Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shakespeare's historical plays
Psychology approach in hamlet
Essays about the importance of shakespeare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Hamlet – A Psychological Drama In writing Hamlet, William Shakespeare plumbed the depths of the mind of the protagonist, Prince Hamlet, to such an extent that this play can rightfully be considered a psychological drama. Robert B. Heilman in “The Role We Give Shakespeare” explores some of the psychological aspects of the play and concludes that it is psychologically “whole”: One of the defenders of the Shakespearean wholeness against the tendency to mistake parts for the whole, Leone Vivante, alludes particularly to the practice of modern psychology in letting some part seize preeminence. In Shakespeare, Vivante argues, “consciousness” is complete, final, self-evident, not a façade for more limited elements. Shakespeare “does not replace consciousness with the subconscious, the unconscious, the complexes, the instincts, the subliminal.” (11) Gunnar Bokland in “Judgment in Hamlet” explains Shakespeare’s attraction to the psychological dimension of the drama: In the tragedy of Hamlet Shakespeare does not concern himself with the question whether blood-revenge is justified or not; it is raised only once and very late by the protagonist (v,ii,63-70) and never seriously considered. The dramatic and psychological situation rather than the moral issue is what seems to have attracted Shakespeare, and he chose to develop it, in spite of the hard-to-digest and at times a little obscure, elements it might involve [. . .] . (118-19) The psychological aspect of Hamlet which is most prominently displayed is his melancholy. This condition is rooted in the psyche and the emotions, the former causing the latter to go awry. Lily B. Campbell in “Grief That Leads to Tragedy” emphasizes ... ... middle of paper ... ...World of Hamlet.” Yale Review. vol. 41 (1952) p. 502-23. Rpt. in Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Rev. ed. Ed. Leonard F. Dean. New York: Oxford University P., 1967. Rosenberg, Marvin. “Laertes: An Impulsive but Earnest Young Aristocrat.” Readings on Hamlet. Ed. Don Nardo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Rpt. from The Masks of Hamlet. Newark, NJ: Univ. of Delaware P., 1992. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1995. http://www.chemicool.com/Shakespeare/hamlet/full.html No line nos. Wright, Louis B. and Virginia A. LaMar. “Hamlet: A Man Who Thinks Before He Acts.” Readings on Hamlet. Ed. Don Nardo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Rpt. from The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Ed. Louis B. Wright and Virginia A. LaMar. N. p.: Pocket Books, 1958.
After demolishing the theories of other critics, Bradley concluded that the essence of Hamlet’s character is contained in a three-fold analysis of it. First, that rather than being melancholy by temperament, in the usual sense of “profoundly sad,” he is a person of unusual nervous instability, one liable to extreme and profound alterations of mood, a potential manic-depressive type. Romantic, we might say. Second, this Hamlet is also a person of “exquisite moral sensibility, “ hypersensitive to goodness, a m...
Mack, Maynard. “The World of Hamlet.” Yale Review. vol. 41 (1952) p. 502-23. Rpt. in Shakespeare: Modern Essays in Criticism. Rev. ed. Ed. Leonard F. Dean. New York: Oxford University P., 1967.
More often than not, the outcomes of events that occur in a person’s life is the product of the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy. It is that which “occurs when a person’s expectations of an event make the outcome more likely to occur than would otherwise have been true” (Adler and Towne, Looking Out, Looking In 66). Or restated, as Henry Ford once put it, “If you think you can, you can. If you think you can’t, you’re right!” This brief research paper touches on the two types of self-fulfilling prophecies, those that are self-imposed and those that are imposed by others. Additionally, it gives a discussion on how great of an influence it is in each person’s life, both positively and negatively, and how it consequently helps to mold one’s self-concept and ultimately one’s self.
Despite its undeniable greatness, throughout the last four centuries King Lear has left audiences, readers and critics alike emotionally exhausted and mentally unsatisfied by its conclusion. Shakespeare seems to have created a world too cruel and unmerciful to be true to life and too filled with horror and unrelieved suffering to be true to the art of tragedy. These divergent impressions arise from the fact that of all Shakespeare's works, King Lear expresses human existence in its most universal aspect and in its profoundest depths. A psychological analysis of the characters such as Bradley undertook cannot by itself resolve or place in proper perspective all the elements which contribute to these impressions because there is much here beyond the normal scope of psychology and the conscious or unconscious motivations in men.
Self-harm is a growing and troubling trend. It's a frightening disorder, most common among women, where hurt and alienation are expressed by injuring oneself. There are several kinds of self-harm. Self-mutilation and various eating disorders are among the most common forms of self-destruction. These forms of self-harm often lead to suicide. There are three types of self-mutilation. The rarest and most extreme form is Major self-mutilation. This form usually results in permanent disfigurement, such as castration or limb amputation. Another form is Stereo-typical self-mutilation. This usually consists of head banging, eyeball pressing, and biting. The third and most common form is Superficial self-mutilation. This involves cutting, burning, hair pulling, bone breaking, hitting, interference with wound healing, and basically anything that causes harm to oneself. It's almost unimaginable that one would inflict injury upon oneself. However, cutting, burning, slashing, stabbing, and bruising occurs while apparently no physical pain is felt. As many as three million Americans are believed to be suffering from this psychiatric disorder. (Simpson) The very nature of this problem is shrouded in secrecy. It is no surprise that it has taken some time for people to get wise to this growing problem. There are several different theories as to why one engages in such behavior. One popular theory is that it's a control issue. There are also several reasons for a need for control. For instance, when children are abused, they are in a situation of no control. Their abusers can hurt them at anytime, and the children are largely powerless to stop it.
