Individual And Cultural Differences

Front 1

Hofstede’s definition of culture:

Back 1

Collective programming of the mind

Front 2

Triandis definition of culture:

Back 2

Human made part of the environment

Discussed:
• Objective culture (objects)
• Subjective culture (Categories, norms, roles, values)

Front 3

Dahl, 2004 definition of culture:

Back 3

Behavioral patterns, values, or concepts

Front 4

Ethnocentrism

Back 4

Tendency to see one’s own culture as best

Front 5

What is the onion model of culture:

Back 5

Innermost later = values and assumptions
Outer layers: Behaviors, customs, rituals, language
Sometimes Nationalism is outermost layer

Front 6

Etic

Back 6

Insiders view. (Alan's interpretation)

Lett – focuses on intrinsic cultural distinctions that have meaning to the members of a given society.
Triandis – Culture specific elements

Front 7

Emic

Back 7

Outsiders view. (Alan's interpretation)

Lett- extrinsic concepts and categories that have meaning for scientific observers.
Triandis – universal elements.

Front 8

In Hall’s High and low context, High context situations:

Back 8

Little information is shared explicitly as more information is carried by the context.

Front 9

In Hall's High and low context, low context situations:

Back 9

More information is conveyed explicitly.

Front 10

in --Time sense: Polychronicity and monochronicity --

Monochronic cultures:

Back 10

Prefer doing one thing at a time until it is finished. Interruptions are viewed negatively. Preference for order and planning.

Front 11

Polychronic cultures:

Back 11

Individuals tend to be involved in many things at once. Time is viewed as continuous and without particular structure. Detailed planning isn’t valued.

Front 12

Which big 5 factors are related to polychronicity. What evidence do you have? What were the directions of these relationships

Back 12

From Conte & Jacobs, 2003 study of train operators in the USA.

Conscientiousness (negative) and extraversion (positive).

Front 13

What other factors were related to polychronicity (beyond personality factors)?

Back 13

Increased absence, lateness for work and poorer supervisory ratings.

Front 14

in Hofstede’s dimensional model:

Power Distance is

Back 14

Extent to which less powerful members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.

Emphasis is on the perception of the less powerful (They have pitchforks… Pokey pokey).

Front 15

Where does the US fall on power distance:

Back 15

Low on this dimension

Front 16

in Hofstede’s dimensional model

Individualism-Collectivism is explained how?

Back 16

Individualistic cultures have loose ties between individuals.

Collectivistic cultures show cohesive in-groups

Front 17

in Hofstede’s dimensional model

Masculanity-Femininity

Back 17

makes very little sense. I cry wompy.

Front 18

in Hofstede’s dimensional model

Uncertainty avoidance

Back 18

Society’s tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity. Uncertainty avoiding cultures will strive to minimize the possibility of uncertain situations by enacting laws, rules, safety measures, etc.

Front 19

in



Hofstede’s dimensional model

Long-term versus Short-term orientation (Confucian dynamism) introduced by:

Back 19

Bond in 1991

Front 20

in Hofstede's dimensional model

Long term orientation:

Back 20

fosters pragmatic virtues oriented towards future rewards

Front 21

in Hofstede's dimensional model

short term orientation:

Back 21

foster virtues related to the past and present
such as national pride, respect for tradition, preservation of "face", and fulfilling social obligations

Front 22

in Hofstede’s dimensional model

Indulgence versus restraint:

Back 22

stands for a society that allows relatively free
gratification of basic and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that suppresses gratification of
needs and regulates it by means of strict social norms.

This is the Starbucks dimension.

Front 23

In the GLOBE Project model

How are uncertainty avoidance and power distance different in the GLOBE model versus the Hofstede model.

Back 23

There is no difference

Front 24

In the GLOBE Project model. How is individualism-collectivism dimension different?

Back 24

GLOBE Considers two types of collectivism:

Societal collectivism: degree to which organizational and societal institutional practices encourage and reward collective
distribution of resources and collective action.

In-Group collectivism: degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, cohesiveness in their organizations or families.

Front 25

Which factors in GLOBE are closest to masculinity-femininity.

Back 25

Gender egalitarianism; assertiveness.

Front 26

What is Future orientation in GLOBE:

Back 26

degree that indivduals engage in future-oriented
behaviors such as delayed gratification. From Kluckhorn & Strodtbeck's work “More people should live for the present than for the future”

Front 27

In GLOBE, what is Performance orientation:

Back 27

degree to which performance is rewarded.

