Transcription
Good afternoon, good morning, good evening, everyone, to whatever time you are watching this lecture session. And we are geared towards the few chapters of, uh, the theories of personality. When I say cognitive theories of personality, they focus on the process of the information and coding and retrieval and kung paano ba o ano ba ang ganap ng expectations ng motives ng goals, ah, ng emotions ng beliefs sa development ng patterns of characteristics ng isang individual ng personality in the lightest.
You would notice that cognitive theories of personality is much anchored on cognitive psychology, and I know that you are not yet that familiar with cognitive psychology, so bigyan ko rin kayo ng overview. When we say cognitive psychology, it focuses or centers on the principle that human cognition is understood in a more scientific method. Ibig sabihin, yung individual components ng mental processes natin could be under identified and understood. And to understand this, meron ng algorithm or meron ng systematic functions ito para mas madali ninyong maipaliwanag. Kasi, hangga't maaari, nilalayo tayo ng mga cognitive theorist doon sa science na hindi empirically based.
And you would notice that kasi yung mga theorist natin, especially yung una-una nating idi-discuss, is a physics major and a mathematics major. So para sa kanya, syempre, may order; things has to make sense rather than focusing on early childhood development or on the pain and suffering of people, ba? Let's have a more systematic way of understanding personality tayo. So for a more understandable description, cognitive psychology is the scientific study of the mind. Sabi ko nga, as an information processor, kasi as we process information, the information that we have will affect our behavior. And ano yung role ng mga cognitive psychologist? Is to create models through research, syempre, and experimentation. [Musika] Models that helps us understand information processing that goes on each one's mind, and it includes our attention, yung memory, yung language, yung consciousness, yung sensation and perception; lahat ng iyan ay internal mental processes.
Let's look at this example. Uh, what you see here is a box. As I have surveyed my students earlier, they said it's a green box. Sabi ni iba, a yellow-green box. Ma'am, it's more yellow and green. Sabi naman isa, it's green and yellow. Just for this instance, let's settle that it's yellow-green. May part na yellow, may part na green. But as you close your eyes, my instruction is to think of that cube. Tapos yung cube ay hatiin mo sa dalawa. It's up to you kung paano mo hatiin. Ngayon, nung hinati mo siya sa iyong imagination, nagbago yung color niya. Yung color niya naging pink. At nung naging pink siya, ito ba yung shade ng pink? I don't know. Kasi iba-iba tayo ng perception. Pwedeng yung iba sasabihin, "Ma'am, hindi po ma'am, opo Ma'am, mas dark pa po diyan. Ganito po ba ka-dark?" Ay, ma'am, hindi po. Mas matingkad pa po diyan.
But what am I saying? What I'm trying to pinpoint is we all have our own internal processes. We all have our own interpretation of things. I may be offended with, offended with a particular action while others wouldn't be. Kasi meron tayong kanya-kanyang pag-unawa sa mga bagay-bagay. Kaya hindi nakakagulat na may war, 'di ba? May mga misunderstandings, kasi we have different ways of constructing the world. And itong mental processes na to, we do it everyday. We engage in it everyday. From the moment that you wake up, magde-decide ka, what do I do? What do I do? What do I prioritize? What do I play? What do I read? Will I read? Will I sleep? Will I eat? How much will I eat? Yan yung simple decision-making process natin. It involves cognitive functions. At ito yung isa sa gustong i-pinpoint ni George Kelly. Sabi niya, "It occur to me that what seemed true of myself was probably no less true of others. And if I initiated my actions, so did they." Like this, kasi hinahayaan tayo na magkaroon ng sariling mga perceptions. At tinawag ito ni Kelly na personal construct.
Pero sino ba 'to? Si Kelly, bago tayo magpunta don sa personal construct theory niya. He graduated with a degree in physics and mathematics, and he was primarily interested with social problems when he started to join the college debate team in his university. So he moved from one college to another to teach varied subjects until such time that he was able to have his advanced degree in education. Tapos pagbalik, he majored and completed his PhD at the State University of Iowa, and then he returned to Kansas to teach physiological psychology. Kung ako, ah, iniisip ko siya, jojowain to, tropain? Parang mas jojowain, kasi sobrang ka-nakakita, 'di ba, ng very interested sa math and statistics and physics, nota? Tapos um, nag-PhD in psychology, nag-nag-advanced degree in education. So talented, and he decided to become a psychotherapist later on for college and high school students in a specific community. Tapos yung si Julian Rotter, saka yung isa pang idi-discuss natin, si Walter Michelle, ay meron silang acquaintance sa isa't isa. But then, mas nakilala siya sa work niya na psychology of personal constructs. It's one is said to be one of his most famous outputs. And it says, itong personal construct theory niya says that people anticipate events by the meaning or by the meaning of things or by the interpretation that they place on this particular event. Ma'am, what do you mean? I act based on how I interpret, and I anticipate based on how I think. Ganun yung ibig sabihin non. So bigyan pa natin ng mas malalim na discussion. So his theory, PCT, is also called a meta-theory. Mamaya idi-discuss ko bakit siya naging meta-theory. But primarily, when we say meta-theory, it's a theory about theories. Okay. Um, in what aspect namin maiintindihan, ma'am? Mamaya pag nakita ninyo yung corolaries. Now, second bullet muna tayo. He said that people anticipate events by the meanings or interpretations they place on those events. So if I see that I'm not really doing well, then kaya kong i-anticipate ano yung mga possible na mangyari.
