Introduction to Human Development: Psychoanalytic/Psychosocial Perspective
The Psychoanalytic Perspective
The psychoanalytic perspective looks at the conscious and unconscious processes that influence our development. Most people have heard of Sigmund Freud, most famous for the sexual focus of his theories, in particular the Oedipus complex. It’s really hard to take someone seriously after they tell you that you want to have sex with your mum but are scared your dad will chop off your penis. And that if you disagree you’re repressing your feelings. Perhaps even harder is not allowing yourself to be distracted by such oversimplifications.
And perhaps more important was his revelation of just how much our behaviour is shaped by unconscious processes. While many aspects of his theories and approach to psychological therapy are now considered invalid, both his theories and approach to therapy have made significant contributions to our understanding of ourselves.
Here is a very brief summary of some of the main parts of his theory. Firstly, Freud proposed that our minds can be imagined to have three levels:
- Conscious
Your conscious mind contains the thoughts currently within your awareness. These words you’re reading. The distracting thoughts about what you’re going to eat for lunch. - Preconscious
Your preconscious mind contains information which isn’t within your awareness, but could easily be. What you ate for breakfast. The tasks your boss is expecting you to do instead of reading this blog. - Unconscious
Your unconscious mind contains all the rest. Everything you know which you can’t easily bring into your awareness. The name of that kid you played with during that holiday when you were five. The date of your anniversary.
He also proposed another three concepts which can be thought of as parts of the mind, but which are really labels for similar modes of mental activity:
- Id
The instinctual part of your mind, which Freud considered mostly sexual and aggressive. It works on the pleasure principle and seeks immediate gratification. It operates entirely within the unconscious mind. - Ego
The rational part of your mind. It operates mostly within the conscious mind and it deals with what goes on in the environment, working on the reality principle. - Superego
Your conscience, and what Freud called the ego ideal. The former results from punishments and warnings, producing feelings of guilt, and the latter from rewards, producing feelings of pride. It operates within all parts of the mind, though mostly the preconscious and conscious.
Finally, Freud proposed five stages of development through infancy to puberty. His theory suggests that the first few years of a person’s life are very important for later development. It states that we each go through all stages, in this order, and that problems at any particular stage can manifest as significant problems later in life:
- Oral
Here we get much pleasure from sticking things in our mouth, until about 18 months old.
“Why yes, I do enjoy chewing on your mobile phone, thank you Daddy dearest!” - Anal
At this stage we get pleasure from holding it in and releasing, between 18 and 36 months old.
“Look look Mummy! I did poopies!” - Phallic
Oh yes, even children as young as those between 3 and 6 years old enjoy touching themselves. Or rocking back and forth against something. And you don’t have to take my word for it. This is where Freud proposed that the Oedipus complex develops.
“Mmmmmm” - Latent
Freud suggested that between the ages of around 6 to 12 children’s sexual instincts are repressed. Girls and boys generally ignore each other.
“Ewww, girl germs!” - Genital
Finally the sexual urges reappear at puberty and there is a focus on sexual pleasure through intercourse. This stage continues onwards from puberty.
“Good, my parents are gone. Do you wanna go up to my room and fool around?”
Development through each of the stages occurs as a result of biological maturation, i.e., the natural physical processes involved in growing up prompt development. Freud showed that the early stages of life were very important for how we turn out as adults, though he wasn’t always right about how and why. According to his theory we aren’t as greatly influential over the direction of our development as are family and society.
There’s a hell of a lot more to Freud’s theories, some of which I’ll mention when I get to Personality Psychology, but for now if you want to read more about Freud this page is a great place to start. He had a lot of controversial ideas, controversial in both his time and ours, but he popularised psychology, encouraging others to reach greater levels of understanding.
The Psychosocial Perspective
Erik Erikson is less well known (in fact I hadn’t heard of him until I began studying Psychology), but it was his work which was the first to expand upon Freud’s, as well as clearing up a couple of issues. Like Freud he said that we naturally progress through stages, though he proposed eight, not stopping at puberty as Freud did, but including the continuing development which we know occurs through our entire lives.
At each stage we have a task to perform, a task which involves reaching a balance between opposite ends of a particular scale. You’ll see what that means in the description of each stage:
- Infant - 0 to 1 years
At this stage our task is to balance trust and mistrust. Through our interactions with the world, and mainly with our parents, we come to either believe that it is a safe place, or we become wary of it. Too much trust and we risk becoming gullible, and too little and we risk becoming withdrawn.
