Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSYC20009 > Lecture 11: personality and consequential outcomes > Flashcards

Lecture 11: personality and consequential outcomes Flashcards

1
Q

we can use measures of personality to make ________about ______ or ________ outcomes

A
  1. valid inferences or predictions
  2. theoretically relevant
  3. practically useful
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

why might personality predict life outcomes? (describe the following)

  1. direct effects
  2. indirect effects
  3. interactive/conditional effects
A
  1. general to specific e.g. does C predict specific expressions of C behaviour?
  2. indirect effects via situation selection
  3. interactive/conditional effects: (PxE) via differential reactivity to events/situation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what is the lexical hypothesis?

-> important in what sense?

A

important characteristics will over human history be coded into language

-> making predictions (e.g. predict behaviour)
= harness this predictive power to make decisions about individuals (e.g. who will hurt me, who will offer me friendship)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Formal assessment of personality and abilities

  1. educational contexts
  2. occupational contexts
A
  1. binet and simon
    - > identification of children requiring alternate education (special needs)
    - > development of SAT 1920s
  2. military selection and placement - Robert Yerkes (1915)

1950s-70s diversification and mobility of work = assessing individual differences to determine most suited

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

The prediction of achievement

“how well can we assess people for their placements?”

  1. job performance
    - > Schmidt and hunter (1998) describe meta analysis
  2. results
  3. strongest predictor
A
  1. 85 years of research

predictors included abilities, traits, work experience

criterion = job performance measured in terms of supervisory ratings and sales records etc

  1. years of education .10
    job experience (years) .18
    reference checks .26
    employment interviews .38-.51

personality =
C = .31 (not as predictive as a formal interview)
integrity tests C & A = .41

  1. cognitive ability (intelligence) = .51

BUT personality adds to the predictive validity of cognitive ability

= cognitive ability + C = .60

= cognitive ability + integrity test (C+A) = .65 (very high!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

the prediction of achievement

Barrick and Mount
1. what did the meta-analysis focus on?

  1. results : jobs & relevant personality scores
    - > “will do” criteria
A
  1. big 5
  2. C predicts performance across ALL occupations .20-.23
    - > for “will do”: effort/application .42

E predicted performance in 2 specific job areas:

  • > management .18
  • > sales: .15
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

the prediction of achievement

Hurtz and Donovan

  • > updated meta-analysis to check the reliability of first studies
  • > what did they find?
A

C predicts broadly .20

A, O/I and (low) N = performance in customer service roles

E and (low) N = predicts management and sales roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

The prediction of achievement

“occupational success”
= what do the indices in this test show
= top scorers include what jobs?

predictive validity for?

what did the regression model show?

A
  • > job desirability or prestige related to wages/years of education
  • > doctor, dentist, lawyer
O/I = r.18
E = .16
C = .15
  • > Iq = top predictor over 0.25
  • > personality = just under .25
  • > parental income = just under .15
  • > SES = under .1
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The prediction of achievement

“creative achievement”
Kaufman 2015

Openness vs intellect =?

  1. what is intellect?
  2. what is openness?

Intellect = achievement in?

openness = achievement it?

A

distinct aspects “sub-traits” of the O/I domain

  1. reflects engagement with semantic information (i like to solve complex problems)
  2. reflects engagement with perceptual information (enjoy beauty of nature)

intellect -> sciences

openness -> arts

achievement indicated by outputs, publications and awards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

The prediction of achievement

“educational achievement”

GPA = combination of what predicts achievement across programs?

Poropat: predicting school/university GPA from…(4)

of personality measures only what adds to prediction of cognitive ability?

A

= combination of cognitive ability and C

  1. cognitive ability = .25
  2. C = .22
  3. O/I = .12
  4. A = .07

= Conscientiousness!

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

The prediction of achievement

  1. “educational attainment”
  2. “educational engagement”
A
  1. highest level completed/years spent in full time education
    Openness = strongest B5 predictor .35
  2. Openness predicts intrinsic motivation (internal interest) in uni student = .35

and breadth/depth of reading = .25

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The prediction of achievement

“choice of college major” (Vedel)

political science =

psychology =

law =

medicine =

Humanities =

A

O+E

O+C+A+N

E+C

E+A+C

N+A+O

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

why does personality predict achievement?

  1. direct effects
  2. indirect effects
  3. interactive effects

= simultaneous operation

A
  1. performing well is assessed in working hard (C)
    = C predicts more strongly for effort-related criteria
  2. selecting into program that increases later likelihood of particular outcomes:
    a. C + E predict ‘occupational success’ (higher wages) via choice of major (law)
    b. O predicts ‘creative achievement’ (awards, publications) via choice of major (arts)
  3. responding to the demands of work

E respond well to the interpersonal challenges of leadership and management roles, unlike N

= links between C and achievement-related outcomes = direct and indirect and interactive. they are NOT mutually exclusive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Example: Conscientiousness

indirect effects on educational achievement via study strategies
Corker 2012

= what does this explain about C and educational achievement?

