Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Personality - Social cognitive theory (Y1) - Coggle Diagram
Personality - Social cognitive theory (Y1)
Background of the social cognition approach
Radical behaviourists suggested that we have no personality, and instead just respond to experience - this prompted the emergence of the social cognitive approach, whom instead believe that we have a conscious mind and that we are active in our behaviour and personality development
Internal cognitive processes lead us to have personality characteristics and cause our behaviour
Bandura - created this approach as a direct response to behaviourism which:
Suggested we are shaped by environments, learn through reinforcement and only respond with conditioned responses
Acquire personality characteristics through operant conditioning
Behaviourism considered personality and free will to be an illusion and that there are no notable internal processes
Bandura disagreed
Issues with behaviourism - we are more than just passive responders, some people 'buck' the trend of conditioned responses e.g. Rosa Parks and exhibit disobedience/resistance to perceived norms of environments, some behaviourists persist despite unsupportive environments, we have certain behaviours and some people exhibit different behaviours in the same environment
Social cognition approach - Bandura (2001) - agency; ability to have control by the nature and quality of one's life
We exercise free will, make choices and take ownership
Intentionally make things happen
We respond uniquely to stimuli based on internal processes - this is a precursor to personality, which is guided by the internal processes developed through characteristics
Behaviour and personality is an interaction between internal cognitions and the environment - think how we can respond and the choice we make to act
Social cognitive theories are agentic perspectives on behaviour and personality
A history of views of the mind - progress in understanding behaviour mirrors the development of technical progress
Key features of cognitive approaches - schemas, input processing, making inferences
Social - how environment interacts with these
Input-output models - if-then models; internal processes are a conduit for environmental influences and the mind has no influence of its own
Throughput-output models - mind is a basic computer which synthesises incoming information, generating behaviour and is merely a processor with no consciousness
The super computer - mind performs multiple complex operations, mind has a neural network that receives information and plans, motivates and controls behaviour (we choose what behaviour to learn based on rewards for example)
-> The mind is deliberate and purposeful
-> Consciousness - we do not simplu undergo things, we make things happen, act mindfully
-> Social cognitive theories focus on the internal processes that cause us to act in given situations
Personality development in social cognitive theory - learning process in which parents, peers and others provide role models for children to learn through observation
Children model their behaviour on successful models in their environment
However, parents are not always consistent in their reinforcement, and so it is more complex - learning and role models become more or less effective as a result
Children will be exposed to different experiences, different environments and different cultures, leading to diversity in personality
Child is at centre of learning experiences and actively shaping the process
Identifying goals to achieve is a crucial part of this process and obtaining external feedback from relevant others helps progress towards achieving these goals and plays an important role in maintaining motivation and ultimate success
Demonstrated goal achievement also depends on internal self-regulatory processes
Bandura's Social Cognition Theory and self-efficacy (1977)
Reciprocal determinism - bidirectional relationships between environments, personal factors and behaviour - Personality is the responses we coordinate and plan for situations
Personal factors - internal processes which determine how we process incoming information through processes such as cognitions and emotions
Behavioural factors - experiences of behaviour and our internal processes reflecting on behaviour, as well as planning new behaviours for specific environments
Environmental factors - situational aspects, determine how we behave and how we think about our behaviour
Example - exam situation; environmental factor of exam hall, personal factors of considerable revision and planning, recognise importance of task and behaviour of concentration and being quiet
Produces appropriate personality / behaviour for scenrio
Observational learning - most learning occurs this way, and so we can model behaviors we see that we like the consequences of the novel behaviour - meditational processes where we choose the behaviour, forming personality
Bobo doll study:
characteristics of the model influence how likely we are to imitate them - more similar = more imitation
Type of behaviour model also has an impact - hostile and aggressive more likely to be modelled, as is simple behaviour
Attributes of observer also have an impact - lower confidence means people are more likely to imitate, and if people have been reward for conforming behaviour and are dependent imitate models more
Consequences of imitation are also an influential factor - more likely to copy if see it as beneficial
The agentic mind -
Intentionality of choosing to behave in certain ways in given environments
-> Intention - a representation of a future course of action, and a commitment to bringing it about
