Lecture 5: Modern Approaches to Studying Personality Part 2 PDF

Individual differences Lecture 5: modern approaches to studying personality part 2 Dr. Omar Yousaf  Learning outcomes of today’s lecture Understand the definitions and concepts related to personality and individual differences Gain an appreciation of the...

Individual differences Lecture 5: modern approaches to studying personality part 2 Dr. Omar Yousaf  Learning outcomes of today’s lecture Understand the definitions and concepts related to personality and individual differences Gain an appreciation of the various ways in which personality can be studied Be able to critically evaluate the various methodologies used to study personality Be able to appreciate the various links between personality traits and behaviours Have sufficient ability to apply the theories and methods of personality to various domains of human behaviour  Evaluating a theory of personality A theory of personality, such as the Big Five which is a trait theory that proposes the existence of five independent traits that have implications for human cognition and behaviour, according to Maltby, Day, & Macaskill (2017) can be evaluated on eight key criteria: Description: It should be able to simply explain what the psychological constructs in question are, and what the trait(s) represent in terms of cognitive, emotional, and behavioural tendencies Explanation: It should help us to appreciate the underlying reasons for a particular behavioural outcome based on how the trait might elicit that behaviour Empirical validity: It should come up with predictions about behaviour based on the theorised traits Testable concepts: It should be able to operationalise (that is, make traits concrete enough to be tested in a specific way) the various elements of the theory in a way that can either support or undermine the theory  Evaluating a theory of personality Comprehensiveness: It should be applicable to as many contexts of human behaviour as possible, and explain as much of the behaviour as possible Parsimony: The number of concepts in the theory should be high enough to explain the behaviour but not too high in a way that unnecessarily complicates the psychological construct in question Heuristic value: It should be of interest to as many areas of research as possible so that this can facilitate it being researched as much as possible Applied value: It should have some value beyond that of creating a personality taxonomy; it might be utilised to predict human behaviour in ways that provide value in useful domains such as clinical, health, organisational, forensic, or other areas of applied psychology. Activity: Pick one of the Big Five traits, and come up with at least five applications of the theory/research on this particular trait. Overall, how useful is it to measure it, and in how many ways can the findings be used in applied settings?  Research design in personality research As we have seen in the example studies above, most of them use self-report questionnaires to measure personality. What are common research designs of these studies? Many studies on individual differences will measure a number of personality traits, and statistical analyses will be conducted to see how well they are associated (that is, correlated). This allows researchers to predict whether the presence of a high level of a given trait can be used to predict high or low levels of another trait. Example: Yousaf & Taylor (2023) measured self-reported individual differences in emotion regulation (i.e., one’s ability to manage one’s negative/positive emotional reactions to events), mindfulness (i.e., how aware one is of one’s moment-to- moment experience), self-esteem (i.e., how highly one thinks of one’s own value), and creativity (i.e., individuals were asked to rate their own level of creativity across different domains). All of the data were collected online where participants were able to rate themselves on each of these scales. The study found that emotion regulation, mindfulness, and self-esteem levels predicted creativity. That is, the three variables were positively correlated with creativity.  Research design in personality research While there is some value in using some traits to predict others in order to understand the links between different personality tendencies, some studies go beyond this method to further measure behaviour, in addition to traits. Example: Elias & Loomis (2002) used the personality trait of need for cognition, which measures the extent to which individuals are curious about and enjoy learning new things, to predict how well academic performance in psychology students at university. In addition, they used the variable of academic self- efficacy (that is, the extent to which participants are confident in their ability to perform well academically) to also predict academic performance. They found that both need for cognition and academic self-efficacy positively predicted (that is, the variables were positively correlated) academic performance as measured by grade point averages (GPA). As such, the study used two individual differences variables to predict one behaviour/ability (academic performance).  Four kinds of ‘clues’ to personality In his book The Personality Puzzle (2010), David Funder provides an overview of four ways of tapping into personality, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each: 1) Self-judgment: this is what we above call ‘self-report’. Participants answer either direct or indirect questions or provide their level of agreement to various statements. The advantage of this method (which is the most widely used one when it comes to measuring individual differences) is that the individual has a lot of information about themselves (including their thoughts, feelings, preferences, etc.) based on their memory of various situations they have been in. A disadvantage is that for socially sensitive topics (such as the extent of their prejudice) they may not be totally honest. Also, for some aspects of their personality they simply will not be aware of their own tendencies. 2) Informant: this is where another person is asked about a given person’s personality. Usually, for this method, individuals close to the person in question are asked to describe their friend/family member. This is particularly useful when it is somebody who themselves are unwilling or unavailable to answer questions about themselves. The advantage is that the other person has a different perspective and may not have the same biases as the first person. However, they may misinterpret or misrepresent the other person, which is a limitation of this method.  Four kinds of ‘clues’ to personality 3) Life outcomes: Instead of asking the first or second person, this method relies on measuring life outcomes such as long-term health, legal or professional outcomes (e.g., promotion, salary) or accidents, criminal records, or any other relevant variable. The advantage of this method is that the data will be relatively more objective and verifiable than self- or other-reports. However, there might be room for several interpretations of these data (for example, did the individual get promoted for their ability to carry out certain tasks or their social intelligence?). 4) Behaviour: The individual can be observed in terms of their reactions to various situations. For example, if agreeableness is being studied, it might make more sense to measure how likely the individual is to actually agree to different requests (say, at work). This will be an operational and functional measure of agreeable compared to simply asking individuals how agreeable they are. In self-reporting, they may exaggerate or may even not be aware of not being perceived as an agreeable person. However, the disadvantage of this method is that it requires more resources, such as setting up a realistic situation where the behaviour is measured organically (that is, in an ecologically valid fashion).  The ‘Person-Situation’ debate Funder and colleagues (2012) have discussed the conflict that exists between some psychologists regarding the role of the personality versus the role of the situation in eliciting different outcomes. The situationist is somebody who doubts the consistent and predictable effects of personality on actual behaviour, arguing that the behaviour will only partly be a function of the personality, and that the situation could trigger a behaviour that would not be predictable by measuring the personality alone. Hence, there has been a debate as to what extent personality, regardless of situational conditions, is predictive of behaviour across contexts. The opposite of the situationist position is the ‘pure trait’ stance which argues that traits are so deeply ingrained in the individual that in most, if not all, situations the individual will behave fairly consistently and predictably.  The ‘Person-Situation’ debate Kenrick and Funder (1988) presented an overview of four dimensions along which we can address this issue of the situation- person debate: 1) Consensus versus solipsism: Can there be an agreement among observers as to what traits exist in a given individual, or are the traits idiosyncratic (meaning that they differ in their exact nature between individuals) 2) Discriminativeness versus generality: If there is a consensus in observers when it comes to attributing traits to individuals, is this because they are generalising too much (that is, ‘one size fits all’)? 3) Behaviour versus labelling: On what basis is a trait determined? How much of the trait has direct behaivoural implications, and how much of it might be simply based on theoretical predictions and stereotypical labelling? 4) External versus internal locus of causal explanation: If individual differences are based on actual observations, how much of this explanation is contextual and specific to the observer, and how much of it is based on the observed person’s traits?  The ‘Person-Situation’ debate Based on the above considerations, researchers are encouraged to account for important situational factors affecting behaviour for particular traits, and try to incorporate these variables into the measure of personality itself. For example, if the trait of neuroticism/emotionality is being measured, the items can include various situational variables and contexts to stay relevant across contexts. For example, some of the items can pertain to one’s personal life, while others to one’s professional life. Some of the items can be about outward behavioural reactions that the participant can answer based on their experience of behaving in particular ways in the past. Questions for reflection: 1) What are some of the most consistent personality traits in people that you know? Can you think of cases where somebody you know acted ‘out of character’ (that is, in ways that contradict their otherwise well-known traits/behavioural patterns)? 2) In what ways do you usually describe yourself and others? Do you use traits or adjectives? How reliable are these descriptions? 