Date post: | 20-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 233 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality Architecture
Daniel CervoneUniversity of Illinois at Chicago
Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self Wed., August 27, 2008
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive Measures
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive MeasuresIII. “Social-Cognitive Person” and Internal Dialogue
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive MeasuresIII. “Social-Cognitive Person” and Internal Dialogue
-- social-cognitive theories and “personality architecture” -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appraisal Pers. Architecture) -- Idiographic analysis of cross-situational coherence
OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches
-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?
II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive MeasuresIII. “Social-Cognitive Person” and Internal Dialogue
-- social-cognitive theories and “personality architecture” -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appraisal Pers. Architecture) -- Idiographic analysis of cross-situational coherence
IV. Implications of Social-Cognitive Paradigms for Discursive and Dialogical Approaches -- priming knowledge and modifying dialogue -- “stored” knowledge and appraisal-as-dialogue
Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183-204.
Cervone, D., Caldwell, T. L., Fiori, M., Orom, H., Shadel, W. G., Kassel, J., & Artistico, D. (in press). What underlies appraisals?: Experimentally testing a knowledge-and-appraisal model of personality architecture among smokers contemplating high-risk situations. Journal of Personality.
Cervone, D., & Lott, D. T. (2007). Language and the languages of personality. European Review, 15, 419-437.
Person possesses stored knowledge that is activated
through causal mechanisms and processes
Person constructs meaning via discourse/dialogue that is positioned in a social and
interpersonal space
Cognitive/Representational Discursive/Dialogical
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
What are some implications of a discursive/dialogical perspective for social-cognitive theory and research?
Strategy: A specific case.
The specific case:Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
The specific case:Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
“efficacy beliefs . . . determine the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8)
The specific case:Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency
“efficacy beliefs . . . determine the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8)
Perceptions of Self-Efficacy
Goals(level of aspiration
personally set)
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Could be any result between measures, e.g.
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
But one generally finds this result between measures
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”?
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”? Treat “measures” as a form of discourse.
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
Is it
you
r go
al, a
t the
m
omen
t, to
rea
ch le
vel X
?
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”?
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
Is it
you
r go
al, a
t the
m
omen
t, to
rea
ch le
vel X
?
Violates discursive
conventions
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”?
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
Is it
you
r go
al, a
t the
m
omen
t, to
rea
ch le
vel X
?
Violates discursive
conventions
“I not capable of doing X, but it is my goal”
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: You have to get a positive correlation (if people use the word “goal” normally in discourse)
Violates discursive
conventions
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
Mea
sure
of
Lev
el o
f G
oal
Discursive critique: You have to get a positive correlation (if people use the word “goal” normally in discourse)
Violates discursive
conventions
The discursive conventions creates a violation of the measurement assumptions (independent variables creating a 2-D space)
General implication: Re: “Self-efficacy mechanism” . . . “determine[s] the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8), and associated “measures” of the variables:
“psychologists think they are conforming to a scientistic paradigm [but] they are actually doing something different . . . small-scale discourse analysis. . . What they present as causal laws are none other than discourse conventions.” “participants [give] commentaries on the narratives . . . the ‘experimenter’ presents them” (Harre, 2001, p. 175)”
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
Two social-cognitive variable systems
Core Units of Analysis in Social-Cognitive Theories of Personality__________________________________________________________________
Cognitive-Affective Person Variables Basic Personal Capabilities (Mischel; Mischel & Shoda) (Bandura)__________________________________________________________________
Encoding Categories Symbolizing CapabilityExpectancies Forethought CapabilityAffects Vicarious CapabilityGoals / Values Self-regulatory CapabilityCompetencies / Self-regulatory Systems Self-reflection Capability__________________________________________________________________
Adapted from Mischel (1973), Mischel and Shoda (1995), and Bandura (1986).
-- why these variables? what principles yield these variables?-- how do the variables relate to one another?-- are they structural or functional?-- where is the personality structure/process distinction?
Core Units of Analysis in Social-Cognitive Theories of Personality__________________________________________________________________
Cognitive-Affective Person Variables Basic Personal Capabilities (Mischel; Mischel & Shoda) (Bandura)__________________________________________________________________
Encoding Categories Symbolizing CapabilityExpectancies Forethought CapabilityAffects Vicarious CapabilityGoals / Values Self-regulatory CapabilityCompetencies / Self-regulatory Systems Self-reflection Capability__________________________________________________________________
Adapted from Mischel (1973), Mischel and Shoda (1995), and Bandura (1986).
Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture (KAPA); Cervone, 2004
Three distinctions in modeling the architecture of personality
Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture (KAPA); Cervone, 2004
Three distinctions in modeling the architecture of personality
1) mental phenomena that do versus do not have the quality of intentionality (social-cognitive variables versus core affective states)
Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture (KAPA); Cervone, 2004
Three distinctions in modeling the architecture of personality
1) mental phenomena that do versus do not have the quality of intentionality (social-cognitive variables versus core affective states)
2) enduring structures versus dynamically shifting processes-- in the domain of intentional cognitions, a distinction between knowledge and appraisal
Knowledge -- “our understanding of the way things are and work” (Lazarus,
1991, p. 144). Enduring mental representations of a typical feature or features of oneself, other persons, or the physical or social environment. -- elements of knowledge, then, are enduring cognitive structures of personality
Appraisal -- “continuing evaluation[s] of the significance of what is happening
for one’s personal well-being” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 144). Relational judgments (i.e., evaluations of the relation between oneself and occurrences within particular encounters) that concern the meaning of encounters for oneself.
-- vary dynamically across time and place, and thus are personality processes
Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture (KAPA); Cervone, 2004
Three distinctions in modeling the architecture of personality
1) mental phenomena that do versus do not have the quality of intentionality (social-cognitive variables versus core affective states)
2) enduring structures versus dynamically shifting processes-- in the domain of intentional cognitions, a distinction between knowledge and appraisal
3) in the domain of intentional cognitions, alternative directions of fit (Searle)
-- supports a distinction among beliefs, evaluative standards, and goals
Beliefs about one’sRelation to an Encounter(e.g., self-efficacy appraisals)
Aims in an Encounter(e.g., intentions-in-action, personal goals during a task)
Standards for Evaluating an Encounter (e.g., standards for evaluating ongoing performance)
Beliefs about Oneselfand the World(e.g., self-schemas, situational beliefs)
Standards for Evaluating Oneself and the World(e.g., ethical standards, criteria for self-worth)
Personal, Interpersonal, and Social Aims(e.g., personal goal systems)
KN
OW
LE
DG
EA
PP
RA
ISA
L
BELIEFS EVALUATIVE STANDARDS AIMS/GOALS
Kn
owle
dge
vs.
Ap
pra
isal
Intentional States with Alternative Directions of Fit
KAPA Model of Social-Cognitive Personality Variables
Knowledge Structures
Appraisal Processes Affective Experience
Affective Structures
Decisions and Actions Dispositional Summaries
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of circumstances
If . . . then . . . Profiles plotted across a fixed set of circumstances
Idiographic Clusters of Coherenceidentified with respect to attributes and circumstances identified at the level of the potentially unique individual
Knowledge Structures
Appraisal Processes Affective Experience
Affective Structures
Decisions and Actions Dispositional Summaries
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of circumstances
If . . . then . . . Profiles plotted across a fixed set of circumstances
Idiographic Clusters of Coherenceidentified with respect to attributes and circumstances identified at the level of the potentially unique individual
Dispositions not something people “have” but summaries of things people “do.”
General operating principle: Accessible and applicable elements of knowledge influence appraisal processes
Recently EncounteredSituations
Current Situational Features
Appraisal Processes
Knowledge Structures Pre-existing Cognitive andAffective States
Implication of general operating principle:
-- Any given element of knowledge (e.g., self-schema) may come to mind across multiple situations -- If so, may foster cross-situational consistency in response -- The knowledge and the situations may vary idiosyncratically
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 SitnK
now
ledg
e
Sel f
-Sch
emas
Sit
. Bel
iefs
Self-schema Self-schema
Participanti
App
rais
al . . .
KAPA model strategy
-- conduct assessment at both the knowledge and the appraisal levels of the personality architecture
-- remain sensitive to idiosyncratic patterns of personality coherence (particularly cross-situational coherence in appraisals)
Research: Self-schemas and Cross-situational coherence in self-efficacy appraisal
Before turning to those results, as aside: Why study self-efficacy appraisals?
-- often highly correlated with outcomes of interest
-- correlated even when controlling for other variables of interest
-- manipulations of subjective appraisals of self-efficacy influence subsequent behavior independent of objective skill levels
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Kno
wle
dge
Sel f
-Sch
emas
Sit
. Bel
iefs
Self-schema Self-schema
Participanti
Con
text
ualiz
ed S
elf-
Eff
icac
y A
ppra
isal
. . .
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn . . .
Traditional Strategy (i.e., I’m not doing this): 1) Select a nomothetic trait category2) Identify its “manifestations3) Gauge consistency across these for all persons
XYZness
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
123456789
10
Partic
Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn
Self-schema Self-schema
Participanti
. . .
Research Methods
1. Unstructured assessment of self-schemas -- schematic personal strengths and weaknesses, plus a
Q-sort(ish) trait rating task that identifies a “most important trait”
Research Methods
1. Unstructured assessment of self-schemas -- schematic personal strengths and weaknesses, plus a
Q-sort(ish) trait rating task that identifies a “most important trait”
2. Sorting task to assess situational beliefs -- relation of a given attribute to various social contexts
Research Methods
1. Unstructured assessment of self-schemas -- schematic personal strengths and weaknesses, plus a
Q-sort(ish) trait rating task that identifies a “most important trait”
2. Sorting task to assess situational beliefs -- relation of a given attribute to various social contexts
3. Assessment of Contextualized Appraisals-- self-efficacy for executing specific behaviors in context
Research Methods
1. Unstructured assessment of self-schemas -- schematic personal strengths and weaknesses, plus a
Q-sort(ish) trait rating task that identifies a “most important trait”
2. Sorting task to assess situational beliefs -- relation of a given attribute to various social contexts
3. Assessment of Contextualized Appraisals-- self-efficacy for executing specific behaviors in context
Predictions -- Consistently high/low appraisals in situationslinked to positively/negatively valenced self-knowledge-- faster appraisals in schema-relevant situations -- priming knowledge structures alters self-efficacy
appraisals
Participant 37
Work well independently Perfectionistic
Talk to, and cheer up, depressed friend
If spent too much $,return clothes
If lost in course, speak with professor
Responsible
Make friends w/ classmate to get lecture notes
Participant 6“shy”
Participant 7“shy”
give def. of largeword in group
participate inclass discussion
discuss feelings ofof emb. w/ friend
make plansfor date
Participant 6“shy”
Participant 7“shy”
give def. of largeword in group
participate inclass discussion
discuss feelings ofof emb. w/ friend
make plansfor date
keep conversation going (on trip)
If spill drink, remain calm
remain calm, composedin class presentation
Participant 6“shy”
Participant 7“shy”
Participant 108Participant 96
Independent Independent
Be yourself with group of new friends
Defend self ifcriticized by prof.
In group of friends, define obscure word
If need to study, getfriend to run errand
Agree to friend’ssocial plans
Avoid being late forearly a.m. class mtngs.
Make friends w/ classmateto get lecture notes
Partic 7
Skilled at Public Relations
Shy
Partic 7
Skilled at Public Relations
Shy
Ask question / professor
Lively anecdote/interview
Lively conversation/ friend
Discuss problems / friend
Participant 48
Can have a goodtime naturally
Crabby andbitchy
Participant 48
Can have a goodtime naturally
Crabby andbitchy
Entertain a crowdat party w/ jokes
Reveal true selfon a date
Remain calm if profcriticizes work habits
Avoid criticizingboyfriend’s driving
Be yourself with group of new friends
Cheer up commutersstuck on delayed train
Chastise idle membersof work project
Remain calm ifcut off in traffic
P. #2 I can be funny at times [high E]
5 I have a very welcoming personality that greets people with a smile or a nice joke or even a nice little hug [high A]
7 I hardly seem to find fault in people I may not agree with them and I may not want to associate with them, but to each his own [high A]
8 determination . . . hardworking [high C]
9 I am very responsible [high C]
10 I am a hardworker. I feel that if any job is given to me that I can and will accomplish it. [high C]
11 I know how to get along with people. I am kind, caring [high A]
but then get very serious when need be [low E]
Another aspect of my personality is my mean side [low A]
upon meeting a person, I will quickly judge the person to see if they are worth talking to or if they are wasting my time [low A]
My first main personal weakness is my lack of will power [low C]
I procrastinate for everything [low C]
I'm a procrastinater. I leave many things for the last minute. I also tend to be lazy sometimes, not wanting to do anything except lay in bed all day. [low C]
I have a very short temper and get mad very easily. I also get very irritated at little things that are happening around me. [low A]
X63 = 8.2
Offer to save$ on a date
Avoid criticizing partner’s driving
Be gracious topartner’s parents
Explain concerns withouthurting partners feelings
Participant 63 Participant 118
Nice Able to manipulate people
X118 = 8.0
Resolve tension indating relationship
X63 = 8.2
Offer to save$ on a date
Avoid criticizing partner’s driving
Be gracious topartner’s parents
Explain concerns withouthurting partners feelings
Participant 63 Participant 118
Nice Able to manipulate people
X118 = 8.0
Resolve tension indating relationship
Schematic Attributes
Mea
n S
elf-
Eff
icac
y A
ppra
isal
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
Situational Beliefs: Categorization of Situational Relevance
6.2
6.6
7
7.4
7.8Pers. StrengthsMost Imp. Trt.Pers. Wkns.
? – maybe you don’t need the idiographic assessments?
Aschematic AttributesSchematic Attributes
Mea
n S
elf-
Eff
icac
y A
ppra
isal
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
Situational Beliefs: Categorization of Situational Relevance
6.2
6.6
7
7.4
7.8 Pers. StrengthsMost Imp. Trt.Pers. Wkns.
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
6.2
6.6
7
7.4
7.8 Positive TraitNegative Trait
Cervone, 2004, Psychological Review
Sel
f-E
ffica
cy A
ppra
isal
Sel
f-E
ffica
cy A
ppra
isal
Hinders Irrelevant Helps Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Beliefs about Relevance of Situations to Schematic Attributes
Schematic Personal Strengths Schematic Personal Weaknesses
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Schematic Personal Strengths Schematic Personal Weaknesses
Cervone, et al. (2007). Psy. of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 44-54.
Smokers and appraisal of self-efficacy for avoiding smoking.
For different people – even those who seem similar (“I’m strong-willed”), different situations are (ir)relevant at the level of the individual case.
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Res
pons
e T
ime:
Dif
fere
nce
Sco
re (
mse
c)
Response Times: “Yes” Responses in Situations of Varying Relevance to Schematic Positive Attributes
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Subjective Relevance of Personal Attributes to Situations
Cervone, Orom, Artistico, Shadel, & Kassel, 2007, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
Response Times
Question: Can one predict from overall aspects of knowledge system to overall tendencies in appraisal?
Question: Can one predict from overall aspects of knowledge system to overall tendencies in appraisal?
Cognitive Complexity
-- highly complex systems of situational- and self-knowledge
may “buffer” against extreme high or low self-appraisal
-- predict negative relation between complexity and situation-
to-situation variability in self-appraisal
Table 2
Correlations between the Complexity of Situational and Self-Knowledge
and Self-Efficacy Appraisal
____________________________________________________________
Complexity of Attribute-Situation Self-Efficacy Appraisal _______________________
Knowledge System Mean Variance ____________________________________________________________
Schematic Attributes +.260 -.461*
Experimenter-Provided Attributes +.155 -.057____________________________________________________________
Note. * p < .025.
Self-Schemas
Test experimentally
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
High/ConfidentAppraisals
Priming
To test:
-- in separate sessions, assess self and social knowledgea) self-schemas (positive and negative)b) situational beliefs (relevance of schematic attributes to various social situations)
To test:
-- in separate sessions, assess self and social knowledgea) self-schemas (positive and negative)b) situational beliefs (relevance of schematic attributes to various social situations)
-- in two subsequent sessions, prime alternative self-schemas (via a “memory test”) then assess self-efficacy appraisals
To test:
-- in separate sessions, assess self and social knowledgea) self-schemas (positive and negative)b) situational beliefs (relevance of schematic attributes to various social situations)
-- in two subsequent sessions, prime alternative self-schemas (via a “memory test”) then assess self-efficacy appraisals
-- prediction: priming affects appraisals but only in relevant contexts
To test:
-- in separate sessions, assess self and social knowledgea) self-schemas (positive and negative)b) situational beliefs (relevance of schematic attributes to various social situations)
-- in two subsequent sessions, prime alternative self-schemas (via a “memory test”) then assess self-efficacy appraisals
-- prediction: priming affects appraisals but only in relevant contexts
-- measures are open-ended, sensitive to idiosyncrasy; data computed separately for each individual case and then pooled
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
Appraisals
SchematicPersonal Strength
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
Appraisals
PrimeSchematic
Personal Strength
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
SchematicPersonal Strength
Appraisals
Prime
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
SchematicPersonal Strength
Appraisals
Prime
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Aggregated Across Conditions/Independent of Priming
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
SchematicPersonal Strength
Appraisals
Prime
Finding consistent with prediction
But, another alternative: Could be global
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sitn
. . .
