Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Psych116-personality and individual difference > Traits, types & psychometrics > Flashcards

Traits, types & psychometrics Flashcards

1
Q

psychometrics=

A

the field of study concerned with the theory & technique of psychological measurement (how we measure, what are assumptions underlying etc)

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

Classic Test Theory: Basic idea?

A

basic psychometric theory that attempts to map constructs to data

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

Classic Test Theory: Fundamental idea> (6)

A
  • construct under study has “true” score: ‘T’
  • attempt to measure construct with X
  • Try to get X as close to T as possible
  • X+T= Error
  • Error is due to fact, process of measuring has some impact on construct itself
  • Known as “observational error”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

CTT: Types of error> (5)

A
  • Misunderstandings (e.g. when self-reporting)
  • Idiosyncratic interpretations (e.g. neurodiverse)
  • Distractions (e.g. when online survey)
  • Time pressure (e.g. time of day, being in rush etc)
  • Time of day, year etc
    >error presumed to be randomly distributed; error averages out to 0 across measures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Personality data can be evaluated through 2 key concepts>

A

> reliability
validity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability=

A

how consistent/dependable a particular measure is

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> ways to consider/explore> (3)

A

> Test-retest reliability
Internal consistency
Inter-observer reliability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (1) Test re-test reliability>

A

> Does the same measure give the same result each time?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (1) Test re-test reliability> Limitations>

A
  • not practical to access identical sample every time
  • fatigue effect: different outcomes due to tiredness of participants
  • familiarity: knowledge of survey may compromise data collection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Fatigue effect=

A

different outcomes due to tiredness of participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (2) Internal consistency>

A

Are different measures looking at the same underlying thing? (e.g. 5 items looking at different aspects of extraversion)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (2) Internal consistency> tests/ methods>

A

> Split-half test: Ans to similar qns should correlate if split in half (however correlations are influenced by HOW items are split)
Cronbach’s alpha= statistical method for exploring these internal consistencies with a subscale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (3) Inter-observer reliability>

A

> is there agreement in measurement between different researches observing same area of research?
to avoid bias, researchers observe the same behaviour INDEPENDENTLY & compare their data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Evaluating personality data: (1) Reliability> (3) inter-observer reliability> methods

A

1) Training observers in same observation techniques
2) Behavioural categories operationalised (objectively define what asking for from start)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity=

A

way of considering if the measure if measuring what you THINK it is measuring

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

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> Types of validity measures>

A

> criterion validity
construct validity
content validity
discriminant validity
ecological validity
face validity

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

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (1) Criterion validity=

A

to what degree can the scale predictively measure constructs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (1) criterion validity> 3 types>

A

> convergent validity= compare results with established method (e.g. new questionnaire & established scale)

> predictive validity= does measure predict a relevant behaviour or task performance

> retrospective validity= how the measure correlates with past occurrence of such behaviour (e.g. measuring risky behaviour & access to hospital records)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (2) Construct validity=

A

is scale measuring what it claims to measure (e.g. is ‘arrogance’ measure exclusively measuring arrogance or narcissism aswell)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (2) Construct validity> Threats:

A
  • mismatch between operational definition & construct
  • researcher bias
  • procedural errors
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (3) content validity=

A

how much of construct is captured by the item (e.g. is it measuring ONE aspect of empathy (i.e. towards animals) or attempting to capture a GENERAL disposition)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (3) content validity> methods>

A
  • exploratory factor analysis= statistical method for REDUCING a large set of measures to the CORE underlying dimensions of a construct
23
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (4) Discriminant validity=

A

discriminating between measures (e.g. poor DV is a scale measuring self-confidence but it also captures aspects of narcissism)

24
Q

Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Ecological validity=

A

are the questionnaires (which are conducted in a lab setting), applicable in REAL-WORLD contexts

