PERSONALITY DEVELOPMENT
What are the major determinants of personality? [module 1 ]
• Biological Factors • Cultural Factors
• Family Factors
• Social Factors
• Situational Factors
Biological Factors
Heredity:
• It refers to physical stature, facial attractiveness, sex, temperament, muscle compositionand reflexes, energy level, and biological rhythms are characteristics that are
considered to be inherent.
• It plays an important part in determining an individual's personality.
• Heredity approach argues that the ultimate explanation of an individual's personality
is the molecular structures of the genes, which are located in the chromosomes.
• Recent research studies shows that young children lend strong support to the power
of heredity and finding shows that some personality traits may be built into the same
genetic code that affects factors like height and hair color.
Brain:
• Brain is the second biological approach to determine personality.• It plays an important role in determining personality.
• Electrical Stimulation of the Brain (ESB) and Split brain psychology results indicates
that a better understanding of human personality and behavior might come from a
closer study of the brain.
• The definite areas of the human brain are associated with pain and pleasure. Research
study shows that these things are true.
Biofeedback:
• It is third biological approach to determine personality.• Physiologists and psychologists felt that biological functions like brainwave
patterns, gastric and hormonal secretions, and fluctuations in blood pressure and
skin temperature were beyond conscious control. Recent research shows that these
functions can be consciously controlled through biofeedback techniques.
• For this purpose, individual can learns the internal rhythms of a particular body
process through electronic signals that are feedback from equipment which is wired
to body.
• In this process, the person can learn to control the body process through questions.
• It is one of the interesting topics to do future research work in personality.
Physical Features:
• It is third biological approach to determine personality.• It is vital ingredient of the personality, it focus an individual person's external
appearance which also determined the personality.
• Physical features like tall or short, fat or skinny, black or white. These physical
features will be influenced the personal effect on others and also affect self concept
of individual.
• Recent research studies shows that definitely this features influence to individual
personality in an organization.
In totally, heredity would be fixed at birth and no amount of experience can be altering
them through creation of suitable environment. Apart from this, personality characteristics
are not completely dictated by heredity. There are other factors also influenced to determining
personality.
Cultural Factors
"Each culture expects, and trains, its members to behave in ways that are acceptable to the group. To a marked degree, the child's cultural group defines the range of experiences and situations he is likely to encounter and the values and personality characteristics that will reinforced and hence learned". -Paul H Mussen• Cultural factors are also major factors which influence to determine individual
personality.
• It refers to traditional practice, customs, procedure, norms and rules and regulation
followed by the society.
• It significantly influence to individual behavior compare to biological factors.
• Cultural factors determine attitudes towards independence, aggression, competition,
cooperation, positive thinking, team spirit, and a host of the human being and
discharge his/her duties towards valuable responsibilities to society.
• Western culture influence to Indian society. It is best example of the cultural factors
also determine the personality.
Family Factors
• Family factors are also major factors which influence to determine individualpersonality.
• Family consists of husband and wife and their children's.
• Family role is very important for nurturing and personality development of their
children.
• Family will be guided, supervised, take care of all family members, cooperation,
52 Organizational Behavior
coordination and cooperation in work and also explained the role and responsibilities
towards the family, society and real life.
• Family either directly or indirectly influence to person for development of individual
personality.
Social Factors
• Social factors are also major factors which influence to determine individualpersonality.
• It involves the reorganization of individual's in an organization or society.
• It refers to acquiring of wide range of personality by acquiring and absorbed by
themselves in the society or an organization.
• Socialization process is starting from home and extending to work environment in
an organization or society.
• It focuses on good relationships, cooperation, coordination and interaction among
the members in the society or an organization or a family.
In totally, environment factors consist of cultural factors, family factors, and social
factors.
Situational Factors
• Situational factors are very important to change the individual behavior in a
different circumstance at different situations, it also influence to personality of
individual person.
• In general term, personality is stable and consistent and it does change in different
situations.
The Interaction of Personality and Situational Factors are outlined:
• Strong situational pressures
• Personality may not predict behavior
• Example: enforcement of rules
• Weak Situational pressures
• Personality may predict behavior
• Example: Customer sales representative
• A strong situation can overwhelm the effects of individual personalities by providing
strong cues for appropriate behavior.
Personality Theories [ module 2 ]
Almost everyday we describe and assess the personalities of the people around us. Whether we realize it or not, these daily musings on how and why people behave as they do are similar to what personality psychologists do. Personality psychology looks at the patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behavior that make a person unique. Some of the best known theories in psychology are devoted to the subject of personality.
What Is Personality? [ module 1 ]
Almost everyday we describe and assess the personalities of the people around us. Whether we realize it or not, these daily musings on how and why people behave as they do are similar to what personality psychologists do.
While our informal assessments of personality tend to focus more on individuals, personality psychologists instead use conceptions of personality that can apply to everyone. Personality research has led to the development of a number of theories that help explain how and why certain personality traits develop.
Components of Personality
While there are many different theories of personality, the first step is to understand exactly what is meant by the term personality. A brief definition would be that personality is made up of the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings and behaviors that make a person unique. In addition to this, personality arises from within the individual and remains fairly consistent throughout life.
Some of the fundamental characteristics of personality include:
· Consistency - There is generally a recognizable order and regularity to behaviors. Essentially, people act in the same ways or similar ways in a variety of situations.
· Psychological and physiological - Personality is a psychological construct, but research suggests that it is also influenced by biological processes and needs.
· It impacts behaviors and actions - Personality does not just influence how we move and respond in our environment; it also causes us to act in certain ways.
· Multiple expressions - Personality is displayed in more than just behavior. It can also be seen in our thoughts, feelings, close relationships and other social interactions.
Theories of Personality [ module 2 ]
There are a number of different theories about how personality develops. Different schools of thought in psychology influence many of these theories. Some of these major perspectives on personality include:
Trait Theory of Personality
The Trait Approach to Personality
The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical areas in the study of personality. The trait theory suggests that individual personalities are composed broad dispositions. Consider how you would describe the personality of a close friend. Chances are that you would list a number of traits, such as outgoing, kind and even-tempered. A trait can be thought of as a relatively stable characteristic that causes individuals to behave in certain ways.
Unlike many other theories of personality, such as psychoanalytic or humanistic theories, the trait approach to personality is focused on differences between individuals. The combination and interaction of various traits forms a personality that is unique to each individual. Trait theory is focused on identifying and measuring these individual personality characteristics.
Gordon All port’s Trait Theory
In 1936, psychologist Gordon Allport found that one English-language dictionary alone contained more than 4,000 words describing different personality traits.1 He categorized these traits into three levels:
· Cardinal Traits: Traits that dominate an individual’s whole life, often to the point that the person becomes known specifically for these traits. People with such personalities often become so known for these traits that their names are often synonymous with these qualities. Consider the origin and meaning of the following descriptive terms: Freudian, Machiavellian, narcissism, Don Juan, Christ-like, etc. Allport suggested that cardinal traits are rare and tend to develop later in life.2
· Central Traits: These are the general characteristics that form the basic foundations of personality. These central traits, while not as dominating as cardinal traits, are the major characteristics you might use to describe another person. Terms such as intelligent, honest,shy and anxious are considered central traits.
· Secondary Traits: These are the traits that are sometimes related to attitudes or preferences and often appear only in certain situations or under specific circumstances. Some examples would be getting anxious when speaking to a group or impatient while waiting in line.
Raymond Cattell’s Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
Trait theorist Raymond Cattell reduced the number of main personality traits from Allport’s initial list of over 4,000 down to 171,3 mostly by eliminating uncommon traits and combining common characteristics. Next, Cattell rated a large sample of individuals for these 171 different traits. Then, using a statistical technique known as factor analysis, he identified closely related terms and eventually reduced his list to just 16 key personality traits. According to Cattell, these 16 traits are the source of all human personality. He also developed one of the most widely used personality assessments known as the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF).
The Five-Factor Theory of Personality [ module 2 ]
Both Cattell’s and Eysenck’s theory have been the subject of considerable research, which has led some theorists to believe that Cattell focused on too many traits, while Eysenck focused on too few. As a result, a new trait theory often referred to as the "Big Five" theory emerged. This five-factor model of personality represents five core traits that interact to form human personality.5 While researchers often disagree about the exact labels for each dimension, the following are described most commonly:
1. Extraversion
2. Agreeableness
3. Conscientiousness
4. Neuroticism
5. Openness
Assessing the Trait Approach to Personality
While most agree that people can be described based upon their personality traits, theorists continue to debate the number of basic traits that make up human personality. While trait theory has objectivity that some personality theories lack (such as Freud’s psychoanalytic theory), it also has weaknesses. Some of the most common criticisms of trait theory center on the fact that traits are often poor predictors of behavior. While an individual may score high on assessments of a specific trait, he or she may not always behave that way in every situation. Another problem is that trait theories do not address how or why individual differences in personality develop or emerge.
References:
1 Allport, G.W. & Odbert, H.S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(211).
2 Boeree, C.G. (2006). Gordon Allport. Personality Theories. Found online at http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/allport.html
3 Cattell, R.B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore: Penguin Books.
4 Eysenck, H.J. (1992). Four ways five factors are not basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 667-673.
5 McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T. (1997) Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509-516.
Social Learning Theory
An Overview of Bandura's Social Learning Theory
"Learning would be exceedingly laborious, not to mention hazardous, if people had to rely solely on the effects of their own actions to inform them what to do. Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action."
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977
-Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory, 1977
What is Social Learning Theory?
The social learning theory proposed by Albert Bandura has become perhaps the most influential theory of learning and development. While rooted in many of the basic concepts of traditional learning theory, Bandura believed that direct reinforcement could not account for all types of learning.
His theory added a social element, arguing that people can learn new information and behaviors by watching other people. Known as observational learning (or modeling), this type of learning can be used to explain a wide variety of behaviors.
Basic Social Learning Concepts
There are three core concepts at the heart of social learning theory. First is the idea that people can learn through observation. Next is the idea that internal mental states are an essential part of this process. Finally, this theory recognizes that just because something has been learned, it does not mean that it will result in a change in behavior.
Let's explore each of these concepts in greater depth.
1. People can learn through observation.
Observational Learning
In his famous "Bobo doll" studies, Bandura demonstrated that children learn and imitate behaviors they have observed in other people. The children in Bandura’s studies observed an adult acting violently toward a Bobo doll. When the children were later allowed to play in a room with the Bobo doll, they began to imitate the aggressive actions they had previously observed.
Bandura identified three basic models of observational learning:
1. A live model, which involves an actual individual demonstrating or acting out a behavior.
2. A verbal instructional model, which involves descriptions and explanations of a behavior.
3. A symbolic model, which involves real or fictional characters displaying behaviors in books, films, television programs, or online media.
2. Mental states are important to learning.
Intrinsic Reinforcement
Bandura noted that external, environmental reinforcement was not the only factor to influence learning and behavior. He described intrinsic reinforcement as a form of internal reward, such as pride, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment. This emphasis on internal thoughts and cognitions helps connect learning theories to cognitive developmental theories. While many textbooks place social learning theory with behavioral theories, Bandura himself describes his approach as a 'social cognitive theory.'
3. Learning does not necessarily lead to a change in behavior.
While behaviorists believed that learning led to a permanent change in behavior, observational learning demonstrates that people can learn new information without demonstrating new behaviors.
The Modeling Process
Not all observed behaviors are effectively learned. Factors involving both the model and the learner can play a role in whether social learning is successful. Certain requirements and steps must also be followed. The following steps are involved in the observational learning and modeling process:
· Attention:
In order to learn, you need to be paying attention. Anything that detracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.
In order to learn, you need to be paying attention. Anything that detracts your attention is going to have a negative effect on observational learning. If the model interesting or there is a novel aspect to the situation, you are far more likely to dedicate your full attention to learning.
· Retention:
The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.
The ability to store information is also an important part of the learning process. Retention can be affected by a number of factors, but the ability to pull up information later and act on it is vital to observational learning.
· Reproduction:
Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.
Once you have paid attention to the model and retained the information, it is time to actually perform the behavior you observed. Further practice of the learned behavior leads to improvement and skill advancement.
· Motivation:
Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and punishment play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing other experience some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.
Finally, in order for observational learning to be successful, you have to be motivated to imitate the behavior that has been modeled. Reinforcement and punishment play an important role in motivation. While experiencing these motivators can be highly effective, so can observing other experience some type of reinforcement or punishment. For example, if you see another student rewarded with extra credit for being to class on time, you might start to show up a few minutes early each day.
Final Thoughts
In addition to influencing other psychologists, Bandura's social learning theory has had important implication in the field of eduction. Today, both teachers and parents recognize the importance of modeling appropriate behaviors. Other classroom strategies such as encouraging children and building self-efficacy are also rooted in social learning theory.
Learning Theories of Development
What Is Self-Efficacy?
The concept of self-efficacy lies at the center of psychologist Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Bandura’s theory emphasizes the role of observational learning, social experience, and reciprocal determinism in the development of personality.
According to Bandura, a person’s attitudes, abilities, and cognitive skills comprise what is known as the self-system. This system plays a major role in how we perceive situations and how we behave in response to different situations. Self-efficacy plays is an essential part of this self-system.
What Is Self-Efficacy?
According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy is “the belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). In other words, self-efficacy is a person’s belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation. Bandura described these beliefs as determinants of how people think, behave, and feel (1994).
Since Bandura published his seminal 1977 paper, "Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change," the subject has become one of the most studied topics in psychology. Why has self-efficacy become such an important topic among psychologists and educators? As Bandura and other researchers have demonstrated, self-efficacy can have an impact on everything from psychological states to behavior to motivation.
The Role of Self-Efficacy
Virtually all people can identify goals they want to accomplish, things they would like to change, and things they would like to achieve. However, most people also realize that putting these plans into action is not quite so simple. Bandura and others have found that an individual’s self-efficacy plays a major role in how goals, tasks, and challenges are approached.
People with a strong sense of self-efficacy:
· View challenging problems as tasks to be mastered.
· Develop deeper interest in the activities in which they participate.
· Form a stronger sense of commitment to their interests and activities.
· Recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments.
People with a weak sense of self-efficacy:
· Avoid challenging tasks.
· Believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities.
· Focus on personal failings and negative outcomes.
· Quickly lose confidence in personal abilities (Bandura, 1994).
Sources of Self-Efficacy
How does self-efficacy develop? These beliefs begin to form in early childhood as children deal with a wide variety of experiences, tasks, and situations. However, the growth of self-efficacy does not end during youth, but continues to evolve throughout life as people acquire new skills, experiences, and understanding (Bandura, 1992).
