This preview has intentionally blurred parts. Sign up to view the full document

View Full Document

Unformatted Document Excerpt

Analytic 1 Factor Research on Traits Why factor analyze? Allport lacked a content theory (what we should be studying). However, he did produce a catalogue of trait-like words in the English language (~18,000) and then eliminates similes and words not used. There were ~3000 trait words. This gives rise to 2 problems There are too many words. Plus, our knowledge accumulates over years, so how will we accumulate if there are still so many? How do we know which are important and will allow us a lot of prediction? What is factor analysis? Its a statistical technique with a intercorrelation with a set of measures. (Below) There are clusters of intelligence measures that are highly correlated and there are some traits that are highly correlated. There is something redundant about this because really there are only two things happening here. It would combine the first 4 and combine into 1 then combine the last 3 and combine into 1. It finds the most efficient way to combine the (highly correlated) variants (see statement above). This makes a factor score which is a weighted sum of items (take the average). In practice, we give an approximate factor score. Its an unweighted sum (just add them up) of highly loading items (the items that are most strongly related to the underlying factor). Start with correlation matrix Typical features of FA o Uncorrelated independent orthogonal items This is what we ask of the computer. 2 o Emerge in a sequence They emerge in an order from big (related to the largest number of input variables) to small. So it tells you which are strongly correlated. o Name/meaning/conceptual definition unclear It just says these things go together and you have to figure out why the things are correlated together (e.g. healthy altruism). The names given are very much up for debate so its hard to assign objective names to the groups. Reasons to be wary of FA o Its seductive because it appears to replace the usual subjective bickering between psychologists with a precise, definitive, mathematical answer. o Carving nature at its joints? It makes you think that the computer carves nature at its joints for you. This is not so! It is not to say that what you generate is what trying underlies personality. How many factors? Its arbitrary. The computer does not say 4 to you. It requires human judgment so you are balancing parsimony (just take a very) vs. comprehensiveness. How to name the factors? This is a subjective/creative act when the psychologist names the factors. GIGO Garbage-In, Garbage-Out The results are only as good as the quality of data you put in. What goes in determines what comes out This is not discussing quality. This is more about the big picture. If you put too much of one thing in, it will be all over your results. I put in intellectual ability and few personality measures. If I put in 10 more measures of intellectual ability, thats all I would get- it would overwhelm the personality theories and bias my answer. Its JUST a useful way to simplify, its not magic! Its not going to find the magic building blocks of personality! 3 R.B. Cattell ~1930 Catells approach/philosophy He was data driven to the max. He was not a clinician and he was not very literary. He decided to be inductive. He was going to induce the existence of traits from patterns in the data. He didnt say that based on my study, these are the major traits. He said I dont know what the traits are, I will get data and then induce what are the important traits. He relied almost exclusively on factor analysis of self-report data. This was big at the time because its a drift away from the present psychoanalysis and theorizing. There were no computers so undergraduates were with a calculator to carry out the factor analysis, which now we can do in less than a second with computers. The 16 personality factors It violates one of the rules. It is NOT a list of independent traits as the rules above state. There ARE intercorrelations. He is the exception to the rule, he allowed this to happen. E.g. Reserved, Outgoing, Emotional, Stable, Relaxed, Tense, Humble, Assertive, Sober, Happy-go-lucky, Expedient, Conscientious The specification equation Behavior in a situation = sum of traits X weights Traits are a function of the person Weights are a function of the situation o Any situation can be characterized by a set of weights applied to your traits. These are a property of the situation so its constant across all people. o To predict how dominant bill is at work (first line of equation below this is a big problem for trait psychology that he is trying to solve). Take the trait and multiply it by the weight at work (universal because its a function of the situation), do this for all 16 of the traits and add them all up. o The advantage of this is that it can be done! Its not hypothetical! You can make a prediction and get somewhat significant results, unlike all the other theorists. o On the other hand, even if it works, its only predicting in a statistical sense, it does not explain anything. Also, it is effortful to get the weights for each situation- it does not take into account similar situations (its too restrictive). We need a trait psychology of situation essentially. This is a great unresolved problems in personality psychology. 4 o He also said that he can explain/operationalize intrapsychic conflict (Freud) by using the last equation. He said that conflict is the extend to which some of your traits are pushing you in one direction, and some pushing in the other direction and the equation is the mathematical representation of that. The number you get is 1 if your are in a state of high equal conflict. 5 Hans Eysenck Overall approach o He used factor analysis like Catell, but in every other way he took the opposite approach form Catell. He had a deductive approach. He started out with a theory and postulates the important traits he thought, then used factor analysis to confirm. o 2nd Order Factor Analysis: Start out with a set of correlated factors and then factor analyze them again. The output is then called superfactors or second order factors called types. o He postulates specific biological mechanisms that underlie the traits! And he liked to do laboratory experiments. o The three 2nd order factors Introversion-extraversion Extraversion: Sociability, activity, liveliness, excitability (does not include dominance and high positive affect) o Slower to get aroused so to get to optimal arousal, it takes more Introversion: Unsociable, quiet, reserved, thoughtful o Easily aroused so they become too aroused and dont like high levels of stimulation Biology: Ease and speed of cortical arousal (sleepy vs. just having had 4 cups of coffee there is an optimal level for performance and affect; the extremes are pathological) Neuroticism Emotional stability vs. emotional instability Ease and frequency with which a person gets upset, and slow to recover (e.g. anxious, moody touchy vs. calm, even-tempered, care-free) Biology: Ease and speed of automatic arousal Psychoticism High Scores: Solitary, troublesome, cruel, suspicious, impulsive (elevated in criminal societies low end of conscientiousness) Low Scores: Well socialized and have good impulse control Biology: Testosterone o The Classic Temperaments and Eysenck Sanguine: low on neuroticism and high on extraversion Phlegmatic: low on neuroticism and high on introversion Melancholic: high on neuroticism and high on introversion Choleric: high on neuroticism and high on extraversion 6 o Crude, but useful 7 Jeffrey Gray Overall approach o Similar to Eysenck, but deviated to two big systems. Two brain systems Behavioral Approach System (BAS Dopamine) A go-system. Its the one that says go for it!. It activates approach behavior by environmental cues that signal reward or relief from punishment. It is also responsible for activating positive emotions. Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS Serotonin) This is the stop-system and inhibits on go-behavior and allows further information processing. Environmental cues signal punishment and non-reward and generate negative emotions (e.g. fear). It also increases autonomic arousal to support fightor-flight response. o Two personality variables (heritable) Impulsivity (aka impulsive sensation seeking or reward sensitivity) Dimension of individual differences that reflects the reactivity or sensitivity of the BAS. Anxiety (aka punishment sensitivity) Dimension of individual differences that reflects reactivity and sensitivity of the BIS. o Relations to Eysenck's Variables: Blends or rotations of Eysenks variables o Relations to Psychopathology Children Internalizing vs. externalizing disorders o Internalizing: (e.g. extreme introversion) linked to BIS dominance o Externalizing: (e.g. conduct disoriders) linked to BAS dominance Adults Anxiety (high BIS) Depression (high BIS, but also a very low deactivated BAS) Substance abuse/ psychopathy (low BIS, but also high BAS) 8 o Cattell vs. Eysenck vs. Gray They are easily reconciled as if you factor analyze Catells 16, you get back Eysenks 3. Gray and Eysenks variables are readily transformed into one another. Professor: Further evidence that there is not a single uniquely true set of traits. One uses different sets of constricts for different constructs. Homer Simpson vs. Bill vs. Barack o Homer Simpson is high on BAS (reward sensitivity) and low on BIS (punishment sensitivity) In Eysenks words, he is an extrovert (high impulse, low anxiety). Here, Gray works better o Bill Clinton is high in BAS and low on BIS or high extraversion. Here, Eysenck is better but this is almost just what we said about Homer Simpson So are two variables enough for personality?? So whats missing? o Barack Obama is low BAS and low BIS and therefore he is low in neuroticism. 9 The Big Five Model Norman (1963); Goldberg; McCrae and Costa o History There kept on being a consistent set of findings converging around the number 5. If you took trait adjectives (e.g. happy) by using questionnaires and factoring them, you keep on getting 5. Again, instead of self report, if people describe other people, you get 5, even in different cultures. o What are they? NEO-AC Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Not quite orthogonal/correlated. They are like 5 nearly independent factor that are all heritable. o NEO-PI domains and facets Each factor (domain) has 6 facets measured with 8 sentencestyle items each. Hierarchical model of traits This is very useful for definition of traits Definition vs. Correlation: Important to differentiate what is included in construct by definition and what is associated in the domain by correlation. Personality as profile By giving high/low scores, going into the 6 facets (making 30 factors essentially) Neuroticism o Facets: anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability o From the manual: Contrasts adjustment or emotional stability with maladjustment or neuroticism. The general tendency to experience negative affects...is the core of the N domain. Perhaps because disruptive emotions interfere with adaptation, those high in N are also prone to have irrational ideas, to be less able to control their impulses, and to cope more poorly with stress. o Predicts many forms of psychopathology, but is not by itself pathological. Experience a range of negative affect Its more then just negative affect 10 You can get along quite well as a neurotic person. It does not mean there is something wrong with you. Extraversion o Facets: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitementseeking, positive emotions. o From the manual: In addition to liking people and preferring large groups and gatherings, extraverts are also assertive, active, and talkative. (Dominant) They like excitement and stimulation and tend to be cheerful in disposition. Introversion should be seen as the absence of extroversion rather than...the opposite. Introverts are not shy and not cold and not unhappy - rather, reserved and unexuberant. Different from Jung (introspectiveness is part of openness) and Eysenck (PA and dominance) o They are sociable and dominant. They like excitement and stimulation and are cheerful in disposition. o Introversion is the absence of extraversion (not doing these things), but it is not the opposite. They are not shy, they are not cold, its just that they are reserved. Being reserved means they are not loud, just that they are unexuberant. o These words are constructs and different theories shape them in different ways. Openness o Facets: (openness to:) fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, values o From the manual: Active imagination, aesthetic sensitivity, attentiveness to inner feelings, preference for variety, intellectual curiosity, and independence of judgement ... their coherence into a single broaddomain has seldom been recognized. Open individuals are curious about both inner and outer worlds, and their lives are experientially richer. They are willing to entertain novel ideas and unconventional values, and they experience both positive and negative emotions more keenly than closed individuals. Weakly related to education and intelligence. Closed is not authoritarian (that's disagreeableness) Open is not unprincipled (that low's conscientiousness) o Least well-understood. Some people call it intellect, some call it culture. It is weakly correlated to education and intelligence, but it does not mean that openness is intelligence. 11 o A low score on this (closed person) is not an authoritarian fascious person. That would be a disagreeable person. You can be a nice person and be low on openness. o Being high on openness does not mean being low on value and rules. Agreeableness o Facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, tender-mindedness o From the manual: The agreeable person is fundamentally altruistic. He or she is sympathetic to others and eager to help them, and believes that others will be equally helpful in return. By contrast, the disagreeable or antagonistic person is egocentric, skeptical of others' intentions, and competitive rather than cooperative. Agreeableness is not necessarily better: "readiness to fight for one's interests is often advantageous, and Agreeableness is not a virtue on the battlefield or in the courtroom. Skeptical and critical thinking contributes to accurate analysis in the sciences" Extreme scores are associated with different PD's: narcissistic, antisocial, and paranoid vs dependent and depressive o Its not just about being nice to others, but its also about how you feel about others. o Being too agreeable can hinder your performance in certain domains. o Extreme scores are associated with different personality disorders depending on which end of the spectrum are you (dependence vs. inhibition) Contentiousness o Facets: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, selfdiscipline, deliberation o From the manual: The inability to resist impulses and temptations is generally a sign of high N among adults. But self-control can also refer to a more active process of planning, organizing, and carrying out tasks; and individual differences in this tendency are the basis of Consc. The conscientious individual is purposeful, strong-willed, and determined, and probably few people become great musicians or athletes without a high level of this trait. The conscientious individual is scrupulous, punctual, and reliable. Low scorers are not lacking in moral principles, but they are less exacting in applying them, just as they are more lackadaisical in working towards their goals. o Perhaps a blend of ego-strength and super-ego Its not the opposite of impulsiveness. 12 They are very reliable and organized, but low scores do not make them psychopaths. They are just less exact. Research with the NEO o Converging ratings Self-rating and peer-ratings (brought friends to study). There was an adjective check-list and a questionnaire (4 data sets in total). They were not asking similarities between scores, they were asking about the factor itself (does the factor in the self-report look like the one in the peer-report?). Each of the 5 factors were very similar in all 4 ratings. The trait structure of self-perception is similar to the trait-structure as others perception. Much of the variability between people (personality self-and other perceived) is very well captured by the 5 traits. o Stability in adulthood 4/5 traits, the test-retest correlation was 0.8, 6 years later! The only exception was agreeableness which was not 0.6 (big deal!). Criticisms and Limitations o Lack of clarity in conceptual definitions There are many 5 factor models and they all rely on factor analysis. When the different theorists put in different items, they get out different items. Also, the list of items does not give a conceptual definition. The model we discussed in class however is the least vulnerable to this criticism because of the 6 facets. o No process theory Content theory in search of a process theory. They tell us nothing of the development or origin of these processes, how they can change, or how they interact to determine behavior. o Integration versus Imperialism? Lets integrate and only study the big five this is kind of imperialistic because they are trying to take over personality psychology! o Exaggerate cross-situational consistency o Are 5 traits truly comprehensive? How about 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, or 18? Mershon & Gorsuch (1988) o 16 studies that have a trait factor that has 16 factors. They then condensed the 16 down to 6. They said that there is a family of theories that postulate 5-8 and then another cluster that wants to have more. In these 16 studies, each one had a real-lime criteria. They are predicting things like how much money do they make, if they relapse They did this first from 6 factors then from 16 and looked at the variance they gain from going to 16 factors. 13 o In 88% of the studies, prediction was significantly enhanced by going up to 16. Moreover, the average increase in explanatory power was a factor of 2 (doubled explanatory factor by going to 16). Its a matter of choice and values (parsimony vs. prediction). o An example - Trudeau vs. Madonna Is this enough? Does this capture these people? Prof thinks its a crude sketch. o Whats missing? (McAdams, 1995) Personal concerns There are three levels of personality 1. Traits 2. Personal Concerns 3. Personal Identity Umbrella term for motivational variance How can you understand someone without knowing their goals? Identity (life narrative) Ones identity is ones life narrative (how you tell the story of your life). So to really know someone, is to know how they describe their life. Why five? o Thats English. Its just the way English is, its a linguistic thing. This is stressed because 5 is found in many other cultures/languages. o It is telling us something about our EPMs for competent person perception. Maybe this is the right balance between parsimony and accuracy. Its saying that this is good enough to keep track of our human social group. o Why any? Its easier to talk about similarities, so then we get to the questions, why dont some people act like this? o Each pole is a viable strategy under different circumstances 14 Maybe sometimes its good to be adventurous, and at other times its better to be fearful (2 poles of neuroticism). o Frequency-dependent selection Depending on how frequent the characteristic is in the population, it may become more or less adaptive to display that characteristic (if everyone is conscientious and you are not, you can gain a lot by taking advantage of that fact). 15 Stability and Change in Personality What do the big theories tell us? o Freud: high stability early on o Costa and McCrae: stability early on and even higher as get older o Humanistic: growth potential implies change potential o Behavioral, Social Cognitive: environmental change can lead to personality change o Life-span development theories: both stability and change What do the grateful dead tell us? o This is one way of thinking about stability being on a track and no one being able to deter them o Another way to think of this is that massive change is possible. Discussion Questions o Is personality stable? o When or under what circumstances might one see change? o What forces work to create stability? Conceptual Analysis of Stability o Absolute stability Are there changes in the level or quantity of a characteristic over time? Typically, changes in mean scores of a group over time For example Age-related changes in Big Five Marriage; Break-ups Birth of children Job loss; job change o Relative (differential) stability Absolute change is only part of the story You are still wild and crazy but, as you get older, you wont be able to party the same Consistency of rank-ordering or relative standing You will be less wild at 35, but still wilder and crazier then your peers Indexed by correlation coefficient (test-retest correlation) o Structural stability Does the factor itself stay constant over time? Similarity of factors over instruments and informants Similarity of factors across cultures Here, similarity over development, life transitions 16 Examples Self-concept changes in structure from early to midchildhood to adolescence, becoming more complex o Ipsative stability Allport: Personality as holistic, configural rather than set of parts Block: Variable-centered vs. person-centered (need!) Ipsative Community: Within-person continuity of configuration of characteristics Profile similarity Example: Stability of depressive personality over episodes and over treatment o Coherence Apparent cahnge masks underlying coherence Descriptevly different behaviors may be expressions of the same underlying characteristic Examples Childhood sociable, adventurous and nonconformity adult sexual promiscuity Aggressive boys criminal men Aggressive girls severe punishment of own child Danger: post hoc theorizing! Data on Absolute Stability o Internet Survey of 132,515 individuals o 54% female; aged 21-60 o Diverse ethnicity and social class o Hard plaster: no change after age 18 o Soft plaster: no change after 30 Prolog: Structural Continuity o Factor analyses of Big Five Inventory within age decades recaptured usual Big Five o Structural continuity for other constructs less studies Neuroticism Males: No change over time Females: Decreases over time Extraversion Males: Slight increase over time Females: Slight decrease over time Openness Males: Decrease over time Females: Decrease over time Agreeableness Males: Steady increase until age 50, then it tails off 17 Females: Steady increase until age 50, then it tails off Contentiousness Males: Steady increase over time Females: Steady increase over time Implications o Absolute stability varies by trait o Absolute stability varies by gender o Simple, strong versions of FFM (Costa and McCrae) are wrong o Why the changes? Genetically programmed maturation? More likely, gender-specific social contextual demands and pressures Data on Relative Stability o Meta-analysis of 152 studies with 55,180 subjects o Wide variety of traits and temperament measures- not just Big Five o Test-retest interval of > 1 years Stability increases with age (~0.5) o Conclusions Significant stability is present even in childhood Stability (mostly) increase with age Stability reaches a maximum around age 50 Falsifying both weak and strong plaster models (significant change over time) Throughout adulthood, stability is 0.5 or higher Vindicating trait theory against sever criticisms (not just the situation that matters, there is such thing as genetic traits) Falsifying extremist trait theory (plenty of change happening!) Stability of Self-Esteem o 4 large national surveys combined, 74,381 o Sample 52% female, 61% Caucasian o Retest intervals of 1-6 years For both men and women, curvilinear distribution with a peak at 50 Increase in the extent to which personality is stable until age 50, then things loosen up as they get older Conclusions for Self-Esteem o Roughly same magnitude of relative stability as traits o Increases and then decreases, with a maximum at around 50 o Decrease in stability in old-age is greater for self-esteem o