Chapter 2-6 (Exam 1) Flashcards
Funders 2nd law
There are no perfect infectors of personality; there are only clues, and clues are always ambiguous
Funders 3rd law
Something beats nothing 2 out of 3 times
S-Data
Self Report Data
Questionnaires, personality tests, things you take about yourself.
Advantages of S-Data (5)
- Large amounts of info (you are always with you)
- Access to thoughts feelings and intentions
- Definitional Truth (if you think you have it, you do. I.e. self esteem)
- Casual Force (self-efficacy/self-verification. You think it, you act it)
- Simple and Easy. Cost effective and easy to get the data
Disadvantages of S-Data (3)
- Bias
- Error (fish in water)
- Too simple and too easy (overused)
I-Data
Informant report
Friends, coworkers, family, etc
Answer the questionnaire about you.
Ex: letter or recommendation, gossiping
Advantages of I-Data
- Large amounts of data (you can ask multiple people to report)
- Real World Basis
- Common Sense and Context
- Definitional Truth (i.e. charming)
- Casual Force (expectancy effect, behavioral confirmation)
Disadvantages of I-Data (4)
1.Limited Behavioral Info (code switching)
2. Lack of access to private info
3. Error
4. Biased
L-Data
Life data. FACTS about your life that have psychological significance.
Ex. Are you married? How many SM followers do you have? Are you employed? Etc
L-Data Advantages (3) and Disadvantage (1)
A
1. Objective and Verifiable
2. Intrinsic importance
3. Psychological Relevance
D
1. Multi determination
B-Data and two types
Behavior Data. See what a person does
1. Natural
2. Labratory
Natural B-Data
observing what happens in Real life.
Self report on activities, EAR device, smartphone/SM data (fitness, texts, posts, etc)
Laboratory B-Data (2 kinds)
Behavior Experience: put a participant in a room and a thing happens, psychologist observes
Physiological Measures
Heart rate, blood pressure, CT scan, etc
Advantages and Disadvantages to B-Data (2 each)
A
1. Range of context
2. Appearance of Objectivity
D
1. Difficult and Expensive
2. Uncertain Interpretation
Advantages and Disadvantages to B-Data (2 each)
A
1. Range of context
2. Appearance of Objectivity
D
1. Difficult and Expensive
2. Uncertain Interpretation
Factor analysis
Stats techniques that find related items (tests, traits, etc)
Factor analytic method of test construction
Creating a teddy using factor analysis
Make a list of objects(questions).
Distribute them out.
Analyze find commonalities
Label groups you find
Empirical Method of test construction
Dust bowl empiricism
Based strictly on data
1. Gather lots of items(questions)
2. Put sample into groups
3. Test samples
4. Compare results from the various groups
5. Cross validate with other tests
Protective Tests
Test that asks one to interpret a meaningless or ambiguous stimulus
Ex: inkblots, draw a person, TAT,
They collect B-data
Protective hypothesis
By interpreting a meaningless item one will show their inner desires, needs, feelings, thought process
Protective hypothesis
By interpreting a meaningless item one will show their inner desires, needs, feelings, thought process
Rorschach inkblots
Hermann Rorschach (swiss) out Indian ink on note cards, folded them in half and used them as productive years, asking his patients what they saw
Rorschach inkblots
Hermann Rorschach (swiss) out Indian ink on note cards, folded them in half and used them as productive years, asking his patients what they saw
Thematic appreciation test (TAT)
Clients are asked to describe what is happening in a picture or drawing
Objective tests
Tests that consist of lists of questions to be answered along a scale, true or false, or yes or no
Rational method of test creation
Questions on a sheet. Like a test. Collects mostly S-Data
What 4 conditions must hold for rational S-Data to hold up
- Each item must man the same as to the create of the test/question
- The person who completes the form must be able to make a self assessment
- The person who completes must be willing to self report
- Items on the test must be indicators of what is being measured
Face validity
The amount an assessment seems to measure what it says it is trying to measure
