Quiz #3 study-guide revamped Flashcards
Self-report Data (s-data)
Ask people about themselves. Most common.
–advantages: lots of info, easy, people know themselves
–disadvantages: lying, maybe they can’t tell you.
Informant (I-data)
As other people, tends to match up (mostly) with self-report data.
–advantages: a large amount of info, easy to complete, other people might see things in you that you’re blind to.
–disadvantages: limited info (they only see what you show them for the most part) and bias.
Life Outcomes (L-data)
Concrete facts about person/environment (e.g. college degree, age, height, family, occupation, etc.)
–advantages: verifiable and objective
–disadvantages: multi-determinant – e.g. why is the dorm messy? Maybe they’re not lazy but busy
Behavioral (b-data)
Natural/lab observations (e.g. watching people cross crosswalks), physiological (e.g. HR, BP, MRI, etc.) some self-report info – not asking directly about personality, but inferring from responses (e.g. projective tests, thematic apperception test, MMPI)
–advantages: appears objective, wide range of contexts
–disadvantages: ambiguous interpretation
Consilience
We can be more confident in a conclusion if we have multiple types of data that come to the same conclusion.
Reliability
How dependable is the measurement?
–improving reliability: standardized measurement–make it the same so you can compare across measures (Likert scale; true/false). Aggregate our measurements–take all measurements and average them all together.
Construct Validity
Am I measuring this right?
~”Sometimes I’m sad” does not measure your level of extraversion
Personality-situationist Arguments
Do people behave according to the situation or their personality? (Like nature vs. nurture).
Are people consistent?
Situationist Argument
Relationships in personality traits and behavior are too small
(.20 to .40); e.g. extraversion and income
~R= 0.4, so r^2= 16% of the variance is accounted for by personality, Most of the outcome is the situation –> NOT our conclusion.
Personality Argument/response
Situationists have similar effects to personality–This IS our conclusion.
–effects for classical and social psych findings–> similar effect sizes for the situation as for traits.
–said these correlations are not as small as you think, or rather, their impact is larger than their effect size might indicate.
–Personality influence depends on the situation
Strong Situations
Have many constraints on behavior, and limited room for the expression of personal opinions/personality.
–e.g. church, prison
Weak situations
Few constraints on behavior; you can be you.
Self-monitoring
Am I acting in accordance with the situation I am in right now?
Personality Change in Therapy
Yes, but some traits change a lot more than others (emotional stability increases, neuroticism decreases)
~other 4 increase a bit
~Therapy type doesn’t matter nor does presenting problem.
Interactionism
People constantly interact with situations. Part of you is choosing the situation you are in, and then you interact with the environment as it influences you.
Projective Testing
Types of projection tests would be the Thematic Apperception Test (ask a person to describe the story around some image) and Rorschach inkblot tests
Projective Hypothesis
What projective tests are based upon –> if we give a person ambiguous info they must project themselves into their explanation of that info.
Rational Method
Brainstorming items to capture a construct
Empirical Approach
Reduces socially desirable responding. Can’t tell exactly what the question is measuring.
– Only as good as the original criteria.
–Must be updated
Factor Analytic Method
Statistical method to reduce data (into groups). Generate a bunch of questions, then group questions into categories. Must make an assumption based on which questions group together on what they are measuring and what they mean.
–limitations: only as good as item quality. Not as objective as it seems. Sometimes doesn’t make sense. (~not always clear construct for grouping; must make conclusion on what grouping means –> somewhat subjective)
The Lexical Hypothesis
If there is something important for people, then we will have words to describe it.
The HEXACO Model
Better replicable in other cultures, namely Asian cultures
–Honesty/Humility
–Emotionality –> like neuroticism, but adds dependency factors
–eXtraversion
–Agreeableness
–Conscientiousness
–Openness
Maturity Principle
As you mature, you put yourself in roles that create personality changes in you.
~about all big 5 traits go up
Facial Bias/the face
Different facial features impact one’s judgment. Composites of faces of people with certain traits show that those traits are evident in facial features.
Baby Facedness
Described as warm, kind, incompetent, and less powerful.
Resting Bitch Face
Emotional resemblance –> if you have a more stoic face, people infer you are angry.
Familiar Faces
Mere exposure effect –> We like them more if they look like someone we know.
Attractiveness
Halo effect –> The idea that beauty is good. More attractive people are judged more favorably.
–Appearance: e.g. put together/clean cut, or look messy and unkept
Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM)
In order to accurately judge an individual’s personality attributes, 4 things must happen.
1. The target must do something RELEVANT to the attribute
2. This info must be AVAILABLE to judge
3. The judge must DETECT this info
4. The judge must properly UTILIZE this info.
Moderators of Accuracy in Personality Judgement
–The judge: good judges; positive, well-adjusted (psychologically healthy), sociable.
–The target: good targets; extraverted and behaves consistently.
–The trait: easily identifiable traits; extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness.
–The situation: “Weak” situations with low social constraints allow people to express themselves (not a prison or school)
–The information: the amount and quality of info is important. ~face, appearance, daily activities.
Expectancy Effect
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968); a phenomenon that occurs when a person’s expectations influence their behavior or perception of reality.
Pygmalion Effect
If you have high expectations of another person, that person will often try their best to meet your expectations.
~”gifted” student example
Big Five Traits
Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness/intellect.
Personality Altering Events:
Marriage
Men and women –> decline in extraversion, decline in openness, increased self-control, increased forgiveness.
Personality Altering Events:
Divorce
Men –> increase in neuroticism, decrease conscientiousness (most breakups are initiated by women, men hurt more?)
Women –> increased extraversion, increased openness
Personality Altering Events:
Unemployment
Men –> more agreeable, less conscientious
Women –> less agreeable, less conscientious
Personality Altering Events:
Parenthood
Men and women –> higher neuroticism (worry over kids) decreased extraversion
Extraversion
More likely to get into accidents. Inability to be alone.
Introversion
Social isolation, flattered effect
Neuroticism
good to be lower.
hi –> chronic negative effect, overly self-aware, irritability, more cautious.
low –> lack of concern for problems related to health and social adjustments, less cautious.
Openness
hi –> lack of practicality, diffuse identity, non-confirming
low –> difficulty adapting to change, low range of interest, low understanding of other viewpoints, excessive conformity, insensitivity.
Agreeableness
hi –> gullibility, indiscriminate, trust, push-over
low –> cynical, aggressive, manipulative, lack of respect for social conventions.
Conscientiousness
hi –> workaholic, compulsive, rigid, self-discipline
low –> underachievement, low self-discipline, disorganized
