Trait Perspective, Needs + Motives Flashcards
the trait approach - builds on?
how ppl intuitively think and talk about each other.
- translated natural + informal language of personality into formal psychology
who is a pioneer in this area?
Allport
2 elements of the trait approach?
1 - based on empirical research that use correlational designs
2 - focuses exclusively on individual differences (how strong trait is compared to other people)
why are trait measurements ordinal, not rational. what does this mean?
ordinal: value reflect ordering each entity that is measured.
- no 0 point, just comparatively higher/lower
the inconsistency in behaviour - some influences?
- situations
- implicit rules of situation
- age
person-situation debate
which is more important? situation or personality?
who triggered person-situation debate
3 arguements for situation:
Mischel - marshmallow guy.
- said traits are poor predictors of behaviours
- situations are better at accounting for differences in behaviour
- personality assessments + everyday intuitions about personality are fundamentally flawed
predictability of behaviour
- tests usefulness of personality trait if you can use it to predict behaviour.
situationist argument on predictability of behaviour
- predictive capacity of personality is limiter
- correlation between personality + behaviour is about .3
response 1 to situationist argument on predictability of behaviour
- unfair literature review
- looked at studied with shitty results.
- many were flawed
response 2 to situationist argument on predictability of behaviour
- we can do better
- weak findings =/= unimportant. rather do better.
- some people may be more consistent than others. (self-monitor, high = change behaviour, low = personality prevails
- focus on behavioural trends instead of single actions at particular moments
response 3 to situationist argument on predictability of behaviour - compare with absolute standard
.3/.4 isnt small.
- comparison with an absolute standard, .4 means that a prediction of behaviour based on a personality trait score is likely to be accurate 70% of the time
response 3 Part 2 to situationist argument on predictability of behaviour - compare with relative standard
.3/.4 isnt small
- compare with relative standard: ability of situational variables to predict behaviour is limited because they dont compare personalities to predict behaviour.
situationism
personality doesnt determine behaviour, situations do.
- don’t tend to measure situational variables that indicate how much situations affect behaviour.
- compare by looking at efe
Funder and Ozer study
- what did it do?
- compared prominent examples from social psych situations
- cognitive dissonance: $1 to lie = effect of incentive on behaviour, = -0.36
- bystander intervention: dramatic incident. more ppl present less likely to help = -0.38; greater hurry, less likely to help = -0.39
- Milgram: obedience r = .36-.42
conclusions of Funder and Ozer study
- argument against personality regarding the coefficient being too weak doesnt hold considering some iconic social psych study’s had similar coefficients
situational variables are important determinant but personality is also important.
are person perceptions erroneous?
can describe behaviour using personality.
- ppl have different personalities, as situation changes differences hold.
resolution to person-situation debate
situational variables: explain behaviour under specific circumstances
personality traits: explain how ppl act in general.
info gathered from personality varies btw situations and depends on situation.
2 types of situations?
weak: not as much influence, allows personality to be expressed
powerful/strong: forced to behave the same way regardless of personality. enforce behaviours
personality + life outcomes
personality affects LO that matter. aggregate of actions may influence
what is interactionism (re: s-p debate)
the principle that aspects of personality and of situations work together to determine behaviour; neither has an effect by itself, nor is one more important than the other.
three interactions within interactionism
- effect of personality may depend on situation,
- situation isn’t randomly populated (choose situation you’re in)
- ppl change situations by virtue of what they do in them
situationist side + deeper problems
Implies view of human nature
- people are free to do what they want, not bound by consistent personality.
- everybody is equal to everybody else. different outcomes are a function of the situations
personality side + deeper problems
- appreciates the unique aspects of every individual.
- allows ppl to be consistently themselves
what is personality assessment?
professional activity of numerous research, clinical and industrial psychologists, as well as a prosperous business.
- not only for psychologists
2 criteria for evaluation of personality assessment?
- agreement (validity)
2. accuracy (prediction)
examples of personality tests
- MMPI : b-data. clinical assessment
- California Psychological Inventory: non-clinical personality assessment
- sixteen personality factor questionnaire
- NEO personality inventory: s-data
- implicit association test
what is an omnibus test?
designed to measure wide range of different types of traits.
what is the IAT?
measures reaction time of words when paired with other words.
