A Theory of Personal Development
There are many ideas surrounding personal development, one of which is
detailed below - Abraham Maslow's process of Self Actualisation.
Self Actualisation
Maslow (1970) suggests that all individuals have an in-built need for personal development
which occurs through the process called self-actualisation.
The extent to which people are able to develop depends on certain needs being met and these needs form a
hierarchy. Only when one level of need is satisfied can a higher one be developed. As change occurs
throughout life, however, the level of need motivating someone’s behaviour at any one time will also change.
At the bottom of the hierarchy are the basic physiological needs for food, drink, sex and sleep, i.e., the basics
for survival.
Second are the needs for safety and security in both the physical and economic sense.
Thirdly, progression can be made to satisfying the need for love and belonging.
The fourth level refers to meeting the need for self-esteem and self-worth. This is the level most closely
related to ‘self-empowerment’.
The fifth level relates to the need to understand. This level includes more abstract ideas such as curiosity and
the search for meaning or purpose and a deeper understanding.
The sixth relates to aesthetic needs of beauty, symmetry and order. At the top of Maslow’s hierarchy, is the
need for self-actualisation.
Maslow (1970, p.383) says that all individuals have the need to see themselves as competent and autonomous,
also that every person has limitless room for growth.
Self-actualisation refers to the desire that everybody has ‘to become everything that they are capable of
becoming’. In other words, it refers to self-fulfilment and the need to reach full potential as a unique human
being.
For Maslow, the path to self-actualisation involves being in touch with your feelings, experiencing life
fully and with total concentration.
Maslow, A. H. (1970), Motivation and Personality, (2nd Edition), Harper & Row, New York.
http://www.skillsyouneed.com/ps/personal-development.html
Personality Development
Major Theories of Personality Development
By Kendra Cherry
Updated December 20, 2016
Personality development has been a major topic of interest for some of the most
prominent thinkers in psychology. Personality development refers to how the
organized patterns of behavior that make up each person's unique personality
emerge over time. Many factors go into influencing personality, including
genetics, environment, parenting, and societal variables. Perhaps most
importantly, it is the ongoing interaction of all of these influences that continues
to shape personality over time.
Our personalities make us unique, but how does personality develop? How
exactly do we become who we are today? What factors play the most important
role in the formation of personality? Can personality ever change?
To answer this question, many prominent theorists developed theories to
describe various steps and stages that occur on the road of personality
development. The following theories focus on various aspects of personality
development, including cognitive, social, and moral development.
Freud’s Stages of Psychosexual Development
In addition to being one of the best-known thinkers in the area of personality
development, Sigmund Freud remains one of the most controversial. In his well-
known stage theory of psychosexual development, Freud suggested that
personality develops in stages that are related to specific erogenous zones. Failure
to complete these stages, he suggested, would lead to personality problems in
adulthood.
Freud’s Structural Model of Personality
Freud not only theorized about how personality developed over the course of
childhood, but he also developed a framework for how overall personality is
structured. According to Freud, the basic driving force of personality and
behavior is known as the libido. This libidinal energy fuels the three components
that make up personality: the id, the ego and the superego.
The id is the aspect of personality present at birth. It is the most primal part of
personality and drives people to fulfill their most basic needs and urges. The ego
is the aspect of personality charged with controlling the urges of the id and
forcing it to behave in realistic ways. The superego is the final aspect of
personality to develop and contains all of the ideals, morals and value imbued by
our parents and culture. This part of personality attempts to make the ego behave
according to these ideals. The ego must then moderate between the primal needs
of the id, the idealistic standards of the superego and reality.
Freud's concept of the id, ego and superego has gained prominence in popular
culture, despite a lack of support and considerable skepticism from many
researchers. According to Freud, it is the three elements of personality that work
together to create complex human behaviors.
Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
Erik Erikson’s eight-stage theory of human development is one of the best-known
theories in psychology.
While the theory builds on Freud’s stages of psychosexual development, Erikson
chose to focus on how social relationships impact personality development. The
theory also extends beyond childhood to look at development across the entire
lifespan.
At each stage of psychosocial development, people face a crisis in which a task
must be mastered. Those who successfully complete each stage emerge with a
sense of mastery and well-being. Those who do not resolve the crisis at each stage
may struggle with those skills for the remainder of their lives.
Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development remains one of the most frequently
cited in psychology, despite being subject to considerable criticism. While many
aspects of his theory have not stood the test of time, the central idea remains
important today: children think differently than adults.
According to Piaget, children progress through a series of four stages that are
marked by distinctive changes in how they think. How children think about
themselves, others, and the world around them plays an important role in the
formation of personality.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development
Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of personality development that focused
on the growth of moral thought. Building on a two-stage process proposed by
Piaget, Kohlberg expanded the theory to include six different stages. While the
theory has been criticized for a number of different reasons, including the
possibility that it does not accommodate different genders and cultures equally,
Kohlberg’s theory remains important in our understanding of how personality
develops.
Final Thoughts
Personality involves not only inborn traits, but also the cognitive and behavioral
patterns that influence how people think and act. Temperament is a key part of
personality that is determined by inherited traits. It is the aspects of personality
that are innate and have a lasting influence on behavior. Character is another
aspect of personality influenced by experience that continues to grow and change
throughout life. While personality continues to evolve over time and respond to
the influences and experiences of life, much of personality is determined by
inborn traits and early childhood experiences.
These theories are just a beginning point in understanding how personality
develops.
https://www.verywell.com/personality-development-2795425
Popular Theories of Self-Confidence
With these definitions in hand, we can take a closer look at common beliefs and
popular theories surrounding self-confidence and self-esteem.
As noted earlier, Branden’s theory of self-esteem became a widely referenced and
understood theory, but there were also other theories and frameworks for
understanding self-esteem in the psychological literature.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, an iconic although somewhat out-of-date framework in
psychology, theorizes that there are several needs that humans must have met to be
truly fulfilled, but, generally, the most basic needs must be met before more complex
needs can be met (1943). In his pyramid, self-esteem is the second highest level of
need, just under self-actualization.
According to Maslow, humans must have their needs of physiological stability,
safety, love and belonging met before they can develop a healthy self-esteem. He
also noted that there are two kinds of self-esteem, a “higher” and a “lower,” the lower
self-esteem derived from the respect of others, while the higher self-esteem comes
from within.
In the years following his introduction of the hierarchy of needs, Maslow refined his
theory to accommodate the instances of highly self-actualized people who are
homeless, or individuals who live in a dangerous area or war zone but are also high in
self-esteem.
This hierarchy is no longer considered as a strict theory of unidirectional growth, but a
more general explanation of how basic needs being met allow individuals the freedom
and ability to achieve their more complex ones.
Terror Management Theory
A darker theory that delves a bit deeper into the human experience to explain self-
confidence is the Terror Management Theory.
Terror Management Theory (TMT) is based on the idea that humans hold great
potential for responding with terror to the awareness of their own mortality, and that
worldviews that emphasize peoples’ beliefs in their own significance as humans
protect them against this terror (Greenberg & Arndt, 2011).
TMT posits that self-esteem forms as a way to protect and buffer against anxiety, and
subsequently people strive for self-confidence and react negatively to anyone or
anything that could undermine their beliefs in their comforting worldview.
Sociometer Theory
Mark Leary, a social psychologist who researches self-esteem in the context of
evolutionary psychology, also contributed a theory of self-esteem to the literature.
The Sociometer Theory suggests that self-esteem is an internal gauge of the degree
to which one is included vs. excluded by others (Leary, 2006). This theory rests on
the conception of self-esteem as an internal individual perception of social acceptance
and rejection.
There is some strong evidence for the accuracy and applicability of this theory. For
example, studies have shown that the outcomes of events on people’s self-esteem
generally match up with their assumptions about how the same events would cause
other people to accept or reject them (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).
