Neo Freudians

Neo-Freudians were a group of thinkers who agreed with many of the fundamental tenets of Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, but changed and adapted the approach to incorporate their own beliefs, ideas, and opinions.

Carl Jung (1875-1961)

Carl Jung (pronounced “Yoong”) was a Swiss psychiatrist and originally a close friend and protégé of Freud.

Jung’s collaboration with Freud lasted from 1907 to 1913. It was intense but short-lived: they split over personal tensions and major theoretical disagreements, above all Jung’s rejection of Freud’s heavy emphasis on sexuality.

Freud saw it differently. He dismissed Jung’s revision as an “abandonment of an innovation which proved unwelcome,” and the two men never met again after 1913.

After the break, Jung founded Analytical Psychology, developing his own theories on the human mind.

In the context of revising Freud’s ideas, Jung’s most significant contributions were introducing the collective unconscious and universal archetypes, and placing less emphasis on basic drives like sex and more on spiritual and cultural aspects of the psyche​.

Collective Unconscious

Jung (1921, 1933) agreed that a personal unconscious exists, but he believed it plays a less significant role in shaping personality than Freud suggested.

Jung believed the personal unconscious is closer to the surface than Freud suggested and is less focused on repressed childhood events.

Jung proposed that another layer of the unconscious exists: the collective unconscious.

This is a shared memory bank of humanity. It is inherited from our ancestors and present in everyone, regardless of individual experience.

It is not unique to any one person. It sits beneath the personal unconscious, shared by all humans like a universal reservoir.

You can think of it as a sort of universal library of knowledge and imagery that we’re all born with.

Archetypes

Within this collective unconscious are archetypes: primitive mental images or themes that appear across cultures and time (Jung, 1948). The examples are everywhere.

Many stories and myths feature a hero who goes on a quest, or a wise old man who offers guidance. Others feature a nurturing mother, or a mischievous trickster.

Archetypes are universal symbols and themes that express common aspects of human experience. They show up in dreams, myths, fairy tales, legends, artwork, religion, and other symbolic experiences.

The pattern held across unconnected cultures too. Jung took that as evidence the archetypes were drawn from a shared, inherited layer of the unconscious, not learned culture to culture.

• The Hero archetype appears in stories from Jesus to Luke Skywalker.
• The Great Mother archetype manifests as Mother Nature, Gaia, the Virgin Mary.
• The Wise Old Man shows up as Merlin, Gandalf, Dumbledore.
• The Trickster appears as Loki, Coyote, Prometheus.

Human Motivation

Jung disagreed with Freud’s emphasis on sexuality.

He believed that libido is a more generalized life force that encompasses all psychic energy, not just sexual energy.

He argued that humans are motivated by a variety of desires, including creativity, spirituality, and a need for meaning and purpose.

Jung acknowledged that sexuality plays a role in the unconscious, but he felt that Freud overemphasized its importance.

For example, Jung would see an artist’s drive to create as its own legitimate form of psychic energy, not necessarily a transformation of repressed sexual desires.

He believed humans were naturally drawn toward meaning, growth, and self-actualization through various channels, with sexuality being just one aspect of a broader life force.

Personality

Jung’s theory of personality, known as analytical psychology, is more complex and mystical than Freud’s.

He believed that personality develops throughout the lifespan and that the goal of life is individuation, a process of integrating the conscious and unconscious aspects of the self to achieve wholeness.

Jung also created a comprehensive framework of personality types, distinguishing between introverted and extroverted orientations, along with four key psychological functions: thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition.

These dimensions work together to shape how individuals perceive and interact with the world around them.

Alfred Adler (1870-1937)

Alfred Adler was an Austrian medical doctor-turned-psychotherapist who was originally a member of Freud’s Vienna circle.

Adler’s early life experiences shaped his ideas. As a child, he suffered from rickets and pneumonia. He also felt overshadowed by an older brother, which left him with strong feelings of inferiority.

These challenges motivated him to become a physician and to understand human resilience.

Adler joined Freud’s discussion group in 1902. He later served as president of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. By 1911, though, he had clashed irreconcilably with Freud’s theories and left the group.

He went on to establish Individual Psychology in 1912 as a new school of thought.

Adler’s key contributions were the concepts of striving for superiority to overcome an inferiority complex, the importance of social interest and conscious goals, and the notion that family dynamics like birth order can shape our personality development.

All of these were ways to broaden Freud’s theories beyond instinctual urges. Freud’s own verdict on the split was pointed.

He conceded that Adler had made “useful contributions to the psychology of the ego,” but complained that Adler viewed everything “purely from the standpoint of the ego.”

He dismissed Adler’s central idea, the masculine protest, as “nothing else…but repression detached from its psychological mechanism.”

Inferiority Complex

In simple terms, Adler believed that deep down, people often feel that they’re not as good as others in some way. Not as smart, not as strong, not as important.

He coined the term “inferiority complex” for this feeling of not measuring up. A child who feels weaker or less capable than a sibling, for example, might grow up always trying to prove themselves.

This was a big shift from Freud’s idea that hidden sexual and aggressive urges drive us. Adler saw it differently.

He argued that much of our behavior is driven by trying to overcome childhood inferiority feelings and strive for superiority or success. Sex barely came into it.

Unlike Freud, Adler de-emphasized sex and unconscious instincts. He highlighted social connections and conscious goals instead.

He believed healthy personalities are marked by social interest: caring for others and contributing to society. Psychological growth, on this view, comes from mastering the social challenges of work, friendship, and love.

Personality

Adler also introduced the idea that birth order (one’s position as oldest, middle, youngest child, etc.) can influence personality.

For instance, he suggested that oldest children who initially had their parents’ full attention but then must share it with younger siblings may become overachievers to compensate.

The youngest child may be pampered or spoiled. The middle child, by contrast, may develop a balanced personality, avoiding the extremes of the oldest and youngest.

Adler’s focus on sibling and peer relations was, above all, an important move toward seeing personality in a social context rather than as a product of inner drives alone.

Learn More: Freud vs Adler

Melanie Klein (1882-1960)

Melanie Klein took Freud’s basic idea of the unconscious and gave it a relational, child-centered twist. Her legacy runs deep.

It still informs how we understand attachment, relationships, and child therapy today.

Klein is best known as a pioneer of object relations theory and play therapy.

She believed our earliest infancy experiences largely shape our adult relationships.

Her work diverged from Freud’s in one key way. She placed much less emphasis on biological drives like sexuality, and much more on the child’s early emotional relationships.

Klein stayed within the broad Freudian idea that our childhood unconscious experiences matter, but she reimagined what those experiences are (relationships rather than just instincts) and when they begin (virtually at birth)​.

Emphasis on Early Relationships

Klein agreed with Freud that the unconscious mind and childhood are crucial. But she challenged his timeline.

Freud made the Oedipus complex, around ages 3 to 5, the central drama of early childhood. Klein disagreed.

She pushed the formative period back further. Even earlier relationships, in the first one or two years of life, were what mattered most, she argued.

The focus shifted from psychosexual stages to psychosocial and emotional ones. Developing trust, handling anger, integrating good and bad views of others: these became the real infant tasks.

She also weighed aggressive impulses as heavily as loving ones. This applied from the very start of life.

A baby does not only love their caregiver. A baby can feel primitive rage too, and managing that love-hate mix is a key task from birth.

Babies, Klein argued, are born with a drive to connect with others. Seeking pleasure or avoiding pain was never the whole story.

This was the seed of object relations theory.

Object Relations Theory

Object relations theory is a variation of psychoanalytic theory. It emphasizes the fundamental human drive to form relationships, rather than sexual pleasure, as the main motivator of behavior.

The term “objects” does not mean inanimate things here. It refers to significant others with whom a person relates, usually a mother, father, or primary caregiver.

Occasionally “object” refers to a part of a person, such as a mother’s breast, or to the mental representations we carry of significant others.

These internalized mental representations of self and others guide our interpersonal relations. They shape our sense of self-worth and our attachment styles.

Play Therapy and Analyzing Children

Melanie Klein not only theorized about infants; she also broke new ground in how to psychoanalyze young children.

