Psychology perspectives are purely based on human behaviour, they offer an important piece to the psychology puzzle, (highered.mheducation.com, 2017).
This report will look at the psychodynamic perspective; which came to a light by Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939), and the humanistic perspective, which has two theorists with interesting approaches, Abraham Maslow (1908- 1970) and Carl Rogers (1902- 1987).
Humanism is referred to as the ‘third- force’ within psychology, it focusses’ on the consciousness of the mind, the other two being behaviourism and Freudianism, this term was named by Maslow, it looks at not only people with ‘mental health issues’, but also healthy individuals, (Gross and McIlveen, 1999). The other approaches were simply rejected, …show more content…
Having a holistic psychology, without reductionism, allows humanistic psychologists to understand every aspect of their client’s life/ self, which gives a bigger picture to the problem at hand, (RE- Educate, 2017). Humanism encourages psychologists to accept that there is more to behaviour than the discoverable facts, this is a strength as this mindset looks at the individuals’ responsibility within therapy, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001)
The negative aspect of this overall perspective is the obvious rejection of the unconscious mind; psychologists feel that the unconscious mind is precious and crucial within research, this is seen to cause inaccuracy. The ‘Free Will’ concept has a negative aspect; not every individual has the freedom to have free will, it is not seen to be realistic, as there are certain aspects of that individual’s life where they’re not free to make their own choices, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001). This is where the reality of ‘self- actualisation’, doesn’t seem …show more content…
Not only this but the knowledge of linking childhood traumatic events or occurrences to the personality of the individual through adult hood, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001). Freud’s idiographic approach to the case studies throughout is another strength to this perspective, there is in depth information taken as the observing of the individual is done in detail, which can overturn the negativity of not using experiments, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001).
The unscientific methods used throughout is what other psychologists see as a negative within this perspective, simply because it is unfalsifiable (Gross and McIlveen, 1999). The fixation on child development for Freud is also negative as such, as he looks too in depth with the sexual aspect of growth, connecting details to some sort of sexual desire. The correlations between experiences within childhood to the personality of the adult to date, doesn’t help to find a cause for what is happening with that individual, (Eysenck and Flanagan,
This report will look at the psychodynamic perspective; which came to a light by Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939), and the humanistic perspective, which has two theorists with interesting approaches, Abraham Maslow (1908- 1970) and Carl Rogers (1902- 1987).
Humanism is referred to as the ‘third- force’ within psychology, it focusses’ on the consciousness of the mind, the other two being behaviourism and Freudianism, this term was named by Maslow, it looks at not only people with ‘mental health issues’, but also healthy individuals, (Gross and McIlveen, 1999). The other approaches were simply rejected, …show more content…
Having a holistic psychology, without reductionism, allows humanistic psychologists to understand every aspect of their client’s life/ self, which gives a bigger picture to the problem at hand, (RE- Educate, 2017). Humanism encourages psychologists to accept that there is more to behaviour than the discoverable facts, this is a strength as this mindset looks at the individuals’ responsibility within therapy, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001)
The negative aspect of this overall perspective is the obvious rejection of the unconscious mind; psychologists feel that the unconscious mind is precious and crucial within research, this is seen to cause inaccuracy. The ‘Free Will’ concept has a negative aspect; not every individual has the freedom to have free will, it is not seen to be realistic, as there are certain aspects of that individual’s life where they’re not free to make their own choices, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001). This is where the reality of ‘self- actualisation’, doesn’t seem …show more content…
Not only this but the knowledge of linking childhood traumatic events or occurrences to the personality of the individual through adult hood, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001). Freud’s idiographic approach to the case studies throughout is another strength to this perspective, there is in depth information taken as the observing of the individual is done in detail, which can overturn the negativity of not using experiments, (Eysenck and Flanagan, 2001).
The unscientific methods used throughout is what other psychologists see as a negative within this perspective, simply because it is unfalsifiable (Gross and McIlveen, 1999). The fixation on child development for Freud is also negative as such, as he looks too in depth with the sexual aspect of growth, connecting details to some sort of sexual desire. The correlations between experiences within childhood to the personality of the adult to date, doesn’t help to find a cause for what is happening with that individual, (Eysenck and Flanagan,