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;
145 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Personality assessment |
Measures individual difference of people on some attribute -has had major contributions of personality research to psychological science |
|
|
What are the different types of personality data (LOTS) |
Life data Observer data Test data Self report data |
|
|
Whar are the 3 questions focused on for any measurement of traits |
What does the test really measure (test validity) What is the stability of the test score (test reliability) What is the usefulness of a test (test utility) -must exceed base rate |
|
|
What do attributes do all tests that will be used in the general public need to show |
Reliability Construct validity Specify the population and culture for whom thr test is applicable |
|
|
What do test developers must provide |
Theoretical background that explanlin test responses Research confirming the predictive validity of test scores Presence and control of response artifacts Demonstrate the qualities of the test by publishing evidence of the validity and reliability of the test in peer reviewed journals |
|
|
Reliability |
Estimate of test score consistency across time, items and rates Is the degree to which a test is free from measurement error -higher test reliability= lower measurement error |
|
|
Measurement error |
Resonse variability where there is an over or under estimation in test score responses
Psychological constructs are difficult to measure which leads to over or under estimatimate measures of a construct |
|
|
How to estimate reliability |
Each way of assessing reliability reflects a different aspect of random, nonsyetematic measurement error
Which estimate is chosen depends on what the test is presumed to measure and what the test constructor wants to demonstrate |
|
|
Test re test reliability |
Defintion? Error concept in test retest reliability?
Test retest correlation assumes construct is stable over time
Test retest correlations is not used for constructs that change over time (development studies) |
|
|
Parallel forms reliability (also called alternate forms of equivalent forms) |
Two or more equivalent forms are given at two or more times and results are correlated
Is the most informative forms of reliability for psychology |
|
|
Why us parallel form reliability the most informative form of reliability for psychological studies |
Contrains estimate of temporal stability (consistency of responses)
Contains two or more samples of times from the domain
Can estimate error attributable to selection of one set of items |
|
|
Split half reliability (internal reliability) |
Test is given once and calculate correlation between two halves of the test
Measure of internal reliability
Can be done by -if test has 50 items that all are equal in difficulty then use first half second half split
-it test items increase in difficulty use odd even split |
|
|
Coefficient alpha |
Is used when response scaled contrain ordinal or interval scales
Provides lower bound estimate of reliability -a low apha means that the true reliability may be higher
To overcome this issue 95% confidence intervals around alpha must be contracted |
|
|
Validity |
The extent to which a test measures what it says it measures
Face validity -looks like it measures what it says and enhances motivation
Content validity -the test items cover the domain, ex. If test says it covers chapter 123 then the test has questions from those chapters -not really used is psychology but is in education
Criterion validity -the test predicts an outcome -is predictive validity -used is psych
Construct validity (most difficult) -evidence that test measures what it's supposed to measures (converget validity) -evidence that the test doesn't measure what it's not supposed to (discriminamt validity) |
|
|
When is a test valid |
A test is valid to the degree that these is enough and compelling evidence to indicate that the test measures the underlying construct |
|
|
What is validity not |
Indicated by the title of the test
A brief description of the test given in the test manual
Represented by a single number
Neither high nor low, nor good or bad
Indicated by the nature of the items (face validity) |
|
|
What is validity |
Refers to what the test measures
How well it measures what it says it measures
Useful or not for certain purposes (test utility)
(These 3 are) Indicated by empirical associations between test scores and other measures -all should be associated in the same way (postive or negative) -found in test manuals |
|
|
What are the 4 types of test validity mentioned in the Standards for Educational and Psychological testing (shows all tests) |
Content related -not used in psych testing often -education
Criterion related -used a lot
Construct related -need to be shown no matter what
Structural validity (is not in 2014 addition) -impossible to demonstrate -doesn't need to be shown |
|
|
Content related validity |
Systematic development of the test to see if the test covers a representative sample of the domain to be measured
Used to validate tests used in education and ability testing |
|
|
Criterion related validity (predictive) |
The effectiveness of a test in predicting future performance or outcome
Need a predictor and Criterion (predicted outcome)
There is usally long time between predictor and Criterion (predictive validity) |
|
|
Concurrent validity |
Is when both the predictor and Criterion are given within a short period of time |
