1. CHAPTER 12 Cognitive Topics in Personality © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 1

2. Part II. The Cognitive/Experiential Domain © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 2  Cognitive Experiences  Emotions

3. Individual Differences in Cognition © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 3  Individual differences in how people process information  Perception  Interpretation  Goals

4. Individual Differences in Perception © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 4  Field Dependence-Independence Theory  Reducer-Augmenter Theory

5. Field Dependence-Independence (Witkin,1962) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 5  Field Dependent  Perceptions of environment based on external cues from the environment (“the field”).  Field Independent  Perceptions of environment based on internal cues from their own bodily sensations.

6. Measuring field independence 6  Rod and Frame Test (RFT) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

7. Measuring field independence 7  Embedded Figures Test (EFT) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

8. Dependent or Independent? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 8 1. More attentive to social cues 2. Greater Responsibility-taking, more self-reliant 3. Warm, affectionate, tactful, accepting of others 4. Demanding, inconsiderate, manipulative, cold and distant in relationships 5. Shows Initiative

9. Field Dependence-Independence: What does research say? 9  Education:  Field independent: natural sciences, math, engineering, language  Field dependent: social sciences and education  Careers:  Field independent officers performed better on shooting task and gave more accurate description of critical event © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

10. Reducer-Augmenter Theory (Petrie) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 10  People differ in their reactions to sensory stimulation  Reducers: Nervous system dampens, or “reduces,” the effects of sensory stimulation.  Augmenters: Nervous system amplified, or “augments,” the subjective impact of sensory cues.

11. For each pair of activities or events, choose the response that best indicates your preference: © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 11 123456 Hard Rock Music Soft Pop Music Action Movies Comedy Movies Contact Sports Noncontact Sports A drum soloA flute solo Too much exercise Too Little Exercise Reducers Augmenters

12. Reducer-Augmenter Theory (Petrie) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 12  Ex: Individual Difference in Pain Tolerance: when people undergo same physical stimulus, but react differently to the stimulus (report a different level of pain). Pain ToleranceLow High Augmenters Reducers

13. Research Says! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 13  Reducers show relatively small brain responses to flashes of light and bursts of noise compared to augmenters  Reducers seek strong stimulation, drink more coffee, smoke more, and have a lower threshold to become bored  Reducers tend to start smoking at an earlier age, and to engage in minor delinquencies as adolescents

14. Match similar terms together! © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 14  Reducer  Augmenter  Field-Independence  Field-Dependence  Extraversion  Introversion  Psychology Students INTERPRETATION

15. Individual Differences in Interpretation © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 15  Individual differences that determine our construal of the world

16. 16 © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

17. 17 Client names a set of 10 to 20 people who are important in his/her life. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

18. 18 Researcher selects 3 elements (people) and asks client which 2 elements are similar and which element is different? Myself Significant Other An ex © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

19. 19 Myself Significant Other An ex Client provides label for similarity. Laid-back © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

20. 20 Myself Significant Other An ex Client provides label for difference. Laid-back Nervous © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

21. 21 Myself Significant Other An ex Laid-back Nervous Label for similarity and label for difference make up similarity-contrast construct. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

22. Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 22  Construct Systems: personal theories that help us to understand, control and predict life events.  The ways in which people describe the self and others (i.e., adjectives) shows how people interpret the world.  Personal constructs:  Mature------Childish  Bad influence-----------Mentor  Oddball-----------Mainstream

23. Rotter’s Locus of Control: How responsible are you for the events that occur in your life? ExternalInternal Events are outside the person’s control Events are under the person’s control © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 23 If I study (behavior), then I will receive an A. Even if I study (behavior), I may not receive an A. **Achievement/Success Expectancy **Failure Expectancy

24. Example Items-Which are External or Internal? 24  #2  Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.  People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.  #10  In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such a thing as an unfair test.  Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in really useless. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

25. Learned Helplessness 25  2-Part Study © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

26. Learned Helplessness © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 26  Explanatory style: The way in which people explain (“attribute”) bad or good events that happen in their lives  External or internal  Stable or unstable  Global or specific

27. Did I or an outside force cause this event? Internal vs. External Will this good or bad event happen again? Stable vs. Unstable Is this good or bad event a reflection of my global self or a specific life domain? Universal vs. Specific © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 27

28. Bad Event External Unstable Specific Optimist Internal Stable Universal Pessimist © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 28

29. Good Event Internal Stable Universal Optimist External Unstable Specific Pessimist © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 29

30. On Spring Break in Vegas, Alan wins $3,000 playing blackjack. Alan is a pessimist. How would Alan explain the reason for his winnings? On Spring Break in Vegas, Kate wins $3,000 playing blackjack. Kate is an optimist. How would Kate explain the reason for her winnings? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 30

31. Meg received a D on her psychology mid-term. Meg is a pessimist. How would Meg explain the reason for her poor grade? Calvin received a D on his psychology mid- term. Calvin is an optimist. How would Calving explain the reason for his poor grade? © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 31

32. Need for Cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982)  Individual difference variable in interpretation  Need to understand and explain the world © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 32

33. NFC- Example Items 33  I would prefer complex to simple problems.  Thinking is not my idea of fun. R  I feel relief rather than satisfaction after completing a task that required a lot of mental effort. R  The notion of thinking abstractly is appealing to me. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

34. Need for Cognition is positively correlated with: A. Agreeableness B. Conscientiousness C. Emotional Stability D. Openness to Experience E. Extraversion © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 34

35. For each print ad… © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 35 1. What was the product? 2. What was the brand? 3. What did the ad claim?

36. Individual Differences in Goals © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 36  People differ in their goals, and these differences are part of personality

37. Dweck: Lay Theories of Intelligence © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 37 Intelligence is a fixed internal characteristic People cannot change their intelligence level Entity Theory Intelligence is not fixed and is changeable Intelligence can improve through effort, persistence, etc. Incremental Theory

38. Knee: Lay Theories of Relationships (ITRs) 38 Entity theory Relationship is or is not meant to last Destiny Theory Incremental Theory Relationships can be improved and worked on Growth Theory (Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003) © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

39. ITR: Example Items: Growth or Destiny? 39 1. The ideal relationship develops gradually over time. 2. Problems in a relationship can bring partners closer together. 3. Relationships that do not start off well inevitably fail. 4. Potential relationship partners are either destined to get along or they are not. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

40. ITR: Example Items: Growth or Destiny? 40  The ideal relationship develops gradually over time. G  Problems in a relationship can bring partners closer together. G  Relationships that do not start off well inevitably fail. D  Potential relationship partners are either destined to get along or they are not. D © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood Life Outcomes? Favorable? Unfavorable?

41. 41 Growth Fewer one night-standsMore time dating same person More likely to repair relationship when problems arise Destiny If believe RR is meant to be, then RR lasts long time If problem arises early on, more likely to terminate If initial satisfaction/closeness is low, more likely to terminate Greater use of ineffective coping strategies © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood

42. ITRs and Big Five DestinyGrowth © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 42

43. © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 43 Growth ↑ Conscientiousness ↑ Agreeableness Destiny ↑ Openness to Experience ↑ Extraversion ↑ Neuroticism

44. Higgins: Theory of Regulatory Focus © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 44 Focused on advancement, growth, accomplishments Behaviors = eagerness, approach Promotion Focus Focused on protection, safety, prevention of negative outcomes and failures Behaviors = vigilance, caution, attempts Prevention Focus

45. Focus determines motivation © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 45  Promotion-Focus  “If you solve 22 of the 25 anagrams, you will play Wheel of Fortune”  Prevention Focus  “If you get 4 or more of the 25 anagrams wrong, you will play the unvaried repetition task”  DV = Time spent working on unsolvable anagrams

46. Higgins: Theory of Regulatory Focus © 2015 M. Guthrie Yarwood 46 Focused on advancement, growth, accomplishments Behaviors = eagerness, approach Promotion Focus Focused on protection, safety, prevention of negative outcomes and failures Behaviors = vigilance, caution, attempts Prevention Focus Positively correlated with E and Behavioral Activation Positively correlated with N and Harm Avoidance