Psy 393 Exam 1

Front 1

Define personality psychology

Back 1

The scientific study of why people are who they are

Front 2

what is personality

Back 2

patterns of thought and behavior that define and differentiate a person

Front 3

the psychological triad

Back 3

how one thinks, feels, behaves

Front 4

how do we know? what sources of data do we have for personality?

Back 4

SILB

Front 5

Define self reported data

Back 5

form of questionnaire
generally straightforward (rather than calling for intepretation)

Front 6

plusses of S data

Back 6

you are the expert
huge amount of available info
easy and inexpensive
causal force -- how you feel affects how you behave
definitional truth -- no one else can report how you _feel_

Front 7

Causal force and Definitional Truth in S and I data

Back 7

S Caus: how you feel affects how you behave
S Def: only you can report on what you feel
I Caus: self-fulfilling prophecy
I Def: likeability, for ex., requires an observer to observe

Front 8

minuses of S data

Back 8

some may lack self awareness, or be unable to express it (i.e. children)
people don’t remark on things they find commonplace
people like
people may be psychotic
inherently subjective - dependent on current state of mind
memory is fallible
no inherent checks on reliability
over reliance - too cheap and easy?

Front 9

define I data

Back 9

judgements made by knowledgeable people
questionnaires again

Front 10

plusses of I data

Back 10

may be more honest than s data
can highlight things s wouldn’t report
still cheap and easy (though not as much as S)
large amount of info
info derived from real-world behavior (and thus may be more relevant)
people tend to be very skilled at judging the personality state of others
def. truth and causal force

Front 11

minuses of I data

Back 11

limited by memory and perspective
hard to know everything relevant about another
biases - systematic errors (can be accounted for with stat methods)

Front 12

define L data

Back 12

Life Outcomes
recorded data - school records, etc.

Front 13

plusses of L data

Back 13

straight data, no bias
useful for backing up claims from other types of data
intrinsically important and relevant - these are the actual things that happen to subjects

Front 14

Minuses of L data

Back 14

straight data doesn’t explain context
data is forever but behavior can change
red tape
ethical concerns

Front 15

define B data

Back 15

direct observation in a testing environment

Front 16

Natural v. lab B data

Back 16

natural - real-life settings
classrooms, etc
Lab - tests

Front 17

Types of Laboratory B data

Back 17

personality tests (rorschach, TAT, MMPI)
physological measures (MRIs)

Front 18

Plusses of B data

Back 18

accurate and direct
objective and quantifiable (even if the interpretation may be subjective)
often unobtrusive
can measure behavs that wouldn’t present in real life

Front 19

Minuses of B data

Back 19

Ethics - Zimbardo
Uncertain interps: coding schema errors, one-time, non-reproducable behavs

Front 20

using mixed data types: agree, disagree?

Back 20

Agree: great!
disagree: still informative
michael scott, world’s greatest boss

Front 21

Why do we need hard data?

Back 21

duh!

Front 22

Factors in data quality

Back 22

reliability
validity

Front 23

define reliability

Back 23

is your test free of confounding influences?
consistency
necessary for validity

Front 24

ensuring reliability

Back 24

be careful and conscientious (be clear in your Qs, score them carefully, etc)
be consistent in the environment as well as the test itself
aggregate - average your scores, do not rely on extremes

Front 25

define validity

Back 25

does your test measure what you’re trying to measure?

Front 26

ensuring construct validity

Back 26

focus test on the measurements you’re seeking
seek convergent validity and divergent validity
determine if it actually predicts behav
do people who you know diverge actually diverge on your scale?

Front 27

define convergent validity

Back 27

checking correlation to known measures of your topic

Front 28

define divergent validity

Back 28

check correlation with measures of different constructs
here you want no correlation, or you may be seeing a different contruct in action

Front 29

define generalizability

Back 29

how do your scores reflect the larger pop

Front 30

limitations to generalizability

Back 30

gender and cultural bias
cohort effects
show v. no show

Front 31

define case study

Back 31

depth, not breadth
used for clinical purposes rather than research

Front 32

define correlational study method

Back 32

study how well variables go together
Define Coefficient of Correlation
is the only method for some studies (violence)
but cannot claim causality
and is prone to confounding variables (ice cream v. drowning)

Front 33

define experimental study method

Back 33

control and manipulate variables
can now claim causality
allows you to study behavior that is not present IRL

Front 34

Define Trait Approach to Personality Research

Back 34

“individual differences are the building blocks of personality”

Front 35

Assumption of the trait approach

Back 35

personality is characterized by a consistent pattern of behavior, thoughts and feelings

Front 36

Hierarchy of Behavior

Back 36

Trait Construct (extraversion)
Traits (likeability)
Habitual Response
Specific Response

Front 37

Define trait

Back 37

a stable attribute of personality
an enduring psychological characteristic
imporant: Consistency and distinctiveness

Front 38

define the person-situation debate

Back 38

which is more important in determining behavior?

Front 39

Walter Mischel

Back 39

situationist
said personality is of no importance in predicting behavior
then forwarded concept of reciprocal interactionism

Front 40

Situationist argument

Back 40

correlation between traits and behavior are small (R < .40)
so situations are more predictive
so everyday trait descriptions are flawed

Front 41

trait theorist rebuttal to situationist argument

Back 41

R of .4 is not small at all
sitautions are important, but so are traits
traits predict generally while sitchs predict specifically
descriptions of traits are not flawed - otherwise, why would they have developed?

Front 42

reciprocal interactionism

Back 42

Mischel’s Backpedal
People and situations interact in 3 ways:
effect of personality depends on situation and vice versa
certain types of people find themselves in certain situations - bikers go to rallies, librarians go to libraries
people can change the nature of the sitch by how they act there

Front 43

Reciprocal Interactionism:
describe the chart

Back 43

stimulus-response-cognition triangle

Front 44

reciprocal interactionism:
personality signature

Back 44

if...then statement
if sitch a, expect behav x
if sitch b, expect behav y

Front 45

why do traits matter?

Back 45

they can be used to predict life outcomes
(Hostile Max will have trouble with relationships and holding down jobs, etc.)

Front 46

Name the Big 5

Back 46

OCEAN

Front 47

name some B tests

Back 47

MMPI
Rorschach
Thematic Apperception Test

Front 48

Projective Tests

Back 48

Like Rorschach and TAT
based on the projective hypothesis
purposely ambiguous
point is to discern how the person makes meaning of their surroundings

Front 49

Rorschach Test

Back 49

Hermann Rorschach, 1920s
tell assessor waht you see
assessor asks why you think you saw that
most people see the same sorts of stuff
perceptions that don’t fit may be suggestive of unreal thought or behavior

Front 50

TAT

Back 50

Thematic Apperception Test
Henry Murray, Christina Morgan, 1930s
tries to measure implicite motives (which a person may not htemselves realize)
sets of cards with scenes -- tell the story:
what’s happening, what led to it, what’s next, what do the people on the card think or feel?

Front 51

Thinking behind projective tests

Back 51

ambiguous situations may reveal a personality better
because they do not occur in obvious situations which may hold sway over the behavior

Front 52

do projective tests work?

Back 52

they’re tricky
there is no standard for scoring
problems with inter-rater reliability
the interps rep both the subject and assessor’s feelings
they’re fundamentally unreal (thus, are they important in the real world?)
and they don’t make predictions of behavior

Front 53

Objective tests

Back 53

less open to interpretation
like MMPI
use many items to show stability

Front 54

MMPI

Back 54

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
tries to detect patterns of thought

Front 55

10 clinical scales covered by MMPI

Back 55

hypochondriasis, depression
conversion hysteria (phys prob, no phys cause)
psychopathic deviance, masculine/feminine
paranoia, psychastenia
schizophrenia, hypomania
social introversion

Front 56

MMPI’s validity scales

Back 56

exist as checks on validity
L Scale: did the person mess with the test intentionally to be a jerk?
F Scale: Did the person exaggerate to seek attention?
K Scale: Did the person deliberately try to hide their issues?

Front 57

MMPI: L Scale

Back 57

did the person mess up the test to be a jerk?

