2004年12月04日
2004年12月01日
Can Men and Women Be Friends? Wrong, say relationship experts. “The belief that men and women can’t be friends comes from another era in which women were at home and men were in the workplace, and the only way they could get together was for romance,” explains Linda Sapadin, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice in Valley Stream, New York. “Now they work together and have sports interests together and socialize together.” This cultural shift is encouraging psychologists, sociologists and communications experts to put forth a new message: Though it may be tricky, men and women can successfully become close friends. What’s more, there are good reasons for them to do so. Society has long singled out romance as the prototypical male-female relationship because it spawns babies and keeps the life cycle going; cross-sex friendship, as researchers call it, has been either ignored or trivialized. We have rules for how to act in romantic relationships (flirt, date, get married, have kids) and even same-sex friendships (boys relate by doing activities together, girls by talking and sharing). But there are so few platonic male-female friendships on display in our culture that we’re at a loss to even define these relationships. Part of this confusion stems from the media. A certain 1989 film starring Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal convinced a nation of moviegoers that sex always comes between men and women, making true friendship impossible. “When Harry Met Sally set the potential for male-female friendship back about 25 years,” says Michael Monsour, Ph.D., assistant professor of communications at the University of Colorado at Denver and author of Women and Men as Friends: Relationships Across the Life Span in the 21st Century (Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001). Television hasn’t helped either. “Almost every time you see a male-female friendship, it winds up turning into romance,” Monsour notes. Think Sam and Diane or Chandler and Monica. These cultural images are hard to overcome, he says. It’s no wonder we expect that men and women are always on the road to romance. But that’s only one of the major barriers. In 1989, Don O’Meara, Ph.D., a sociology professor at the University of Cincinnati-Raymond Walters College, published a landmark study in the journal Sex Roles on the top impediments to cross-sex friendship. “I started my research because one of my best friends is a woman,” says O’Meara. “She said, ‘Do you think anyone else has the incredible friendship we do?’” He decided to find out, and after reviewing the scant existing research dating back to only 1974, O’Meara identified the following four challenges to male-female friendship: defining it, dealing with sexual attraction, seeing each other as equals and facing people’s responses to the relationship. A few years later, he added a fifth: meeting in the first place. CHALLENGE #1 Defining the Relationship: Friends or lovers? Platonic love does exist, O’Meara asserts, and a study of 20 pairs of friends published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships lends credence to the notion. In it, Heidi Reeder, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Boise State University, confirms that “friendship attraction” or a connection devoid of lust, is a bona fide type of bond that people experience. Distinguishing between romantic, sexual and friendly feelings, however, can be exceedingly difficult. “People don’t know what feelings are appropriate toward the opposite sex, unless they’re what our culture defines as appropriate,” says O’Meara. “You know you love someone and enjoy them as a person, but not enough to date or marry them. What does this mean?” CHALLENGE #2 Overcoming Attraction: Let’s talk about sex The reality that sexual attraction could suddenly enter the equation of a cross-sex friendship uninvited is always lurking in the background. A simple, platonic hug could instantaneously take on a more amorous meaning. “You’re trying to do a friend-friend thing,” says O’Meara, “but the male-female parts of you get in the way.” Unwelcome or not, the attraction is difficult to ignore. In a major 1988 study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Sapadin asked more than 150 professional men and women what they liked and disliked about their cross-sex friendships. Topping women’s list of dislikes: sexual tension. Men, on the other hand, more frequently replied that sexual attraction was a prime reason for initiating a friendship, and that it could even deepen a friendship. Either way, 62 percent of all subjects reported that sexual tension was present in their cross-sex friendships. CHALLENGE #3 Establishing Equality: The power play Friendship should be a pairing of equals. But, O’Meara says, “in a culture where men have always been more equal than women, male dominance, prestige and power is baggage that both men and women are likely to bring to a relationship.” Women are at risk of subconsciously adopting a more submissive role in cross-sex friendships, he says, although that is slowly changing as society begins to treat both genders more equally. CHALLENGE #4 The Public Eye: Dealing with doubters Society may not be entirely ready for friendships between men and women that have no sexual subtext. People with close friends of the opposite sex are often barraged with nudging, winking and skepticism: “Are you really just friends?” This is especially true, says O’Meara, of older adults, who grew up when men and women were off-limits to each other until marriage. CHALLENGE #5 The Meeting Place: Finding friends As the workplace and other social arenas become increasingly open to women, the sexes are mingling more and more. Still, men and women continue to have surprisingly few opportunities to interact. “Boys and girls form their own gender groups in elementary school,” explains Monsour. “They learn their own ways of relating to each other. So when they do get together, inspired by puberty, they see each other as dating partners because they’ve never really known each other as friends.” A surprisingly major factor in this phenomenon is the kids’ own innate interest in children who act like they do. Called “voluntary gender segregation,” it continues into adulthood. “You see it at cocktail parties,” says Monsour. “Men go off to one corner, and women go to another.” These obstacles may seem numerous and formidable, but male-female friendship is becoming not only a possibility but also a necessity. If men and women are to work, play and coexist in modern society, researchers believe men and women must learn to understand and communicate with each other. To that end, social scientists like Sapadin, Monsour and O’Meara have begun studying how to do just that. The field of research is still in its infancy, but they are now beginning to understand some basic truths about male-female friendship: TRUTH #1 Friendship is not equal opportunity Not until high school does puberty really draw boys and girls together, which then continues into college. But as people develop serious romantic relationships or get married, making and maintaining cross-sex friendships becomes harder. “Even the most secure people in a strong marriage probably don’t want a spouse to be establishing a new friendship, especially with someone who’s very attractive,” says Monsour. The number of cross-sex friendships continues to decline with age–not surprising, because most older adults grew up in an age where consorting with the opposite sex outside of wedlock was taboo. According to Rosemary Blieszner, Ph.D., a family studies professor at Virginia Tech and author of Adult Friendship (Sage, 1993), elderly people rarely form new friendships with members of the opposite sex. Her research shows that only about 2 percent of the friendships elderly women have are with men. TRUTH #2 Men benefit more from cross-sex friendship than women There are proven–and apparent–distinct differences between female friendship and male friendship. Women spend the majority of their time together discussing their thoughts and feelings, while men tend to be far more group-oriented. Males gather to play sports or travel or talk stock quotes; rarely do they share feelings or personal reflections. This may explain why they seem to get far more out of cross-sex friendship than their female counterparts. In Sapadin’s study, men rated cross-sex friendships as being much higher in overall quality, enjoyment and nurturance than their same-sex friendships. What they reported liking most was talking and relating to women–something they can’t do with their buddies. Meanwhile, women rated their same-sex friendships higher on all these counts. They expect more emotional rewards from friendship than men do, explains Sapadin, so they’re easily disappointed when they don’t receive them. “Women confide in women,” notes blieszner. “Men confide in women.” TRUTH #3 …but women benefit, too All that sharing and discussing in female-female friendship can become exhausting, as any woman who’s stayed up all night comforting a brokenhearted girlfriend can attest. With men, women can joke and banter without any emotional baggage. “Friendships with men are lighter, more fun,” says Sapadin. “Men aren’t so sensitive about things.” Some women in her study also liked the protective, familial and casual warmth they got from men, viewing them as surrogate big brothers. What they liked most of all, however, was getting some insight into what guys really think. TRUTH #4 Cross-sex friendships are emotionally rewarding Although women dig men’s lighthearted attitude, most male-female friendships resemble women’s emotionally-involving friendships more than they do men’s activity-oriented relationships, according to Kathy Werking, Ph.D., an assistant professor of communications at Eastern Kentucky University and author of We’re Just Good Friends (Guilford, 1997). Her work has shown that the No. 1 thing male and female friends do together is talk one-on-one. Other activities they prefer–like dining out and going for drives–simply facilitate that communication. In fact, Werking found, close male-female friends are extremely emotionally supportive if they continuously examine their feelings, opinions and ideas. “Males appreciate this because it tends not to be a part of their same-sex friendships,” she says. “Females appreciate garnering the male perspective on their lives.” TRUTH #5 It’s not all about sex “In reality, sex isn’t always on the agenda,” says Werking. “That could be due to sexual orientation, lack of physical attraction or involvement in another romantic relationship.” After all, even friends who are attracted to each other may also recognize that qualities they tolerate in a friendship wouldn’t necessarily work in a serious romantic relationship. And after years of considering someone as a friend, it often becomes difficult to see a cross-sex pal as a romantic possibility. Of pairs that do face the question of lust, those that decide early on to bypass an uncertain romantic relationship are more likely to have an enduring friendship, says Werking. One study published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships by Walid Afifi, Ph.D., of Penn State University, showed that of more than 300 college students surveyed, 67 percent reported having had sex with a friend. Interestingly, 56 percent of those subjects did not transition the friendship into a romantic relationship, suggesting that they preferred friendship over sex. TRUTH #6 Male-female friendships are political Men and women have increasingly similar rights, opportunities and interests, which can make cross-sex friendship very political, notes Werking. “It upsets the agreed-upon social order,” she explains. “Women and men engage in an equal relationship, or they aren’t friends.” For one thing, new generations of kids grow up believing that boys can play with dolls and girls can take kickboxing, and they’re crossing paths more frequently as a result. Men and women are also becoming more androgynous as their societal roles become more similar. “Men are more willing to have feminine characteristics, and women are a lot more willing to admit to traditionally masculine characteristics, like assertiveness,” says Monsour. His dissertation showed that women and men categorized as androgynous had twice the number of cross-sex friends. Whatever the challenges of male-female friendship, researchers agree that to succeed as friends, both genders have to openly and honestly negotiate exactly what their relationship will mean–whether sexual attraction is a factor and how they’ll deal with it–and establish boundaries. In Afifi’s and Reeder’s studies, the friendships that survived–and even thrived–after sex or attraction came into play were those in which the friends extensively discussed the meaning of the sexual activity and felt confident and positive about each other’s feelings. Once they got past that, they were home free. “If sex is part of the dynamic, addressing it explicitly is the best strategy” for making sure the friendship survives, says Werking. “The issue will fester if friends try to ignore it.” So in the end, male-female friendship does have something in common with romantic relationships: To work, communication is key. Researchers tell us that men and women can be friends. But do we really believe them? A survey of more than 1,450 members of the match.com dating site revealed that we’re an optimistic bunch: 1. Do you believe men and women can be platonic friends? Yes: 83% No: 11% Unsure: 6% 2. Have you had a platonic friendship that crossed the line and became romantic or sexual? Yes: 62% No: 36% Unsure: 2% 3. Who is more likely to misinterpret the intimacy of friendship for sexual desire? Men: 64% Women: 25% Unsure: 11% 4. Is it possible to fall in love with someone who first enters your life as a friend? Yes: 94% No: 4% Unsure: 2% 5. Do you hope that when you do fall in love, your partner will have started out as your friend? Yes: 71% No: 9% Unsure: 20% 6. Who is better at keeping sex out of a platonic relationship? Men: 13% Women: 67% Unsure: 20%
If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, it may explain at least one of their shared beliefs: Men and women can’t be real friends. Blame the sexual tension that almost inevitably exists between any red-blooded, heterosexual man and woman. Point to the jealousy that plagues many rational people when a significant other befriends someone of the opposite sex. Boil it down to the inherent differences between the sexes. It just can’t be done. Right?
2004年11月30日
霍桑控制
