PSY-P 319 Lecture Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Exam 1 Lecture Notes...

Description

Introduction Personality is study of our unique differences - In what ways are we like others - In what way are we unlike others Defining Personality - A relatively enduring pattern of behavior, feelings, and thoughts History of Personality: Two Parents - Nomothetic Approach - Wundt - Scientific Approach - Galton - Devoted to studying variations in human ability - Variable-centered, Interpersonal, Research -

Ideographic Approach - individuality - Freud - Case studies - Person-centered, Intrapersonal, Clinical

Why study Personality? Personality is Everywhere - Social interaction - Physical appearance and mannerisms - Choice of product brand and features - Social media use - Political affiliation - Offices and bedrooms Personality and Covid-19 - Extroverts are less likely to socially distance and find social isolation more challenging It is impossible to understand behavior (yours or that of others without understanding personality. - The ultimate diversity - Understanding self and others Person and Situation Mischel (1968) Personality and Assessment Person-Situation Debate - On one side, the view that stable personality traits predict behavior (do behavioral tendencies persist across situations) - On the other side, the view that situation is much more important and personality does not really exist - Situationist

-

Milgram, Zimbardo

Funder and Ozer (1983) examined three classic studies in social psychology that demonstrated effects of situational variables on behaviors: Festinger and Carlsmith, Darley & Latané, and Milgram. In each case, the size of the effects of the situational variables on behaviors, when converted to effect sizes, where equal to the personality variables: equivalent to a correlation coefficient between r=.30 and r=.40. (and most everyday situation are weaker than those in these studies) One comprehensive review concluded that the average size of the effect of situational variables on behaviors, in social psychological experiments, is r=.21(Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003). Some people are more stable than others Some situations are more powerful than others - strong situations Aggregation Personality can best be conceived as a person's usual tendency. Conclusion: Personality traits predict behavior but they are one factor among many- both personality and situations matter. Person-Situation Interaction - Both personality and situation influence behavior - The person and situation work together in many different ways to determine behavior

Factor

Example

Personality can be impacted by experiences

You and your friends go to different colleges. Over time, you notice that our friends seem different than when you were in highschool

People respond differently to the same situation

Some of your friends thrive at parties, whereas others shrink into the background

People choose their situations

You choose to read a book on a Saturday afternoon. Your friend chooses to take a cooking class, while another friend chooses to go rock- wall climbing. In each case, your are each choosing the situation you’re most comfortable with

People change the situations they enter

Having a serious private conversation with a friend when someone else unexpected walks in. Do you put the conversation on hold? Include the other person? Whatever you choose, the previous situation is changed by the presence of the third person

Measurement of Personality: Part 1 Self-Report Questionnaires - Most common way to measure personality - Asks people to report on their own personalities - Rater indicate their identification with adjectives or agreement with statements - True/False - Incremental scale from agree to disagree, called a Likert scale Socially Desirable Responding - People may lie to make themselves look better - Marlowe-Crowne measures socially desirable responding (need for social approval - “I have never intensely disliked anyone” - Can be used as covariates Socially desirable scales are also personality measures themselves Scores have changed over generations Forced choice with equally desirable options Acquiescence - Reverse-scored items The Example of the Cat Person Scale - Some people agree with everything on the questionnaire, called acquiescence response set - Thus, many personality measures include some statements worded in the opposite direction, called reverse-scored items Reliability - Scale is consistent - Internal reliability - When all items on scale measure the same concept - Often reported using Cronbach’s alpha statistic - Average of the correlation between items - Personality sales should have an alpha of at least .60 - Test-retest reliability - Taking test at two different times produces similar results Correlation should be at least .70 to show scale produces same results over time - Intercoder reliability - Used when assessment involves writing samples or behaviors - Indicates correlation between coders’ ratings Validity - A scale measures what it is supposed to measure - Face validity - Items appear to measure what they are supposed to measure