Clearly both stability and change in self-esteem Overall Conclusions 18 Freud was wrong (about stability) Costa and McCraes Five-Factor Model is wrong (about stability) Extreme contextualists (Walter Mischel) are wrong People show both stability and change: life-span developmental approaches are promising (look at both to understand factors that drive us) o Much to be learned about their determinants, which likely include gender-linked aspects of social context o o o o Personality, Relationships, and Stability o Does starting or ending a relationship influence mea n level of traits? Method o 489 Germans tested at age 24 and 28 o Measured NEAC and self-esteem o Relationship status: single continuers/partnership formation/partnership dissolution/ committed continuers Results-I o Increases in mean levels of CA and self esteem and decreases in N o Rank-order stability ranging from .5 for self-esteem to .6 for C o Quite similar to other studies Results-II o Relationship formation predicted, compared to single continuers And controlling for sex and baseline personality Increases in EAC and self-esteem Decreases in N o Relationship dissolution, compared to single continuers, predicted: Nothing, hint of lower self-esteem o Compared committed continuers who did and didnt marry No differences Entering a relationship affected personality, but the institution of marriage didnt Conclusion o A relationship can change personality for the better 19 Person-Situation Debate Interpersonal Circumplex Sample Behaviors o Dominant: Setting goals for others o Submissive: Not expressing disagreement when thinking o Agreeable: Expressing reassurance o Quarrelsome: Making a sarcastic comment Combining the Axes o The axes can be combined o Dominant-quarrelsome: a controlling and sarcastic supervisor o Dominant-agreeable: a dominant but caring supervisor o Submissive-quarrelsome: a sulky teenager o Submissive-agreeable: when meeting a person of high status Position of a behavior o Can fall anywhere on the circumplex (think of it as a graph with an X and Y axis) o Your different behaviors can fall anywhere on this graph. You have a range of behaviors on the circumplex Mischels Argument o Traits are pervasive, cross-situational consistency in behavior o People do not behave consistently so traits do not exist Mischel And Peake 1982 o Study on conscientiousness in college students o Compared in different situations o Example: class attendance and assignment punctuality Found very low correlations between contentiousness in different situations (r=0.20) Other studies found similar results Concluded that people do not behave consistently across situations No consistent traits The Epstein-Moskowitz Argument o The solutions to aggregate behavior over time and situations o Defined a trait as a persons mean level of behavior over a number of situations o Predicting most of the people much of the time Averaging behavior over time and situations increases reliability 20 The average of one sample of behavior is similar to the average of another sample of behavior Moskowitz 1982 o Tested dominance and dependency in preschool children o Aggregated behavior over three situations o Tested whether average dominance would predict dominance in a new situation and whether average dependency would predict dependency in a new situation Found correlation of 0.52 for dominance and 0.26 for dependency Aggregation of behavior can improve prediction of behavior in a novel situation Dominance is trait-like, but dependency is not Some Methodology o Event-contingent recording o Standardized forms reporting social interaction for 20 days Event-contingent Recording o Participants behavior during the interaction, content of interaction, and how the other persons behavior during the interaction Advantages o Data collected during participants true daily lives o Retrospective biased is reduced (filling our forms after interaction) o Sensitive to changes in persons behavior o Sampling of many situations (good for aggregating) Stability of Behavior o Stability dependent on how long you measured the behavior for o Reliability is much higher and it looks more like traits if measure over longer period Conclusions o Aggregating increases reliability o Whether a characteristic appears to be a state or a trait depends on how its measured o BUT behavior is nonetheless inconsistent across situations Mischels Response to Aggregation o Aggregation hides the problem of inconsistency, but does not solve it 21 o Mean levels of behavior are not very predictive of a persons behavior in a specific situation which is still a problem o The inconsistency id meaningful! It is probably due to measurement error, as Epstein stated, is not true o There must be other factors that have an impact so research should focus more on the situation Variability in Dominance o Two people can have the same average levels of dominance, but those scores fail to depict their differences. One person acts much stronger in dominance (more fluctuations, but less regular) than the other. Impact of the Situation o The situation clearly has impact on behavior o Allport recognized the impact of the situation on behavior even if he does not go over it o Problem of how to define the situation and predict its impact on an individuals behavior Can define the situation in an objective manner, with the interpersonal circumplex, or subjectively The Principles of Complementarity o Correspondence along the communal dimension Responding to quarrelsomeness with quarrelsomeness Responding to agreeableness with agreeableness The Principles of Complementarity o Reciprocity along the agentic dimension Responding to dominance with submission Responding to submission with dominance Influence of the Situation: Dominance By Social Role o Studies participants that were in the role of supervisor and supervisee o People who are in the role of supervisor are more dominant than when in the role of supervisee Dominance by Social Status o When the person is in the role of coworker or supervisee, the express the same amount of dominance. It only changes when they are in the role of a one-up position. Dominance by Social Status o This study demonstrated the impact of situations on peoples behavior 22 o High social status is associated with increases in dominant behavior, but low social status does not decrease dominant behavior Person x Situation Interaction o Behaviour is impacted by the interaction of person and situation characteristics o Different people react differently to the same situation The person has an impact on the situation The situation has an impact on the person Variables Combining Person and Situation o Variables that combine aspects of the person and the situation o Flux and spin: variables that quantify fluctuations in a persons behavior o Behavioral signatures: patterns in a persons behavior over a set of situations Measures of Fluctuations in Behavior o Flux and spin: quantify variability in a persons behavior o Different people show different amounts of variability Levels of fluctuation in behavior are stable and distinct from the five factors They show the same amount of variability in their daily behavior Flux In Quarrelsome Behavior o Its the amount of variation a person shows in one quadrant of our circumplex Spin In Behavior o Someone in high spin is someone who is constantly changing their behavior (morning agreeable, during a task dominant, then quarrelsome, then submissive) o Low spin is someone who usually act the same in many situations Correlates of High Spin o Self-report: peripheral to social networks o Coworkers report: less satisfaction, less cohesion (hard to get along with because not stable) o Associated with psychopathology (borderline personality disorder) Behavioral Signatures o Also integrate person and situation variables o Situation defined in terms of the other persons behavior o Pattern of a persons responses to different types of social situation 23 Tend to respond this way when someone is acting like this tend to react like this when someone acts like this o Stable patterns of behavior A Prototypical Behavioral Signature: AntiComplementarity o X axis is how the other person is acting o Y axis is how usual this prototypic behavior would be in this situation Graph persons agentic and communal behavior they are polar to each other! Behavioral Signatures o Comparing a persons behavioral signature to prototypical signatures o About half the variance in peoples behavior is accounted for by differences in mean levels o About half is accounted for by behavioral signatures Major Points o Traits are not pervasive, cross-situational consistency in behavior o Traits are average levels of responding o The situation also has an impact on behavior o Person characteristics and situational characteristics interact o Flux and spin quantify variability in a persons behavior o A behavioral signature quantifies a persons pattern of behavior 24 Narrative Approaches to Identity Thought question o What do we know when we know a person? (McAdams) Traits High openness Low neuroticism High contentiousness High agreeableness High extraversion What else? Traits are very important, but there is more to a person than just the big five. McAdams 1995 o To know a person, must understand them on at least 3 distinct levels Level 1- traits Level 2- personal concerns Level 3- narrative identity i.e. What Obamas life means to Obama Objectives o By the end of todays lecture, you should be able to: Explain McAdams narrative identity Apply the narrative constructs of scenes, scripts, and themes to the study of personality Assess the choices we may have in the construction of our narratives Chapter 1: McAdams Narrative Identity McAdams: Problem of Identity o Late adolescence/early adulthood o Challenge: to construct a life story that integrates the self into society in a productive and generative way, providing the self with a purposeful history of How self of yesterday became self of today How self of today will become anticipated self of tomorrow This is a challenge that we all face identity challenge. So must construct narrative identity. What is Narrative Identity? 25 o An internalized and evolving story of the self that a person consciously and unconsciously constructs to bind together many different aspects of self How the person sees their life organized with purpose, unity, and meaning in time (while integrating everything) o NOTE: it is a description (what is), not an interpretation (why it is) What is Narrative Identity NOT? o Any telling of ones story The method is different from the construct o The self it is a quality of the self The self as it is made into a unified story by the person whose self it is o The highest level of personality Does not subsume traits, personal concerns Conceptually, epistemologically independent Narrative Identity as Personality o Personality researchers on narrative identity still seek to render observations systematic and structured o BUT must understand and describe narratives in story terms (McAdams, 1995) Scenes, themes, imagery, plot, settings, conflict, characters, endings Summary: Narrative Identity o What do we know when we know someones narrative identity? How the person sees their life its plots, scenes, characters, and future plots organized with purpose, unity, and meaning in time Chapter 2: Scenes and Scripts A Life Story Interview 1. Life chapters plot summary for each 2. Key episodes details of 8 scenes (e.g., high point, low point, turning point, earliest memory, 4 important episodes) 3. Life challenge nature, development, overcoming 4. Main characters most +/- influence in each story 5. Future plot where story is going, dreams, goals, fears 6. Personal ideology values, religious & political beliefs 7. Life theme single integrative theme in life story Scenes and Scripts (Tomkins, 1987) 26 o Scene: memory of a specific happening or event that contains at least one affect and one object of the affect (where we felt something strongly in relation to someone else or something else) Basic component of the life story E.g. How you felt at prom, in a fight with your mother o Scripts: set of rules for