Remember, ang goal natin sa psychology, it's describe, understand, predict, and control. Describe, law na lang sa field ng abnormal psychology, we describe and understand, 'di ba? We diagnose. But before that, we we try to understand the etiology. What are the root causes of this? What are the contributory factors? What are the precipitory factors? Tapos, describe, understand, predict, anticipate, because alam mo, meron ka ng primary information, then you could anticipate what are the prognoses of this particular disorder. Ang paano maaapektuhan yung tao. Now you can control, hindi manipulate; control in the sense that kaya mong magkaroon ng intervention, preventive action para hindi maging um, at stake yung mental health or kung ano man yung magiging at stake doon sa situation na na-identify natin. And tayo din ganito in the way we act in our behaviors. We anticipate events based on the meanings or interpretation we place on those events, and we assess events. Hindi ka ah, manliligaw kung alam mo na wala kang chance doon sa tao. Hindi ka magta-try kung alam mong wala kang opportunity na or wala kang wala man kahit the slimmest opportunity na mapili yung work mo. Meron yan, and you're trying to anticipate, and just in case na hindi ka matanggap, meron ka na ring mga back plan. Okay lang yun, at least nag-try ako.
Third bullet: people is shaped by interpretation or construction of the world, our behavior particularly. So based sa nakikita ko, then kaya kong i-adjust yung behavior ko. Let's say I am having a good day. Pero may nangyari at home pag-uwi ko. So what do I do? Will I still be bubbly and all? Syempre, ikaw makikiramdam ka. So na-interpret mo, okay, there's something wrong. Then ikaw magiging sensitive ka. You're able to adjust your behavior.
Fourth bullet: every construction is open to revision or replacement. This is what I like the most about his theory. Sabi niya, "Merong tayong capability to revise or to change or to alter kung ano man yung mga sa tingin natin na weak na interpretation natin or inappropriate interpretation that we hold to." Ito yung philosophical position niya para mas madali nating maintindihan. We are a person acting like a scientist, and like scientist, we ask questions. We formulate hypothesis, we test our hypothesis, we draw conclusions, and we try to predict the future events, and like scientist, we gather data. Okay ba 'to? Okay ba 'to? Okay ba 'tong proof na 'to? O paano ba 'to? Mahirap ba 'to? O paano ba yung technique dito? Vine-verify natin yung truth na meron na available sa atin through the data that we have. I'm not pertaining to research itself, no. Pero tayong mga tao, as a scientist, may process. Meron kayong set of beliefs. And yung set of beliefs na yan, it did not come randomly. Meron kayong mga backup kung bakit ganyan ang panana mo sa mundo. At the same time, we are a scientist, and that scientist ba is also a person. We know that scientists can also be seen as people, and yung mga pronouncements nila, yung mga declarations nila, should be regarded with the same skepticism. We're not all-knowing, not perfect, um, limitations. Meron din tayong mga distorted na mga paniniwala. At dito papasok yung constructive alternativism na lahat ng mga interpretation natin currently about the world or about the universe are subject to revision or replacement. If we realize that it is worth to change it. Let's say you have a friend, tapos bago mo siya naging friend, hindi mo siya gusto kasi meron kang initial na impression sa kanya. But as you got to know that person, nagbago yung perspective mo sa kanya. What happened? You had constructive alternativism. You revised your perspective about that person or the interpretation tungkol sa ginagawa niya. And we have a lot of this, ba? Yung mga back story, bakit siya ganyan, bakit siya pumapasok nung una, we easily judge that person and say na ang tamad niyang mag-aral, pero yun pala ay meron siyang ibang bagay na inaattend other than studying. Pero tayo, a lot of us are quick to conclude about people. Pero ang kagandahan nga, we could still revise that. Parang sa akin, pwedeng magbago yung tao.
Moving on. So personal construct theory. Ito na nga sinasabi ko para kay George Kelly. We exist in a real world, but our behavior raw is shaped gradually by our interpretation or construction of this world. And the way we constru the world and the way we uh interpret it is always open to revision and replacement. Note that we are not victims of circumstances para kay Kelly, kasi lagi namang available yung alternative constructions. But when we hold on to certain constructs and we do not let go of it even though when we think that it doesn't help us, doon nagkakaproblema. Okay. So constructive alternativism is implied in theory, in theory of Kelly na personal construct a theory he expressed in one basic postulate and 11 corollaries. Supporting corollaries. Mamaya niyo idi-discuss ko. And itong basic postulate assumes that tayong mga tao are active, and our activity is guided by the way we anticipate events. That's why you're here. Baka meron kang sariling timeline at ina-anticipate mo na mahalaga yung particular na event na to. L is description of personality in terms of cognitive process. Paano ba? Sabi niya, "We are capable of thinking, we are capable of interpreting, and we are understanding individuals. And because of that, we can predict behavior as well." Tapos kada isang tao daw ay merong tinatawag na construct system. Ito daw yung unique pattern na ginagamit natin para tingnan yung mundo. Ma'am, sabi ka po ng sabi ng construct. Ano po ba yung construct? Ang construct sa theory ni Kelly is an intellectual hypothesis that we devise and use to interpret or explain live events. So constructs are abroad. There are constructs that are bipolar. There are constructs that are dichotomous. What do you mean, ma'am? Um, ang konsepto po ma'am sa sa ganda ay maputi at hindi. Okay, that's yours. Ma'am, dalawa lang po sa akin. Ah, tall or short; walang katamtaman. Okay ba? May honest versus dishonest, or ma'am, it's either you were honest or you were dishonest, regardless kung ano yung dahilan mo. May tinatawag kasi tayo na white lies, ba? Kahit na para i-surprise mo ako, nagsinungaling ka. Pag nagsinungaling ka, nagsinungaling ka. Masama na yun sa akin. Pwede ka namang mag-surprise ng hindi ka nagsisinungaling. Parang yun yung construct niya. And we have to respect that kasi we're all entitled to have that. Ayun nga lang, sabi ko nga, nagkakaroon lang ng problem kapag the constructs that we hold are not uh, it's not congruent with others. Doon pumapasok yung conflict.