Erikson proposed that the perfect balance results in developing hope, or the belief that things will always work out ok in the end. - Toddler - 2 to 3 years
Here we attempt to balance autonomy against shame and doubt. Our parents’ reactions to how we interact with the world create the foundation for our self-esteem. If they’re too limiting or even too helpful, we start to believe that things are too hard for us, that we’re not good enough, and we stop trying. On the other hand if we’re given complete freedom we might become impulsive, not considering actions which may lead to harm.
The right balance allows us to develop willpower, and the determination to put our abilities to their best uses. - Preschooler - 3 to 6 years
By now we’ve learnt it’s ok to explore the world a little, and so it’s time to balance initiative against guilt. Initiative results from encouragement to imagine, fantasise, and to try things out, to turn our imagination into reality. But if we do something wrong we’re probably going to be told off, and that results in guilt. We start to learn when we’ve done something bad, even without immediately being scolded.
Too much initiative without much guilt and we become ruthless, not caring about what happens as a result of achieving our goals. Too much guilt and not enough initiative leads to inhibition, where we fear trying anything because we fear failure, or ridicule.
A balance results in the development of purpose or courage, as an understanding of our abilities, limitations and desires. - School-age child - 7 to 12 years
At stage four we learn to balance industry and inferiority. Our social circle expands and with it our responsibilities. Being industrious means enjoying coming up with a plan and following it through to the end. But if we don’t succeed or are made fun of for our attempts, we may feel inferior. Too much industry and our breadth of experience becomes stunted. Too much inferiority and we stop trying to learn or try new things.
A good balance leads to competency, the feeling that we can achieve what we put our mind to, tempered by enough humility to prevent arrogance. - Adolescence - 12 to 18 years or so
During this stage we figure out how to balance ego identity with role-confusion. There are many different roles which society either offers, or expects us to take on. We question our own identity, and if we favour our identity too strongly and become caught up in a role that suits it, we risk developing fanaticism and intolerance. On the other hand if we are too confused about our role in society we risk repudiation, which is the rejection of a need for identity. Paradoxically this usually leads to joining groups which provide give us a specific identity, one which is generally anti-mainstream.
The right balance at this stage leads to fidelity, which is loyalty to society’s standards, but a loyalty which acknowledges and tries to improve any perceived problems with those standards, in the best interests of all. - Young adult - 20’s
Now we try to balance intimacy against isolation. Too much intimacy leads to promiscuity, where relationships are formed freely but are shallow. Too much isolation leads to willful exclusion from social interaction, often resulting in hate as a mask for loneliness.
Erikson called the balance at this stage ‘love’, referring to mutual willingness to put aside differences for the sake of the other, whether it be in a romantic relationship or a platonic one. - Middle adult - late 20’s to 50’s
Our journey now allows us to attempt to balance generativity and stagnation. Stagnation refers to not caring for anyone and thus not contributing to society. Generativity refers to love directed towards future generations. This doesn’t just involve caring for children or grandchildren, but it could also mean anything which benefits future generations, including writing an informative blog. Ahem.
Too much generativity and you risk overextension. That’s what happens when you try to do too much in too little time, neglecting all those important things like sleep and breakfast. Little do you realise zombies aren’t much help to anyone. Too much stagnation and you risk rejectivity. You don’t care about others and no you longer participate in society. Zombies are more appreciated.
If you achieve balance at this stage you learn to care for others appropriately and willingly. - Adult - 50’s and beyond
The final stage involves balancing ego integrity and despair. Ego integrity means accepting your life and your approaching death, and despair means giving in to regret and fear. Erikson seems to say that too much ego integrity is actually false integrity which comes from believing in the integrity of one’s ego without actually acknowledging old age. Thus too much integrity leads to presumption. Too much despair leads to disdain, directed either at yourself or other people. More like a zombie than ever before.
You can probably guess what balance at this stage leads to. Wisdom. Of course wisdom isn’t only available to the elderly, but in this case it refers to the strength to face death without fear, and the ability to lend that strength to others by showing them they don’t have to fear life.
