The Control Freak - A Psychological Perspective and Possible Treatments - Assignment Example

The Control Freak: A Psychological Perspective and Possible Treatments Frequently, a person labeled a "control freak" has a position ity or superiority in a relationship; however, the persons obsessiveness extends beyond the acceptable range of control as the behaviour relates to psychology. The ‘control freak’ is a person who attempts to impose excessive predictability and direction on others or on events, often associated with insecurity or a lack of trust. While there is no actual psychological term ‘control freak’ , a number of different clinical conditions can be associated with the general tendency as seen within particular individuals. The various psychological perspectives:- biological, behavioral, cognitive, psycho-analytic and subjectivist – can help to break down the overall characteristics, suggest causes and point the way towards possible treatments. This essay will argue that it is often a combination of different factors that leads to the tendency of attempted obsessive control over others, and that each case should be considered as an individual, unique combination of causes, symptoms and prognosis for treatment. First of all it is necessary to state that there is not, perhaps obviously, a clinical condition called “control freak” (Saddock, 1994). However, several serious scholars have used the term as a useful catch-all for discussing the intricacies of particular conditions. For example, Steiner (2000) suggests that the “control freak’ is explained by the “deployment of primitive defense mechanisms” which seek to prevent “integrating affect, context and countertransference to provide meaningful communication of a straightforward kind”. Further, Fiske et al (1996) suggest that the need to pathologically control others to an extreme may in fact be a symptom of various anxiety disorders. Thus the feeling that a person is unable to control themselves and their own environment (leading to anxiety), exhibits itself within an attempt to control others to an extreme degree. Other scholars have suggested that the need to “control others” (Zimmerman, 2006) stems from an attempt at “psychological empowerment” that has gone awry. Zimmerman suggests that “the development of a universal and global measure of psychological empowerment may not be a feasible or appropriate goal”. Again, the idea that each case of empowerment (and control) should be dealt with on an individual basis, arises. How then can the overall idea of “control freak” be related to psychological conditions? What is the cause of the behavior and how can it be defined and treated? How then can the overall idea of “control freak” be related to psychological conditions? What is the cause of the behavior and how can it be defined and treated? Trait theory might be a good place to start, as it involves large scale traits that may be easy to fit within specific psychological conditions. The American Psychiatric Association defines personality traits as “enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts.” (2006). The various theorists that have studied trait theory suggests that these traits are reasonably stable over time, differ among people and that these mental traits influence actual behavior that can be studied in an empirical manner. Allport’s delineation of different traits or dispositions is of great relevance to the idea of the control freak. Thus central traits are basic to a person’s personality, while secondary traits are peripheral. Allport also identified common traits that may exist within a particular culture and which, logically, must thus vary between cultures. Lastly, cardinal traits are those traits which a person can be strongly recognized by. A study to test this theory of traits would involve several different features. Thus initially a study of whether traits can indeed be divided into basic and peripheral would be undertaken. Qualitative studies of how people evaluate themselves would be a part of this, as well as observational studies in which people state whether they observe basic and peripheral traits in other people. A study of common traits might concentrate upon the perhaps controversial matter of whether certain cultures or even races have particularly behavioral characteristics. Thus are those of Italian descent more “excitable” than the supposedly “cold” Anglo-Saxon of English heritage. Do the Anglo-Saxons seek to “control” more than those of other races? Could a study of history suggest that certain races tend to want to dominate more than others? Can such studies be transferred from the tendency of whole races to the specifics of individuals that are presenting themselves for therapy? A certain degree of qualitative research could be done through observing various cultural groups in a variety of different social contexts. The problem here is the difficulty in actually defining what these traits are and how a person or group can actually exhibit them. The difference between common and individual traits is important here. Thus would an extroverted person from the common trait of Anglo-Saxon be the same as an introverted person from an Italian common trait? This complexity may not necessarily be a disadvantage however, as it reflects the true ambiguity of actually personality assessment. Here Goldberg’s five-dimension personality model known as the “Big Five” is relevant. Thus the various traits such as extroversion, neuroticism and