According to Bandura, there are four major sources of self-efficacy.
Type A and B Personality. [ module 3 ]
Type A
The theory describes a Type A individual as ambitious, rigidly organized, highly status conscious, can be sensitive, care for other people, are truthful, impatient, always try to help others, take on more than they can handle, want other people to get to the point proactive and obsessed with time management. People with Type A personalities are often high-achieving "workaholics" who multi-task, push themselves with deadlines, and hate both delays and ambivalence. Under Psychodynamic theory (derived from Freudian Psychology), Type A personality is related to Anal retentiveness.
In his 1996 book, Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment, Friedman suggests that Type A behavior is expressed in three major symptoms: free-floating hostility, which can be triggered by even minor incidents; time urgency and impatience, which causes irritation and exasperation usually described as being "short-fused"; and a competitive drive, which causes stress and an achievement-driven mentality. The first of these symptoms is believed to be covert and therefore less observable, while the other two are more overt. [5]
Type B
The theory describes Type B individuals as perfect contrast to those with Type A personalities. People with Type B personalities are generally apathetic, patient, relaxed, easy-going, no sense of time schedule, having poor organization skills, and at times lacking an overriding sense of urgency. These individuals tend to be sensitive of other people's feelings
Type C
The two most frequently noted characteristics of cancer-prone personality are found in Type C personality. Type C personalities are described as suppressing emotional expression, and denying strong emotional reactions; failing to cope successfully with stress, with a reaction of giving up, linked with feelings of hopelessness and helplessness. [6].
Criticism
The Type A/B theory has been criticized on a number of grounds by mathematicians, medical professionals, and scientists.[who?] On the basis of these criticisms, the theory has been termed obsolete by many researchers in contemporary health psychology and personality psychology.[citation needed]
Statistical issues
For example, statisticians have argued that the original study by Friedman and Rosenman had serious limitations, including large and unequal sample sizes, and less than 1% of the variance in relationship explained by Type A personality.[citation needed]
Other statistical problems with the original study could include the inclusion of only middle-aged men and the lack of information regarding the diets of those subjects. While the latter could serve as a confounding variable, the former calls into question whether the findings can be generalized to the remaining male population or to the female population as a whole.
Other issues
Psychometrically, the behaviors that define the syndrome are not highly correlated, indicating that this is a grouping of separate tendencies, not a coherent pattern or type.[citation needed] Type theories in general have been criticised as overly simplistic and incapable of assessing the degrees of difference in human personality.[citation needed]
Researchers have also found that Type A behavior is not a good predictor of coronary heart disease.[7] According to research by Redford Williams of Duke University, the hostility component of Type A personality is the only significant risk factor.[8] Thus, it is a high level of expressed anger and hostility, not the other elements of Type A behavior, that constitute the problem.
Other Studies
A study was performed that tested the effect of psychosocial variables, in particular personality and stress, as risk factors for cancer and coronary heart disease [9]. In this study, four personality types were recorded. Type 1 personally is cancer prone, Type 2 is CHD prone, Type 3 is alternating between behaviors characteristic of Types 1 and 2, and Type 4 is a healthy, autonomous type hypothesized to survive best. The data suggests that the Type 1 probands die mainly from cancer, type 2 from CHD, whereas Type 3 and especially Type 4 probands show a much lower death rate. Two additional types of personalities were measured, Type 5 and Type 6. Type 5 is a rational anti-emotional type, which shows characteristics common to Type 1 and Type 2. Type 6 personality shows psychopathic tendencies and is prone to drug addiction and AIDS. [10].
While most studies attempt to show the correlation between personality types and coronary heart disease, studies have suggested that mental attitudes constitute an important prognostic factor for cancer. As a method of treatment for cancer-prone patients, behavior therapy is used [11] The patient is taught to express his/her emotions more freely, in a socially acceptable manner, to become autonomous and be able to stand up for his/her rights. Behavior therapy would also teach them how to cope with stress-producing situations more successfully. The effectiveness of therapy in preventing death in cancer and CHD is evident[12]. The statistical data associated with higher death rates is impressive. Other measures of therapy have been attempted, such as group therapy. The effects were not as dramatic as behavior therapy, but still showed improvement in preventing death among cancer and CHD patients.
From the study above, several conclusions have been made. A relationship between personality and cancer exists, along with a relationship between personality and coronary heart disease. Personality type acts as a risk factor for diseases and interacts synergistically with other risk factors, such as smoking and heredity. It has been statistically proven that behavior therapy can significantly reduce the likelihood of cancer of coronary heart disease mortality. On the contrary, psychoanalysis can increase the likelihood of cancer and coronary heart disease mortality drastically. Studies suggest that both body and mental disease arise from each other. Mental disorders arise from physical causes, and likewise, physical disorders arise from mental causes. While Type A personality did not show a strong direct relationship between its attributes and the cause of coronary heart disease, other types of personalities have shown strong influences on both cancer-prone patients and those prone to coronary heart disease. [13].
Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment (SAPA) is a method used for telemetric assessment of individual differences, primarily in the context of online surveys. The SAPA method uses data collected from the administration of large inventories of personality assessment items to large pools of participants, though it differs from traditional data collection methods in that each participant responds to only a small subset of all available items. In other words, each participant receives a random (or partially random) subset of the items under study. As long as some of the items are overlapping between pairs of participants, the smaller subset is more palatable for individual participants yet can be combined to synthesize large covariance matrices (with considerable data missing at random). In this way, the SAPA methodology is well-suited for assessing personality and individual differences across multiple domains.[1] It is also a highly efficient means for new item prototyping and scale construction.[2]
Psychoanalytic Theory [ module 2 ]
Psychoanalytic personality theory is based on the writings of the Austrian Physician Sigmund Freud. Developed in the late Victorian period, Freud’s ideas were quite radical in their time. Freud created two basic models of the workings of the human mind. The first emphasized levels of consciousness and was known as the topographic model. The second model approached human personality by exploring the interaction between the three parts of the mind Freud identified (the well-known id, ego, and super-ego). This was known as the structural model. Later these were combined so that personality was conceptualized as resulting from the dynamic interplay between levels of consciousness and particular structures.
In Freud’s thinking, the id represents our basic primitive drives, principally sexual and aggressive in nature. The ego is that aspect of personality which is capable of reason and self-control and helps the individual to adapt to the demands of the external world. In order to do this, the ego must gain control of id desires and channel them in socially acceptable ways. Left to its own devices, the id would be seeking immediate gratification of the drives for pleasure and aggression that Freud believed were the basic motivations for human beings on this level. So, the ego must step in and guide our behavior in a realistic manner in order to find ways of satisfying the demands of the id without causing social difficulty for the person. The third structure of the mind, the superego, develops out of this struggle and helps guide our behavior according to the norms of our culture. The three mental structures must work in some degree of harmonious balance for a person to be functioning in a healthy manner, i.e. satisfying their basic pleasure drive in accord with reality, and in a socially acceptable manner. In terms of levels of consciousness, the ego lies in the domain of the conscious and preconscious levels of awareness, the superego can be conscious, preconscious, or unconscious, and the id is unconscious. Freud compared the levels of mental functioning to an iceberg with the smallest part (the conscious mind) above the water line and the rest below it, as depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
In addition to this conception of the mind’s functioning and the basic motivations of human behavior, Freud shocked the society of his time by tracing the development of the sexual drive (in his thinking more a drive for various sensual pleasures and not merely the sexual drive) all the way back to birth and suggested that this sexual drive developed in various stages so that various physical zones (erogenous zones) were the primary focus of pleasurable stimuli and attention at various ages. These developmental phases are his well-known oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital periods.
Because Freud viewed the id as the strongest aspect of personality and the ego as a rather weak aspect, continually under stress by constantly having to mediate between the inner demands of the id and the demands of external reality as well as the super-ego’s often overly critical and moralistic judgments against oneself, the ego develops defense mechanisms to deal with anxiety and stress brought on from the inner struggle with the id and superego.<P Essentially defenses screen out certain information about oneself or ones situation that would be painful if recognized in conscious awareness (ego). To illustrate briefly, suppose something extremely traumatic happens to a person, something so painful that to be aware of it would be so anxiety filled and threatening to the person’s stability that the individual (through the agency of the ego) deals with this threat by completely forgetting the event ever happened, and then even forgetting that they forgot. This would be the working of the Freudian defense of repression. All defenses work along these lines to a greater or a lesser degree and with different forms, but their function is to distort some aspect of both inner and external experience in order to protect the stability of the person (the ego in Freud’s terms).
This extremely condensed discussion of Freud’s theories should provide a basic understanding of the psychoanalytic view of personality functioning. Each person strikes different balances between the id, ego, and super-ego. They cope with their drives and desires differently and all have different ideas about what is acceptable behavior (the content of the superego). People have different methods of ego defense and adaptation to the necessary frustration of the desire for immediate gratification. The study of the dynamics between the structures and levels of consciousness of the person is what informs the psychoanalytic, and more broadly, the psychodynamic view of personality.
Neo-Analytic/Ego Psychology
The Neo-Analytic school usually includes such theorists as Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, Karen Horney, and Erik Erikson. Others could be included, but we are more interested in the basic contributions to personality theory of this school rather than a comprehensive listing of theorists. Essentially this school of thought is an attempt to extend and modernize the theories of Freud. Ego psychologists believe that the ego is present at birth and has its own independent energy source, contrary to Freud, who believed that the ego was a relatively weak structure that “captured” its energy from the id. While neo-analytic thinkers acknowledge the role of the unconscious in influencing behavior, their focus of study is more on the conscious self as a person develops and grows, and has to interact both with the demands of external reality and inner struggles with emotions, and drives, and desires.
The ego has various functions and abilities, such as cognition, drive delay, memory, and other adaptive functions (like learning). Many of the phenomena studied by experimental psychologists, such as memory and learning, belong to the province of the ego as understood from the ego analytic point of view.
Personality is formed from the progression of the ego through various stages of development highlighted by a basic conflict that yields positive outcomes if successfully mastered, or personality problems if unsuccessfully mastered. The following table illustrates these stages as described by Erikson.
Trait [ Module 2 ]
Trait theory goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks, beginning with Hippocrates’s use of the four humors to describe personality. The four humors were bodily fluids and their proportion in the body was believed to be associated with certain personality traits. A sanguine optimistic nature was associated with blood, a melancholic, depressive temperament with black bile, a choleric, angry temperament with yellow bile, and a phlegmatic temperament was associated with slowness and apathy. While today we may view these descriptions as quaint anachronisms, in fact, they are an early attempt to link personality traits to physiological factors, a trend which remains to this day, both in the behavioral genetics field and among some trait theorists who believe that human traits have physiological correlates.
The trait approach, generally, is a descriptive one. We use descriptive language to paint a picture of a person’s style of functioning. Is the person outgoing or reserved, suspicious or trusting, imaginative or practical, controlled or casual? These are some of the dimensions of traits used by Raymond B. Cattell in his famous personality test, “The Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire.” The traits he identified in his research are dichotomous and were identified using a statistical method called factor analysis, which is capable of identifying clusters of responses that can separated into specific personality traits. This approach to understanding personality can yield descriptions of human personality on many dimensions, depending on what aspects the researcher is focusing upon.
Since the 1960s and continuing throughout the 1990s, and into this century, trait research and theory has come to the conclusion that personality can be captured on five dimensions, known as the Big Five and explained below.
The Big 5 Factors & Illustrative Adjectives
Characteristics of High Scorers
|
Nature of Factor
|
Characteristics of Low Scorers
|
Neuroticism (N)
| ||
worrying, insecure, emotional, nervous
|
Proneness to psychological distress, excessive carvings or urges, unrealistic ideas
|
calm, secure, unemotional, relaxed
|
Extraversion (E)
| ||
talkative, optimistic, sociable, affectionate
|
Capacity for joy, need for stimulation
|
unartistic, conventional
|
Openness (O)
| ||
creative, original, curious, imaginative
|
Toleration for & exploration of the unfamiliar
|
unartistic, conventional
|
Agreeableness (A)
| ||
good-natured, trusting, helpful
|
One's orientation along a continuum from compassion to antagonism in thoughts, feelings, and actions
|
rude, uncooperative, irritable
|
Conscientiouness (C)
| ||
organized, reliable, neat, ambitious
|
Individual has degree of organization, persistence, and motivation in goal-directed behavior
|
unreliable, lazy, careless, negligent
|
Table 2.
If one were to take a big five based personality test one would obtain scores on each of the five factors along with interpretations based on the magnitude of the score. If the reader would like to take a big five test there is a free version available on the Internet at this address: http://cac.psu.edu/~j5j/test/ipipneo1.htm.
When considering the trait approach it is important to realize that what emerges is a description of a person’s behavior and personality, not the reasons for the existence of the traits identified, or an analysis of the dynamic interplay between traits. Other theories deal with these questions, and broader ones, concerning other human needs.
Inter-Personal Skills with Communication Skills [ module 5 ]
Inter-personal skills with communication denotes face-to-face contact involving a small number of people (typically two) rather than large groups. The section below is aimed at testing the ability of the candidate to understand and manipulate the dynamics of social interaction to his/her advantage. Communication skills are a function of certain psychological/attitudinal/personality traits and a mellifluous sense of language. Although, as we have stressed earlier, the best way to check Inter-personal skills/Communication Skills would be in a Personal Interview or in a Group Discussion. In these test formats, in order to be excellent at communication, a candidate needs to be exceptional at certain linguistic skills.
These are:
1. Language- The language in question (Hindi for candidates taking the exam with Hindi as the medium and similarly English for candidates taking the exam with English as the medium) is in terms of vocabulary, grammar, common sense, etc.
2. Listening and comprehending- Ability to understand what is being discussed and asked. This requires attention and the rare ability to be a patient listener. Only an attuned sense of listening and subsequent comprehension would allow the listener to formulate an appropriate response.
3. Speaking- Ability to convey/speak clearly what information the candidate has in mind in response to the question asked, and decide what part of the information should be conveyed to the listener with clarity. This is the mainstay of the entire process.
4. Psychological/Personality Traits- Eloquent speakers are not only good at language, listening, comprehending and speaking, but also need to be good at effectively deciding when to speak, what to speak, how to speak and how to flexibly mould what you speak according to the target audience. They also need to take into consideration the rest of the rules governing dynamics of social interaction.
When these skills get tested in a written exam, the format gets changed drastically. To check your competence in Ability 1 (Language), you will get straitjacketed questions of Sentence Correction and Fill in the Blanks to test grammar, clarity of language and sense of language. To check your competence in Ability 2 and 3 (Listening, comprehending and Personality Traits) you will have to be good at understanding the information given in questions and stick to the rules for solving a particular type of question, which may test you for Sentence Completion, Para-editing, Critical Reading, Para-anagrams, Critical Reasoning, etc
Transactional Analysis
Transactional Analysis (or TA as it is often called) is a model of people and relationships that was developed during the 1960s by Dr. Eric Berne. It is based on two notions, first that we have three parts or 'ego-states' to our 'personality, and secondly that these converse with one another in 'transactions' (hence the name). TA is a very common model used in therapy and there is a great deal written about it.
Parent, Adult and Child
We each have internal models of parents, children and also adults, and we play these roles with one another in our relationships. We even do it with ourselves, in our internal conversations.
Parent
There are two forms of Parent we can play.
The Nurturing Parent is caring and concerned and often may appear as a mother-figure (though men can play it too). They seek to keep the Child contented, offering a safe haven and unconditional love to calm the Child's troubles.
The Controlling (or Critical) Parent, on the other hand, tries to make the Child do as the parent wants them to do, perhaps transferring values or beliefs or helping the Child to understand and live in society. They may also have negative intent, using the Child as a whipping-boy or worse.
Adult
the Adult in us is the 'grown up' rational person who talks reasonably and assertively, neither trying to control nor reacting aggressively towards others. The Adult is comfortable with themself and is, for many of us, our 'ideal self'.
Child
There are three types of Child we can play.
The Natural Child is largely un-self-aware and is characterized by the non-speech noises they make (yahoo, whee, etc.). They like playing and are open and vulnerable.
The cutely-named Little Professor is the curious and exploring Child who is always trying out new stuff (often much to their Controlling Parent's annoyance). Together with the Natural Child they make up the Free Child.
The Adaptive Child reacts to the world around them, either changing themselves to fit in or rebelling against the forces they feel.
Communications (transactions)
When two people communicate, each exchange is a transaction. Many of our problems come from transactions which are unsuccessful.
Parents naturally speak to Children, as this is their role as a parent. They can talk with other Parents and Adults, although the subject still may be about the children.
The Nurturing Parent naturally talks to the Natural Child and the Controlling Parent to the Adaptive Child. In fact these parts of our personality are evoked by the opposite. Thus if I act as an Adaptive Child, I will most likely evoke the Controlling Parent in the other person.
We also play many games between these positions, and there are rituals from greetings to whole conversations (such as the weather) where we take different positions for different events. These are often 'pre-recorded' as scripts we just play out. They give us a sense of control and identity and reassure us that all is still well in the world. Other games can be negative and destructive and we play them more out of sense of habit and addiction than constructive pleasure.
Conflict
Complementary transactions occur when both people are at the same level (Parent talking to Parent, etc.). Here, both are often thinking in the same way and communication is easier. Problems usually occur in Crossed transactions, where each is talking to a different level.
The parent is either nurturing or controlling, and often speaks to the child, who is either adaptive or ‘natural’ in their response. When both people talk as a Parent to the other’s Child, their wires get crossed and conflict results.
The ideal line of communication is the mature and rational Adult-Adult relationship
TA can be used as a therapeutic tool in mental health, education, organizational development, and psychometric testing (Temple 2002). Eric Berne, a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, who developed TA in the late 1950s, suggested that individuals have three ego states: parent, adult, and child, which develop throughout childhood forming an important part of the personality. A parent ego state comprises positive and negative introjections from parents and parental figures. As adults, when we react from our parent ego state, our state of mind will correspond to our behaviour in a way copied exactly from a parental figure. The adult ego state involves assessing inner and outer current reality and using knowledge and experience to think clearly and respond appropriately. Reacting from our child ego state as adults involves feeling, thinking, and behaving in a way we did many years earlier when the situation was very similar. The child ego state is the repository of all childhood experiences, including the decisions we made about ourselves, others, and the world.
Children make decisions based on messages transmitted to them throughout early life. For example, a decision in response to continually disapproving parents might be: 'I am only valid if I please others.' These beliefs become fixated and the child grows up unconsciously seeking out situations that reinforce them, largely through his transactions with others. The way transactions are played out is also determined by each individual's need for strokes or units of recognition. We use strokes to manage our inherent stimulus hunger because strokes provide us with a sense of identity and worth.
Central to TA theory is the notion of ulterior transactions. Here, two messages are transmitted simultaneously; one adult to adult, 'Has anyone seen my keys?', the other, carrying the real meaning, between parent and child, 'Look for my keys!' The behavioral outcome is determined by the real meaning. Psychological games are unconscious ways of acquiring strokes by the use of repetitive, ulterior transactions. However, the individual's real needs remain unmet.
A Transactional Analyst with a strong adult ego state can support another individual to strengthen their adult ego state by discarding fixated material from the past and updating the content of the parent and child ego states; thus 'I am okay; I don't need to please people to validate my existence.' The content of the ego states can be updated throughout life with new feelings and ideas based on current reality. The 'changed mind' changes the personality structure and is observable in the person's behavior.
Children make decisions based on messages transmitted to them throughout early life. For example, a decision in response to continually disapproving parents might be: 'I am only valid if I please others.' These beliefs become fixated and the child grows up unconsciously seeking out situations that reinforce them, largely through his transactions with others. The way transactions are played out is also determined by each individual's need for strokes or units of recognition. We use strokes to manage our inherent stimulus hunger because strokes provide us with a sense of identity and worth.
Central to TA theory is the notion of ulterior transactions. Here, two messages are transmitted simultaneously; one adult to adult, 'Has anyone seen my keys?', the other, carrying the real meaning, between parent and child, 'Look for my keys!' The behavioral outcome is determined by the real meaning. Psychological games are unconscious ways of acquiring strokes by the use of repetitive, ulterior transactions. However, the individual's real needs remain unmet.
A Transactional Analyst with a strong adult ego state can support another individual to strengthen their adult ego state by discarding fixated material from the past and updating the content of the parent and child ego states; thus 'I am okay; I don't need to please people to validate my existence.' The content of the ego states can be updated throughout life with new feelings and ideas based on current reality. The 'changed mind' changes the personality structure and is observable in the person's behavior.
What is Emotional Quotient (EQ)? [ Module 5 ]
Psychologists believe that everyone has an Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and an Emotional Quotient (E). IQ is a measure of cognitive intelligence and EQ is a measure of emotional intelligence
While it is generally accepted that an individuals IQ is handed out at birth, the same individual’s EQ can develop over time and through training.
Emotional Quotient was first used as a measure of Emotional Intelligence by Dr Reuven Bar-On. He defined emotional intelligence as being concerned with effectively understanding oneself and others, relating well to people, and adapting to one’s immediate surroundings. Emotional Intelligence helps individuals to cope with their surroundings and to be more successful in dealing with environmental demands.
Individuals with a higher than average EQ are in general more successful in meeting environmental demands and pressures.
Bar-On notes that a deficiency in Emotional Intelligence can mean a lack of success and the existence of emotional problems. Problems in coping with one’s environment are thought, by Bar-On, to be especially common among those individuals lacking in the areas of reality testing, problem solving, stress tolerance, and impulse control.
In general, Bar-On considers emotional intelligence and cognitive intelligence to contribute equally to a person’s general intelligence, which then offers an indication of one’s potential to succeed in life.
The Development Company UK Limited is accredited to use the BarOn EQ-i system to measure Emotional Quotient.
Emotional Quotient, or EQ, is a measure of your Emotional Intelligence
(just like IQ or Intelligence Quotient is a measure of your mental intelligence). Emotional Intelligence is the aggregate of the strengths and weaknesses of your emotional competencies that influence how you handle yourself and others in coping with the demands and pressures of your business and personal life
Using Dr. Reuven BarOn's three-fold grouping of EQ competencies, Dr. Michael Rock has written and developed the 15 EQ-iTM modules into Core, Supporting and Resultant competencies. This grouping supports the research findings that there are (a) essential EQ competencies (Core), (b) sustained by critical EQ competencies (Supporting), which lead to EQ success (Resultant) in successful relationships at home and at work.
What Is a Win-Win Situation? [ module 5 ]
A win-win situation, also called a win-win game or non-zero-sum game in game theory, is a situation by which cooperation, compromise, or group participation leads to all participants benefiting. The term can be applied to many aspects of daily living, and it is contrasted to the zero-sum game or win-lose situation, where the dominant factor is that at least one person wins while another loses. These are also called zero-sum games and examples include most two-person board games. For instance a chess game is zero-sum. One winner, +1, is added to one loser, -1, resulting in a total of zero.
The win-win situation is different, since its total according to game theory could be two or more. In a two-person scenario, where both people could cooperate and thus benefit, this could be mathematically expressed and +1 plus +1 = 2. Instead of a situation creating a winner and a loser, both people win a roughly equivalent amount.
You can apply the term win-win situation to any small negotiations in life. A typical comparison might be compromise between a husband and wife on an issue of contention. Perhaps the couple is arguing about division of chores and childcare. The husband contends he works outside the home and should not have to take care of the house or children.
The wife contends that the amount of work inside the home and regarding childcare is just as weighty during the day. If the wife simply allows the situation to continue status quo, she is statistically the loser or -1. Some recent studies suggest that women who care for children at home work essentially an 18-20 hour day, depending upon the number and age of children. She really is the loser by this proposition, particularly when the husband refuses to help.
For the couple to create a win-win scenario, compromise and understanding of workload is needed. If studies indicate that a stay at home mom is actually working the equivalent of two and half full time jobs, then this figure needs to be fully grasped by the husband. He’s also probably got a tired and possibly cranky wife on his hands while the situation remains the same, and he may earn her resentment. But technically he is winning something, the benefit of free time, while the wife is not.
If the couple decides to compromise, and the husband helps with some chores or childcare to even the workload, the couple have created a win-win situation. Some might ask how the husband wins in this scenario. He benefits from a wife less tired, perhaps more devoted to the relationship, and certainly less resentful. The wife wins a little free time and the share of work becomes equitable.
Any situation where parties agree to act in both their own interest and in the interest of the group can be a win-win situation. In economy, this may also be referred to as the Nash Equilibrium. Any participant in a situation or game takes into account the way that his/her own decisions and choices affect all other participants. When this occurs, and when all participants develop a strategy which benefits the “whole,” a win-win situation develops. It should be stated that not everyone in every possible permutation of this scenario wins exactly the same thing or the equivalent amount.
The basis for any win-win situation is that compromise and cooperation must be more or at least as important as ego and competition. Everyone likes to “win” but the question raised to create the win-win situation is: How can a situation be established where nobody loses? It’s hard to create win-win situations when people are selfish and egotistical, and especially if they don’t care whether their personal gains result in someone else’s losses.
The CHARACTER [ Module 4 ]
The CHARACTER COUNTS! approach to character education doesn't exclude anyone. That's why we base our programs and materials on six ethical values that everyone can agree on — values that are not political, religious, or culturally biased. Use the points below to help young people understand the Six Pillars, and use the mnemonic devices at right to help them remember.
Trustworthiness
Be honest • Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you’ll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal — stand by your family, friends, and country
Respect
Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant and accepting of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don’t threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements
Responsibility
Do what you are supposed to do • Plan ahead • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes • Set a good example for others
Fairness
Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don’t take advantage of others • Don’t blame others carelessly • Treat all people fairly
Caring
Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need
Citizenship
Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment • Volunteer
Theories of courage [ module 4 ]
Western antiquity and Middle Ages
As a [desirable] quality, courage is discussed broadly in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, where its vice of shortage is cowardice and its vice of excess is recklessness.[1] 'live life not without fear, but with gallantry against it' : Christian L J Silver
In Roman Catholicism, courage is referred to as "Fortitude"[2] as one of the four cardinal virtues, along with prudence, justice, and temperance. ("Cardinal" in this sense means "pivotal"; it is one of the four cardinal virtues because to possess any virtue, a person must be able to sustain it in the face of difficulty.) This is well expressed by Maya Angelou:
Courage is the most important of the virtues, because without courage you can't practice any other virtue consistently. You can practice any virtue erratically, but nothing consistently without courage.
Or this insight from Winston Churchill:
Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities ... because it is the quality that guarantees all others.
In both Catholicism and Anglicanism, courage is also one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.
Eastern traditions
The Tao Te Ching states that courage is derived from love ("慈 loving 故 causes 能 ability 勇 brave") and explains: "One of courage, with audacity, will die. One of courage, but gentle, spares death. From these two kinds of courage arise harm and benefit."[3][4]
Courage (shauriya) and Patience (dhairya) appear as the first two of ten characteristics (lakshana) of dharma in the Hindu Manusmruti, besides forgiveness (kshama), tolerance (dama), honesty (asthaya), physical restraint (indriya nigraha), cleanliness (shouchya), perceptiveness (dhi), knowledge (vidhya), truthfulness (satya), and control of anger (akrodh).
Islamic beliefs also present courage and self-control as a key factor in facing the Devil and in some cases Jihad to a lesser extent; many believe this because of the courage (through peace and patience) the Prophets of the past displayed against people who despised them for their beliefs.
Modernity
Søren Kierkegaard opposed courage to angst, while Paul Tillich opposed an existential courage to be to non-being, fundamentally equating it with religion:
"Courage is the self-affirmation of being in spite of the fact of non-being. It is the act of the individual self in taking the anxiety of non-being upon itself by affirming itself ... in the anxiety of guilt and condemnation. ... every courage to be has openly or covertly a religious root. For religion is the state of being grasped by the power of being itself."[5]
J.R.R. Tolkien identified in his 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics" a "Northern 'theory of courage'"—the heroic or "virtuous pagan" insistence to do the right thing even in the face of certain defeat without promise of reward or salvation:
“
|
It is the strength of the northern mythological imagination that it faced this problem, put the monsters in the centre, gave them victory but no honor, and found a potent and terrible solution in naked will and courage. 'As a working theory absolutely impregnable.' So potent is it, that while the older southern imagination has faded forever into literary ornament, the northern has power, as it were, to revive its spirit even in our own times. It can work, as it did even with the goðlauss Viking, without gods: martial heroism as its own end.[6]
|
”
|
Virtuous pagan heroism or courage in this sense is "trusting in your own strength," as observed by Jacob Grimm in his Teutonic Mythology,
“
|
Men who, turning away in utter disgust and doubt from the heathen faith, placed their reliance on their own strength and virtue. Thus in the Sôlar lioð 17 we read of Vêbogi and Râdey â sik þau trûðu, "in themselves they trusted"[7]
|
”
|
Ernest Hemingway famously defined courage as "grace under pressure."[8]
Civil courage
Civil courage (sometimes also referred to as "Social courage") is defined by many different standards. In general, the term is usually referred to when civilians stand up against something that is deemed unjust and evil, knowing that the consequences of their action might lead to their death, injury or some other form of significant harm.[citation needed]
In some countries (e.g. France[9] and Germany)[10] civil courage (Duty to rescue) is enforced by law under certain circumstances; this generally excludes assistance that would endanger the person who is offering it.
Symbolism
Its accompanying animal is the lion. Often, Fortitude is depicted as having tamed the ferocious lion. Cf. e.g. the Tarot trump called Strength. It is sometimes seen in the Catholic Church as a depiction of Christ's triumph over sin (see Revelation 5:5). It also is a symbol in some cultures as a savior of the people who live in a community with sin and corruption.
Awards
Several awards claim to recognize courageous actions, including:- The Victoria Cross is the highest military award that may be received by members of the armed forces in the British Army and other Commonwealth countries for valour "in the face of the enemy." A total of 1,356 have been awarded to individuals, 13 since World War II.
- The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is bestowed on members of the United States armed forces who distinguish themselves "conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States”.
- Distinguished Service Cross (United States) is the second highest military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States Army, awarded for extreme gallantry and risk of life in actual combat with an armed enemy force.
- The Carnegie Hero Fund - was established to recognize persons who perform extraordinary acts of heroism in civilian life in the United States and Canada, and to provide financial assistance for those disabled and the dependents of those killed saving or attempting to save others.
- The Profile in Courage Award is a private award given to recognize displays of courage similar to those John F. Kennedy described in his book Profiles in Courage. It is given to individuals (often elected officials) who, by acting in accord with their conscience, risked their careers or lives by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or pressure from constituents or other local interests.
- The Civil Courage Prize is a human rights award which is awarded to "steadfast resistance to evil at great personal risk — rather than military valor." It is awarded by the Trustees of The Train Foundation annually and may be awarded posthumously.
- Courage to Care Award is a plaque with miniature bas-reliefs depicting the backdrop for the rescuers’ exceptional deeds during the Nazis’ persecution, deportation and murder of millions of Jews.
- The Ivan Allen Jr. Prize for Social Courage is a prize awarded by Georgia Institute of Technology to individuals who uphold the legacy of former Atlanta Mayor Ivan Allen Jr., whose actions in Atlanta, Georgia and testimony before congress in support of the 1963 Civil Rights Bill legislation set a standard for courage during the turbulent civil rights era of the 1960s.
As a strength in psychology
From the end of the twentieth century, courage has been a concept generating interest in the field of psychology. In 2004, Christopher Peterson and Martin Seligman’s book, Character Strengths and Virtues proposed a uniform way of classifying positive traits that highlight the elements of humanity that uplift humanity, Courage being among the key virtues. In addition, Seligman and Peterson founded the Virtues in Action (VIA) Institute and created the VIA survey which hope to bring this uniform categorization of human strengths to the masses. The VIA classifies human strengths in six, broad categories: Wisdom and Knowledge, Courage, Humanity, Justice, Temperance, Transcendence. Courage is broken down into four main subcategories: Bravery, Perseverance, Honesty, and Zest.
Bravery
Bravery is the subcategory most people generally associate with Courage.[11] It is defined as “the ability to stand up for what is right in difficult situations.”[11] As opposed to less sophisticated definitions that simply categorize bravery as fearlessness or acting when an observer would be afraid.[12] There are several forms of this bravery. Physical bravery involves acting in spite of possible harm to one’s body. Moral bravery involves acting in a way that enhances what one believes to be good in spite of social disapproval and possible backlash. A third, theoretically newer, definition of bravery is psychological bravery which involves things such as overcoming one’s own addictive habits, irrational anxieties, and harmful dependent relationships. Psychological bravery means acting against one’s own natural inclinations and facing fears which might not have any societal moral implications.[13] Bravery works well as a virtue in the VIA classification system because it is highly regarded across cultures and has obvious benefits for those surrounded by brave people. Possible problems with viewing bravery as a classifiable
human strength is that it could be argued that bravery is not trait-like since it only comes out under certain circumstances.[11] The counterargument to this claim is that bravery is trait-like in the same way creativity is considered a trait; both appear only in certain situations.[11] The VIA claims that it is a positive psychological trait that can be found and cultivated in certain individuals.
Perseverance
Perseverance falls under the larger category of courage because it often involves continuing along a path in the midst of and after having faced opposition and perhaps failure. Perseverance involves the ability to seek a goal in spite of obstacles and has been shown in human and animal studies to be a lasting trait with individual differences.[14] In order to persevere at a task, a person must be able to suppress desires to give up and pursue an easier task, a metacognitive understanding that the ends justify the persevering means. But beyond meta cognition, a person high in perseverance is able to overcome low self-esteem and estimations that one cannot do the task as well as discouragement from peers and the desire to present oneself well.[15] As a categorical psychological strength, perseverance is regarded highly by society as opposed to laziness. However, its one weakness as an entry on the VIA as noted by Peterson and Seligman is that it may not be discernible from other human strengths and virtues. It especially can be seen as overlapping with self-control. However Peterson and Seligman maintain its distinctiveness, pointing out that perseverance “is explicitly shown across time, whereas control and regulation of oneself have a more here-and-now flavor”.[11] More research needs to be done in this area to empirically show that perseverance belongs in its own distinct category.
Honesty
As defined by positive psychologists, honesty and authenticity as a subset of courage means more than simply telling the truth. It involves integrity in all areas of one’s life and the ability to be true to oneself and one’s role in the world across circumstances.[11] Though perhaps one would not immediately associate honesty with courage, there are obvious situations in life where to be honest and authentic requires a great deal of strength in the midst of fear. The positive view societies have of honesty can be seen from the fact that it is something people try to develop in young children and adolescents.[11] While all people seem to grow in their understanding of the moral importance of honest and integrity as they grow older,[16] there are certain individuals who seem to especially excel in this human strength. This trait is important in many areas of life, so much so that many measurements have been developed in an effort to identify especially honest individuals. These measurements test both overt honesty, the thoughts one has about blatant dishonesty such as stealing, and covert honesty, which is very similar to conscientiousness and dependability.[11] Of all the subcategories under courage in the VIA, Honesty shows the most promise as a distinct, well defined area of classification.[11]
Zest
Of the four categories involved in courage, zest or vitality, is the one that has the most weaknesses as a classification. It is defined as, “feeling alive, being full of zest, and displaying enthusiasm for any and all activities”.[11] This is a category that is influenced not only by subjective psychological factors, but also objective factors affecting one’s physical well-being such as chronic pain.[17] The reason Peterson and Seligman group Zest together with other courageous virtues is that Zest most often comes forth as a character strength in the midst of trying circumstances. For example, it has been shown that people’s subjective perception of their situation when faced with chronic pain, judging their perceived ability to handle the situation and their general positivity, is able to influence their well-being. This zest can be shown to be trait-like across situations.[17]
Handling Difficult People And What You Can Do
|
As a small business owner, you wear many "different hats" from strategic planner to bookkeeper. However one area may owners aren't prepared for is managing people. Although employees allow you to get more work done, they create a whole new series of problems from hiring issues to worker's compensation. And there is no way to tell if the people you hire today are going to be a good fit for your company. At a certain point, you might find you need a crash course in handling difficult people.
Many conflicts can arise between small business owners and their workers. These problems can range from salary disagreements to performance problems. A conflict with one of your employees, for example, can cost you a valuable client because he or she is misrepresenting you and your company. On the other hand, one of your workers may have attendance issues or may refuse to perform certain necessary tasks.
Whatever the issue, difficult employees all have one thing in common. They will negatively impact your business.
So as a business owner, you must accept the realities of handling difficult people. Here are a few tips that will help you deal with such individuals.
Four Tips on Handling Difficult Employees
* Find out what makes your employee so frustrated or unhappy. Start a formal conversation with your worker. Explore why your employee has inappropriate behavior. Are they taking on more responsibility than they can handle? Do they lack the training to perform certain tasks? Do they have issues outside the workplace that are affecting their performance? Take the time to meet with your employee to get insight about their situation. Be objective and professional.
* If your employee's problems are work related, address their needs within reason. This is a two-way street. You try to accommodate their needs within the boundaries of your business. In return, you should give the worker some expectations to meet. This involves having a professional, but honest discussion with this individual. Give them examples of their problem behavior. Offer alternate ways of acting so your employee may learn how you'd prefer he or she handle similar circumstance going forward. Set some goals and objectives.
* Meet regularly with the employee and revisit the issues. Sometimes just monitoring the situation is enough to get the worker to improve. This is a good way of not only handling difficult employees but of managing all of your people. Using this technique, you open communications with your employees and they understand what you and the business expect.
* Take corrective action. If a difficult employee refuses to improve, then you must begin progressive discipline. Eventually this may lead to firing the problem employee. Therefore make sure you follow your business policies, document your corrective actions and follow proper termination procedures.
Many a business owners have fired an employee believing they have "at-will" protection, only to discover later they are at the losing end of a wrongful termination law suit. And a difficult person in the workforce is more likely to seek retribution after a firing. You can simply avoid this problem by following fair and legal termination
|
Self-Awareness Theory [ Module 4 ]
Self-Awareness Theory states that when we focus our attention on ourselves, we evaluate and compare our current behavior to our internal standards and values. We become self-conscious as objective evaluators of ourselves. However self-awareness is not to be confused with self-consciousness.[9] Various emotional states are intensified by self-awareness. However, some people may seek to increase their self-awareness through these outlets. People are more likely to align their behavior with their standards when made self-aware. People will be negatively affected if they don't live up to their personal standards. Various environmental cues and situations induce awareness of the self, such as mirrors, an audience, or being videotaped or recorded. These cues also increase accuracy of personal memory.[10] In Demetriou's theory, one of the neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, self-awareness develops systematically from birth through the life span and it is a major factor for the development of general inferential processes.[11] Moreover, a series of recent studies showed that self-awareness about cognitive processes participates in general intelligence on a par with processing efficiency functions, such as working memory, processing speed, and reasoning.[12
What is Knowledge?
Knowledge is everything that you know and learn. Knowledge is your education and your life experience. If you update your knowledge you can achieve more in your life.
Knowledge is a collective term used to describe the condition of something that has been learned. Knowledge can be acquired through the study of a subject, or something that is simply learned through personal experience.
Self-knowledge
Self-knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws upon when finding an answer to the question "What am I like?".
While seeking to develop the answer to this question, self-knowledge requires ongoing self-awareness and self-consciousness (which is not to be confused with consciousness.) Young infants and even animals will display some of the traits self-awareness[1] and agency/contingency,[2] yet not be considered as also having self-consciousness. At some greater level of cognition, however, a self-conscious component emerges in addition to an increased self-awareness component, and then it becomes possible to ask "What am I like?", and to answer with self-knowledge.
Self-knowledge is a component of the self, or more accurately, the self-concept. It is the knowledge of one's self and one's properties and the desire to seek such knowledge that guide the development of the self concept. Self-knowledge informs us of our mental representations of ourselves, which contain attributes that we uniquely pair with ourselves, and theories on whether these attributes are stable, or dynamic.
The self-concept is thought to have three primary aspects:- The Cognitive Self
- The Affective Self
- The Executive Self
The affective and executive selves are also known as the felt and active selves respectively, as they refer to the emotional and behavioral components of the self-concept. Self-knowledge is linked to the cognitive self in that its motives guide our search to gain greater clarity and assurance that our own self-concept is an accurate representation of our true self;[citation needed] for this reason the cognitive self is also referred to as the known self. The cognitive self is made up of everything we know (or think we know about ourselves). This implies physiological properties such as hair color, race, and height etc.; and psychological properties like beliefs, values, and dislikes to name but a few.
Self-Knowledge and its Relation with Memory
Self-knowledge and its structure affect how events we experience are encoded, how they are selectively retrieved/recalled, and what conclusions we draw from how we interpret the memory. The analytical interpretation of our own memory can also be called metamemory, and is an important factor of metacognition.
The connection between our memory and our self-knowledge has been recognized for many years by leading minds in both philosophy[3] and psychology,[4][5] yet the precise specification of the relation remains a point of controversy.[6]
Is There a Specialized Memory for Self-Knowledge?
· Studies have shown there is a memory advantage for information encoded with reference to the self.[7]
· Patients with Alzheimer's who have difficulty recognizing their own family have not shown evidence of self-knowledge.[8]
Self-Knowledge and the Division of Memory
Self-theories have traditionally failed to distinguish between different source that inform self-knowledge, these are episodic memory' and semantic memory. Both episodic and semantic memory are facets of declarative memory, which contains memory of facts. Declarative memory is the explicit counterpart to procedural memory, which is implicit in that it applies to skills we have learnt; they are not facts that can be stated.
A basic schematic representation of memory showing the 'locations' of semantic and episodic memory.
Episodic Memory
Episodic memory does not refer to concept-based knowledge stored about a specific experience like episodic memory. Instead it includes the memory of meanings, understandings, general knowledge about the world, and factual information etc. This makes semantic knowledge independent of context and personal information. Semantic memory enables an individual to know information, including information about their selves, without having to consciously recall the experiences that taught them such knowledge.
Semantic Memory
Semantic memory is the autobiographical memory that individuals possess which contains events, associated emotions, and knowledge around a given context. This kind of declarative memory provides an individual with a personal narrative and a view of their selves as existing throughout a period of time.
Semantic Self as the Source of Self-Knowledge
People are able to maintain a sense of self that is supported by semantic knowledge of personal facts in the absence of direct access to the memories that describe the episodes on which the knowledge is based.
- Individuals have been shown to maintain a sense of self despite catastrophic impairments in episodic recollection. For example subject W.J., who suffered dense retrograde amnesia leaving her unable to recall any events that occurred prior to the development of amnesia. However, her memory for general facts about her life during the period of amnesia remained intact.
· This suggests that a separate type of knowledge contributes to the self-concept, as W.J.'s knowledge could not have come from her episodic memory.[9]
o A similar dissociation occurred in K.C. who suffered a total loss of episodic memory, but still knew a variety of facts about himself.[10][11]
· Evidence also exists that shows how patients with severe amnesia can have accurate and detailed semantic knowledge of what they are like as a person, for example which particular personality traits and characteristics they possess.[12][13]
This evidence for the dissociation between episodic and semantic self-knowledge has made several things clear:
- Episodic memory is not the only drawing point for self-knowledge, contrary to long-held beliefs. Self-knowledge must therefore be expanded to include the semantic component of memory.[14][15]
- Self-knowledge about the traits one possesses can be accessed without the need for episodic retrieval. This is shown through study of individuals with neurological impairments that make it impossible to recollect trait-related experiences, yet who can still make reliable and accurate trait-ratings of themselves, and even revise these judgements based on new experiences they cannot even recall.[16]
The 7 Tenants of Positive Self Development
1. Continuous Learning
The first tenant of positive self development is continuous learning. No one of us exists in a vacuum, and we are constantly shaping and being shaped by our environment. There will not come a point when your learning ceases, so embrace learning in all you do. It exercises the mind, expands possibilities, and allows you to contribute in new and more meaningful ways. Furthermore, learning as a way of life will yield continuous benefits and happiness – a true win-win scenario. If you’re presently feeling stuck in your life, chances are that you have not learned anything exciting or meaningful in a long time. By becoming a lifetime learner, you will always feel refreshed and open to new possibilities.