|
|
Validity coefficient |
The correlation between scores of the predictor and scores of the criterion - ranges .3-.4
Criterion and concurrent used in different situations -criterion: is an issue when the test is to be used for selection and classification
-concurrent: is an issue when diagnoses or job evacuations are being made |
|
|
Why is validity coefficients so low (nothing to do with the test) |
Difference in sampe size and characteristics
☆Defining, validity, reliability and suitability of the criterion☆
☆The manner of constructing criterion☆
Ambiguous or ill defined nature of the job or curriculum
People who take the test |
|
|
Construct related validity (used by all sciences) |
Is the degree to which a test measures the trait or attribute under consideration
Is not represented by a single number
No validity coefficient |
|
|
Two components of construct validity |
Conceptual -constructs used to explain why people do things and test responses - constructs are not physically real but are mental synthesis (our observation and interaction of availbe information)
Assessment -new test old test correlation -factor analysis -internal consistency -convergent- divergent (discriminate) validity |
|
|
How is construct validity established |
Through activities by which the construct is defined and measured at the same time |
|
|
How do you know the test measures the construct |
Need to gather information about what the scale is actully measuring -what it does and doesn't predict -what test scores are related to and not related to (Any info that aids explaining the constrict is appropriate for construct validity)
☆Nomonological net ☆ -is all the relationships between your tests and all the other constructs and tests you have measured you test against -should correlated with what it should -shouldn't correlated with what it shouldn't -do so in a theoretical meaningful matter |
|
|
New test old test correlation |
When a new test of a construct is developed, correlations with the old test validate the new measures
-assumes old test has established construct validity -should be moderately high correlated (.3-.4) |
|
|
Factor analysis |
Factorial validity (very strong indicator for contruct validity) -said that 5 factors underly the responses to test items and 5 emerge from factor analysis -factors that are supposed to load on factor 1 should only load on 1
Not associated with any other place |
|
|
Internal consistency |
Personality research uses internal consistency methods such as extreme group analysis to assess construct validity
Extreme group analysis -validity is established if high and low scorers on the test differ on some criteria -high and low scorers must be matched |
|
|
Convergent-divergent validity (most convincing method) Campbell and Fiske |
Construct validity is shown when the test shows 1) moderate correlations with measures that the test should theoretically correlate with (convergent validity) (postive correlations)
2) low or zero correlations with measures that the test should not correlation with (divergent validity)
This creates Nomonological net Needs to be shown for all test in all areas before it can be expected |
|
|
What are the 3 areas where converget- divergent validity need to be |
Personality psych Clinical psych Social psych Because there is overlap between the constructs and the tests used to measure and define the constructs |
|
|
Test generalizabiltity |
When you have converget and divergent validity it establishes you to know the boundaries or limitations to which the test can be applied The settings, populations and uses the test is most appropriate Know when the test can and cannot be administered -valid only fot intended population |
|
|
Is the NEO PI R a good test |
Yes Good theory operationalization behind test, criterion and convergent and discriminant validity High internal alphas, acceptable Cornbach's alpha Valid for use in many populations, clinical settings and many cultures |
|
|
What are the pros and cons of self reports |
Pros - provides access to throughtd and experiences (likely incorrect) -Facilitates ease of administration and scoring (true)
Cons -faking good (response set) -faking bad (response set) |
|
|
Non content responding |
Pattern of responses on self report measures that are unrelated to what is being asked -invalidates the test and calls into question the meaning of test responses |
|
|
Types of non content responding |
1) socially desirable responding -faking good -faking bad
2)acquiescent or reactant responding
3) moderate, extreme, patterned or random responding
4) frequency of response sets may vary by culture |
|
|
Faking good |
Responding in a way that makes it appear that respondent is psychologically healthier, more qualified, more experienced, more likable than they are |
|
|
Faking good |
Responding in a way that makes it appear that respondent is psychologically healthier, more qualified, more experienced, more likable than they are |
|
|
Faking bad |
Responding in a way that makes it appear that respondent is more psychological unhealthy than they really are -of concern in clinical settings |
|
|
Acquiescent or reactant responding |
Acquiescence -people says yes to all the items regardless of the item content
Reactant or nay saying -no to every item regardless of item content |
|
|
Moderate, extreme, patterned or random responding |
Goes down the middle of the scale
Responds only at the extremes of the scale
Makes a pattern of their responses or responds randomly |
