Trait Theories: The Big Five Flashcards

Question

Person-situation controversy I

Answer 1

Walter Mischel (1960)  Argued that people don’t act consistently at all  People vary their actions to fit the situation

Answer 2

 Longitudinal stability  Your trait score at one time will be similar to your trait score at another time  Cross-situational stability  Your trait score in one situation will be similar to your trait score in another situation

Answer 3

Mischel and Peake (1983)  Conscientiousness of college students  Asked them to rate their conscientiousness on multiple occasions and then aggregate these scores  Found good longitudinal consistency (semester to semester) but poor cross-situational consistency (setting to setting)  e.g. good note takers and good marks (classroom/school), but messy rooms (home)  But, cross-situational consistency higher if we look at behaviours/task in a similar setting/task  What is the meaning/purpose or context of what you are doing?  e.g. consistency in behaviours when alone  e.g. consistency in behaviours when “working”

Answer 4

Good evidence for Longitudinal consistency Cross-situational far more difficult to answer  Researchers look at personality across similar situations to assess… For example: measuring a person’s (social) anxiety at a house-party vs. a nightclub  But how to assess “similar”?  How do we define anxiety?  Self-report or observational or physiological?  What situations are consistent or equivalent?  Are all “social functions” the same? (work, new friends, old friends, wedding, wake)?  Should we even expect to have a consistent personality across a range of situations?  Is it possible to always be extraverted, regardless of what type of situation?

Answer 5

The Database: Excellent. Objectivity in data collection and analysis is paramount - Objective data, not relying on clinical interviews or idiographic approaches Diversity: Large numbers of people – different ages, ethnicities and socio-cultural backgrounds - Massive number of research publications in relation to trait theories & the Big Five Different types of data - S-data and O-data Major Limitation: Learn about populations overall (i.e., aggregated data), not the individual per se - Validity in relating nomothetic approaches to the individual?

Answer 6

 Yes and no.  Cattell analysed traits, roles and motivational processes  Eysenck related traits to biological entities (e.g., the nervous system and arousal)  However, contemporary trait theorists would receive poor marks for systematic process (i.e., causal, motivational) development  For example, Costa & McCrae did little to account for the dynamic processes (motivational) of their five-factor model (FFM)

Answer 7

Absolutely.  Many studies to test theory  It’s an objective measure (e.g., mathematical outcomes are related to test items) and can be lead by theory or lead by analysis  With so much research and various models it is also relatively easy to assess validity (by comparing models)  These reliable measures (Big Five, PEN, 16PF, etc.) can be statistically related to other aspects of human existence and psychology For example, we can compare any quantifiable variable:  How do Undergrads vs Postgrads differ in P-E-N factors?  How do politicians of opposing parties rate on the Big Five?

Answer 8

Yes and No.  On the analytical side of things, trait theory is extremely comprehensive  Vast lexical analysis across cultures, ages, socio-cultural groups  On the theoretical side it is mostly non-comprehensive in the psychological sense  Very little is explained about how we might use the factors or measures for anything other than descriptive research

Answer 9

Somewhat, dependent on the application!  As a predictive tool and a measure to differentiate broadly between people it is useful as an applied tool  Organisational psychology (World War 2)  Personality research  As for it’s clinical application, it is unclear of how it can be directly used effectively  This is mainly because we don’t have any guidance on the causality or the processes involved in the factor structures found