Psychoanalytic Theory versus Adlerian Theory (Psychodynamic)

How are theories similar and different?

Sigmund Freud is credited with the development and extensive study of psychoanalytic theory. He based his theory on sexual instincts and biological desires that humans experience into late childhood. Freud further believed that these drives are needed our species to survive. He separated the personality into three systems, the id, ego, and superego. Humans operate on both the conscious and unconscious levels. Since the conscious brain is only a small portion of awareness, Freud wanted to know what motivated the unconscious mind and why we do what we do. He theorized that humans function in an unconscious state and understanding “why” could help determine personal choice (Corey, 2021).

Alfred Adler worked with and was a student of Sigmund Freud during the development of psychoanalytic theory in the early years. Adler parted ways with Freud after about ten years and went on to postulate his own theory, later called Adlerian theory. Corey (2021) explains, “Adler stressed the unity of personality, contending that people can only be understood as integrated and complete beings” (Chapter 5-1). Adler did not see the unconscious mind as having as much power over the conscious mind as Freud did. Adler believed that the conscious mind is purposeful, goal-oriented, and makes choices based on abilities, and not genetics or the environment solely (Corey, 2021).

The biggest difference between psychoanalytic theory and Adlerian theory (psychodynamic) is how the personality operates. The psychoanalytic theorist views human behavior as deterministic with three personality systems. Whereas the Adlerian theorist emphasizes an integrated personality that determines where we are going and not where we came from. Both theories agree that the first six years of life are crucial to human development (Corey, 2021).           

What are some strengths and limitations of each theory?

According to Corey (2021), the greatest strength of the psychoanalytic theory is that it is rooted in childhood development, and it can help counselors examine their own values and viewpoints that they might bring into the therapy session. It is important for the counselor to do this and not impose their own feelings or bias onto the client. A limitation of psychoanalytic theory is that it is a long-term therapy approach that focuses on the past to make changes in the future. A long-term approach can be cost-prohibitive to those lower-income clients that need immediate assistance.

Conversely, Adlerian theory is grounded in how a person views themselves in the world and how the world affects them. Environment and genetics are equally important. This is the nature versus nurture debate. Humans determine what happens with a forward-thinking view and not an eye toward the past as much. Thus, there are no victims. This theory is well suited from a multicultural and diverse perspective because of its societal influences. There are many cultures that take a collectivist or group view versus an individual value base. The Adlerian theory presents limitations with its focus on birth order, which is a more Western worldview (Corey, 2021).      

What are some ways that each theory is compatible and incompatible with Christian concepts (Tan)?

In a review of psychoanalytic theory, Tan (2011) noted that Freud’s view of human nature was very negative, and that sexual desires and drives are the aggressive forces that are at the root of our personality. He then compared this theory to the Bible and its view on human nature. Tan (2011) states that the Bible explains the sin nature of man and how it is congruent with psychoanalytic theory. However, Tan (2011) further explains that because of salvation in accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we become new creatures and can become more Christ-like. Therefore, whereas Freud’s theory of development ends at age six, a Christian can begin a new life at any age through salvation and leave their past behind. Although Freud was not a religious man, he wrote about his theory in relation to the Bible by stating that humans created God out of a need for a loving father figure versus God creating man in his own image. Christians would disagree with this analysis but would contend that agape love for God is a central tenant in Christianity (Tan, 2011).

By contrast, Tan (2011) saw Adlerian theory as a more positive and less deterministic approach than psychoanalysis. Adler also believed that our personality is formed in the first six years of life but allowed for choice versus a staunch deterministic psychoanalytic approach. Therefore, this belief is more consistent with the Bible with humans always having a choice or free will.  Adler did not, however, leave room for a darker side of human nature in his theory. The Bible begins with the fall of man through free will. Moreover, Tan (2011) discusses that Adler believed that humans could see the error of their ways and change it. This is consistent with the Bible through salvation in Jesus Christ and making a conscious decision to accept our sins and ask for forgiveness (Tan, 2011).

Based on each theory’s concept of psychopathology, discuss any limitations as far as creating measurable outcomes for clients (Switzer and Rubin).

Switzer and Rubin (2015) state that most counselors utilize an integrated approach to counseling based on experience and client needs. Just relying on one specific theory, such as psychoanalytic or Adlerian therapy for example, narrows the focus to a Purist theoretical approach in using only that theory to explain the presentation. This may not be in the best interests of the client or the goal that needs to be reached. Measurable outcomes in therapy are used in goal setting based on what the client would like to achieve. The goals are listed clearly and then outcomes must be able to be measured. Switzer and Rubin further state, “The treatment-plan goals should state how counseling would positively change, reduce, or eliminate the ways in which the targeted problem is revealing itself in the client’s life” (2015, p. 119). Utilizing a Purist theoretical approach only is very rigid and may or may not be able to reach a desired, measurable outcome.

References

Corey, G. (2021). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (10^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Switzer, A. M. and Rubin, L. C. (2015). Diagnosis & treatment planning skills: A popular culture casebook approach (2^nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Tan, S. (2011). Counseling and psychotherapy: A Christian perspective. Baker Academic.