- unconscious knowledge measured + predicts aspects of behaviour
what are projective tests?
test that presents a participant with an ambiguous stimulus and asks the person to describe what they see.
- answers reveal inner psychological states/motivations of which the participant may be unaware
advantages of projective tests?
- hypothesis is interesting and reasonable
- responses are fascinating
- large number of clinicians swear by efficacy
disadvantages of projective tests?
data on validity is scare
- expensive + time-consuming
- can’t be sure exactly what the responses mean
- validity of the answer depends on the interpreter
what are objective tests?
a personality test that consists of a list of questions to be answered by the participant as T/F Y/N or numeric scale
why are objective tests not completely objective?
- less ambiguous + open to interpretation, but words may be misinterpreted
- ambiguity may be necessary for responses to imply personality
what is a commonality scale in objective tests?
consists of items that ppl tend to repond the same way.
- can detect if illiterate, or sabotaging based on answers in this section.
what is the hallmark of objective tests?
large number of items, very long
what is spearman-brown formula? what does it do?
use this formula to see if longer test will increase reliability
- relies on principle of aggregation that averages will cancel out.
- validity depends on the content of the test
what is the rational method?
- come up with items that seem directly, obviously and rationally related to what the test developer wishes to measure
- based on pre-existing theory or reflect whatever questions the researcher finds relevant
what is woodworth’s personality data sheet
116 q’s, all relevant to psych problems.
- list symptoms + ask do u have?
what are 3 ways to create an objective test?
- Rational Method
- Factor Analytic Method
- The Empirical Method
Rational Method: validity of the measurement depends on? (4)
- agreement on the meaning of items (btw test taker + developer)
- test taker makes an accurate self-assessment
- person must be willing to report the self-assessment accurately and without distortion
- all items must be valid indicators of what the tester is trying to measure
What is the core of the Factor analytic method?
analyzes patterns of correlations in order to extract mathematically defined factors, which underlie and help make sense of those patterns.
Factor analytic method: what is a factor?
property that makes items alike
when is factor analytic method used?
for test construction
- to determine # of fundamental traits
step 1 of factor analysis?
amass large # of items, collect data across large sampling.
– sample should ideally represent ppl whom you hope to use the test on
step 2 of factor analysis
researcher statistically correlates the scores for each item with those for each of the other items
- drop items that don’t correlate highly
step 3: factor analysis
factor extraction: through statistical means, researcher identifies mathematical factors which best account for the observed pattern of correlation.
- each factor = cluster of measures that correlate relatively strongly (0.3-0.4) with one another. weaker correlation excluded
step 4 of factor analysis
labeling the factors
- subjective process, based on researcher’s conception of the combined meanings of the cluster of items.
- each factor refers to dimension of personality
- loading most strongly - probably driving the correlation.
limitations to factor analytic method (3)
- quality of info you get will be limited by quality of items you use
1a. GIGO - once the cluster of items is identified, must decide how they’re related conceptually
- sometimes factors that emerge dont make much sense
what is GIGO?
garbage in, garbage out = factor analysis
what is the empirical method?
based on the idea that certain kinds of ppl have distinctive ways of answering questions on personality inventories
4 steps to empirical method?
- gather a lot of items
- administer items to participants that are already divided into groups you are interested in
- administer test to participants
- compare the responses between groups (tend to answer in same way, different from other groups = subscale for that category)
factor loading
correlation between the factor and each items on that factor
- loads strongly = 0.3-0.4 of item and factor. more the better.
example of test that used empirical method to be created?
MMPI
cross-validate the empirical method
use original sample cross-validate with new sample. if successful, valid for ID-ing new ppl with the test = ready for use.
items are purposely ignored, items dont matter. face-validity doesnt matter.
lack of face-validity in empirical method - implications?
items may seen contrary or absurd.
- responses are difficult to fake (s-data can be faked, this not so much)
- only as good as the criteria they were developed or cross-validated on. can perpetuate error.
- depends on validity of the diagnoses used to categorize ppl.
accuracy of personality judgement: what is convergent validation?
the process of assembling diverse pieces of information that converge on a common conclusion
what is the “duck test”
“if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, swims like a duck - it’s probably a duck” altho may not be 100% certain. but the more characteristics/items that converge more confident you are on conclusion
what are the two primary converging criteria in personality judgement?
- inter-judge agreement
2. behavioural prediction
what is inter-judge agreement?
the degree to which two or more people making judgements about the same person provide the same description of that person’s personality
what is behavioural prediction
the degree to which a judgement or measure can predict the behaviour of the person in question
what are the moderators of accuracy
- the good judge
- the good target
- the good trait
- good information
what is the moderator variable?
effects the relationship between two other variables.
– changes correlation between judgement + it’s criterion
what is the good judge moderator?
questions who is a good judge? are some better than others? some areas:
- highly intelligent and conscientiousness
- women vs men
- people high “in communion”
- psychologically well-adjusted
how intelligence + conscientiousness affects Good Judge
not consistent on who is better at judging - changes between contexts and traits. but one characteristic is high intelligence and conscientiousness.
- these ppl are good at anything = not clear that traits relate to judging
how women vs men affect Good Judge
personality ratings from strangers (both silently and talking)
- women judge extraversion + positive emotionality better than men.
- women have better perception of what typical person is like.
- male judges tend to be extraverted, confident unconcerned about what ppl think
- female judges tend to be open to new experience, interested in connection, and autonomous/independent
what are people high in “communion” - re: Good Judge
value their interpersonal connections
- better judges of personality
Why are ppl that are well-adjusted psychologically
- positive outlook on life, more positiive judging - but more correct.
do ppl know whether or not they are good judges?
- those that SAY they are good judges are no better than those that say they are not.
- but are better at judging people who they are closer to.
elements/characteristics of the good target
- judgeability
- coherence + consistency in behaviour (across situations/time = stable, psychologically well-adjusted, predictable)
- extraversion and agreeableness
what is judgeability re: good target
how easily ppl can reach agreement about personality
- most predictable behaviour.
what traits are easily observed? re: good target
talkativeness, sociability = related to extraversion, overt behaviours.
- higher levels of inter-rater agreement.
= cognitive + ruminative style are more difficult to agree on - less visible traits.
what is sociosexuality?
how does this relate to evolutionary theory?
willingness to engage in sexual relations with minimal acquaintanceship with, or commitment to + from, one’s partner.
- for evolutionary reasons, ppl should be good at judging this trait vs others that are less important to reproduction.
sociosexuality - females vs males judging males + accuracy
females judge males accurate = is he quality mate?,
males judge males even more accurately = competition
good information moderator:
- amount of info
- quick judgement vs longer judgement
more info is better - more accurate judgements
quick judge (5 sec): extraversion, intelligence, conscientiousness
longer judge: neuroticism, agreeableness
extended acquaintanceship study - re: good info moderator
5 min observation of behaviour vs
known person for a year: more accurate judgement from acquaintance. matched participants self-judgement more closely.
boundary of acquaintanceship effect: stranger could better predict new behaviour in diff situation based on what they learnt about behaviour from previous video. acquaintance only saw new behaviour and the acquaintanceship effect disappears.
what is the realistic accuracy model (RAM)
- developed by Funder et al.
- consistent process in how judgements happen
- argues that to get from attribute to judgment of the attribute 4 things need to happen
RAM model - 4 steps.
- target of judgement do something RELEVANT. (target does something about behaviour/personality)
- info has to be AVAILABLE to judge (judge present + sees)
- judge has to DETECT info (judge can’t be distracted, must be conscious of)
- judge UTILIZES info correctly (accurately remember + interpret)
implications of RAM
- accurate judgements of personality is a challenge - 4 things met for judgement to be made.
- personality judgement can be improved in 4 ways (per step)
- relies on quantity AND quality of information.
how to improve judgement?
focus traditionally on utilization stage for judge.
- but all stages can be improved
connecting traits to behaviour
4 approaches:
- single-trait approach
- many-trait approach
- essential-trait approach
- typological approach
2 important functions of measuring behaviour?