-> Intentions are driven by wish to achieve desired outcomes
Forethought - we set goals for ourselves based on anticipating consequences of our actions
-> Expected outcomes become motivators - we do behaviours we think will be good for us
-> Expected outcomes become regulators - we evaluate ongoing actions based on whether they are helping to achieve desired outcomes
Self-regulation - a set of processes that determine how we control our behaviour
-> Self-guidance - deciding what goals/behaviours to do
-> Self-monitoring - assessing ongoing behaviour
-> Self-correction - ensuring we stay on track towards unwanted outcomes
-> Self reflection - reflection on ourselves, adequacy of our thoughts, emotions and behaviour; meta-cognition, or the self reflecting on the self (thinking about thinking)
Personal agency - belief that you can change things to make them better for yourself of others
Extended this to include proxy agency - individual enlists other people to help change some of the factors impacting their lives
However, this can have a downside as people may surrender their power to the other, who may not have their best interests at heart, or may be subservient and give up control of their lives
Collective agency is better - a group of individuals come together believing they can make a difference to their own or other's life circumstances
Self-efficacy - a person's beliefs in their capability to exercise some measure of control over their functioning, and other environmental events (Bandura, 2001)
High self-efficacy encourages us to:
-> Take on challenges
-> Expend effort
-> Persevere in face of setbacls
-> Think optimistically
-> See failures as motivating, not dispiriting
General self efficacy scale - Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) -
I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough
If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want
It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals
I am confident that I could deal effectively and efficiently with unexpected events
Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations
I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort
I remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities
When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions
If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution
I can usually handle whatever comes my way
General self-efficacy - trait-like, personality dimension
Domain specific self-efficacy - behaviour specific, cannot preserve self efficacy across all actions
Increasing self-efficacy - Mohideen and Gardner (2023): short sleepers with self-efficacy issues towards changing sleep habits - mapped out routine and mapped self-efficacy; results had participants report better diets, being more energised and not waking up as much, acting as motivators to continue that activity in the forethought of the agentic mind
Self-efficacy gains following smoking cessation - Carey and Carey (1993)
182 heavy smokers who had unaided quit attempts
Had a baseline test and a 12 month follow up
After 12 months - quitters had been abstinent for more than 7 days, relapsers are current smokers abstinent for more than 24 hours and smokers had no abstinence - what distinguished ability to quit was self-efficacy (quitters had increased this)
Sources of self-efficacy - mastery experiences, social modelling (vicarious experiences / reinforcement), social persuasion and emotional responses
Self-efficacy is having confidence in your ability to succeed at something and is consistently shown to impact achievement in many scenarios
Increasing it = vicarious experience
-> Participant modelling - low self-efficacy individual shadows high self-effifacy individual
-> Self efficacy helps us to maintain our motivation and be resilient even when faced with setbacks
Measuring it -
Bandura explained that specific measures of self efficacy in certain roles and situations are more beneficial to understanding its role in an individual's personality
Learning is not passive despite being imitation - active process of learning through observation where the observer makes judgements and constructs symbolic representations of behaviours observed - descriptions or images
Modelling - is not a passive process, but an active process where the observer reviews what they have learned and makes judgements about keeping or discarding certain behaviours
Distinction also between performance (trial and error) and knowledge acquired
Reinforcement is crucial for learning but not essential - we engage in vicarious and self reinforcement of our behaviours
Incentive factors also motivate us to learn, as forethought plays an important role with traditional cues for learning - allows anticipation of forethought and motivates behaviour
Motivation is crucial and so is reinforcement - dynamic in this model
Social modelling and observational learning as core components of behavioral change
Dweck's Mindset Models (1946-)
Fixed and growth mindsets
Fixed mindset -
intelligence seen as set in stone - cannot do anything to improve it
Tasks that reveal intelligence seen as threatening as they reveal deficiencies
Exerting effort on these tasks indicates a sign of low ability
Setbacks damage self esteem
Reluctance to take on tasks that reveal intelligence
Growth mindsets -
intelligence can be improved
exerting effort valued as a way of improving ability
Setbacks seen as feedback on how to improve
Willingness to take on tasks that reveal intelligence
How mindsets affect approaches to learning
Dweck and Yeager (2019) - mindsets model; fixed mindest believe that intelligence is something that cannot be changed -> attributions of failure, performance-avoidance goals and effort beliefs (if I have to try it means I am not smart) -> performance during a time of difficulty
