Forensic Psychology

Forensic psychology is the intersection between psychology and the justice system. It involves understanding criminal law in the relevant jurisdictions in order to be able to interact appropriately with judges, attorneys and other legal professionals. An important aspect of forensic psychology is the ability to testify in court, reformulating psychological findings into the legal language of the courtroom, providing information to legal personnel in a way that can be understood. 

Further, in order to be a credible witness,for example in the United States, the forensic psychologist must understand the philosophy, rules and standards of the American judicial system. Primary is an understanding of the adversarial system. 

There are also rules about hearsay evidence and most importantly, the exclusionary rule. Lack of a firm grasp of these procedures will result in the forensic psychologist losing credibility in the courtroom. A forensic psychologist can be trained in clinical, social, organizational or any other branch of psychology. In the United States, the salient issue is the designation by the court as an expert witness by training, experience or both by the judge. 

Generally, a forensic psychologist is designated as an expert in a particular jurisdiction. The number of jurisdictions in which a forensic psychologist qualifies as an expert increases with experience and reputation. Forensic neuropsychologists are generally asked to appear as expert witnesses in court to discuss cases that involves issues with the brain or brain damage. They also deal with issues of whether a person is legally competent enough to stand trial.

Personality Psychology

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that studies personality and individual differences. Its areas of focus include:

• ·         Constructing a coherent picture of the individual and his or her major psychological processes
• ·         Investigating individual differences—how people are unique
• ·         Investigating human nature—how people are alike

"Personality" can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions, emotions,interpersonal orientationsmotivations, and behaviors in various situations. The word "personality" originates from the Latinpersona, which means mask. Significantly, in the theatre  of the ancient Latin-speaking world, themask  was not used as a plot device to disguise the identity of a character, but rather was a convention employed to represent or typify that character. Personality may also refer to the patterns of thoughts, feelings, social adjustments, and behaviors consistently exhibited by an individual over time that strongly influence our expectations, self-perceptions, values and attitudes, and predicts our reactions to people, problems and stress. In a phrase, personality is not just who we are, Gordon Allport (1937) described two major ways to study personality: the nomothetic and the idiographic. Nomothetic psychology seeks general laws that can be applied to many different people, such as the principle of self-actualization, or the trait of extraversion. Idiographic psychology is an attempt to understand the unique aspects of a particular individual.

Self-care means choosing behaviors that balance the effects of emotional and physical stressors: exercising, eating healthy foods, getting enough sleep, practicing yoga or meditation or relaxation techniques, abstaining from substance abuse, pursuing creative outlets, engaging in psychotherap
y. Also essential to self-care is learning to self-soothe or calm our physical and emotional distress. Remember your mother teaching you to blow on the scrape on your knee? This was an early lesson in self-soothing but the majority of adults haven't the foggiest notion how to constructively soothe themselves.

A common mistake in romantic relationships is depending on a partner to soothe our pain. Most of us get married, in part, because we want someone other than mother to calm our fears and offer us band-aids. Of course, it is never a mistake to seek comfort in the sweet embrace or wise words of a spouse. The mistake is believing that a spouse is obligated to be an open tap of emotional support. It is also not a spouse's role to teach us how to self-soothe. We must learn this skill on our own...!!!

Stages by Erik Erikson

Erik Erikson's theory of psychosocial development is one of the best-known theories of personality in psychology. Much like Sigmund Freud, Erikson believed that personality develops in a series of stages. 

One of the main elements of Erikson's psychosocial stage theory is the development of ego identity.¹ Ego identity is the conscious sense of self that we develop through social interaction. According to Erikson, our ego identity is constantly changing due to new experiences and information we acquire in our daily interactions with others. In addition to ego identity, Erikson also believed that a sense of competence motivates behaviors and actions. Each stage in Erikson's theory is concerned with becoming competent in an area of life. If the stage is handled well, the person will feel a sense of mastery, which is sometimes referred to as ego strength or ego quality.² If the stage is managed poorly, the person will emerge with a sense of inadequacy.

In each stage, Erikson believed people experience a conflict that serves as a turning point in development. In Erikson's view, these conflicts are centered on either developing a psychological quality or failing to develop that quality. During these times, the potential for personal growth is high, but so is the potential for failure.

