Lecture 11: personality and consequential outcomes Flashcards
we can use measures of personality to make ________about ______ or ________ outcomes
- valid inferences or predictions
- theoretically relevant
- practically useful
why might personality predict life outcomes? (describe the following)
- direct effects
- indirect effects
- interactive/conditional effects
- general to specific e.g. does C predict specific expressions of C behaviour?
- indirect effects via situation selection
- interactive/conditional effects: (PxE) via differential reactivity to events/situation
what is the lexical hypothesis?
-> important in what sense?
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)
Formal assessment of personality and abilities
- educational contexts
- occupational contexts
- binet and simon
- > identification of children requiring alternate education (special needs)
- > development of SAT 1920s - military selection and placement - Robert Yerkes (1915)
1950s-70s diversification and mobility of work = assessing individual differences to determine most suited
The prediction of achievement
“how well can we assess people for their placements?”
- job performance
- > Schmidt and hunter (1998) describe meta analysis - results
- strongest predictor
- 85 years of research
predictors included abilities, traits, work experience
criterion = job performance measured in terms of supervisory ratings and sales records etc
- 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
- 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!)
the prediction of achievement
Barrick and Mount
1. what did the meta-analysis focus on?
- results : jobs & relevant personality scores
- > “will do” criteria
- big 5
- 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
the prediction of achievement
Hurtz and Donovan
- > updated meta-analysis to check the reliability of first studies
- > what did they find?
C predicts broadly .20
A, O/I and (low) N = performance in customer service roles
E and (low) N = predicts management and sales roles
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?
- > 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
The prediction of achievement
“creative achievement”
Kaufman 2015
Openness vs intellect =?
- what is intellect?
- what is openness?
Intellect = achievement in?
openness = achievement it?
distinct aspects “sub-traits” of the O/I domain
- reflects engagement with semantic information (i like to solve complex problems)
- reflects engagement with perceptual information (enjoy beauty of nature)
intellect -> sciences
openness -> arts
achievement indicated by outputs, publications and awards
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?
= combination of cognitive ability and C
- cognitive ability = .25
- C = .22
- O/I = .12
- A = .07
= Conscientiousness!
The prediction of achievement
- “educational attainment”
- “educational engagement”
- highest level completed/years spent in full time education
Openness = strongest B5 predictor .35 - Openness predicts intrinsic motivation (internal interest) in uni student = .35
and breadth/depth of reading = .25
The prediction of achievement
“choice of college major” (Vedel)
political science =
psychology =
law =
medicine =
Humanities =
O+E
O+C+A+N
E+C
E+A+C
N+A+O
why does personality predict achievement?
- direct effects
- indirect effects
- interactive effects
= simultaneous operation
- performing well is assessed in working hard (C)
= C predicts more strongly for effort-related criteria - 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) - 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
Example: Conscientiousness
indirect effects on educational achievement via study strategies
Corker 2012
= what does this explain about C and educational achievement?
- > 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
Example: extraversion
interactive effects on
the role of rewards
- salesforce
- management
Es respond more to rewards (smillie and wacker)
- make use of rewards (bonuses)
- bring a range of rewards (pay and status)
Example: extraversion
interactive effects
Extraverts should ONLY predict performance in salespeople when performance is linked with rewards
- 2 hypothesis (stewart)
- results
- a) if new sales are rewarded, E will predict new sales
b. if customer retention is rewarded, E will predict customer retention - 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
personality traits predict achievement outcomes (summary)
- C predicts
- E predicts
- O predicts
- A “
- low N “
- Board predictor of educational and occupational achievement
- > indirect effect: study strategies - achievement and choice for some work areas (management, sales)
- > interactive/conditional effects of incentive structures - educational attainment = engagement, occupational success = creative achievement
- customer service
- performance
Longevity (how long people live)
Martin (2007)
- study
- results
age 75 low vs high
- 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
- 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
Longevity (how long people live)
replication of martin’s study using peer report findings
males
females
males rated as more C in their 20s lived longer
females lower N and higher A lived longer
Protective effect of C
what health-related effects does it predict?
why?
