Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

personality and social psy > Week 5: Personality and Consequential Outcomes > Flashcards

Week 5: Personality and Consequential Outcomes Flashcards

1
Q

Why might personality predict life outcomes

A

Direct effects — from the general to the particular
Indirect effects — statistical mediation ’ – where some intervening variable or process forms a link in the chain between personality & outcome. E.g. via situation selection
Interactive/conditional effects — person x environment interactions

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

History of prediction: The Lexical Hypothesis

A
  • important personality characteristics will, over human history, be coded in language.
    § Personality characteristics will be important if they enable us to make predictions about what other individuals are going to do.
    § For example, who might help us, who might hurt us, who will offer leadership, who is reliable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Formal assessment of personality and abilities…
•Educational contexts

A

•Binet and Simon (1905, 1908, 1911): identification of children who may benefit from alternate education…
•Development of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) in 1926

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

Formal assessment of personality and abilities
•Occupational contexts

A

•Military selection and placement under Robert Yerkes (1915)
•1950s-1970s: Diversification and mobility of work
•Growth of Human Resources Management

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

The Prediction of Achievement
Job Performance

A

•Schmidt & Hunter (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of 85 years of research
•Predictors included abilities, personality traits, work experience, references, etc.
•Criterion was job performance—typically measured in terms of supervisory ratings (but other indicators too – e.g., sales records)

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

Result from Schmidt & Hunter (1998)

A

•Years of education, r = .10
•Job experience (years), r = .18
•Reference checks, r = .26
•Employment interviews, r = .38-.51
Personality…
•B5 Conscientiousness: r = 0.31
•‘Integrity tests’ (blend of C & A):r = 0.41

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

Conclusion from Job Performance prediction

A

•Strongest individual differences predictor was cognitive ability(or ‘intelligence’)…
•But… personality adds to predictive validity of cognitive ability…
ØCognitive ability alone; r = .51
ØCombining cognitive ability with conscientiousness; R = .6o
ØCombining cognitive ability with an integrity test; R = .65

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

Achievement at Work
Barrick& Mount (1991, 1998):

A

•Meta-analyses focussed just on the big five:
•Conscientiousness predicts performance across all occupations: r = .20-.23
•For effort-related (as opposed to skill-related) criteria:r = .42
•Extraversion predicted performance well in two specific job areas:
•Management: r = .18
•Sales: r = .15

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

Achievement at Work
Hurtz& Donovan (2000):

A

•Updated meta-analysis to check replicability of earlier findings…
•Key findings:
•Conscientiousness again predicts broadly (r ~ .20)
•Agreeableness, Openness/Intellect, and (low) Neuroticism predicts performance in customer service roles
•Extraversion and (low) Neuroticism predicts in management and sales roles

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

Achievement at Work
Wilmot & Ones (2019):

A

•A recent meta-synthesis focussed on conscientiousness and job performance…
•Combined 2,500 individual studies
•Total of >1.1 million participants
•Examined a broad range of performance related criteria
•Overall relation between C and performance: r~ .20
•Stronger in jobs characterised by lower occupational complexity.

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

Achievement at Work
“Occupational success”

A

•Indices typically reflect popular views of job desirability or ‘prestige’, related to wages, years of education required, etc.
•e.g., ‘Duncan’s Socioeconomic Index’ (Duncan, 1961)
•Typical top scorers include Doctor, Dentist, Lawyer, etc.
•Predictive validity for
•Openness/intellect: r = .18 (Sutin et al., 2009)
•Extraversion: r = .16 (Roberts et al., 2003)
•Conscientiousness: r = .15 (Roberts et al., 2003)
® Personality predicts various indicators of occupational success (income, promotion etc.) up to 47 years later.

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

Educational Achievement predicying factor

A

•Educational performance (Grade Point Average; GPA)
•A combination of cognitive ability and conscientiousness predicts achievement across programs (Kuncel et al., 2001)

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

Educational Achievement Poropat (2009):

A

•Predicting school/university GPA from…
•Cognitive ability: r = .25
•Conscientiousness: r = .22
•Openness/intellect: r = .12
•Agreeableness: r = .07
•Of personality measures, only conscientiousness adds to prediction above cognitive ability

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

Educational attainment predictor

A

•e.g., highest level completed / years spent in full time
education
•Strongest B5 predictor is openness — r ~ .35

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

How does openness preiducit education achivement

A

•Openness also predicts…
•intrinsic motivation (interest and enjoyment of study topics) in university students; r ~ .35
•breadth/depth of reading; r ~ .25

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

Educational Achievement
Choice of college major…

A

•Extraversion; Economics, Law, Political Science, and Medicine
•Neuroticism; Arts, Humanities, and Psychology
•Agreeableness; Medicine, Psychology, Sciences, Arts, and Humanities
•Conscientiousness; Science, Law, Economics, Engineering, Medicine, and Psychology
•Openness/Intellect; Humanities, Arts, Psychology, and Political Science

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

Why does conscientious personality predict achievement?

A
  1. Direct effects: Conscientiousness predicts most strongly for effort-related criteria
  2. Indirect effects: conscientiousness and extraversion predict ‘occupational success’ (higher wages etc.) viachoice of major (e.g., law)
  3. Interactive effects: extraverts may respond well to the interpersonal challenges of leadership and management roles
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Indirect effects on educational achievement via study strategies Conscientiousness

A

Corker et al. 2012:
•Conscientiousness assessed in 347 US college students at the beginning of semester
•Various study strategies assessed the week before exams, e.g.,
•Deep processing (e.g., “I try to think through topics…”)
•Persistence (e.g., “…I work my hardest to learn it”)
•‘Achievement’ based on exams and coursework
•Use of effortful study strategies explained the relation between conscientiousness and educational achievement

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

Interactive effects: Extraversion

A

•Extraverts respond more strongly to rewards (Smillie & Wacker, 2015)
•Salesforce control systems make use of rewards (i.e., commissions & bonuses)
•Management roles bring a range of rewards (e.g., pay, status)
> this why extraverts perform well in sales and management roles

20
Q

A test of the hypothesis Extraverts respond more strongly to rewards

A

•Extraversion should only predict performance in
salespeople when performance is linked with
rewards:
•If new sales are rewarded, Extraversion will predict new sales (but not customer retention)
•If customer retention is rewarded, Extraversion will predict customer retention (but not new sales)
-which does happen

21
Q

Prediction of Heath Outcomes

A

Martin et al., 2007:
® Assessed conscientiousness over 3 time points – in both childhood and adulthood.
® Found that conscientiousness predicts longevity/probability of death – those low in conscientiousness die earlier

22
Q

Health — Healthy Behaviour

A

•Numerous studies now show that conscientiousness predicts better health and longer life
•Substantial evidence suggests this is explained by engagement in health promoting behaviour
Conscientiousness predicts…
•Less alcohol use, r = -.25
•Less drug use, r = -.28
•Less unhealthy eating, r = -.13
•Less risky driving, r = -.25
•Less risky sexual behaviour, r = -.13

23
Q

Health — Healthy Behaviour
Armon& Toker (2013)

A

•Participation in periodic health checks:
•N= 2,803 (older adults)
•Outcome: Odds of returning for a 2nd health check within 7 years
•Conscientiousness: +ve predictor
•Extraversion, openness: -ve predictors
•Neuroticism: curvilinear predictor…!

24
Q

Prediction of Heath Outcomes Roberts et al., 2007:

A

® Personality predicts longevity up to 76 years later.
® Note: only small effect sizes, but still has practical significance.

25
Q

Health & longevity Jackson et al., 2015: peer report

A

® This has been replicated in peer/informant reports, where peers are required to rate your personality traits. Males rated as more conscientious in their 20s lived longer, whilst females who were lower in neuroticism & higher in agreeableness lived longer.
® Numerous studies now show that conscientiousness predicts better health & longer life. Substantial evidence suggests this is explained by engagement in healthpromoting behaviours

26
Q

Preventative health behaviours:
Takahashi et al., 2012:

A

•898 individuals assessed twice, 3 years apart
•measure Health Promoting Behaviours and current health with C
® Found that conscientiousness was associated with preventative health behaviours & overall health at both time points.
® Changes in conscientiousness were associated with changes in preventative health behaviours and overall health.
® Changes in preventative health behaviours mediated the association the association between changes in conscientiousness and changes in overall health

27
Q

‘Type A’ Personality

A

“Type A personality” (Friedman & Rosenman, 1974)
•Competitive, ambitious, restless, impatient, and hostile
•Risk of heart disease
•Poor psychometric support for the Type A cluster…
•…but hostility appears to be the ‘active ingredient’ linking descriptions of Type A with heart disease — a facet of (low) agreeableness…

28
Q

Hostility prediction

A

•Cynical, antagonistic (vs cooperative) with others, quick to anger
•Predicts cardiovascular disease and mortality (Chapman et al., 2011)

29
Q

Explaination for hostility and type A as predictor

A

•Reduced sympathetic nervous system response to stress and frustration (Smith & Spiro, 2002)
•Unhealthy behaviours e.g., physical inactivity, smoking (Wong et al., 2012)

30
Q

Health & Longevity — other traits

A

Top 3: Conscientiousness, Optimism, Hostility

31
Q

Longevity – meta-analysis: of factor

A

•After accounting for childhood SES, parental income, and cognitive ability (IQ), personality predicts longevity up to 76 years later:

32
Q

2 way Personality traits predict various relationship outcomes

A
  1. Actor effects: Does my personality influence the relationship outcomes I experience?
  2. Partner effects: Does my partner’s personality influence the relationship outcomes I experience?
33
Q

Studies on relationship and personality

A

® Agreeableness & conscientiousness are linked to a lower likelihood of infidelity (Schmitt, 2004). This is an actor effect.
•A and C àlower likelihood of infidelity (~16,000 participants from 52 nations). Actor effects
Dyrenforth et al. 2010:
•A and C àhigher marital satisfaction in (~20,000 participants from Australia, Germany, and the UK)
•Both actor and partner effects

34
Q

Relationships — Divorce

A

•Research since the 1930s has implicated personality in relationship dissolution or divorce
•N, O, and E linked with higher likelihood of separation/divorce
•A and C linked with lower likelihood of separation/divorce
(e.g., Karney & Bradbury, 1995; Lundberg, 2012;Solomon & Jackson, 2014)

35
Q

Does divorce also change personality

A

•Spikic et al. (2021):
•Longitudinal samples from Germany (~15,000 households), UK (~40,000 households) and Australia (~8000 households)
•No consistent effects of divorce on personality across all 3 samples
•Increased agreeableness following divorce in the German and Australian samples

36
Q

® Solomon & Jackson (2014) : two potential pathways by which relationship dissolution

A

– enduring dynamics (average relationship satisfaction) and emergent distress (changes in relationship satisfaction).
-The enduring dynamics
pathway would suggest that the couple’s personality traits predicted disharmony at the beginning of the relationship, and this effect was sustained over time leading to a discontinuation of the relationship.
-The emergent distress pathway suggests that personality traits predict the likelihood that dynamics will deteriorate at some stage in the relationship.
® Solomon & Jackson (2014) found clearer support for enduring dynamics - personality consistently impacts on relationship dynamics in ways that may ultimately lead to its dissolution

37
Q

Stuides on two divorce pathway

A

4 year study of 8,000 Australians, married or in a committed relationship…
•Clearer support for enduring dynamics:
•Personality consistently impacts on relationship dynamics in ways that may ultimately lead to its dissolution
•Examples:
•Low agreeableness and conscientiousness via negative communication patterns
•High neuroticism via negative emotionality (experiencing negative moods, reacting with irritability and impatience)

38
Q

Divorce — meta-analysis

A

•Neuroticism, lower conscientiousness, and lower agreeableness predicts divorce up to 45 years later…

39
Q

How personality may impact our social environment

A

-Your personality leads your behavior, which create an impression in other. This impression is influence by their personality
-This would lead to their own behavior lead by their own pp.
-The interaction create an social enviorment that affect your personality

40
Q

Personality and Social Dynamics test

A

•Pairs of participants (A & B) interacted for 5 minutes.
•Interaction was filmed and rated
•Personality assessments (self and other) were administered, and reputation ratings (from 2 peers) were collected.

41
Q

Assortive mating

A

McCrae and colleagues, 2008:
•~2,000 spouse pairs from the US, Russia, Czech Republic, and Netherlands
•Positive correlations between partners’ personality traits
•rs up to .35 for Big Five domains
•Generally highest for openness/intellect

42
Q

How robust are the finding on Personality & Consequential Outcomes.

A

•The prediction of consequential outcomes may have important policy implications (Bliedorn et al., 2019)
the ‘replication crisis’ in psychology…Also known as the ‘credibility revolution’…
•Attributed to…
•Questionable research practices
•Publication bias
•Low statistical power

43
Q

The ‘Reproducibility Project’

A

Open Science Collaboration, 2015:
•Attempted to replicate 100 findings from across all of psychology
Just 39% of findings replicated with roughly 50% the effect size:

44
Q

The ‘Life Outcomes of Personality Replication (LOORP)’ project:

A

•Soto (2019) attempted to replicate 78 previously reported associations between personality traits and consequential outcomes
•Study was ‘pre-registered’, and involved a large survey in a single large sample (N ~ 1,500)

45
Q

The ‘Life Outcomes of Personality
Replication (LOORP)’ project result

A

•87% of the previously reported findings were successfully replicated
•Effect sizes were approximately 75% as strong as reported in the original studies

46
Q

generalisable of personality and prediction

A

Soto, 2021:
•Selected 48 of the 78 findings from the LOORP project
•Attempted to replicate these again in more diverse (but still US) subsamples (total N = 6,126)

47
Q

generalisable of personality and prediction result

A

•95% of effects observed for men were also observed for women,
•90% of effects observed for young adults were observed in age-representative samples,
•93% of effects observed Caucasians/Whites were observed among members of racial and ethnic minorities.
•Controlling for demographics had modest effects on trait–outcome associations

personality and social psy (12 decks)

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