Personality and information processing
personality is explored at different levels of inquiry. The major contention is that individual differences in social information processing are based on biological structures that, ultimately, are rooted in the individual’s genotype. First, a biological model is proposed emphasizing the energetic rather than the cognitive aspects of information processing. In this framework energetics can be described as three independent bipolar dimensions, each opposing emotional and volitional processing. Some major findings with this model include conceptualization, measurement, consistency across situations and construct validation of the dimensions. Behaviour genetics research has indicated a high degree of genetic contribution in each of the dimensions. Subsequently evidence is provided suggesting direct links between scores on the three dimensions and some major elements (goals, beliefs) proposed in social information processing. The conclusion is drawn that thoughts and actions have biological as well as social foundations. As a second major conclusion, on the basis of the energetical patterns identified a limited number of information-processing types are proposed. Each type can be characterized with specific goals and beliefs. At the behavioural level information-processing types may provide a basis for explaining different styles identified earlier in teaching, designing, and leadership. Our findings are discussed in the general framework of multilevel research as well as the study of information processing.A recent development affecting personality theory and research comes from behaviour genetics. Overwhelming success in the behaviour genetic analysis of personality traits has urged personality psychologists to redefine their object as well as to reconsider the most expedient ways to study it. Particularly the assessment and explanation of individualdifferences may benefit from the new frame of reference offered by behaviour genetics.
Considerable genetic contributions in several personality traits including altruism, empathy, nurturance, aggression and assertiveness the Big Five personality dimensions, interest patterns, vocational interests, religious interests, work values , and special mental abilities.From a behaviour genetics point of view, traits are to be seen as phenotypes, i.e.manifestations of genotypic propensities. Underlying traits are physiological, biochemical and neurological processes, ultimately genes at the most distal level. Classical biological approaches to personality have proposed a rather direct relationship between biological structures and processes on the one hand and traits like neuroticism, extraversion , or impulsivity and anxiety on the other. Those approaches have been among the foremost exponents of the hypothesis that personality traits provide a window on individual differences in brain functioning. However, recent comments have concluded that the assumptions of the biological approach to personality are in need of reassessment. In particular it has been suggested that trait research should place more emphasis on the social-cognitive bases of personality.
A more systematic ordering of the diverse conditions underlying personality has been proposed in Zuckerman’s (1993) seven turtles model. According to this model personality traits are based on social behaviour that, in turn, is the fruit of learning. Physiological conditions underlie learning but are based on biochemical processes that rest on neurological conditions themselves. Finally, the major foundations of neurology are genes, controlling the production of proteins, which in turn exert profound effects on behavioural structures and processes via the nervous system and production of behaviourally relevant hormones and neurotransmitters. Thus, summarizing, traits, social behaviour, learning, physiology, biochemistry, neurology and genes are the stations along which genotypes are translated into phenotypes. To explore the ways in which the different levels exert their influence is a major task for current personality psychology.
A series of negative events that an individual accepts blame for may not lead to depression if that individual has a high physiological threshold for depression. Antisocial individuals are not very likely to experience depression under anycircumstances, while some individuals experience depression at the drop of an unkind
word. Simon (1992) assumes that for psychology as for other sciences it is essential to explain complex phenomena at different levels. First of all, different levels should be defined and conceived as complementary rather than competing. Different levels of resolution use different constructs or units emphasizing different processes along which they operate. Units will have to be defined at the different levels. While defining units it should be kept in mind that units with optimal explanatory power at one level of inquiry may be less relevant at another level. As Simon proposes, higher level theories may use aggregates of the constructs at lower levels to provide parsimonious explanations of phenomena. However, it would be naive to assume that the units at one level exhibit a strict isomorphism with the elements studied at another level. Instead, for each level separate rules will have to be specified for connecting its elements to the elements at a higher level. Finally, each level should be connected with the lowest level: genes. Only if a level exhibits higher genetic influence can it be taken to provide an explanation of the higher levels.
Problem in any multilevel approach to personality is the question where biological and social determinants meet. The classical biological approaches to personality have particularly emphasized conditioning and motivation. However, as yet the results have not been unequivocal. A viable alternative may be to look for information processing as the most likely place where biological and social determinants meet. The information-processing approach assumes that in the same environment individuals may show different behaviours to the extent that they differ in the way they process the available information. Not only are most current multilevel approaches centred on information processing, but for this choice there are historical reasons as well. In the study of personality and individual differences, information processing has always occupied a special position. Explanations based on information processing may be found already in Freud’s defence mechanisms and Jung’s archetypes.
