Personality Psychology Midterm PDF

chapter 1 - Definition of Personality: - A set of psychological traits and mechanisms within an individual. - Organized and relatively enduring, influencing interactions and adaptations to the environment (intrapsychic, physical, and social). -...

chapter 1 - Definition of Personality: - A set of psychological traits and mechanisms within an individual. - Organized and relatively enduring, influencing interactions and adaptations to the environment (intrapsychic, physical, and social). - Psychological Traits: - Represent average tendencies or characteristics differentiating individuals. - Example: - Sofia: Highly sociable, very extraverted. - Eric: Incredibly shy, more introverted. - Characteristics of Personality: - Organized and Enduring: - Unified group of constructs that define an individual’s personality. - Consistency: - Remains stable throughout the lifespan and across various situations. - Goal of Personality Psychology: - Aim to explain every individual from the inside out. - Uncover both conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings that drive behaviour. - Utilize individual differences to predict future behaviour. - Key Concepts: - Traits: Fundamental qualities that shape how individuals interact with their environment. - Mechanisms: Processes that underlie behavioural traits and responses. - Interaction with Environment: Personality influences how individuals react to and adapt within multiple contexts. - Importance: - Understanding personality aids in comprehending the complex nature of human behaviour.  - Provides insight into the predictability of actions based on established traits and psychological frameworks. chapter 2 Types of Reliability: 1. Inter-Item Reliability (Internal Consistency): ○ Evaluates if all items on a questionnaire measure the same underlying construct. ○ More specific questionnaires exhibit higher internal consistency. ○ Example: A scale measuring jealousy alone has higher internal consistency than one measuring both jealousy and anger. 2. Test-Retest Reliability: ○ Assesses whether a measure yields the same scores over time. ○ Example: Measuring an individual’s level of extroversion today and the score remaining consistent a month later. ○ Notable Aspect: The longer the interval between measurements, the lower the expected reliability. ○ Example: Extroversion is unlikely to change within a month but may fluctuate over a span of 20 years. 3. Inter-Rater Reliability: ○ Low inter-rater reliability occurs when: The test is challenging to use. Scoring lacks subjectivity or standardization. The individual administering the test is untrained. Validity Definition: The degree to which a test measures what it is intended to measure. A test must be reliable to be valid. Example: If individuals receive varying scores upon multiple tests, the measure cannot accurately reflect a consistent attribute. Types of Validity:  1. Face Validity: ○ The questionnaire appears to measure what it claims to measure. 2. Predictive/Criterion Validity: ○ The ability of a test to predict real-world outcomes. 3. Convergent Validity: ○ The test correlates with other similar measures. 4. Discriminant Validity: ○ The test does not correlate with unrelated measures. 5. Construct Validity: ○ Evaluates whether the scale truly measures the intended construct, incorporating high predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity. Research Designs in Personality Psychology 1. Experimental Designs: ○ Aim to determine causality. ○ Investigate whether variable A affects variable B. ○ Requires manipulation of one or more variables. ○ Example: Assessing if introverted individuals experience heightened anxiety in crowded environments. Participants’ levels of introversion and anxiety measured in a lab. Half experience a crowded room; the other half, a sparsely populated room. Anxiety levels are reassessed after 10 minutes to analyze any changes. 2. Requirements for Experimental Designs ○ Manipulation of 1+ Variables: Essential for establishing cause-and-effect relationships. ○ Ensuring Equivalence Across Conditions at Baseline: Crucial for valid comparisons (e.g., balancing gender representation like male and female). 3. Techniques to Ensure Equivalence Across Conditions: ○ Random Assignment: Participants are randomly assigned to either Condition A or Condition B.  Utilization of a random number generator ensures average baseline variables (e.g., anxiety levels) are similar across conditions. Between-Subject Design: Each participant experiences only one condition in the study. ○ Counterbalancing: Alters the order in which participants engage with different conditions. Example: Jim participates in the crowded room condition first, while Julia experiences the sparse room condition first (and vice versa during follow-up). This technique helps mitigate potential order effects by varying the sequence of conditions. Within-Subject Design: Each participant experiences all versions of the manipulation. 4. Correlational Designs: ○ Focus on examining the relationship between 2+ pre-existing variables. ○ Participants complete questionnaires to explore associations between different measures (e.g., personality scales). ○ Investigates if Variable A has a relationship with Variable B. 5. Types of Relationships: ○ Negative Relationship: One variable increases while the other decreases (e.g., increased alcohol consumption negatively impacts exam grades). ○ Zero Relationship: Change in one variable does not affect the other (e.g., shoe size does not predict GPA). ○ Positive Relationship: Both variables increase or decrease together (e.g., class attendance positively correlates with GPA). 