25
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Ecological validity> criticism to take into account>
- common criticism of psych studies over-using undergrad pscyh student sampling> limited sample - over-focus on WEIRD societies
26
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (6) Face validity=
does it INTUITIVELY seem to measure the construct (i.e the item appears to be a reasonable measure of the construct to a lay person)
27
Evaluating personality data: (2) Validity> (5) Face validity> limitations>
- researcher bias - requires empirical validity to legitimise (i.e. demonstration of accuracy via experimentation and/or observation)
28
Threats to validity>
>Time= events may occur which alter behaviour of participant >Historical events= events can change responses to phenomena explored (e.g. OCD tendencies during pandemic= higher) >maturation= longitudinal study on 'young people', susceptible to other factors, as young people change e.g. reading ability in children= not always steady increase) >group threats= different tactics of recruitment to studies between experimental & control group can impact investment/commitment to study (e.g. volunteers vs non-volunteers)
29
Exploring personality theories>>
> Initial premise: (e.g. extraverts should have bigger social networks) > Therefore: (extraverts should have more social support in times of need) > Therefore: (extraverts should show better recovery outcomes after traumatic injury/illness)
30
What is the great trait debate?
Debate as to whether personality is best understood as 'Types' or 'Dimensional traits?'
31
The Great Trait Debate> Types= (3)
-a binary - consistent over life time - person-centred
32
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Different areas of enquiry> (4)
- Phrenology: (bumps on head- to denote P type) - Jung's psychological functions= idea of 2 types of person: (1) rational; (2) irrational (thinking/feeling; sensing/intuition) - Type A/B personality theory - Myers-Briggs personality types
33
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> 8 domains>
1. Extraversion (E) 2. Introversion (I) 3. Sensing (S) 4. Intuition (N) 5. Thinking (T) 6. Feeling (F) 7. Judging (J) 8. Perceiving (P)
34
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> 8 domains> 4 continuums categorised into>
1) Introversion vs Extraversion (I-E) 2) Sensing vs intuition (S-N) 3) Thinking vs Feeling (T-F) 4) Judging vs Perceiving (J-P)
35
The Great Trait Debate> Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> what is it?
- 8 domains (I,E,S,N,T,F, J,P) categorised > 4 continnums (IE, SN, TF, JP)> - many qns asked to determine place on continuums - outcome of 16 personality types: determines by which type closest to in each domain (e.g. 52% E=E) - each type has description of 'your' qualities
36
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> indicator instrument> (2)
1) in-person with a certified practitioner 2) online instrument
37
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) Cons>
> 'industry' of MBTI: (commercialised) -includes selling the instrument -training program to get certification for practitioners -focus on corporations (ans to corporate problems: i.e. motivation)
38
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> pros: supporting research
>MBTI & learning: (murphy, 2020): -relationship between types & preferred teaching methods (e.g. extraverts & student-teacher interaction; Introverts & independent work) >Meta-analysis: (Randall, 2017) -validity & reliability assessment= good reliability for E-I, S-N, & J-P subscales (but poor ecological validity for J-P: 'real world')
39
Types> Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI)> Critical research>
>Internal consistency= participant can self-verify the results >"Forer effect"= vague & positive descriptions mean MBTI is highly susceptible to over-interpretation >"True self claim"= how does a measure of CONSCIOUS preferences reveal HIDDEN true self?
40
Types> A & B personality types> Type A
>Pattern behaviour: -competitive -high achievers -time urgent -hostile >Outcomes: -70% if men with heart disease were type A (same differences evident among women) -hostility may be main contributing factor
41
Types> A & B personality types> Type B>
Pattern behaviour: -patient -people pleasers -creative -relaxed Outcomes: -less likely to engage in 'presentism' beavhiour at work
42
Types> A & B personality types> Beyond binary>
>Type C= submissive, emotionally retentive >Type D= negative, low self-esteem >Type T= thrill seeking, risk takers not much evidence/research however
43
Dimensional traits>>
continuous distributions: >not completely DISTINCTIVE types, but VARIATIONS around universal psychological constructs >not qualitatively different, but relatively high or low scores on a CONTINUOUS distribution
44
Dimensional traits> OCEAN personality traits>
- Openness - Conscientiousness - Extraversion - Agreeableness - Neuroticism
45
Dimensional traits: critical research>>
- limiting paradigm= traits are based on WEIRD-based cultural presumptions & lack reliability in other cultural contexts - a traits for potential for change= 'openness' trait changes in work-based contexts over time - social desirability bias= model susceptible to a participants desire to present their best self
46
Dimensional traits: OCEAN personality traits> supporting evidence>
> Financial behaviour= OCEAN traits found to predict financial based behaviours (e.g. extraversion & risk-taking) >Pro-environmental attitudes= (e.g. openness> reliable predictor of conservation attitudes) >Covid-based risk perception= (e.g. conscientiousness predicted perceived travel risk during pandemic) >Autonomic nervous system= sig relationship between ANS & conscientiousness)
47
Types vs dimensional traits: amount vs catgeory>
>DT: focused on AMOUNT ; PTT: sorting into categories
48
Types vs dimensional traits> Behaviour
DT: Behaviour is CAUSED BY traits; a REDUCTIVE approach PT: Behaviour is an EXPRESSION of type; a PURPOSIVE approach
49
Types vs dimensional traits> Distribution:
DT: normally distributed PT: Bimodal/ skewed distributions
50
Types vs dimensional traits: Measuring>
DT: involves measuring amounts PTT: qualitatively distinct, idea of 'inborn' preferences
51
Types vs dimensional traits: too much/little>
DT: Too much or too little is often NEGATIVE or DIAGNOSTIC PTT: Too much or too little is irrelevant
52
Types vs dimensional traits> key areas of difference>
- Amount/category - Behaviour - Distribution - Measuring - Too much/ little
53
The great trait debate: ADV of traits>
- Better at predicting outcomes than PT - context dependent sensitivity compared with PT - Makes less assumptions about innateness >defining a person by PT may be useful in certain context but not scientifically/psychologically accurate

Psych116-personality and individual difference (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions