M1 interactionism Flashcards
definition of epigenetics - what do epigenetic tags do
above genetics
epigenetic tags turn certain genes on and off - influence how DNA affects mind and body function
what is behavioral epigenetics
study of epigenetic influences on behavior
4 points of behavioral epigenetics
1) epigenetic tags are placed by environmental influence (things you learn, choices you make)
2) epigenetic tags are passed on to offspring
3) testing with mice showed that shocks created epigenetic tags for anxiety –> offspring and grand offspring had same tags and were more sensitive to shocks
4) MZ twins have same DNA but unique experiences cause differences in gene expression
who initiated the attack on the concept of personality? what was this debate called? when and with what text?
walter mischel 1968
“person-situation debate”
text: “personality and assessment”
4 points for the basis of mischel’s critique on personality
1) if traits are real, we should see two forms of consistency: in behavior over time/situation and each trait should be consistently and highly correlated with the behavior it manifests as
2) but there is only modest consistency observed (personality coefficient = 0.30)
3) modest consistency is the reality, not due to error
- most personality psychologists assumed low correlations were due to error
4) we create consistency via 2 types of biases (perceptual and sampling)
what are mischel’s 2 types of biases that he argued people use to “create” consistency
1) perceptual: driven by expectation - our expectations of someone influences our perception
2) sampling bias: we only see how people behave in certain situations (ex. only seeing people in class or in a library)
what were the 3 responses/camps as a result of mischel’s attack on personality
1) defend personality dimensions
2) situationism perspective
3) dynamic interactionist perspective
what is the 4th camp that arose later?
personality state perspective
what are the 4 arguments of the defense of personality dispositions perspective
1) 0.30 is still a significant correlation
2) aggregation (proposed by Epstein)
3) phenotype and genotype distinction
4) some people are more consistent in their behavior than others
explain the 0.30 significance argument of the personality dimension defenders
0.30 is a significant correlation
- interrupted a federal study because there was a 0.03 correlation between aspirin and preventing heart attacks
explain the aggregation argument of the personality dimension defenders
proposed by epstein
- many studies only use 1 indicator; if you combine (aggregate) many measurements, you will get a more accurate/stronger correlation between disposition and behavior
- dear diary study showed no dif in # social contacts initiated by introverts and extraverts in a single day, but there was a difference when compared over a week
explain the phenotype/genotype distinction argument of the personality dimension defenders
phenotype: outward expression of a behavior
genotype: underlying reason for exhibiting a behavior (level on a dimension)
- one genotype can be expressed as many phenotypes (many different behaviors may be due to the same disposition)
explain the varied consistency argument of the personality dimension defenders
treat self monitoring as a trait
- high self monitors: conform to the situation; do not stay true to self; have less consistent behavior
- low self monitors: do not conform to the situation; stay true to self; have more consistent behavior
what is the situationism perspective response to the attack on personality
agrees with mischel
emphasizes situation as the primary cause of behavior - situation causes people to act similar to each other
if everyone behaves the same way in the same situation, then their similar behavior is likely due to the situation, not the people having similar dispositions
what is the dynamic interactionist perspective response to the attack on personalty
middle/compromise - agree mischel has a point about situation but don’t throw personality out the window
- traits are real but interact with the situation to produce behavior (situation influences us)
- people are active agents and influence the situation (we influence situation)
proposed 3 types of interactionism
3 types of interactionism proposed by the dynamic interactionists
1) proactive: we select situations to engage in
2) evocative: we unintentionally influence the situation –> people react to us and it reinforces our original behavior to create consistency
3) manipulative: we intentionally influence the situation; do/say things to get a reaction from others –> reinforces original behavior and creates consistency
what is the personality state perspective” who proposed it?
fleeson 2001
the extent to which trait content manifests in one’s behavior is not constant, but you can take the average of a person’s states to get an idea of their personality –> predict their behavior
outcomes from the person-situation debate (one conclusion from each camp)
1) 0.30 correlation is significant
2) some peoples’ behavior is more consistent than others
3) influence of people on behavior is more complex than originally thought
4) average personality states represent dispositions while accounting for situational variation