|
|
How can response sets be reduced |
Reverse item scoring -always used -use T-keyed and F-keyed items Infrequency scale (looks scale) -i never speed -items unlikely to be endorsed Item use limitation (Q sort) -not likely -give people a set of items and response scale sort the items into 9 categories and only 10% can be put in categories Anonymity assurance -always Crowe Marlon social desirability scale -high scores are not to be trusted -measures tendency to agree with ways things are worded -represents personality measure -never use |
|
|
Performance based tests (projective techniques) |
No such thing as a mental xray that will show us what you are really like Association technique -present work and get first word that comes to their mind Construction technique -given sentence stem and you complete Completion technique -give pic and scramble it as see how long it takes to complete Expression technique -ink blot technique -thematic apperception test (show pic, create story, score for themes that reflect unconscious forces) Stimuli arrangement and reflection -draw a person test |
|
|
Projective teats represent everything standardized self report tests are not |
Non standardized in stimuli and instructions
Non objective scoring system
Responses alleged to reflect unconscious and unreasonable aspects of personality |
|
|
Reliability and validity is questionable for projective tests |
Fail to... Criterion contamination in predictive validity studies (person who gives test also scores it) Non matching groups when using the extreme groups method Failure to cross validate Barnum effects |
|
|
Draw a person technique (DAT) -used in custody cases |
The person is asked to draw people including the self 2 scoring systems -body image hypothesis (look for distortion of body parts) -maladjustment score (global scoring based on 30 features on distortions and add them up) Many attempts to validate the DAT (Swenson 1957) Dat possess low to zero validity -little support for body image hypothesis -global scoring does have some modest validity between adjusted and maladjusted adolescent |
|
|
Personify tests and selections |
Personality tests are used by many organizations and businesses to aid in selection, training and performance Employers want to know if the test gives consistent results, whether it can predict useful criteria and identify people who will do well on the job These are questions of reliability, criterion or predictive validity and test utility |
|
|
What is the draw back in tests for industry and businesses |
They cannot predict for a single person
-tests give probability estimates (what's the likelihood will the person score negative and prostive aspects) Compared to group score |
|
|
What job outcomes do employers want to predict |
Productive related outcomes -are able to predict Process related outcome -can't predict cause ambiguity |
|
|
Characteristics of productive employees |
Adaptable Passion for work Emotionally mature Pastive disposition Job related self efficacy skills Achievement oriented (14 times more likly) |
|
|
What is the best predictor in most occupations and for most criteria |
Conscientiousness |
|
|
Predictive validity of the other big 5 depends on the job and the criteria |
Police work -openness best predictor for academy performance -conscientiousness best predictor for supervisory ratings -Neuroticism best predictor of discipline problems Sales performance -conscientiousness was best predictor of supervisory ratings and sales -optimistic best predicts how long they stay on job |
|
|
Personality and performance performance |
Personality tests are not the best predictor of employee performance -productivity validity coefficients between .2 - .3 -coefficient of determination They are useful predictors in training and development programs |
|
|
Frueds levels of consciousness |
1) levels of consciousness
Conscious -thoughts, feelings, emotions that we are aware of and can express Preconscious -thoughts feelings emotions that we can easily become aware of with attention
Unconscious -thoughts feelings emotions that we are unaware of and can't become aware of expect under special circumstances |
|
|
How did frued try to understand properties of the unconscious |
Analyzed common occurrences and psychological phenomenas
-dreams ☆ (defense mechanisms are relaxed when sleeping) -slips of the tongue -errors in writing -works of art -rituals -neuroses ☆ (ocd) (cant control behavior) -psychoses ☆(skitophrenia) (delusions) |
|
|
What motivates the unconscious |
Unconscious stores instinctually based wishes that could cause extreme psychological pain or punishment if they were enacted -sex, aggression, life instincts -Eros (sex, life instincts) We are motivated to banish thoughts but can't cause abidual energy (can't forever) Wishes emerge in conscious experience but in a transformed state (what we see) |
|
|
Transformation of motives |
Our conscious thoughts, feelings and actions are fundamentally determined by mental contents of which we are unaware -what we see is not real -defensive mechanics are what causes transformation |
|
|
Two defensive mechanics frued talks about |
Denial -don't admit
Repression -push instict back down (why we have narotic disorders) |
|
|
Frueds second model (later) |
Is all parts of the unconscious
Id (great reservoir) -where all instintcual energy is found -sexual, aggressive and life survival instinct -operates in primary process thought where a wish fulfilling fanstasy is created in pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain
Ego -seeks balance in expression and satisfaction of id with constraints of real world -secondary process thought (accounts for both) -reality principle -transformation
Superego -controls behavior in accord with parental and societal rules -monitor of Id -incapable of reality testing - contains conscience (moral standards) that contranins behavior in what we are supposed to do -contains ego ideal (ideals for which we strive for and ethical standards |
|
|
Reality principle |
Instincutal graditfication is delayed until an appropriate object enables maximum pleasure with little pain or punishment through a cathartic object (appropriate object) |
|
|
Current thoughts of frued |
There is no empirical support but at the meta theoretical level -assumptions underlying theory Continuing concern about sexuality -not because it is an unconscious motivation -because it is important in human life and personal relationships and can be a source of conflict for some |
|
|
What lead to Bowlby early work with attachment |
Working in a hame with delinquent boys where he noticed they had difficulty forming emotional bonds with others -most had experienced disruptions in early home lives Concluded that early parent child relationship (mother) serve an important organizing role in human development Disruptions in these relationshipa have negative consequences for emtional regulation, interpersonal relationships and mental heath both long and short term Strong empirical evidence |
|
|
What did Bowlby attachment theory explain |
1) the often intense distress expressed by Infants who are separated from their parents 2) the extraordinary efforts infants go to prevent separation or to re-establish contact with their parent |
|
|
What did Bowlby argue |
That child develop an attachment system an associated attachment behaviors that are adaptive responses to separation from a primary attachment figure (someone who has history of providing support, protection and care)
These behaviors promote infant safety by keeping the infant safe from harm and insuring continuing care and contact
Has important needs to be met and becomes upset when they are not there to meet them |
|
|
What does continuous separation |
Continuous separation anxiety lead to despair and depression and shapes
1) children's expectations of their own self worth
2) perceived availability of and accessibility to significant people (sense of what people are like) |
|
|
Development of sense of trust |
Infants who develop a sense of trust come to believe that their mothers will be access and response to their needs (maternal sensitivity) -maternal sensitivity leads to infants who are less fearful, develop positive self worth, sense of trust and accepting of others
Expectations of trust reflect the kinds of interactions infants have with their care givers |
|
|
Building of trusting relationships |
Trusting relationships are built up from birth and throughout childhood and remain unchanged intro adulthood -sense of trust continue -past changes the future (intrapsychic) |
|
|
Internal working models |
The expectations about caregivers sensitivity
2 kinds (overlap) 1) working models about the nature of others -comes from infants interactions with other people to create an idea of what other people are like -are they good, responsive
2) working models about the nature of the self |
|
|
What does the working model of self represent |
☆Our feelings of our worthiness to receive the love of other people ☆
How competent we feel we are
How lovable we feel we are
How worthy we are of receiving help when needed from other people |
|
|
Bowlby in current terms |
Working models of others represent out schematic representations of others
Working models of our selves reflects aspects of the self schema
Both Working models remain throughout our lives, ans form the basis of our expectations about the nature and quality of future interpersonal relationships (Longevity) |
|
|
What 4 functions are fulfilled by our sechamtic representations of self and others (Working models) |
1) organize and coordinate out memories about close relationships 2) guide our interactions with people with whom we want to establish and maintain close relationships 3) create expectations about the nature and quality of close relationships are like or should be 4) aid in the interpretation of interpersonal disagreements |
|
|
What did Ainsworth, waters and wall develop (where did research start) |
Established experierimental credibility for Bowlbys attachment system theory and provided evidence for individual differences in attachment patterns -both goals where established through the strange situation test where children behaved when their mothers entered or left a room |
|
|
What were Ainsworth 3 types of attachment styles |
Secure attachment (60%) Avoidant attachment (20%) Anxious ambivalent attachment (20%) Later introduced Disorganized/ disoriented style Usally seen as secure vs insecure |
|
|
Cross culturally all 4 types have been found but what makes a secure infant in many cultures |
Maternal sensitivity Caregiver -who is responsive to the baby's signals -interprets those signals correct -responseds appropriately to signals -can be depended on to respond to signals |
|
|
What is attachment |
Refers to the different motivational systems that underlie social relationships and explain individual differences in how people relate and connect to others |
|
|
