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;
82 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Psychological Triad
|
1) Cognition
2) Affect 3) Behavior |
|
|
Personality compared to Social Psychology:
|
1) Same people are different in different situations- SOCIAL
2) Different people are different in same situation- PERSONALITY |
|
|
Personality compared to Abnormal Psychology:
|
1) Normal functioning- PERSONALITY
2) Extreme and Unusual functioning- CLINICAL |
|
|
Personality compared to prediction of other's behavior
|
1) Introvert
2) Extrovert |
|
|
Personality is...(Basic)
|
consistent behavior patterns and interpersonal processes originating within the individual
|
|
|
Personality is...(Extended)
|
Personality refers to: an individual's characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior, together with psychological mechanisms-hidden or not- behind these patterns
|
|
|
Consistent
|
Identify patterns across time and situations
-Outgoing today = outgoing tomorrow -This DOES NOT MEAN we will ALWAYS act this way |
|
|
Intrapersonal
|
Includes emotional, motivational and cognitive processes that occur inside of us; originates within the person
|
|
|
Hidden or Not
|
Unconscious processes
|
|
|
Two Main Issues:
|
1) Individual Differences:
a. Appreciation of uniqueness of individual b. NOT labeling for sale of labeling 2) Several Different approaches...correct, but are also incomplete... a. Not in competition b. Each correct but incomplete -Elephant example: people feeling elephant but thought it was a different part c. Not one big theory because, it is too hard to do everything well!!!!!!!! |
|
|
Personality: Evidence indicates...
|
that personality is least stable during childhood; consistency increases with age
|
|
|
Approaches
|
1. Trait
2. Biological 3. Psychoanalytic 4. Neoanalytic 5. Phenomenological 6. Learning 7. Cognitive |
|
|
Trait
|
-How differences measured and conceptualized
-Big 5 -Extroverted, Neurotic, Conscientious, Open to experience, Agreeableness |
|
|
Biological
|
-Understood mind in terms of body
|
|
|
Psychoanalytic (Freud)
|
- Unconscious and Internal Conflict
-Angel/Devil |
|
|
Neoanalytic
|
-Interpersonal
-Updated version of psychoanalytic theory |
|
|
Phenomenological
|
-People's conscious experience of the world
-Humanistic: free will leading to happiness -Cross cultural |
|
|
Learning
|
-Change based on rewards and punishments
-Behaviorism- reward/punishment -Social Learning- modeling/observing |
|
|
Cognitive
|
-Looks at role of perception, memory, and thought
|
|
|
Why are some people consistently more aggressive than others?
|
-Trait theory: some children rate higher on a scale to measure aggression...aggressive children-aggressive adults
|
|
|
Biological theory
|
genetic predisposition- Inherit tendency
evolutionary theory- Mean more than women to control rivals |
|
|
Psychoanalytic theory
|
unconscious desire to self destruct- FREUD
|
|
|
Neoanalytic theory
|
Blocked from reaching our goals- focus on frustration, build up tension, doesn't originate from us, occurs from events earlier
|
|
|
Phenomenological theory
|
deny people are born aggressive- conscious experience with world, no death instincts, something impedes growth (getting offtrack of what you want to do)
|
|
|
Learning theory
|
-Aggressive behavior is rewarded- bullies get front of line for recess!
-Modeling of aggression -Aggressive behavior is reinforced -If I see you do it, I'm going to do it |
|
|
Cognitive theory
|
-How aggressive people process information
-Interpret beginning events as threatening -Accidental bump = FIGHT |
|
|
Theory
|
An organized set of principles that describe, predict, and explain some phenomena
|
|
|
Good theories (ALL OF THEM)
|
-Summarize: The simpler the better
-Make clear predictions: be useful -generate hypothesis -Are falsifiable -someone else has the ability to prove wrong |
|
|
Important components
|
-Growth & Development: redefine ideas
-Look at new information and test against old ideas -Change: when new information is gained... -modify your theory |
|
|
Gravity...
|
is not a law (not going to change)
|
|
|
Data
|
observations we make about a phenomena
-NEED to be interpreted-mean anything about the person or the phenomena that we are studying? -Clues: puzzle pieces (lots of them) |
|
|
Four types/sources of data:
|
1) "S" data- self judgments (good at feelings, maybe not at behaviors)
2) "I" data- informant judgements (colleagues, friends, etc...) 3) "L" data- life outcomes (pass at a test?, criminal record?) 4) "B" data- behavior |
|
|
"S" data are...
|
-asking individuals directly (quiz, survey,...etc)
-can be closed or open ended -Closed (choice), can compare to someone else -Open (unique descriptions) -I Am... -What are your goals? -I ask you, and you tell me |
|
|
"S" data advantages
|
-Best expert
-Who knows you better than you? -Casual Force - ...How we think about the self- creates who we are! - Self-verfication -People want to be known and people to understand ourselves, how we view ourselves -Simple and Easy and Direct -No interpretation is needed |
|
|
"S" data disadvantages
|
-Won't tell you- especially if ashamed/embarassed
-OR may oversell the self -Can't tell you- not always good at introspection (looking inward) -imperfect memory: every memory is imperfect -(Will I ever find love?) <-- don't know -"Fish and water"- So used to living a certain way -Don't know what you would do -Too simple and easy: Maybe the only type of data you collect |
|
|
construct
|
-psychological entity that cannot be directly observed
-need to make them measurable and infer its existence from our outcomes -operationalize them -LOVE: How will you measure love? -# of kisses? -# of times I say I love you? |
|
|
triangulation
|
-Multiple methods, multiple design = more confidence
-Three is key |
|
|
Validity
|
degree to which a measurement actually measure what it is try to measure
|
|
|
Reliability
|
-stability and repeatability of the measurement
-the consistency of your results |
|
|
Generalizability
|
refers to how the measure is related to other measures
|
|
|
Error
|
extraneous influence on measurement
|
|
|
STATE
|
CURRENT
|
|
|
TRAIT
|
OVERALL
|
|
|
Aggregation
|
-Or averaging the scores is the most useful way to enhance reliability
-individuals scores are unreliable -together error cancels out |
|
|
Correlation
|
-Closer to 0, weaker the relationships
- (-1) and (1) are strong relationships |
|
|
Correlation
|
+ = same directions, as one variable increases, so does the other OR as one variable decreases, so does the other
- = opposite directions, as one increases, the other decreases |
|
|
Correlation in relation to reliability
|
-Higher the correlation: higher reliability
|
|
|
Test-retest reliability
|
-consistency over time
-the more correlated your means are at time 1 and time 2...the more reliable your measure! |
|
|
Internal consistency:
|
consistency with test
|
|
|
The more correlated the items are the more reliable the scale is
|
-A high correlation (+.70) = items measuring the same concept
-A low correlation (+.30) = items are measuring more than 1 concept |
|
|
Inter-rater Reliability
|
agreement between raters
|
|
|
Validity
|
extent to which a test measure what it is supposed to be measuring
|
|
|
Type of Validity
|
-Construct Validity: overarching concept of validity for measurement
-Is it measuring the construct? -Determining Validity |
|
|
Construct validation process
|
-Multiple sources- collect evidence
-Determine -Face validity -Congruent Validity -Discriminate Validity |
|
|
Face validity
|
Does measure seem to be assessing correct construct?
-Least important -Does it "look" like it is measuring it? |
|
|
Convergent Validity
|
- YOUR measure...