-

Predictive validity - Measure is related to a concrete behavior or outcome Convergent validity - Scale correlates with similar scales Discriminant validity - Scale does not correlate with unrelated scales

Measurement of Personality: Part 2 Zodiac Signs - Reliable, but not valid Briggs - Developed by Isabel Briggs Myers and Katherine Cook - Self taught (not psychologists) - Rooted in Jungian theory of psychological types - In 1991, National Academy of Sciences committee reviewed data from MBTI research and noted “the troublesome discrepancy between research results (a lack of proven worth) and popularity.” -

Low reliability - Falls short of accepted standards. MBTO Manual claims that only 65% of respondents had all four preferences the same over a 4-week retest period All published studies on reliability have been conducted on college students Lacks validity - while the test does seem to measure Jung’s types, there is no evidence that it predicts success or failure in any occupation (predictive validity)

Alternatives to self-report questionnaires Informant Reports - When other people report on someone’s personality - More accurate for studying undesirable traits - Often used to study children Measuring Behavior - Observing samples of behavior throughout the day (often through self-report) - Using a controlled lab setting to measure reactions Archival or Life Outcomes Data - Studying archival records, personal websites, Facebook, bedrooms, etc. Projective Tests

-

-

Measures designed to elicit personality characteristics without directly asking - Rorschach inkblot - Response to ambiguous stimulus - Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) - Participants tell or write stories based on pictures Physiological Measures - Assessing physical reactions such as heart rate or sweating - Can reveal reactions not found in self-report measures - Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) shows which brain areas are more active during certain tasks. Have identified differences in the brains of people with different personality traits

Development of the Big Five Trait -

Relatively stable tendencies of individuals Personality is the sum total of all independent traits Lexical Hypothesis - idea that important traits become embedded in our language - Most important traits represented by single words - Researchers used factor analysis to correlate responses into cluster - Raymond Cattel laid the foundation for modern lexical analysis when he factor analyzed paragraph descriptors based on Allport and Odbert (1936)’s list of traits (extracted from an unabridged dictionary) to derive 16 primary personality factors

Hans Eysenck - Founding editor of Personality and Individual Differences, MPQ, EPQ Eysenck Traits

The “Big Five” (The Five Factor Model) - Extraversion (E) - Agreeableness (A) - Conscientiousness (C) - Neuroticism (N) - Openness to Experience (O) Facets of the “Big Five” - Because the Big Face are broad traits, they include several subcategories of traits, called facets - More specific components Distinct Categories or Continuum? - Very few people score at one extreme or the other - Most are somewhere in between - The Big Five components are on a continuum - Some Big Five traits are weakly correlated with others Normal Distribution of introverts - extroverts 1. Extraversion - Bring outgoing and experiencing positive emotions - Has emerged as one of the fundamental dimensions of personality in nearly every model - Originated with Jung - Friendly - like people (“people person’ - Gregarious - “party people’ - Assertiveness - “life of the party’ - Activity level - vigorous and energetic - Excitement seeking - they like stimulation - Cheerfulness Positive Affect Relationship between extraversion and trait positive affect has emerged in many cultures with many different methods (Lucas & Baird, 2004), with the average correlation found to be around r=0.40. Within any given time-frame, extraverts are happier than introverts. Extraversion is linked to better mental health -

Tellegen (1985) argues that positive emotionality constitutes the core of extraversion. He divided extraversion into four lower order facets; well-being (cheerfulness), social potency (assertiveness), social closeness (friendly), and achievement The covariation of these components is accounted for by positive effect; once positive effect is removed, the other components of extraversion do not correlate with each other. Based on his own research he suggested that we should rename extraversion “positive

emotionality -

Extraverts judge neutral events more positively than introverts Extraversion predicts categorization of words by their positive affective quality rather than their semantic quality (Weiler, 1992) For example, extraverts are more likely to judge the words “hug” and “smile” as more similar than the words “smile” and “face.”

