Psych 150 WFR Ma.

Victoria Ty Cruz

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 2015-89009

PART 1: An Essay Comparing Sigmund Freuds Psychoanalytic Theory vs Abraham

Maslows Humanistic Theory

Through time, many different schools of psychology have emerged, two of which are

psychoanalysis and the humanistic approach. Psychoanalysis was founded by Sigmund Freud, who

emphasised mostly the unconscious mind on behaviour. On the contrary, humanistic psychology, which

was known as the third force in psychology, was actually a reaction to the pessimistic determinism of

Freuds psychoanalysis. One of the most known proponents under the humanistic approach is Abraham

Maslow, who emphasised individual free will, and assumed that people are good and have innate

worth. On his opinion on Freud psychoanalytic theory, Maslow was actually quoted saying, it is as if

Freud supplied us the sick half of psychology and we must now fill it out with the healthy half. Thus,

both Freuds psychoanalytic view and Maslows humanistic view are both unique in that they are

almost polar opposites within the field of psychology.

Though both theories are from two very opposing schools of thought, there are still some

recognisable similarities between the two. Both Freud and Maslows theories offer important

reassurance and help we need to grow as individuals, which both established through certain stages

that they proposed we must go through in life. Secondly, both actively use the image we have of

ourselves. Moreover, both of them were interested in solving how the motivation is produced in then

person. However, there are key differences in what they believe motivated a person. Freud placed

emphasis on biologically-based drives, wherein he reduced all motivation to sex (life instinct) and
Page !1 of !15
aggression (death instinct). Ultimately, he believed that humans are born with a psychic energy, a

sexual drive he called the libido. On the contrary, Maslow had a holistic approach to motivation, in that

the whole person is motivated at any on time, and that humans have an innate motivation to achieve

their highest potential. He believed that motivation is complex, and that people are continually

motivated by one need or another.

A similarity between Freud and Maslow is that they both believed that a person experiences a

series of stages of development throughout his or her life. However, such stages that both theorists

proposed were completely different. Freud proposed the psychosexual stages of development, a

completely different view from what Maslow had proposed. Freud believed that children go through

psychological development in a series of five stages; oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital. Each

psychosexual stage in the childs life focuses on the fixation of libido (which are sexual drives) on a

certain area of the body. The first stage, the oral stage, which takes place from 0-1 years, is wherein the

libido is directed towards the mouth, which can be done through sucking, biting, or breastfeeding. After

a year, the libido becomes directed to the anus (the second stage). The anus now emerges as a sexually

pleasurable zone, and this period is characterised by infants gaining satisfaction through excretory

functions. The third stage, the phallic stage, begins at approximately 3 or 4 years of age, and this is a

time when the genital area becomes the leading erogenous zone. This is also wherein boys experience

the Oedipus complex, which is when a young boy develops a rivalry toward the father and incestuous

feelings toward the mother. Young girls experience this also; however, they develop hostile feelings for

their mother and incestuous feelings toward the father. It is the Oedipus complex that allows children to

learn what is appropriate behaviour for their sex and establish a moral code of conduct for themselves.

The latent stage, which starts at around five years, and goes on until puberty, is a stage wherein there is

little psychosexual development. Lastly, the genital period, which begins at puberty, is a time wherein

Page !2 of !15
adolescents direct their sexual energy toward another person, instead of toward themselves.

Adolescents now have the reproductive capacity for a sexual drive.

On the contrary, Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs, which can be visually seen as a

pyramid, with each ascending step representing a higher need. He believed that human beings are

continually motivated by one need or another and that people in different cultures are all motivated by

the same basic needs. The hierarchy is a linear progression, in the sense that a person starts at the

bottom and progresses up. The five needs, starting from the bottom of the pyramid progressing to the

top, are physiological needs (i.e. food, water, warmth), safety needs, love and belongingness needs,

esteem needs, and self-actualization. Maslow theorised that the stages are fully dependent on the stage

before, and thus lower level needs have prepotency over higher level needs, which means they must be

satisfied before moving on to a higher need. Because of the hierarchical arrangement, Maslow

emphasizes that a person cannot fully attain self-actualization without satisfying the lower order needs

first. Maslow defined self-actualisation to be a state of fulfilment in which a person is achieving at his

or her highest level of capability, which is only satisfied by the psychologically healthiest people. He

held that self-actualizers are metamotivated by B-values (e.g. truth, goodness, beauty, justice, and

simplicity), which he termed metaneeds to indicate that they are the ultimate level of needs. However,

it is possible for a person to have all their lower level needs satisfied but still fail to pass the threshold

to self-actualization, which indicates that the person still lacks B-values. Lastly, Maslow believed that

what makes self-actualisers unique is that they are metamotivated, which is characterised by

expressive, rather than coping behaviour.

