Lec 5

Question 1

Personality – Conscientiousness

• trait: 4 characteristics
  
  • 2 examples
• states
• 5 facets of C
• Central part of SC
• • Critique SC
• Define impulsivity
• 2 traits related to impulsivity
• • 6 things C predicts

Friedmann et al

• tracker 1200 ppl from 11 yo for 70 y → results?
  
  • High C
  • Low C

Answer 1

Personality – C

• Personality trait: A,B,C
  
  • 1 Enduring (stable)
  • 2 automatic
  • 3 differentiate people (IOW: rank order stable)
  • 4 elicited in trait-evoking situations
    
    • Ex. In a party, you can easily tell who are I vs E; but not who is C
    • Ex. In a library, you can spot those who are C, but not who they are I/E
• Traits: relatively enduring signature typical to personality traits
• state level: which reflects moment-to-moment fluctuations in functioning.
• C (central part of SC) - 5 propensity
  
  • self-controlled: Non-impulsive (no strong desires; control strong desires)
  • Orderly: Organized & neat, not messy
  • Industrious: Hard-working, effort willing
  • Responsible: Reliable, especially in social situations
  • Traditional: Following rules and norms

Critique SC

• Is “self-control” simply impulsivity?
  
  • Impulsivity = strong desires or poor control (or both)
  • E can be related to impulsivity (strong desires -> lead you astray)
  • N engage in impulsive b to sooth yourself
    
    • Ex. poor grade -> eat to sooth yourself

C predicts

• 1. Better health (diabetes, high blood pressure, strokes, ulcers, Alzheimer’s)
• 2. Better occupational attainment (job satisfaction, income, occupational status, job performance)
• 3. Higher marital Stability (number of children, marital status, divorce rate)
• 4. Diminished drug use (alcohol, tobacco marijuana)
• 5. Decreased minor injuries
• 6. Mortality (longevity)
• Friedmann et al 1993
  
  • Tracked 1200 ppl
  • Start measuring C when ppl were 11 yo for 70 yrs
  • High C = live longer
  • low C is as risky as having high blood pressure or high cholesterol
    
    • should increase C

Question 2

Grit: old wine, new bottle (similar to C)

• define Grit - 3 points
• 2 things it predicts
• Critique

Answer 2

Grit: old wine, new bottle (similar to C)

• Grit = Perseverance and passion for long term goals
• Consistency of interest
• Perseverance of effort (finish what I started)
• • Grit predicts academic performance and retention
    
    • Military school retention, Spelling Bee performance, GPA
• Critique: Is this any different than C?
  
  • Correlation between grit and C = .77!

Question 3

trait vs state self-control

• SC trait
• SC state
• why don’t ppl w/ high SC exert SC all the time

Answer 3

trait vs state self-control

• C (and grit) are personality traits
  
  • There is also trait self-control
• Traits: (happens daily)
  
  • characteristic abc that are consistent across time and place
  • Yes, there is variability, but also consistency
• States (induced by a situation)
  
  • Temporary thoughts, behaviours, or feelings that might change from moment to moment, depending on situation, mood, motivation, etc.
• High trait self-control ≠ high state self-control
  
  • High SC ppl don’t exert control all the time
  • They avoid situations that require them to exert lots of SC

Question 4

Conscientiousness & cognitive control

• 3 things that are highly related
• Correlation of C and grit
• Correlation of Grit & stroop effect
• Correlation of C & stroop effect
• Why? 3 possibilities
  
  • Reliability paradox

Answer 4

Conscientiousness & cognitive control

• C (or Grit) and cognitive control (especially inhibition) should be highly related
  
  • Some facets of C explicitly measure impulse control
• Study show Small or negligible relationship with Stroop!
  