Front 28

in GLOBE, What is Humane organization:

Back 28

degree that being fair, altruistic, generous,
caring, etc. is rewarded.

Front 29

What is the correlation between Individualism-collectivism and power distance presented in Triandis?

Back 29

-0.70

Front 30

What is the difference between the terms “horizontal” and “vertical” presented in Triandis?

Back 30

Vertical = High power distance
Horizonal = Low power distance

Front 31

In Triandis’ 2x2 typology. How would Individuals from Horizontal-Individualist cultures see themselves:

Back 31

Sees self as independent, same (Unique)

Front 32

In Triandis’ 2x2 typology. How would Individuals from Horizontal-Collectivistic cultures see themselves:

Back 32

Sees self as interdependent, same (Cooperative)

Front 33

In Triandis’ 2x2 typology. How would Individuals from Vertical-Individualist cultures see themselves:

Back 33

Sees self as independent, different (Achievement
orientated)

Front 34

In Triandis’ 2x2 typology. How would Individuals from Vertical-Collectivistic cultures see themselves:

Back 34

Sees self as interdependent, different (Dutiful)

Front 35

Did Triandis believe that this 2x2 typology varied between-culture or between individuals.

Back 35

He believed it was an individual differences variable (So he probably believed that certain cultures trended a certain way, but that there was considerable within-culture variability).

Front 36

Which two factors did Triandis believe affected individualism-collectivism? Define them:

Back 36

Tightness versus looseness
In “tight” cultures, members: (1) agree on what is appropriate; (2) believe members must act according to cultural norms; and (3) are highly critical of deviations form the norm.

Cultural complexity versus simplicity
Simply the degree of complexity in a culture. For example, hunter-gatherer or agrarian cultures might have little specialization and relatively less complexity. A modern, industrialized
culture might have thousands of specialized occupations.

Front 37

True or false: It is correct to say that since the heritability of a personality trait is about .6, that means that 60% of your personality is inherited from your parents and 40% comes from the environment.

Back 37

False. Heritability refers to the proportion of variation between individuals in a population that is influenced by genetic factors. Heritability describes the population, not individuals within that population.

Front 38

What does Alan suggest is a better alternative for “Nature versus Nurture”:

Back 38

Obligate versus facultative

Front 39

Alan suggests a better alternative set of terms for “Nature versus Nurture”. Those being obligate versus facultative.

Why does he make this distinction and what does each term refer to:

Back 39

Even a highly genetically loaded trait (such as eye color) still assumes environmental input within normal limits (a certain range of temperature, oxygen in the atmosphere, etc.).

Obligate: under typical environmental ranges, what traits are more "obligate" (e.g., the nose -- everyone has a nose) --- or more --- "facultative": (sensitive to environmental variations, such as
specific language learned during infancy).

Front 40

(In behavioral genetics) Alan also talks about making a distinction between:

Back 40

Expressions that are byproducts of adaptations (The white color of bones) versus expressions that are due to random, non-adaptive, variation such as nose shape or size).

Front 41

Heritability estimate for intelligence?

Back 41

Over 50%

Front 42

Heritability estimate for personality according to Plomin and Caspi.

Back 42

Lower than 50% But still significant.
Plomin and Caspi (1991):

Extroversion:
Monozygotic: r=0.51
Dizygotic: r=0.18

Neuroticism:
Monozygotic: r=0.46
Dizygotic: r=0.20

Front 43

Other heritability estimates provided for big five factors in general?

Back 43

Other results for big five measures are around 40%

“20-45%” and “30-50%” according to one text (I bet it is Wikipedia!)

Front 44

DRD4 dopamine receptor and novelty seeking (Neuroticism? Or Extraversion and Conscientiousness?)

Back 44

I feel like this will be on the test and it makes little sense.

The effect size is tiny (1-6%) and so power is low and a significant relation was found in six of 11 studies.

Front 45

Is the effect for inheritance stronger or weaker as we age?

Back 45

Stronger. And I don’t remember why?

Front 46

True or false:

Prosocial behaviors seem to be inherited

Back 46

True

Front 47

True or False:

Antisocial behaviors seem to be inherited

Back 47

False

Front 48

When one talks about nurture or the Environment’s influence of traits/behaviors. To what is one referring?

