2008-03-24 -- Neo-Freudian theorists



Tomorrow we will be doing a personality lab and we will finish it on Wednesday, and we may have a sub on that day. Thursday review for exam, Friday is the exam (substitutes for both of these days). Chapter 10, 11 and 12 on this next test: please study. Notecards.

Carl Jung was a neofreudian, he was one of Freud's first students, they did a lot of work together in their labs and therapy practices. After a while, Jung started to think that sex was not everything. Carl Jung (1875 - 1967). He keeps the concept of "ID, EGO and Superego" and he keeps the concept of conscious, preconscious and unconscious, but there is no subconscious, it's unconscious. We use that word incorrectly. Jung is a psychodynamic practiocioner. Psychoanalytical is Freud, and psychodynamic just means parts of Freud. Jung added to the idea of ego, and he said that while everybody has a strong ego, they also have a persona, the public face that you put on, the part that is acceptable, the part that is smiling when you would rather not be smiling, that's your persona. He says that we work very hard to create a persona, and often we will have several, one for various situations, this means you have developed a different persona for those situations. He also says something that takes him away from psychology into metaphysics and spirituality, and this is where he gets the most criticism, since he was making a large leap, but he did some amazing research with it -- the idea of "collective consciousness". In researching lots of different cultures, and looking at the way that our history is written, our stories and myths, we have these trends, regardless of culture, that can be called human archetypes -- such as the archetype of the hero, in that we respond emotionally to this. "All humans tap into a databank of information, all humans." If you're Skinner, you're thinking observation. If you look at the computer, can you see the database? No. So there's lots of arguments between the empiricism and the soft side of psychology, the philosophical and metaphysical side. Jung also studied dreams. He is known for his study of dreams and mythology. Jung's idea is that dreams tap into the collective unconscious. For Freud, your dreams are about you, and your unconscious, for Jung, your dreams are about tapping into the collective unconscious and pulling down information. For Jung, there's an unconscious ideal, it's an anima or animus -- it's what makes you move, animates you, soul, spirit, dreams, and mythology. If Jung crosses the border, well. He's in lala-land and way out there. He has some insights on human nature. Just because he's on the other side does not mean that his ideas are discounted, just that they aren't science.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937) He's a Freudian, so he believes in conscious, unconscious, id, ego, superego, he said that what makes people strive is superiority, and that we are always striving for superiority, and when we don't, we struggle with the superiorities and when we don't we can develop inferiority complexes. So inferiority complex comes from the inability to compensate. We talk about compensation all the time: people who feel they are stupid compensate by using big words, those who do not think they are strong enough pick fights, etc. If you cannot compensate, you might develop a sense of inferiority. Adler believes that the way you lead your life is created from something like an anima and part of your being is constantly creating yourself, you are constantly in the process of creating and recreating yourself.

Another neofreudian is Karen Horney (1885-1952). She didn't believe in a male dominated society. She noticed that the majority of theories were on guys, and she wanted to study how women approach all of these issues. More and more psychologists will begin to pop up and talk about how these theories of men are leaving out the women. Karen Horney thinks that basic anxiety occurs when people feel isolated and hopeless in a hostile wordk, and trouble occurs when an individual tries to control basic anxiety by exaggerating a single mode of interacting with others. Karen pointed out that psychology in people seems to be more "internal" than external. This was post WW2, and women were expected to go home and have babies, be June cleaners and have perfect pearls and project an ideal role, and women were actually trying to get into the workforce, and the anxiety and neurosis arrived from this. This made since for the time-period, just like Freud's theory fit his time period. Karen suggested (1) studies should include women and (2) social anxiety v. internal conflict.

The humanists - Maslow, for example. If Freudians believed that humans, at their core, are full of lust and aggression, they believe humans are naturally inherently bad, then the humanists believe that at your core, people at their core are inherently and naturally good. Humanists believe that people can reach their highest potential if you can give them the environment for them to do so -- nurture them. The goal is self-actualization. Disorders, emotional or psychological disorders, arise when things get in the way of achieving that potential and when you spend time looking for approval instead of self-actualization (looking outside instead of inside) -- this is when neurosis and other problems occur. In a way, they echo social v. internal conflicts just like Karen Horney. This is the most optimistic view of people we have within psychology. According to the humanists, people strive for openness to experiences, desire to become true to oneself and to grow.

