Textbook Chapter 7 Flashcards
trait theorists focus on…
identifying relatively stable features of personality
that distinguish you from other people
trait theory started off with…
typology systems
ie. Greek typology system
Greek typology system
divided all people into 4 types
- sanguine (happy)
- melancholic (unhappy)
- choleric (temperamental)
- phlegmatic (apathetic)
physique-based typology
diffs in physical appearance translated into diffs in personality
- endomorphic (obese)
- mesomorphic (muscular)
- ectomorphic (fragile)
typology systems have…
largely been abandoned
faulty assumptions:
- assume everyone fits into one personality category
- and that each category member is basically alike
- and that the behaviour of all people in one category is distinct from those in another category
3 arguments of trait psychologists
- any personality trait can be illustrated on a continuum (from extremely low in trait to extremely high in trait)
- any person can be placed somewhere along the continuum for every trait
- if we measure a large number of people and place their scores on the continuum, would find all scores create a normal distribution
trait
dimension of personality used to categorize people according to degree to which they manifest a particular characteristic
2 important assumptions of trait approach
- personality traits are relatively STABLE OVER TIME
(not to say that personalities don’t change - research has found they develop from adulthood through to old age, but changes are gradual)
- personality traits are relatively STABLE ACROSS SITUATIONS
trait researchers aren’t interested in what? what do they look at instead?
aren’t interested in PREDICTING behaviour in GIVEN SITUATIONS
they focus instead on predicting how people who score within a certain segment of the continuum TYPICALLY BEHAVE
rather than singling out individuals, they try to find out how the AVERAGE PERSON on EACH SCORE of the continuum would behave
significance of person’s score on trait measure lies in…
how it compares with other people
have schools of psychotherapy emerged from trait approach to personality?
no (unlike the psychoanalytic, cognitive, behaviourist approaches)
its findings are more useful to therapists making diagnoses and charting therapy progress
more ACADEMIC than therapeutic implications
Gordon Allport quote on dispositions
“dispositions are never wholly consistent. what a bore it would be if they were - and what chaos if they were not at all consistent”
book published by Gordon and Floyd Allport
Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement
Gordon Allport
he developed the first recognized work on traits
taught first college course on personality in the US
he acknowledged the limitations of trait concept from the beginning
Gordon Allport: from beginning, he acknowledged…
limitations of the trait concept
- accepted that behaviour is influenced by variety of ENVIRONMENTAL factors
- recognized that traits AREN’T USEFUL in PREDICTING what a single individual will do
Allport’s 2 research strategies when investigating personality
- nomothetic approach
- idiographic approach
nomothetic approach
assumes all people can be described along SINGLE DIMENSION according to their LEVEL of a trait
each person is tested to see how their score for a given trait COMPARES with scores of other participants
nomothetic approach tests what kind of traits?
COMMON traits
^ those that presumably apply to everyone
Allport thoughts on nomothetic approach
that it’s INDISPENSABLE for understanding human personality
idiographic approach
identify the UNIQUE COMBO of traits that BEST ACCOUNTS for personality of a single individual
5-10 traits that best describe one’s personality are called CENTRAL TRAITS
also CARDINAL TRAITS
central traits
in the idiographic approach, the 5-10 traits that BEST DESCRIBE someone’s personality
number of central traits varies from person to person
cardinal trait
rare individuals have personalities dominated by a SINGLE TRAIT
when a behaviour becomes synonymous with an individual
ie. Machiavellian, Homeric, Don Juans
advantage of idiographic approach
the PERSON, not the researcher, DETERMINES what traits to examine
con of nomothetic approach
traits selected by the investigator might be central for some people, but only SECONDARY for others
test score of someone’s sociability isn’t of great value when sociability isn’t a central trait of a person
won’t result in a great assessment of their personality
Allport was also interested in the concept of…
the “self”
particularly the process by which children develop a sense of themselves
Gordon Allport life dates
1897-1967
Gordon Allport early life
born in Montezuma, Indiana
3 older brothers
didn’t fit in as a kid
“I was quick with words, poor at games”
followed his older bro to Harvard, and studied psychology just like him
Gordon Allport achievements
pioneered field of trait psychology - although faced criticism and opposition at first
elected president of the American Psychological Association
received the prestigious Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award
editor of the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
Henry Murray’s approach to personality was a blend of…
psychoanalytic and trait concepts
interacted with Jung early on in his career - so his work mentions the unconscious a lot
came up with the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Murray called his approach…
personology
Murray identified what as the basis of personality?
