Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
75 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Psychological triad
|
behavior, thoughts, feelings
|
|
|
Construct
|
An abstract concept that cannot be directly observed but can be used to understand a series of related phenomena.
|
|
|
The role of theories is to
|
organize and
guide to help understand complex structures |
|
|
A good theory is
|
Comprehensive
Heuristically valuable Falsifiable Compatible Parsimonious/Simple |
|
|
Self-verification
|
working hard to make sure others treat you in a way that confirms your self-conception
|
|
|
face validity
|
intended to measure what they seem to measure
|
|
|
Advantages of S-Data
|
definitional truth, face validity, unlimited, easy, cheap, efficient, internal states, large amount of info.
|
|
|
Disadvantages of S-Data
|
response distortion (being unwilling or unable to answer)
intentional(defensiveness/social desirability, manipulation,concealment) unintentional (memory failure, repression, blind spots/lack of insight, data overload) |
|
|
fish and water effect
|
not truly recognizing your own behavior because you’re so used to it
|
|
|
Expectancy effect/behavioral confirmation
|
people become what others expect them to be
|
|
|
Advantages of I-Data
|
multiple sources, variety of contexts, no self report bias, access to info not otherwise available (ex. temperament), real world basis, average of several judgments
|
|
|
Disadvantages of I-Data
|
inherently judgmental and subjective,limited situations, no internal states, quality of judgement (random errors like remembering most extreme behavior or systematic bias)
|
|
|
Advantages of L-Data
|
real life, specific, objective, verifiable, relevant
|
|
|
Disadvantages of L-Data
|
multi-determinations (difficult to link to specific personality trait), limited quantity, limited type
|
|
|
Different types of B-Data
|
experimental, naturalistic, physiological, some types of psych. tests (TAT, Rorschach)
|
|
|
Different B-Data settings
|
naturalistic vs artificial
B-data in lab: experiments, MMPI, physiological measures |
|
|
Different B-Data reporters
|
professional, lay, self
|
|
|
Advantages of B-Data
|
multiple comparisons, objective scoring, increased stimulus control
|
|
|
Disadvantages of B-Data
|
behavior-personality relationships, demand characteristics-subtle cue of experimenter's expectations, researcher influence, faulty assumptions, needs interpretation
|
|
|
Psychometrics
|
The scientific evaluation of psychological assessment/measurement techniques, tools, and instruments
|
|
|
Evaluate a psychological assessment based on these properties
|
standardization, reliability, validity, generalizability
|
|
|
Standardization
|
Personality tests should have uniform instructions, procedures, materials/stimuli, and scoring
|
|
|
Reliability
|
degree to which an instrument takes consistent measurements: over time, across judges, across instruments, across individual measurements
|
|
|
Validity
|
Degree to which an instrument takes accurate measurements: construct validity. Reliability necessary for validity.
|
|
|
Generalizability
|
The degree to which a measurement can be found under diverse circumstances such as time, context, participant population, etc. Combination of reliability and validity.
|
|
|
Response Bias
|
provision of info in a manner discrepant with the given instuctions. 2 broad types.
|
|
|
Non-content based response bias
|
completed questionnaire but can't read, random responding
|
|
|
Content-based response bias
|
overreporting/exaggerating and underreporting/defensiveness
|
|
|
state
|
temporary
|
|
|
trait
|
more stable
|
|
|
Things that undermine reliability
|
low precision, the state of the participant, the state of the experimenter, the environment in which the study is done
|
|
|
Things that enhance reliability
|
proofread, standardization, measure something important to participants, aggregation
|
|
|
Aggregation
|
Averaging. The Spearman-Brown formula: the more error-filled your measurements are, the more of them you need
|
|
|
Cohort Effects
|
tendency for group of people living at a particular time to be unique
|
|
|
Advantages of Case Studies
|
+: lots of info, variety of info,early insight, rare phenomena, ecologically valid, great for illustrating constructs
|
|
|
Disadvantages of case Studies
|
poor generalizability, can't test causality
|
|
|
Advantages of Correlational Studies (whether or not variables are related/covary
|
easy to examine a wide range and large # of variables, decreased methodological concerns, fewer ethical constraints, often less resource intensive, ecological validity possible
|
|
|
Disadvantages of Corr. Studies
|
no causal claims possible, illusory correlations, 3rd variable problem or both variables cause each other
|
|
|
Experiments
|
How change in A impacts a change in B. Requires (1)manipulation of a variable (2) control of all non-manipulated variables
|
|
|
Adv. of Experiments
|
examines causality, controls unwanted sources of variability
|
|
|
Disadv. of Experiments
|
no ecological validity, resource intensive, many methodological constraints, numerous ethical concerns, never sure exactly what was manipulated
|
|
|
Brunswick's representative Design
|
sample all domains to which you want to generalize
|
|
|
Determining which research method to use
|
What question do I want to answer? How could i answer this question? What is ethical for me to do?
