A General Framework for Personality Psychology

Transcription

1 A General Framework for Personality Psychology Life Events and Broad Social Contexts Parents, peers, teachers, School board, SES, Culture (via conditions) Biology Brain Anatomy, Biochemicals, Genes Latent/Enduring Dispositions Traits the broad strokes of how we differ from each other, eg N, E, O, A, C (& H?) Contextualized dispositions cognitive approaches Self-concept/Identity In the Moment Occurrent Cognitions Objective Environmental Properties Perceived Environmental Properties Social and Behavioral Events Occurrent Emotions

2 Assessment Please try to vividly imagine yourself in the situations that follow. If such a situation happened to you, what would you feel would have caused it? While events may have many causes, we want you to pick only one-the major cause if this event happened to you. Please write this cause in the blank provided after each event. Next we want you to answer some questions about the cause and a final question about the situation. To summarize, we want you to: 1. Read each situation and vividly imagine it happening to you. 2. Decide what you feel would be the major cause of the situation if it happened to you. 3. Write one cause in the blank provided. 4. Answer three questions about the cause. 5. Go on to the next situation.

3 Cognitive Approach to Personality: How personality works Contextually-tuned dispositions to think, perceive, feel, etc.

4 3 Parts I. Roots of Cognitive Approach II. Basic cognitive concepts & ideas III. The Self

5 Funder: Personality Processes It s about Doing (not about Having ) Perception - how we perceive the social environment Thought interpreting information from our environment Motivation what we strive to do and how we plan to do it Emotion how we feel about our selves and our environment Self-processes - how we understand ourselves and how we monitor our behavior and emotions

6 Cognitive Perspective on Personality eg, Cognitive-Affective Personality System Mischel & Shoda (1995) Personality is A stable system that mediates how the individual selects, construes, and processes social information and generates social behavior.

7 CAPS (Mischel & Shoda, 1995)

8 CAPS (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) What are the mediators? Cognitive-Affective person variables 1) Expectancies and beliefs 2) Competencies and self-regulatory skills 3) Values and Goals 4) Construals and mental representations (of self, others, and situations) 5) Affect

9 Expectancies How do we create our own environments? Expectancy Behavior Reaction by others that confirms expectancy Example: Expectancies of Hostility (Snyder & Swann, 1978)

10 Expectancies: Experimental manipulation of Expectancies of Hostility Sample of participants Group 1 Expectancy of Hostility created in participant Group 2 No expectancy of Hostility created in participant Participants aggressiveness toward partner > Participants aggressiveness toward partner Partners Aggressiveness Partners Aggressiveness > toward participant toward participant

11 Activated rejection expectancy Expectancies Personality difference in expectancies, example: Rejection Sensitivity tendency to expect and perceive rejection by one s social partners (1998). Female s Rejection Sensitivity Situation: Nature of the interaction Female s perception, interpretation of male s responses Female s behavior: Fear and anger Downey et al Male s reaction: Angry Emotions and Behavior

12 Expectancies (Beliefs) Beliefs about, self, others, and the world. LOC Scale

13 Beliefs - LOC LOC Questionnaire Items 1, 8, 14, 19, 24, and 27 are fillers. Don t score. Sum up external choices: Give yourself 1 point if you put a for items 2, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 29 Give yourself 1 point if you put b for items 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 13, 15, 22, 26, 28 = Max score is 23 (highest E)

14 Beliefs- LOC Norms (these are E scores high scores = more External LOC, low scores = more Internal LOC) Male Female All Rotter (1966) Strickland (1980) Parkes (1985) Personality Psy

15 Beliefs - LOC Histogram 6 5 Frequency LOC Score Personality Psy Mean = 11.9, SD = 3.7, n = 26

16 LOC Questionnaire Locus of Control Beliefs LOC To what extent do you believe that you control your own life events vs What happens to you is beyond your control Internal LOC - what happens to me is primarily up to me External LOC what happens to me is often beyond my total control

17 Beliefs Locus of Control For example 2.a Many of the unhappy things in people s lives are partly due to bad luck. EXTERNAL b People s misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. INTERNAL 20.a.It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. EXTERNAL b.how many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are. INTERNAL

18 Beliefs Locus of Control Your LOC might have an impact on what you set out to accomplish in life and how hard you try. As compared to people with an External LOC, people with more internal LOC are More achievement motivated Concerned with success and failure Resistant to others attempts to influence Domain-specific LOC s

19 Explanatory (Attributional) Styles Causal attribution Why did something happen? Why didn t I get the job, Why did we break up? Assessment from earlier Attributional Style Questionnaire Three dimensions 1) Internal vs External (LOC) 2) Stable vs Unstable 3) Global vs specific Good/bad - discussion?

20 Explanatory (Attributional) Styles Implications? Attributional style in depression: A meta-analytic review. Sweeney, Paul D.; Anderson, Karen; Bailey, Scott Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 50(5), May 1986, In 104 studies involving nearly 15,000 Ss, several attributional patterns had reliable associations with depression scores. For negative events, attributions to internal, stable, and global causes had a reliable and significant association with depression However, this can have positive effects as well: Positive life events, attributional style, and hopefulness: Testing a model of recovery from depression. Needles, Douglas J.; Abramson, Lyn Y. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol 99(2), May 1990, Depressed people who interpreted positive events as being due to internal, stable, and global causes AND who actually experience positive effects showed improved mental health (decreases in hopelessness). Also important, the basic occurrence of positive events didn t reduce hopelessness, what mattered was the way that participants interpreted those events

21 CAPS (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) What are the mediators? Cognitive-Affective person variables 1) Expectancies and beliefs 2) Competencies and self-regulatory skills 3) Values and Goals 4) Construals and mental representations (of self, others, and situations) 5) Affect

22 Values (Shalom Schwartz) Recall Maslow

23 Values, Traits, Religiosity Are values related to personality traits? Do some kinds of people tend to express certain kinds of values? Is one s degree of religious conviction (religiosity) related to one s value system? ( How religious are you, if at all? )

24 Personality Trait Value E O A C N Rel. Benev Univer Self-Dir Stimu Hedo Ach Power Sec Conf Trad

25 Openness to Exp Agree. Religiosity

26 Cognitive Perspective What are the mediators? Cognitive-Affective person variables 1) Expectancies and beliefs 2) Competencies and self-regulatory skills 3) Values and Goals 4) Construals and mental representations (of self, others, and situations) 5) Affect Integrating multiple facets in one analysis?

27 Competency self-regulation ( will power ) Five Factor Model? What underlies the ability to regulate one s behavior and delay gratification? Is this stable from childhood?

28 Competency self-regulation What underlies the ability to delay gratification? Is this stable from childhood? Studies: marshmallow test (W. Mischel) 4 yr old children told can have one mmallow now or two in 20 minutes Left by self. Avg time that a child could wait? How could child handle this situation?

29 Competency self-regulation marshmallow test

30 Competency self-regulation What affected ability to delay? 1. Situation if reward actually exposed, more difficult to wait. 2. Individual s psychological processing (attention and cognition) ½ children told to think about taste, smell, texture etc of cookie ( Hot cognitions) ½ children told to think about cookie like a rock or hockey puck. (Cool cognitions)

31 Competency self-regulation The cool cognition group waiting longer, on average. In fact, waited just as long kids who had cookie covered (not exposed). Thus, cognition was as powerful as objective situational factor. Some kids do this naturally - individual differences in self-regulatory skill Is this stable? And is it related to anything important in that child s future?

32 Competency self-regulation Is self-regulatory skill stable aspect of personality, related to anything important? Follow-up with kids (10 yrs later), findings: Good self-reg ability at 4 yrs, later socially competent, academically competent, better coping skills, planful, reasonable, self-reliant, dependable, curious, moral, persistent, helpful, considerate, (even later) high SAT scores Less self-reg ability at 4-yrs, later less competent, unable to handle stress, low self-esteem, stubborn, jealous, envious, whiny, etc.

33 Competency self-regulation Mischel s description and conclusions

34 Cognitive Perspective What are the mediators? Cognitive-Affective person variables 1) Expectancies and beliefs 2) Competencies and self-regulatory skills 3) Values and Goals 4) Construals and mental representations (of self, others, and situations) 5) Affect Integrating multiple facets to understand how they work together?

35 Cognitive Perspective Integrating facets Two examples reflecting possibilities for integration. Regulating the Interpersonal self self-esteem, education level, drug use Expectancy Value theory (General), Self-presentation theory (Social Anxiety) A resolution of the consistency paradox?

36 Regulating the Interpersonal Self Does the association between rejection sensitivity and self-worth depend on one s ability to selfregulate emotions when under stress? Previous study? 151 participants (25 yrs old, on average) Psychological Variables: Behavioral variables: Self-reg ability (4 yrs old) - Education level Rej sens - Drug Use Self-worth

37 Crack/Coke use Low High Self-esteem Low High Education Level Low High Regulating the Interpersonal Self High S-reg ability High S-reg ability Low S-reg ability Low S-reg ability Low Rejection Sensitivity High Low High Rejection Sensitivity Low S-reg ability High S-reg ability Low High Rejection Sensitivity

38 Roy Baumeister self-control

39 Cognitive Perspective What are the mediators? Cognitive-Affective person variables 1) Expectancies and beliefs 2) Competencies and self-regulatory skills 3) Values and Goals 4) Construals and mental representations (of self, others, and situations) 5) Affect Implications for consistency paradox?

40 Cognitive Perspective Why do we think that we are consistent in our behavior? Why do we think that others are consistent in their behavior? Is this an illusion?

41 Recall- Are Traits Useful, Valid Scientific Concepts? Walter Mischel (1968) Person-situation Debate : 1) Global traits do not predict behavior within specific situations very well. (r <.30) 2) Individual differences in behavior are not consistent across specific situations Implications for trait as useful for understanding behavior? So, are Traits useful concepts?

42 Resolving the Consistency Paradox? Recall, Walter Mischel : Studies seem to indicate only weak tendencies for consistency of individual differences in behavior across situations But, we still seem to perceive ourselves and others as psychologically/behaviorally stable and consistent. Resolution? We have stable tendencies to respond to particular kinds of situations in particular ways. behavioral signatures

43 Amount of Talkativeness CAPS Behavioral Signatures, Consistency Hi Bob, Day 1 Bob, Day 2 Med Al Low Peer Sub Boss Wife Situation

44 Dan McAdams: Cognitive Perspective Summary & Integration If the trait perspective provides an initial sketch of human individuality, then the cognitive perspective helps fill in the details. Traits broad, pervasive, stable ways in which people differ from each other in general (regardless of situational context). Cognitive variables more focused in terms of time, situation, and social role. Tied to social context, so not necessarily pervasive or stable across situations.