224 Part II Psychodynamic Theories
Despite this active research, we rate Erikson’s theory only average on the
criterion of falsifiability. Many findings from this body of research can be explained
by theories other than Erikson’s developmental stages theory.
In its ability to organize knowledge, Erikson’s theory is limited mostly to
developmental stages. It does not adequately address such issues as personal traits
or motivation, a limitation that subtracts from the theory’s ability to shed meaning
on much of what is currently known about human personality. The eight stages of
development remain an eloquent statement of what the life cycle should be, and
research findings in these areas usually can be fit into an Eriksonian framework.
However, the theory lacks sufficient scope to be rated high on this criterion.
As a guide to action, Erikson’s theory provides many general guidelines, but
offers little specific advice. Compared to other theories discussed in this book,
it ranks near the top in suggesting approaches to dealing with middle-aged and
older adults. Erikson’s views on aging have been helpful to people in the field
of gerontology, and his ideas on ego identity are nearly always cited in adolescent
psychology textbooks. In addition, his concepts of intimacy versus isolation and
generativity versus stagnation have much to offer to marriage counselors and oth-
ers concerned with intimate relationships among young adults.
We rate Erikson’s theory high on internal consistency, mostly because the
terms used to label the different psychosocial crises, basic strengths, and core
pathologies are very carefully chosen. English was not Erikson’s first language,
and his extensive use of a dictionary while writing increased the precision of his
terminology. Yet concepts like hope, will, purpose, love, care, and so on are not
operationally defined. They have little scientific usefulness, although they rank
high in both literary and emotional value. On the other hand, Erikson’s epigenetic
principle and the eloquence of his description of the eight stages of development
mark his theory with conspicuous internal consistency.
On the criterion of simplicity, or parsimony, we give the theory a moderate
rating. The precision of its terms is a strength, but the descriptions of psycho-
sexual stages and psychosocial crises, especially in the later stages, are not always
clearly differentiated. In addition, Erikson used different terms and even different
concepts to fill out the 64 boxes that are mostly vacant in Figure 7.2. Such
inconsistency subtracts from the theory’s simplicity.Concept of Humanity
In contrast to Freud, who believed that anatomy was destiny, Erikson sug-
gested that other factors might be responsible for differences between women
and men. Citing some of his own research, Erikson (1977) suggested that,
although girls and boys have different methods of play, these differences are
at least partly a result of different socialization practices. Does this conclusion
mean that Erikson agreed with Freud that anatomy is destiny? Erikson’s answer
was yes, anatomy is destiny, but he quickly qualified that dictum to read:
“Anatomy, history, and personality are our combined destiny” (Erikson, 1968,