Lec 10 Flashcards
(19 cards)
How is the social-cognitive theory both social and cognitive? Part 1
Human agency: Humans are not passive receivers of environmental input => compare with psychoanalysis, behaviorism
Cognitive processes: similar to Kelly’s view, we cannot dismiss mental cognitive processes as humans are active thinkers
=> above and trait
Social processes: humans shape environment which in turn shape the personality
=> behaviorism and evolutionary
How is the social-cognitive theory both social and cognitive? Part 2
Addressing weaknesses of previous theories
Variability is as important as central tendency across situations, bc we behave differently across situations
=> contrast w/ trait theories
System theories: holistic - bigger picture view of personality instead of a single systems
=> Kelly and Rogers
Good theory should address both idographic and nomethetic nature
=> Allport and trait theorists
Which personality structures did socio-cog. emphasize to study?
Self-referent cognitive processes (think, reflect, and understand about yourself to make choices and control behavior
- competencies and skills
- expectancies and beliefs
- evaluative standards
- personal goals
Competencies
skills
We can interpret traits as skills, e.g. high extroversion as high social skills
=> another contrast to Trait theories is how they make universal predictions, competencies are context-specific
=> also, skills can be acquired unlike innate from traits
=> unlike behaviorism can be acquired through obs. learning
Apart from behavioral skills, there’s cognitive:
- Threat appraisal when coping with stress (in our enviro.)
- Coping skills (evaluate our coping resources)
Beliefs and expectancies
- we hold beliefs and expectations regarding the current situation and its future prospect
=> it happens in our mind and affects our behavior bc it drives us to respond in a particular way
=> behaviorists dismiss expectancies, bc they believe what matters is the value of the reward, not HOW the reward is perceived
(Personal factor) self-efficacy beliefs
These are our perceptions on our capability for action in future situations
Acquired through experiences (includes observational learning)
Parents are the first people to provide children with vicarious learning - cultivating self-efficacy
=> crucial for achievement! more important than skills
=> generally a better predictor of performance
=> not a sense of self-worth
The anchor effect (Cervone and Peake, 1986) and important implications of enhanced self-efficacy from experimental research
Study aim
Results
Implications
Study aim: people’s beliefs about their ability to complete a task (S.E) could be changed by giving them an anchor
=> were told most people could solve either a low number of puzzles, no number mentioned, or a high number of puzzles
Results: people given a high anchor believed they could do more puzzles => tried harder and longer (persist)
=> attempt more difficult tasks
Similarly, when given a low anchor, they believed they could do less and gave up sooner
No anchor group was subsequently in-between
Important implications:
- be calm during task performance
- organize thoughts in an analytical manner
- perform better overall
Goals and Bandura and Cervone (1983) study
Humans are agentic => we set our own goals and try to reach them, rather react to rewards like Skinner’s experiments
- short/long-term, easy/hard, subjective meanings (difficult to define or need to measure)
Goals matter
=> people are de-motivated by long-term abstract goals!
=> people set easier goals with lower self-efficacy goals
=> people set goals that match their value systems (what matters to them)
Bandura and Cervone (1983):
- People perform/improve the most when they have BOTH goals and feedback
=> goals give you a clear direction, helps you focus on your effort
=> feedback tells you how close you are to the goal, what you are doing correct / need to improve
Evaluative standard
What is it?
How does it work?
How can they change?
A mental representation of good and bad => “personal rules” we have to judge how good our behavior is. This is shaped by our own thinking, social and cognitive influences
Superego environment behavior contigency (psychoanalytic theory): superego - internal moral conscience shaped by rules from parents / society
How does this standard work?
- when you do something, you compare it to your own standards. If it meets your standard, you feel good. If not, you might feel embarrassment
=> helps guide your future actions
How can they change?
- seeing other ppl, e.g. role models succeed can make your own standards stronger/higher (strengthened by successful models)
- deindividuation: in a big group, feel anonymous, you might care less about your standards
- moral disengagement: avoid feeling bad when breaking own rules, e.g. everyone cheats, so just do it
Personality as a holistic system, what was Bandura’s principle?
His view on reciprocal determinism: a triad model
Behaviorists viewed enviro. affecting behavior
Trait theorists viewed personality traits affecting behavior
Bandura: environment, behavior, and personal processes reciprocally affect one another
- enviro. shapes personal beliefs, and these beliefs SELECT our enviro.