Front 58

MMPI: F Scale

Back 58

did the person exaggerate?
to seek attention, etc

Front 59

MMPI: K Scale

Back 59

is the person trying to deliberately hide their issues?

Front 60

MMPI used for?

Back 60

schools to determine vocational interests
clinicians to determine severity of disorder and develop treatment
employers to predict future behavior

Front 61

MMPI: Ethical Issues?

Back 61

expert tools, non-expert users
does it and tests like it prop up unfair societal concepts of good/bad, wrong/right?

Front 62

Types of trait approaches

Back 62

single trait
many trait
essential trait
typological approach

Front 63

single trait approach

Back 63

focus on (and attribute behavior to)
a single trait, such as deferrence to authority
(Germany, 1930s)

Front 64

many trait approach

Back 64

focus on correlation between wide variety of traits and behaviors
tries to then explain the pattern of correlation
ex. kids using drugs at 14 were scored a certain way on the Q-Sort at age 4

Front 65

essential trait approach

Back 65

what is the most important trait?
what best predicts behavior?

Front 66

typological approach

Back 66

focus on pattern of traits, sort into type
Type A personality, etc.
doesn’t actually do much to predict behavior
another example of how psy goes pop (like anal retentive)
(and remains there despite lack of evidence)

Front 67

Gordon Allport

Back 67

“traits are the units of personality”
focus on idiographic traits
cardinal, central and secondary dispositions
”trait is stable, sitch informs variability”

Front 68

Limitaitons to Allport’s theories

Back 68

did little research
said “traits are hereditary” but with no proof
provided no model for how traits develop

Front 69

Cardinal Trait

Back 69

Gordon Allport
a trait so pervasive that it influences every action
ie. Machiavellian

Front 70

Central Trait

Back 70

Gordon Allport
a limited trait which informs most actions
honesty, kindness, etc

Front 71

Secondary Disposition

Back 71

Gordon Allport
contrast to cardinal and central traits
less obvious, consistent

Front 72

Raymond Cattell

Back 72

Statistician
spearheaded statistical analysis of traits:
Developed FACTOR ANALYSIS
and the 16PF Questionnaire
(personality factor)

Front 73

Factor Analysis

Back 73

statistical technique based on correlation
tries to find a pattern of correlation based on questions on a questionnaire
tries to distill tons of traits into groups
developed by Raymond Cattell

Front 74

Cattell’s two types of traits

Back 74

surface traits
source traits

Front 75

surface traits v. source traits

Back 75

Raymond Cattel’s 2 types of traits
surface: outward behavior
source traits - cause of surface traits, core personality structures

Front 76

Cattell: how many source traits?

Back 76

16, in three categories:
Ability traits
(skills that allow a person to function, ie. intelligence)
Temperament traits
(emotional life and style, ie. calm, boisterous)
Dynamic traits
(the striving, motivational life of a person)

Front 77

Limitations to Cattell

Back 77

not parsimonius
too many factors (16) to consider for most people
based on measurement (thus, not on hypothesis, thus not scientific)
and may thus miss something that is not caught through measurement

Front 78

Hans Eysenck

Back 78

Believed in a strict biological basis for personality
Superfactors and the round chart

Front 79

Eysenck’s Superfactors

Back 79

Introversion v. extraversion
neuroticism
psychoticism (abnormal)

Front 80

Greek labels for Eysenck’s chart

Back 80

Melancholic (introverted and unstable)
Phlegmatic (introverted and stable)
Choleric (extraverted and unstable)
Sanguine (extraverted and stable)

Front 81

Eysenck’s basis for traits

Back 81

superfactors have a biological basis
so introverts are more arousable, have more active brains
so stimulus overarouses them

Front 82

Eysenck: intro/extra and arousal

Back 82

intros have more brain activity: arousal overstimulates them

Front 83

Eysenck’s pluses

Back 83

There is a ton of evidence for a biological basis to introversion and extraversion
and is found cross-culturally

Front 84

Eysenck: neuroticism

Back 84

“relevant to the nervous system”
so someone high on the scale is quick to stres and slow to recover
but evidence is not consistent

Front 85

Limitations to Eysenck

Back 85

2 or 3 factors may not be enough
maybe 2 or 3 dimensions would be more appropriate for the data (anxiety rather than neuroticism, for example)

