Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Individual Differences > Types, Traits and Interactionism > Flashcards

Types, Traits and Interactionism Flashcards

1
Q

Themes of Dispositional Approach

A

Continuity in thoughts, feelings, behaviors

Focus on individual differences rather than intrapersonal processes

Differing approaches of theorist
Identification, classification and measurement of traits and types
Identification and understanding of differences in needs that underlie behaviour

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

Typology

A

Over 2400 years ago, Hippocrates (born 460BC & referred to as the Father of Medicine) proposed 4 types of “Humours”:
Look at table in lecture notes

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

W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Endomorph

A

(Viscerotonic)
Character: Relaxed, sociable, tolerant, confort-loving, peaceful
Shape: Plump, buxom, developed visceral structure
Picture: Fat guy

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

W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Mesomorph

A

(Somatotonic)
Character: Active, assertive, vigorous, combative
Shape: Muscular
Picture: In shape guy

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

W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Ectomorph

A

(Cerebrotonic)
Character: Quiet, fragile, restrained, non-assertive, sensitive
Shape: Lean, delicate, poor muscles
Picture: Skinny guy

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

Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs

Extroversion (E) Introversion (I)

A

Do you recharge your energy via external contact & activity (Extroversion) or by spending time in your inner space (Introversion)?

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

Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs

Intuition (N) Sensing (S)

A

Do you rely on your inner voice (Intuition) or observation (Sensing)?

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

Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs

Thinking (T) Feeling (F)

A

When making decisions do you rely more on thoughts or your feelings?

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

Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs

Judgement (J) Perception (P)

A

Do you tend to set schedules and organize your life (Judgement), or do you tend to leave the options open and see what happens (Perception)?
Used to form 16 types e.g., ENFP

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Type A & B

A

1940’s, Meyer Friedman, American cardiologist
Noticed his chairs …
Hypothesized that his patients were driven, impatient people, who sat on the edge of their seats when waiting.
Labelled “Type A” personalities: workaholics, always busy, driven, somewhat impatient, and so on.
Type B personalities; laid back and easy going.

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

Types are:

A

Categorical, distinct & stable across the life span

Individual is either an introvert OR an extravert; melancholic OR sanguine

Variations are considered perceptual distortions rather than reflections of basic personality.

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

Type A Personality

A

workaholics, always busy, driven, somewhat impatient, and so on.

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

Type B Personality

A

Type B personalities; laid back and easy going.

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

Types

A

Discontinuous categories
Represent qualitative differences in people
Labeling convenience
Used commonly in organisations (e.g., team building, communication workshops)
Often viewed as biologically or genetically based

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

Traits

A

Continuous dimensions (e.g. sociability, aggressiveness)
Represent quantitative differences in people
Individual differences reflect differences in amount of a trait
Constellation of traits scores create unique profile of a person

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

Views of traits: Nomothetic

A

From the Greek meaning ‘proposition of the law’
Sees traits as universal
Comparison among individuals is possible
Individuality reflected in unique combinations of traits
Nomothetic is the dominant perspective in psychology

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

Views of Traits: Idiographic

A

Sees traits as idiosyncratic, not universal
Not all traits are shared
Traits may differ in connotation and importance among people
Comparisons may be not be possible

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

What Traits Matter?

A

Key issues:
How many basic traits are there?
Which ones are they?

Essentially, how to define and organize the many ways we describe personality?

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

How to decide the nature of personality within this perspective? Theoretical approaches

A

Researcher has an idea of what they seek to measure derived from literature, research, observations etc

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

How to decide the nature of personality within this perspective? Empirical Approaches

A

Primarily derived from factor analysis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Eysenck

A

Hans Eysenck is an example of a trait theorist whose approach to the study of personality emanated from theory.
Preconceived ideas of the traits sought to measure (based in biology).
Eysenck proposed “supertraits” underlie dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Neuroticism, & (later) Psychoticism.
E, N, & P termed “supertraits” whilst those dispositions that feed into them, referred to as “component traits”
Eysenck used factor analysis to refine rather than define his approach.

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

Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts (e.g., Hippocrates): Emotionally stable Introvert

A 
Phlegmatic:
Passive
Careful
Thoughtful
Peaceful
Controlled
Reliable
Even-tempered
Calm
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally unstable

A 
Melancholic: 
Quiet
Pessimistic
Unsociable
Sober
Rigid
Moody
Anxious
Reserved
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally stable extrovert

A 
Sanguine: 
Sociable
Outgoing
Talkative
Responsive
Easy-going
Lively
Carefree
Leaderly
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally unstable extrovert

A 
Choleric: 
Active
Optimistic
Impulsive
Changeable
Excitable
Aggressive
Restless
Touchy
26
Q

Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Extraversion

A
  • Liveliness
  • Dominance
  • Excitement
  • Sociability
27
Q

Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Neuroticism

A
  • Depression
  • Moodiness
  • Anxiety
28
Q

Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Psychoticism

A
  • Impulsive
  • Manipulative
  • Hostile
29
Q

Another Theoretical Approach

A

Interpersonal Circle (Wiggens, Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989)
Assumes that core traits derive from those that concern interpersonal functioning
Two core traits
Dominance (Dominant Submissive)
Love (Cold-hearted Warm-agreeable)
Like Eysenck’s view, individual differences arise from combinations of the two dimensions