interpreting, creating, enhancing, or defending against a family of related scenes Scenes give rise to us developing rules on how things fit together or dont Scenes and Scripts o What makes certain scenes important? Short-term: quality of affect (esp. negative) Long-term: psychological magnification o Psychological magnification: connecting various scenes into meaningful patterns Analogs: here we go again that magnifies similarities between negative affect scenes (esp. negative affects) Variants: magnifying differences between scenes; usually with positive affect (esp. positive affects) Two Significant Scripts (Carlson, 1988; Tomkins, 1987) o Commitment Script Person binds self to life goal that promises the reward of intense positive affect Clearly defined and undisputed goal, probably tied to positive scenes from childhood o Nuclear Script Person is confused and ambivalent about life goal; approach-avoid patterns Irresistible draw + repelling o Certain people have either scripts Nuclear Scene (Carlson, 1988) o Positive childhood scene that eventually turns bad Enjoyment or excitement in the presence of others supposed to be reassuring, supportive But, leads to intimidation, contamination, and/or confusion ensues fear, shame, sadness, disgust E.g. Little kid drawing a great picture, parents say get that shit away from me! o Script develops to try to reverse scene, but person often seems fated to repeat it later Continued analogs 27 Illustration: Nuclear Script? o Good Will Hunting Clip Used to be abused in an orphanage (nuclear script) and is now in a great relationship where his girlfriend asks him to make a commitment (nuclear script). Girlfriend is playing out commitment script. o Commitment vs. nuclear script Nuclear Scene Contd. o Good Will Hunting scene o Nuclear scene does not cause subsequent bad events It tends to organize persons narrative and gives meaning to many different experiences It also serves as a template or patterns for others scenes in the story Chapter 3: Themes & Stories Narrative Themes o What the characters in the story recurrently want or desire; two central themes o Agency: an individuals efforts to Expand, assert, perfect, and protect the self Separate the self from others Master the environment within the self resides o Communion: an individuals efforts to Merge with other individuals Join together with others in bonds of love, intimacy, friendship, and community Types of Stories o Are there finite number of stories? o Two common sequences have been identified in peoples life stories: Contamination sequences Redemption sequences o *** these may be about agency or communion themes (1) Contamination Sequence o Contamination sequence: narration of a good or positive scene turning bad Good scene is contaminated, ruined, spoiled, or undermined by what follows it Suggests despair, hopelessness, and endless repetition of a negative past o Examples: 28 Proud of essay low grade from professor Marriage to soul mate spouse cheats (2) Redemption Sequence o Redemption sequence: narration of a bad or negative scene turning positive Bad is redeemed by good that follows Central theme in myths, folklore, world religions Sustains hope and commitment in narrative o Examples: Lose job start more fulfilling career Relationship break-up strengthen friendships Stories & Well-Being o McAdams et al. (2001): 74 midlife adults Correlated amount of redemption & contamination sequences in life stories w/well-being measures + positive correlation - negative correlation o Redemption: Higher SWB o Contamination: Lower SWB Well-Being Life Satisfaction Self-Esteem Life Coherence Depression Redemption + + + Contamination + Explaining Links to Well-Being o Redemption and contamination sequences reflect objective realities from past Good outcomes after negative events Bad outcomes after positive events o People make implicit choices about how they understand and narrate their past What scene to narrate How to narrate the scene How to frame its antecedents and consequences What conclusions to draw from scene 29 Stories & Individual Differences o Individual differences in ways people narrate their life stories likely reflect: o NOT JUST differences in the factual realities lived o BUT ALSO differences in the styles and ways in which they choose to make narrative sense of their life Chapter 4: Applications and Implications What is a good story? o Standards for good narrative form 1. Coherence: it makes sense 2. Openness: flexible, tolerates change & ambiguity 3. Credibility: accountable to the facts 4. Differentiation: intricately textured plots, characters 5. Reconciliation: resolution of conflicting forces 6. Generative Integration: integrates self into society Redemptive Self Story o Generative adults tell life story with themes: Had a special advantage or gift early on Witnessed suffering and misfortune of others Established a clear moral steadfastness Overcame adversities, redeemed bad events Commits to giving back to society o McAdams (2006): called these themes the redemptive self story Knaan: Waving Flag o Born to a throne, stronger than Rome But Violent prone, poor people zone But its my home, all I have known Where I got grown, streets we would roam Out of the darkness, I came the farthest Among the hardest survival Learn from these streets, it can be bleak Except no defeat, surrender retreat o So we struggling, fighting to eat and We wondering when well be free So we patiently wait, for that fateful day Its not far away, but for now we say o When I get older, I will be stronger Theyll call me freedom just like a Waving Flag And then it goes back Narrative Challenges (Pals, 2006) Suffering of Others Early Advantage Moral Steadfastness Redemption Sequences Prosocial Future 30 o Negative events demand more storytelling work/threatening; common approaches: Discount scene and its negative affect Repression, denial, dissociation, symptoms Positive illusions: overlook negative o Ideal narrative process for negative events Explore in depth feelings, role in life & identity Articulate and commit self to positive resolution Reconstructing Ones Identity o Helpful ways to reconstruct our narrative identity into a better story Writing express negative feelings tied to trauma and reconstruct as a well-formed story Improved health o Psychotherapy: compassion in therapist helps client open up to discuss nuclear scenes Facilitates integration and reconstruction of life story more focused on redemption Final Summary o To really know a person, we need to understand the way they tell their own story. o Scenes and themes offer important windows into someones narrative identity. o Certain narrative scripts are more conducive to well-being, and others to depression. o We may have more choice than we realize about the scripts we use to narrate our story. 31 Cross-Cultural Issues in Personality Psychology Overview of Major Questions o Does personality differ across cultural groups? Differences in mean levels study of national character Huge claim of universality Can constructs be transported from one cultural context to another? Is a neurotic (or dependent) Canadian similar to a neurotic (dependent) African? Are the reference of the construct the same? If we get the same factor structure in the other culture compare to the home culture, thats a technical way of measuring if the same construct can be transported. Can theories be transported? A theory has a set of constructs and a set of links/hypothesis tying the constructs together. So lets assume that yes, we an move the constructs. The question here then is do we find the same linkages amongst the constructs. So, for the neuroticism example, do what extend does neuroticism have the same causes in the different cultures? defences. But, we can ask would that theory hold up in other cultural context such as in Asian and African cultures where you are not supposed to express your feelings to others. o Do cultural groups have different personalities that we can characterise them on? Is there anything like the Big Five, a framework of dimensions, that will capture the differences between cultures? Tight-loose; How strongly or rigidly they hold onto norms and enforce them Horizontal-vertical; How important status differences are in the culture Individualism-collectivism o What are the causes of similarities and differences across cultures? Ecology - how culture makes a living Subsistent strategy in the culture- how they make a living (agriculture, industrialist) In Western cultures, denial is the most pathological of the 32 A fundamental determinant between similarities and differences is their ecology- how they extract a living Truk vs. Tahitian fishing industries o One culture is prouded on their harsh survival lifestyle. The other is more laid back. This changes how they react to fights, women, family, friends Problems and Issues in Cross-Cultural Research o Outgroup homogeneity The danger of viewing the out group as homogeneous All of those Chinese citizens are not all the same. So its hard to talk about the Chinese without falling into out group homogeneity. They have many distinct cultures! o Item-level problems translation There is not correct translation. Each fluent speaker will read a translation and get upset about something. So they try to do backtranslation. They take the scale in its language, have it translated to the target language, then have it translated back to the original home language and compare the original to the back-translation to see how good it is. o Construct-level problems Culture-bound referents People who dont go to the cue in the back of the bus are not nice (Conscientiousness). But, in NY, there is just one crowded bus! Or what about countries where they dont have many busses so its not an issue. So here, the very item is culture-bound. Variations in construct-referent linkages o The same behaviour might be linked to different constructs in different cultures. o I always ask my guests what they prefer to have for dinner (Agreeableness). But, in Japan, if you were to ask the guest what they want, that would be rude because its forcing a guest to make a demand. The host can be thoughtful, but cannot just ask straight-out. Here, it acts as a disagreeable item!! Culture-specific traits- Amae Amae: Its a form of a dependency, but is specific to Japanese culture. So there may be traits that only exist in some cultures, but not in others. o What is a cultural group? Its not nationality and its not ethnicity. Confounds with other variables 33 o Especially in minority groups- they experience lower levels of social class, income education. So your cultural variable is confounded with a bunch of other variables- it might reflect not culture but something else. Acculturation o Transmission of the majority culture to members of the minority culture (e.g. colonialism) o Need for multiple levels of analysis At some levels of analysis everyone is the same. But at other levels, you will find cultural specificity. Cant just pick a level, have to look at all. E.g. greeting procedures in the States and Canada are different, but there are universal greeting rituals (you dont just walk up to someone), but their forms are different in cultures. Behaviours and emotional display patterns of neuroticism may be different across cultures What creates neurotics may be universal (or not) The basic processes that support the learning of the different procedures may be universal, but some people say no. Transporting the Big Five (Yang & Bond, 1990) o Emic (indigenous) vs. etic (universal) vs. imposed etic Method Emic: 150 Chinese personality trait adjectives o Take these adjectives, factor analyze them and see if they match perfectly up to the Big Five Imposed Etic: Translated 20 American adjectives to Chinese (starting off with a universal assumption and impose them onto another cultures) o Take 20 translated adjectives (markers of Big Five), factor analyze them, and do get back 5 factors that look like the big Five Results Multiple Regression Analysis: looking for an optimal combination of the 5 Chinese traits to predict through correlations the five American traits 4/5 Chinese traits are