PSY1PAC 2024 Semester 2 Lecture 4 Introductory Psychology PDF

latrobe.edu.au PSY1PAC Introductory Psychology: People and Culture...

latrobe.edu.au PSY1PAC Introductory Psychology: People and Culture Lecture 4: Personality Readings: Heine Ch 6 (pp. 235-242) Dr Ben Chun Pan Lam Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy [email protected] Adapted with permission from Prof. Emi Kashima La Trobe University CRICOS Provider Code Number 00115M  Acknowledgement of country La Trobe University acknowledges that this event and our participants are located on the lands of many traditional custodians in Australia. We recognise that Indigenous Australians have a continuing connection to land, water and community, their living culture and their unique role in the life of these regions, and value their unique contribution to the University and wider Australian society. We are committed to providing opportunities for Indigenous Australians, both as individuals and communities through teaching and learning, research and community partnerships across all our campuses and online. We pay our respects to Indigenous Elders, past, present and emerging and extend this respect to any Indigenous participants joining us online today. Learning Objectives Define personality, and distinguish personality types and personality traits Describe the Big Five personality model and identify its strengths and limitations, including cross-cultural applicability Distinguish two implicit theories of self and personality—incremental and entity theories (or growth and fixed mindsets) Understand attachment theory and measurement, distinguish three attachment styles, and know the cross-cultural research on attachment PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 3 What is Personality? Stem from the Latin word persona, a theatrical mask worn by an actor Unique pattern of enduring thoughts, feelings and actions that characterise a person Consistency: Stability over time and across situations Distinctiveness: Different reactions to the same situation PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 4 Personality Types Study of personality dated back to ○ Hippocrates’ four “humour”-based personalities Personality Types ○ When a person possesses a certain characteristic at all ○ Only certain people have the characteristic ○ Qualitative differences between people ○ E.g. “Sandy is a leader-type, but she is not a socialiser.” Pixels PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 5 Personality Types Most people do not fit neatly Leader Organized into a type Most of us are unique mixes of different types Indeed, vary along a Social Loyal continuum PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 6 Trait Approaches Personality is made up of stable internal characteristics or traits Personality Traits ○ How much of a certain characteristic a person has ○ Quantitative differences among people ○ E.g., “I am kind of extraverted” vs. “I am really extraverted” How to measure personality traits? https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/p/personality _testing.asp?expanded=CS111986 PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 7  How were Personality Traits/Dimensions identified? English has >18,000 personality trait-related terms In 1936, Gordon Allport and Henry Odbert compiled them and shortened the list ○ Hostile, nasty, mean, intimidating, unfriendly… -> unfriendly ○ ↓4500 adjectives Allport believed that about 5-10 words can capture someone’s personality reasonably well (central traits) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 8 pixabay How were Personality Traits/Dimensions identified? Raymond Cattell (1946) asked people to rate themselves and others on the terms from Allport’s trait list Statistical method called factor analysis to identify which terms were related to one another; reduce them to a set of basic personality factors/dimensions Sixteen personality factors, such as shy vs. bold, trusting vs. suspicious, relaxed vs. tense, etc. ○ Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF; Cattell et al., 1970) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 9 Five-Factor Model of Personality Followed by Costa and MaCrae (1992, 2008) who identified five factors from Allport’s trait list People’s personality varies on five dimensions only, across all cultures ○ Called the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, or the Big Five One of the most popular models in personality psychology nowadays PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 10  Five-Factor Model of Personality O = Openness to experience C = Conscientiousness E = Extraversion A = Agreeableness N = Neuroticism PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 11 Openness to Experience An individual’s creativity and curiosity about the world ↑ Open to new experiences, novel idea and unconventional values, very imaginative ↓ Down-to-earth, practical, traditional, and pretty much set in ways PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 12 Conscientiousness How responsible, dependable, and self disciplined an individual is ↑ Conscientious and well-organized, high standards, drive to achieve goals ↓ Easygoing, not very well-organized, sometimes careless, not big on planning PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 13 Extraversion How much an individual is outgoing, social, and dominant ↑Extraverted, outgoing, active, high-spirited, high energy, sociable ↓Introverted, reserved, serious, solitary PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 14 Agreeableness How warm, pleasant, and considerate an individual is ↑ Compassionate, good-natured, eager to cooperate and avoid conflict ↓ Hardheaded, skeptical, proud, competitive; tend to express your anger directly PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 15 Neuroticism An individual’s emotional instability and unpredictability ↑ Sensitive, emotional, prone to experience feelings that are upsetting ↓ Secure, hardy, generally relaxed even under stressful conditions PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 16 Strengths of the Big Five Different batteries of questionnaire and checklist, self-ratings and peer-ratings found five dimensions similar to the Big Five Big Five model predicts psychological outcomes e.g., subjective well- being, cross-cultural adjustment, and spirituality (Anglim et al., 2020; Han et al., 2022; Piedmont, 2001) Behavioural patterns consistent with each of the Big Five have been found in chimpanzees (King & Figueredo, 1997) Developmental trends (Bleidorn et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2006) ○ ↑ agreeableness, conscientiousness; ↓ neuroticism, extraversion, openness The same five factors appeared from different language versions of the Big Five administered in 50 countries (McCrae et al., 2005) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 17 Limitations of the Big Five In McCrae et al. (2005), respondents from 50 countries were mainly well-educated ○ In cultures more distant from the US (e.g., Botswana, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Malaysia), supporting evidence was weaker Model supported in 50 countries, but only when the original English questionnaire translated into the local languages ○ Big Five was found by analysing personality terms in English PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 18 Personality Dimensions from Different Language Groups Chinese: Using Chinese trait words, Openness not found but an additional dimension called ‘Interpersonal Relatedness’ identified (Cheung et al., 1996) The Tsimane from Bolivia: 2 factors unrelated to the Big5 (Gurven et al., 2013) Arabic speakers in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, & the West Bank: Big5 plus ‘Honesty’ and ‘Unconventionality’ (Zeinoun et al., 2017) Mexico: 9 factors all dissimilar to Big 5 (La Rosa & Diaz-Loving, 1991) Philippines: each Big 5 supplemented by additional concepts; also new factors (Church et al., 1997; Church et al., 1998) South Africa: data of 11 ethnic groups showed 7 factors (weak Openness, 2 new factors) (Nel et al., 2012) Spain & Greece: additional factors (Benet-Martinz & Waller, 1995; Saucier et al., 2005) In sum Existing Big Five may miss relational concepts present elsewhere Openness may not be an essential part in many collectivist cultures PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 19 Comparing Personality across Culture Figure 2 by McCrae et al. (2005) Universal personality structure does not preclude the possibility that people from different cultural groups Neuroticism have different levels of traits Cultural differences in average levels of personality traits (McCrae et al., 2005) Extraversion PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 20 Comparing Personality across Culture Describing “typical member” of a culture (Terracciano et al., 2005) ○ High agreement about the characteristics of people from their culture ○ But, these perceptions do not match with national averages Objective behaviours and demographic indicators do not correlate well with national averages (Heine et al., 2008; Oishi & Roth, 2009) National averages of conscientiousness correlate negatively or not at all with conscientious-related behaviors across cultures ○ Accuracy of public clocks ○ Efficiency of postal workers ○ Perception of corruption in public sector, etc. PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 21 Comparing Personality across Culture Reference-group effect: people evaluate their personality traits by comparing themselves to local norms, rather than international norms Different reference groups result in different perceptions of conscientiousness within the same person (Credé et al., 2010) pixabay PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 22 Biological Trait Theories Trait differences reflect the operation of biological factors, i.e., inherited differences in nervous systems, esp. the brain Hans Eysenck’s trait theory (1953) says there are two main trait dimensions ○ Introversion-Extraversion relates to typical arousal level (Intro.=high, thus want less stimulation; Extra.=low, thus want more) ○ Emotionality-Stability relates to sensitivity to stress (Emo.=react to stress strongly; Stab.=insensitive to stress) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 23 Biological Trait Theories Jeffery Gray’s (1970) reinforcement sensitivity theory ○ Behavioural Inhibition System (a ‘stop’ system attuned to punishment) and Behavioural Approach System (a ‘go’ system attuned to rewards) ○ High BAS associated with high extraversion https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/W62KNCoFu985EFIXPfyOtJo51XLrdzslqr3pQRff9r2aVRH1Slu4flSyOIm5Me pm26L-aDG5p3PZ4tt3k91GDzVeFZMn6ZaQJs3a_D8tRxN78wb06qo0s-7wFrcZzqPDMHWCZQUj PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 24  Are Personality Traits Inherited? Personality shaped by both genetic and environmental influences ○ Degree of genetic influence is easier to estimate Twin studies compare identical twins (shared genes 100%) with non-identical twins (shared genes < 100%), both pairs raised together or apart These studies estimate that 50% of personality is genetically based Culture is considered the strongest environmental influence, however, its degree is unknown PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 25 pexels Assessing Personality To gain a full understanding of someone’s personality requires a lot of information, including: ○ developmental experiences ○ cultural influences ○ genetic and other biological factors ○ perceptual and other information-processing habits and biases ○ typical patterns of emotional expression, and social skills PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 26 Assessing Personality Four main sources of information are used to describe personalities ○ Self-report (e.g., responses to interviews and personality tests) ○ Observer ratings (e.g., judgments about the person by family) ○ Life outcome (e.g., level of education, income, marital status) ○ Situational tests (e.g., laboratory measurements of behaviours and physiological reactions to stimulus) Data gathered will be used for many purposes (e.g., employee selection, diagnosing psychological disorders) Personality measures must be reliable and valid ○ Validity reflects the degree to which test scores are interpreted appropriately ○ Reliability reflects consistency in test scores across time and situations PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 27 Implicit Theories Beliefs that individuals hold regarding the nature of human (and nonhuman) attributes ○ Take for granted, usually without engaging in much active testing ○ Also called lay theories, folk theories They can be about personality, intelligence, morality, or just about any attributes Implicit theories guide our interpretation of what happens in the world PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 28  Implicit Theories of Self and Personality Two implicit theories of self and personality identified by Carol Dweck (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) Incremental theory ○ Belief that abilities and traits are malleable and can change Entity theory ○ Belief that abilities and traits reflects innate characteristics of the person, and is largely fixed and resistant to change PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 