Back 48

Environment includes all influences other than genetics:

o Natal environment
o Family environment
o Nutrition

Front 49

What if babies eat lead?

Back 49

They will stab Julius Caesar! Oh no!

Front 50

Plomin and Spinath, 2004 – reminder

Back 50

[][][] I don't have great notes on this. If anyone does, I will add it to this card [][][]

Front 51

What are ‘hot’ intelligences as defined by CP?

Back 51

recent theories that seek to expand the
construct of intelligence

Front 52

CPs argument for hot intelligences includes four major points. Name ‘em.

Back 52

• IQ is only one, and a limited, predictor of important life events
• Interpersonal skills and IQ are only loosely associated
• Interpersonal skills are more important than IQ
• Therefore, interpersonal skills should be viewed as a form of intelligence

Front 53

Thorndike conceptualized intelligence as having three facets. Name and define:

Back 53

• Abstract intelligence – the traditional type of intelligence measured by standardized IQ tests
• Mechanical intelligence – “the ability to visualize relationships among objects and understand how the physical world worked”
• Social intelligence - “the ability to function successfully in interpersonal situations" or "act wisely in human relations." (Or several other “getting along” style definitions)

Front 54

Why was this theory (Thorndike that is) so important even if he was unable to measure social intelligence well?

Back 54

Thorndike's theory is credited by some as starting the “great debate”
about singular or multiple intelligence.

Front 55

What were some of the critiques of Thorndikes’ social intelligence measures? (5 critiques)

Back 55

Measures were devised to measure only social intelligence, but they tended to be correlated with
Extraversion and IQ measures (particularly verbal intelligence measures).

The measures were also criticized as not being performance measures (i.e., they often resembled self-report personality tests).

Finally, different social intelligence measures were not highly correlated, suggesting that they measure different things.

Salovey & Mayer suggest that the definitions are overly broad.

More recently, (1980's) researchers have published some more supportive research but most differential psychologists (e.g., Lee Cronbach) are skeptical about social intelligence, separate from both personality and general intelligence.

Front 56

Alan makes a big point about summarizing the two major points/critiques about the measurement of social intelligence. What were these two major points which will almost assuredly show up on the exam in some form or fashion?

Back 56

1. Measuring SI; measures had poor reliability and (sometimes) validity
2. Poor divergence from either personality or traditional (cool/analytical)
intelligence

Front 57

Alan thinks that a lot of the recent work on Social Intelligence is quite similar to this modern construct:

Back 57

What is Emotional Intelligence? I dunno why I wrote this in Jeopardy format.

Front 58

What are the three components of Sternbergs Intelligence theory. Name and define?

Back 58

Sternberg's Triarchic Theory:
• Analytical
◦ Essentially what we measure as IQ traditionally
• Creative
◦ not measured by traditional psychometric tests
• Practical
◦ tacit knowledge - Polanyi, 1973
◦ also absolutely not measured by traditional psychometric tests
◦ Can people do things in one context and not in another?

Front 59

Sternberg argues vigorously that practical intelligence is important and
not measured by traditional psychometric tests. PI is (3 points):

Back 59

• procedural. It is “wedded to a particular use”
• relevant to the goals people want to attain
• not learned in formal

Front 60

What was Gottfredson’s position on practical intelligence (PI)?

Back 60

Gottfredson (2003) argues strongly against accepting PI as a new form of intelligence.

Front 61

What were Gottfredson’s arguments on Practical Intelligence?

Back 61

Sternberg et al make the “bold claim that there exists a general factor of practical intelligence that is distinct from ‘‘academic intelligence’’ (g) and which predicts future success as well as g, if
not better.”

• She then summarizes her criticism: “The evidence collapses, however, upon close examination. Their two key theoretical
propositions are made plausible only by ignoring the considerable evidence contradicting them. Their six key empirical claims rest primarily on the illusion of evidence, which is enhanced by the
selective reporting of results. Their small set of usually poorly documented studies on the correlates of tacit knowledge (the ‘‘important aspect of practical intelligence’’) in five occupations cannot, whatever the results, do what the work is said to have done
—dethroned g as the only highly general mental ability or intelligence.” (p. 343).

• In addition, one of her arguments is that traditional IQ tests must measure “street smarts” and other practical aspects of intelligence,
because traditional IQ tests predict the kinds of criteria Sternberg seeks to predict (life satisfaction, wealth, social standing, job performance, etc.).