6. Correlation Coefficient (r Value):  ○ Assess the strength and direction of the relationship (positive or negative). ○ Interpretation of r values: 0.00 to 0.10: No relationship 0.10 to 0.30: Weak relationship 0.30 to 0.50: Moderate relationship 0.50+: Strong relationship ○ Values close to 0 indicate no correlation between constructs. chapter 3 Personality Traits: ○ Defined as relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish individuals from one another. Two Ways to Describe Traits: ○ Traits as Causes of Behavior: Suggest that personality traits drive actions (e.g., extraversion leads to attending parties). Traits are considered internal factors; individuals carry their desires, needs, and wants across different situations. Behaviors may not always be expressed (e.g., loud at parties but quiet in class). Critique: This perspective does not account for external influences affecting behavior (e.g., Joan attends parties potentially due to peer pressure rather than her extraverted nature). ○ Traits as Descriptive Attributes: Focus on identifying and describing individual differences without assuming causality. Acknowledge that individuals can display moderate levels of traits (e.g., someone may exhibit some degree of extraversion without it predicting all their behaviors). Traits are viewed as continuous dimensions ranging from extroverted to introverted.  Descriptive Summaries: ○ Traits categorize behaviors into groups. ○ Limitations of this approach: It does not consider the context in which behaviors occur. Fails to specify the extent of behaviors relevant to trait descriptions. Example: An individual may exhibit dominance at work due to their position but may not demonstrate the same behavior at home. Act Frequency Program: ○ A method to identify behaviors reflective of specific traits through three steps: Act Nominations: Identifying which behaviors belong to each trait category. Prototypicality Judgments: Determining which behaviors are most central to a trait (e.g., choosing movies may be less prototypical of dominancecompared to leading a group). Recording Act Performance: Assessing actual behaviors and performances to evaluate the frequency of traits in action. This helps to establish whether specific behaviors correlate with defined personality traits. 5 Taxonomies of Personality Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor System ○ Objective: Identify and measure the basic units of personality. ○ Methodology: Utilized a statistical approach known as factor analysis on self-descriptive adjectives compiled by Allport. ○ Criticism: Some researchers have struggled to replicate all 16 factors; however, a smaller number of factors may still effectively capture significant individual differences. Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality  ○ Dimensions: Describes behavior using 3 bipolar dimensions: Extraversion - Introversion (E): Relates to the central nervous system; reflects activity levels (high vs. moderate). Neuroticism - Emotional Stability (N): Connects with the autonomic nervous system; contrasts anxious vs. rational behaviors. Psychoticism - Superego Function §: Linked to testosterone/antisocial behavior; ranges from lack of empathy to altruism. ○ Genetic Component: All three dimensions exhibit moderate heritability. ○ Physiological Basis: Each dimension correlates with identifiable physiological substrates. Circumplex Taxonomies of Personality ○ Focus: Interpersonal traits and how individuals interact. ○ Key Traits: Explores dominance and warmth; e.g. High dominance and high warmth indicate a gregarious personality. ○ Trait Relationships: Orthogonality: Dominance and warmth are not correlated; scoring high on one does not affect the other. Bipolarity: Each score has an opposite score. Adjacency: Similar traits are positively correlated. 5 Factor Model ○ Components:  Extraversion - Introversion Agreeableness - Antagonism Conscientiousness - Lack of Direction Neuroticism - Emotional Instability/Stability Openness - Closed to Experience HEXACO Model ○ Traits: Honesty - Humility: Reflects pro-social and altruistic behaviors. Emotional Control: Variance between sensitivity and independence. Agreeableness: Pertains to interpersonal harmony. Altruism and Antagonism: Balances selflessness and competitiveness. Extraversion: Involves social endeavors. Conscientiousness: Relates to task-oriented activities. Openness to Experience: Associated with idea-related pursuits. ○ Relation to 5 Factor Model: Shares similarities and links to activity levels; individuals high on all traits tend to be more active, and vice versa. chapter 4 Measurement Issues: ○ Carelessness: Lack of attention or motivation affecting responses. ○ Unmotivated Respondents: Participants may rush or give the same answers. ○ Tired Participants: Fatigue can lead to unreliable responses. Solutions: ○ Infrequency Scale: Identifies carelessness by analyzing atypical responses.  Example: A participant claiming “I do not believe that wood burns” on a scale of 1-10 indicates potential carelessness. Faking on Questionnaires: ○ Motivated Distortion of Answers: Fake Good: Respondents may present themselves as better off to meet certain expectations (e.g., securing a job). Fake Bad: Some may report worse conditions (e.g., workers suing a company may exaggerate their well-being). Barnum Statements: ○ General statements that can apply to anyone, reducing the specificity of results. Integrity Testing: ○ Historically relied on polygraphs (lie detectors). Assumes a Pinocchio Response: Physical reactions indicate lying. Measures autonomic activity: blood pressure, breathing, skin conductance. ○ Issues include False Positives and False Negatives. ○ Self-Report: Participants self-assess attitudes towards problematic behaviors, such as theft. Reliability and validity are critical factors. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): ○ Classifies individuals into one of 16 personality types, purportedly predicting leadership styles. ○ Assessment involves a questionnaire determining: E or I: Extroversion vs. Introversion S or N: Sensing vs. Intuition T or F: Thinking vs. Feeling J or P: Judging vs. Perceiving ○ Examples of types include ISTP, ENFJ, INFP, etc. (16 total types). ○ Example: EFTP type likely to take charge. Issues with MBTI: ○ Theoretical foundation has poor support. ○ Cut-off Scores: Forced categorization can misrepresent individuals. ○ Bimodal Distribution: Dichotomous assignments (E or I) limit nuance. ○ Low Test-Retest Reliability: Changes in one of the four letters over time. ○ Little Evidence of Validity: Concerns over the accuracy of predictions related to personality and behavior.