TRANSCRIPTS
Now where was I? Oh yes, right, I was talking
about social constructivism and personality. The most influential psychologists in this field are Bandura, who was born in 1925, and Mischel, who was born just five years later. Both theorists assume a dynamic model of personality, but they differ in important ways. Let’s look at Bandura first … Bandura is best known for his theory of self-efficacy. His hypothesis is that we learn by observing the consequences of our actions and those of others. In this way, according to Bandura, we build up a series of expectations, which gradually give us a sense of ourselves as agents that control our circumstances, or of ‘self-efficacy’. So, Bandura’s theory is that our personality is the result of our past experiences and our expectations. He used microanalytical research techniques to establish people’s perceptions of their self-efficacy. In other words, he didn’t ask them if they were ‘good at swimming’, but if they could ‘swim a length of the pool in less than a minute’. Interestingly, research has shown that people with a developed sense of self-efficacy, or a feeling that they are in control of their circumstances and capable of performing tasks effectively, actually do perform more successfully and even have better relationships and health.
Now I’d like to move on to Mischel’s theory of
situationism. Mischel’s research demonstrated that there is actually very little consistency in people’s behaviour across situations. His conclusion is that behaviour is determined by situations rather than personality traits. As a result, he claims that trait theory may be useful as a general summary of a person’s behaviour, but does not take into account the many different ways people interpret circumstances. More recently, many theorists, including Mischel himself, have adopted an interactionist approach that assumes that behaviour is the interaction of consistent traits and an individual’s perception of changing situations. This theory is not very far from the humanist approach, which I’ll comment on next.
We don’t have a lot of time, so I’m going to
mention the humanist approach very briefly. Humanists argue that each individual has a unique self-concept, which interacts continuously with the outside world. This approach is generally represented by Maslow, who is well known for his hierarchy of needs, and Carl Rogers, whose theory is that personality is a process of self-actualization, or attaining our full human potential.
So, to sum up so far, it should be clear that there
are two main differences between trait theory and social cognitive and humanist approaches. Firstly,
while trait theory deals with constant aspects of the personality, social cognitive and humanist approaches assume that personality is a dynamic interaction of the individual with their surroundings. And secondly, whereas trait theory is based on objectively tested dimensions, the social cognitive and humanist concepts of personality are based on subjective observations.
Unit 9, Lesson 9.2, Exercise D≤2.11
1 The main trait theorists are Allport, Eysenck and Cattell, although Allport’s focus was different from that of the other two, as we shall see when we discuss the main differences between their approaches.
2 So, on one hand, it could be argued that two dimensions … extroversion and introversion … are enough to create a framework for classifying personalities.
3 However, it’s true to say that, in spite of Cattell’s research, the more recent five factor model has become the most widely accepted.
4 In terms of practicality, trait theory helps us to classify people quite quickly, predict what they’re going to do and understand why.
5 From the point of view of staff selection, personality questionnaires are easy to administer …
6 … and increasingly, we find them being used in job applications, career advice, aptitude assessments and social networking sites.
7 Interestingly, research has shown that people with a developed sense of self-efficacy, or a feeling that they are in control of their circumstances and capable of performing tasks effectively, actually do perform more successfully and even have better relationships and health.
8 So, to sum up so far, it should be clear that there are two main differences between trait theory and social cognitive and humanist approaches.
Unit 9, Lesson 9.3, Exercise A≤2.12
1 be'haviour, cog'nition, con'sistent 'tendency, u'niqueness
2 obser'vation, self-re'porting, two- di'mensional, perso'nality, 'trait theory
3 extro'version, nomo'thetic, psycho'metric, 'cognitivist
4 'actually, 'generally, 'usually, en'tirely, 'neatly 127
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137
