GORDON ALLPORT Biography and The trait theory
Gordon Allport (1897- 1967) was born in Indiana in 1897. He spent a long career at Harvard University and died in 1967. His father was a doctor, his mother a teacher, and his older brother Floyd also became a distinguished psychologist.
Allport was an excellent and dedicated student, earning his B.A. from Harvard in 1919. At the 22-year-old Allport wrote to Freud announcing that he was in Vienna and offered the father of psychoanalysis an opportunity to meet with him. The encounter proved to be a fortuitous life-altering event for Allport. Not knowing what to talk about, the young visitor told Freud about seeing a small boy on the tram car earlier that day. The young child complained to his mother about the filthy conditions of the car and announced that he did not want to sit near passengers whom he deemed to be dirty. Allport claimed that he chose this particular incident to get Freud’s reaction to a dirt phobia in a child so young, but he was quite flabbergasted when Freud “fixed his kindly therapeutic eyes upon me and said,‘And was that little boy you?’” (Allport, 1967, p. 8). Allport said he felt guilty and quickly changed the topic.
Read more topics :
Read more topics :
When Allport returned to the United States,he immediately enrolled in the PhD program at Harvard. Except for two years of study in Europe immediately thereafter and a teaching position at Dartmouth College from 1926 to 1930, he was to spend the rest of his life at this renowned institution. Allport’s personality course at Harvard is believed to be the first on this subject ever offered at an American college, and his textbook soon became a standard (Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, 1937, later wholly revised as Pattern and Growth in Personality, 1961). Gordon married Ada Gould on June 30, 1925, a union that produced one son.
Allport’s publications include some dozen books, numerous articles in psychological journals, and two personality inventories. Among his honors are being named president of the American Psychological Association in 1937 and receiving its Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award in 1964. But his most prized memento was a gift from 55 of his former psychology students: two handsomely bound volumes of their scientific publications, with the dedication: “From his students—in appreciation of his respect for their individuality” (Allport, 1968, p. 407). Gordon Allport died on October 9, 1967.
In 1937, Allport published Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. The book was an immediate success and remains a landmark in the study of personality.Thus, Allport served two purposes: he helped bring personality into the mainstream and he formulated a theory of personality development in which traits play a prominent role.
Allport disputed Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis on several points. First, Allport did not accept the notion that unconscious forces dominate the personality of normal, mature adults. He suggested that emotionally healthy people function in rational and conscious terms, aware and in control of many of the forces that motivate them. According to Allport, the unconscious is important only in neurotic or disturbed behavior.
Second, with regard to historical determinism—the importance of the past in determining the present—Allport said that we are not prisoners of childhood conflicts and past experiences, as Freud believed. Rather, we are guided more by the present and by our view of the future. Allport wrote that people are “busy leading their lives
into the future, whereas psychology, for the most part, is busy tracing them into the past” (Allport, 1955, p. 51).
Third, Allport opposed collecting data from pathological subjects. Whereas Freud saw a continuum between normal and abnormal personalities, Allport saw a clear distinction. To Allport, the abnormal personality functioned at an infantile level. The only proper way to study personality was to collect data from emotionally
healthy adults. Other populations—such as neurotics, children, and animals—should not be compared with normal adults. No functional similarity in personality existed between child and adult, abnormal and normal, or animal and human.
Another distinguishing feature of Allport’s theory is his emphasis on the uniqueness of personality as defined by each person’s traits. Allport opposed the traditional scientific emphasis on forming general constructs or laws to be applied universally. He argued that personality is not general or universal but is particular and specific to the individual.
Allport disputed Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis on several points. First, Allport did not accept the notion that unconscious forces dominate the personality of normal, mature adults. He suggested that emotionally healthy people function in rational and conscious terms, aware and in control of many of the forces that motivate them. According to Allport, the unconscious is important only in neurotic or disturbed behavior.
Second, with regard to historical determinism—the importance of the past in determining the present—Allport said that we are not prisoners of childhood conflicts and past experiences, as Freud believed. Rather, we are guided more by the present and by our view of the future. Allport wrote that people are “busy leading their lives
into the future, whereas psychology, for the most part, is busy tracing them into the past” (Allport, 1955, p. 51).