pretty well captured by the English traits, but to describe we needed to use 2-3 of the English 5 to capture it- its not 1:1 mapping o Indigenous Chinese Traits Social orientation - Self-centeredness Competence - Expressiveness Conservatism Self-control Impulsiveness 34 Optimism Neuroticism Extra 1 2 3 4 5 0.42 Agree 0.57 Consc Neur Open Mult R 0.69 -0.42 -0.23 0.45 -0.21 -0.48 0.33 0.24 0.66 0.65 0.63 0.46 Benet-Martinez & Oishi (2008) o Translations of Anglo Big-Five reliably recapture 5 factors across many languages and cultures Look across many languages and cultures and translate the Anglo Big Five, you very reliably recapture 5 and we just did see that. o Emic studies identify variants of 4 of the big 5; openness is most frequently missing. When cultures talk amongst themselves, usually 4/5 are recaptured (modal finding). The one that is missing most frequently is openness. o Additional culture-specific dimensions are generally: Subcomponents of Agreeableness, e.g., preserving interpersonal harmony or preserving other's "face" Evaluative dimensions - powerful, attractive, honest o Do indigenous traits outperform the big five? Bond (2000) Common behaviors (dont gain much by using indigenous traits) vs. culture-bound behaviors such as filial piety (treating elders with respect) (very important to that culture, then the 35 indigenous traits add a lot of predictive punch compared to etic analysis) Cultural Differences in Work Values o Hofstede (1980) o Four main factors Power distance Authoritarian personality between managers and employees Uncertainty avoidance Lack of tolerance for ambiguity, preference for clear expressive rules Individualism Concerns for own welfare vs.,. concern for collective to which one belongs Masculinity Emphasis on achievement goals (earnings, raises) versus an emphasis on interpersonal goals o Country clusters Countries fall into clusters of different traits that are emphasized (high individualism, low powerfulness) Individualism Collectivism (H. Triandis) o Level of analysis Idiocentric Characterized by or denoting interest centered upon oneself or one's own ways, rather than upon others or the ways of others; self-centered Allocentric Characterised by or denoting interest centreed in other persons rather than in one's self. o Sample items E.g. If the group is slowing me down it is better to leave them so I can work alone (individualistic) E.g. It is reasonable for his son to purse his fathers business (collectivistic) o Which groups are collective in orientation? In USA, women, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians score higher than men o Social Cognitive Correlations Self encapsulated self There is me with sharp boundaries around me, then there is you 36 Collectivistic society (rest of the world) self-in-relation (I am the son of ) o No differences in content, but the structure you assume Autobiography Individualistic cultures have lots of autobiographies in their libraries. In collectivistic cultures, you will find more group histories. Moral reasoning Present people with a moral dilemma and ask them to reasons about it, they dont reach different conclusions, but in their process and nature of reasoning. In individualistic societies, people reason in terms of my rights and my needs. In collectivistic societies people are much more likely to reason in terms of their duties and obligations to people. Distribution of resources Always a problem of who gets the merit raise. In individualistic societies, when you make the argument it is much more likely to be in terms of individual merit (I have x publications, x contractors) whereas in collectivistic societies the argument is based on family need (my roof is leaking, I just gave birth to a new child) or equality. o Social Behavioural Correlates (how people behave in different cultures) Impact of social status Individualistic societies dont bow dont do their masters compared to collectivistic societies Marriages In collectivistic societies, there are a lot more arranged marriages based on what is right for the family. In individualistic societies, this is an outrage! People spend less time but with more people in individualistic societies (wider broader, less time). Collectivistic cultures focus on small networks but spend a lot of time with them (family) People directly and abruptly say what they want in individualistic societies. o Why do these differences exist? Ecological differences: How they earn their living from their environment. China vs. America: China was based on intensive agricultural practices that involved the coordination of a lot of people. Here you need to have a collective society. In contrast, the agriculture in America was pioneering. Families headed out into the difficult environments where they have no one to depend upon but themselves and their immediate social network. Here, you need individualism to survive. 37 The characterisations of these cultures are radically oversimplified. There are endless counter-themes to the individualistic ideology in America. You cant really say that one culture is one or the other. Nevertheless, there are statistical significances between America and China for example. Violence (Bonta, B. 1997 Psych Bulletin, 121, 299-320) o Peaceful societies exist He reviewed 40 societies worldwide where there is almost no violence present, all over the world (not just in isolation). So, how can this be? Why? What are they doing right? These are interesting correlates o Correlates Very strong cultural emphasis on cooperation Culture constantly tells the members that we must cooperate to survive and be happy (not competition, explicit punishment for competition and boasting) Integrative rituals Social practices that symbolically support the importance of the group and the importance of cooperation and nonviolence. E.g. Group prayer versus individual prayer E.g. Super Bowl party is the opposite of this (celebrate together violence and individual starts) Socialization practices Early indulgence, then abruptly frustrate child (not gradual transition), then ignore the child (childs frustration, do not reward behaviour by reinforcing it) o The implicit message is first you cannot get what you want by coercion. o The second thought implicit message is that the individual is helpless. The individual cannot get what the want in life, only the group can give you what you need. Non-competitive games Downplay achievement o Much less talk of being better than other people and achieving excellence according to standards o Suggests that violence is not inevitable and a competition-based society enhances violence. Cross-Cultural Differences in Child-Rearing o Triandis model: 38 Ecology circumstances Culture Socialization practices Personality Behavior What about genes, social context? o Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) Famous archive of hundreds of ethnographies (biography of a culture) Many of these are very very old and are methodologically flawed o Classic- Barry, Bacon, Child (1957) 6 dimensions of child-rearing through ethnographies (how cultures differed) Obedience training o All cultures have this but the question is how much and how much stress is placed Responsibility (tasks) o How much training for household and subsistence tasks Nurturance o Cultural practices that involve training for the care of younger children and dependents Achievement striving o The strive for excellence Self-reliance o How much cultural pressure to meet your won needs and wants Independence (autonomy) o How much the culture emphasizes being free from control of others Clusters Obedience + Responsibility = pressure for compliance Achievement + self-reliance + independence= pressure towards assertion The took the difference between the two to make one dimension Sex differences in socialization Worldwide girls are socialized for compliance and boys for assertion Remember, dont be overwhelmed by this because they did this simplistically. If one culture placed a little more emphasis, they get put into one pile do this does not speak to the magnitude. Determinants of socialization Classify societies in terms of food accumulation (ecological variable) Hunting-gathering (not accumulating food) vs. pastoralism (only months after taking care of cows can eat them) 39 You want different kids of personalities in your culture depending on how you get your food (flexibility vs. adherence to routine) What kind of cultural practices would predict these personalities? For routine, you need high levels of pressure towards compliance. Whereas you need pressure towards assertion if you are a hunter-gatherer. So is this true? Is there an actual correlation for ecology determining socialization practices? Yes! Over 0.9 correlation!!! Subsistence strategies and sex roles In terms of total calories produced for the culture (food you bring home) women tend to make a greater contribution to subsistence in cultures that rely in gathering and agriculture whereas men make the contribution to calories produces in fishing/hunting/pastoralism societies. Where women contribute more calories, women have higher status in mens eyes, they have more independence, they have more control over reproductive choices, they are the targets of more achievement training. Girls Obedience Responsibility Nurturance Achievement Self-reliance 35 % cultures Boys 3% 11% 0% Neither 62% 28% 18% 10% 15% 61% 82% 3% 0% 87% 85% Food Accumulation Hunting / Gathering Fishing Agriculture Pastoralism (Herding) Flexibility Initiative Adherence to routine 40 Humanistic Personality Theorists Carl Rogers Background o Invented client-centred therapy and personality theory. o The personality theory provides the support for the therapy. o This was the first one to emerge out of humanistic theories. Basic Ideas o The Phenomenal Field The fundamental psychological reality was the individuals subjectively felt and interpreted experience. The objective external conditions we live in are less important than ones subjective experience. The totality of your subjective experience is your Phenomenal Field. This is not the same as consciousness. It is bigger and broader. o Symbolized experience Some of our experience is symbolized or labelled, and some is not (it is not put into words). E.g. I am really mad symbolizes the experience. o Organism vs. the Self Organism: The big-picture concept The Self: One part of your symbolized experience (e.g. the self concept) o Self-actualization An innate tendency to maintain and enhance the organism He popularized this concept. This means to develop all of your capacities and to become independent and autonomous from others. To live according to your own values and principles. Specific qualities in self-actualized people Openness to and owning of feelings o Accept them, dont push them away Existential living o Being alive and present in the moment Autonomous, independent, authentic o Living according to own values and not being driven by other people Creative, nonconformist o Not afraid of different Trust in own capacities 41 o Organismic valuing process (OVP) This is a central Rogerian idea with hints of it in Jung. The idea is that everyone has an innate faculty which indicated what is positive or negative in terms of selfactualization. Its an inner wisdom that tells you what is growth-supportive and what is not. This is for the organisms growth, not that of the self. It is an inner wisdom that does not spring from the conscious self. Given no environmental pressures, each person is naturally capable of making correct decisions that will lead to selfactualization. All thats necessary is to listen to ones OVP. Development and Personality o Need for positive regard Emerges at birth. Child pays attention to what people respond to with positive regard and tries to keep that coming. The need for positive regard can however conflict with the OVP. Feelings, behaviours and experiences are valued in the self-actualization sense do not lead to positive regard from the environment (e.g. play that piano, but your parent hate music so they put you in front of a computer because they are engineers). So they look less at OVP and conform to the parents to get positive regard, which puts the child off the track of self-actualization. o Need for self-regard This develops out of the need for positive regard. The child judges its own behaviour using the same set of rules that others judge it by. This is the introjection of parental rules. They hence develop conditions of worth o Conditions of worth Only feel good when parents/self reaffirm. Conditions of worth are minimized by parents who accept the childs feelings and desires, not acts. Also if they communicate that acceptance of the child as a person. This would be unconditional positive regard (target for good parenting). It prevents the emergence of conditions of worth. Maladjustment o High levels of conditions of worth (CoW) Self-incongruence Organisms experience is inconsistent with the self and hence experiences cannot be symbolized 42 How do you know you are angry if you dont tell yourself you are angry Subception Responding to cues without being fully aware of them When in self-incongruence, it gives rise to Denied, distorted, disowned feelings This places you in the position of being Out of touch with OVP Which gives rise to pathology o Loss of OVP Maladjustment Implications o Explore authentic feelings/ restore OVP/ pump us the UCPR All we have to do is restore the person to be guided by the OVP to get back self-actualization, growth, and progress this is all you need! It will be ok to have feelings and exp-lore them (e.g. yearning to play piano) Increase unconditional positive regard dissolve conditions of worth OVP rules o Applications to child-rearing Parent-effectiveness-training Procedure provided in workshops around the continent Accept the childs feelings, but it is appropriate to set limits on the childs behaviour. So you can feel however you want, but there are certain behaviours accepted and not in the family (e.g. can be mad at sister, but cannot slap her). They are opposed to punishment! They favour timeouts, but not harsh punishments. Ginott Whole field of advice stemming from Rogers o Applications to management practices o Applications to psychotherapy Necessary and sufficient conditions for positive outcome in psychotherapy Empathetic understanding o The therapist has to have an empathic understanding of the clients internal frame of reference; their phenomenal field (how the world looks to the client). Unconditional positive regard 43 Congruent/ genuine o The therapist has to be relatively free of conflict between their self concept and their phenomenal field. He has to open to his own feelings during the therapeutic encounter. o He has to be able to be genuinely himself during the encounter. He cannot role-play. The catch o The client must experience 1-3. o If the client can experience the 3 things, you will see beneficial change. This begins to dissolve the clients conditions of worth (good/bad feelings). Then the client can explore previously unacceptable feelings and to label those experiences. o The client begins to get in touch with their real feelings/self. o This is not a technical therapy session- it is subjective. The therapist does not need to/ should not offer advice, guidance or psychoanalytic style interpretations. He offers a relationship-therapy which helps the client take care of themselves. Applications to Psychotherapy Research o Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program (Elkin et al., 1994) o 239 depressed outpatients assigned to: 16 weeks of cognitive behavior therapy, interpersonal treatment, drugs, or placebo Winner in dispute (they all did about the same) o Personality and Therapeutic Relationship more interesting than therapy brand Pre-treatment self-critical perfectionism Prior results show correlated with poor outcome Beating yourself up if you dont meet those high standards Rogerian conditions measured with Barrett-Lennard Relationship Inventory How much they think therapist is empathic understanding o Reanalyzed by Blatt, Zuroff, Quinlan, & Pilkonis (1996) Results hold across type of treatment (CBT, IPT, drug, placebo) Results- 1 44 o Y axis: clinical outcome (overall improvement) Relative score 0 is what average patient scored o X axis: Perfectionism High: high levels of Rogerianness Outcome plummets only when the person is utterly extremely perfectionist. Having a really good Rogerian therapist can compensate for your perfectionist to some degree (you get outcomes). Medium: medium levels of Rogerianness For a medium level of Rogeriannes, the higher your perfectionism, the worst your outcome Low: low levels of Rogerianness Achieve low to terrible outcomes in proportion to the patients perfectionism Results- 2 o Even with low perfectionist patients, it helps to have a Rogerian therapist. But without, they do well. o Highly perfectionist patients dont do well no matter what. o Average perfectionists do terrible with a non-Rogerian therapist. With a high Rogerian therapist, there is an excellent outcome. 45 Conclusions o Rogerian conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient, but they are good. You can get descent outcome without and their presence does not determine success, but they are very helpful. o Their impact is moderated by personality of patient Its not universally true, it changes depending on the patients personality 46 Abraham Maslow Historical Overview o Began doing primate research, in Harlows lab. Dominance in monkeys does not only reflect size and aggression. The crucial thing was an inner confidence which he called dominance feelings. He then looked at this in human beings (self-confidence). He did interview studies of human beings and as he did them, he began to believe that dominance was too narrowly defined. What was important was the craving for full-effective functioning rather than dominance per se. People are not looking to dominate others, they want to achieve a high level of functioning in their lives self actualization. Then, he tried to study good specimens of humanity. People who were terrific exemplars of human being. This was extremely impressionistic and he relied often on historical accounts of people or personal acquaintanceship. It did not rely on laboratory research. Major themes o Psychology must study what is best and most noble in human nature in addition to psychopathology. o There is an instinctive, and universal core of human nature. This inner nature is weak in the sense that it is easily overwhelmed by environmental circumstances, but it never disappears. o Not evil Its good/ neutral, but not evil o Need for self-actualization Mans higher nature is part of his essence. Part of this essence/ instinctive human nature is the need for self-actualization. You might not see it, but it presses for release even if its repressed by the environment. o Whats to be done? Study self-actualization and start studying people as a whole. Not just pieces of people and isolated variables (psychopathology), but a holistic approach to people. The Hierarchy of Needs o 6. Self-actualization A need to be fully what one can be To unfold all of ones potentialities o 5. Aesthetic and cognitive People have innate aesthetic and cognitive needs need to experience beauty and needs to experience truth and understanding o 4. Esteem Respect from other people, self-esteem/respect, feelings of mastery and competence o 3. Love and belonging 47 o o o o Affection, emotional intimacy, a sense of belonging to a group/family 2. Safety needs Needs for stability, security, protection 1. Physiological needs Food, water Pre-potency The lower needs are pre-potent (the organism is driven by each lower need until it is satisfied and only then can it move up the hierarchy to deal with the next need). The higher needs emerge only when the lower ones are satisfied It is quite true that man lives by bread alone when there is no bread But when there is bread, what happens to mans desires? Lower (1-4) vs. higher needs (5-6) The lower needs are truly deficiency needs. The person is driven by a state of tension or deficiency to obtain something he wants. This is tension-reduction model. They all work like hunger in that sense. The higher needs are completely different. They are being needs (also called growth needs, growth motives). Here, its not that you have a deficiency and when you get it you achieve a state of calm and reduce tension and dont want anymore, but the higher needs, gratification leads to increased demand rather than less. The more you get, the more you want to continue down that path. Gratification of these needs wont lead to decrease motivation, it will lead to increase you cannot over-dose on beauty. Self-actualizing people o Background Lincoln, Thoreau, Beethoven, Einstein, Roosevelt Self-actualization is not a static thing. Its a process, not a destination. Is this a universal definition of the highest level of human functioning? o A short list of attributes They get emerged and deeply committed to what they are doing. They are not preoccupied with themselves (not trying to become more glorious). They are autonomous, independent, and non-conformist Spontaneous and creative Accepting of themselves and others Need privacy Deep, emotional relationships with few, special people Peak experiences 48 Identify with human kind and have democratic values Non-hostile sense of humour Peak experiences o Definition Altered state of consciousness in which we transcend our habitual patterns of thinking, feeling, and perceiving. Ecstatic, that which you cannot put into words, temporary, non-striving, transformative, non-self-centred o Theoretical importance He originally thought that these states were rare and in particular it was the only highly self-actualized that can have these experiences. He than began to believe that they are not that uncommon, although those who are materialistic/mechanistic people push this feeling away because they dont like the flowing feeling. The important thing about peak experiences is not that they are a fun you dont want to miss out on, but they show us the farther reaches of human nature. They show us the higher transcendent nature that people are capable of. This is similar to Cziksemeheylias concept of flow. o How to find them Mystical experiences of religion Profound nature experiences (e.g. In front of Mount Everest) Profound aesthetic experiences (e.g. museum, concert) Creative moments States of athletic grace (being in the zone, aka flow) Sexual experiences Theoretical intellectually breakthrough moments (the ah-ah moment) Evaluation of Humanistic Personality Theories o Maslows research agenda (and Rogers) His big picture (reminder that we have to look at the high levels of functioning) is the motivation that gave rise to Positive Psychology. o How systematic/operational? Mixed reviews They all possess at least a few testable hypothesis. Rogers in particular tried very hard to systematize his theory. Rogers and Maslow are both relatively weak on individual differences variables they dont generate a content theory for this (they dont give a list for a specific item of importance to they). They are stronger on the process theory side of this 49 They both need improvement operationally wise this is an important growth point Need have measures in order to test theories, remember?! o Universally/culture-bound? Is that list of qualities of self-actualized people any more fundamental than Maslows own values? If we can get into a time-machine and interview Viking invaders and we ask them about the notion of fully-developing capacities, will they respond like Maslows list? If we ask Victorian people what is their highest thinking a person can achieve, they would probably respond about doing their duties and knowing their role see the contrast? What would the list look like in a collectivistic society? Maybe its the person who help the group become all that it can be in the cost of making self-sacrifices?... Maybe its the person who brings together people and unifies them rather than being the person who stands apart from the others o What specific adaptive problem would be solved by having a set of EPMs that give rise to self-actualization? Four problems to overcome if want to look at evolution Self actualization is a vague concept. Its hard to say which behaviours must take place in the hunter-gatherer context (e.g. nice? contentiousness?). If Maslow is right about pre-potency, how many human ancestors would have gotten to the sixth need given the times of the past? In other words, if we want to make an evolutionary argument that this is an EPM, we have to explain how its adaptive. But if its so great, why is it so rare? Other evolved capacities are not rare (we all have sexual motivation). Self actualization cuts across domains, but evolutionary psychologist dont believe in broad general domain processes. They discuss narrow domain-specific problems. So there is an inherent contrast with evolution psychology way of thinking and this broad notion of self-actualization. 50 Self-Determination Theory Key Components of SDT o Organismic theory Inherent growth tendencies Innate psychological needs o Theory of motivation Reasons for pursuing goals Content of goals o Autonomy Self-initiation and endorsement of ones behavior Feeling congruent and volitional for what one does (not independencerelying on no one but yourself) Intro to SDT by Ed Deci o Edward Deci, one of the founders of Self-Determination Theory Historical background Quantity versus quality of motivation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeTgJ_1fJEc Why we do what we do o I became an overachiever to get approval from the world. o The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives. o There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in. o Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game. Why we do what we do o Controlled Types Amotivation: Complete lack of motivation External Motivation: Obtain tangible rewards of avoid punishment Undermines intrinsic motivation 51 Introjected Motivation: Swallowing regulations whole without digesting them Only partially internalized and not integrated with the self You administer the consequences and rewards yourself You are motivated to do what you have to, to not feel guilty, anxious o Autonomous Types Identification: Recognize and accept value of task Integration: You feel that it is an important aspect of what you value Intrinsic motivation: The most autonomous form Reasons for Academic Achievement (Ryan & Connell, 1989) o Student interviews o Reasons for Doing homework Doing classwork Trying to answer questions in class Trying to do well in school o Grades 3-6 Reasons for Academic Achievement: Categories (Ryan & Connell, 1989) o External (rule following; avoidance of punishment) Because Ill get into trouble if I dont Because thats what Im supposed to do So that the teacher wont yell at me o Introjection (self- and other-approval; avoidance of disapproval) Because I want the teacher to think Im a good student Because I will feel bad about myself if I dont Because Ill feel ashamed of myself if I dont o Identification (self-valued goal; personal importance) Because I want to understand the subject Because I want to learn new things To find out if Im right or wrong o Intrinsic (enjoyment; fun) Because its fun Because I enjoy it Correlations among reasons for doing homework (n = 355) Reason 1. Because the teacher will yell (External) 1 ___ 2 3 4 52 2. Because Id be .30*** ___ ashamed (Introjection) 3. Because I want to learn .12* .34*** ___ (Identification) 4. Because its fun -.16** .09 .41*** ___ (Intrinsic) Correlations of motivation styles with coping, anxiety, effort, and enjoyment (n = 149) External Positive coping Denial Projection Anxiety Effort Enjoyment .11 .27** .26* .24** .04 -.02 Introjected .38** .22** .09 .28** .19* .19** Identified .32** .11 -.15 .06 .39** .33** Intrinsic .38** .02 -.12 .07 .20* .73** Summary of findings on type of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000) o Individuals who demonstrate autonomous forms of motivation compared to controlled self-regulation More interest, excitement, and confidence Enhanced performance, persistence, and creativity Greater vitality, self-esteem, and general well-being Examples of motivation reasons o I became an overachiever to get approval from the world. Madonna introjection o The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives. Einstein intrinsic motivation o There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in. Mother Teresa identification/integration o Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game. If you're interested in 53 'balancing' work and pleasure, stop trying to balance them. Instead make your work more pleasurable. Donald Trump intrinsic motivation although the content of his work is extrinsic Kassers Framework (2002) o 2 broad classes of life goals distinguished on basis of content. Extrinsic aspirations: focused on rewards, praise, & competition A means to an end Intrinsic aspirations: congruent with inherent growth tendencies Satisfy basic psychological needs Distinguishing Types of Aspirations o Extrinsic Financial Success ($) Social Recognition (Fame) Appealing Appearance (Image) o Intrinsic Self Acceptance (Growth) Affiliation (Relatedness) Community Feeling (Helpfulness) Example of Aspirations Index o Instructions: The following questions ask you about the future. Respond to each question by indicating how important it is to you that you achieve the goal in the future. o Life Goals To have a lot of expensive possessions. To have your name be known by many people To have people comment often about how attractive you look. To have good friends whom you can count on. At the end of my life, to be able to look back on my life as meaningful and complete To help others improve their lives. Note that importance and likelihood are both rated. Kasser & Ryan 1996 Study 1 o Community sample of 100 adults aged 18-79 o Surveys of aspirations and well-being Self-actualization Vitality Depression Physical Symptoms 54 Regression Results o Importance of Aspirations o Kasser & Ryan 1993 used interview ratings of well-being. Self-Actualization Vitality Depression Physical Symptoms Intrinsic .40* .46* -.35* -.35* Extrinsic -.52* -.60* .29 .46* Aspirations and Well-Being Among Koreans (collectivistic culture) o Kim, Kasser, & Lee (2003) o Not a problem if you have external attributions, its only if they are more important than the intrinsic motivations Relative Intrinsic Focus Self Actualization .36* Anxiety -.11* Physical Symptoms -.18* ----------------------------------------------Total Well Being .20* Madonna o To be brave is to love someone unconditionally, without expecting anything in return. To just give. o I won't be happy till I'm as famous as God. . o I'd like to be more involved in making the world a better place. Just for image? o I became an overachiever to get approval from the world. o My priority is my family, absolutely, 100 percent. Mother Teresa o Let us more and more insist on raising funds of love, of kindness, of understanding, of peace. o I do not pray for success, I ask for faithfulness. o I want you to be concerned about your next door neighbour. Do you know your next door neighbour? o If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other. o There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in. 55 Examining the why and the what of goal pursuit (Sheldon & Krieger, 2004) o Sample of law students (n = 235) and comparison sample of undergraduate students (n = 236) They have higher level of emotional distress and substance abuse in the end , even though they started out with better SWB o Longitudinal study o Measures at 4 time points Subjective well-being (SWB) Rating of reasons for pursuing self-identified goals Aspiration index o Results over their first year Decreases in SWB, intrinsic motivation, community service aspirations Increases in appearance aspirations How does SDT compare to other theories of personality? o McAdams levels of individual differences in personality o Self-regulation (utonomous vs. controlled orientation) and the consistency of traits (self and peer report) and contentious behaviors (fill out questionnaire and drop off week later?) More autonomous motivation was correlated to more consistency of contentiousness trait and behaviors Being more autonomous leads to greater personality integration Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1992 o The role of social context Parenting o Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, & Landry (2005) o Interviews of mothers when children were 5 years old o Coded for autonomy-support Providing a rationale for behavioural requests Recognizing a childs feelings and perspective Offering choices and encouraging initiative Minimizing the use of controlling techniques like punishment o Teacher-rated child academic and social adjustment at age 8 o Results: relationship between maternal autonomy-support and teacherrated child academic and social adjustment (after controlling for SES, IQ, age 5 results) Therapy o Sample items of therapist autonomy-support: 56 My therapist makes sure that I understand why it is important to do the things that he or she recommends. My therapist has provided me choices and options. o Evidence for the importance of autonomy-support and autonomous motivation in psychotherapy outcomes (Rogerian was of being with scientific evidence!) Study of smoking cessation using an SDT-based therapeutic intervention (Williams et al., 2006) Measured at 6 months whether participants were still smoking SDT intervention was experienced as more autonomy supportive and lead to greater smoking cessation and higher maintenance Study of depression treatment (Zuroff et al., 2007) Patients perceptions of autonomy support positively predicted autonomous motivation for treatment which predicted remission of depression Take-home messages o Theoretical/ Research Individual differences in quality of motivation and types of life goals Well-being is associated with more autonomous motivation and greater emphasis on intrinsic over extrinsic goals Motivation is affected by the social context and can be fostered by an autonomy-supportive environment o Personal What are your own reasons for pursuing your goals? 57 Rotters Social Learning Theory of Personality Rotters Agenda o Integrate Tolman (expectancy learning cognitive theorist) and Hull (drive) Put together the warring camps of learning theory and have a theory that was cognitive and motivational. o Systematic o Clinically Useful o Interactionist (Kurt Lewin: Field Theory) The unit of investigation for the study of personality is the interaction of the individual and his or her meaningful environment To understand someone you have to pay attention to the individuals characteristics AND the specific situation in which the person finds himself Basic Concepts o Psychological situation The situation is composed of a set of cues that arouse expectancies in the person. The expectancies aroused are different from person to person, so here we are concerned in the subjective situation the person encounters. The best way to think about differences between situations is in terms of the needs to be satisfied (e.g. emotional intimacy). But we dont talk about e.g. the classroom situation because it is not subjective. o Behavior Potential BPx, S1, Ra Its the potential for any given specific behavior (BP) to occur in a given situation (S1) in order to obtain a given reinforcer (Ra). Any behavior might get you a number of pay-offs. e.g. My auntie (who is rich) dont you look great today, (aka give me the family fortune)! o Expectancy Ex Ra, S1 This is subjective expectancy (E) that a given behavior (x) will lead to a specific reinforcer (Ra) in some specific situation (S1). o Reinforcement value RVa, S1 The reinforcement value of reward A (RVa) is your relative preference among the reinforcers available in a given situation (S1). 