NEEDS
psychogenic needs, especially
psychogenic needs
what Murray considered the basic elements of personality
a “readiness to respond in a certain way under certain given conditions”
postulated to be UNCONSCIOUS
27 of these needs
examples of psychogenic needs
need for order
need for dominance
need for achievement
according to Murray, each of us can be described…
in terms of a PERSONAL HIERARCHY OF NEEDS
ie. if you have a strong need for lots of close friends, you are high in need for affiliation
importance of your needs aren’t so much how they compare to needs of other people, but HOW INTENSE it is compared to YOUR OTHER NEEDS
achievement vs affiliation needs example
say you have a big test tmrw, but your friends are having a party
if your achievement need is higher than your affiliation need, you’ll probably hit the books instead of the party
the press
the situation that determines whether or not a need is activated
needs are only activated in certain situations
ie. need for order will only be activated if your room is really messy
Murray’s principle contributions to field of psychology
- TAT
- the research stimulated by his theory (ie. his psychogenic needs)
Henry Murray life dates
1893-1988
Henry Murray background
walked out of his first psych lecture because he was bored
got a medical degree from Columbia
then went to Cambridge to study biochem
then exposed to Carl Jung’s writings
received formal psychoanalytic training at Harvard and taught there until retirement
he was a stutterer
also worked for the Office of Strategic Services (forerunner to the CIA) - applied personality in selection of undercover agents
also a literary scholar
Raymond Cattell
another pioneer of the trait approach
had yet another approach to personality
borrowed approach from the sciences (his first degree was in chemistry) - FACTOR ANALYSIS
much of Cattell’s work was dedicated to…
determining just HOW MANY basic personality traits there are
there are hundreds, but some of them are certainly related
ie. being sociable and extraverted aren’t entirely separate
factor analysis
Cattell’s approach
statistical technique
compares scores of traits from many people
you might find that friendliness and tenderness scores are highly correlated
if a person scores high on one test, you can predict with some confidence that the person also will score high on the other test
looking at pattern of correlation coefficients, might discover that tests tend to CLUSTER into groups
ie. five of the traits may correlate with one another, but not with the five other tests
although you measured 10 traits, reasonable to say you really measured 2 LARGER PERSONALITY DIMENSIONS
factor analysis: example of 2 groups with correlated traitst
group 1:
- aspiration
- determination
- endurance
- persistence
- productivity
group 2:
- compassion
- cooperativeness
- friendliness
- kindliness
- tenderness
Cattell, by using factor analysis, did what?
by analyzing data from various sources with factor analyses
he attempted to determine HOW MANY of these basic personality elements (source traits) exist
source traits
basic traits that make up human personality
what Cattell was after
seriously limitation of factor analysis
the procedure is confined by the TYPE of data chosen for analysis
ie. what traits are chosen, can be endless combinations which result in endless correlations/dimensions
in response to factor analysis limitation regarding the type of data chosen for analysis, what did Cattell do?
got info from many diff sources
- records (report cards, employer’s ratings)
- data about how people act when placed in lifelike situations
- data from personality questionnaires
called these three L-data, T-data and Q-data
how many basic traits did Cattell identify?
16
in 1949, he published the first version of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire to measure these traits
Donald Fiske 1947 personality study SETUP
conducted extensive personality assessment of 128 men admitted into the Veteran Administration’s clinical psychology program
- standard trait measures
- projective tests
- biographical data
- interviews
- peer ratings
Donald Fiske 1947 personality study FINDINGS
identified 5 basic personality factors
- social adaptability
- emotional control
- conformity
- the inquiring intellect
- confident self-expression
Fiske’s social adaptability
talkative
makes good company
Fiske’s emotional control
easily upset
has sustained anxieties
Fiske’s conformity
ready to cooperate
conscientious
Fiske’s the inquiring intellect
intellectual curiosity
an exploring mind
Fiske’s confident self expression
cheerful
not selfish
is there support for the 5 basic dimensions of personality, still today?
yes there is
although there may never be complete agreement, different teams of investigators using many diff kinds of data repeatedly find evidence for these 5 traits
the big 5
openness
conscientiousness
extraversion
agreeableness
neuroticism
neuroticism dimension
places people along continuum according to their EMOTIONAL STABILITY and PERSONAL ADJUSTMENT
high neuroticism
frequent mood swings, emotional distress, anxiety, depression
frequently find that people prone to one kind of negative emotional state often experience others
low neuroticism
calm, well adjusted, not prone to extreme emotional reactions
extraversion dimension
extraverts on one end, introverts on the other
extraverts
tend to be energetic, optimistic, friendly, assertive
have more friends and spend more time in social situations than introverts do
introverts
they aren’t asocial or without energy
they’re “RESERVED rather than unfriendly”
“INDEPENDENT rather than followers”
“EVEN-PACED rather than sluggish”
openness dimension
refers to openness to EXPERIENCE rather than openness in an interpersonal sense
characteristics: active imagination, willingness to consider new ideas, divergent thinking, intellectual curiosity
high openness versus low openness
HIGH: unconventional and independent thinkers
^ innovative scientists and creative artists tend to be high in openness
LOW: prefer the familiar over seeking new things
some researchers refer to the openness dimension as…
intellect
(although it’s certainly not the same thing as intelligence)
high agreeableness versus low agreeableness
HIGH: helpful, trusting, sympathetic
a) have more pleasant social interactions and fewer quarrelsome exchanges
b) are more willing to help those in need
LOW: like to fight for their interests and beliefs
other evidence for Big 5 in things other than self report trait inventories
terms people use to describe their friends and acquaintances
ways teachers describe students
some debate about what the 5 factors MEAN
these factors may simply represent five dimensions BUILT INTO OUR LANGUAGE
although personality may in reality have a VERY DIFF STRUCTURE, our ABILITY TO DESCRIBE personality traits = limited to the adjectives available to us
debate about the 5 factors: cognitive ability
maybe we only have the cognitive ability to organize info about ourselves/others into five dimensions
debate about 5 factors resolution (kinda)
debate over language’s nature and cognitive ability and how these affect the 5 factors
has been largely resolved through conducting 5 trait studies in other places/other languages
the 5-factor model seems to hold up - seems like a UNIVERSAL PATTERN for describing personality
disagreement about the structure of the 5 factor model
some factor analytic studies find patterns that DON’T FIT WELL within the 5 factor structure
sometimes find evidence for SEVEN, SIX, THREE, TWO and even ONE basic factor(s)
a few personality descriptors simply don’t fit well within the 5 factor model…
religiousness
youthfulness
frugality
humour
cunning
do our personalities change as we age?
yes and no
personalities become relatively stable during 20s, and show little sign of change after 30
BUT sometimes find general trends in Big Five scores over the lifespan
general trends in Big Five scores over the lifespan
- OLDER ADULTS tend to be higher in CONSCIENTIOUSNESS & AGREEABLENESS
- tend to become LOWER IN NEUROTICISM as you move through adulthood
no consistent patterns for age-related changes in which traits?
extraversion and openness
what’s best to examine when trying to predict relevant behaviour?
specific trait scales are better than big five
ie. big five scales combine anxiety and depression as part of global dimension of neuroticism
but the big five is still very useful - for diagnosing clinical disorders, working with therapy patients, identifying problem health behaviours
criticisms of trait approach
- trait measures don’t PREDICT behaviour as well as many psychologists claim
- there’s little evidence for CONSISTENCY of behaviour across situations
do you act the way you do because of…
1) the situation
2) the type of person you are
measuring how well personality scores and situations predict people’s behaviour
research finds that BOTH situation and person = related to behaviour
knowing about BOTH was BETTER than having info about only one
but these studies = limited by type of situation and personality variable examined because there are many situations where EVERYONE WOULD ACT THE SAME
meaning the situation would account for ALL THE VARIANCE - but it’s also incorrect to conclude that traits diffs are unrelated to behaviour
person-by-situation approach
looks at:
- the relevant SITUATION
- the individual’s TRAITS
- the individual’s BEHAVIOURS
when predicting behaviour
what percentage of behaviour does the “personality coefficient” account for?
