User:Croweml11/sandbox
Needs and Beliefs in CEST[edit]
Four basic needs induce four basic beliefs:
- Maximize pleasure and minimize pain
- Benignity vs. malevolence of the world
- Relatedness
- Helpful and trustworthy vs. dangerous and untrustworthy
- Coherence of conceptual system
- Meaningful world vs. meaningless world
- Enhance self-esteem
- Worthy self vs. unworthy self
This is my original opening:
Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST) is a dual-process model of perception developed by Seymour Epstein. CEST is based around three assumptions. First, people operate using two separate systems for information processing: analytical-rational and intuitive-experiential. The analytical-rational system is deliberate, slow, and logical. The intuitive-experiential system is fast, automatic, and emotional. These are independent systems that operate in parallel and interact to produce behavior and conscious thought. Second, the experiential system is emotionally driven. Third, pleasure, interpersonal relatedness, cognitive coherence, and the maintenance of self-esteem are all equally important needs within the context of CEST.[1] There have been other dual-process theories in the past. Shelly Chaiken's heuristic-systematic model, Carl Jung's distinction between thinking and feeling, and John Bargh's theory on automatic vs. non-automatic processing all have similar components to CEST. However, Epstein's cognitive-experiential self-theory is unique in that it places a dual-process model within the context of a global theory of personality, rather than considering it as an isolated construct or cognitive shortcut.[2][1] Epstein argues that within the context of day to day life, a constant interaction occurs between the two systems. Because the experiential system is fast, guided by emotion and past experience, and requires little in terms of cognitive resources, it is especially equipped to handle the majority of information processing on a daily basis, all of which occurs outside of conscious awareness. This, in turn, allows us to focus the limited capacity of our rational system on whatever requires our conscious attention at the time.[1] Individual difference in preference for analytical or experiential processing can be measured using the Rational Experiential Inventory (REI). The REI measures the two independent processing modes with two factors: Need for Cognition (rational measure) and Faith in Intuition (experiential measure). Several studies have confirmed that the REI is a reliable measure of individual difference in information processing, and that the two independent thinking styles measured account for a substantial amount of variance that is not addressed by other personality theories such as the big five personality traits.[3][4] Further research using the REI has also yielded potential facets, or sub-factors of NFC and FI. The experiential factor measured by Faith in Intuition can be divided into an intuition factor, emotionality factor, and an imagination factor. The rational processing factor measured by Need for Cognition, on the other hand, tends to retain its coherence in factor analyses suggesting that sub-factors cannot reliably be extracted.[3] However, it has been suggested that ability and engagement sub-scales can be applied to both rational and experiential thinking styles.[2]
- ^ a b c Epstein, Seymour; In: Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psychology, Vol. 5. Millon, Theodore (Ed.); Lerner, Melvin J. (Ed.); Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2003. pp. 159-184. [Chapter]
- ^ a b Pacini, R., Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 972-987.
- ^ a b Norris, P., Epstein, S. (2011). An experiential thinking style: Its facets and relations with objective and subjective criterion measures. Journal of Personality, 79, 1044-1080.
- ^ Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive-experiential and analytical-rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.