29 Adobe Stock Implicit Theories of Self and Personality People with an incremental theory of ability believe that ability is malleable and can change, while those with an entity theory of ability believe that ability is fixed and cannot change Respond differently to a failure (Hong et al., 1999) Entity theorists blame one’s own innate lack of ability Incremental theorists focus on efforts and strategies used (e.g., when having trouble with schoolwork, you may take a remedial course) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 30 Implicit Theories of Self and Personality People with an entity vs. incremental theory of personality also respond differently during the stressful transition to high school (Seo et al., 2022) Adolescents having an entity theory reported depressed emotions during the transition Entity theorists were found to blame the self more and were less confident in handling stressors, which increased depressive mood PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 31 Growth vs. Fixed Mindset Dweck (2006) later re-labelled these concepts to Mindset in her book “Mindset: The new psychology of success” Entity theory => Fixed mindset ○ Seeing one’s ability as fixed and not open to change Incremental theory => Growth mindset ○ Seeing one’s ability as unfixed and malleable PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 32 Cultural Differences in Implicit Theories Initially, cultural differences in growth mindset were expected ○ An incremental theory might be more popular among people with an interdependent sense of self ○ An entity theory might be more popular among people with an independent sense of self 60% Chinese high school students thought key to success in math was to study hard, but 25% American students felt that way (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992) More Indians believed that everyone could become highly intelligent than Americans (Rattan et al., 2022) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 33 Cultural Differences in Implicit Theories However, the PISA study in OECD countries indicated that a growth mindset was not widespread in East Asian societies East Asian students’ efforts may not necessarily reflect the view that ability is changeable Effort may be believed to directly contribute to academic performance or be a way to compensate for inadequate intelligence PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 34 Implicit Trait and Contextual Theories Implicit Trait (vs. Contextual) Theory (Church et al., 2003, 2005, 2006) ○ Traits are stable (vs. instable) over time ○ Behaviour is consistent (vs. inconsistent) across situations ○ Traits can (vs. cannot) predict beheviour ○ It is easy (or difficult) to infer traits from few behavioral instances ○ Traits (vs. contextual factors) are of greater importance for understanding people People from cultural groups sampled endorsed trait theory to some extent But, those from individualistic/independent cultures (e.g., the U.S.) hold stronger trait beliefs than those from collectivistic/interdependent cultures (e.g., Mexico, the Philippines) PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 35  Attachment Theory First formulated by John Bowlby Attachment is an infant’s deep, affectionate, close and enduring bonding with caregiver(s) Attachment establishes early in life and influences adult romantic relationships and how to cope with threats Universal need to form attachment, but the ways infants interact with caregiver vary ○ Attachment styles PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 36 pixaby Attachment Theory Developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth developed the Strange Situation procedure—mother leaves the room leaving her child alone with a stranger (experimenter), and then return Ainsworth observed three styles/patterns of attachment based on child’s reaction USA Secure attachment: The child occasionally seeks mum when she is around and after being left alone; with mum present, the child is confident and explores a new 62% environment Avoidant attachment: The child shows little distress at mum’s absence and avoids 23% her on her return Anxious-ambivalent attachment: The child shows frequent distress when their mum is either present or absent; they sometimes want to be close but often resist and 15% push their mum away PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 37 Attachment Styles Secure attachment ○ Positive self, rely on others comfortably if needed ○ Stem from supportive and consistent caregiving Avoidant attachment ○ Excessive self-reliance and discomfort with intimacy ○ Stem from cold and rejective parenting Anxious attachment SimplyPsychology ○ Strong intimacy need and fear of rejection ○ Stem from inconsistent care from parents Anxious and avoidant styles are insecure attachment styles PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 38 Attachment across Culture Most research on attachment has been conducted in the US ○ Is secure attachment always the most common and ideal style? ○ Does secure attachment always foster independent explorations? ○ What about multiple caregivers and connection to family and community groups? Cultural variations in attachment styles are observed Secure attachment was the largest group in 79% of the 62 cultural groups (Schmitt et al., 2004) ○ Remaining 21% of the groups included Mexico, Brazil, Belgium, France, Latvia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Fiji, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and Japan PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 39 Practice Question 1 PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 40 Practice Question 2 PSY1PAC Lecture 4 Page 41 Week 5: Cognition and Thinking Style Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467- 473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004 (Prescribed) Cross, S. E., & Lam, B. C. P. (2017). Cultural models of self: East-west differences and beyond. In A. T. Church (Ed.), The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures (pp. 1-33). Praeger. (Recommended) References Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360 Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279-323. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000226 Benet, V., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven factor model of personality description: Evidence for its cross-cultural generality in a Spanish sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 701-708. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.701 Bleidorn, W., Klimstra, T. A., Denissen, J. J., Rentfrow, P. J., Potter, J., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Personality maturation around the world: A cross- cultural examination of social-investment theory. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2530-2540. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613498396 Cattell, R.B. (1946). The description and measurement of personality. World Book. Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Institute for Personality and Ability Testing. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese personality assessment inventory. Journal of Cross-cultural psychology, 27(2), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022196272003 Church, A. T., Reyes, J. A. S., Katigbak, M. S., & Grimm, S. D. (1997). Filipino personality structure and the Big Five model: A lexical approach. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 477-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00325.x Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, J. A. S. (1998). Further exploration of Filipino personality structure using the lexical approach: do the big‐five or big‐seven dimensions emerge? European Journal of Personality, 12(4), 249-269. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099- 0984(199807/08)12:4%3C249::AID-PER312%3E3.0.CO;2-T Church, A. T., Ortiz, F. A., Katigbak, M. S., Avdeyeva, T. V., Emerson, A. M., De Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., & Ibáñez Reyes, J. (2003). Measuring individual and cultural differences in implicit trait theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.332 References Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Del Prado, A. M., Ortiz, F. A., Mastor, K. A., Harumi, Y.,... & Cabrera, H. F. (2006). Implicit theories and self- perceptions of traitedness across cultures: Toward integration of cultural and trait psychology perspectives. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(6), 694-716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106292078 Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., Ortiz, F. A., Del Prado, A. M., De Jesús Vargas-Flores, J., Ibáñez-Reyes, J.,... & Cabrera, H. F. (2005). Investigating implicit trait theories across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 476-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275963 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo PI-R professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. Crede, M., Bashshur, M., & Niehorster, S. (2010). Reference group effects in the measurement of personality and attitudes. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 390-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497393 Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256=273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256 Eysenck, H. J. (1953). The structure of human personality. Methuen. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0 Gurven, M., Von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841 Han, Y., Sears, G. J., Darr, W. A., & Wang, Y. (2022). Facilitating cross-cultural adaptation: a meta-analytic review of dispositional predictors of expatriate adjustment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 53(9), 1054-1096. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221109559 Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19(4), 309-313. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02085.x References Hong, Y. Y., Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: a meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 77(3), 588-599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588 King, J. E., & Figueredo, A. J. (1997). The five-factor model plus dominance in chimpanzee personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(2), 257-271. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2179 La Rosa, J., & Diaz-Loving, R. (1991). Evaluación del autoconcepto: Una escala multidimencional. Revista latinoamericana de Psicología, 23(1), 15- 33. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). The Guilford Press. McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., & Personality Profiles of Cultures Project (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 547–561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547 Nel, J. A., Valchev, V. H., Rothmann, S., Van de Vijver, F. J., Meiring, D., & De Bruin, G. P. (2012). Exploring the personality structure in the 11 languages of South Africa. Journal of Personality, 80(4), 915-948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00751.x OECD (2020). Growth mindset, in PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/bd69f805-en. Oishi, S., & Roth, D. P. (2009). The role of self-reports in culture and personality research: It is too early to give up on self-reports. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 107-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.11.002 Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence and the five‐factor model. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00080 Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029263 References Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta- analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1 Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousis, I., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The factor structure of Greek personality adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 856-875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.856 Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I.,... & ZupanÈiÈ, A. (2004). Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are models of self and of other pancultural constructs?. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(4), 367- 402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022104266105 Seo, E., Lee, H. Y., Jamieson, J. P., Reis, H., Josephs, R. A., Beevers, C. G., & Yeager, D. S. (2022). Trait attributions and threat appraisals explain why an entity theory of personality predicts greater internalizing symptoms during adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 34(3), 1104– 1114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420001832 Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. Summit Books. Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adám, N., Adamovová, L., Ahn, C. K., Ahn, H. N., … McCrae, R. R. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117199 Zeinoun, P., Daouk-Öyry, L., Choueiri, L., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2017). A mixed-methods study of personality conceptions in the Levant: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 453-465. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000148