Psychology Essays

Week 17B

* During today’s lecture, we will begin our coverage of psychodynamic theories. * First, we will cover Sigmund Freud’s (1914) psychoanalytic theory, Robert Raskin’s (Raskin & Hall, 1979; Raskin & Terry, 1988) related research on the measurement of narcissism, and W. Keith Campbell and Craig Foster’s (2002) related research on narcissism as a predictor of perceived quality of alternatives to current romantic relationships. * Highlights of Chapters 5 and 7 (cont.) * Next, we will cover Erik Erikson’s (1968) ego psychology, Jean Phinney’s (Phinney & Alipuria, 1990; Phinney & Ong, 2007) related research on ethnic identity, and Stanley Gaines et al.’s (Gaines, Marelich, Bledsoe, Steers, Henderson, Granrose, et al., 1997) related research on ethnic identity as a consequence of individuals’ minority versus majority group status. * Prelude: Divisions within Personality Psychology * Last Tuesday, we learned that Cronbach (1957) viewed experimental psychology and correlational psychology as two historical streams within psychology. * Furthermore, we learned that according to Cronbach, differential psychology arose within the historical stream of correlational psychology. * Finally, we learned that intelligence and personality are the two main subject areas within differential psychology. * Prelude (cont.) * Drawing upon Cronbach (1957) and others, William Revelle (1995) pointed out that the field of personality psychology can be further divided among levels of generality: (1) All humans are the same; (2) some (but by no means all) people are the same; and (3) no two humans are the same. * Psychodynamic Theories: Emphasis on Individual Similarities in Personality * Revelle (1995) noted that psychodynamic theories, which delve into presumed unconscious influences on individuals’ behaviour, emphasise individual similarities in personality (i.e., all humans are the same). * Psychodynamic

Links: * Androgyny and Extraversion as Linked by Wiggins and Holzmuller (1978) * Earlier, we noted that according to Sandra Bem (1974), psychological androgyny reflects the combination of high levels of masculinity and femininity. * Similarly, according to Wiggins (1979), extraversion represents the combination of high levels of dominance and nurturance. * Androgyny and Extraversion as Linked by Wiggins and Holzmuller (cont.) * The social-psychological personality theories differ dramatically from Sigmund Freud’s (1905) psychoanalytic theory, Erik Erikson’s (1950) ego psychology, and Carl Jung’s (1921) analytical psychology. * Acton, G. S., & Revelle, W. (2002). Interpersonal personality measures show circumplex structure based on new psychometric criteria. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 456-481. * Ansbacher, H. L. (1978). The development of Adler’s concept of social interest: A critical study. Journal of Individual Psychology, 34, 118-152. * Ansbacher, H. L. (1988). Dreikurs’s four goals of children’s disturbing behavior and Adler’s social interest-activity typology. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 44, 282-289. * Bitter, J. R., Robertson, P. E., Healey, A. C., & Cole, L. K. J. (2009). Reclaiming a profeminist orientation in Adlerian therapy. Journal of Individual Psychology, 65, 13-33. * Ewen, R. B. (2003). An introduction to theories of personality. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. * Gaines, S. O., Jr. (2007). Personality and personal relationship processes: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 475-478. *  Gaines, S. O., Jr. (2007). Personality and personal relationship processes: Concluding thoughts. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 613-617. * Hirsch, P. (2005). Apostle of freedom: Alfred Adler and his British disciples. History of Education, 34, 473-481. * Hoffman, R. M. (2001). The measurement of masculinity and femininity: Historical perspective and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79, 472-485. * Linden, G. W. (1984). Some philosophical roots of Adlerian psychology. Individual Psychology: The Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 40, 254-269. * Manaster, G. J. (1977). Birth order: An overview. Journal of Adlerian Psychology, 33, 3-8. * O’Connell, A. N. (1980). Karen Horney: Theorist in psychoanalysis and feminine psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 81-93. * Peluso, P * Rendon, M. (2008). The vicissitudes of affect in Horney’s theory. International Review of Psychoanalysis, 17, 158-168. * Street, S., & Isaacs, M. (1998). Self-esteem: Justifying its existence. Professional School Counseling, 1, 46-56. * Watkins, C. E. (1992). Birth-order research and Adler’s theory: A critical review. Individual Psychology, 48, 357-368. * Westen, D. (1992). The cognitive self and the psychoanalytic self: Can we put our selves together? Psychological Inquiry, 3, 1-13. * Zerbe, K. J. (1990). Through the storm: Psychoanalytic theory in the psychotherapy of anxiety disorders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 54, 171-183. * Next Tuesday (PY2024, PY3024, and PY3007): Neo-Behaviourist Perspectives on Personality * Next Tuesday, in PY2024, PY3024, and PY3007, we will consider various neo-behaviourist theories of personality * Along the way, we will learn about Bandura’s (1989) construct of self-efficacy, which is derived from Bandura’s social cognitive theory. * Highlights of Chapters 5 and 6 (cont.) * Among the theories that we will cover today, Sigmund Freud’s (1900) psychoanalytic theory stands out as clearly non-behaviourist. * However, Albert Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is noteworthy for its attention to conscious (though not unconscious) mental processes. * Prelude (cont.) * We also learned that over the short term, S-R theorists such as Pavlov (1928), Thorndike (1932), and Watson (1930) succeeded in changing the definition of psychology from the science of mental processes to the science of behaviour. * Watson in particular had sought such a change in basic orientation since 1913, when he published a paper (“Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it”) that, as Peter Harzem (2004) pointed out, has become known as the “Behaviorist Manifesto.” * John B * Watson’s Version of S-R Theory as Radical Behaviourism (cont.) * Watson (1913) also ruled out all forms of data that were introspective (i.e., data that required participants to engage in free association among mental stimuli) * John B. Watson and Rosalie Raynor’s (1920) Experiment with “Little Albert”: Interpreted as Evidence that Fear was Conditioned, Not Innate * John B * Criticisms of Watson’s (1924) Version of S-R Theory * Even fellow S-R theorists generally refrained from going as far as Watson did (1913) in advocating radical behaviourism. * Sigmund Freud’s (1900) psychoanalytic theory was not remotely behaviourist in its orientation, although (as we learned yesterday) John Dollard and Neal Miller (1950) incorporated some aspects of psychoanalytic theory into their version of S-R theory. * Sigmund Freud’s (1900) Psychoanalytic Theory as Based on a Philosophy of Psychic Determinism * In contrast to John B * Was Sigmund Freud a Radical Mentalist? * At first glance, Sigmund Freud’s (1900) psychoanalytic theory seems to be the polar opposite of John B * Psychic Determinism versus Free Will in Sigmund Freud’s (1900) Psychoanalytic Theory: An Uneasy Coexistence * Alfred Tauber (2009) noted that Sigmund Freud’s (1900) psychoanalytic theory emphasises psychic determinism. * However, Sigmund Freud’s (1900) psychoanalytic theory also acknowledges some degree of free will. * L. Scott Smith (2003) made a similar point regarding the reasons behind Alfred Adler’s (1927) break with Freud. * Contributions of Sigmund Freud’s (1900) Psychoanalytic Theory