• Gottfredson also dismisses PI as no more than task specific knowledge. Her model would predict that g influences the acquisition of task specific knowledge and also directly influences
task performance. Thus saving the centrality of g.

Front 62

Alan has four stated opinions on the Gottfredson-Sternberg debate:

Back 62

• I disagree that Sternberg and his colleagues are trying to dethrone g

• It seems to me as though Gottfredson is trying to “shut down” an interesting, but incomplete, research area before it becomes mature

• I agree with Sternberg that ample variance remains to be predicted, beyond IQ [although I don't believe that 100% of variance is a
realistic target/benchmark]

• I agree with Gottfredson that the empirical evidence for the construct of practical intelligence is sometimes thin and the theoretical definitions sometimes seem lacking; Is Conscientiousness part of PI? What about EI?

Front 63

Where might Sternberg's ideas related to tacit knowledge have come from?

From whence did his tacit knowledge theory come?

Who actually came up with this idea that Sternberg stole and took credit for? (now I'm being hyperbolic)

Back 63

Tacit knowledge was a concept popularized by the philosopher Polanyi (1973). He argued that much of what we know is “bound up” in the
tasks that we perform. Sternberg also cites Neisser's distinction between academic and practical tasks.

Front 64

Salovey & Mayer (1990) define emotional intelligence as:

Back 64

a subset of social intelligence: “a set of skills hypothesized to contribute to the
accurate appraisal and expression of emotion in oneself and in others, the effective regulation of emotion in oneself and in others, and the use
of feelings to motivate, plan, and
achieve in one's life.”

Front 65

Mayer, Roberts & Barsade (2008) argue that Emotional intelligence (EI) is:

Back 65

the ability to carry out accurate reasoning
focused on emotions and the ability
to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought.

Front 66

So, in 1990 Salovey & & Mayer think of three broad areas of emotionally intelligent thinking:

Back 66

• Appraisal and expression of emotion in self and others

• Regulation of emotions in self and others

• Utilization of emotion for planning, creativity, attention and motivation

Front 67

Daniel Goleman is generally credited with:

Back 67

popularizing emotional intelligence with his 1995 book.

Front 68

Goleman argues that social intelligence is:

Back 68

An aspect of emotional intelligence.

He describes emotional intelligence as having five facets:
• Knowing one's emotions
• Managing emotions
• Motivating oneself
• Recognizing emotions in others
• Handling relationships

Front 69

Who was Reuven Bar-On?

Back 69

• An early researcher who published the first widely available “test”
for emotional intelligence, the EQi.
• Said to have coined the term “EQ”

Front 70

• Bar-On's seemed to define emotional intelligence as:

Back 70

as “what leads to well-being,” (well-being was his area of research and his dissertation topic)

Front 71

Alan’s position on EI/EQ as a valid construct:

Back 71

My opinion: I have some skepticism that psychology as a science has “missed” an enormous predictor of life success. For many people, EI
seems like a re-hashing of Gardner's and Thorndike's unsupported claims. The way EI has been popularized, with apparently scant
evidence for many claims, has soured many researchers.

How did EQ elude the lexical hypothesis?

Front 72

Just like Thorndike's social intelligence, EI/EQ is also criticized because

Back 72

many (but not all) of the measures are self-report measures.

Front 73

the text raises the possibility of EI as a trait and as an ability. Although, if trait-based EI measures correlate with each other and not with ability-based measures, that may mean what?

Back 73

that may cast doubt on the construct validity of these measures or the legitimacy of EI as a construct (and I think that is the typical case). OTOH, we don't know why this occurs, although this occurs less with abilities (self-reported ability and measured ability have a modest positive correlation which is greater than the very low
correlations between trait- and ability-based EI measures).

Front 74

What is the general correlation (as presented by Alan) between self-reported ability and measured ability?

Also, what is the relationship between Trait and ability based EI measures?

Back 74

Self-reported ability and measured ability have a modest positive correlation which is greater than the very low correlations between trait- and ability-based EI measures).

Front 75

Alan also makes an argument about the relationship between g and EQ:

Back 75

Finally, why are theoretical descriptions of SI and EI focused on this being a completely separate human characteristic? Why can't g be the
engine that people use to solve problems but there be individual differences in how emotionally-aware we are? Or, rather, why divorce emotional problem solving from all other kinds? This is similar to Wechsler's hypothesis that social intelligence is just a facet of general
intelligence.