A
  • > 347 us college students
  • > various study strategies:

deep processing (think through topics)

persistence (work my hardest to learn)

= use of effortful study strategies explained the relation between C and educational achievement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Example: extraversion

interactive effects on

the role of rewards

  1. salesforce
  2. management
A

Es respond more to rewards (smillie and wacker)

  1. make use of rewards (bonuses)
  2. bring a range of rewards (pay and status)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Example: extraversion
interactive effects

Extraverts should ONLY predict performance in salespeople when performance is linked with rewards

  1. 2 hypothesis (stewart)
  2. results
A
  1. a) if new sales are rewarded, E will predict new sales
    b. if customer retention is rewarded, E will predict customer retention
  2. a) when sales are rewarded, E perform better on sales. When customer retention rewarded, E perform worse on sales

b) when customer retention is rewarded, E perform better on customer retention. When sales rewarded, E perform worse on customer retention

= E performance is contingent on what they are being rewarded/incentivised for

17
Q

personality traits predict achievement outcomes (summary)

  1. C predicts
  2. E predicts
  3. O predicts
  4. A “
  5. low N “
A
  1. Board predictor of educational and occupational achievement
    - > indirect effect: study strategies
  2. achievement and choice for some work areas (management, sales)
    - > interactive/conditional effects of incentive structures
  3. educational attainment = engagement, occupational success = creative achievement
  4. customer service
  5. performance
18
Q

Longevity (how long people live)

Martin (2007)

  1. study
  2. results

age 75 low vs high

A
  1. 1254 ppl over 7 decades

C estimated from parent and teacher reports of children

C in adulthood assessed at 2 points in time

outcomes = age of death
health/risk behaviours

  1. probability of death continually increases across lifespan
    trends are different:

a) inconsistent (high/low as a child and adult or low/high)

high-low = best chance after high-high (second best)

low-high = worst chance after low-loe (second worst)

(but both very similar = in between low-low and high-high)

b) consistent (high/high as child and adult or low/low)

high-high = lowest chance of death

low-low = worst chance - more likely to be dead across a large section of the lifespan

age 75 = 15% difference in likelihood of them still being alive

19
Q

Longevity (how long people live)

replication of martin’s study using peer report findings
males
females

A

males rated as more C in their 20s lived longer

females lower N and higher A lived longer

20
Q

Protective effect of C

what health-related effects does it predict?

why?

A
  • better health and living longer
  • health-promoting behaviours
  • less alcohol use -.25
  • less drug -.28
  • less unhealthy eating -.13
  • less risky driving -.25
  • less sexually risky -.13
21
Q

Health promoting behaviours

Armon and Toker
participation in periodic health checks outcome (personality)

A

odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years

  1. C strongest predictor
  2. E and O less predictive
  3. N = curvilinear predictor = neither high nor low a strong predictor

N = people in low N don’t perceive risk, people high in N worry but dont want to know if anything’s wrong =

22
Q

changes over time

what is the trait that clearly shows an increasing trend over the average lifespan

A

C

23
Q

changes over time

do changes in C predict changes in health?
- takahashi, edmonds, jackdon and roberts

  1. what did the study assess
  2. results
    a) C
    b) changes in C

what type of effect supported here?

A
  1. 898 individuals assessed 3 years apart

preventative health behaviours: physical activity, healthy eating

also assessed current health = overall health, physical functioning

  1. a) C associated with preventative health behaviours and overall heath at both points in time

b) changes in C = associated with changed in preventative health and overall health
c) changes in preventative health behaviours mediates the association between changes in C and changed in overall health

C -> health behaviour -> health

= indirect link

24
Q

psychological wellbeing

  • > measures of wellbeing also predict?
  • > these are predicted by what personality traits?
  • > links between the traits and wellb being

what type of effect here?

A

-> longevity
= positive emotional diary content of nuns predicted longevity 60 years later

  • > high in E and low in N
  • > E and wellbeing = quality of social connections

indirect link

25
Q

disease risk

  1. whats “type A personality”
    - > what does hostility capture
  2. agreeableness protects against?
    evidence
A
  1. competitive, ambitious, restless, impatient and hostile
    = risk of heart disease
    = hostility = main ingredient, low A
  2. protect against biological risk factors for cardiovascular disease
    =reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress and frustration
26
Q

longevity - meta-analysis

how long does personality predict longevity up to here?

strongest predictors?

what does this say about SES + significance?

effect sizes

A

76 years

C = strongest
E and positive emotionality = next strongest
IQ 
N 
A 
SES = lowest

traits aren’t confounded by SES -> e.g. people who come from high ses backgrounds are NOT more likely to have higher C, E etc

effect sizes = all below .10
BUT
can be very significant when applied to larger populations

27
Q

personality traits predict health and longevity (summary 2)

