Critique of Jung and Bandura

Terrin M. Schnee
Psychology 1400
Psychology of Personality Theories
Spring 2014

Critique of Jung and Bandura

Throughout the semester we have examined numerous psychological theorists and their theories. Their ideas were displayed focusing on the major components of each. Through this lens, we were able to familiarize ourselves with each. While each theory had many interesting parts, it was only natural that we would begin to form a bias toward some and against others. I personally took a strong inclination to Bandura and his theory of reciprocal determinism. Towards Jung, my attitude was not as positive. Bandura's theory of reciprocal determinism spoke to me on a personal level. I see applications and implications of it in both my personal life as well as in the career path I have chosen. Unlike many other theories, Bandura recognized that behavior, environment, and personal characteristics all influence one another. While I think some things may influence other things to a greater level, I agree that there is influence occurring from all components. I find other theories to be a bit flawed since they tend to focus primarily on one part as a causal agent. Bandura also believed that people were in control over their behavior. Cloninger points out that Bandura believed people controlled what they did, but vary in how they exert this control (251). To me the clearest of example of this is the difference between passive and assertive individuals. I recognize that I am more of a passive individual. Seeing how my behavior can impact this personal characteristic, I can work to be more assertive. Of course I can not completely change who I am, but I can influence it to some degree. As an educator, I can also be more mindful of such tendencies in students and work to interact with each individual in a way that supports them. Bandura's theory also addresses self-efficacy. This is basically what one believes they are capable of doing. What I found interesting is that the text made note that higher goals equal a performance at a higher level (Cloninger 252). However, if goals are unreasonable the result is then failure (Cloninger 254). For me, this made me realize, to an extent, that if I push myself I can achieve greater things. However, in doing so, I need to make sure that my goals are reasonable. That is not to say they are easy, but rather presented in a way that makes them achievable. The same can be applied to when I teach. I need to push my students, but at the same time I need to be reasonable. While finding this balance might not always be easy in either domain, being aware of it makes it more likely that I will find and utilize it. Bandura also addressed how individuals learn. He stated that individuals must observe, remember what they observed, be able to do what they saw, and be motivated to do it (Cloninger 255). As an educator, I think it is easy to forget the last component: motivation. Once I determine the proper motivational techniques, I can go about creating lessons that encompass all four parts. Part of this motivation comes from incentives. When incentives are meaningful to the individual, they are more likely to act (Cloninger 259). For my students, I have to find what will motivate them. For myself, I have to figure out what motivates me. The last thing that I liked about Bandura's theory is that it can be applied to both individuals as well as groups. The text describes one such component, collective efficacy. In this, when a group believe it can succeed, it it more likely to move towards a goal and overcome obstacles (Cloninger 262). This idea encourages me to create a classroom that acts more as a team. I want my students to have pride in themselves, but also in their class as a whole. Whereas I saw many applications for Bandura's theory in my personal and professional life, I did not see many ways in which I could apply Jung's ideas. This is largely due to the fact that many aspects of Jung's theory are very abstract. Cloninger recognizes this, noting that one of Jung's major downfalls is that his ideas can not be empirically tested (54). This causes major concerns for me. While many of his ideas sound good, since they can not be tested, they are just ideas. It is true that work has been done to find ways to quantitatively document such things in his work, but I can't help feel that they have been tailored a little too much to allow for such correlations. Of the abstract ideas Jung presents, the one have the hardest time acknowledging is the shadow. Cloninger describes the shadow as a person's unconscious, unacceptable sexual and aggressive impulses (49). The shadow can also be viewed as what a person fears, typically the opposite of how they perceive themselves. Such things then are suggested to present themselves in peoples' dreams. Personally, I don't put much stock in dream interpretations of any kind. While I think it is possible for our subconscious to influence our dreams, I don't think any person can truly explain why we dream what we do. Therefore, this notion of the shadow turns me off of Jung. I feel he was taking too many liberties with this idea. I also disagreed with Jung's idea that the projection of shadows can be a cause of prejudice (Cloninger 50). While I don't think Jung was necessarily justifying prejudice, I find this rationalization to be weak. Another abstract principle Jung discusses is the anima and animus (Cloninger 50). My first problem with this is that it seems too culturally influenced. I also don't think that all men and women try to repress traits and behaviors that are generally thought of as being of the other sex. Therefore, I would argue that this idea only relates to some people. There is no real explanation as to why it is not seen in others, other than they are well adjusted and integrated. Still, the question I have is why do some people move easily through it and others not at all if it is universal? The notion of universal symbols is my last qualm with Jung. This was touched upon in the aforementioned ideas of the shadow, anima and animus. This is also seen in archetypes. Cloninger discusses just some of them, including the mother, the father, the hero, and the trickster (52). I think people have role models and mentors in their lives as well as antagonists. I don't however think that everyone has to be classified into such a defined category. I also don't think these categories are even remotely universal. I think they more we understand about different cultures, the more likely we are going to be to see that who we thought acted as a mother archetype actually played a much different role in that culture. Jung also looked for similarities in art from different eras and cultures as being rooted in the same unconscious place (Cloninger 54). To me, this is just coincidence. Since there are few ways to test such ideas empirically, little credibility can be given to this claim. Throughout the course of the semester I was introduced to many psychological theories and their theorists. While each offered interesting perspectives, I found myself instantly drawn to Bandura. His ideas of reciprocal determinism and self-efficacy make practical and applicable sense to me. I can use his ideas to better understand how I learn and am motivated, as well as the students I have in a class are. I was not so keen on the ideas of Jung. I found them interesting, but did not find them to be either practical or applicable. They are too abstract for my liking and I also think they are not necessarily as universal as he believed.

Reference
Cloninger, S. (2013). Theories of Personality: Understanding Persons. Boston: Pearson.