Research Methods in Personality PDF

Research Methods in Personality 1. Data and Design  Goal of research: Psychology’s Emphasis on continuously improve on tentative answers Method to questions Emphasis is on...

Research Methods in Personality 1. Data and Design  Goal of research: Psychology’s Emphasis on continuously improve on tentative answers Method to questions Emphasis is on thinking and seeking new knowledge Learn how to question what we think we know and explore the unknown Research: the exploration of the unknown o Requires gathering data Measuring Personality All parts of the psychological triad (thoughts, feelings, behaviors) There are no perfect measures of personality can’t be directly observed We only have indicators We infer personality from the observable aspects of personality  S Data – Self-report (thoughts, feelings, etc.) I Data – Informant data (based on information about a person from others – partner, parents, friends, teacher) Sources of information L Data – Life data (verifiable life history – e.g., marriage, jail time, employment): the ‘results’ of personality B Data – Behavioural observations (observations in lab and real-life contexts): the ‘expression’ of personality  Self-reports (S Data) Sources of Open-ended questions (qualitative) information Usually surveys/questionnaires about High face validity personality Ratings by others (I data) Direct report by observer Peer ratings Advantages of S Data 1. Large amount of information You are always with yourself. People are usually their own best expert. 2. Access to thoughts, feelings, intentions and behaviours 3. Definitional truth 4. Causal force Self-efficacy Self-verification 5. Simple and easy to collect Disadvantages of S Data 1. Bias Overly positive or negative Desire for privacy, faking 2. Error Fish-and-water effect Active distortion of memory Lack of self-insight Carelessness 3. Too simple and too easy Advantages of I Data 1. A large amount of information Many behaviors in many situations Judgments from multiple informants are possible. 2. Real-world basis Not from contrived tests or constructed and controlled environments More likely to be relevant to important outcomes Advantages of I Data (2) 3. Common sense Takes context into account 4. Definitional truth 5. Causal force Reputation affects opportunities and expectancies. Expectancy effects or behavioral confirmation Disadvantages of I Data 1. Limited behavioral information 2. Lack of access to private experience 3. Error: more likely to remember behaviors that are extreme, unusual, or emotionally arousing 4. Bias Letter of recommendation effect Prejudices and stereotypes Discussion S-Data: What are some aspects of personality that people are likely and unlikely to accurately and honestly report about themselves? I-Data: What about the person’s best friend, co- workers, and parent? Life Outcomes (L) Data Obtained from archival records or self- report o Advantages and disadvantages of archival records The results, or “residue,” of personality Advantages and Disadvantages of L Data Advantages 1. Objective and verifiable 2. Intrinsic importance 3. Psychological relevance Disadvantage 1. Multidetermination  B-Data Natural B Data Observations take place in naturalistic settings (or as close as possible) Social media Hybrid approaches: What ‘would’ you do (B-S) Self-reported observations in naturalistic settings (B-S) [Experience sampling method, diary studies, ambulatory assessment, ecological momentary assessment] Advantages and Disadvantages of Natural B Data Advantage 1. Realistic Disadvantages 1. Difficult 2. Desired contexts seldomly occur. B-Data Laboratory B Data 1. Experiments Make a situation happen and record behavior Examine reactions to situations Represent real-life contexts that are difficult to observe directly Physiological measures – involuntary responses, or “biological” behaviour Advantages and Disadvantages of Laboratory B Data Advantages 1. Range of contexts 2. Appearance of objectivity But subjective judgments must still be made. Disadvantages 1. Difficult and expensive 2. Uncertain interpretation In small groups choose an interesting personality characteristic (e.g., dominance, helpfulness, etc.). Then answer the following questions in relation to measuring that characteristic: 1.What are some questions that could be used on self-report measures (S data)? 2.How could these questions be adjusted for an informant measure (I data)? 3.What behaviors could be observed to assess this characteristic (B data)? 4.What life outcomes are likely to be related, and how could data on these be collected (L data)? Mixed Types of Data Data do not always fit into only one category. There is a wide range of possible types of data that are relevant to personality. Each type has advantages and disadvantages. Research Design What method to use? Case Study The case method involves closely studying a particular event or person, within its real-life context. Freud built his theory from clinical experience with patients other theorists: Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, and Karen Horney Other perspectives: Gordon Allport, McAdams (TT) The case method can generate new ideas/hypotheses, that can be tested in large-scale studies using different methods. Correlational research Looks at the relationship between two variables e.g., extraversion is positively associated with positive mood (Goldberg et al., 2006) The emphasis is on variability, correlation, and individual differences. Central tendencies are not important; variances and covariances are. Describe how people differ and how these differences relate to other differences CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSALITY Experimental research Under controlled conditions, an IV is manipulated and its impact on a DV is observed The emphasis is central tendencies, not variation Differences of means resulting from different experimental conditions are thought to reflect the direct causal effects of the IV upon the DV. Cannot manipulate personality