Problem 7: Personality Traits and States Flashcards
Research studies testing the existence of traits
–> differences among people in their tendencies to behave in ways related to a given trait will depend a great deal on the situation
–> if we know how individuals typically behave across several situations, then we can guess very accurately how they typically behave across several other situations
–> even though the situation is important, we can still see very consistent differences among people when we consider their overall behavior as observed across many different situations
Person argument/side
Because behavior is determined in large parts by a person’s traits, a given individual will act similar much of the time, except for some reasonable adaptation to changing circumstances
–> traits predict and describe behavior very well over long stretches of time and behavior is highly stable
Situation argument/side
Because the immediate situation is the primary determinant of behavior, a given individual will act very differently on different occasions
–> traits do not predict, describe, or influence behavior very strongly; the typical individual’s behavior is highly variable
Interactionism
Personality consists of differences between individuals in how they react to situations, rather than in general ways of acting (traits)
–> compromise position
Density-distributions
= determine how differently the typical person acts on different occasion
–> observing people as they conduct their daily lives and measuring a large number of their behaviors in a manner that allows their similarity to be assessed
Evidence for the Situation Position: People Act very differently on different occasions
High amounts of within-person variability mean that the person acts very differently from occasion to occasion
Low amounts of between-individual variability in one occasion
Evidence for the Person Position: People act very similarly from one Week to another
Small amounts of within-person variability mean that the person acts similar on different occasions and that traits would accurately describe how the person acts
High amounts of between-individual variability in one occasion
People may differ in the central point around which they vary –> two central points from the same person are almost identical to each other
–> people have different central points
Research Fraud
= fabrication, falsification, and deception in performing or reporting results
–> it deceives employers, funders, research publishers, and readership, by attempting to publish research that is misleading, has been fabricated in some way, has not even been conducted in the first place, or has already been published elsewhere
Fabrication
= research data has been made up
–> the most extreme form of research fraud
Not doing the study
= taking the research grant (money) but not doing the research
Altering data
= involves adjustments to data to fulfill the desired results, rather than complete fabrication
Plagiarism
= occurs when a proposed publication includes substantial selections from other people’s work without any citation or acknowledgment of the original source
Duplication of publication
= simultaneous submission of the same article to more than one journal
salami-slicing of a research project = publishing several articles from the same piece of research
Why might fraud be committed?
- pressure to attract research funding
- “publish or perish” standards cause pressure
- publication of positive results; negative findings are less likely to get published
Personality Traits
Generalized and personalized determining characteristics - consistent and stable modes of an individual’s adjustment to his/her environment
Personality States
Temporary states, moods, and activities
Fleeson’s Whole Trait Model
–> personality traits are best conceptualized as density distributions of momentary states
–> certain situational cues could explain variations in personality states
–> individual differences in the underlying causes of personality fluctuations may have important explanatory power, both for predicting outcomes and making sense of people’s seemingly inconsistent thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
–> within-person variation in personality results from interpretive processes that arise from reaction to environmental (situational) and internal events
State Affect
–> extraversion and neuroticism are both strongly
related to affect
–> agreeableness and openness strongly
covaried with affect at the within-person level
–> affect accounted for a moderate amount of
within-person variance in conscientiousness
–> extraversion, and, to a lesser extent,
agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness
tended to covary with positive affect
–> neuroticism, and, to a lesser extent,
extraversion, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness, tended to covary with
negative affect
When participants were studying/working, they were:
o less extraverted, less agreeable, less open
o more conscientious and more neurotic than
when they were not studying/working
Approach orientation
The impetus to promote or sustain desired physical or psychological stimuli
–> motivation to achieve mastery, status enhancement, affiliation, altruism, or learning
–> conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and openness
Avoidance orientation
The motive to prevent or reduce negative stimuli
–> creates vigilance to threat, resulting in negative affect or withdrawal
–> neuroticism
Work Experience and Personality
-Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) provides a rewarding sense of fulfillment
–> predicts next-day extraversion, agreeableness, and openness
Interpersonal conflict may focus attention on avoiding loss and averting further unpleasantness
–> agreeableness predicts next-day interpersonal conflict
The desire to achieve goals may be intrinsic to conscientiousness
–> goal setting motivation is positively associated with next-day conscientiousness
Intrinsic motivation should foster approach-oriented behavior
–> predicted next-day conscientiousness
Personality as Patterns of Variability
Daytime and physiological changes could influence personality state changes directly or via variations in mood
–> trait personality emerges as a significant predictor of state personality
–> stability between average levels of state personality
Neuroticism as a Predictor of Variability
People high in neuroticism are more reactive to negative stressors, which implies a higher level of personality state variation
- vary more in states associated with attention
and focus
- fluctuate between approach and avoidance
behaviors
–> agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism were positively and significantly correlated with the trait neuroticism factor, while extraversion and openness were not correlated with neuroticism
Personality-situation transactions
= describe how people select, create, change, and construe situations based on their dispositions
Do not consistently increase with age:
1. External constraints in health or social environments may limit possibilities to choose and create personality-compatible situations
2. People increasingly know themselves more with age, but are not able, or not willing, to act on it
3. It can also be due to cohort effects –> Younger cohorts are more focused on self-fulfillment compared with older cohorts
Positive side of narcissistic leaders
o narcissistic leaders promote bold visions and are
perceived as charismatic
o reduce people’s uncertainty and are preferred as
leaders in uncertain contexts
Negative side of narcissistic leaders
o narcissistic leaders’ dominance inhibits information sharing among followers, which negatively impacts group performance
o tendency to dismiss the advice of others
o insatiable need for glory
o pursue unrealistic projects
o unethical and counterproductive work behavior
o risky investments riskier decisions can result in greater volatility in organizational results
o perceived inequality, dissatisfaction, and turnover among employees
Narcissism
= a cognitive and affective preoccupation with oneself
–> narcissistic individuals tend to utilize a more controlling, aggressive, and abusive rather than supportive leadership style, which may inhibit employee motivation by stifling job resources
Implicit leader theory
The greater the perceived overlap between observed and implicit prototypical leadership characteristics, the more likely that someone will be seen and chosen as a leader, and perceives as a more effective leader
Leader visibility
The more opportunities people have in observing someone, the better they can comprehend that person’s behavior and this familiarity can help decrease distance
Leader distance theory
Greater social distance prompts the formation of simplified leader perceptions based on followers’ automatic schemas and implicit leader prototypes because more distant followers have access to mainly superficial information about their leader
Leader distance theory
Greater social distance prompts the formation of simplified leader perceptions based on followers’ automatic schemas and implicit leader prototypes because more distant followers have access to mainly superficial information about their leader
Leadership styles
Supportive: the negative effects of stress on employees are buffered, and employees’ engagement and motivation are enhanced
Autocratic: related to employee withdrawal behavior and burnout symptoms
Abusive or destructive: related to distress in followers, low job satisfaction, and greater turnover intentions
Naysayer
= an individual who negates, refuses, and/or criticizes another person or entity regardless of whether such statements can be verified, and without explicit intention to necessarily hurt any particular target
Naysaying-Agency-Power-Leadership Efficacy (NAPLE) model
= captures the causal link between naysaying and power, and examines leadership efficacy as a downstream implication
agency: a key determinant of power, it is the psychological mechanism that drives the effect/perception of power
–> the ability to act autonomously and freely
–> naysaying and power are causally linked
through the perception of agency
–> voters perceived negative and critical
presidential candidates as more powerful and,
in turn, were more willing to vote for them
–> naysaying drives the empowerment effect
