Maren Alitagtag
1 posts
Re:Module 3 DQ 2
Neo-Freudian theories identify multiple interactions in the social environment as components that contribute to the development of personality. Is the parent-child interaction a significant component of the neo-Freudian theories of personality development (e.g., would neo-Freudian theories be viable without this component?)? Why or why not?
Most personality development theories seem to have a component that includes the parent-child interaction as a significant part of the development process. As a single mother, I spend a lot of time reading, researching, and pondering my role in the development of my children and their personalities. Sometimes this can be scary, because studies can show a less involved parent may cause stress in children, among many other outcomes from bad parenting (Siddiqui, 2011). However, while I would say that while the parent child component is significant, the point is that they are only one part of a complex whole. When looking at the individual as a whole individual, the relationship with the parent is indeed significant, but so is the education, skills development, outside influences, natural personality, and any other factors within the sphere of influence. Certainly, a theory of personality development would not be viable if it did not include the nature of the family of origin, but at the same time, those that only look at this factor may not be viable as well. It takes looking at the whole picture to have a more complete view of the development of personality.
Siddiqui, I. J. (2011). Lack of Parental Involvement: Stress Prone Children. International Journal Of Education & Allied Sciences, 3(2), 43-48.
Professor question
Erikson, Freud and Therapy?
Hi ALL,
In light of Erikson and Psychosocial Development on whole, what did he note specifically per unconsciousness and how does this relate or not to Freud?
How do we still use this today in therapy?
Please provide an example and back with an APA reference
Thanks,
Dr. N
Maren Alitagtag
2 posts
Re:Module 3 DQ 1
The neo-Freudian theories were some of the first theories that considered the role of the social environment in shaping emotion, thought and behavior. When contrasted with Freud’s psychosexual theory, do the neo-Freudian theories present a more accurate view of personality development? Why or why not?
I remember as a young student of Psychology at 18, being very interested as I learned about Erikson’s theory. Freud had seemed to bring everything back to a sexual explanation, and I felt that Erikson’s lifespan explanations were far more inclusive than Freud’s psychosexual stages. I found some recent research that did show some validity to Erikson’s theory that successfully facing the crisis of early adulthood can correlate with the well-being of people in midlife (Sneed, 2012). The reason that I feel Erikson presents a more accurate view is because it is more inclusive of the whole of human experience. Thought, behavior, and emotion are complex and can be shaped by a number of different influencers. I appreciate the work that Freud did in opening up the conversation of analysis of human behavior, however I also appreciate how those after Freud, such as the neo-Freudians and many theorists after them, have expounded upon personality and behavior analysis and development.
Sneed, J., Whitbourne, S., Schwartz, S., & Huang, S. (2012). The relationship between identity, intimacy, and midlife well-being: Findings from the Rochester Adult Longitudinal Study. Psychology & Aging, 27(2), 318-323. doi:10.1037/a0026378