It is evident that Maslow put forth a very different view on child development from Freuds

psychosexual stages. Unlike Freuds psychosexual stages, the progression through Maslows hierarchy

of needs is not bounded by age, and instead, are based on life circumstances. Moreover, Freuds stages

Page !3 of !15
only goes up to puberty, whereas Maslows hierarchy of needs continues over ones lifespan. In Freuds

psychosexual stages, a person cannot regress back to the previous stages, so it is very rigid and

inflexible. Freud also over emphasizes of importance of sexuality and did not highlight the role of

social relationships in the development of a child. Lastly, with Maslow, the order of needs also may be

reversed in certain cases, as he even said, you will either step forward into growth, or you will step

backward into safety,. For example, the drive for justice, which is a self-actualization need, may take

precedence over safety and physiological needs, thus in this sense making it flexible.

Another major contrast between Freud and Maslow was that while Freud believed unconscious

forces influenced our actions and behaviour, Maslow placed more emphasis on the conscious; he

believed that conscious thoughts and feelings shape behaviour. He believed human behaviour has a

purpose and is goal-directed, and that each person has an idea of themselves and aware of their

behaviour, whether good or bad. Maslow believed that people who reached self-actualisation are more

aware than others of what they are doing and why. However, Maslow did not fully disregard the

unconscious, as he believed that since motivation is so complex, people could be driven by several

needs at the same time, and thus healthy people may not always be fully aware of all the reasons

underlying their actions and behaviour. The unconscious is also seen in what Maslow said to be

expressive and coping behaviours. Maslow saw coping behaviours to be consciously motivated and

directed towards the satisfaction of basic needs. However, he believed expressive behaviour has no aim

and is merely a persons mode of expression. He proposed that it is ones expressive behaviour that is

frequently unconscious, unmotivated, and takes place naturally (e.g. slouching). Thus, a similarity is

seen here, wherein both Maslow and Freud believed in unconscious forces in shaping behaviour.

Freud, on the contrary, did not place much emphasis on the conscious mind. He likened the

human mind to an iceberg, which was a visual representation of what he saw as the three levels of

Page !4 of !15
mental life; the unconscious, preconscious, and conscious. The small amount of the iceberg visible was

the conscious, which is our observable behaviour, or the mental elements in awareness at any given

point in time. Then there is the preconscious, which contains all those elements that are not conscious

but can become deliberately conscious if we pay attention to it. The biggest area of the iceberg, was the

part submerged underwater, which was the unconscious. Freud believed that the unconscious contains

all the drives, urges, and instincts that are beyond our awareness but nevertheless motivate most of our

words, feelings, and actions. He saw that the true nature of the self is largely unconscious, which is

why it was the submerged mind (the unconscious) that had the most influence on our behaviour.

Ultimately, the contradiction here can be seen wherein Freud believed that it was the unconscious that

affected behaviour, but Maslow argued that people are well aware of their actions and behaviours.

Freud also argued that the mind is divided into three parts - which he termed the provinces of

the mind; the id, the ego and the super ego. The id develops first, and is known as the pleasure

principle. It is the most primitive structure, is inaccessible to consciousness and has no contact with

reality. An example can be seen when a young boy sees chocolate on the table and tries to grab it; the

boys id tells him, I want that chocolate right now. The ego is concerned with conscious thinking; it

is the reality principle, so it finds realistic ways to satisfy our desires. It is the executive of personality,

as it mediates between the id and the superego. In relation to the first example, the ego will tell us that

we cant always have what we want, so a compromise is made. Instead of grabbing the chocolate, the

child will ask for the chocolate. The third and last province of the mind is the superego, which is the

moralistic principle. It contains the conscience and judgement about what is right and wrong, based on

our moral values. The superego is what makes us feel guilty or ashamed if we dont behave properly.

Again, relating back to the example, the superego will tell the young boy that, No, its not right to do

that, if he grabs the chocolate.

Page !5 of !15
 Moreover, the psychotherapy of both Freud and Maslow were very different. Freuds

psychotherapy was more focused on attempting to uncover the unconscious and repressed memories,

through free association and dream analysis. Freud saw dreams as the royal road to the unconscious,

and thus he wanted to discover the meaning behind his patients dreams. Contrastingly, Maslows

psychotherapy was more directed at understanding how people see themselves, and because he

believed that everyone can reach self-actualisation by progressing through his hierarchy of needs, he

believed that all of his patients could reach this ultimate stage of happiness. Specifically, Maslows

therapy involved a therapist who helped his or her client to satisfy their love and belongingness needs.