In addition, Leary and colleagues found that the ratings of participants in their study
concerning how included they felt were paralleled by ratings of their self-
esteem. Finally, evidence shows that social exclusion based on personal
characteristics decreases self-esteem (Leary et al., 1995).
https://positivepsychologyprogram.com/self-confidence/
SELF-WORTH THEORY (COVINGTON – 1976)
The self-worth theory of achievement motivation (Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington, 1984)
assumes that the highest human priority is the search for self-acceptance and that “one’s worth
often comes to depend on the ability to achieve competitively” (Covington, 1998, p. 78):
In our society there is a pervasive tendency to equate accomplishment with human value—put
simply, individuals are thought to be only as worthy as their achievements. Because of this, it is
understandable that students often confuse ability with worth….In essence, then, self-worth
theory holds that, psychologically speaking, school achievement is best understood in terms of
maintaining a positive self-image of one’s ability, particularly when risking competitive failure.
(Covington, 1998, p. 78).
From Covington’s explanation of the interplay between human value and accomplishment we
gain the perspective that two factors, achievement and ability, dominate as the ultimate value in
the minds of many school children, and that this perspective likely carries into adulthood. The
self-worth model emphasizes feelings of worthlessness that arise from “the disclosure of
incompetency ” (Covington, 1984, p. 8). The four main elements of this model are (a) ability,
(b) effort, (c) performance, and (d) self worth, arranged in a causal structure as shown in
Covington (1984, p. 8). In this model ability represents one’s self-perception of ability. His
model is a directed graph in which ability, performance and effort are linked to self-worth and
ability and effort are also linked to performance.
The basic assumption of the self-worth model is that multiple factors influence one’s sense of
self worth. Its fundamental premise is that “one’s sense of worth depends heavily on one’s
accomplishments” (Covington, 1984, p. 8). This is represented in the model by the performance
–> self worth link. This implies that unless a person is, or can become, successful at some
valued activity, he or she “will be cut off from a major source of self-esteem” (p. 8). However,
the fact that performance isn’t the only path to self-worth implies that self-worth might also be
derived from one’s perception of their own ability (brilliance) or through the efforts of hard
work (diligence). As Covington put it in general terms, “human beings tend to embrace success
no matter how it occurs” (p. 8), but there are exceptions. People will sometimes reject credit for
their successes if they feel they cannot repeat them. Also, success resulting from remedial
assistance is not always valued in the same way that successes based solely on one’s own
efforts are. Covington, however, expressed a view that despite such exceptions, “humans do
typically discount factors that might qualify or discredit their successes and cast their failures in
the best possible light (Baumeister & Jones 1978; Covington & Omelich 1979c; Sigal & Gould
1977)” (p. 8).
The model also shows the direct and indirect influences of self perceptions of ability and the
expenditure of effort on one’s sense of worth. “Mere perception of high ability can sometimes
come to imply worthiness, even in the absence of solid accomplishments” (Covington, 1984, p.
9), however, “it is within [the instrumental linkage of ability -> performance -> worth] that the
value of ability ultimately resides, since typically an individual’s sense of worth cannot long rest
solely on a reputation for intelligence” (p. 9). Thus, what really counts is achievement and
“ability is valued as its chief causal agent” (p. 9).
Effort is also a direct sense of self worth, since a strong effort is sometimes rewarded, and it is
generally recognized that hard work is a necessary component of successful performance.
However, Covington (1984) described effort as “a double-edged sword” (p. 10). On the one
hand, effort in school is necessary to “avoid teacher punishment and personal feelings of guilt”
(p. 10. On the other hand, trying hard “puts the student at risk” (p. 10) because “a combination
of high effort and failure also leads to suspicions of low ability….[which] triggers humiliation
and shame” (p. 10).
Covington (1984) described two self-serving strategies to avoid failure: excuses and the
assurance of success. Excuses include, for example, the setting of unrealistically high goals and
procrastination—both of which allow the student to “fail with honor” (p. 12). Other examples of
excuses in the school classroom include (from Covington, 1998): not studying (p. 16);
responding vaguely (p. 84), not trying (p. 85); avoiding work that is not absolutely required (p.
85); doing as little as possible (p. 85); remaining silent (p. 85); outright refusal (p. 85); false
effort (p. 85); giving the outward appearances of understanding, while not really understanding
(p. 85); a pensive, quizzical look to give the impression that one is too busy thinking to be
interrupted (p. 85); asking questions whose answers are already known (p. 85); copying from a
neighbors’ paper, and perhaps adding a unique touch (p. 85), and the public admission of some
minor personal weakness or handicap to avoid disclosing intellectual inadequacy, also known
as, “the academic wooden leg” (p. 89).
Strategies for the assurance of success include setting standards for success at such a modest
level that the likelihood of failing is very low, and avoiding failure by succeeding (Covington,
1984, p. 12). The latter strategy is often favored by bright students who succeed through a
combination of intelligence and hard work. However, because it is used as a defense strategy to
avoid failure, they “often remain doubtful of their abilities despite an enviable record of
accomplishments” (p. 12). This type of person is referred to by Covington as an “overstriver” (p.
12). Another success-guaranteeing strategy listed by Covington (1998) is academic cheating (p.
92).
Temporary relief by these failure avoiding strategies is “illusory, since their repeated use will
finally destroy the will to learn” (Covington, 1984, p. 12). Better alternatives, Covington
suggests, are “the use of noncompetitive learning structures whenever possible [e.g.,
cooperative learning, individual goal setting, and contract learning]” (p. 16) and “to
encourage additional sources of worth beyond the mere possession of ability” (p. 17). He (1998)
also suggests that “we must be weary of blaming the failure of students to learn simply on
a lack of motivation” (p. 16):
The absence of behavior—docility, passivity, and listlessness—is surely just as motivated as is a
lively abundance of behavior. According to the self-worth analysis, the reluctant learner who
may refuse to study is already motivated, driven by circumstances to protect his or her self-
esteem. (Covington, 1998, p. 16)
https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com/dissertation/chapter-3-literature-review-2/the-human-
perspective/self-worth-theory-covington-1976/
Self-Verification Theory
Self-verification theory proposes that people want others to see them as they see themselves. For
example, those who see themselves as relatively dominant want others to see them as dominant, and
those who see themselves as relatively submissive want others to recognize them as submissive. The
theory was developed by William B. Swann Jr. (1983). Drawing on earlier theorizing, he assumed that
people form self-views so that they can predict the responses of others and know how to act toward
them. Thus, for example, those who see themselves as intelligent expect that others will notice their
insightfulness and so are inclined to pursue activities that require intelligence. Because self-views play a
critical role in making sense of their experiences and guiding their actions, people become invested in
maintaining them by obtaining self-confirming information.
Among persons with positive self-views, the desire for self-verification complements another important
motive, the desire for self-enhancing or positive evaluations. For example, those who view themselves
as “organized” find that their desires for both self-verification and self-enhancement compel them to
seek feedback that confirms their positive, “organized” self-view. People with negative self-views,
however, find that the two motives conflict: Although the desire for self-verification compels such
persons to seek negative evaluations, the desire for self-enhancement compels them to seek positive
evaluations. Self-verification theory points to the conditions under which people with negative self-
views resolve this conflict by seeking self-verification rather than self-enhancement.
Considerable evidence supports self-verification theory (Swann 1996). In one study, researchers asked
participants with positive and negative self-views whether they would prefer to interact with evaluators
who had favorable or unfavorable impressions of them. Those with positive self-views preferred
favorable partners, but contrary to self-enhancement theory, those with negative self-views preferred
unfavorable partners.
