PSYC ch 4 - Psychology of personality with Dr. Baker PDF

Preview

Summary

Psychology of personality with Dr. Baker...

Description

CH. 4: Assumptions of Trait Psychology: - There are meaningful diffs between people (traits) - Traits are stable over time - Traits stay consistent across situations Stability over time: - Broad traits: relatively stable: o E.g. relationship security - But... trait expression might change w/ time (a little) - If trait changes a lot with w/ age= inconsistent (bad for theory) - Solution: focus on rank order diffs. Between people o E.g. changes in aggression w/ age Person or Situation? - Original idea: 2 possible explanations for behavior: o 1. Personality traits= behavior (internal) o 2. Situational factors= behavior (external) - Traditional assumption: cross-situation consistency - Hartshorne and May o Found lack of consistency in honesty, helpfulness, and self-control  E.g. cheating in games, on exams - Walter Mischel: o Situationism:  If you see a lot of variation in behaviors over situations, this determines how honest you are/ what your behavior is.  Diff. situations cause people to act more honestly than other situations.  “traits don’t explain much; let’s focus on situations instead” o Debate over importance of these influences - Aggregation: Averaging multiple observations o The best way to measure traits is to take multiple measurements o Longer tests= more reliable - Single behavior/occasion more likely to be influenced by situation o Hard to determine role of personality - Result: Both sides tempered views o Trait psychologists acknowledged importance of situation o Situationists acknowledged importance of traits

- Lasting changes: o Focus on Person-situation interaction o Practice of Aggregation o Division between personality and social psychologists. Which is more important? - Modern idea: personality and situation interact with one another to produce behavior. o Individual diffs only affect behavior under certain circumstances o Situational specificity: situations can provoke out-of-character behavior. Person-Situation Interaction: - Strong Situation: o Clear social norms/pressure to conform o Video: elevator conformity  Other examples? - Weak/ambiguous situation: o Personality has more influence o E.g. interpreting a smiling face - Selection: People choose certain situations o E.g. which organization you join/avoid o Depends somewhat on your personality - Evocation:(passive process) certain traits may passively elicit specific responses from others. o E.g. disagreeable people - Manipulation: people are ACTIVELY influence the behavior of others. o E.g. threatening someone in order to get them to do something. Or by complimenting them Measurement Issues: - Assumption: people differ on traits - Trait approach often relies on self-reporting o Goal accurately measure trait level - Must address things that affect: o Accuracy o Reliability o Validity o Utility of measures

- Carelessness: o E.g. P’s rush through and don’t pay attention o Solution: detect using an infrequency scale  Items (embedded among others) that most people answer the same way.  E.g. true/false: I haven’t seen a car in 6 weeks.  If P answers differently than most= carelessness. o Solution: place duplicate items far apart  If P answers second item differently= carelessness - Fatigue: o Survey is too long o P’s get tired and stop caring o Solutions:  Give P’s a break  Counterbalance (reverse orders) will be more balanced out throughout the questions, still some fatigue throughout the questioning.  Keep it as brief as possible. - Faking: o P’s try to appear better or worse than actually are. (better = more common) o Solution: Include items that, if answered in particular way, suggest faking.  E.g. : “I have never told a lie” (T/F)  “I like to kick puppies” (T/F) - Response Sets: (pg. 39-42 in text, ch. 2) o Acquiescence: agreeing, regardless of content o Solution: Reverse-key/ score some items o E.g. instead of using:  “I feel anxious talking to new people”  Use: “I feel comfortable talking to new people” o Extreme responding: tendency to give endpoint responses:  E.g. always choosing either 1 or 7 on a 1-7 scale  Solution: use “forced choice” method  E.g. instead of rating importance, use ranking: “place these items in order of importance” 

- Response Sets: o Social desirability:  P’s respond in ways that make them appear likable. o Solutions:  Ensure anonymity/confidentiality  Encourage honesty  Measure socially desirable responding and correct: if people show they have a tendency to provide socially desirable responses, note that they might be excluded from this study due to this.  Don’t asking leading questions  Tell P’s you’ll check their answers using a lie detector. - Two views on Social Desirability: o Its distortion  Should be eliminated/reduced o Reflects personality:  Should be studied  Why do some people care about looking good/desirable to others? Specific uses of Tests: - Integrity tests: designed to assess general honesty or dishonesty; replaced polygraph. o Considered a better way to measure honesty v. dishonesty. o Polygraph is not a lie detector o Really measures physical signs of anxiety o False Pipeline: only works if you believe that it does.  If you know the machine can’t actually tell if you are lying, so maybe your heart rate won’t raise.  People with high levels of crazy= polygraph doesn’t work well on them. Personnel Selection: - Some employers hire based on traits - Performance at work= personality traits + job requirements o Traits may predict success o If you are really extroverted, working alone in a room won’t be a great fit for you. o

- Legal problems: o Lawsuits for:  Discrimination  Invasion of privacy o Solution: employers receive overall score, NOT answers to specific questions. - Test must: o Predict performance on specific jobs o Be unbiased: avoid “undue impact” based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (Title 7 of civil rights act) o In 2009, things got complicated, Ricci v. Stefano Case - Personality tests are used to screen out individuals from groups of applicants o Avoid negligent hiring  E.g. psychotic police officers o MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory)  Screens for mental illness. - The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) o Used to select applicants for leadership positions o Criticism regarding reliability and predictive validity o Not the best o Good Alternative: Hogan Personality Inventory (p. 117-120)...