Grossman (1985) measure of maternal sensitivity and attachment classification |
Examined interactions between infants and parents at home and then later in strange situation tests Parents who were rated as responsive and sensitive had children who were rated as secure in strange situation (attachment style crosses over through sisituations) Not limited to humans |
|
|
Changes in attachment style |
Similar through life but if there are changes it is due to stressors like death, divorce, life threatening illness, job and financial loss, traumatic environmental change Internal working models are not frozen in childhood but can be modified by life experiences (modification is not simple or easy) Secure people don't really change |
|
|
What metaphor did Bowlby use |
Metaphor of a branching complex railway system to describe development of the behavioral attachment system Argued that behavioral attachment system is highly canalized or channeled -small number of variables that can control proximity to the caregiver dispite a range or changes in environment |
|
|
What are the two canalization processes that keeps a person on their established pathway |
1) caregiving enviroment -as long as caregiving environment is stable the person is unlikely to experience interactions that challenge existing working models 2) intra-individual or psychodynamic processes -people select their environments in a way that fits the overlap between the perceived psychological qualities of the situation and their working models (person- environment correlation) Because we are more likely to assimilate then accommodate, continuity over change in working models |
|
|
Evidence from Arend (1979) |
Found that people's working models influenced the kinds of interactions they elicited from others |
|
|
Evidence from Collins (1996) |
Reported that people's working models influenced the kinds of inferences they made about other people's intentions (meta cognitions: beliefs about what other people are thinking about) |
|
|
What has recent studies shown |
That attachment styles established in childhood predict relationship dynamics as long as 20 years after the initial assessment
Early internal working models can be modified by experiences. Schematic representations of self and others can be updated by experience but not easily
Some patterns generalized across generations |
|
|
Attachment styles across generations |
Use Adult Atachemnt Interview (AAI) (what was your relationship like with parents) -parents recollections of their own parents responsiveness predicted the attachment style of the children of these adults
-parents recollection of childhood experiences predicted their children's responses in stranger situation tests over 70% of the time |
|
|
What is the correlation between early attachment and later attachment at any point in life |
.39 |
|
|
What did research from Hazan and Shaver (1987) show |
Argued that adult romantic relationships and parent child relationships were partly a function of the same attachment behavioral system
-had respondents complete AAI and describe their current or most recent romantic relationship |
|
|
Adults who characterized their relationships with their parents as secure described that their current romantic relationships as... |
Happy, friendly trusting No concern about being abandoned and knowing that the relationship will continue Saw themselves as worthy of love and being well liked Believed that romantic feelings wax and wane over the course of a relationship but the relationship continues |
|
|
Anxious ambivalent attachment style described their current romantic relationship as... |
Concern that others will not reciprocate their desire for intimacy
Resulting in higher levels of anxiety
Continuous fear that relationship will end
These people are obsessed over reciprocation and union (enough is never enough)
Experienced extremes of sexual attraction and jealousy |
|
|
Those who described relationship as avoidant |
Relationships were marked by emotional highs and lows, rocky and marked by jealous preoccupation with the other person |
|
|
How do avoidant adults view romantic love (with you but distinct from you) |
See romantic love as non existent, being completely enthralled with another is a dangerous myth and to be avoided
True love never lasts and it would be unlikely that they would find someone with whom they would be romantically linked for a long time What a relationship but only on their terms -being intimate on emtional level doesn't happen -lose who we are in relationships |
|
|
What are romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver) |
They are previously established attachment relationships with the addition of sexuality and adult level interdependency |
|
|
Relationship questionnaire (measure attachment style among adults) Bartholomew and horowitz (1991) |
Consists of 4 paragraphs each presenting statements representing 4 attachment styles
Respondents are asked to indicate whish paragraph represents their current or most recent relationship |
|
|
In Brennan and Clark attachment model what are the 2 dimensions that attachment styles can be examined with |
Avoidance
Anxiety
Created 4 types -secure -preoccupied -dismissing avoidant -fearful avoidant |
|
|
Characteristics of Secure (low anxiety, low avoidance) |
Low in neuroticism
High in extraversion and agreeablness
High self disclosure with intimate others
Values on going relationships even through difficulties
Report stable emotional lives
