B1 L3 - The Learning Theory Approach to Personality

learning theory and personality

personality is a result of a response to an experience, is a sum of our experiences, and is learned so can be unlearned

Bandura’s model of reciprocal causation

personality development occurs through an interaction between inner stimuli, external enironemnt and the way an individual reacts to these two factors

personal agency (Bandura)

believing one can change things to make them better for self and others

proxy agency (bandura)

others helping you to change things about your life

collective agency (bandura)

group of people working together to change things for the benefit of all

observational learning

we learn more from observing and imitating others’ behavior, Bandura’s bobo doll experiment

likelihood to copy

characeristics of the model, attributes of the observer, consequences of copying the behavior

characteristics of the model

more similarity, simple behavior and aggressive behaviors more likely to be copied

attrubutes of the observer

people with low self confidence, used to being rewarded for conforming to behaviors, and dependent people more likely to copy

consequences of copying the behavior

more likely to copy if leads to positive results

social learning theory and personality development

role models and different situations shape children, goals and feedback are central to the process but also internal self-regulatory processes

structure of internal self-regulatory processes

self-monitoring (evaluating performance), self-diagnostic (identifying patterns in thoughts, behaviors and emotions across situations), self-motivation (people good at this tend to inc their goals each time)

Bandura’s self-efficacy

confidence in your own ability; affects the choices we make, effort we apply to achieving goals, level of perseverance, thought patterns, ability to cope; inc likelihood of achieving success

failure has different explanations dependent on level of self-efficacy

low (attribute it to low ability), high (attribute it to low effort)

types of self-efficacy (paciello et al)

emotional self-efficacy, social self-efficacy, self-regulated learning self-efficacy

emotional self-efficacy

controlling anxiety when facing a problem

social self-efficacy

being able to ask lecturers to help when needed

self-regulated learning self-efficacy

being able to work when there are other interesting things to do

changing self-efficacy

encouraged and supported to do task, vicarious experience, participant modelling (shadowing)

Rotter’s locus of control

behavior potential (ability to predict people’s behavior in different situations), reinforcement value x expectancy

expectancy

our own subjective prediction of the outcome of a particular behavior

reinforcement value

preferences for the different possible reinforcements that occur as a result of the behavior

external locus of control

people who believe reinforcement depends on external forces (powerful others, luck, God, Government)

internal locus of control

people who believe reinforcement is linked to their own behavior

Furnham & cheng, predictors of LoC in adolescence

childhood intelligence sig correlates with extraversion, neuroticism, self-esteem and behavioral problems; parental social status sig correlated with childhood intelligence, also predicts levels of neuroticism, self-esteem and behavioral problems (weakly)

people with internal locus of control

feel more in control, higher expectations of themselves and higher confidence, more likely to feel they can change things, cope better with physical illness, tend to perform better academically

people with external locus of control

often feel powerless, dependent on others, correlates with high levels of anxiety and other mental health issues, more likely to be passive patients in recovery of illness

Peyton & Miller, background to relationship between LoC and environmental behaviors

internrals more likely to engage in actions like social reform, use info more effectively, reduce the spread of biased or erroneous info, believe that skills rather than opportunities affect outcomes

Chiang et al, LoC sig indicator of

how emotional stability impacted pro-environmental behavior

Levenson; internal, external (powerful others) or external (chance)

patients with paranoia score higher on P scale while patients experienceing depression score higher on C scales; alcoholism strongly correlated with C scale scores

Brosschot et al, participants completed IPC scales and various other scales measuing psychopathological symptoms

internal LoC related to all other than agoraphobia and sensitivity, reflects link between internal LoC and pos factors such as: low anxiety and depression, neuroticism and hostility, fewer sleeping problems, low somatization

Both P and C related to negative factors, BUT C related to more (suggests being high in Chance LoC may lead to ‘worse’ outcomes)

positives of learning theory approach

does a good job of describing personality and related behaviors, empirically tested for the most part, can be applied to clinical psych (unlearning maladaptive responses)

drawbacks of learning theory approach

element of determinism (not as much free will), ignores inner mental processes like emotions, ignores role of genetics (but some acceptance of internal processes with some models)

stimulus response model of personality of Dollard and Miller

personality composed of learned habits (assoc between stimulus and response), infant born with primary drives and learns secondary drives which are satisfied by primary and secondary reinforcers

approach-approach conflict

two equally desirable goals, incompatible to occur together

avoidance-avoidance conflict

two equally undesirable alternatives

approach-avoidance

one goal where one element is attractive and one element of it is unattractive

double approach-avoidance conflict

multiple goals where some are desirable and some are undesirable

Dollard and Miller treatment proposal

talking phase (problem habits identified, explored and labelled), and performance phase (patient encouraged to learn more adaptive habits and apply them to their life)

Walter Mischel

claims there is little evidence that personality is always consistent in different situations, came up with the presonalitu

personality coefficient

the correlation between personality trait self-report measures and behavior is between 0.2 and 0.3 (small amount)

functional equivalence class of situations

some situations perceived as being highly similar in measuring personality

behavioral signature of personality

represents our characteristic reactions to situations

cognitive affective processing system (CAPS)

incorporates development from cognitive science and genetics that are releant to personality, gives info about how the individual mind functions and personality is organized; organized into cognitive affective units