Many replications of this effect using diverse methodologies have confirmed that people prefer self-
verifying evaluations and interaction partners. For example, not only do self-verification strivings
influence the relationships people enter initially, they also influence whether or not people remain in
certain relationships. Research on married couples, college roommates, and dating partners show that
people gravitate toward partners who provide verification and drift away from those who do not—even
if this means withdrawing from positive partners. And even if people wind up with partners who do not
see them in a self-verifying manner, they may correct the situation by changing their partners’ minds.
College students who were mildly depressed, for instance, were especially likely to solicit negative
evaluations from their roommates, and such activities made their roommates more inclined to derogate
and reject them at the semester’s end. And even if people should somehow fail to elicit self-confirming
evaluations, information-processing biases in attention, memory, and interpretation may make their
social works appear to be more confirming than they actually are, thus stabilizing their self-views.
Self-verification strivings are adaptive for most people because most people have positive self-views,
and self-verification processes enable them to preserve these positive self-views. Also, within small
groups, verification of negative as well as positive self-views may also facilitate commitment and
performance. Yet for people with negative self-views, self-verification strivings may have undesirable
consequences, causing them to gravitate toward partners who undermine their feelings of self-worth.
The major criticism of self-verification theory has been that, relative to self-enhancement, it is a rare
phenomenon that is restricted to people with terribly negative self-views. As evidence, critics cite
hundreds of studies indicating that people prefer, seek, and value positive evaluations more than
negative ones. Such critiques overlook two important things. First, because most people have relatively
positive self-views, the fact that they display a preference for positive evaluations may reflect a
preference for evaluations that are self-verifying (as well as self-enhancing). Second, self-verification
strivings are not limited to people with globally negative self-views; even people with high self-esteem
seek negative evaluations about their flaws, and even people with moderately positive self-views
withdraw from spouses who evaluate them in an exceptionally positive manner.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/self-verification
According to self-enhancement theory, people are motivated to increase the positivity
of their self-views and consequently prefer favorable feedback. Alternatively, self-
verification theory posits that people are motivated to maintain stable self-views and
seek feedback that is congruent with those views, even when they are negative
(Swann, 1983, 1987; Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989).
Developmental investigations of self-enhancement and self-verification may help
explain the emergence and maintenance of certain types of adjustment problems such
as depression and eating disturbances during adolescence (Joiner, 1999; Swann, in
press; Swann, Wenzlaff, Krull, & Pelham, 1992). Self-enhancement may be positively
associated with mental health, although the benefits depend on situational factors
(Kwan, Kuang, & Zhao, 2008; Taylor, Lerner, Sherman, Sage, & McDowell, 2003).
Preference for self-enhancing feedback has been found to predict adjustment
(Sedikides, Gregg, & Hart, 2007). Alternatively, seeking negative self-view
verification may result in increased feelings of depression (Joiner, 1995; Swann,
Wenzlaff, & Tafarodi, 1992) or body dissatisfaction (Joiner, 1999). People with
negative self-views may surround themselves with others who view them in an
unfavorable light, which in turn creates a cycle of persistent low self-esteem and
depression (North & Swann, 2008).
Except for work by Cassidy and her colleagues, self-enhancement and self-
verification during adolescence have not received significant research attention
(Cassidy, Aikins, & Chernoff, 2003; Cassidy, Ziv, Mehta, & Feeney, 2003). Cassidy
et al. studied a variety of ages and found both self-enhancement and self-verification
strivings, which led them to call for future research to better understand how these
processes operate. Given that adolescence is a period in which self-esteem tends to
decrease (Robins, Trzesniewski, Tracy, Gosling, & Potter, 2002; Shapka & Keating,
2005; Twenge & Campbell, 2001), and because identity formation begins in early
adolescence (e.g., role examination; Finkenauer et al., 2002), examining self-motives
in this age group is important and warrants additional attention. This article first
reviews the literature on feedback seeking in adulthood and then discusses the extant
work examining this process in adolescence.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3610180/
