What’s a blog about psychology without mentioning the grandfather of psychology himself, Sigmund Freud? He had a huge contribution to modern psychology and created a basis of what we know today. Though some of his ideas and theories may be a bit outdated and slightly controversial, the core of these ideas is what made his work so great. Here, we will discuss some of his most important contributions.

In 1923, Freud developed a structural model of the mind which consisted of three different parts: the id, ego, and superego. The id is described as the pleasure principle which operates at an unconscious level. The id helps the human to survive in terms of eating and sex, but also involving aggression and violence so the individual does not self-destruct. The superego is responsible for the moral standard and operates on the morality principle. This governs our body and motivates us to act in a respectable manner. The ego is nicknamed “the mediator”. It is made to satisfy the desires of the id, while also pleasing the superego. It basically offers compromises between the two so not one as the upper hand all the time.

From this idea of the structural model of the mind, Freud also created Defense Mechanisms. These are created in order to protect the ego, the “I”, and to help deal with all the conflict and problems in life. These Defense Mechanisms operate at an unconscious level and help to deal with these unpleasant feelings and make the individual feel better. A common example of a Defense Mechanism is denial. If there a problem, it may cause us stress and anxiety or in some cases, sadness. However, if we refuse to believe that there is a problem then this will lessen the chance of getting hurt by the event that is not really happening. For example, if someone in your family dies, we tend to be in denial about it because thinking about the death brings intense emotions like sadness and suffering.

Freud was also fascinated with the idea of sex. He incorporated it into almost every aspect of his theories and thought that it describes much of what drives humans. He invented what he called the psychosexual stages, which were the number of stages in childhood in which the child seeks pleasure from different objects. The first is the Oral Stage (0-1 year). In this stage, gratification is sought through the infant’s mouth, and are mouth oriented such as breastfeeding or sucking. Adults that were fixated in this stage may be nail biters or smokers now, and draws on this especially in times of stress.

Next is the Anal Stage (1-3 years). The libido is focused on the anus and the child is fascinated with defecating. The ego develops in this stage, as the feel independent and self-aware. If the child went through hard potty training, this leads to them being anal retentive – someone who hates messes, likes things a certain way, and is respectful of authority. Anal Expulsive entails a more liberal potty training and leads to the adult being more likely to share things, and be more disorganized and rebellious.

The Phallic Stage (3-5 or 6 years) entails one being focused on genitals and masturbation. The child becomes sexually self-aware, and may even become jealous of the other sex. Freud developed the famous Oedipus Complex from this stage, which is based off the Greek play Oedipus Rex. In the play, Oedipus unknowingly kills his father and marries his mother. Freud says that boys feel aggression to their fathers and sexual desires for their mothers. The Electra Complex is vice versa for girls.

The Latency Stage (5 or 6 to puberty) has no further development, the libido is dormant. This is the time that the individual focuses on making friendships and schoolwork.

The final stage is the Genital Stage (puberty to adult) and is a time of sexual exploration by means of relationships and sexual partners. This is different than the Phallic Stage in that this involves two people, not just oneself.

There are many more things that can be discussed with Freud and even the ideas presented today can be expanded on. There is so much information from good old Freud that made modern psychology what it is today.

Humans are social beings. We need others to talk to, to support us, and to learn from. If we are in a situation that we are unfamiliar with, we turn to others for information on what to do or how to act. A particular psychologist wanted to delve more into why people acted a certain way.

Albert Bandura wanted to study children, aged three to five, to see how they learn aggressive behavior. People can learn from wither direct reinforcement, or observing, modeling, or imitation. In this case, Bandura wanted to see how children would act in the presence of adults. He called this the Social Learning Theory.

He started off with one aggressive model and one non-aggressive adult model. Then he had a female and male model of each. They came into the room with the child and started hitting a Bobo doll, which is a doll that looks like a clown with sand at the bottom so it will not fall over. The aggressive adults hit the Bobo Doll either with their hand or a hammer and would even sit on it and punch it forcefully. The non-aggressive adults would throw in up it the air, bat the doll, and play “nicely” with it. Then, the adults would leave the child alone in the room. Shortly after they left, the children would get up and model the behavior that the adult did. If the adult acted aggressively, so did the child, and vice versa. Bandura also found that the gender of the child played a role as well. If the little girl watched the adult female hit the doll, she would be more likely to hit the doll after watching her than the aggressive male. The boys would also be more likely to hit the doll after watching the aggressive male than the aggressive female.