You can see that in many of these stages we have a significant part to play in our own development. How we deal with the challenges of each stage determines how we grow, and how well equipped we are to deal with the challenges of subsequent stages. However as Freud also showed us, other people do have a significant impact.
If you’re interested in reading more about Erikson, you could start with this page.
Onwards
Both Freud and Erikson believed that we all moved through the stages they proposed, and in the order they proposed, and at very close to the ages they stated. We now have much evidence that there is much more flexibility in our development, but their theories did help us to see and understand the different phases we’re very likely to pass through. Further, if we look at where we are in life at the moment, and where we have been, and then look at the problems we face in moving forward, we can use these theories to help us figure out a more beneficial direction.
Next up the Biological Perspective and a look at the question of nurture versus nature, genes versus environment.
Related entries:
- Introduction to Human Development
- Introduction to Human Development: Biological Perspective
- Introduction to Human Development: Social-Emotional Perspective - Part 1
- Introduction to Human Development: Social-Emotional Perspective - Part 2
- Introduction to Human Development: Cognitive Perspective
- Introduction to Human Development: Socio-cultural Perspective
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!


October 16th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
A great primer on these topics - and some humour to boot! Thanks Mark
On a personal note: Because Tayne and I have (fairly definitely) decided against having children, we are smack-bang in the middle of grappling with Stage 7 of Erikson’s list. I was specifically introduced to the concept of ‘Generativity vs. Stagnation’ just last week.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Hey Mark,
This is fun reading.
Later are you going to look at people such as Carl Jung, Otto Rank and Abraham Maslow? I find Jung, in particular, fascinating and imagine you’d disagree or at least have incredible questions as far as much of Jung goes (collective unconscious, views on religion, dream analysis, etc.) but not sure how you’d view his theories on individuation and personality types. Besides I have an equal number of concerns regarding Freud…
Ha, ha! I also find the very dramatic personal lives and fall outs amongst Jung, Freud and Rank interesting - the famous fainting episode, the affair by Freud with Jung‘s wife, Jung and his affairs with patients and Freud threatening to expose him if he did anything about the affair with his wife to say nothing of Freud and Rank‘s “problems“ when Rank dared to disagree. I wonder how much of their thinking (Jung and Freud especially) is a digging in of heels to what the other was saying after their final split?
“The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed.�
Carl Jung
This has always been a strange intersection for me when thinking about psychology - these men were incredibly flawed, brought their own biases to their theories and yet at least a portion of what each of them proposed appears accurate. How much should their personal demons matter when looking at their work? In most fields I’d say not a lot but in psychology I’m not sure what to say. I wonder how deeply have their theories been challenged by others in relation to their life histories? Do you have any thoughts on this?
Final thought. Interesting how influential Williams James was to both the “hard” science of the mind and psychology.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:18 am
PS. Do you know the story of how Jung found out about the affair? Through his dream analysis of Freud…
Crazy lives!
October 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Thank you Claire! So what ideas do you have to ensure you’re balanced at this stage?
Thanks Jenni
I’m reading Man and His Symbols at the moment but none of Jung, Rank or Maslow are included in much depth in this particular unit. No doubt I’ll study them at some point, but I will read their pages on professor George Boeree’s site, which I’ve linked to a couple of times here. I’ve heard a few third hand snippets of Jung’s ideas on collective unconscious, dreams, archetypes etc, but I have no idea if they were accurate snippets.
Heh, yeah, issues in Freud’s personal life are not surprising. Cocaine use has never been associated with stability, as far as I’m aware
…In fact wikipedia says that a few people believe some of Freud’s ideas are a result of changes brought about by his cocaine use. So there you go, their theories have been challenged because of their life histories. But in any field of science, and in any argument, it is considered fallacious to challenge someone, or their ideas, because of who they are or what they’ve done. But certainly with Freud it encouraged more people to pay more attention to what he said, if only to point out the flaws.
I don’t think psychology is any different to harder sciences in respect to the approach others should take in interpreting someone’s theories, at least as far as that person’s character is concerned. Critical thinking still applies. The difficulty is in the qualitative nature of most of the soft sciences, including psychology. You can’t directly measure anything in psychology so you have to be very careful in how you evaluate anything you’re researching. That’s one reason why case studies do not make a good foundation for a theory; they’re far too limited in scope. Study 50 people in a clinical setting and you’re likely to be evaluating different elements of each patient’s mental makeup. Conclusions then drawn from those case studies will inevitably be flawed because there will be far too many influences left unaccounted for. That’s more or less how Freud came up with his theories, and one of the reasons so much of the detail of his theories was wrong.
