L11 - CAPS

Question 1

What is the personality consistency paradox?

and what do within-person variability and between-person variability assume?

Answer 1

we intuitively see personality as stable over time and across situations but behaviour is actually inconsistent across situations (within-person variability)

Within-person variability:
- assumes that variation in personality across situations is meaningless “noise” and a product of measurement error

Between-person variability:
- assumes that people with the same score on a personality trait will behave in the same way in a particular situation

Question 2

What is the person argument approach to the personality consistency paradox?

and what are the strengths and limitations of this method?

Answer 2

to resolve personality consistency paradox, aggregate individual’s behaviour on a given dimension across situations to estimate a “true” personality score

strengths of this method:
- personality score accurately predicts behaviour in general
– people reliably differ from each other

Limitations:
- less accurate at predicting behaviour at any one given time for a specific individual (within-person variability)
- cannot explain/predict why people with similar personality scores react differently in a given situation (between-person variability)

Question 3

What is the cognitive affective processing system?

can we predict a person’s specific behaviour in a specific situation?

Answer 3

variation in behaviour across situations is not evidence of the non-existence of personality or meaningless “noise”, but meaningful and predictable

specific situation predictably elicit specific behavioural response in specific people
- to understand variation in people’s behaviour, we need to understand how they’re interpreting the situation

a person’s mind is made up of cognitive-affective units

Question 4

What are cognitive-affective units (CAUs)?

Answer 4

encodings and construals
- way that self, other people, situation is being perceived

expectancies and beliefs
- expectations about outcomes, self-efficacy

affective and physiological responses
- emotions, physical sensations

goals
- relevant to the situation, values

behavioural scripts and self-regulatory strategies
- how to go about achieving desired goals

organized in an associative network
- some linked while others not
- strength of links is stable across situations

organization of CAUs is unique to each person
- determined by past experiences and biological predispositions

Question 5

How are CAUs activated?

Answer 5

situations activate a particular set of CAUs (situational activation)
- not all CAUs are active at the same time
- specific CAUs become temporarily accessible based on features of the situation

Question 6

What are If…Then behavioural profiles?

Answer 6

different situations activate different CAUs causing different behaviours

each person’s unique network of CAUs results in predictable and stable if…then behavioural profile
- if situation A, then behaviour X
- if situation B, then behaviour Y

Question 7

What counts as a situation?

Answer 7

not specific contexts
- e.g., work, school, home

what matter are the psychological features of situations
- usually related to other people
- not just features that are actually present, but also that are perceived/imagined
– e.g., being praised, being rejected, being criticized, being asked to hang out by a friend, being asked to hang out by a romantic interest

Question 8

What forms the core of the personality system?

Answer 8

organization of CAUs form the core of the personality system

psychological features of a situation (real or imagined) –> activated distinctive pattern of CAUs –> leading to unique and stable if…then behavioural profiles

Question 9

Describe Shoda et al.’s Wediko Summer Camp study (1994).

do unique if…then profiles characterize individual differneces in social behaviour?

Answer 9

Method: observed children’s behaviour in various situations at summer camp
- ages 7-13 years old

identified several psychological features of situations (“if”) and recorded behaviour in these situations (“then”)
- peer approaches
- peer teases
- adult praises
- adult warns
- adult punishes

Results: each child’s behaviour were systematically related to features in their situation
- unique if…then profiles
- if…then profiles highly stable over time

Question 10

What are the strengths of CAPS?

Answer 10

Interactionist consensus of person-situation debate

accounts for within-person variability
- variability is useful to understand underlying personality system

accounts for between-person variability

Question 11

How does CAPS explain within-person variability?

Answer 11

different situations activate different CAUs causing differnt behaviours

stables if…then behavioural profiles

Question 12

How does CAPS explain between-person variability?

Answer 12

different networks oc CAUs between people result in differences in behaviour when faced with the same situation

due to different pattern of activation among CAUs

Question 13

What do CAPS imply?

Answer 13

knowing a person’s “mind” (CAUs), not traits, allows us to make specific predictions about how that person is likely to behave in a novel situation

we can use a person’s observable if…then behavioural profile to infer what’s going on in their unobservable mind (CAUs)

Question 14

Explain the paradox of rejection sensitivity

why do people sometimes behave in paradoxical ways?

Answer 14

Rejection sensitivity: disproportionate fear to being rejected

leads them to often be very accomodating of others

BUT sometimes behave in aggressive (especially passive aggressive) ways
- self-fulfillinf prophecy: aggressive behaviour leads to actual rejection

Why?
- random/confusing or meaningful/predictable?

Question 15

How can CAPS be used to understand rejection sensitivity?

Answer 15

CAUs: fear rejection but also expect it
- leads to stable if…then profiles

if rejection not perceived in immediate situation, then accommodate, but remain vigilant for signs of rejection
- engage behaviours to prevent rejection

if situation is ambiguous, then interpret social cues as signs of rejection

if rejection detected, then hostility and aggression
- failure in achieving important goal of avoiding rejection
- attempt at self-protection

Question 16

Describe Downey & Feldman’s study on rejection sensitivity and anxious expectations (1996).

does high rejection sensitivity lead to perceiving rejection in ambiguous situations?

Answer 16

Method: Ps introduced to confederate with whom they were going to chat with for two short sessions (10mins and 5mins)
- comeplted a self-report measure of rejection sensitivity
- self-report on mood, including feelings of rejection
- pleasant initial session (10mins)
- informed that confederate will not be continuing with the experiment
- experimental manipulation:
– experimental group: no explanation (ambiguous)
– control: no time for second session
- self-report on mood, including feelings of rejection, again

Results:
- people that are more sensitive to rejection were more likely to feel rejected when told that confederate did not want to continue
- suggests that they readily perceive rejection in ambiguous behaviour of others, but not in all situations

Question 17

Describe Ayduk et al.’s study on rejection sensitivity and hot sauce (2008).

do people high in rejection sensitivity react to rejection with aggression?

Answer 17

Method: study on “how people choose partners in dating services”
- wrote a short biosketch
– told it would be emailed to a person (potential partner) that would have to choose between the P or someone else to have a 15 minute chat with
- completed a self-report measure of rejection sensitivity
- experimental manipulation:
– Rejection: not chosen by potential partner
– Control: internet down so email wasn’t sent
- P asked to help experimenter with different study examining link between personality and food preferences
– P prepared food for potential partner who hates spicy food
– measure of aggression: how much hot sauce do they give the potential partner?

Results:
- rejection elicited aggression only in those high in rejection sensitivity

Question 18

Describe Adyuk et al.’s study on rejection sensitivity and hostility in relationships (1999).

do people high in rejection sensitivity also react to rejection with aggression in their romantic relationships?

Answer 18

Method: 2-week dail diary study completed by heterosexual women in a romantic relationship
- completed a self-report measure of rejection sensitivity
- every day, reported on:
– mood, including feelings of rejection
– whether they had experienced a conflict with their partner

examined if feelings of rejection predicted experiencing a conflict the next day

Results: evidence of same pattern in romantic relationships
- in low rejection sensitive (RS) people, feelings of rejection and conflict unrelated
- in high rejection sensitive (RS) people, feelings of rejection on previous day predicted conflict today
– if high feelings of rejection yesterday, then more likely to have a conflict today
– if low feelings of rejection yesterday, then less likely to have a conflict today
- evidence that high RS people are more reactive to rejection

Question 19

How can CAPS be applied?

Answer 19

can be used in every day life to make sense of the people around you

can use observable if…then behavioural profiles to make inferences about unobservable mind (CAUs)

psychotherapy aims to help people identify their CAUs and change them so that their if…then profiles are more adaptive