Front 76

Neisser (1976) distinguished academic vs. practical; academic tasks have these unique aspects:

Back 76

■ were formulated by other people
■ engender little or no intrinsic interest
■ provide all information needed to solve the problem
■ are disconnected from a person's ordinary experience
■ employ well-defined tasks
■ generally have one correct answer
■ often have just one way of generating the correct answer

Front 77

Work problems are often:

Back 77

■ unformulated or in need of clarification
■ of personal interest
■ lack needed information (which must be acquired)
■ connected to and related to everyday experience
■ poorly defined
■ characterized by many “correct” decisions
■ characterized by many ways of reaching a “correct” decision

Front 78

Chamorro-Premuzic provides four reasons to study moods:

Back 78

o Mood states are related to personality traits (e.g., neuroticism is related to experiencing negative moods and etraversion to positive
moods; but does this work for conscientiousness, openness and agreeableness?)

o Mood states influence behavior and the measurement of traits (e.g.,
test anxiety affecting intelligence test scores)

o Mood is often used in diagnosing pathology (e.g., feeling elated after being fired)

o CP says mood is important to understand creativity

Front 79

How many factors are typically endorsed when discussing the structure of ‘mood’?

Back 79

Most discussions of mood suggest a two factor model (e.g., PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988):

Front 80

What are the common mood factors

Back 80

Positive and negative affect

Front 81

Alan feels that:

Disposition towards negative affect has overlap with which big five factor?

Back 81

Neuroticism

Front 82

Alan feels that:

◦ Disposition towards positive affect has overlap with which big five factor?

Back 82

Extraversion

Front 83

Chamorro-Premuzic characterizes motivation in a number of ways.. an internal “state” that: (4 points)

Back 83

• Drives people into action
• Energizes, directs and perpetuates behavior
• Is directed towards a goal or the satisfaction of a desire/need/drive
• Is not a trait

Front 84

CP defines motivation as:

Back 84

“Motivation is an internal [dynamic state]” that
“propels action, directs behavior, and is oriented towards satisfying ... [needs and goals].”

Front 85

Explain arousal theory. (3 broad points)

Back 85

• Behavior is explained through “arousal”
◦ Energetic, vigor vs. tiredness
◦ Tension, anxiety vs. calmness
◦ Hendonic tone, happy vs. sad

• Behavior is curvilinearly related to arousal (a moderate amount is best)

• Optimal arousal is negatively correlated with task difficulty, low arousal is
best for difficult tasks [draw picture]

Front 86

V-I-E Expectancy theory (4 points)

Back 86

• Valence – attractiveness of the outcome of work
• Instrumentality – belief that work is necessary to achieving the outcome
• Expectation – faith that the outcome will be attained if effort is made
• work = V x I x E; therefore, work will be maximal when the goal has high
valence, the work is seen as necessary and sufficient for achieving the goal

Front 87

ERG Theory (3 points)

Back 87

◦ Existence, Relatedness, Growth
◦ Frustration regression – A person who fails to grow may fixate on a
lower level
◦ Also largely untested

Front 88

Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory

Back 88

◦ Herzberg found that job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction were
orthogonal
◦ Hygiene factors (e.g. status, job security, salary and fringe benefits)
which, when present, avoid dissatisfaction
◦ Motivators (e.g. challenging work, recognition, responsibility) provide Satisfaction

Front 89

McClelland's Acquired needs theory

Back 89

Need for achievement (nAch)
◦ Need for affiliation (nAff)
◦ Need for power (nPow)
◦ AFAIK, BTW, these are actually created by Henry Murray in the 1930's
(who also invented the TAT)
◦ So, nAch is a facet of conscientiousness? If so, does conscientiusness =
motivation? Or is this more of the trait → mediator → state process
that is discussed at the end of the chapter?

Front 90

Equity theory

Back 90

• Examine the ratio of inputs and outputs of self and other.
• Perceived equality will be motivating
• Perceived inequality will result in demotivation
◦ Reduced effort (input)
◦ Reduced outcomes (output)
◦ Distorted perceptions (fooling one's self)
◦ Turnover
• Second process is expectancy (input -> output relationship)

Front 91

Goal-setting theory

Back 91

People perform best (maximize intensity and duration of performance) when they
adopt a goal which is specific and moderately difficult.

Front 92

Why do goals work?

