The Cognitive Approach PDF

3 15 The Cognitive Approach Theory, Application, and Assessment Personal Construct Theory Cognitive Personality Variables Cognitive Representations of the Self Application: Cognitive (Behavior) Psychotherapy Assessment: The Repertory Grid Technique Strengths and Criticisms of the Cognitive Approach...

3 15 The Cognitive Approach Theory, Application, and Assessment Personal Construct Theory Cognitive Personality Variables Cognitive Representations of the Self Application: Cognitive (Behavior) Psychotherapy Assessment: The Repertory Grid Technique Strengths and Criticisms of the Cognitive Approach DNY59/E+/Getty Images Summary Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 376 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach I went to a social gathering with a friend of mine recently. We talked with old friends, met some new people, and mingled, sampling conversations, music, food, and drink. As is our custom, we immediately shared our perceptions after leaving the party. “Did you notice how casually some people were dressed?” my friend asked. Actually, I hadn’t. I asked him what he thought of a man we had both met. “Wasn’t he the most arrogant person?” I asked. My friend hadn’t seen anything to indicate so. As we continued to exchange impressions, I began to wonder if my friend had been at the same party interacting with the same people I had. I couldn’t believe he hadn’t noticed how weird the music was or realized how ill at ease the hostess seemed. My friend didn’t understand how I had failed to recognize the architecture of the house or even the furniture I sat on. “I guess we learned one lesson,” I said. “Never go to a party at their house again.” My friend stared at me in disbelief. “Are you kidding?” he said. “I had a great time!” How can two people participate in the same situation yet leave with very different impressions of what happened? The answer from a cognitive perspective is that my friend and I have very different ways of processing information. Whereas I was attending to the weirdness of the music and the arrogance of the guests, my friend entered the party prepared to notice clothing styles and furniture. Because we paid attention to different features of the party, we had very different perceptions of it and very different experiences. These different perceptions no doubt affected how we acted that night and how we will respond to future invitations. The cognitive approach explains differences in personality as differences in the way people process information. Because I have developed relatively stable ways of processing information in social settings, I probably respond to parties and other social gatherings in a similar way most of the time. Other people respond differently than I do because they consistently perceive something different from what I perceive. Cognitive models of personality have become popular in recent years, but they are not entirely new. An early predecessor can be found in Kurt Lewin’s (1938) field theory of behavior. Lewin described the mental representations we form of the important elements in our lives and how we organize those cognitive elements within our “life space.” A more recent and, for the purposes of this book, more important cognitive personality theory was developed by George Kelly. Since the publication of his book The Psychology of Personal Constructs in 1955, Kelly’s work has evolved into a rich source of ideas for personality researchers and psychotherapists (Fransella, 2003, 2005). It is interesting that Kelly did not think of himself as a cognitive psychologist. “I have been so puzzled over the early labeling of [my] theory as cognitive,” he wrote, “that several years ago I set out to write another short book to make it clear that I wanted no part of cognitive theory” (1969, p. 216). Despite his protests, Kelly’s writings became a starting point for many of the approaches to personality we now identify as “cognitive.” Personal Construct Theory G eorge Kelly’s approach to personality begins with a unique conception of humankind. He called it a man-the-scientist perspective. Like scientists, people constantly generate and test hypotheses about their world. Just as scientists try to predict and control the things they study, we all want to predict and control as many events in our lives as possible. Not knowing why things happen or how the people around us might act can be quite unsettling. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Personal Construct Theory 377 How do we satisfy this need for predictability? We constantly engage in a process Kelly compared to template matching. That is, our ideas about the world are similar to templates that we place over the events we encounter. If they match, we retain the templates. If not, we modify them for a better prediction next time. For example, based on past observations, you may have generated a few hypotheses about one of your instructors. One hypothesis is that this person is stuffy and arrogant. Whenever you see this instructor, you compare what you see with what you expect. If your hypothesis is verified (the instructor acts the way stuffy people act), you continue using it. If not (outside the classroom he or she is warm and charming), you discard the hypothesis and replace it with a new one that better fits the data. Like scientists, we retain or reject hypotheses based on our findings. Kelly called the cognitive structures we use to interpret and predict events p ­ ersonal constructs. No two people use identical personal constructs, and no two ­people organize their constructs in an identical manner. Kelly described personal constructs as bipolar. That is, we classify relevant objects in an either/or fashion within our c­ onstructs. When I meet someone for the first time, I might apply the ­personal ­constructs friendly–unfriendly, tall–short, intelligent–unintelligent, and masculine–­feminine to construct my impression of this person. I might decide that this individual is friendly, tall, intelligent, and feminine. But the bipolar nature of personal constructs does not mean that we see the world as black and white with no shades of gray. After applying our first construct, we often use other bipolar constructs to determine the extent of the blackness or whiteness. For example, after determining that this new acquaintance is intelligent, I might then apply an academically intelligent–commonsense intelligent construct to get an even clearer picture of what this person is like. Kelly maintained that differences in personality result largely from differences in the way people “construe the world.” If you and I interact with Jacob, I might use