58 E.g. in some situations, embarrassing your parents is really funny (high relative preference), and in other situation, this might not be a good idea (less of a reinforcer) Basic Hypothesis of SLT o The formula BP= F (E + RV) BPx, S1, Ra= F (Ex Ra, S1 + RVa, S1) If you want to predict the probability of a behavior to occur, you must consider expectancies and reinforcement values. Lots of behaviors, payoffs, and punishments so what does the person do? It depends on the expectancies that that behavior will lead to that outcome and the worth of that outcome in that situation. What you value and what you think will work Imagine that your brain carries out a complex calculation for each behavior, somehow add up the likely payoff for behavior X based on your expectancy that it will lead to outcomes 1,2,3 = total likely payoff of X your brain does this for all behaviors and then picks out the behavior with the highest expected outcome. o Example Dealing with a low mark You could decide to o Study harder for the final o Go to the professor to argue that You were right The TAs marking was wrong Cry Beg Do nothing Lets say you decide to go see the professor, once you walk into the office, there is an array of cues in the office (situational variables) that will determine your expectations what will work with this professor and is it worth it. o Course- elective or major o Sex of professor o Personality of professor What are the reinforcement values? o Positive: higher mark o Negative: sarcasm, embarassement/shame o Neurotic reinforcement values 59 Getting away with something Manipulation Pleasure of pouting/sulking The job candidate A new PhD is at McGill for a job. He has a series of individual meetings with professors and gives a public talk and one-on-one meetings with graduate students and dinners with everyone. Which one of the behaviors in her repertoire of behaviors will he use? Can we predict how she will act at dinner? We will rely on the formula for this. The formula tells us that we expect her to behave differently in different situations. She will be serious with the staff, and warmer with the graduate students (this is due to the S1s). Implicit in the idea is that there are multiple reinforcers in every situation (multiple motive theory). She can try to impress you with her scholarly abilities (one payoff) or she can impress people with her personal warmth (another payoff). These expectancies vary with the situation. Saying that she had an interview at Harvard will impress the graduate students, but the professors will be unimpressed with that comment, or even disgusted. If we want to predict we need to know what they want, what they think will work, and keep in mind that those things differ from situation to situation. Generalized Prediction Formula o Broad constructs (taking the average over) Need potential (NP) The average potential for a whole class of behaviors to occur in a whole class of situations. This is like a trait concept. Job Candidate: What is the probability that you will do all the behaviors we ask you in all the situation? Need value (NV) The average reinforcement value for the whole class of available reinforcers in a whole class of situations (motivation construct). Freedom of movement (FM) Average expectancy that the whole class of behaviors will lead to the whole class of reinforcers in the whole class of situations Do you think you will be a big shot in your field in five years? Yes. NP= F (FM + NV) o 6 Classes of needs Recognition/status 60 Protection/dependency Dominance Independence (autonomy) Love and affection Physical comfort This is the reinforcers we want to average over Determinants of Expectancy and RV o Expectancy - specific and generalized expectancy ES1=F (ES1 + GEr/NS1) Going out on a blind date with a guy, and psychologists want to predict your behavior. So what determines your expectancies here? You have gone out on many dates before so you have an idea of how things will go, but never with this guy. So at the beginning, you will act different because you will be trying to figure out how to act with men, but then after time, you will be trying to figure out how to act with this man. Expectancy in any situation will be a function of specific expectancy in that situation plus generalized expectancy divided by the number of times you have been in the situation (more times in the situation, the more the GE drops out and you are operating on the basis of specific expectancies). Generalized expectancies contribute to consistency in behaviors. o Reinforcement value related reinforcers RVa,S1= F (Era Rb-n, S1 + RV(b-n), S1) Why do you really want some things, and your friend wants other things? One student want to be an accountant, the other wants to become an entrepreneur. Lets assume they have the same expectancies (I could become), but why the difference in values? The values of any given reinforcer depends upon the value of the other outcomes to which it will lead. Reinforcement value of any payoff in any situation (excitement, income, autonomy) = function of expectancy that that something will lead to a variety of other payoffs (Rb-n) in that situation + the value placed on those reinforcements in that situation. o Minimal goal level 61 Consider, some students have to get no less than an A-, whereas others just want to pass. The same thing happens in relationships. Some people need a lot of verbal expression, whereas other do not. The minimal level in a hierarchy of goals that a person finds reinforcing. o Generalized expectancies for problem-solving (GEPS): trust, locus of control Some expectancies cut across need areas that are not specific to the situation He didnt go into detail here Nature of Maladjustment o Problems in living are the result of Low FM + High NV If the person believes that the pursuit of important goals will lead to failure of punishment, thats what motivates neurotic behaviors. Now what leads to this thought? o Contributing factors to low FM + High NV Erroneous expectancies o Maladaptive and irrational beliefs with their origin in early family experiences Skill deficits o Some people have trouble getting along because they lack the skills that they need (e.g. behaviors such as assertiveness, cognition such as problem solving skills) Excessive need value o A person values one class of outcomes so highly that it comes to drive their behavior all the time (e.g. dominance). High minimal goal level Conflicting goals o Need to be taken care of and the need to be admired as a strong and independent person Evaluation / Discussion o Doing without unconscious / self / emotions He did not deny any of these, but he said they are hard to describe and measure so he described the same stuff without those constructs. o Systematic? It is quite systematic, but are you impressed by it? Is this theory better than others who are not as systematic? o The situation - how to classify and measure o No vision of human nature It has a formalistic empty quality to the theory. He is not thinking deeply about human kind and that bothers people sometimes. o Domain-specific mechanisms vs. general 62 No attempt to make distinction about how they learn about the social domains of life o Learning mechanism 63 Social Cognitive Theory: Bandura Background o Most influential author of clinical psychology after Freud. He was always 2 months ahead of the other researchers, and moved the entire field of clinical psychology. Attributes of Classical Learning Theory o Organism is controlled by environment No self-regulatory mechanisms operating in the laboratory rat o Focus on Discrete Molecular Responses Eye blinks, presses on lever o Focus on Direct Personal Experience of the Organism All learning is due to personal direct responses to the environment o Effects of reinforcement are automatic and unmediated by awareness No I get it moments Response is stamped in bang! Observational Learning o Acquisition vs. Performance There are a complex set of things to do in different situations. So how do you learn to do that? We have to begin by making a distinction from acquiring behavior to when do we utilize and perform the behavior Shaping and chaining Shaping is the reinforcement of successive approximations to the behavior Chaining is the behavior you create after the first . Until you want to end o Does this make sense in real life?... not really. SO then what is it observational learning o The wide, wide domain of observational learning By watching other people, you learn how to act in new situations Its how we acquire Complex overt behaviors (e.g. surgery) Emotional reactions (e.g. phobias) Standards for self reinforcement (e.g. happy with A- vs. C+) Complex rules that govern social behavior (e.g. social roles like student) Cognitive Regulation of Behavior o Reinforcement mediated by cognition 64 He thought that reinforcement was very important and a crucial determinant of performance, but not so much for acquisition (observational learning). Self reinforcement is just as important as external reinforcement Reinforcements are mediated by cognitive representations of reinforcement contingencies (I get it) and expectancies o Direct vs. vicarious reinforcement Vicarious reinforcement is reinforcement received by someone else which has vicarious effects on you (learn what is not a good idea by someone elses experience) Mechanism through which observational learning affects performance and acquisition o Emotion and cognition Many emotional reactiosn are mediaed by expectancies o Expectancies: self-efficacy and outcome Self efficacy is one that you can successfully perform some behavior Outcome is one that performing the behavior will lead to certain outcomes (is it worth it?) Determinants of which activities people behave in, how much effort they expend in those activities, and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and are related to the thoughts people think of when they are in a task and emotional reactions Self-Regulation o Internal causes of behavior He REJECTS the hypothesis that the environment is the ultimate determinant of behavior, but he is not indorsing free-will and the meta-physical self The causes of our behavior include internal and environmental causes Planning and problem solving processes are important to this because they are active cognitive processes o Self-regulation Definition Self administration of tangible rewards and punishments and covert rewards and punishments (self-praise and selfblame) Three components Setting of Standards for Oneself o Self-reinforcement Self-evaluation 65 o Evaluations ones performance against ones standards Administering rewards/punishments o A lot of variability o Determinants of self-regulation Observational learning Vicarious reinforcements Direct reinforcement o An improvement on superego? Yes Sub-processes are more detailed and explicit and have better treatment implications Readily compatible with situational specificity Avoids dualism and reification Reciprocal Determinism o B=F(P,E) Kurt Lewin Behavior is a function of the person and the environment But P and E are not clearly separate entities, they mutually influence each other o How does P E? How does the person control their environments People select their environments People create their environments (hostility creates further hostility) People can consciously transform their environments o Reciprocal Determinism P B E Model of Human Nature: We are skilled self regulating do-ers of tasks and solvers of problems o Maximizing reinforcement (external and internal) o Constant cognitive appraisal of tasks confronting them, their own skills, and likely outcomes o Goal-setting, planning, problem-solving o Self-evaluation and self-reinforcement o Reciprocal influence with environment BUT Human life is portrayed as a task We like to think there is more to life than tasks Whats missing? o Conflict o Unconscious processing 66 E.g. Psychological defenses o Important motives and affect states E.g. love, dominance, jealousy o Broad patterns of behavior E.g. small molecular pieces of behavior, differences between people o Evolutionary Perspective Standard social science model They think everything is learned through learning and there is no place for evolved tendencies Mischels Cognitive Social Learning Theory of Personality o Competencies (Rotter) o Encoding strategies (Kelly) o Expectancies (Rotter; Bandura) o Subjective values (Rotter) o Self-regulatory systems Goals, standards, plans, self-reinforcement (Rotter, Bandura) ... View Full Document

End of Preview

Sign up now to access the rest of the document