1. Switching from happy to sad in a random instant. Depression can kick in and just make you not want to do anything or completely turn a 180 on your personality. Fine line between happiness and sadness, fine line indeed.
2. Boredom. Everything feels like the 6th consecutive hour of daytime television. Even the most exciting things or things you love the most feel like a total drag.
3. Being more socially awkward than usual. Because you don’t want to sound like Eyore, you try to fake being normal. Because you don’t want to seem needy, you’re more standoffish than you would usually be. You wind up just being super awkward.
4. Trying to make other people happy to compensate for how shitty you feel. You wouldn’t know that some people suffer daily with depression because they’re always joking and trying to make others happy/laugh. For me it’s a coping mechanism I guess. I can feel listless and discontent with everything, but I’ll still want to make my loved ones smile in an attempt to make them happier than I am.
5. Sleeping too little. Laughing just a bit louder and smiling just a bit wider than normal. Eating habits suddenly changing, either overeating or eating too little or suddenly losing interest or finding fault with foods they used to enjoy because everything just tastes bland.
6. Cancelling plans or saying no to social events when this is usually not the case.
7. Trying to make as little as an impression as possible, trying to always be just a background figure. If attention is given usually feels undeserved. Almost olympic levels of impostor syndrome.
8. Incapability of long-term thinking. Planning ahead, scheduling, is like rocket science for a kindergartener.
9. Irritability. People assume that having depression just means you’re sad all the time. Not true. You’re just as likely to be irrationally angry about something as you are to be sad about it.
10. Total apathy and dissociation, inability to focus on a task. Most of my time depressed was not active, I didn’t cry or get mad, I didn’t do anything. I stared at my computer or the wall and did things only when told.
11. Trouble thinking, concentrating, and remembering.
12. Loss of interest in sex.
13. Everything seeming like a dulled shade of enjoyment. Like wearing sunglasses indoors, watching tv… oh, and to expand on this, and wearing ear plugs… the colors and sounds are all muted.
14. Shoulder pain. Generally, it’s more considered body ache, but for me it’s my shoulders. Wherever you hold stress and tension in your body will get overworked.
15. Procrastinating, because everything feels like a chore.
16. A messy room. People with depression can sometimes lay in bed for days on end, and go weeks without showering. During that time, the junk really adds up, and even if they get back into the normal rhythm, they don’t care enough or feel like they have enough energy to clean up after themselves.
17. Dropping grades and skipping classes. Too many of the “bad” kids in high schools are treated like delinquents when they just have lost the motivation to accomplish anything. Too many are labeled as a burnout, and turn to marijuana to rid themselves of anxiety. Sometimes even harder drugs. I have never met a drug dealer or buyer that was happy with their life or had a good childhood.
18. Inability to get out of bed at all. I’ll wake up, then sleep, then wake up, then sleep and finally I’ll wake up and lay in bed trying to force myself not to sleep again.
19. Cycling through emotions, narcissism, anger, paranoia, health anxiety, fixation, anhedonia, intrusive thoughts, anger, mania, body dysmorphia, insomnia, panic attacks, ocd.
Most mental health is related, so things associated with other disorders like ADHD, personality disorders, psychosis, anxiety, ptsd can all present similar symptoms in depressed patients. Obviously these are all very different diagnosis, but there is more overlap than people assume.
20. This may sound odd and may just be me – but food doesn’t taste right. Some things are ok but a lot of food tastes like cardboard or is just “off”.
21. Resisting help or treatment. There’s a weird, almost paradoxical comfort in being depressed. Often, you’ll rationalize that you deserve to feel miserable. You might actively push away others who try to help, or even lash out at them. And when that person gives up, you feel a sick sort of comfort because your misery is now justified. You’re a piece of shit who deserves to be unhappy. The person who gave up must not truly care about you. These are lies your depression tells you, and you believe it because it feels true.
22. Over-giving. Not sure if this is everyone with depression or just me, but I find myself always over-giving in romantic relationships, and even with my family and friends. I guess it boils down to trying to buy the love and affection from people because I don’t feel good enough, and I subconsciously worry that if I stop giving my all, then they won’t want to be with me. A sad and pathetic example is how I just bought my boyfriend of four months new tiles for the floors of his entire condo, and a trip to Europe this summer…while he couldn’t even be bothered to get me flowers for Valentine’s Day. I know I need to stop, but giving becomes a weird addiction I suppose.
23. Carelessness. You don’t care about what happens anymore to yourself. You can go fuck yourself up and you won’t care because you don’t feel like you are worth protecting/keeping safe anymore.
24. Not keeping up with your hygiene. Whether it’s not showering, brushing your teeth, or even combing your hair.
25. Taking one seemingly normal every day task and have it turn into a gigantic insurmountable ordeal. Like taking a shower. Doing laundry. Calling someone.
26. Being paranoid that all my loved ones hate me, feeling like I’m a burden on their lives because I talk to them about my issues. I know they love me, I know they would drop everything for me because they do. But I still find myself distancing myself when I get bad enough because I want them to be happy and when I’m depressed I feel like a burden.
27. Letting the dishes or laundry pile up until you have nothing to eat on or nothing to wear; but that doesn’t matter because you can just eat garbage take out and wear the same pajamas everyday and still not be bothered to keep your home clean
28. Co-dependence. You want to be alone, but to get anything done you have to ask people to help you. Only you don’t actually ASK them, you just say what you don’t have or can’t do, and hope they volunteer to help based on what you said, because asking them directly would make you feel guilty.
29. Starving yourself without noticing.
30. Not sleeping well – sleeping too much / too little. Waking up at odd times during the night. That sort of thing.
If you stop dreaming at all (I.e. not even nightmares) my doc said that’s when you really need to see someone.
31. Forgetting everything. Whether it’s appointments in the future, school stuff or what I did yesterday. It’s like vanished.
32. Looking forward to absolutely nothing. As in…there is just about nothing that excites you and you struggle to get out of bed without dreading what lingering thoughts might pop into your head arbitrarily.
34. The re-starting or commencing of “bad habits” such as smoking, drinking, eating junk.
35. I quit cleaning. I quit caring about the fact there’s 16 bags of trash around me. I completely zone out of real life and just go through motions.
36. Being angry at people for literally breathing.
37. The lack of interest or disassociation while your hanging out with people.
38. The constant, overwhelming mental fatigue. Not necessarily physical fatigue but the feeling of chains around you, some kind of pressure keeping everything back.
39. Sudden cheerfulness. If that happens out of the blue after a long spell of depression, the person is likely going to commit suicide and is cheerful for the relief it’ll bring. Especially if it’s accompanied by giving stuff away. Be vigilant if your depressed loved one is suddenly super cheerful.
40. Masturbating non stop. Like countless times in a day till you’re dry to the bone.
41. Loss of interest in the things you love to do.
42. It feels like your brain is on “low power mode”, anyone who has depression will know what I’m talking about. It’s as if your brain isn’t living life to its fullest intensity, no matter how bad you try to make it to.
43. Weight loss or weight gain.
44. The fucking cloudiness you have over all of your thoughts.
45. The “Impossible Task.” A seemingly simple chore that is just blocked in my mind from performing. Usually involves phone calls. I will need to call to make an appointment or just return a business call. If I actually could do it, it would take five minutes. But I procrastinate and do anything to avoid it, usually making the issue worse.
For example, I have maybe five dishes and a bunch of silverware in my sink. They’ve been there a ridiculously long time. There is nothing preventing me from doing them; it makes no logical sense to leave them. But I will cover them with a dish cloth so I don’t have to see them and use paper plates instead. I will do yard work (which I hate), clean the toilet, alphabetize my media…all to avoid those fucking dishes.
And the task just looms bigger and bigger and gets harder to do.
46. Finding different ways to cause yourself pain without making visible marks.
47. Social withdrawal. You can’t carry conversations unless provoked. One word sentences become normal. A lot of people think it’s just being in a “bad mood” but it’s really because you want to be left alone to wallow in your own misery.
48. Being the jokester of the friend group. I know I compensated for being sad all the time with cracking jokes and seeming over happy all the time
49. Memory problems. People think depression is just being sad but it’s actually debilitating.
Social work theories are general explanations that are supported by evidence obtained through the scientific method. A theory may explain human behavior, for example, by describing how humans interact or how humans react to certain stimuli.
Social work practice models describe how social workers can implement theories. Practice models provide social workers with a blueprint of how to help others based on the underlying social work theory. While a theory explains why something happens, a practice model shows how to use a theory to create change.
Social Work Theories
There are many social work theories that guide social work practice. Here are some of the major theories that are generally accepted in the field of social work:
SYSTEM THEORY; describes human behavior in terms of complex systems. It is premised on the idea that an effective system is based on individual needs, rewards, expectations, and attributes of the people living in the system. According to this theory, families, couples, and organization members are directly involved in resolving a problem even if it is an individual issue.
Systems Theory Approach
The view of organizations as open social systems that must interact with their environments in order to survive is known as the systems theory approach. Organizations depend on their environments for several essential resources: customers who purchase the product or service, suppliers who provide materials, employees who provide labor or management, shareholders who invest, and governments that regulate. According to Cutlip, Center, and Broom, public relations’ essential role is to help organizations adjust and adapt to changes in an organization’s environment.Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2006).
The open-systems approach was first applied by Katz and Kahn, who adapted General Systems Theory to organizational behavior.Katz and Kahn (1966); Bertalanffy (1951), pp. 303–361. This approach identifies organizational behavior by mapping the repeated cycles of input, throughput, output, and feedback between an organization and its external environment. Systems receive input from the environment either as information or in the form of resources. The systems then process the input internally, which is called throughput, and release outputs into the environment in an attempt to restore equilibrium to the environment. The system then seeks feedback to determine if the output was effective in restoring equilibrium. As can be seen, the systems approach focuses on the means used to maintain organizational survival and emphasize long-term goals rather than the short-term goals of the goal-attainment approach.
Theoretically, systems can be considered either open or closed. Open organizations exchange information, energy, or resources with their environments, whereas closed systems do not. In reality, because no social systems can be completely closed or open, they are usually identified as relatively closed or relatively open. The distinction between closed and open systems is determined by the level of sensitivity to the external environment. Closed systems are insensitive to environmental deviations, whereas open systems are responsive to changes in the environment.
The systems approach is an external standard that measures effectiveness based on long-term growth or sustainability. Effective systems are characterized by a steady state that systems theorists call homeostasis in order to “avoid the static connotations of equilibrium and to bring out the dynamic, processual, potential-maintaining properties of basically unstable… systems.”Buckley (1967), p. 14. If an organization is able to maintain homeostasis, which includes not just survival but also growth, then it is effective. This perspective is broader and more comprehensive than the goal-attainment approach because it is not limited to measuring effectiveness as meeting goals determined by powerful internal coalitions that may or may not be propitious for the whole organization. Pfeffer and Salancik defined effectiveness as “how well an organization is meeting the demands of the various groups and organizations that are concerned with its activities.”Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), p. 11.
Most effective organizations, according to systems theory, adapt to their environments. Pfeffer and Salancik described the environment as the events occurring in the world that have any effect on the activities and outcomes of an organization. Environments range from “static” on one extreme to “dynamic” on the other. Static environments are relatively stable or predictable and do not have great variation, whereas dynamic environments are in a constant state of flux. Because environments cannot be completely static or constantly changing, organizations have varying levels of dynamic or static environments.
Organizations that exist in dynamic environments must be open systems in order to maintain homeostasis. Because dynamic environments are constantly changing, they create a lot of uncertainty about what an organization must do in order to survive and grow. The key to dealing with uncertainty is information. An open organization monitors its environment and collects information about environmental deviations that is labeled as input. Input can also be thought of as a form of feedback. The most important information is negative input, according to systems theorists, because this information alerts the organization to problems that need to be corrected. Negative input tells the organization that it is doing something wrong and that it must make adjustments to correct the problem; positive input tells the organization that it is doing something right and that it should continue or increase that activity.
Organizations then organize and process this information to formulate solutions or responses to these changes. As Cutlip, Center, and Broom noted, open systems use information to respond to environmental changes and adjust accordingly. The adjustments affect the structure or process of the organization, or both. The structure is what the organization is, whereas process is what the organization does. Adjustments are “intended to reduce, maintain, or increase the deviations.”Cutlip, Center, and Broom (2006), p. 181. For example, an organization can alter its structure by downsizing to remain competitive. Other organizations may change their processes in order to adhere to new environmental laws. Processing positive and negative input to adjust to environmental change is called throughput. In the throughput of information, the organization analyzes it and tailors it strategically to fit with the organization’s goals, values, and within the relationship context it holds with publics.
After an organization adapts to environmental changes, its actions and messages represent its output. The automobile industry is constantly enticing car consumers to try the latest models, hoping that it has responded to changing expectations. Recently, many auto manufacturers have attempted to color their products as “green” or environmentally friendly. However, messages are not enough. If the cars are not really friendlier to the environment, then these messages eventually will fall on skeptical ears and impugn the credibility of the organization. An organization measures the effectiveness of its output by seeking feedback. If its actions and messages were not effective then the process is repeated until the appropriate solution is found. If the organization is not able to adapt to the environmental variation then it will eventually cease to exist. The public relations professional engaged in an organization that takes a systems approach is continually focusing on feedback as a way of measuring organizational success.
The public relations professional can use the academic concept of systems theory to implement protocols for regular feedback to the organization, thereby aligning it with the desires of publics in its environment. This theory can also be useful in understanding the role of research and feedback in creating a thoroughly analyzed and consistent strategy (the throughput stage of information in systems theory). The analysis of information and creation of strategy known as throughput helps to conceptualize and justify not only the research budget of the public relations department but also the need for making decisions that strategically align the public communications of an organization with the information needed by publics. The practical implementation of this approach keeps public relations from being used as a simple publicity function, and places the function squarely in the strategic planning process.
Systems theory, however, is not without some shortcomings. The first shortcoming relates to measurement, and the second is the issue of whether the means by which an organization survives really matter. Robbins noted that one criticism of this approach is that its focus is on “the means necessary to achieve effectiveness rather than on organizational effectiveness itself.”Robbins (1990), p. 62. Measuring the means, or process, of an organization can be very difficult when compared to measuring specific end goals of the goal-attainment approach.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY; is based on Albert Bandura’s idea that learning occurs through observation and imitation. New behavior will continue if it is reinforced. According to this theory, rather than simply hearing a new concept and applying it, the learning process is made more efficient if the new behavior is modeled as well.
Social Learning Theory
This article explains the Social Learning Theory, which is developed by Albert Bandura in a practical way. After reading this article you will understand the basics of this powerful process to master skills.
What is the Social Learning Theory?
The Social Learning Theory was invented and developed by the Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura. The foundation of this theory shows that a personality does not only consist of observable behaviour, as traditional psychologists believe, but that cognitive processes play a crucial role in the changing or mastering of behaviour patterns.
The goal of the social learning theory is to show that an individual can learn in multiple ways. People make choices based on self-reflection, but mainly the environment in which a person finds themselves influences the way they behave and learn. The learner, the person who is at the center of this theory, processes different impulses in different ways.- Advertisement –
A distinction is made between two kinds of behaviour: respondent behaviour and operant behaviour. Respondent behaviour is an automatic reaction to a stimulus. When a person’s retina is confronted with bright light, the person starts to blink. This reflex is involuntary and unintentional. Operant behaviour on the other hand, is entirely voluntary and controlled. A person operates in their environment and receives feedback in the form of consequences. These consequences ensure that a person will or will not change their behaviour.
From the moment a person is born, the development mechanism that is called observational learning, starts to work. Effectively, this means that people learn by observing what other people do. The reason for someone to imitate behaviour is indicated as observational reinforcement: seeing the consequences a person experiences from the taken action. For example: a student receives a compliment from their teacher regarding the difficult calculations they made. Their classmate hears this compliment, which motivates them to also study the difficult assignments.
The same principle also works the other way around. When a student arrives to class late, he will be admonished to arrive on time, possibly even punished. Their classmates observe this and draw the conclusion for themselves that it is better to be on time. However, these forms of observational reinforcement do not work in all cases. Reinforcers are often personal and can change with the development of the learner. A material reinforcement can have an opposite effect, the source of intrinsic motivation can be lost (Two factor theory Herzberg).
An important part of the process that initiates behaviour change is the observing of the consequences that certain behaviour has. However, not all behaviour is followed. Behaviour can only be changed when an individual has complete control over a situation and when they can realise certain outcomes. Bandura calls this concept self-effectivity.
Several factors ensure that people imitate behaviour of others. Albert Banduradeveloped a model that clarifies this. The model was published in 1971 and is shown above.
The observing of a model with status is necessary for the adaptation or imitation of behaviour. Imitation is not possible without the learner being able to mirror themselves to a model. Partly due to social media, the amount of attention that is given to certain role models has increased exponentially.
The observation needs to be stored before it can be reproduced. The behaviour can be observed, but that does not mean that it is automatically internalised. The human does not do social learning in a direct way, so the memory plays an important role in the process.
Reproduction is the ability to perform internalised memories as behaviour. Many behaviour characteristics are retained on a daily basis, but not everything will be used later on. In some cases, the physical condition of the learner limits the desire to change behaviour.
The model that is mirrored by the learner has a status. When a model has a large status it is plausible that its behavior is imitated. For example, children look up to their parents and therefore adopt behavior after observation. Pop stars, famous actors or other influential people can also be seen as a model. From this it can be concluded that similarities between the model and the learner increase the likelihood that behavior will be imitated.
Generally, behavior that is empowered is imitated. However, it is necessary that the ratification is not purely materialistic. The learner must also be intrinsically motivated to follow the model.
The adaptation to the environment starts at a very young age. By observing, behaviour can be adapted or taught. By analysing the consequences that certain behaviour has, a process is or is not initiated that can change the behaviour. Role models with a high status are often looked up to. This is one of the factors that plays a role in the copying of behaviour. Albert Bandura shows, with his social learning theory, that good examples will be followed, but it also works the other way around.
Now it is your turn
What do you think? Do you recognise certain behaviour that you copied or adapted after you observed how someone else did it? Do you see other people imitate behaviour of role models?
PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY is an eight-stage theory of identity and psychosocial development articulated by Erik Erikson. Erikson believed everyone must pass through eight stages of development over the life cycle: hope, will, purpose, competence, fidelity, love, care, and wisdom. Each stage is divided into age ranges from infancy to older adults.
Erikson maintained that personality develops in a predetermined order through eight stages of psychosocial development, from infancy to adulthood. During each stage, the person experiences a psychosocial crisis which could have a positive or negative outcome for personality development.
For Erikson (1958, 1963), these crises are of a psychosocial nature because they involve psychological needs of the individual (i.e., psycho) conflicting with the needs of society (i.e., social).
According to the theory, successful completion of each stage results in a healthy personality and the acquisition of basic virtues. Basic virtues are characteristic strengths which the ego can use to resolve subsequent crises.
Failure to successfully complete a stage can result in a reduced ability to complete further stages and therefore a more unhealthy personality and sense of self. These stages, however, can be resolved successfully at a later time.
Trust vs. Mistrust
0 – 1½
Autonomy vs. Shame
1½ – 3
Initiative vs. Guilt
3 – 5
Industry vs. Inferiority
5 – 12
Identity vs. Role Confusion
12 – 18
Intimacy vs. Isolation
18 – 40
Generativity vs. Stagnation
40 – 65
Ego Integrity vs. Despair
1. Trust vs. Mistrust
Trust vs. mistrust is the first stage in Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. This stage begins at birth continues to approximately 18 months of age. During this stage, the infant is uncertain about the world in which they live, and looks towards their primary caregiver for stability and consistency of care.
If the care the infant receives is consistent, predictable and reliable, they will develop a sense of trust which will carry with them to other relationships, and they will be able to feel secure even when threatened.
If these needs are not consistently met, mistrust, suspicion, and anxiety may develop.
If the care has been inconsistent, unpredictable and unreliable, then the infant may develop a sense of mistrust, suspicion, and anxiety. In this situation the infant will not have confidence in the world around them or in their abilities to influence events.
Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of hope. By developing a sense of trust, the infant can have hope that as new crises arise, there is a real possibility that other people will be there as a source of support. Failing to acquire the virtue of hope will lead to the development of fear.
This infant will carry the basic sense of mistrust with them to other relationships. It may result in anxiety, heightened insecurities, and an over feeling of mistrust in the world around them.
Consistent with Erikson’s views on the importance of trust, research by Bowlby and Ainsworth has outlined how the quality of the early experience of attachment can affect relationships with others in later life.
2. Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt
Autonomy versus shame and doubt is the second stage of Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. This stage occurs between the ages of 18 months to approximately 3 years. According to Erikson, children at this stage are focused on developing a sense of personal control over physical skills and a sense of independence.
Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of will. If children in this stage are encouraged and supported in their increased independence, they become more confident and secure in their own ability to survive in the world.
If children are criticized, overly controlled, or not given the opportunity to assert themselves, they begin to feel inadequate in their ability to survive, and may then become overly dependent upon others, lack self-esteem, and feel a sense of shame or doubt in their abilities.
What Happens During This Stage?
The child is developing physically and becoming more mobile, and discovering that he or she has many skills and abilities, such as putting on clothes and shoes, playing with toys, etc. Such skills illustrate the child’s growing sense of independence and autonomy.
For example, during this stage children begin to assert their independence, by walking away from their mother, picking which toy to play with, and making choices about what they like to wear, to eat, etc.
What Can Parents Do to Encourage a Sense of Control?
Erikson states it is critical that parents allow their children to explore the limits of their abilities within an encouraging environment which is tolerant of failure.
For example, rather than put on a child’s clothes a supportive parent should have the patience to allow the child to try until they succeed or ask for assistance. So, the parents need to encourage the child to become more independent while at the same time protecting the child so that constant failure is avoided.
A delicate balance is required from the parent. They must try not to do everything for the child, but if the child fails at a particular task they must not criticize the child for failures and accidents (particularly when toilet training).
The aim has to be “self control without a loss of self-esteem” (Gross, 1992).
3. Initiative vs. Guilt
Initiative versus guilt is the third stage of Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. During the initiative versus guilt stage, children assert themselves more frequently.
These are particularly lively, rapid-developing years in a child’s life. According to Bee (1992), it is a “time of vigor of action and of behaviors that the parents may see as aggressive.”
During this period the primary feature involves the child regularly interacting with other children at school. Central to this stage is play, as it provides children with the opportunity to explore their interpersonal skills through initiating activities.
Children begin to plan activities, make up games, and initiate activities with others. If given this opportunity, children develop a sense of initiative and feel secure in their ability to lead others and make decisions.
Conversely, if this tendency is squelched, either through criticism or control, children develop a sense of guilt. The child will often overstep the mark in his forcefulness, and the danger is that the parents will tend to punish the child and restrict his initiatives too much.
It is at this stage that the child will begin to ask many questions as his thirst for knowledge grows. If the parents treat the child’s questions as trivial, a nuisance or embarrassing or other aspects of their behavior as threatening then the child may have feelings of guilt for “being a nuisance”.
Too much guilt can make the child slow to interact with others and may inhibit their creativity. Some guilt is, of course, necessary; otherwise the child would not know how to exercise self-control or have a conscience.
A healthy balance between initiative and guilt is important. Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of purpose, while failure results in a sense of guilt.
4. Industry vs. Inferiority
Erikson’s fourth psychosocial crisis, involving industry (competence) vs. inferiority occurs during childhood between the ages of five and twelve.
Children are at the stage where they will be learning to read and write, to do sums, to do things on their own. Teachers begin to take an important role in the child’s life as they teach the child specific skills.
It is at this stage that the child’s peer group will gain greater significance and will become a major source of the child’s self-esteem. The child now feels the need to win approval by demonstrating specific competencies that are valued by society and begin to develop a sense of pride in their accomplishments.
If children are encouraged and reinforced for their initiative, they begin to feel industrious (competent) and feel confident in their ability to achieve goals. If this initiative is not encouraged, if it is restricted by parents or teacher, then the child begins to feel inferior, doubting his own abilities and therefore may not reach his or her potential.
If the child cannot develop the specific skill they feel society is demanding (e.g., being athletic) then they may develop a sense of inferiority.
Some failure may be necessary so that the child can develop some modesty. Again, a balance between competence and modesty is necessary. Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of competence.
5. Identity vs. Role Confusion
The fifth stage of Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development is identity vs. role confusion, and it occurs during adolescence, from about 12-18 years. During this stage, adolescents search for a sense of self and personal identity, through an intense exploration of personal values, beliefs, and goals.
During adolescence, the transition from childhood to adulthood is most important. Children are becoming more independent, and begin to look at the future in terms of career, relationships, families, housing, etc. The individual wants to belong to a society and fit in.
The adolescent mind is essentially a mind or moratorium, a psychosocial stage between childhood and adulthood, and between the morality learned by the child, and the ethics to be developed by the adult (Erikson, 1963, p. 245)
This is a major stage of development where the child has to learn theroles he will occupy as an adult. It is during this stage that the adolescent will re-examine his identity and try to find out exactly who he or she is. Erikson suggests that two identities are involved: the sexual and the occupational.
According to Bee (1992), what should happen at the end of this stage is “a reintegrated sense of self, of what one wants to do or be, and of one’s appropriate sex role”. During this stage the body image of the adolescent changes.
Erikson claims that the adolescent may feel uncomfortable about their body for a while until they can adapt and “grow into” the changes. Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of fidelity.
Fidelity involves being able to commit one’s self to others on the basis of accepting others, even when there may be ideological differences.
During this period, they explore possibilities and begin to form their own identity based upon the outcome of their explorations. Failure to establish a sense of identity within society (“I don’t know what I want to be when I grow up”) can lead to role confusion. Role confusion involves the individual not being sure about themselves or their place in society.
In response to role confusion or identity crisis, an adolescent may begin to experiment with different lifestyles (e.g., work, education or political activities).
Also pressuring someone into an identity can result in rebellion in the form of establishing a negative identity, and in addition to this feeling of unhappiness.
6. Intimacy vs. Isolation
Intimacy versus isolation is the sixth stage of Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. This stage takes place during young adulthood between the ages of approximately 18 to 40 yrs.
During this period, the major conflict centers on forming intimate, loving relationships with other people.
During this period, we begin to share ourselves more intimately with others. We explore relationships leading toward longer-term commitments with someone other than a family member.
Successful completion of this stage can result in happy relationships and a sense of commitment, safety, and care within a relationship.
Avoiding intimacy, fearing commitment and relationships can lead to isolation, loneliness, and sometimes depression. Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of love.
7. Generativity vs. Stagnation
Generativity versus stagnation is the seventh of eight stages of Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. This stage takes place during during middle adulthood (ages 40 to 65 yrs).
Generativity refers to “making your mark” on the world through creating or nurturing things that will outlast an individual.
People experience a need to create or nurture things that will outlast them, often having mentees or creating positive changes that will benefit other people.
We give back to society through raising our children, being productive at work, and becoming involved in community activities and organizations. Through generativity we develop a sense of being a part of the bigger picture.
Success leads to feelings of usefulness and accomplishment, while failure results in shallow involvement in the world.
By failing to find a way to contribute, we become stagnant and feel unproductive. These individuals may feel disconnected or uninvolved with their community and with society as a whole. Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of care.
8. Ego Integrity vs. Despair
Ego integrity versus despair is the eighth and final stage of Erik Erikson’s stage theory of psychosocial development. This stage begins at approximately age 65 and ends at death.
It is during this time that we contemplate our accomplishments and can develop integrity if we see ourselves as leading a successful life.
Erikson described ego integrity as “the acceptance of one’s one and only life cycle as something that had to be” (1950, p. 268) and later as “a sense of coherence and wholeness” (1982, p. 65).
As we grow older (65+ yrs) and become senior citizens, we tend to slow down our productivity and explore life as a retired person.
Erik Erikson believed if we see our lives as unproductive, feel guilt about our past, or feel that we did not accomplish our life goals, we become dissatisfied with life and develop despair, often leading to depression and hopelessness.
Success in this stage will lead to the virtue of wisdom. Wisdom enables a person to look back on their life with a sense of closure and completeness, and also accept death without fear.
Wise people are not characterized by a continuous state of ego integrity, but they experience both ego integrity and despair. Thus, late life is characterized by both integrity and despair as alternating states that need to be balanced.
By extending the notion of personality development across the lifespan, Erikson outlines a more realistic perspective of personality development (McAdams, 2001).
Based on Erikson’s ideas, psychology has reconceptualized the way the later periods of life are viewed. Middle and late adulthood are no longer viewed as irrelevant, because of Erikson, they are now considered active and significant times of personal growth.
Erikson’s theory has good face validity. Many people find that they can relate to his theories about various stages of the life cycle through their own experiences.
However, Erikson is rather vague about the causes of development. What kinds of experiences must people have to successfully resolve various psychosocial conflicts and move from one stage to another? The theory does not have a universal mechanism for crisis resolution.
Indeed, Erikson (1964) acknowledges his theory is more a descriptive overview of human social and emotional development that does not adequately explain how or why this development occurs. For example, Erikson does not explicitly explain how the outcome of one psychosocial stage influences personality at a later stage.
However, Erikson stressed his work was a ‘tool to think with rather than a factual analysis.’ Its purpose then is to provide a framework within which development can be considered rather than testable theory.
One of the strengths of Erikson’s theory is its ability to tie together important psychosocial development across the entire lifespan.Although support for Erikson’s stages of personality development exists (McAdams, 1999),critics of his theory provide evidence suggesting a lack of discrete stages of personality development (McCrae & Costa, 1997)
PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY; was developed by Freud, and it explains personality in terms of conscious and unconscious forces. This social work theory describes the personality as consisting of the id (responsible for following basic instincts), the superego (attempts to follow rules and behave morally), and the ego (mediates between the id and the ego).
Psychodynamic theory (sometimes called psychoanalytic theory) explains personality in terms of unconscious psychological processes (for example, wishes and fears of which we’re not fully aware), and contends that childhood experiences are crucial in shaping adult personality. Psychodynamic theory is most closely associated with the work of Sigmund Freud, and with psychoanalysis, a type of psychotherapy that attempts to explore the patient’s unconscious thoughts and emotions so that the person is better able to understand him- or herself.
Freud’s work has been extremely influential, its impact extending far beyond psychology (several years ago Time magazine selected Freud as one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century). Freud’s work has been not only influential, but quite controversial as well. As you might imagine, when Freud suggested in 1900 that much of our behavior is determined by psychological forces of which we’re largely unaware—that we literally don’t know what’s going on in our own minds—people were (to put it mildly) displeased . When he suggested in 1905 that we humans have strong sexual feelings from a very early age, and that some of these sexual feelings are directed toward our parents, people were more than displeased—they were outraged ( Few theories in psychology have evoked such strong reactions from other professionals and members of the public.
Controversy notwithstanding, no competent psychologist, or student of psychology, can ignore psychodynamic theory. It is simply too important for psychological science and practice, and continues to play an important role in a wide variety of disciplines within and outside psychology (for example, developmental psychology, social psychology, sociology, and neuroscience; see . This module reviews the psychodynamic perspective on personality. We begin with a brief discussion of the core assumptions of psychodynamic theory, followed by an overview of the evolution of the theory from Freud’s time to today. We then discuss the place of psychodynamic theory within contemporary psychology, and look toward the future as well.
Core Assumptions of the Psychodynamic Perspective
The core assumptions of psychodynamic theory are surprisingly simple. Moreover, these assumptions are unique to the psychodynamic framework: No other theories of personality accept these three ideas in their purest form.
Assumption 1:Primacy of the Unconscious
Psychodynamic theorists contend that the majority of psychological processes take place outside conscious awareness. In psychoanalytic terms, the activities of the mind (or psyche) are presumed to be largely unconscious. Research confirms this basic premise of psychoanalysis: Many of our mental activities—memories, motives, feelings, and the like—are largely inaccessible to consciousness
Assumption 2: Critical Importance of Early Experiences
Psychodynamic theory is not alone in positing that early childhood events play a role in shaping personality, but the theory is unique in the degree to which it emphasizes these events as determinants of personality development and dynamics. According to the psychodynamic model, early experiences—including those occurring during the first weeks or months of life—set in motion personality processes that affect us years, even decades, later . This is especially true of experiences that are outside the normal range (for example, losing a parent or sibling at a very early age).
Assumption 3: Psychic Causality
The third core assumption of psychodynamic theory is that nothing in mental life happens by chance—that there is no such thing as a random thought, feeling, motive, or behavior. This has come to be known as the principle of and though few psychologists accept the principle of psychic causality precisely as psychoanalysts conceive it, most theorists and researchers agree that thoughts, motives, emotional responses, and expressed behaviors do not arise randomly, but always stem from some combination of identifiable biological and psychological processes
The Evolution of Psychodynamic Theory
Given Freud’s background in neurology, it is not surprising that the first incarnation of psychoanalytic theory was primarily biological: Freud set out to explain psychological phenomena in terms that could be linked to neurological functioning as it was understood in his day. Because Freud’s work in this area evolved over more than 50 years (he began in 1885, and continued until he died in 1939), there were numerous revisions along the way. Thus, it is most accurate to think of psychodynamic theory as a set of interrelated models that complement and build upon each other. Three are particularly important: the topographic model, the psychosexual stage model, and the structural model.
The Topographic Model
In his 1900 book, The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud introduced histopographic of the mind, which contended that the mind could be divided into three regions: conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. The conscious part of the mind holds information that you’re focusing on at this moment—what you’re thinking and feeling right now. The preconscious contains material that is capable of becoming conscious but is not conscious at the moment because your attention is not being directed toward it. You can move material from the preconscious into consciousness simply by focusing your attention on it. Consider, for example, what you had for dinner last night. A moment ago that information was preconscious; now it’s conscious, because you “pulled it up” into consciousness. (Not to worry, in a few moments it will be preconscious again, and you can move on to more important things.)
The unconscious—the most controversial part of the topographic model—contains anxiety-producing material (for example, sexual impulses, aggressive urges) that are deliberately repressed (held outside of conscious awareness as a form of self-protection because they make you uncomfortable). The terms conscious, preconscious, and unconscious continue to be used today in psychology, and research has provided considerable support for Freud’s thinking regarding conscious and preconscious processing The existence of the unconscious remains controversial, with some researchers arguing that evidence for it is compelling and others contending that “unconscious” processing can be accounted for without positing the existence of a Freudian repository of repressed wishes and troubling urges and impulses
The Psychosexual Stage Model
Freud remained devoted to the topographic model, but by 1905 he had outlined the key elements of his l, which argued that early in life we progress through a sequence of developmental stages, each with its own unique challenge and its own mode of sexual gratification. Freud’s psychosexual stages—oral, anal, Oedipal, latency, and genital—are well-known even to non-analytic psychologists. Frustration or overgratification during a particular stage was hypothesized to result in “fixation” at that stage, and to the development of an oral, anal, or Oedipal personality style
Table 1 illustrates the basic organization of Freud’s psychosexual stage model, and the three personality styles that result. Note that—consistent with the developmental challenges that the child confronts during each stage—oral fixation is hypothesized to result in a dependent personality, whereas anal fixation results in a lifelong preoccupation with control. Oedipal fixation leads to an aggressive, competitive personality orientation.
The Structural Model
Ultimately, Freud recognized that the topographic model was helpful in understanding how people process and store information, but not all that useful in explaining other important psychological phenomena (for example, why certain people develop psychological disorders and others do not). To extend his theory, Freud developed a complementary framework to account for normal and abnormal personality development—thestructu model which posits the existence of three interacting mental structures called the id, ego, and superego. The id is the seat of drives and instincts, whereas the ego represents the logical, reality-oriented part of the mind, and the superego is basically your conscience—the moral guidelines, rules, and prohibitions that guide your behavior. (You acquire these through your family and through the culture in which you were raised.)
According to the structural model, our personality reflects the interplay of these three psychic structures, which differ across individuals in relative power and influence. When the id predominates and instincts rule, the result is an impulsive personality style. When the superego is strongest, moral prohibitions reign supreme, and a restrained, overcontrolled personality ensues. When the ego is dominant, a more balanced set of personality traits develop
The Ego and Its Defenses
In addition to being the logical, rational, reality-oriented part of the mind, the ego serves another important function: It helps us manage anxiety through the use ofego defenses. Ego defenses are basically mental strategies that we use automatically and unconsciously when we feel threatened . They help us navigate upsetting events, but there’s a cost as well: All ego defenses involve some distortion of reality. For example, repression (the most basic ego defense, according to Freud) involves removing from consciousness upsetting thoughts and feelings, and moving those thoughts and feelings to the unconscious. When you read about a person who “blocked out” upsetting memories of child abuse, that’s an example of repression.
Another ego defense is denial. In denial (unlike repression), we are aware that a particular event occurred, but we don’t allow ourselves to see the implications of that event. When you hear a person with a substance abuse problem say “I’m fine—even though people complain about my drinking I never miss a day of work,” that person is using denial. Table 2 lists some common ego defenses in psychodynamic theory, along with a definition and example of each.
Psychodynamic Theories: Where Are We Now?
The topographic model, psychosexual stage model, and structural model continue to influence contemporary psychology, but it is important to keep in mind that psychodynamic theory is never static, ever changing and evolving in response to new ideas and findings. In the following sections we discussion four current trends in the psychodynamic perspective: object relations theory, the empirical testing of psychodynamic concepts, psychoanalysis and culture, and the opportunities and challenges of neuroscience.
Object Relations Theory and the Growth of the Psychodynamic Perspective
In recent years a number of new psychodynamic frameworks have emerged to explain personality development and dynamics. The most important of these is object relation theory. (In psychoanalytic language, the term “object” refers to a person, so object relations theory is really something more like “interpersonal relations theory.”)
Object relations theory contends that personality can be understood as reflecting the mental images of significant figures (especially the parents) that we form early in life in response to interactions taking place within the family These mental images (sometimes called introjects) serve as templates for later interpersonal relationships—almost like relationship blueprints or “scripts.” So if you internalized positive introjects early in life (for example, a mental image of mom or dad as warm and accepting), that’s what you expect to occur in later relationships as well. If you internalized a mental image of mom or dad as harsh and judgmental, you might instead become a self-critical person, and feel that you can never live up to other people’s standards . . . or your own .
Object relations theory has increased many psychologists’ interest in studying psychodynamic ideas and concepts, in part because it represents a natural bridge between the psychodynamic perspective and research in other areas of psychology. For example, developmental and social psychologists also believe that mental representations of significant people play an important role in shaping our behavior. In developmental psychology you might read about this in the context of attachment theory (which argues that attachments—or bonds—to significant people are key to understanding human behavior; In social psychology, mental representations of significant figures play an important role in social cognition (thoughts and feelings regarding other people;
Empirical Research on Psychodynamic Theories
Empirical research assessing psychodynamic concepts has produced mixed results, with some concepts receiving good empirical support, and others not faring as well. For example, the notion that we express strong sexual feelings from a very early age, as the psychosexual stage model suggests, has not held up to empirical scrutiny. On the other hand, the idea that there are dependent, control-oriented, and competitive personality types—an idea also derived from the psychosexual stage model—does seem useful.
Many ideas from the psychodynamic perspective have been studied empirically. Luborsky and Barrett reviewed much of this research; other useful reviews are provided by Bornstein Gerber , and Huprich. For now, let’s look at three psychodynamic hypotheses that have received strong empirical support.
Unconscious processes influence our behavior as the psychodynamic perspective predicts. We perceive and process much more information than we realize, and much of our behavior is shaped by feelings and motives of which we are, at best, only partially aware Evidence for the importance of unconscious influences is so compelling that it has become a central element of contemporary cognitive and social psychology
We all use ego defenses and they help determine our psychological adjustment and physical health. People really do differ in the degree that they rely on different ego defenses—so much so that researchers now study each person’s “defense style” (the unique constellation of defenses that we use). It turns out that certain defenses are more adaptive than others: Rationalization and sublimation are healthier (psychologically speaking) than repression and reaction formation Denial is, quite literally, bad for your health, because people who use denial tend to ignore symptoms of illness until it’s too late .
Mental representations of self and others do indeed serve as blueprints for later relationships. Dozens of studies have shown that mental images of our parents, and other significant figures, really do shape our expectations for later friendships and romantic relationships. The idea that you choose a romantic partner who resembles mom or dad is a myth, but it’s true that you expect to be treated by others as you were treated by your parents early in life
Psychoanalysis and Culture
One of Freud’s lifelong goals was to use psychoanalytic principles to understand culture and improve intergroup relations (he actually exchanged several letters with Albert Einstein prior to World War II, in which they discussed this issue). During the past several decades, as society has become increasingly multicultural, this effort has taken on new importance; psychoanalysts have been active in incorporating ideas and findings regarding cultural influences into their research and clinical work. For example, studies have shown that individuals raised in individualistic, independence-focused cultures (for example, the United States, Great Britain) tend to define themselves primarily in terms of personal attributes (like attitudes and interests), whereas individuals raised in more sociocentric, interdependent cultures (for example, Japan, India) are more likely to describe themselves in terms of interpersonal relations and connections with others. Our self-representations are, quite literally, a product of our cultural milieu .