| 霍桑效应(Hawthorne effect)人的行为会因为被观察和研究而出现高水平发挥的反应 |
如果要考虑一种新的处理程序，通常有理论上的理由，期望这种新程序在某个很具体的方面是有效的。如果这种新的处理程序证明比无处理程序更好，我们不能把它的成功归因于这种新处理程序从理论上推测出来的特殊效应。和这些特殊效应相混淆的是非特殊的安慰剂效应或霍桑效应。这些非特殊效应能够借助“霍桑控制”来加以评价。
不像这种无处理的控制，霍桑控制的确要用一种新的程序，但不能认为这种新的处理程序就有特殊效应，这种程序的效能还有待我们评价。如果我们的新程序比霍桑控制的程序更为有效，我们就可以增加一点信心：我们的革新所获得的成果超过了霍桑效应或者安慰剂效应。如果既采用一种霍桑控制，又采用一种无处理控制，我们就能评定在与新程序有关的总的改进中有多少可以归因于霍桑效应。
表11-1 霍桑控制实验之假设的结果
组 别 | 得益的百分比 |
2.霍桑控制 3.实验程序 |
30% 40% |
表11-1出示了一个假设实验的结果，在该实验中儿童（或班级或学校）被任意分配到三种条件或三个组中的任何一组。组1是无处理控制组，课程没有变化。组2是霍桑控制组，课程引入了变化，但不包括假定影响儿童学习的特殊变化。组3是实验一程序组，包括那些假定影响儿童学习的特殊变化。表11-1出示了每一组里在学习能力上表现出明显增量的儿童的假定的百分比。
实验结束时，实验组儿童显示出来的得益可能是无处理控制组儿童的两倍。然而，实验组儿童的期望益处有一半可归因于假的实验程序效应或者霍桑效应。
每当这样做有实效时，并且通常是有实效的，看来最明智的办法是无处理控制组和霍桑控制组两者并用。
1、如果出于后勤工作上的理由，只能采用一个控制组，那么霍桑控制组更加可取
2、如果我们希望对新的特殊效应作些推论的话;然而，如果我们只要比较新旧两种程序，并且希望避免霍桑效应和特殊程序效应相混淆的话，那么只采用无处理控制组较为合适。
在教育情景中，更根本的困难似乎一直是：对大多数教育革新根本没有系统地作过评价（Nichols，1966），更不必说用方法论上的严密性对它们进行评价了（Dyer，1965）。不过，有种种迹象表明，人们不仅越发注意到对教育革新的细致评定，而且越发注意到霍桑效应在提高特殊变量的明显效能中所起的重要作用，这些特殊变量被假定为有助于引起有益的变化（Bruner，1965；Cook，1966；Entwisle，1961；Riessman，1962）。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝评价＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
霍桑效应类似与医药领域中的安慰剂组：Subject知道自己服用了“药物”，但Placebo本身并没有药理效应。
【延伸阅读】
The Hawthorne effect – an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important.
Individual behaviors may be altered because they know they are being studied was demonstrated in a research project (1927 – 1932) of the Hawthorne Plant of the Western Electric Company in Cicero, Illinois. This series of research, first led by Harvard Business School professor Elton Mayo along with associates F.J. Roethlisberger and William J. Dickson started out by examining the physical and environmental influences of the workplace (e.g. brightness of lights, humidity) and later, moved into the psychological aspects (e.g. breaks, group pressure, working hours, managerial leadership). The ideas that this team developed about the social dynamics of groups in the work setting had lasting influence – the collection of data, labor-management relations, and informal interaction among factory employees.
The major finding of the study was that almost regardless of the experimental manipulation employed, the production of the workers seemed to improve. One reasonable conclusion is that the workers were pleased to receive attention from the researchers who expressed an interest in them. The study was only expected to last one year, but because the researchers were set back each time they tried to relate the manipulated physical conditions to the worker’s efficiency, the project extended out to five years.
Four general conclusions were drawn from the Hawthorne studies:
- The aptitudes of individuals are imperfect predictors of job performance. Although they give some indication of the physical and mental potential of the individual, the amount produced is strongly influenced by social factors.
- Informal organization affects productivity. The Hawthorne researchers discovered a group life among the workers. The studies also showed that the relations that supervisors develop with workers tend to influence the manner in which the workers carry out directives.
- Work-group norms affect productivity. The Hawthorne researchers were not the first to recognize that work groups tend to arrive at norms of what is “a fair day’s work,” however, they provided the best systematic description and interpretation of this phenomenon.
- The workplace is a social system. The Hawthorne researchers came to view the workplace as a social system made up of interdependent parts.
For decades, the Hawthorne studies provided the rationale for human relations within the organization. Then two researchers used a new procedure called “time-series analyses.” Using the original variables and including in the Great Depression and the instance of a managerial discipline in which two insubordinate and mediocre workers were replaced by two different productive workers (one who took the role of straw boss – see below). They discovered that production was most affected by the replacement of the two workers due to their greater productivity and the affect of the disciplinary action on the other workers. The occurrence of the Depression also encouraged job productivity, perhaps through the increased importance of jobs and the fear of losing them. Rest periods and a group incentive plan also had a somewhat positive smaller effect on productivity. These variables accounted for almost all the variation in productivity during the experimental period. Social science may have been to readily to embrace the original Hawthorne interpretations since it was looking for theories or work motivation that were more humane and democratic. ?Franke, R.H. & Kaul, J.D. “The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation.” American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 623-643.