Third, Allport opposed collecting data from pathological subjects. Whereas Freud saw a continuum between normal and abnormal personalities, Allport saw a clear distinction. To Allport, the abnormal personality functioned at an infantile level. The only proper way to study personality was to collect data from emotionally
healthy adults. Other populations—such as neurotics, children, and animals—should not be compared with normal adults. No functional similarity in personality existed between child and adult, abnormal and normal, or animal and human.
Another distinguishing feature of Allport’s theory is his emphasis on the uniqueness of personality as defined by each person’s traits. Allport opposed the traditional scientific emphasis on forming general constructs or laws to be applied universally. He argued that personality is not general or universal but is particular and specific to the individual.
THE NATURE OF PERSONALITY : THE TRAIT THEORY
Allport spelled out 49 definitions of personality as used in theology, philosophy, law,sociology, and psychology. He then offered a 50th definition, which in 1937 was “the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to his environment” (Allport, 1937, p. 48). In 1961,he had changed the last phrase to read “that determine his characteristic behavior and thought” (Allport, 1961, p. 28). The change was significant and reflected Allport’s penchant for accuracy. By 1961,he realized that the phrase “adjustments to his environment” could imply that people merely adapt to their environment. In his later definition, Allport conveyed the idea that behavior is expressive as well as adaptive.People not only adjust to their environment, but also reflect on it and interact with it in such a way as to cause their environment to adjust to them.
Each word in this definition is carefully chosen. Personality is dynamic (moving and changing), organized (structured), psychophysical (involving both the mind and the body), determined (structured by the past and predisposing of the future), and characteristic (unique for each individual).
In summary, personality is both physical and psychological; it includes both overt behaviors and covert thoughts; it not only is something, but it does something. Personality is both substance and change, both product and process, both structure and growth.
Allport (1960) distinguished among continuity and discontinuity theories of personality and argued for a discontinuity theory. A continuity theory suggests that the development of personality is essentially the accumulation of skill, habits, and discriminations, without anything really new appearing in the person’s makeup. Changes are merely quantitative relative to the amount of inputs. Such continuity theories are closed systems.
A discontinuity theory suggests that in the course of development an organism experiences genuine transformations or changes and consequently reaches successively higher levels of organization. Here growth is conceived as qualitatively different. Walking is considered very different from crawling, talking is viewed as discontinuous with babbling, and so forth, even though these behaviors emerge out of the earlier ones. If we picture personality as an organism into which inputs are introduced, a continuity theory merely sees the inputs accumulating. In contrast, a discontinuity theory suggests that at times during its development the organism reorganizes, regroups, and reshapes these inputs so that the structure of personality changes radically.Discontinuity theories view the person as open and active in consolidating and integrating experience. Change is qualitative rather than merely quantitative.
A discontinuity theory suggests that in the course of development an organism experiences genuine transformations or changes and consequently reaches successively higher levels of organization. Here growth is conceived as qualitatively different. Walking is considered very different from crawling, talking is viewed as discontinuous with babbling, and so forth, even though these behaviors emerge out of the earlier ones. If we picture personality as an organism into which inputs are introduced, a continuity theory merely sees the inputs accumulating. In contrast, a discontinuity theory suggests that at times during its development the organism reorganizes, regroups, and reshapes these inputs so that the structure of personality changes radically.Discontinuity theories view the person as open and active in consolidating and integrating experience. Change is qualitative rather than merely quantitative.
GENOTYPES AND PHENOTYPES
Allport hypothesized the idea of internal and external forces that influence an individual's behavior. He called these forces Genotypes and Phenotypes. Genotypes are internal forces relates to how a person retains information and uses it to interact with the external world. Phenotypes are external forces, these relate to the way an individual accepts his surroundings and how others influence their behavior. These forces generate the ways in which we behave and are the groundwork for the creation of individual traits.
DEFINITION OF TRAITS.
Allport does not claim that a shy or talkative person acts this way on every occasion. Behavior may become atypical because of changes in the environment, pressures from other people, and internal conflicts, so that “no trait theory can be sound unless it allows for, and accounts for, the variability of a person’s conduct.” Yet traits are extremely important, since they guide the many constant aspects of one’s personality:
A trait is … a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent (meaningfully consistent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior. (Allport, 1961, pp. 333, 347; see also Allport, 1960, pp. 131–135; 1961, pp. 332–375; 1968, pp. 43–66.)
A trait is … a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent (meaningfully consistent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior. (Allport, 1961, pp. 333, 347; see also Allport, 1960, pp. 131–135; 1961, pp. 332–375; 1968, pp. 43–66.)
A person who is guided by the trait of shyness will often behave in such consistent ways as preferring to be alone, not having much to say to other people, and not looking at people when she does talk to them. She may be more outgoing in a favorable environment, as when she is with a close friend or at her own birthday party. She may converse with a distant relative because her parents have urged her to be polite. Or she may risk talking to an attractive stranger because, at least for the moment, her shyness has been overcome by her need for love. But these are exceptions (which trait theory must be able to explain); her typical behavior will be shyness.
A trait (such as shyness) is more general than a habit (like regularly avoiding eye contact when talking to someone). Traits are often interrelated, as when friendly individuals also tend to be talkative. Allport refers to traits as “neuropsychic” because, like Freud and Sullivan, he believes that it will ultimately be possible to relate the elements of personality to specific physiological processes.
Allport describes personality in terms of straightforward traits like friendliness, ambitiousness, cleanliness, enthusiasm, punctuality, shyness, talkativeness, dominance, submissiveness, generosity, and so forth (with emphasis on the “and so forth,” since he estimates that there are some 4,000 to 5,000 traits and 18,000 trait names!).
ALLPORT PROPOSED TWO TYPES OF TRAITS:
INDIVIDUAL (PERSONAL DISPOSITIONS), AND COMMON.
Individual traits are unique to a person and define his or her character. Common traits are shared by a number of people, such as the members of a culture. It follows that people in different cultures will have different common traits. Common traits are also likely to change over time as social standards and values change.This demonstrates that common traits are subject to social, environmental, and cultural influences.
Some of these terms, usually referred to as traits, describe relatively stable characteristics such as “sociable” or “introverted”; others, usually referred to as states, describe temporary characteristics such as “happy” or “angry”; others described evaluative characteristics such as “unpleasant” or “wonderful”; and
still others referred to physical characteristics such as “tall” or “obese.”
still others referred to physical characteristics such as “tall” or “obese.”
LEVELS OF PERSONAL DISPOSITIONS
A CARDINAL TRAIT is so pervasive and influential that it touches almost every aspect of a person’s life. Allport described it as a “ruling passion,” a powerful force that dominates behavior. Not everyone has a ruling passion, and those who do may not display it in every situation. example -Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, whose life was marked by love and compassion for the poor.
Everyone has a few CENTRAL TRAITS, some 5 to 10 themes that best describe our behavior. Allport’s examples are aggressiveness, self-pity,intelligent, responsible, independent, sensitive, caring and cynicism. These are the kinds of characteristics we would mention when discussing a friend’s personality or writing a letter of recommendation.
SECONDARY TRAIT are more specific, focused tendencies that are often situational in character and less crucial to the personality structure. A person may have a large number of these. A man might be domineering and aggressive at home in his role as father but behave submissively when confronted by a police officer who is giving him a ticket.
HABITS AND ATTITUDES
As Allport developed his system, he argued that traits and personal dispositions are distinct from other characteristics, such as habits and attitudes. He agreed, however,that habits and attitudes are also capable of initiating and guiding behavior.
1) HABITS : Habits have a more limited impact than traits and personal dispositions because they are relatively inflexible and involve a specific response to a specific stimulus. Traits and personal dispositions are broader because they arise from the integration of several habits that share some adaptive function. In this way, habits may combine to form a single trait.
Children learning to brush their teeth or wash their hands before eating illustrate Allport’s point. After a while these behaviors become automatic, or habitual.Taken together, these habits are directed toward the same purpose and form the trait we label cleanliness.
Children learning to brush their teeth or wash their hands before eating illustrate Allport’s point. After a while these behaviors become automatic, or habitual.Taken together, these habits are directed toward the same purpose and form the trait we label cleanliness.
2) ATTITUDES : It is more difficult to explain the difference between traits and attitudes. Authoritarianism and extraversion could also be labeled both traits and attitudes. Allport did not resolve the question except to note that both categories would be appropriate.