The Opportunities and Challenges of Neuroscience
Fifteen years ago, Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel articulated a vision for an empirically oriented psychodynamic perspective firmly embedded within the principles and findings of neuroscience. Kandel’s vision ultimately led to the development of nuropsychoanalysis, an integration of psychodynamic and neuropsychological concepts that has enhanced researchers’ understanding of numerous aspects of human behavior and mental functioning Some of the first efforts to integrate psychodynamic principles with findings from neuroscience involved sleep and dreams, and contemporary models of dream formation now incorporate principles from both domains. Neuroimaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imagery (fMRI) have begun to play an increasingly central role in this ongoing psychoanalysis–neuroscience integration as well
Looking Ahead: Psychodynamic Theory in the 21st Century (and Beyond)
Despite being surrounded by controversy, the psychodynamic perspective on personality has survived for more than a century, reinventing itself in response to new empirical findings, theoretical shifts, and changing social forces. The psychodynamic perspective evolved considerably during the 20th century and will continue to evolve throughout the 21st century as well. Psychodynamic theory may be the closest thing we have to an overarching, all-encompassing theory in psychology. It deals with a broad range of issues—normal and pathological functioning, motivation and emotion, childhood and adulthood, individual and culture—and the psychodynamic perspective continues to have tremendous potential for integrating ideas and findings across the many domains of contemporary psychology.
Social exchange theory is a broad social psychological perspective that attempts to explain how human social relationships are formed, maintained, and terminated. The basic premise of this theory is that how people feel about a given interaction or relationship depends fundamentally on the outcomes that they perceive to be associated with it. More specifically, the perceived costs and benefits that accompany a person’s interactions determine how he or she evaluates them. To the extent that rewards are seen as high and costs are seen as low, a person tends to feel good about a relationship and will stay in it. If perceived costs increase or perceived benefits decrease, however, satisfaction with the relationship will decline and the person is more likely to end it.
Because social exchange theory is very general in nature, it can be readily applied to understanding a variety of different social relationships and situations. For instance, social exchange principles can provide insight into people’s business relationships, friendships, and romantic partnerships, among other types of social involvements. In addition, these principles can be applied to understanding relationships involving individual people or social groups.
Theoretical Background and Principles of Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory is based on the idea that people seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs in any given social relationship. Rewards can consist of anything tangible or intangible that an individual considers valuable. For instance, business relationships may provide several concrete benefits, such as income or material goods, in addition to several more abstract benefits, such as prestige and a sense of security. Costs include anything that an individual considers to be unrewarding or sees as requiring a significant amount of time or effort. For example, romantic relationships may involve costs such as shared housework and spending vacations with one’s in-laws (which, for some people, can be extremely unpleasant). Of course, the evaluation of rewards and costs is highly subjective because that which is rewarding for one individual might not be quite as rewarding for another person. Similarly, that which is considered rewarding in one relationship might not be perceived as rewarding in a different social involvement.
People’s evaluations of perceived rewards and costs influence how satisfied they are with their relationships and the relative stability of those relationships. Satisfaction with a relationship is determined by considering one’s outcome comparison level (i.e., the standard by which one judges his or her current relationship’s outcomes). For instance, a person may compare his or her current outcomes with those he or she has received in a past relationship of a similar type. So, you might compare how things are going now with your current boyfriend or girlfriend with how things went with past romantic partners. To the extent that a person’s current outcomes exceed his or her previous outcomes, the person is satisfied with a relationship and desires it to continue. However, if a person’s current outcomes don’t compare favorably to his or her previous outcomes, the person becomes dissatisfied and is less likely to work at furthering the relationship. People compare their current outcomes not only to past outcomes but also to those that they could be receiving now in other potential relationships (referred to as the comparison level for alternatives). To the extent that the outcomes people perceive as possible within an alternative relationship are better than those that they are receiving in their current relationship, they are less likely to continue in the current relationship.
Reward-to-cost ratios and comparison levels are subject to change over time, as individuals continually take stock of what they have gained and lost in their relationships. This implies that relationships that a person found satisfying at one point in time may become dissatisfying later because of changes in perceived rewards and costs. This may occur because certain factors may become less rewarding or more costly over time. For instance, sex may be extremely rewarding for members of a newly married couple but may become less so as passion and spontaneity decrease over the years.
Finally, people’s perceptions of their relationships also depend on whether the exchanges that occur are viewed as equitable. Equitable or fair exchanges are necessary to avoid conflict between relationship partners. For instance, assume that there is favorable exchange for all parties involved in an ongoing relationship, but one party is receiving substantially greater benefits than the other. Such a scenario may be perceived as unfair because distributive justice is not present (i.e., outcomes are being distributed unequally). In this case, individuals with worse outcomes may feel exploited and have negative feelings about their exchange partner, which may ultimately affect how committed they are to continuing the relationship.
Social Exchange Theory Example
A recent college graduate accepts his or her first job with a large corporation because it has an excellent reputation and pays well. At first, the graduate loves the new job. Eventually, however, he or she comes to realize that his or her supervisor does not treat the graduate with respect, and he or she is so overworked that there is little time to enjoy the large salary. The graduate considers leaving the current job and starting his or her own company. This is seen as desirable because it would allow the graduate to be his or her own boss and set his or her own hours. Then the graduate receives a promotion at work. No longer having to work as many hours and free from the previous supervisor, the graduate decides to renew the contract with the corporation.
Limitations of Social Exchange Theory
Social exchange theory is limited in some ways. For example, the theory does not address the role of altruism in determining relationship outcomes. That is, people do not always act in self-interested ways (i.e., maximizing rewards and minimizing costs). For instance, in intimate relationships, people act communally, working for the benefit of their partner or relationship, sometimes even at great cost to oneself. Although evidence for this has been found for romantic relationships, this may not hold for other types of involvements, such as business relationships. Therefore, although social exchange principles have implications for a variety of different types of social relationships, they may explain some types of relationships better than others.
HOW SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY APPLIES TO THE WORKPLACE
1. Employees work extremely hard but aren’t recognized for their efforts
Even the most hardworking person in the world will be at the end of their rope sooner or later if nobody ever tells them they’re doing a good job. What’s the point in busting your tail if nobody notices? According to our research, less than 33% of today’s workers feel valued at their jobs. At any given time, no matter how hard they’re working, as much as two-thirds of your entire staff may feel as though they’re working really hard but not really getting much benefit out of it.
This is why employee recognition programs are so critical. They don’t have to suck up a lot of time or resources to make a big difference. By recognizing your employees’ hard work on a regular basis, you add more benefits to the social exchange theory equation.
2. Employees work extremely hard but aren’t paid well for their efforts
The rent doesn’t pay itself. Even if your employees are very prominently recognized for their hard work, compliments and awards can’t be deposited in the bank. Yes, recognition is part of the puzzle. But money is usually a much bigger piece.
According to our report, nearly 25% of employees would take a job somewhere else if it came with a 10% bump in pay. Since it costs alot of money to hire employees than keep existing ones, you’d be wise to recognize your employees’ efforts with cold, hard cash.
3. Employees realize they’re in a terrible atmosphere
Ever had a job that you dreaded showing up to each day? Maybe there was a toxic environment. Maybe some of your coworkers were outright mean to you. Whatever the case may be, it’s safe to say that, unless you were making a killing, you probably daydreamed about getting a new job every day.
When employees reach the breaking point, there’s no turning back. This is why, according to ehow, organizations should do everything within their power to create and nurture a friendly, inclusive environment.
Believe it or not, coworkers are the number one thing employees love about their jobs, according to our report. The stronger the relationships between your employees and their coworkers, the better the atmosphere in the office will be.
4. Employees realize they are picking up way too much slack for their coworkers
Even if your workers get along with their colleagues fabulously, there comes a point in time where slackers start really getting on the nerves of those who consistently produce. Nobody wants to work incredibly hard on a daily basis only to watch their coworkers do nothing — without getting punished for their lack of action.
Rather than letting lazy employees pollute the atmosphere in your office, survey your employees on a regular basis so that they’re able to let you know what’s wrong before it becomes an enormous problem.
5. Managers have rock-star employees who are the best at what they do. Thing is, they have a hard time following rules
From management’s perspective, hardworking employees who consistently overdeliver and can be relied on to get the job done are obviously desirable. But even the best employees in the world can’t get away with everything.
Managers can’t hold their employees to different sets of standards. There may come a point in time when some of your most highly skilled workers push the envelope a bit too far. In the interest of maintaining a happy staff — one where everyone is treated equally — you may be forced to sever ties with talented individuals.
To prevent a situation from ever reaching that point, make sure all of your employees know exactly what’s expected of them. If your rock-star employee is always coming in 90 minutes late and leaving an hour early, let that person know right away that the behavior is completely unacceptable.
6. Though they like a product, customers can decide dealing with a company is too much of a hassle
Customers are not immune to social exchange theory either. Imagine a customer is in love with a certain brand. They love everything the brand puts out. The products are well made and affordable. Now imagine that shopper has a customer service issue. They call the company, only to be greeted with subpar service that’s quite frankly a bit rude too.
Rather than continuing to deal with the company, the customer might decide that it’s no longer worth it and take their business elsewhere.
As you can see, social exchange theory plays an enormous role in the workplace and employee engagement. The good news is that managers who understand the theory and actively manage relationships in tune with it are likely to have happier staffs and more satisfied customers.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Cook, K. S., & Rice, E. (2003). Social exchange theory. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 53-76). New York: Kluwer.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior and its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
In contrast to both the often dark, subconscious emphasis of the psychodynamic theorists and the somewhat cold, calculated perspectives of behavioral/cognitive theorists, the humanistic psychologists focus on each individual’s potential for personal growth and self-actualization. Carl Rogers was influenced by strong religious experiences (both in America and in China) and his early clinical career in a children’s hospital. Consequently, he developed his therapeutic techniques and the accompanying theory in accordance with a positive and hopeful perspective. Rogers also focused on the unique characteristics and viewpoint of individuals.
Abraham Maslow is best known for his extensive studies on
the most salient feature of the humanistic perspective: self-actualization. He is also the one who referred to humanistic
psychology as the third force, after the psychodynamic and behavioral/cognitive
perspectives, and he specifically addressed the need for psychology to move
beyond its study of unhealthy individuals.
He was also interested in the psychology of the work place, and his
recognition in the business field has perhaps made him the most famous psychologist.
Henry Murray was an enigmatic figure, who seemingly
failed to properly acknowledge the woman who inspired much of his work, and who
believed his life had been something of a failure. Perhaps he felt remorse as a result of
maintaining an extramarital affair with the aforementioned woman, thanks in
large part to the advice and help of Carl Jung!
Murray extended a primarily psychodynamic perspective to the study of
human needs in normal individuals. His
Thematic Apperception Test was one of the first psychological tests applied
outside of a therapeutic setting, and it provided the basis for studying the
need for achievement (something akin to a learned form of
Carl Rogers and Humanistic Psychology
Carl Rogers is the psychologist many people associate
first with humanistic psychology, but he did not establish the field in the way
that Freud established psychoanalysis. A
few years older than Abraham Maslow, and having moved into clinical practice
more directly, Rogers felt a need to develop a new theoretical perspective that
fit with his clinical observations and personal beliefs. Thus, he was proposing a humanistic approach
to psychology and, more specifically, psychotherapy before Maslow. It was Maslow, however, who used the term
humanistic psychology as a direct contrast to behaviorism and
psychoanalysis. And it was Maslow who
contacted some friends, in 1954, in order to begin meetings that led to the
creation of the American Association for Humanistic Psychology. Rogers was included in that group, but so
were Erich Fromm and Karen Horney, both of whom had distinctly humanistic
elements in their own theories, elements that shared a common connection to
Alfred Adler’s Individual Psychology (Stagner, 1988). In addition, the spiritual aspects of
humanistic psychology, such as peak experiences and transcendence, have roots
in the work of Carl Jung and William James, and go even further back in time to
ancient philosophies of Yoga and Buddhism.
In at least one important way, Rogers’ career was similar
to that of Sigmund Freud. As he began
his clinical career, he found that the techniques he had been taught were not
very effective. So, he began
experimenting with his own ideas, and developing his own therapeutic
approach. As that approach developed, so
did a unique theory of personality that aimed at explaining the effectiveness
of the therapy. Rogers found it
difficult to explain what he had learned, but he felt quite passionately about
real meaning of a word can never be expressed in words, because the real
meaning would be the thing itself. If
one wishes to give such a real meaning he should put his hand over his mouth
and point. This is what I should most like to do. I would willingly throw away all the words of
this manuscript if I could, somehow, effectively point to the experience which is therapy. It is a process, a thing-in-itself, an
experience, a relationship, a dynamic… (pp. ix; Rogers, 1951)
Brief Biography of Carl Rogers
Carl Ransom Rogers was born on January 8, 1902, in
Chicago, Illinois. His parents were
well-educated, and his father was a successful civil engineer. His parents loved their six children, of whom
Rogers was the fourth, but they exerted a distinct control over them. They were fundamentalist Christians, who
emphasized a close-knit family and constant, productive work, but approved of
little else. The Rogers household
expected standards of behavior appropriate for the ‘elect’ of God: there was no drinking of alcohol, no dancing,
no visits to the theater, no card games, and little social life at all
(DeCarvalho, 1991; Thorne, 2003).
Rogers was not the healthiest of children, and his family
considered him to be overly sensitive.
The more his family teased him, the more he retreated into a lonely
world of fantasy. He sought consolation
by reading books, and he was well above his grade level for reading when he began
school. In 1914 the family moved to a
large farm west of Chicago, a move motivated primarily by a desire to keep the
children away from the temptations of suburban city life. The result was even more isolation for
Rogers, who lamented that he’d only had two dates by the end of high
school. He continued to learn, however,
becoming something of an expert on the large moths that lived in the area. In addition, his father encouraged the
children to develop their own ventures, and Rogers and his brothers raised a
variety of livestock. Given these
interests, and in keeping with family tradition, Rogers enrolled in the
University of Wisconsin-Madison to study scientific agriculture (DeCarvalho,
1991; Thorne, 2003).
During his first year of college, Rogers attended a
Sunday morning group of students led by Professor George Humphrey. Professor Humphrey was a facilitative leader,
who refused to be conventional and who encouraged the students to make their
own decisions. Rogers found the
intellectual freedom very stimulating, and he also began to make close
friends. This increased intellectual and
emotional energy led Rogers to re-examine his commitment to Christianity. Given his strong religious faith, he decided
to change his major to history, in anticipation of a career as a Christian
minister. He was fortunate to be chosen
as one of only twelve students from America to attend a World Student Christian
Federation conference in Peking, China.
He traveled throughout China (also visiting Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, the
Philippines, and Hawaii) for 6 months, surrounded by other intelligent and
creative young people. He kept a
detailed journal, and wrote lengthy letters to his family and Helen Elliott, a
childhood friend whom he considered to be his “sweetheart.” His mind was stretched in all directions by
this profound cross-cultural experience, and the intellectual and spiritual
freedom he was embracing blinded him to the fact that his fundamentalist family
was deeply disturbed by what he had to say.
However, by the time Rogers was aware of his family’s disapproval, he
had been changed, and he believed that people of very different cultures and
faiths can all be sincere and honest (Kirschenbaum, 1995; Thorne, 2003). As a curious side note, Rogers’ roommate on
the trip was a Black seminary professor.
Rogers was vaguely aware that it was strange at that time for a Black
man and a White man to room together, but he was particularly surprised at the
stares they received from the Chinese people they met, who had never seen a Black
person before (Rogers & Russell, 2002).
After his return from China, Rogers graduated from college, and 2 months
later he married Helen. Again his family
disapproved, believing that the young couple should be more established
first. But Rogers had been accepted to
the Union Theological Seminary in New York City, and both he and Helen wanted
to be together. His family may have
wanted them to wait because Union Theological Seminary was, perhaps, the most
liberal seminary in America at the time (DeCarvalho, 1991; Rogers &
Russell, 2002; Thorne, 2003).
Rogers spent 2 years at the seminary, including a summer
assignment as the pastor of a small church in Vermont. However, his desire not to impose his own
beliefs on others, made it difficult for him to preach. He began taking courses at nearby Teachers’
College of Columbia University, where he learned about clinical and educational
psychology, as well as working with disturbed children. He then transferred to Teachers’ College, and
after writing a dissertation in which he developed a test for measuring
personality adjustment in children, he earned his Ph.D. in Clinical
Psychology. Then, in 1928, he began
working at the Rochester Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(DeCarvalho, 1991; Thorne, 2003).
Rogers was immersed in his work in Rochester for 12
years. He found that even the most
elaborate theories made little sense when dealing with children who had
suffered severe psychological damage after traveling through the courts and the
social work systems. So Rogers developed
his own approach, and did his best to help them. Many of his colleagues, including the
director, had no particular therapeutic orientation:
When I would try to see what I could
do to alter their behavior, sometimes they would refuse to see me the next
time. I’d have a hard time getting them
to come from the detention home to my office, and that would cause me to think,
“What is it that I did that offended the child?” Well, usually it was overinterpretation, or
getting too smart in analyzing the causes of behavior…So we approached every
situation with much more of a question of “What can we do to help?” rather than
“What is the mysterious cause of this behavior?” or “What theory does the child
fit into?” It was a very good place for
learning in that it was easy to be open to experience, and there was certainly
no pressure to fit into any particular pattern of thought. (pg. 108; Rogers
& Russell, 2002)
Eventually Rogers wrote a book outlining his work with
children, The Clinical Treatment of the
Problem Child(Rogers, 1939), which received excellent reviews. He was offered a professorship at Ohio State
University. Beginning as a full
professor gave Rogers a great deal of freedom, and he was frequently invited to
give talks. It has been suggested that
one such talk, in December 1940, at the University of Minnesota, entitled “Newer
Concepts in Psychotherapy,” was the official birthday of client-centered
therapy. Very popular with his students,
Rogers was not so welcome amongst his colleagues. Rogers believed that his work was particularly
threatening to those colleagues who believed that only their own expertise
could make psychotherapy effective.
After only 4 years, during which he published Counseling and Psychotherapy (Rogers, 1942), Rogers moved on to the
University of Chicago, where he established the counseling center, wrote Client-Centered Therapy (Rogers, 1951)
and contributed several chapters to Psychotherapy
and Personality Change (Rogers & Dymond, 1954), and in 1956 received a Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award
from the American Psychological Association.
Then, in 1957, he accepted a joint appointment in psychiatry and
psychology at the University of Wisconsin to study psychotic individuals. Rogers had serious doubts about leaving
Chicago, but felt that the joint appointment would allow him to make a dramatic
contribution to psychotherapy. It was a
serious mistake. He did not get along
with his colleagues in the psychology department, whom he considered to be
antagonistic, outdated, “rat-oriented,” and distrustful of clinical psychology,
and so he resigned. He kept his appointment
in the psychiatry department, however, and in 1961 published perhaps his most
influential book, On Becoming a Person
In 1963, Rogers moved to California to join the Western
Behavioral Sciences Institute, at the invitation of one of his former students,
Richard Farson. This was a non-profit
institute dedicated to the study of humanistically-oriented interpersonal
relations. Rogers was leery of making another
major move, but eventually agreed. He
became very active in research on encounter groups and educational theory. Five years later, when Farson left the
institute, there was a change in its direction.
Rogers was unhappy with the changes, so he joined some colleagues in
leaving and establishing the Center for Studies of the Person, where he
remained until his death. In his later
years, Rogers wrote books on topics such as personal power and marriage
(Rogers, 1972, 1977). In 1980, he
published A Way of Being (Rogers,
1980), in which he changed the terminology of his perspective from
“client-centered” to “person-centered.”
With the assistance of his daughter Natalie, who had studied with
Abraham Maslow, he held many group workshops on life, family, business,
education, and world peace. He traveled
to regions where tension and danger were high, including Poland, Russia, South
Africa, and Northern Ireland. In 1985 he
brought together influential leaders of seventeen Central American countries
for a peace conference in Austria. The
day he died, February 4, 1987, without knowing it, he had just been nominated
for the Nobel Peace Prize (DeCarvalho, 1991; Kirschenbaum, 1995; Thorne, 2003).
Rogers in Context: A Psychology 2,600
Years in the Making
Carl Rogers was an extraordinary
individual whose approach to psychology emphasized individuality. Raised with a strong Christian faith,
exposed to Eastern culture and spirituality in college, and then employed as
a therapist for children, he came to value and respect each person he
met. Because of that respect for the
ability of each person to grow, and the belief that we are innately driven toward
actualization, Rogers began the distinctly humanistic approach to
psychotherapy that became known as client-centered therapy.
Taken together, client-centered therapy
and self-actualization offer a far more positive approach to fostering the
growth of each person than most other disciplines in psychology. Unlike the existing approaches of
psychoanalysis, which aimed to uncover problems from the past, or behavior
therapies, which aimed to identify problem behaviors and control or “fix”
them, client-centered therapy grew out of Rogers’ simple desire to help his
clients move forward in their lives.
