Weekly Summary PSY504 (Week 6)

In the past I have studied the difference between expert chess players and novice chess players. Basically, expert chess players organize systems of knowledge that they perceive the placement of the pieces through. They have names for the strategies, placement of pieces, and succession of moves. In the team presentation for this week we chose Sherlock Holmes as our fictional character. I was fascinated to learn that Holmes also used this type of knowledge structure to enhance his perceptual abilities (André & Fernand, 2008). Holmes gathered a large body of general knowledge about things, people, events, and circumstances and then was able to draw specific, situational inferences. It is this ability to draw specific conclusions from general knowledge that made Holmes such an expert crime solver.

I chose Bandura as the theorists for this week’s individual paper. I already covered him on the team chart of theories and we chose him as the subject of one of the team papers. I was really able to dig deep into the theories and ideas of Bandura. I have to admit that I am not a big fan of his ideas about modeling and observational learning. It was his ideas on the link between cognitive abilities/skills and learning that most impacted me. Bandura’s perspective is that it is not differences in motivation or emotions that cause differences between people but rather people’s skills/abilities determine personality (Cervone & Pervin, 2010). So, a person that is introverted might lack social skills or a conscientious person better adhere to social norms as the result of the acquisition of a large set of social skills. In my own life I have seen the result of this idea. I tend towards introversion most of the time. I feel inadequate in social situations, not because of a lack of self-esteem, but because in large part I lack the social skills necessary to interaction with a group of people like I see have seen others do. This doesn’t cause any type of Adlerian inferiority complex, but it does lead to a pattern of introversion.

André, D., & Fernand, G. (2008). Sherlock Holmes -- an expert’s view of expertise. British Journal of Psychology, 99(1), 109-125. doi:10.1348/000712607X224469

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

DQ PSY504 (Week 6 DQ 2)

As we have learned, personality development is multifaceted and multidirectional. During this last week, I would like you to reflect on all that you have learned. What will you take away from this course? What has inspired you most as you continue your academic adventure?

Bandura, but not so much his ideas of modeling and observational learning. I understand that leaning can occur outside of reinforcement, but learning is only behavioral potentiality. There must be a motivation for the learning to be exhibit in a person, so the observation that people can learning through modeling is kind of like saying that my job gives me the opportunity to make a lot of money. If I don’t go do what needs to be done to make the money, then that is all my job is: an opportunity. No, it is his ideas of reciprocal determinism that most fascinate me. Bandura postulates that, “When analyzing a person’s behavior, there generally are three factors to consider: the person, his or her behavior, and the environmental setting in which the person acts” and further that, “Each of the three factors under consideration…are reciprocal determinants” (Cervone & Pervin, 2010, p. 439). Of course this turns the whole nature vs. nurture debate on its head! If the behavior, personality development, and the environment are all determinates of each other, then one does not cause the other, but rather there exists a two-way, circular street between them that allows causation in any direction, even bilaterally. I think that this explanation is much closer to what I have observed of human behavior. Personality is not the effect of either biological predisposition or environmental stimuli, more accurately personality is the reasonable explication of the interaction between nature and nurture in a person’s behavior that also has a feedback effect on both. So, nature and nurture come together to create personality and personality in turn has a causal effect on nature and nurture. Thoughts…

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

DQ PSY504 (Week 6 DQ 1)

Think about the many theories/theorists we have read about thus far. Make sure to discuss them with your post. Can your personality be explained from multiple perspectives? If so, how? If not, why not?

I think that it would take multiple perspectives to explain anyone’s personality. For instance, even though Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning and reinforcement can mold behavior through slight, successive approximations, it does not well explain the subjective meaning that people place on those behaviors (Cervone & Pervin, 2010). And conversely, the phenomenology of Rogers advocates a client-centered approach to therapy that does not take into account the physicality of human psychological dysfunctioning. It seems like every new theory purports to be able to explain the entire rigmarole of human behavior, cognition, and personality—when in truth each theory is only applicable to a narrow cross-section of psychology. It would seem, the most prudent course of action would be to make use of each individual theory concurrently, in order to gain a more balanced and inclusive picture of the person.