Now, um, another thing, no, bago ako mag-move on dito sa postulate na to, let's say you had a friend, tapos itong friend mo na to, nagkwento siya. Sabi niya, "Alam mo, be, nung isang araw, may nag-message siya sa akin. Sabi niya, excited daw siyang makatulong kasi daw nakaka-relate daw siya sa mga walang-wala nung mahirap pa siya." May ganong back story. Tapos sabi daw nung nag-chat sa kanya, magse-send daw siya via GCash. Tapos nag-send naman, pero small amount lang. Sabi niya, gusto daw niya na mag-send ulit. Kaya lang, may limit na daw yung GCash nung friend, no? Tapos sabi nung gusto na mag-send, ah, ibigay daw yung personal details kasi daw magba-bank transfer na lang daw siya. Tapos sa bank, sa bank transfer, hiningi yung pangalan niya, yung birthday niya, tapos saan siya nakatira. Tapos um, full name, syempre, middle, middle name, ganyan, basta full details. Tapos sabi daw nung bank, sabi sa kan dun sa magta-transfer, ah, kailangan daw ng OTP na ise-send para daw mag-proceed yung transaction. Dalawang OTP daw, paki-chat na lang daw in order. So itong friend naman nagpadala ng OTP, as a result, sabi niya, ano nangyari? Tumahimik na lang daw si friend. Tapos nung sa mga previous classes ko, tinanong ko sila, "Ano sa tingin niyo yun?" Habang kinikwento ko to just earlier, "Ano sa tingin niyo yun?" Maraming sumagot, sobrang bilis. Ma-scam. Ngayon, ang tanong, bakit hindi agad nagets nung friend nung na-scam na scam yun? Pero kung ikaw kinikwentuhan be, scam yan, hindi mo ba alam yun? Sa kanya, kasi wala siyang available construct na related sa scam, kaya hindi niya naget, hindi niya na-anticipate na okay, scam pala yun. A lot of times, we think that a person is not smart. We say that a person is not thrifty. Pero baka wala lang silang concept non, or wala silang construct tungkol doon. Hindi siya kasama sa construct system nung tao. Maaaring dahil hindi pa niya na-experience o hindi siya nagig-hindi nagkaroon ng opportunity na ma-acquint siya doon. Yung background kasi nung friend na na-scam, um, hindi siya masyado into online banking. Kaya nung naka-encounter siya ng ganon, hindi niya agad na-recognize. Pero yung kinikwentuhan be, na-scam ka niya. Oo nga eh. Paano mo nalaman? Sabi niya, marami na rin akong na-scam. Pero dun sa example ko, hindi ko sinasabi na kailangan mong maranasan para matuto ka. No, pero yung constructs na available sa atin, yun yung ginagamit natin. O kaya may nagmagandang loob sa'yo. Tapos ang tanong mo, anong kailangan mo? K, nag-chat sa'yo ng hi be, anong gawa mo? Or anong kumain ka na? To's ang reply mo kaagad, hindi kita bet. Bakit gan? Kasi baka doon sa construct, you, you're anticipating that that person is going to lay an intention na ng fling or manligaw. It's ikaw, blinak mo na kaagad. Yun pala, nagiging friendly lang siya kasi hindi naman ganun yung construct niya ng panliligaw. So we have different constructs.
