Post on 18-Jan-2016
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
CHAPTER 12
Cognitive Topics in Personality
1
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
2
Part II. The Cognitive/Experiential Domain
Cognitive Experiences
Emotions
Individual Differences in Cognition
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
3
Individual differences in how people process information
Perception
Interpretation
Goals
Individual Differences in Perception
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
4
Field Dependence-Independence Theory
Reducer-Augmenter Theory
Field Dependence-Independence (Witkin,1962)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
5
Field Dependent Perceptions of environment based on
external cues from the environment (“the field”).
Field Independent Perceptions of environment based on
internal cues from their own bodily sensations.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
Measuring field independence6
Rod and Frame Test (RFT)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
Measuring field independence7
Embedded Figures Test (EFT)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
8
Dependent or Independent?
1. More attentive to social cues
2. Greater Responsibility-taking, more self-reliant
3. Warm, affectionate, tactful, accepting of others
4. Demanding, inconsiderate, manipulative, cold and distant in relationships
5. Shows Initiative
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
Field Dependence-Independence: What does research say?
9
Education: Field independent: natural sciences, math,
engineering, language Field dependent: social sciences and
education
Careers: Field independent officers performed better
on shooting task and gave more accurate description of critical event
Reducer-Augmenter Theory (Petrie)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
10
People differ in their reactions to sensory stimulation
Reducers: Nervous system dampens, or “reduces,” the effects of sensory stimulation.
Augmenters: Nervous system amplified, or “augments,” the subjective impact of sensory cues.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
11
For each pair of activities or events, choose the response that best indicates your preference:
1 2 3 4 5 6
Hard Rock Music
Soft Pop Music
Action Movies
Comedy Movies
Contact Sports
Noncontact Sports
A drum solo
A flute solo
Too much exercise
Too Little Exercise
ReducersAugmenter
s
Reducer-Augmenter Theory (Petrie)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
12
Ex: Individual Difference in Pain Tolerance: when people undergo same physical stimulus, but react differently to the stimulus (report a different level of pain). Pain
ToleranceLow High
Augmenters Reducers
Research Says!
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
13
Reducers show relatively small brain responses to flashes of light and bursts of noise compared to augmenters
Reducers seek strong stimulation, drink more coffee, smoke more, and have a lower threshold to become bored
Reducers tend to start smoking at an earlier age, and to engage in minor delinquencies as adolescents
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
14
Match similar terms together! Reducer Augmenter Field-Independence Field-Dependence Extraversion Introversion Psychology Students
INTERPRETATION
Individual Differences in Interpretation
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
15
Individual differences that determine our construal of the world
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood16
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood17
Client names a set of 10 to 20 people who
are important in his/her life.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood18
Researcher selects 3 elements (people) and
asks client which 2 elements are similar and which element is
different?
Mys
elf
Sig
nifi
can
t O
ther
An
ex
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood19
Mys
elf
Sig
nifi
can
t O
ther
An
ex
Client provides label for similarity.
Laid-back
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood20
Mys
elf
Sig
nifi
can
t O
ther
An
ex
Client provides label for difference.
Laid-back Nervous
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood21
Mys
elf
Sig
nifi
can
t O
ther
An
ex
Laid-back Nervous
Label for similarity and label for difference make up similarity-contrast construct.
Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
22
Construct Systems: personal theories that help us to understand, control and predict life events.
The ways in which people describe the self and others (i.e., adjectives) shows how people interpret the world.
Personal constructs: Mature------Childish Bad influence-----------Mentor Oddball-----------Mainstream
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
23
Rotter’s Locus of Control:How responsible are you for the events that occur in your life?
External
Internal
Events are outside the person’s control
Events are under the person’s
controlIf I study (behavior), then I will receive an A.
Even if I study (behavior), I may not receive an A.
**Achievement/Success Expectancy**Failure Expectancy
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
24
Example Items-Which are External or Internal?
#2 Many of the unhappy things in people's lives
are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes
they make. #10
In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.
Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really useless.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
Learned Helplessness25
2-Part Study
Learned Helplessness
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
26
Explanatory style: The way in which people explain (“attribute”) bad or good events that happen in their lives
External or internal Stable or unstable Global or specific
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
27
• Did I or an outside force cause this event?
