Contribution of the integrating model to personality study

There are several works that provide evidence of the reaction in two phases suggested by Wortman and Brehm First reactance and then helpless. Mikulincer Check that with low training (a failure), the subjects showed reactance (better performance); While with high training (4 failures), the subjects showed symptoms of helplessness (deterioration of subsequent execution). Minor amounts of failure have been associated, in addition to direct reactance (or increased performance), with subjective restoration attempts, such as the manifestation of frustration and hostility; and high experiences of failure, with depressive mood.

Integrative Model to Personality Study

Mikulincer He manipulates two of the parameters mentioned in the Biphasic model, the amount of training and control expectations, in order to test the hypothesis that among the subjects exposed to small amounts of failure, an internal attribution should lead to greater frustration and better subsequent execution, than an external attribution; While in the subjects exposed to large amounts of failure, an internal attribution would lead to more depression and worse performance than an external attribution. Use a 2 factors design: attribution style in the face of failure (internal, external, not defined), measured with the attributive style questionnaire, and amount of failure (None, one, four). 4 dimensions were manipulated (font, size, the figure that surrounded it and the type of edge). In the test phase, 10 problems of the progressive matrices test of Raven.

The results showed that internal subjects exposed to a failure (irresoluble problem), showed greater frustration and hostility and better execution in the trial task, than external subjects. The inmates exposed to high helplessness (4 failures), expressed more feelings of incompetence and lower performance than external. The inmates would show as much greater reactance and more helplessness, depending on the amount of failure or prior training in defenseless. The internality-externality dimension seems to regulate the intensity of affective reactions to failure: greater feelings of incompetence (in the face of high helplessness) or frustration and hostility (before low defenselessness).

Studies on the behavior of the type-a in situations of uncontrollability: in the type-A the desire for control is joined with their belief that they can really exercise it. They will perceive greater threat to their behavioral freedom against moderate coercion attempts, experiencing reactance. The initial reaction of the type-A before an uncontrollable stressor can be called "hypernsival" (effort aimed at achieving control over their environment). The guy-a get to learn, from the continued experience with the stressor, that they cannot escape and/or avoid that unpleasant situation, convincing themselves of their lack of control, showing a "hyporscripity" comparable to that manifested by the type-b. In situations of high stress there is greater helplessness in the type-A (the result of its greatest reactance) although in situations of moderate stress, there is no defenselessness, but neither initial reactance, not perceiving previous threat, that is, it yields before the Incontrollability situation but not differentially to your contrast group. Krantz, Glass and Snyder, Using the classic defenseless paradigm learned during the pretreatment phase, 2 noise intensities (moderate and unpleasant) to introduce 2 levels of stress. A design 2 (type-a/type-b) x 2 (moderate/intense stress) x 2 (escapable/inescapable) was used, taking as a test task the same intensity of the noise of the first phase but contingent its disappearance with a jump box. The VD was the number of essays I needed to give 3 consecutive escape and/or avoidance responses. The results showed that in the condition of high stress, the type-A needed more rehearsals to achieve the criteria when they had been subject to the previous non-escapable situation than to escapable. In the type-b there were no differences between both situations. In the moderate stress condition the opposite pattern appeared.

Much of the helpless studies have been done using failure situations in the pretreatment phase, with the idea that the perception of lack of contingency between behavior and consequences would generate the expectation of lack of control. However, subsequent facilitation effects have been found, which have led some to suggest that the expectation of non -contingency would, primarily, motivational changes. Brehmenergization or motivational activation, which would explain facilitation and inhibition. The activated energy will be based on several determinants: it suggests an alternative explanation of the effects of the failure on subsequent performance in terms of

1. The perception of difficulty of the task and the motivation potential. A person will mobilize energy only if the goal to be achieved is possible and it is worth investing effort in trying. The motivation potential (maximum amount of energy that an individual is willing to mobilize to achieve a goal), will be based on their need and value. As the difficulty of the task increases, the energization will increase, until the task is perceived as impossible or that requires spending more energy than the goal is. A low energization would be expected when the task requirements are perceived as impossible or that exceed the motivation potential.
2. The perceived capacity. A greater decrease in motivation would be expected after failure in people with a minor perception of their ability (they would expect to have to invest more effort) in the face of people with a higher perception of their ability. The predictions that from this theory are made of the impact of failure would be: 1) that the motivational effects are mediated by changes in anticipated difficulty 2) that there is a direct relationship between the intensity of the performance or effort invested, and motivational activation and 3 ) that there are other variables that can account for the level of performance that a person achieves (attention, strategies, etc.), so that not always a high effort leads to better performance. The performance would become a possible index of motivational activation.

In the formulation of helplessness, the powers determined the "generalization" of a non -contingency expectation, while in this formulation, they determine the anticipated difficulty of the following task, when there is an incongruity between the results obtained and those expected.

Motivation is expected to decrease when the difficulty of the task is greater than what was expected, overcoming the motivation potential. An increase in motivation is expected if the task increases in difficulty but not above the motivation potential. The work of Pittman supports the interpretation of energization.

The failure in two problems produced deficit in the performance of subjects with external control locus, while increasing the performance of internal subjects. The failure in 6 problems led to poor execution in both groups.

Integration of the consequences before the loss of control

The paradigm used in reactance research is very different from that used in research on helpless. In the first case the subject hopes to have the possibility of choosing between several options and it is found that his freedom is threatened or even eliminated. The subject will show renewed attempts to restore his freedom. In the case of helpless. The subject will behave passively.

In both theories, common elements can be interviewed: Control expectation, amount of defenseless training and the importance of the results. Wortman and Brehm They propose an integration of reactance and helpless.

The control expectation suggests that reactance or helplessness will be activated when the person hopes to control the situation and finds that he cannot. If the number of defenseless trials is small, reactance will be activated, from the moment it can perceive the lack of control as a threat to its freedom. If the number of trials is prolonged, it will begin to manifest symptoms of helplessness when you learn that you cannot control the result, decreasing your activity. The greater the importance of the result, the more reactance the subject will experience in the face of the inability to exercise control.

This article is merely informative, in psychology-online we have no power to make a diagnosis or recommend a treatment. We invite you to go to a psychologist to treat your particular case.

If you want to read more articles similar to Contribution of the integrating model to personality study, We recommend that you enter our personality and differential psychology category.