Papunta tayo sa slide na to. A person's processes are psychologically channeled by the ways in which he anticipates events. So to put it into simplers, yung understanding natin, yung personal constructs natin, yung actions natin, and yung belief system natin is all dependent on what we anticipate. Affected yung world view natin. Halimbawa, um, noon, mga 4:00, lalabas ka, so nag-get up ka, tapos kumuha ka ng shades, tapos anong ginawa mo doon sa shades? Sinuot mo. Tapos nung sinuot mo, lumabas ka. Yung yung color ng shades mo ay brown. Paglabas mo, nagtaka ka, bakit ang dilim? Kahit saan ka tumingin, madilim. Uulan ba? Pero naka-shades ka. Ibig sabihin, ganun din ano yung lens na ginagamit? Yun yung makakaapekto sa pagtingin natin sa mundo. There are times that we wear colored lenses. There are times that we wear dark shade glasses. Gusto ko yung example na nito eh na gamit yung salamin e. And yung mga constructs na pinanghahawakan natin, yung personal construct system natin, gives color to our perception, and it also, it shapes our behavior in short, right? So might as well check ano ba yung mga constructs na pwede nating i-revise pa? O as you i-meet new people, magbabago yan, magma-mature tayo. We will learn from our mistakes. And that's that's what's positive para sa akin nung nung nire-read ko ulit itong topic na to. No, it's it gives hope for humanity kasi pwede ka palang magbago. Ayun. Ganun din yung another example. When you look at a person through his or her mistakes, mas makikita mo lang palagi yung mistakes ng tao kasi yung suot mong lens e. So the construct system that you hold on to affects your world view as well. Sabi ko earlier that his theory is a meta-theory. Um, it is a theory of theories, and it is supported by 11 corollaries. Magbibigay ako ng example para mas madali ninyong maintindihan. Tapos syempre, available din naman ito sa F and F na book. Construction corolary. It says that we anticipate future events according to our anticipation or interpretation of recurring themes in our lives. So ano ba yung mga theory na merong ganito na construction corolary? I think kasama dito yung behaviorism, kasi we know we anticipate things based on what keeps happening. Learning yun, 'di ba? May nire-reward, may pina-punish. So dahil alam ko nirere-reward ako, I'll just keep doing it. That's an example of a construction corolary. Another one, individuality corolary. It holds that people have different experiences and therefore constru events in different ways. Okay, parang shades, no? Ah, okay, individuality corolary, yung hawak o yung ginagamit ni Alfred Odler nung iniisip niya yung subjective perceptions, 'di ba? O subjective perceptions yun, ma'am, ah. So individuality corolary yung meron kung ginamit ni Adler doon sa part na iyon. Another one, organization corolary. We organize our personal constructs in a hierarchical system. Ano ba yung mayroon? Ah, merong organization corolary ba for you to uh, understand the human behavior. Tingnan mo daw ano yung pina-prioritize nila. What motivates them to do so? Baka kaya hindi siya makapag ah, kapwa tao dahil 'yun pa eh, 'yun pala ay meron siyang basic needs na gustong i-satisfy. Baka kaya wala siya sa mood kasi kulang siya sa tulog, which affects other ah, daily functioning. Marami pa yan. Merong dichotomy corolary, may choice corolary, but go ahead and check it out. It's also fun to look at it. Maraming kasing nalilito tungkol dito, but as you go through it, you will appreciate its simplicity as well. Medyo ano lang, you just need to familiarize yourself with the terminologies kasi it's it appears to be very deep. Pero if you get the concept, it will be a lot easier.
Move on tayo to Julian Rotter. So ang pangalan ng theory ni Julian Rotter is social learning theory. He served as an army psychologist, and after the war, he took the job at Ohio State University where he met Walter Michelle. Tapos itong si Julian Rotter was also interested back then with the work of Freud and Adler, ba? Adler and Freud. Ito yung five basic uh, hypothesis of the social learning theory, SLT. Parang may part na, excuse me, in-adopt niya yung yung postulates ng personal construct theory. Pero ito nga, first, sabi ni Julian Rotter, humans interact with their meaningful environment. And when I say that, our reaction daw to the events happening around us depends on how much we give value to it and ano yung interpretation natin tungkol doon. So a lot of things could happen around the world, but do you care about it? So we interact with our own meaningful environments. Human personality, second bullet, is learned para kay Rotter. As long as people are capable of learning, hindi natatapos yung development ng personality. And this personality that we have can only be determined by our age or the genetics. It's a lifelong process. Third, personality has a basic unit. It is stable over time, and it evaluates personality, evaluates experiences with new ones. We are able to adjust as we learn about things. Tapos, four, motivation is goal-directed. Human behavior lies on people's expectations na whatever we do could lead to the realization of our goals in life o kung ano man yung purpose ng o intentions mo sa paggawa ng particular na behavior na yon. And lastly, people daw are capable of anticipating behavior. Ito rin yung sinabi natin earlier. We can predict and anticipate events, and meron nga lang mga considerations na sinabi ito si Julian Rotter. Paano daw? Let me use my [Musika] clicker there. Behavior potential. It is the possibility daw that a particular response will occur at a given time and place in relation to its likely uh, of being reinforced. Simplehan lang natin. Behavior potential. Example, si Maria walking by a restaurant. Maraming mga behavior na pwedeng gawin si Maria, at lahat ng yon ay may potensyal. Yun nga lang, merong mga highly potential