  • C and grit are highly related
  • BF0+: 4122x more evidence that there is an association vs none
  • Grit & stroop effect = barely and correlation
    
    • BF0-: 26x more evidence there is no association vs there is
  • C & stroop effect = barely and correlation
    
    • BF0-: 55x more evidence there is no association vs there is
• Why? 3 possibilities
  
  • 1. C does not measure inhibitory control
  • 2. C is many things, not just inhibition
  • 3. Reliability paradox between personality and behavioural tasks
       * Reliability paradox: to have a correlation b/w 2 scales, you need enough variability in what you are measuring
       
       • Ex. You need ppl at high, mid, low C
       • For Stroop task performances, everyone’s results is sort of the same; all experience stroop effect

Question 5

Development of conscientiousness

• Srivastava et el., 2003
  
  • Cross sectional study: age vs C
• Roberts, Walton, & Bogg, 2005
  
  • longitudinal study: age vs C
  • explanation of increase C

Answer 5

Development of conscientiousness

• Srivastava et el., 2003
  
  • Cross sectional study: the older you are, the higher C
  • 20s = 3.4
  • 60s = 3.8 or 3.9
• Roberts, Walton, & Bogg, 2005
  
  • Longitudinal: as ppl age -> more C
  • +1SD difference in C from childhood to old age
  • Societal norms value C; As we get older, we are immersed in society more
    
    • Conditioned to engage in b that are high in C (Ex. work, marriage, community)
  • C helps society work better
    
    • At age 18 – more experimenting; older – more stability

Question 6

Teen problems with cognitive control

• Age range that increase risky b
• Age range that decrease risky b
• 1. Brain maturation gap
• 2. Normal experimentation without experience

Answer 6

Teen problems with cognitive control

• 16-20 -> increase risky b (ex. drug use); 20-27 -> decrease
  Two views
• 1. Brain maturation gap
     * Subcortical regions (amygdala, nucleus accumbens) develop quickly, fully developed at early age (aka strong desires)
     * Prefrontal regions (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) continue to develop until late adolescence (SC regions not fully dev)
     * This imbalance results in period of risk for adolescents
• 2. Normal experimentation without experience
     * Increases in impulsivity because of fully developed subcortical regions (strong desire)
     * Experimentation with novel adult behaviour, but without experience as guide (no lack in prefrontal control) -> (no experience for these things)
     * The time I got too drunk in high school!

Question 7

• Roberts et al
• Freud’s concepts of C
• 2 misperceptions of traits

Answer 7

C is a personality trait

• C is one of the Big 5 traits; thoughts to be enduring automatic patterns of A,B,C
• History of studying the constructs of C
  
  • Freud’s superego, ego ideal, conscience
  • Other things: achievement motivation, impulse control, norm favoring, ego control
  • Rs also looked at “low C” in MMPI
• IOW: C is a family of traits
• • Misperceptions of traits
• 1. They are highly heritable (80-90%)
     * C is only 40-50% heritable; 50-60% environmental
     * Heritability is an estimation of the population (not indiv)
• 2. Traits are fixed, same across contexts
     * Traits can change and develop; but has consistency

Question 8

Roberts et al

The hierarchical structure of C

• broad traits
• narrow traits
• Sociogenomic model of personality
  
  • 2 levels
  • 5 factor model/ trait model
  • Social cog models of personality
• 4 Common Family of traits in the domain of C
• 4 other facets
• Why are these correlated? 2 explanations
• 1. Dynamical systems perspective
• 2. Latent dimensional approach
• Why spend energy to identify facets of C? 3 reasons

Answer 8

The hierarchical structure of C

• Broad to narrow hierarchy
• Broad C traits: has many facets
• Narrow traits: are distinguished by contextual aspects
  
  • Ex. SC: requires smth tempting is shown
  • Industriousness: requires an opportunity to work
• Sociogenomic model of personality: hv 2 levels of analysis in personality dispositions
  
  • 1. Trait level: enduring aspect
  • 2. State level: moment-to-moment aspect
• Traits are made of 3 things: ABC
• Allows integration of prototypical trait models
  
  • 5 factor model/ trait model: emphasizes the enduring nature of traits
  • Social cog models of personality: emphasize state level/idiographic
  • Cognitive affective processing system (CAPs) model
• Common Family of traits in the domain of C
• 1. Orderliness: tb prepared
     * +ve: Neatness, clean, planful
     * -ve: disorder. Disorganize, messy
• 2. Industriousness: work hard, aspire to excellence, persist in face of challenges
     * Persistence (facet of E) is a separate factor that connects C and ambition
     * Since industriousness correlates w/ E, persistence is a form of industriousness
• 3. SC: control impulses OR inhibit a prepotent/influential response
     * -ve: reckless, impulsive, out of control
• 4. Responsibility
     * +ve: tend to follow through promises to others; follow rules that make social groups work more smoothly
     * -ve: unreliable partner in achievement settings; break promises
     * Correlates w/ A