Indeed, he had been trained as a psychoanalyst, but Rogers found the
techniques unsatisfying, both in their goals and their ability to help the
children he was working with at the time.
The seemingly hands-off approach of client-centered therapy fit well
with a Taoist perspective, something Rogers had studied, discussed, and
debated during his trip to China. In A Way of Being, Rogers (1980) quotes
what he says is perhaps his favorite saying, one which sums up many of his
If I keep from meddling with
people, they take care of themselves, If I keep from commanding people,
they behave themselves, If I keep from preaching at people,
they improve themselves, If I keep from imposing on people,
they become themselves. Lao
Tsu, c600 B.C.; Note: This translation differs somewhat from the one cited in the References. I have included the translation Rogers
quoted, since the difference likely
influenced his impression of this saying.
Rogers, like Maslow, wanted to see
psychology contribute far more to society than merely helping individuals
with psychological distress. He
extended his sincere desire to help people learn to really communicate, with
empathic understanding, to efforts aimed at bringing peace to the world. On the day he died, he had just been
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since a Nobel Prize cannot be awarded to someone who has died, he was
not eligible to be nominated again. If
he had lived a few more years, he may well have received that award. His later years were certainly committed to
peace in a way that deserved such recognition.
Rogers believed that each of us lives in a constantly
changing private world, which he called the experiential field. Everyone
exists at the center of their own experiential field, and that field can only
be fully understood from the perspective of the individual. This concept has a number of important
implications. The individual’s behavior
must be understood as a reaction to their experience and perception of the
field. They react to it as an organized
whole, and it is their reality. The
problem this presents for the therapist is that only the individual can really
understand their experiential field.
This is quite different than the Freudian perspective, in which only the
trained and objective psychoanalyst can break through the defense mechanisms and
understand the basis of the patient’s unconscious impulses. One’s perception of the experiential field is
limited, however. Rogers believed that
certain impulses, or sensations, can only enter into the conscious field of
experience under certain circumstances.
Thus, the experiential field is not a true reality, but rather an
individual’s potential reality (Rogers, 1951).
The one basic tendency and striving of the individual is
to actualize, maintain, and enhance the experiencing of the individual or, in
other words, an actualizing tendency. Rogers borrowed the term self-actualization, a term first used by Kurt Goldstein, to
describe this basic striving.
tendency of normal life is toward activity and progress. For the sick, the only form of
self-actualization that remains is the maintenance of the existent state. That, however, is not the tendency of the
normal…Under adequate conditions the normal organism seeks further activity.
(pp. 162-163; Goldstein, 1934/1995).
self-actualization was a tendency to move forward, toward greater maturity and
independence, or self-responsibility.
This development occurs throughout life, both biologically (the
differentiation of a fertilized egg into the many organ systems of the body)
and psychologically (self-government, self-regulation, socialization, even to
the point of choosing life goals). A key
factor in understanding self-actualization is the experiential field. A person’s needs are defined, as well as
limited, by their own potential for experience.
Part of this experiential field is an individual’s emotions, feelings,
and attitudes. Therefore, who the
individual is, their actual self, is
critical in determining the nature and course of their self-actualization
(Rogers, 1951). We will examine Maslow’s
work on self-actualization in more detail below.
What then, is the self?
In Rogers’ (1951) initial description of his theory of personality, the
experiential field is described in four points, the self-actualizing tendency
in three points, and the remaining eleven points attempt to define the
self. First and foremost, the self is a
differentiated portion of the experiential field. In other words, the self is that part of our
private world that we identify as “me,” “myself,” or “I.” Beyond that, the self remains somewhat
puzzling. Can the self exist in
isolation, outside of relationships that provide some context for the
self? Must the self be synonymous with
the physical body? As Rogers’ pointed
out, when our foot “goes to sleep” from a lack of circulation, we view it as an
object, not as a part of our self!
Despite these challenging questions, Rogers tried to define and describe
Rogers believed the self is formed in relation to others;
it is an organized, fluid, yet consistent conceptual pattern of our
experiential interactions with the environment and the values attached to those
experiences. These experiences are
symbolized and incorporated into the structure of the self, and our behavior is
guided largely by how well new experiences fit within that structure. We may behave in ways inconsistent with the structure
of our self, but when we do we will not “own” that behavior. When experiences are so inconsistent that we
cannot symbolize them, or fit them into the structure of our self, the
potential for psychological distress arises.
On the other hand, when our concept of self is mature enough to
incorporate all of our perceptions and experiences, and we can assimilate those
experiences symbolically into our self, our psychological adjustment will be
quite healthy. Individuals who find it
difficult to assimilate new and different experiences, those experiences that
threaten the structure of the self, will develop an increasingly rigid self-structure. Healthy individuals, in contrast, will
assimilate new experiences, their self-structure will change and continue to
grow, and they will become more capable of understanding and accepting others
as individuals (Rogers, 1951).
The ability of individuals to make the choices necessary
for actualizing their self-structure and to then fulfill those choices is what
Rogers called personal power
(Rogers, 1977). He believed there are
many self-actualized individuals revolutionizing the world by trusting their
own power, without feeling a need to have “power over” others. They are also willing to foster the latent
actualizing tendency in others. We can
easily see the influence of Alfred Adler here, both in terms of the creative
power of the individual and seeking superiority within a healthy context of
social interest. Client-centered therapy was based on making the context of personal
power a clear strategy in the therapeutic relationship:
…the client-centered approach is a
conscious renunciation and avoidance by the therapist of all control over, or
decision-making for, the client. It is
the facilitation of self-ownership by the client and the strategies by which
this can be achieved…based on the premise that the human being is basically a
trustworthy organism, capable of…making constructive choices as to the next
steps in life, and acting on those choices. (pp. 14-15; Rogers, 1977)
Discussion Question: Rogers
claimed that no one can really understand your experiential field. Would you agree, or do you sometimes find
that close friends or family members seem to understand you better than you
understand yourself? Are these
Although Rogers described personality within the
therapist-client relationship, the focus of his therapeutic approach was based
on how he believed the person had arrived at a point in their life where they
were suffering from psychological distress.
Therefore, the same issues apply to personality development as in
therapy. A very important aspect of
personality development, according to Rogers, is the parent-child
relationship. The nature of that
relationship, and whether it fosters self-actualization or impedes personal
growth, determines the nature of the individual’s personality and,
consequently, their self-structure and psychological adjustment.
A child begins life with an actualizing tendency. As they experience life, and perceive the
world around them, they may be supported in all things by those who care for
them, or they may only be supported under certain conditions (e.g., if their
behavior complies with strict rules). As
the child becomes self-aware, it develops a need for positive regard. When the
parents offer the child unconditional
positive regard, the child continues moving forward in concert with its
actualizing tendency. So, when there is
no discrepancy between the child’s self-regard
and its positive regard (from the parents), the child will grow up
psychologically healthy and well-adjusted.
However, if the parents offer only conditional
positive regard, if they only support the child according the desires and
rules of the parents, the child will develop conditions of worth. As a
result of these conditions of worth, the child will begin to perceive their
world selectively; they will avoid those experiences that do not fit with its
goal of obtaining positive regard. The
child will begin to live the life of those who set the conditions of worth,
rather than living its own life.
As the child grows older, and more aware of its own
condition in the world, their behavior will either fit within their own
self-structure or not. If they have
received unconditional positive regard, such that their self-regard and
positive regard are closely matched, they will experience congruence. In other words,
their sense of self and their experiences in life will fit together, and the
child will be relatively happy and well-adjusted. But, if their sense of self and their ability
to obtain positive regard do not match, the child will develop incongruence. Consider, for example, children playing
sports. That alone tells us that parents
have established guidelines within which the children are expected to
“play.” Then we have some children who
are naturally athletic, and other children who are more awkward and/or
clumsy. They may become quite athletic
later in life, or not, but during childhood there are many different levels of
ability as they grow. If a parent
expects their child to be the best player on the team, but the child simply
isn’t athletic, how does the parent react?
Do they support the child and encourage them to have fun, or do they
pressure the child to perform better and belittle them when they can’t? Children are very good at recognizing who the
better athletes are, and they know their place in the hierarchy of athletics,
i.e., their athletic self-structure. So
if a parent demands dominance from a child who knows they just aren’t that
good, the child will develop incongruence.
Rogers believed, quite understandably, that such conditions are
threatening to a child, and will activate defense mechanisms. Over time, however, excessive or sudden and
dramatic incongruence can lead to the breakdown and disorganization of the
self-structure. As a result, the
individual is likely to experience psychological distress that will continue
throughout life (Rogers, 1959/1989).
Discussion Question: Conditions
of worth are typically first established in childhood, based on the
relationship between a child and his or her parents. Think about your relationship with your own
parents and, if you have children, think about how you treat them. Are most of the examples that come to mind
unconditional positive regard, or conditional positive regard? How has that affected your relationship
with your parents and/or your own children?
way in which Rogers approached the idea of congruence and incongruence was
based on an individual’s dual concept of self.
There is, of course, the actual self-structure, or real self. In addition,
there is also an ideal self, much
like the fictional finalism described by Adler or the idealized self-image
described by Horney. Incongruence
develops when the real self falls far short of the accomplishment expected of
the ideal self, when experience does not match the expectations of the
self-structure (Rogers, 1951, 1959/1989).
Once again, the relationship between parents and their children plays an
important role in this development. If
parents expect too much, such as all A’s every marking period in school, but
the child just isn’t academically talented, or if the parents expect their
child to be the football team’s quarterback, but the child isn’t a good
athlete, then the ideal self will remain out of reach. Perhaps even worse, is when a child is
physically or emotionally abused. Such a
child’s ideal self may remain at a relatively low standard, but the real self
may be so utterly depressed that incongruence is still the result. An important aspect of therapy will be to
provide a relationship in which a person in this unfortunate condition can
experience the unconditional positive regard necessary to begin reintegrating
the self-structure, such that the gap between the real self and the ideal self
can begin to close, allowing the person to experience congruence in their life.
What about individuals who have developed congruence,
having received unconditional positive regard throughout development or having
experienced successful client-centered therapy?
They become, according to Rogers (1961), a fully functioning person. He
also said they lead a good life. The
good life is a process, not a state of being, and a direction, not a
destination. It requires psychological
freedom, and is the natural consequence of being psychologically free to begin
with. Whether or not it develops
naturally, thanks to a healthy and supportive environment in the home, or comes
about as a result of successful therapy, there are certain characteristics of
this process. The fully functioning
person is increasingly open to new experiences, they live fully in each moment,
and they trust themselves more and more.
They become more able and more willing to experience all of their
feelings, they are creative, they trust human nature, and they experience the
richness of life. The fully functioning
person is not simply content, or happy, they are alive:
believe it will become evident why, for me, adjectives such as happy,
contented, blissful, enjoyable, do not seem quite appropriate to any general
description of this process I have called the good life, even though the person
in this process would experience each one of these feelings at appropriate
times. But the adjectives which seem
more generally fitting are adjectives such as enriching, exciting, rewarding,
challenging, meaningful. This
process…involves the courage to be. …the
deeply exciting thing about human beings is that when the individual is
inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming. (pp.
195-196; Rogers, 1961)
Discussion Question: Rogers
described self-actualized people as fully functioning persons who are living
a good life. Do you know anyone who seems
to be a fully functioning person? Are
there aspects of their personality that you aspire to for yourself? Does it seem difficult to be fully
functioning, or does it seem to make life both easier and more enjoyable?
Across Cultures: Self-Realization as
the Path to
Being a Fully Functioning Person
Rogers described an innate drive toward
self-actualization, he talked about an ideal self, and he said that a fully
functioning person lived a good life.
But what does this actually mean?
In the Western world we look for specific, tangible answers to such
questions. We want to know what the self-actualization
drive is, we want to know which ideals, or virtues, are best or right, and we
want to define a “good life.” All too
often, we define a good life in terms of money, power, and possessions. The Eastern world has, for thousands of
years, emphasized a very different perspective. They believe there is a natural order to
life, and it is important that we let go of our need to explain the universe,
and it is especially important that we let go of our need to own pieces of
the universe. In the Tao Te Ching, Lao Tsu (c. 600
Something mysteriously formed, Born before heaven and earth. In the silence and the void, Standing alone and unchanging, Ever present and in motion. Perhaps it is the mother of ten
thousand things. I do not know its name, Call it Tao. For lack of a better word, I call
The greatest Virtue is to follow
Tao and Tao alone… Tao follows what is natural.
At about the same time,
some 2,600 years ago, the Bhagavad Gita
was also written down (Mitchell, 2000).
In the second chapter one finds:
When a man gives up all desires That emerge from the mind, and
rests Contented in the Self by the Self, He is called a man of firm wisdom…
In the night of all beings, the
wise man Sees only the radiance of the Self; But the sense-world where all
beings wake, For him is as dark as night.
In each of these sacred books, we are
taught that there is something deeper than ourselves that permeates the
universe, but it is beyond our comprehension.
It is only when we stop attempting to explain it, our way of trying to
control it, and be content to just be ourselves, that we can actually attain
that goal. To achieve this goal seems
to require the absence of conditions of worth. If someone has been given unconditional
positive regard throughout their life, they will be content to live that life
as it is. Rogers was well aware of
this challenge, and he described the good life as a process, not something
that you could actually get, but something that you had to “Be.” Still, is it possible that a fully
functioning person might have the insight necessary to understand the essence
of the universe? Not according to
Swami Sri Yukteswar:
Man possesses eternal faith and believes
intuitively in the existence of a Substance, of which the objects of sense –
sound, touch, sight, taste, and smell, the component parts of this visible
world – are but properties. As man
identifies himself with his material body, composed of the aforesaid
properties, he is able to comprehend by these imperfect organs these
properties only, and not the Substance to which these properties belong. The eternal Father, God, the only Substance
in the universe, is therefore not comprehensible by man of this material
world, unless he becomes divine by lifting his self above this creation of
Darkness or Maya. See Hebrews 11:1 and John 8:28.
“Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have
lifted up the son of man, then shall ye know that I am he.” Jnanavatar Swami Sri Yukteswar Giri,
So whether we believe in God, Tao, an
eternal Self, a mortal Self, or merely an actualizing tendency, for thousands
of years there has been the belief, amongst many people, that our lives are
about more than just being alive for a limited period of time. And it is in the recognition and
acceptance, indeed the embracing, of that something more, even if we can’t
conceive it in our conscious mind, that we find and live a good life. When Paramahansa Yogananda, a direct
disciple of Swami Yukteswar, came to the United States in 1920 to establish a
permanent Yoga society, it was suggested that he name his society
God-Realization. However, since he
believed life is about realizing (or actualizing, in psychological terms) our
selves, he established his organization as the Self-Realization Fellowship
Self-realization, in the context of
Yoga, refers to becoming aware of one’s connection to the spark of divinity
that exists within us, which may well be the source of our actualizing
tendency. It is not the same as the
sense of “I” or “me” that we normally think of. After all, are we our body or our
mind? Consider the body. Is it the body we were born with, or the
body we have now? Is our mind what we
are thinking now, or what we were thinking 2 years ago? Both the body and the mind are transient,
but the Self continues. It is that
Self that Yogis, Buddhists, and Taoists seek to realize, and it may well be
that Self which seeks its own actualization (separate from the consciousness
created by the brain underlying our mind; see Feuerstein, 2003; Kabat-Zinn,
1994). This is also the Self of Being
and transcendence, as described by Maslow.
Social Relationships and Marriage
Social and personal relationships were very important to
Rogers, both in therapy and in everyday life.
During each moment, we have our awareness (or consciousness), our
experience (our perception of what is happening), and our communication (our
relational behavior). For the fully
functioning person, there is congruence between each of these phenomena. Unfortunately, we tend to be a poor judge of
our own congruence. For example, if
someone becomes angry with another person at a meeting or in a therapy group,
they may remain unaware of their anger, even though it may be quite obvious to
everyone else in the room. Thus, our
relationship with others can reflect the true nature of our own personality,
and the degree to which we are congruent.
If others are congruent, and therefore are willing to talk to us openly
and honestly, it will encourage us to become more congruent and, consequently,
more psychologically healthy (Rogers, 1961, 1980). Curiously, the reason this became so
important to Rogers was the lack of such meaningful relationships in his own
life. Because his family followed
strict, fundamentalist rules, they discouraged relationships with people
outside their family. The consequences
were rather disturbing for Rogers:
…the attitudes toward persons
outside our large family can be summed up schematically in this way: “Other persons behave in dubious ways which
we do not approve in our family. Many of
them play cards, go to movies, smoke, dance, drink, and engage in other
activities, some unmentionable. So the
best thing to do is to be tolerant of them, since they may not know better, but
to keep away from any close communication with them and to live your life
within the family…”
I could sum up these boyhood years
by saying that anything I would today regard as a close and communicative
interpersonal relationship with another was completely lacking during that
period…I was peculiar, a loner, with very little place or opportunity for a
place in the world of persons. I was
socially incompetent in any but superficial contacts. My fantasies during this period were
definitely bizarre, and probably would be classed as schizoid by a
diagnostician, but fortunately I never came in contact with a psychologist.
(pp. 28-30; Rogers, 1980)
As noted above, the development of healthy relationships
takes place whenever one person in the relationship is congruent. Their congruence encourages the other person
to be more congruent, which supports the continued open communication on behalf
of the first person. This interplay goes
back and forth, encouraging continued and growing congruence in the
relationship. As we will see below, this
is basically the therapeutic situation, in which the therapist is expected to
be congruent. However, it certainly does
not require a trained therapist, since it occurs naturally in any situation in
which one person is congruent from the beginning of the relationship.
One of the most important, and hopefully meaningful,
relationships in anyone’s life is marriage.
Rogers was married for 55 years, and as the end of his wife’s life
approached he poured out his love to her with a depth that astonished him
(Rogers, 1980). As relationships became
more and more meaningful to him, he wanted to study the extraordinary
relationships that become more than temporary.
Although this is not necessarily synonymous with marriage, it most
typically is. So he conducted a series
of informal interviews with people who were, or had been, in lengthy
relationships (at least 3 years). In
comparing the relationships that seemed successful, as compared to those that
were unhappy or had already come to an end, Rogers identified four factors that
he believed were most important for long-term, healthy relationships: dedication or commitment, communication, the
dissolution of roles, and becoming a separate self (Rogers, 1972).
Commitment: Marriage is
challenging: love seems to fade, vows
are forgotten or set aside, religious rules are ignored (e.g., “What therefore
God has joined together, let no man put asunder.”; Matthew 19:6; Holy Bible, 1962). Rogers believed that in order for a
relationship to last, each person must be dedicated to their partnership. They must commit themselves to working
together throughout the changing process of their relationship, which is
enriching their love and their life.
Communication: Communication encompasses much of human
behavior, and it can be both subtle and complex. Communication itself is not a good thing,
since many negative and hurtful things can be communicated. However, Rogers believed that we need to
communicate persistent feeling, whether positive or negative, so that they
don’t overwhelm us and come out in inappropriate ways. It is always important to express such
communication in terms of your own thoughts and feelings, rather than
projecting those feelings onto others (especially in angry and/or accusatory
ways). This process involves risk, but
one must be willing to risk the end of a relationship in order to allow it to
Roles: Culture provides many
expectations for the nature of relationships, whether it be dating or something
more permanent like marriage. According
to Rogers, obeying the cultural rules seems to contradict the idea of a growing
and maturing relationship, a relationship that is moving forward (toward
actualization). However, when
individuals make an intentional choice to fulfill cultural expectations,
because they want to, then the
relationship can certainly be actualizing for them.
Separate Self: Rogers believed that
“a living partnership is composed of
two people, each of whom owns, respect, and develops his or her own selfhood”
(pg. 206; Rogers, 1972). While it may
seem contradictory that becoming an individual should enhance a relationship,
as each person becomes more real and more open they can bring these qualities
into the relationship. As a result, the
relationship can contribute to the continued growth of each person.
Discussion Question: Consider
Rogers’ criteria for a successful marriage, which begins with commitment to
the marriage. Given the divorce rate
(which studies now place at over 60%), and ongoing political debates about
what marriage is or is not, what is your opinion of the status of marriage in
Client-Centered and Person-Centered Therapy
Central to Rogers’ view of psychotherapy is the
relationship between the therapist and the client, and we must again emphasize
the distinction between a client and a patient.
This involves shifting the emphasis in therapy from a psychologist/psychiatrist
who can “fix” the patient to the client themselves, since only the client can
truly understand their own experiential field.
The therapist must provide a warm, safe environment in which the client
feels free to express whatever attitude they experience in the same way that
they perceive it. At the same time, the
client experiences the therapist as someone temporarily divested of their own
self, in their complete desire to understand the client. The therapist can then accurately and
objectively reflect the thoughts, feelings, perceptions, confusions,
ambivalences, etc., of the client back to the client. In this open, congruent, and supportive
environment, the client is able to begin the process of reorganizing and
reintegrating their self-structure, and living congruently within that
self-structure (Rogers, 1951).