behaviors or low potential behaviors. Meaning, parang hindi siya yun eh. Parang malabo na gawin niya. Pwede, pero very slim yung chances. So Maria, as she walks to uh, by a restaurant, pwedeng lumihis siya, pumunta siya doon sa restaurant, kumain ba? Or pwedeng basagin niya yung salamin, o bigla na lang siyang magwala, o pwedeng hindi siya kumain, mag-take out siya, mag-order siya, mag-take out siya. Or Maria could just pass along the restaurant and do nothing. Pero paano natin mapedict yung behavior ni Maria? Para kay Julian Rotter, the behavior potential in any situation is a function of both expectancy and the reinforcement value that is present. Pag sinabi nating expectancy, from the word itself naman ba, the expectation na ano po, that some specific reinforcement or a set of reinforcement will be given in a particular situation. But note that the probability is not determined simply by the individual's history of reinforcement. Kagaya ng sinabi ni Skinner, ba? Madali kang ma-predict. Learning yan eh. Operant conditioning or classical conditioning. Pero sabi ni Rotter ay, it is subjectively held by a person, kaya it's not determined by the individual's history of reinforcement. Just uh, look at this exhibit A that I have. He had a hard time selling his recipe. In fact, his famous secret chicken recipe was rejected 1009 times before a restaurant accepted it. So if we are just basing our actions or our expectancy on history of reinforcements, then ba dapat hindi na siya umabot ng 1009 trials kung paulit-ulit siyang nare-reject. Pero kasi meron tayong subjective na evaluation, and we hold on to. Another one, a company uh, owned by Howard Schultz was turned down by 217 of the 242 investors he initially talked to. And this happens to be Starbucks. Look at Starbucks right now. Pero isipin mo, doon pa lang sa my gosh, 200 times na-reject. Parang ako nga lang, s beses lang na-reject, pinanghihinaan na ako ng loob as compared to that 200 times or 1,000 times kang na-reject. Kung sa history of reinforcement lang tayo magbabase, then what could happen? Pero hindi ko sinasabi, hindi niya actually sinabi na hindi nagma-matter yung history of reinforcement. Nagma-matter siya. But the thing is, we also have a subjectively held expectations. Now we go back. Expectations or expectancy can be either general or specific. Yung generalized expectancy daw are learned through previous experiences with a particular response and are based on the belief na yung certain behavior mo will be rewarded or will be positively reinforced. Halimbawa, uh, college uh, students who have earned a good grade after studying hard will have a high generalized expectancy towards their future. Ibig sabihin, matututunan nila na when I do this, kapag ginalingan ko na, nare-rep ko yung tinanim ko na seed, kasi what you reap is what you sow, 'di ba? Sabi nila, or vice versa. Pero meron tayong mga specific expectancies. Meron yang ang formula, baka mag-panic kayo pag tiningnan niyo yung book. Pero what I'm trying to share with you right now is that in any expectation to Rotter or in any situation, yung expectancy for a particular reinforcement is determined by two things. One, yung general expectancy, and number two, yung specific na expectancy. Halimbawa, same pa rin. Yung example na as a college student, you have learned na kapag ginalingan ko, um, bumabalik naman yung grade, kumbaga, nare-reward siya. Pero you could also believe na kahit na mag-effort ka lalo sa isang particular na subject, hindi mo makukuha yung desired grade mo. It can go unrewarded. And yung total expectancy ng iyong success in general, ito. Ito is a function of both your generalized and specific expectancy. So total expectancy, partially it determines the amount of effort you will put into reaching that particular goal. Kung nakita mo na hmm, parang kahit naman anong gawin ko, ganyan pa rin yung grade ko eh. Hayaan mo na ba? So partially, naaapektuhan niya yung effort na ie-exert mo.
Moving on, reinforcement. Ito, easy lang. Ano yung reinforcement? It's the reward that you are expecting. Pero dagdagan natin ang value. Gaano kahalaga sa'yo itong particular na outcome or reward? Meron tayong individual perception na tinatawag. So what's important to you may not be important to me. Mag ma-manifest din dito yung cultural values, yung personal values. Ngayon, bigyan natin ng example, behavior potential. As you graduate, lahat kayo ay may potential to take the board kasi ayan na eh. Pero let's consider the expectancy. If you have built a good expectancy about your performances, kumbaga, na natutunan mo na with the right amount of effort, you can do things, kapag talagang nag-focus ka, nagagawa mo. Tapos with a high reinforcement value, meaning, sobrang halaga ng board na to para sa akin kasi pangarap ko 'to. Gusto kong makapag-practice sa field of psychology. I want to teach, or I want to be a researcher. I want to be a social worker. So yung behavior potential mo for taking the board is...
High. Pero kung merong isa diyan na bumaba, affected pa rin yung behavioral potential mo. Let's say mababa ang expectancy mo, mababa ang reinforcement value. Meaning, hindi naman ganon kahalaga sa'yo. May trabaho na naman ako pagka-graduate. Ba't ko pa papahirapan sarili ko mag-board? Ang tanong, ine-expect mo ba na magagawa mo? Mmm, Kry yan. May, okay nga yung grades ko sa review eh. Kasi may review yan, tapos magre-review center pa ako. Kaya ko 'yan. Pero ang tanong, mahalaga ba sa'yo at that moment? Hindi eh. Hindi. Saka tapos mapasok pa yung third element, the psychological situation. It is part of the external and internal world to which a person is responding. Ano yung mga psychological factors that could have been affecting your behavioral potential o para gawin mo ang isang bagay? Okay. Next. Sige, mas um, bigyan pa natin ng detail yung predicting general behaviors.
