被提出了无数种。因此,当代心理学缺乏一个既能达成广泛共识又能避免歧义的定义。为了克服这一困难,哲学人类学作为一门在认识论上先行且更具普遍性的学科,借鉴哲学人类学似乎是有益的。考虑到单一手稿无法达成共识,我们建议通过两种人格定义之间的对话,做出跨学科的贡献。一方面,人格心理学之父戈登-奥尔波特(Gordon Allport)所阐述的定义是最著名的,也是被引用最多的。另一方面,马丁-埃查瓦里亚(Martín Echavarría)受亚里士多德-托马斯传统的启发而提出的定义。从这一跨学科对话中,我们提出了埃恰瓦里亚定义的变体和人格的简要定义。希望这一贡献不仅有助于人格研究,也有助于心理学学科的跨学科发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: New Ideas in Psychology is a journal for theoretical psychology in its broadest sense. We are looking for new and seminal ideas, from within Psychology and from other fields that have something to bring to Psychology. We welcome presentations and criticisms of theory, of background metaphysics, and of fundamental issues of method, both empirical and conceptual. We put special emphasis on the need for informed discussion of psychological theories to be interdisciplinary. Empirical papers are accepted at New Ideas in Psychology, but only as long as they focus on conceptual issues and are theoretically creative. We are also open to comments or debate, interviews, and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Is emesis a part of antenatal depression? A proposal of emesis-depression complex during pregnancy Up in a flash: On the narratological and epistemic aspects of flashbulb memories Breaking the chains of independence: A Bayesian uncertainty model of normative violations in human causal probabilistic reasoning Co-constructing layers of meaning: Early triadic interactions at the threshold of intentionality Symbolic narratives and embodied selves: Exploring identity and affective expression in neurodivergent youth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1