Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality Architecture Daniel Cervone University of Illinois at Chicago Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self

Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality Architecture

Daniel CervoneUniversity of Illinois at Chicago

Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self Wed., August 27, 2008

OutlineI. Introduction: On Cognitive/Representational and Discursive/Dialogical Approaches

-- Can we identify substantive points of integration?





II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive Measures



II. Discursive Critique of Social-Cognitive MeasuresIII. “Social-Cognitive Person” and Internal Dialogue




-- social-cognitive theories and “personality architecture” -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appraisal Pers. Architecture) -- Idiographic analysis of cross-situational coherence




-- social-cognitive theories and “personality architecture” -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appraisal Pers. Architecture) -- Idiographic analysis of cross-situational coherence

IV. Implications of Social-Cognitive Paradigms for Discursive and Dialogical Approaches -- priming knowledge and modifying dialogue -- “stored” knowledge and appraisal-as-dialogue

Cervone, D. (2004). The architecture of personality. Psychological Review, 111, 183-204.

Cervone, D., Caldwell, T. L., Fiori, M., Orom, H., Shadel, W. G., Kassel, J., & Artistico, D. (in press). What underlies appraisals?: Experimentally testing a knowledge-and-appraisal model of personality architecture among smokers contemplating high-risk situations. Journal of Personality.

Cervone, D., & Lott, D. T. (2007). Language and the languages of personality. European Review, 15, 419-437.

Person possesses stored knowledge that is activated

through causal mechanisms and processes

Person constructs meaning via discourse/dialogue that is positioned in a social and

interpersonal space

Cognitive/Representational Discursive/Dialogical

The Social-Cognitive Person

The Dialogical Person





What are some implications of a discursive/dialogical perspective for social-cognitive theory and research?

Strategy: A specific case.

The specific case:Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency


“efficacy beliefs . . . determine the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8)


“efficacy beliefs . . . determine the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8)

Perceptions of Self-Efficacy

Goals(level of aspiration

personally set)

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy

Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

Could be any result between measures, e.g.


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

But one generally finds this result between measures


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”?


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

Discursive critique: Could it “be any result”? Treat “measures” as a form of discourse.

How confident are you that you can reach level X?

Is it

you

r go

al, a

t the

m

omen

t, to

rea

ch le

vel X

?


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal



Is it

you

r go

al, a

t the

m

omen

t, to

rea

ch le

vel X

?

Violates discursive

conventions


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal



Is it

you

r go

al, a

t the

m

omen

t, to

rea

ch le

vel X

?

Violates discursive

conventions

“I not capable of doing X, but it is my goal”


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

Discursive critique: You have to get a positive correlation (if people use the word “goal” normally in discourse)

Violates discursive

conventions


Mea

sure

of

Lev

el o

f G

oal

Discursive critique: You have to get a positive correlation (if people use the word “goal” normally in discourse)

Violates discursive

conventions

The discursive conventions creates a violation of the measurement assumptions (independent variables creating a 2-D space)

General implication: Re: “Self-efficacy mechanism” . . . “determine[s] the goals people set for themselves” (Bandura, 1995, p. 8), and associated “measures” of the variables:

“psychologists think they are conforming to a scientistic paradigm [but] they are actually doing something different . . . small-scale discourse analysis. . . What they present as causal laws are none other than discourse conventions.” “participants [give] commentaries on the narratives . . . the ‘experimenter’ presents them” (Harre, 2001, p. 175)”






Two social-cognitive variable systems

Core Units of Analysis in Social-Cognitive Theories of Personality__________________________________________________________________

Cognitive-Affective Person Variables Basic Personal Capabilities (Mischel; Mischel & Shoda) (Bandura)__________________________________________________________________

Encoding Categories Symbolizing CapabilityExpectancies Forethought CapabilityAffects Vicarious CapabilityGoals / Values Self-regulatory CapabilityCompetencies / Self-regulatory Systems Self-reflection Capability__________________________________________________________________

Adapted from Mischel (1973), Mischel and Shoda (1995), and Bandura (1986).