Back 92

• Goals serve to direct
• Goals provide feedback
• Goals affect persistence
• Goals have beneficial indirect effects

Front 93

Well defined moderators (related to goals)

Back 93

Adoption: Goals work best when they are adopted. Two factors affect adoption, (1) the importance of the goal and (2) self-efficacy.

Feedback. People need feedback in order to improve performance.
Research has shown that given lots of feedback (on different dimensions)
research participants use the feedback that is relevant to goals and ignore other feedback.

Task complexity; very complex tasks that begin to push the envelope of what people are capable of doing make goals less effective.

Front 94

Practical suggestions for setting personal goals

Back 94

• Make the goal specific (“I will get an A on the next exam” is better than “I will do better in class.”)
• Make your goals moderately difficult. Empirically, you will be most energized by goals that can be met but which are a stretch.
• Commitment-building
◦ Own your goals. You will have lukewarm results if you do not “own” the goals (which might come from a parent, etc.)
◦ Publicly commit to your goals (in a way that you can live with).
◦ Make sub-goals. You should always know what you need to do next.
◦ Chart your progress towards your goal.
◦ Prepare for failure. No one if perfect. If perfection is a necessary precondition for success no one would be successful. Mentally prepare yourself for the inevitable failures and promise yourself that you will get back on track.
◦ Ignore your doubts. Be unreasonably resolute in pursuing your goals.
• Focus. One study (Lee, Sheldon & Turban, 2003) of 284 college students found that mental focus was the number one personality predictor of goal success.

Front 95

3 possible definitions for creativity?

Back 95

Creativity is hard to define. It can mean:
• A characteristic of a person
• A process that all individuals use (to varying degrees?)
• Creative behavior

Front 96

Differential approaches (from Rhodes) conceptualizes creativity thus:

Back 96

• The trait perspective; creativity is a trait that exists in varying degrees in a population

• The process perspective; creativity is a process that is used to varying degrees by all people

• The behavioral perspective; creativity is a behavior and so creative outcomes are studied (usually in creative groups, like artists)

• The press approach; creativity is driven by the context

Front 97

Most empirical investigations find what relationship between intelligence and creativity?

Back 97

Most empirical investigations find modest positive correlations between intelligence and creativity;

Front 98

Related to creativity, Epstein made two major claims. What were they?

Back 98

Few people claim to be creative

Creativity builds upon crystallized intelligence.

Front 99

What did Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad (2008) do?
What did they find?

Back 99

Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad (2008) meta-analyzed research on mood and creative performance. They conclude that “activating” mood states (happiness, anger) produce greater creative performance than deactivating mood states (contentment, sadness).

◦ However, the positive/negative direction of the affect did not matter.

◦ Also, the correlations were weak (mostly < 0.20).

Front 100

Some researchers have examined psychopathic sources for creativity; results have been:

Back 100

Some researchers have examined psychopathic sources for creativity; results have been mixed although, in comparing different professions,
psychoticism is elevated in “creative” professions. (I think any theory that supposes that “normal” creativity is caused by “abnormal” psychology is
unlikely to find a relationship due to a base-rate problem.)

Front 101

What is the strongest big five predictor of creativity?

Back 101

In the Big Five, Openness is the strongest correlate of creativity

Front 102

What other big five factors seem to be related to creativity. Provide direction.

Back 102

Also, Extraversion and Neuroticism and low Conscientiousness and low Agreeablessness (in that order)

Front 103

What other individual difference factor seems to be related to creativity (Aside from personality factors)?

Back 103

Intelligence

Front 104

Measuring Creativity. He mentions three measures.

Back 104

Alternate Uses Test (Name as many things as possible that you can do with
a brick)

Remote Associations test (30-item multiple-choice test, with right and wrong answers!)

Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) “divergent production of semantic units” based on “picture-based and word-based exercises”

Front 105

Chamorro-Premuzic presents a strong argument that vocational interests are

Back 105

>>enduring<< and concludes that they are >>dispositional<<

Front 106

Gottfredson's work seems to focus on Vocational Interest tends to focus on

Back 106

non-dispositional factors

Front 107

Lent (2001 as cited by Chamorro-Premuzic) suggests three goals for vocational theories:

Back 107

1. Explain career choice
2. Help practitioners help clients make “good” choices
3. Encompass a wide variety of clients

Front 108

C-P lists these reasons for gender differences in vocation interest:

Back 108

• Genuine differences in ability
• Beliefs about differences in ability
• Others' beliefs about differences in ability (parents, friends,
society)
• Enjoyment of the job
• Actual alternatives
• Perceived alternatives

Front 109

What is the person-environment fit model?

