Psychodynamic Models of Personality

Abstract

This chapter discusses the evolution of psychodynamic models of personality, and the place of these models within contemporary psychology. After reviewing the core assumptions of psychoanalysis—primacy of the unconscious, psychic causality, and the critical importance of early experiences—the basic elements of Freud's classical psychoanalytic theory are described, including the drive model, topographic model, psychosexual stage model, and structural model. Neo‐analytic theories, object relations theory, self‐psychology, and contemporary integrative psychodynamic frameworks are then discussed in relation to the classical psychoanalytic model. Common threads linking these disparate psychodynamic perspectives are highlighted, including personality processes and dynamics, insight and awareness, coping and defense, and normal and pathological functioning. Evolving psychoanalytic views of motivation, mental structure, and personality stability and change are emphasized. Finally, key issues in twenty‐first century psychoanalysis are discussed, including the importance of testing psychoanalytic hypotheses empirically, cognitive and developmental contributions to psychodynamic personality theory, recent developments in psychoanalytic health psychology, and the opportunities and challenges of neuroscience.

Loving, Hating, Vacillating: Agreeableness, Implicit Self‐Esteem, and Neurotic Conflict

“…The general idea that motivated repression may contribute to conscious self-representation has had a long and checkered history (Freud, 1926;Gur & Sackeim, 1979;McCrae & Costa, 1983;Paulhus & John, 1998;Shedler, Mayman, & Manis, 1993). Rather than assuming that explicit/ implicit mismatches necessarily reflect motivated repression, we take a more agnostic view by simply assuming that explicit and implicit components of personality reflect different operations of mind and may therefore diverge for this simple reason (Bornstein, 2003;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;McClelland et al, 1989;Robinson et al, 2003a).…”

“…This approach, while certainly capturing important aspects of personality, can never be exhaustive of it (Epstein, 1994;McClelland, 1987;Westen, 1995). Implicit processing tendencies also vary between individuals and have relevance to cognitions, emotions, and behavior (Bornstein, 2003;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Kelly, 1963;Robinson & Neighbors, 2006). Historically, unconscious aspects of personality have often been operationalized in terms of projective tests of motivation (e.g., the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT]; McClelland, 1987).…”

“…Historically, unconscious aspects of personality have often been operationalized in terms of projective tests of motivation (e.g., the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT]; McClelland, 1987). Implicit motivation tends to be orthogonal to self-reported motivation but nevertheless predictive of personality-linked outcomes (Bornstein, 2003;McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989;Spangler, 1992). Added to this prior literature on implicit motivation, recent developments in social cognition have given rise to a newer class of assessment devices based on reaction time performance (Fazio, 1995;Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998;MacLeod, 1993).…”

Extraversion, Threat Categorizations, and Negative Affect: A Reaction Time Approach to Avoidance Motivation

“…Decades of research on TAT-based assessments of motivation have indicated that such assessment measures are reliable and valid but largely unrelated to self-reports of motivation (Bornstein, 2003;McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989;Spangler, 1992;Winter, John, Stewart, Klohnen, & Duncan, 1998). Why so?…”

Within-person covariation of agentic and communal perceptions: Implications for interpersonal theory and assessment

“…This application is particularly relevant as personality pathology is increasingly defined as a disorder of perceiving and relating to others (Skodol, 2012). The importance of how perceptions of others are organized (or perhaps distorted) and its impact on personality pathology is highlighted in several literatures including cognitive-behavioral (Beck, Freeman, David, & Assocciates, 2004), interpersonal (Leising & Borkenau, 2011; Pincus & Hopwood, 2012), psychodynamic (Bornstein, Denckla, & Chung, 2012), self-other agreement and person perception (Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 2006), and attachment (Shorey, 2010) theories of personality and psychopathology, as well as the integrative Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS) approach to personality and adjustment (Eaton, South, & Kreuger, 2009; Kammrath, 2011). Examining the covariation of interpersonal perception in personality pathology could provide a useful new way to describe how such individuals organize their social experiences in the natural world.…”