30
Q

Gordon Allport

A
  • Had a theoretical/research basis for approach
  • First to extensively examine classification system
  • Secondary traits; many of them, least important
  • Central traits; are the 5-10 traits that best describe personality
  • Cardinal traits; some individuals are dominated by a single all-important trait.
  • Functional Autonomy; behaviour that is acquired for one set of motives to be satisfied that are later used to satisfy another motive
31
Q

Empirical Approaches: Factor Analysis

A
  • Statistical technique for reducing large numbers of intercorrelations into basic underlying dimensions
  • Patterns of commonality (covariance) between descriptors indicate underlying traits
  • Results of factor analysis can shed light on the structure of personality
  • Caveat:What you get out of a factor analysis depends on what you put in
32
Q

Steps in a Factor Analysis

A
  • Personality is described in hundreds of different ways; many of which refer to similar characters
  • FA is a tool used to make sense of these adjectives.
  • Based on correlation, FA looks at how all items entered into an equation covary (to what extent all pairs of variables relate to each other).
  • Next, a factor extraction of the correlation matrix essentially sorts out and groups variables based on patterns of covariation.
  • The factors that emerge are then labeled.
33
Q

Factor Analysis example

A
  1. In uncertain times I usually expect the best.
  2. If something can go wrong for me, it will.
  3. I’m always optimistic about my future.
  4. I hardly ever expect things to go my way.
  5. I rarely count on good things happening to me.
  6. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad

Questions:
Which questions group together?
How many factors are there?
Describe/label the factors

34
Q

How to Decide the Nature of Personality? Raymond Cattell 1905-1998

A

Empirical Approach
Demonstrated by Raymond Cattell
Language has evolved to describe the basic qualities of human nature
Started with 4500 words (already reduced by Allport & Odbert 1936)
He applied a Lexical Criteria: notion that important qualities will have more adjectives to describe them than less important ones.
Factor analyzed 171 trait names
Resulted in 16 primary factors of personality such as relaxed vs tense and trusting vs vigilent
Created the 16PF which is still widely used

35
Q

The Big Five

  • Robert McCrae
  • Paul Costa
A

Growing body of evidence suggests there are five basic superordinate traits
Disagreement about the exact nature of the 5 traits
Why?
Factor analysis is used to identify factors
Labeling of factors is subjective
Results depend heavily on the items you start with

36
Q

The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae

Neuroticism

A
  • Anxiety
  • Hostility
  • Self-consciousness
  • Impulsive
  • Vulnerable
37
Q

The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae

Extraversion

A
  • Warmth
  • Gregarious
  • Assertive
  • Activity
  • Excitement seeker
  • Postive emotion
38
Q

The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae

Openness

A
  • Fantasy
  • Aesthetics
  • Feelings
  • Actions
  • Ideas
  • Values
39
Q

The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae

Agreeableness

A
  • Trust
  • Straight-forwardness
  • Alturism
  • Compliance
  • Modesty
  • Tender-mind
40
Q

The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae

Conscientiousness

A
  • Competence
  • Order
  • Dutiful
  • Achievement striving
  • Self-discipline
  • Deliberation
41
Q

Factor One: Extraversion

A

EXTRAVERSION (Sociability)
Other labels: Social adaptability; Assertiveness; Surgency
Relevant life domain: Power
Reflected through behavioral and affective channels
Common adjectives:
Gregarious • Energetic • Timid (-)
Outspoken • Seclusive (-) • Energetic

42
Q

Factor Two: AGREEABLENESS

A

AGREEABLENESS
Other labels: Conformity; friendly compliance; likeability
Relevant life domain: Love
Reflected through behavioral, affective, and cognitive channels
Common adjectives:
Friendly • Considerate • Spiteful (-)
Kind • Cold (-) • Good-natured

43
Q

Factor Three: Conscientiousness

A

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Other labels: Responsibility; will to achieve
Relevant life domain: Work
Reflected mostly through cognitive channels
Common adjectives:
Cautious • Planful • Frivolous (-)
Serious • Careless (-) • Hard-working

44
Q

Factor Four: Emotionality (Neuroticism)

A

EMOTIONALITY (Neuroticism)
Other labels: Emotional control; emotional lability
Relevant life domain: Affect
Reflected through affective channels
Common adjectives:
Nervous • Anxious • Calm (-)
Excitable • Composed (-) • High-strung

45
Q

Factor Five: Openess to Experience

A

OPENESS TO EXPERIENCE
Other labels: Culture; inquiring intellect; intelligence
Relevant life domain: Intellect
Reflected mostly through cognitive channels with some affect and behavior input
Common adjectives:
Imaginative • Creative • Unreflective (-)
Polished • Simple (-) • Knowledgeable
Factor with least consensus about meaning

46
Q

Additional Considerations of Big Five

A

Are all traits included?
What about evaluative words (e.g., good, bad, excellent, evil)
Including these words may create 2 more factors (positive and negative valence)
What is the best level of specificity?
Perhaps 2 higher-order factors (socialization from N, A, & C and personal growth from E & O)
Lower-order facets are more predictive of many socially significant behaviors
Dimensions beyond the big 5 (Saucier & Goldberg, 1998, Paunonen Jackson, 2000 etc)

47
Q

Is Behavior Really Trait Like?