  1. C
  2. E, low N and A
  3. O/I
A
  1. indirect effects via state expressions (health promoting behaviours)
  2. vis physical and psychological well being
  3. O/I = no clear link with longevity/health
28
Q

relationships

what traits predict relationship outcomes? (3)

  1. Dyrenforth
  2. Schmitt
  3. Kelly and Conley

actor and partner effects

A
  1. A & C = higher marital satisfaction (actor and partner)
  2. A & C = lower likelihood of infedelity (actor)
  3. N = decreased marital stability (actor and partner)
29
Q

relationships - divorce

meta-analysis what personality traits predict? (roberts)

A

N + lower C + lower A predicts divorce up to 45 years later

30
Q

divorce - why? soloman and jackson

explained in terms of indirect effects via relationship dynamics

  1. enduring dynamics
  2. emergent distress
  3. clearer support for?
  4. examples
A
  1. entire duration of relationship dynamics exist that impact on satisfaction: certain personality characteristics will be associated with a less harmonious relationship
  2. changes in relationship satisfaction related to personality traits. Stressor/event causes a dynamic shift in relationship.
  3. enduring dynamics (1)
  4. low A and C via negative communication patterns

high N via negative emotionality (experiencing negative moods, reacting with irritability)

31
Q

personality and social dynamics

  1. whats the reciprocal effects model?
  2. A (partial) test
    - what happened?
    eaton and funder
A
  1. how personality plays a role in relationship and social dynamics more broadly

personality -> impact behaviour -> impacts other person’s impressions (shaped by their own personality) -> impacts how they behave -> impacts on original persons behaviour -> broader social environment -> impacts back on person 1 personality

  1. pairs of participants A & B interact for 5 minutes

behaviour videotaped and coded, self-reported assessment administered after

focus on E

target personality + partner personality -> target behaviour -> partner impression of target -> impacts targets behaviour = social reputation -> impacts target personality

broadly = the personality of the individuals within a social relation impacts how that social relationship evolves - dynamics, impressions and how that relationship might be sustained

32
Q

whats assortive mating

Mccrae 2008
-> correlations traits of partners

A

similar personality types are attracted to one another

positive correlations between partners’ personality traits
= up to .35 for big 5
= highest for O/I
bc-> O/I relates to values

33
Q

criminal and antisocial behaviour

personality traits associated

  1. antisocial behaviour criminal
  2. white-collar criminal

explanations:
direct effects
indirect effects

A
  1. low C and low A
    = antisocial behaviour and aggression
  2. C positively predicted
    direct: aggressive behaviour = state expression of low A

indirect: low A (disagreeableness) predicts aggression VIA moral disengagment
= belief that fighting and teasing can be justified/isn’t harmful

34
Q

political orientation

  1. liberal
  2. conservative

= compare traits for 1 + 2

  1. multi-dimensional approaches
    a) RWA
    b) SDO: egalitarian

(Duckitt and Sibley)

how is this explained?

A
  1. equality and equal opportunity, protection of human rights
  2. personal responsibility, protection of individual freedoms, order and
    tradition

= 1: higher on O/I .20 and lower on C .10

3.a) social conservatism = traditions + authorities/institution upheld (conservatism) + belief in social control (authoritarianism)

O/I = .36
C = .15

b) economic conservatism = endorsement of hierarchies and social/group inequality

O/I = .16
A = .29

terms of VALUES

high on O = value change and inclusiveness (liberal)

high on C = value order and structure (conservatism)

high on A = value harmony and co-operation (liberal

35
Q

personality traits and life outcomes (summary 3)

  1. A
  2. C
  3. O/I
A
  1. A = prefer social harmony, less moral disengagement
    > more positive relationship outcomes
    > lower involvement in crime
    > more tolerant, egalitarian (SDO)
  2. C = self-regulation, preference for order
    > more positive relationship outcomes
    > lower involvement in crime
    > somewhat socially conservative (respect for tradition; RWA)
  3. O/I = receptivity to new ideas, tolerance for change
    > more progressive, less socially conservative (RWA)
36
Q

Robustness of trait + life outcome findings

  1. all of psychology: reproducibility project, results
  2. life outcomes of personality replication (LLOORP)
A
    • only 39% findings replicated
    • 50% the effect size

= less likely to be replicated and effect sizes much smaller

  1. 78 previously reported associations
    - 87% replication success
    - 75% as strong effect sizes (dropped but not as significantly as reproducibility project findings)
37
Q

Implications of the robustness of findings

linke between personality traits and consequential life outcomes….

  1. have theoretical implications for testing predictions from personality theory (predictive validity)
  2. have implications in terms of predicting important outcomes and intervening to change important outcomes (predictive power)
A
  1. does a measure predict what it should
    - > is C a predictor of effort-related performance criteria?
  2. what are the practical implications

-> behaviour change for health
= should we seek to promote higher levels of A + C?
-> job/college selection
= should we include measures of C in selection protocols?

PSYC20009 (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions