Types, Traits and Interactionism Flashcards
Themes of Dispositional Approach
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
Typology
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
W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Endomorph
(Viscerotonic)
Character: Relaxed, sociable, tolerant, confort-loving, peaceful
Shape: Plump, buxom, developed visceral structure
Picture: Fat guy
W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Mesomorph
(Somatotonic)
Character: Active, assertive, vigorous, combative
Shape: Muscular
Picture: In shape guy
W. Sheldon, Body shape theory: Ectomorph
(Cerebrotonic)
Character: Quiet, fragile, restrained, non-assertive, sensitive
Shape: Lean, delicate, poor muscles
Picture: Skinny guy
Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs
Extroversion (E) Introversion (I)
Do you recharge your energy via external contact & activity (Extroversion) or by spending time in your inner space (Introversion)?
Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs
Intuition (N) Sensing (S)
Do you rely on your inner voice (Intuition) or observation (Sensing)?
Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs
Thinking (T) Feeling (F)
When making decisions do you rely more on thoughts or your feelings?
Jung (1993) also proposed types: Myer Briggs
Judgement (J) Perception (P)
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
Type A & B
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.
Types are:
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.
Type A Personality
workaholics, always busy, driven, somewhat impatient, and so on.
Type B Personality
Type B personalities; laid back and easy going.
Types
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
Traits
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
Views of traits: Nomothetic
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
Views of Traits: Idiographic
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
What Traits Matter?
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 to decide the nature of personality within this perspective? Theoretical approaches
Researcher has an idea of what they seek to measure derived from literature, research, observations etc
How to decide the nature of personality within this perspective? Empirical Approaches
Primarily derived from factor analysis
Eysenck
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.
Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts (e.g., Hippocrates): Emotionally stable Introvert
Phlegmatic: Passive Careful Thoughtful Peaceful Controlled Reliable Even-tempered Calm
Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally unstable
Melancholic: Quiet Pessimistic Unsociable Sober Rigid Moody Anxious Reserved
Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally stable extrovert
Sanguine: Sociable Outgoing Talkative Responsive Easy-going Lively Carefree Leaderly
Eysenck started with personality described in ancient scripts: Emotionally unstable extrovert
Choleric: Active Optimistic Impulsive Changeable Excitable Aggressive Restless Touchy
Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Extraversion
- Liveliness
- Dominance
- Excitement
- Sociability
Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Neuroticism
- Depression
- Moodiness
- Anxiety
Representation of Eyenck’s model of personality: Psychoticism
- Impulsive
- Manipulative
- Hostile
Another Theoretical Approach
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
Gordon Allport
- 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
Empirical Approaches: Factor Analysis
- 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
Steps in a Factor Analysis
- 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.
Factor Analysis example
- In uncertain times I usually expect the best.
- If something can go wrong for me, it will.
- I’m always optimistic about my future.
- I hardly ever expect things to go my way.
- I rarely count on good things happening to me.
- 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
How to Decide the Nature of Personality? Raymond Cattell 1905-1998
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
The Big Five
- Robert McCrae
- Paul Costa
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
The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae
Neuroticism
- Anxiety
- Hostility
- Self-consciousness
- Impulsive
- Vulnerable
The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae
Extraversion
- Warmth
- Gregarious
- Assertive
- Activity
- Excitement seeker
- Postive emotion
The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae
Openness
- Fantasy
- Aesthetics
- Feelings
- Actions
- Ideas
- Values
The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae
Agreeableness
- Trust
- Straight-forwardness
- Alturism
- Compliance
- Modesty
- Tender-mind
The NEO - Paul Costa & Robert R. McCrae
Conscientiousness
- Competence
- Order
- Dutiful
- Achievement striving
- Self-discipline
- Deliberation
Factor One: Extraversion
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
Factor Two: AGREEABLENESS
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
Factor Three: Conscientiousness
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
Factor Four: Emotionality (Neuroticism)
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
Factor Five: Openess to Experience
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
Additional Considerations of Big Five
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)
Is Behavior Really Trait Like?
*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)
Responses to low associations: Situationism
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)
Responses to Low Associations: INTERACTIONISM
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 situationsIndividual Differences in Consistency
- 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
Personality’s Influence on Situations
- 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
Personality Coefficient Revisited
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?
Newer View of Traits
-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
Assessment
Represents an important focus of the trait perspective.
Mostly self-report in nature
Frequently evaluate multiple indicators
Often used to create a personality “profile”
Cautionary discussion
- 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
Is the FFM universally applicable?
- 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)
So what differences if any are there between nations?
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.
So, if the measure is valid & dimensions are universal, are there any FFM differences between cultures?
Observer ratings vs self report ratings
T-scores
National stereotypes and National Character Does Not Reflect Mean Personality Trait Levels in 49 Cultures personality
49 cultures
Asked to complete 30 items reflecting FFM facets
Overlayed stereotypes with the NEO results from the previous 2 papers
Strengths and limitations of the trait approach to personality
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?)