Other “sort of” common facets

• Conventionality: tend to endorse and uphold rules in society
• Decisiveness: act firmly and consistently
• Formalness: follow rules of decorum (ex. keep appearance neat and clean, hold doors, shake hands)
• Punctuality: show up on time on scheduled appointments
  
  • Original thought – feature of punctuality
  • Most strongly correlated w/ all remaining facets of C
    
    • Punctuality is important to
      
      • planning (orderliness)
      • work hard to get somewhere (industriousness)
      • avoid temptations that lead one tb late (SC)
      • care enough to meet others on time (responsibility)
      • understand rules and conventions (conventionality)
• Why are these correlated? 2 explanations
• 1. Dynamical systems perspective: there is nothing shared in common by these disparate factors and they arise through bottom-up processes → bottom up
     * Ex. Punctuality arise from experiences (parents teach kids to be on time)
     * Facets arise due to causal relations among them; not b/c of C underly all these facets
• 2. Latent dimensional approach: C is a psychobio construct that influences multiple facets → top down
     * Supported by evidence
     
     • Ex. latent trait models fits better with data on joint distribution of low C than models where facets are distinct
       * Latent trait model is better
     • Studies show that kid temperament (esp effortful control) predict adult personality, like big 5
     • Ex. kid’s impulsivity correlates w/ teen A and C
     • IOW: impulsivity differentiates into A and C
       
       • A: SC in interpersonal settings (ex. be polite/kind when others are rude)
       • C: SC in work settings (ex. avoid temptation to meet LT goals)
     • We argue C differentiates into facets like industriousness, orderliness w/ time and experience
• Why spend energy to identify facets of C? 3 reasons
• 1. Rs supported that facet measures can capture broader domain measures
• 2. Lower order structure allows one to better see the connections b/w C and other constructs
• 3. This helps better understand how C manifest in diff contexts
     * Orderliness: manifest in homes and workplaces not public spaces or social interactions
     * Industriousness: manifest in achievement settings (ex school, work)
     * Responsible: seen in contexts involving other ppl.

Question 9

The Nomological Network for C

• delay of gratification
• ego control
• Effortful control
• SC
• 2 types of SR
• impulsivity
  
  • 2 problems
• Constraint
  
  • definition
  • related to 2 facets of C

Answer 9

Delay of gratification

• Dev psych concept
• Can be a measure of SC and SR
• Kids differ in ability to refrain from immediate gratification to get a more desirable outcome in the future
• Indiv differences predict meaningful LT outcomes
• Delay gratification is a precursor of moral b
• Since C has moral implications (ex. virtuous, follow rules)
  
  • Delay of gratification can be a predictor of C later in life and explain the moralistic nature of C

Ego control

• Ego control = one’s ability to inhibit impulses and delay gratification across diff domains
• Related to the C facet of SC
• Studies show sig correlations b/w ego control and C
• Items in self report ego control scale are related to C
  
  • Those w/ less ego control
    
    • Remember playing sick to get out of smth (industriousness)
    • Tempted to say smth inappropriate (conventionality)
    • Planful rather than impulsive (orderliness, SC)
    • Don’t let things get in the way of my work (industriousness)
• Rs on C can borrow ego control literature
  
  • Ex. ego control is less as a trait and more as an ability that one can use when needed
  • This idea is useful as being overly hardworking or orderly can be maladaptive in some contexts

Effortful control

• Effortful control is a part of SR, so it is related to C
• Effortful control: the ability to inhibit prepotent (influential) responses
• Stable in childhood
• Since impulse control is a reliable indicator of C, effortful control has +ve relationship w/ the trait
• Effortful control may be a predecessor to C

SC

• SC = the capacity for altering one’s own responses (and align them w/ standards/ social expectations) and to support pursuit of LT goals
• SC is a self v, it is studied independently of Big 5, C, and traits
• SC is similar to C definition (ex. similar set of items used to assess)
• SC is a facet of C
• Aspects of SC overlaps w/ other facets of C
• Ex. focus on values, morals, norms are synonymous w/ conventionality facet of C
• Ex. measure includes items that are indicators of C
  
  • I am lazy, reliable, on time
  • These are used to assess facets of C like industriousness, repsonsilbilty, and punctuality
  • So SC should be part of C

SR

• 2 types: emo and b SR
• Emo SR
  
  • More related to N than C
• B SR
  
  • Similar to SC and C
  • Defined as able to control ont’s ABC that aligns w/ their goal
  • SC and industriousness is related
  • SR is related to goal setting
  • Ex. rs shows it is important to pursue personal goals and give up on unattainable goals for adaptive SE
  • SE combines SC and achievement striving as aspects of C
  • Most rs on SE focuses on the state level; less rs on the trait lv

Impulsivity

• lots of confusion
• 1. Rs created many scales of w/ diff meanings
     * Ex. Eysenck put impulsivity w/ E; then it has it’s own dimension
     * Ex. Zuckerman also place impulsivity w/ E
     * Ex. Others put impulsivity w/ N, as it has an emphasis on the control of anxiety
     * Ex. Others argue it belongs to C
• 2. Impulsivity’s construct is multidimensional
     * “impulse control” has 2 constructs (little rs is done to differentiate the 2)
     
     • “the impulse” and “ability to control the impulse”
     • Impulses: come in many forms (sex, food, drugs, OH, emo, shopping)
     • We dunno if the “control of sexual urges” is the same construct as “the control of one’s urge to overeat”
       * Measures of impulsivity, impulse control, and SC merge “impulse” and “control” together
• Lack of specificity and multidimensionality of impulsivity explains why it is related to many Big 5 traits
• There’s a connection b/w impulsivity and C
• Ex. Whiteside and Lynam
  
  • Impulsivity questionnaires hv 4 facets:
    
    • Sensation seeking
    • Felt urgency
    • Lack of premeditation
    • Perseverance
  • Last 2 is in the domain of C
  • Self reported C & peer ratings of C correlate -vely w/ impulsivity
    
    • Esp the facet related to SC
  • A component of impulsivity is related to C

Constraint

• Constraint: tend to plan and focus on the future rather than taking risks and being reckless
• Related to 2 primary facets of C: SC and conventionality

Question 10

Methods for assessing C

• ESMs = experience sampling method OR ecological momentary analysis
• Self-report
• observer ratings by knowledgeable friends and family
• implicit measures
• experimentally derived measures
  
  • 3 broad domains of assessments
  • Distress tolerance
  • 3 pros of measures
  • 3 cons of measures

Answer 10

Methods for assessing C

• Self-report, observer ratings by knowledgeable friends and family, experimentally derived measures, implicit measures

Self-report measures

• Self-reports of C vary
• Common approaches: global personality trait self-report ratings
  
  • 3 problematic assumptions on self-reported measures
  • 1. Personality trait ratings reflect frequency estimates of specific b
       * Most personality inventory measures of C uses a mix of items tapping in ABC
       * Items are heuristic in nature (ex. I believe ppl should be punctual)
       * Look at global, stable, internatl attributes
       * Pattern of ABC observed over many situations over a long time
  • 2. Misunderstanding on how self-reported items are selected for global personality scales
       * Rs mistakenly believe that items are selected for high test-retest reliability
       * But items are evaluated for internal consistency only
  • 3. Ppl think self reports like validity
       * Not true
       * They predict outcomes, and tend to have correlation b/w .1 to .4
       * Since they are only an approximation of what rs want to measure, it is impressive they predict so many outcomes so well and economically
       * Can be supplemented by other methods (ex. reports from knowledgeable observers)
       * Valid stand along measures

Implicit measures

• Alternative to self or observer reports
• No TAT/projective test for C
• There is IAT for C
• Studies show that implicit and explicit measures of C are unrelated but contributes to variance

Experimental or behavioral approaches

• Include measures that directly assess specific behaviors of interest using standardized lab-based computerized tasks
• 3 broad domains of assessments
  
