CAPS Flashcards
summarize the person situation debate
is the person or the situation more influential in determining behaviour?
personality psychology: behaviour is determined by personality
social psychology: behaviour is determined by social situation
person argument
knowing someone’s traits allows us to predict their behaviour
personality is consistent over time and should result in consistent behaviour across situations
thinks that personality consistency paradox can be resolved by taking the average of people’s behaviours across situations to estimate a “true” personality score
any variation is a result of measurement error/noise
personality consistency paradox
we intuitively see personality as stable over time and across situations but behaviour is actually inconsistent across situations (within-person variability)
situation argument
correlation between person’s personality traits and specific behaviour tested is 0.3 - means that only about 15% of behaviour can be predicted by personality
inconsistency in behaviour across situations is evidence of the power of the situation
what are the strengths and weaknesses of the person argument personality score method
- predicts behaviour in general
but less accurate at predicted behaviour at any one given time for a specific individual (within person variability)
and cannot explain why people with similar personality scores react differently in a given situation (between person variability)
caps
cognitive affective processing system
variation in behaviour across situations is not evidence of the non existence of personality or meaningless ‘noise’, but meaningful and predictable
that is, specific situations predictably elicit specific behavioural responses in specific people - to understand variation in people’s behaviour, we need to understand how they’re interpreting the situation
according to cognitive affective processing system theory, what are the cognitive affective units that make up our mind
- encoding and construals (way that self, other people, situation is being perceived)
- expectancies and beliefs (expectations about outcomes, self efficacy)
- affective and physiological responses (emotions, physical sensations)
- goals (relevant to the situation, values)
-behavioural scripts and self regulatory strategies (how to go about achieving desired goals)
CAUs
cognitive affective units that make up our mind
- organized in an associative network - some linked while others not
- strength of links is stable across situations
- organization of CAUs is unique to each person (determined by past experiences and biological predispositions)
situational activation of CAUs
situations activate a particular set of CAUs
- not all CAUs are active at the same time
- specific CAUs become temporarily accessible based on features of the situation
if…then behavioural profiles
different situations activate different CAUs causing different behaviours
- each person’s unique CAUs network results in predictable and stable if…then behavioural profiles
what are the important parts of a situation (what counts)
- psychological features, not context
- relates to other people
- perceived/imagined features
- ex. being praised, criticized, asked out etc
what forms the core of the personality system according to CAPS
organization of CAUs - everyone has a distinct organization
wediko summer camp study
observed kids behaviour in various situations at summer camp
- found that each kid had their own unique if…then profile and these profiles were highly stable over time
suggests that behaviour is systematically related to features of the situation
how does CAPs explain within person variability
because different situations activate different CAUs causing different behaviours - we aren’t always gonna do the same thing every time
how does CAPs explain between person variability
different networks of CAUs between people result in differences in behaviour when faced with the same situation - this because of everyone has different patterns of activation
implications of CAPs
knowing a persons “mind” (CAUs), not traits, allows us to make specific predictions about how that person is likely to behave in a novel situation
we can use a person’s observable if…then behavioural profile to infer what’s going on in their unobservable mind (CAUs)
strengths of CAPS
- provides an interactionist consensus for the person situation debate
- accounts for within person variability - useful to understand underlying personality system
- accounts for between person variability
paradox of rejection sensitivity
- people who are dispositionally sensitive to social rejection tend to be very accomodating of others but also occassionally aggressive, which creates a self fulfilling prophecy where aggressive behaviour leads to actual rejection
CAPS approach to the paradox of rejection sensitivity
CAUs - fearing rejection but also expecting it leads to stable if them profiles
if rejection isn’t perceived: then accommodate (engage behaviours to prevent rejection and remain vigilant)
if rejection is detected: then hostility and aggression (failure in achieving goal/attempt at self protection)
rejection sensitivity and anxious expectations
studies have shown that people that are more sensitive to rejection are more likely to feel rejected but only in ambiguous situations - not all situations!
confederate chat then doesn’t want to continue study
rejection sensitive and aggression
studies have shown that people higher on rejection sensitivity are more likely to respond to rejection with aggression
- dating service study - hot sauce in food experiment
- ps get turned down for a date by a potential partner, and then design a study for others, rejection sensitive people gave more hot sauce to someone who hates spicy food
rejection sensitivity and hostility in relationships
found that in people high in rejection sensitivity, feelings of rejection predict relationship conflict