As for stubbornness resulting in certain theories, I have no idea, but it is an interesting question.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Well Mark, that is the $64,000 question, isn’t it?
I can say, I am very much looking forward to close friends procreating - Tayne and I will make excellent surrogate aunties and uncles! To be involved in a young person’s growth and development will certainly fulfil some of the ‘generativity’ quotient. I also volunteer at and am a patron of a local community arts centre which I hope to see progress well into the future. I guess it’s just a matter of keeping on learning and putting that knowledge to use for the greater good in a way that works for us. You know, like writing an informative blog, or something…
Jenny: I bought Maslow’s ‘Towards a Psychology of Being’ at a garage sale for 50 cents at about age 14 - I remember it being quite readable, but I will have to see if I still have it, and have another look. I certainly think his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’ is accurate, in any case.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Yeah Claire that would be great!
Being an auntie is great fun, you get to spoil and give sugar and such and then send them home :p
October 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Mark,
What are you thinking as you read Man and His Symbols?
Ha, ha! Forgot about Freud and his cocaine addiction. Yah, wouldn’t lead to much stability…
October 24th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Jung has just started talking about the precognitive aspects of dreams and I’m finding it very hard to keep an open mind. Or to ignore my mind when it screams, “Hindsight bias and subjective validation!”
But I can also see a lot of his influence in many of the things people have repeatedly said since him. It’s also really good to get some clarity on his beliefs about archetypes, which are not at all as strange as some people have mistakenly made them seem.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
I’ve actually thought about the precognitive aspects of dreams a bit and perhaps it is worth considering. If you could remove the mystical connotations and view the word as written - pre-cognitive - and simply consider that our dream state (and granted I don’t know tons about what occurs during dreaming) is a time when the events of the day/wk/etc. or that weight heavily on our psyche gain access mightn’t things that our working memory didn’t recognize as worth bringing to the top of the line to our awareness be trying to gain our attention in another manner. So some nearly forgotten words spoken by a friend or a change in our environment that we aren’t consciously aware of but that at some level we recognize as potentially signficant comes to mind during sleep and the crazy symbolism of dreams encourages us to view it in a different context. I’m not ruling out hindsight bias or subjective validation but neither am I comfortable ruling out the potential ways in which our brain/mind could be attempting to bring things to our conscious awareness.
Not sure (shrug) just find the potential intriguing.
October 24th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I can accept pre-cognition as you’ve described; before thought. But Jung seems to say the unconscious can truly predict the future:
But like the conscious mind, the unconscious can come up with many scenarios that don’t come to pass. That some do does not imply the ability to predict the future. I agree that it’s intriguing, but it’s not particularly useful…
October 25th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Ah. Haven’t read any of this in a long time. Does appear as if Jung is describing an unconscious that can predict the future.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
How is it possible to define at what age specific concepts are learned, for example trust/mistrust 0-1. And how does one develop hope in such a young child?
July 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Thanks for the question Laurence,
Erikson devised his theory during a lifetime of study and psychoanalytic practice. He had a private practice for child psychoanalysis at one point. From that he would have had a wealth of data to draw on. He was heavily influenced by Freud’s work, so perhaps that’s one of the main reason he defined his stages with such explict age boundaries.
From his perspective those age boundaries have have seemed clear, but these days we’d require a lot of empirical support, such as through large studies over many years. Most of those kinds of studies show that the boundaries aren’t so rigid, and that not every individual necessarily goes through each stage sequentially.
One large-scale longitudinal study, the Australian Temperament Project, was started in 1982 and is still going. While it isn’t explicitly investigating Erikson’s theories, it does look at how people change over time, and what internal and external factors influence those changes, from infancy up. A full report is available if you’re interested.
As for hope, Erikson was referring to the infant having a sort of understanding that his or her needs would be met, that things would work out ok. Not in the sense of everything being right in the world, but in a more immediate sense. For example, if the hopeful infant was hungry he would believe that if he cries out to Mum she’ll feed him as soon as she can, and if she takes a while he won’t get too upset. That ‘hope’ is developed through the parents’ reliable, consistent, and appropriate responses to the child’s needs.