Personality and Social Development during Childhood and Adolescence

Abstract

PERSONALITY and social development continued to receive considerable attention from psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, and anthropologists during the past three years. Altho the number of studies has not noticeably increased, there appears to be more diversity. This, as Milner (45) suggests, may call for a more comprehensive cross-discipline approach and is a challenge indeed for educational psychologists as they attempt to synthesize, interpret, and develop a functional personality theory for classroom teachers. The title, Personality and Social Development During Childhood and Adolescence, has not appeared in the REVIEW since Blair's chapter (7) in 1950. However, chapters by Blocksma (8), Foshay and Green (19), Stagner (57), and Trow (59) are closely related and include many excellent references. This chapter includes a sampling of similar materials, but, since it deals with children of school age, much of the material has been selected specifically for teachers interested in further study of personality and social development at that age level. In general, the trend toward a phenomenological frame of reference seems to continue. The individual is being viewed more and more as a unique, unified, and whole personality who has the ability to act according to his own self-determination and not just in response to present and past occurrences. This places major emphasis on striving and goal-directed behavior. However, the trend is not pronounced. Allport (2) expressed the problem succinctly when he stated that people are busy leading their lives into the future whereas psychology, for the most part, is busy tracing them into the past. He emphasized the dynamics of futurity and the unique style of life of every individual. Of course, Adlerians have advocated continuously the socio-teleological approach which Dreikurs (15) described. Grey (25) and Rattner (50) made a strong case for the close relationship between individual psychology and democracy. Long (41) clarified many of these views by comparing Adler and Allport on certain topics of personality theory. Further progress in our efforts to integrate personality theory will depend on our ability to come to some agreement on psychological causation. The statement that all behavior is caused is almost universally accepted. However, there is considerable difference between emphasizing the past and emphasizing the future. Allport (2) and Ansbacher (3) presented causality and its relationship to personality theory.