friendly–unfriendly, fun–boring, and outgoing–shy constructs in forming my impression. But you might interpret Jacob in terms of refined–gross, sensitive–insensitive, and intelligent–unintelligent constructs. After we both talk to Jacob for a while, I might act as if I’m interacting with a friendly, fun, and outgoing person. You might respond to Jacob as if dealing with a gross, insensitive, and unintelligent person. It is also possible that two people use the same constructs but construe the world differently. That is, I might think someone intelligent, and you might see the same person as unintelligent. Further, two people’s constructs might be similar on one pole but not the other. I might use an outgoing–reserved construct, whereas you use an outgoing–melancholy construct. If that were the case, what I see as reserved behavior you might see as sadness. Personal Construct Systems Because I tend to use the same constructs when meeting people, I probably have a characteristic way I interact with others that is different from yours. In other words, relatively stable patterns in our behavior (i.e., our personalities) are the result of the relatively stable way we construe the world. To get a rough idea of your own personal constructs, ask yourself what you tend to notice about people when you first meet them. The first few thoughts that come to mind are probably some of the constructs you typically use to make sense of other people and their behavior. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. National Library of Medicine George Kelly 1905–1967 George Alexander Kelly was born in a farming community near Wichita, Kansas, in 1905. He attended Friends University in Wichita for 3 years before graduating from Park College in Missouri in 1926. He was an active member of the intercollegiate debate team during these years and developed a keen ability to challenge arguments and conventional positions. Although these skills would eventually become an asset, they may have kept him away from the field of psychology for many years. Kelly described his first psychology course as boring and unconvincing. The instructor spent considerable time discussing learning theories, but Kelly was unimpressed. “The most I could make of it was that the S was what you had to have in order to account for the R, and the R was put there so the S would have something to account for,” he wrote. “I never did find out what that arrow stood for” (1969, pp. 46–47). He was also skeptical when he first read Freud. “I don’t remember which one of Freud’s books I was trying to read,” he recalled, “but I do remember the mounting feeling of incredulity that anyone could write such nonsense, much less publish it” (p. 47). After graduating with a degree in physics and mathematics, Kelly went to the University of Kansas to study educational sociology. After a series of odd jobs, including teaching speech classes and working as an aeronautical engineer, he went to the University of Edinburgh to study education in 1929. While there, he developed a growing interest in psychology and received his PhD in psychology from the University of Iowa a few years later. Kelly spent the next 10 years at Fort Hays Kansas State College. During this time, he set up a network of clinics to provide psychological services to the poor and destitute Dust Bowl victims of the 1930s. “I listened to people in trouble,” he wrote, “and tried to help them figure out what they could do about it” (p. 50). He soon came to see that what these people needed most was an explanation for what had happened to them and an ability to predict what would happen to them in the future. Personal construct theory evolved from this insight. After serving in the navy in World War II, Kelly spent a year at the University of Maryland and then 20 years at Ohio State University. He moved to Brandeis University in 1965 and died soon after. People also differ in the way they organize their constructs. After I determine that a new acquaintance appears friendly, I might want to know if the person is outgoing or quiet. We could diagram the relation between my constructs this way: Friendly–Unfriendly Outgoing–Quiet 378 Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Personal Construct Theory 379 Note that within this construct system, I could not see an unfriendly person as either outgoing or quiet, just unfriendly. On the other hand, you might use the same constructs but organize them this way: Friendly–Unfriendly Outgoing–Quiet Outgoing–Quiet In this case, whether you judge someone as friendly or unfriendly, you can still judge that person as either outgoing or quiet. Of course, it is also possible to organize these same two constructs this way: Outgoing–Quiet Friendly–Unfriendly Friendly–Unfriendly In this case, after deciding someone is a quiet person, you might want to know if she is a quiet–friendly person or a quiet–unfriendly one. In short, not only do we use a limitless number of constructs to make sense of our world, but the ways we organize and use these constructs also are practically endless. Inadequate Personal Constructs Like many personality theorists, Kelly was a practicing psychotherapist who applied his ideas about personality to treating psychological problems. However, unlike many theorists, Kelly rejected the notion that psychological disorders are caused by past traumatic experiences. Rather, he argued, people suffer from psychological problems because of defects in their construct systems. Past experiences with an unloving parent or a tragic incident may explain why people construe the world as they do, but they are not the cause of the person’s problems. Kelly placed anxiety at the heart of most psychological problems. We become anxious when our personal constructs fail to make sense of the events in our lives. We have all had this experience on occasion. An upcoming interview will cause more anxiety if you have no idea who you will meet or what kind of questions you will be asked. Similarly, when you can’t understand why certain people treat you the way they do or you don’t know how to behave in certain situations, you probably feel confused, disoriented, and anxious. Relationship problems are particularly unsettling when you don’t know why things are going poorly and have no idea how to put the relationship back on track. You may have experienced this frustration when you said to someone, “I just don’t understand you anymore.” Kelly’s goal as a therapist was to help clients “try on” new templates and thereby regain their ability to make sense of their worlds. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 380 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach Cognitive Personality Variables I n the early days of behaviorism (Chapter 13), psychologists sometimes used a “black box” metaphor to describe the relationship between stimuli and responses. In this model, features in the environment (e.g., a loud noise) cause behaviors (e.g., running away). But what happens inside the organism between the stimulus and response is unknown and unknowable, that is, a black box. In contrast, cognitive personality psychologists maintain that the elements between stimulus and response are the key to understanding personality and behavior. In recent years, these psychologists have introduced a large number of these cognitive variables to account for individual ­differences in the way people act (Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 2008; Shoda, Tiernan, & Mischel, 2002). Some of these variables, sometimes called cognitive–affective units, are shown in Table 15.1. Cognitive variables are part of a complex system that links the situations we encounter with our behavior. An oversimplified illustration of this process is shown in Figure 15.1. How we react to features in the environment, and even whether we notice these features, depends on our cognitive structures. Once perceived, various mental representations—such as expectations, values, and goals— interact with one another to determine how we respond to the situation. Notice also that, as in some of the social learning models, our behavior can then affect the situation. How do we explain individual differences within this cognitive framework? The answer is that each of us possesses a different set of mental representations. In addition, how easily we access certain kinds of information stored in memory varies from individual to individual. As a result, two people often react to the same situation differently. What one person hears as a clever retort someone else might take as an insult. A Christmas tree will remind one person of religious values, another of family and seasonal joy, and a third of sad memories from childhood. Table 15.1 Cognitive-Affective Units Encodings Categories (constructs) for encoding information about one’s self, other people, events, and situations Expectations and Beliefs Expectations for what will happen in certain situations, for outcomes for certain behaviors, and for one’s personal efficacy Affects Feelings, emotions, and emotional responses Goals and Values Individual goals and values, and life projects Competencies and SelfRegulatory Plans Perceived abilities, plans, and strategies for changing and maintaining one’s behavior and internal states Source: From A Cognitive–Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualizing Situations, Disposition, Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structure, by W. Mischel and Y. Shoda, Psychological Review, 1995, 102, 246–148. Copyright © 1995 American Psychological Association. Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. Cognitive Representations of the Self 381 a Features of Situations b c d CognitiveAffective System e f Behaviors g h i j Figure 15.1 Cognitive Model of Personality Source: From A Cognitive–Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualizing Situations, Disposition, Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structure, by W. Mischel and Y. Shoda, Psychological Review, 1995, 102, 246148. Copyright 1995 American Psychological Association. Cognitive Representations of the Self O f all the cognitive structures studied by researchers, the most important for understanding personality are the mental representations that are unique to you. Beginning at a very early age, each of us develops a cognitive representation of ourselves. Psychologists sometimes refer to this representation as our self-concept. As with other personality constructs, researchers find that our self-concepts are relatively stable over time (Markus & Kunda, 1986). Moreover, research indicates that cognitive representations of our selves play a central role in the way we process information and thus how we interact with the world around us. Self-Schemas Surveys tell us that most Americans believe exercise is good for their physical and mental health. The majority of adults periodically take up jogging, swimming, aerobic dancing, or some other type of exercise program. However, a large number of people rarely, if ever, exercise, and about half of those who begin an exercise program quit within the first year. Why do some people succeed in making exercise a part of their Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. 382 Chapter 15 / The Cognitive Approach lives, whereas others fail? One explanation has to do with whether the would-be exerciser incorporates exercise into his or her self-schema. Self-schemas are cognitive representations of ourselves that we use to organize and process self-relevant information (Markus, 1977, 1983). Your self-schema consists of the behaviors and attributes that are most important to you. Because each part of your life is not equally important, not everything you do becomes part of your selfschema. If both you and I occasionally play softball and write poetry, we can’t assume that these two activities play an equally important role in our self-schemas. Softball might be an important part of how I think of myself, but not poetry, whereas the opposite might be the case for you. If you could see your self-schema, what would it look like? A simple example is shown in Figure 15.2. Basic information about you makes up the core of your selfschema. This includes your name, information about your physical appearance, and information about your relationships with significant people, such as with a spouse or parents. Although different for each of us, these basic elements are found in nearly everyone’s self-schema. More interesting to personality psychologists are the unique features within your self-schema (Markus & Sentis, 1982; Markus & Smith, 1981). Returning to the exercise question, some people include athlete or physically fit in their self-schemas. Another way of saying this is that these individuals consider their athletic activities a part of who they are. Researchers find that people who incorporate these identities into their self-schemas are more likely to stick with regular exercise programs than those who do not (Kendzierski, 1988, 1990). When exercising becomes a part of who you are, you are much less likely to give it up when the weather turns bad or you experience a few aches and pains. Religion Memory Wine Geography Basketball Parents Self Men School Clothing Figure 15.2 Example of a Self-Schema Diagram Copyright 2019 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.