Freud and his daughter Anna believed that very young children (toddlers and preschoolers) could not be analyzed in the same way as adults. Anna Freud thought you should wait until about age 6 for formal analysis​.

Klein boldly disagreed.

By using play as a window into the child’s mind, she built upon Freud’s idea of symbolic expression (Freud analyzed dreams for symbolism; Klein analyzed play for symbolism) and made it a therapeutic tool for children.

With encouragement from another analyst, Sándor Ferenczi, Klein began analyzing children as young as two or three. That alone was radical.

She worked by observing and interacting with them through play.

She introduced the play technique as a method for child analysis. Instead of free association, Klein provided toys, dolls, and animals, and let the child play freely.

She paid close attention to the play’s themes and emotions.

If a child repeatedly acted out a big monster doll attacking a smaller one, for example, Klein might read that as fear or aggression. It could be tied to the child’s own family life, or an internal conflict.

Play, in Klein’s view, was the child’s language of the unconscious. Adults tell an analyst their thoughts. Children show their feelings through play instead.

Her technique revealed something striking. Even very young children can show insight into their own feelings, often more directly than adults do in words.

As Klein herself put it, beginners in child analysis are often surprised by what they find.

Even very young children, she wrote, have “a capacity for insight which is often far greater than that of adults.”

The insight ran deep.

Through this method, Klein claimed she could identify complex emotional issues in children. Anxiety, jealousy of a new sibling, love, and hatred: all of it played out with toy figures in the playroom.

Freud-Klein controversies

However, Klein’s approaches were controversial in her time. Freud and Anna Freud did not agree with Klein’s methods or some of her theories, leading to a deep professional rift.

Anna Freud believed Klein was over-interpreting child’s play and that very young children could not truly engage in psychoanalysis because they lacked the cognitive and verbal capacity.

Indeed, Klein’s play therapy technique ran counter to Anna Freud’s belief that young children could not be psychoanalyzed. This dispute led to considerable controversy in the psychoanalytic community.

Many analysts took sides in what became known as the Freud-Klein controversies.

Even Sigmund Freud himself openly criticized Klein’s ideas, partly because Klein was proposing substantial changes to psychoanalytic theory and she did not have a formal medical degree​.

Despite the opposition, Klein continued her work in England (having moved there in the 1920s), and a group of analysts supported her innovative ideas.

Karen Horney (1885-1952)

Karen Horney (pronounced “HORN-eye”) was one of the first women trained in Freudian psychoanalysis, and she became one of Freud’s sharpest critics – especially regarding his views on women.

In contrast to Freud’s emphasis on internal conflicts and sexual impulses, Horney’s contributions put the spotlight on relationships and cultural influences.

She brought a more humanistic outlook, believing that each person has the potential for self-realization (becoming their genuine self) if provided a supportive environment​.

Feminine Psychology

Horney moved from Europe to the United States in the 1930s. There, she developed ideas that directly challenged Freud’s male-centered theories.

Freud had famously suggested that girls feel deprived and envious because they lack a male anatomy, a concept he called “penis envy.”

Horney (1932) flatly rejected this. She argued that if women feel inferior in society, it is not anatomy at fault but how culture and upbringing treat women as lesser.

She even turned Freud’s idea around, proposing that men might experience “womb envy”: jealousy of women’s ability to bear children and create life.

From Horney’s perspective, any envy between the sexes comes from social roles and advantages, not physical differences. This was a groundbreaking early feminist viewpoint in psychology.

Theories of neurotic needs

Another major part of Horney’s theory centered on anxiety and interpersonal relationships.

Horney, also in contrast to Freud, believed that culture, rather than instinctual drives, largely led to behavior and psychological characteristics, especially in neurosis.

Horney believed that basic anxiety arises in children when they feel isolated, helpless, or unloved in a hostile world. A child who experiences a lot of conflict at home, or a lack of warmth, might develop deep-seated anxiety about their own safety.

Left unresolved, this anxiety can block normal growth.

It leads instead to what Horney called neurotic needs: exaggerated needs for things like approval, power, or independence, used as a way to cope.

Horney suggested that everyone uses these strategies to some extent, but problems arise if one relies on only one strategy rigidly, no matter the situation​.