traits Quasi-experiments; assign participants to conditions based on personality traits Experimental Research Person Variable Experimental Variable Hypothesised State Observed Variable [DV] [IV] Variable Introversion/ Comedy Movie/ Positive Affect Self-Reported Affect Extraversion Control Movie Correlational & Experimental Research Both attempt to assess the relationship between two variables. Conclusions of both are limited by the quality of the measurement (validity, reliability) The experimental method manipulates the presumed causal variable, and the correlational method measures it. Different statistical tests, r or B vs F or t are not that different Correlational & Experimental Research Only experiments can assess causality Reasons for not knowing causal direction in correlational studies o Third-variable problem o Unknown direction of cause Experimental manipulation creates levels that may be unrealistic [high v low extraversion, continuum] An experiment can determine whether one variable can affect another, but not how often or how much it actually does, in real life. For that, correlational research is required. Correlational & Experimental Research Complications with experiments o Uncertainty about what was really manipulated § A version of the third-variable problem o Can create unlikely or impossible levels of a variable o Often require deception o Not always possible to conduct expt Experiments are not always better. An ideal research program includes both designs. Research Methods in Personality 2. Personality Assessment Assessing Clients Today, treatment planning based on assessments is essential from both an ethical standpoint and for insurance reimbursement (USA) Personality assessment is used to further describe the client, just as a diagnosis does i.e., to summarise a cluster of behaviours Personality Assessment? How accurate is the following description of your personality? Why are these tests appealing? The Barnum Effect (or Forer Effect) People perceive as accurate (about themselves) statements that are so vague and general, that they could apply to lots of people Horoscopes – prime example But also, ‘personality tests’ that are not validated  Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Based on Jung’s ideas about personality Never actually endorsed by Jung ThoughtCatalog: Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless Jung had spoken about introversion-extraversion VOX: 17 Facts That Prove Myers-Briggs Is Actually Complete Garbage You Should Totally Ignore  Enneagram “Oscar Ichazo presents the Arica theory and method for the definitive analysis of the human psyche and the achievement of pristine enlightenment.” (www.arica.org) See the Skeptic’s Dictionary: http://skepdic.com/enneagr.html Your favourite personality test is probably bogus Why the Myers-Briggs test is totally meaningless https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M&t=26s Personality Tests Widely used tests: MMPI, CPI, 16PF, NEO-PI, SVIB, HPI Omnibus inventories One-trait measures Most tests provide S data. Some tests provide B data. o MMPI o Intelligence (IQ tests) o Also known as performance-based instruments How do we know if an assessment is good? Two indicators: 1. Reliability 2. Validity Reliability = Stability and/or consistency of measurement. If we do the measurement over and over, do we get the same score each time? High reliability = greater consistency = lower randomness (error) Low reliability = less consistency = more error  Test-retest reliability: - Reflects consistency of a measure across time - Same test done at different times - Only works if it doesn’t change between times Parallel-forms reliability: Types of - Measures the consistency of two different tests of the same constructs. Reliability - Both tests are administered, and a correlation is calculated. Internal consistency: - Reflects consistency within a set of items intended to measure the same construct - Statistical tools like Cronbach’s alpha Validity Validity = does it measure what it’s supposed to measure? Types of Validity Construct Criterion Convergent Discriminant Face  Construct Validity Does this measurement accurately represent our underlying ‘invisible’ construct. i.e., is it a good clue? Higher scores mean higher level of the construct, and vice versa; Does it measure what it should? Most important type of validity  Face Validity Indicates that the item or scale seems to measure what you think it is supposed to measure (at face value) Examples: Construct Item Depression Do you often feel sad or blue? Optimism Do you generally expect good things to happen? Criterion Validity Checking the assessment against various criteria Predictive Concurrent Convergent Discriminant  Predictive Validity Most important indicator of construct validity Examines how well a measure correlates with a standard of comparison (criterion) Example: does an aggression scale correlate with observer ratings of shoving on a playground? Examines how well a measure predicts an appropriate outcome Example — does a self-esteem scale predict who will volunteer answers in class?  Concurrent Validity Indicates appropriate correlation with different measures of same constructs Looks at what differentiates this test from the other. Example: If you create a new test for depression levels, you can compare its performance to previous depression tests. Convergent Validity Indicates appropriate correlation with different measures of similar constructs Correlated, but not too high, not too low Discriminant ValidityDivergent Validity Indicates that scale does NOT correlate highly with other assessment devices presumed to measure conceptually different constructs For example, depression scales and optimism scale Different constructs, shouldn’t be strongly related Challenges to Validity Memory bias (downsides of self report) Motivational bias Response sets — readiness to answer in a particular way Yea saying (acquiescence) Nay saying Social desirability  The validity of a measure concerns what