CHAPTER 7 Flashcards
What are traits?
Traits are words (‘personal’ Adjectives) that describe people’s typical styles of experience (personality) and action (behaviour)
Such as:
Playful
Honest
Creative
Likable
Generous, etc
Also: Much of our language consists of these words; -ous; -ful; -ive; - able; -est type words
What is the strongest difference in personality theories?
is in the type of Data the assumptions rely upon
What is measurement to a trait theorist?
Trait theorists – measurement is key - data used in this theory is language (adjectives)
The form of measurement (or tool) often precedes a
major advancement in science i.e:
Did Freud or Rogers have measurements in their personality theories?
No.
What is a personality trait?
Consistent patterns in the way people behave, feel and think
> overtime (Durable) and situation (Stable)
subjective relative judgements included
What are the two connotations associated with traits?
1) Consistency – describes a regularity in the way a person behaves
Doesn’t have to be always; it is like a predisposition
2) Distinctive – people can differ on the trait
At least some heterogeneity (she’s energetic vs. she’s atomic – i.e., made of atoms
What doe trait theories presuppose that traits are?
> Consistent & enduring
Note: Other personality theorists (later) will argue that situation plays a stronger role in governing our actions than the original trait theorists would purport
What are the ways that trait theorists suggest that trait theory helps Personality SCIENCE?
1) Description
> Trait constructs are descriptive – they describe people and their typical behaviour
> Trait words (descriptors) can form a taxonomy (e.g. a
classification system)
(definitional concept)
2) Prediction
> Personality traits may predict types of (observable/objective) behaviour
> Can we predict a “good employee?” – conscientious, agreeable, trustful?
3) Explanation
> Do traits also ‘explain’ behaviour?
> Behaviour: We accidentally spill wine on a friends’ carpet…
> What do you do? Fess up or quietly walk away?
> but are we being respectful (trait) are we being honest (trait)? …or is our intent just to have others view us as honest/respectful – e.g., manipulative (trait)?
Although helpful in explaining behaviour- traits can be:
biased, inaccurate, unknowing and uncertain
> More of a “Gestalt” (holistic impression) > a lot of traits within
What is the basic structure of trait theory (shared assumptions of all theorists)
1) the definition of trait
2) that traits are enduring (predispositions, consistent and distinctive)
3) traits are on a continuum (People can be high or low on a trait (e.g. possess more or less of it) (e.g. scales)
> Direct correspondence of performance of trait-related behaviour and the possession of a trait
4) Validity: can still lack uncertainty, i.e., phenomenological approach
5) Hierarchy: Human behaviour can be organised in a hierarchy (with a bi-directional process)
Example of validity in the all theorists
e.g., If you act extroverted, you may be acting extroverted (Jung, persona) to repress (Psychodynamic defence) or compensate (Adler, inferiority process) for, feelings of anxiety, low self-esteem, and/or shyness (neuroticism, negative emotion)
Eysenck’s P-E-N model
Super factors: Extraversion
Trait: Sociable, lively, sensation seeking
Habitual: From sociable: enjoy meeting people/parties
Behavioural: Laughs/talkative dancing/drinking
GORDON ALLPORT (1897 – 1967)
> a great figure of psychology, American
Harvard prof
President of the APA in 1939
Rejected: Psychoanalytic approach (went too ‘deep’) and Behavioural approach (didn’t go deep enough)
” THE TURTLE”
* Slow & Methodical
* Leaves no stone unturned
* “We must study each person carefully and in great depth”
* Idiographic approach
What did Allport emphasize?
Emphasized the uniqueness of each individual
> importance of the present context (situation), as opposed to past history
> traits can be more or less displayed according to the situation (predisposition)
> Primarily endorsed an idiographic approach
> In-depth analysis of one person
> Opposite of a nomothetic approach (uncover common, universal attributes)
How did Allport differentiate traits from other psychological aspects
Traits, States & Activities
> Traits are frequent, intense and seen across a wide variety of situations (i.e., some stability)
> States (e.g., emotional) and Activities (e.g., situational) are temporary, brief and caused by situational (often external) and internal states and circumstances
Who was the first personality psychologist to use a Lexical approach?
> Allport was the first personality psychologist to use a “Lexical Approach.”
> He went through the entire dictionary (+150k words) and located every term that he thought could describe a person
> He developed a list of 4500 descriptive (trait-like) words (i.e., adjectives – describe person/thing)
> He organized these into three levels of traits
What are the three levels of traits in relation to Allport?
Cardinal traits, general traits, and secondary traits
What are cardinal traits?
Cardinal Traits
> A trait that is so pervasive it dominates a person’s behaviour and character
> They are rare; a person may have no clear cardinal trait at all
> e.g., Narcissistic (Narcissisus), Libidinal/Seductive (Don Juan;
Quagmire, family guy), Sadistic (Marquis de Sade), Benevolent
(Nelson Mandela; Mother Theresa)
What are general traits?
A trait found to varying degrees in most people
> honesty, kindness, assertiveness, etc. (i.e., the “normal” traits)
What are secondary traits
> Traits related to attitudes or preferences that often appear only in certain situations or under specific circumstances
(trait x situation)
nervous when speaking to large groups
getting impatient waiting in a line
Have trait psychologists tried to identify a universal set of traits?
> With the exception of Allport, trait psychologists have tried to identify a universal set of traits
Traits that everyone has to a greater or lesser degree (Scales or Dimensions)
Physically, easy to describe, we are more or less tall, young or old, heavier or lighter, but…
Psychologically?
> There are just so many possibilities.