However, it is possible to distinguish between traits and attitudes in two general ways. First, attitudes have some specific object of reference. A person has an attitude toward something, for example, toward red-haired people, a musical group, or a brand of athletic shoe. A trait or personal disposition is not specifically directed toward a single object or category of objects. A person with the personal disposition of shyness will interact with most other people in the same way, regardless of their hair or shoes. Therefore, traits are broader in scope than attitudes.
Second, attitudes are positive or negative, for something or against it. They lead a person to like or hate, accept or reject, approach or avoid an object. Unlike a trait or personal disposition, an attitude involves a judgment or evaluation.
Second, attitudes are positive or negative, for something or against it. They lead a person to like or hate, accept or reject, approach or avoid an object. Unlike a trait or personal disposition, an attitude involves a judgment or evaluation.
MOTIVATIONAL AND STYLISTIC DISPOSITIONS
All personal dispositions are dynamic in the sense that they have motivational power. Nevertheless, some are much more strongly felt than others, and Allport called these intensely experienced dispositions MOTIVATIONAL DISPOSITIONS. These strongly felt dispositions receive their motivation from basic needs and drives. Allport (1961) referred to PERSONAL DISPOSITIONS that are less intensely experienced as STYLISTIC DISPOSITIONS, even though these dispositions possess some motivational power. Stylistic dispositions GUIDE action, whereas motivational dispositions INITIATE action. An example of a stylistic disposition might be neat and impeccable personal appearance. People are motivated to dress because of a basic need to stay warm, but the manner in which they attire themselves is determined by their stylistic personal dispositions. Motivational dispositions are somewhat similar to Maslow’s concept of coping behavior, whereas stylistic dispositions are similar to Maslow’s idea of expressive behavior.
PROPRIUM
Whether motivational or stylistic, some personal dispositions are close to the core of personality, whereas others are more on the periphery. Those that are at the center of personality are experienced by the person as being an important part of self. They are characteristics that an individual refers to in such terms as “That is me” or “This is mine.” All characteristics that are “peculiarly mine” belong to the proprium (Allport, 1955).
Allport used the term proprium to refer to those behaviors and characteristics that people regard as warm, central, and important in their lives. The proprium is not the whole personality, because many characteristics and behaviors of a person are not warm and central; rather, they exist on the periphery of personality. These inappropriate behaviors include (1) basic drives and needs that are ordinarily met and satisfied without much difficulty; (2) tribal customs such as wearing clothes, saying “hello” to people, and driving on the right side of the road; and (3) habitual behaviors, such as smoking or brushing one’s teeth, that are performed automatically and that are not crucial to the person’s sense of self.
Whether motivational or stylistic, some personal dispositions are close to the core of personality, whereas others are more on the periphery. Those that are at the center of personality are experienced by the person as being an important part of self. They are characteristics that an individual refers to in such terms as “That is me” or “This is mine.” All characteristics that are “peculiarly mine” belong to the proprium (Allport, 1955).
Allport used the term proprium to refer to those behaviors and characteristics that people regard as warm, central, and important in their lives. The proprium is not the whole personality, because many characteristics and behaviors of a person are not warm and central; rather, they exist on the periphery of personality. These inappropriate behaviors include (1) basic drives and needs that are ordinarily met and satisfied without much difficulty; (2) tribal customs such as wearing clothes, saying “hello” to people, and driving on the right side of the road; and (3) habitual behaviors, such as smoking or brushing one’s teeth, that are performed automatically and that are not crucial to the person’s sense of self.
As the warm center of personality, the proprium includes those aspects of life that a person regards as important to a sense of self-identity and self-enhancement (Allport, 1955). The proprium includes a person’s values as well as that part of the conscience that is personal and consistent with one’s adult beliefs. A generalized conscience—one shared by most people within a given culture—may be only peripheral to a person’s sense of personhood and thus outside that person’s proprium.
MOTIVATION: THE FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY OF MOTIVES
Allport believed that the central problem for any personality theory is how it treats the concept of motivation. Allport emphasized the influence of a person’s present situation not only in his personality theory but also in his view of motivation. It is the individual’s current state that is important, not what happened in the past during toilet training, schooling, or some other childhood crisis. Whatever happened in the past is exactly that: past. It is no longer active and does not explain adult behavior unless it exists as a current motivating force.
Cognitive processes—that is, our conscious plans and intentions—are also important. Allport criticized approaches such as Freud’s that focused on unconscious, irrational forces at the expense of the conscious and rational. Deliberate intentions are an essential part of our personality. What we want and what we strive for are the
keys to understanding our behavior. Thus, Allport attempted to explain the present in terms of the future rather than in terms of the past.
Cognitive processes—that is, our conscious plans and intentions—are also important. Allport criticized approaches such as Freud’s that focused on unconscious, irrational forces at the expense of the conscious and rational. Deliberate intentions are an essential part of our personality. What we want and what we strive for are the
keys to understanding our behavior. Thus, Allport attempted to explain the present in terms of the future rather than in terms of the past.
FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY proposes that the motives of mature, emotionally healthy adults are not functionally connected to the prior experiences in which they initially appeared. Forces that motivated us early in life become autonomous, or independent, of their original circumstances. Similarly, when we mature, we become independent of our parents. Although we remain related to them,we are no longer functionally dependent on them and they should no longer control or guide our life. Allport offered the example of a tree. It is obvious that the tree’s
development can be traced to its seed. Yet when the tree is fully grown, the seed is no longer required as a source of nourishment. The tree is now self-determining, no
longer functionally related to its seed.
development can be traced to its seed. Yet when the tree is fully grown, the seed is no longer required as a source of nourishment. The tree is now self-determining, no
longer functionally related to its seed.
Allport proposed two levels of functional autonomy: PERSEVERATIVE FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY AND PROPRIATE PROPRIATE FUNCTIONAL AUTONOMY
1)Perseverative functional autonomy, the more elementary level, is concerned with such behaviors as addictions and repetitive physical actions such as habitual ways of performing some everyday task. The behaviors continue or persevere on their own without any external reward. The actions once served a purpose but no longer do so and are at too low a level to be considered an integral part of personality.
Allport cited both animal and human examples as evidence for perseverative functional autonomy. When a rat that has been trained to run a maze for food is given
more than enough food, it may still run the maze, but obviously for some purpose other than the food. At the human level, consider our preference for routine, familiar behaviors we maintain even in the absence of external reinforcement.
more than enough food, it may still run the maze, but obviously for some purpose other than the food. At the human level, consider our preference for routine, familiar behaviors we maintain even in the absence of external reinforcement.
2)Propriate functional autonomy is more important than perseverative functional autonomy and is essential to the understanding of adult motivation. The word propriate derives from proprium, Allport’s term for the ego or self. Propriate motives are unique to the individual. The ego determines which motives will be maintained and
which will be discarded. We retain motives that enhance our self-esteem or selfimage. Thus, a direct relationship exists between our interests and our abilities: We enjoy doing what we do well.
The original motivation for learning a skill such as playing the piano may have nothing to do with our interests. For example, in childhood we may be forced to take piano lessons and to practice. As we become proficient, we may become more committed to playing the piano. The original motive (fear of parental displeasure) has disappeared, and the continued behavior of playing the piano becomes necessary to our self-image.
Our propriate functioning is an organizing process that maintains our sense of self. It determines how we perceive the world, what we remember from our experiences, and how our thoughts are directed. These perceptual and cognitive processes are selective. They choose from the mass of stimuli in our environment only those that are relevant to our interests and values. This organizing process is governed by the following three principles:
Organizing the energy level
Mastery and competence
Propriate patterning
The first principle, organizing the energy level, explains how we acquire new motives. These motives arise from necessity, to help consume excess energy that we might otherwise express in destructive and harmful ways. For example, when people retire from their jobs, they have extra time and energy that, ideally, they should direct toward new interests and activities.
which will be discarded. We retain motives that enhance our self-esteem or selfimage. Thus, a direct relationship exists between our interests and our abilities: We enjoy doing what we do well.
The original motivation for learning a skill such as playing the piano may have nothing to do with our interests. For example, in childhood we may be forced to take piano lessons and to practice. As we become proficient, we may become more committed to playing the piano. The original motive (fear of parental displeasure) has disappeared, and the continued behavior of playing the piano becomes necessary to our self-image.
Our propriate functioning is an organizing process that maintains our sense of self. It determines how we perceive the world, what we remember from our experiences, and how our thoughts are directed. These perceptual and cognitive processes are selective. They choose from the mass of stimuli in our environment only those that are relevant to our interests and values. This organizing process is governed by the following three principles:
Organizing the energy level
Mastery and competence
Propriate patterning
The first principle, organizing the energy level, explains how we acquire new motives. These motives arise from necessity, to help consume excess energy that we might otherwise express in destructive and harmful ways. For example, when people retire from their jobs, they have extra time and energy that, ideally, they should direct toward new interests and activities.
Mastery and competence, the second principle, refers to the level at which we choose to satisfy motives. It is not enough for us to achieve at an adequate level.Healthy, mature adults are motivated to perform better and more efficiently, to master new skills, and to increase their degree of competence.
The third principle, propriate patterning, describes a striving for consistency and integration of the
personality. We organize our perceptual and cognitive processes around the self, keeping what enhances our self-image and rejecting the rest. Thus, our propriate motives are dependent on the structure or pattern of the self.
Allport noted that not all behaviors and motives could be explained by the principles of functional autonomy. Some behaviors—such as reflexes, fixations, neuroses, and behaviors arising from biological drive—are not under the control of functionally autonomous motives.
personality. We organize our perceptual and cognitive processes around the self, keeping what enhances our self-image and rejecting the rest. Thus, our propriate motives are dependent on the structure or pattern of the self.
Allport noted that not all behaviors and motives could be explained by the principles of functional autonomy. Some behaviors—such as reflexes, fixations, neuroses, and behaviors arising from biological drive—are not under the control of functionally autonomous motives.
PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT IN CHILDHOOD: THE UNIQUE SELF
Allport chose the term proprium for the self or ego. He rejected the words self and ego because of the diversity of meanings ascribed to them by other theorists. We can best understand the word proprium by considering it in the sense of the adjective appropriate. The proprium includes those aspects of personality that are distinctive and thus appropriate to our emotional life. These aspects are unique to each of us and unite our attitudes, perceptions, and intentions.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPRIUM
THE HEALTHY ADULT PERSONALITY
In Allport’s view, the healthy personality changes from being a biologically dominated organism in infancy to a mature psychological organism in adulthood. Our
motivations become separated from childhood and are oriented toward the future.we noted, if our childhood needs for affection and security have been met, the proprium will develop satisfactorily. The adult personality grows out of childhood but is no longer dominated or determined by childhood drives. Allport did not explain
whether the neurotic adult could counteract or overcome unfortunate childhood experiences; he was more interested in positive psychological growth. He described six criteria for the normal, mature, emotionally healthy, adult personality:
1. The mature adult extends his or her sense of self to people and to activities beyond the self.
2. The mature adult relates warmly to other people, exhibiting intimacy, compassion, and tolerance.
3. The mature adult’s self-acceptance helps him or her achieve emotional security.
4. The mature adult holds a realistic perception of life, develops personal skills, and makes a commitment to some type of work.
5. The mature adult has a sense of humor and self- objectification (an understanding of or insight into the self).
6. The mature adult subscribes to a unifying philosophy of life, which is responsible for directing the personality toward future goals.
motivations become separated from childhood and are oriented toward the future.we noted, if our childhood needs for affection and security have been met, the proprium will develop satisfactorily. The adult personality grows out of childhood but is no longer dominated or determined by childhood drives. Allport did not explain
whether the neurotic adult could counteract or overcome unfortunate childhood experiences; he was more interested in positive psychological growth. He described six criteria for the normal, mature, emotionally healthy, adult personality:
1. The mature adult extends his or her sense of self to people and to activities beyond the self.
2. The mature adult relates warmly to other people, exhibiting intimacy, compassion, and tolerance.
3. The mature adult’s self-acceptance helps him or her achieve emotional security.
4. The mature adult holds a realistic perception of life, develops personal skills, and makes a commitment to some type of work.
5. The mature adult has a sense of humor and self- objectification (an understanding of or insight into the self).
6. The mature adult subscribes to a unifying philosophy of life, which is responsible for directing the personality toward future goals.
By meeting these six criteria, adults can be described as emotionally healthy and functionally autonomous, independent of childhood motives. As a result, they cope with the present and plan for the future without being victimized by the experiences of their early years.
No comments:
Post a Comment