In 1957, Rogers published an article entitled The Necessary and Sufficient Conditions of
Therapeutic Personality Change (Rogers, 1957/1989). The list is fairly short and straightforward:
The client and the therapist must be in
The client must be in a state of incongruence,
being vulnerable or anxious.
The therapist must be congruent in the
The therapist must experience unconditional positive
regard for the client.
The therapist must experience empathic
understanding of the client’s frame of reference and endeavor to
communicate this experience to the client.
The client must perceive, at least to a minimal
degree, the therapist’s empathic understanding and unconditional positive
to Rogers, there is nothing else that is required; if these conditions are met
over a period of time, there will be constructive personality change. What Rogers considered more remarkable are those
factors that do not seem necessary
for positive therapeutic change. For
example, these conditions do not apply to one type of client, but to all
clients, and they are not unique to client-centered therapy, but apply in all
types of therapy. The relationship
between the therapist and client is also not unique, these factors hold true in
any interpersonal relationship. And most
surprisingly, these conditions do not require any special training on the part
of therapist, or even an accurate diagnosis of the client’s psychological
problems! Any program designed for the
purpose of encouraging constructive change in the personality structure and
behavior of individuals, whether educational, military, correctional, or
industrial, can benefit from these conditions and use them as a measure of the
effectiveness of the program (Rogers, 1957).
Can any one of these conditions be considered more
important than the others? Although they
are all necessary, Rogers came to believe that the critical factor may be the
therapist’s empathic understanding
of the client (Rogers, 1980). The Dalai
Lama (2001) has said that empathy is an essential first step toward a
compassionate heart. It brings us closer
to others, and allows us to recognize the depth of their pain. According to Rogers, empathy refers to
entering the private world of the client, and moving about within it without
making any judgments. It is essential to
set aside one’s own views and values, so that the other person’s world may be
entered without prejudice. Not just
anyone can accomplish this successfully:
sense it means that you lay aside your self; this can only be done by persons
who are secure enough in themselves that they know they will not get lost in
what may turn out to be the strange or bizarre world of the other, and that
they can comfortably return to their own world when they wish. (pg. 143;
Finally, let us consider group therapy situations. Within a group, all of the factors described
above hold true. Rogers, who late in his
career was becoming more and more interested in the growth of all people,
including those reasonably well-adjusted and mature to begin with, became
particularly interested in T-groups
and encounter groups. These groups were developed following the
proposition by Kurt Lewin that modern society was overlooking the importance of
training in human relations skills (the “T” in T-group stands for
“training”). Encounter groups were quite
similar to T-groups, except that there was a greater emphasis on personal
growth and improved interpersonal communication through an experiential
process. Each group has a leader, or
facilitator, who fosters and encourages open communication. The group serves as a reflection of the
congruence, or lack thereof, in the communication of whoever is currently
expressing themselves. As a result, the
group hopefully moves toward congruence, and the subsequent personal growth and
actualization of the individual (Rogers, 1970).
Given the usefulness of T-groups and encounter in a
variety of settings, as well as the importance of continued personal growth and
actualization for the well-adjusted as well as those suffering psychological
distress, Rogers shifted his focus from simply client-centered therapy to a
more universal person-centered approach,
which encompasses client-centered therapy, student-centered teaching, and
group-centered leadership (Rogers, 1980; see also Rogers & Roethlisberger,
1952/1993). Rogers believed that all
people have within them vast resources for self-understanding and for changing
their self-concepts, attitudes, and behaviors.
In all relationships, whether therapist-client, parent-child,
teacher-student, leader-group, employer-employee, etc., there are three elements
that can foster personal growth:
genuineness or congruence, acceptance or caring, and empathic
understanding. When these elements are
fostered in any setting, “there is greater freedom to be the true, whole person.” The implications go far beyond individual
relationships. We live in what seems to
be an increasingly dangerous world.
Globalism has brought with it global tension and conflict. However, Rogers argued that a person-centered
approach would help to ease intercultural tension, by helping each of us to
learn to appreciate and understand others.
Whether the cultural differences are political, racial, ethnic,
economic, whatever, as more leaders become person-centered there is the
possibility for future growth of intercultural understanding and cooperation
Abraham Maslow and Holistic-Dynamic Psychology
Maslow stands alongside Rogers as one of the founders of
humanistic psychology. Although he began
his career working with two of the most famous experimental psychologists in
America, he was profoundly influenced by the events that led into World War
II. He became devoted to studying the
more virtuous aspects of personality, and he may be viewed as one of the
founders of positive psychology.
Well-known primarily for his work on self-actualization, Maslow also had
a significant impact on the field of management. His fame in both psychology and business
makes him a candidate for being, perhaps, the best-known psychologist of all
time (Freud is certainly more famous, but remember that he was a
psychiatrist). According to Maslow, his holistic-dynamic theory of personality
was a blend of theories that had come before his:
This theory is, I think, in the functionalist
tradition of James and Dewey, and is fused with the holism of Wertheimer,
Goldstein, and Gestalt psychology, and with the dynamicism of Freud, Fromm,
Horney, Reich, Jung, and Adler. This
integration or synthesis may be called a holistic-dynamic theory. (pg. 35;
Brief Biography of Abraham Maslow
Abraham H. Maslow was born on April 1, 1908 in Brooklyn,
New York, the first of seven children.
His father, Samuel, had left Kiev, Russia at just 14 years old. When Samuel Maslow arrived in America he had
no money and did not speak English.
Samuel Maslow spent a few years in Philadelphia, doing odd jobs and
learning the language, before moving to New York City, where he married his
first cousin Rose and began a cooperage business (a cooper builds and repairs
barrels). Samuel and Rose Maslow did not
have a happy marriage, and Abraham Maslow was particularly sensitive to this
fact. Maslow resented his father’s
frequent absences, and apparently hated his mother. His mother was a superstitious woman, who
severely punished Maslow for even minor misbehavior by threatening him with
God’s wrath. Maslow developed an intense
distrust of religion, and was proud to consider himself an atheist (Gabor,
2000; Hoffman, 1988; Maddi & Costa, 1972).
Maslow’s childhood was no better outside the home. Anti-Semitism was rampant in New York. Many teachers were cruel, and he overheard
them say nasty things about him. He had
no friends, and there were anti-Semitic gangs that would find and beat up
Jewish children. At one point he decided
to join a Jewish gang for protection, but he didn’t have the “right” attitude:
I wanted to be a member of the gang,
but I couldn’t: they rejected me because
I couldn’t kill cats…We’d stake out a cat on a [clothesline] and stand back so
many paces and throw rocks at it and kill it.
And the other thing was to throw
rocks at the girls on the corner. Now I
knew that the girls liked it, and yet I couldn’t throw rocks at girls and I
couldn’t kill cats, so I was ruled out of the gang, and I could never be the
gangster that I wanted to become. (pg. 4; Maslow, cited in Hoffman, 1988)
With six more children joining the family, one every
couple of years, the family was constantly moving and, following the troubling
death of one of his little sisters (Maslow blamed her illness, in part, on
their mother’s neglect), Maslow became a very unhappy and shy child. He also thought he was terribly ugly,
something his father said openly at a large family gathering! Perhaps worst of all, he felt profoundly
strange and different than other children, largely because he was so
intellectual. Maslow reconciled with his
father later in life. During the
depression, Samuel Maslow lost his business.
By that time he had divorced Maslow’s mother, Rose, and he moved in with
his son. The two became close, and after
Samuel Maslow died, his son remembered him fondly. Maslow never forgave his mother,
however. Some of the childhood stories
he related were shockingly cruel. Once,
he had searched through second-hand record shops for some special 78-RPM
records. When he failed to put them away
soon after returning home, his mother stomped them into pieces on the living
room floor. Another time, Maslow brought
home two abandoned kittens he had found.
When his mother caught him feeding them a saucer of milk, she grabbed the
kittens and smashed their heads against a wall until they were dead! Later in life, he refused to even attend her
What I had reacted to and totally
hated and rejected was not only her physical appearance, but also her values
and world view…I’ve always wondered where my utopianism, ethical stress,
humanism, stress on kindness, love, friendship, and all the rest came
from. I knew certainly of the direct
consequences of having no mother-love.
But the whole thrust of my life-philosophy and all my research and
theorizing also has its roots in a hatred for and revulsion against everything
she stood for. (pg. 9; Maslow cited in Hoffman, 1988)
spent much of his childhood reading, and despite the treatment he received from
many of his prejudiced teachers, he loved to learn. After high school Maslow won a scholarship to
Cornell University, but encountered pervasive anti-Semitism throughout his
first year. So he transferred to City
College, where he first studied the work of behavioral scientists like John B.
Watson. He was impressed by Watson’s
desire to use the newly created science of behaviorism to fight social
problems, such as racial and ethnic discrimination. At the same time, however, Maslow had fallen
in love with his first cousin Bertha Goodman, a relationship his parents
strongly opposed. So Maslow left for the
University of Wisconsin (Gabor, 2000; Hoffman, 1988; Maddi & Costa,
1972). Bertha Goodman followed, and they
were soon married. Marriage boosted
Maslow’s self-esteem, and provided him with a sense of purpose in life. He later said that “life didn’t really start
for me until I got married and went to Wisconsin” (pg. 128; cited in Maddi
& Costa, 1972).
In Wisconsin, Maslow studied the behavior of primates
under the supervision of the renowned Harry Harlow (most famous for his studies
on contact comfort). One day, while watching some monkeys
seemingly enjoy munching on peanuts and other treats, Maslow recognized that
appetite and hunger are two different things.
Thus, motivation must be comprised of separate elements as well. In another study, Maslow tried to address the
different aspects of Freud and Adler’s psychodynamic perspectives by observing
dominance behavior amongst the monkeys.
His colleagues and professors, however, had little interest in the
psychoanalytic science that they considered to be a European endeavor. Maslow completed his Ph.D. at Wisconsin in
1934, and then returned to New York. He
earned a position at Columbia University with the renowned Edward Thorndike,
and began studying the relative contributions of heredity and environment on
social behavior, as part of a project to study factors involved in poverty,
illiteracy, and crime. As a curious side
note, Thorndike had also developed an IQ test; Maslow scored 195 on this test,
one of the highest scores ever recorded.
During this time at Columbia University, Maslow also began relationships
with many of the psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists who had fled
Nazi Germany. He was very impressed with
Max Wertheimer, one of the founders of Gestalt psychology, and who helped to
lay the foundation for positive psychology:
there not tendencies in men and in children to be kind, to deal sincerely [and]
justly with the other fellow? Are these
nothing but internalized rules on the basis of compulsion and fear?” he asked
rhetorically. (pg. 159; Wertheimer,
cited in Gabor, 2000)
Maslow was one of the first students to study with Alfred
Adler in America, being particularly impressed with Adler’s work helping
academically-challenged children to succeed despite their low IQ scores. Maslow also studied with Erich Fromm, Karen
Horney, and Ruth Benedict. Benedict was
an anthropologist who encouraged Maslow to gain some field experience. She sponsored a grant application that Maslow
received to study the Blackfoot Indians.
During the summer of 1938, Maslow examined the dominance and emotional
security of the Blackfoot Indians. He
was impressed by their culture, and recognized what he believed was an innate
need to experience a sense of purpose in life, a sense of meaning. A few years later, shortly after the
beginning of World War II, Maslow had an epiphany regarding psychology’s
failure to understand the true nature of people. He devoted the rest of his life to the study
of a hopeful psychology (Gabor, 2000; Hoffman, 1988; Maddi & Costa, 1972).
Maslow taught for a few years at Brooklyn College, and
also served as the plant manager for the Maslow Cooperage Corporation (from
1947-1949). In 1951 he was appointed
Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Brandeis University,
where he conducted the research and wrote the books for which he is most
famous. By the late 1960s, Maslow had
become disillusioned with academic life.
He had suffered a heart attack in 1966, and seemed somewhat disconnected
from the very department he had helped to form.
In 1969, however, he accepted a four year grant from the Laughlin
Foundation, primarily to study the philosophy of democracy, economics, and
ethics as influenced by humanistic psychology.
He had been troubled by what he viewed as a loss of faith in American
values, and he was greatly enjoying his time working in California. He also attended management seminars at the
Saga Corporation, urging the participants to commit themselves to humanistic
management. One day in June, 1970, he
was jogging slowly when he suffered a massive heart attack. He was already dead by the time his wife
rushed over to him (Gabor, 2000; Hoffman, 1988; Maddi & Costa, 1972). He was only 62 years old. Shortly after his death, the International Study Project of Menlo
Park, CA published a memorial volume in tribute to Abraham Maslow
(International Study Project, 1972).
Maslow in Context: Beyond Humanistic
Whereas Carl Rogers is often thought of
as the founder of humanistic psychology, in large part because of his
emphasis on psychotherapy, it was Maslow who studied in great detail the most
significant theoretical aspect of it:
self-actualization. In addition
to studying self-actualization, he applied it both in psychology and
beyond. His application of
self-actualization to management continued the classic relationship between
psychology and business (which began with John B. Watson and his application
of psychological principles to advertising).
Unfortunately, Maslow died just as he was beginning to study his
proposed fourth force: transpersonal
psychology. Transpersonal psychology
offered a connection between psychology and many of the Eastern philosophies
associated with Yoga and Buddhism, and also provided a foundation for the
study of positive psychology.
Maslow’s interest in business and
management has quite possibly led to his being the most famous psychologist
of all time, since he is well-known in both psychology and business. If he had continued being a vocal advocate
for transpersonal psychology (if not for his untimely death at an early age),
given today’s growing interest in Eastern philosophy and psychology and the
establishment of positive psychology as a goal for the field of psychology by
former APA President Martin Seligman, Maslow may well have become even more
famous. It is interesting to note that
someone so truly visionary seems to have become that way as a result of studying
people whom he felt were themselves self-actualized. If positive psychology, the psychology of
virtue and values, becomes the heir of Maslow’s goal, it should become a
significant force in the field of psychology.
That will be Maslow’s true legacy.
The Importance of Values in the Science of Psychology
A common criticism leveled against many personality
theorists is that they have not confirmed their theories in a strict,
scientific manner. When one goes so far
as to consider values, which are typically
associated with religious morality, there is even greater resistance on the
part of those who would have psychology become “truly” scientific to consider
such matters worthy of examination.
However, Maslow felt that:
orthodox science and orthodox religion have been institutionalized and frozen
into a mutually excluding dichotomy…One consequence is that they are both
pathologized, split into sickness, ripped apart into a crippled half-science
and a crippled half-religion…As a result…the student who becomes a scientist
automatically gives up a great deal of life, especially its richest portions.
(pg. 119; Maslow, 1966)
Consequently, Maslow urged
that we need to be fully aware of our values at all times, and aware of how our
values influence us in our study of psychology.
Although people approach the world in common ways, they also pay
selective attention to what is happening, and they reshuffle the events
occurring around them according to their own interests, needs, desires, fears,
etc. Consequently, Maslow believed that
paying attention to human values, particularly to an individual’s values,
actually helps the psychological scientist achieve the goal of clearly
understanding human behavior (Maslow, 1970).
In a similar vein, when Maslow co-authored an abnormal psychology text
early in his career, he included a chapter on normal psychology. His description of the characteristics of a
healthy, normal personality provides an interesting foreshadowing of his
research on self-actualization (Maslow & Mittelmann, 1941).
Maslow felt so strongly about the loss of values in our
society that he helped to organize a conference and then served as editor for a
book entitled New Knowledge in Human
Values (Maslow, 1959). In the
preface, Maslow laments that “…the ultimate disease of our time is
valuelessness…this state is more crucially dangerous than ever before in
history…” (pg. vii; Maslow, 1959).
Maslow does suggest, however, that something can be done about this loss
of values, if only people will try. In
the book, he brought together an interesting variety of individuals,
including: Kurt Goldstein, a well-known
neurophysiologist who studied the holistic function of healthy vs.
brain-damaged patients and who coined the term self-actualization; D. T. Suzuki,
a renowned Zen Buddhist scholar; and Paul Tillich, a highly respected
existential theologian (who had a direct and significant influence on the
career of Rollo May). There are also
chapters by Gordon Allport and Erich Fromm.
In his own chapter, Maslow concludes:
If we wish to help humans to become
more fully human, we must realize not only that they try to realize themselves
but that they are also reluctant or afraid or unable to do so. Only by fully appreciating this dialectic
between sickness and health can we help to tip the balance in favor of health.
(pg. 135; Maslow, 1959)
Discussion Question: Maslow
believed that values are very important, not only in the study of psychology,
but in society as well. Do you
agree? When politicians or religious
leaders talk about values, do you think they represent meaningful, true
values, or do they just support the values that are an advantage to their own
goal or the goals of their political party or church?
The Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s is undoubtedly best known for his hierarchy of needs. Developed within the context of a theory of
human motivation, Maslow believed that human behavior is driven and guided by a
set of basic needs: physiological
needs, safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self-actualization. It is generally accepted that individuals
must move through the hierarchy in order, satisfying the needs at each level
before one can move on to a higher level.
The reason for this is that lower needs tend to occupy the mind if they
remain unsatisfied. How easy is it to
work or study when you are really hungry or thirsty? But Maslow did not consider the hierarchy to
be rigid. For example, he encountered
some people for whom self-esteem was more important than love, individuals
suffering from antisocial personality disorder seem to have a permanent loss of
the need for love, or if a need has been satisfied for a long time it may
become less important. As lower needs
are becoming satisfied, though not yet fully satisfied, higher needs may begin
to present themselves. And of course
there are sometimes multiple determinants of behavior, making the relationship
between a given behavior and a basic need difficult to identify (Maslow,
1943/1973; Maslow, 1970).
The physiological needs are based, in part, on the
concept of homeostasis, the natural
tendency of the body to maintain critical biological levels of essential
elements or conditions, such as water, salt, energy, and body temperature. Sexual activity, though not essential for the
individual, is biologically necessary for the human species to survive. Maslow described the physiological needs as
the most prepotent. In other words, if a person is lacking
everything in life, having failed to satisfy physiological, safety,
belongingness and love, and esteem needs, their consciousness will most like be
consumed with their desire for food and water.
As the lowest and most clearly biological of the needs, these are also
the most animal-like of our behavior. In
Western culture, however, it is rare to find someone who is actually
starving. So when we talk about being
hungry, we are really talking about an appetite, rather than real hunger
(Maslow, 1943/1973; Maslow, 1970). Many
Americans are fascinated by stories such as those of the ill-fated Donner party,
trapped in the Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter of 1846-1847, and the
Uruguayan soccer team whose plane crashed in the Andes mountains in 1972. In each case, either some or all of the
survivors were forced to cannibalize those who had died. As shocking as such stories are, they
demonstrate just how powerful our physiological needs can be.
The safety needs can easily be seen in young
children. They are easily startled or
frightened by loud noises, flashing lights, and rough handling. They can become quite upset when other family
members are fighting, since it disrupts the feeling of safety usually
associated with the home. According to
Maslow, many adult neurotics are like children who do not feel safe. From another perspective, that of Erik
Erikson, children and adults raised in such an environment do not trust the
environment to provide for their needs.
Although it can be argued that few people in America seriously suffer
from a lack of satisfying physiological needs, there are many people who live
unsafe lives. For example, inner city
crime, abusive spouses and parents, incurable diseases like HIV/AIDS, all
present life threatening dangers to many people on a daily basis.
One place where we expect our children to be safe is in
school. However, as we saw in the last
chapter (in the section on the martial arts), 160,000 children each day are too
frightened to attend school (Nathan, 2005).
Juvonen et al. (2006) looked at the effects of ethnic diversity on
children’s perception of safety in urban middle schools (Grade 6). They surveyed approximately 2,000 students in
99 classrooms in the greater Los Angeles area.
The ethnicity of the students in this study was 46 percent Latino
(primarily of Mexican origin), 29 percent African American, 9 percent Asian
(primarily East Asian), 9 percent Caucasian, and 7 percent multiracial. When a given classroom, or a given school, is
more ethnically diverse, both African American and Latino students felt safer,
were harassed less by peers, felt less lonely, and they had higher levels of
self-worth (even when the authors controlled for differences in academic
engagement). Thus, it appears that
ethnic diversity in schools leads toward satisfaction of the need for safety,
at least in one important area of a child’s life. Unfortunately, most minority students
continue to be educated in schools that are largely ethnically segregated
(Juvonen, et al., 2006).
Throughout the evolution of the human species we found
safety primarily within our family, tribal group, or our community. It was within those groups that we shared the
hunting and gathering that provided food.
Once the physiological and safety needs have been fairly well satisfied,
according to Maslow, “the person will feel keenly, as never before, the absence
of friends, or a sweetheart, or a wife, or children” (Maslow, 1970). Although there is little scientific
confirmation of the belongingness and love needs, many therapists attribute
much of human suffering to society’s thwarting of the need for love and
affection. Most notable among
personality theorists who addressed this issue was Wilhelm Reich. An important aspect of love and affection is
sex. Although sex is often considered a
physiological need, given its role in procreation, sex is what Maslow referred
to as a multidetermined behavior. In
other words, it serves both a physiological role (procreation) and a
belongingness/love role (the tenderness and/or passion of the physical side of
love). Maslow was also careful to point
out that love needs involve both giving and receiving love in order for them to
be fully satisfied (Maslow, 1943/1973; Maslow, 1970).
Maslow believed that all people desire a stable and
firmly based high evaluation of themselves and others (at least the others who
comprise their close relationships).
This need for self-esteem, or self-respect, involves two
components. First is the desire to feel
competent, strong, and successful (similar to Bandura’s self-efficacy). Second is the need for prestige or status,
which can range from simple recognition to fame and glory. Maslow credited Adler for addressing this
human need, but felt that Freud had neglected it. Maslow also believed that the need for
self-esteem was becoming a central issue in therapy for many psychotherapists. However, as we saw in Chapter 12, Albert
Ellis considers self-esteem to be a sickness.
Ellis’ concern is that self-esteem, including efforts to boost
self-esteem in therapy, requires that people rate themselves, something that
Ellis felt will eventually lead to a negative evaluation (no one is
perfect!). Maslow did acknowledge that
the healthiest self-esteem is based on well-earned and deserved respect from
others, rather than fleeting fame or celebrity status (Maslow, 1943/1973;
When all of these lower needs (physiological, safety,
belongingness and love, and esteem) have been largely satisfied, we may still
feel restless and discontented unless we are doing what is right for
ourselves. “What a man can be, he must be” (pg. 46; Maslow, 1970).
Thus, the need for self-actualization, which Maslow described as the
highest of the basic needs, can also be referred to as a Being-need, as opposed to the lower deficiency-needs (Maslow, 1968).
We will examine self-actualization in more detail in the following
Although Maslow recognized that humans no longer have
instincts in the technical sense, we nonetheless share basic drives with other
animals. We get hungry, even though how
and what we eat is determined culturally.
We need to be safe, like any other animal, but again we seek and
maintain our safety in different ways (such as having a police force to provide
safety for us). Given our fundamental
similarity to other animals, therefore, Maslow referred to the basic needs as instinctoid. The lower the need the more animal-like it
is, the higher the need, the more human it is, and self-actualization was, in
Maslow’s opinion, uniquely human (Maslow, 1970).
In addition to the basic needs, Maslow referred to cognitive needs and aesthetic needs. Little is known about cognitive needs, since
they are seldom an important focus in clinic settings. However, he felt there were ample grounds for
proposing that there are positive impulses to know, to satisfy curiosity, to
understand, and to explain. The
eight-fold path described by the Buddha, some 2,600 years ago, begins with
right knowledge. The importance of
mental stimulation for some people is described quite vividly by Maslow:
I have seen a few cases in which it
seemed clear to me that the pathology (boredom, loss of zest in life,
self-dislike, general depression of the bodily functions, steady deterioration
of the intellectual life, of tastes, etc.) were produced in intelligent people
leading stupid lives in stupid jobs. I
have at least one case in which the appropriate cognitive therapy (resuming
part-time studies, getting a position that was more intellectually demanding,
insight) removed the symptoms.
I have seen many women, intelligent,
prosperous, and unoccupied, slowly develop these same symptoms of intellectual
inanition. Those who followed my
recommendation to immerse themselves in something worthy of them showed
improvement or cure often enough to impress me with the reality of the
cognitive needs. (pg. 49; Maslow, 1970)
There are also classic
studies on the importance of environmental enrichment on the structural
development of the brain itself (Diamond et al., 1975; Globus, et al., 1973;
Greenough & Volkmar, 1973; Rosenzweig, 1984; Spinelli & Jensen, 1979;
Spinelli, Jensen, & DiPrisco, 1980).
Even less is known about the aesthetic needs, but Maslow was convinced
that some people need to experience, indeed they crave, beauty in their world. Ancient cave drawings have been found that
seem to serve no other purpose than being art.
The cognitive and aesthetic needs may very well have been fundamental to
our evolution as modern humans.
Maslow began his studies on self-actualization in order
to satisfy his own curiosity about people who seemed to be fulfilling their
unique potential as individuals. He did
not intend to undertake a formal research project, but he was so impressed by
his results that he felt compelled to report his findings. Amongst people he knew personally and public
and historical figures, he looked for individuals who appeared to have made
full use of their talents, capacities, and potentialities. In other words, “people who have developed or
are developing to the full stature of which they are capable” (Maslow,
1970). His list of those who clearly
seemed self-actualized included Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert
Einstein, Eleanor Roosevelt, Jane Addams, William James, Albert Schweitzer,
Aldous Huxley, and Baruch Spinoza. His
list of individuals who were most-likely self-actualized included Goethe
(possibly the great-grandfather of Carl Jung), George Washington, Benjamin
Franklin, Harriet Tubman (born into slavery, she became a conductor on the
Underground Railroad prior to the Civil War), and George Washington Carver
(born into slavery at the end of the Civil War, he became an agricultural
chemist and prolific inventor). In
addition to the positive attributes listed above, Maslow also considered it
very important that there be no evidence of psychopathology in those he chose
to study. After comparing the seemingly
self-actualized individuals to people who did not seem to have fulfilled their
lives, Maslow identified fourteen characteristics of self-actualizing people
(Maslow, 1950/1973, 1970), as follows:
Perception of Reality and More Comfortable Relations with It: Self-actualizing people have an ability to
recognize fakers, those who present a false persona. More than that, however, Maslow believed they
could recognize hidden or confused realities in all aspects of life: science, politics, values and ethics,
etc. They are not afraid of the unknown
or people who are different, they find such differences to be a pleasant
challenge. Although a high IQ may be
associated with this characteristic, it is not uncommon to find those who are
seemingly intelligent yet unable to be creative in their efforts to discover
new phenomena. Thus, the perception of
reality is not simply the same as being smart.
Others, Nature): Similar to the
approach Albert Ellis took with REBT (and his hypothesized dangers inherent in
self-esteem), Maslow believed that self-actualizing people accept themselves as
they are, including their faults and the differences between their personal reality
and their ideal image of themselves.
This is not to say that they are without guilt. They are concerned about personal faults that
can be improved, any remaining habits or psychological issues that are
unhealthy (e.g., prejudice, jealousy, etc.), and the shortcomings of their
community and/or culture.
Spontaneity: The lives of self-actualizing people are
marked by simplicity and a natural ease as they pursue their goals. Their outward behavior is relatively
spontaneous, and their inner life (thoughts, drives, etc.) is particularly
so. In spite of this spontaneity, they
are not always unconventional, because they can easily accept the constraints
of society and find their own way to fit in without being untrue to their own
sense of self.
Problem-Centering: Self-actualizing individuals are highly
problem-centered, not ego-centered. The
problems they focus on are typically not their own, however. They focus on problems outside themselves, on
important causes they would describe as necessary. Solving such problems is taken as their duty
or responsibility, rather than as something they want to do for themselves.
The Quality of
Detachment; the Need for Privacy:
Whereas social withdrawal is often seen as psychologically unhealthy,
self-actualizing people enjoy their privacy.
They can remain calm as they separate themselves from problematic
situations, remaining above the fray. In
accordance with this healthy form of detachment, they are active, responsible,
self-disciplined individuals in charge of their own lives. Maslow believed that they have more free will
than the average person.
Autonomy, Independence of Culture and
Environment: As an extension of the preceding
characteristics, self-actualizing individuals are growth-motivated as opposed to
being deficiency-motivated. They do not
need the presence, companionship, or approval of others. Indeed, they may be hampered by others. The love, honor, esteem, etc., that can be
bestowed by others has become less important to someone who is self-actualizing
than self-development and inner growth.
Freshness of Appreciation:
Self-actualizing people are able to appreciate the wonders, as well as
the common aspects, of life again and again.
Such feelings may not occur all the time, but they can occur in the most
unexpected ways and at unexpected times.
Maslow offered a surprising evaluation of the importance of this
characteristic of self-actualization:
I have also become convinced that
getting used to our blessings is one of the most important nonevil generators
of human evil, tragedy, and suffering.
What we take for granted we undervalue, and we are therefore too apt to
sell a valuable birthright for a mess of pottage, leaving behind regret, remorse,
and a lowering of self-esteem. Wives,
husbands, children, friends are unfortunately more apt to be loved and
appreciated after they have died than while they are still available. Something similar is true for physical
health, for political freedoms, for economic well-being; we learn their true
value after we have lost them. (pp. 163-164; Maslow, 1970)
Experience” or “Oceanic Feeling;” Peak Experiences: The difference between a mystic experience (also known as an oceanic feeling) and a peak
experience is a matter of definition.
Mystic experiences are viewed as gifts from God, something reserved for
special or deserving (i.e., faithful) servants.
Maslow, however, believed that this was a natural occurrence that could
happen for anyone, and to some extent probably did. He assigned the psychological term of peak
experiences. Such experiences tend to be
sudden feelings of limitless horizons opening up to one’s vision, simultaneous
feelings of great power and great vulnerability, feelings of ecstasy, wonder
and awe, a loss of the sense of time and place, and the feeling that something
extraordinary and transformative has happened.
Self-actualizers who do not typically experience these peaks, the
so-called “non-peakers,” are more
likely to become direct agents of social change, the reformers, politicians,
crusaders, and so on. The more
transcendent “peakers,” in contrast,
become the poets, musicians, philosophers, and theologians.
Maslow devoted a great deal of attention to peak
experiences, including their relationship to religion. At the core of religion, according to Maslow,
is the private illumination or revelation of spiritual leaders. Such experiences seem to be very similar to
peak experiences, and Maslow suggests that throughout history these peak
experiences may have been mistaken for revelations from God. In his own studies, Maslow found that people
who were spiritual, but not religious (i.e., not hindered by the doctrine of a
specific faith or church), actually had more peak experiences than other
people. Part of the explanation for
this, according to Maslow, is that such people need to be more serious about
their ethics, values, and philosophy of life, since their guidance and
motivation must come from within.
Individuals who seek such an appreciation of life may help themselves to
experience an extended form of peak experience that Maslow called the plateau experience. Plateau experiences always have both noetic
and cognitive elements, whereas peak experiences can be entirely emotional
(Maslow, 1964). Put another way, plateau
experiences involve serene and contemplative Being-cognition, as opposed to the more climactic peak experiences
Gemeinschaftsgefuhl: A word invented by Alfred Adler, gemeinschatfsgefuhl refers to the
profound feelings of identification, sympathy, and affection for other people
that are common in self-actualization individuals. Although self-actualizers may often feel
apart from others, like a stranger in a strange land, becoming upset by the
shortcomings of the average person, they nonetheless feel a sense of kinship
with others. These feelings lead to a
sincere desire to help the human race.
Relations: Maslow believed that
self-actualizers have deeper and more profound personal relationships than
other people. They tend to be kind to
everyone, and are especially fond of children.
Maslow described this characteristic as “compassion for all mankind,” a
perspective that would fit well with Buddhist and Christian philosophies.
Self-actualizing people are typically friendly with anyone, regardless
of class, race, political beliefs, or education. They can learn from anyone who has something
to teach them. They respect all people,
simply because they are people. They are
not, however, undiscriminating:
The careful distinction must be made
between this democratic feeling and a lack of discrimination in taste, of an
undiscriminating equalizing of any one human being with any other. These individuals, themselves elite, select for
their friends elite, but this is an elite of character, capacity, and talent,
rather than of birth, race, blood, name, family, age, youth, fame, or power.
(pg. 168; Maslow, 1970)
Between Means and Ends, Between Good and Evil: Self-actualizers know the difference between
right and wrong. They are ethical, have
high moral standards, and they do good things while avoiding doing bad
things. They do not experience the
average person’s confusion or inconsistency in making ethical choices. They tend to focus on ends, rather than means,
although they sometimes become absorbed in the means themselves, viewing the
process itself as a series of ends.
Unhostile Sense of Humor: The sense
of humor shared by self-actualizers is not typical. They do not laugh at hostile, superior, or
rebellious humor. They do not tell jokes
that make fun of other people. Instead,
they poke fun at people in general for being foolish, or trying to claim a
place in the universe that is beyond us.
Such humor often takes the form of poking fun at oneself, but not in a
clown-like way. Although such humor can
be found in nearly every aspect of life, to non-self-actualizing people the
self-actualizers seem to be somewhat sober and serious.
Creativeness: According to Maslow, self-actualizing people
are universally creative. This is not
the creativity associated with genius, such as that of Mozart or Thomas Edison,
but rather the fresh and naive creativity of an unspoiled child. Maslow believed that this creativity was a
natural potential given to all humans at their birth, but that the constraints
on behavior inherent in most cultures lead to its suppression.
As desirable as self-actualization may seem,
self-actualizing individuals still face problems in their lives. According to Maslow, they are typically not
well adjusted. This is because they
resist being enculturated. They do not
stand out in grossly abnormal ways, but there is a certain inner detachment
from the culture in which they live.
They are not viewed as rebels in the adolescent sense, though they may
be rebels while growing up, but rather they work steadily toward social change
and/or the accomplishment of their goals.
As a result of their immersion in some personal goal, they may lose
interest in or patience with common people and common social practices. Thus, they may seem detached, insulting,
absent-minded, or humorless. They can
seem boring, stubborn, or irritating, particularly because they are often
superficially vain and proud only of their own accomplishments and their own
family, friends, and work. According to
Maslow, outbursts of temper are not rare.
Maslow argued that there are, in fact, people who become saints, movers
and shakers, creators, and sages.
However, these same people can be irritating, selfish, angry, or
depressed. No one is perfect, not even
those who are self-actualizing (Maslow, 1950/1973, 1970).
Discussion Question: Consider
Maslow’s characteristics of self-actualizing people. Which of those characteristics do you think
are part of your personality? Are
there any characteristics that you think may be particularly difficult for
you to achieve?
Obstacles to Self-Actualization
In The Farther Reaches
of Human Nature (Maslow, 1971), which was completed by Maslow’s wife and
one of his colleagues shortly after Maslow’s death, Maslow described
self-actualization as something that one does not obtain or fulfill at a
specific point in time. Rather, it is an
ongoing process of self-actualizing, characterized for some by brief periods of
self-actualization (the peak experiences, for example). Maslow also described two major obstacles to
achieving self-actualization: desacralizing and the Jonah complex. The Jonah complex, a name suggested by
Maslow’s friend Professor Frank Manuel, refers to being afraid of one’s own
greatness, or evading one’s destiny or calling in life. Maslow specifically described this as a
non-Freudian defense mechanism in which a person is as afraid of the best
aspects of their psyche as they are afraid of the worst aspects of their psyche
(i.e., the socially unacceptable id impulses).
He described the process of this fear as a recognition, despite how much
we enjoy the godlike possibilities revealed by our finest accomplishments, of
the weakness, awe, and fear we experience when we achieve those
accomplishments. According to Maslow,
“great emotions after all can in fact
overwhelm us” (Maslow, 1971).
Nonetheless, he encouraged people to strive for greatness, within a
reasonable sense of their own limitations.
A very important defense mechanism, which affects young
people in particular, is what Maslow called desacralizing. The source of this problem is usually found
within the family:
These youngsters mistrust the
possibility of values and virtues. They
feel themselves swindled or thwarted in their lives. Most of them have, in fact, dopey parents
whom they don’t respect very much, parents who are quite confused themselves about
values and who, frequently, are simply terrified of their children and never
punish them or stop them from doing things that are wrong. So you have a situation where the youngsters
simply despise their elders – often for good and sufficient reason. (pg. 49;
As a result, children grow up
without respect for their elders, or for anything their elders consider
important. The values of the culture
itself can be called into question. While
such a situation may sometimes be important for changing social conventions
that unfairly discriminate against some people, can we really afford to live in
a society in which nothing is
sacred? Indeed, can such a society or
culture continue to exist? Thus, Maslow
emphasized a need for resacralizing. Maslow noted that he had to make up the words
desacralizing and resacralizing “because the English language is rotten for
good people. It has no decent vocabulary
for the virtues” (Maslow, 1971).
Resacralizing means being willing to see the sacred, the eternal, the
symbolic. As an example, Maslow
suggested considering a medical student dissecting a human brain. Would such a student see the brain simply as
a biological organ, or would they be awed by it, also seeing the brain as a
sacred object, including even its poetic aspects? This concept is particularly important for
counselors working with the aged, people approaching the end of their lives,
and may be critical for helping them move toward self-actualization. According to Maslow, when someone asks a counselor
for help with the self-actualizing process, the counselor had better have an
answer for them, “or we’re not doing what it is our job to do” (Maslow, 1971).
Discussion Question: Maslow
believed that desacralizing was particularly challenging for young
people. Do you think our society has
lost its way, have we lost sight of meaningful values? Is nothing sacred anymore? Is there anything that you do in your life
to recognize something as sacred in a way that has real meaning for your
Maslow had something else interesting to say about
self-actualization in The Farther Reaches
of Human Nature: “What does
self-actualization mean in moment-to-moment terms? What does it mean on Tuesday at four
o’clock?” (pg. 41). Consequently,
he offered a preliminary suggestion for an operational definition of the
process by which self-actualization occurs.
In other words, what are the behaviors exhibited by people on the path
toward fulfilling or achieving the fourteen characteristics of self-actualized
people described above? Sadly, this
could only remain a preliminary description, i.e., they are “ideas that
are in midstream rather than ready for formulation into a final version,”
because this book was published after Maslow’s death (having been put together
before his sudden and unexpected heart attack).
What does one do when he
self-actualizes? Does he grit his teeth and squeeze? What does self-actualization mean in terms of
actual behavior, actual procedure? I
shall describe eight ways in which one self-actualizes. (pg. 45; Maslow, 1971)
full, vivid, and selfless concentration
and total absorption.
ongoing process of self-actualization, they make growth choices (rather than fear choices; progressive choices
rather than regressive choices).
They are aware
that there is a self to be
When in doubt,
they choose to be honest rather than
They trust their
own judgment, even if it means being
different or unpopular (being courageous is another version of this behavior).
They put in the
effort necessary to improve themselves, working regularly toward self-development no matter how arduous
or demanding .
They embrace the
occurrence of peak experiences, doing
what they can to facilitate and enjoy more of them (as opposed to denying these
experiences as many people do).
They identify and
set aside their ego defenses (they
have “the courage to give them up”).
Although this requires that they face up to painful experiences, it is
more beneficial than the consequences of defenses such as repression.
Being and Transcendence
Maslow had great hope and optimism for the human
race. Although self-actualization might
seem to be the pinnacle of personal human achievement, he viewed Humanistic
Psychology, or Third Force Psychology,
as just another step in our progression:
I should say also that I consider
Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a
still “higher” Fourth Psychology, transpersonal, transhuman, centered in the
cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness,
identity, self-actualization, and the like…These new developments may very well
offer a tangible, usable, effective satisfaction of the “frustrated idealism”
of many quietly desperate people, especially young people. These psychologies give promise of developing
into the life-philosophy, the religion-surrogate, the value-system, the life-program
that these people have been missing.
Without the transcendent and the transpersonal, we get sick, violent,
and nihilistic, or else hopeless and apathetic.
We need something “bigger than we are” to be awed by and to commit
ourselves to in a new, naturalistic, empirical, non-churchly sense, perhaps as
Thoreau and Whitman, William James and John Dewey did. (pp. iii-iv; Maslow,
Although Maslow wrote about this need for a Fourth Force Psychology in 1968, it was
not until the year 1998 that APA President Martin Seligman issued his call for
the pursuit of positive psychology as an active force in the field of
psychology. Maslow believed that all
self-actualizing people were involved in some calling or vocation, a cause
outside of themselves, something that fate has called them to and that they
love doing. In so doing, they devote
themselves to the search for Being-values
(or B-values; Maslow, 1964, 1967/2008, 1968).
The desire to attain self-actualization results in the B-values acting
like needs. Since they are higher than
the basic needs, Maslow called them metaneeds. When individuals are unable to attain these
goals, the result can be metapathology,
a sickness of the soul. Whereas
counselors may be able to help the average person with their average problems,
metapathologies may require the help of a metacounselor,
a counselor trained in philosophical and spiritual matters that go far beyond
the more instinctoid training of the traditional psychoanalyst (Maslow,
1967/2008). The B-values identified by
Maslow (1964) are an interesting blend of the characteristics of
self-actualizing individuals and the human needs described by Henry Murray: truth, goodness, beauty, wholeness,
dichotomu-transcendence, aliveness, uniqueness, perfection, necessity,
completion, justice, order, simplicity, richness, effortlessness, playfulness,
Transcendence is typically associated with people who are
religious, spiritual, or artistic, but Maslow said that he found transcendent
individuals amongst creative people in a wide variety of vocations (including
business, managers, educators, and politicians), though there are not many of
them in any field. Transcendence,
according to Maslow, is the very highest and most holistic level of human
consciousness, which involves relating to oneself, to all others, to all
species, to nature, and to the cosmos as an end rather than as a means (Maslow,
1971). It is essential that individuals
not be reduced to the role they play in relation to others, transcendence can
only be found within oneself (Maslow, 1964, 1968). Maslow’s idea is certainly not new. Ancient teachings in Yoga tell us that there
is a single universal spirit that connects us all, and Buddhists describe this
connection as interbeing. The Abrahamic religions teach us that the
entire universe was created by, and therefore is connected through, one
god. It was Maslow’s hope that a
transcendent Fourth Force in psychology would help all people to become
self-actualizing. In Buddhist terms,
Maslow was advocating the intentional creation of psychological Bodhisattvas. Perhaps this is what Maslow meant by the term
Across Cultures: Is Nothing Sacred?
Maslow described some lofty ambitions
for humanity in Toward a Psychology of
Being (1968) and The Farther Reaches
of Human Nature (1971), as well as some challenges we face along the
way. Transcendence, according to
Maslow, is a loss of our sense of Self, as we begin to feel an intimate
connection with the world around us and all other people. But transcendence is exceedingly difficult
when we are hindered by the defense mechanism of desacralization. What exactly does the word “sacred”
mean? It is not easily found in
psychological works. William James
often wrote about spiritual matters, but not about what is or is not
sacred. Sigmund Freud mentioned sacred
prohibitions in his final book, Moses
and Monotheism (Freud, 1939/1967), but he felt that anything sacred was
simply a cultural adaptation of all children’s fear of challenging their
father’s will (and God was created as a symbol of the mythological
father). A dictionary definition of
sacred says that it is “connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a
religious purpose and so deserving veneration.” However, there is another definition that
does not require a religious context:
“regarded with great respect and reverence by a particular religion,
group, or individual” (The Oxford American College Dictionary, 2002). Maslow described desacralization as a
rejection of the values and virtues of one’s parents. As a result, people grow up without the
ability to see anything as sacred, eternal, or symbolic. In other words, they grow up without
meaning in their lives.
The process of resacralization, which
Maslow considered an essential task of therapists working with clients who
seek help in this critical area of their life, requires that we have some
concept of what is sacred. So, what is
sacred? Many answers can be found, but
there does seem to be at least one common thread.
Christians have long believed that
forgiveness lies at the heart of faith.
Psychologists have recently found that forgiveness may also lie at the
heart of emotional and physical well-being.
David Myers & Malcolm Jeeves
is the wish that others be free of suffering.
It is by means of compassion that we aspire to attain
enlightenment. It is compassion that
inspires us to engage in the virtuous practices that lead to Buddhahood. We must therefore devote ourselves to
The Dalai Lama (2001)
I have been engaged in peace work for
more than thirty years: combating
poverty, ignorance, and disease; going to sea to help rescue boat people;
evacuating the wounded from combat zones; resettling refugees; helping hungry
children and orphans; opposing wars; producing and disseminating peace
literature; training peace and social workers; and rebuilding villages
destroyed by bombs. It is because of
the practice of meditation – stopping, calming, and looking deeply – that I
have been able to nourish and protect the sources of my spiritual energy and
continue this work.
Thich Nhat Hanh (1995)
progress is the penetrating of the present moment, living life with our feet
on the ground, living in compassionate, active relationship with others, and
yet living in the awareness that life has been penetrated by the eternal
moment of God and unfolds in the power of that moment.
Fr. Laurence Freeman (1986)
Keep your hands busy with your duties in
this world, and your heart busy with God.
Sheikh Muzaffer (cited in Essential
Sufism by Fadiman & Frager, 1997)
Forgiveness is a letting go of past
suffering and betrayal, a release of the burden of pain and hate that we
Forgiveness honors the heart’s greatest
dignity. Whenever we are lost, it
brings us back to the ground of love.
Jack Kornfield (2002)
And he said to him, “You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your
mind. This is the great and first
commandment. And a second is like it,
You shall love your neighbor as yourself…”
Jesus Christ (The Holy Bible, 1962)
In examining self-actualizing people
directly, I find that in all cases, at least in our culture, they are
dedicated people, devoted to some task “outside themselves,” some vocation,
or duty, or beloved job. Generally the
devotion and dedication is so marked that one can fairly use the old words
vocation, calling, or mission to describe their passionate, selfless, and
profound feeling for their “work.”
The spiritual life is then part of the
human essence. It is a
defining-characteristic of human nature, without which human nature is not
full human nature. It is part of the
Real Self, of one’s identity, of one’s inner core, of one’s specieshood, of
Abraham Maslow (1971)
Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, as well
as members of other religions and humanists, all have some variation of what
has been called The Golden Rule: treating others as you would like to be
treated. If that is sacred, then even
amongst atheists, young people can evaluate the values and virtues of their
parents, community, and culture, and then decide whether those values are
right or wrong, whether they want to perpetuate an aspect of that society
based on their own thoughts and feelings about how they, themselves, may be
treated someday by others. This resacralization
need not be religious or spiritual, but it commonly is, and some
psychologists are comfortable embracing spirituality as such.
Kenneth Pargament and Annette Mahoney
(2005) wrote a chapter entitled Spirituality:
Discovering and Conserving the Sacred, which was included in the Handbook of Positive Psychology
(Snyder & Lopez, 2005). First,
they point out that religion is an undeniable fact in American society. Some 95 percent of Americans believe in
God, and 86 percent believe that He can be reached through prayer and that He
is important or very important to them.
Spirituality, according to Pargament and Mahoney, is the process in
which individuals seek both to discover and to conserve that which is
sacred. It is interesting to note that
Maslow and Rogers consider self-actualization and transcendence to be a
process as well, not something that one can get and keep permanently. An important aspect of defining what is
sacred is that it is imbued with divinity.
God may be seen as manifest in marriage, work can be seen as a
vocation to which the person is called, the environment can been seen as
God’s creation. In each of these
situations, and in others, what is viewed as sacred has been sanctified by those
who consider it sacred. Unfortunately,
this can have negative results as well, such as when the Heaven’s Gate cult
followed their sanctified leader to their deaths. Thus, spirituality is not necessarily
synonymous with a good and healthy lifestyle.
Still, there is research that has shown
that couples who sanctify their marriage experience greater marital
satisfaction, less marital conflict, and more effective marital
problem-solving strategies. Likewise,
mothers and fathers who sanctify the role of parenting report less aggression
and more consistent discipline in raising their children. For college students, spiritual striving
was more highly correlated with well-being than any other form of
goal-setting (see Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). So there appear to be real psychological
advantages to spiritual pursuits. This
may be particularly true during challenging times in our lives:
are aspects of our lives that are beyond our control. Birth, developmental transitions,
accidents, illnesses, and death are immutable elements of existence. Try as we might to affect these elements, a
significant portion of our lives remains beyond our immediate control. In spirituality, however, we can find ways
to understand and deal with our fundamental human insufficiency, the fact
that there are limits to our control… (pg. 655; Pargament & Mahoney,
Eupsychian Management and Theory Z
It is not merely a coincidence that Maslow is well-known
in the field of business. He spent 3
years as the plant manager for the Maslow Cooperage Corporation, and later he
spent a summer studying at an electronics firm in California (Non-Linear
Systems, Inc.) at the invitation of the company’s president. He became very interested in industrial and
managerial psychology, and the journal he kept in California was published as Eupsychian Management (Maslow,
1965). Eupsychia refers to real possibility and improvability, and a
movement toward psychological health, as opposed to the vague fantasies of proposed
Utopian societies. More precisely,
though this is something of a fantasy itself, Maslow described Eupsychia as the
culture that would arise if 1,000 self-actualizing people were allowed to live
their own lives on a sheltered island somewhere. Maslow applied his psychological theories,
including both the hierarchy of needs and self-actualization, to a management
style that takes advantage of this knowledge to maximize the potential of the
employees in a company (also see the collection of Maslow’s unpublished papers
by Hoffman, 1996).
Maslow introduced a variety of terms related to his
theories on management, one of the most interesting being synergy. Having borrowed the
term from Ruth Benedict, synergy refers to a situation in which a person pursuing
their own, selfish goals is automatically helping others, and a person
unselfishly helping others is, at the same time, helping themselves. According to Maslow, when selfishness and
unselfishness are mutually exclusive, it is a sign of mild psychopathology. Self-actualizing individuals are above the
distinction between selfishness and unselfishness; they enjoy seeing others
experience pleasure. Maslow offered the
personal example of feeding strawberries to his little daughter. As the child smacked her lips and thoroughly
loved the strawberries, an experience that thrilled Maslow, what was he
actually giving up by letting her eat the strawberries instead of eating them
himself? In his experience with the
Blackfoot tribe, a member named Teddy was able to buy a car. He was the only one who had one, but
tradition allowed anyone in the tribe to borrow it. Teddy used his car no more often than anyone
else, but he had to pay the bills, including the gas bill. And yet, everyone in the tribe was so proud
of him that he was greatly admired and they elected him chief. So, he benefited in other ways by following
tradition and letting everyone use his car (Maslow, 1965). In the business field, when managers
encourage cooperation and communication, everyone benefits from the healthy
growth and continuous improvement of the company. And this leads us to Theory Z (which is Eupsychian management).
Douglas McGregor, a professor of industrial relations at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was greatly impressed with Maslow’s
work, and McGregor had used Motivation
and Personality as a textbook in his business classes. Based on Maslow’s theories, McGregor
published a book in 1960 in which he outlined two managerial models, Theory X and Theory Y (Gabor, 2000; Hoffman, 1996). Maslow described the two theories as follows:
…To put it succinctly, Theory Y assumes that if you give people
responsibilities and freedom, then they will like to work and will do a better
job. Theory Y also assumes that workers
basically like excellence, efficiency, perfection, and the like.
X, which still dominates most of the
world’s workplace, has a contrasting view.
It assumes that people are basically stupid, lazy, hurtful, and
untrustworthy and, therefore, that you have got to check everything constantly
because workers will steal you blind if you don’t. (pg. 187; Maslow, 1996a)
The Theory X/Theory Y
strategy was intentionally put into practice at Non-Linear Systems, hence
Maslow’s invitation to study there.
Maslow concluded, however, that even Theory Y did not go far enough in
maximizing people’s potential. People
have metaneeds(the need for
B-values), needs that go beyond simply offering higher salaries. When employees have their basic needs met,
but recognize inefficiency and mismanagement in the company, they will still
complain, but these higher level complaints can now be described as metagrumbles (as opposed to the lower
level grumbles about lower level needs).
Theory Z attempts to transcend Theory Y and actively facilitate the
growth of a company’s employees toward self-actualization (Hoffman, 1996;
Maslow, 1971; Maslow 1996b).
Discussion Question: How’s your
job (or any job you have had)? Would
you describe your supervisor or boss as someone who uses Eupsychian or Theory
Z management? Does the workplace
foster synergy amongst the employees?
If not, can you imagine how the job would be different if they did?
Henry Murray and Personology
Henry Murray was primarily psychodynamic in his
orientation. However, the fundamental
aspect of his theory is the presence of needs in our lives, and there was a
distinctly humanistic aspect to his theories as well (Maddi & Costa,
1972). Thus, it seems appropriate to
include Murray alongside Maslow’s discussion of human needs. In addition, Murray developed a practical
application of his famous test, the Thematic
Apperception Test (or TAT), for
screening candidates for special work assignments. Once again, this is similar to Maslow’s
forays into the field of industrial/organizational psychology. Although it is common to present different
fields as fundamentally opposed, such as humanistic psychology vs. psychodynamic psychology, Murray
and Maslow provide an ideal opportunity to see the commonalities that often
exist between different areas in psychology.
It must also be remembered that Murray was no strict adherent to the
dogmatic view of psychoanalysis presented by Freud:
stands for a conceptual system which explains, it seems to me, as much as any
other. But this is no reason for going
in blind and swallowing the whole indigestible bolus, cannibalistically
devouring the totem father in the hope of acquiring his genius, his
authoritative dominance, and thus rising to power in the psychoanalytic
society, that battle-ground of Little Corporals. No; I, for one, prefer to take what I please,
suspend judgment, reject what I please, speak freely. (pg. 31; Murray, 1940/2008).
Brief Biography of Henry Murray
Henry Alexander Murray, Jr. was born in 1893 in New York
City. He had many nicknames, and
typically asked his friends to call him Harry.
His family was quite wealthy, and had a noble history. He was a descendant of John Murray, the
fourth Earl of Dunmore, the last Royal Governor of Virginia, and his mother’s
great-grandfather, Colonel Harry Babcock, had served on General George
Washington’s staff during the Revolutionary War. Murray lived a life of luxury, spending the
summers on Long Island and often traveling throughout Europe. He was educated at exclusive private schools. However, his childhood was not without
challenges. He felt abandoned by his
mother, who suffered from depression much of her life, when Murray was quite
young. He stuttered, and was
cross-eyed. The operation to help cure
his internal strabismus accidentally left him with an external strabismus. This created problems for Murray when it came
to competing in athletics, but Murray worked hard to overcome his difficulties
and he excelled at sports. He became the
quarterback of his football team and won a featherweight boxing championship at
school. In college, he made the rowing
team at Harvard University (Maddi & Costa, 1972; Robinson, 1992).
In spite of his athletic success at Harvard, or perhaps
because of it, he did not do well academically, receiving below average
grades. Nonetheless, he earned a degree
in history in 1915. While at Harvard he
also married Josephine Rantoul, after a lengthy courtship. Despite his mediocre grades at Harvard,
Murray was accepted into the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, and
graduated first in his class in 1919. He
then completed a surgical internship at Presbyterian Hospital in New York,
where he once treated the future president Franklin D. Roosevelt, followed by a
period of research at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research and
Cambridge University, which culminated in a Ph.D. in biochemistry in 1927. He then accepted a position as assistant to
Morton Prince, and became the director of Harvard University’s psychology
clinic. Murray had never taken a
psychology course, but he had some interesting experience (Maddi & Costa,
1972; Robinson, 1992).
Murray had a psychiatry course in medical school, and had
read Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams. He also had a research assistant from Vienna,
Alma Rosenthal, who had been a long-time friend of Anna Freud. While both working together and having an
intimate love affair, Rosenthal introduced Murray to the deeper dimensions of
the unconscious mind. However, it was
Murray’s lifelong mistress, Christiana Morgan, who introduced him to Jung’s
book Psychology Types. Murray was deeply impressed by Jung’s book,
but even more by Jung himself. Murray
was troubled by the intense love affair he had developed with Morgan, so he
went to Zurich in order to be psychoanalyzed by Jung. Jung managed to help Murray understand his
stuttering and accept having his affair with Morgan. After all, Jung had maintained a mistress of
his own for many years. Jung also
managed to convince Murray’s wife and Morgan’s husband to accept the affair as
well, and Christiana Morgan remained a very important colleague throughout Murray’s
life. It has been suggested that she
played a far more important role in his theories, and in the development of the
TAT, than she has been given credit for (Maddi & Costa, 1972; Robinson,
1992). Partly because Jung had directly
helped him with a psychological problem, and partly because of the
extraordinary range of ideas that Jung was open to, Murray always spoke highly
of Jung (though he believed that Jung tended toward being psychotic, just as
Freud tended toward being neurotic; see Brian, 1995).
Initially, Murray’s reappointment as clinic director was
challenged by the experimental psychologists Edwin Boring and Karl Lashley, but
he was supported by the clinical psychologists, who were led by Gordon Allport
(Stagner, 1988). As his work continued
he was quite productive (it was during this time that he developed the TAT),
and many important clinicians passed through the clinic. Included among them was Erik Erikson, who
came to the clinic after having been psychoanalyzed by Anna Freud in Vienna. Murray also spent a great deal of time
traveling and studying in Europe, and enjoyed a memorable evening with Sigmund
and Anna Freud. As he was preparing to
return to the clinic, World War II began.
Murray joined the Army Medical Corps, and eventually worked for the
Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Of
particular interest was his use of the TAT to screen OSS agents for sensitive
missions (the OSS was the precursor to the CIA, so in peacetime these agents
would be called spies). He was in China
studying errors they had made in their assessments when the atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. Murray was
shocked, and devoted the rest of his life to seeking alternatives to war (Maddi
& Costa, 1972; Robinson, 1992).
As his career and life approached their ends, Murray
received the Distinguished Scientific
Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, and the Gold Medal Award from the American
Psychological Foundation. He received
numerous honorary degrees, and collections of papers have been published in his
honor (e.g., White, 1963; Zucker, Rabin, Aronoff, & Frank, 1992). In June, 1988, Murray told his nurse that he
was dead. She disagreed with him, and
pinched him gently on the cheek to prove her point. He curtly disagreed with her, declaring that
he was the doctor, she was the nurse, and he was dead. A few days later he was right (Robinson,
Murray in Context: A Challenging Task
There does not seem to be a consensus on
where Murray fits within the field of personality theory. Trained as a Freudian psychoanalyst, he is
often grouped with the neo-Freudians.
However, he has also been placed with the trait theorists, and he was
a colleague of Gordon Allport.
However, many personality theory textbooks don’t consider Murray
worthy of significant attention. He is
included alongside Maslow in this textbook because his work focused primarily
on needs. In addition, the practical
application of his Thematic Apperception Test in screening candidates for OSS
assignments was similar to Maslow’s application of psychological principles
in the business field.
The Thematic Apperception Test is
certainly Murray’s claim to fame. It
remains one of the best-known tests in psychology, having been applied in
research, business, and therapeutic settings.
Since Murray used the TAT in combination with the Rorschach Inkblot
Test, he maintained his ties to traditional psychoanalysis and helped to
advance the fame of the other renowned projective test. As such, his practical contributions to
psychology seem to outweigh his theoretical contributions.
It has been said that the value of a
theory can be measured by the research that follows. David McClelland’s use of the TAT to study
the need for achievement is a common topic in introductory psychology
textbooks. Thus, Murray’s
contributions have inspired classic research in psychology. That alone should ensure a place of
significance for Murray in the history of personality theory.
In Explorations in Personality
(Murray, 1938), Murray describes people as “today’s great problem”. What can we know about someone, and how can
we describe it in a way that has clear meaning?
Nothing is more important in the field of psychology:
The point of view adopted in this
book is that personalities constitute the subject matter of psychology, the
life history of a single man being a unit with which this discipline has to
deal… Our guiding thought was that
personality is a temporal whole and to understand a part of it one must have
sense, though vague, of the totality.
(pgs. 3-4; Murray, 1938)
Thus, Murray and his
colleagues sought to understand the nature of personality, in order to help
them understand individuals. He referred
to this direct study of personality as personology,
simply because he considered it clumsy to refer to “the psychology of
Murray described the very elegant process by which the
Harvard Clinic group systematically approached their studies, and then
presented a lengthy series of propositions regarding a theory of
personality. The primary focus of these
propositions came down to what Murray called a press-need combination. A need,
according to Murray, is a hypothetical process that is imagined to occur in
order to account for certain objective and subjective facts. In other words, when an organism reliably
acts in a certain way to obtain some goal, we can determine that the organism
had a need to achieve that goal. Needs
are often recognized only after the fact, the behavior that satisfies the need
may be a blind impulse, but it still leads toward satisfying the needed
goal. Press is the term Murray applied to environmental objects or
situations that designate directional tendencies, or that guide our needs. Anything in the environment, either harmful
or beneficial to the organism, exerts press.
Thus, our current needs, in the context of current environmental press,
determine our ongoing behavior (Murray, 1938).
Like Maslow, Murray separated needs into biological and
psychology factors based on how essential they were to one’s survival. The primary, or viscerogenic needs, include air, water, food, sex, harm-avoidance,
etc. The secondary or psychogenic needs, which are presumed
to derive from the primary needs, are common reaction systems and wishes. Although Murray organizes the psychogenic
needs into groups, they are not rank-ordered as was Maslow’s hierarchy, so we will
not consider the groups any further.
Individually, there are a total of twenty-eight human needs (Murray,
1938). A partial list, with definitions,
includes the following:
the need to gain possessions and property
the need to retain possession of things, to refuse to give or lend
need to arrange, organize, put away objects, to be tidy and clean
the need to build things
the need to overcome obstacles, to exercise power, to strive to do
something difficult as well and as quickly as possible
the need to excite praise and commendation, to demand respect
the need to attract attention to oneself
the need to defend oneself against blame or belittlement
the need to proudly overcome defeat by restriving and retaliating,
to defend one’s honor
the need to influence or control others
the need to admire and willingly follow a superior
the need to assault or injure another, to harm, blame, accuse, or
ridicule a person
the need to surrender, to comply and accept punishment
the need to form friendships and associations, to greet, join, and
live with others, to love
the need to snub, ignore, or exclude others
need to relax, amuse oneself, seek diversion and entertainment
the need to explore, to ask questions, to satisfy curiosity
the Murray, in the course of daily life these needs are often interrelated. When a single action can satisfy more than
one need, we can say that the needs are fused.
However, needs can also come into conflict. For example, an individual’s need for
dominance may make it difficult to satisfy their need for affiliation, unless
they can find someone with a powerful need for abasement. Such a situation is one of the ways in which
psychologists have tried to understand abusive relationships. In other words, when someone with a strong
need for affiliation and debasement becomes involved with someone with a strong
need for affiliation and dominance (particularly in a pathological sense), the
results can be very unfortunate.
object, or person, that evokes a need is said to “be cathected” by the person
being studied. In other words, they have
invested some of their limited psychic energy (libido) into that object. Murray believed that an individual’s
personality is revealed by the objects to which that person is attached by the
cathexis of libido, especially if you can recognize the intensity, endurance,
and rigidity of the cathexis. This
process not only applies to individuals, but institutions and cultures also
have predictable patterns in terms of their cathected objects. Put more simply, we can strive to understand
individuals, including doing so from a cross-cultural perspective, by examining
the nature and pattern of needs they seek to satisfy in their daily lives
Morris Stein, who worked with Murray in the OSS and then
earned a Ph.D. at the Harvard Clinic, combined Murray’s work on identifying
human needs and Jung’s concept of psychological types. By looking at patterns in the rank-order of
needs among industrial chemists and Peace Corps volunteers, Stein was able to
divide each group into separate psychological types (Stein, 1963). For example, there were five basic types of
industrial chemists: Type A was
achievement oriented but still worked well with others; Type B focused on
pleasing others, often at the expense of their own ideas; Type C was
achievement oriented, but more driven and hostile than Type A; Type D was
motivated by achievement and affiliation, but with an emphasis on order that
protected them from criticism or blame; and Type E was particularly focused on
relationships marked by cooperation and trust.
As interesting as these types may be, they are quite different than the
personality types identified amongst the Peace Corps volunteers (Stein,
1963). Thus, although Stein’s
investigation suggests that personality types can be identified based on
patterns of need, this approach probably would not provide a general theory of
personology that could be applied to anyone.
Discussion Question: Consider
Murray’s list of psychogenic needs.
Which needs are the ones that affect you the most? Are you able to fulfill those needs?
The TAT and the OSS
Murray is typically credited with the development the
TAT. However, the original article has
Christiana Morgan as the first author (Morgan & Murray, 1935), and in Explorations in Personality most of the
TAT work is described by Morgan (Murray, 1938).
Apparently, when the test was revised and republished in 1943, Murray
did most of the revision, partly because Morgan was quite ill at the time. The TAT consists of a series of pictures
depicting potentially dramatic events (although the pictures are actually
rather vague). The person taking the
test is asked to provide a story that relates events preceding the picture to
some final outcome of the situation. It
is expected that the subject will project their own thoughts and feelings into
the picture as they create their story.
In order for this to be possible, Morgan and Murray made sure that in
most pictures there was at least one person with whom the subject could easily
empathize and identify themselves. The
TAT became one of the most popular projective tests ever developed, and
continues to be widely used today.
The TAT has been used in two particularly interesting
settings outside of clinical psychology: to study the need for achievement (see
the next section), and to screen agents for the Office of Strategic Services
during World War II. Murray used the TAT
as part of a program to help select members of the OSS for critical, dangerous missions. Even before joining the OSS, Murray worked
for the government in support of the war effort. In conjunction with Gordon Allport, he
provided an analysis of the personality of Adolf Hitler, along with predictions
as to how Hitler might react after Germany was defeated. He also helped to develop a series of
questions for the crew of a captured German U-boat. The OSS program involved assessing
candidate’s responses to highly stressful situations. In addition to psychological testing, using
instruments such as the TAT, the candidates were put into highly stressful
situations. For example, they were told
to pick two men to help them put together a five-foot cube with wooden poles,
blocks, and pegs. However, the available
men were all secretly on Murray’s staff.
One of them would act helpless and passive, whereas the other made
stupid suggestions and constantly criticized the recruit. The task was, of course, never completed, but
it provided Murray with the information he needed on how the candidate
performed under stress (Brian, 1995; Robinson, 1992).
In the next chapter we will see that the existential
psychologist Rollo May talked about our need for myths, in order to make sense
out of our often senseless world.
Although this was not a need included by Murray, he did have an interest
in mythology. The imagination that is
necessary to create a story around a picture in the TAT often involves
symbolism that arises from the depths of the whole self (Murray, 1960). In this regard, Murray sounds quite similar
to Jung and his theory of archetypes, and Murray discussed some classic images
from our historical mythology. Of
particular interest to Murray, however, is whether or not we will establish new
myths in the future. There are older
myths that remain oriented to our future, such as the apocalyptic myths or the
myth of the Promised Land (Murray, 1960).
The existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre lamented the
demythologizing of the universe by science, and he advocated a remythologizing
of the self (see McAdams, 1992). Given
that Murray did include a need for cognizance, the need to explore, to ask
questions, and to satisfy curiosity, perhaps there will be new myths created in
our future. If so, psychologists will
need to keep current with the cultural phenomena that influence people’s
unconscious projections onto the TAT and other projective tests.
David McClelland and the Need for Achievement
David McClelland, who joined the faculty of Harvard
University a few years before Murray retired, conducted some well-known
research utilizing the TAT to examine the need
for achievement. The research began
shortly after World War II, and was supported by the Office of Naval
Research. McClelland and his colleagues
made an interesting point, in the preface to their book The Achievement Motive (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell,
1953), about studying just one of Murray’s needs: “concentration on a limited research problem
is not necessarily narrowing; it may lead ultimately into the whole of psychology.” Indeed, they felt that they learned a great
deal about personality by studying one of the most important of human needs.
McClelland and his colleagues used the TAT and borrowed
heavily from Murray’s procedures and scoring system. However, they made a number of
modifications. They used additional
pictures of their own, they often presented the pictures on a screen to a group
of subjects, those subjects were all male college students, and some of their
experimental conditions were designed to evoke achievement-oriented responses,
or responses based on success or failure.
An important aspect of this study was that the TAT (and similar pictures
developed by McClelland) requires writing imaginative stories of what the
subject projects onto the picture.
Therefore, situations that stimulate achievement-oriented imagination
can result in higher scores on the need for achievement, something that
McClelland and his colleagues confirmed in Navaho children during the course of
their research (suggesting it is a universal phenomenon). Overall, they found that individuals who are
high in their need for achievement perform more tasks during timed tests,
improve more quickly in their ability to perform those tasks, set higher levels
of aspirations, remember more of the tasks they failed to perform, and they are
more future-oriented and recognize achievement-oriented situations (McClelland
et al., 1953). In addition, they found a
positive correlation between the need for achievement and cultures and families
in which there is an emphasis on the individual development of children, with
early childhood being of particular importance.
After examining eight Native American cultures (Navaho, Ciricahua-Apache,
Western Apache, Hopi, Comanche, Sanpoil, Paiute, and Flatheads), McClelland and
his colleagues determined that the need for achievement in each culture
(measured from classic legends involving the archetypal trickster “coyote”)
correlates highly with both an early age onset and the severity of independence
training (McClelland et al., 1953). In
summary, the need for achievement is a motivational force that develops in
early childhood, and which pushes individuals toward accomplishing life’s
excellent essay on the need for achievement, which addresses some of the
criticism this concept has endured, was written by McClelland in a new
introduction for the second printing of his book The Achieving Society (McClelland, 1976). This book also adds to the cross-cultural
reach of McClelland’s work, since as he extends his theory on the need for
achievement to the societies in which individuals live he also extends his
theory to other societies around the world.
First, the concept itself has typically been misunderstood:
word “achievement” cues all sorts of surplus meanings that the technically
defined n Achievement variable does
not have. It refers specifically to the
desire to do something better, faster, more efficiently, with less effort. It is not a generalized desire to succeed…
(pg. A; McClelland, 1976)
In studying the role of need
for achievement within societies, McClelland focused on business and economic
development as one of the most easily compared aspects of different cultures. He believed that nations possess something
like a “group mind,” which can lead the nation in certain directions. Again using literary sources as examples of
cultural perspectives on the need for achievement, McClelland found support for
his theory that high need for achievement preceded dramatic societal
development in ancient Greece, pre-Incan Peru, Spain in the late middle ages,
England leading up to the industrial revolution, and during the development of
the United States (particularly in the 1800s).
Once again, McClelland cautions against over-generalizing the meaning of
need for achievement:
It is a
very specific, rather rare, drive which focuses on the goal of efficiency and
which expresses itself in activities available in the culture which permit or
encourage one to be more efficient; and across cultures the most common form
such activity takes is business. (pg. B; McClelland, 1976)
The question of where the need for achievement comes from
continued to perplex McClelland.
Although early childhood appears to be when a lasting need for
achievement develops, the need for achievement can be enhanced in adults
through training seminars. More
importantly, however, is the question of where need for achievement comes from
in the first place, how does it develop within a society? When McClelland was working in Ethiopia with
the Peace Corps, he studied the Gurage.
This small tribal group was treated with disdain by both the dominant
Christian Amhara and the Muslim Galla tribes.
And yet the Gurage were recognized for their clever business strategies,
and their children wrote stories filled with imagery indicative of a high need
for achievement. Since the Gurage had
developed without contact with Western Christian, Muslim, or Greco-Roman cultures,
they seemed to have developed their own need for achievement. Unfortunately, so little is known about their
history, that McClelland was unable to identify the source of their motivation
In support of the contention that studying the need for
achievement could provide insights into many aspects of personality, McClelland
pursued a number of interesting topics throughout his career, including how
societies can motivate economic growth and identify talent (McClelland,
Baldwin, Bronfenbrenner, & Strodtbeck, 1958; McClelland & Winter,
1969), the power motive (McClelland, 1975), the development of social maturity
and values (McClelland, 1982a; McClelland, 1982b), and a cross-cultural study
on the role of alcohol in society (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Wanner,
1972). Moving in a quite different
direction, McClelland also wrote a book entitled The Roots of Consciousness (McClelland, 1964), in which he argues
that Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis is really an expression of Jewish spiritual
mysticism known as Kabbalah. We will
examine Kabbalah, as well as Christian and Islamic mysticism, as a positive
approach to one’s lifestyle in Chapter 18.
Discussion Question: McClelland
found support for his ideas on the development of the need for achievement
amongst Native Americans, but he did not find that same support among the
Gurage tribe in Ethiopia (they had a strong need for achievement, but the
source was unclear). How important do
you think it is for us to re-examine psychological theories in multiple
cultures, and what would it mean for psychology if we often find
A Final Note: Humanistic or Existential?
In this chapter we have examined the humanistic theories
of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. In
the next chapter we will examine the existential theories of Viktor Frankl and
Rollo May. What really is the
difference? The distinction is subtle,
based on definition, and may seem nonexistent at first glance. Indeed, both the humanistic and existential
theorists have been influenced by the likes of Adler, Horney, Fromm, and Otto
Rank, and Rogers in particular often writes about existential choices in his
books. Even the cognitive therapist
Albert Ellis, himself profoundly influenced by Adler, considered Rational
Emotive Behavior Therapy to be distinctly humanistic (see Humanistic Psychotherapy; Ellis, 1973). In 1986, the Saybrook Institute republished a
series of essays, which had appeared in the Journal
of Humanistic Psychology, under the title Politics and Innocence: A Humanistic Debate (May, Rogers, Maslow,
et al., 1986). In this volume, Rogers
refers to May as “the leading scholar of humanistic psychology.” May, for his part, concluded an open letter
to Rogers in which he expressed “profound respect for you and your contribution
in the past to all of us.” May also
maintained a friendship and correspondence with Maslow (May, 1991). Clearly, the humanistic and existential
psychologists have much in common, and the important figures here in America
communicated actively and with respect for the contributions of each other.
Theory in Real Life: Seeking
Carl Rogers described the actualizing tendency as
something that exists within every living organism. It is a tendency to grow, develop, and
realize one’s full potential. It can
be thwarted, but it cannot be destroyed without destroying the organism
itself. His person-centered approach
was based on this belief, and the resulting trust that one can place in each
person. In other words, we can trust
that each person is driven forward by this actualizing tendency, and that
under the right conditions it will flourish (Rogers, 1977, 1986/1989).
According to Abraham Maslow, life is a process of
choices. At each point, we must choose
between a progression choice and a regression choice. Although many people make safe, defensive
choices, self-actualizing people regularly make growth choices (Maslow, 1971).
Each growth choice moves the person closer to self-actualization, and
the process continues throughout life.
So, consider your own life. Do you feel the actualizing tendency within
you? Do you aspire to accomplish
something great, or simply to be a good person in whatever path you choose? Think about your educational and/or career
plans. Think about your life plans,
and whether they include a family or special friends. Do you feel a calling that is pulling in
one direction or another? The drive to
accomplish, to make a contribution to your community or society, the belief
that you are meant for great things, or simply that you are meant to be a
source of support for others, all of these might be aspects of your
actualizing tendency. Or are you
moving through life without a plan, without goals? Do you skate along from day to day, with no
destination in mind?
If you do feel your actualizing tendency, consider how
you are living your life. Are you
pursuing the steps necessary to accomplish your goals? Have you made choices, perhaps difficult
choices, which have moved you forward toward those goals?
Basically, do you feel that you are on a path toward
self-actualization, and do you think you should be? Is it reasonable to expect, or hope, that
everyone might become self-actualized?
What might it be like to live a fully
transcendent, self-actualized life?
Although there are many different, and individual, answers to that
question, we can find one example in the remarkable life of Peace Pilgrim
(Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 1982). No
one knows her original name, or exactly where or when she was born (other
than it was on a small farm in the Eastern United States in the early
1900s). Her family was poor, but
happy, and she enjoyed her childhood.
Her life was fruitful, but eventually she found the world’s focus on
self-centeredness and material goods to be unfulfilling. In 1953, she chose to leave her life
behind. She adopted the name Peace
Pilgrim, and began walking across America as a prayer for peace.
A pilgrim is a wanderer with a
purpose…Mine is for peace, and that is why I am a Peace Pilgrim…My pilgrimage
covers the entire peace picture: peace
among nations, peace among groups, peace within our environment, peace among
individuals, and the very, very important inner peace – which I talk about
most often because that is where peace begins…I have no money. I do not accept any money on my
pilgrimage. I belong to no
organization…I own only what I wear and carry. There is nothing to tie me down. I am as free as a bird soaring in the sky.
I walk until given shelter, fast until
given food. I don’t ask – it’s given
without asking. Aren’t people
good! There is a spark of good in
everybody, no matter how deeply it may be buried, it is there. It’s waiting to govern your life
gloriously. (pg. 25; Peace Pilgrim
cited in Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 1982)
Between 1953 and her death in 1981, she
walked, and walked, and walked. By
1964, she had walked 25,000 miles, including walking across the United States
twice and through every Canadian province.
After that, she no longer kept track of her mileage, but she completed
at least four more pilgrimages, including Alaska, Hawaii, and a pilgrimage in
Mexico. Among the many friends and
admirers she met along the way, there are two notable people (whom psychology
students should be familiar with) who provided comments for the cover of her
book: Elisabeth Kubler-Ross called her
“a wonderful lady,” and the popular author/counselor Wayne Dyer said “she is
my hero.” As for your own life, Peace
Pilgrim has some simple advice:
There is no glimpse of the light without
walking the path. You can’t get it
from anyone else, nor can you give it to anyone. Just take whatever steps seem easiest for
you, and as you take a few steps it will be easier for you to take a few
more. (pg. 91; Peace Pilgrim cited in Friends of Peace Pilgrim, 1982).
Review of Key Points
Rogers began his clinical career searching for
effective ways of conducting psychotherapy, since the techniques he had
been taught were not providing adequate results.
Rogers believed that each person exists in their
own, unique experiential field.
Only they can see that field clearly, although even they may not
perceive it accurately (incongruence).
Everyone has an actualizing tendency, according
to Rogers. The term commonly
applied to this tendency is self-actualization.
The self is that portion of the experiential
field that is recognized as “I” or “me.”
It is organized into a self-structure.
Rogers used the term personal power to describe
each person’s ability to make choices necessary for the actualization of
their self-structure and to then fulfill those choices or goals.
In order for a person to grow, they must fulfill
a need for positive regard. This
can only come from receiving unconditional positive regard from important
family members and friends (typically beginning with the parents).
When people receive only conditional positive
regard, they develop conditions of worth.
Their self-regard then becomes tied to those conditions of worth.
When an individual’s self-regard and positive
regard are closely related, the person is said to be congruent. If not, they are said to be incongruent.
Congruence and incongruence can be measured by
understanding the gap between a person’s real self and their ideal self.
Rogers described individuals who are congruent
and continuing to grow as fully functioning persons.
Relationships can serve to mirror our true
personality, and to reveal incongruence we are unaware of ourselves.
Successful marriages, according to Rogers, seem to
be based on dedication/commitment, communication, dissolution of roles,
and maintaining each person’s separate self.
Rogers identified six necessary and sufficient
conditions for positive therapeutic change, conditions that can exist in
any interpersonal relationships (not just in therapy). The key factor in these relationships
may be empathic understanding.
Rogers extended his study of clinical psychology
into other groups designed to help all people grow and self-actualize,
such as T-groups and encounter groups.
He described his shift from purely clinical work to fostering
growth in all people as a person-centered approach.
Maslow worked with an amazing range of people,
from the renowned experimental psychologists Harry Harlow and Edward
Thorndike, to the Gestalt psychologist Max Wertheimer and the personality
theorists/clinicians Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and Erich Fromm.
Values were very important to Maslow in his
approach to psychology. He did not,
however, advocate his own values.
He reached beyond humanistic psychology to include areas of study
such as existential psychology, existential theology, and Zen Buddhism.
Maslow described a hierarchy of needs, as
follows: physiological needs,
safety needs, belongingness and love needs, esteem needs, and the need for
self-actualization. Lower needs
must be largely satisfied before the individual begins to focus on higher
The lower needs can be described as
deficiency-needs, whereas self-actualization is a Being-need.
In addition to the basic needs, there are also
cognitive needs and aesthetic needs.
Maslow described fourteen characteristics of
self-actualizing people. He
developed his list by studying both contemporary and historical people who
seemed to him to be self-actualizing.
Perhaps the best know characteristic of
self-actualizing is the peak experience.
This experience is often described in mystical terms, and Maslow
believed it may have provided a basis for the creation of religion in the
early history of the human species.
Maslow described two defense mechanisms that
interfere with the process of self-actualizing: desacralizing and the Jonah complex.
Maslow proposed a Fourth Force Psychology based
on Being-values and metaneeds. He
felt that some people could suffer from a sickness of the soul, a
so-called metapathology, and Maslow suggested a need for metacounselors.
Some individuals experience profound peak
experiences, which Maslow described as transcendent. His concept of transcendence seems very
close to the Buddhist perspective of interbeing.
Maslow proposed that organizations should seek
Eupsychia, a realistically attainable environment in which the actualizing
tendency of all the organization’s members are supported.
When Eupsychian management does support
self-actualization, the actualization of each person benefits the others
around them. The process is known
Based on a management model that described Theory
X and theory Y management styles, Maslow proposed Theory Z. Theory Z management seeks a transcendent
management style that encourages and maximizes self-actualization and
synergy in the work place.
Murray based “personology” on the study of
needs. He distinguished between
viscerogenic needs and psychogenic needs.
Christiana Morgan and Murray developed the Thematic
Apperception Test, a famous projective psychological test. Murray used the test during World War II
to select special agents for highly sensitive, dangerous missions.
Murray believed that a person’s ability to create
a story around a picture in the TAT was based in large part on their
personal mythology. He shared this
interest in myth, and its role in psychology, with Carl Jung and Rollo
McClelland used the TAT to study the need for
achievement. Initially, McClelland
considered parental influence very important for the development of the
achievement need, a finding he confirmed in Native Americans. However, he found contradictory evidence
when he studied the Gurage tribe in Ethiopia. Thus, he considered the true source of
the achievement need as something needing further research.
The distinction between humanistic psychology and
existential psychology is not clear, and there is significant overlap in
the thinking of representatives from both fields. In addition, there is a distinct humanistic
element in the psychodynamic theories of Adler, Horney, Fromm, Murray, and