Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality Architecture

1
Voicing the KAPA Model of Personality
Architecture Daniel Cervone University of
Illinois at Chicago Fifth International
Conference on the Dialogical Self Wed., August
27, 2008
2
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration?
3
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration?
4
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration? II. Discursive Critique
of Social-Cognitive Measures
5
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration? II. Discursive Critique
of Social-Cognitive Measures III.
Social-Cognitive Person and Internal Dialogue
6
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration? II. Discursive Critique
of Social-Cognitive Measures III.
Social-Cognitive Person and Internal Dialogue
-- social-cognitive theories and personality
architecture -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appr
aisal Pers. Architecture) -- Idiographic
analysis of cross-situational coherence
7
Outline I. Introduction On Cognitive/Representa
tional and Discursive/Dialogical
Approaches -- Can we identify substantive
points of integration? II. Discursive Critique
of Social-Cognitive Measures III.
Social-Cognitive Person and Internal Dialogue
-- social-cognitive theories and personality
architecture -- KAPA model (Knowledge-and-Appr
aisal 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
8
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.
9
(No Transcript)
10
Cognitive/Representational
Discursive/Dialogical
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
11
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
12
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
13
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
What are some implications of a
discursive/dialogical perspective for
social-cognitive theory and research? Strategy
A specific case.
14
The specific case Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency
15
The specific case Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency efficacy beliefs . . . determine
the goals people set for themselves (Bandura,
1995, p. 8)
16
The specific case Self-efficacy mechanism in
human agency efficacy beliefs . . . determine
the goals people set for themselves (Bandura,
1995, p. 8)
Goals (level of aspiration personally set)
Perceptions of Self-Efficacy
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.
17
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
18
Could be any result between measures, e.g.
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
19
But one generally finds this result between
measures
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
20
Discursive critique Could it be any result?
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
21
Discursive critique Could it be any result?
Treat measures as a form of discourse.
Is it your goal, at the moment, to reach level X?
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
22
Discursive critique Could it be any result?
Violates discursive conventions
Is it your goal, at the moment, to reach level X?
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
23
Discursive critique Could it be any result?
I not capable of doing X, but it is my goal
Violates discursive conventions
Is it your goal, at the moment, to reach level X?
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
How confident are you that you can reach level X?
24
Discursive critique You have to get a positive
correlation (if people use the word goal
normally in discourse)
Violates discursive conventions
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
25
Discursive critique You have to get a positive
correlation (if people use the word goal
normally in discourse)
Violates discursive conventions
Measure of Level of Goal
Measure of Level of Self-Efficacy
The discursive conventions creates a violation of
the measurement assumptions (independent
variables creating a 2-D space)
26
General implication Re Self-efficacy
mechanism . . . determines the goals people
set for themselves (Bandura, 1995, p. 8), and
associated measures of the variables psycholo
gists 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)
27
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
28
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
29
The Social-Cognitive Person
Two social-cognitive variable systems
30

31
-- 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?
32
Knowledge and Appraisal Personality Architecture
(KAPA) Cervone, 2004 Three distinctions in
modeling the architecture of personality
33
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)
34
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
35
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 evaluations of the
significance of what is happening for ones
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
36
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 3) in the domain of intentional
cognitions, alternative directions of fit
(Searle) -- supports a distinction among
beliefs, evaluative standards, and goals
37
KAPA Model of Social-Cognitive Personality
Variables
Intentional States with Alternative Directions of
Fit
EVALUATIVE STANDARDS
AIMS/GOALS
BELIEFS
Standards for Evaluating an Encounter (e.g.,
standards for evaluating ongoing performance)
Aims in an Encounter (e.g., intentions-in-action,
personal goals during a task)
Beliefs about ones Relation to an
Encounter (e.g., self-efficacy appraisals)
APPRAISAL
Knowledge vs. Appraisal
Beliefs about Oneself and 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)
KNOWLEDGE
38
Dispositional Summaries
Decisions and Actions
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of
circumstances If . . . then . . . Profiles
plotted across a fixed set of circumstances Idi
ographic Clusters of Coherence identified with
respect to attributes and circumstances
identified at the level of the potentially
unique individual
Appraisal Processes
Affective Experience
Knowledge Structures
Affective Structures
39
Dispositions not something people have but
summaries of things people do.
Dispositional Summaries
Decisions and Actions
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of
circumstances If . . . then . . . Profiles
plotted across a fixed set of circumstances Idi
ographic Clusters of Coherence identified with
respect to attributes and circumstances
identified at the level of the potentially
unique individual
Appraisal Processes
Affective Experience
Knowledge Structures
Affective Structures
40
General operating principle Accessible and
applicable elements of knowledge influence
appraisal processes
Current Situational Features
Appraisal Processes
Pre-existing Cognitive and Affective States
Knowledge Structures
Recently Encountered Situations
41
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
42
. . .
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
Appraisal
Sit. Beliefs
Knowledge
Self-Schemas
Self-schema"
Self-schema
Participanti
43
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)
44
Research Self-schemas and Cross-situational
coherence in self-efficacy appraisal
45
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
46
Contextualized Self-Efficacy Appraisal
. . .
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
Sit. Beliefs
Knowledge
Self-Schemas
Self-schema"
Self-schema
Participanti
47

• Traditional Strategy (i.e., Im not doing this)
  
• Select a nomothetic trait category
• Identify its manifestations
• Gauge consistency across these for all persons

XYZness
Partic
. . .
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
1
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
2
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
3
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
4
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
5
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
6
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
7
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
8
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
9
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
10
48
. . .
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Sit4
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
Sit10
Sit11
Sit12
Sit13
Sit14
Sit15
Sit16
Sitn
Self-schema"
Self-schema
Participanti
49
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
50
(No Transcript)
51
(No Transcript)
52
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 2.
Sorting task to assess situational beliefs --
relation of a given attribute to various social
contexts
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
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 2.
Sorting task to assess situational beliefs --
relation of a given attribute to various social
contexts 3. Assessment of Contextualized
Appraisals -- self-efficacy for executing
specific behaviors in context
56
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 2.
Sorting task to assess situational beliefs --
relation of a given attribute to various social
contexts 3. Assessment of Contextualized
Appraisals -- self-efficacy for executing
specific behaviors in context Predictions --
Consistently high/low appraisals in
situations linked to positively/negatively
valenced self-knowledge -- faster appraisals in
schema-relevant situations -- priming knowledge
structures alters self-efficacy
appraisals
57
Talk to, and cheer up, depressed friend
If spent too much , return clothes
If lost in course, speak with professor
Make friends w/ classmate to get lecture notes
Perfectionistic
Work well independently
Responsible
Participant 37
58
Participant 6 shy
Participant 7 shy
59
Participant 6 shy
give def. of large word in group
participate in class discussion
discuss feelings of of emb. w/ friend
make plans for date
Participant 7 shy
60
Participant 6 shy
give def. of large word in group
participate in class discussion
discuss feelings of of emb. w/ friend
make plans for date
keep conversation going (on trip)
If spill drink, remain calm
remain calm, composed in class presentation
Participant 7 shy
61
Be yourself with group of new friends
Defend self if criticized by prof.
In group of friends, define obscure word
If need to study, get friend to run errand
Avoid being late for early a.m. class mtngs.
Make friends w/ classmate to get lecture notes
Agree to friends social plans
Independent
Independent
Participant 108
Participant 96
62
Skilled at Public Relations
Shy
Partic 7
63
Lively anecdote/ interview
Lively conversation/ friend
Ask question / professor
Discuss problems / friend
Skilled at Public Relations
Shy
Partic 7
64
Crabby and bitchy
Can have a good time naturally
Participant 48
65
Entertain a crowd at party w/ jokes
Remain calm if prof criticizes work habits
Avoid criticizing boyfriends driving
Cheer up commuters stuck on delayed train
Reveal true self on a date
Be yourself with group of new friends
Chastise idle members of work project
Remain calm if cut off in traffic
Crabby and bitchy
Can have a good time naturally
Participant 48
66

• P.
• 2 I can be funny at times high E
• 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
• 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
67
X63 8.2
X118 8.0
Offer to save on a date
Avoid criticizing partners driving
Be gracious to partners parents
Explain concerns without hurting partners feelings
Resolve tension in dating relationship
Nice
Able to manipulate people
Participant 63
Participant 118
68
X63 8.2
X118 8.0
Offer to save on a date
Avoid criticizing partners driving
Be gracious to partners parents
Explain concerns without hurting partners feelings
Resolve tension in dating relationship
Nice
Able to manipulate people
Participant 63
Participant 118
69
Schematic Attributes
Pers. Strengths
Most Imp. Trt.
Pers. Wkns.
Mean Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
Situational Beliefs Categorization of
Situational Relevance
70
? maybe you dont need the idiographic
assessments?
71
Aschematic Attributes
Schematic Attributes
Pers. Strengths
Positive Trait
Most Imp. Trt.
Negative Trait
Pers. Wkns.
Mean Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
Slightly Moderately Highly Most
Situational Beliefs Categorization of
Situational Relevance
Cervone, 2004, Psychological Review
72
Smokers and appraisal of self-efficacy for
avoiding smoking.
Schematic Personal Strengths
Schematic Personal Weaknesses
Schematic Personal Strengths
Schematic Personal Weaknesses

Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Hinders Irrelevant Helps Beliefs about
Relevance of Situations to Schematic Attributes
Cervone, et al. (2007). Psy. of Addictive
Behaviors, 21, 44-54.
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
For different people even those who seem
similar (Im strong-willed), different
situations are (ir)relevant at the level of the
individual case.
77
Response Times
Response Times Yes Responses in Situations of
Varying Relevance to Schematic Positive Attributes
Response Time Difference Score (msec)
Hinders Irrelevant Helps
Situational Beliefs Subjective Relevance of
Personal Attributes to Situations
Cervone, Orom, Artistico, Shadel, Kassel, 2007,
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
78
Question Can one predict from overall aspects
of knowledge system to overall tendencies in
appraisal?
79
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
80
(No Transcript)
81
Test experimentally
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
High/Confident Appraisals
Priming
Sit4
Self-Schemas
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
. . .
Sitn
82
To test -- in separate sessions, assess self
and social knowledge a) self-schemas (positive
and negative) b) situational beliefs (relevance
of schematic attributes to various social
situations)
83
To test -- in separate sessions, assess self
and social knowledge a) self-schemas (positive
and negative) b) situational beliefs (relevance
of schematic attributes to various social
situations) -- in two subsequent sessions,
prime alternative self-schemas (via a memory
test) then assess self-efficacy appraisals
84
To test -- in separate sessions, assess self
and social knowledge a) self-schemas (positive
and negative) b) situational beliefs (relevance
of schematic attributes to various social
situations) -- in two subsequent sessions,
prime alternative self-schemas (via a memory
test) then assess self-efficacy appraisals --
prediction priming affects appraisals but only
in relevant contexts
85
To test -- in separate sessions, assess self
and social knowledge a) self-schemas (positive
and negative) b) situational beliefs (relevance
of schematic attributes to various social
situations) -- in two subsequent sessions,
prime alternative self-schemas (via a memory
test) then assess self-efficacy appraisals --
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
86
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
87
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Prime
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
88
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Prime
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
89
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Prime
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
90
Aggregated Across Conditions/ Independent of
Priming
Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Hinders Irrelevant
Helps Situational Beliefs Contextual Relevance
of Schematic Attribute
91
Primed Knowledge
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Hinders Irrelevant
Helps Situational Beliefs Contextual Relevance
of Schematic Attribute
92
Finding consistent with prediction
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Prime
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
93
But, another alternative Could be global
Sit1
Sit2
Sit3
Appraisals
Sit4
Schematic Personal Strength
Prime
Sit5
Sit6
Sit7
Sit8
Sit9
. . .
Sitn
94
Primed Knowledge
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Hinders Irrelevant
Helps Situational Beliefs Contextual Relevance
of Schematic Attribute
95
Primed Knowledge
Pers. Strength
Pers. Weakness
Self-Efficacy Appraisal
Hinders Irrelevant
Helps Situational Beliefs Contextual Relevance
of Schematic Attribute
96
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
97
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
Again, lets treat measures as a form of
discourse.
98
Self-efficacy measures as discourse People
discuss, on paper, with an experimenter, their
capabilities for performance in different
prospective social contexts.
99
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
100
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self.
101
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self. But
102
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self. But
Same participant, same experimenter, same
questions (counterbalanced) so same discursive
context.
103
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self. But
Procedural difference between conditions seems
irrelevant to the discourse about capabilities
for performance (subtle priming manipulation).
104
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self. But
Cant 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)

105
Discursive critique the self-efficacy measure
is a narrative about the self. But
Empirical result (same person saying different
things in response to same question) readily
predictable from stored knowledge / causal
mechanisms perspective.
106
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
107
KAPA Model
Dispositional Summaries
Decisions and Actions
Global Tendencies averaged across a fixed set of
circumstances If . . . then . . . Profiles
plotted across a fixed set of circumstances Idi
ographic Clusters of Coherence identified with
respect to attributes and circumstances
identified at the level of the potentially
unique individual
Appraisal Processes
Affective Experience

Knowledge Structures
Affective Structures
108
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes

Knowledge Structures
109
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes
Knowledge Structures
110
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes as internal mono- and
dialogues

Knowledge Structures
S-Schemapos
S-Schemaneg
111
KAPA Model
Appraisal Processes as internal mono- and
dialogues

Knowledge Structures
If prime / ? different internal dialogue
S-Schemapos
S-Schemaneg
112
Internal Dialogue
Knowledge Structures
Hypothetically, if prime schematic knowledge of
Person X/Y, ? different dialogical positions
(e.g., Andersen, Baldwin)
SchemaPers X
SchemaPers Y
113
The Dialogical Person
The Social-Cognitive Person
-- Explore schematic knowledge, including via
manipulated accessibility of knowledge/priming,
as basis of the capacity to ? multiple dialogical
positions
114
-- 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
115
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
116
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. 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
117
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. 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.
118
Thank you.