User:CESTheory

Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory

Cognitive experiential self theory (CEST) focus’ on personality (Epstein, 2002). CEST consists of several theories: psychodynamic theories, learning theories, phenomenological self theories, and modern scientific views on information processing (2002). According to CEST there are three assumptions that are consciously aware. The first assumption focus’ on how information is processed (Lieberman, Krauss, Kyger, & Lexhous, 2007). There are two systems in which information is processed: experiential systems and rational systems. These two systems are independent and interactive (2007) (Teglasi, Epstein, 1998). The second assumption is that experiential system comes natural as an information processor and is derived from emotion. Experiential is “effortless” and automatic as information is processed. The experiential system is also “emotionally based” (2007). This system, experiential, purpose is to analyze information (2007). Rational systems function at the “conscious level”. Rational systems functions are to be filled purposefully (intentionally), analyze the information being processed, and also bases cause for information on “logic” and “evidence” (2007). The final assumption comes from the four basic needs.

Experiential versus Cognitive Characteristics

1)It is important to note that the cognitive system is analytical, meaning, that it explores the various features of an object, person, or event. The experiential system, however, is holistic, meaning that it explores more worldly patterns (2003).

2)The cognitive system differs from the experiential system in the sense that it analyzes features separately, and therefore takes longer to process. The experiential processes information quickly by focusing on ongoing actions rather than the future (2003).

3)The cognitive system relies on symbols, words, and number to represent things, whereas, the experiential system relies on images, metaphors, and narratives (2003).

4)Due to the dependability on symbols, words, and numbers; logic and reason is used to determine a decision for the cognitive systems. This will lead to the causes and effects to be carefully considered. The usage of logic and reason is applied to all contexts. When the experiential system is in use it will help guide the decisions being made(2003).

5)The cognitive and experiential system differ in terms of effort needed. In the cognitive system it is necessary to have effort and concentration, so thoughts can be controlled deliberately. The experiential system is effortless and automatic (2003)

6)Since the cognitive system uses symbols and words, concepts can be finely differentiated and preferences can be changed. The experiential system is not able to differentiate concepts because subtly evolves with experience (2003).

The Four Basics

The Four Basic Needs

The four basic needs are important towards behavior and reactions. The desire people have to increase pleasure and decrease pain is the most fundament need, pleasure principle. Another basic need for identification is relatedness. Individuals strive for the need of consistent “stability” and “coherence” of their conceptual system. The last basic need consists of the need for increased self-esteem (2002). According to CEST these fundamental four basic needs are all equally important to the theory. All four of the basic needs can operate well together at the same time. Given a certain situation with the needs combined together determine the behavior (2002). With so many needs they all cannot be fulfilled all at once. When one need is fulfilled, it increases the needs satisfaction to be fulfilled.

To balance a need, compromises can take place. For instance, an individual could have a higher cost and receive a positive feeling. The individual received a better feeling about their selves but had to increase their cost in order to receive the positive feelings. This compromise consisted of pleasure-pain. Individuals who do not adjust well to fulfilling their basic needs end up fulfill their needs in a “conflicting manner”, while individuals who adjust well fulfill their needs by working with other individuals and fulfilling the needs of others (2002).Well adjusted individuals receive a positive pleasure-pain balance, have a high self-esteem, keep a constant conceptual system, and rewards their interpersonal relationships (2002). People can balance their needs by working with others to open their minds about alternative examples or in a conflicting manner by distancing their selves from others due to a low self-esteem (2002).

Imbalances of the Four Basic Needs

Paranoia and schizophrenia create basic needs to become imbalanced. Paranoia can end up creating threats towards an individual’s self-esteem. Individuals are desperate to build their self-esteem up that they end up forgetting about the other needs they have (2002). This is done in order to keep a specific pleasure-pain balance. Paranoia causes individuals to push others away from them causing them not being able to maintain relationships (2002). Schizophrenia causes individuals to be able to prevent misery. This can only be done by threatening the fulfillment of other needs. There are not pleasant or unpleasant feelings during this state (2002). Schizophrenic individuals end up losing out on the needs to maintain the stability of the conceptual system, relatedness, and increase self-esteem (2002).

The Four Basic Beliefs

Along with the four basic needs comes with corresponding four basic beliefs. Based on these four basic beliefs, determines what individuals are thinking, feeling, and behaving (2002). These beliefs help individuals to figure out what is important to them at the experiential level. Also, these beliefs help individuals to pursue or avoid spontaneously. The basic beliefs consist of the world being worthy versus unworthy, trustworthy versus untrustworthy, meaningful versus meaningless, and optimistic versus pessimistic of the self (2002).

