Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

2020 Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1938
  • 9 Downloads

Introduction

The cognitive experiential self-theory (CEST) is an information processing theory developed by Seymour Epsteinthat explains ways in which people perceive and incorporate information to make decisions. CEST is categorized as a theory of personality and suggests that people process information through two distinct systems: a conscious rational system and an unconscious experiential system. It is the combination of these two systems across patterns of behavior and thought that essentially lead to the development of a person’s attitudes, behavior, and ultimately personality, and this occurs within one’s social context. CEST is integrated and compatible with several psychological theories such as psychodynamic, learning, phenomenological, and modern cognitive theories of psychology. Similar to many dual process theories, CEST includes a system based on deliberate and analytical processing; however, different from other dual process theories, CEST includes an emotion-laden...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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, 66(5), 819–829.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Epstein, S. (2001). Manual for the constructive thinking inventory. Lutz: Psychological Assessments Resources.Google Scholar
  3. Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. Handbook of Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0507.
  4. Epstein, S. (2008). Intuition from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, & T. Betsch (Eds.), Intuition in judgment and decision making (pp. 23–37). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Epstein, S. (2014). Cognitive-experiential theory: An integrative theory of personality. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), 328–339.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.328.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 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(2), 390–405.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Godek, J., & Murray, K. B. (2008). Willingness to pay for advice: The role of rational and experiential processing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 77–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.10.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Krauss, D. A., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 22(6), 801–822.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lieberman, J. D. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive experiential self-theory and extralegal heuristics in juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(12), 2526–2553.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02755.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pacini, R., Muir, F., & Epstein, S. (1998). Depressive realism from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 1056–1068.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.4.1056.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Sargent, M. J. (2004). Less thought, more punishment: Need for cognition predicts support for punitive responses to crime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1485–1493.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Schul, Y., & Mayo, R. (2003). Searching for certainty in an uncertain world: The difficulty of giving up the experiential for the rational mode of thinking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(2), 93–106.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., & Abend, T. (1997). Terror management and cognitive-experiential self-theory: evidence that terror management occurs in the experiential system. Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(5), 1132–1146.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1132.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Tam, K., Au, A., & Leung, A. K. (2008). Attributionally more complex people show less punitiveness and racism. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 1074–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201–208). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Hood, R. W., Jr., Miller, L., & Waddell, M. G. (1999). Religion and the experiential system: Relationships of constructive thinking with religious. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(3), 195–207.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0903_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Prairie View A&M UniversityPrairie ViewUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Chris Ditzfeld
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA