Other Adlerian Concepts (Page 1)

1. Acting "As if"
Adlerians use this in two ways. First, by Private Logic we act as if our behavior is reasonable, when in fact it is only an excuse for doing what we want by justifying self-oriented thoughts, feelings, or actions. Second, Acting As If is also a way to rehearse what it would be like to behave or think in another way, thus reframing our mental images to give ourselves other options. Adler was among the first to use role-playing to help clients practice new behaviors in the consulting room, behaviors which they could then try out in their lives. Children do this in play, when they "pretend" to be their parents in order to practice what it would be like to be them.

Adler credited Vaihinger with the philosophical ideas which he then applied to psychology and psychotherapy. Adler used the as if method to reframe the client’s mental images, asking, in effect, "But imagine if this were true, instead of that." This would involve a mental "acting as if" rather than a physical one. (See also the Polonius Complex, below, under "Complexes.")

2. Aggression Instinct
(Also aggression "drive" or "impulse.") In 1908 Adler published a paper on The Aggression Drive in Life and In Neurosis in which he described an underlying, dynamic principle to explain the generally belligerent and hostile position of the individual, observed from infancy onward, toward the environment. He did not connect this with any physiological source, but saw it as a "psychological field" (his only use of the term) connected all the drives.

Freud rejected the view, in large part because it posited an explanation for behavior based on something other than his own libido theory, saying: "I am unable to assent to this view, and indeed I regard it as a misleading generalization. I cannot bring myself to assume the existence of a special aggressive instinct alongside the familiar instincts of self preservation and of sex, and on an equal footing with them." (Freud, Collected Papers, 1936, Vol. III, p. 281)

It has been noted elsewhere that Adler soon came to abandon instinct theory in general as he moved toward his idea of "soft determinism" in which socialization and personal choice played such important roles. It is ironic, then, that beginning perhaps around 1920 or later, Freud adopted the viewpoint (although in somewhat different terms) as the "second pillar" of psychoanalysis.

In psychology in general, and including anthropology and ethology (the study of human-like behaviors in animals), "aggression" as been a central topic. The two main "camps" which developed seem to mirror the conflicts between Freud and Adler. On the one side are those led by Conrad Lorenz whose On Aggression (1963) articulated a basically Freudian view that, if not entirely instinctual, aggression was certainly innate. The problem has been that no physiological structures have been found which directly produce aggressive behavior. Lorenz himself pointed out by a number of examples from animal behavior (wolves, crabs, elk, etc.) that aggression often takes on a ritualistic expression: wolves stop their attack when the enemy bears his throat, elk butt heads but do not seek to kill the "enemy" and in fact, having won, "encourage" (Lorenz’ word) the loser from the area, etc.

Such ritualization suggests the second camp, that aggression is learned, not instinctive, behavior. Adler’s later views place him in this camp, although "social learning theory" did not come until much later. Out of this camp comes the view (Dollard, 1939) that aggression results from frustration; Miller (1941) agrees, but said that aggression is but one of several possible results of frustration. Aggression itself is defined in all cases as an active, violent, and destructive behavior, usually directed toward others but also sometimes toward oneself. The limit of such a definition is that what may be seen by an observer as aggression may in fact be a defensive act directed toward an interloper to protect one’s territory.

The point is that it was Alfred Adler who, in 1908, brought the topic forward for psychological investigation, saw it’s limits as an "instinct" or "innate drive," and saw it as a learned response to life circumstances following the principle of "psychology of use."

3. Antithetical Apperception
A form of mistaken thinking which stresses extremes. Something is either "all good" or "all bad," completely weak or completely strong, wonderful or terrible, etc. Such thinking is used to justify such self-statements as, "I’m either a winner or I’m a loser," or "If I’m not beautiful, I must be ugly." Also called "bipolar thinking" or "either/or" thinking, in which the individual limits options to two, both of which are extremes.

The neurotically disposed individual has a sharply schematizing, strongly abstracted mode of apperception. Thus he groups inner as well as outer events according to a strictly antithetical schema, something like the debit and credit sides in bookkeeping, and admits no degrees in between. . . . This tendency needs sharply defined guiding lines, ideals, and bogeys in which the neurotic believes, in order to choose, foresee, and take action. In this way he becomes estranged from concrete reality, that is, where psychological elasticity is needed rather than rigidity. (Ansbachers, 1964, p. 248)

Such thinking influences one’s general view of the world, sense of place in the world, and the terms one uses to describe people, groups, events, etc. It can be used to justify everything from incapability and laziness to racial hatreds and social stereotypes. Indeed, the Ansbachers note the similarity in thinking and terminology between Adler’s much earlier thinking in 1912, and that of Gordon Allport’s in his work on prejudice: "[these studies] have shown beyond a doubt that prejudiced attitudes may serve as a psychological crutch for persons crippled in their encounters with life. . . . From this point of view prejudice would seem to be largely a device for handling basic insecurity." (in Ansbachers, 1964, p. 249)

4. Child Guidance
Although not a concept, this is a major field in which Adler made significant contributions. He was well aware, and pointed out publicly, that there were child guidance clinics in Switzerland, Germany, and the United States. Adler’s unique contributions included the involvement of child, parent, and teachers as well an interested audience in his sessions, and the application of Individual Psychology principles in helping professionals to understand personality development and the behaviors of "misbehaving" children. Adler formed some 32 such clinics, all at the invitation of individual schools, in the 1920s. They were all summarily closed as being "too democratic" when Hitler came to power in 1934.

Adler’s views and actions regarding child guidance became important in the United States after his move here, but more so as the result of his student, Rudolph Dreikurs, who established clinics in Chicago in the 1930s. The influence continues to be seen today in the many programs aimed at helping parents to raise their children, especially Systematic Training for Effective Parenting by Dinkmeyer and McKay.

5. Choice; decision
Of course Adler didn’t invent the idea of choosing or making decisions; such an idea has been around since the dawn of humanity. But he did include it as a central feature of his understanding of how human beings function. At the turn of the 20th century, much of psychology was still in the grip of mechanical or fatalistic thinking, regarding human behavior. That is, it was "caused" by something beyond the individual’s control. It took Adler to point out that personal choice is as important as environment and heredity in determining personality and the individual’s movement through life.

The age-old question still arises, of course: How free are we , really, to choose? Do we have "freedom of will?" As with so many similar questions, the answer is both Yes and No. About the many things over which we have no control whatsoever (where we lived as a child, who our parents and siblings were, our race and sex, etc.), choice is not a personal option. But Adler pointed out that what we tell ourselves is important about such things can be just as influential in our lives as those things themselves. Within certain constraints, then, we can choose. It was an extremely important contribution, and a giant step in the freeing of psychology from mechanistic models of predetermined behavior.

A good friend of Adlerian Psychology, William Glasser, MD (author of Reality Therapy), has developed an entire approach called "Choice Therapy" which is explained in the book of the same name (1998, Harper-Collins Publishers.)