only about 10% of the variance in behaviour
personality trait scores rarely correlate with measures above .30 and .40 r
considerable amount of behaviour remains that single trait scores can’t explain
honesty in school children study setup
several years looking at HONESTY in 8000 school children
measured honesty in 23 DIFF WAYS (lying, stealing, cheating etc)
honesty in school children study results and implications
between the 23 diff ways they measured honesty…
found an AVERAGE INTERCORRELATION of only 0.23
because personality trait consistency across situations is a major tenet of the trait approach, this was a big deal
ie. knowing a child is honest in one situation (ie. telling truth to parent) would reveal little about whether they would cheat on a text
Mischel referred to cross-situational consistency in traits as…
“more apparent than real”
for many reasons, we tend to see consistent behaviour that upon closer examination ISN’T REALLY THERE
- people often see what they EXPECT to see
- tend to only see people in ONE TYPE of situation/role
^fair to fully account for fact that the situation over the person’s disposition is prob accounting for a lot of their behaviour
trait psychologists argue that researchers often fail to produce strong links between personality traits and behaviour because…
they don’t measure behaviour correctly
often use trait scores to PREDICT ONLY ONE MEASURE OF BEHAVIOUR
VIOLATES basic concept in psychological testing - SO LOW IN RELIABILITY
so maybe psychologists simply aren’t measuring traits/behaviours reliably
alternative to one-item measurement
researchers can AGGREGATE data
ie. instead of looking at behaviour from only one day, look at a whole 2-week time span
ie. instead of only examining yelling as a measure of aggression, look at all sorts of manifestations of aggressive behaviour
will likely result in higher correlations between trait measures and subsequent behaviours
another reason personality trait measures usually fail to break the .3 or .4 barrier…
researchers may be looking at the WRONG TRAITS
distinction between CENTRAL and SECONDARY traits
by looking at traits across people, for some the trait will be of central importance, while for others it will only be of secondary importance
these people with secondary importance will DILUTE THE CORRELATION between the trait score and behaviour
traited versus untraited people
TRAITED people: trait being measured is significant to them
^ yield MORE CONSISTENT measures of behaviour - higher correlations
UNTRAITED people: trait being measured is not
^ yield LESS CONSISTENT measures of behaviour - lower correlations
the importance of the 10% variance
how high does a correlation have to be to be considered important?
0.36-0.42 have been cited in other work as “important”
comparing the variance accounted for in personality research with results from other fields
ie. medical field
headlines about aspiring significantly reducing risk of heart attacks
this correlation was only 0.03, accounting for less than 1% of the variance
IMPORTANCE IS SUBJECTIVE - in medical field, reliably saving a relatively small number of lives is important
personality measures and hiring - what changed with the Big Five?
BEFORE the Big Five - criticism that there were low correlations between specific trait scores and job performance
AFTER the Big Five - now had five larger personality dimensions that encompassed a bunch of specific traits
FINDINGS: using Big Five resulted in much STRONGER EVIDENCE for relationship between personality and job performance than previously
which of the Big Five factors is most important in determining a good employee?
CONSCIENTIOUSNESS - careful, thorough, dependable
^ don’t rush, take time to do jobs thoughtfully, correctly, completely
^ organized and lay out plans before a big project
^ hardworking, persistent, achievement orientation
why did conscientious appliance salespeople make more sales?
conscientious scores were fairly good predictors of how many appliances employees sold
CLOSER EXAMINATION helps to explain their success
- set HIGHER GOALS than other employees
- were MORE COMMITTED to their goals than other employees
^ spent more time/effort working too hit them
highly conscientious workers typically…
receive higher evaluations from supervisors
least likely to lose their jobs when company forced to lay off employees
do better in their careers and in college
is conscientiousness the only Big Five dimension related to job performance?
no
so is AGREEABLENESS (trusting, cooperative, helpful, pleasant)
and EXTRAVERSION has an edge in the business world
why are self report inventories popular among professional psychologists?