Not just children learn from others, but so do college students. I am going to share a personal story here to further prove this theory. The first semester of college is always hectic. Students are getting used to their surroundings, getting adjusted to their new life, and making new friends. My first roommate did not do much; she would watch Netflix and barely made it to class. As a result, I did not put much effort into my school work and I would frequently miss my classes. At the end of the semester, she moved out and my friend moved in. She is extremely motivated, dedicated and such a hard-worker. She goes to class and watches minimal Netflix. I noticed that I started going to the library more, going to all my classes, and being more motivated to do my assignments. This is proof that people learn based on their surroundings. So, surround yourself with good people, and good behavior will follow.

Emergencies happen every day. Whether someone has a stoke, gets hit by a car, or attempts suicide, then happen very often. Not being in the situation, people think now that they would surely help. But when it comes down to it, it is very unlikely that they will step up and help because the bystander effect and the diffusion of responsibility still play a key role in helping others.

To help with this unintentional ignorance, Darley and Latane, the social psychologists that worked on the Kitty Genovese study, created the Decision Tree. There are five steps that play a role in the situational determinants in helping someone in need.

Step one is Noticing the Event. In order for people to help, they must know that help is needed. If people are in a rush, they will not help. If there are a lot of people around, that will also deter chances to get assistance. Say that you broke your leg while walking to class. People are in a rush and on their own agenda. Call someone out individually and tell them to call 911. This will force them to assume responsibility and make them get help for you.

Step two includes having people interpret the event as an emergency. People rely on others in ambiguous situations and look to them for help. This is called Pluralistic Influence. So, if no one else is reacting, because no one else is reacting, then everyone will interpret the situation as a non-emergency. So, the more people to witness an event, the less likely people are to help. Pro tip: If you are going to break your leg on campus, do it up by North Halls where it is less populated so someone will help you.

Step three is arguably the most important steps. It is the facilitator of the event. This step is known as Assuming Responsibility. In order for help to be given, someone must step-up and give the help. Again, here is where the diffusion of responsibility is important. If there are too many people, no one will take matters into their own hands. This is why, in the breaking leg on campus example, it is important to call someone out directly and tell them exactly what to do. Because if you point to someone and say, “Hey, you in the pink shirt – call 911!” and they do not, then they are just a jerk.

Steps four and five can be clumped together. Step four is Knowing the Appropriate Form of Assistance. If someone does not know how to help, they simply will not help. Giving someone directions on how to help will get the ball rolling. Like in CPR training how they instruct the person who is giving CPR to say, “YOU, call 911, and YOU get an AED!”. This singles people out, making them responsible, while also giving them a task.

Step five is Deciding to Implement Help. If you notice the event, and see that it’s an emergency, feel that it is your responsibility to help, and know how to help, you still need to decide if you want to help. Some people may be afraid to get involved. For example, say you and a friend go out to a party and you both are underage. Your friend begins throwing up after many drinks and you fear they may have alcohol poisoning. However, you were also drinking too so you do not want to get in trouble. Good Samaritan Laws are put into place which would keep you immune to the punishments even if you call the police for your friend.

Because emergencies are so common, we must know how to help and together, stand up to help those in need because their lives could be in our hands.

Shakespeare popularized the phrase “absence makes the heart grow fonder”. This was common belief for a while due to Shakespeare’s popularity and respected nature. Many thought that if a significant other was gone, the other significant other could not even function without the other person and they were on their mind all day and all night. Okay, that is bit of a dramatization, and frankly, it is wrong. If that person is not there for an extended period of time, the other person will begin to forget about them.

This leads into the Propinquity Effect, also called the Proximity Effect. This effect states that the more people interact, the more likely they are to become friends. This familiarity and exposure to the other person leads to liking the person. The opposite is true. If one is apart from someone for a while, whether it be a couple or friends, they will become more distant. Now, this is not to say that someone will hate their friend if they move to another state, this effect is saying that it is much easier to maintain relationships when they are at a convenient location.

Knowing this information, if the Shakespeare quote is revisited, this is not true. Absence or distance will not make the heart grow fonder – only in certain examples. If there is a couple that has been married for four years, this will not be the case. However, if two people meet at a community dance and become smitten with each other then they will be filled with passion and longing to see each other again. Unfortunately, Shakespeare’s touching quote fails in the eyes of psychology. If someone is out of sight, then they will be put of mind.