it measures and how well it does so Reliability and A test may be very reliable but not measure what it is Validity supposed to measure This is because reliability is simply concerned with the consistency of obtained results and not whether those results are related to the characteristic being measured Reliability and Validity Independent but related criteria Reliability is a prerequisite for validity, a measure can’t be valid if it is not reliable BUT: there is no requirement for a measure to be valid for it to be reliable. Personality Assessment Objective tests Projective tests  Objective assessment Asks very specific questions, with yes/no, true/false answers Computer-administered personality tests Items in this format can be answered, scored, analyzed, and interpreted quickly. Objective test of personality (multiple choice, rating)? Personality Tests: Objective Tests Questions seem more objective and less open to interpretation Validity and the subjectivity of test items o Items are still not absolutely objective. Why so many items? o The principle of aggregation o Spearman-Brown formula Constructing a personality test Rational method – asking questions that rationally appear to be related to the construct you’re looking at (e.g., ‘do you often feel nervous’ for neuroticism; ‘how good to you feel about yourself’ for self- esteem) Factor analysis – gathering large amounts of data and paring down information into groupings, using statistical methods.  Two Approaches to the Development of Assessment Devices Rational (Theoretical) Approach Start with a concept Select items to fit concept Test validity and reliability Empirical (Data-Based) Approach Empirically driven from many items Use statistical methods to select items based on ability of items to differentiate criterion group Methods of Objective Test Construction: 1. Rational Four conditions for validity 1. Items mean the same thing to the test taker and creator. 2. Capability for accurate self-assessment 3. Willingness to make an accurate and undistorted report 4. Items must be valid indicators of what is being measured. The most common form of test construction Methods of Objective Test Construction: 2. Factor Analytic Factor analysis Steps for using this method o Generate a long list of objective items. o Administer these items to a large number of people. o Analyze with a factor analysis. o Consider what the items that group together have in common and name the factor. Factor analysis has also been used to decide how many fundamental traits exist. Methods of Objective Test Construction: 3. Empirical Steps for using this method 1. Gather lots of items. 2. Have a sample of people already divided into groups. 3. Administer the test. 4. Compare the answers of the different groups. 5. Cross-validation  When Are Different Methods Used? Rational Approach Usually in connection with theory building Empirical Usually used in connection with practical needs Example: Vocational interests, occupational assessment Methods of Objective Test Construction A combination of methods Generate items with rational method, analyze responses with factor analysis, and correlate factors with independent criteria. Projective assessment A person responds to undefined stimuli Makes own interpretation Everyone expected to have different interpretation, based on personality Moving away from norm-referenced (objective) tests, but over the years psychologists developed “norms” and standards to interpret the results Some consider this a structured interview, not a “test” Projective assessments Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Draw-A-Person test Rorschach inkblot test  TAT If your last name begins with the letter A-M visit this padlet: Look at the picture. Your task is to write a complete story about the picture you see above. This should be an imaginative story with a beginning, middle, and an end. Try to portray who the people might be, what they are feeling, thinking, and wishing. Try to tell what led to the situation depicted in the picture and how everything will turn out in the end. Rorshach Inkblot If your last name begins with N-Z go to this padlet first: In the following exercise please try to give your honest response (What pops up in your mind immediately). Projective Methods Mostly used by clinical psychologists – B data Linked to Freud’s idea of the unconscious Word Association Tests/ Sentence Completion Tests Personality Tests: Projective Tests Advantages Good for breaking the ice Some skilled clinicians may be able to use them to get information not captured by controlled research. Some evidence of validity: Rorschach o Used by 82 percent of clinical psychologists o Fourth most used test Personality Tests: Projective Tests Disadvantages Validity evidence is scarce. Expensive and time-consuming A psychologist cannot be sure about what they mean. Other, less expensive tests work as well or better. Sometimes used inappropriately Projective Tests “Nobody agrees how to score Rorschach responses objectively. There is nothing to show what any particular response means to the person who gives it. And, there is nothing to show what it means if a number of people give the same response. The ink blots are scientifically useless.” (Bartol, 1983). Which is more valid and reliable? OBJECTIVE TESTS? PROJECTIVE TESTS? Modern Personality Tests? Facebook likes and personality Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel (2013). Analysed 58,000 participants' facebook likes (average of 170 likes per person) demographic profiles: Age, gender, relationship status, political views, religion, number of facebook friends, alcohol and drug use, parents' marital status, ethnicity. and results of psychometric tests: Big 5 personality questionnaire, intelligence test, satisfaction with life scale Facebook likes and personality RESULTS: From only Facebook likes you can accurately predict personality traits [especially openness and extraversion], but also intelligence, race, religion, sexual and political orientation.