9 PERSONALITY A word of caution, though … relying on self-
reporting psychometric tests to assess personality can have serious disadvantages. For instance, people may give the answer they think will give them the highest score; they may misunderstand or misinterpret the question, or the questions may be ambiguous. And on top of that, the data collected on questionnaires can be grouped and interpreted in lots of different ways, which can result in a completely inaccurate picture. Fortunately, there are other ways of profiling personalities. One of these is to collect information about someone from others who know them, and who can describe their performance or behaviour in the past. And another is by direct observation of how they behave when they’re asked to perform specific tasks or take part in a simulation. But, even with these methods, there must be a set of criteria against which to measure behaviour and the Big Five are still the most informative to date.
So far, I’ve been talking about how personality is
defined and measured according to trait theory. But now, I’m going to move on to talk about the social- cognitive and humanist approaches to personality.
≤Exercise C
1 Tell students to divide up a page of their notebooks into the three sections of the Cornell system. They should try to take notes in the Notes section as they listen. Warn them that they may not be able to complete their notes while writing so they should leave spaces which they can fill in later.
Play Part 2 straight through. Then put students in pairs to complete any gaps in their notes. Feed back with the whole class. Build up a set of notes on the board.
Review Social cognitivism is ...?
Main theorists are ...? Bandura’s theory ...?
Notes
Social cognitive →dynamic interaction / individual + environment • conflicts with trait theory ∵ personality changes with situation • Bandura & Mischel
• Bandura: self efficacy = observe exper. → expectations →agents control circum. ∵ personality = result of experience
• Microanalytical res. tech. • High self-efficacy →success + better health
Mischel’s theory …? Humanist approach is …?
• situationism = no consistent behvr. across sits. ∵ personality = effect of sits. • recently: interactionist = traits →situation = personality = closer to humanist
• individual has unique self-concept • Maslow = hierarchy of needs • Rogers = personality = process →self-actualization = full potential
Summary Trait theory measures personality objectively, and argues that personality dimensions are fixed. Social cognitivism differs from trait theory because it assumes that personality is dynamic and can be defined from subjective observation. Humanist approaches emphasize individuality and uniqueness.
149
2/3 Set students to work in pairs to complete the Review questions and the Summary. Feed back with the whole class.
4 Discuss with the class the extent to which their pre- questions in Exercise A have been answered.
Answers Possible answers: See table below.
Transcript≤2.10 Part 2
Let’s turn now to social cognitive approaches to personality. In contrast to trait theory, which, as we’ve seen, assumes that we have fairly set patterns of behaviour, social cognitivism claims that our personalities are formed by the dynamic interaction of the individual with their environment. So, social cognitivism conflicts with trait theory because it questions the consistency of our behaviour. It argues that, as the environment changes, so does a person’s behaviour. For example, just going on holiday can turn us into ‘different people’. If we work in a very formal office that discourages us from showing our fun-loving side, our colleagues might think we were rather dull. So, if they met us relaxing on the beach, they would hardly recognize us. Depending on our circumstances, our personalities can seem entirely different. I’m sure you have had that experience yourselves …
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
→
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 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261