Sit9
SchematicPersonal Strength
Appraisals
Prime
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
Again, let’s treat “measures” as a form of discourse.
Self-efficacy measures as discourse: People discuss, on paper, with an experimenter, their capabilities for performance in different prospective social contexts.
Self-efficacy measures as discourse: People discuss, on paper, with an experimenter, their capabilities for performance in different prospective social contexts.
E.g., instead of
“contextualized measure of participants’ self-efficacy for resisting the urge to smoke”
view as
“participants discuss, with an experimenter, the question of whether they can avoid smoking if they were to face various high-risk smoking cues”
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
But:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
But:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Same participant, same experimenter, same questions (counterbalanced) so same discursive context.
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
But:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Procedural difference between conditions seems irrelevant to the discourse about capabilities for performance (subtle priming manipulation).
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
But:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Can’t accommodate result into Harre critique: “causal laws are none other than discourse conventions. . . participants [merely give] commentaries on the narratives . . . the ‘experimenter’ presents them” (Harre, 2001, p. 175)”
Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.
But:
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Primed Knowledge
Sel
f-E
ffic
acy
App
rais
al
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute
Empirical result (same person saying different things in response to same question) readily predictable from “stored knowledge / causal mechanisms” perspective.
Priming results:-- ubiquitous in social-cognitive literature -- if treat social-cognitive measures as a specialized discourse, then “priming stored knowledge” paradigms routinely demonstrate effects of priming on the content of discourse
Knowledge Structures
Appraisal Processes Affective Experience
Affective Structures
Decisions and Actions Dispositional Summaries
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of circumstances
If . . . then . . . Profiles plotted across a fixed set of circumstances
Idiographic Clusters of Coherenceidentified with respect to attributes and circumstances identified at the level of the potentially unique individual
KAPA Model
Knowledge Structures
Appraisal Processes
KAPA Model
Knowledge Structures
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes
Knowledge Structures
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes as internal mono-
and dialogues
S-Schemapos S-Schemaneg
Knowledge Structures
KAPA Model
S-Schemapos S-SchemanegIf prime +/ different internal dialogue
Appraisal Processes as internal mono-
and dialogues
Knowledge Structures
Internal Dialogue
SchemaPers X
Hypothetically, if prime schematic knowledge of Person X/Y, different dialogical positions (e.g., Andersen, Baldwin)
SchemaPers Y
-- Explore schematic knowledge, including via manipulated accessibility of knowledge/priming, as basis of the capacity to multiple dialogical positions
The Social-Cognitive Person
The Dialogical Person
-- “Voicing” social-cognitive models by treating appraisals as dialogue -- Suggestion: that social-cognitive research provides tools to understand:
-- the knowledge base required to adopt dialogical positions-- how differential accessibility of knowledge contributes to the position one adopts within a dialogical space
“to explain why people act the way they do” we need “a science which is partly founded on interpretation” and “the classical [physicalistic psychology] model invades at its peril.”
Charles Taylor, Peaceful Coexistence in Psychology
“to explain why people act the way they do” we need “a science which is partly founded on interpretation” and “the classical [physicalistic psychology] model invades at its peril.”
But in “the study of the necessary of infrastructural conditions” that enable people to think and act and “the structure of these capacities, our competences . . . The classical model of science is the appropriate one.”
Charles Taylor, Peaceful Coexistence in Psychology
“to explain why people act the way they do” we need “a science which is partly founded on interpretation” and “the classical [physicalistic psychology] model invades at its peril.”
But in “the study of the necessary of infrastructural conditions” that enable people to think and act and “the structure of these capacities, our competences . . . The classical model of science is the appropriate one.” ----
And individual differences in those capacities, including the capacities to create dialogue from multiple positions.
Thank you.