Theoretical Comparison #2 Freud's Psychosexual Theory vs. Erikson's Psychosocial Stages

Freud’s Psychosexual Theory vs. Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages

In Psychology, there are many theories regarding Psychosocial Development; however, two theories are prominent:  Sigmund Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development and Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Developmental Stages.   “Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development is one of the best-known theories of personality in psychology. Much like Sigmund Freud, Erikson believed that personality develops in a series of stages. Unlike Freud's theory of psychosexual stages, Erikson's theory describes the impact of social experience across the whole lifespan” (Cherry, About.com Psychology). 

Sigmund Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development are well known, however, controversial.   Freud’s Psychoanalysis theory states that personality is set by the time children reach five years of age; previous experiences have a part in shaping personality.  If these stages are not completed thoroughly fixation happens.  Fixation is a constant focus on a specific psychosexual stage.  This issue needs to be resolved in order to move on to a different stage.  The different psychosexual stages are:  Erogenous Zone:  Mouth (Birth to 1 Year), Erogenous Zone:  Bowel and Bladder Control (1 to 3 years), Erogenous Zone: Genitals (3 to 6 years old), Erogenous Zone:  Sexual Feelings are Inactive (6 to Puberty), and Erogenous Zone:  Maturing Sexual Interests (Puberty to Death). 

On the other hand, Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory is considered one of the renown theories on personality.  Erikson concluded that personality evolved in stages of development occurring from birth until death.  Erikson’s theory is defined by social experiences one has during their life span.  They also include biological factors as well as cultural notions.  There are eight psychosocial stages:  Trust vs. Mistrust (Infancy), Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (Early childhood), Initiative vs. Guilt (Play age), Industry vs. Inferiority (School age), Identify vs. Identity Confusion (Adolescence), Intimacy vs. Isolation (Young Adulthood), Generativity vs. Self-absorption (Maturity), and Integrity vs. Despair, Disgust (Old Age).  Erikson viewed these eight stages of development as a psychosocial conflict or crisis.  ‘Whether the conflict of a particular stage is successfully resolved or not, the individual is pushed by both biological maturation and social demands into the next stage” (Sigelman & Shaffer, 1995, p. 269).  

Even though, “Freud’s Psychosexual Stages of Developmental describes how personality develops during childhood.  Freud believed that personality developed through a series of childhood stages in which the pleasure-seeking energies of the id become focused on certain erogenous areas; while, Erikson’s theory describes the impact of social experiences across the whole lifespan” (Cherry, About.com Psychology).  They both believed that these theories were based on developmental stages in an individual’s life.  The learner believes that these two theories have a lot of positive attributes; such as Freud's psychosexual theory describes the sexual fixation most people have which can be viewed in commercials and all around our American culture.  While Erikson's psychosocial stages describes in detail the stages we go through in live.   The learner has observed these stages in my own children's lives.  Like in the first stage of Trust vs. Mistrust, I've seem my own children learn to trust as babies.  Even though my son went through abuse, I believe that due to the trust he had in his parents he was able to overcome his fears and now he is a wonderfully confident young man.




Ashford, J. & LeCroy,  C. (2010).  Human Behavior in the Social Environment A Multidimensional Perspective. Belmont:  Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Cherry, K. Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development. About.com Psychology.  http://psychology.about.com/od/psychosocialtheories/a/psychosocial.htm.

Cherry, K. Freud's Stages of Psychosexual Development. About.com Psychology.  http://psychology.about.com/od/psychosocialtheories/a/psychosocial.htm
 

Ecological Systems Theory and Modern Functionalism

            Two social systems theories that influence modern ways of thinking for social workers are ecological systems theory and modern functionalism.  Both theories use holism as a central theme.

             The ecological systems theory states that human beings “can be understood only in the context of the systems in which they live” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 143).  This theory uses the principal tenants that social work is focused on the person and situation, as well as the system and its environment, and that each influences the other.  In addition, the theory proposes that all systems work best when all actions that affect the individual positively affect the environment as well.  Two contributors to this theory, Brim and Bronfenbrenner, proposed levels of functioning called microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, and macrosystems (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, pp. 143-144).  Ecological systems theory is important because “it enhanced our ability to look at the environment in a way that allowed for its modification.  This perspective redirected attention to the transactions between people and environment rather than focusing on either the person or the environment” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 145).

            In contrast, modern functionalism views relationships in a different way.  Talcott Parsons proposed that all social life revolves around agency, “the idea that goal-oriented people act in intentional ways” and that all actions have “alternative courses” called “pattern variables.”  These pattern variables showed there were only a limited number of social choices available to individuals in any situation based on their social environment.  Parsons also refined his theory, which became known as structural functionalism.  In this refinement, he identified four functions in any social system that are necessary for its continued survival:  adaptation, goal attainment, integration, and pattern maintenance.  In addition, he proposed five institutions that play a necessary role in the survival of any social system:  family, religion, education, economy, and government.  The main idea of functionalism is that it helps “us study our social institutions, and social institutions represent the final step in the process in which cultural values are translated into customary behavior” (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 146).

            Although ecological systems theory as well as Brim and Bronfenbrenners’ levels are well-accepted social systems theories, Parson’s structural functionalism has come under intense criticism at various levels throughout the years.  Two writers propose that Parson’s theory has the “effect of biologizing or mechanizing human society” and that this is actually a departure from generalized systems of functioning to the scientific approach of reductionism as opposed to the social systems theory approach of holism (Soo & Munch, 1979, p. 30).  In addition, because both ecological systems theory and modern functionalism depend on the stability of systems to understand behavior, a third theory, conflict theory, was developed (Ashford & Lecroy, 2010, p. 147).

            Each of these two theories approaches social systems from different viewpoints.  Ecological systems theory makes social workers aware that what affects one piece of a system, affects the rest of the system also, just like in a biological way where adding snakehead fish previously unknown to a stable river ecology will have catastrophic effects.  However, modern functionalism breaks down smaller systems into the functions that affect them and work to create an awareness to social workers, not only of effects of changes on clients and their environments, but also on the choices that clients face in all parts of the systems in which they participate.

            Ashford, J.B & Lecroy, C.W. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: A 

                multidimensional perspective. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning.

Chong Soo, L., & Munch, P. A. (1979). Fractured Weber: A Critique of Parsons' 

     Interp[r]etation. Qualitative Sociology, 2(2), 26-41.

Theoretical Comparison # 2 Eric Lindermann, Gerald Caplan and Barbara Dohrenwend

Crisis Theory and Model of Stress

        All kinds of different life events can cause stress and lead to a crisis. These life events can be going on for a long time or just suddenly happen. Eric Lindermann and Gerald Caplan both did research on crisis theory. Barabra Dohrenwend was the developer of the model of stress. Crisis and stress are different but when combined can cause greater pain and aggravation for people.
       Crisis is derived from a Greek root word that means "to decide." According to Ashford and LeCroy (2010), The reference to crisis in this context is "any rapid change or encounter that provides an individual with a 'no exit' challenge, no choice but to alter his or her conduct in some manner." In everyday terms this is a critical point in which one knows that a good or bad decision is ahead.
       Stress plays an important role in understanding the adaptation of people. Ashford and LeCroy (2010), have stated that stress represents "any event in which environmental demands, internal demands, or both tax or exceed the adaptive resources of an individual, social system, or tissue system."
        Lindermann who developed the crisis theory and Caplan, a colleague of Lindermann's from the Harvard School of Public Health both did research on the subject of crisis. Lindermann is most well known for his work with the relatives of the victims who died in the unfortunate nightclub fire at the Coconut Grove Dance Hall in Boston in 1941. Lindermann discovered through interviewing the victims loved ones that the way they coped with the stress of losing their loved ones  was by detaching and forming new bonds with other people. Caplan supported Lindermann's theory of crisis but also added his own twist by saying there are other events , not just the loss of something or someone that can cause stress and in turn cause people to develop mental disorders. Caplan determined that any substantial  life change can cause a person to create psychological problems. This in turn becomes a crisis because this is beyond a person's ability to cope with internal adjustments or external adaptations.
          Dohrenwend's model of stress makes the connection between both environment and people. Dohrenwend makes the assumption that human response to stress is determined by such moderating factors as personal characteristics and social resources. According to Ashford and LeCroy (2010). "a moderating factor is considered to be operative when, if in its presence, the relationship of stress to illness (mental or physical) is weaker than its absence." While Lindermann's, crisis theory and Dohrenwend's model of stress are comparable, there are some differences.  The crisis theory states that "the outcome from stressors are a function of the environmental supports and psychological mediators available to a person (Ashford and LeCroy, 2010). Dohrenwend's model of stress shows how different psychosocial and situations play a part in the process.
           The crisis theory and model of stress are very important tools to study to figure out how people cope with stress. When people can not deal with loss, other people or their environment this stress can quickly turn into a crisis.

