Schema: Basic models

1. Schema: Basic models • Jean Piaget • Schema (“scheme”): The representation in the mind of a coherent set of perceptions, ideas, and actions.  • Basic homeostatic device • adapt to new information and • ensure stability over time and context • The development of knowledge structures: • Assimilation • Incorporate new experience into existing cognitive structures • Stereotypes • “Action schema” • “Response generalization” • Accommodation • Modify cognitive structure to include new categories • Attitude change • Verbal / experiential learning

2. Markus • “Self-schema” • Consistent cognitive structure (“self-attitude”, beliefs about self & others • Primed by affective or contextual cues • Core mechanism for • Filtering & interpreting social information about self & others • Maintaining organized self-perception • Lowers threshold for recognition & recall • Lowers Rx time, errors • Central to recognition & response to health threat • Unrealistic / unique optimism and pct. Vulnerability • “Schema change”  maintenance

3. Fingerhut’s model

4. Self-regulation: Basic cybernetic frame Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior Behavioral “Comparator” Self schema “Self-discrepancies”

5. Higgen’s self-discrepancy model Actual Ideal Ought • Attributes that directly describe the self • Ongoing behavior / behavioral dispositions • Attitudes & beliefs • Affective states • Attributes that represent your... • Hopes • Aspirations • Wishes • Attributes that key others (reference group) believes you should posses. • Sense of duty • Obligations • Responsibilities

6. Higgen’s self-discrepancy model Actual Ideal Ought Own Other Own Other Own Other Standpoints: “internal” v. “external”

7. Higgen’s self-discrepancy model Actual Ideal Ought Own Other Own Other Own Other • Basic “self-schema” or self-concept • Simple self-perception • Perception of other’s view of self • “Self-guides”: Internal & external standards • Normative reference group: Norms x values term • Motivations: • Intrinsic versus extrinsic

8. “Self-schemea” the basic cybernetic frame Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior Behavioral “Comparator” • “Ideal” self • “Ought” self • Intrinsic goals / aspirations • Extrinsic values / demands • “Actual” self • Self-perceived • Via perceptions of others

9. Self-discrepancies Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior Behavioral “Comparator” • Perceived self-discrepancy • Real discrepancy between standards & outcomes • Chronic availability of standards & behavioral outcomes • Priming of ideal / ought standards

10. Self-discrepancies, 2 Actual Ideal Ought Own Other Own Other Own Other Depression, disappointment Dejection, loss of esteem Fear, perceived threat Guilt, self-recrimination Anxiety, fear, social anxiety Depression, sadness, self-disappointment

11. The feared self • Discrepancies and goals: • Actual  ought: • behavior shaped toward an outcome by avoidance of negative consequences • Guilt, extrinsic motivation • Initiation of + behavior likely short term • Actual  Ideal: • Behavior shaped byapproach of personal goals • “Personal striving”, intrinsic motivation • Initiation  maintenance • The feared self: • Behavior shaped only by avoidance; no outcome structure

12. Multiple motives for behavior • Feared self: Diffuse avoidance motives • Ideal / ought self: structures behavior toward approach goal • Combination of avoidant(feared self-based) and approach(ideal / ought –based) motives sum to create behavioral disposition.

13. Approach – Avoidance conflicts Kurt Lewin, Dollard & Miller: • Approach or avoidance of a goal (or state..) have drive states or strengths • The strength of a drive increases as the animal gets closer to the goal • Avoidance gradients (“BAS”) are steeper than approach (“BIS”) gradients • Negative information is more salient • Pain / avoidance / fear is a stronger motivator than positive affect • As long as one drive predominates action follows. • People can have >1 gradient • If no drive is predominant  state of equilibrium • Resolving equilibrium requires a shift in goals or self-awareness

14. Approach gradient • Single motive toward a goal: • no conflict • reliable behavioral outcome • Varies by goal (“schema”) within person • Varies between people (individual difference / “personality” variable) Drive strength Reward sensitivity (BAS) Near Far Distance from goal

15. Avoidance gradient Also single motive Drive strength Punishment sensitivity (BIS) Near Far Distance from goal

16. Two Approach Goals Two conflicting goals, but gradients differ enough that conflict is resolved, no equilibrium state Drive strength Near Far Distance from goal

17. Two Behavioral Goals:Approach – Approach Conflict Approach gradients cross as the subject gets closer to the goals. Resulting equilibrium requires shift in goal strengths. Drive strength Near Far Distance from goal