Back 109

All of the theories we will discuss assume that people can fit better or
worse with their environment and that a better fit is generally to be
desired. That is, a person who wished to perform a given type of work,
but who chose a different line (perhaps for higher pay) might well be
less satisfied and feel unfulfilled

Front 110

What was Furnham’s (2005; as cited by Chamorro-Premuzic) contribution?

Stated differently, Furnham found that extroverts preferred:

Back 110

For example, Furnham (2005; cited in Chamorro-Premuzic) found that extraverts preferred an open office, while introverts disliked this type of layout. These differences were interpreted in terms of their relative desire for interaction and sense of belonging.

Front 111

Fine's (1955) Data-People-Things

Back 111

Fine argued that three broad dimensions underlay different jobs, Data, People and Things (DPT). In use, a given job could be low, average, or high on these three dimensions. Note that this is a theory about jobs, not really about people. But, add the assumption that people also have preferences along these lines, and you have a psychology of work theory based on a fairly simple model. This model was used to create the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), among other uses.

Front 112

In Fine's (1955) Data-People-Things, DATA refers to tasks which tend to involve the following types of tasks:

Back 112

Data
Compare prices in a storage or catalog and make purchases.
Research a topic in the library; organize and write a report.
Work with statistics to do a study.
Keep financial records and files.

Front 113

In Fine's (1955) Data-People-Things, PEOPLE refers to tasks which tend to involve the following types of tasks:

Back 113

People
Guide and advise people like a lawyer or minister.
Work with a committee to decide on a new city program or solve a labor dispute.
Supervise a group of people in an office. Influence someone to buy a new appliance or real estate.

Front 114

In Fine's (1955) Data-People-Things, THINGS refers to tasks which tend to involve the following types of tasks:

Back 114

Things
Follow plans to make things like houses, books, or jewelry. Treat or care for animals. Fix computer equipment or medical testing machines.
Invent a new machine or design a house.

Front 115

Holland (1966) expressed four premises of his
“RIASEC” model:

Back 115

• In our culture, persons can be categorized
as one of the following: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising or Conventional.

• There are six kinds of environments: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising and conventional.

• People search for environments and vocations that will permit them to exercise their skills and abilities, express their attitudes and values, to take on agreeable problems and roles, and to avoid disagreeable ones.

• A person's behavior can be explained by the interaction of his personality pattern and his environment.

Front 116

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Realistic?

Back 116

Physical, practical, hands-on, tool-oriented

Front 117

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Investigative?

Back 117

Analytical, intellectual, scientific, explorative

Front 118

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Artistic?

Back 118

Creative, original, independent, chaotic

Front 119

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Social?

Back 119

Cooperative, supporting, helping, healing/nurturing

Front 120

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Enterprising?

Back 120

Competitive environments, leadership, persuading

Front 121

In the RIASEC model, what is meant by Conventional?

Back 121

Detail-oriented, organizing, clerical

Front 122

How did Holland view/interpret his model?

Back 122

Holland definitely saw his model as a personality model, although it was assessed quite differently (mainly by questions about interests)

Front 123

What do we mean when we say the RIASEC is a circumplex model?

Back 123

• The RIASEC is a “circumplex” model, Realistic is closer to C & I than to A & E with S being “furtherest”. Tracey & Rounds (1992) provided support for this circumplex structure.

Front 124

What was the fore-runner to the RIASEC

Back 124

• Holland (1966) refers to a 1954 factor-analytic study of interests by Guilford, Christensen, Bond and Sutton as having been “the most explicit fore-runner” of the RIASEC theory

Front 125

What are some of the critiques of the RIASEC?

Back 125

• Holland's model has been criticized for gender equity reasons (Holland himself admits in the 1966 book that the theory is based almost entirely on data from studies of men). Women disproportionately choose jobs like social and conventional.

• Some jobs fit poorly into this, such as professional athlete, airline pilot, army officer, or police officer. These are all generally grouped as Realistic, but some people split them int an “Adventuring” type.

