I.
Overview of Skinner's Behavioral Analysis environment in which behavior takes place; (2) the behavior, or response; and (3) the consequence that
During the 1920s and 1930s, while Freud, Adler, and Jung were relying on
clinical practice and before Eysenck and McCrae and Costa were using psychometric procedures
to build personality theories, a number of behaviorists were constructing models based on
laboratory studies of human and nonhuman animals. Early behaviorists included E. L. Thorndike
and J. B. Watson, but the most influential of the later theorists was B. F. Skinner. Behavioral
models of personality avoided speculations about hypothetical constructs and concentrated
almost exclusively on observable behavior. Skinner rejected the notion of free will and
emphasized the primacy of environmental influences on behavior. II. Biography of B. F. Skinner
B. F. Skinner was born in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania in 1904, the older of two
brothers. While in college, Skinner wanted to be a writer, but after having little success in this
endeavor, he turned to psychology. After earning a PhD from Harvard, he taught at the
Universities of Minnesota and Indiana before returning to Harvard, where he remained until his
death in 1990.
III. Precursors to Skinner's Scientific Behaviorism
Modern learning theory has roots in the work of Edward L. Thorndike and his
experiments with animals during the last part of the 19th century. Thorndike's law of effect stated
that responses followed by a satisfier tend to be learned, a concept that anticipated Skinner's use
of positive reinforcement to shape behavior. Skinner was even more influenced by John Watson
who argued that psychology must deal with the control and prediction of behavior and that
behavior—not introspection, consciousness, or the mind—is the basic data of scientific
psychology.
IV. Scientific Behaviorism
Skinner believed that human behavior, like any other natural phenomena, is
subject to the laws of science, and that psychologists should not attribute inner motivations to it.
Although he rejected internal states (thoughts, emotions, desires, etc.) as being outside the realm
of science, Skinner did not deny their existence. He simply insisted that they should not be used
to explain behavior. A. Philosophy of Science
Because the purpose of science is to predict and control, Skinner argued that
psychologists should be concerned with determining the conditions under which human
behavior occurs. By discovering these conditions, psychologists can predict and control
human behavior. B. Characteristics of Science
Skinner held that science has three principal characteristics: (1) its findings are
cumulative, (2) it rests on an attitude that values empirical observation, and (3) it searches for
order and reliable relationships.
V. Conditioning
Skinner recognized two kinds of conditioning: classical and operant.
A. Classical Conditioning
In classical conditioning, a conditioned stimulus is paired with an unconditioned
stimulus until it is capable of bringing about a previously unconditioned response. For example,
Watson and Rainier conditioned an infant to fear a white rat (the conditioned stimulus) by
associating it to a loud sudden noise (an unconditioned stimulus). Eventually, through the
process of generalization, the boy learned to fear stimuli (such as a Santa Claus beard and a soft
white rabbit) that resembled the white rat. However, the infant did not generalize fear to hard
wooden blocks.
B. Operant Conditioning
With operant conditioning, reinforcement is used to increase the probability that a given
behavior will recur. Three factors are essential in operant conditioning: (1) the antecedent, or
follows the behavior. Psychologists and others use shaping to mold complex human behavior. Different
histories of reinforcement result in operant discrimination, meaning that different organisms will respond
differently to the same environmental contingencies. People may also respond similarly to different
environmental stimuli, a process Skinner called stimulus generalization. Anything within the environment
that strengthens a behavior is called a reinforcer. A positive reinforcer is any stimulus that when added
to a situation increases the probability that a given behavior will occur. A negative reinforcer is any
unpleasant condition that when removed from a situation also increases the probability that a given
behavior will occur. Both positive and negative reinforcement strengthen behavior. Any event that
decreases the occurrence of a behavior—either by presenting an aversive stimulus or by removing a
positive one—is called punishment. The effects of punishment are much less predictable than those of
reward. Both punishment and reinforcement can result from either natural consequences or from human
imposition. Conditioned reinforcers are those stimuli that are not by nature satisfying (e.g., money), but
that can become so when they are associated with a primary reinforcers, such as food. Generalized
reinforcers are conditioned reinforcers that have become associated with several primary reinforcers.
Reinforcement can follow behavior on either a continuous schedule or on an intermittent schedule.
There are four basic intermittent schedules: (1) fixed-ratio, on which the organism is reinforced
intermittently according to the number of responses it makes; (2) variable-ratio, on which the organism is
reinforced after an average of a predetermined number of responses; (3) fixed-interval, on which the
organism is reinforced for the first response following a designated period of time; and (4) variable
interval, on which the organism is reinforced after the lapse of various periods of time. The tendency of a
previously acquired response to become progressively weakened upon nonreinforcement is called
extinction. Such elimination or weakening of a response is called classical extinction in a classical
conditioning model and operant extinction when the response is acquired through operant conditioning.
V. The Human Organism
Skinner believed that human behavior is shaped by three forces: (1) natural
selection, (2) the evolution of cultures, and (3) the individual's personal history of reinforcement,
which we discussed above.
A. Natural Selection
As a species, our behavior is shaped by the contingencies of survival; that is,
those behaviors (e.g., sex and aggression) that were beneficial to the human species tended to
survive, whereas those that did not tended to drop out.
B. Cultural Evolution
Those societies that evolved certain cultural practices (e.g. tool making and
language) tended to survive. Currently, the lives of nearly all people are shaped, in part, by
modern tools (computers, media, various modes of transportation, etc.) and by their use of
language. However, humans do not make cooperative decisions to do what is best for their
society, but those societies whose members behave in a cooperative manner tended to survive.
C. Inner States
Skinner recognized the existence of such inner states as drives and
self-awareness, but he rejected the notion that they can explain behavior. To Skinner, drives refer
to the effects of deprivation and satiation and thus are related to the probability of certain
behaviors, but they are not the causes of behavior. Skinner believed that emotions can be
accounted for by the contingencies of survival and the contingencies of reinforcement; but like
drives, they do not cause behavior. Similarly, purpose and intention are not causes of behavior,
although they are felt sensations and exist within the skin. D. Complex Behavior
Human behavior is subject to the same principles of operant conditioning as
simple animal behavior, but it is much more complex and difficult to predict or control. Skinner
explained creativity as the result of random or accidental behaviors that happen to be rewarded.
 Skinner believed that most of our behavior is unconscious or automatic and that not thinking about
certain experiences is reinforcing. Skinner viewed dreams as covert and symbolic forms of
behavior that are subject to the same contingencies of reinforcement as any other behavior.
E. Control of Human Behavior
Ultimately, all human behavior is controlled by the environment. Societies
exercise control over their members through laws, rules, and customs that transcend any one
person's means of countercontrol. There are four basic methods of social control: (1) operant
conditioning, including positive and negative reinforcement and punishment; (2) describing
contingencies, or using language to inform people of the consequence of their behaviors; (3)
deprivation and satiation, techniques that increase the likelihood that people will behave in a
certain way; and (4) physical restraint, including the jailing of criminals. Although Skinner denied
the existence of free will, he did recognize that people manipulate variables within their own
environment and thus exercise some measure of self-control, which has several techniques: (1)
physical restraint, (2) physical aids, such as tools; (3) changing environmental stimuli; (4)
arranging the environment to allow escape from aversive stimuli; (5) drugs; and (6) doing
something else. VI. The Unhealthy Personality
Social control and self-control sometimes produce counteracting strategies and
inappropriate behaviors.
A. Counteracting Strategies
People can counteract excessive social control by (1) escaping from it,
(2) revolting against it, or (3) passively resisting it.
B. Inappropriate Behaviors
Inappropriate behaviors follow from self-defeating techniques of
counteracting social control or from unsuccessful attempts at self-control.
VII. Psychotherapy
Skinner was not a psychotherapist, and he even criticized psychotherapy as
being one of the major obstacles to a scientific study of human behavior. Nevertheless, others
have used operant conditioning principles to shape behavior in a therapeutic setting. Behavior
therapists play an active role in the treatment process, using behavior modification techniques
and pointing out the positive consequences of some behaviors and the aversive effects of others.
VIII. Related Research
Skinner's ideas on operant conditioning have generated more research than
those of any other theory. Much of this research can be divided into two questions: (1) How does
operant conditioning affect personality? and (2) How does personality affect conditioning? In
addition to these two questions, a recent development in research, due to technological
advances, has been the study of reinforcement as related to brain activation.
A. How Conditioning Affects Personality
A plethora of studies have demonstrated that operant conditioning can change
personality, that is, behavior. For example, a study by Tidey et al. (2000) found that, when given a
choice, smokers would choose a cigarette rather than money.
B. How Personality Affects Conditioning
Research has also found that different personalities may react differently to the same
environmental stimuli. This means that the same reinforcement strategies will not have the same
effect on all people. For example, Alan Pickering and Jeffrey Gray (1999) have developed and
tested reinforcement sensitivity theory, which suggests that impulsivity, anxiety, and
introversion/extraversion relate to ways people respond to environmental reinforcers. More
recently, researchers have begun to explore the association between reinforcement sensitivities
and other personality dimensions. Philip Corr (2002) conducted one of the first studies to examine
differences in anxiety and impulsivity and their association to response sensitivities. Corr also
reformulated the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of Pickering and Gray: originally the
personality dimensions should operate independently, while in Corr’s reformulation they can
operate somewhat jointly and interdependently. His results supported his joint subsystem
hypothesis and contradicted the separable subsystem hypothesis. For highly anxious people,
impulsivity acts as a buffer to responsiveness to negative stimuli. Again, the main point was also
reinforced by this study: People vary in their responses to reinforcers depending on their
personalities.
C. Reinforcement and the Brain
Recent advances in imaging have allowed researchers to analyze individual differences in brain
activation as responses to stimuli such as food (Beaver et al, 2006). Using functional magnetic
resonance imaging, or fMRI, John Beaver and his colleagues gave the behavioral activation scale
(BAS) self-report to participants to measure how actively they tend to pursue rewards. They then
measured the subjects’ brain activation upon exposure to pictures of rewarding foods versus
bland foods. They found that people who scored higher on the personality variable of behavioral
activation also had greater activation to pictures of rewarding foods in five specific areas of the
brain. These results supported the general conclusion that personality is related to differences in
how we biologically respond to rewards. This research holds future promise, for possibly helping
to alter health outcomes such as obesity, and for understanding what people find rewarding and
why.
IX. Critique of Skinner
On the six criteria of a useful theory, Skinner's work rates very high on its
ability to generate research and to guide action, high on its ability to be falsified, and about
average on its ability to organize knowledge. In addition, it rates very high on internal
consistency and high on simplicity. X. Concept of Humanity
Skinner's concept of humanity is a completely deterministic and causal one that
emphasizes unconscious behavior and the uniqueness of each person's history of reinforcement
within a mostly social environment. Unlike many determinists, Skinner was quite optimistic in
his view of humanity.
Skinner has also sat for interviews on the application of operant conditioning
principles to education and counseling. A two-part interview on education and a one-part
program on counseling can be rented or purchased from .
I. Overview of Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura's social cognitive theory takes an agentic perspective, meaning that
humans have some limited ability to control their lives. In contrast to Skinner, Bandura (1)
recognizes that chance encounters and fortuitous events often shape one's behavior; (2) places
more emphasis on observational learning; (3) stresses the importance of cognitive factors in
learning; (4) suggests that human activity is a function of behavior and person variables, as well
as the environment; and (5) believes that reinforcement is mediated by cognition.
II. Biography of Albert Bandura
Albert Bandura was born in Canada in 1925, but he has spent his entire
professional life in the United States. He completed a PhD in clinical psychology at the University
of Iowa in 1951 and since then has worked almost entirely at Stanford University, where he
continues to be an active researcher and speaker.
III. Learning
Bandura takes a broad view of learning, believing that people learn through
observing others and by attending to the consequences of their own actions. Although he
believes that reinforcement aids learning, he contends that people can learn in the absence of
reinforcement and even of a response. A. Observational Learning
The heart of observational learning is modeling, which is more than simple
imitation, because it involves adding and subtracting from observed behavior. At least three
 principles influence modeling: (1) people are most likely to model high-status people, (2) people
who lack skill or status are most likely to model, and (3) people tend to model behavior that they
see as being rewarding to the model. Bandura recognized four processes that govern
observational learning: (1) attention, or noticing what a model does; (2) representation, or
symbolically representing new response patterns in memory; (3) behavior production, or
producing the behavior that one observes; and (4) motivation; that is, the observer must be
motivated to perform the observed behavior.
B. Enactive Learning
All behavior is followed by some consequence, but whether that consequence
reinforces the behavior depends on the person's cognitive evaluation of the situation.
IV. Triadic Reciprocal Causation
Social cognitive theory holds that human functioning is molded by the reciprocal
interaction of (1) behavior; (2) personal factors, including cognition; and (3) environmental
events—a model Bandura calls triadic reciprocal causation.
A. Differential Contributions
Bandura does not suggest that the three factors in the triadic reciprocal
causation model make equal contributions to behavior. The relative influence of behavior,
environment, and person depends on which factor is strongest at any particular moment.
B. Chance Encounters and Fortuitous Events
The lives of many people have been fundamentally changed by a chance
meeting with another person or by a fortuitous, unexpected event. Chance encounters and
fortuitous events enter the triadic reciprocal causation paradigm at the environment point, after
which they influence behavior in much the same way as do planned events.
V. Human Agency
Bandura believes that human agency is the essence of humanness; that is,
humans are defined by their ability to organize, regulate, and enact behaviors that they believe
will produce desirable consequences.
A. Core Features of Human Agency
Human agency has four core features: (1) intentionality, or a proactive commitment to actions that
may bring about desired outcomes: (2) foresight, or the ability to set goals; (3) self-reactiveness,
which includes monitoring their progress toward fulfilling their choices; and (4) self-reflectiveness,
which allows people can think about and evaluate their motives, values, and life goals.
B. Self-Efficacy
How people behave in a particular situation depends in part on their self-efficacy,
that is, their beliefs that they can or cannot exercise those behaviors necessary to bring about a
desired consequence. Efficacy expectations differ from outcome expectations, which refer to
people's prediction of the likely consequences of their behavior. Self-efficacy combines with
environmental variables, previous behaviors, and other personal variables to predict behavior. It is
acquired, enhanced, or decreased by any one or combination of four sources: (1) mastery
experiences or performance, (2) social modeling, or observing someone of equal ability
succeed or fail at a task; (3) social persuasion or listening to a trusted person's encouraging
words; and (4) physical and emotional states, such as anxiety or fear, which usually lowers
self-efficacy. High self-efficacy and a responsive environment are the best predictors of successful
outcomes.
C. Proxy Agency
Bandura also recognizes the influence of proxy agency through which
people exercise some partial control over everyday living. Successful living in the 21st century
requires people to seek proxies to supply their food, deliver information, provide
transportation, etc. Without the use of proxies, modern people would be forced to spend most
of their time securing the necessities of survival. D. Collective Efficacy
Collective efficacy is the level of confidence that people have that their
combined efforts will produce social change. At least four factors can lower collective efficacy.
First, events in other parts of the world can leave people with a sense of helplessness; second,
complex technology can decrease people's perceptions of control over their environment; third,
entrenched bureaucracies discourage people from attempting to bring about social change; and
fourth, the size and scope of world-wide problems contribute to people's sense of powerlessness.
VI. Self-Regulation
By using reflective thought, humans can manipulate their environments and
produce consequences of their actions, giving them some ability to regulate their own behavior.
Bandura believes that behavior stems from a reciprocal influence of external and internal
factors.
A. External Factors in Self-Regulation
Two external factors contribute to self-regulation: (1) standards of
evaluation, and (2) external reinforcement. External factors affect self-regulation by providing
people with standards for evaluating their own behavior.
B. Internal Factors in Self-Regulation
Internal requirements for self-regulation include: (1) self-observation of
performance; (2) judging or evaluating performance; (3) and self reaction, including
self-reinforcement or self-punishment. C. Self-Regulation through Moral Agency
Internalized self-sanctions prevent people from violating their own moral
standards either through selective activation or disengagement of internal control. Selective
activation refers to the notion
that self-regulatory influences are not automatic but operate only if activated. It also means that
people react differently in different situations, depending on their evaluation of the situation.
Disengagement of internal control means that people are capable of separating themselves
from the negative consequences of their behavior. People in ambiguous moral situations—who
are uncertain that their behavior is consistent with their own social and moral standards of
conduct—may separate their conduct from its injurious consequences through four general
techniques of disengagement of internal standards or selective activation First is redefining
behavior, or justifying otherwise reprehensible actions by cognitively restructuring them. People
can use redefinition of behavior to disengage themselves from reprehensible conduct by: (1)
justifying otherwise culpable behavior on moral grounds; (2) making advantageous comparisons
between their behavior and the even more reprehensible behavior of others; (3) using euphemistic
labels to change the moral tone of their behavior. Second, people can disengage their behavior
from its consequences by displacing or diffusing responsibility. A third set of disengagement
procedures involves dehumanizing or blaming the victims. A fourth method is to distort or obscure
the relationship between behavior and its injurious consequences. People can do this by
minimizing, disregarding, or distorting the consequences of their behavior.
VII. Dysfunctional Behavior
Dysfunction behavior is learned through the mutual interaction of the person
(including cognitive and neurophysiological processes), the environment (including
interpersonal relations), and behavioral factors (especially previous experiences with
reinforcement).
A. Depression
People who develop depressive reactions often (1) underestimate their
successes and overestimate their failures, (2) set personal standards too high, or (3) treat
themselves badly for their faults. B. Phobias
Phobias are learned by (1) direct contact, (2) inappropriate generalization, and
(3) observational experiences. Once learned they are maintained by negative reinforcement, as
the person is reinforced for avoiding fear-producing situations.
 C. Aggression
When carried to extreme, aggressive behaviors can become dysfunctional. In a
study of children observing live and filmed models being aggressive, Bandura and his associates
(Bandura, Ross, & Ross. 1963) found that aggression tends to foster more aggression.
VIII. Therapy
The goal of social cognitive therapy is self-regulation. Bandura noted three levels of treatment: (1)
induction of change, (2) generalization of change to other appropriate situations, and (3)
maintenance of newly acquired functional behaviors. Social cognitive therapists sometimes use
systematic desensitization, a technique aimed at diminishing phobias through relaxation.
IX. Related Research
Bandura's concept of self-efficacy has generated a great deal of research
demonstrating that people's beliefs are related to their ability to perform in a wide variety of
situations, including shyness and academic performance.
A. Self-Efficacy and Shyness
One recent review by Schmidt and Fox (2002) found that temperamentally shy children who
attended day school were less likely to become shy than were those children who did not attend
day school. Also, Gian Caprara and colleagues (2003) studied Italian adolescents and generally
found that shyness is not only the result of biological and temperamental processes, but is also a
means for people to use their capacities for self-reflection and to see themselves is being able to
cope with future challenges.
B. Self-Efficacy, Gender, and Academic Performance
A recent study by Nan Zhang Hampton and Emanuel Mason (2003)
hypothesized that students with learning difficulties would have lower ratings on all four sources of
self-efficacy: namely mastery experiences, social modeling, social persuasion, and emotional
status. Participants were high school students, half of whom had learning difficulties. Results
supported the hypothesis that students with learning deficiencies had lower ratings on each on
the four sources of self-efficacy. X Critique of Bandura
Bandura's theory receives the highest marks of any in the text largely
because it was constructed through a careful balance of innovative speculation and data from
rigorous research. In summary, the theory rates very high on its ability to generate research
and on its internal consistency. In addition, it rates high on parsimony and on its ability to be
falsified, organize knowledge, and guide the practitioner.
XI. Concept of Humanity
Bandura sees humans as being relatively fluid and flexible. People can store past experiences and
then use this information to chart future actions. Bandura's theory rates near the middle on
teleology versus causality and high on free choice, optimism, conscious influences, and
uniqueness. As a social cognitive theory, it rates very high on social determinants of personality.
PAVLOV -
I. Overview of Factor Theories - Hans J. Eysenck
Hans Eysenck and others have used factor analysis to identify traits, that is, relatively
permanent dispositions of people. Eysenck extracted only three general factors,which yielded
three general bipolar factors or types: extraversion/introversion, neuroticism/stability, and
psychoticism/superego..
II. Biography of Hans J. Eysenck
Hans J. Eysenck was born in Berlin in 1916, but as a teenager, he moved to
London to escape Nazi tyranny. Eysenck was trained at the psychometrically oriented psychology
department of the University of London, from which he received a bachelor's degree in 1938 and a
PhD in 1940. Eysenck, perhaps, was the most prolific writer of any psychologist in the world, and
his books and articles often stirred world-wide controversy. He died in September of 1997.
III. Eysenck's Factor Theory
., Hans Eysenck: (1) was more likely to theorize before collecting and
analyzing data; (2) extracted fewer factors; (3) used a wider variety of approaches to gather
data.
A. Criteria for Identifying Factors
Eysenck insisted that personality factors must (1) be based on strong
psychometric evidence, (2) fit an acceptable genetic model, (3) make sense theoretically,
and (4) possess social relevance.
B. Hierarchy of Behavior Organization
Eysenck recognized a four-level hierarchy of behavior organization: (1) specific
behaviors or cognitions; (2) habitual behaviors or cognitions; (3) traits, or personal dispositions,
and (4) types, or superfactors.
IV. Dimensions of Personality
Although many triads exist, Eysenck's methods of measuring personality
limited the number bipolar personality types to only three—extraversion/introversion,
neuroticism/stability, and psychoticism/superego function. Each of three bipolar factors
has a strong genetic component. A. Extraversion
Extraverts are characterized by sociability, impulsiveness, jocularity, liveliness,
optimism, and quick-wittedness, whereas introverts are quiet, passive, unsociable, careful,
reserved, thoughtful, pessimistic, peaceful, sober, and controlled. Eysenck, however, believed
that the principal difference between extraverts and introverts is one of cortical arousal level.
B. Neuroticism
Like extraversion/introversion, neuroticism/stability is largely influenced by genetic factors. People
high in neuroticism have such traits as anxiety, hysteria, and obsessive-compulsive disorders.
They frequently have a tendency to overreact emotionally and to have difficulty returning to a
normal state after
emotional arousal. They often complain of physical symptoms such as headache and backache,
but they also may be free from psychological symptoms.
C. Psychoticism
The latest and weakest of Eysenck's personality factors is
psychoticism/superego. High psychotic scores may indicate anxiety, hysteria, egocentricism,
nonconformance, aggression, immpulsiveness, hostility, and obsessive compulsive disorders.
Both normal and abnormal individuals may score high on the neuroticism scale.
V. Measuring Personality
Eysenck and his colleagues developed four personality inventories to measure
superfactors, or types. The two most frequently used by current researchers is the Eysenck
Personality Inventory (which measures only E and N) and the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (which measures all three factors).
VI. Biological Bases of Personality
Eysenck believed that P, E, and N all have a powerful biological components,
and he cited as evidence the existence of these three types in a wide variety of cultures and
languages. VII. Personality as a Predictor
Eysenck's complex model of personality suggests that the psychometric traits of P, E,
and N can combine with one another and with genetic determinants, biological intermediates, and
experimental studies to predict a variety of social behaviors, including those that contribute to
disease.
A. Personality and Behavior
According to Eysenck's model, P E and N should predict both proximal and
distal consequences (see Figure 14.7 in the text), and he and his colleagues cited studies that
predicted behavior in both laboratory studies and studies of social behavior. They found a
relationship between superfactors and a large number of behaviors and processes, such as
academic performance, creativity, antisocial behavior as well as behaviors that may lead to
disease.
B. Personality and Disease
For many years, Eysenck researched the relationship between personality
factors and disease. He teamed with Ronald Grossarth-Maticek to study the connection between
personality characteristics and both cancer and cardiovascular disease. According to this
research, people with a helpless/hopeless attitude are more likely to die from cancer whereas
people who react to their illness with anger and emotional arousal are more much more likely to
die from cardiovascular disease.
VIII Related Research
The three factor theory of Eysenck has drawn a considerable amount of
research, and is very popular in the field of personality. Eysenck developed the Eysenck
Personality Inventory and its offshoots (Eysenck, 1959; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964, 1968, 1975,
1993). Biology and Personality
Eysenck assumed that personality springs from genetic and neurophysiological bases. If this
assumption has validity, then neurophysiological differences should exist between people high on
one end of a dimension (for instance, introversion) and those high on the other end of that
dimension (extraverts). Second, the basic personality dimensions should be universal and not
limited to a given culture. Over the last 30 years, a substantial amount of research has shown
physiological differences between extraverts and introverts, thus supporting Eysenck's
biology-based theory (Beauducel, Brocke, & Leue, 2006; Eysenck, 1990; Stelmack, 1990, 1997).
Interestingly, one study found that extraverts may move faster but they do not think faster than
introverts (Doucet & Stelmack, 2000). Another of Eysenck’s hypotheses that has generated some
research is optimal level of arousal. Eysenck theorized that introverts should work best
with lower levels of sensory stimulation and extraverts with higher levels (Dornic &
Ekehammer, 1990). Russell Geen studied this (1984), and his findings supported Eysenck’s
theory.
IX. Critique of Factor Theories
The factor theories of Eysenck and others rate high on parsimony, on their
ability to generate research, and on their usefulness in organizing data; they are about
average on falsifiability, usefulness to the practitioner, and internal consistency.
X. Concept of Humanity
Factor theories generally assume that human personality is largely the product
of genetics and not the environment. Thus, we rate these two theories very high on biological
influences and very low on social factors. In addition, we rate both about average on conscious
versus unconscious influences and high on the uniqueness of individuals. The concepts of free
choice, optimism versus pessimism, and causality versus teleology are not clearly addressed by
these theories.
Lecture Outline
I. Overview of Factor and Trait Theories
McCrae, Costa, and others have used factor analysis to identify traits, that is,
relatively permanent dispositions of people. Robert McCrae and Paul Costa have insisted that
the proper number of personality factors is five—no more and no fewer.
II. The Pioneering Work of Raymond B. Cattell
In Chapter12, we saw that Allport used common sense to identify both common
and unique personality traits. In comparison, Raymond Cattell used factor analysis to identify a
large number of traits, including personality traits. Included in personality traits were temperament
traits, which are concerned with how a person behaves. Temperament traits include both normal
and abnormal traits. Of the 23 normal traits, 16 are measured by Cattell's famous 16 PF scale.
III. Basics of Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a mathematical procedure for reducing a large number of
scores to a few general variables or factors. Correlations of the original, specific scores with the
factors are called factor loadings. Traits generated through factor analysis may be either
unipolar (scaled from zero to some large amount) or bipolar (having two opposing poles, such
as introversion and extraversion). For factors to have psychological meaning, the analyst must
rotate the axes on which the scores are plotted. Eysenck used an orthogonal rotation whereas
Cattell favored an obiique rotation. The oblique rotation procedure ordinarily results in more
traits than the orthogonal method.
IV. The Big Five: Taxonomy or Theory?
A large number of researchers, including Robert McCrae and Paul Costa,
Jr., have insisted that all personality structure can be narrowed down to five, and only five,
and no fewer than five dominant traits to emerge from factor analytic techniques.
V. Biographies of Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa, Jr.
Robert McCrae was born April 28, 1949 in Maryville, Missouri, the youngest of three
children. After completing an undergraduate degree in philosophy from Michigan State University,
he earned a PhD in psychology from Boston University. Following the lead of Raymond Cattell, he
began using factor analysis as a means of measuring the structure of human traits. After
completing his academic work, McCrae began working with Paul Costa at the National Institute of
Health, where he is still employed. Paul T. Costa Jr. was born September 16 in Franklin, New
Hampshire. He earned his undergraduate degree in psychology from Clark University and a PhD
from the University of Chicago. In 1978 he began working with Robert McCrae at the National
Institute of Aging, where he continues to conduct research on human development and aging. The
collaboration between Costa and McCrae has been unusually fruitful, with well over 200 co
authored research articles and chapters, and several books.
VI. In Search of the Big Five
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Costa and McCrae, like most other factor
researchers, were building elaborate taxonomies of personality traits, which they were using to
examine the stability and structure of personality. As with many other factor theorists, they
quickly discovered the traits of extraversion (E), neuroticism (N), and openness to experience
(O).
A. Five Factors Found
As late as 1983, McCrae and Costa were arguing for a three-factor model of
personality, but by 1985 they begin to report work on the five factors of personality, having added
agreeableness (A) and conscientiousness (C). Costa and McCrae did not fully develop the A and
C scales until the revised NEO-PI personality inventory appeared in 1992. Recently, the five
factors have been found across a variety of cultures and languages. In addition, the five factors
show some permanence with age; that is, adults tend to maintain a consistent personality
structure as they grow older.
B. Description of the Five Factors
McCrae and Costa agreed with Eysenck that personality traits are basically bipolar,
with some people scoring high on one factor and low on its counterpart. For example, people
who score high on N tend to be anxious, temperamental, self-pitying, self-conscious, emotional,
and vulnerable to stress-related disorders, whereas people with low scores on N tend to have
 opposite characteristics. People who score high on E tend to be affectionate, jovial, talkative, a
joiner, and fun-loving, whereas low E scorers tend to have opposing traits. High O scorers prefer
variety in their life and are contrasted to low O scorers who have a need for closure and who
gain comfort in their association with familiar people and things. People who score high on A
tend to be trusting, generous, yielding, acceptant, and good natured. Low A scorers are
generally suspicious, stingy, unfriendly, irritable, and critical of other people. Finally, people high
on the C scale tend to be ordered, controlled, organized, ambitious, achievement-focused, and
self-disciplined. VII. Evolution of the Five-Factor Theory
Originally, the five factors were simply a taxonomy, a classification of personality traits.
By the late 1980s, Costa and McCrae were confident that they had found a stable structure of
personality. In shaping a theory from the remnants of a taxonomy, McCrae and Costa were
insisting that their personality structure was able to incorporate change and growth into its tenets
and to stimulate empirical research as well as organize research findings. In other words, their
Five-Factor taxonomy was being transformed into a Five-Factor Theory (FFT).
A. Units of the Five-Factor Theory
McCrae and Costa predict behavior through an understanding of three central or core
components and three peripheral ones. The three core components include: (1) basic tendencies,
(2) characteristic adaptations, and (3) self-concept. Basic tendencies are the universal raw
material of personality. Characteristic adaptations are acquired personality structures that develop
as people adapt to their environment. Self-concept refers to knowledge and attitudes about
oneself. Peripheral components include: (1) biological bases, which are the sole cause of basic
tendencies; (2) objective biography, which is everything a person does or thinks over a lifetime;
and (3) external influence, or knowledge, views, and evaluations of the self.
B. Basic Postulates
The two most important core postulates are basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations.
Basic tendencies have four postulates—individuality, origin, development, and structure. The
individuality postulate stipulates that every adult has a unique pattern of traits. The origin
postulate assumes that: all personality traits originate solely from biological factors, such as
genetics, hormones, and brain structures. The development postulate assumes that traits
develop and change through childhood, adolescence, and mid-adulthood. The structure
postulate states that traits are organized hierarchically from narrow and specific to broad and
general.
VIII. Related Research
The five trait theory of McCrae and Costa has drawn a considerable amount of
research, and is very popular in the field of personality. Costa and McCrae have developed a
widely used personality inventory: the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992).
Traits have been linked to vital outcomes such as physical health (Martin,
Friedman, & Schwartz, 2007), well-being (Costa & McCrae, 1980), and academic success
(Noftle & Robins, 2007; Zyphur, Islam, & Landis, 2007). Traits have also been linked to more
everyday outcomes such as mood (McNiel & Fleeson, 2006).