18. Approach – Avoidance Conflict • Avoidance • concern over negative consequences • punishment sensitivity • salient to proximal & concrete goals. • Resolving equilibrium: • “Not think” response: cognitive escape, drug use… • Change salience of + or – information • Value – attitude congruence: • frame concrete behavior in terms of higher-order goal • “assimilate” behavior into self-schema • Approach motives • positive conceptualizations, • reward sensitivity • more salient to distant & abstract goals. Drive strength Near Far Distance from goal

19. Multiple “self-schema” and approach – avoidance goals Multiple approach & avoidant sub-goals Lead to overall goal pursuit / avoidance Drive strength Near Far Distance from goal

20. Leventhal’s “Common Sense” model: “Disturbance” term in cybernetic model Approach / avoidant “goals” vis-à-vis “behavioral comparator”. Normative or individual cognitive schema Causal attributions, outcome & efficacy expectancies, information seeking Response to “hot” cognition: affective reactivity Capacity for approach (instrumental) or avoidant (affective) coping responses

21. Health threats and self-regulation Cognitive & affective representation of health threat Disturbance, threat info. Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior Behavioral “Comparator”

22. Health beliefs in a cybernetic frame Cognitive & affective representation of health threat Disturbance, threat info. Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior • Problem recognition: is there a problem? • “Cues to action”: availability of health information • Sensitivity to physical or ψstatus (e.g., “ψ mindedness”) • Social norms  visibility of impairment or change Behavioral “Comparator”

23. Health beliefs in a cybernetic frame Cognitive & affective representation of health threat Disturbance, threat info. Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior • Problem Definition: What is it? • Simple knowledge & beliefs • Negative v. positive definitions • Health v. Illness • Physical v. behavioral • Causal attributions (internal / stable v. external / unstable) Behavioral “Comparator”

24. Health beliefs in a cybernetic frame Cognitive & affective representation of health threat Disturbance, threat info. Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior • Problem solving strategies • Simple health care availability • Anticipated stigma • Instrumental v. affective coping responses • Outcome & self-efficacy expectancies  active coping • Expectancies of affect regulation  avoidant coping Behavioral “Comparator”

25. Health beliefs: Protection Motivation Cognitive & affective representation of health threat Disturbance, threat info. Behavioral intentions Actual behavior Available feedback Protection motivation model Behavioral standards Self-monitoring of ongoing behavior • Threat appraisal • HBM constructs: vulnerability & severity of threat • “Approach” motivations: intrinsic & extrinsic rewards Behavioral “Comparator” • Coping appraisal • Performance & response efficacy • “Avoidant” motivations: response cost

26. Protection motivation • Core construct: • Interaction of Efficacy expectancies x perceived threat. • Sturges et al., 1996: Adolescent’s intention to smoke, by: • Experimental threat condition • Baseline “active” coping skills. • High threat + low coping  “boomerang” effect

27. Protection motivation: Wu et al., 1 • Integrative heuristic model: key variables • Personal & cultural sources of information • Complex threat appraisals • Coping resources • Motivational “readiness” • Rewards / facilitators • Costs Begin self-regulating the threat

28. Protection motivation: Wu et al., 2 • Core elements of Health Belief Model: • Health information • Perceived severity • Personal vulnerability • Cues to action?

29. Protection motivation: Wu et al., 3 • Theory of reasoned action: • Norms • Beliefs & attitudes • Self-efficacy • Behavioral intention as core outcome

30. Illness representations & self-regulation Cognitive representation Identity of the disease Cause Timeline Consequences Controllability Internal v. external attribution • Chronicity: • eventual coping demands • “burnout” • Perceived severity • Perceived vulnerability • Expectancies: • Outcome • Self-efficacy

31. Illness representations & self-regulation Cognitive representation Coping resources Identity Cause Timeline Consequences Controllability Core dimension: Active / instrumental Affective • Avoidant • Denial, distancing • Self-blame, fatalism • Alcohol / drugs, etc. • “Problem solving” • Skills & knowledge • Social support • self-efficacy • Other resources

32. Illness representations & self-regulation Cognitive representation Coping resources Affective state Identity Cause Timeline Consequences Controllability Instrumental vs. Affective Positive & negative affect Quality of life “Future orientation”

33. Illness representations & self-regulation Cognitive representation Coping resources Affective state Identity Cause Timeline Consequences Controllability Instrumental vs. Affective Positive & negative affect Quality of life “Future orientation”

34. Benyamini: 3-level self-regulation model data