High levels of social support and interpersonal well being
(Causal order is not yet know) |
|
|
Characteristics of dismissing avoidant (High avoidance low anxiety) |
Report being comfortable without being close
Report being independent, self sufficient, high self esteem, condifent
Self accepting (don't care what other think)
Low interpersonal warmth (low A and E)
Competitive in interpersonal relationships
Less satisfying romantic relationships (must pay off, relationship is not enough)
General mistrust
Avoid relying on others thus avoiding closeness and intimacy
Considered psychologically autonomous |
|
|
Preoccupied characteristics (low avoidance and high anxiety) |
Wish to be close to someone but worry and easily upset if those relationships are not reciprocated
They report feeling lonely, having limited control over their friendships
Others find them to be overly expressive to the point of being intrusive
Socially sensitive, caring, emtional and trusting
Lack self confidence and overly sensitive to the possibility of rejections and over protective
Clingy in relationships and easily jealous |
|
|
Fearful avoidant characteristics (high avoidance and high anxiety) |
Low self confidence
Low assertiveness, low agency, high passivity
Lack warmth, generally distrustful of others, Low sociability
Feel they have little control over their close relationships, lack competitiveness
Feel the world is harsh and cruel
Lonely
Low on most NEO PI measures |
|
|
What type of attachments are increasing and declining |
Konrath found that secure attachment declined significantly by 15%
Insecure attachments increased by 6% comfortable without close emotional relationships |
|
|
Konrath pointed out several factors that help explain the increase in dismissing style over time |
1) change in social attitudes consistent with dismissing style (more concern with self) -desire to be rich and successful is important life goal -lower attitudes of helping others in need (empathy) 2) changes in family structure and dynamics -parents are now more focused on enhancing children's self esteem and less on meeting emotional needs of others -more females in the work force and increasing divorce rates (48%) may lead to differences in being comfortable with intimacy -decreased reliance on extended family and growing career pressures may reduce desire to connect to others |
|
|
Self concept -what did James (1890) call it |
Set of ideas and inferences about self including traits, social roles, emotions, beliefs and relationships
Self schemas (what we know about ourselves) The me component of the self concept |
|
|
Self awareness -what did James call it |
The act of thinking about ourselves The I component of the self concept |
|
|
What did many researchers in the 1970s believe about self concept |
That only humans -possessed a self concept -had the capacity of self awareness -had the ability to know one is having an experience involving the self (meta-awareness) |
|
|
What did Gallup (1977) show |
That the ideas that self concept was only in humans was false Used a mirror and the Rouge test with chimpanzees |
|
|
What are the 3 components of developing self concept |
Physical development Cogntive development Social development Changes in these vary along two overlapping and concurrent dimensions |
|
|
What are the two overlapping dimensions that changes to physical, cogntive and social development happen on |
1) description of self and other shifts from external to internal attributes 2) self and other descriptors shifts from concrete to abstract descriptors |
|
|
Harter (2012) noted that self concept excits at different levels of abstraction |
1) elementary level -individuals conceive of themselves in terms of concrete, observable behaviors (I can count to ten)
2) Individuals abstract over these behaviors to represent general traits or abilities (I am good at counting)
3) Individuals abstract over these traits to evaluate their overall worth ( I am satisfied with myself)
Such global evaluations of one's worth are known as self esteem or self worth It is assumed that young children lack the ability to abstract over their behaviors to evaluate general traits and self worth |
|
|
What did Cimpian (2017) find out |
Foudnt hat age 4 children can form such abstractions, even in nuanced, context sensitive ways (Children can form abstract views under certian circumstances) When children fail a task, they conclude that they are unworthy but only if it is believed the task is important to adults Children infer that task failure leads adults to think poorly of them which makes them feel poorly about themselves |
|
|
Impact of culture on self concept |
Independent view of self (individualistic) -autonomous, self contained, self actualized, bounded, unique -attributive self descriptions Interdependent view of self (collectivist) -other important, group content, true self with others, overlapping selves -social referent self descriptions |
|
|
Self in individualistic cultures (Markus and Kitayama 1991) |
Self is seperate from social context, stable, bounded, unitary
Self concept tasks include bring unique, Self actualized, Self promoting, being direct, others important for Self evaluation
Self esteem is found in expressing the Self and validate internal traits |
|
|
Self in collectivistic (Markus and Kitayama 1991) |
Self is connected to the social context, flexible, variable Self concept tasks include fitting in, know your place, do what is expected, promote others goals, know what others want Self defined by context-specific relations with others Self esteem is adjusting and restraining the Self to maintain intagroup harmony -the wa -the Jen |