Front 86

The Big Five

Back 86

OCEAN
Donald Fiske, 1950s
discovered through factor analysis
all factors have reliability valdity and stability
the big 5 are “an economical way to summarize the big differences between people

Front 87

rationale for the big five

Back 87

Fundamental Lexical Hypothesis

Front 88

Donald Fiske

Back 88

used factor analysis to discover the big five

Front 89

fundamental lexical hypotheis

Back 89

if soemthing is important, people will have a word to describe it, a single word to define it

Front 90

describe O

Back 90

Openness
creative, imaginitive, curious
not conventional or down-to-earth
may be more liberal, more likely to use drugs
doesn’t always replicate across sample pops
Da Vinci

Front 91

describe C

Back 91

Conscientiousness
organized, reliable, ambitious
not lazy, careless, hedonistic
frequently studied in context of employee selection
predicts job performance and college success better than aptitude tests (with their inherent biases)
high C people live longer - more likely to exercise and eat well, etc.
Robocop

Front 92

Describe E

Back 92

Extraversion
sociable, talkative, affectionate
not reserved, sober, shy
represented by positivity
tend to do well in life
tend to be seen as popular or attractive
attain status but may be seen as overdominant or self-centered
Axel Foley

Front 93

Describe A

Back 93

Agreeableness
soft hearted, good natured, trusting, gullible
not cynical, rude, manipulative, irritable
may have evo basis in cooperation
women often score higher
correlated with religiosity, sense of humor, peer acceptance, heart health
Mr. Rogers

Front 94

Describe N

Back 94

Neuroticism
worrying, insecure, hypochondriacal
not calm, hardy, self-satisfied
negative emotions, poor coping skills
linked to psychopathology and poor health (more cortisol)
family problems (chicken or egg?)
dissatisfaction and immoderation
Woody Allen

Front 95

The Five Factor Theory

Back 95

Paul Costa, Robert McCrae, 1990s
traits are structures everyone has
traits causally influence one’s psychological development
traits have a strict biological basis - no situational or enviro influence

Front 96

Limitations to Five Factor Theory

Back 96

no discussion of how traits actually develop
research contradicts claim that situation has no influence
no research to back up claim that everyone posseses each trait

Front 97

Are the big five universal? Outside western cultures?

Back 97

depends: translations are readily found for all 5
but analyzing the indigenous language only shows that CEA are truly universal
if you can’t explain O in english, how are you supposed to find it in another language
N: different cultures have different perspectives on psych -- may not have a scale which reflects N

Front 98

Do people change over time?

Back 98

people generally maintain their differences over time
but situations can influence the amount of a trait present or presented
so A goes up from 30 to 50, perhaps because raising children increases A
a trait that presents with a behavior (O = drug use) may well just present with a different behav

Front 99

5 goals of critical evaluation of theories

Back 99

Based on scientific observation
has a systematic theory (relates logically and coherently)
Testable
Comprehensive (addresses significant aspects of personality)
Applicable (translatable to a clincal setting, etc)

Front 100

Critique of Trait Approach: Scientific

Back 100

does well
lots of data (factor analysis)
diverse data
but based on behaviors rather than values, morals, motivations

Front 101

Critique of Trait Approach: Systematic

Back 101

Not so good
Eysenck has no biological evidence
Costa and McCrae are unable to describe formation of traits

Front 102

Critique of Trait Approach: Testable

Back 102

Yes
Easy totest
and all researchers come up with largely the same results
significant counter-arguments (Maybe there’s three traits instead of five, etc) show that the main idea has weight

Front 103

Critique of Trait Approach: Comprehensive

Back 103

Yes and no
Yes: all dictionary adjectives were used to narrow traits down to the big 5
No: not much attention to the why
not much attention to individuals (research works over larger populations)

Front 104

Critique of Trait Approach: Applicable

Back 104

Yes and no
Yes: Provides simple measures for predicting individual differences
No: Provides no model of therapy to bring about change
(but trait theorists say that’s not the point of trait theory)
does a good job of describing generalities
poor job of describing individualities