Therapy

The goal of therapy, in her view, should be to help people move toward a healthy, authentic self, rather than just digging into early childhood conflicts.

Karen Horney is often celebrated for making psychoanalytic theory more attuned to gender and culture. Her central idea: how we cope with anxiety in our relationships is key to understanding personality.

Anna Freud (1895-1982)

Anna Freud was the youngest daughter of Sigmund Freud and a devoted follower of her father’s work. She is best known for two contributions: advancing the study of defense mechanisms, and pioneering child psychoanalysis.

Anna Freud remained largely faithful to her father’s theory. But she shifted the focus.

Freud had emphasized the id, the instinctual drives. Anna Freud emphasized the ego instead: the rational part of the mind that deals with reality.

In other words, she was interested in how the ego copes with both internal drives and the outside world.

Through her wartime observations of children, she reached a conclusion. The ego has to cope not only with inner instincts but also with real-life challenges, like trauma and separation.

This perspective helped found the field of ego psychology in psychoanalysis.

She never tried to overthrow her father’s ideas. Her approach stayed within Freud’s theoretical framework; she simply expanded it in practical ways.

Defense Mechanisms

One of Anna Freud’s most enduring contributions was her detailed description of defense mechanisms – the unconscious strategies people use to protect themselves from anxiety or unpleasant emotions.

Sigmund Freud had introduced some defense mechanisms, like repression, where distressing thoughts are pushed out of awareness. But he left it to his daughter to literally “write the book” on them.

In her 1936 book The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, Anna Freud catalogued and explained many defenses the ego uses. Examples of these defenses include:

• Repression – involuntarily forgetting or blocking out painful memories.
• Projection – attributing one’s own unacceptable feelings to someone else (e.g., a person who is angry may accuse others of being hostile).
• Displacement – redirecting emotions to a safer outlet.

By systematically describing such defenses, Anna Freud showed how the ego defends itself against stress.

This helped therapists recognize these unconscious tactics in their patients.

For example, if a college student calmly insists they “don’t care” after failing an exam, a therapist might see this as denial, a defense mechanism, at work.

Recognizing defenses is important because it’s a step toward helping individuals face their true feelings more directly.

Child Psychoanalysis

Another groundbreaking contribution of Anna Freud was applying psychoanalysis to children. Sigmund Freud had mostly worked with adults, who talked about their childhood memories after the fact.

Anna Freud thought differently.

She believed you could study and treat children’s emotional problems directly, but only by adapting the methods to a child’s mind. She was essentially the first to study children’s lives and development through a psychoanalytic lens.

Freud himself had only analyzed one child, the case of “Little Hans,” and even that was through the child’s father’s reports.

Working directly with children was new territory.

Anna Freud recognized that children communicate and think differently from adults.

Young children might struggle with the traditional Freudian method of free association, saying whatever comes to mind, and lying on a couch. They have shorter attention spans, too.

They also express themselves differently. To address this, Anna Freud tailored the therapeutic approach for children. Trust came first.

She built a strong therapeutic alliance with the child, often joining the child’s own activities to observe and connect.

She even allowed kids to play freely during sessions, joining them on the floor if needed. Play mattered.

Drawings and play, she found, could reveal a child’s feelings and conflicts in symbolic ways.

However, Anna Freud was cautious about very young children.

She argued that children under about 6, the latency period, were not ready for formal psychoanalysis. Not yet, anyway.

The focus, instead, should be on supporting the child’s environment and development until they are mature enough.

In practice, this meant helping parents create supportive conditions to prevent neuroses first.

Only when the child was older, and more cognitively developed, did she analyze the child’s mind directly.

Erich Fromm (1900–1980)

Erich Fromm was a Neo-Freudian who expanded psychoanalytic thinking beyond the individual’s family and inner fantasies, out into the wider realm of society and culture.

Fromm was trained in Freudian psychoanalysis but was also deeply influenced by Karl Marx’s social and economic theories​.

The result was a unique approach often called social psychoanalysis or humanistic psychoanalysis.

Fromm believed that to truly understand personality, we must consider the human being’s relationship to society, not just inner drives.

He was particularly interested in how modern societal forces (like freedom, capitalism, and isolation) affect the human psyche.