|
|
Where do contents of the self concept and social identities come from |
Social comparisons with others Reflected appraisals from others Self appraisals Culture Hopes and fears are embodied in our possible selves |
|
|
Social comparison processes |
In these processes we compare our attitudes, feelings, emotions, behaviors, goals and expectations and other self relevant items with those of others |
|
|
When do we make social comparisons |
1) there is no fixed or objective standard with which to assess your abilities, attitudes, traits, behaviors 2) you experience uncertainty about yourself in some area |
|
|
Who do we compare ourselves against |
Most informative to compare themselves against others who are similar to themselves on the dimension, attribute, trait, behavior in question |
|
|
What are the two types of social comparisons |
Downward social comparisons (self protective, self enhancing strategy) -compare ourselves to people who are worse off than we are on a particular ability or outcome that is important to us -use to make people feel better about themselves
Upward social comparisons -compare ourselves to people who are better than we are in a particular ability it outcome -this is threatening to out self esteem -if we can learn how to better ourselves then we will do so |
|
|
What are the different kinds of reflected appraisals |
1) reflective appraisals from the people we are with
2) reflective appraisals from having someone in mind
3) reflective appraisals from the kinds of behaviours you demonstrate |
|
|
reflective appraisals from the people we are with |
James (1890) noted that we don't have one self, but several selves depending on the social situation
Different selves become accessible for presentation depending on the audience -we incorporate other people's views into our self concept (looking glass self) |
|
|
reflective appraisals from having someone in mind |
1) if we are reminded of someone who is stern and disapproving we evaluate ourselves more negatively
2) if we have a supportive approving persona in mind we are likely to view ourselves as having postive traits |
|
|
reflective appraisals from the kinds of behaviours you demonstrate |
According to self perception theory we can come to know our self contents by observation of our own behaviour
Behavior will come to reflect internal states only when the situation lends itself to the perception of free choice for that behavior |
|
|
What does self perception theory argue |
That when our opinions, beliefs, values are uncertain or Ambiguous we come to know what we feel, how we feel or what we think by observing -our own behavior -the situation under which the behavior happens |
|
|
Introspection (knowing ourselves through self reflection) |
Is the process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings and movies
Little evidence that introspection is used -little time spent thinking about ourselves
When people do introspection, the reasons given for their behavior are unrelated to the real reason for the behavior |
|
|
What is the origin issue and rationalization issue (issues underlying the unrelated reasons) |
Origin issue -people don't know the reason for why they do what they do unless it is obvious to everyone Rationalization issue -we come up with an explication but it is a creation of your imagination and intelligence but will not reflection of what the reason really is |
|
|
Self concept clarity (Campbell) |
The degree to which the contents of the self are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and stable over time Understand who we are (not a level) |
|
|
What is high self concept clarity associated with |
☆ High self esteem ☆ Low scores on scales assessing negative affect Low level of depression Low inclination to avoid threatening thoughts, perceptions and emotions High scores on conscientiousness, extraversion and agreeablness |
|
|
What are Low scores of self concept clarity associated with |
☆ Low self esteem ☆
Anxiety
Nervousness
Depression
Avoidance of things that would upset |
|
|
Becht (2017) |
Building warm relationships which children can be effective means to raise their self esteem Discovered that such relationships not only raise self esteem but also build self concept clarity Reasoned that when adolescents have supportive relationships with their parents and peers they feel the freedom to explore who they are helps them form clearer views of themselves |
|
|
Leary (2015) found that within and outside romantic relationships |
Low self clarity scores were reluctant to expand self knowledge or explore different facets of who they are (scared to find somthing that would be distasteful)
It's is not clear from the results whether low self concept scores dont want to know who they are or whether their relationships promotes unwanted self exploration |
|
|
Relationship avoidance and self concept clarity |
Emery (2018) Argue that close relationships facilitate self concept clarity by providing self verification for each persons self concept -confirmation or not of partners self views People who are relationship avoidant may not disclose enough personal info to their partner or not trust the parents feedback -happens behaviors avoidant individuals are reluctant to become interdependent Avoidant attachment was negatively related (-.43) to self concept clarity -not influenced by age, sex, race, martial status Negative relationship was due to the level of self verification present in one or both partners |