Ashford, J.B. & LeCroy, C.W. (2010). Huamn behavior in the social environment: A multidimensional perspective (4th ed.). Australia:  Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

Freud VS Erikson

Freud stages of psychosocial development deals with how a personality develop, and that we move through various stages, and how well we master those stages froms the basis of our personality. (HBSE. PG87). These personality depends on how each of these stages is handled. for instance the an infant's behavior is motivated by these unconsciour, pleasure seeking urges. (87).
The stage of infancy are dominated by an oral focus, early childhood moves through an anal aqnd phallic focus, the nuddke cgukdgiid us reoresebted by a katebct oeruid, and the psychosexual stages end at puberty. Freud should have took these stage a littler further to adulthood. Freud was an id psychologist, on the other hand Erikson was an ego psychologest. (simply psychology.org).
  Like Erikson' he took these theory further with the eight psychosocial stages which includes several key departures from Freud thinking(90). Erikson's eight starts at infaancy through old age he says in the infacy is where trust vs mistrust, early childhood is autonomy vs shame, doubt, play age is initiative vs guilt, school age industry vs inferiority, adolescene is identity vs idenity confusion as well as old age is integrity vs despair, disgust.(90).
 I love these stages that Erikson talks about i seen this with my own children from the oldest to the youngest child with the trust to the mistrust  on to the maturity of generativity of how they act in there lives.
    

  Ashford. Jose., & LeCroy, C.W. (2009). Human behavior in the Social Environment.

Mclead, S.A.(2008). Erik Erikson/Psychosocial Stages- Simply Psychology. Retrieved
http:// www. simplypsychology.org/Erik-Erikson.html.  

Theoretical Compassion #2 :Skinner vs. Bandura

Most will associate Skinner and Watson’s work, in regards to the learning theory, in fact, Skinner expanded on Watson’s original theory. Both theories have the same concept; however, with Skinners, “Two critical concepts in operant conditioning are reinforcement and punishment”, (Ashford J. B. & LeCroy, C.W., 2013). Ones’ behavior can be encourage or discourage by reward or punishment. Skinner believes in playing an active role in the conditioning of an individual’s behavior. Skinner used rats and pigeons to do most of his research. Primarily the experimentation of how rats react with positive and negative reinforcement in regards to them pushing a lever. The observation revealed that in order for the rat to get what it wanted it would push the lever, when this reward was taken away the rat continued to press the lever over and over and then became irritated when the reward was not given.

Bandura believes in the observation of others will lead to one’s behavior. His theory is known as the Social learning Theory. In order to frame one behavior they must observe others known and unknown to the individual in a social environment. “Bandura’s foremost theoretical contribution has been his description of observational learning”, (Dunn, D...et. al, 2009). Every individual will encounter situations where someone educates them that their behavior is predicated from someone else’s, and this will happen throughout one’s life. But the observation and implementation of others actions can be negative or positive and this is learned from birth, how to mimic the actions of others. While Both Bandura and Skinner both believe that behaviors are learned and replicated they just arrive at this analysis in a different manor.