No. As noted earlier, sabi ko ang generalized expectancy is the tendency that a behavior is generalized based also on random circumstances. And in this, kino-consider natin 'yung status ng present needs. When I say needs, uh, this is another element that affects the direction of your goal. Let's say I am motivated to earn money. At that moment, mataas yung generalized expectancy ko. Pero dahil yung tawag ng pangangailangan ay matindi yung need na yun, yung physical comfort needs, ayan yung last part, then I will push through. Try lang, pagka-importante ng pangangailangan eh. And another example, favorite kong gamitin yung nasa F and F and Roberts na example, si David. So ito si David, work for the longest time in a hardware, 18 years. Tapos one day, lumapit sa kanya yung owner, tapos sinabi na siya ay kasama sa mga matatanggalan ng trabaho, will be cut off the workforce, um, layoff, yung term na layoff, siya sa job niya kasi humina yung benta, kunyari pandemic, no. Ang question ay paano natin ipi-predict yung behavior ni David afterwards? Magmamakaawa ba siya na please, hwag niyo po ako hayaan na mawalan ng trabaho? Or magiging bayolente ba siya sa oras na yon? Or maghahanap ba siya ng trabaho right there and then? Magiging ah, proactive ba siya? Afternoon. Sige po. Thank you po. Tos, aalis na ba siya? And because most of David's possible behaviors are new to him, sabi doon sa resource material natin, tinanong nila, "Paano natin ngayon mape-predict kung ano yung gagawin ni David?" So dito papasok yung generalization and generalized expectancy. Tapos yung needs na sinasabi natin earlier, kung sa past experience daw ni David yung behavior niya has been rewarded, yung mga behavior niya has been uh, rewarded, tapos na-increase yung social status niya, then maliit lang daw yung probability that he will beg for the owner na tanggapin siya ulit kasi it will be contrary to the increased social status that he have acquired. Kumbaga, bakit ako maghahabol sa'yo? Meron siyang respect sa sarili niya, or parang nandoon yung recognition status, 'di ba? And if agad nagmakaawa ako sa kanya, it will lower the status that I have. But meanwhile, kung meron siyang previous attempts at responsible and independent behavior, tapos nainforce siya, tapos ah, may expectation siya na kaya niya, then mas susunggaban niya yung opportunity to apply for another job rather than begging for the job. It is ano ah, may assumption daw itong example na to na kailangan din ni David yung trabaho. So a high probability will exist that he will apply for another job, or otherwise he will behave independently. What is the gist of this particular discussion or particular situation? Predicting David's reaction to the probable loss of a job is a matter of knowing how he views the alternatives na available sa kanya. And also, ano ba yung status nung mga current needs niya? Sabi natin kasi earlier, needs are described as any behavior or set of behavior that people see as moving them in the direction of a specific goal. Okay. So if you need more elaboration about that, I recommend that you check out our reading material.
Concept that is important, yung concepta ng maladaptive behavior. He defined this as any persistent behavior that fails to move a person towards a desired goal. So if you say you want to be physically fit, pero kung hindi ka nagge-exercise, aray sa sarili ko no, hindi ka nagda-diet, aray ulit sa sarili ko, then meron kang maladaptive behavior. Pero hindi ka naman goal, sinabi ko lang na gusto ko. Atika, tanungin mo yung sarili mo, ano ba yung mga goal mo na parang hindi ka kumikilos towards it? Sabi mo gusto mong maging dance lister, or gusto mong maging academic achiever, kahit pandemic pero nag-aaral ka ba? Nagsu-submit ka ba? Or just in case that you would miss something, do you exert some extra efforts para habulin yun? Kasi yun yung mga actions that are going to lead you closer to your desired goal. Pero 'pag hindi, tapos 'yun pa rin 'yung goal mo, mayro'on kang maladaptive behavior. Sabi ni Julian Rotter, it is this maladaptive behavior is a combination of high need value and low freedom of movement. Ano ba ma'am yung freedom of movement na sinasabi niya? It is an individual's overall expectation of being reinforced by performing behaviors which are directed towards satisfying a need. So it meant na ito yung expectancy mo na yung ginagawa mo will reach satisfactory outcomes. Mm, yun parang yung sinabi ko, that is unrealistically high goals in combination with low ability to achieve them or low attempts to achieve them. It is also characterized by unrealistic goals, inappropriate behaviors, inadequate skills, or unreasonably low expectancies of executing the behavior. And that is maladaptive behavior. Isip ko yan, ay may, may maladaptive behaviors pala talaga ako no. Gusto kong matapos yung paper ko, pero hindi ko inuumpisahan. Maladaptive behavior. Yan.
Another concept that is so used, lalo na sa board, sa review center, itong locus of control ni Julian Rotter. Sabi niya yung external locus of control, external ito sa baba, is the degree to which a person expects that the outcome that he will get after performing a behavior is just a product of chance or luck or faith or destiny, basta wala sa kanya yung control, it's simply unpredictable. So if you have high external locus of control, you blame others for what happened to your life, or you would frequently feel helpless, lalo na kung nasa difficult situation ka kasi naniniwala ka na wala kang magagawa tungkol dito eh. And you wouldn't believe na yung your actions cannot cause a change in the situation that you are in, 'yung own efforts mo will just put into, will be just put into waste. Kasi for you, your actions doesn't really matter. It's all up to the control of the powerful other people or outside of you. Anything outside of you. Baliktad naman sa internal locus of control. It is a belief that reinforcement is brought about by your own behavior. Ikaw mismo. You are in charge of your life and whatever you do, meron yang after effect. May consequences yan. And with this, kung high ang internal locus of control mo, you are more likely to take responsibility for the things that you have done. And when you're doing things or when you're executing a task, you will be most likely less shaken or influenced by the opinion of other people. Kasi ikaw, naka-set ka na, whatever I do, I will see the outcomes and I will be directly affected by the outcomes. So kapag itong mga tao na merong high internal locus of control ay binigyan ng task na kung saan sila ay allowed to work at their own limits, they will do better rather than hoping on um, block itself.