A. Personality and Culture
If personality has a strong biological basis, then the structure of personality should not differ
much from culture to culture. The major traits do appear consistent in most countries of the world
(McCrae, 2002; Poortinga, Van de Vijver, & van Hemert, 2000). Our biological makeup influences
our personalities on similar dimensions such as extraversion or neuroticism; how and when traits
are expressed are influenced by cultural and social context. In short, personality is shaped by
both nature and nurture. B. Traits and Academics
Erik Noftle and Richard Robins (2007) studied the relationship of traits and
academic performance. They found that conscientiousness was the most important trait for
predicting GPAs in high school and college, but not for SAT scores. The “Big 5” factors were not
strong predictors of SAT math scores, but openness was related to SAT verbal scores. These
differences are attributed to differences between aptitude and achievement measured by SATs
versus GPAs. Michael Zyphur and colleagues (2007) studied the relationship between
neuroticism and retaking the SAT. Their findings are important in that high scores on
neuroticism are often viewed negatively, but the anxious tendencies of those high on
neuroticism were very adaptive in this study, because these tendencies led them to retake the
SAT and score higher each time they did.
C. Traits and Emotion
Though the relation between traits and moods has been clear in terms of positivity vs. negativity to
early researchers, what has not been clear is causality: Does the trait cause the experience of a
positive or negative mood, or does the experience of that mood and its emotions cause people to
behave in ways concordant with the traits? And similarly, does the mood cause the behavior, or
does the behavior cause the mood? Murray McNiel and William Fleeson (2006) studied the
direction of causality for the relationships between extraversion and positive mood, and
neuroticism and negative mood. They wanted to know if behaving in an extraverted manner
causes people to have positive feelings and behaving in a neurotic manner causes them to have
negative feelings. Their results showed that when people act in a certain way, their behavior does
indeed influence their mood to fit the behavior. On the other hand, Michael Robinson and Gerald
Clore (2007) have found recently that individual differences in the speed of processing information
can influence the relationship between neuroticism and negative mood, such that not everybody
who scores high on neuroticism experiences more negative emotion. They discovered that people
who process environmental stimuli faster do not need to rely on neuroticism to interpret events
and interpret their environment objectively, whereas slower processors are more subjective in their
evaluations by relying on trait dispositions to interpret events. So those high on neuroticism but
fast at processing did not report any more negative emotion than those low on neuroticism. These
results show that the early research findings that extraversion is related to positive mood and
neuroticism to negative mood, while not inaccurate, do not give the full picture of the complex
relationship between traits and emotions. In sum, even though your traits predispose you to
certain types of behavior, your actions can override those dispositions.
IX. Critique of Trait and Factor Theories
The factor theories of Eysenck and of McCrae and Costa rate high on
parsimony, on their ability to generate research, and on their usefulness in organizing data; they
are about average on falsifiability, usefulness to the practitioner, and internal consistency.
X. Concept of Humanity
Factor theories generally assume that human personality is largely the product of genetics
and not the environment. Thus, we rate these two theories very high on biological influences
and very low on social factors. In addition, we rate both about average on conscious versus
unconscious influences and high on the uniqueness of individuals. The concepts of free
choice, optimism versus pessimism, and causality versus teleology are not clearly addressed
by these theories.
DISPOSITIONAL THEORIES - CATTELL
Overview of Factor Analytic Theory
Raymond Cattell and Hans Eysenck have each used factor analysis to identify traits (that is,
relatively permanent dispositions of people). Cattell has identified a large number of personality
traits, whereas Eysenck has extracted only three general factors.
Biography of Raymond B. Cattell
Raymond B. Cattell was born in England in 1905, educated at the University of London, but spent
most of his professional career in the United States. He held positions at Columbia University,
 Clark University, Harvard University, and the University of Illinois, where he spent most of his
active career. During the last 20 years of his life, he was associated with the Hawaii School of
Professional Psychology. He died in 1998, a few weeks short of his 93rd birthday.
Basics of Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a mathematical procedure for reducing a large number of scores to a few more
general variables or factors. Correlations of the original, specific scores with the factors are called
factor loadings. Traits generated through factor analysis may be either unipolar (scaled from zero
to some large amount) or bipolar (having two opposing poles, such as introversion and
extraversion). For factors to have psychological meaning, the analyst must rotate the axes on
which the scores are plotted. Eysenck used an orthogonal rotation whereas Cattell favored an
oblique rotation. The oblique rotation procedure ordinarily results in more traits than the orthogonal
method.
Introduction to Cattell's Trait Theory
Cattell used an inductive approach to identify traits; that is, he began with a large body of data that
he collected with no preconceived hypothesis or theory.
P Technique
Cattell's P technique is a correlational procedure that uses measures collected from
one person on many different occasions and is his attempt to measure individual or
unique, rather than common, traits. Cattell also used the dR (differential R) technique,
which correlates the scores of a large number of people on many variables obtained at
two different occasions. By combining these two techniques, Cattell has measured both
states (temporary conditions within an individual) and traits (relatively permanent
dispositions of an individual).
Media of Observation
Cattell used three different sources of data that enter the correlation matrix: (1) L data,
or a person's life record that comes from observations made by others; (2) Q data,
which are based on questionnaires; and (3) T data, or information obtained from
objective tests.
Source Traits
Source traits refer to the underlying factor or factors responsible for the intercorrelation among
surface traits. They can be distinguished from trait indicators, or surface traits.
Personality Traits
Personality traits include both common traits (shared by many people) and unique traits (peculiar
to one individual). Personality traits can also be classified into temperament, motivation (dynamic),
and ability.
Temperament Traits
Temperament traits are concerned with how a person behaves. Of the 35 primary or
first-order traits Cattell has identified, all but one (intelligence) is basically a
temperament trait. Of the 23 normal traits, 16 were obtained through Q media and
compose Cattell's famous 16 PF scale. The additional seven factors that make up the
23 normal traits were originally identified only through L data. Cattell believed that
pathological people have the same 23 normal traits as other people, but, in addition,
they exhibit one or more of 12 abnormal traits. Also, a person's pathology may simply
be due to a normal trait that is carried to an extreme.
Second-Order Traits
The 35 primary source traits tend to cluster together, forming eight clearly identifiable
second-order traits. The two strongest of the second-order traits might be called
extraversion/introversion and anxiety.
Dynamic Traits
In addition to temperament traits, Cattell recognized motivational or dynamic traits, which include
attitudes, ergs, and sems.
Attitudes
An attitude refers to a specific course of action, or desire to act, in response to a given
situation. Motivation is usually quite complex, so that a network of motives, or dynamic
lattice, is ordinarily involved with an attitude. In addition, a subsidiation chain, or a
complex set of subgoals, underlies motivation.
