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

Revision as of 01:44, 29 January 2008

(draft)

__NOTOCNUM__

__NONUMBEREDHEADINGS__

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.

Chapter 2: Apter's Reversal Theory

2.1. A supplement to remedy Lazarus' theory

One of the deficiencies observed in Lazarus' theory can be remedied by supplementing Apter's Reversal theory. The Reversal theory provides a (descriptive) answer to the question relating to the various ways in which people react to the same, or similar, situations. The Reversal theory states that as far as human motivation is concerned people are in one of two metamotivational states. The way in which a situation is experienced depends on the state a person is in at a particular moment. The two states can be distinguished by the level of arousal that is preferred. Arousal is defined in this theory as being mentally and physically prepared for action.

2.2 The organisation of motivation according to Apter

The Reversal theory has been developed by Apter and Smith (1975; see also Apter, 1984). The theory deals with the way in which people experience motives for their actions and descibes the process of changes in motivation. In this theory an in­dividual is regarded as a complex "machine" that uses the environment for his or her own aims. This "machine" can behave according to different "programs" which determine the way in which the environ­ment is experienced. The idea that one action can be performed with different motives is central. For example, a person may ride a bicycle, because he or she has to attend a meeting. This is a determined action. Here, riding a bicycle represents the means by which an aim can be achieved. However a person can also ride a bicycle "just" for pleasure. In this case a person acts according to the program "wanting to be active", and cycling is an aim in itself. Thus, there are two possible states in which a person can be. These states are characteristic of the way in which an act, in this case "cycling", is experienced. In the case of the meeting this act is purposive. In this situation cycling is not an act undertaken to create stress or excitement; here the aim is to fulfill a particular task. In other words: to remove the tension that is caused by being obliged to fulfill this task. In the second case cycling is an action which in itself evokes particularly pleasant excitement.

For this reason the Reversal theory rejects a simplistic-homeostatic interpretation of human motivation in which there is just one optimal state of balance at which individuals. This state of balance particularly refers to one optimal level of arousal. According to the homeostatic way of thinking, individuals will always try to achieve one optimal level of arousal and/or to remain at this level. However, the Reversal theory assumes that at times a low level of arousal is aimed and at other times, a high level of arousel. Therefore Apter introduces the concept of bi-stability. This means, for example, that people may or may not feel fine at a low or a high level of arousal. As the examples mentioned above show, at times one's aim may simply be the performance of a particular task and the act is not meant to raise the level of arousal. At other times a person may seek excite­ment, in which case the same or a similar act can suddenly become exciting (arousal increasing).

To illustrate these ideas we can consider a number of situations in which different levels of arousal are experienced. Generally (but not necessarily), there is a high level of arousal when a person watches an exciting film. One can imagine that this excitement can be both pleasant and unpleasant. For example, when a person has been working all day and the work was very boring, a film can provide a welcome state of e­xcitement. On the other hand, when a person has just been threatened in the street, the tension caused by the film may be too much for him or her. In this situation a hot bath may be preferred as it is more likely to provide relaxation. Thus, there is a desired low level of arousal. The same hot bath may evoke boredom (in Apter's terms) in someone who has not done anything all day long. Therefore, it is important here that a particular level of arousal is not inadvertently connected with the person's well-being.

These examples indicate that a person can feel good or not, depending on the level of arousal sought at that moment, in other words: depending on the metamotivational state a person is in at that moment. The level of arousal is always a subjective experience. In other words: an exciting experience for one person, may be boring to another.

2.3. Bi-stability of emotions and motivation

We have shown that there are two possible states of preference as far as the level of arousal is concerned. Firstly, there is the state in which a person aims at a low level of arousal and performs purposive action. This state is called arousal-avoidance or the telic state (telos is Greek for goal or purpose). In this state a low level of arousal is experienced as pleasant, Apter (1982) calls this "relaxation". A high level of arousal is experienced as unpleasant and is called "fear" by Apter. Secondly, there is the state in which a person aims at a high level of arousal and shows unpurposive action. This state is called the arousal-seeking or paratelic state (literally translated from Greek, paratelic means "without aim" or "goal-less"). In this state a high level of arousal will be experienced as pleasant "excitement", whereas a low level of arousal causes an unpleasant feeling: "boredom". These two states, telic and paratelic, differ as far as the experience of purpose, time and intensity is concerned (Apter, 1982; Mur­gatroyd, 1978, 1983). This is shown in table 2.1 (see the next page).

The telic or paratelic state is as it were a frame round particular behaviour (Goffman, 1975). The states mentioned refer to the way in which the motivation of behaviour is experienced. For this reason they are called metamotivational states. These states determine how experiences are labelled (see table 2.2, following next page). At any moment in time a person is always in one of these two states. The period of time in which a person can be in a particular state varies from a few seconds to some days (Walters, Apter and Svebak, 1982).

Table 2.1 Characteristics of the telic and paratelic states ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ In the telic state there are: ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ - purposive action ║ ║ - imposed purposes ║ ║ - attempts to complete actions ║ ║ - secure and routine behaviour ║ ║ - looking for experience and safety ║ ║ - orientation to the outside world ║ ║ - behaviour aimed at the future ║ ║ - planned activities ║ ║ - activities that are a means to a purpose ║ ║ - preference for low intensity experiences ║ ║ - a high level of realism ║ ║ - preference for a low level of arousal ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ In the paratelic state there are: ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ - process behaviour ║ ║ - avoidable and freely chosen "purposes" ║ ║ - attempts to extend activities and to make them continue ║ ║ - exploration ║ ║ - experimenting with behaviour ║ ║ - looking for news and excitement ║ ║ - a here-and-now experience ║ ║ - activities that are aims in themselves ║ ║ - activities that are spontaneous and free ║ ║ - a preference for high intensity experiences ║ ║ - imagination and exaggeration ║ ║ - preference for a high level of arousal ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝

Table 2.2 The variable meaning of the experienced level of arousal

Low level of arousalHigh level of arousal

PleasantRelaxationExcitement

UnpleasantBoredomAnxiety

2.4. The reversals to the different states

We will now describe how a reversal from one state to another can take place. Reversals take place involuntarily, although a person may be capable of getting into a situation in which a reversal into one or another direction becomes likely. The frequency with which reversals take place differs from person to person and is, moreover, dependent on the situation a person is in (Blackmore and Murgatroyd in Apter, 1980).

The Reversal theory describes several conditions that can lead to a reversal. Most important are "contingencies"; aspects of a person or of the environment change in such a way that a reversal is triggered. For example, if a particular drug is used, if a visitor arrives unexpectedly or in an emergency situation. The second condition that can lead to a reversal is called "satiation". It is assumed that a reversal becomes more likely when the period of time in which a person is in a particular metamoti­vational state increases. A person then becomes more sensitive to signals from the environment or from himself or herself that can lead to contingencies. The different conditions influence each other, and can make reversals more or less likely. Table 2.2 and figure 2.1 show that a reversal from one state to another changes the meaning given to the level of arousal experienced. A reversal from the paratelic to the telic state, while a person experiences a high level of arousal, will result in a change from excitement to anxiety. A reversal from telic to paratelic, while a person experiences a low level of arousal, will result in a change from relaxation to boredom.

Figure 2.1 Apter's Reversal model (from: Apter, 1985)

2.5. Other possible sequences

Figure 2.1 shows the way in which the process of interchanging emotions and motivation often takes place. However, another "direction" may be followed. For example, a person may remain in a state of anxiety for a long time, because he or she cannot relax suffi­ciently. This can happen to a person who is not completely in control of (a) particular situation(s). In this case it is unlikely that after some time a person will look for a state of excitement. It is also possible that the entire sequence of emotions (the butterfly figure) in figure 2.1 rises or falls along the vertical axis (Apter 1982). This indicates that a person feels mainly well or not well respectively. The first can take place when a person has many skills, and can handle all kinds of different situations well. This person will not experience boredom in the strict sense, because the unpleasant stage of the paratelic state will soon change into exploration or into other activities that cause excitement or/and which increase the hedonic tone. When, following a period of rest and/or relaxation a person reachies "satiation", he or she will not remain in a state of boredom (unpleasant), but will soon find opportunities to perform one or another paratelic action which will be experienced as pleasant.

The butterfly in the figure may be at a lower level when a person is often anxious, or when he or she is chronically bored. Referring to Apter's model this situation can be explained by an inability to reach relaxtion. As this person is unable to relax sufficiently for example, owing to an absence of skills, he or she will soon become (once more) over-aroused and anxious when he or she is in an exciting situation. That is, such situations become more threatening when a person can experience fewer moments of relaxation (Apter 1982). Such a person will, therefore, sooner experience the reversal from the paratelic to the telic state. In other words: a person will relatively quickly get from the state in which the situation was exciting (paratelic) into the state in which the situation becomes frightening (telic). He or she will be relatively often in the stage of boredom or in the stage of anxious tension, while the periods of pleasant tension or pleasant excitement will be experienced less often. This person, there­fore, will explore for shorter periods and less often. As we shall explain further in chapter 5, such situations have serious consequences for the development of the process of learning. In our view, chronic boredom can be considered as a symptom of a situation in which mainly unpleasant moods alternate. As soon as there is satiation of the telic state, there will unconscious­ly be a reversal to the paratelic state. However, before arousal-searching, expansive behaviour gets going well, there will often be a reversal to the telic state. The (un­conscious) fear of risky exploration has become so strong that the paratelic meta­motivational condition itself has been affected and is experienced as threatening. As a result such a person changes constantly from anxiety (telic) to boredom (paratelic) and the other way round, while his or her mood does not improve in hedonic tone. The person finds it difficult to "really" relax, because he or she finds it difficult to make a "real" effort. For this reason, such a person will in general experience boredom, rather than relaxion.

2.6. Towards a completion of Apter's theory

Although Apter's theory provides more insight into the different ways in which people can react to the same, or similar situations, some questions are still left unanswered.

Firstly, the Reversal theory is only descriptive. It provides no insight into the underlying dynamics of the processes described. In other words: it is not clear how and why the reversals between the two states take place. Moreover, the theory does not provide a satisfactory causal explanation for the presence of the different states and reversals.

Secondly, Apter describes his model as a symmetric model. This means that reversals from telic to paratelic, and reversals from paratelic to telic can be the result of contingencies, but also of satiation. A non-symmetric model is, however, more likely. We will show this in the next chapter.