-- why these variables? what principles yield these variables?-- how do the variables relate to one another?-- are they structural or functional?-- where is the personality structure/process distinction?

Core Units of Analysis in Social-Cognitive Theories of Personality__________________________________________________________________

Cognitive-Affective Person Variables Basic Personal Capabilities (Mischel; Mischel & Shoda) (Bandura)__________________________________________________________________

Encoding Categories Symbolizing CapabilityExpectancies Forethought CapabilityAffects Vicarious CapabilityGoals / Values Self-regulatory CapabilityCompetencies / Self-regulatory Systems Self-reflection Capability__________________________________________________________________

Adapted from Mischel (1973), Mischel and Shoda (1995), and Bandura (1986).

Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture (KAPA); Cervone, 2004

Three distinctions in modeling the architecture of personality



1) mental phenomena that do versus do not have the quality of intentionality (social-cognitive variables versus core affective states)




2) enduring structures versus dynamically shifting processes-- in the domain of intentional cognitions, a distinction between knowledge and appraisal

Knowledge -- “our understanding of the way things are and work” (Lazarus,

1991, p. 144). Enduring mental representations of a typical feature or features of oneself, other persons, or the physical or social environment. -- elements of knowledge, then, are enduring cognitive structures of personality

Appraisal -- “continuing evaluation[s] of the significance of what is happening

for one’s personal well-being” (Lazarus, 1991, p. 144). Relational judgments (i.e., evaluations of the relation between oneself and occurrences within particular encounters) that concern the meaning of encounters for oneself.

-- vary dynamically across time and place, and thus are personality processes




2) enduring structures versus dynamically shifting processes-- in the domain of intentional cognitions, a distinction between knowledge and appraisal

3) in the domain of intentional cognitions, alternative directions of fit (Searle)

-- supports a distinction among beliefs, evaluative standards, and goals

Beliefs about one’sRelation to an Encounter(e.g., self-efficacy appraisals)

Aims in an Encounter(e.g., intentions-in-action, personal goals during a task)

Standards for Evaluating an Encounter (e.g., standards for evaluating ongoing performance)

Beliefs about Oneselfand the World(e.g., self-schemas, situational beliefs)

Standards for Evaluating Oneself and the World(e.g., ethical standards, criteria for self-worth)

Personal, Interpersonal, and Social Aims(e.g., personal goal systems)

KN

OW

LE

DG

EA

PP

RA

ISA

L

BELIEFS EVALUATIVE STANDARDS AIMS/GOALS

Kn

owle

dge

vs.

Ap

pra

isal

Intentional States with Alternative Directions of Fit

KAPA Model of Social-Cognitive Personality Variables

Knowledge Structures

Appraisal Processes Affective Experience

Affective Structures

Decisions and Actions Dispositional Summaries

Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of circumstances

If . . . then . . . Profiles plotted across a fixed set of circumstances

Idiographic Clusters of Coherenceidentified with respect to attributes and circumstances identified at the level of the potentially unique individual








Dispositions not something people “have” but summaries of things people “do.”

General operating principle: Accessible and applicable elements of knowledge influence appraisal processes

Recently EncounteredSituations

Current Situational Features

Appraisal Processes

Knowledge Structures Pre-existing Cognitive andAffective States

Implication of general operating principle:

-- Any given element of knowledge (e.g., self-schema) may come to mind across multiple situations -- If so, may foster cross-situational consistency in response -- The knowledge and the situations may vary idiosyncratically

Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 SitnK

now

ledg

e

Sel f

-Sch

emas

Sit

. Bel

iefs

Self-schema Self-schema

Participanti

App

rais

al . . .

KAPA model strategy

-- conduct assessment at both the knowledge and the appraisal levels of the personality architecture

-- remain sensitive to idiosyncratic patterns of personality coherence (particularly cross-situational coherence in appraisals)

Research: Self-schemas and Cross-situational coherence in self-efficacy appraisal

Before turning to those results, as aside: Why study self-efficacy appraisals?

-- often highly correlated with outcomes of interest

-- correlated even when controlling for other variables of interest

-- manipulations of subjective appraisals of self-efficacy influence subsequent behavior independent of objective skill levels

Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn

Kno

wle

dge

Sel f

-Sch

emas

Sit

. Bel

iefs


Participanti

Con

text

ualiz

ed S

elf-

Eff

icac

y A

ppra

isal

. . .

Sit1 Sit2 Sit3 Sit4 Sit5 Sit6 Sit7 Sit8 Sit9 Sit10 Sit11 Sit12 Sit13 Sit14 Sit15 Sit16 Sitn . . .

Traditional Strategy (i.e., I’m not doing this): 1) Select a nomothetic trait category2) Identify its “manifestations3) Gauge consistency across these for all persons

XYZness










123456789

10

Partic



Participanti

. . .

Research Methods

1. Unstructured assessment of self-schemas -- schematic personal strengths and weaknesses, plus a

Q-sort(ish) trait rating task that identifies a “most important trait”

Research Methods



2. Sorting task to assess situational beliefs -- relation of a given attribute to various social contexts

Research Methods




3. Assessment of Contextualized Appraisals-- self-efficacy for executing specific behaviors in context

Research Methods




3. Assessment of Contextualized Appraisals-- self-efficacy for executing specific behaviors in context

Predictions -- Consistently high/low appraisals in situationslinked to positively/negatively valenced self-knowledge-- faster appraisals in schema-relevant situations -- priming knowledge structures alters self-efficacy

appraisals

Participant 37

Work well independently Perfectionistic

Talk to, and cheer up, depressed friend

If spent too much $,return clothes

If lost in course, speak with professor

Responsible

Make friends w/ classmate to get lecture notes

Participant 6“shy”


give def. of largeword in group

participate inclass discussion

discuss feelings ofof emb. w/ friend

make plansfor date



give def. of largeword in group

participate inclass discussion

discuss feelings ofof emb. w/ friend

make plansfor date

keep conversation going (on trip)

If spill drink, remain calm

remain calm, composedin class presentation



Participant 108Participant 96

Independent Independent

Be yourself with group of new friends

Defend self ifcriticized by prof.

In group of friends, define obscure word

If need to study, getfriend to run errand

Agree to friend’ssocial plans

Avoid being late forearly a.m. class mtngs.

Make friends w/ classmateto get lecture notes

Partic 7

Skilled at Public Relations

Shy

Partic 7

Skilled at Public Relations

Shy

Ask question / professor

Lively anecdote/interview

Lively conversation/ friend

Discuss problems / friend

Participant 48

Can have a goodtime naturally

Crabby andbitchy

Participant 48

Can have a goodtime naturally

Crabby andbitchy

Entertain a crowdat party w/ jokes

Reveal true selfon a date

Remain calm if profcriticizes work habits

Avoid criticizingboyfriend’s driving

Be yourself with group of new friends

Cheer up commutersstuck on delayed train

Chastise idle membersof work project

Remain calm ifcut off in traffic

P. #2 I can be funny at times [high E]

5 I have a very welcoming personality that greets people with a smile or a nice joke or even a nice little hug [high A]

7 I hardly seem to find fault in people I may not agree with them and I may not want to associate with them, but to each his own [high A]

8 determination . . . hardworking [high C]

9 I am very responsible [high C]

10 I am a hardworker. I feel that if any job is given to me that I can and will accomplish it. [high C]

11 I know how to get along with people. I am kind, caring [high A]

but then get very serious when need be [low E]

Another aspect of my personality is my mean side [low A]

upon meeting a person, I will quickly judge the person to see if they are worth talking to or if they are wasting my time [low A]