  • 1. Impulsive decision making
  • 2. Inattention
  • 3. Disinhibition
• 1. Measures of decision making; ppl choose b/w rewards that are delayed/immediate or probable/certain
• 2. Inattention: not about making choices; eval ppl’s ability to maintain alertness and receptivity for a particular set of stimuli/ stimuli changes over time
• 3. Disinhibition: ability to inhibit prepotent (influential) motor responses or unwanted b
• These 3 are sensitive to drug effects
• Shows the importance of multidimensional approach
• Distress tolerance: related construct
  
  • Tasks assess one’s ability to persist in goal-directed b in the context of emo distress and provide a model on the impact of emo states on C
• These 3 measures have pros over self-reports in certain types of rs
• 1. Suitable for repeated use in treatment studies and w/in subjects designs
     * Follow appropriate methods and stat correction for learning effects and test-retest stability
• 2. Sensitive to state-dependent change in b (ex. drugs, physio, env manipulation)
     * Ex. giving specific drugs or phase of bipolar disorder affects facets of decision making, attention, and disinhibition uniquely
• 3. Appropriate or young kids, teens, and animal models
     * Do not require the ability of abstraction during the assessment and the task
     * Kids/animals may hv trouble finishing the self-report measure, but can be b measures
     * Ability to study animals allow us to explore topics that can’t be done on humans (ex. neural mechanisms)
• Cons
  
  • 1. B measures of C are adapted from nropsych assessments; so they are sensitive to nro damage
       * Measures are invalid for those w/ nro problems, intellectual disability, low IQ
       * Misinterpret nro damage as issues in C
       * Correlated to C at a low lv??
  • 2. B assessments are still developing; need more rs

Observer report measures

• Gathered from knowledgeable informants (ex. friends, coworkers, fam)
  
  • Like self-reports, observer reports are internally consistent (high lv of interjudge agreement; high test-retest reliability)
  • Shows predictive vaility to self-reports
• Self-other knowledge asymmetry model: observer reports complement self-report
  
  • Sometimes self-report is more valid: esp for psych features that are less visible to others
  • Sometimes observer ratings is more valid
  • Sometimes both are interchangeable

ESMs = experience sampling method OR ecological momentary analysis

• Look at more specific/contextualized measurements
• Done by asking ppl to rate A,B, or C in real time over a specified period of time (ex. few days/weeks)
• Pros: assess what ppl are actually thinking, feeling, doing compared to global self-reports
• Cons: it is hard to make inference on a global trait
• ESM and global approaches are modestly related and are valid

Question 11

Types of assessments

• 1. Online assessment technique
• 2. Standardized lab-based computerized approaches

Answer 11

• How to contextualize this?
• 1. Identify contexts C is expressed by capturing the state, not general tendencies
     * Types of assessments
     * 1. Online assessment technique
     
     • Ex. Experience sampling method (ESM); ecological momentary analysis
       * 2. Standardized lab-based computerized approaches
     • Assess basic cog processes, decision making, b outcomes
     • Intended to look at the SC domain of C
• 2. Explicitly frame the measurement of the construct w/in specific roles or env
     * Ex. instead of asking if indiv are organized in general; ask them if they are organized at work, home or w/ friends
     * Contextualizing leads to a small increase in predictive validity for outcomes found in that context
     * As a result, rs see the measure as distinct from overarching domain it came from
     * This happens for 2 reasons
     * 1. Specific theoretical frameworks do not like to generalize
     
     • Ex. self-efficacy theory: rs avoided generalization and emphasized the expectations for success in specific situations (ex. confronted w/ tough courses)
       * 2. Rs are interested in b exhibited in specific contexts and create measures to tap them w/o considering how they may be embedded in a broader nomological net
• It’s not a good idea to categorize them
• But they do have similarities; they may belong to a family of constructs w/in the C hierarchy

Question 12

TB Ch 9

• SE effects
• Forysth study
• Baumeister view
• Narcs

Answer 12

SE: high vs low -> affects grades, parenting

Grades predict SE, not vv

Boosting SE -> lower grades

Forysth

• Gave C’s to all students
• Half had increase SE message; other don’t
• Boosting SE -> lower grades 59 to 39
• High SE ppl think they are more popular -> in reality, not true

Baumeister

• Review
• 1. SE -> confidence -> act on beliefs, take good and bad risks
• 2. High SE feels good, help you cope w/ misfortune, depression, bounce back from failure
• SE benefits self, harm others, can become narcs