- personal beliefs motivate behavior, and behavior strengthens personal beliefs
- enviro. encourages behavior, and behavior creates compatible enviro.
What are the implications of the CAPS model on personality assessment?
Personality tests (trait theories) often ignore how ppl act differently in different situations vs CAPS model - emphasizes the importance of the differences to understand one’s personality (see how they react across situations, not just an average)
The best way study personality: repeatedly observe the (within-subjects) same person in different situations
=> to see their unique “if-then” activation patterns
=> how someone interprets and reacts to a situation is central to who they are
Phenomenological perspective: ppl might see the same situation differently and trigger different or the same CAUs (outcome reactions)
=> it is worth studying their individual subjective experience
What are the implications of the CAPS model on personality theories?
The CAPS model shows that your behavior affects your environment, and your environment affects your CAPS systemt
- guides development of self-schema, your beliefs about other, regulatory focus theory (how you set and evaluate goals)
=> this is a feedback loop
=> can explain manifestation or law of attraction
Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1963) research Bobo doll experiment
People learn skills by watching others role model (observational learning)
Vicarious conditioning: experience something indirectly, see what happens to someone else (their outcome)
Bobo doll experiment:
- if the child is being rewarded, they were more likely (more motivated) to copy the role model (across all 3 conditions, despite role model being punished)
- when there is no reward: children copied more if the adult was rewarded or had no consequences; copied less if the adult was punished
=> what they copy depends on the outcome of the role model
=> power of role models and the consequences shown
Is self-control a fixed trait OR a trainable skill (Socio-cognitive theory)
- The Marshmallow test is a famous experience that tests for self-control
- the findings show that kids who could wait tend to do better later in life
- predictor of success.
Self-control can be learned (Bandura & Mischel, 1965)
- there was a live model, symbolic (tv) model, no model present where the adult gave into temptation
- found that kids can learn self-control by watching adults or other models, because despite high-delay children at pre-test, they gave in
- strongest effect was in the live model condition
=> self-control can be weakened by seeing others give in
=> regulated by seeing successful role model
How does the CAPS model explain self-control?
Self-control involves how you think about it and react to situations
Use mental strategies to help yourself wait:
- distract yourself e.g. by covering the treat
- focus on other features e.g. its shape
- pretend it is smth else, e.g. a rock
- focus on the “cool” (logical) cognitive units (thoughts) e.g. you can get more
Research development inspired by SCT
- self-schemas (Markus)
The schematic network model and reaction-time method
- self-schemas closer to your self-concept take fewer paths (stronger) therefore take less RT
Self-schemas: beliefs about the self
- we extract info based on our self-schemas
- retain info that is aligned with it
- behave accordingly to them, reinforced by our behavior
=> self-enhancement motives: seek info to bolster and establish a positive self-image
=> self-verification motives is seeking info to confirm certain self-schemas (even if negative)
Research development inspired by SCT
- implicit theories and mindsets
(2 theories) Dweck
Entity theory: intelligence is inborn (fixed mindset)
Incremental theory: anything can be improved or changed (growth mindset)
=> mindset affects your goals and outcomes
Entity: focus on performance, don’t think can learn much from experience
Incremental: see every performance as an opportunity to learn
This mindset theory is a building block in the CAPS model for people to understand their interactions with the social enviro., how you think, feel, and act
Research development inspired by SCT
- Regulatory focus (Higgins)
People adopt different evaluative standards => different emotions
Ideal-self: motivated by dreams, aspirations, improvements
=> don’t reach it, become disappointed
Ought-self: motivated by duties and obligations
=> feel shame and guilt if not fulfilled obligation
Implications:
- the same goals can feel different on how you frame the goals
- a goal is more efficient when aligned with your regulatory focus
Focus on achieving gains for Ideal-self
Focus on avoiding losses for Ought-self
Research development inspired by SCT
- Knowledge and Appraisal Architecture (KAPA)
Created to address the weaknesses of older trait theories (that assumes people have fixed traits)
Must tell apart structures (what we know about ourselves) vs Processes (how you think and react to situations)
=> How you can be both consistent (stable sense of self) and variable (change across situations)
Combination:
Knowledge (structure): the stable things you know about yourself, e.g. your self-schema
Appraisal (process): how you judge or evaluate each situation using self-knowledge (dynamic and changes depending)
=> Personality is about what you know about yourself, and how you judge situations