- predict behaviour
2. understand behaviour better
what is the single-trait approach - reserach Q
examines link btw personality + behaviour by asking q: “what do ppl like that do?
what is the many-trait approach? reserach Q
Q: who does that?
what is the essential-trait approach? reserach Q
q: which traits are most important?
- - narrow down to most essential/important traits.
- make sense to order ppl in how much they have a trait?
what is the typological approach reserach Q
Q: which type are you?
- sort patterns of ppl into types/categories of personality
focus for single-trait approach
- which trait?
focused on the nature, origins, and consequences of single traits of special importance
- focus on conscientiousness: who is likely to be successful in school + work = assume there’s a motivation variable that distinguishes good vs poor worker.
- may be cause of excellence/success.
- avoid risk, protect from risk just in case
- promotes longevity
- more education
implication of conscientiousness
- live long
- healthy
- more school - more successful
example of many-trait approach
- what is it?
- how is it done?
- California Q-set (list of Q’s):
use this to do Q-sort - 100 phrases that are related to aspect of personality. + characterizing them.
- raters sort into categories: highly characteristic, or low characteristic.
- distribution is forced: only certain number of traits in each category = peaked for normal (bell curve)
- can do as I data or S data
biggest advantage of many-trait appraoch
- because peaked at normal. not all good traits can be high.
- subtle discrimination of characteristics to best describe yourself/the person.
define delay of gratification
denying oneself immediate pleasure for long term gain
-important for real life.
Cattell - use factor analysis
important factors should be found across diff methodologies/sources of data.
- 16 were truly essential.
- but found that this is an over-extraction of essentialfundamental traits
big 5:
most widely accepted factor analysis
- > based on lexical hypothesis
- Fiske
what is lexical hypothesis
imporant attributes should be labelled with words + if many words related/to describe = important
why should the big 5 be orthogonal?
high or low score in any factor, shouldnt predict score on the others.
- allows many combos of traits
- common place labels hide complexity.
- not as orthogonal as believed. agree, conscientiousness + N tend to correlate as stability. e + O correlate and form plasticity.
big 5 and block findings
similar by block’s essential traits
plasticity: ego resilience
stability : ego control
big 5 mostly on WEIRD ppl - are they universal?
powerful, but are they universal.
all 5 in german, chinese, turkish. no open in hk, Philippines.
chinese language - see if individual facts appear.
delay of gratification + the differences between sex
- for both sexes - those best able to delay were planful, reflective and not emotionally liable.
- differences unique to the sexes: girls were intelligent + attentive. boys were shy + quiet.
delay of gratification and ego-control/resiliency
ego-resiliency found amongst the girls, but not the boys.
what is the essential trait approach
identify the most important traits
block + block & the essential trait approach
named ego control and ego resilience as the two most important traits
what is ego control
psychological tendency to inhibit the behavioural expression of motivation and emotional impulse
what is ego resilience?
the ability to vary one’s level of ego control in order to respond appropriately to opportunities and situational circumstances
difference between overcontrolled and undercontrolled ego?
overcontrolled = able to inhibit impulses
undercontrolled = act on what they want immediately
eysenck’s essential traits?
Extraversion
Neuroticism (unstable emotionality)
psychoticism (aggressiveness, creativity, impulsivencess
what are the big 5
Opennes Conscientious Extraversion Agreeable Neuroticism
universality of big 5- what factors appeared in Chinese language?
social orientation, competence,
expressiveness,
self-control
optimism
*similar, but different
Traits + geographical location - Across US
agreeable in the East Southwest/east = more Conscientious more open to experience in the big cities. neurotic in north east extraverted in the East
Big 5 +1 =?
sixth factor = honesty-humility = HEXACO
- concerns about the degree to which broad traits are sufficient for conceptual understanding
- argue that big 5 are types of traits, not types of people - so typology studies are no good.
pros of the trait perspective?
- basic, essentially parsimonious
- long history
cons of the trait perspective?
- dont tell us how/why behaviour happens. just that it does.
- susceptible to circular reasoning