Now, last slide for Julian Rotter's psychotherapy. The goal of Rotter's therapy is to bring freedom of movement, tumaas yung expectancy niya, and yung need value niya ay maging congruent doon sa expectancy niya. Kailangan it would be put into harmony para ma-reduce yung avoidant behavior, yung defensive, yung maladaptive behavior ng isang individual. So anong gagawin ng therapist? Ang gagawin niya ah, magiging active participant siya doon sa social interaction na meron yung client. Tapos the therapist will act as a teacher. Tapos ang two objectives niya, ito yung nasa screen. Number one, to change the goals. Number two, eliminate low expectancies. Ano ma'am ibig sabihin ng changing the goals? You would begin by helping the patients understand the faulty nature of their goals. Kasi merong mga goals na hindi helpful para sa'yo, it causes um, some problems doon sa mismong individual. So ang trabaho ni therapist is to change the importance of the goals. Halimbawa, when two or more important goals daw uh, when it becomes in conflict with each other. Let's say you wanted to please, your goal is to make your parents pleased of you, um, proud of you. Tapos uh, you want to fulfill their dreams for you. And yun yung ano mo eh, very close talaga kayo, pero you met another person and this person is one that you really care about. Itong another person na to stops you or hinders you from being a productive one. Kumbaga, binago niya yung, nababago niya, naapektuhan niya yung landas na tinatahak mo. So this could be two conflicting goals. You want that other person to stay, but if that person stays, malaki yung chance na ma-shaken o lumabo. Bumaba yung probability, tendency na ma-achieve mo yung goal number one. So nandoon si therapist to help you prioritize or reconstruct your goals. Tapos meron ding mga goals na self-destructive, and kung hindi man self-destructive, destructive, um, dalhin na lang natin sa extremes, no. Sabi ng isang kamag-anak mo, wala ka namang mapapala diyan eh. O ikaw, sige, walang mapapala ed ikaw ang goal mo ay inisin sila ba, pero sa process na iniinis mo sila, ikaw yung nasisira, ikaw yung nagiging affected, so you have to check on that, ano ba yung mga goals na self-destructive, tapos um, tuturuan din ng therapist, or tutulungan, by the way, tutulungan yung therapist, to a, tutulungan ng therapist si client to accomplish this other goal as well. Strive toward realistic goals. Ang kulit no. May goal ka. Ang goal mo is to strive to more realistic goals. Well anyway, kasi may mga oras na yung goals natin are too high. I'm not saying that you settle for something less or be mediocre. Para kay Julian Rotter, na mataas yung goal mo, hindi na agad, hindi na siya realistic, mas lalo ka lang nafa-frustrate, lalo na pag hindi mo siya nare-reach or hindi mo siya nae-exceed. So the role of the therapist is to teach the client to strive towards realistic goals. Ayun, naput into words ko na. Pangalawa ay to help eliminate unrealistic low expectancies for success. Bakit ba may mga low expectancies? Number one, dahil daw merong mga tao who lack the skills or the information para ma-reach nila yung goals nila. So what do you do about it? So kung kulang ka, kung may kakulangan sa'yo, what do you do? Do you just ignore it? Tapos meron tayong mga faulty evaluation of the present situation. Yung mismong pagtingin natin sa mga bagay-bagay ay hindi realistic, like just the other time no, umaabsent ako sa grad school, tapos sabi ko sa isang co-faculty ko na malapit din sa akin, alam mo pag uma-attend ako ng graduate school ah ah, pakiramdam ko napaka-privileged ko. Tapos sabi niya, eh bakit hindi ka umattend? Sabi ko, "Feeling ko hindi ko rin alam nung una, parang nase-stress kasi ako. I just felt that I'm not doing things that are relevant to help people in need. Parang nag-aaral ako para lang sa sarili ko, tapos hindi ko nakikita yung nagta-transform yung pinag-aaralan ko in the things that I do. Kasi mas gusto ko yung hands-on eh, community service, extensions, pero hindi ako makakilos. So with that, I felt really bad." Sabi nung um, kausap ko, alam mo napaka-unrealistic ng sinasabi mo. Wala siyang sense. So pag hindi ka pumasok, anong nangyari? Naging ah, realistic na ba? Naging ah, responsive na ba yung ginagawa mo? Nakatulong ka na ba sa kanila agad hindi ka pumasok? Naisip ko, siguro pina-punish ko yung sarili ko, and that is an example of a faulty evaluation. Another one, bakit may mga low expectancies? Inadequate generalizations. We fail to check on things. We fail to consider other things. So ano yung trabaho ni therapist? To teach effective problem-solving and to help the client distinct ano yung nasa past, ano yung present, and ano yung dapat niyang i-assert sa sarili niya. Okay. Next. Almost done. Um, four slides. I believe this is Walter Mischel. He was influenced by Rotter. Michel. Ano ba yun? This is Walter Mischel. Sinabi ko ba Rotter? Michelle? Walter Mischel, kasi lagi silang magkasama, Rotter and Mischel na theory. Si Rotter taught Michelle the importance of research para i-improve yung assessment techniques niya and yung paraan niya para i-measure yung therapeutic treatment. Kasi si Michelle is into clinical psychology. Tapos si George