-Measure of construct relates to tother measures of the construct -Anxiety scale correlated with psychologist's ratings? |
|
|
Discriminant Validity
|
Measure of construct NOT related to other measures that are not theoretically related to construct being measured
|
|
|
Relationship between Reliability and Validity
|
-You can not have a valid test if it is not reliable
-If your answer is ALWAYS chaining...HOW can it be the right answer -However, you can have a reliable test that is not valid |
|
|
Types of Personality Tests
|
Projective
Objective |
|
|
Projective Tests
|
-"How to see into someone's mind"- Ambiguous Stimuli
-PROVIDE B Data: Not interested in what, but how -Story there telling projects what's inside |
|
|
Projective Tests
|
-Rorschach Ink Blot
-10 cards with inkblots- Symmetrical imagery -"What do you see?"- looking for recurring themes -TAT- Thematic Apperception Task -Pictures of Ambiguous Interactions -"What is happening in this picture?" -What are underlying motivations? |
|
|
Objective Tests
|
-Yes/No; True/False
-Very Long -aggregation! -Less open to interpretation |
|
|
Types of Objective Tests
|
-MMPI
-CPI -Single Trait Measures |
|
|
MMPI
|
Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory (100s of Questions)
-Most common -Do responses fall in "normal" range -Identify disordered personalities -Used by clinicians, military, other employment agencies -Long test |
|
|
CPI
|
California Psychological Inventory
-Normal populations -"folk" concepts of personality |
|
|
NEO Personality
|
-Normal populations
-5 broad traits on continuum- 5 factor Model -Subsets of each- "facets" |
|
|
MMPI, CPI, NEO
|
OMNIBUS tests- Lots measured in one!
|
|
|
Single Trait Measures
|
- Endless
-Shyness scale -Self-monitoring Scale -Type A vs. Type B |
|
|
Projective vs. Objective Tests
|
-Projective Tests- B data (Behavior)
-Explore what people want -Underlying motivations -Objective Tests- S data (Self) -Predict how motives will be expressed -Outcomes of motivation |
|
|
Example
|
Projective- predict amount of effort
Objective- predicts what high achievers do |
|
|
Trait
|
Characteristic that is a relatively stable and long-lasting attribute of personality
|
|
|
Quantitative
|
-Dimension
-Degree of difference |
|
|
Type
|
Distinct classes of people
-with clear boundaries (either an apple or orange) |
|
|
Mere Existence of the trait
|
-Not interested in WHY
-Not concerned with change |
|
|
Theoretical/Empirical
|
-basing differences on scales
-Looked to other theories -Tested differences |
|
|
Hierarchical
|
certain traits can account for or explain the existence of other traits
|
|
|
The Situationist Argument
|
1) Inability of traits to predict behavior consistently (heart of the debate)
2) Situation is more important 3) People's intuitions about the self and others wrong |
|
|
Counterarguments
|
1) Unfair literature review (too selective)
2) Real-life situations (some more consistent than others) 3) Predict important life outcomes (Health, career success) 4) Predictive power (Situational influence is no bigger) |
|
|
Debate Resolution
|
Situational: Specific behaviors in specific situations
Personality: Behavioral patterns that persist They interact with each other -high in aggressiveness that is put in a frustrating situation -Person-by-situation approach |
|
|
Gordon Allport
|
-Taught 1st college course on Personality
-Believe that there were conscious reasons for behavior -Needed to be tested before probing into the unconscious -Freud was ignoring the obvious -1st to talk about personality traits -Counted 4,000 objectives that could be used as traits |
|
|
Nomothetic vs. Idiographic: 2 general strategies for investigating personality
|
-Nomothetic: single dimensions (assertive or anxious)
-Based on what researcher is interested in knowing -Maybe central or secondary Central: important traits to self Secondary: traits you have, but not necessarily important -Idiographic- unique combination of traits -Usually reveals central traits "I am" activity |
|
|
Person-Situation Debate:
|
-Predict behavior
-S-data and I data able to predict behavior? -Situationists says NO! -Walter Mischel- Can personality predict behavior? -WHY WE CAN PREDICT TRAITS! |