For example, if were to explain my own personality I would need to include many theories in the analysis: When I was conceived my father contributed a Y chromosome for the 23^rd gene of my genetic makeup. During prenatal gestation this caused my brain to be masculinized with testosterone. When I was young my mother exhibited an authoritarian attachment style. When I was in my teenage years I never fully resolved the identity vs. role confusion stage. As an adult I have exhibited a tendency towards introversion in many situations, but find myself being extroverted when with close friends. I long ago associated the computer screen with stress, so almost every time I sit down at a computer my stomach tightens up. I try to offset this behavioral association by drinking my coffee every day when I get home and sit down at my computer (positive reinforcement). I try desperately to keep any negative thought patterns out of my head, especially the use of any type of global absolute (i.e. I never or I can’t). Last, all of my basal needs have been met my entire life, so I have been left to pursue the higher needs of esteem, love, and self-actualization. This is what led me to college and indeed to this very class and in truth to this very post.

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Weekly Summary PSY504 (Week 5)

I am in love with the social-cognitive perspective of human psychology. This week was really all about personal agency and the power that we have to, “…contribute to [our] own experiences, actions, and personal development” (Cervone & Pervin, 2010, p. 423). In the discussion questions there was quite a bit of discussion about to what extend the observation of violence on television contributes to the development of aggressive qualities in children. My position is that we should protect our children as much as possible from violence on television, especially violence without a purpose, but that in the end some exposure to violence is necessary—if only to have an example of what not to do and how not to act. In the chart of theories the story was quite the opposite. I covered Skinner and Watson this week and they were clear determinists. They believe that behavior could be controlled, predicted, and fully manipulated through the action of conditioning and reinforcement. I do have to admit that some animalistic forms of behavior are quite susceptible to the edicts of behaviorism, but that the overarching power of human cognition makes behavioral tendencies only a footnote in the story of human psychology. Last, our team paper zeroed in on Albert Bandura, who I am extremely fascinated with. However, it seems to me that two parts of his theory are at odds: modeling and personal agency. So, for Bandura the internal working models that we can control over have the largest effect on behavior, but the best way to effect change in those models is through observational learning? I wish he had bent a little further in the humanistic way of thinking—a bit more self-actualization and a bit less dependence on social factors, such as modeling. Maybe that is just me though and we can never fully discount the affect that social factors have on our behavior.

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

DQ PSY504 (Week 5 DQ 2)

Based on our readings this week, (Social-cognitive theory, Mischel and Bandura). and the evidence concerning observational learning, would you support laws that restrict depictions of aggression on television? Or would you see those laws as violating broadcasters’ rights of free speech? Explain...

Forgive me, I am going to go out on a theological limb a bit and talk about my beliefs concerning violence and people: Violence is not a bad thing. Without violent men and women we would not have a free nation that can live in peace. Without violence we could not have won the American Revolution, settled the Civil War, or defeated the Nazis during WWII. Without violence I could not protect my family from the evil things of this world or for that matter police officers could not protect me and my family from those things. In the end, it is the threat of violence, and nothing else, that keeps the bad people from hurting the innocent. It is how violence is used that is so instrumental. I have no problem letting my son watch violence on television if it is a documentary about the brave men and women that die protecting our freedom. I do have a problem with meaningless violence or violence without cause. People should not be watching beatings, rapes, abuse, or neglect on television, but that is a personal choice. I would never restrict the rights of another person. I would however stress to that person the severe consequences of exposing their children to meaningless violence. If learning does indeed occur outside the realm of reinforcement, then it would do not good to try and regulate or incentivize the exclusion of aggression from television if people want to see aggression on television. A better tactic would be to use people’s power of reasoning and connect the dots. Show them statistically through examples how increased violence on television increases aggressive tendencies in people and then let them decide. Last, if we want our children to not watch violence on television all we have to do is stop watching it ourselves. If observational learning is more powerful than reinforcement, then by us not watching those kinds of shows our children will learn from our example. I am, of course, the biggest hypocrite in saying that. I watch a lot of war movies that are extremely violent that I would never let my children watch. It is the principle though: if we want other people to change we have to change ourselves, since ourselves is the only self we can control explicitly. Thoughts…

