Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Initiative Versus Guilt

Living reference work entry
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_597-1
How to cite

Synonyms

Ambulatory stage; “Being on the make”; Erikson’s third stage; Preschool psychosocial development

Definition

Erik Erikson’s third psychosocial stage, initiative versus guilt, typically occurs with preschool aged-children and emphasizes the child practicing independence and assertion.

Introduction

It is arguable that Erik Erickson’s (1950, 1968) fundamental accomplishment during his career as a psychoanalyst involved his theory of phased development, a conditional and progressive course represented by a fixed sequence of eight successive stages occurring throughout the lifespan (Erikson 1968 as cited by Meeus 1996, p. 85). Cognitive and biological milestones mark each developmental stage. The Eriksonian developmental stage of initiative versus guilt occurs in early childhood from the ages of three to six, where children are faced with a psychosocial conflict involving their ability to express themselves in a unique and purposeful manner (Lambert and Kelly 2011). The...

Keywords

Psychosocial Development Successful Resolution Secure Development Fantasy Play Locomotor Experimentation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Batra, S. (2013). The psychosocial development of children: Implications for education and society- Erik Erikson in context. Contemporary Education Dialogue, 10, 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blatt, S. J., & Blass, R. B. (1996). Relatedness and self definition: A dialectic model of personality development. In G. G. Noam & K. W. Fischer (Eds.), Development and vulnerabilities in close relationships (pp. 309–338). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. De Civita, M. (2006). Strength-based efforts for promoting recovery from psychological harm. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 14, 241–244.Google Scholar
  4. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  6. Lambert, M. C., & Kelley, H. M. (2011). Initiative versus guilt. In Encyclopedia of child behavior and development (pp. 816–817). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Meeus, W. (1996). Toward a psychosocial analysis of adolescent identity. In K. Hurrelmann & S. F. Hamilton (Eds.), Social problems and social contexts in adolescence: Perspectives across boundaries. New York: Aldine de Grutyer.Google Scholar
  8. Pittman, J. F., Keiley, M. K., Kerpelman, J. L., & Vaughn, B. E. (2011). Attachment, identity, and intimacy: Parallels between Bowlby’s and Erikson’s paradigms. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3, 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Robins, S. P. (2010). Awakening to the concept of “interbeing”. Interbeing, 4(2), 39–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Detroit – MercyDetroitUSA