Note: Hay is dried grass, sometimes with a little alfalfa thrown in, used as feed for horses and cattle. Straw, on the other hand, is the stalks of wheat or other grains left over after harvesting the good parts, and is used primarily for livestock bedding. Since straw is a by-product of the real business of a farm, “straw boss” is not the “big boss” of any job, but rather an assistant or subordinate boss, usually on the level of the foreman of a work crew. It is now a metaphor for any low-level supervisor. And since straw bosses rarely wield any real power aside from the ability to make those under them miserable, “straw boss” today is often a synonym for a petty and vindictive superior.
2004年11月28日
人格
心理动力论
为什幺佛洛伊德的心理动力理论引发了这幺多追随者、或是与他不同、甚至反对他的理论﹖
——————
人本论
人本论的主要特性是什幺﹖它又是如何综合古典人本主义与心理动力论的一些概念﹖
——————
认知-行为论
认知-行为论的主要特性是什幺﹖它又是如何综合行为主义、认知研究与心理动力论的一些概念﹖
——————
特质论
特质论的主要特性是什幺﹖它与其它取向的理论有哪些异同﹖
交互作用的取向
什幺是交人格测量
心理学家如何测量人格﹖
互作用的取向﹖它与其它取向的理论有哪些异同﹖
表17-6 四个主要的人格理论典范
| 心理动力论 | 人本论 | 认知-行为论 | 特质论 |
主要学者 | 佛洛伊德（Freud） 阿得勒（Adler） 容格（Jung） 艾瑞克森(Erikson) 苏利文（Sullivan） 荷妮（Horney） | 罗杰斯（Rogers） 马斯洛（Maslow） | 罗特（Rotter） 班度拉（Bandura） 马可斯（Markus） 坎特（Cantor）凯尔斯壮（Kihlstrom） 米斯却尔（Mischel） | 卡特尔（Cattell） 埃森克（Eysenck） |
人格基础 | 心理能量的冲突来源 | 个人的意图与能力决定自己的命运 | 行为是想法与环境的交互作用 | 人格特质是稳定的、来自先天与后天的交互作用 |
人格理论的要点 | 儿童早期的经验会影响成人的人格 一种决定论的人格观、意即个人可控制的部分非常有限 强调潜意识的重要 | 非决定论的人格观、意即可由个人的意志来控制 | 人们对刺激与环境的想法与行为形塑了人格发展 人们需要感觉自己是有能力控制环境的 | nomothetic:每个人都有相同的人格组型、但在个别的特质程度上有所差异 idiographic:每个人拥有的人格组型均不相同 |
理论发展的基础 | 心理困扰的个案研究 | 人本哲学、个人经验、与临床实务 | 实验研究、人格测验的使用与发展 | nomothetic:因素分析的人格测量 idiographic:强调个人内差异的人格测量 |
我们是怎样的一个人﹖我们和别人有什幺不同﹖这些问题都牵涉到人格理论的内涵。
每个人似乎都是不同的，有的人外向，有的人内向；有的人亲切，有的人严肃，不同的人格除了影响我们的思考模式，影响了我们的行为与决策，也影响了人际的互动等诸多层面。
因此，了解人格是怎幺形成的﹖有哪些因素影响了人格的发展﹖先天的因素与后天环境的影响又扮演了什幺样的角色﹖就成为心理学家探讨并发展人格理论的主要关键。
人格
由多种心理特质所构成，有整合性与持久性。
造成个体面对人、己、环境的适应和行为特色。
人格理论的评量标准：
对此领域有影响力。 可测试的
完备的，可完整且合理解释一现象。
不繁琐，以最少原则解释复杂的现象
可用作心理测验和治疗的依据
——————
人格理论介绍
心理动力学（psychodynamic）
人有许多心理能量（psychic energy），互相间会造成冲突（conflict）。这是人格运作的动力历程。
因心理能量造成的冲突是个体不太能控制的，因此个体的行为是决定论（determinism）。
精神分析论（psychoanalysis）:S. Freud
人格结构(Fig. 17-1)
潜意识(unconscious) | 本我（id）：原始我：生，死，唯乐，欲力，梦，说溜嘴（Freudian slip），创造力表达不被接受的本我想法 |
意识 | 自我（ego）：现实 |
潜意识、意识 | 超我（superego）：理想，良心，完美主义 |
心理动力
本我，自我，超我交互激动 ==> 动力==>
焦虑
防卫机制（defense mechanisms）
否认(denial)
压抑(repression)
投射(projection)
转移（替代）(displacement)
升华(sublimation)
反向(reaction formation)
合理化(rationalization)
退化(regression)
人格发展(table 17-1)
口腔期（oral）
肛门期（anal）
性器期（phallic）
