[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.22″][et_pb_row _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_margin=”-46px|auto||auto||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.27.4″]
Introduction
The Personality Paradox has caused issues for many researchers whom have attempted to understand the human mind, personality and situational response. The Personality Paradox denotes the general consistency of a person’s personality over their lifetime while a person’s behavior varies depending on the circumstance. This challenges a scientific approach to understanding a person’s personality and how the person makes decisions. Much of the research to understand decision making based on personality attempts to observe how a person evaluates financial risks and changes. Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure and Cohen’s (2006) study suggests if a person is offered money today or more money tomorrow many choose the money today. Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure, and Cohen (2006) continued, while if a person is offered money in a year and more money in a year plus one week a person is likely to select more money in a year plus a week. This example demonstrates the evaluation of risk and reward. In a consistence scientific world, the same person having the same personality would select the same option either the money sooner or more money later. Instead this example shows the inconsistency from an observational standpoint of the role of personality in decision making in relation to the situation presented.
Cognitive Affective Process System
Proposed by Walter and Yuichi (1995), Cognitive Affective Process System suggests there is more to understanding decision making than only a person’s personality. Cognitive Affective Process System considers a person’s personality, the situation and how the person perceives themselves in the situation as the core factors of decision making. This process assists in the understanding of the paradox of personality and decision making by allowing an understanding of additional factors which assist in understanding why a person does not make the same decisions when a situation is not exactly the same but relatively similar. For example, the explanation by Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure and Cohen (2006) is possible and consistent with Cognitive Affective Process System as it allows for the understanding of the person’s viewpoint of themselves within the situation to be different. As such, the person’s personality did not change rather the person’s understanding of how the situation appeared in relation to the person and how it would affect the person changed.
If the Cognitive Affective Process System is correct the Personality Paradox is no longer a paradox. The Personality Paradox existed because it was previously unknown and unable to be determined how and why a person made different decisions within relatively similar situations while the person’s personality does not change overtime. The Personality Paradox leaves two possible solutions. One, a person’s personality changes in the short-term and/or in the long-term. Two, there are other factors related to decision making than solely a person’s personality and the situation. The Cognitive Affective Process System brings further understanding by adding the variable of how the person sees themselves within the situation allowing for an understanding of decision making which solves the Personality Paradox. As the Cognitive Affective Process System is not yet thirty years old it will likely take more time and research before the Cognitive Affective Process System is assumed fact by psychologists.
Due to the Cognitive Affective Process System being a relatively young theory there is limited related research outside of authors evaluating Walter and Yuichi’s work. Older theories conflict with or in part complement Cognitive Affective Process System but they all fall short of understanding the lack of change in a person’s personality in relation to different decisions within relatively similar situations. As such, if one holds a person’s personality as generally unchanging Cognitive Affective Process System is the only viable model currently available which allows for an understanding of different decisions within relatively the same situations.
Personality and Performance
The Cognitive Affective Process System explains why a person’s decision making does not always appear to be consistent within the person’s personality. As decision making is based on a person’s personality, the situation and how the person views themselves within the situation, each person might process how one views themselves within a situation differently. Meaning person A might make a different decision when the situation is short-term verse long-term while person B makes the same decision when the situation is short-term verse long-term. This can be explained due to each person being in a different place in life making the situational effect different. For example, if one person is poor while one person is wealthy the two may calculate the advantages of waiting longer for more money different. And/or the difference in situational understanding could be related to each person processing the viewpoint of the situation differently. For example, two persons staring at the same dress while one states it is black the other states it is gold. This is a phenomenon which occurred on a global scale in 2015. The persons are in the same situation, yet the persons see the situation differently. Both persons would buy the dress if it were black and not buy it if it were gold. The dress is the same for each person, yet one buys it and one does not. Zayas, Shoda, & Ayduk (2002) describe this as individual difference in processing.
In relation to performance, one athlete might see the big game as the finale of their hard work while another sees the same game as a stepping stone to the next level. This would explain how it is possible for the lesser athlete who views a game as the finale to one’s career and puts everything into the game being able to outperform the better athlete as the better athlete fails to put everything into the game seeing the game as just the start of the athlete’s career. Due to seeing the same situation differently one athletes plays as hard as possible while one holds back saving energy for the future.
Conclusion
In conclusion, personality is one of the cornerstones of decision making but it is not the only factor. When faced with a decision a person views the decision through the lenses of one’s personality, the situation and how one views themselves within the situation. Unlike previous thought it is now believed a person’s personality does not change significantly overtime and a person does not make consistent decisions as the situation can be seen differently each time. In practical application when working with someone it is important to understand, the major factor which will lead to the understanding of what decision the person will make when faced with a situation will be the person’s personality. However, it is equally important to understand how a person processes through data in respect to how the person will view a situation and one’s relation to that situation. This could be understood as situational awareness. Possibly the most beneficial application of understanding Cognitive Affective Process System’s affect is an employer’s understanding of how a person processes situational awareness. If an employer understands an employee’s personality and how the employee typically processes data, it is likely the employer can have a better understanding of how the employee will act when faced with a situation.
[/et_pb_text][et_pb_code _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″] style=”display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px” data-ad-client=”ca-pub-5706446725189114″ data-ad-slot=”7685743045″>[/et_pb_code][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.9.4″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ sticky_enabled=”0″]
References
Mischel, Walter; Shoda, Yuichi (1995). A cognitive-affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualizing Situations, Dispositions, Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structure. Psychological Review. 102 (2): 246–268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246
Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in Research on Decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108-116.
Zayas, V., Shoda, Y., & Ayduk, O. N. (2002). Personality in Context: An Interpersonal Systems Perspective. Journal of Personality, 70(6), 851-900.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]