|
|
|
Significance testing
|
how probable the results are/the phenomenon exists, Null hypothesis testing. Experiments
|
|
|
Type 1 error
|
seeing a relationship where there is none. Addressed by p-level
|
|
|
Type 2 error
|
missing a relationship where there is one. not addressed by p-level
|
|
|
Effect size
|
magnitude of the result, correlational studies/correlation co.
|
|
|
Binomial Effect Size Display
|
method for evaluating the size of correlations to help understand the strength and/or usefulness of result
|
|
|
Features of Allport's Trait Theory
|
Traits are not merely descriptive, more than habit, causal influence on behavior, can be studied empirically, only relatively independent of each other, not evaluative (unlike Saucier), nomothetic or idiographic, behavioral inconsistency does not disprove traits
|
|
|
Nomothetic Traits
|
any characteristic that is universial (or nearly universal) such that it is present in every person to a greater or lesser extent. Quantitative
|
|
|
Idiographic traits
|
xists solely in the individual. No other person has the same trait
|
|
|
Cardinal disposition
|
most salient trait
|
|
|
central disposition
|
Big 5, domain traits, broad band traits
|
|
|
Secondary dispositions
|
facet traits, narrow band, only present in some situations, more specific
|
|
|
Rank order stability
|
in comparison to others, your relative standing on a trait is unchanged
|
|
|
Mean level
|
do group averages of a trait change systematically over time?
|
|
|
Individual differences
|
how have I changed over time in comparison with myself?
|
|
|
structural consistency
|
does the hierarchy of personality remain consistent over time? whether or not the same components make up a trait at time 'X' as did at time 'A.' For example, imagine that we collect some data on introversion in 10 year-olds and using factor analysis determine it is comprised of shyness, low threshold for arousability, and preference for solitary activities. If we collect data from the same participants when they are 18 and find the same three component traits, then we can say that introversion has strong structural consistency.
|
|
|
Factor Analysis
|
a statistical procedure that clusters like things together into groups based on shared variance. Often used to find most important traits and to create personality tests
|
|
|
The Big Five/Five Factor Model
|
Extraversion (surgency), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism (emotional stability), Opennes to Experience (Intellect, Culture)
|
|
|
Criticisms of the FFM
|
Why no evaluative traits?, same lexical source used (GIGO problem), lay language is limited and only describes common behavior
|
|
|
3 Assumptions of those measuring personality traits
|
hese are 3 assumptions that (almost) anyone interested in measuring personality makes without even acknowledging it. (1) There are meaningful differences between individuals on the aspect of personality being measured. (2) Personality is consistent over time. Because personality is relatively stable, we can measure it and then try to investigate how it is related to other things of interest. (3) Personality is consistent across situations.
|
|
|
Arguments for situationalism
|
The personality coefficient is .3-.4, this is a small correlation, therefore, situations are more powerful determinants of behavior and everyday perceptions of behavior are erroneous
|
|
|
Genuine personality change
|
is enduring and has an internal quality
|
|
|
Personality coherence
|
behavior manifestations of traits are expected to change over time in a socioculturally appropriate manner
|
|
|
Counterarguments to Situationalism
|
Personality correlations may be greater than .3-.4, A C of .3-.4 is not small, The effect of situations is in the .3-.4 range or smaller, Belief in personality is not fundamentally erroneous
traits are useful for predicting and understanding important life outcomes |
|
|
Situationism
|
Situations are more important than personality traits in determining behavior
|
|
|
Interactionism
|
Personality and situations constantly interact with each other to produce behavior together
|
|
|
Basis for evaluating personality assessments
|
agreement with other judges and prediction of behavior or life outcomes
|
|
|
Methods for construction of objective tests
|
Rational, Factor Analytic, and Empirical
|
|
|
Objections to Personality Tests
|
Unfair, institutions control by rewarding and punishing, traits invented by tests
|
|
|
Rational Method
|
S-data gathered, Questions have face validity
|
|
|
Limitations of Factor Analytic Method
|
GIGO problem, subjective interpretation by human required, sometimes groupings emerge that don't make much sense
|
|
|
Empirical Method
|
sample participants already divided into groups, administer items, compare answers given by diff. groups without caring about item content
|
|
|
4 Implications of lack of concern w/ item content
|
absurd items, responses difficult to fake, especially vulnerable to GIGO problem (specific to 1 place, time, and group), PR problems and problems with law (lack of content validity)
|
