PSYC 333 Midterm 2 – Psychology course exam material
Assumptions for the person argument - ANS ✔✔Personality is consistent over time.
Should result in consistent behaviour across situations (e.g., if a person is high on
conscientiousness, behaviour in all situations will reflect conscientiousness)
To resolve personality consistency paradox, aggregate individual's behaviour on a given
dimension across situations to estimate a 'true' personality score
Strengths of the person argument - ANS ✔✔personality score accurately predicts behaviour in
general. People reliably differ from each other
Limitations to the person argument - ANS ✔✔Less accurate at predicting behaviour at any one
given time for a specific individual (within-person variability)
Cannot explain/predict why people with similar personality scores react differently in a given
situation (between-person variability).
Personality consistency paradox - ANS ✔✔We intuitively see personality as stable over time and
across situations, but behaviour is actually inconsistent across situations
Within-person variability assumes that - ANS ✔✔variation in personality across situations is
meaningless 'noise' and a product of measurement of error
Between-person variability assumes that - ANS ✔✔people with the same score on a personality
trait will behave the same way in a particular situation
,Weather analogy - ANS ✔✔It is useful to know that overall Montreal is colder and has more
precipitation than LA. But if we left it at that then there would be no way for meteorologists to
tell the weather because in the summer sometimes it is hotter in Montreal than in LA
Cognitive Affective Processing System (CAPS) - ANS ✔✔Variation in behaviour across situations
is not evidence of the non-existence of personality or meaningless 'noise.' It is meaningful and
predictable!
Specific situations predictably elicit specific behavioural responses in specific people. To
understand variation in people's behaviour, we need to understand how they are interpreting
the situation.
A person's mind is made up of cognitive-affective units (CAUs)
Cognitive-Affective Units (CAUs) - ANS ✔✔A very science-jargony way of saying 'thoughts and
feelings'
Includes encodings 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),
and behavioural scripts and self-regulatory strategies (how to go about achieving desired goals)
Organized in an associative network.
Organization of CAUs is unique to each person
Situational activation of CAUs - ANS ✔✔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 - ANS ✔✔Different situations activate different CAUs causing
different behaviours.
Each person's unique network of CAUs results in predictable and stable if...then behavioural
profiles.
If situation A, then behaviour X.
If situation B, then behaviour Y.
What counts as a 'situation'? - ANS ✔✔Not specific contexts like work, school, home.
What matters are the psychological features of the situation. Usually related to other people.
Not just features that are actually present, but also that are perceived/imagined. E.g., being
praised, rejected, criticized, asked to hang out by a friend, a crush
Psychological features of a situation (real or imagined) -> activate distinction pattern of CAUs ->
leading to unique and stable if...then behavioural profiles
Wediko Summer Camp Study - ANS ✔✔Do unique if...then profiles characterize individual
differences in social behaviour?
Method: observed children's behaviour in various situations at summer camp (ages 7-13).
Identified several psychological features of situations (if) and recorded behaviour in these
situations (then): peer approaches, peer teases, adult praises, adult warns, adult punishes).
Results: each child's behaviour were systematically related to features in their situations.
Unique if...then profiles. If...then profiles highly stable over time.
Strengths of CAPS - ANS ✔✔Interactionist consensus of person-situation debate.
, Accounts for within-person variability: variability is useful to understand underlying personality
system; different situations activate different CAUs causing different behaviours; stable if...then
behavioural profiles
Accounts for between-person variability: different networks of CAUs between people result in
differences in behaviour when faced with the same situation; due to different pattern of
activation among CAUs
Implications of CAPS - ANS ✔✔Knowing a person's '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 minds (CAUs)
The paradox of rejection sensitivity - ANS ✔✔Rejection sensitivity is the disproportionate fear
to being rejected. This leads people to often be very accommodating of others. BUT sometimes
they behave in aggressive (especially passive aggressive) ways!
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy because aggressive behaviour leads to actual rejection
Using CAPS to understand rejection sensitivity - ANS ✔✔CAUs: fear rejection, but also expect it.
This leads to stable if...then profiles.
If rejection is not perceived in immediate situation, then accommodate, but remain vigilant for
signs of rejection (engage behaviours to prevent rejection).
If situation is ambiguous, then interpret social cues as signs of rejection.
If rejection detected, then hostility and aggression! Failure in achieving important goal of
avoiding rejection. Attempt at self-protection
Assumptions for the person argument - ANS ✔✔Personality is consistent over time.
