Basic Psychological Theories - Term Paper Example

As a psychology I have studied various theories. In the beginning they look so obvious that it remind me of Einstein. Albert Einstein once said about a psychology theory that it is so simple only a genius could have thought of it. Further in my studies I came across more difficult theories. Some of them were really hard for me to understand. Some of them were pretty controversial. But I had been able to understand all those theories, al least memorize them if I didn’t understood. Made sense out of them. But today I looked at them from a very different angel. I came to know that my understanding and knowledge of those theories was not the only one. There are some different aspects of those theories, which I never came across. I came to know that how their relativity and grouping are irrelevant and how some of them are astonishingly interrelated. Some of those theories, which made me a victim of cognitive dissonance, are given below. I will start with some basic theories. Classical conditioning and Operant Conditioning falls under the same group of theories. It is obvious that they are similar that’s why they belong to the same group. But if we take a closer look, we will find that they have little in common. Although apparently they look same. Classical conditioning deals with stimulus evoking a reaction. Operant conditioning on the other hand deals with improving of discourage a behavior. When I take a look at these two theories under the light of Aristotle’s four causes, I found that they very differently answer the causes. For example the final cause of classical conditioning is to evoke a reaction or response to a stimulus. This reaction will most probably out of control of the subject. On the other hand operant conditioning encourages a subject to exhibit a certain behavior to have reword or to stay away from the punishment. Now this encouragement to exhibit certain type of behavior is entirely in the control of the subject. Subject might chose to act otherwise. These theories are again different in answering efficient cause. In classical conditioning the efficient cause is a stimulus, an event or a thing that evokes a reaction. On the other hand operant conditioning answer efficient cause with a reward or punishment. A reward cannot evoke a reaction. These two theories have little in common in formal cause. Both theories share behavior including physical action, but again a reaction is not deliberate. On the other hand a behavior for a reward will be deliberate. They might have something in common in context to material cause like physical action but they differ in emotional support. Classical conditioning does not include emotional support whereas operant conditioning does. If we take a look at the Jean Piagets Stages of Cognitive Development, it is surprising that how close it is to the behavior theory in the context of Aristotle’s 4 causes. According to Piaget one develops Schemas through observation. Now if we take a look at its formal cause we will find that Piaget’s stages of cognitive development and classical conditioning share the same efficient cause. They act on the same principle of cause and effect. In Piaget’s theory the schemas are the understanding of anything or event. It might evoke a phyclogical reaction like understanding or a physical reaction. For example lightening because of clouds may evoke an understanding that it will go to rain and a physical reaction to find a shelter or an umbrella. On the other hand if we look at the classical conditioning, if water falls on a subject, the subject will look for a shelter. In my opinion they share the same final cause. The difference is that one is on the physical level and the other is on the phycological level. They both evoke responses in the shape of physical action and physiological actions like understanding or making sense. They differ largely in the formal cause. But I think that they share the same material cause, that is the response, though on different levels but both of them are responses. Sigmund Freuds Stages of Psychosexual Development is some how similar to stages of cognitive development. Freud’s theory is specific to the psychosexual development, or I would rather say psychosexual schemas. In Piaget’s theory schemas are of our overall understanding. They both develop through the same process. Freud’s theory and Piaget’s theory share the same final cause, efficient cause and the material cause. These theories definitely differ in formal cause. Some stages of Freud’s theory like the Anal Stage are just another extension, or I would say a replica of the Operant Conditioning. These two theories share all of the four causes. The infants are taught to behave in a certain way either by giving rewards or by threatening from punishment. Same final cause. Same efficient cause, a reward or punishment. Same formal cause, a certain deliberate behavior and have course that same material cause. Erik Eriksons Theory of Psychosocial Development apparently looks same as Freuds Stages of Psychosexual Development. But are they same in context to 4 causes. Both of theses theories talk about interaction. According to Freud’s theory the social interaction cause the psychosexual development that leads to the overall personality development. Whereas Erikson argues that social interaction causes development of ego identity that develop our overall personality. Now clearly the final cause is different. In Erikson’s theory the efficient causes are not opposite sex, Oedipus complex or Electra complex. Instead they are like quality of care, encouragement and level of dependency. These theories share the formal cause. I found Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs very much similar to the Operant Conditioning. In the operant conditioning a motivator backs a person’s action or behavior. Motivations like having a reward. Or one act in a certain way because of a fear. On the other hand Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs follow the same rule. The lower level of needs is the basic needs or physiological needs. A person would try to achieve them because he or she wants to survive, wants to live. Now this is a fear. If someone doesn’t meet the basic needs, the possibility of survival is slim. The security needs are again motivated by the fear. So these two theories share the same efficient cause, fear. The next three levels of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs are based on the motivator, reward. Social needs, esteem needs and self-actualization are motivated by the charm of achievement. So clearly these two theories share the same efficient cause. Their final cause is also same, to deliberately act in a way to achieve something or to be safe form a punishment. In the Maslow’s basic need I would associate fear of losing with punishment. They also share the formal cause, that is the same set of things, which made up the behavior, and also the material cause. By looking at different theories from different angle, that is of Aristotle’s 4 causes I came to know that how much different theories share with each other. It astonished that in such a strange yet very common or obvious way they are interrelated, or, in some cases, not related at all. This study gave me a look of the other side of the picture. Sometimes what is obvious might be wrong. I feel like I have solved a riddle that was not even a riddle. Read More