Kelly naman ang, collect, tinuruan niya si Michelle na 'pag nagka-conduct siya ng psychology experiments, tandaan niya na itong mga ine-eksperimentuhan din natin or 'yung mga respondents natin are also like the psychologist conducting the experiment. They studied them in the sense that yung mga participants, they are feeling, they're also thinking human beings. Kung sa shallow na ano na analysis to, pwede nating sabihin na pag nasa experiment tayo, tina-try nating i-observe ano rin yung pinag, ano yung kayang variable na ine-experiment ng mga experimenters ba. Isa yan sa mga concerns sa experiment. Well anyway, so he is considered to be one of the most hardworking um, scientist in the field of psychology, and yes, he is also mathematically inclined. Feeling ko nga yun yung common grounds nila eh. Ma'am, ano po yung ano yung distinct sa kanyang theory? Inemphasize niya yung cognitive affective units. How this cognitive affective units plays a role in determining the behavior of an individual. Tapos ito pa, he recognized the important, yun nga, of the cognitive affective units and sabi niya merong inconsistency sa behavior ng tao na hindi masyado aagrehan ng mga trait theories, kasi sabi nila ano ba ang personality? It's made up of traits, 'di ba? Sabi natin ang traits ay stable over time. So kung pinanganak ka na jolly person, you would most likely end and die with a jolly personality or a jolly characteristic. Na sabi niya, "Mmm, parang hindi." Okay. So itong si uh, Michelle, he believed that a person's behavior is influenced by two things, yung consistency paradox, tapos yung person-situation interaction. Sa consistency paradox, it meant that a person seems uh, they seem to be consistent in behaving every time that you see them, pero in a in different situations, their behavior can change from consistent state to a completely different state than it used to. So pwedeng you know me as being jolly. Biglang nag-snap out ako ba. So nandun yung consistency. Paano naging consistency paradox yun? Kasi marami daw nagke-claim, mga professional researcher, kahit yung mga lay people, sinasabi nila that behavior is quite consistent, pero according to research, it is not. And some traits are, excuse me, are consistent over time. There is a little evidence to suggest that they are consistent from one situation to another. Yes, it's consistent over time, pero situation to situation, maaaring hindi siya consistent. Sabi rin ni Michelle, nagma-matter din yung person-situation interaction. Sabi, a person can be can be distinguished from a given situation rather than just assuming how they act. Ibig sabihin, you can be a kind person, but when placed into a difficult, traumatizing situation, pwede kang magkaroon ng ibang, mag-exhibit ng ibang behavior ba. And ano ba yung sinasabi nito ni Michelle? He is trying to state that we could act differently depending on the situation ah, at no one person would exhibit the same behavior at the same time or situation. Ano 'yun? Very stable ka lang ano, umm, ganyan ka lang palagi. Sobrang pagkain ka, forever kind ka na talaga ma'am. Kind na 'yan. Maraming mga trait theories ang magsasabi na "Oo, bakit pwede naman 'yun." Ah, hindi lang, nandiyan pa rin 'yung kindness. Hindi lang nagma-manifest masyado, pero may level of kindness pa rin yun. So sabi, if someone with a stable behavior were to be taken out of their natural setup, they will also change their behavior. Maga-adjust din sila. At marami siyang mga inidentify na variables na pwedeng maka-affect doon sa tao para mag-act that way in a particular situation. Ayan, inconsistency in behavior is not due solely to the situation, pero he also emphasize that inconsistent behavior reflect patterns of variation within a person. Ma'am, parang anggulo na simple lang yan, he just said na itong inconsistencies natin is what we call a behavioral signature, yung unique and stable patterns natin of behaving differently in situations is part of your personality. He is saying that yung behavior daw ng isang tao fundamentally is also dependent on the situational cues which is not being agreed upon by the trait perspective. Sabi kasi nila yung behavior daw is dependent upon the traits na pinopossess mo and it's consistent across diverse situations. Kahit baliktarin mo yung mundo, kung jolly yan, jolly yan. Pero sabi niya, hindi kaya ganon. Sabi ni Michelle, "The situation matters, context matters." And as I end this discussion, wala akong napiling quote from them. Ah, naisip ko na mag-reflect on my own. Yes, reflecting on my own eh. No theorist yan. Ah, this is what I have written: If you want to change your life, changing the way you see the world is important. A healthy mindset matters. I just advocate for you to check yung mindset mo. How is it? At hindi ko rin sasabihin na ang buhay ay it's a matter of mindset. No, hindi. There are other variables that would play in between. Ah, mapupunta sa wala yung discussion natin kapag sinabi ko na it's just a matter of mindset. Pagkatapos kong pag-usapan yung maraming mga factors that is affecting our behavior, mindset lang pala? Hindi yun. So that's the end of our session. I hope that you learn something for this uh, [Musika] lecture. தேங்க்யூ [Musika]