A

*Some say “No”
-Behaviour across contexts tends to vary
-Low association between trait self-reports and behavior
-Walter Mischel’s personality coefficient (r ≈ .30)
*Why low correlations?
-Faulty trait self-reports of personality
-Faulty measurement of behaviour
As many items test a trait but behaviour usually only has 1 measure, correlations will be low so Aggregation of behavior (measure behaviour more than once and combine data) is a solution; Epstein, 1979)

48
Q

Responses to low associations: Situationism

A

Situationism was a major attack on trait theory

  • Assumption:
  • Situations really drives behavior
  • Differences in personality are irrelevant
  • Data don’t support this position
  • measures used were different so a re-analysis of this view turning data into correlations found…
  • Both approaches share similar correlations (e.g., 3)
49
Q

Responses to Low Associations: INTERACTIONISM

A 
Assumption:  
Differences in personality and situations interact to cause behaviour
Suggests an “Analysis of Variance” view of behavior
Example:
Effect of
    personality on behaviour
    “depends on” strong vs. 
    weak situations
50
Q

Individual Differences in Consistency

A
  • People vary in strength of dispositions
  • Self-monitoring
  • -High self-monitors get situational cues from environment
  • -Low self-monitors don’t monitor situational cues
  • Implication for self-monitoring on association between personality and behaviour?
  • People vary in consistency of specific traits
  • Bem & Allen study
  • -Association between a personality trait and behaviour is higher in people who see themselves as being consistent on the trait
51
Q

Personality’s Influence on Situations

A
  • Personality influences the situations people choose to enter (e.g., church, scuba diving, work, even marriage partners)
  • People evoke different responses from others

Result:
Personality can influence situations such that the situation is actually different

52
Q

Personality Coefficient Revisited

A

When analysis is restricted to examination of carefully conducted studies, coefficient is somewhat higher

Size of correlation is limited by the fact that behaviour is multiply-determined
Example:
-Extraversion 
-Self-consciousness 
-Trait anxiety 
- Ask for a date?
53
Q

Newer View of Traits

A

-Personality is linked to behaviour only when in a situation that brings it out.

  • Patterns of linkages between situations and actions vary among people
  • -Represent individuality, uniqueness
  • -Differences represent idiographic differences in trait expression
  • -Strong and weak situations
  • -Hedges
54
Q

Assessment

A

Represents an important focus of the trait perspective.

Mostly self-report in nature

Frequently evaluate multiple indicators

Often used to create a personality “profile”

55
Q

Cautionary discussion

A
  • What potential problems are there in investigating and/or finding cultural differences in personality?
  • Ethics: problem not in the facts but in what some people may do with that e.g., discrimination, oppression and even genocide
  • Conceptual problems: individual characterisations versus cultural characterisations
  • Empirically: ethnocentric & xenophobic bias
56
Q

Is the FFM universally applicable?

A
  • 50 cultures; college/university students
  • Observer ratings – no self-report bias
  • Rated adults or students (2 groups) they know well on the NEO-PI-R
  • FA supported structure on most cultures (replicated or at least recognition)
57
Q

So what differences if any are there between nations?

A

Mid-19th Century Adolf Bastian proposed the idea of the “psychic unity of mankind” - thought all humans were a single species & must therefore share all basic cognitive and psychological characteristics.

More recent anthropologists unwilling to root psychology so deeply in biology & argue culture shapes psychology.

Data from this paper largely confirms recent findings of universality in trait psychology in a new sample of cultures using a different method of measurement, give strong support to Bastian’s hypothesis of psychic unity, and could be interpreted as evidence of the biological basis of personality traits

Paper provided cross-cultural evidence of gender differences in person perception, showing that women are more positive than men in their assessments of others, especially other women.

58
Q

So, if the measure is valid & dimensions are universal, are there any FFM differences between cultures?

A

Observer ratings vs self report ratings

T-scores

59
Q

National stereotypes and National Character Does Not Reflect Mean Personality Trait Levels in 49 Cultures personality

A

49 cultures
Asked to complete 30 items reflecting FFM facets
Overlayed stereotypes with the NEO results from the previous 2 papers

60
Q

Strengths and limitations of the trait approach to personality

A

Biological evidence for personality dimensions
Empirical evidence (FA), lexical criteria
Ease of measurement & parsimonious & thus comparisons between individuals can be made
Shortcut for information
Cultural universality?
Subtleties may be lost
Doesn’t attempt to explain causality
Personality profiling (good or bad?)

Individual Differences (11 decks)

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