Theories Of World View
World View Paper
University of Akron
Throughout history, psychological theories have been shown shape and impact people’s thoughts, behavior, and worldview. Theories such as those introduced by Karen Horney, George Kelly, and Abraham Maslow are prime examples. Horney presented the interpersonal psychoanalytic theory, which carried a modern view of biological roles and interpersonal relationships. Kelly offered up his own theory called the personal construct theory; the focus lies on an individual’s constructs or cognitions, which branch out to apply to emotions and behavior as well. The final theory comes from Abraham Maslow called the need hierarchy theory. This theory emphasizes the necessity of lower-order …show more content…
and higher needs to be fulfilled, aiding in development. Each of these theories in turn have the capacity to play an important role in the daily lives of individuals and their interactions. Similarly, the theories of Horney, Kelly and Maslow have distinct concepts and points with which either fall in accord or opposition with my own view of personality. These similarities and differences will be discussed along with the theories and sub-points of each psychologist.
The interpersonal psychoanalytic theory presents a unique perspective on the traditional view taken by psychoanalytics. Karen Horney believed that social and cultural influences play an important role in personality. Cloninger notes that that for Horney, love and nurture are key in development, especially in childhood; without it a child will likely develop basic anxiety or hostility (2008). She also found that defense mechanisms in people hinder insight, but self-examination can stem into growth (Cloninger, 2008).
Horney’s emphasis on childhood safety coincides with my own beliefs, but has limitations.
There are two main areas where I have differing opinions from Horney: safety needs and having basic needs fully met. She viewed healthy development as the ability to obtain safety and love from a parent, while unhealthy as the opposite. While I agree with Horney that safety needs are universally important in children, I do not view them as the sole factor that determines healthy development or preventing basic anxiety. In my experience, I have known a few people who, although they have not had all of their basic safety needs met, such as having a consistent home or losing a parent at a young age, still grew up into well-developed …show more content…
young-adults.
The second point of contention I have with Horney is where she stated that no individual ever had their needs fully met, and listed ten core neurotic needs (Waehler, 2013). Personally, I think that Horney was correct about her neurotic needs list, however her focus remained on the negative aspect. None of the needs included any positive aspects or aspect of change, which could stem from her difficult life experiences and bouts of depression. I mainly disagree with Horney’s viewpoint that people will never experience complete fulfillment of needs. In my opinion, people’s needs are different than their wants; in everyday life one can observe an individual’s needs being fully met. A baby in most families, for example, has its needs met daily; food, shelter, love, while the needs may or may not be met. If needs never get met to completion, this poses the question of how then, so many people develop healthily through this daily life challenge.
Horney’s concept about the self, however, coincides with my personal beliefs. She noted that individuals carry different aspects of themselves, or the self within them. A person’s real self is who they truly are, while their idealized self is who they strive to be (Cloninger, 2008). She also mentions the idea of the tyranny of the shoulds, in which a person is overrun negatively by what they should do in order to achieve their idealized self (Cloninger, 2008). The appearance of the self can be found in all individuals. Each person has their own way in which they view themselves, while holding a higher standard of whom they desire to become. The tyranny of the shoulds can be observed by watching any mother. A mother will show her true actions toward her kids, yet constantly strive to be a better mother for her children. A mother also displays the tyranny of the shoulds in her thoughts and behavior. When a child makes a mistake, the mother will inevitably wring her hands and come up with alternative parenting techniques they should have implemented to help prevent the error from occurring. Even with some discrepancies, overall this theory has helped develop new application for therapy, as well as the differing types of interpersonal styles between individuals (Cloninger, 2008).
George Kelly is the second theorist who has impacted psychologists, humanists, and individuals in their perspectives and world views. His personal construct theory centered on cognition, and the ability to think and perceive information similarly to a scientist (Waehler, 2013). Kelly had the opinion that people form constructs in order to predict and understand the world around them (Cloninger, 2008). He introduced two cognitive functions based on how similarly or differently a person views the world, which were cognitive complexity and cognitive simplicity (Waehler, 2013). Kelly also noted that psychological health was marked by the ability to establish constructs that enable a person to predict and respond to events effectively (Waehler, 2013).
Since his view focused on cognition, he put little focus on biology or development, using constructs as the building blocks from which all things form. Kelly’s constructs make sense from a purely cognitive level, yet fail to explain the complex workings of an individual and how viewpoints can change based on emotion or experience. Kelly provided a list of fundamental postulates and corollaries to help explain people’s processes and how they might predict events (Waehler, 2013). In everyday life, however, countless factors influence the way a person thinks and consequently acts besides the cognitively-based. In a time of extreme stress in an individual’s life, a person could unknowingly alter or deform their constructs that had previously been stable. A divorce for example, has extreme ramifications on a young child. They might previously have a strong dichotomy of what marriage and divorce look like, but when faced with their parents separating and not comprehending why, the child molds their constructs based on emotion, not cognition.
In reference to Kelly’s idea of an individual exhibiting characteristics of cognition, or cognitive simplicity versus complexity, I disagree with his rationale. An individual views life experiences in different ways depending on factors such as the newness, complexity, and stress level involved. A teen might see two people together and assume a relationship exists between them, yet might go home and see his brother with autism as smart, misunderstood, and funny. These situations should not alter how this teen or any individual is classified, whether as simplistic or complex. Viewpoints change depending on the situation at hand, not at the basic cognitive level, which is where I disagree with Kelly. Fundamentally, Kelly’s theory of personal constructs is solid, yet lacks further insight into individual motive.
The third theorist, Abraham Maslow, conceptualizes the idea of the need hierarchy theory. This theory contains the hierarchy of needs in which needs progress from basic life needs to the highest needs (Cloninger, 2008). The hierarchy consists of five total levels, four of which are deficiency motivation, while the final is developed through self-actualization. These needs must be met sequentially in order for an individual to move to the next level of growth (Cloninger, 2008). Personally, I agree with Maslow in that people have inherent and developed needs that must be met in their lives in order to function and survive. I am not certain I agree with his opinion that the needs must be met in order for growth to occur. Examples of individuals who display fully met needs without growth can be seen in third world countries. I have traveled to the Dominican Republic and first-hand witnessed how the children and teens exhibited substantial growth in comparison to most in the United States. Although these children did not have all of their physiological or safety needs met, such as daily food or shelter, they continually displayed joy and love toward those around them. His theory also focuses on the idea of self-actualization, which is the maximum realization and fulfillment of unique abilities (Waehler, 2013).
Obtaining full self-actualization, according to Maslow, exists as a lifelong process of working to achieve one’s full potential (Waehler, 2013). Reasons arise that interfere with this achievement, which Maslow lists in seven key points. Such interferences include a lack of childhood love, personal anxiety, and overprotective parenting (Waehler, 2013). Maslow’s self-actualization as well as the interference points are two other areas in which I disagree. I support his theory of self-actualization, but think that more than one percent of the population can reach full self-actualization. His interferences can also be used as stepping stones for growth; when applied to my earlier example regarding children in third world countries, they continually experience such blocks. These children may not get love from their parents or may experience anxiety from a multitude of possible factors, however not all of these children allow their experiences to weigh them down. Stories about children rising above their life troubles and becoming successful in sports or business can be found constantly in the media today. Maslow’s theory presents a useful focus on growth and development, yet limits its view in regards to
self-actualization.
Each of the theories presented by Horney, Kelly, and Maslow provide substantial insight on the workings of the individual, and further develop the world view of those who accept or reject the concepts. Horney introduced the interpersonal psychoanalytic theory, discussing interpersonal relationships. Kelly’s theory focused on personal constructs based on cognition and logic, which he applied to behavior and emotion. Maslow discussed self-actualization and the importance of needs in his need hierarchy theory. These theories contain aspects in which I agree or disagree with the logic behind them, yet all play an important and lasting role the overall development of psychology.
References
Cloninger, S. C. (2008). Theories of personality: understanding persons. (5th ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Waehler, Charles A. (2013, June & July).
University of Akron
Throughout history, psychological theories have been shown shape and impact people’s thoughts, behavior, and worldview. Theories such as those introduced by Karen Horney, George Kelly, and Abraham Maslow are prime examples. Horney presented the interpersonal psychoanalytic theory, which carried a modern view of biological roles and interpersonal relationships. Kelly offered up his own theory called the personal construct theory; the focus lies on an individual’s constructs or cognitions, which branch out to apply to emotions and behavior as well. The final theory comes from Abraham Maslow called the need hierarchy theory. This theory emphasizes the necessity of lower-order …show more content…
and higher needs to be fulfilled, aiding in development. Each of these theories in turn have the capacity to play an important role in the daily lives of individuals and their interactions. Similarly, the theories of Horney, Kelly and Maslow have distinct concepts and points with which either fall in accord or opposition with my own view of personality. These similarities and differences will be discussed along with the theories and sub-points of each psychologist.
The interpersonal psychoanalytic theory presents a unique perspective on the traditional view taken by psychoanalytics. Karen Horney believed that social and cultural influences play an important role in personality. Cloninger notes that that for Horney, love and nurture are key in development, especially in childhood; without it a child will likely develop basic anxiety or hostility (2008). She also found that defense mechanisms in people hinder insight, but self-examination can stem into growth (Cloninger, 2008).
Horney’s emphasis on childhood safety coincides with my own beliefs, but has limitations.
There are two main areas where I have differing opinions from Horney: safety needs and having basic needs fully met. She viewed healthy development as the ability to obtain safety and love from a parent, while unhealthy as the opposite. While I agree with Horney that safety needs are universally important in children, I do not view them as the sole factor that determines healthy development or preventing basic anxiety. In my experience, I have known a few people who, although they have not had all of their basic safety needs met, such as having a consistent home or losing a parent at a young age, still grew up into well-developed …show more content…
young-adults.
The second point of contention I have with Horney is where she stated that no individual ever had their needs fully met, and listed ten core neurotic needs (Waehler, 2013). Personally, I think that Horney was correct about her neurotic needs list, however her focus remained on the negative aspect. None of the needs included any positive aspects or aspect of change, which could stem from her difficult life experiences and bouts of depression. I mainly disagree with Horney’s viewpoint that people will never experience complete fulfillment of needs. In my opinion, people’s needs are different than their wants; in everyday life one can observe an individual’s needs being fully met. A baby in most families, for example, has its needs met daily; food, shelter, love, while the needs may or may not be met. If needs never get met to completion, this poses the question of how then, so many people develop healthily through this daily life challenge.
Horney’s concept about the self, however, coincides with my personal beliefs. She noted that individuals carry different aspects of themselves, or the self within them. A person’s real self is who they truly are, while their idealized self is who they strive to be (Cloninger, 2008). She also mentions the idea of the tyranny of the shoulds, in which a person is overrun negatively by what they should do in order to achieve their idealized self (Cloninger, 2008). The appearance of the self can be found in all individuals. Each person has their own way in which they view themselves, while holding a higher standard of whom they desire to become. The tyranny of the shoulds can be observed by watching any mother. A mother will show her true actions toward her kids, yet constantly strive to be a better mother for her children. A mother also displays the tyranny of the shoulds in her thoughts and behavior. When a child makes a mistake, the mother will inevitably wring her hands and come up with alternative parenting techniques they should have implemented to help prevent the error from occurring. Even with some discrepancies, overall this theory has helped develop new application for therapy, as well as the differing types of interpersonal styles between individuals (Cloninger, 2008).
George Kelly is the second theorist who has impacted psychologists, humanists, and individuals in their perspectives and world views. His personal construct theory centered on cognition, and the ability to think and perceive information similarly to a scientist (Waehler, 2013). Kelly had the opinion that people form constructs in order to predict and understand the world around them (Cloninger, 2008). He introduced two cognitive functions based on how similarly or differently a person views the world, which were cognitive complexity and cognitive simplicity (Waehler, 2013). Kelly also noted that psychological health was marked by the ability to establish constructs that enable a person to predict and respond to events effectively (Waehler, 2013).
Since his view focused on cognition, he put little focus on biology or development, using constructs as the building blocks from which all things form. Kelly’s constructs make sense from a purely cognitive level, yet fail to explain the complex workings of an individual and how viewpoints can change based on emotion or experience. Kelly provided a list of fundamental postulates and corollaries to help explain people’s processes and how they might predict events (Waehler, 2013). In everyday life, however, countless factors influence the way a person thinks and consequently acts besides the cognitively-based. In a time of extreme stress in an individual’s life, a person could unknowingly alter or deform their constructs that had previously been stable. A divorce for example, has extreme ramifications on a young child. They might previously have a strong dichotomy of what marriage and divorce look like, but when faced with their parents separating and not comprehending why, the child molds their constructs based on emotion, not cognition.
In reference to Kelly’s idea of an individual exhibiting characteristics of cognition, or cognitive simplicity versus complexity, I disagree with his rationale. An individual views life experiences in different ways depending on factors such as the newness, complexity, and stress level involved. A teen might see two people together and assume a relationship exists between them, yet might go home and see his brother with autism as smart, misunderstood, and funny. These situations should not alter how this teen or any individual is classified, whether as simplistic or complex. Viewpoints change depending on the situation at hand, not at the basic cognitive level, which is where I disagree with Kelly. Fundamentally, Kelly’s theory of personal constructs is solid, yet lacks further insight into individual motive.
The third theorist, Abraham Maslow, conceptualizes the idea of the need hierarchy theory. This theory contains the hierarchy of needs in which needs progress from basic life needs to the highest needs (Cloninger, 2008). The hierarchy consists of five total levels, four of which are deficiency motivation, while the final is developed through self-actualization. These needs must be met sequentially in order for an individual to move to the next level of growth (Cloninger, 2008). Personally, I agree with Maslow in that people have inherent and developed needs that must be met in their lives in order to function and survive. I am not certain I agree with his opinion that the needs must be met in order for growth to occur. Examples of individuals who display fully met needs without growth can be seen in third world countries. I have traveled to the Dominican Republic and first-hand witnessed how the children and teens exhibited substantial growth in comparison to most in the United States. Although these children did not have all of their physiological or safety needs met, such as daily food or shelter, they continually displayed joy and love toward those around them. His theory also focuses on the idea of self-actualization, which is the maximum realization and fulfillment of unique abilities (Waehler, 2013).
Obtaining full self-actualization, according to Maslow, exists as a lifelong process of working to achieve one’s full potential (Waehler, 2013). Reasons arise that interfere with this achievement, which Maslow lists in seven key points. Such interferences include a lack of childhood love, personal anxiety, and overprotective parenting (Waehler, 2013). Maslow’s self-actualization as well as the interference points are two other areas in which I disagree. I support his theory of self-actualization, but think that more than one percent of the population can reach full self-actualization. His interferences can also be used as stepping stones for growth; when applied to my earlier example regarding children in third world countries, they continually experience such blocks. These children may not get love from their parents or may experience anxiety from a multitude of possible factors, however not all of these children allow their experiences to weigh them down. Stories about children rising above their life troubles and becoming successful in sports or business can be found constantly in the media today. Maslow’s theory presents a useful focus on growth and development, yet limits its view in regards to
self-actualization.
Each of the theories presented by Horney, Kelly, and Maslow provide substantial insight on the workings of the individual, and further develop the world view of those who accept or reject the concepts. Horney introduced the interpersonal psychoanalytic theory, discussing interpersonal relationships. Kelly’s theory focused on personal constructs based on cognition and logic, which he applied to behavior and emotion. Maslow discussed self-actualization and the importance of needs in his need hierarchy theory. These theories contain aspects in which I agree or disagree with the logic behind them, yet all play an important and lasting role the overall development of psychology.
References
Cloninger, S. C. (2008). Theories of personality: understanding persons. (5th ed.). Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Waehler, Charles A. (2013, June & July).