- 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
Health promoting behaviours
Armon and Toker
participation in periodic health checks outcome (personality)
odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years
- C strongest predictor
- E and O less predictive
- 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 =
changes over time
what is the trait that clearly shows an increasing trend over the average lifespan
C
changes over time
do changes in C predict changes in health?
- takahashi, edmonds, jackdon and roberts
- what did the study assess
- results
a) C
b) changes in C
what type of effect supported here?
- 898 individuals assessed 3 years apart
preventative health behaviours: physical activity, healthy eating
also assessed current health = overall health, physical functioning
- 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
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?
-> 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
disease risk
- whats “type A personality”
- > what does hostility capture - agreeableness protects against?
evidence
- competitive, ambitious, restless, impatient and hostile
= risk of heart disease
= hostility = main ingredient, low A - protect against biological risk factors for cardiovascular disease
=reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress and frustration
longevity - meta-analysis
how long does personality predict longevity up to here?
strongest predictors?
what does this say about SES + significance?
effect sizes
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
personality traits predict health and longevity (summary 2)
- C
- E, low N and A
- O/I
- indirect effects via state expressions (health promoting behaviours)
- vis physical and psychological well being
- O/I = no clear link with longevity/health
relationships
what traits predict relationship outcomes? (3)
- Dyrenforth
- Schmitt
- Kelly and Conley
actor and partner effects
- A & C = higher marital satisfaction (actor and partner)
- A & C = lower likelihood of infedelity (actor)
- N = decreased marital stability (actor and partner)
relationships - divorce
meta-analysis what personality traits predict? (roberts)
N + lower C + lower A predicts divorce up to 45 years later
divorce - why? soloman and jackson
explained in terms of indirect effects via relationship dynamics
- enduring dynamics
- emergent distress
- clearer support for?
- examples
- entire duration of relationship dynamics exist that impact on satisfaction: certain personality characteristics will be associated with a less harmonious relationship
- changes in relationship satisfaction related to personality traits. Stressor/event causes a dynamic shift in relationship.
- enduring dynamics (1)
- low A and C via negative communication patterns
high N via negative emotionality (experiencing negative moods, reacting with irritability)
personality and social dynamics
- whats the reciprocal effects model?
- A (partial) test
- what happened?
eaton and funder
- 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
- 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
whats assortive mating
Mccrae 2008
-> correlations traits of partners
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
criminal and antisocial behaviour
personality traits associated
- antisocial behaviour criminal
- white-collar criminal
explanations:
direct effects
indirect effects
- low C and low A
= antisocial behaviour and aggression - 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
political orientation
- liberal
- conservative
= compare traits for 1 + 2
- multi-dimensional approaches
a) RWA
b) SDO: egalitarian
(Duckitt and Sibley)
how is this explained?
- equality and equal opportunity, protection of human rights
- 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
personality traits and life outcomes (summary 3)
- A
- C
- O/I
- A = prefer social harmony, less moral disengagement
> more positive relationship outcomes
> lower involvement in crime
> more tolerant, egalitarian (SDO) - C = self-regulation, preference for order
> more positive relationship outcomes
> lower involvement in crime
> somewhat socially conservative (respect for tradition; RWA) - O/I = receptivity to new ideas, tolerance for change
> more progressive, less socially conservative (RWA)
Robustness of trait + life outcome findings
- all of psychology: reproducibility project, results
- life outcomes of personality replication (LLOORP)
- only 39% findings replicated
- 50% the effect size
= less likely to be replicated and effect sizes much smaller
- 78 previously reported associations
- 87% replication success
- 75% as strong effect sizes (dropped but not as significantly as reproducibility project findings)
Implications of the robustness of findings
linke between personality traits and consequential life outcomes….
- have theoretical implications for testing predictions from personality theory (predictive validity)
- have implications in terms of predicting important outcomes and intervening to change important outcomes (predictive power)
- does a measure predict what it should
- > is C a predictor of effort-related performance criteria? - 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?
