Transcript of Audio Lecture
Whereas the psychoanalytic perspective emphasized the
intrapsychic world, the psychosocial perspective, as it’s name implies,
emphasizes the role of the social world. From the psychosocial
perspective, personality emerges from and is most clearly manifest in
transactions with the social environment. The psychosocial perspective
is perhaps best exemplified by Erickson’s life cycle model of character
development.
Slide two. In Erickson’s life cycle model, there were
eight fundamental developmental tasks--really basic human issues--that
could be relevant at any point in life; but different issues tend to be
focal at different critical periods throughout life. The positive but
balanced resolution of these dilemmas allows the ego to acquire new
qualities or virtues, which themselves then become the foundations for
further development. In this lesson we will consider the tasks that tend
to be focal prior to adolescence; in the next lesson, we will consider
the tasks that tend to be focal during adolescence and adulthood. But as
we will see, these tasks are lifelong tasks; there is no single point
time when they are resolved once and for all.
Slide three. The first task is trust versus mistrust.
For each task, I will outline (a) what is a critical period at which the
task tends to be focal, (b) what the fundamental question that the ego
is asking during this task, and (c) what is the ego quality or virtue
that is acquired if the ego finds, on balance, a positive answer to that
question. For this first task, the critical period tends to be infancy,
so this corresponds to Freud’s oral stage and the issue is somewhat
similar because the reality is that you are dependent and so the
question is: can I trust you, you being my caretakers and, by extension,
the larger world in which I have found myself. If on balance your answer
is yes, then your ego has acquired the quality or virtue of hope. Now
the answer is unlikely to be an unqualified yes because there will be
many moments in which your needs are not being met and in which people
are not taking your best interest at heart. And it is probably safest to
not be always unconditionally trusting; however, if on balance you have
more trust than mistrust, then you at least have hope that will empower
you to approach new situations.
Slide four. Although Erickson and other psychosocial
theorists have tended to not do much high powered laboratory research,
the psychosocial approach has inspired a great deal of research by
others. For example, at this first stage, the psychosocial approach
helped inspire what is now a large empirical literature on attachment.
Attachment refers to how infants relate with their caregivers. The most
famous and respected means of operationalizing attachment was developed
by Mary Ainsworth; it involves observing infants’ reactions to the
so-called "strange situation" in which the infant comes in with its
primary caretaker, typically the mother, and typically when the infant
was about one year old. There were many variations on the strange
situations, but the basic paradigm is shown in this slide: Mom and
infant would go into a room that contained a few chairs and some toys. A
stranger would then enter, the mother would leave and then a minute or
so later the mother might return and then the stranger would leave. The
critical question is how does the infant react.
Slide five. Observations showed that infants reacted
in several different ways. The majority of infants showed secure
attachment, as indicated by the following reactions. When the mother was
present, the infant would use the mother as a secure base of
exploration; that is, recognizing that mother was calm, the infant would
trust that the situation was safe and would toddle off or crawl off to
play with the toys. When the mother leaves the room, however, the infant
shows some distress and would begin to monitor the environment more and
play with the toys less. When the mother returns, there would be a happy
reconnection, the infant might look over and smile or crawl over and hug
the mom’s leg; but after having that reconnection, the infant would
resume exploring because now the situation was once again safe.
Slide six. In contrast, some infants (in her research
about 20%) would display insecure-avoidant attachment as indicated by
the following reactions. Even when the mother was present, there would
be less exploration, indicating that the mother’s presence provided less
comfort and security. When the mother leaves, however, there was little
distress; indeed, not noticeably more than when the mother was present.
When the mother returns, there was not the happy reconnection observed
with securely attached infants; instead, they essentially ignored her.
Thus, there appeared to be less trust, and in particular a type of
insecurity that was manifest in disconnection or avoidance.
Slide seven. Finally around 10% of the infants showed
the following reactions. In contrast to the secure infants (and similar
to the avoidant infants), when the mother was present, there was less
exploration, indicating less feelings of comfort and security. However,
when the mother leaves, there was high levels of distress—bawling and
squalling. When the mother returns, though, the infant was not
comforted; instead they remained needy by angry, meaning the might rush
over and, sobbing, hug the mother’s leg… and then kick her. Thus, the
name resistant or ambivalent attachment. It’s an insecure attachment,
but it manifests itself more in ambivalent feelings of high need as well
as high anger.
Thus, the research on attachment suggests that
different infants have differing levels of trust with their caregivers
and that level of trust or comfort provided by the relationship has
important behavioral consequences.
Slide eight. Moreover psychosocial theories as well as
the object relation theories discussed in more detail in the book
suggest that recurrent patterns of relating are crystallized in early
childhood and endure into adulthood; that is, these patterns that we
observe in the laboratory at age one may have implications for the
person for the rest of their life. Specifically the argument is that if
the caregiver responds consistently, sensitively and accurately to the
infant, the infant will learn to trust the caregiver and more
importantly will burn in an implicit relationship schema or working
model of the self, the other, and relationships. Essentially they’re
forming a template for what it means to be in a relationship, how others
will treat them, how much approval and esteem and nurturance they will
experience in their relationships.
Slide nine. So the question is: Do patterns of
relating really do endure? Well what evidence we could use to answer
that question. The easiest studies are retrospective studies, in which
adults give self-reports of how they are now and how they were as very
young children (based on their own memories or stories from family
members). These retrospective studies do show that individuals who
remember their infancy as being characterized by secure attachment (that
is, comfort with both closeness and separateness from their caregivers),
describe themselves as having relationships in adulthood characterized
by trust, stability and mutual support. And adults who remember
themselves as having been ambivalent infants (very emotional, very
needy, but also angry), describe their current relationships as having
big highs (being madly in love) and big lows (being venomously mad).
Finally adults who recall having an avoidant style as an infant (not
being particularly close to their parents or other family members)
report emotional distance in their current relationships. But what can
we really conclude from this? While such correlations are suggestive,
they do not prove causality, and moreover other research shows that
memories of early childhood are often incredibly distorted.
Consequently, we should not be too trusting of these
retrospective studies.
A more compelling source of evidence would be a
longitudinal study which follows infants from the time they are observed
in the strange situation up until some later period and indeed studies
have been done that have followed infants from about one year up into
their middle school years and those studies show that insecure infants,
as they enter their school years, show the similar difficulties relating
to peers and teachers, and in general show poorer social adjustment than
do the secure infants. However, again we should be cautious about
concluding that the attachment relationship at age one is causing the
poorer social relationships in school. In particular, there is always
the possibility that genetics is explaining both the behavior of the
infant at one year and their behavior at three years, five years, seven
years, nine years. As you know from earlier in the course, studies show
that variables such as sociability and irritability appear to be
temperamental variables—traits with a strong genetic component that are
evident in infancy. So, it’s quite possible that genetics are
contributing to the behaviors observed in the strange situation, and
those same genes may be contributing to the behaviors we observe in
elementary school. For example, someone who is temperamentally more
irritable is more likely to be seen as an ambivalent infant in a strange
situation and as a needy and angry and therefore less popular child in
elementary school. Unfortunately, research has only just begun to check
whether there is an effect of infant attachment on later social outcomes
even after one statistically controls for the influence of genetics. But
regardless, psychosocial models have had a powerful impact on
psychotherapy. Much of psychotherapy assumes that positive adult
relationships can change the negative working models or relationships
schema learned in childhood. And perhaps it does not matter whether
maladaptive relationship attitudes were caused by genes versus early caregiving, as long as psychotherapy (by providing people with the
opportunity to learn trust) can change these fundamental assumptions so
that one can approach relationships with greater hope and therefore
respond more calmly and adaptively to the inevitable moments of
frustration.
Slide 10. As one moves into the toddler years, the
fundamental issue switches from trust versus mistrust to autonomy versus
shame and doubt. So the critical period corresponds to Freud’s anal
stage, but Erickson’s psychosocial model defines the basic issue more
broadly than did Freud’s psychosexual model. The psychosocial can be
phrased: "Can I do it?" or "Can I do it like the big people around me
do". Where the psychoanalytic focus was can I master toilet training,
the psychosocial focus is on everything; can I use a fork, catch a ball,
open the door, and so forth. Every day, the toddler is faced with
challenges of these sorts and therefore is asking and getting answers to
the question: can I do it. The virtue of hope that ideally the child
acquired during the preceding stage of trust versus mistrust creates the
foundation for the type of autonomous exploration necessary to
adequately answer this question "can I do it". This highlights the
importance of what Erickson called the epigenetic principle, which means
that each preceding stage creates the foundation for the subsequent
stage. In this case, hope keeps the toddler approaching and trying to
master these challenges. Even if the ball rolls past you once, you try
again. If the fork slips out of your hand, you pick it up again. What
keeps you going back is that sense of hope, that sense that you can and
should keep engaging the world around you. If on balance you answer this
question of can I do it in the direction of yes, I can be autonomous,
then you will have acquired the ego quality of will. Again the ideal is
a positive but balanced resolution. You cannot do everything well;
sometimes self-doubt is wise. But not too much self-doubt. If the ego
can experience itself as fallible but generally able to master
challenges, then it will have acquired the ego quality or virtue of
WILL.
Slide 11. The third task is initiative versus guilt.
The critical period tends to be the pre-school years, the years of
Freud’s psychosexual phallic stage. The issue now is: Can I exert my
will and initiate activities without getting punished, rejected, or
enmeshed in power struggles? As an infant, others expect little of you.
As a toddler, the expectations increase, but are still fairly minimal.
As one enters the pre-school years, parents, other adults, society in
general begin to expect that you can follow rules--that with all of your
newfound abilities, you also show a corresponding level of self-control.
And this is why “is what I do going to get me in trouble” becomes a
critical issue. A relevant research area here is research on parenting
styles. The research on parenting suggests that there several different
parenting styles. Authoritarian parenting involves firm rules, strong
consequences for breaking those rules, and no discussions. Permissive
parenting involves few rules and few consequences. Authoritative
reciprocal parenting involves firm and consistent rules. However, the
rules are discussed with the child and the underlying rationale
explained. If the rule is, for example, sharing or a particular bed time
or limits on where the child can or cannot go, then the underlying
rationale for sharing or for a set bed time and so on is explained and,
while the parent is the ultimate decider, input from the child is
encouraged. The research shows that authoritative-reciprocal parenting
is correlated with a positive resolution of the task of initiative
versus guilt. Specifically, in school settings, authoritative-reciprocal
parenting is associated with children being described as mature,
self-directed, and responsible, whereas authoritarian and permissive
parenting is associated with children being described as lacking in
maturity and self-control. One explanation is that
authoritative-reciprocal parenting may facilitate the internalization of
rules. Internalization of rules means you regulate your behavior even
when there is no authority figure around to punish you; and
authoritative-reciprocal parenting helps kids to practice both
self-regulation and the process of thinking through what guidelines
might be relevant in a new situation and why. But, again, my concern
about this research is that correlation does not equal causation, so we
do not know if authoritative reciprocal parenting is causing children to
better at learning, creating, and following rules OR if children who are
better at learning, creating, and following rules are causing parents to
act authoritative-reciprocal. After all, that is probably how most
parents want to be. But if they have a kid who is too distractible or
impulsive to follow rules or discuss rules, then the parents may respond
either by getting tough (that is, becoming authoritarian) or giving up
(that is, becoming permissive). Thus, the direction the causal influence
could be from parents to children, or from children to parents, or both.
In any case, for whatever the reason, if the child can come through this
stage answering the question more in the direction of “yes, most of the
time when I exert my will and initiate activities I do not experience
punishment, rejection, or guilt”, then they add to their ego the quality
or virtue of Purpose—that is, a sense that they can have a place in the
world, that their ideas and wishes have a place and can be expressed in
ways that will be socially accepted.
Slide 12. The fourth task, industry versus
inferiority, tends to become focal as the child moves into elementary
school years, ages six through puberty. This corresponds to Freud’s
latency stage and highlights a similar issue: Can I master culturally
valued skills? These might include, in school, reading, writing, and
arithmetic; and, with peers, athletics and forming friendships,
maintaining friendships, and handling conflicts and rejections that
might occur in the context of those friendships. If the answer to this
question is generally yes, then the developing ego adds the quality or
virtue of Competence, a sense that I can master at least some socially
valued skills. As always, the answer is not and should not be yes all
the time. After all, nobody is good at everything--at writing and math
and athletics and friendships and so on; rather, the crucial issue is
that there is at least one domain valued both by the child and by others
in which the child shows competence; if so, they will come through this
critical period with the ego quality of competence rather than
inferiority. That sense of competence will be a necessary foundation for
mastering the subsequent tasks the person will be encountering in
adolescence and adulthood, and which we will examine in the next lesson.
Back