2. Laser Focus + Persistence
Focus is becoming more important in this particular phase of life on planet Earth. For all the joys that technology brings us, it also comes with shortening attention spans, numbness, and a thousand and one distractions at all times. To get what you want in life, you must be crystal clear about what it is you want, and pursue that vision with a relentless and focused determination. In the way that a river cuts through the mountain over time, you can erode the obstacles in your life by staying focused and persistent. Clear focus is pivotal to all Self development.
3. Working a Plan
Coming up with a plan is overrated. Brilliant plans are hatched on napkins by the thousands on a daily basis. So, with all these brilliant plans floating around, where is all the success? Success lies (always) in the execution on the plan. Planning and executing are two very different things aren’t they! Obviously, the latter is more difficult, but working a good plan through to completion is the hallmark of the successful. The most critical part of working your plan is the middle period, where the excitement has worn off but you are yet to see the fruits of your labor. Author Seth Godin calls this “The Dip” and identifies it as the period to either soldier on or quit. If it’s a worthy cause you’re pursuing, be strong and carry on – the rewards on the other side or more than worth it!
4. Sound Mind Follows Sound Body
Your thoughts control your words control your actions controls your destiny. Watch what you think, and stay a vigilant guard over your mind’s wandering tendencies. The best way to take care of your mind is to take care of the body it belongs to. If you can think back to a time in your life when you were particularly active and fit, you may also remember being especially happy during that time, too. A healthy body lends itself to a healthy and happy disposition and outlook on life. From that healthy outlook flows positive actions and contributions that make you your best self in this world. Any real look at self development is incomplete without addressing your body’s well being. Remember that health and fitness need not be complicated – simply turning your attention to your health and exercise is a huge first step. Eating natural, unprocessed foods and doing exercises you actually enjoy are all you really need.
5. Complete Responsibility
Your life circumstances are your own, and those who accept complete responsibility for this will inevitably fare better in life. Cultivating a mindset that says “I am responsible for this, and I can change it whenever I want” will yield far greater results than looking for the next person or situation to blame. Truth be told, there will ALWAYS be a person or situation to blame, and if you choose to burn your energy blaming, you will miss countless opportunities to better yourself, your loved ones, and your life’s path. You only carry the key’s to your Kingdom – it’s a hefty responsibility but one that carries the potential for unending happiness and fulfillment.
6. Practicing the Pareto Principle
Otherwise known as the 80/20 principle, the Pareto Principle states the 80% of the results come from 20% of the inputs. Thus, life is skewed: the happy get happier, the rich become more wealthy, and not all is fair. This is not a fact to bemoan or complain about, it’s something to use to your advantage! If you really examine your life and your actions, you can hone in on those few actions (the great 20%) that yield the best results and happiness for you. You can eliminate those actions that aren’t serving you, and begin to spend your valuable time on the activities that are most meaningful to you.
7. Those Who Make It, Made It
I’ve always found it interesting that people use the phrase “made it” when describing a successful musical group (or other success). This phrase seems to indicate some sort of luck, but it reality those that “make it” do something far more literal than waiting around! They actually (physically!) go out there and MAKE whatever they want happen. This means they hustle more, are willing to do more, seek out the help of others more, and generally put in far more effort in the pursuit of their dreams then others pursuing the same dreams. It’s as if you’re building a castle one stone at a time, but the whole
world doesn’t see it until it’s completely finished. The world won’t see all the hard work you put in, only the magnificent end result. Positive self development is the same: it is the act of adding stones to build your castle until it is a finished Masterpiece.
These 7 Tenants of Self Development are simply a starting point. You really, truly can have whatever it is you want in life. You simply must be clear about what you want, decide what you’re willing to do for it, and pursue that end with focus and relentlessness.
Social learning theory [ Module 2 ]
Social learning theory is a perspective that states that people learn within a social context and is facilitated through such concepts as modeling and observational learning.[1]
Contents
|
Theory
According to Social Learning theory, models are an important source for learning new behaviors and for achieving behavioral change in institutionalized settings. [2] Social learning theory is derived from the work of Albert Bandura which proposed that observational learning can occur in relation to three models: [3]
• Live model – in which an actual person is demonstrating the desired behavior
• Verbal instruction – in which an individual describes the desired behavior in detail, and instructs the participant in how to engage in the behavior
• Symbolic – in which modeling occurs by means of the media, including movies, television, Internet, literature, and radio. This type of modeling involves a real or fictional character demonstrating the behavior.
An important factor of Bandura’s social learning theory is the emphasis on reciprocal determinism. This notion states that an individual’s behavior is influenced by the environment and characteristics of the person. In other words, a person’s behavior, environment, and personal qualities all reciprocally influence each other.[3] Bandura proposed that the modeling process involves several steps:[3]
1. Attention – in order for an individual to learn something, they must pay attention to the features of the modeled behavior.
2. Retention – humans need to be able to remember details of the behavior in order to learn and later reproduce the behavior.
3. Reproduction – in reproducing a behavior, an individual must organize his or her responses in accordance with the model behavior. This ability can improve with practice.
4. Motivation – there must be an incentive or motivation driving the individual’s reproduction of the behavior. Even if all of the above factors are present, the person will not engage in the behavior without motivation.
Bandura is known for his 1961-1963 experiments utilizing an inflatable clown known as a Bobo doll in order to test modeling behaviors in children. Children were divided into three groups – one of which was exposed to an aggressive adult model, one which was exposed to a passive adult model, and a control group, which was not exposed to an adult model. Adults in the aggressive group were asked to verbally and physically attack the doll, while those in the passive group were asked to play peacefully. Once the children were given the opportunity to play, results showed that those exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to imitate what they had seen, and to behave aggressively toward the doll. It was found that boys were four times more likely than girls to display physical aggression, but levels of verbal aggression were about the same. The results of Bandura’s studies provided support for the influence of modeling on learning. Further, a later study in 1965 showed that witnessing the model being punished for the aggressive behavior decreased the likelihood that children would imitate the behavior.[4]
Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and behaviorism, and developed a learning theory. In Social Learning and Clinical Psychology (1954), Rotter suggests that the effect of behavior has an impact on the motivation of people to engage in that specific behavior. People wish to avoid negative consequences, while desiring positive results or effects. If one expects a positive outcome from a behavior, or thinks there is a high probability of a positive outcome, then they will be more likely to engage in that behavior. The behavior is reinforced, with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the behavior. This social learning theory suggests that behavior is influenced by these environmental factors or stimuli, and not psychological factors alone.[5]
Albert Bandura[6] expanded on Rotter's idea, as well as earlier work by Miller & Dollard,[7] and is related to social learning theories of Vygotsky and Lave. This theory incorporates aspects of behavioral and cognitive learning. Behavioral learning assumes that people's environment (surroundings) cause people to behave in certain ways. Cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors are important for influencing how one behaves. Social learning suggests that a combination of environmental (social) and psychological factors influence behavior. Social learning theory outlines three requirements for people to learn and model behavior including attention: retention (remembering what one observed), reproduction (ability to reproduce the behavior), and motivation (good reason) to want to adopt the behavior.
Criminology
In criminology, Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess developed social learning theory to explain deviancy by combining variables which encouraged delinquency (e.g., the social pressure from delinquent peers) with variables that discouraged delinquency (e.g., the parental response to discovering delinquency in their children)[8].
The first two stages were used by Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory. Sutherland's model for learning in a social environment depends on the cultural conflict between different factions in a society over who has the power to determine what is deviant. But his ideas were difficult to put into operation and measure quantitatively. Burgess, a behavioral sociologist, and Akers revised Sutherland's theory and included the idea of reinforcement, which increases or decreases the strength of a behavior, and applied the principles of operant psychology, which holds that behavior is a function of its consequences and can be really bad in some cases [9]
Functionalism had been the dominant paradigm but, in the 1960s, there was a shift towards Social Control Theories, conflict criminology, and labeling theories that tried to explain the emerging and more radical social environment. Moreover, people believed that they could observe behavior and see the process of social learning, e.g., parents watched their own children and saw the influence of other children on their own; they could also see what kind of effect they had on their own children, i.e., the processes of differential association and reinforcement. The conservative political parties were advocating an increase in punishment to deter crime. Unlike labeling theory, social learning theory actually supports the use of punishment which translates into longer sentences for those convicted, and helps to explain the increase in the prison population that began in the early 1970s (Livingston, 1996).[Full citation needed]
Unlike situational crime prevention, the theory ignores the opportunistic nature of crime (Jeffery, 1990: 261–2).[Full citation needed] To learn one must first observe criminal behavior, but where was this behavior learned? The theory does explain how criminal behavior is "transmitted" from one person to another, which can explain increases in types of crimes, but it does not consider how criminal acting can be prevented (Jeffery, 1990: 252)[Full citation needed] although it may be fairly assumed that the processes of learning behaviors can be changed.
There is also a definite problem. What may be reinforcement for one person may not be for another. Also, reinforcements can be both social involving attention and behavior between more than one person, and non-social reinforcement which would not involve this interaction (Burgess & Akers: 1966).[Full citation needed] Social learning theory has been used in mentoring programs that should, in theory, prevent some future criminal behavior. The idea behind mentoring programs is that an adult is paired with a child, who supposedly learns from the behavior of the adult and is positively reinforced for good behavior (Jones-Brown, 1997).[Full citation needed] In the classroom, a teacher may use the theory by changing the seating arrangements to pair a behaving child and a misbehaving child, but the outcome may be that the behaving child begins behaving badly.
We can explain attachment in terms of the principles of classic conditioning. The food-giver then becomes a source of pleasure.
Serial murder and social learning theory
Hale[10] applied the social learning theory to serial murder using Amsel's frustration theory. In frustration theory, humiliation is the result of a nonreward situation, which is a reward that is not given when a reward had been given in the past. When an individual is conditioned to be rewarded they anticipate it to happen in the future, but when they are presented with a nonreward situation this creates an unconditioned frustration response, otherwise called humiliation. Signs
associated with the humiliating experience form a conditioned anticipatory frustration response, which triggers specific internal stimuli. These stimuli prevent an individual from future humiliation. During childhood, serial killers experience many humiliating situations and with unbalanced nonreward situations and no reward situations, they perceive all situations as nonreward and develop the inability to distinguish between the two. They anticipate humiliation in every encounter that they come across. When it comes to choosing their victims serial killers do not go back to the person who caused the humiliation. According to Dollard and (1939, 1950)} theory of learning, the individual is "instigated" toward a behavior, which is some antecedent condition of which the predicted response is the consequences. For a serial killer, frustration gets in the way of an instigated goal and their built up aggression must be released. Their behavior is seen as a delayed and indirect release of aggression. They are unable to release their aggression on their source of frustration and are forced to choose more vulnerable individuals to act on.[11] The child learns to expect humiliation or a negative situation from the past, which then causes frustration or aggression. Jerome Henry Brudos felt he was never accepted by his mother. Brudos transferred his hatred for his mother to other women through his mutilation of their bodies. For Brudos, the murder of strange women served as a catharsis for the humiliation he endured through his mother's rejection.[12] In all of these instances the serial killer was presented with some form of humiliation as a child, and learned to vent their anger through aggression.
Applications
The applications of social learning theory have been important in the history of education policies in the United States. The zone of proximal development is used as a basis for early intervention programs such as Head Start. Social learning theory can also be seen in the TV and movie rating system that is used in the United States. The rating system is designed to let all parents know what the programs that their children are watching contain. The ratings are based on age appropriate material to help parents decide if certain content is appropriate for their child to watch. Some content may be harmful to children who do not have the cognitive ability to process certain content, however the child may model the behaviors seen on TV.
Locus of control is an important consideration when helping students in higher education environments perform better academically. Cassandra B. Whyte indicated in the 1970s and 1980s that by encouraging students to accept personal responsibility for their educational outcomes, better academic performance will usually be forthcoming if ability levels are present. More frequent successful academic performance will result as thoughts and belief in the need for personal effort toward the academic task is rewarded. As successful experiences increase in frequency, the student usually incorporates the confidence that hard work often can be rewarded with positive academic outcomes.[13][14]
Guided participation is seen in schools across the United States and all around the world in language classes when the teacher says a phrase and asks the class to repeat the phrase. The other part to guided participation is when the student goes home and practices on their own. Guided participation is also seen with parents who are trying to teach their own children how to speak.
Scaffolding is another technique that is used widely across the United States.[citation needed] Most academic subjects take advantage of scaffolding, however mathematics is one of the best examples. As students move through their education they learn skills in mathematics that they will build on throughout their scholastic careers. A student who has never taken a basic math class and does not understand the principles of addition and subtraction will not be able to understand algebra. The process of learning math is a scaffolding technique because the knowledge builds on itself over time.[citation needed]
Another important application of social learning theory has been in the treatment and conceptualization of anxiety disorders. The classical conditioning approach to anxiety disorder, which spurred the development of behavioral therapy and is considered by some to be the first modern theory of anxiety[15], began to lose steam in the late 1970s as researchers began to question its underlying assumptions. For example, the classical conditioning approach holds that pathological fear and anxiety are developed through direct learning; however, many people with anxiety disorders cannot recall a traumatic conditioning event, in which the feared stimulus was experienced in close temporal and spatial contiguity with an intrinsically aversive stimulus.[16][17] Social learning theory helped salvage learning approaches to anxiety disorders by providing additional mechanisms beyond classical conditioning that could account for the acquisition of fear. For example, social learning theory suggests that a child could acquire a fear of snakes, for example, by observing a family remember express fear in response to snakes. Alternatively, the child could learn the associations between snakes and unpleasant bites through direct experience, without developing excessive fear, but could later learn from others that snakes can have deadly venom, leading to a re-evaluation of the dangerousness of snake bites, and accordingly, a more exaggerated fear response to snakes[18] (see 19, for a discussion of similar US re-evaluation effects).
References
2. ^ Henry P Sims Jr. & Charles C Manz (1982): Social Learning Theory, Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 3:4, 55-63.
3. ^ a b c Mae Sincero, S. (Retrieved 2011, Dec 09). What is social learning theory. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-resources.com/social-learning-theory.html.
