Handbook of Psychology, Volume 5, Personality and Social Psychology

122 Psychodynamic Models of Personality

Neo-Analytic Models

Following Freud’s 1909 Clark University lectures, psycho-
analysis attracted large numbers of adherents from within the
medical and lay communities. At first, these adherents fol-
lowed Freud’s ideas with little questioning and minimal re-
sistance. By the early 1920s, however, competing schools
of psychoanalytic thought were beginning to emerge both in
Europe and in America. At first, the growth of these alterna-
tive psychodynamic frameworks was inhibited by Freud’s
strong personality and by the immense international popular-
ity of psychoanalytic theory (Hilgard, 1987; Torrey, 1992). It
was only upon Freud’s death in 1939 that competing psycho-
analytic perspectives blossomed into full-fledged theories in
their own right.
By the mid-1940s, the discipline had splintered into an
array of divergent theoretical perspectives. This splintering
process, which has continued (albeit in a somewhat abated
form) to the present day, is summarized graphically in
Figure 5.2. As Figure 5.2 shows, each post-Freudian psycho-
dynamic model was rooted in classical psychoanalytic theory,
but each drew upon ideas and findings from other areas of
psychology as well.

Several neo-analytic theories became particularly influ-

ential in the decades following Freud’s death. Among the

most important of these were Jung’s (1933, 1961) analyti-

cal psychology, Erikson’s (1963, 1968) psychosocial theory,

Sullivan’s (1947, 1953) interpersonal theory, and the quasi-

dynamic models of Adler (1921, 1923), Fromm (1941, 1947),

and Horney (1937, 1945). These theories shared a Freudian

emphasis on intrapsychic dynamics, childhood experiences,

and unconscious processes as determinants of personality

and psychopathology. However, each neo-analytic theorist

rejected the classical psychoanalytic emphasis on sexuality

as a key component of personality, and each theory sought to

supplant sexuality with its own unique elements. Key fea-

tures of the most prominent neo-analytic models are summa-

rized in Table 5.3.

Each neo-analytic model in Table 5.3 attained a loyal

following during its heyday, but for the most part these neo-

analytic models are no longer influential in mainstream psy-

chology. To be sure, aspects of these neo-analytic theories

continue to be discussed (and on occasion isomorphically

rediscovered by other personality theorists). However, with

the exceptions of Erikson and Sullivan, the neo-analytic

theories summarized in Table 5.3 have comparatively few

adherents today, and they do not receive much attention within

the clinical and research communities.

Erikson’s (1963, 1968) psychosocial approach continues

to have a strong impact on personality and developmental

research (Franz & White, 1985). Sullivan’s (1953, 1956)

interpersonal theory not only helped lay the groundwork for

19th-centuryphilosophy,

neurology,psychiatry,

and academic psychology

Cognitive, social,

and developmental

psychology

Behavioral,

cognitive, and

humanistic

treatment models

Neo-Analytic

Models

Self

Psychology

Object Relations

Theory

Contemporary

Integrative

Theories

Classical

Psychoanalytic

Theory

Figure 5.2 Evolution of psychodynamic models of personality; arrows in-
dicate the influence of earlier theories/perspectives on later ones.

TABLE 5.3 Neo-Analytic Models of Personality

Theorist Key Assumption Key Terms/Concepts

Adler Family dynamics (especially Striving for

birth order) are primary superiority,

determinants of personality. inferiority complex

Erikson Social interactions between Psychosocial stages,

individual and significant developmental

others are key in personality crises

development.

Fromm Personality is best understood Authoritarianism

with reference to prevailing

social and political (as well

as intrapsychic) forces.

Horney Infantile dependency- Basic anxiety

powerlessness is key to

personality.

Jung Personality is shaped by Archetypes,

spiritual forces as well as collective

by biological and social unconscious

variables.

Sullivan Personality can only be Personifications,

conceptualized within the developmental

context of an individual’s epochs

core relationships.