Key Theories and How Fromm Built on Freud

Fromm agreed with Freud that unconscious forces and childhood experiences shape us. But he sharply disagreed too.

He rejected the Oedipus complex and libido as the central motivators of behavior.

Fromm felt Freud placed too much weight on biological drives, like sexual and aggressive instincts, and not enough on social conditions and culture.

Fromm argued instead that human personality is largely a product of our social context: family structure, economic system, cultural values, and so on.

He also had a more optimistic view of human nature.

Freud described human nature pessimistically, driven by endless unconscious conflicts and antisocial impulses. Fromm disagreed.

He believed humans have fundamental needs for connection and meaning. Under the right conditions, he thought, we can flourish.

Fromm was, in fact, a key figure in humanistic psychology, which focuses on positive growth and the search for meaning.

One of Fromm’s most famous ideas comes from his 1941 book Escape from Freedom, also published in Britain as The Fear of Freedom.

In it, Fromm observed a paradox of modern life.

Modern society, with its democracy, individual rights, and wealth, has given people more freedom than ever before in history.

We are less constrained by nature and survival needs, and freer to choose our own paths. But that very freedom has a cost.

It can make people feel isolated, alone, and anxious.

Separated from the security of traditional authorities and close-knit communities, individuals often feel uncertainty and fear.

To relieve this anxiety, people may try to “escape” their freedom.

Freedom, in other words, can be psychologically hard to bear. So people sometimes unconsciously give some of it up to feel secure.

Fromm described a set of personality orientations, common strategies people use to escape the burdens of freedom and avoid feeling alone. Four types stood out.

These were socially shaped character types he saw at work in modern society.

He called them “unproductive” orientations: ways of escaping freedom that ultimately are not healthy.

Erik Erikson (1902-1994)

Erik Erikson took Freud’s developmental ideas in a new direction.

Erikson actually studied under Freud’s daughter Anna Freud, and he was influenced by psychoanalysis, but he noticed that important growth happens after childhood, too.

Psychosocial Stages

Freud had proposed that our personality’s core is largely formed by the age of five or so. Erikson disagreed.

He believed development is a lifelong process, and that we continue to grow through social challenges at every age.

He built a theory called psychosocial development. As the name suggests, it treats growth as both psychological and social.

Erikson outlined eight stages of psychosocial development, stretching from infancy to old age.

At each stage, a person faces a central conflict or developmental task. How they handle it shapes their personality going forward.

Unlike Freud’s stages, which were mostly about overcoming biological urges and were largely complete by adolescence, Erikson’s stages focus on social relationships and identity.

They span the entire lifespan.

Every stage has a similar structure: a pair of opposing tendencies that need to be balanced.

Successfully resolving a stage’s conflict, developing trust, say, or finding one’s identity, builds a strength or virtue, such as hope, confidence, or fidelity.

Struggling at one stage does not stop you progressing. But the issue can reappear as a problem later.

Erikson also placed far more emphasis on culture and society than Freud did.

Each stage is shaped by social interactions and expectations, such as the pressure on a teenager to “find themselves.” Or the support an elderly person gets reflecting on their life.

Relationships drove it all.

He believed social relationships, with parents, peers, partners, and communities, are the driving force in development, not just inner sexual tensions.

Not all of Erikson’s conflicts are unconscious, either.

Many are experienced consciously as we grow. A teen knows they are trying to discover their identity.

An adult feels the pull between intimacy and isolation when deciding whether to settle down.

This was a notable shift from Freud’s focus on hidden, unconscious battles.

Harry Stack Sullivan (1892–1949): Interpersonal Theory

Harry Stack Sullivan, an American psychiatrist, took the neo-Freudian social turn to its logical conclusion. He argued that personality is not something inside a person at all.

It is entirely interpersonal.

Personality, Sullivan argued, is “the relatively enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations which characterize a human life” (Sullivan, 1953).

On Sullivan’s view, there is no self to study in isolation, only the self-in-relationship. That put him even further from Freud’s model of a self-contained psyche than most of the other Neo-Freudians.

The Self-System and Anxiety

Sullivan introduced the idea of the “self-system”: a set of security operations a person builds up to manage anxiety.

Like Horney, he placed anxiety ahead of libido.

That made it the true organizing force in development, on Sullivan’s view, not sex or aggression.

His account of where the anxiety itself comes from broke sharply with Freud, though.

Freud treated anxiety as the ego’s reaction to instinctual pressure welling up from within a person.

Sullivan disagreed.

He held that anxiety is transmitted directly from caregiver to infant, arising from the interpersonal situation itself rather than from any inner drive.

This mattered for therapy, too.

If anxiety comes from a relationship, Sullivan reasoned, the relationship itself, not just the individual mind, becomes the proper target of treatment.

Chumship and Lasting Influence

Sullivan stressed the formative importance of a child’s earliest caregiver relationships.

He also introduced “chumship”: the close same-sex friendships of pre-adolescence, which he held were formative for a person’s later capacity for intimacy.

That idea has aged well.

Sullivan does not have his own dedicated Simply Psychology article yet, but his influence runs wide.

His interpersonal account of anxiety and early relationships fed directly into later theories of how early bonds shape adult relating.

It is one of the tributaries, alongside object relations, feeding modern attachment theory. The line runs straight.

His claim that a child’s sense of security is built, or damaged, in the earliest relationships anticipates the central claim of attachment research.

His work also became a direct ancestor of modern interpersonal psychotherapy.

That approach targets a client’s current relationship patterns, not intrapsychic conflict, when treating problems like depression.

Critical Evaluation

Splitting into rival schools did not make Neo-Freudian theory easier to test. Karl Popper’s classic charge against psychoanalysis was that its explanations can absorb almost any outcome after the fact (Popper, 1959). A theory that can explain everything predicts very little.

For decades, most Neo-Freudian ideas sat exactly where Freud’s own claims had: clinically rich, plausible, and untested. The one time a classic Neo-Freudian claim finally got a well-powered modern test, it failed outright, which is itself telling.

Contemporary Research

Two of the movement’s best-known claims have now been put to a rigorous modern test, with very different results.

Does Birth Order Shape Personality?

• Aim: Rohrer, Egloff, and Schmukle (2015) set out to resolve whether sibling position leaves a lasting mark on personality. They tested for birth-order effects on the Big Five traits and on intelligence, with enough statistical power to detect even small effects.
• Method: They pooled three large national panel studies, from the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, over 20,000 participants in total. Both within-family and between-family designs were used, guarding against confounds that had muddied earlier work.
• Results: They confirmed a small, well-established decline in psychometric intelligence from firstborns to later-borns. But there were no birth-order effects at all on extraversion, emotional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, or imagination, across all three countries.
• Conclusion: Birth order does not leave a lasting mark on broad personality traits outside the narrow intellectual domain, a clean null result for one of Adler’s most popular ideas.

Does Adult Psychosocial Development Predict Later-Life Wellbeing?

• Aim: Malone, Liu, Vaillant, Rentz, and Waldinger (2016) tested whether the quality of a person’s psychosocial development in midlife predicts cognitive and emotional functioning decades later, in old age.
• Method: Drawing on the multi-decade Study of Adult Development, they coded Eriksonian psychosocial development from interviews with 159 men aged 30 to 47. Thirty to forty years later, the same men, now 75 to 85, completed a neuropsychological battery and a depression scale.
• Results: Higher midlife psychosocial development predicted stronger late-life cognition and executive function, and lower depression, three to four decades on. The effect held after controlling for education and early intelligence.
• Conclusion: How well a person negotiates adulthood’s social tasks has consequences for wellbeing that reach far into old age, giving Erikson’s central intuition genuine longitudinal support.

Weighed together, the pattern is not that Neo-Freudian theory in general was vindicated or refuted. Its fate tracked whether a construct could actually be measured: Erikson’s stages, once operationalised, held up; Adler’s birth-order claim, once finally tested, did not.

References

Adler, A. (2013a). The Science of Living (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.

Adler, A. (2013b). Understanding Human Nature (Psychology Revivals). Routledge.

Adler, A., Jelliffe, S. Ely. (1917). Study of Organ Inferiority and its Psychical Compensation: A Contribution to Clinical Medicine. New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Company.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1958). Young man Luther: A study in psychoanalysis and history. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York: Basic books.

