Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Personality & Individual Differences > The Person-Situation Debate & Trait Approach Critique > Flashcards

The Person-Situation Debate & Trait Approach Critique Flashcards

1
Q

THE TRAIT APPROACH: CONTEXT

A
  • relies predominantly on self-report questionnaires to measure personality
  • other approaches can be used (ie. beh observation/projective techniques) BUT questionnaires = most frequently used method for measuring traits
  • social psych also has tendency to rely on questionnaire data as do other psych areas
  • critique relevant to all research relying on self-reports/questionnaire data
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

HOW HAS THE PERSONALITY MEASURE DEVELOPED?

A
  • item/question number
  • factor analysis (orthogonal/oblique rotation)
  • factors number (statistical/user (theoretically) defined)
  • factor labelling
  • standardisation
  • validity
  • reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha over time)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

INACCURACY SOURCES IN PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT & TESTING

A
  • response sets/bias can affect test results via non-constant responding:
    ACQUIESCENCE
    DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
    EXTREME RESPONDING
    SOCIAL DESIRABILITY RESPONDING
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

PERSONALITY TESTING INACCURACY: ACQUIESCENCE

A
  • tendency to agree w/questionnaire items irrespective of content (reversed scored items help combat acquiescence)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

PERSONALITY TESTING INACCURACY: DEMAN CHARACTERISTICS

A
  • pps alter response/beh as they are part of experiment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

PERSONALITY TESTING INACCURACY: EXTREME RESPONDING

A
  • tendency to give endpoint responses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

PERSONALITY TESTING INACCURACY: SOCIAL DESIRABILITY

A
  • tendency to give answers enhancing social attractiveness/likeability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY I

A
  • some test takers choose socially acceptable answers to present themselves in favourable light
  • individuals don’t attend as much to trait being measured as to social acceptability of statement
  • represents unwanted variance; distorts data
  • various measures developed to detect socially desirable responding; removed statistically from other questionnaire items
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY II

A
  • often reflects need for approval
  • items in scales designed usually refer to minor transgressions/inadequacies that most of us suffer; some items refer to “saint-like” beh
  • extent to which person denies common faults/problems endorsing perfect/well-adjusted beh -> ^ social desirability score
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

CROWNE/MARLOW SCALE FOR MEASURING SOCIAL DESIRABILITY

A
  • all measured in true/false format:
    1. I’m always willing to admit when I’ve made a mistake.
    2. I always practice what I preach.
    3. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way.
    4. I sometimes try to get even > forgive/forget.
    5. I never resent being asked to return a favour.
    6. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very dif than mine.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY: CLARIFICATION

A
  • not necessarily dishonesty; dif from lying/faking
  • some people may simply have distorted view of themselves
  • some people have strong need to have others thing well of them
  • some psychologists argue that social desirability = trait itself that correlates w/other positive traits ie. optimism/happiness/conscientiousness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

DISHONESTY/DEFENSIVENESS

A
  • won’t admit to minor flaws/weaknesses
  • impression management
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

FAKING & IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

A
  • faking = some people taking tests may respond in particular way to cause desired outcome
  • some may be motivated to “fake good” to create favourable impression ie. employment settings
  • others may “fake bad” as cry for help/to appear ^ maladjusted/mentally disturbed > reality ie. clinical/forensic settings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

“FAKING BAD”

A
  • people try to appear worse than they are
  • common issue in clinical settings
  • most people overdo it
  • reasons:
    1. cry for help
    2. want to plea insanity in court
    3. want to show psychological damage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

“FAKING BAD”: FBS/MMPI

A

LEE-HALEY FAKE BAD SCALE (FBS)/MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY (MMPI)
- symptom validity scale; 43 items in Minnesota
- MMPI aimed at detecting malingering in personal injury claimants
- endorsed by MMPI publishers in 2006; incorporated into official scoring keys
- BUT very controversial

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

“FAKING BAD”: DETECTING FAKE-GOOD/FAKE-BAD MMPI-2 PROFILES

A

GRAHAM ET AL (1991)
- validity scales of MMPI-2 could identify people who “fake bad/good”; could differentiate between

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

MITIGATING AGAINST IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT

A
  • use lie scales to flag those who may be lying/faking (ie. EPQ has lie scale)
  • forced choice items = have to choose between 2 desirable behs
  • inconsistency scales (ie. 2 dif responses to 2 similar qs includes reverse scored)
  • use multiple assessment methods (other than self-report) ie. observational/interview data
18
Q

! CRITICAL !

A
  • personality tests = NOT created equal (reliability/validity/norms)
  • best if you use tests that build-in validity/screener/lie scales
  • sometimes personality tests shouldn’t be trust aka. people may life/delude themselves
19
Q

THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE: FOCUS

A

Q: is the person/situation ^ important in determining what people do?