- can be given in GROUPS or ONLINE
- administered QUICKLY and EASILY by someone with little training
- easy and objective to SCORE
- usually have GREATER FACE VALIDITY than other instruments
MMPI
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
the prototypic self-report inventory
when was MMPI first developed?
1930s
revised to the MMPI-2 in 1989 - this is what is used now
MMPI-2
567 true-false items
generate SEVERAL SCALE SCORES which are combined to form OVERALL PROFILE of the test taker
ie. depression, hysteria, paranoia, schizophrenia
what do psychologists focus on when examining MMPI-2 results?
- overall PATTERN of scores (rather than one specific scale)
- scores that are particularly HIGHER or LOWER than average
3 problems with self-report inventories
- faking
- carelessness and sabotage
- response tendencies
faking: problems with self-report inventories
- some people “FAKE GOOD” intentionally when taking a test
not uncommon when scales are used to make EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS
- also might “FAKE BAD”
ie. someone who wants to escape to a “safe” hospital environment might try to come across as someone with psych problems
carelessness and sabotage: problems with self-report inventories
- participants can GET BORED with long tests - not bother to read test items carefully
- sometimes don’t admit their POOR READING SKILLS or FAILURE TO FULLY UNDERSTAND the instructions
- provide frivolously or INTENTIONALLY incorrect info to SABOTAGE project or diagnosis
response tendencies: problems with self-report inventories
social desirability: extent to which people present themselves in a favourable light
UNINTENTIONALLY presenting themselves in slightly more favourable way than is true
ways to get around faking as a problem with self-report inventories
- important decisions shouldn’t be made on test data alone
- build SAFEGUARDS into tests to reduce faking
(purpose of a test can be made less obvious, filler items can be added to throw test taker off track)
- TEST for faking DIRECTLY
(MMPI contains scales designed to detect faking - ie. people trying to look schizophrenic tend to check certain items which real schizophrenics do not)
ways to get around carelessness as a problem with self-report inventories
- EXPLAIN instructions thoroughly
- stress IMPORTANCE of test
- maintain some kind of SURVEILLANCE throughout the testing session
- construct tests to DETECT CARELESSNESS
^ (ie. some tests present certain items more than once - if person selects two diff answers for the same repeated Q then may be sabotaging the test)
ways to get around social desirability as a problem with self-report inventories
- measuring social desirability tendencies DIRECTLY - and adjust interpretation of other scores accordingly
- when social desirability scores are particularly high, DROP those participants from the study
why do test makers often compare scores on a new inventory with scores on a social desirability measure?
if the two measures are highly correlated, test makers have no way to know which of the two traits (a person’s actual trait or their desire to appear like they have that trait) the measure is getting at
if the scores on new inventory DON’T CORRELATE HIGHLY with social desirability scores, have MORE CONFIDENCE that high scorers are genuinely high in the trait
are some people more likely to agree with test questions?
yes
some are higher in ACQUIESCENCE responses
translates into a problem on some self-report scales
TO BE SAFE - many test makers word half the items as “agree” and the other half as “disagree” - then the tendency to agree or disagree with statements shouldn’t affect the final score
how does the empirical nature of the trait theorists set them apart from the founders of most personality theories?
rather than relying on INTUITION and SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT like Freud and neo-Freudians…
they used OBJECTIVE MEASURES to examine their constructs
ie. Cattell allowed DATA to determine theory
reduces BIASES and SUBJECTIVITY that plague other approaches
strengths of trait approach
- empirical study, objective measures
- practical applications
(mental health workers, educational psychologists, HR personnel, career planners use trait measures)
- generated lots of research
criticisms of the trait approach
- leaves out a lot of stuff - describe people in terms of traits, but often DON’T EXPLAIN:
a) HOW TRAITS DEVELOP
b) what can be done to HELP PEOPLE who suffer from extreme scores
- ^ no PSYCHOTHERAPY schools have developed
- LACK of agreed upon FRAMEWORK
ie. Murray’s 27 psychogenic needs vs Cattell’s 16 basic elements of personality vs the Big Five
