according to the text, what behavior(s) form the basis of our conclusions about personality?
ten.iv Learning Approaches to Personality
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will exist able to:
- Describe the behaviorist perspective on personality
- Depict the cognitive perspective on personality
- Draw the social cognitive perspective on personality
In contrast to the psychodynamic approaches of Freud and the neo-Freudians, which relate personality to inner (and hidden) processes, the learning approaches focus only on appreciable beliefs. This illustrates one significant reward of the learning approaches over psychodynamics: Considering learning approaches involve appreciable, measurable phenomena, they tin can be scientifically tested. Many components of psychodynamic theory cannot be quantified and therefore cannot be tested empirically.
THE BEHAVIORAL PERSPECTIVE
Behaviorists do not believe personality characteristics are based on genetics or inborn predispositions. Instead, they view personality as shaped by the reinforcements and consequences outside of the organism. In other words, people behave in a consistent manner based on prior learning. B. F.Skinner, a strict behaviorist, believed that environment was solely responsible for all behavior, including the indelible, consistent behavior patterns studied by personality theorists. In fact, behaviorists believed that if they could perfectly control a persons environs, then they could impart whatever blazon of personality on any individual they choose. Behaviorists likewise did not recollect information technology was necessary to empathise anything that was happening in a persons head, since thoughts and feelings could non be perfectly objectively quantified.
As you lot may think from your study on the psychology of learning, Skinner proposed that nosotros demonstrate consistent behavior patterns considering we take developed certain response tendencies (Skinner, 1953). In other words, welearn to behave in particular ways. We increment the behaviors that lead to positive consequences, and we subtract the behaviors that lead to negative consequences. Skinner disagreed with Freud's idea that personality is fixed in childhood. He argued that personality develops over our entire life, not simply in the first few years. Our responses tin change as nosotros come across new situations; therefore, we tin can wait more variability over time in personality than Freud would anticipate. For example, consider a immature adult female, Greta, a risk taker. She drives fast and participates in unsafe sports such equally hang gliding and kiteboarding. But after she gets married and has children, the system of reinforcements and punishments in her environment changes. Speeding and extreme sports are no longer reinforced, so she no longer engages in those behaviors. In fact, Greta now describes herself as a cautious person.
THE SOCIAL-COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVE
AlbertBandura agreed with Skinner that personality develops throughlearning. He disagreed, withal, with Skinner's strict behaviorist arroyo to personality development, because he felt that thinking and reasoning are important components of learning. He presented a social-cognitive theory of personality that emphasizes both learning based on environmental influences and cognition or personal interpretations as sources of individual differences in personality. In Bandura's social-cognitive theory, the concepts of reciprocal determinism, observational learning, and cocky-efficacy all play a part in personality evolution.
Reciprocal Determinism
In contrast to Skinner's idea that the environment alone determines behavior, Bandura (1990) proposed the concept of reciprocal determinism, in which cerebral processes, beliefs, and context all interact, each factor influencing and existence influenced past the others simultaneously (effigy beneath).Cognitive processesrefer to all characteristics previously learned, including behavior, expectations, and personality characteristics.Behavior refers to anything that we do that may be rewarded or punished. Finally, thecontext in which the behavior occurs refers to the surroundings or situation, which includes rewarding/punishing stimuli.
Bandura proposed the thought of reciprocal determinism: Our behavior, cognitive processes, and situational context all influence each other.
Consider, for case, that you're at a festival and one of the attractions is bungee jumping from a bridge. Do y'all practice it? In this example, the behavior is bungee jumping. Cerebral factors that might influence this beliefs include your beliefs and values, and your by experiences with similar behaviors. Finally, context refers to the reward structure for the behavior. According to reciprocal determinism, all of these factors are in play. The key to this concept is that all components are reciprocal, or influence each other (notation the bidirectional lines in the figure). For example, if you believe that taking a risk is thrilling and fun (i.east. cognitive gene), plus your friends are all going to bungee jump (i.e. situational factor) you are more probable to go for it even if you never have earlier. However, your beliefs tin can also bear on both the cognitive and situational factors. If you choose not to bungee jump it may cause you to alter how you call back about adventure taking, to justify your choose, and may change the feeling of the situation past causing others to back out likewise. Once again, the important insight is that all three interact components collaborate reciprocally to decide personality characteristics.
Observational Learning
Bandura's key contribution to learning theory was the thought that much learning is vicarious. We larn by observing someone else'southward behavior and its consequences, which Bandura called observational learning. He felt that this type of learning likewise plays a part in the development of our personality. Just as we learn individual behaviors, nosotros learn new behavior patterns when we encounter them performed by other people or models. Drawing on the behaviorists' ideas about reinforcement, Bandura suggested that whether nosotros cull to imitate a model'south behavior depends on whether we come across the model reinforced or punished. Through observational learning, we come to learn what behaviors are adequate and rewarded in our culture, and nosotros likewise larn to inhibit deviant or socially unacceptable behaviors by seeing what behaviors are punished.
mustard afterwards observing other customers at a hot dog stand.
Bandura theorizes that the observational learning process consists of four parts. The offset isattention—as, quite simply, one must pay attention to what s/he is observing in order to learn. The second function isretention: to learn 1 must be able to retain the behavior s/he is observing in memory.The third part of observational learning,initiation, acknowledges that the learner must be able to execute (or initiate) the learned behavior. Lastly, the observer must possess themotivation to appoint in observational learning. In our vignette, the child must want to learn how to play the game in order to properly appoint in observational learning.
Researchers have conducted endless experiments designed to explore observational learning, the about famous of which is Albert Bandura'south "Bobo doll experiment."
In this experiment (Bandura, Ross & Ross 1961), Bandura had children individually detect an adult social model interact with a clown doll ("Bobo"). For one group of children, the adult interacted aggressively with Bobo: punching it, boot it, throwing it, and even striking it in the confront with a toy mallet. Another group of children watched the adult interact with other toys, displaying no assailment toward Bobo. In both instances the adult left and the children were immune to interact with Bobo on their own. Bandura found that children exposed to the aggressive social model were significantly more likely to behave aggressively toward Bobo, hitting and kicking him, compared to those exposed to the non-aggressive model. The researchers concluded that the children in the aggressive grouping used their observations of the developed social model's beliefs to determine that aggressive behavior toward Bobo was acceptable.
While reinforcement was not required to elicit the children'southward behavior in Bandura'south offset experiment, information technology is important to admit that consequences do play a function within observational learning. A future accommodation of this written report (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963) demonstrated that children in the aggression grouping showed less aggressive behavior if they witnessed the adult model receive penalty for aggressing confronting Bobo. Bandura referred to this procedure as vicarious reinforcement, as the children did not experience the reinforcement or punishment direct, yet were still influenced by observing it.
We can encounter the principles of reciprocal determinism at work in observational learning. For example, personal factors make up one's mind which behaviors in the environment a person chooses to imitate, and those environmental events in plow are candy cognitively co-ordinate to other personal factors.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura (1977, 1995) has studied a number of cognitive and personal factors that affect learning and personality development, and nigh recently has focused on the concept of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is our level of confidence in our own abilities, developed through our social experiences. Self-efficacy affects how we approach challenges and accomplish goals. In observational learning, self-efficacy is a cognitive factor that affects which behaviors we choose to imitate as well as our success in performing those behaviors.
People who have high self-efficacy believe that their goals are within reach, have a positive view of challenges seeing them as tasks to be mastered, develop a deep interest in and strong commitment to the activities in which they are involved, and chop-chop recover from setbacks. Conversely, people with depression self-efficacy avoid challenging tasks considering they doubt their power to be successful, tend to focus on failure and negative outcomes, and lose confidence in their abilities if they experience setbacks. Feelings of self-efficacy can be specific to certain situations. For instance, a student might feel confident in her ability in English language class but much less then in math class.