4. ^ Shuttleworth, M. (Retrieved 2011, Dec 09). Bobo doll experiment. Retrieved from http://www.experiment-resources.com/bobo-doll-experiment.html
8. ^ Burgess, R., & Akers, R. A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 128-147
9. ^ Pfohl, S. J. Images of deviance and social control: A sociological history, New York: McGraw-Hill 1994, pp. 1-16,301-303
10. ^ Hale, R. (1998). The Application of Learning Theory to Serial Murder, or "You Too can Learn to Be a Serial Killer". In R.M. Holmes, & S.T. Holmes, Contemporary Perspectives on Serial Murder (pp. 75-84).
11. ^ Hensley, C. & Singer, S. (2004). Applying Social Learning Theory to Childhood and Adolescent Firesetting: Can it Lead to Serial Murder? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Vol 48 (4), 461–476.
12. ^ Hale, Robert. (1993) The Application of Learning Theory to Serial Murder. Mississippi. Vol 17(2), 37–45.
13. ^ Lauridsen, Kurt, ed. & Whyte, Cassandra. (1980) Learning Assistance Centers. New Directions Sourcebook. Jossey-Bass,Inc.
14. ^ Whyte, Cassandra. (1978). Effective Counseling Methods for High-Risk College Freshmen, Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance. 6 (4). 198–200.
15. ^ Rachman, S. (1991). Neo-conditioning and the classical theory of fear acquisition. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 155–173.
16. ^ Mathews, A., Gelder, M. & Johnston, D. (1981). Agoraphobia: Xature L3 Treatment. New York: Guilford Press.
17. ^ Ost, L.G., & Hugdahl, K. (1981). Acquisition of phobias and anxiety response patterns in clinical patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 19, 439-447.
18. ^ Mineka, S., & Zinbarg, R. (2006). A contemporary learning theory perspective on the etiology of anxiety disorders: It's not what you thought it was. American Psychologist, 61, 10-26.
Locus of control [ Module 3 ]
Locus of control is a theory in personality psychology referring to the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them. Understanding of the concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality studies. A person's locus (Latin for "place" or "location") can be either internal (meaning the person believes that they control their life) or external (meaning they believe that their environment, some higher power or other people control their decisions and their life).
Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from their own behavior and actions; for example, if a person with an internal locus of control does not perform as well as they wanted to on a test, they would blame it on lack of preparedness on their part. If they performed well on a test, they would think that it was because they studied enough.[1] Those with a high external locus of control believe that powerful others, fate or chance primarily determine events. In the test-performance example, if a person with a high external locus of control does poorly on a test, they would blame the test questions as too difficult. If they performed well on a test, they would think the teacher was lenient or they were lucky.[1]
Those with a high internal locus of control have better control of their behavior, tend to be more politically involved[citation needed] and are more likely to attempt to influence other people than those with a high external (or low internal) locus of control.[citation needed] They also assign greater likelihood to their efforts being successful, and more actively seek information concerning their situation.[citation needed]
Locus of control has generated much research in a variety of areas in psychology. The construct is applicable to fields such as educational psychology, health psychology or clinical psychology. There will probably continue to be debate about whether specific or more global measures of locus of control will prove to be more useful. Careful distinctions should also be made between locus of control (a concept linked with expectancies about the future) and attributional style (a concept linked with explanations for past outcomes), or between locus of control and concepts such as self-efficacy. The importance of locus of control as a topic in psychology is likely to remain quite central for many years.
Locus of control has also has been included as one of the four dimensions that comprise core self-evaluations, one's fundamental appraisal of oneself, along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.[2] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997),[2] and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[2][3][4][5][6]
History
Weiners attribution theory as applied to student motivation.
Locus of control is the framework of Rotter's (1954) social-learning theory of personality. In 1966 he published an article in Psychological Monographs which summarized over a decade of research (by Rotter and his students), much of it previously unpublished. In 1976, Herbert M. Lefcourt defined the perceived locus of control: "...a generalised expectancy for internal as opposed to external control of reinforcements". [7] Attempts have been made to trace the genesis of the concept to the work of Alfred Adler, but its immediate background lies in the work of Rotter and his students. Early work on the topic of expectations about control of reinforcement had been performed in the 1950s by James and Phares (prepared for unpublished doctoral dissertations supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University).[8] Another Rotter student, William H. James (not to be confused with William James), studied two types of "expectancy shifts":
- Typical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a similar outcome
- Atypical expectancy shifts, believing that success (or failure) would be followed by a dissimilar outcome
Work in this field led to the hypothesis that typical expectancy shifts were displayed more often by those who attributed their outcomes to ability, whereas those who displayed atypical expectancy were more likely to attribute their outcomes to chance. This was interpreted that people could be divided into those who attribute to ability (an internal cause) versus those who attribute to luck (an external cause). Bernard Weiner argued that rather than ability-versus-luck, locus may differ in attribution to stable (versus unstable) causes. Rotter (1975, 1989) has discussed problems and misconceptions in others' use of the internal-versus-external construct.
Personality orientation
Rotter (1975) cautioned that internality and externality represent two ends of a continuum, not an either/or typology. Internals tend to attribute outcomes of events to their own control. Externals attribute outcomes of events to external circumstances. It should not be thought, however, that internality is linked exclusively with attribution to effort and externality with attribution to luck (as Weiner's work —see below—makes clear). This has obvious implications for differences between internals and externals in terms of their achievement motivation, suggesting that internal locus is linked with higher levels of need for achievement. Due to their locating control outside themselves, externals tend to feel they have less control over their fate. People with an external locus of control tend to be more stressed and prone to clinical depression.[9]
Internals were believed by Rotter (1966) to exhibit two essential characteristics: high achievement motivation and low outer-directedness. This was the basis of the locus-of-control scale proposed by Rotter in 1966, although it was based on Rotter's belief that locus of control is a single construct. Since 1970, Rotter's assumption of uni-dimensionality has been challenged, with Levenson (for example) arguing that different dimensions of locus of control (such as beliefs that events in one's life are self-determined, or organized by powerful others and are chance-based) must be separated. Weiner's early work in the 1970s suggested that orthogonal to the internality-externality dimension, differences should be considered between those who attribute to stable and those who attribute to unstable causes.[10]
This meant that attributions could be to ability (an internal stable cause), effort (an internal unstable cause), task difficulty (an external stable cause) or luck (an external, unstable cause). This was how Weiner first saw these four causes, although he has been challenged as to whether people see luck (for example) as an external cause, whether ability is always perceived as stable and whether effort is always seen as changing. Indeed, in more recent publications (e.g. Weiner, 1980) he uses different terms for these four causes (such as "objective task characteristics" instead of "task difficulty" and "chance" instead of "luck"). Psychologists since Weiner have distinguished between stable and unstable effort, knowing that in some circumstances effort could be seen as a stable cause (especially given the presence of words such as "industrious" in English).
Measuring scales
The most widely-used questionnaire to measure locus of control is the 23-item (plus six filler items), forced-choice scale of Rotter (1966). However, this is not the only questionnaire; Bialer's (1961) 23-item scale for children predates Rotter's work. Also relevant to the locus-of-control scale are the Crandall Intellectual Ascription of Responsibility Scale (Crandall, 1965) and the Nowicki-Strickland Scale.[11] One of the earliest psychometric scales to assess locus of control (using a Likert-type scale, in contrast to the forced-choice alternative measure in Rotter's scale) was that devised by W. H. James for his unpublished doctoral dissertation, supervised by Rotter at Ohio State University; however, this remains unpublished.[12]
Many measures of locus of control have appeared since Rotter's scale. These were reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) and include those related to health psychology, industrial and organizational psychology and those specifically for children (such as the Stanford Preschool Internal-External Control Index[13] for three- to six-year-olds). Furnham and Steele (1993) cite data suggesting that the most reliable, valid questionnaire for adults is the Duttweiler scale. For a review of the health questionnaires cited by these authors, see "Applications" below.
The Duttweiler (1984) Internal Control Index (ICI) addresses perceived problems with the Rotter scales, including their forced-choice format, susceptibility to social desirability and heterogeneity (as indicated by factor analysis). She also notes that, while other scales existed in 1984 to measure locus of control, "they appear to be subject to many of the same problems".[14] Unlike the forced-choice format used on Rotter's scale, Duttweiler's 28-item ICI uses a Likert-type scale in which people must state whether they would rarely, occasionally, sometimes, frequently or usually behave as specified in each of 28 statements. The ICI assess variables pertinent to internal locus: cognitive processing, autonomy, resistance to social influence, self-confidence and delay of gratification. A small (133 student-subject) validation study indicated that the scale had good internal reliability (a Cronbach's alpha of 0.85).
Attributional style
Attributional style (or explanatory style) is a concept introduced by Lyn Yvonne Abramson, Martin Seligman and John D. Teasdale; [15] Buchanan and Seligman (1995) have edited a book-length review of the topic. This concept goes a stage further than Weiner, stating that in addition to the concepts of internality-externality and stability a dimension of globality-specificity[clarification needed] is also needed. Abramson et al. believed that how people explained successes and failures in their lives related to whether they attributed these to internal or external factors, short-term or long-term factors, and factors that affected all situations.
The topic of attribution theory (introduced to psychology by Fritz Heider) has had an influence on locus-of-control theory, but differences exist between the history of these two models. Attribution theorists have been (largely speaking) social psychologists (concerned with the general processes characterizing how and why people make the attributions they do), whereas locus-of-control theorists have been more concerned with individual differences.
Significant to the history of both approaches were the contributions made by Bernard Weiner in the 1970s. Before this time, attribution theorists and locus-of-control theorists had been largely concerned with divisions into external and internal loci of causality. Weiner added the dimension of stability-instability (and later controllability), indicating how a cause could be perceived as having been internal to a person yet still beyond the person's control. The stability dimension added to the understanding of why people succeed or fail after such outcomes. Although not part of Weiner's model, a further dimension of attribution was added by Abramson, Seligman and Teasdale (globality-specificity).
Applications
Locus of control's bestknown application may have been in the area of health psychology, largely due to the work of Kenneth Wallston. Scales to measure locus of control in the health domain were reviewed by Furnham and Steele in 1993. The best-known are the Health Locus of Control Scale and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale, or MHLC.[16] The latter scale is based on the idea (echoing Levenson's earlier work) that health may be attributed to three sources: internal factors (such as self-determination of a healthy lifestyle), powerful others (such as one's doctor) or luck.
Some of the scales reviewed by Furnham and Steele (1993) relate to health in more specific domains, such as obesity (for example, Saltzer's (1982) Weight Locus of Control Scale or Stotland and Zuroff's (1990) Dieting Beliefs Scale), mental health (such as Wood and Letak's (1982) Mental Health Locus of Control Scale or the Depression Locus of Control Scale of Whiteman, Desmond and Price, 1987) and cancer (the Cancer Locus of Control Scale of Pruyn et al., 1988). In discussing applications of the concept to health psychology Furnham and Steele refer to Claire Bradley's work, linking locus of control to the management of diabetes mellitus. Empirical data on health locus of control in a number of fields was reviewed by Norman and Bennett in 1995; they note that data on whether certain health-related behaviors are related to internal health locus of control have been ambiguous. They note that some studies found that internal health locus of control is linked with increased exercise, but cite other studies which found a weak (or no) relationship between exercise behaviors (such as jogging) and internal health locus of control. A similar ambiguity is noted for data on the relationship between internal health locus of control and other health-related behaviors (such as breast self-examination, weight control and preventative-health behavior). Of particular interest are the data cited on the relationship between internal health locus of control and alcohol consumption.
Norman and Bennett note that some studies that compared alcoholics with non-alcoholics suggest alcoholism is linked to increased externality for health locus of control; however, other studies have linked alcoholism with increased internality. Similar ambiguity has been found in studies of alcohol consumption in the general, non-alcoholic population. They are more optimistic in reviewing the literature on the relationship between internal health locus of control and smoking cessation, although they also point out that there are grounds for supposing that powerful-others and internal-health loci of control may be linked with this behavior.
They argue that a stronger relationship is found when health locus of control is assessed for specific domains than when general measures are taken. Overall, studies using behavior-specific health locus scales have tended to produce more positive results.[17] These scales have been found to be more predictive of general behavior than more general scales, such as the MHLC scale.[18] Norman and Bennett cite several studies that used health-related locus-of-control scales in specific domains (including smoking cessation,[19] diabetes,[20] tablet-treated diabetes,[21] hypertension,[22] arthritis,[23] cancer,[24] and heart and lung disease.[25]
They also argue that health locus of control is better at predicting health-related behavior if studied in conjunction with health value (the value people attach to their health), suggesting that health value is an important moderator variable in the health locus of control relationship. For example, Weiss and Larsen (1990) found an increased relationship between internal health locus of control and health when health value was assessed.[26] Despite the importance Norman and Bennett attach to specific measures of locus of control, there are general textbooks on personality which cite studies linking internal locus of control with improved physical health, mental health and quality of life in people with diverse conditions: HIV, migraines, diabetes, kidney disease and epilepsy.[27]
During the 1970s and 1980s, Whyte correlated locus of control with the academic success of students enrolled in higher-education courses. Students who were more internally-controlled believed that hard work and focus would result in successful academic progress, and they performed better academically. Those students who were identified as more externally controlled (believing that their future depended upon luck or fate) tended to have lower academic-performance levels. Cassandra B. Whyte researched how control tendency influenced behavioral outcomes in the academic realm by examining the effects of various modes of counseling on grade improvements and the locus of control of high-risk college students.[28][29]
Organizational psychology and religion
Other fields to which the concept has been applied include industrial and organizational psychology, sports psychology, educational psychology and the psychology of religion. Richard Kahoe has published work in the latter field, suggesting that intrinsic religious orientation correlates positively (and extrinsic religious orientation correlates negatively) with internal locus.[30] Of relevance to both health psychology and the psychology of religion is the work of Holt, Clark, Kreuter and Rubio (2003) on a questionnaire to assess spiritual-health locus of control. The authors distinguished between an active spiritual-health locus of control (in which "God empowers the individual to take healthy actions"[31]) and a more passive spiritual-health locus of control (where health is left up to God). In industrial and organizational psychology, it has been found that internals are more likely to take positive action to change their jobs (rather than merely talk about occupational change) than externals.[32]
Familial origins
The development of locus of control is associated with family style and resources, cultural stability and experiences with effort leading to reward.[citation needed] Many internals have grown up with families modeling typical internal beliefs; these families emphasized effort, education, responsibility and thinking, and parents typically gave their children rewards they had promised them. In contrast, externals are typically associated with lower socioeconomic status. Societies experiencing social unrest increase the expectancy of being out-of-control; therefore, people in such societies become more external.
The 1995 research of Schneewind suggests that "children in large single parent families headed by women are more likely to develop an external locus of control".[33] Schultz and Schultz also point out that children who develop an internal locus tend to come from families where parents have been supportive and consistent in self-discipline. There has been ambiguity about whether parental locus of control influences a child's locus of control, although at least one study has found that children are more likely to attribute their successes and failures to unknown causes if their parents had an external locus of control.[34]
As children grow older, they gain skills which give them more control over their environment. In support of this, psychological research has found that older children have more internal locus of control than younger children. Findings from early studies on the familial origins of locus of control were summarized by Lefcourt: "Warmth, supportiveness and parental encouragement seem to be essential for development of an internal locus".[35]
Age
It is sometimes assumed that as people age they will become less internal and more external, but data here has been ambiguous.[36] Longitudinal data collected by Gatz and Karel (cited in Johnson et al., 2004[citation needed]) imply that internality may increase until middle age, decreasing thereafter. Noting the ambiguity of data in this area, Aldwin and Gilmer (2004) cite Lachman's claim that locus of control is ambiguous. Indeed, there is evidence here that changes in locus of control in later life relate more visibly to increased externality (rather than reduced internality) if the two concepts are taken to be orthogonal. Evidence cited by Schultz and Schultz (2005) (for example, Heckhausen and Schulz (1995) or Ryckman and Malikosi, 1975) suggests that locus of control increases in internality until middle age. The authors also note that attempts to control the environment become more pronounced between ages eight and fourteen.
A study published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine examined the health effect of childhood locus of control. 7,500 British adults (followed from birth), who had shown an internal locus of control at age 10, were less likely to be overweight at age 30. The children who had an internal locus of control also appeared the have higher levels of self-esteem.[37]
Gender-based differences
As Schultz and Schultz (2005) point out, significant gender differences in locus of control have not been found for adults in the U.S. population. However, these authors also note that there may be specific sex-based differences for specific categories of items to assess locus of control; for example, they cite evidence that men may have a greater internal locus for questions related to academic achievement.[38]
Cross-cultural issues
The question of whether people from different cultures vary in locus of control has long been of interest to social psychologists. Japanese people tend to be more external in locus-of-control orientation than people in the U.S.; however, differences in locus of control between different countries within Europe (and between the U.S. and Europe) tend to be small.[39] As Berry et al. pointed out in 1992, ethnic groups within the United States have been compared on locus of control; African Americans in the U.S. are more external than whites, even when socioeconomic status is controlled.[40] Berry et al. also pointed out in 1992 how research on other ethnic minorities in the U.S. (such as Hispanics) has been ambiguous. More on cross-cultural variations in locus of control can be found in Shiraev and Levy (2004). Research in this area indicates that locus of control has been a useful concept for researchers in cross-cultural psychology.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy, a related concept introduced by Albert Bandura, has been measured by means of a psychometric scale.[41] It differs from locus of control by relating to competence in circumscribed situations and activities (rather than more general cross-situational beliefs about control). Bandura has also emphasised differences between self-efficacy and self-esteem, using examples where low self-efficacy (for instance, in ballroom dancing) are unlikely to result in low self-esteem because competence in that domain is not very important to an individual.
Smith (1989) has argued that locus of control only weakly measures self-efficacy; "only a subset of items refer directly to the subject's capabilities".[42] Smith noted that training in coping skills led to increases in self-efficacy, but did not affect locus of control as measured by Rotter's 1966 scale.
Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct", deriving from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote Il Principe (The Prince) and other works. The word has a similar use in modern psychology where it describes one of the dark triad personalities. "Machiavellian" (and variants) as a word became very popular in the late 16th century in English, though "Machiavellianism" itself is first cited by the "Oxford English Dictionary from 1626.
In political thought
In the 16th century, immediately following the publication of the Prince, Machiavellianism was seen as a foreign plague infecting northern European politics, originating in Italy, and having first infected France. It was in this context that the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572 in Paris came to be seen as a product of Machiavellianism, a view greatly influenced by the Huguenot Innocent Gentillet, who published his Discours contre Machievel in 1576, which was printed in ten editions in three languages over the next four years.[1] Gentillet held, quite wrongly according to Sydney Anglo, that Machiavelli's "books [were] held most dear and precious by our Italian and Italionized [sic] courtiers" in France (in the words of his first English translation), and so (in Anglo's paraphrase) "at the root of France's present degradation, which has culminated not only in the St Bartholemew massacre but the glee of its perverted admirers".[2] In fact there is little trace of Machiavelli in French writings before the massacre, not that politicians telegraph their intentions in writing, until Gentillet's own book, but this concept was seized upon by many contemporaries, and played a crucial part in setting the long-lasting popular concept of Machiavellianism.[3]
The English playwright Christopher Marlowe was an enthusiastic proponent of this view. In The Jew of Malta (1589–90) "Machievel" in person speaks the Prologue, claiming not to be dead, but to have possessed the soul of (the Duke of) Guise, "And, now the Guise is dead, is come from France/ To view this land, and frolic with his friends" (Prologue, lines 3–4)[4] His last play, The Massacre at Paris (1593) takes the massacre, and the following years, as its subject, with the Duke of Guise and Catherine de' Medici both depicted as Machiavellian plotters, bent on evil from the start.
The Anti-Machiavel is an 18th century essay by Frederick the Great, King of Prussia and patron of Voltaire, rebutting The Prince, and Machiavellianism. It was first published in September 1740, a few months after Frederick became king, and is one of many such works.
In psychology
Machiavellianism is also a term that some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate other people for their personal gain. In the 1960s, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed a test for measuring a person's level of Machiavellianism. This eventually became the MACH-IV test, a twenty-statement personality survey that is now the standard self-assessment tool of Machiavellianism. People scoring above 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered high Machs; that is, they endorsed statements such as, "Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so," (No. 1) but not ones like, "Most people are basically good and kind" (No. 4). People scoring below 60 out of 100 on the MACH-IV are considered low Machs; they tend to believe, "There is no excuse for lying to someone else," (No. 7) and, "Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean, moral lives" (No. 11). Christie, Geis, and Geis's graduate assistant David Berger went on to perform a series of studies that provided experimental verification for the notion of Machiavellianism.
Machiavellianism is one of the three personality traits referred to as the dark triad, along with narcissism and psychopathy. Some psychologists consider Machiavellianism to be essentially a subclinical form of psychopathy,[5] although recent research suggests that while Machiavellianism and psychopathy overlap, they are distinct personality constructs.[6]
In 2002, the Machiavellianism scale of Christie and Geis was applied by behavioral game theorists Anna Gunnthorsdottir, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith[7] in their search for explanations for the spread of observed behavior in experimental games, in particular individual choices which do not correspond to assumptions of material self-interest captured by the standard Nash equilibrium prediction. It was found that in a trust game, those with high MACH-IV scores tended to follow homo economicus' equilibrium strategies while those with low MACH-IV scores tended to deviate from the equilibrium, and instead made choices that reflected widely accepted moral standards and social preferences.
Machiavellianism has been found to be negatively correlated with the Agreeableness (r = -.47) and Conscientiousness (r = -.34) dimensions of the Big Five personality model (NEO-PI-R).[6]
Self-esteem [ Module 3 ]
Self-esteem is a term in psychology to reflect a person's overall evaluation or appraisal of his or her own worth. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs (for example, "I am competent", "I am worthy") and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride and shame[1] . 'The self-concept is what we think about the self; self-esteem, the positive or negative evaluation of the self, is how we feel about it'.[2] A person’s self-concept consists of the beliefs one has about oneself, one’s self-perception, or, as Hamlyn (1983: 241) expresses it, “the picture of oneself”. Baumeister (1997) described self-concept as totally perception which people hold about him/ herself (p. 681). It is not the “facts” about one-self but rather what one believes to be true about one-self (Sarah Mercer, p. 14). Early researchers used self-concept as a descriptive construct, such as ‘I am an athlete’ (Rosenberg 1979).
Recent theories adapted self-esteem with more evaluative statements like ‘I am good at tennis’ (Harter 1996). The latter statement not only describes the self, as the individual identifies herself or himself, but evaluates the self by putting worthiness on it. Therefore, self-esteem is defined as both descriptive and evaluative self-related statements. As a social psychological construct, self-esteem is attractive because researchers have conceptualized it as an influential predictor of relevant outcomes, such as academic achievement (Marsh 1990) or exercise behavior (Hagger et al. 1998). In addition, self-esteem has also been treated as an important outcome due to its close relation with psychological well-being (Marsh 1989). Self-concept (i.e. self-esteem) is widely believed to be composed of more than just perceived competence, and this leads to the relative degree of evaluative and cognitive beliefs of the construct.
Self-esteem is viewed as the most evaluative and affective of the three constructs (Harter, 1999a). Overlay, self-concept is considered as the beliefs about perceived competence and self-evaluative in a specific domain.Self-esteem can apply specifically to a particular dimension (for example, "I believe I am a good writer and I feel happy about that") or have global extent (for example, "I believe I am a bad person, and feel bad about myself in general"). Psychologists[who?] usually regard self-esteem as an enduring personality characteristic ("trait" self-esteem), though normal, short-term variations ("state" self-esteem) also exist.
Synonyms or near-synonyms of self-esteem include: self-worth,[3] self-regard,[4] self-respect,[5][6] and self-integrity. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, "self-love" is "the instinct or desire to promote one's well-being";[7] while La Rochefoucauld considered 'that amour-propre (self-regard) is the mainspring of all human activities'.[8]
Definitions
The original normal definition presents self-esteem as a ratio found by dividing one’s successes in areas of life of importance to a given individual by the failures in them or one’s “success / pretensions”.[9] Problems with this approach come from making self-esteem contingent upon success: this implies inherent instability because failure can occur at any moment.[10] In the mid 1960s, Morris Rosenberg and social-learning theorists defined self-esteem in terms of a stable sense of personal worth or worthiness.[11] Nathaniel Branden in 1969 defined self-esteem as "...the experience of being competent to cope with the basic challenges of life and being worthy of happiness". According to Branden, self-esteem is the sum of self-confidence (a feeling of personal capacity) and self-respect (a feeling of personal worth). It exists as a consequence of the implicit judgement that every person does about, on one side, his/her ability to face life's challenges, that is, to understand and solve problems, and, on the other side, his right to achieve happiness, or, in other words, to respect and defend his own interests and needs.[12] This two-factor approach, as some have also called it, provides a balanced definition that seems to be capable of dealing with limits of defining self-esteem primarily in terms of competence or worth alone.[13]
Implicit self-esteem refers to a person's disposition to evaluate themselves positively or negatively in a spontaneous, automatic, or unconscious manner. It contrasts with explicit self-esteem, which entails more conscious and reflective self-evaluation. Both explicit self-esteem and implicit self-esteem are subtypes of self-esteem proper. Implicit self-esteem is assessed using indirect measures of cognitive processing, including the Name Letter Task[14] Such indirect measures are designed to reduce awareness of, or control of, the process of assessment. When used to assess implicit self-esteem, they feature stimuli designed to represent the self, such as personal pronouns (e.g., "I") or characters in one's name.[citation needed]
Measurement
For the purposes of empirical research, psychologists typically assess self-esteem by a self-report inventory yielding a quantitative result. They establish the validity and reliability of the questionnaire prior to its use.
Self-esteem is typically measured as a continuous scale. The Rosenberg (1965) 10-item scores each item on a four-point response system that requires participants to indicate their level of agreement with a series of statements about themselves. The Coopersmith Inventory uses a 50-question battery over a variety of topics and asks subjects whether they rate someone as similar or dissimilar to themselves.[15]
Positive self-esteem
People with a healthy level of self-esteem:[16]
- firmly believe in certain values and principles, and are ready to defend them even when finding opposition, feeling secure enough to modify them in light of experience.[17]
- are able to act according to what they think to be the best choice, trusting their own judgment, and not feeling guilty when others don't like their choice.[17]
- do not lose time worrying excessively about what happened in the past, nor about what could happen in the future. They learn from the past and plan for the future, but live in the present intensely.[17]
- fully trust in their capacity to solve problems, not hesitating after failures and difficulties. They ask others for help when they need it.[17]
- consider themselves equal in dignity to others, rather than inferior or superior, while accepting differences in certain talents, personal prestige or financial standing.[17]
- take for granted that they are an interesting and valuable person for others, at least for those with whom they have a friendship.[17]
- resist manipulation, collaborate with others only if it seems appropriate and convenient.[17]
- admit and accept different internal feelings and drives, either positive or negative, revealing those drives to others only when they choose.[17]
- are able to enjoy a great variety of activities.[17]
- are sensitive to feelings and needs of others; respect generally accepted social rules, and claim no right or desire to prosper at others' expense.[17]
Importance
Abraham Maslow states that psychological health is not possible unless the essential core of the person is fundamentally accepted, loved and respected by others and by her or his self. Self-esteem allows people to face life with more confidence, benevolence and optimism, and thus easily reach their goals and self-actualize.[12] It allows oneself to be more ambitious, but not with respect to possessions or success, but with respect to what one can experience emotionally, creatively and spiritually. To develop self-esteem is to widen the capacity to be happy; self-esteem allows people to be convinced they deserve happiness.[12] Understanding this is fundamental, and universally beneficial, since the development of positive self-esteem increases the capacity to treat other people with respect, benevolence and goodwill, thus favoring rich interpersonal relationships and avoiding destructive ones.[12] For Erich Fromm, love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all those who are capable of loving others.
Self-esteem allows creativity at the workplace, and is a specially critical condition for teaching professions.[18]
José-Vicente Bonet reminds us that the importance of self-esteem is obvious when one realizes that the opposite of it is not the esteem of others, but self-rejection, a characteristic of that state of great unhappiness that we call “depression”.[17] As Freud put it, the depressive has suffered 'an extraordinary diminution in his self-regard, an impoverishment of his ego on a grand scale....He has lost his self-respect'.[19]
The Yogyakarta Principles, a document on international human rights law addresses the discriminatory attitude toward LGBT peoples that makes their self-esteem low to be subject to human rights violation including human trafficking.[20] and World Health Organization recommends in "Preventing Suicide" published in 2000 that strengthening students' self-esteem is important to protect children and adolescents against mental distress and despondency, enabling them to cope adequately with difficult and stressful life situations.[21]
Low self-esteem
Low self-esteem can be caused by various factors such as a person's physical appearance, social status, or peer pressure. For example, living with little or no money and being unemployed can cause a person to feel worthless since they may be unable to provide for their family and contribute to society. Another factor contributing to low self-esteem is peer pressure. Whether it is a coworker, classmate, or friend their opinion on a person's outer appearance, weight, or intelligence level can lower ones self esteem. Another big issue that affects self-esteem today is weight issues, which can be tied to verbal abuse and even bullying in school. [22].