Oedipal conflict：恋父情结
Electra conflict： 恋母情结
潜伏期（latency）
两性期（genital）
新Neo-Freudians
人不是受互相冲突的心理能量的影响。
A. Adler： Individual psychology
人一生的心理现象是很一致的，虽有不一致的行为都是朝追求卓越的方向在前进。
追求卓越 VS 自卑情结（主观的知觉，失败，错误） ==> 补偿 ==> 渐成生活格调：追求卓越的方式 或是 处理自卑的方式
C. Jung
潜意识分自我（个人的）与集体的（与文化有关的）
有原型(archetypes)，跨文化的，泛宇宙的知觉与行动方式。
人格动力：两极相对的，如：
个人可向外界公布的 VS 不可向外界公布的
男人的女性面
女人的男性面
D. Erikson: Ego psychology
自我就是心理动力
K. Horney
基本焦虑（basic anxiety）因近代社会的竞争，人感觉无助，孤立，造成顺服，渴望权力，攫取拥有等行为。
心理动力学评鉴
重要性：但临床上盛行
验证：理论验证少
完整性：YES
不繁琐：尚可
心测与治疗：TAT，Rorschach
人本论（Humanistic paradigms）看重人之所以为人的本质
B. Rogers: The self theory
人所经验的一切，直接经验，他人批评 ==> 自我概念
理想我 VS 真实我 ==> 和谐自我
A. Maslow：自我实现
人本论评鉴
重要性：传递自我控制机会，自我实现一方面的讯息
验证：理论几乎不可验证
完整性：X
不繁琐：尚可
心测与治疗： 影响1960，1970年代的心理治疗
认知行为典范
J. Rotter的社会学习论
内控VS外控
A. Bandura的互动决定论（reciprocal determinism）
行为，认知和环境互动。
自我效能
认知行为典范评鉴
重要性： 带出许多研究
验证：可验证
完整性：X
不繁琐： YES
心测与治疗：Rotter的内外控量表，治疗上采用
特质论（trait-based paradigm）
个人特质不同（idiographic personality theories）VS人基本上有相同的特质（nomothetic personality theories），但表现出的行为程度不同
R. Cattell：
H Eysenck：
Extroversion（外向型）
Neuroticism（不稳定型）
Psychoticism（冷漠型）
The Big Five
情绪不稳型：紧张、焦虑
外向：爱与人互动
文化（openness）：好奇，有想象力
附和（agreeableness）：友善，好脾气
责任感（concientiousness）：努力，准时
W. Mischel对特质论的批评
特质与行为相关不高
行为的发生与情境有关
特质论评鉴
重要性： 带出许多研究
验证：可验证
完整性：YES
不繁琐： Eysenck和 Big Five，YES
心测与治疗：许多量表，治疗少采用
——————
人格测量
投射测验（projective tests）
将个人潜意识的冲突投射反映出来
墨迹测验（Rorschach Inkblot test）
主题统整测验（Thematic Apperception Test, TAT）：主题包括主角，主角动机，故事结果，环境因素等。
——————
客观型的人格测量
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Fig 17-7)
举例，
抑郁：我常觉得不需要幺麻烦的活下去。 T F
妄想：有人到处跟踪我。 T F
16 Personality-Factor Scale (16PF)
General Psychology (gen-PSY )
Personality Theories
What is Personality?
Characteristic ways that a person behaves
Enduring or in-grained patterns of behavior
Leads us to behave in consistent ways in different situations
Pattern of behaviors that make the person unique
Who was Sigmund Freud?
Freud was a psychiatrist who practiced in Vienna, Austria
At this time (1890s) thinking was that psychiatric disorders were “constitutional”- medically based
Based on his sessions with patients, he developed a psychological theory to account for psychiatric disorders
Developed free association in which people would report whatever came to there mind
Concept of Unconscious Mind
Conscious Mind: what currently are aware of; immediate experience
Preconscious: not conscious but available through memory.
Unconscious Mind: repressed motives, drives, thoughts, emotions
