1.

No attention toward emotional and cognitive development

Another point of criticism is that this theory covers only a few aspects of human
developments, such as individuals basic attitude towards other people and towards life.
Consequently it does not deal with other developmental aspects at all. For instance, no attention
is given to cognitive development, and very little to emotional development (Louw, 1998).

2.Vague causes of development

On the other hand, Eriksons theory can be criticized for being vague about the causes of
development. What kinds of experiences must a child have to develop autonomy as a toddler,
initiate as a preschool child, or a stable identity during adolescents? Why exactly, is a sense of
trust so important for the development of autonomy, initiative and identity? Unfortunately
Erikson is not very explicit about these important issues. So Eriksons theory is really a
descriptive overview of human social and emotional development that does not adequately
explainhow or why this development takes place (Shaffer, 2009).

3. Self_ experiences Based theory

Eriksons thinking was shaped by his own varied experiences. Eriksons revision of Freuds
theory which emphasizes sociocultural determinants rather than sexual determinants of
development and posits a series of eight psychosocial conflicts that people resolve successfully
to display healthy psychological adjustment (Shaffer, 2009)

4.Incomplete description
A more specific criticism relates to the incomplete description of the developmental stage
of maturity, which Erikson attempted to correct in his 1986 book (Erikson, Erikson, & Kivnick,
1986). Criticisms of Eriksons theory focus on ambiguous terminology, incomplete descriptions
of the psychosocial stages, and poorly supported claims of male-female personality differences
based on biological factors (Shultz & Shultz, 2005).

5. Not Scientific
Erikson built his theory largely on ethical principles and not necessarily on scientific data.
Erikson's theory must be judged by the standards of science, not ethics or art (Feist & Feist,
2006).

6. Only masculine Stages of development Erikson also wrote in the male voice, as was typical
of psychologists (and indeed, most scientific writers) of an earlier age. But beyond that, Carol
Gilligan (1982) believed that he also portrayed a masculine psychology in his stages of
development. She noted that Erikson (1968) recognized a somewhat different pattern of
development for girls and women one that depends more on intimacy and relationships with
others and less on autonomy, separateness, and independence but that Erikson failed to
update his stage descriptions accordingly (Fleming,
2004).
Carol Gilligans theory also views female identity as rooted in connections to others and
in relationships:
Women conceptualize and experience the world in a different voice, and men and
women operate with different internal models.

However, since the 1970s, identity development in women has been looked at more
closely using Eriksons identity statuses as a base (Marcia, 1991).
Josselson studied womens identity statuses and found that a womans identity at the
close of adolescence forms the template for her adulthood. The issues most important to her
female subjects were social-emotional and religious, not occupational or political. Josselson
agrees with Jean Baker Millers relational theory: Womens sense of self becomes very much
organized around being able to make and then to maintain affiliations and relationships
(Josselson, 1982).

7. Identity Development
Adolescence represents an optimal time for identity development due to a variety of
physical, cognitive, and social factors. Although Erikson believed identity was largely fixed by
the end of adolescence, he did suggest that identity continues to evolve throughout adulthood.
Unfortunately, he did not give great detail on what this process looks like. Research shows that
identity development continues to be an ongoing process throughout adulthood. Just as in
adolescence, vocations, ideologies, and relationships continue to remain important identity
issues. Several studies have been presented to support this notion. In contrast to Eriksons
extensive writings on the adolescent identity formation process, he did not offer detailed
comments regarding identitys evolution throughout the adult life. As a result, he has been
criticized for extending his theory beyond adolescence without providing much detail. To
complicate matters further, Erikson conveys contradictory messages speaking on identity
development beyond adolescence (Sokol, 2007).
According to Erikson the final identity is fixed at the end of adolescence. He suggests
that identity concerns fade as issues of intimacy (followed by generativity and ego integrity)
become the main focus (Erikson, 1968). Alternatively, Erikson proposed that identity

defining
issues of adolescence do not remain fixed; they retain flexibility for modification throughout the
adulthood years due to new life experiences. Clearly these two statements appear
contradictory;
this is why it is difficult to assess identity development beyond adolescence from his perspective
(Sokol, 2009).
Some critics charge that Eriksons personality theory does not apply to people in reduced
economic circumstances who cannot afford a
moratorium (refers to people who are still undergoing their identity crisis, their occupational and
ideological commitment s are vague.) in adolescence to explore different roles and develop an
ego identity. This stage may be a luxury