Ashford, J.B. & LeCroy, C.W. (2013). Human behavior in the social environment: A multidimensional perspective (5th ed). Australia: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

Dunn, D., Hammer, E. Y., Lloyd, M.A., Weiten, W. (2009). Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment in the 21^st century (9^th ed.). Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Theoretical Comparison #2 BANDURA's (Social Learning) VS. PIAGET's (Cognitive Development)

Albert Bandura is said to be one of the new cognitive behaviorist. Cognitive behaviorists are also referred to as social learning theorist. According to Ashford and LeCroy (2010), “Bandura attempts to understand people as conscious, thinking beings who can have an influence on their environment.” Bandura places emphasis on we learn by what we observe and we do this by having role models and we learn new behaviors as a result of these role models. This type learning is considered cognitive because we learn through our memories. According to social-learning theory, models are critical in the development of personality because of the principle of observational learning (Ashford and LeCroy, 2010). According to learning-theories.com, “Most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action.” (Bandura). Social learning theory explains human behavior in terms of continuous reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental influences.”

Jean Piaget built his career on studying the relationship between how we develop and how we learn (Ashford and LeCroy, 2010).  The concepts of adaptation an organization are critical components of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. We are said to use schemata as structures for cognitive learning. According to Piaget, what we perceive in the external world does not always fit in our internal schemata, or what we know. So we can assimilate new information into our existing schemata or thought structures and thereby change what we perceive (assimilation). Or we can accommodate our thought patterns to what we perceive-in other words; change what we think (accommodation) (Ashford and LeCroy, 2010).   

Bandura’s social learning theory can be and to my knowledge is applied in the field of social work. Social workers are many things to different people. The principle of professionalism makes social workers great role models. If a client is not sure of a certain behavior we can show them what it looks like by modeling it. Piaget’s theory is also applied in social work. Social workers supply resources and empower clients. Sometimes just simply finding the right resources can fit into the client’s schemata and help to empower that client.

Ashford, J.B. & LeCroy, C.W. (2010). Human behavior in the social environment: a multidimensional perspective (4th ed.). Australia: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning.

http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html

Theoretical Comparison 2: Reductionism Vs. Holism

In social work, there are many different theories and approaches to consider utilizing with clients. However, at the very base of it all, decisions between the holistic approach and the reductionist approach may decide how we help our clients.

According to Ashford and LeCroy (2010), “The central principle of reductionism is that ultimate explanations can be found when issues are reduced to their smallest possible components.” As social workers, this approach states that we separate our client’s issues, such as dealing with lack of transportation, then unemployment, etc. Furthermore, reductionism “supports and legitimizes the notions that we can both get it right and, if something goes wrong, reverse it” (Rogers, Luton, Biggs, Biggs, Blignaut, Choles, and Tangwe, 2013). Because each item is considered a separate issue, clients and case managers may build up separate goals. According to reductionism, if the goal for one issue is not met, the situation does not affect the client’s life anywhere else.  An example of reductionism would be if a client does not pursue childcare, it should not affect their employment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum is holism. “Holism strives for a balance and harmony within the person” (Ashcroft, 2011). Holism looks at the entire person, rather than individual issues. Furthermore, “…the holism paradigm attends to a variety of variables impacting on a person, interactional and transactional in nature” (2011). While holism focuses on the client and any internal issues, it also looks at the environment and any issues caused externally. An example of holism in action is assessing a client’s poor mental health causing unemployment, which in turn caused lack of money for food and housing. Holism dictates that each issue feeds into others, and therefore cannot be neglected.

The holistic and reductionist approaches are complete radical opposites, and therefore social workers may need to find a middle ground. Identifying a root cause of a client’s issues may be a solution, rather than fixing everything one by one, or at the same time.

Ashcroft, R. (2011). Health and Wellbeing: Starting with a Critical Pedagogical Model. Social Work Education, 30(6), 610-622. doi:10.1080/02615479.2011.586558

Ashford, J., & LeCroy, C. (2010). Human Behavior in the Social Environment: A Multidimensional Perspective. 4th ed., pp.134. California: WADSWORTH

Rogers, K. H., Luton, R., Biggs, H., Biggs, R., Blignaut, S., Choles, A. G., & ... Tangwe, P. (2013). Fostering Complexity Thinking in Action Research for Change in Social--Ecological Systems. Ecology & Society, 18(2), 68-79. doi:10.5751/ES-05330-180231