Narcs

• Ppl like narcs when they first meet them, then hate them
• More students feel entitled to high grades w/o working hard; high pay w/o working
• Students, parents, educators still advocate for benefits of high SE

Question 13

TB Ch 9

• Asians
• Flynn research
• Revised parenting: authoritative
• 3 basic facets of punishment: Severity, speed, consistency
• Ferberization

Answer 13

Asians

• Exception: narcissism not among Chinese/Asians
• Parents emphasize SC
• Chinese kids do way better than Americans on SC test
• Maybe ADHD gene is rare in Chinese
• Asians are 4% of pop but take up 25% of elite uni students
• Flynn
  
  • Asians hv lower IQ than Whites
  • Asians hv ppl more on the high extremes
  • Asians w/ IQ 103 are more likely to get jobs as physicians, scientists, and accountant compare to Whites w/ IQ 110 due to SC
• Asian parents don’t get candy when kids throw tantrums
  
  • They get candy if they finish a book
  • Get rewards for achievements
• Dev psych revised best parenting practices
  
  • Authoritative
    
    • Set limits, but pay attention to kid’s desires
    • Kids become well-adjusted, self-confident
  • Dev psych think authoritative raise better adjusted kids than authoritarian parents
  • Chinese parents set strict rules and high goals (sounds oppressing to Americans but kids are flourishing in and out of school)
  • European parents don’t put pressure on kids, promote the idea learning is fun
• Chinese parents have higher dreams for kids and have a better sense on how much they can take
• Point: forget SE, work on SC
• Parents should enforce discipline, not spoil them
• 3 basic facets of punishment
  
  • Severity, speed, consistency
  • Severity – not as important; severe punishment backfire, kids think world is cruel
  • Speed – more key; after misdeed, punish immediately
  • Consistency – most important; punish for every misdeed
• Parents are inconsistent
  
  • Don’t punish when in public
  • If you make a funny remark -> no punishment
  • Punishment depends on their mood
• Ferberization: ignore the infant when bb cries
  
  • Ex. crying when sleeping -> ignore -> can sleep alone
• Kids want clear rules

Question 14

TB Ch 9

• What kids are more likely to save money?
• Overjustification effect
• Baumeister’s view
• Mischel study pf Africans vs Indians
• Reasons
• TV
• Kutner and Olson
  
  • benefits of Games
  • 3 main assets in immersive games

Answer 14

• Kids who discuss money or open bank accounts are more likely to save money
• Overjustification effect
  
  • Pay kids to play, then play -> work
  • Ex. kid like learning; pay for grades -> learning becomes work
• Baumeister disagrees
  
  • 1. Money is rewarding
  • 2. Adult life: if you perform well -> paid (kids can learn this early)
• Paying kids for grades -> mixed evidence
• Teens: have thrill seeking tendencies
  
  • Parents need to set strict rules but allow teens in rule making process
  • Teens less likely to break them and exercise SC
• Mischel
  
  • Cultural diff: Africans show less SC than Indians
  • Rs finding: kids w/ single parents show less SC
  • Kids raise by single parents don’t do as well (after controlling for SES)
  • Kids w/ dads who voluntary leave may inherit impulsive genes
  • Kids w/ dads who have to work overseas are less impulsive
  • Point: kids’ well-being depends on genes and env
• Reasons
  
  • 2 parents -> better monitoring/punishment bad b
  • Teens that are not monitored by adults -> more criminal b, drug use, more chance of diabetes
  • Force kids to exercise SC: music lessons, memorize poems, say prayers, mind table manners, avoid profanity, TY notes
• TV -> many kids suck at attention
• Same for web surfing
• To make kids focus attention on smth longer -> get them read books
• Other way: pretend play (from Tools of the Mind)
  
  • Ex. kids who pretend to be guards can stand still for longer
• Kutner and Olson
  
  • VGs can be as beneficials as practicing music, playing sports, or any activity that need discipline
  • Kids benefit from activities that require them to: Focus your attention, learn intricate rules, reach a goal
  • Kids are attracted to game that hv
    
    • Clear attainable goals
    • Have instantaneous feedback
    • Encourage them to keep practicing to improve
  • Some rs created games w/ these characteristics for edu