My first main personal weakness is my lack of will power [low C]

I procrastinate for everything [low C]

I'm a procrastinater. I leave many things for the last minute. I also tend to be lazy sometimes, not wanting to do anything except lay in bed all day. [low C]

I have a very short temper and get mad very easily. I also get very irritated at little things that are happening around me. [low A]

X63 = 8.2

Offer to save$ on a date

Avoid criticizing partner’s driving

Be gracious topartner’s parents

Explain concerns withouthurting partners feelings

Participant 63 Participant 118

Nice Able to manipulate people

X118 = 8.0

Resolve tension indating relationship

X63 = 8.2

Offer to save$ on a date

Avoid criticizing partner’s driving

Be gracious topartner’s parents

Explain concerns withouthurting partners feelings

Participant 63 Participant 118

Nice Able to manipulate people

X118 = 8.0

Resolve tension indating relationship

Schematic Attributes

Mea

n S

elf-

Eff

icac

y A

ppra

isal

Slightly Moderately Highly Most

Situational Beliefs: Categorization of Situational Relevance

6.2

6.6

7

7.4

7.8Pers. StrengthsMost Imp. Trt.Pers. Wkns.

? – maybe you don’t need the idiographic assessments?

Aschematic AttributesSchematic Attributes

Mea

n S

elf-

Eff

icac

y A

ppra

isal


Situational Beliefs: Categorization of Situational Relevance

6.2

6.6

7

7.4

7.8 Pers. StrengthsMost Imp. Trt.Pers. Wkns.


6.2

6.6

7

7.4

7.8 Positive TraitNegative Trait

Cervone, 2004, Psychological Review

Sel

f-E

ffica

cy A

ppra

isal

Sel

f-E

ffica

cy A

ppra

isal

Hinders Irrelevant Helps Hinders Irrelevant Helps

Beliefs about Relevance of Situations to Schematic Attributes

Schematic Personal Strengths Schematic Personal Weaknesses

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Schematic Personal Strengths Schematic Personal Weaknesses

Cervone, et al. (2007). Psy. of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 44-54.

Smokers and appraisal of self-efficacy for avoiding smoking.

For different people – even those who seem similar (“I’m strong-willed”), different situations are (ir)relevant at the level of the individual case.

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Res

pons

e T

ime:

Dif

fere

nce

Sco

re (

mse

c)

Response Times: “Yes” Responses in Situations of Varying Relevance to Schematic Positive Attributes

Hinders Irrelevant Helps

Situational Beliefs: Subjective Relevance of Personal Attributes to Situations

Cervone, Orom, Artistico, Shadel, & Kassel, 2007, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Response Times

Question: Can one predict from overall aspects of knowledge system to overall tendencies in appraisal?

Question: Can one predict from overall aspects of knowledge system to overall tendencies in appraisal?

Cognitive Complexity

-- highly complex systems of situational- and self-knowledge

may “buffer” against extreme high or low self-appraisal

-- predict negative relation between complexity and situation-

to-situation variability in self-appraisal

Table 2

Correlations between the Complexity of Situational and Self-Knowledge

and Self-Efficacy Appraisal

____________________________________________________________

Complexity of Attribute-Situation Self-Efficacy Appraisal _______________________

Knowledge System Mean Variance ____________________________________________________________

Schematic Attributes +.260 -.461*

Experimenter-Provided Attributes +.155 -.057____________________________________________________________

Note. * p < .025.