JULIAN ROTTER AND LOCUS OF Command
JulianRotter (1966) proposed the concept of locus of command, some other cerebral cistron that affects learning and personality development. Distinct from cocky-efficacy, which involves our belief in our ain abilities, locus of control refers to our beliefs about the power nosotros accept over our lives. In Rotter's view, people possess either an internal or an external locus of control (figure below). Those of us with an internal locus of control ("internals") tend to believe that most of our outcomes are the direct result of our efforts. Those of us with an external locus of control ("externals") tend to believe that our outcomes are outside of our control. Externals see their lives as being controlled by other people, luck, or risk. For instance, say y'all didn't spend much time studying for your psychology exam and went out to dinner with friends instead. When you receive your test score, you see that you earned a D. If you possess an internal locus of control, you lot would virtually probable acknowledge that you failed because you didn't spend enough time studying and determine to study more for the side by side test. On the other paw, if you possess an external locus of command, you might conclude that the test was too hard and not bother studying for the next test, considering you figure you will fail it anyway. Researchers have found that people with an internal locus of control perform ameliorate academically, reach more than in their careers, are more independent, are healthier, are better able to cope, and are less depressed than people who have an external locus of control (Benassi, Sweeney, & Durfour, 1988; Lefcourt, 1982; Maltby, Twenty-four hours, & Macaskill, 2007; Whyte, 1977, 1978, 1980).
Locus of control occurs on a continuum from internal to external.
WALTER MISCHEL AND THE PERSON-SITUATION Contend
WalterMischel was a student of Julian Rotter and taught for years at Stanford, where he was a colleague of Albert Bandura. Mischel surveyed several decades of empirical psychological literature regarding trait prediction of behavior, and his conclusion shook the foundations of personality psychology. Mischel found that the data did not support the cardinal principle of the field—that a person'southward personality traits are consistent across situations. His study triggered a decades-long period of cocky-examination, known every bit the person-situation debate, amidst personality psychologists.
Mischel suggested that possibly we were looking for consistency in the wrong places. He found that although behavior was inconsistent across unlike situations, it was much more consistent within situations—then that a person'due south behavior in one situation would probable be repeated in a like i. And as y'all will see next regarding his famous "marshmallow exam," Mischel too establish that behavior is consistent in equivalent situations across time.
I of Mischel's most notable contributions to personality psychology was his ideas on cocky-regulation. According to Lecci & Magnavita (2013), "Self-regulation is the procedure of identifying a goal or set of goals and, in pursuing these goals, using both internal (e.chiliad., thoughts and impact) and external (eastward.g., responses of anything or anyone in the environment) feedback to maximize goal attainment" (p. vi.3). Self-regulation is likewise known equally volition power. When we talk about will power, nosotros tend to call back of information technology as the ability to delay gratification. For example, Bettina'south teenage daughter made strawberry cupcakes, and they looked delicious. However, Bettina forfeited the pleasance of eating i, considering she is training for a 5K race and wants to be fit and practise well in the race. Would you be able to resist getting a small reward at present in order to get a larger reward later? This is the question Mischel investigated in his now-classic marshmallow examination.
Mischel designed a study to appraise cocky-regulation in young children. In the marshmallow report, Mischel and his colleagues placed a preschool child in a room with 1 marshmallow on the table. The kid was told that he could either eat the marshmallow now, or wait until the researcher returned to the room and then he could take 2 marshmallows (Mischel, Ebbesen & Raskoff, 1972). This was repeated with hundreds of preschoolers. What Mischel and his team found was that young children differ in their degree of self-control. Mischel and his colleagues continued to follow this group of preschoolers through loftier school, and what do you lot think they discovered? The children who had more cocky-control in preschool (the ones who waited for the bigger reward) were more successful in loftier school. They had higher Sabbatum scores, had positive peer relationships, and were less likely to have substance corruption problems; equally adults, they likewise had more stable marriages (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Mischel et al., 2010). On the other hand, those children who had poor cocky-control in preschool (the ones who grabbed the 1 marshmallow) were not as successful in high school, and they were constitute to have academic and behavioral issues.
Today, the debate is generally resolved, and most psychologists consider both the situation and personal factors in understanding behavior. For Mischel (1993), people are situation processors. The children in the marshmallow test each processed, or interpreted, the rewards structure of that situation in their own fashion. Mischel'due south approach to personality stresses the importance of both the situation and the way the person perceives the situation. Instead of behavior beingness determined by the situation, people employ cognitive processes to translate the situation and so behave in accordance with that interpretation.