Internal vs.
External• Will this good or bad event
happen again?
Stable vs.
Unstable• Is this good or bad event a
reflection of my global self or a specific life domain?
Universal vs.
Specific
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
28
Bad Event
•External•Unstable•Specific
Optimist
•Internal•Stable•Universal
Pessimist
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
29
Good Event
•Internal•Stable•Universal
Optimist
•External•Unstable•Specific
Pessimist
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood30
On Spring Break in Vegas, Alan wins $3,000 playing
blackjack. Alan is a pessimist. How
would Alan explain the reason for his
winnings?
On Spring Break in Vegas, Kate wins $3,000
playing blackjack. Kate is an
optimist. How would Kate explain the
reason for her winnings?
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood31
Meg received a D on her psychology mid-term. Meg is a pessimist. How
would Meg explain the reason for her
poor grade?
Calvin received a D on his
psychology mid-term. Calvin is an optimist. How would
Calving explain the reason for his
poor grade?
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
32
Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)
Individual difference variable in interpretation
Need to understand and explain the world
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
33
NFC- Example Items
I would prefer complex to simple problems.
Thinking is not my idea of fun. R I feel relief rather than satisfaction after
completing a task that required a lot of mental effort. R
The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
34
Need for Cognition is positively correlated with:
A. AgreeablenessB. ConscientiousnessC. Emotional StabilityD. Openness to ExperienceE. Extraversion
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
35
For each print ad…
1. What was the product?
2. What was the brand?
3. What did the ad claim?
Individual Differences in Goals
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
36
People differ in their goals, and these differences are part of personality
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
37
Dweck: Lay Theories of Intelligence
• Intelligence is a fixed internal characteristic
• People cannot change their intelligence level
Entity Theory
• Intelligence is not fixed and is changeable
• Intelligence can improve through effort, persistence, etc.
Incremental
Theory
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
38
Knee: Lay Theories of Relationships (ITRs)
• Entity theory• Relationship is or is
not meant to last
Destiny
Theory • Incremental Theory
• Relationships can be improved and worked on
Growth
Theory
(Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003)
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
39
ITR: Example Items: Growth or Destiny?
1. The ideal relationship develops gradually over time.
2. Problems in a relationship can bring partners closer together.
3. Relationships that do not start off well inevitably fail.
4. Potential relationship partners are either destined to get along or they are not.
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
40
ITR: Example Items: Growth or Destiny?
The ideal relationship develops gradually over time. G
Problems in a relationship can bring partners closer together. G
Relationships that do not start off well inevitably fail. D
Potential relationship partners are either destined to get along or they are not. D
Life Outcomes? Favorable? Unfavorable?
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood41
Growth
Fewer one night-stands
More time dating same person
More likely to repair relationship when
problems arise
DestinyIf believe RR is meant to
be, then RR lasts long time
If problem arises early on, more likely to
terminate
If initial satisfaction/closeness is
low, more likely to terminate
Greater use of ineffective coping strategies
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
42
ITRs and Big Five
Destiny
Growth
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood43
Growth
↑ Conscientiousness
↑ Agreeableness
Destiny
↑ Openness to Experience
↑ Extraversion
↑ Neuroticism
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
44
Higgins: Theory of Regulatory Focus
• Focused on advancement, growth, accomplishments
• Behaviors = eagerness, approach
Promotion
Focus
• Focused on protection, safety, prevention of negative outcomes and failures
• Behaviors = vigilance, caution, attempts
Prevention
Focus
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
45
Focus determines motivation Promotion-Focus
“If you solve 22 of the 25 anagrams, you will play Wheel of Fortune”
Prevention Focus “If you get 4 or more of the 25 anagrams
wrong, you will play the unvaried repetition task”
DV = Time spent working on unsolvable anagrams
© 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood
46
Higgins: Theory of Regulatory Focus
• Focused on advancement, growth, accomplishments
• Behaviors = eagerness, approach
Promotion
Focus
• Focused on protection, safety, prevention of negative outcomes and failures
• Behaviors = vigilance, caution, attempts
Prevention
Focus
Positively correlated with E and Behavioral
Activation
Positively correlated with N and Harm
Avoidance