These Stages Are:

Psychosocial Stage 1 - Trust vs. Mistrust

Psychosocial Stage 2 - Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

Psychosocial Stage 3 - Initiative vs. Guilt

Psychosocial Stage 4 - Industry vs. Inferiorit

Psychosocial Stage 5 - Identity vs. Confusion

Psychosocial Stage 6 - Intimacy vs. Isolation

Psychosocial Stage 7 - Generativity vs. Stagnation

Psychosocial Stage 8 - Integrity vs. Despair

Critically evaluate view point of Erik Erickson regarding psycopathology

Critically evaluate view point of Erik Erickson regarding psycopathology. 

Erik Erickson has extended the different concepts of Freud. He was a Danish-American psychoanalyst known for his theory on social development of human beings and he was most famous for his work on identity crises. Erikson’s model of psychosocial development is a very important and meaningful concept. Erikson believed that his psychosocial principle is genetically unavoidable in shaping human development. It occurs in all people. He also referred to his theory as 'epigenesis' and the 'epigenetic principle’, that development goes through series of stages (From Vital Involvement in Old Age, 1989). Like the other entire psychoanalysts, Erickson also had to face criticism on his theory on social development of human beings. There was some positive as well as some negative points that were criticized by the critiques of his time.

Some positives are as Erikson had extended some concepts of Freud, there was no doubt that he was influenced by Freud but in his theory of psychosocial development he had significantly included cultural and social aspects into Freud's biological and sexually oriented theory. Erikson was able to do this because of his strong interest and concern for people, especially young people, and his research was mostly done on human societies. (Erik and Joan Erikson 1950-97) For example, in the third stage of Freud he talks about the sexual attraction of a child towards the opposite sex parent and according to him if this conflict was not resolved by the parents then it will lead to future anxieties that might be a pathology in the later life of a child but on the other hand Erickson opposes this and said that in this particular time period basic task of a child is to achieve a sense of competence and initiative. Child wants freedom and if he/she doesn’t get that it will lead to dependency on others decision.

                                                                                                                           Secondly Erickson’s view is that the social environment and biological maturation provide each individual with a set of "crises" that must be resolved. The results of the resolution, whether successful or not, are carried forward to the next crisis and provide the foundation for its resolution. This is different from other theories such as Piaget's theory of cognitive development or Maslow's theory of human needs where the level must be satisfactorily addressed before one can move on to the next level. (Woolfolk & McCune-Nicolich. (1984)). For example, in the age limit from 6-12 child wants to explore world and needs to learn the basic skills required for school success and wants a sense of industry but if he fails to do so then it results in a sense of inadequacy in the child and if not resolved then it will turn to a pathology.                                                                  

 His most work ws done on adolescence and their attempts to establish identity. His theoretical approach was studied and supported, particularly regarding adolescence, by James E. Marcia.Marcia's work has distinguished different forms of identity, and there was  some empirical proof that those people who form the most rationale self-concept in adolescence are those who are most able to make intimate attachments in early adulthood. This supports Eriksonian theory, in that it suggests that those best prepared to resolve the crisis of early adulthood are those who have most successfully resolved the crisis of adolescence .( Marcia, J. E., (1966)).

Other psychologist in many ways also negatively criticized Erickson. Erickson was highly criticized on his theory of adolescence identity crises. A number of studies have been undertaken. Some people had supported his theory of identity crises as done by Marcia but on the other hand it was criticized by other people .For example, Meilman (1979), carry out a cross-sectional study on 12-24 years old males. It was discovered that just over half of the subjects had reached identity realization at 24 years. Therefore this shows that identity achievement must go on into adulthood. O’Connell (1976) found similar patterns when he carried out interviews with married women who had school age children. These women described how their identity became more apparent to themselves as they progressed though their life, from getting married, to finding a job, to having children. These findings suggest that identity development is not so strongly focused in adolescence, as Erickson believes.                                                                                                             

Eriksson’s psychosocial model is much generalized and he himself recognized that no effort was made to trace the differences in ego development between the sexes. (Stevens 1983), For example he had not defined the clear line of pathology between male and female, for him the developmental stages of males and females are same.                                                 

Thirdly Erikson's theory were questioned as to whether his stages must be considered as sequential, and only occurring within the age ranges he suggests. There is debate as only during the adolescence people only search for identity or if one stage needs to happen before other stages can be completed.( Sheehy, Gail. E. P. Dutton, 1976)   

Birth Order by Adler

Birth Order and Sibling Relationship:

         The Adlerian approach is giving special attention to the relationships between siblings and the position in one’s family .Adler identified five psychological positions: oldest, second of only two, middle, youngest, and only. It should be noted that actual birth order itself is less important than individual, s interpretation of his or her place in the family .since Adlerian view human problems as social in nature, they emphasize interfamily relationships.

        Adler (1958) observes that many people wonder why children of the same family often differ so widely. It is a fallacy to assume that children of the same family are formed in the same environment. Although they share aspects in common in the family constellation, the psychological situation of each child is different from that of the others because of the order of their birth. The following description of the influence of birth order is based on Ansbacher and Ansbacher (1964), Dreikurs, (1953), and Adler (1958).

           

(A). the oldest child generally receives a good deal of attention, and during the time she is the only child, she is typically somewhat spoiled as the center of attention. He/She tends to be dependable and hard working and strives to keep ahead. When a new brother or sister arrives on the scene, however, he/she finds herself ousted from her favored position. She is no longer unique or special. She may readily believe that the newcomer will rob her of the live to which she is accustomed.

           

(B). the second child is in a different position. From the time he/she is born, he shares the attention with another child. The typical second child behaves as if he was in a race and is generally under full steam at all times. It is through this second child were in training to surpass the older brother or sister. This competitive struggle between the two first children influences the later course of their lives. The younger child develops a knack for finding out the elder, child weak spots and proceeds to win praise from both parents and teachers by achieving success where the older sibling has failed. If one is talented in a given area, the other strives for recognition other abilities. The second born is often opposite to the firstborn.

           

(C). the middle child often feels squeezed out. She may become convinced of the unfairness of life and feel cheated. This person can assume a “poor me” attitude and can become a problem child. On the other hand, especially in families characterized by conflict, the middle child will become the switchboard and the peacemaker, the person who hold things together.

           

(D). the youngest child is always is the baby of the family and tends to be the most pampered one. He has a special role to play, for all other children are ahead of him. Youngest children end to go their own way. They often develop in ways no others in the family have thought about.

          

(E). the only child has a problem of his/her own. Although he/she shares some of the characteristics of the oldest child (namely, high achievement drive), he/she may not learn to share or cooperate with other children. He/she will learn to deal with adults well, as they make up their original familial world. Often, the only child is pampered by his/her parents and may become dependently tied to one or both of them. He/she may want to have centre stage all of the time, and if his/her position is challenged, he/she will fell it unfair. 

       

  Birth order and the interpretation of ones position in the family have a great deal to do with how adults interact in the world. Individuals acquire a certain style of relating to others in childhood and from, a definite picture of themselves that they carry into their adult interactions. In Adlerian therapy, working with family dynamics, especially relationships among siblings, assumes a key role. Although it is important to avoid stereotyping individuals, it does help to see how certain personality trends that began in childhood as a result of sibling rivalry influence individuals throughout life.

Central concept of adler

Central Concept: Feeling of Community

Adler based his psychology on the central concept of (in German) Gemeinschaftsgefühl. It is a difficult concept to translate adequately and has been translated by the phrases social interest, social feeling, community feeling, and social sense (Ansbacher and Ansbacher 1956, 134). Adler and many of his followers came to prefer the term feeling of community (Bruck 1978). It is a multi-level concept. Individuals may understand and put into practice some levels and neglect the development of others. If people have developed social interest at the affective level, they are likely to feel a deep belonging to the human race and, as a result, are able to empathize with their fellow humans. They can then feel very much at home on the earth -- accepting both the comforts as well as the discomforts of life. At the cognitive level, they can acknowledge the necessary interdependence with others, recognizing that the welfare of any one individual ultimately depends on the welfare of everyone. At the behavioral level, these thoughts and feelings can then be translated into actions aimed at self development as well as cooperative and helpful movements directed toward others. Thus, at its heart, the concept of feeling of community encompasses individuals' full development of their capacities, a process that is both personally fulfilling and results in people who have something worthwhile to contribute to one another. At the same time, the concept denotes a recognition and acceptance of the interconnectedness of all people.

These ideas of Adler's also speak to the current discussion of the relationship between self and society. Unlike others, he saw no fundamental conflict between self and society, individuality, and relatedness, self interest and social interest. These are false dichotomies. The development of self and connectedness are recursive processes that influence one another in positive ways. The greater one's personal development, the more able one can connect positively with others; the greater one's ability to connect with others, the more one is able to learn from them and develop oneself. This idea has been rediscovered by recent authors (Guisinger and Blatt 1994).