Maslow says that everybody's growth is private, independent, subjective, and it doesn't make sense to make broad-sweeping theories that can't be applied to an individual. At its core, the humanist approach shows that each person is ..... you can't "capture" the essence of a person from their responses. As a therapist, Maslow said that one of the best things you can do is look at the world from their perspective, and let them see their own potential and so on, so that they can get reinforcement for where they can actually go. So if you can hold the highest ideal for them, they will strive for it.

Carl Rogers (1902 - 1987). Rogers is the poster-boy for humanistic psychology. Unconditional positive regard for their client or patient, so that the patient can feel completely accepted as they are, so that they can move on. You can rewrite your self-concept. Rogers put children in situations where the adults had either positive or negative views of them. He went to an elementary school, he told the teacher that a certain pick of kids were geniuses and tested well above genius levels, and he told them that these kids were going to blow them away, and another group was developmentally retarded. So, then they observed the teachers and their expectations, the kids responses, and they found that the teacher expectations predicted the kids' behavior. The parents went along with it as well. They didn't do it for years of course, just for a small period, and within this period it is impressive that this developed. Calling children stupid is a very bad idea, it severely hurts them in the sense of their development and so on. You're causing irreversible damage -- be careful what you say to kids.

Trait perspective and H. J. Eysenck (1916 - 1997). He was a trait theorist. Eysenck did extraversion (activity level, sociability, expressiveness, assertiveness, ambition), neuroticism (inferiority, unhappiness, anxiety, dependence), and psychoticism (risk-taking, impulsivity, irresponsibility). This seems a lot like simple psychometrics. The opposite of extraverted neurotic is introverted egomaniac.

Gordon Allport (1897 - 1967) and his trait perspective did cardinal traits -- highly generalized dispositions, i.e. achievement, central traits -- major characteristics of a person, i.e. honesty, and secondary traits -- an enduring personality trait, but doesn't explain behavior, i.e. sporty dresser. He came up with the Big 5 or O.C.E.A.N:



Allport condensed 18,000 adjectives into 200 clusters of synoyms, and then made two-ended trait dimensions, so it's all based on language.


Behaviorists

Behaviorists struggle with personality since it's hard to measure and observe. You can't look at how a person feels about their personality, just what they exhibit. Do you ever act differently than you feel? That makes it hard when you are doing strictly observational science. The way they label personality is interesting, but it is hard. They say that personality is the sum of responses to the world, and that we are basically stimulus-response machines. No two people have the exact same reinforcement history and that's why we have different personalities. They do not believe that personality is set at age 5, they think it changes throughout your lifetime based off of the consequences of your personality and you will change it based off of rewards and punishments. If the consequences of any behavior are significant enough, they will stop doing it ("Tough Love"). Let them have whatever consequence their behaviors bring.

Social-cognitive

Personalities are shaped by beliefs and habits of thought acquired through each individuals unique experiences in the social environment. There are thinking habitats. They assign blaim and responsibility, where do you place the locus of responsibility -- you or outside of you Three of our thinking habits are (1) locus of control, (2) self-efficacy, (3) optimism. #2 -- how effective are you? Are you spinning in a circle? Are you getting things done? #3 is optimism. It is hard to recover from a situation if you have a pessimistic outlook. Sociocognitivists and self-fulfilling prophecies.

George Kelly (1905-1966) worked on constructs. He uses a term called "constructive alternativism" -- this is where you get into psychologists using big terms. He says that you build your personalities, you build it from your own ideas. We construct what we expect based off of our past, then we have to adapt to reconstruct. Personal constructs are where you claim the source of differences. Anticipate based off of your past, and you construct based off of your anticipation. Overconfidence bias.