The way you view intelligence will impact your decisions and your personality
Hong et al (1999) - students in Hong Kong with low English proficiency offered a high-quality English language course
Those with growth mindset more likely to accept than those with fixed mindset
Nussbaum and Dweck (2008) - engineering students read article which suggested either fixed or growth model
Then took a very difficult spatial reasoning test with 4 modules
Predetermined score and feedback of 100% on 3 modules and 40% on final module
Offered a tutorial on one of the 4 modules
Those with a growth mindset took the tutorial on the failed module
People can be placed on a continuum of beliefs about intelligence based on how fixed and changeable they perceive it to be -Entity-Incremental scale
Entity theory (fixed) - proposes intelligence is fixed and does not change, and so is considered an innate ability; can still learn, but levels of intelligence remain constant
Incremental theory (growth) - intelligence is not fixed and is able to change, with effort and persistence leading to a change in an individual's intelligence
The mindset individuals have towards their intelligence is important for changing it - entity individuals are fixed, incremental are growth
Entity individuals make negative judgements about their intelligence from failure and believed no change could be made whereas incremental individuals saw positivity in failure as a learning opportunity
Costa and Faria (2018) - meta-analysis - mindsets are positively related to overall academic achievement and specifically had higher achievement in specific subjects that emphasized verbal and quantitative knowledge than skills (entity mindsets did less well in comparison)
-> Also cultural differences - in Eastern continents, positive relationship between incremental mindset and academic achievement, in Europe a positive relationship was found between entity and academic achievement, and in North American students had a negative relationship between an entity mindset and academic achievement
Sisk et al, 2018 - interventions to help incremental / growth thinking was most effective for those at high-risk academically or economically disadvantaged - might be used best for some student groups
Rotter's Locus of control theory
Social learning theory - Rotter, 1960 - behaviour potential = expectancy x reinforcement value
Behaviour potential = expectancy x reinforcement value - this means that the likelihood of enacting a particular behaviour = probability of a particular outcome (Specific v generalized expectancies) x desirability of outcome
Expectancy value theory - what do you expect to happen and how much you value what happened:
Specific expectancies
-> Expectancies - will earing a facemask prevent COVID-19 transmission
-> Value - how good or bad would it be if I prevent COVID transmission
General expectancies - will my actions bring about outcomes?
Locus of control - a generalized expectancy
Internal locus of control - expectation that our behaviours will bring about outcomes -
internalists feel in control and empowered to change things in their environment
Internalists are more likely to act in pursuit of their desires than externalists
External locus of control - expectation that our behaviours will have negligible effects - externalists feel powerless and helpless
Locus of control, stress and achievement (Bernardi, 2011) - survey of 206 newly-hired junior staff at big accountancy firms
Rotter's LoC
Stress perceptions
University grades
Male internalists tended to view stress less negatively (better able to cope with stress)
More positive perceptions of stress associated with higher university grades
Internal LoC helps deal better with stress, which prompts achievement and success - is this males only?
Can internal LoC offset social disadvantage (NG Knight and Schoon, 2017)
Transition from school to work
Social inequality - people from disadvantaged backgrounds tend to worse
Survey of 16,000 people in England with LoC items and parent's socioeconomic status, alongside time spent not in education, employment or training (NEET)
Found that higher internal locus of control could influence, as those with parents who had higher education spent had more LoC and performed better
More disadvantaged individuals spent more time not in education
Externals more linked with mental health issues (Lefcourt, 1992) and increased risk of suicide when faced with adversity (Liu et al, 2005); similar patterns found for physical health
Warm, supportive parents tend to foster internality, internality increases with age
application in educational contexts - when internals do well, they attribute it to themselves and mistakes are seen as solvable issues; externals do not do this, see their efforts as making no difference and this impacts self esteem
Approach goal system - positive outcomes because you are motviated by doing better
Avoidance goal system - negative predictor as you do an act to avoid failure
Summary -
Self-efficacy, locus of control and mindset are all meta-cognitive variables
Meta-cognitive variables predict our choices, actions, persistence and how we develop
At the specific level, meta-cognitive variables predict our behaviour
At the general level, meta-cognitive variables affect our personality development
Evaluation -
explanation of personality, incorporate environmental and cognitive influences, bidirectional relations and allow for agency
Empirical validity - based on research, uses testable concepts but is generally self report
Legacy - have stimulated much research and applied widely to understand changes in behaviour