DQ PSY504 (Week 5 DQ 1)

Thinking about social cognitive theory, who has influenced your personality? How did they influence your personality? Think about how gender, sexism/discrimination, family, friends, co-workers and managers, and occupational choice have all been influenced by your personality and how these factors have influenced your personality. Pick at least two… What would Bandura and/or Mischel say in this case?

Well, social-cognitive theory is certainly more in line with my world-view than psychoanalysis, behaviorism, or phenomenology. I was fascinated in the idea of variability in the expression of personality traits. Apparently, social-cognitive psychologists don’t put too much stock in the theory of personality traits, since they would say that the expression of traits vary from situation to situation (Cervone & Pervin, 2010). I was also fascinated with the statement that learning can occur outside the realm of reinforcement or association. This relates to the above questions, in that personality tendencies are at least partially under our control and that the great influence on my personality is myself. If learning is not the result of reinforcement and my personality is more than a static set of traits, then what is it that causes the enduring traits that we call “personality”? I would say that more than anything it is our decision to be ourselves. This is right in line with Maslow’s theory of needs, where self-actualization is the highest need. One of Bandura’s central ideas is that self-processes should be the focus of psychotherapy. I have always thought it was odd that we will believe whatever we tell ourselves is true. If we tell ourselves that gender determines occupational roles, then our behavior with reflect those beliefs. Of course, Bandura would say that people have a capacity of personal agency that allows them to exercise executive control over these thoughts and further that by modifying these thought processes we can modify our behavior.

On the flip side, it does not seem that social-cognitive theory seeks to minimize the factors of family, friends, and co-workers as they relate to personality, but relegates these factors to the status of contributing variables rather than causal agents. For instance, Cervone & Pervin (2010) explain that, “Persons can reason about not only present circumstances but also events in their past and hypothetical events in the future” (p. 426). It is our ability to reason about future and past events that sets us apart as persons and not just animals. So, all of the variables mentioned above are the object of our reasoning, not the dictation of our reasoning. Thoughts…

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Weekly Summary PSY504 (Week 4)

As I studied Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development I was struck by how much similarity there is between Erikson’s theory and Adler’s theory of social interest. Adler used the term Gemeinschaftsgefuhl to describe, “…social interest, community feeling, or a sense of oneness with all humanity” (Feist & Feist, 2006, p. 292). Likewise, Erikson’s idea of a properly adjusted psychosocial identity centered on intimacy, industry, generativity, and integrity. For instance, Erikson emphasized the relationship that exists between an infant and a mother when feeding—that the infant did not just get please from the mouth but from the trust relationships that developed as well. Of course, Adler put more emphasis on self-actualization as the end goal of social interest and it seems that Erikson is more concerned with the “Good Life” as the end goal (i.e. dying with integrity and being generative at work). Also, Adler says that individual superior is at the root of psychological dysfunction but Erickson claims autonomy as one of the positive outcomes of stage two. That is not to say that autonomy and individual superiority are the same thing, but to highlight that Adler saw social interest as the greatest good and Erikson saw psychosocial individuation as the greatest good.

I was also fascinated by Erikson ideas about the future anticipation of events as motivation in the present (Cervone & Pervin, 2010). I have always thought that Freud had it wrong. He was always talking about how stuff that happens during early childhood can affect us through adulthood. I have always thought the other way around, that things that are going to happen to me in the later adult years affect me now. The anticipation of the future weighs heavier than the regret of the past.

Cervone, D. & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Feist, J., & Feist, G. (2006). Theories of personality (6th ed.). Boston : McGraw Hill.