THE CRITICISMS OF THE ERIK ERIKSON PSYCHOSOCIAL THEORY OF DEVELOPMENT
Identity formation neither begins nor ends with adolescence: it is a lifelong development largely
unconscious to the individual and to his society”.
–Erik Erikson
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY
Erikson maintained that personality develops in a predetermined order through stages of
psychosocial development from infancy to adulthood. During each stage the person
experiences a psychosocial crisis which could have either a positive or negative outcome for
personality development. He believed that human beings go through series of identity crisis
that leaves them vulnerable to major changes in how they see themselves.
Erikson believed that these crisis are of a psychosocial nature because they involve
psychological needs of the individual (psycho) conflicting with the needs of the society
( social).
Erikson proposed that each of the eight psychosocial stage provides an opportunity to
develop our basic strengths. He suggested that each basic strengths are interdependent; one
strength cannot develop until the strength associated with the previous stage has been
developed fully. Successful completion of each stage results in a healthy personality and
acquisition of basic values. Failure to successfully complete a stage can result in a reduced
ability to complete further stages and thereby leads to an unhealthy personality and sense of
self.
The eight stages are:
Trust vs mistrust
Autonomy vs shame
Initiative vs guilt
Industry vs inferiority
Identity vs role confusion
Intimacy vs isolation
Generativity vs self absorption
Integrity vs despair
CRITICISM
A critical look at this theory shows it to be a beautiful almost poetic description of life rather
than a strictly scientific realistic society that indicates the factors determining development
and personality. The theory was based on speculation and interpretation as Erikson was rather
vague about the causes of development. He failed to explain what kinds of experiences must
individuals have to successfully resolve various psychosocial conflict and move from one
stage to another. He also didn’t explain how the outcomes of one psychosocial stage
influences personality at a later stage. Erikson himself acknowledged that his theory is a more
descriptive view of human social and emotional development and doesn’t explain how the
development occurs.
1. Focused on one aspect of development: the theory only covers a few aspects of human
development with little or no regard for other developmental aspects. For example
there was no attention given to cognitive development and very little attention was
given to emotional development
2. Vague cause of development: Erikson theory was critiqued for being vague about the
causes of development. What kind of experiences must a child have to develop
autonomy as a toddler or a stable identity during adolescence? Why is a sense of trust
so important for the development of autonomy, initiative and identity? Unfortunately
Erikson wasn’t explicit about these issues.
3. Not scientific: Erikson built his theory largely on ethical principles and not
necessarily on scientific data. His theory was then judged by the standards of science
not ethics or arts.
4. Masculine stages of development: Carol Gilligan (1982) believed that he portrayed a
masculine look in his stages of development. She noted that Erikson recognized a
somewhat different developmental pattern for girls but failed to update his work.
Carol Gilligan explained this by saying “women conceptualize and experience the
world in a different voice and men and women operate with different internal model”.
5. Identity development: Adolescence represents an original time for identity
development due to a large number of factors. Erikson believed that identity was
mainly fixed by the end of adolescence but later suggested that identity development
may continue throughout adulthood. Unfortunately he did not give detail to what this
process looked like. According to Erikson the final identity is fixed is at the end of
adolescence. Alternatively Erikson then proposed that identity defining issues of
adolescence do not remain fixed but rather retain flexibility for modification during
adulthood years due to new life experiences. Clearly these two statements contradict
which was why it was difficult to access identity development from his view.
REFERENCES
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth, and crisis. New York: No
Josselson, R. (1982). Personality structures and identity status in women as
viewed through early memories. Youth and Adolescence, 11, 293- 299.
Sokol, J. T. (2009). Identity Development throughout the Lifetime: An
Examination of Eriksonian Theory, Graduate Journal of Counseling Psychology,
1(2). Retrieved from http://epublications.marquette.edu/gjcp/vol1/iss2/14\
Feist, J. & Feist, G.J. (2002). Theories of Personality. (5 ed.). NewYork: McGraw-
Hill
Companies.
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