Erikson, E. H. (1964). Insight and responsibility. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Erikson, E. H. (1959). Psychological issues. New York, NY: International University Press.

Freud, A., & Clark, L. P. (1928). Introduction to the technic of child analysis (No. 48). Nervous and Mental Disease.

Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. International Universities Press, Inc.

Freud, A., & Burlingham, D. T. (1947). Infants Without Families: Reports on the Hampstead Nurseries, 1939-1945. International Universities Press.

Freud, A. (1954). The widening scope of indications for psychoanalysis discussion. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 2 (4), 607-620.

Freud, Anna. (1966). Normality and Pathology in Childhood: Assessments of Development. International Universities Press, Inc.

Freud, A. (1971). Problems of Psychoanalytic Training, Diagnosis, and the Technique of Therapy, 1966-1970 (Vol. 7). International Universities Press, Inc.

Freud, A. (1982). Psychoanalytic psychology of normal development, 1970-1980 (No. 112). Vintage.

Freud, S. (1894). The neuro-psychoses of defence. SE, 3: 41-61.

Freud, S. (1896). Further remarks on the neuro-psychoses of defence. SE, 3: 157-185.

Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. S.E., 4-5.

Freud, S. (1901). The psychopathology of everyday life. SE, 6. London: Hogarth.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Se, 7, 125-243.

Freud, S. (1915). The unconscious. SE, 14: 159-204.

Freud, S. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. SE, 18: 1-64.

Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. SE, 19: 1-66.

Freud, S. (1925). Negation. Standard edition, 19, 235-239.

Horney, K. (1932). The flight from womanhood. The Psychoanalytic Review (1913-1957), 19, 80.

Horney, K. (1933). Maternal conflicts. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 3 (4), 455.

Horney, K. (1937). The neurotic personality of our time. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Horney, K. (1942). Self‐analysis. Abingdon: Routledge.

Horney, K. (1946). Our inner conflicts: A constructive theory of neurosis. Abingdon: Routledge.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth: The struggle toward self‐realization. New York: WW. Norton & Company.

Horney, K. (1967). The distrust between the sexes. Feminine Psychology. W. W. Norton, 107–118.

Jung, C. G. (1921). Psychological types. The collected works of CG Jung, Vol. 6 Bollingen Series XX.

Jung, C. G. (1923). On The Relation Of Analytical Psychology To Poetic Art 1 . British Journal of Medical Psychology, 3 (3), 213-231.

Jung, C. G. (1928). Contributions to analytical psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jung, C. G. (1933). Modern man in search of his soul.

Jung, C. G. (1947). On the Nature of the Psyche. London: Ark Paperbacks.

Jung, C. G. (1948). The phenomenology of the spirit in fairy tales. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, 9(Part 1), 207-254.

Jung, C. G. (1953). Collected works. Vol. 12. Psychology and alchemy.

Klein, M. (1921). Development of Conscience in the Child. Love, Guilt and Reparation, 252.

Klein, M. (1923). The development of a child. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 4, 419-474.

Klein, M. (1930). The importance of symbol-formation in the development of the ego. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 11, 24-39.

Klein, M. (1932). The Psychoanalysis of Children.(The International Psycho-analytical Library, No. 22.).

Klein, M. (1935). A contribution to the psychogenesis of manic-depressive states . International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 16, 145-174.

Klein, M. (1945). The Oedipus complex in the light of early anxieties. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 26, 11-33.

Klein, M. (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. Projective identification : The fate of a concept, 19-46.

Klein, M. (1961). Narrative of a child analysis: The conduct of the psychoanalysis of children as seen in the treatment of a ten year old boy (No. 55). Random House.

Malone, J. C., Liu, S. R., Vaillant, G. E., Rentz, D. M., & Waldinger, R. J. (2016). Midlife Eriksonian psychosocial development: Setting the stage for late-life cognitive and emotional health. Developmental Psychology, 52(3), 496–508. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039875

Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.

Rohrer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2015). Examining the effects of birth order on personality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(46), 14224–14229. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506451112

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. Norton.