Should result in consistent behaviour across situations (e.g., if a person is high on
conscientiousness, behaviour in all situations will reflect conscientiousness)
To resolve personality consistency paradox, aggregate individual's behaviour on a given
dimension across situations to estimate a 'true' personality score
Strengths of the person argument - ANS ✔✔personality score accurately predicts behaviour in
general. People reliably differ from each other
Limitations to the person argument - ANS ✔✔Less accurate at predicting behaviour at any one
given time for a specific individual (within-person variability)
Cannot explain/predict why people with similar personality scores react differently in a given
situation (between-person variability).
Personality consistency paradox - ANS ✔✔We intuitively see personality as stable over time and
across situations, but behaviour is actually inconsistent across situations
Within-person variability assumes that - ANS ✔✔variation in personality across situations is
meaningless 'noise' and a product of measurement of error
Between-person variability assumes that - ANS ✔✔people with the same score on a personality
trait will behave the same way in a particular situation
,Weather analogy - ANS ✔✔It is useful to know that overall Montreal is colder and has more
precipitation than LA. But if we left it at that then there would be no way for meteorologists to
tell the weather because in the summer sometimes it is hotter in Montreal than in LA
Cognitive Affective Processing System (CAPS) - ANS ✔✔Variation in behaviour across situations
is not evidence of the non-existence of personality or meaningless 'noise.' It is meaningful and
predictable!
Specific situations predictably elicit specific behavioural responses in specific people. To
understand variation in people's behaviour, we need to understand how they are interpreting
the situation.
A person's mind is made up of cognitive-affective units (CAUs)
Cognitive-Affective Units (CAUs) - ANS ✔✔A very science-jargony way of saying 'thoughts and
feelings'
Includes encodings 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),
and behavioural scripts and self-regulatory strategies (how to go about achieving desired goals)
Organized in an associative network.
Organization of CAUs is unique to each person
Situational activation of CAUs - ANS ✔✔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 - ANS ✔✔Different situations activate different CAUs causing
different behaviours.
Each person's unique network of CAUs results in predictable and stable if...then behavioural
profiles.
If situation A, then behaviour X.
If situation B, then behaviour Y.
What counts as a 'situation'? - ANS ✔✔Not specific contexts like work, school, home.
What matters are the psychological features of the situation. Usually related to other people.
Not just features that are actually present, but also that are perceived/imagined. E.g., being
praised, rejected, criticized, asked to hang out by a friend, a crush
Psychological features of a situation (real or imagined) -> activate distinction pattern of CAUs ->
leading to unique and stable if...then behavioural profiles
Wediko Summer Camp Study - ANS ✔✔Do unique if...then profiles characterize individual
differences in social behaviour?
Method: observed children's behaviour in various situations at summer camp (ages 7-13).
Identified several psychological features of situations (if) and recorded behaviour in these
situations (then): peer approaches, peer teases, adult praises, adult warns, adult punishes).
Results: each child's behaviour were systematically related to features in their situations.
Unique if...then profiles. If...then profiles highly stable over time.
Strengths of CAPS - ANS ✔✔Interactionist consensus of person-situation debate.
, Accounts for within-person variability: variability is useful to understand underlying personality
system; different situations activate different CAUs causing different behaviours; stable if...then
behavioural profiles
Accounts for between-person variability: different networks of CAUs between people result in
differences in behaviour when faced with the same situation; due to different pattern of
activation among CAUs
Implications of CAPS - ANS ✔✔Knowing a person's '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 minds (CAUs)
The paradox of rejection sensitivity - ANS ✔✔Rejection sensitivity is the disproportionate fear
to being rejected. This leads people to often be very accommodating of others. BUT sometimes
they behave in aggressive (especially passive aggressive) ways!
This is a self-fulfilling prophecy because aggressive behaviour leads to actual rejection
Using CAPS to understand rejection sensitivity - ANS ✔✔CAUs: fear rejection, but also expect it.
This leads to stable if...then profiles.
If rejection is not perceived in immediate situation, then accommodate, but remain vigilant for
signs of rejection (engage behaviours to prevent rejection).
If situation is ambiguous, then interpret social cues as signs of rejection.
If rejection detected, then hostility and aggression! Failure in achieving important goal of
avoiding rejection. Attempt at self-protection