Relative to introverts, extraverts show superior ability to recognize faces but are not better t recognizing non-social stimuli (flowers) Gregariousness facet Extraverts are better at decoding nonverbal social information than introverts -

-

Eysenck emphasized impulsivity Extraverts have more problems delaying gratification - Delay discounting Extraverts are more likely to gamble, drink, and use recreational drugs, and have sex with more partners (they also talk about sex more) Extraverts experience most stimuli as more rewarding than introverts. Recent research suggests that this Reward Sensitivity may lie at the heart of this trait. According to this view, extraverts may be drawn to social situations not because they are more sociable but because they are much more sensitive to the rewards involved in such situations

NEO-FFI extraversion is related to having more economic (status and accomplishment), political (influencing and leading), and hedonistic (fun and excitement) goals (Roberts and Robins, 2000). -

Extraverts tend to be popular and often emerge as leaders They excel in sales positions and other jobs that require a lot of social interaction (don’t perform well in solitary jobs) They are more likely than introverts to be in debt

Introversion - Prefer quiet and solitude to noise and crowds - They are less comfortable around people and don’t make friends easily (they’d rather interact with close friends and family). They feel drained if they have to spend too much time around others - They are good listeners Relatively few people fall on the extremes of either dimension. Most people are both extraverted and introverted in different settings.

Overall, neither end of the continuum is superior to the other (people high in extraversion might be more likely to mate and succeed socially, but they might also be more likely to die from risky behavior). It is about finding the right fit for one’s personality. 2. Agreeableness - The desire to get along with other people - Tend to use fewer swear words and express positive emotions more frequently in their internet posts Agreeable people: - Are trusting and sympathetic - Prefer cooperation to competition - Tend to be honest, forthright, humble, self-effacing, and compliant - Tend to be good friends and caring romantic partners Downsides: - Easily exploited by others - Paid less for the same work - Being high in agreeableness is not always morally right nor emotionally healthy - They will eagerly align with harmful acts if they are socially sanctioned - They are often resentful toward others (public self and private self are not necessarily in agreement) Disagreeableness (or antagonism): The opposite of agreeableness Disagreeable people are: - Skeptical, cynical, egocentric, grandiose, manipulative, dishonest, callous, and aggressive - Likely to have a hostile attribution bias- they interpret innocent behavior as malevolent - More likely to be involved with crime, risky sex, drug abuse, and other antisocial behavior. Strong predictor of incarceration - Correlation between agreeableness and ASP is between -.25 and -.40 - More likely to become great leaders; American presidents are less agreeable than the average American and “great” presidents are less agreeable than other presidents. Being too far in either direction is maladaptive. The key is to strike a balance between the extremes. 3. Conscientiousness The desire to behave appropriately - Conscientious people are: - Orderly - tidy, keep schedules - Dutiful - they follow through because they feel responsibility (take obligations to

-

others seriously) Identical to “grit”

They are persistent and hard-working. They have a lot of willpower and able to set and complete long-term goals despite distractions or boredom They are ambitious and enjoy academic and professional success - They make better grades in college and medical school - Less likely to be absent from work - Receive higher evaluations from employers High in levels self-regulation, self-discipline, and impulse control They are rule followers - Negatively correlated with DWI - Pay bills on time - Less likely to have overdue library books Strong predictor of health and longevity - More likely to monitor their health, exercise, eat a healthful diet (eat more vegetables), avoid smoking and drugs - Less likely to be overweight Downsides: - Inability to see the “big picture” - Somewhat judgmental - Don’t handle personal failure well (blame themselves) People low in conscientiousness - Impulsive, lacks persistence, unambitious, and disorganized - Disregard for rules and regulation - More likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, engage in risky sex, and criminal behavior 4. Neuroticism The tendency to experience frequent and intense negative emotions in response to perceived threat - People high in neuroticism - Have negative emotions like anger, depression, anxiety, shame, and selfconsciousness - No matter what you are doing you would rather be doing something else -