|
|
Lewandowski and Lavone asked participants to estimate another's persons personality or behavior |
When someone's own self concept is unclear, it may be difficult to accurately infer the traits and attributes of someone else High self concept clarity scorers showed greater self other agreement on personality traits, behavioral descriptions of personality and accuracy of predicted behavior -people come in and rate others after a few min convo. Both people answer questions measure self clarity before |
|
|
Crocetti and Rubuini examined developmental trends and gender differences in self concept |
Over 1 year time interval, adolescent boys had high clarity than girls (13-14) Parental self concept clarity influenced adolescents self concept clarity -not moderated by adolescent sex Self concept clarity is transmitted from parents to children |
|
|
Markus and Nurius possible selves |
Possible selves frame and help interpret on going behavior
Possible selves guide interpretation of our aspirations, maintain our goal motivation, provide self concept clarity and self concept continuity over time |
|
|
What are the two possible selves |
Hoped for self (postive desired possible self) -where u want to go, aspire to be -successful self, creative self, rich self,n loved and admired self Feared self (negative feared possible self) -where you don't want to go but will if we are not motivated and successful in reaching hoped for self -alone self, sick self, unsuccessful self, alcoholic self, jobless self, homeless street person self Hoped for and feared selves maximize motivation within the context of our construal of our past experiences taking in to account our time, place and culture -social context has greatest influence |
|
|
Self esteem |
Value people place on the elements of the contents of their self concept -the perception value Can refer to a global evaluation or an evaluation of domain specific self concept components -measures of global self esteem moderately correlated with measures of domain spefic self esteem |
|
|
Important self esteem domains |
Academic competence Social competence Physical appearance |
|
|
High self esteem is associated with |
Better coping in the face of failure Faster recovery from failure Greater task persistence Lower susceptibility to life's daily hassles Lower reactivity to events and fewer mood swings Less concern about seeking approval but not getting it Better physical health |
|
|
Self esteem level |
Can range from high to low
Among students the range is from moderate to high |
|
|
Self esteem stability |
Variability of general self worth over time
Stable -little change over time in how people feel about themselves
Unstable (contigent self esteem) -self esteem changes depending on situation -people feel good or bad about themselves over time depending on current situation -high level of responsiveness to situations that are seen as self esteem relevant |
|
|
Stability is important |
Those with high contingent self esteem report that their self esteem is fragile, vulnerable and continuously in jeopardy
Stability rather than level of self esteem may be the key component -better to have high or low stable self esteem than unstable high or low |
|
|
Self esteem instability (interaction of self esteem stability and level) |
Even when self esteem is high, instability has been associated with several negative life outcomes -psychological maladjustment -anger and hostility management -aggression -academic under performance -relationship dissatisfaction |
|
|
Contingent self esteem vs baseline instability |
Contingent self esteem (barometric self esteem) -refers to moment to moment fluctuations in feelings of self worth Baseline instability -is concerned with long term changes in self esteem |
|
|
Self esteem and personality |
Level of self esteem was positively associated with high levels of E, A, C, O and low N(emotional stable) Self esteem instability was associated with high N (emtional unstable), low A and Low C Stable self esteem report highest levels of A, C and lowest levels of N High levels of fragile self esteem report the lowest level of O |
|
|
Self esteem stability and attachment style |
Foster (2007) suggested that self esteem stability may have its origins in childhood attachment style Found a link between anxious attachment style and unstable self esteem that is independent from self esteem level Avoidant attachment style was unrelated to self esteem stability |
|
|
Seery (2004) |
Argue that individuals with unstable high self esteem possess self doubt about their abilities Those with unstable high self esteem exhibited relative threat in a negative reaction (increased heart rate) in failure condition In the same situation those with stable high self esteem exhibited relate change response in a postive reaction (decreased heart rate) |
|
|
Zeigler (2010) |
Examined relationships between unstable self esteem, low self esteem, or contingent self esteem on interpersonal style Men with fragile high self esteem were characterized by a blend of dominance and hostility, where both genders with high self esteem where characterized by a blend of dominance and nurturance Suggest that secure and fragile forms of self esteem possess significant interpersonal content and are distinguishable with regard to interpsonal styles |
|
|
Look at pages 161-169 myths |
Readdd |