Ergs
Ergs are innate drives or motives, such as sex, hunger, loneliness, pity, fear, curiosity, pride,
sensuousness, anger, and greed that humans share with other primates.
Sems
Sems are learned or acquired dynamic traits that can satisfy several ergs at the same
time. The self-sentiment is the most important sem in that it integrates the other sems.
The Dynamic Lattice
The dynamic lattice is a complex network of attitudes, ergs, and sems underlying a
person's motivational structure.
Genetic Basis of Traits
Cattell and his colleagues provided estimates of heritability of the various source traits. Heritability
is an estimate of the extent to which the variance of a given trait is due to heredity. Cattell has
found relatively high heritability values for both fluid intelligence (the ability to adapt to new
material) and crystallized intelligence (which depends on prior learning), suggesting that
intelligence is due more to heredity than to environment.
BECK & ELLIS
Aaron Beck - considered to be “the father of cognitive behavioral therapy.” It all began when Beck
started to notice that his patients with depression frequently verbalized thoughts that were objectively
untrue. • He was able to pinpoint a set of characteristic “cognitive distortions” in their thinking patterns,
leading him to start viewing depression as a cognitive disorder rather than a mood disorder. • He
published Cognitive Therapy for Depression (Beck, Rush, Shaw, and Emery, 1979) after conducting a
study that demonstrated the effectiveness of CBT.
CBT is an intensive, short-term (six to 20 sessions), problem-oriented approach. It was designed to be
quick, practical and goal-oriented and to provide people with long term skills to keep them healthy. The
focus of CBT is on the here-and now—on the problems that come up in a person’s day-to-day life
It is not events that bother us. Instead, it is the way that we interpret events – the meaning that we give
to them – that gives rise to our feelings. This explains why two people experiencing the same event can
react in completely different ways. ABC MODEL Activating event Belief Consequence
 3 Categories of Irrational Beliefs
⮚Demands about self
⮚Demands about others
⮚Demands about the world and/or life condition

Irrational Beliefs about Competence and Success

“Because I strongly desire to get A’s in all subjects, I “must” get all A’s at all times to do perfectly
well”
Irrational Beliefs about Love and Approval
“Because I strongly desire to be loved by someone, I absolutely “must” always have his/her
LEVELS OF COGNITION
approval”
Automatic Thoughts Irrational Beliefs about being Treated Unfairly
“pops” into your mind and shapes the particular emotion experienced (e.g., fear, annoyance, excitement) “Because I strongly desire somebody to treat me considerately and fairly, he/she absolutely
and the resulting behavior (e.g.escape, confrontation). Talking to other people for the first time: “She’ll “must” do so at all times and under all conditions because I am always considerate and fair to
think I’m an idiot” them”.
Unconditional Self Acceptance
Intermediate Thoughts
Rules – I should / I must ⮚Individuals have worth
“I must always be on my guard or else I will be hurt” ⮚They should accept that they make mistakes and that some of their assets and qualities are
Assumptions- If then stronger than others.
“If I work hard then no-one will find out how useless I am” ⮚Individuals’ acts or performances should be criticized, not their personal worth
Unconditional Other Acceptance
Core Beliefs
Self “I am I am useless / unlovable / stupid” 1. I am a fallible human being: I have my good points and bad points.
Others “Other people are critical / cruel / uncaring” 2. There is no reason why I must not have flaws.
World “The world is cold/ unfair” 3. Despite my good points and bad points, I am no more worthy or less worthy than any other
The deepest level of cognition. We are not born with them, but rather they are the product of our life human being.
experiences.
4. Other people will treat me unfairly from time to time
Cognitive Distortions 5. I should not expect other people to treat me fairly from time to time.
6. The people who treat me unfairly are no more worthy or no less worthy than any other human
being.
Unconditional Life Acceptance
1.Life does not always work out the way that I’d like it to.
2.I should not expect that life will always go the way I like it to.
3.Life is not necessarily pleasant but it is never awful and it is nearly always bearable
Low Frustration Tolerance
Individuals who cannot tolerate frustration easily are more likely to be disturbed than those who
can. (Harrington 2005)
High Frustration Tolerance
⮚I will acknowledge that human life is full of many troubles, difficulties, misfortunes, and
injustices and that they will often continue to prevail.
⮚I will do my best to change what I can about these troubles, to accept (but not like) what I
RATIONAL EMOTIVE AND BEHAVIORAL THERAPY cannot change, and to have the wisdom to know the difference
Flexible Thinking
ALBERT ELLIS
⮚I can largely control and limit my emotional and behavioral disturbances. ⮚I’d better take many
Irrational Beliefs - Statements individuals tell themselves that create dysfunctional consequences such things seriously, but not too seriously, and make many projects important but not sacred. ⮚I can
as anger, depression, or anxiety live comfortably without certainty or perfection.
⮚I will watch my tendencies to over-generalize, carelessly label and stereotype, and strive to be 3 Main levels of Analysis in Psychology
open-minded and less severely prejudiced. 1. Micro - Smallest units of psychological measure which are within a person (eg. brain
waves, hormones).
2. Molecular - units of observable behavior of a person alone or in a situation (usually
REBT Counseling Strategies and Techniques small group) (e.g. body language, reaction time).
3. Molar - the largest units of psychological measure of a person or people within the
context of a larger social setting (racism, adolescents across cultures).

Kahalagahan ng Konteksto
• Anumang penomenong sikolohikal ay nagmula/hinubog/binuo mula sa isang konteksto.
• Samakatuwid hindi hiwalay ang konteksto at sikolohiya.

INTRO TO SIKOLOHIYANG PILIPINO Ano ang Kultura (Konteksto)

Sikolohiya • Sistema ng pagpapakahulugan na nagsasaayos ng pagkilos ng tao o grupo ng mga tao.
• Is the science of mind, brain, and behavior • Kaalamang bahagi/ibinabahagi sa grupo
• Banyagang disiplina (Tinaguriang “Mainstream Psychology”) • Anu-ano ang mga napapaloob dito?
• Naglalarawan sa kung ano meron tayo
• Nagdidikta ng kung ano ang masasabing reyalidad
3 Psychologies
- Cultural Psychology
- Cross-Cultural Psychology
- Indigenous Psychology
(Theoretical, Conceptual and Epistemological Foundations)
3 Psychologies are influenced by the three research traditions in Psychology
Universalist - Etic approach, which emphasizes similarities of cultures/humans
Integrationist - Culture should be understood from its own frame of reference Purist Indigenous
Psychology
Contextualist - The need to integrate knowledge by indigenous psychologies and crosscultural
testing of the psychological theories to arrive at a verified universal knowledge. Indigenization
from within Indigenization from without.
CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• Universalism without the uniformity
• The study of mentalities rather than the study of the minds
• Mind = totality of actual and potential conceptual contents of human cognitive processes
• Mentality = Actual cognitive functioning of a particular person or people
cultural group under investigation – Ho (1998, p. 94). Anumang LIKAS sa ating KULTURA
(kasama ang iba pang pagpapakahulugan, paglalarawan at katangiang nabanggit sa ikalawang
pagsasanay) ay KATUTUBO
Sikolohiyang Pilipino bilang Katutubong Sikolohiya
• “scientific study of the ethnicity, society and culture of a people & the application to
psychological practice of indigenous knowledge rooted in people’s ethnic heritage &
consciousness” – Enriquez (1994)
• “study of human behavior and mental processes within a cultural context that relies on values,
concepts, belief systems, methodologies and other resources indigenous to the specific ethnic or
cultural group under investigation – Ho (1998, p. 94).
• Anumang LIKAS sa ating KULTURA (kasama ang iba pang pagpapakahulugan, paglalarawan
at katangiang nabanggit Samakatuwid, ito ay pagsasakunteksto ng kaalaman, konsepto, teorya
atbp
Enriquez (1979) coined the terms
Indigenization from within (culture-as-source) - indigenous psychology native psychology
that is not transplanted from other cultures.
Indigenization from without (culture-as-target) - Indigenization adaptation of psychology
originating in other cultures (Adair, 1992)

WHAT IS CULTURE?
4 Aspects of Indigenization
• A culture is a socially transmitted or socially constructed constellation consisting of such things
1. Theoretical and conceptual indigenization - development of indigenous concepts and
as practices, competencies, ideas, schemas, symbols, values, norms, institutions, goals,
theoretical frameworks.
constitutive rules, artifacts, and modifications of the physical environment.
2. Methodological indigenization - adaptation or development of instruments and methods that
• Gertz (1973) - culture is an interpretive search for meaning.
are culturally appropriate.
• D’Andrade (1984) - learned systems of meaning.
3. Topical Indigenization - The extent to which the topics under study are relevant to the
concerns of the society and people.
FORMS OF CULTURE 4. Institutional indigenization - the extent to which institutional and organizational structures
• Gender and processes support the creation and diffusion of indigenous psychological knowledge.
• Religion
• Socioeconomic Status / Social Class Pagsasakatutubo (indigenization)
• Region of country. - Pagsasakatutubo mula sa labas (Indigenization from without)
• Pag-angkin
CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY • Involves transporting and transforming psychological theories, concepts and methods, and
• is the scientific study of human behavior and mental process, including both their variability and modifying them to fit the local cultural context.
invariance, under diverse cultural conditions.
• It intends to purify psychological knowledge by searching for possible universals in behavior Pagsasakatutubo (indigenization)
and mental processes. - Pagsasakatutubo mula sa loob (Indigenization from within)
• Paanong maisasakatutubo ang katutubo na?
INDIGENOUS PSYCHOLOGY • Pagpapalitaw
“scientific study of the ethnicity, society and culture of a people & the application to psychological • Cultural revalidation; Cultural verification
practice of indigenous knowledge rooted in people’s ethnic heritage & consciousness” –
• Development of indigenous concepts, theories and methods
Enriquez (1994)
• A shift in the scientific paradigm

“Study of human behavior and mental processes within a cultural context that relies on values,
concepts, belief systems, methodologies and other resources indigenous to the specific ethnic or
Ang Pagsasakatutubo ay…
• “development of a national social science community that is self-reliant, self-sufficient and
self-directing, in other words autonomous and independent, with respect to all aspects of the
vital functions of the community, including its ability to relate to other communities on an equal or
reciprocal basis” (Loubser, 1974: p.2)
• Samakatuwid, ito ay tinitingnan bilang isang hakbangin tungo sa pagiging malaya at maunlad
ng disiplina. Ngunit ito ay nakatuon sa pagsasama-sama ng mga indibidwal at grupo
Kahalagahan ng pagsasakatutubo
• Pangkalahatan: Nagpapalawak sa disiplina, Nagwawasto ng mga may pagkiling at/o di
wastong na pananaw hinggil sa isang paksa sa isang partikular na kunteksto
• Pilipino: Nagbibigay-linaw sa pag-unawa sa ating pagkatao at nagpapalaya sa ating kaisipan
mula sa nakasanayang sikolohiya.
Lakas at Kahinaan ng Katutubong Sikolohiya
Lakas
Angkop sa pag-aaral ng sikolohiya at kunteksto Isinasaalang-alang ang kahalagan ng kultura
Nakatuon sa pagpapaunlad/pagbubuo ng mga teorya at metodolohiyang angkop sa konteksto
Kahinaan Isyu ng paglalahat (Generalization)
Masyadong nakatuon sa partikular
- Ang teorya tungkol sa pagkatao o pag-iisip ng mga tao, base man sa lokal o dayuhang
perspektiba
– kung paano bibigyang pakaulugan ang katauhan ng isang pilipino base sa mga teorya at
paraan ng pag-iisip sa sikolohiya - Palasak na anyo ng sikolohiya
- Kabuuan o pangkalahatang anyo ng sikolohiya sa Pilipinas
– bago agn SP ay sandyang maka-kanluran
- Pinagsamang dayuhan at katutubong orentasyon ng sikolohiya - The State of Psychology in
general
- Ang nilalayong anyo ng sikolohiya sa Pilipinas base o bunga ng karanasan, kaisipan, at
orentasyong Pilipino - Kultural na pagpapatibay ng sikolohiyang Metodo, Teorya, Panukat, at
Konsepto - Psychology na rooted sa isang kultura
Kailangan ba ang SP?
•Dahil marami sa ating napag-aralan ukol sa sikolohiya ang hindi angkop sa mga karanasan at
kultura natin bilang Pilipino. At kadalasan, ang mga kaalamang ito ay ang siyang ginagamit
upang unawain ang mga Pilipino. Nakita ng mga tagapagtaguyod ng SP na ang sitwasyong ito
ay nakakasamasa atin.
• Ang pagkakaiba ng oryentasyon ay nagdudulot ng hindi pagkakaunawaan (bahala na ->
fatalism)
•Napaka-kanluranin ng oryentasyon ng pagtuturo ng sikolohiya ngayon, sa teorya at maging sa
metodo. •Halimbawa, kung may research ka, ang iisipin mo agad--experiments, questionnaires
at psychological tests na gagamitin mo.