Critique - Karen Horney
Most of Horney’s theories came from clinical experiences. With her vivid experience, she able to describes virtually and contribute to practitioners in a wide knowledge especially in neurotic personality. Horney’s comprehensive descriptions of neurotic personalities provide an excellent framework for understanding unhealthy people. In that extent, there is no other personality theorist has written so well about neuroses (Psychology, 2016).
Although Horney painted a vivid portrayal of the neurotic personality, her theory rates very low in generating research and low ability to be falsified. Besides that, Horney’s theory is difficult to use in organize data, and to serve as a useful guide to action. Overall, Horney’s
…show more content…
Horney’s theory of humanity is deterministic while the individual has the right to choose (free choice) to some extent (F>D). Similarly to Fromm, Horney’s theory is both optimistic and pessimistic with a tendency toward the curative powers of human (O>P). Additionally, her theory is both causal and teleological (C=T), where she believed it is directly influence by one another. Horney believed in the strength and influence of the conscious, social motivation over the unconscious, which is slightly different to Fromm’s theory (C>UC). Horney has a similar theory with Fromm where she emphasis on the social nature of humans as well as cultural influences places her theory as more social than biological (S>B). Finally, she places emphasis on the similarities between people rather than on their uniqueness (S>U) (Psychology, 2016).
One of Horney’s book, Neurosis and Human Growth (1950), the concepts and formulations are precise, consistent, and unambiguous. However, when all her works are examined, a different picture emerges. Through the years, she used terms such as “neurotic needs” and “neurotic trends” sometimes separately and sometimes interchangeably. Also, the terms “basic anxiety” and “basic conflict” were not always clearly differentiated. These inconsistencies render her entire work somewhat inconsistent, but again, her final theory (1950) is a model of lucidity and consistency (Psychology,
Does personality determine behavior? Phelps (2015) dived into this discussion in his article by reviewing the perspectives of personality, how psychology relates to behavior and the idea of self, and further, how behaviorists define personality and all of its components. Phelps (2015) compares and contrasts the common beliefs of personality and the view of self as attributed to personality theorists with those characterized by behavioral theorists. A typical understanding of personality is one that defines it as an internal substance that drives behavior, and therefore, by seeking to understand a person's personality we can almost assume their actions (Phelps, 2015). Behavioral theorists, on the other hand, do not lean on vague internal conditions to explain behavior, but rather they evaluate a person's past and present settings to define behavior, according to Phelps (2015). The conclusion is that behaviorists' perspectives on these topics are far more parsimonious in nature and most popular views of personality speak to a more internal and far-reaching position rather than the behavior itself (Phelps, 2015). Likewise, Phelps (2015) addresses the issue of meeting specific criteria for discerning whether a theoretical viewpoint is valid in helping us understand people. He continued to remark that behaviorists' stances meet a large portion of the criteria as presented by Gordon Allport (Phelps, 2015). For example, they have less assumptions, they are consistent, and not to mention, they are testable and falsifiable, Phelps (2015) supports. In my opinion and critical review, this article is useful because it provides an unbiased assessment of a variety of personality theories and definitions of personality and the self. Likewise, it is simple and easy to understand, thus qualifying it as parsimonious. Overall, I think the article did its ultimate job of evaluating different perspectives and
Eysenck gave the name neuroticism to a dimension that range from normal, calm and collected
To live in a world without human connection, is to live an empty and meaningless life. Both Karen Armstrong, and Robert Thurman, highlight the necessity of human contact throughout their essays. In his text “Wisdom,” Robert Thurman shows us the path to discover the selflessness of what we believe is our true and actual self. He claims that no matter how hard one might try to find themselves, they will only find a rigid, fixated self. But when we finally accept our selflessness and turn away from our egos, we can become compassionate and experience the void, which he defines as a free and boundless self. Additionally, Karen Armstrong debates that the universe is driven by concepts such as “Being,” and “Brahman,” which both represent the ultimate
In 2011, Donna Hicks wrote her book Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict. Hicks’ Ph.D. in educational psychology and twenty years of experience in international conflict resolution allowed her to write this text about psychological injuries to a person 's sense of self-worth. In her text, Donna Hicks discusses the damaging effects a negative authoritative figure could have, especially on young children and their dignity. Also mentioned is how impressionable children can be and how those impressions can follow them into adulthood. The author’s intended audience appears to be anyone interested in remedying their psychological injuries and improving their sense of self-appreciation. Hicks’ reasoning for composing this text
This essay will explore one of the possible combinations of theories on personality and explain how it can be applied in practical therapy.