Self-Schemas

Test experimentally

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

High/ConfidentAppraisals

Priming

To test:

-- in separate sessions, assess self and social knowledgea) self-schemas (positive and negative)b) situational beliefs (relevance of schematic attributes to various social situations)

To test:


-- in two subsequent sessions, prime alternative self-schemas (via a “memory test”) then assess self-efficacy appraisals

To test:



-- prediction: priming affects appraisals but only in relevant contexts

To test:



-- prediction: priming affects appraisals but only in relevant contexts

-- measures are open-ended, sensitive to idiosyncrasy; data computed separately for each individual case and then pooled

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9

Appraisals

SchematicPersonal Strength

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9

Appraisals

PrimeSchematic

Personal Strength

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9


Appraisals

Prime

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9


Appraisals

Prime

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6


Situational Beliefs: Contextual Relevance of Schematic Attribute

Aggregated Across Conditions/Independent of Priming

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge



Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9


Appraisals

Prime

Finding consistent with prediction

But, another alternative: Could be global

Sit1

Sit2

Sit3

Sit4

Sit5

Sit6

Sit7

Sit8

Sitn

. . .

Sit9


Appraisals

Prime

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge



Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al







Again, let’s treat “measures” as a form of discourse.

Self-efficacy measures as discourse: People discuss, on paper, with an experimenter, their capabilities for performance in different prospective social contexts.

Self-efficacy measures as discourse: People discuss, on paper, with an experimenter, their capabilities for performance in different prospective social contexts.

E.g., instead of

“contextualized measure of participants’ self-efficacy for resisting the urge to smoke”

view as

“participants discuss, with an experimenter, the question of whether they can avoid smoking if they were to face various high-risk smoking cues”

Discursive critique: the self-efficacy “measure” is a narrative about the self.


But:

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al




But:

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al



Same participant, same experimenter, same questions (counterbalanced) so same discursive context.


But:

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al



Procedural difference between conditions seems irrelevant to the discourse about capabilities for performance (subtle priming manipulation).


But:

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al



Can’t accommodate result into Harre critique: “causal laws are none other than discourse conventions. . . participants [merely give] commentaries on the narratives . . . the ‘experimenter’ presents them” (Harre, 2001, p. 175)”


But:

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Pers. Strength

Pers. Weakness

Primed Knowledge

Sel

f-E

ffic

acy

App

rais

al



Empirical result (same person saying different things in response to same question) readily predictable from “stored knowledge / causal mechanisms” perspective.

Priming results:-- ubiquitous in social-cognitive literature -- if treat social-cognitive measures as a specialized discourse, then “priming stored knowledge” paradigms routinely demonstrate effects of priming on the content of discourse








KAPA Model


Appraisal Processes

KAPA Model


KAPA Model

Appraisal Processes


KAPA Model

Appraisal Processes as internal mono-

and dialogues

S-Schemapos S-Schemaneg


KAPA Model

S-Schemapos S-SchemanegIf prime +/ different internal dialogue

Appraisal Processes as internal mono-

and dialogues


Internal Dialogue

SchemaPers X

Hypothetically, if prime schematic knowledge of Person X/Y, different dialogical positions (e.g., Andersen, Baldwin)

SchemaPers Y

-- Explore schematic knowledge, including via manipulated accessibility of knowledge/priming, as basis of the capacity to multiple dialogical positions



-- “Voicing” social-cognitive models by treating appraisals as dialogue -- Suggestion: that social-cognitive research provides tools to understand:

-- the knowledge base required to adopt dialogical positions-- how differential accessibility of knowledge contributes to the position one adopts within a dialogical space

“to explain why people act the way they do” we need “a science which is partly founded on interpretation” and “the classical [physicalistic psychology] model invades at its peril.”

Charles Taylor, Peaceful Coexistence in Psychology


But in “the study of the necessary of infrastructural conditions” that enable people to think and act and “the structure of these capacities, our competences . . . The classical model of science is the appropriate one.”

Charles Taylor, Peaceful Coexistence in Psychology


But in “the study of the necessary of infrastructural conditions” that enable people to think and act and “the structure of these capacities, our competences . . . The classical model of science is the appropriate one.” ----

And individual differences in those capacities, including the capacities to create dialogue from multiple positions.

Thank you.

Documents

Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality Architecture Daniel Cervone University of Illinois at Chicago Fifth International Conference on the Dialogical Self