SUMMARY
Behavioral theorists view personality as significantly shaped and impacted by the reinforcements and consequences outside of the organism. People behave in a consistent manner based on prior learning. B. F. Skinner, a prominent behaviorist, said that we demonstrate consistent behavior patterns, considering we have developed certain response tendencies. Mischel focused on how personal goals play a part in the self-regulation process. Albert Bandura said that one'due south environs can determine beliefs, but at the aforementioned time, people can influence the environment with both their thoughts and behaviors, which is known as reciprocal determinism. Bandura also emphasized how nosotros larn from watching others. He felt that this type of learning also plays a part in the evolution of our personality. Bandura discussed the concept of self-efficacy, which is our level of confidence in our ain abilities. Finally, Rotter proposed the concept of locus of command, which refers to our beliefs about the power we take over our lives. He said that people fall along a continuum between a purely internal and a purely external locus of control.
References:
Openstax Psychology text by Kathryn Dumper, William Jenkins, Arlene Lacombe, Marilyn Lovett and Marion Perlmutter licensed under CC Past v4.0. https://openstax.org/details/books/psychology
Bouton, M. E. (2018). Conditioning and learning. In R. Biswas-Diener & East. Diener (Eds),Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. DOI:nobaproject.com
Exercises
Review Questions:
ane. Cocky-regulation is too known every bit ________.
a. cocky-efficacy
b. volition ability
c. internal locus of control
d. external locus of control
2. Your level of confidence in your own abilities is known as ________.
a. self-efficacy
b. self-concept
c. cocky-control
d. self-esteem
three. Jane believes that she got a bad grade on her psychology paper because her professor doesn't similar her. Jane most likely has an _______ locus of command.
a. internal
b. external
c. intrinsic
d. extrinsic
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. Compare the personalities of someone who has loftier self-efficacy to someone who has low self-efficacy.
2. Compare and contrast Skinner's perspective on personality evolution to Freud's.
Personal Application Questions:
ane. Do you have an internal or an external locus of command? Provide examples to support your respond.
2. As a preschooler, how would you have reacted if y'all were part of the marshmallow study? Would you eat the marshmallow every bit soon as the researcher left the room or wait to exist brought double the amount? How would you react now, and why?
Glossary:
locus of control
reciprocal determinism
cocky-efficacy
social-cognitive theory
Answers to Exercises
Review Questions:
1. B
2. A
3. B
Critical Thinking Questions:
1. People who have loftier self-efficacy believe that their efforts thing. They perceive their goals every bit being within accomplish; have a positive view of challenges, seeing them as tasks to be mastered; develop a deep interest in and potent commitment to the activities in which they are involved; and quickly recover from setbacks. Conversely, people with depression cocky-efficacy believe their efforts have piddling or no event, and that outcomes are across their control. They avoid challenging tasks because they dubiety their abilities to exist successful; tend to focus on failure and negative outcomes; and lose confidence in their abilities if they experience setbacks.
2. Skinner disagreed with Freud's thought that childhood plays an important office in shaping our personality. He argued that personality develops over our unabridged life, rather than in the first few years of life equally Freud suggested. Skinner said that our responses tin can change as we come across new situations; therefore, we tin can see more variability over fourth dimension in personality.
Glossary:
locus of command:beliefs about the ability we have over our lives; an external locus of control is the belief that our outcomes are outside of our command; an internal locus of control is the belief that nosotros control our own outcomes
reciprocal determinism:belief that one's environment can determine behavior, but at the same time, people can influence the environment with both their thoughts and behaviors
self-efficacy:someone's level of confidence in their own abilities
social-cognitive theory: Bandura's theory of personality that emphasizes both cognition and learning as sources of private differences in personality
Source: https://opentext.wsu.edu/psych105/chapter/10-5-learning-approaches-to-personality/
 form the basis of our conclusions about personality?){kind=link}
Post a Comment for "according to the text, what behavior(s) form the basis of our conclusions about personality?"