Difference between revisions of "Towards a Cognition-Energy-Learning Model"

Revision as of 01:31, 16 January 2008

(draft)

Introduction

This report describes a Cognition-Energy-Learning model which is based on several psychological theories. This model is general in the sense that it alleges to describe a variety of behaviour, insights and ex­periences which are generally regarded as distinct areas. Examples are: emotions, motivation, cognitive representa­tion of experiences, coping behaviour and the ethological concept of the efficient allocation of energy. The importance of this model lies, therefore, firstly in the opportuni­ty it gives to classify all those different psychological phenomena in a logically coherent and consistent way. In addition, the model provides an ex­planation of learning behaviour, as it goes back to the evolutionary basis of behaviour. In other words: it is possible to indicate why effective coping behaviour develops and moreover, why this development may stagnate. Coping means here: behaviour that is geared to mastering a problematic situation. Subsequently, the model explains on the one hand the con­nection between emotions and motivation and on the other, the way in which the cognitive representation of ex­periences is effectuated and how it changes. In each chapter of this report, one theoretic ap­proach of a specific phenomenon will be discussed and any lacunae, gaps or specific problems of the theory concerned, will be identified. We shall then attempt to solve these problems in the next chapter in which an additional piece of theory will be added. In this way four theories will be discussed, all of which show gaps in some specific respects. The basis of this thesis is Lazarus' theory. According to Lazarus (in Bond and Rosen, 1980), stress arises when a person notices that environmental requirements demand too much of his/her available resources. Lazarus states that stress situations do not necessarily have to be experienced as negative. It is, however, often be the case; when a person expects that his or her abilities and resources for dealing with specific environmental requirements are insuffi­cient, he or she will probably expect damage or loss. Such situations may be experienced as extremely threaten­ing. On the other hand, great demand may be made on a person in terms of adaptibility while that person still thinks he or she can handle the situation well. Such situations might be regarded as challenges, providing the opportunity to gain advantages, control or to effect personal growth. Adequate reactions in such situations may then influence that person's well-being very positively. Thus, stress situations are not always experienced as negative, but depend on the inter­pretation by the person in question. When a person experiences stress, he or she may develop strategies to limit damage, or even profit from the situation. In literature this is called coping. With regard to the inter­pretation of stress situations, Lazarus (1980) states that it is a problem that too little is known about which situations are felt to be threatening or challenging, when and by whom. This gap can be filled by Apter's Reversal theory (chapter 2). In this theory two so-called meta-motivational states are discussed. These metamotivational states determine how a person perceives a specific situation and the type of behaviour with which he of she will react to it. However, one disadvantage of Apter's theory is its descriptive nature and the fact that it does not account for a connection between the dynamics of motivation and the learning processes mentioned above. Van der Molen's learning model, described in chapter 3, does find this connection and is thus able to explain how these learning processes are maintained. In this model the "contagious nature" of learning ex­periences is described too, that is, a learning experience that is badly dealt with increases the likelihood that future learning experiences in similar areas of experience will also be badly dealt with which means that it is likely that the area concerned will always be proble­matical. (the reverse applies to learning experiences which are dealt with successfully). The cognitive interpretation or "labelling" of similar areas of experience (for example "exci­ting" or "boring") always depends on a person's metamotivational condition. Van der Molen's model describes how metamotivational conditions affect learning pro­cesses. The model does not, however, adequately describe how these conditions influence cognitive contents. Lewicka's model of antagonistic cognitive styles (chapter 4) does discuss this aspect. In this model two mechanisms are described which are alternately active in a person (comparable to Apter's theory). Which of the two mechanisms is active at a specific moment, determines what type of infor­mation a person will seek in the first place and also determines how cognitive information will be structured. By combining and integrating the theories mentioned (chapter 5) we have been able to develop a model that not only explains the growth of coping strategies, but also explains the relation between the dynamics of emotions and motivation on the one hand and the way in which cognitive contents are effected and grow on the other hand. We have called this model the Cognition-Energy-Learning Model (CEL). This will be exemplified with empirical information about the coping behaviour of teachers (Romkes, 1988, chapter 6).

�Chapter 1 : Lazarus' coping theory

In this chapter Lazarus' theory (e.g. 1980, 1984) of coping behaviour is discussed. The most important ideas of this theory are summarized and at the end of the chapter we show that the theory contains a number of gaps with regard to the process of learning and the development of coping skills.

1.1 Transactions between persons and their environment

Lazarus (in Bond and Rosen,1980) calls his approach to stress and coping behaviour cognitive-phenomenological. Emotions and stress are regarded as products of cognitive activity, relating to the way in which a person assesses and evaluates his or her relation with the environment. Lazarus emphasizes that there is a continuous relationship between persons and their environment. On the one hand there are people with individual values, beliefs, skills, etc. On the other hand there are situations, with varying requirements, limi­tations and facilities. Together they form a dynamic system in which there is a continuous process of mutual influence and change. Lazarus states that there is a transaction between persons and their environment which changes (adapts / trans­forms) constantly in the course of time.

1.2 The concept of appraisal: assessment of the environment

In Lazarus' theory the term appraisal, that is to say the cognitive assessment by a person of a (real, imaginary or expected) trans­action, is central. Lazarus distinguishes between primary appraisal, secondary appraisal and reappraisal. Primary appraisal refers to the process in which a person assesses whether and how a particular transaction will influence his or her own well-being. Such assessments can take three forms, namely irrelevant, positive or stressful. A person considers a situation to be stressful when he or she perceives that there are situational requirements that make a great demand on his or her adaptability and on the resources he or she possesses to respond to these demands. Appraisal of a situation as stressful can be divided into sub-types: - damage/loss; for example when a partner dies, loss of physical functions, loss of self-respect. - threat; expected or feared damage or loss which has not yet materialized. - challenge; growth opportunity, acquisition of control or advantage. Lazarus states that there is too little known about when and by what kind of people a situation is felt to be threatening rather than challenging (and vice versa). However, Lazarus does provide some information about these aspects: "A working hypothesis about the causal antecedents of threat and challenge is that the former is more likely when a person assumes that the specific environment is hostile and dangerous and that he or she lacks the resources for mastering it, while challenge arises when the environmental demands are seen as difficult, but not impossible to manage, and that drawing upon existing or acquired skills offers a genuine prospect for mastery." (in Bond and Rosen, 1980, p. 48). This leads us to the second type of transaction assessment. The above quotation not only discusses appraisal of the situation and environmental demands, but also appraisal of a person's own possibilities to react adequately. Lazarus calls this secondary appraisal, i.e. appraisal of the personal and social means a person has at his or her disposal, the effectiveness of a particular strategy of behaviour in the situation, as well as the possibility that new problems will be created as a result of one's own actions. With regard to transactions in which persons and environ­ment influence each other, we can see that primary and secondary appraisal also effect each other. A situation which was originally seen as threatening, can for example seen as less threaten­ing when a person realises that damage can probably be prevented by adopting a particular strategy of behaviour. Lazarus calls this reappraisal: a change in the original appraisal of a transaction, resulting from feedback on effectuated outcomes from this transaction, as a result of the person's actions, or by a (mere) re-thinking of the nature of this transaction. So appraisal is also a dynamic process in which changes take place constantly in the course of time and in which appraisal of the situation and one's own possibilities is constantly adjusted. Finally, we must observe that appraisal does not only mean rational assessment of the transaction, but also the quality and intensity of a person's emotional feedback on the transaction. For example, it is more likely that a positive assessment of a situation will cause a positive emotional reaction, such as joy or satisfaction. It is likely that a situation that is assessed as threatening will evoke negative emotions, such as fear or anger. In such cases a person feels that he/she is unable to react adequately to the demands that are made on him or her in a situation, in other words he or she feels that they are beyond his or her coping activities. In the next paragraph we will further discuss the concept of coping.

1.3 Coping

Lazarus gives the following definition of the term coping: "We regard coping as problem-solving efforts made by an individ­ual when the demands he faces are highly relevant to his welfare (that is, a situation of considerable jeopardy or promise), and when these demands tax his adaptive resourses." (in Coelho, 1974, p. 250-251). Coping activities can have two functions. First a person can try to improve the situation by changing his or her own behaviour or environment. Secondly, a person can try to control emotions evoked by stress, so that morale and social functioning will not be influenced. Lazarus calls this palliation, using a temporary measure to alleviate stress, such as denying, intellectualising or avoiding negative thoughts; in this way the situation itself does not change, but the individual makes sure that he or she feels better. Thus coping activities are not always rational or realistic, but can also be very irrational, primitive or rigid. Lazarus states that both kinds of coping are important; according to him realistic problem solving and primitive defensive mechanisms are two sides of the same coin. Lazarus distinguishes four types of coping activities: (a) Information seeking: investigating the characteristics of a stressful situation in order to gain the knowledge necessary to make a correct coping decision, or to be able to assess threat or damage differently. On the one hand, seeking information can form a firm basis for an individual's action, on the other hand it can make this person feel better, by rationalising or supporting a previous decision; this is called "palliation". (b) Direct action: action taken by an individual to handle a stressful situation, directed towards himself or herself or at the environ­ment, depending on environmental demands and personal goals. (c) Inhibition of action; suppression of action impulses that may otherwise cause damage, for example because they are morally or socially not acceptable, or because they can cause physical damage. (d) Intrapsychic modes: cognitive processes aimed at regulating emotions which arise as a result of stressful situations. As with other coping activities, they can be aimed at incidents from the past (for example the reinterpretation of a traumatic ex­peri­ence), or at future events (for example denying that a particular situation may become dangerous). Usually they are aimed at increasing the feeling of well-being of this individual; therefore, succesful intrapsychic coping activities may restrict the number of active attempts an individual makes to control his of her environment. Lazarus admits that his rather rough division of coping activities is a rudimentary classification system; and indeed, a number of significant aspects are lacking. For example, it does not include any details about possible coping feedback and any antecedent conditions or results of different types of coping behaviour. There is still too little known about which situations evoke which types of coping behaviour. Moreover, Lazarus states that motivational and emotional aspects of coping receive relatively very little attention in psychological studies. The developmental aspects of coping behaviour are also still unclear, and according to Lazarus studies of these aspects are essential in order to be able to understand the coping process clearly.

�1.4 Gaps in Lazarus' theory

Lazarus has developed a clear and understandable theory with regard to certain central concepts, such as the transaction between persons and their environment, the individual's appraisal of a transaction, emotional response on this appraisal and several types of coping activities. However, it is still not clear what exactly is the nature of the processes described. Some lack of clarity remains which Lazarus himself in fact also admits. Lazarus states, for example, that it is not clear which situations are experienced as threatening and not as a challenge, and by which persons (and vice versa). In the theory little is said about what kind of factors are important for acquiring coping behaviour and how the behavioural repe­toire a person has at his or her disposal to respond to environ­mental demands, may develop in the course of time. In the next chapter we will show how Apter's Reversal theory can provide an answer to a number of the queries mentioned above.