compare two theories of self-esteem which contribute to our understanding of self-concept
Bowlby worked for many years as a child psychoanalyst so was clearly very influenced by Freud’s theories and child development. However, he also liked the work of Lorenz on the innate nature of bonds through imprinting and combined these two very different ideas to produce his own evolutionary theory of attachments. Bowlby believed that attachment is innate and adaptive. We are all born with an inherited need to form attachments and this is to help us survive. In line with Darwin’s theory of natural selection, any behaviour that helps you …show more content…
• Another similarity of the two theories is that they both talking about bad side effects and how they can influence our self-esteem. Harter’s theory is saying that in adolescence we are likely to have low self-esteem which might link to things like depression or even thought of suicide. Bowlby theory is saying about bad sides of not being attached or being attached too short to main attachment figure, which can lead to reduced intelligence and depression.
• Both theories are linking their conclusion into one of the bad side effects- depression. They both suggest that if our self-esteem is low and our ideal-self is far away from self-image we can suffer from depression.
The main differences include:
• Harter’s theory is focused on a groups of people and how they affect our self-esteem, whereas Bowlby’s is focused on one main attachment figure and how it can affect our self-esteem. Susan Harter suggest that our self-esteem is based on wherever other groups of people accept as or not. If not, we create multiple self’s to fit in into most of the groups of people. Bowlby on the other hand suggest that our self-esteem is influenced by mainly one person who were our main attachment figure is the first two years of our life.
• Harter’s theory suggest that mostly women are likely to have multiple self’s and that they have most problems with recognising their true self and false self. Bowlby’s theory is not