agreeableness are situated on a continuum from a minimum display of them to a maximum. Some other theories may be compared to trait theory. Type theory suggests that there are two types of people within any particular type of personality. Thus there is extroversion and introversion, thinking and feeling, perceiving and judging, controlling and non-controlling. A person is in one type or another, although Jung suggested that in fact one could move form one to the other according to different situations. Type theory suggests that there are particular types that can be identified within personalities, and as with trait theory, they can be distinguished from one another. Psychoanalytical theory suggests that there are interactions among various components of personality according to occurrences that effect us at very stages of our lives. Thus Freud identifies personalities with particular psychosexual stages of development (Freud, 1980) . The oral stage lasts up to the age of one year, while the anal stage occurs from one to two and the phallic stage between three and six. These various stages effect the development of the three main elements of the human personality: the ego, the superego and the id. The id is the instinctive, aggressive self that everyone is born with and which, especially in a violent and sexual sense, needs to be satisfied. The ego is the part of the personality which helps the id expresses itself as the self realizes that the satisfaction of wishes needs to be planned and realistic rather than immediate and unrealistic. The superego is the last function of the personality to develop, and is generally regarded as the relationship of an individual to his or her society. The conscience, obedience to laws and an ethical sense of needing to co-operate within society occurs with the superego. Within controlling people the id may force the ego and superego to act in ways which seek to dominate. Taking the gender, race and socio-economic differences first, there is no evidence that there is any difference in the tendencies to obsessive controlling behavior in either of the latter two (Lahey, 2002). Controlling behavior exists across the broad range of races and, while often exhibited in different manners within different classes, across the whole socio-economic range. However, there do seem to be contrasts between the two genders. Men tend to be more aggressive than women, and so at least certain aspects of controlling behavior, especially when taken to the extreme of criminal behavior, are associated with men more than As with all violent crime, the vast majority of domestic violence cases are committed by men: (Statistics, 2007) As the National Statistics starkly states at the top of its web-page concerned with crime, “men commit more crimes than women. In 2004, male offenders in England and Wales outnumbered female offenders by more than four to one” (statistics, 2007). The same pattern is discovered in virtually all societies, from the most advanced to the most simple, and as far as can be gleaned from historical records, has occurred throughout recorded history. Women (Lahey, 2002). The biological causation for this greater tendency towards the more extreme examples of controlling behavior may be divided into the tow broad types. First, the tendency towards a more aggressive nature within all male mammals, including human beings. Second, a possible genetic (inherited) causation for behavior. Inherited causation for complex human behavior has been discussed for millennia. The question arises as to whether a person who exhibits obsessive tendencies to control others has perhaps inherited the characteristic from his/her parents. Can the tendency to want to dominate be inherited in the same way as eye color is inherited? In the case of a control freak, is the tendency inherited (nature) or conditioned through experience (nurture). Recent studies (Plomin, 1995) have suggested that it is a mixture of nature and nature. As Lahey suggests, “both heredity and experience work together to influence normal and abnormal aspects of personality, including sociability, aggressiveness, kindness and anxiousness”. Thus the following scenario may be imagined. A child is born with the genetic tendency for excessive controlling behavior, and this tendency is compounded by being brought up by parents who also exhibit this behavior. The child who is obsessively controlled grows up to be a ‘control freak’ themselves. The same child, with the same genetic propensities, brought up within a more moderate, perhaps relaxed atmosphere, may not exhibit the same tendencies. In the first case, nurture supports the genetic inheritance of nature, while in the second it counters it and provides a moderating influence. Possible therapies for the control freak include behavioral therapy, as this concentrates on “the learning of adaptive skills using methods derived from operant conditioning” (Lahey, 2002). The obsessively controlling person, whatever the cause, may benefit from role playing, in which the therapist and patient act out particular situations in which the tendency to control may occur. Cappe and Alden (1986) analyzed a whole myriad of different types of social skills training and found that, when effectively applied, they could lead to a marked improvement in the type of behavior or tendency that was being targeted. The psychoanalytical type of therapy may also be of benefit to a person exhibiting extreme controlling symptoms. As is well known, the psychoanalytical method attempts to examine and then cure conflicts between the three aspects of the human personality that Freud argued dominate all human behavior: the ego, the superego and the id. Freud sated that all animals, including human beings, are born with potent aggressive instincts. These instincts create a drive to commit aggressive acts that must be fulfilled in one way or another. This instinct, which Freud called the id can be alleviated to a certain extent through the superego, which represents that part of the human bring that is developed through childhood and comes to fruition in adulthood (Freud, 1980). Society places controls on people’s aggressive instincts, and the superego recognizes this and tames the desires of the id in order to preserve the person’s freedom. One way that society allows for this instinct to be released, and thus not come to full fruition is the method of catharsis, in which nonviolent release of aggressive energy is allowed (Lahey, 2002). In some ways, the psychoanalyst working with a control freak will seek to find the origins of the id’s attempt to influence the individual into particularly controlling forms of behavior. Perhaps the controlling can in fact be seen as a form of catharsis which needs to be molded into a more positive form through therapy. One of the weaknesses of psychoanalysis for a controlling type of personality is that it asks the patient to do the very thing that he/she will be most resistant to do – give up control of their most intimate experiences, memories and emotions to the analyst in order for him/her to interpret them. As Lahey (2002) suggests, “it is generally possible to bring information out of the unconscious only when the ego’s guard is temporarily relaxed, and even then, the id is able to reveal itself only in disguised, symbolic forms”. It is this relaxation that be most difficult for the analyst to achieve within the controlling person, who by nature wishes to control every situation rather than relinquish it to another (Bandura, 1999). This may be compared to the more active role of the patient within behavioral therapy which may imply that they will be more ready to accept treatment. The role playing and socialization process which occurs within behavioral therapy will enable the controlling patient to be “ in charge” of their own therapy to a certain extent and thus to exhibit ‘control’, ironically, even when they are learning to relinquish it more often. To conclude, the ‘control freak’ may in fact be revealing a number of different psychological conditions which may rise to level of pathology or may actually be found within the normal range of human behavior. Those who are identified as “control freaks” may be so designated because of the features exhibited by the groups within which they find themselves (perhaps over passivity) rather than because of any innate psychological conditions within the individual involved. Indeed, certain types of controlling behavior actually lead to very positive results – such as those found within inspirational leaders, whether it be in politics, culture, business, sports, the arts etc.. In many ways it is whether the controlling behavior is perceived as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ which effects the term ‘control freak’ or ‘great leader’. Undeniably existing, but difficult to define qualities such as charisma, likeability and general friendly (or unfriendly) demeanor may mean that precisely the same set of actions/tendencies within one person are perceived as controlling and within another as helpful. This is the very reason that psychology resists attempts to create overbroad characterizations such as ‘control freak’ which seem to be descriptive but which actually may do more to hid the truth than to reveal it. As a Supreme Court judge once commented on pornography, ti is perhaps impossible to exactly define a ‘control freak’, but we known one when we see one. Psychology however must deal with the behavior that can as far as possible be empirically defined and analyzed rather than mere generalities. That is the reason that no designation ‘control freak’ actually exists. ________________________________________ T Bibliography American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. APA, New York: 2006. Bandura, A. “Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory”. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Cappe, RF. Alden, LE. “A comparison of treatment strategies for clients functionally impaired by extreme shyness and social avoidance”. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 54, 796-801. Fiske, ST. Morling, B. Stevens, LE. “Controlling Self and Others: A Theory of Anxiety, Mental Control and Social Control.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1996. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Mass Market, New York: 1980. Lahey, Benjamin. Essentials of Psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York: 2002. Plomin, Robert. “Molecular Genetics and psychology”. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 4, 114-117. Sadock, MD B.J. Greeb, MD J.A. and American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, APA, New York: 1994. Steiner, John. “Containment, Enactment and communication” The International Journal of Psychoanalysis. 2000, 81; 245-255. www.statistics.gove.uk Zimmerman, Marc. “Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations”. American Journal of Community Psychology. Vol 23, #5. 2006. Read More