Hi. In the next few videos
we'll discuss the Freudian
psychoanalytic approach
to the study of personality.
The psychoanalytic approach is unique in
its emphasis
on the unconscious mind as the driving
force behind
personality development and expression.
In Freud's conceptualization, the
majority of the psyche or personality
is submerged in the unconscious or
subconscious mind.
According to Freud, the self is composed
of
the Id, the superego,
and the ego. The Id is completely
submerged below consciousness and we are
unaware of the desires and impulses
of the Id. The Id operates based on the
pleasure principle. It seeks
gratification
with no concern for the consequences.
The Id is described as impulsive and
almost primitive or juvenile.
The superego is our internalized
moral compass ,our conscience. While the
Id is seeking
instant gratification, the superego is
concerned with
moral righteousness. Only a small
portion of the superego is conscious.
The ego operates on the reality
principle
and acts as a mediator between id
and super ego. The ego attempts to
strike a balance between meeting the
needs of
the Id and the standards of the
superego. Our conscious awareness
primarily consists of the ego.
Freud argued that many of our
motivations and desires
lie outside of awareness. He originally
proposed the
libido as the primary driving force or
instinct. The libido is our sexual
instinct,
but keep in mind that many argue that
Freud's conceptualization of sexuality
was
broader than our modern definition. It's
thought that sexuality in this context
could refer to any physical pleasure
not just those that are erotic in nature
and so the libido can be thought of as
more of a
life force. After witnessing the
devastation in world war one, Freud
proposed a
counterpart to the libido:
Thanatos, or the death instinct.
He argued that we have these opposing
drives toward
life and reproduction on one hand and
destruction
on the other. If kept internalized,
the death instinct would destroy the
self,
and so we project it outwards in the
form of aggression,
violence, and war.
So the question is, can we have
unconscious
ideas and desires?
Some of the research on attitude
formation and change suggests that the
answer is yes.
When people were asked to deliberately
explain
why they held a particular attitude, they
often
changed their attitude - suggesting that
the conscious reasons that they
generated
didn't match the attitude they actually
held.
So the original attitude was based on
feelings or
ideas outside of conscious awareness.
Further, researchers from the university
of Amsterdam
found that thorough conscious
deliberation,
like making a pros and cons list,
led to lower decision satisfaction.
They concluded that complex decisions
might be
better left to unconscious thought. The
important factors
guiding the decision may lie outside
of conscious attention.
Freud argued that a primary function of
the ego
is to protect the psyche from the
upsetting and
threatening content of the unconscious
mind.
A variety of defense mechanisms have
been proposed by
Sigmund and his daughter Anna Freud. In
fact, much of what we know about defense
mechanisms
comes from the writings of anna freud
who expanded and clarified the work of
her father in this domain.
Defense mechanisms are techniques used
by the ego
to deal with threatening or anxiety
provoking
ideas. The root defense mechanism,
at the foundation of the others, is
repression.
Repression is what allows for the
unconscious mind.
It's the mechanism by which we push
thoughts outside
of conscious awareness. Particularly,
Freud argued that memories of traumatic
events
were often repressed in an attempt to
protect the psyche. In Freud's original
theories,
current psychological distress, typically
neuroses, could be attributed to
repressed memories of childhood sexual
trauma.
Of course this theory was incredibly
controversial both
at the time and to this day.
But let's examine a few of our defense
mechanisms.
Denial is taking repression a step
further.
It's the outright refusal to accept
reality.
The individual denies the very existence
of the threatening event or idea in
question.
This seems extreme, but think about the
existential threats that we face today.
Many deny global warming. The Covid 19
death toll is over a hundred and eighty
thousand
in the US alone and there are people who
deny it existence.
However in general, it's thought that
denial is a relatively
ineffective defense and research
suggests that the use of denial
declines with age. The use of projection
has been shown to increase with age.
Rather than
acknowledging the threatened impulse
within themselves,
the individual projects it onto someone
else.
"I don't have a problem, you do!" So when we
see the worst in other people,
maybe what we're really seeing is our
own repressed insecurities.
Sublimation is a potentially more
socially desirable defense mechanism.
When someone engages in sublimation they
take the
threatening desire or impulse and
channel it
into something more socially accepted or
approved.
So someone with violent urges may
channel that
in playing an aggressive sport.
Displacement is similar
in that our forbidden urges are
channeled to something
less threatening. So you might want to
punch your boss,
but you go home and punch your pillow
instead.
I think we can maybe all relate to this.
Has anyone realized in the middle of a
fight that what you're
arguing about isn't really what you're
upset about?
Instead of addressing the real problem,
you're shifting your anger and fears onto
something else.
Sublimation and displacement are closely
tied to
our beliefs surrounding catharsis.
Influenced by the basic mechanics of
the steam engine,
Freud argued that repressing the
impulses
of the Id creates pressure that
increases or builds over time.
At some point the individual would need
to
release this pressure by satisfying
those id
impulses. They would need to blow off
steam
or vent. So in other words, we couldn't
just
bottle up our violent urges
indefinitely.
They would need to release or express
them
in some fashion through sublimation or
displacement. Catharsis is the idea
that individuals should release their
aggressive urges
in socially acceptable ways and that
doing so
could be therapeutic and overall reduce
aggressive behavior in the future. This
theory is very popular
in pop psychology and many use it
as a justification for all sorts of
aggressive habits. Unfortunately
the research does not support this
theory.
Researchers have tried again and again
and again:
the bottom line is catharsis doesn't
work.
Acting on your aggressive urges
increases
future aggressive tendencies and this is
true
when researchers look at immediate and
delayed effects.
For example Bushman colleagues exposed
participants to an
anger-inducing experience. Participants
were blatantly insulted.
The participants were then randomly
assigned to simply sit quietly
or engage in catharsis by
hammering nails or punching a punching
bag.
Afterwards participants were then asked
to play a competitive
game in which they had the opportunity
to act aggressively.
Those who engaged in catharsis exhibited
more aggression in the competitive game
compared to those who just sat quietly.
Effects were amplified if participants
thought about the person who insulted
them
while they were punching the punching
bag.
This rumination and catharsis increased
rather than drained the aggressive urges.
The same findings extend to playing
violent video games or watching violent
television.
So why is the idea of catharsis so
appealing?
One reason is it helps to justify our
acts of anger-induced aggression.
Another is that engaging in catharsis
typically makes us
feel subjectively satisfied,
but while many report feeling better
after engaging in catharsis it does
nothing to reduce
actual aggression levels. The research
suggests that encouraging people to vent
their aggression
may promote rather than reduce future
acts of aggression.
And this is incredibly important to keep
in mind.
Cultural beliefs are important in terms
of fueling behavior or influencing behavior.
Malaysian men would engage in
running amok - a murderous rampage
that was considered uncontrollable
by their culture. When british colonials
started holding
them accountable, running amok sort of
died out
or ceased to take place. So if we have
this cultural belief
in catharsis and people endorse this
belief,
we may be increasing the prevalence of
aggression and violence in our culture.