• Holland's model ignores other aspects of a person, like their intelligence, and other aspects of the P-E fit, like the salary of a job

Front 126

There is some evidence for some convergence between the big five and the RIASEC but the correlations are:

Back 126

There is some evidence for some convergence between the big five and the RIASEC but the correlations are fairly modest. In comparison, gender differences are fairly large.

Front 127

Prediger's three factor model

Back 127

Building on the work of Fine and Holland, Prediger proposed a threefactor model (actually, two main factors and a nuisance factor; see figure 12.4 in the readings) as accounting for the six Holland types. There is evidence for this simplification and against it. It probably depends on the level of complexity for a given use.

Front 128

O*NET

Back 128

is an on-going service of the US
Department of Labor.

o Based on large-scale data collection by the DOL

o It is on-line and supersedes the older Dictionary of
Occupational Terms (DOT).

Front 129

O*NET criticisms?

Back 129

the DOT had over 13,000 jobs, O*NET features a large
number of occupations (which are really job families).

As such, O*NET fails to provide job-specific data expressed at the appropriate level of detail. Also, the job analysis scales used for O*NET are not as specific as those used for the DOT.

As a result, many feel that the O*NET data in less defensible. Also, the Strength ratings ("sedentary", "light", "medium", "heavy", and "very heavy") have been changed.

o I/O psychologists and HR staff are cautioned that “when considering using O*NET information for selection purposes, the responsible party must keep in mind that O*NET occupations are broad categories and should not be assumed to represent a particular job in a particular setting.”

o The DOT was simpler for some people

o In particular, the Data-People-Things model was much simpler than the O*NET content model

Front 130

Gottfredson believed that two processes shape our choices

Back 130

Circumscription:
• The process of focusing on what we believe are acceptable career alternatives

Compromise:
• The process by which people give up their most preferred careers if they are perceived as inappropriate or unobtainable •
“Individuals will opt for work in a different field within their social space rather than compromise either prestige or sextype of work”
• People will take lower level work rather than seek jobs that conflict with their gender self-concept, because the latter is more central to the self-concept.
• Accessibility to career choices is limited by, labor market conditions, availability and cost of training, etc.
• Individuals increase the accessibility of their preferred options when they seek information more widely and in a timely manner, are more persistent and optimistic, and take steps to increase their competitiveness for available opportunities.

Front 131

• Stages of circumspection:

Back 131

◦ Orientation to size and power; ages 3-5
◦ Orientation to sex roles; ages 6-8
◦ Orientation to social valuation; ages 9-13
◦ Orientation to the internal, unique self; ages > 13

Front 132

Gottfredson herself writes that “Vocational interests represent

Back 132

constellations of genetically-influenced personality traits and abilities”

Front 133

Gottfredson sees that the role of counselors

Back 133

Is to “prevent or reverse inappropriate circumscription by promoting self-insight: specifically, by helping young people to inventory and integrate relevant information about themselves, and to promote a sound conception of which career lives would best fit and satisfy that developing self.” And

To • “[Promote]self-agency in improving their own opportunities, qualifications, and support network”

Front 134

How does Triandis define cultural syndromes?

Back 134

dimensions of cultural variation that can be used as parameters of psychological theories.

Front 135

As described in Triandis (1996), What is tightness?

Back 135

The degree to which minor deviations from norms are criticized and punished.

And/Or

The degree of variation that is necessary to elicit criticism and punishment from within a society.

Front 136

As described in Triandis (1996), What is Cultural Complexity?

Back 136

The number of different cultural elements, such as role definitions.

Cultural complexity increases as the size of settlements increases.

Cultures also differ with respect to: Religious, economic, political, educational, societal, and aesthetic standards.

Front 137

As described in Triandis (1996), What are some examples of both active and passive elements?

Back 137

Active:

Competition
Action
self-fulfillment

Passive

Reflective thought
leave the initiation to others
cooperation

Front 138

As described in Triandis (1996), What is Honor?

Back 138

It includes beliefs, attitudes, norms, values that favor the use of aggression for self-protection, to defend one's honor.

Children are socialized to react when challenged.

Includes hypersensitivity to affronts.

Front 139

As described in Triandis (1996), What is Collectivism?

Back 139

the degree to which the self is defined as an aspect of a collective. Personal goals are subordinate to the goals of the collective.

Front 140

As described in Triandis (1996), What is Individualism?

Back 140

The self is defined as independent and autonomous from collectives. Personal goals are given priority over the goals of collectives.