Now that I have discussed the major events that took place throughout my life until where I am now, I would have to say that the two theorists along with their theories that relate most to my life are Alfred Adler and Karen Horney. I am going to start with Adler; his theory is called individual psychology. “This stresses the wholeness and uniqueness of each person as he or she struggles to overcome feelings or inferiority by aspiring toward some future goal” (Hergenhahn, Olson & Cramer, 2014 p. 123). For Adler’s theory on individual personality the first point I am going to discuss is his view on inferiority. In class I learned that Adler grew up with an older brother, thus leaving him to develop feelings of inferiority and causing him to always
An individual’s behaviour may differ depending on the circumstances they are in though there are definite signs of repetitive behaviour when placed in majority of the situations. These characteristics are known as traits which make up the personality of each person (Engler, 2014). Personality theorists do not have a mutual agreement on how the term personality should be used. They each have their definition of personality thus providing a large number of diverse personality theories (Engler, 2014). For example, Eysenck (1970) defined personality as a relatively permanent and consistent composition of an individual’s disposition that in turn establishes how the person adjusts to their
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage/Wadsworth.
Raymond B. Cattell (1906-1998) studied the personality traits of large groups of people, calling the visible features of their personalities “surface traits.” During his studies, Cattell observed that certain “surface traits” would appear simultaneously in individuals. When Cattell noticed this trend occurring frequently he renamed the group of “surface traits” “source traits”. At the conclusion of his research Cattell identified sixteen “source traits.”
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2013). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage/Wadsworth.
Schultz, D.P. & Schultz, S.E. (2009). Theories of Personality, Ninth Edition. US: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Magnavita, J. J. (2002). Theories of personality: Contemporary approaches to the science of personality. New York: Wiley.
“You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something- your gut, destiny, life, home, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life” (Steve Jobs, 1955). Throughout all of my 25 years blessed on planet earth, my personality have somewhat been compared to that of a roller coaster, filled with many ups and downs, positives and negatives, rewards and punishments. As such, I have frequently embarked on numerous journeys in a dyer attempt to discover and recollect the shattered fragments left of me. With this being said, the term personality however, could be defined as “the patterns of behavior and ways of thinking and feeling that are distinctive for each individual” (Tischler, 2007). At the completion of this paper, I intend to achieve answers to some pertinent questions for instance how has the development of personality affected or impacted on human nature. I also hope to discover the various transitions of my personality starting from infancy to present and the reason or motives behind such changes. Finally, I would like to be able to gain an in-depth understanding of a variety of Personality Theories especially the Psychoanalytical Theory of
Famous psychological theorists Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers were both the greatest researchers in our modern time. They both made a lot of advancement in psychological fields, clinical evidence and expertise. They both developed a theory of 'hidden' personality’, in which the psychologists theorized that people have a ‘hidden' personality within them, one which they are not aware of. This concept indicated that the human nature and the role play in rationale behind the human motivation. Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers do have same common in their theories. They were both influenced by working within their patients and shared the familiarity through the many years of clinical performance. Based on their experimental studies, Sigmund Freud believed that the human nature is inherently aggressive, and Carl Rogers sustained that the people are innately are good. Indeed, Sigmund Freud and Carl Rogers have diverse opinions and different assumptions on the personality of a human. During the contemporary scientific research, I prefer to agree with Roger’s theory over the Freudian model because it is more in tune with findings of my experiences.
Friedman, H. S., & Schustack, M. W. (2012). Personality: Classic theories and modern research (5th ed). Boston , MA, USA: Pearson