20
Q

TRAIT THEORY

A
  • personality traits primarily determine beh
21
Q

SITUATIONISM

A
  • situational variables determine behaviour NOT personality
22
Q

INTERACTIONISM

A
  • traits/situations interact to influence beh
23
Q

THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE

A

MISCHELL (1968)
- beh = too inconsistent from 1 situation to next to allow individual difs to be characterised accurately as personality traits
- personality traits DON’T predict beh particularly well; situations = stronger beh predictors
- fundamental attribution error = people overestimate personality consistency
- personality assessment = waste of time

24
Q

FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR

A
  • correspondence/over-attribution bias = tendency to over-emphasise dispositional/personality-based explanations for other’s bad beh while under-emphasising situational explanations
  • reverses when explaining own bad beh
  • can leave others feeling underappreciated/unrecognised/negatively impact on personal/work relationships
25
Q

FAE & BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

A
  • judging others’ beh = seeing only part of the equation; can’t see inside body/head aka. personality; there is always other side
    SIMMONS (2019)
  • being aware of FAE impact > judging straight away = give others benefit of doubt; attempt to think of ^ positive beh explanations
  • balances out natural inclination to judge first
26
Q

PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE: CRITICISMS

A

GOLDBERG (1992)
- era of “not having personality”
SWANN & SEYLE (2005)
- initially led to decline
- BUT eventually -> personality research improvements; clear procedures developed to establish construct validity/measurement reliability
- standardised personality tests share same validity tests as medical

27
Q

PERSONALITY-BEHAVIOUR CORRELATION

A

MISCHEL
- correlations = small (.30) accounting for 9% beh variability
- facilitated situationism aka. situational factors impact; role in contributing to beh difs
- situationists: correlation = so small that personality isn’t important at all
NISBETT (1980)
- revised correlation = .40 accounting for 16% variance

28
Q

PERSONALITY-BEHAVIOUR CORRELATION: LOW CORRELATIONS

A
  • low P-B correlations DON’T demonstrate situational variable value; cause may be unmeasured personality variable
  • need to demonstrate ^ correlation between situational variables/beh > simply showing low correlation P-B
29
Q

P-B CORRELATION: FUNDER & OZER (1983)

A
  • reviewed situational effects/computed effect-size correlations studies ranging .36-.42
  • similar to those found between personality factors/beh
  • authors emphasised both person-situation factors = important; comparable in ability to predict beh difs
30
Q

INTERACTIONISM

A

ENDLER & MAGNUSSON (1976)
- ultimate response to Mischel
- traits/situations interact to influence beh
- beh difs reflect interaction of personality traits/situational factors
- developed reciprocal interaction model: person/situation/beh all influence each other in dynamic sequence (ie. choosing situation/who to go with/where)

31
Q

BANDURA’S SOCIAL COGNITIVE THEORY

A
  • emphasises reciprocal influences on beh/environment/person/cognitive factors
32
Q

INTERACTIONISM: SITUATIONAL SELECTION

A
  • person factors likely to be underestimated in interaction models as people choose/structure situations according to personalities
  • people differ in how they perceive/cognitively appraise situations; dif situations affect people dif
  • we can select/change situation by beh particularly
  • some situations allow personality expression; others provoke narrower beh range
  • trait only shows in situation where it’s relevant (ie. anxiety)
33
Q

INTERACTIONISM: STRONG/WEAK SITUATIONS

A
  • some situations allow personality expression; others provoke narrower beh range
    STRONG
  • most people react in similar way (ie. funeral services/attending lectures/religious services) aka. uniformity > difference
    WEAK
  • ambiguous; involve action/motive/intention interpretation; when personality = strongest beh influence
34
Q

INTERACTIONISM: SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY

A
  • personality traits may only emerge in relevant situation; some T-S interactions = rare as some situations = rare (ie. difficult to find courageousness; eliciting situations = rare)
35
Q

PERSONALITY TRAIT: STATE DISTINCTION

A
  • anxiety = specific situation result (ie. exam) aka. situationally driven beh
  • generally anxious about lots (ie. trait anxiety) = personality driven beh
36
Q

MEASURING THE SOCIAL SITUATION

A
  • important that while situational variables = important in beh expression it’s not always clear what situation aspects -> causal influence
  • much research devoted to examining measurement issues (ie. ecological validity/unmeasured variables)
  • how can social situations be measured? what would reliability/validity look like?
37
Q

REPLICATION CRISIS

A

LAWS (2016)
- generally science (esp. social/clinical psych) implicated in this
- very relevant to P-S debate
- many early claims from social psych don’t stand up to scrutiny via low statistical power/publication bias (only publishing STATSIG results)

38
Q

THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE: CENTRAL TRAITS

A
  • ^ likely to predict person’s beh if central to them
    BURGER (2004)
  • when people for whom trait = consistent/central compared w/those for whom it isn’t -> T-B correlation = ^ (ie. .5/.57 respectively between friendly beh/conscientiousness trait-friendliness trait
39
Q

THE PERSON-SITUATION DEBATE: NUTSHELL

A
  • situational variables = best suited to predicting beh in specific situations
  • personality traits = ^ able to predict beh patterns persisting across situations/time
  • research dearth examining personality/situations together
40
Q

SELF-MONITORING

A

SNYDER (1974)
- people vary in how much they adapt beh in given situations
- Personal Reaction Inventory; 0-18 scores (very low-very high)
HIGH
- observe situation/own beh; match them
- show less consistency across situations
LOW
- ^ consistent irrespective of situation; don’t generally adapt beh to situation

Personality & Individual Differences (17 decks)

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