But ultimately, it focused on guiding people to achieve and fulfill their potential. Freuds

psychoanalytic view, however, takes a very different look at this, as Freud did not think that all of his

patients could be happy. Thus, unlike Maslows therapy, Freuds therapy is not directed towards

fulfilment. Freuds therapy only worked towards allowing individuals to understand, and not control,

their unconscious motives because it lies beyond a certain degree of rational control. Thus, this lack of

power is something that is not seen in Maslow's thinking, because he believed it was important to

understand the person holistically rather than just separate parts of behaviour.

Ultimately, I personally think that both theorists offer a lot of insight on certain aspects of

behaviour and gives very thorough and in-depth understanding of what truly is it that shapes our

personality and behaviour. However, I think that both theories complement each other for what the

other misses out on. For example, even though Freud fails to recognise how experiences after

childhood contribute to personality development, Maslows hierarchy of needs, specifically the love

and belongingness, and self-esteem stages, covers for it. On the other hand, I think Maslow somewhat

underestimates how the unconscious can shape our behaviour and personality, but the focal point in

Freuds theory is unconsciousness.

Page !6 of !15
 In conclusion, Freuds psychoanalytic view and Maslows humanistic view both give significant

insight to how personality ultimately works; however, they explain personality in two very contrasting

ways, which we can see through their goals, causes to certain behaviours, and motivations. Freud

proposes a hostile and pessimistic view of people, and emphasises inner conflict and the unconscious.

Contrastingly, Maslow argued that a Taoistic attitude should be applied to psychology; he believed

psychologists should resacralize their science and have a non-interfering, passive, receptive, and

subjective approach, and view participants with awe, joy, and wonder. Maslow believed that people are

born with a positive drive to grow, improve ourselves, and achieve happiness, which he saw was self-

actualization. He believed that a person is shaped by his or her attempt to achieve a set of human needs

that are arranged in a hierarchy. Thus, Freuds psychoanalytic view proposes more of a decision making

process, while Maslows approach is more of a life decision. Maslows humanistic approach is what

persuades us to wear a thick jacket when the weather is cold, simply because it gives us comfort, while

Freuds psychoanalytic view is what whispers in our ear to steal a jacket we see lying on a bench if we

feel cold and dont have a jacket ourselves or cant afford it.

Works Cited

Feist, J., Feist, G. J., & Roberts, T. (2002). Theories of Personality. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Maslow's Humanistic Theory of Personality - Boundless Open Textbook. (n.d.). Retrieved

November 17, 2016

McLeod, S. (2008). Psychosexual Stages. Retrieved November 16, 2016.

Psychodynamic and Humanistic Therapy. (2016). Retrieved November 20, 2016.

Page !7 of !15
Psych 150 WFR Ma. Victoria Ty Cruz

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 2015-89009

PART 2: My Own Personality Theory - The Environmentalistic Theory

Majority of my personality theory is built and based upon my childhood experiences. When I

was just five years old, my family had moved to Bangkok, Thailand for two and a half years. After that,

my family then moved to Mumbai, India for another two and a half years. Thus, five years of my

childhood was spent outside of the Philippines; five years spent in countries that I had never been to

nor known about, because I was so young and naive. Reflecting back, having lived outside the country

in an early age has had a lot of influence on who I am today, and specifically, how my personality and

behaviours came to be throughout my life. Living in Bangkok and Mumbai helped me realise how

powerful ones environment can be.

Firstly, I believe that all our personality traits, such as ones temper, gender, age, IQ, coping

skills, and talent, have a genetic basis to them. In this case, I do agree with McCrae and Costa, wherein

they believed that personality had core components of personality, the first being basic tendencies.

Basic tendencies are the universal raw material of personality, which are inherited and have a biological

basis. These are stable and enduring throughout ones life and refers to how we learn, specifically our

talent, intelligence, and aptitude.

Apart from basic tendencies, I believe that most of ones personality is largely shaped by the

environment. For me, I see ones environment as consisting of three factors: parents, school, and

culture.

Page !8 of !15
 *made by Mavie Cruz on Photoshop

Figure 1: Factors consisting of Environment

Figure 1 simply shows what I think consists of ones environment. The first factor, a childs

parent, can affect the ways in which the child grows up. The parents education level, race, religion, all

play a role in how the parent will act and care for the child. As with school, ones classmates, teachers,

and friends all have the power to shape ones personality. The third factor, culture, also contributes to

ones overall personality. Morals, values, and attitudes that a person learns comes from the culture from

which they are from or surrounded by.

*made by Mavie Cruz on Photoshop

Figure 2: How Factors Play a Role in Ones Lifespan

Figure 2 shows how I think these three environmental factors play out in ones life. In the

earliest stages of life, I believe that parents hold the most influence over the child. They are the ones

Page !9 of !15
that hold the beginnings of they childs personality, as they create the foundation of ones actions and

behaviours. This is because children tend to pattern themselves after their parents, through observing

their behaviour, which is why I highly agree with Banduras social cognitive theory. Bandura states that

children learn through observational learning; more specifically, through modelling. Bandura believes

that modelling involves cognitive processes, and it is not simply an imitation or matching the action of

another. It involves symbolically representing information, and storing it for use, which is what I think

children do whenever they observe their parents. As children grow up, they tend to adapt their parents

likes and dislikes and their ideas and values. Whatever the parent does, children can imitate their

attitudes and mannerisms, which is why childhood upbringing plays a huge role in shaping a child.

Whatever the parents says or do, the child is likely to follow - which is why parents need to be cautious

in what they do or say. For example, I remember my mom would get angry at my dad whenever he

cursed in front of us and had bad temper. This is because she did not want us to hear our dad cuss in

front of us because she believed that we could copy him and have a bad temper as well.

As seen in Figure 2, once a child reaches the age of around 5-6 years, I believe that most of the

power that the childs parents has over them now transfers to school and culture. However, this does

not meant that the childs parents has no influence whatsoever over their child; the timeline just shows

which factor plays the biggest role at which age. Even though the arrow stops at five years for the

parents, it just means that I dont think it is the main factor of the environment influencing the child

anymore, but parents still do have influence five years later or any succeeding years after that. Thus, by

five years of age, I think that a persons core values and beliefs are thus mostly influenced by ones

culture and school.

Whoever a child interacts with in school, whether that be the teacher, friends, or classmates - all

of this has an affect on how we behave and how we act. As we go to school, we are influenced day in

Page !10 of !15

and day out. The books we read, the movies we watch, the things are friends talk about, or basically

anything that delivers information, has a huge influence on our behaviour and personality, because I

believe human society thrives on people trading and exchanging ideas with one another. I also think

that conformity is most likely to happen at this stage in ones life because as children, we tend to act the

way we see how others act, just so we feel a sense of belongingness and feel we are part of something.

Specifically, I again agree with what McCrae and Costa discussed in their five-factor theory,

wherein characteristic adaptations are one of the core components of personality. Characteristic

adaptations are acquired personality structures that develop as people adapt to their environment, thus

they are shaped by external influence. These fluctuate and are subject to change over a persons

lifetime, and differs from culture to culture. Characteristics adaptations refer to what we learn, rather

then how we learn, and thus they are culturally conditioned phenomena, personal strivings, and

attitudes. And thus, we learn these characteristic adaptations through school and culture. This is what

tells us how we should behave and act in certain situations.

In line with Figure 2 of ones lifespan, I do think that Eriksons psychosocial stages are

representative of what a child goes through in life. More specifically, I want to emphasise his first four

stages; infancy, early childhood, play age, and the school age. These four stages I think set the

foundation of ones personality and behaviours. In infancy, the significant relations of an infant is to

their mother, and this stage is characterised by basic trust vs mistrust as the psychosocial crisis. This

stage is crucial to a child because a child is able to develop feeling of trust or mistrust if they realise

that their mother can provide for them regularly.

The significant relations in the early childhood stage are ones parents, with the psychosocial

criss because autonomy vs shame and doubt. This is where children learn to express themselves

independently; however, parents may shame their children for expressing themselves. For example, a

Page !11 of !15

three year old who insists on dressing herself every morning for school always mismatches her outfit,

and thus the mother insists to dress her child, but the child wants to do it on his or her own. Thus, when

parents let children perform actions on their own, it allows for the child to learn and express his or

herself.

In the play age, the significant relations would be family. Moreover, the psychosocial criss in

this stage is initiative vs guilt, which allows for the child to have a head-on mode of approaching the

world. In the school age, wherein industry vs inferiority is the psychosocial crisis, children are able to

learn to keep themselves busy and to work hard. However, if their work is insufficient to accomplish

their goals, they acquire a sense of inferiority, which isnt necessarily a negative thing because allows

for children become aware of how much they can accomplish in a certain situation or amount of time.

The school age, I think, is the most important stage, in terms of the environment having the most

influence on a child. The significant relations at this stage would be school (i.e. friends, teachers,

classmates), which means children can use their energies to learn from those around them.

Moreover, I believe that the culture in which a children grow up in to also be a major factor of

establishing a childs personality. Culture has a major influence in shaping personality because cultural

traits that are learned by the individual as an infant are reinterpreted and reinforced as the individual

goes through its stages of life. Body language, world view, gender roles, concepts of justice and time,

cooperation, competitiveness, friendship, and power, all play a role in shaping a childs personality.

This is the reason why if you go from one culture to another, people from different cultures have

different personalities. For example, this is most exemplified with collectivist and individualist

countries. If a child grows up in an individualist country (e.g. United States and the United Kingdom),

the child grows up feeling in a fend-for-yourself environment, because individualist countries

emphasizes personal achievement and strong competition. They grow up realizing that being dependent

Page !12 of !15

on others is a weakness and not a strength, and thus, independence is valued. This starkly contrasts with

collectivist nations, who has a we identity. The child grows up with values of selflessness and

togetherness, and realizes that working and cooperating with others is the social norm. This is also

where the the rights of a family or community supersedes the right of an individual. Thus, I believe that

the differences between people in different societies are usually cultural differences imparted in

childhood.

*made by Mavie Cruz on photoshop

Figure 3: The Receptive-Unreceptive Spectrum

Figure 3 shows the interaction between people/culture and a person. As we exchange information

(such as ideas, beliefs, values, and attitudes), a person uses cognitive processes to take this all in and

make their own sense out of it. However, I believe there is a spectrum that can explain this, which

basically measures how receptive or unreceptive a person is to such information and ideas. Thus, a

receptive person is able to consider and accept the things around them, such as people and their

Page !13 of !15

culture. They are open, are willing, and are very responsive to the ideas, impressions, or suggestions.

On the the other hand, an unreceptive person does not have an open mind like a receptive person, as

they block off any new ideas, beliefs impressions, or suggestions that they get around them. For

example, when I had moved to India, I was very unreceptive with Indian customs and norms. In India,

the most known type of communication to say Yes was bobbing your head from left to right. As a

young child, I grew up thinking that if you turn your head side to side, that meant a no. However, in

India, bobbing your head from left to right, actually meant yes, something which took me a while to

understand and accept for a long time. Lastly, those who fall in the middle are somewhat open to the

ideas around them, but are confused with how to process the information given to them.

However, being receptive and unreceptive is not black and white. A person is not just completely

receptive or non-receptive, as this scale is on a continuum. It is bipolar, which means that people can

either be on the extreme end of either receptiveness or unreceptiveness (two opposing poles), but

people can also fall in the middle.

Lastly, as seen in Figure 2, when a person is around forty-five years (i.e. adulthood), I do

believe that people do make their own choices and grow beyond the people and culture they grew up

in. Thus, I think that ones adulthood is just an extension of his or her childhood experiences, which is

why it is ones childhood experiences that determines how their adult self will behave and be like. This

means that healthy, nurturing families produce more well-adjusted adults, whereas dysfunctional

families may produce confused adults who have a harder time adapting to life. Moreover, in terms of

McCrae and Costas characteristic adaptations, which they say fluctuates over ones life, I believe that

this stays stable and is resistant to change when we reach adulthood.

Ultimately, I think that most of our personality is formed through the accumulation of life

experiences. Thus, though a small part of our personality is set in stone, I believe that people can

Page !14 of !15

choose to be what they wish to be. People have the power to shape their behaviour; it is up to them how

they react to whatever is around them, and how much they will let external forces influence their self-

identity. I also think behaviour and personality is more casual than teleological because behaviour is a

function of past experiences, in the sense that, whatever happens to us in our childhood, affects who we

are when we become adults. Moreover, I think that people are more ordinarily aware of what they are

doing. I also emphasize social factors over biological factors as having the most influence in our

personality; it is our social relationships, our exchanges with culture and people, that determines who

we are. However, I dont disregard biological basis having an influence over ones personality, as it

does, especially with ones IQ, gender, talent, and temper. Despite this, I still do stand by the fact that it

is our environment that holds the most influence over our personality and behaviour. Lastly, I believe

that people are all unique; we are all a combination of traits and characteristics that makes each and

every person a unique individual.

Works Cited

Feist, J., Feist, G. J., & Roberts, T. (2002). Theories of Personality. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Collectivist and Individualist Cultures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2016.

Page !15 of !15