Self-mutilation is becoming more and more prevalent in society today, specifically in Western culture. In fact, reports say that it is “estimated that 3 million people in the USA choose to cut, burn or cause other types of tissue destruction to themselves” (Hicks & Hinck, p. 408, 2008). As psychologists begin to take a more in-depth look into the complexity of this behavior, discussion and analytical thought are starting to emerge. With that comes discussion and debate on functions, attributes, antecedents, and even how self-mutilation should be defined.
Self-harm is when someone causes physical damage to themselves in any way, usually involving scratching, cutting, and even burning various parts of the body. Some people may wonder why anyone would cause themselves physical pain under depressing or stressful situations; some may even pass it off as a cry for attention. The truth behind self-harm is most commonly to release emotional pain, or distract themselves from the stress and problems they handle in life. It becomes a way to cope with personal distress or emotional pain that they feel they can not express in any other way (helpguide). Though, as stated by Melinda Smith and Jeanne Segal, “Relief that comes from self-harming doesn’t last very long. It’s like slapping on a Band-Aid when what you really need are stitches.” Eventually, the pain comes back and the urge to do so again returns.
How Self-Efficacy and Locus of Control Influence Personal Behavior, Personal Perceptions, and Society in General
Rosenberg, Marvin. "Laertes: An Impulsive but Earnest Young Aristocrat." Readings on Hamlet. Ed. Don Nardo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Rpt. from The Masks of Hamlet. Newark, NJ: Univ. of Delaware P., 1992.
People nowadays are lack on having confidence that they can do something; they doubt their own abilities. Self-efficacy is considered to be one of the positive psychology traits that we should adopt and have. It helps us to achieve the goals that we want; it will lead us to success. A person with high self-efficacy can help to work harder and can make their own motivation to achieve their desires. Self-efficacy determines how people feel, think, motivated themselves and behave. This concept is related to the beliefs that people have about their capacity to complete a specific task. (Bandura, 1993, 1994; Bandura & Locke, 2003). But having this self-efficacy, we should make sure that it is connected on our beliefs and not something that we are opposition to. According to Henry
Self-efficacy theory was developed by Albert Bandura in the 1970s. This theory explores the person’s awareness of their abilities. Bandura’s model says there are 3 factors that influence self-efficacy: behaviors, environment, and personal or cognitive factors. They all affect each other. Self-efficacy develops from mastery of experiences in which goals are achieved through perseverance and overcoming obstacles and from observing others succeed. Therefore, the ability to learn and master objectives may influence aspirations, level of motivation, and overall accomplishments (Bandura,
The theory of self- efficacy is the belief that a person has for themselves of how capable they are in confronting a given situation. Alberto Bandura, the creator of the theory, states that it has a variety of influences that can either help
The Self-Efficacy Theory was proposed and originated by Albert Bandura in the late 1970s (Hayden, 2014). The purpose of Albert Bandura creating this theory was to connect and explain why two different behavioral treatments showed varying degrees of success in behavior modification. The first behavioral treatment was based around the idea that changes in behavior were the result of insight gained by a therapist. The second behavioral treatment was based around behavior modification in the setting in which the behavior was portrayed. Bandura unified these elements of behavior modification treatment and explained this by illustrating how an individual’s confidence in personal capability contributes to overall individual
The first solution depicted that the definition must be changed so that outcome expectancy would not influence self-efficacy rating, which integrate a phrase indicate a hypothetical expectation within the assessment to control the constancy of the expected outcome, with the use of the word “if”. A problem arose from this ways, as the outcome expectancy might not be held truly constant. The other solution required the theory to accept the influence of outcome expectancy on self-efficacy. However, in measuring self-efficacy through questionnaire, respondent answers may vary depends on the person’s definition to incorporate outcome expectancy in self-efficacy. Nevertheless, the author concluded that the presented solutions must be considered carefully and may be used in accordance to the purpose and view oneself. In conclusion, two important concepts from the socio-cognitive learning theory is reviewed and clarified, in order to figure out a practical implication in assessing
Like all Shakespearean tragedies, Hamlet’s ending is no different in end-result. Hamlet’s separation from society and his self-imposed confusion caused by over-thinking results in the unnecessary deaths of most of the major characters. In turn, Hamlet’s pre-occupation with factors inessential to his mission of revenge slows down his action. It is this internal struggle that illustrates the intensity and complexity of Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy, something that is often looked at from a psychological perspective.