Other approaches have used information-processing concepts to explain differences in performance (Broadbent) and problem solving (Newell and Simon). The information-processing approach has obtained special urgency in the context of recent developments in evolutionary psychology. David Buss (1991) defined the major aim of evolutionary psychology as: To identify psychological mechanisms and behavioural strategies as evolved solutions to adaptive problems our species has faced over millions of years’. In the same context Tooby and Cosmides (1990) outlined a modern adaptationist framework proposing the view that the mind consists of a collection of evolved functionspecific, information-processing mechanisms organizing actions appropriate to situations. At the core of this approach are tangible and inheritable ways to process the information available in our habitat, existing currently as well as many years ago.
personality is explored at different levels of inquiry. The major contention is that individual differences in social information processing are based on biological structures that, ultimately, are rooted in the individual’s genotype. First, a biological model is proposed emphasizing the energetic rather than the cognitive aspects of information processing. In this framework energetics can be described as three independent bipolar dimensions, each opposing emotional and volitional processing. Some major findings with this model include conceptualization, measurement, consistency across situations and construct validation of the dimensions. Behaviour genetics research has indicated a high degree of genetic contribution in each of the dimensions. Subsequently evidence is provided suggesting direct links between scores on the three dimensions and some major elements (goals, beliefs) proposed in social information processing. The conclusion is drawn that thoughts and actions have biological as well as social foundations. As a second major conclusion, on the basis of the energetical patterns identified a limited number of information-processing types are proposed. Each type can be characterized with specific goals and beliefs. At the behavioural level information-processing types may provide a basis for explaining different styles identified earlier in teaching, designing, and leadership. Our findings are discussed in the general framework of multilevel research as well as the study of information processing.A recent development affecting personality theory and research comes from behaviour genetics. Overwhelming success in the behaviour genetic analysis of personality traits has urged personality psychologists to redefine their object as well as to reconsider the most expedient ways to study it. Particularly the assessment and explanation of individualdifferences may benefit from the new frame of reference offered by behaviour genetics.
Considerable genetic contributions in several personality traits including altruism, empathy, nurturance, aggression and assertiveness the Big Five personality dimensions, interest patterns, vocational interests, religious interests, work values , and special mental abilities.From a behaviour genetics point of view, traits are to be seen as phenotypes, i.e.manifestations of genotypic propensities. Underlying traits are physiological, biochemical and neurological processes, ultimately genes at the most distal level. Classical biological approaches to personality have proposed a rather direct relationship between biological structures and processes on the one hand and traits like neuroticism, extraversion , or impulsivity and anxiety on the other. Those approaches have been among the foremost exponents of the hypothesis that personality traits provide a window on individual differences in brain functioning. However, recent comments have concluded that the assumptions of the biological approach to personality are in need of reassessment. In particular it has been suggested that trait research should place more emphasis on the social-cognitive bases of personality.
A more systematic ordering of the diverse conditions underlying personality has been proposed in Zuckerman’s (1993) seven turtles model. According to this model personality traits are based on social behaviour that, in turn, is the fruit of learning. Physiological conditions underlie learning but are based on biochemical processes that rest on neurological conditions themselves. Finally, the major foundations of neurology are genes, controlling the production of proteins, which in turn exert profound effects on behavioural structures and processes via the nervous system and production of behaviourally relevant hormones and neurotransmitters. Thus, summarizing, traits, social behaviour, learning, physiology, biochemistry, neurology and genes are the stations along which genotypes are translated into phenotypes. To explore the ways in which the different levels exert their influence is a major task for current personality psychology.
A series of negative events that an individual accepts blame for may not lead to depression if that individual has a high physiological threshold for depression. Antisocial individuals are not very likely to experience depression under anycircumstances, while some individuals experience depression at the drop of an unkind
word. Simon (1992) assumes that for psychology as for other sciences it is essential to explain complex phenomena at different levels. First of all, different levels should be defined and conceived as complementary rather than competing. Different levels of resolution use different constructs or units emphasizing different processes along which they operate. Units will have to be defined at the different levels. While defining units it should be kept in mind that units with optimal explanatory power at one level of inquiry may be less relevant at another level. As Simon proposes, higher level theories may use aggregates of the constructs at lower levels to provide parsimonious explanations of phenomena. However, it would be naive to assume that the units at one level exhibit a strict isomorphism with the elements studied at another level. Instead, for each level separate rules will have to be specified for connecting its elements to the elements at a higher level. Finally, each level should be connected with the lowest level: genes. Only if a level exhibits higher genetic influence can it be taken to provide an explanation of the higher levels.
Problem in any multilevel approach to personality is the question where biological and social determinants meet. The classical biological approaches to personality have particularly emphasized conditioning and motivation. However, as yet the results have not been unequivocal. A viable alternative may be to look for information processing as the most likely place where biological and social determinants meet. The information-processing approach assumes that in the same environment individuals may show different behaviours to the extent that they differ in the way they process the available information. Not only are most current multilevel approaches centred on information processing, but for this choice there are historical reasons as well. In the study of personality and individual differences, information processing has always occupied a special position. Explanations based on information processing may be found already in Freud’s defence mechanisms and Jung’s archetypes.
Other approaches have used information-processing concepts to explain differences in performance (Broadbent) and problem solving (Newell and Simon). The information-processing approach has obtained special urgency in the context of recent developments in evolutionary psychology. David Buss (1991) defined the major aim of evolutionary psychology as: To identify psychological mechanisms and behavioural strategies as evolved solutions to adaptive problems our species has faced over millions of years’. In the same context Tooby and Cosmides (1990) outlined a modern adaptationist framework proposing the view that the mind consists of a collection of evolved functionspecific, information-processing mechanisms organizing actions appropriate to situations. At the core of this approach are tangible and inheritable ways to process the information available in our habitat, existing currently as well as many years ago.
1 comment:
Personality And Motivation Evaluation
Post a Comment