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:
Part 1: Two Very Different People
Person A: The Golden Retriever Heart
One of the two people I am comparing is myself. I am often described as very nice and caring, sometimes even like a golden retriever. I tend to be a people pleaser, which can be both a strength and a weakness. I put others first and am very aware of how my actions affect the people around me. I value kindness, harmony, and emotional connection, and I usually try to help others even if it costs me time or comfort.
Person B: The Dog-Eat-Dog Realist
The other person is my brother. He believes the world is harsh and competitive and often describes it as dog-eat-dog. He tends to assume people are malicious or selfish, so looking out for yourself comes first. While friends sometimes view him as confident or cool, my family experiences him as mean or emotionally distant. Growing up in the same household has made these differences especially noticeable across social, family, and stressful situations (Allen, 2016).
Part 2: Conflict Through Different Personal Constructs
George Kellys Personal Construct Theory suggests that people respond to situations based on how they interpret them through personal constructs, such as seeing conflict as something that can be resolved through communication or as a threat that requires defense (Allen, 2016).
When I find myself in an argument with a coworker, I believe that a gentle response can reduce anger and that talking things through calmly is the best way to solve problems. I focus on understanding the other persons perspective, lowering tension, and finding common ground. To me, conflict is something that can be resolved through patience and empathy rather than force.
My brother tends to interpret conflict as disrespect. Instead of seeing disagreement as something to work through, he often views it as a challenge to his authority or boundaries. Because of this, he responds more directly and firmly, believing that standing his ground is necessary to avoid being taken advantage of, which contrasts with my tendency to de-escalate conflict through calm communication and understanding (Allen, 2016).
Part 3: Who Holds the Control?
Julian Rotters theory of locus of control explains whether people believe outcomes are primarily the result of their own actions or controlled by external forces such as authority figures or circumstances, which often becomes clear early in how people take responsibility for everyday tasks (Allen, 2016).
I tend to have an internal locus of control. As a child, if something needed to be done, like taking out the trash, I would usually do it without being asked. I believed that noticing a responsibility meant it was my job to handle it. This pattern continues into adulthood, where I believe my actions can influence outcomes and prevent problems.
My brother shows a more external locus of control. Growing up, he often waited for our mom to tell him exactly what to do, even for small tasks like putting a bag in the trash can. Responsibility came from authority figures rather than internal motivation, whereas I tended to take initiative on my own, helping explain why we approach responsibility and accountability so differently today (Allen, 2016).
Part 4: The Marshmallow Test and Self-Control
Walter Mischels research on delay of gratification shows that learning to wait for something better as a child can shape how people handle choices and self-control as adults (Allen, 2016).
I likely would have waited for the second marshmallow. Even now, I delay my own wants to help others or preserve relationships. I tend to pause before reacting and think about long-term outcomes rather than immediate satisfaction.
My brother likely would have eaten the marshmallow right away. He prefers immediate results and direct action, which shows up in how he handles responsibilities and conflict by focusing on what matters in the moment rather than future consequences, contrasting with my more patient and long-term approach to decision-making (Allen, 2016).
Part 5: Self-Efficacy in Action
Albert Bandura defined self-efficacy as the belief in ones ability to succeed at tasks and challenges, which influences confidence, motivation, and how people respond when things become difficult (Allen, 2016; Bandura, 1997).
I have high self-efficacy rooted in growth and possibility. I often live by the idea, How big would you dream if you knew you couldnt fail? This mindset encourages me to try, learn, and persist even when situations are uncomfortable or challenging. My confidence is paired with reflection and effort.
My brother also shows high self-efficacy, but it is less reflective. He believes he can do whatever he wants and rarely questions his limits. A running family joke is that he genuinely believes he could beat up a gorilla. While exaggerated, this example reflects how his confidence can sometimes overlook realistic boundaries and consequences, which contrasts with my more thoughtful approach to confidence and self-belief (Bandura, 1997).
Part 6: The Theory That Fits Best
In my opinion, Walter Mischels social cognitive theory best explains the differences between my brother and me. His focus on self-regulation and situation-specific behavior explains why we developed such different patterns despite growing up in the same environment (Allen, 2016). Our differences are less about fixed traits and more about how we learned to interpret situations and manage our reactions over time.
References
Allen, B. P. (2016). Personality theories: Development, growth, and diversity (5th ed.). Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 12). 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), 128.