3) Do you often experience inconsistencies in other people’s behaviour that make you question whether any trait is worth using to predict behaviour at all? Activity: 1) Read the article on the person-situation debate by Kenrick and Funder (2012), 2) Which of the seven hypotheses that they present do you agree with the most when it comes to this debate? 3) In what ways could you improve your predictions of behaviour based on what you have learned from this article?  Measuring personality across cultures Church (2001) discusses a number of issues related to measuring personality across cultures. In order for us to be able to compare any differences across cultures when it comes to the relationship between personality and other variables such as behaviour, we must have scales that are valid in the different cultures. While it is usually straightforward to translate a scale from, say English to Japanese, the construct being measures might actually not mean the same thing in the second culture. In addition, the various items may be understood very differently given the different values and belief systems prevalent in the second culture. Church makes a distinction between three forms of biases when it comes to using a given scale in a new culture (that is, a culture different from where the original scale was developed and validated). 1) Construct bias: When the definitions of the construct (e.g., openness to experience) or the associated behavioural examples (e.g., ways of socialising) included in the scale do not fully overlap between the cultures  Measuring personality across cultures 1) Method bias: This has three separate sub-categories: a) sample bias: when the samples (that is, the participants who complete the questionnaire) are not comparable in terms of demographic characteristics, such as educational level, b) instrument bias: when the responses follow different patterns such as the distribution of scores may not be the same across cultures due to different belief systems or certain reservations related to the culture, and c) administration bias: when the instructions are communicated differently between cultures (for example, in some cultures researchers may be more likely to improvise the instructions more to make them fit the cultural expectations, while in other cultures there may be a more formal, non-personal and standardised administration of the questionnaires). 2) Item bias: Certain items may not be suitable in their translated form, and may need to either be adjusted or eliminated, resulting in the scale potentially having different number of items between cultures. Activity: 1) read the part of this article that deals with ‘cultural psychology critique of trait assessments’ on page 15 onwards. 2) Select a personality trait (one that we have covered so far, or a completely new one by searching online on the database through the library or on Google Scholar) of interest to you. 3) Think about some of the challenges of translating this scale into a different language, and testing it on participants of the new culture; what factors would you need to take into account, and what adjustments to the scale would you need to make? Three main approaches in personality psychology Baumert et al. (2017) have argued that it is important to integrate the three main theoretical approaches to personality, namely its structure, process, and development. Before we can appreciate an integration of these, let us first understand what each of these approaches focus on: 1) Structure of personality: This relates to the traits that individuals’ personalities contain, and how people differ from each other in terms of the various traits that provide an overall structure of their personality. The rationale for studying these traits in individuals is to better understand their preferences when it comes to their cognition (that is, the way that they think), their emotions (that is, the way they react emotionally in different situations), and their behavioural tendences (that is, based on their preferences and cognitive/emotional styles, they are more likely to act in certain ways in certain situations). For example, the structure of the personality might consist of a high neuroticism/emotionality tendency (which is the trait in question) which may lead to more worrying (i.e., a cognitive reaction) which in turn may lead to a higher physiological arousal (i.e., an emotional reaction). Such a cognitive/emotional response may lead to a particular behaviour that reflects the neurotic trait.  Three main approaches in personality psychology 2) Process of personality: In this area of research and theory, the focus is on explaining the ways in which the traits lead to different behavioural outcomes in different situations. As such, there is an attempt to provide a causal link between a personality trait and a particular behaviour. For example, if a person who is preparing for an exam at university scores highly on neuroticism/emotionality, their nervousness and worrying (emotional- cognitive reactions to the upcoming exam) may push them to start revising for the exam earlier than somebody who scores low on neuroticism and as such does not worry to the same extent. In this case, the trait of neuroticism may lead to a different behavioural outcome in individuals (that is, early or late exam revision). The process approach to personality tries to understand this link between the trait and the behaviour by breaking down the process. For example, the nervousness that is a function of the neuroticism will increase physiological arousal in the individual who will then attempt to relieve this arousal by starting early revision. 