Evidence

Dr. Seymour Epstein and his colleagues have empirically investigated the Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory in a number of studies. Most of these studies have found evidence that is consistent with their original findings, which is that CEST is very useful in understanding a variety of social behaviors. There are also other areas that CEST has been successfully applied to. For example, “CEST has also been successfully applied to juror decision-making in a variety of legal contexts” (2007). They found that mock jurors were leinent towards attractive defendants when motivated to think experientially, but the attractiveness-leinency bias was not operative among rational mode participants (2007). The also found that experiential processing is associated with greater verdict nullification and that the participants were likely to succumb to a back-fire effect abd rely on inadmissible evidence. In contrast, they found that the rational thinking participants were more lilely to follows the guidelines and ignore the inadmissible evidence. (2007)

Research has supported CEST by confirming all of the basic assumptions. In the research there are two independent forms of information which consists of processing systems working side by side. By the processing systems working side by side this makes them interact and work together all at the same time. Experiential systems and rational systems are important because the systems identify what process an individual is thinking. The process could be automatic, preconscious, experiential, or rational (2002). Experiential systems cause individuals to “behave against their better judgment” (2002). While rational systems allow individuals to use their better judgments by using reason. There are many differences between experiential and rational thinking styles along with the four basic beliefs as proposed by CEST (2002).

Criticisms

Like any research, CEST has drawn a few criticisms against its findings. The main criticism that CEST has faced is the limitations of the experiential system. In an article written by Veronika Denes-Raj and Dr. Seymour Epstein himself, they examined the conflict between intuitive and rational processing. They address the fact that the limitations associated with the experiential system have been displayed in many studies. Others found that when making decisions under uncertainty, “people often ignore basic statistical concepts, such as base rates, sample sixe, regression to the mean, and the conjunction principle and rely instead on judgmental heuristics, such as representativeness, availability, anchoring effects, and salience” (Denes-Raj, Epstein 1994). The main concern with this assumption is the ratio-bias effect, where people will most likely choose a larger ratio as opposed to a smaller one regardless of the fact that they have the same probability. Dr. Seymour Epstein, along with a colleague, Kirkpatrick developed an experiment that would apply to college student. The asked college students to draw jellybeans out of one of two bowls, and if they drew a red one, they would win a monetary incentive. One of the bowls contained ten jellybeans, one of which was red. The second bowl contained one hundred jellybeans, ten of which were red. Most of people participating in the study went for the bowl filled with one hundred, even though they had the same probability of drawing a red one. What Dr. Epstein took from this study was that the experiential system relates more to concrete, or absolute number, rather than ratios (1994).

Conclusion

Many conclusions can be made from Dr. Epstein’s work on the Cognitive Experiential Self-Theory. Even though the experiential system and cognitive system are different, they are highly interactive with each other. It has been found that neither system is better than the other, they are both unique in their own respects. “For instance, the cognitive system was activated when the tasks involved abstract thinking, such as Raven's progressive matrices, or verbal thinking. In addition, the cognitive system was activated when participants needed to reflect upon how to improve the utility, rather than enjoyment, of some IT system” (Novak & Hoffman, 2009). “The experiential system, in contrast, was invoked, when the tasks involved creativity or associations. That is, this system was preferred when participants needed to identify some changes that could be introduced to improve some toy, to uncover words that could complete some phrase, or to construct sentences from sets of four words. Furthermore, the experiential system prevailed when participants needed to deliberate over how to improve the enjoyment-instead of the utility-of some IT system” (Novak & Hoffman, 2009).

Reference

Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict Between Intuitive and Rational Processing: When People Behave Against Their Better Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 66, 819-829.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Epstein, S. (1992). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and subjective probability: Further evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 534-544. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.534

Lieberman, J. D., Krauss, D. A., Kyger, M., & Lehoux, M. (2007). Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive–experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony.Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(4), 507-526. doi:10.1002/bsl.771

Novak, T. P., & Hoffman, D. L. (2009). The fit of thinking style and situation: New measures of situation-specific experiential and rational cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 56-72.

Teglasi, H., & Epstein, S. (1998). Temperament and personality theory: The perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. School Psychology Review, 27(4), 534-550. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.