FREUD, S. (1909) ANALYSIS OF A PHOBIA
OF A FIVE YEAR OLD BOY.
(LITTLE HANS)
LEARNING OUTCOMES

To recall the background and aim of Freud’s
study.

To describe Freud’s Study

To Evaluate Freud’s Study
EXAM QUESTION
1a) In the study by Freud, Little Hans is referred
to as a little Oedipus. Briefly describe the
Oedipus complex. [2]
Starter
2 minutes to prepare for
your presentation on the
Oedipus Complex!
On your Post-its......
Write the Aim of Freud’s study on Little Hans?!
Come put on White board when you’re done!
HANS’ PHOBIA: A FEAR OF LEAVING THE
HOUSE AND HORSES

Little Hans was a 5-year-old boy with a phobia of horses.
Like all clinical case studies, the primary aim was to
treat the phobia.

However, Freud's therapeutic input in this case was
minimal, and a secondary aim was to explore what
factors might have led to the phobia in the first place,
and what factors led to its remission.

By 1909 Freud's ideas about the Oedipus complex were
well-established and Freud interpreted this case in line
with his theory.

Freud didn't actually work directly with little
Hans, but instead worked through
correspondence with Hans' father, who was
familiar with Freud's theories, and wrote to
him when he first suspected that Hans had
become a case that Freud might be
interested in. Freud suggested possible
lines of questioning which the father could
try with Hans, and the father tried them and
reported to Freud what had taken place.
TASK

Read through the summary booklet with your
group.

After reading each section....discuss and make
some summary statements.

Use the Summary statements to start you off
with the Distillation Activity!
Distillation Activity
Aim
Findings
Procedure
Explanation
1 thing that surprised me
2 Questions I want to ask
3 things I learnt
today
STRENGTHS

Case studies, such as this one carried
out by Freud, are particularly useful in
revealing and treating the origins of
abnormal behaviour. In fact some forms
of psychotherapy rely on building up a
long and detailed case history as an aid
to understanding and then helping the
client.

The case study provided a very in-depth
picture producing lots of qualitative data.
In fact Freud argued that it was the
special relationship between Hans and
his father that allowed the analysis to
progress and for the discussions with the
boy to be so detailed and so intimate.
WEAKNESSES

This case study only relates to one
individual and we therefore have to be
careful generalising from the findings.
We have no way of assessing how typical
Little Hans is. Therefore we have to ask
whether this study is unique to the
relationship between Little Hans, his
Father and Freud or whether we can
generalise it to other cases.

This case study is really Freud's
interpretations of Hans' father's
interpretation of his son's own phobia.
Freud only saw Little Hans on one or two
occasions. It can be argued that this
leads to a drastic reduction in objectivity,
particularly as the father (Max Graf) was
a supporter of Freud?s ideas.
EVALUATION OF PROCEDURE
EVALUATION OF EXPLANATION

A major problem with Freud's arguments is that other explanations can be found for Little Hans'
phobias. For example, Bowlby, who was also a psychoanalyst, argued that Hans' phobia could be
explained in terms of attachment theory. Bowlby believed that most of Hans' anxiety arose from threats
by the mother to desert the family. In fact Hans' parents did eventually split up.

A further, and simpler, explanation for Hans' phobia is that he was classically conditioned to fear
horses. Or in other words, Hans witnessed a horse fall and collapse in the street. Hans then
generalised this fear to all horses.

A major problem with Freud's explanations are that they are androcentric and ethnocentric. This study
describes the Oedipus complex which is of course unique to boys. Girls, Freud argued, develop penis
envy, which later becomes converted into a desire to bear children as the young child begins to
recognise that it is impossible for her to develop a penis of her own. I am sure you can make up your
own mind if this is sexist or not.

The idea of the Oedipus complex is ethnocentric because Freud assumed that all boys must experience
this stage. However Freud was writing about a particular group of people at a particular period of time.
Many cultures including our own do not have families consisting of a Mother and Father living together
in one home. Freud, for example, argued that through the Oedipus complex boys identify with their
fathers and this established their sexual identification and if this process could not take place, Freud
considered that the young child would be likely to grow up homosexual. Evidence does not support this
argument.

Finally, and importantly, Freud originally wanted to explain why so many of his female adult patients
seemed to have deeply traumatic memories of sexual encounters with their fathers. Initially, he thought
that it must be real incest, but he was eventually persuaded that this was not so and developed his
ideas about the Oedipus and Electra complex (the female version of the Oedipus complex). It would
seem that Freud was originally on the right track after all.
QUIZ

http://www.holah.co.uk/quiz/freudmulti.htm
EXAM QUESTIONS
ANSWERS
Strength (most likely answers)
Any one from:

It allowed an in-depth study/lots of detail to be gathered about Hans’ fears, dreams, fantasies etc

Hans was less likely to be stressed by his father asking questions so will have answered willingly.
1 mark
– Partial or vague answer eg allowed lots of detail to be gathered about Hans, answer not contextualised, mere
identification of appropriate strength of a case study.
2 marks
– Full description of strength contextualised as outlined above or other appropriate answer.
Weakness (most likely answers)
Any one from:

His father was a follower of Freud and so may have asked leading questions to get answers to support
Freud’s theories
Hans was questioned by his father rather than a neutral researcher so emotional involvement may have
influenced what he said.
1 mark
– Partial or vague answer eg Hans’ fathers use of leading questions, answer not contextualised, mere
identification of appropriate weakness of a case study.
2 marks
– Full description of weakness contextualised as outlined above or other appropriate answer

EXAM QUESTION
ANSWER
Most likely answer:


(Freud suggested that Hans’fear of horses symbolised his fear of his father)
Because Hans was subconsciously experiencing the Oedipus complex so nourished
jealous and hostile wishes against his father. This fear was transposed onto horses
because the black on horses’ mouths and the things in front of their eyes (blinkers)
resembled his father’s moustache and eyeglasses.
Other appropriate answer.
0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.
1 - 2 marks – Partial or vague answer e.g. because the black on horses’ mouths and the
blinkers in front of their eyes resembled his father’s moustache and glasses.
3 - 4 marks – An increasingly accurate explanation with a good description of how
horses resembled his father, linked to aspects of the Oedipus Complex, such as the
explanation outlined above.
EXAM QUESTION
ANSWER
4a) Most likely answers may include:

Through observations (of Little Hans) /
conversations / interviews/questions (with Little Hans)
conducted by Hans’ father and sent to Freud via letter
/correspondence.

Through the interview between Freud and Little Hans
0 marks – No or irrelevant answer e.g. by telephone, use
of video
1 mark – Partial or vague answer e.g. e.g. Through
observations / correspondence, by Little Hans’ father.
2 marks– Accurate description of how the data was
collected as outlined above
ANSWER
4b) Most likely answers may include:

As Freud was a third party he may have misinterpreted the information
passed to him by Little Hans’ father.

Freud wanted evidence to support his theory of infant sexuality and so
may have interpreted the data in ways that would support his theory.

Because there was no objective evidence to support the qualitative data
so interpretations were subjective.

Other appropriate answer.
0 marks – No or irrelevant answer.
1 mark – Partial or vague answer e.g. because he wanted evidence to support
his theory i.e. answer not contextualised.
2 marks – Clear, appropriate, contextualised suggestion as to why there may
have been a problem with the way Freud interpreted the data.
PLENARY

On a scale of 1-5, circle how happy you are
with explaining Freud’s study on Little
Hans?
Unhappy
1
Very Happy
Not Sure
2
3
4
5