It was found in various studies that a low self esteem occasionally leads to suicidal behavior. These behaviors include isolating oneself from others, feeling a sense of rejection and detachment, alienation, along with an increased dissatisfaction with current social relationships. Also, a lack of social support from peers or family tends to create stress on an individual, which then becomes a matter of being unable to adjust to the current situation, thus developing suicidal thoughts. [23]. Also, other studies show that low self-esteem is not only detrimental to one's life but also to one's lifestyle. Drug abuse and forms of delinquency are a common side effect of low self-esteem.[24]
Moreover, a person with low self-esteem may show some of the following symptoms:[25]
- Heavy self-criticism, tending to create a habitual state of dissatisfaction with oneself.[17]
- Hypersensitivity to criticism, which makes oneself feel easily attacked and experience obstinate resentment against critics.[17]
- Chronic indecision, not so much because of lack of information, but from an exaggerated fear of making a mistake.[17]
- Excessive will to please: being unwilling to say "no", out of fear of displeasing the petitioner.[17]
- Perfectionism, or self-demand to do everything attempted "perfectly" without a single mistake, which can lead to frustration when perfection is not achieved.[17]
- Neurotic guilt: one is condemned for behaviors which not always are objectively bad, exaggerates the magnitude of mistakes or offenses and complains about them indefinitely, never reaching full forgiveness.[17]
- Floating hostility, irritability out in the open, always on the verge of exploding even for unimportant things; an attitude characteristic of somebody who feels bad about everything, who is disappointed or unsatisfied with everything.[17]
- Defensive tendencies, a general negative (one is pessimistic about everything: life, future, and, above all, oneself) and a general lack of will to enjoy life.[17]
- Envy (also called invidiousness) is best defined as a resentful emotion that "occurs when a person lacks another's (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it."[1]
Envy can also derive from a sense of low self-esteem that results from an upward social comparison threatening a person's self image. As well, individuals with low self-esteem may have feelings of insignificance.
Theories
Many early theories suggested that self-esteem is a basic human need or motivation. American psychologist Abraham Maslow, for example, included self-esteem in his hierarchy of needs. He described two different forms of esteem: the need for respect from others and the need for self-respect, or inner self-esteem.[26] Respect from others entails recognition, acceptance, status, and appreciation, and was believed to be more fragile and easily lost than inner self-esteem. According to Maslow, without the fulfillment of the self-esteem need, individuals will be driven to seek it and unable to grow and obtain self-actualization.
Modern theories of self-esteem explore the reasons humans are motivated to maintain a high regard for themselves. Sociometer theory maintains that self-esteem evolved to check one's level of status and acceptance in ones' social group. According to terror management theory, self-esteem serves a protective function and reduces anxiety about life and death.[27]
Self-esteem is the sum of attitudes which depend on perceptions, thoughts, evaluations, feelings and behavioral tendencies aimed toward ourselves, the way we are and behave, and our body's and character's features. In short, it's oneself's evaluative perception.[17]
The importance of self-esteem lies in the fact that it concerns to ourselves, the way we are and the sense of our personal value. Thus, it affects the way we are and act in the world and the way we are related to everybody else. Nothing in the way we think, feel, decide and act escapes the influence of self-esteem.[17]
Abraham Maslow, in his hierarchy of human needs, describes the need for esteem, which is divided into two aspects, the esteem for oneself (self-love, self-confidence, skill, aptitude, etc.), and respect and esteem one receives from other people (recognition, success, etc.) The healthiest expression of self-esteem, according to Maslow, “is the one which manifests in respect we deserve for others, more than renown, fame and flattery”.[citation needed]
Carl Rogers, the greatest exponent of humanistic psychology, exposed that the origin of problems for many people is that they despise themselves and they consider themselves to be unvaluable and unworthy of being loved; thus the importance he gave to unconditional acceptance of client.[17] Indeed, the concept of self-esteem is approached since then in humanistic psychology as an inalienable right for every person, summarized in the following sentence:
“
|
Every human being, with no exception, for the mere fact to be it, is worthy of unconditional respect of everybody else; he deserves to esteem himself and to be esteemed.[17]
|
”
|
By virtue of this reason, even the most evil human beings deserve respect and considered treatment. This attitude, nonetheless, does not pretend to come into conflict with mechanisms that society has at its disposition to prevent individuals from causing hurt —of any type— to others.[17]
The concept of self-esteem has frequently gone beyond the exclusively scientific sphere to take part in popular language.
Grades and relationships
From the late 1970s to the early 1990s many Americans assumed as a matter of course that students' self-esteem acted as a critical factor in the grades that they earn in school, in their relationships with their peers, and in their later success in life. Under this assumption, some American groups created programs which aimed to increase the self-esteem of students. Until the 1990s little peer-reviewed and controlled research took place on this topic.
Peer-reviewed research undertaken since then has not validated previous assumptions. Recent research indicates that inflating students' self-esteem in and of itself has no positive effect on grades. One study has shown that inflating self-esteem by itself can actually decrease grades.[28] The relationship involving self-esteem and academic results does not signify that high self-esteem contributes to high academic results. It simply means that high self-esteem may be accomplished due to high academic performance due to the other variables of social interactions and life events affecting this performance.[29]
"Attempts by pro-esteem advocates to encourage self-pride in students solely by reason of their uniqueness as human beings will fail if feelings of well-being are not accompanied by well-doing. It is only when students engage in personally meaningful endeavors for which they can be justifiably proud that self-confidence grows, and it is this growing self-assurance that in turn triggers further achievement."[30]
The pro-esteem position was caricatured in 1992 in Calvin and Hobbes, with Calvin claiming that 'Homework is bad for my self-esteem. It sends the message that I don't know enough!....So instead of trying to learn, I'm just concentrating on liking myself the way I am'.[31]
High self-esteem correlates highly with self-reported happiness. Considering the high correlation of the data in the study (a .47 correlation in a study of over 13,000 college students from different schools and countries), causation cannot be proved.[29] Additionally, self-esteem has been found to be related to forgiveness in close relationships, in that people with high self-esteem will be more forgiving than people with low self-esteem.[32]
Parental influence
Parental habits, whether positive or negative, can influence the development of those same habits of self-perception in their children.[33] Children are also likely to remember parental responses accordingly to their current emotional state at those certain times. For example, when the child receives positive reinforcement or praise when she or he currently has a high self esteem, or receives criticisms in a low self esteem state, it is effectively embedded in their memories.[34]
Criticism and controversy
The American psychologist Albert Ellis criticized on numerous occasions the concept of self-esteem as essentially self-defeating and ultimately destructive.[35] Although acknowledging the human propensity and tendency to ego rating as innate, he has critiqued the philosophy of self-esteem as unrealistic, illogical and self- and socially destructive – often doing more harm than good. Questioning the foundations and usefulness of generalized ego strength, he has claimed that self-esteem is based on arbitrary definitional premises, and over-generalized, perfectionistic and grandiose thinking.[35] Acknowledging that rating and valuing behaviours and characteristics is functional and even necessary, he sees rating and valuing human beings' totality and total selves as irrational and unethical. The healthier alternative to self-esteem according to him is unconditional self-acceptance and unconditional other-acceptance.[36] Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy is a psychotherapy based on this approach.[37]
False stereotypes
Comfort is not self-esteem
For a person with low self-esteem —or “wrong” self esteem, according to Branden's terminology— any positive stimulus or incentive will make him feel comfortable, or, at most, better with respect to himself/herself for just some time. Therefore, properties, sex, success, or physical appearance, by themselves, will produce comfort, or a false and ephemeral development of self-esteem, but they won't really strengthen confidence and respect to oneself.[12]
Neville Symington described such 'transitory comforts...as like short-term memory': any such input 'keeps me going for a couple of days, but then I need another pick-me-up dose'.[38]
Self-esteem and culture
Branden has claimed that "self-esteem can be better understood as a sort of spiritual achievement, that is, a victory in psyche's evolution".[12]
More recent studies demonstrate both a correlation between self-esteem and life satisfaction, and that such levels of correlation are to an extent culturally relative.[39]
High self-esteem is not necessarily narcissistic
A common mistake is to think that loving oneself is necessarily equivalent to narcissism, as opposed for example to what Erik Erikson speaks of as 'a post-narcissistic love of the ego'.[40] A person with a healthy self-esteem accepts and loves himself/herself unconditionally, acknowledging both virtues and faults in the self, and yet, in spite of everything, being able to continue to live loving her/himself.
In narcissists, by contrast, an 'innate uncertainty about their own worth gives rise to...a self-protective, but often totally spurious, aura of grandiosity'[41] - producing the class 'of narcissists, or people with very high, but insecure, self-esteem...fluctuating with each new episode of social praise or rejection'.[42] Narcissism can thus be seen as a symptom of fundamentally low self-esteem (that is, lack of love towards oneself), but often accompanied by 'an immense increase in self-esteem' based on 'the defense mechanism of denial by overcompensation'.[43]
The narcissist, then, is not able to acknowledge and accept his faults, which he always tries to hide: his 'idealized love of self...rejected the part of him' which he denigrates - 'this destructive little child'[44] within. Instead, the narcissist emphasizes his virtues in the presence of others, just to try to convince himself that he is a valuable person and to try to stop feeling ashamed for his faults;[17] unfortunately such 'people with unrealistically inflated self-views, which may be especially unstable and highly vulnerable to negative information...tend to have poor social skills'.[45]
In Buddhism
In Buddhism, Māna—overly high self-esteem or conceit— is one of the bonds of which an anagami is not yet free. It is one of the blockages of paths towards nirvana.[46]
History
- Self-esteem, as a psyche's experience, has gone with human being since its beginning.[17]
- The construct of self-esteem (or self-concept) dates back to William James, in the late 19th century, who, in his work Principles of Psychology, studied the splitting of our “global self” into “knower self” and “known self”. According to James, from this splitting, which we all are more or less aware of, self-esteem is born.[17]
- In the 20th century, the initial influence of Behaviorism minimized introspective study of mental processes, emotions and feelings, which was replaced by objective study through experiments on behaviors observed in relation with environment. Behaviorism placed the human being as an animal subject to reinforcements, and suggested to place psychology as an experimental science, similar to chemistry or biology. As a consequence, clinical trials on self-esteem were overlooked, since it was considered a less liable to rigorous measurement hypothesis.[17]
- In the mid 20th century, Phenomenology and humanistic psychotherapy made self-esteem gain prominence again, and it took a central role in personal self-actualization and psychic disorders' treatment. Personal satisfaction and psychotherapy started to be considered, and new elements were introduced, which helped to understand the reasons why people tend to feel less worthy, discouraged and unbable to understand challenges by themselves.[17]
- Carl Rogers, the greatest exponent of humanistic psychology, exposed his theory about unconditional acceptance and self-acceptance as the best way to improve self-esteem.[17]
- Robert B. Burns considers that self-esteem is a collection of the individual's attitudes toward himself. The human being perceives itself at a sensory level; thinks about itself and about its behavior, and evaluates both its behavior and itself. Consequently, humans feel emotions related to themselves. These emotions prompt behavioral tendencies aimed at oneself, at one's behavior, and at the features of one'S body and character. These tendencies effect the attitudes which, globally, we call self-esteem. Thus, self-esteem, for Burns, is the evaluative perception of oneself. In his own words: "individual's behavior is the result of his environment's particular interpretation, whose focus is himself".[17]
- Self-esteem has been included as one of the four dimensions that comprise core self-evaluations, one's fundamental appraisal of oneself, along with locus of control, neuroticism, and self-efficacy.[47] The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997),[47] and since has proven to have the ability to predict several work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance.[47][48][49][50][51] Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation dimensions because it is the overall value one feels about oneself as a person.[50]
Self-monitoring
Self-monitoring is a theory that deals with the phenomena of expressive controls. Human beings generally differ in substantial ways in their abilities and desires to engage in expressive controls (see dramaturgy).[1] People concerned with their expressive self-presentation (see impression management) tend to closely monitor themselves in order to ensure appropriate or desired public appearances. People who closely monitor themselves are categorized as high self-monitors and often behave in a manner that is highly responsive to social cues and their situational context. High self-monitors can be thought of as social pragmatists who project images in an attempt to impress others and receive positive feedback. Conversely, low self-monitors do not participate, to the same degree, in expressive control and do not share similar concern for situational appropriateness. Low self-monitors tend to exhibit expressive controls congruent with their own internal states; i.e. beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions regardless of social circumstance. Low self-monitors are often less observant of social context and consider expressing a self-presentation dissimilar from their internal states as a falsehood and undesirable.[2]
Historical context
During the 1970s when the self-monitoring concept was introduced it became part of two larger ongoing debates. Within personality research there was the tension between traits and situation; one could think of this as the nature versus nurture debate. Were people more inclined to behave consistent with innate personality traits or were they shaped by their environment? The self-monitoring construct offered a resolution to this debate because there was no need to argue that humans needed to fit entirely into the nature or nurture paradigm. High self-monitors were better predicted by their environment (situation/nurture) while low self-monitors were better predicted by their traits (traits/nature). Another debate that was raging during this time period within social psychology was whether or not attitudes were good predictors of behavior.[3] The self-monitoring construct offered a resolution to this debate as well because it posited that low self-monitors would behave largely consistent with their attitudes, while attitudes would be poor predictors of behavior for high self-monitors. The self-monitoring construct fit neatly into the arguments of the day where high self-monitors affirmed the situation-oriented view typically associated with social psychology, while the low self-monitors affirmed the trait-oriented view typically associated with personality psychology.[2]
Self-monitoring scale
Snyder originally developed the scale in 1974 as a 25-item measure. In his original study he found that Stanford University students scored significantly higher on the scale than did psychiatric inpatients, but significantly lower than people in the acting profession. The scale was revised into an 18-item measure that is considered psychometrically superior to the original scale and has been used extensively in self-monitoring studies.[4] There has developed great debate over whether or not the self-monitoring scale is a unitary phenomenon. During the 1980s, factor analysis postulated that the self-monitoring scale was actually measuring several distinct dimensions. The three-factor solution was the most common and usually interpreted as Acting, Extraversion, and Other-Directedness (see willingness to communicate).[5][6][7] There has developed consensus about the multifactorial nature of the items on the self-monitoring scale; however, there remains differing interpretations about whether or not that jeopardizes the validity of the self-monitoring concept.[2]
No comments:
Post a Comment