3) Development of personality: This approach focuses on how traits change over time. By definition, a trait is something that as opposed to a state is fairly stable throughout the lifespan (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). As such, measuring traits at a younger age will still be of some value in predicting behaviours much later in life. However, the extent to which different traits remain stable depends on the nature of the trait (for example, is it broad or narrow?) and the robustness of the measure used to score it (that is, how valid and reliable is the questionnaire that was used?). Significant life events, traumas, and acquired disabilities can all have some implications.  Integrating the three approaches Baumert et al. (2017) argue that without integrating the above three approaches, we will not be able to make accurate predictions about behaviour, nor be able to generate useful explanatory models of the links between personality and behaviour. The integration through combining all three approaches in any investigation of the link between personality and behaviour is crucial. For example, instead of simply measuring a number of traits in order to explore the potential associations (i.e., correlations) between them (for example, individuals who score highly on conscientiousness also score highly on a scale of taking personal responsibility for various outcomes in one’s life), one could incorporate into the study a measure of a relevant behaviour (in the case of conscientiousness, this could be how many hours one spends a day studying) over a longer period of time. Such as study would have incorporated the structure (by measuring traits using self-report questionnaires), the process (by adding a behavioural measure, either self-report of objective observation, or possibly even a measure of physiological arousal), and development (by measuring the traits/behaviours over time).  Integrating the three approaches Baumert et al. (2017) also argue that in order to explain behaviour based on traits, one must include elements from the three key triggers of behaviour: Cognitive: The patterns of thinking about things in a given situation. For example, the individual who scores highly on agreeableness might think extra carefully about how their response to a request might be received, and as such they might come up with a number of potential scenarios through their thinking, which might further direct their attention to certain aspects of the other person’s body language/reaction to gauge what might be the best way to respond to the request. Affective (that is, emotional): The ways in which the individual reacts emotionally to a given situation and the cognitions that the situation triggers. For example, the agreeable person might be reluctant to agree with a given request but might as a result of their high need to agree (maybe because they do not want to hurt the other person’s feelings), they feel guilty for saying no, and as a result end up agreeing. Motivational: We do not just behave as a function of our traits and emotional-cognitive patterns of reacting to stimuli; indeed, in a given moment, we are driven by a number of additional motivations, such as the need for social desirability (that is, appearing good and competent publicly) or the need for maintaining a high self-esteem. Therefore, the traits cannot account for all of the explanation of a given behaviour. An understanding of the various motivations that govern the individual’ behaviour must also be included in an explanation of the link between personality and behaviour. For example, the agreeable person might usually agree to most of the requests that they get from colleagues, however, if on a given day, there are some additional variables present at work (for example, there is an attractive customer in the shop which the agreeable person wants to impress) they might not agree in that particular case.  Activity Search for some journals on personality/individual differences Look at the current issue articles In what ways do these recent studies reflect the different modern approaches that we have covered in the lectures so far?  Key References and reading for lectures 4 and 5 Chapters 1, 16, and 23 in the textbook. Baumert, A., Schmitt, M., Perugini, M., Johnson, W., Blum, G., Borkenau, P.,... & Wrzus, C. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 503-528. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Freely available book chapter on Google Books. Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European journal of social psychology, 15(3), 263-280. Elias, S. M., & Loomis, R. J. (2002). Utilizing need for cognition and perceived self‐efficacy to predict academic performance 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(8), 1687-1702. Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. Yousaf, O., & Taylor, J. (2023). Dispositional mindfulness mediates the relationship between emotion regulation and creativity. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 18(4), 511-521. Church, A. T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross‐cultural perspective. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 979-1006. Guillaume, E., Kumagai, S., Kawamoto, S., & Sato, T. (2012). The person-situation debate and the assessment of situations. The Japanese Journal of Personality, 21(1), 1-11. Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the person-situation debate. American psychologist, 43(1), 23.