Another common myth is the idea that opposites attract. While this is true for magnets, the same cannot be said about people. The common belief is that if two people have less in common, they will have more to talk about and teach each other. However, this is not the case. People tend to like people who are like them. We feel a deeper connection with people who share the same beliefs and values as us.

However, we do not want the person to be 100% the same as us because that threatens our uniqueness. As humans, we aspire to be special, and apparently can only handle 80% of similarity with another person before we feel threatened.

Humans need to feel love to survive. Proximity and similarity play a major role in making love connections. Distance nor opposition will help strengthen connection, but rather weaken it. Love is out there, and it may be closer than you think.

As seen in the bystander effect, people tend to not be as helpful as they think they are. As a result, innocent victims are left to suffer. There is another experiment that directly coincides with the previous study and may shed more light on the situations when people are able and or willing to help.

In 1973, the experiments known as the “Good Samaritan Experiment”, was conducted by Jon Darley and C. Daniel Batson. The researchers were from Princeton University and the actual study took place at the Princeton Theological Seminary. The researchers wanted to investigate what is that cause of this “good Samaritan” behavior. They devised three different hypotheses that were to be tested: if people are thinking about religion, then they are more likely to help others than a regular person, if people are in a rush then they are less likely to help others, and if people who are religious for personal gain then they would be less likely to help others than those who are religious for spiritual aspects.

The test subjects were forty students from the University.The study was framed to be about religion and vocational studies. These students were then told to go to one building, building A, to complete a questionnaire and to attend a lesson about some religious teaching. They then were told to go to another building, building B, in order to either give a speech about vocations or a speech on the parable of The Good Samaritan from the Bible. The main difference lies with what the researchers told the subjects after this. Some were then told that they had to rush to give the speech, while others were told there was no hurry. On the way from Building A to Building B, there was a man, who was confederate of the experiment, acting hurt and in pain. The researchers made sure that the subjects would see this man and were greatly intrigued on how they would respond.

The results of this experiment were particularly interesting. The talk that the subjects had to give, be it a vocation talk, or a religious talk, it did not matter. The other variable was very important to the outcome of the experiment, this being the “hurry” variable. Researchers found that this variable was directly correlated to the likelihood of subjects helping. Therefore, the greater the hurry, the less likely they were to help. In the high hurry category, only 10% of subjects helped the injured man. When there was no hurry, over 63% stopped to help the man in need.

What was learned from this experiment was that people tend to be too quick to make dispositional judgments about ourselves and others. We do not know the situations and experiences of different people. We do not know if someone is late to a meeting or exam and cannot lend an extra hand due to the rush. We also do not know if that person is actually rude and ignorant and just does not feel inclined to help.

Many people suffer from numerous mental disorders such as anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder. Many psychologists ask, “Why?”.  Some will claim that it stems from childhood issues or family life, and others will say it is a chemical imbalance in the brain. Both of these psychologists are correct. But what is not explained is that why the person stays in this mental state even with therapy and medication. This can be answered with the help of dogs.

Martin Seligman was studying the behavior of dogs in 1965. He discovered a concept called Learned Helplessness. This is described as when a person believes that they have no control over the situation when in fact, they do. Three groups of dogs were placed in different conditions: the first one was the control group which received no shocks, the next group was shocked by had control over them and were able to escape the shocks. The third group had no control over the shocks and could not escape. Part two of the study included the same three groups but now, the dogs that received the shocks previously both had a way to escape them. The findings of the study showed that the percentage of the dogs who were able to escape in part one of the study were able to escape 80-100% of the time. However, the dogs who were not able to escape in part one only escaped about 20% of the time. Despite the ethical problems with this experiment, (because no puppies should ever be shocked for science) the outcome is very telling. Those dogs that previously had no escape route learned that they could not escape even though it was very easy to.

The inability to control negative outcomes in one situation leads to deficits in subsequent situations. This concept of Learned Helplessness can help explain why people with mental illnesses stay in that mindset. If someone has depression they get used to feeling hopeless all the time. Then, medication is introduced into the person’s life along with therapy. Even though these options are meant to help, the individual will still remain in this mental state because they got used to feeling this well. Not that they are not motivated to change, they just feel that they do not deserve any better than their mental illness.

This can be helpful for people suffering in any way, not just due to mental illnesses. People should know that they are worth feeling important and worthy of overcoming their hardships and that they can make a change to their lives.