WEEK 5 DISCUSSION RESPONSE (AB)

Peer Engagement

As we continue to take a new approach to peer engagement, be sure to pay careful attention to the peer engagements instructions below. These opportunities will be leveraged to deepen our conversation in specific, meaningful ways that guide us even closer to our course’s learning objectives.

You will be addressing at least two (if not more) of the additional prompts in each of your classmate responses. This list will be offered to you each week. To inspire this level of depth of exploration, addressing at least two bullet points from this list in each of your peer responses is a line item in the discussion grading rubric. This is not to limit you – you can still share anything you want with your peer (praise, encouragement, etc.), but somewhere in your response, you will want to address at least two elements from the peer engagement list (below).

Remember to circle back and substantively respond to two classmates by the due date specified in the syllabus (by Tuesday each week). Your peer engagement posts must go beyond summarizing and praising. To aid you in this endeavor, incorporate (two or more of) the following items. Include your line of thinking in these peer engagement posts, ensuring both a hearty, meaningful conversation and that your work meets criteria for substance and depth:

• Pose a situation that your peers two people might find themselves in and, using what you have learned from your peers post, make guesses as to how each might act in those situations, referencing at least one of the four theories. Ask your peer if they think your predictions are correct and follow-up with them after they respond.
• Identify any personal relationships you have with people like whom your peer has described. How do your peer examples relate (similarities and/or differences)? What observations about their behaviors have you made that reinstall your thinking?
• If any of your stories in your post align with or diverge from the stories your peer tells, discuss those similarities/differences to reinforce these concepts in more synthesized or nuanced ways. Why are these personal experiences important to you and your life?
• Identify a character from television, media, movies, or literature that is similar to someone your peer has described? How are their behaviors similar and/or different? How do these behaviors impact their actions and the events of the story?

HERE IS THE DISCUSSION THAT REQUIRES THE RESPONSE:

Two colleagues, A and B, illustrate how four social-cognitive theories account for personality differences in everyday situations.

Part 1 (brief descriptions). A is methodical, future-oriented, and self-assured in work tasks; I have known A through repeated project work and observed consistent efficacy across contexts. B is more reactive, socially influenced, and prone to spontaneous action; Ive known B through informal interactions and brief collaborative tasks, where behavior shifts with the surrounding cues.

Part 2 (Kellys personal constructs). In the argument, A applies tightly organized, testable constructs (e.g., collaborationnoncollaboration or competenceincompetence) and experiences anxiety when their constructs fail to predict the coworkers behavior. They attempt to extend or modify constructs (C-P-C cycle) to regain predictability. B relies on more permeable, context-sensitive constructs, leading to more flexible but inconsistent responses; they may quickly shift poles or abandon a line of reasoning when faced with disconfirming evidence, reflecting a more fluid construct system.

Part 3 (Rotters locus of control). A tends toward an internal locus of control, attributing outcomes to one’s own effort and strategies, which sustains persistence after setbacks. B leans external, attributing outcomes to others or luck, resulting in different coping strategies and greater susceptibility to withdrawal under challenge.

Part 4 (Mischel and delay of gratification). A would likely delay gratification in service of longer-term goals, reflecting higher DOG and stable expectancies; B may choose immediate rewards, illustrating lower DOG and more situationally activated responses.

Part 5 (Banduras self-efficacy). As high self-efficacy reinforces persistence, adaptive coping, and goal setting. Bs lower perceived efficacy may limit willingness to engage in challenging tasks and model new behaviors.

Part 6 (which theory best explains the differences). Kellys construct theory, complemented by Rotter and Bandura, best accounts for the nuanced, context-dependent differences; it captures how different construct systems, control beliefs, and self-efficacy interact to shape behavior across situations.

References

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1-2). Norton.

Mischel, W. (2014). The marshmallow test: Mastering self-control. Little, Brown and Company.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28.