Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
Theoreticalbackground
Thetermimplicitpersonalitytheories(IPTs)wasfirstproposedbyBrunerand
Tagiuri(1954)toidentifytheindividual’ssetofexpectedrelationsamongtraitsand
atributesofotherpersonsaswellasoneself.IPTsarecalledHimplicit”becausethey
arerarelyexplicitlyarticulated,andtheyarecalledHtheories”
,since,asscientific
theoriesgo,theyestablishsomeframeworkformakingpredictionsandjudging
eventsinone’sworld(Chiu,Hong,Dweck,1997).Unlikegrandscientifictheories,
IPTsrefertoaperson’scommonsensicalexplanationsforeverydayevents.For
thisreason,IPTsaresometimesalsocalledHnaive”orHlay”theories(Plaks,Levy,
Dweck,2009).Itisworthbearinginmindthatthelatertermsaremoreusedinso-
cialpsychology(e.g.Kruglanski,1990)whileIPTscanbefoundineducationaland
developmentalpsychology(e.g.Blackwell,Trzesniewski,Dweck,2007).
PeopleuseIPTsspecificallyinsituationswheretheytrytoinvestcomplexand
ambiguousbehaviourwithimportance,notablywhentheyhavelimitedinforma-
tionaboutothers(Bruner,Tagiuri;1954;Schneider,1973).Apparently,theconcept
ofIPTshasbeenatopicofinteresttocognitivesocialresearchersinthe1960sand
1970s(cf.e.g.Łukaszewski,1997).ResearchersreferredtoIPTsinordertodescribe
twotimelessphenomena,i.e.thegeneralbiasinjudgmentsexhibitedtowardothers
(e.g.stereotypingandprejudice)andindividualdifferencesinpersonperception
(e.g.impressionformation)(Wang,1997).AnewinterestinIPTs,reportedsince
theendofthe20thc.,canbeascribedtoaresearchprojectbyDwecketal.,asan-
nouncedinascientificpaperbyDweckandLegget(1988),nowconsideredassem-
inal(Lüfenegger,Chen,2017).
Asdefinedbytheauthorsthemselves(e.g.Dweck,Chiu,Hong,1995),implicit
theoriesrefertotwodifferentassumptionspeoplemaymakeconcerningthemallea-
bilityofkeyatributesofthehumannature,specificallyintelligenceandpersonality.
Oneoftheseassumptionsstressesthesupremacyofaconvictionthatsaidatrib-
utesaccountforamalleablequality(incrementaltheory).Itfollowsthattheycan
undergochangeanddevelop.Accordingtotheothertheory(entitytheory),human
atributesarefixedandformanon-malleableentity.Asregardsintelligence,entity
theoristsclaimthatintelligenceisaninnatequality.Hence,eachofushasahigher
orlowerlevelofintelligencewhichremainsunchanged.Incontrast,incremental
theoristsbelievethatintelligenceisamalleablequality(Dweck,1996,cf.Turska,
2012).AsregardsIPTs,entitytheoristsunderlinetheimportanceoftraitstoexplain
humanconduct;thenatureofthesetraitsisfixed.Incontrast,incrementaltheorists
perceivetraitsasdynamicconstructsand,therefore,placelesserimportancetothem
asexplanatoryfactorsofhumanbehaviour.Instead,theyhighlighttheimportance
ofneeds,aims,andemotionalstateswhich,togetherwithsituationalfactors,deter-
minesuchacomplexphenomenonashumanbehaviour(Dweck,2008).Theresults
ofnumerousstudiesbyDweck(e.g.2000)demonstrateregulatoryconsequencesof
acertainbeliefaboutthemalleabilityofhumanatributes.Inotherwords,IPTscon-
strona278