Emotional Instability/volatility Negative affect

-

- The tendency to experience negative emotions Self-consciousness (fear of negative evaluation)

“Emerging research on the latent dimensional features of emotional disorders has revealed a hierarchical structure that places emphasis on two genetically-based core dimensions of temperament: neurotics and, to a lesser degree extraversion” (Barlow 2002) Neuroticism (and to a much lesser extent, extraversion,) seems to underlie all mood disorders People high in neuroticism are more prone to mental health issues including: - Depression - negative effect - anxiety disorders - anxiety - personality disorders - substance abuse disorders - more likely to take medications or drink alcohol or take drugs in an attempt to improve mood - eating disorders Physical health issues: - heart issues - Obesity - irritable bowel syndrome - Cancer High neuroticism is associated with negative career outcomes - Low self esteem/self efficacy (easily discouraged) One of the single best predictor of divorce May be somewhat more accurate in how they view the world “depressive realism” 5. Openness to Experience - Fifth factor (explains the least amount of variance) - Has received the least amount of support (doesn't always replicate especially across cultures) - The most difficult of the big five to define - also known as intellect, culture, and imagination People high in openness: - have broad interests - value arts and culture - tend to be creative - enjoy trying new things - play with complex ideas - consider alternative perspectives and value systems - tend to be politically liberal and interested in social activism

-

Openness to experience has two major subcomponents: intellect and openness Intellect: - Interested in ideas associated with higher education, curious - they appreciate learning for the sake of learning not as a means to an end. They are “intellectual” they like mental stimulation Openness: - Creative, interested in the arts (enjoys museums), recognizes and is moved by beauty - Imaginative; prone to fantasy - More abstract than concrete, drawn to creative jobs. More likely to major in arts, humanities, and psychology - High behavioral flexibility -

IQ is correlated with both subcomponents, particularly intellect Sometimes embrace extreme ideas May undermine productivity Tends to decrease with age Can increase with hallucinogen use

Self-Esteem - A person’s attitude toward him or herself - Highly correlated with neuroticism - Judge (2002) examined the discriminant validity of self-esteem, neuroticism and locus of control and self-efficacy - They found: - A single factor explained the relationships among measures of the 4 traits - These traits showed poor discriminant validity in predicting external criteria relative to the higher order construct - Multidimensional - Typically measured by Rosenberg Self-esteem scale - 10-item self-report measure of global self-esteem - Average score for college students is high (35 out of 40) - Not the same as self-efficacy (belief that you will be effective and successfully work toward goals) Self-Esteem movement - California task force to promote self-esteem - “Social vaccine’’ against academic failure, drug abuse, alcoholism, teenage pregnancy, crime, and a host of other social vices - Unconditional praise - Shielded from any negative feedback - Participation trophies - Eliminating scores - Eliminating grades

Is self-esteem good or bad? - Correlated with both positive and negative outcomes - It does not cause positive outcomes - High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, it fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking - It appears that high self-esteems is partly the result of good school performance - Efforts to boost the self-esteem of pupils have not been shown to improve academic performance and may sometimes be counterproductive Narcissism - An inflated sense of self; think they are better than they are - Low in agreeableness (and high in extraversion) - Not the same as narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) - Not merely high self-esteem - More extreme (high vs over confidence - grandiose) - Related to agreeableness, not neuroticism - More interpersonal - it is about being superior to others - Narcissists do not rate themselves as caring Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) - Scores range from 0 to 40 - No set cut-off but average tending to fall in the low to mid-teens - Narcissism seems to be on the rise - Percentage who answered the majority of questions in the narcissistic direction: 17% early 80’s to 30% in 2009. - I, me, mine - Increase in original names -

Narcissists spend more time on social media Individuals high in narcissism also have more friends, post more frequent status updates, and post more ...