Colin DeYoung [siehe auch: Teil3]:
[Kernthemen: Was sind "characteristic adaptations"? In welcher Beziehung stehen sie zu dem Trait-Konzept? Wie lassen sie sich "messen"? Etc.]
Characteristic adaptations are relative stable goals, interpretations, and strategies[.] In contrast to traits, relatively few researchers have worked to define characteristic adaptations[.]
In CB5T, characteristic adaptations are influenced by traits, but they are sperate entities in their own right, generated by cybernetic processes of exploration and adaptation[.]
Goals are defined broadly as representations of a desired future state[.] … Like traits, many goals and other characteristic adaptations can be considered as attractor states[.] … Different goals are active at different time, as the cybernetic system shifts among mutiple attractor states[.] … Some goals are strong attractors and are capable of organizing and governing motivation for extended periods of time, despite potential disruptors, whereas others are relatively weak attractors, readily disrupted and displaced by other goals, even if they are characteristic in the sense that they are held in memory over long periods of time.
Our brains interpret the world primarily as a forum for action and only secondarily as a realm of facts, and our interpretations are shaped, more than most people are likely to realize, by relevance to our goals[.] Nonetheless, we have evolved to detect and remember a great many facts (with ‘facts’ meant broadly as any kind of nonevaluative information about the state of the world) that may be irrelevant to our goals, presumably because our goals and strategies are so complex and changeable that phenomena that seem irrelevant at present may well prove relevant to our goals in future[.]
Strategies are plans, actions, skills, and automatized routines that are used to transform the current state into the desired future state.
Goals, interpretations, and strategies represent the information used by the cybernetic system to function in any situation, and they always reflect the manner in which the individual has adapted to that situation[.] … not all adaptations are characteristic. To be considered ‘characteristic,’ the adaptation must have anough stability to be a useful descriptor of the person for some reasonable length of time[.]
Characteristic adapdations are, by definition, reactions to particular life circumstances, whereas traits need not be.
Traits have been studied extensively as such, whereas characteristic adaptations have been studied under many different names.
Some examples may help to illustrate the difference between traits and characteristic adaptations: Being argumentative is a trait; being a trial lawyer is a characteristic adaptation. Liking to frolic with friends is a trait; belonging to a fraternity is a characteristic adaptation.
Given the possibility of assessing traits using characteristic adaptations, one might wonder whether it is ever possible to assess characteristic adaptations by questionnaire. The answer is decidingly yes. What must be done is to focus the items on a particular adaptation, in all its cultural and personality specificity. An example used above was the quality of one’s attachment to one’s current partner. Attachment questionnaires that frame all of their items in relation to a single relationship with a particular individual are validly assessing a characteristic adaptation, regardless of whether that characteristic adaptation has been influenced by a trait reflecting typical attachment style.
One of the most thorough methods for assessing characteristic adaptations is Little’s (1983, 2006) personal projects analysis, which asks people to generate their own list of personal projects - ‘activities and concerns … that we think about, plan for, carry out, and sometimes (though not always) complete’[.]
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen