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;
85 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY |
The scientific study of what makes us who we are, studying individual differences |
|
|
3 principles for the Common Rule |
1. respect for person: includes allowing gppl to choose for themselves whether to participate, giving consent, extra protection to some 2. Beneficence: First and foremost, researchers should do no harm to participants 3. Justice: Benefits and burdens of research participants must be shared equally amongst potential research population |
|
|
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF PERSONALITY |
1. traits 2. genetics 3. neuroscience 4. self and identity 5. intrapsychic foundations of personality 6. regulation and motivation 7. cognitive foundations |
|
|
TRAITS (BUILDING BLOCK) |
Typical way of thinking, feeling, acting in various situations at different times influenced by physiology and environment - remains constant |
|
|
GENETICS (BUILDING BLOCK) |
Genes and environment affecting personality and behaviour- specific inherited characteristics and potentiality |
|
|
NEUROSCIENCE |
How brain and CND effect personality |
|
|
SELF AND IDENTITY |
Personal sense of who we are - self concept- create on our own, sense of self - self esteem- opinion of self concept - self identity- created from others- how we act in front of others, how we want to be perceived |
|
|
INTRAPSYCHIC FOUNDATION |
self examination of conscious and unconscious thoughts and feelings unconscious motivations (defence mechanisms) important attachments |
|
|
REGULATIONS AND MOTIVATIONS |
self determination theory, feelings of free choice and adjustment, personal competence |
|
|
COGNITIVE FOUNDATIONS |
differences in info about self and world causal impacts of life events |
|
|
integration |
Combining all blocks, not just additive but also interactive |
|
|
SCIENTIFIC METHOD |
1. ask a question 2. design and test observations 3. draw conclusions 4. publish results |
|
|
EXPERIMENT P-value |
causation independent causes dependent experimental design, condition control condition independent/dependent actual probability of obtaining result if there is no difference between groups (variables) - only provides info about probability of one type of error |
|
|
4 TYPES OF DATA AND PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT |
self report- questionnaires, interviews observation data- friends or trained observers test data- i.e. see how they behave in controlled sits like labs like data- i.e. count how many times a persons photo appeared in yearbook |
|
|
BEHAVIOURAL RESIDUE |
When people live in an environment they leave this behind- physical traces left behind by everyday actions are hints/cues to personality consensus results: extraversion-.31 openness .58 and conscientiousness .47 accurate rates .65 for openness middle for conscientiousness low for extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism |
|
|
TRAITS |
describe person's typical style of thinning, feeling and acting in different situations at different times - constant, continuum hard to measure- assume traits exist even though we can't see them "Mario is very sociable just look at how he talks" or they are internal causal properties "well of course Mario is getting along with ppl he's sociable |
|
|
IDIOGRAPHIC APPROACH |
Understand the personality of a single individual with all of his or her quirks or idiosyncrasies that make them unique |
|
|
NOMOTHETIC APPROACH |
Goal is to discover universals- concepts that apply to everyone GREAT NOMOTHETIC SEARCH FOR HUMAN UNIVERSALS Eysenck- combine both 1. specific- type level (extraversion) 2. trait level (sociability, impulsiveness, liveliness) 3. habitual response level (talk on the phone a lot) 4. specific response level (spoke once on phone to family) |
|
|
1. CENTRAL 2. SECONDARY 3. CARDINAL |
1. major importance in understand the person 5-10 traits ppl who know might mention 2. less important, consistent, displayed, only close friends might know 3. cardinal- single traits that completely dominate personality (7 dwarfs) |
|
|
THEORETICAL APPROACH |
theory or common wisdom about personality i.e.: Freud anal- uptight, sociosexual theory- people will chose 1 0r 2 strategies in relationships |
|
|
LEXICAL APPROACH |
personality traits explores a particular language and identifies the number of synonyms that describe personality help personality psychologists identify key terms for describing human personality if concept is important to speakers of a language then that concept will be encoded in their language in multiple ways |
|
|
MEASUREMENT APPROACH 2. eigenvalue 3. factor loading |
Finding important aspects of personality and measuring it - developing best questionnaire observation - factor analysis 2. amount of variance a factor can explain 3. estimate of how strongly each question fits into a given factor - arranged by importance- most variance goes first |
|
|
BIG 5 AND FACETS |
EXTRAVERSION- WARMTH, GREGARIOUSNESS, ASSERTIVENESS, ACTIVITY, EXCITEMENT SEEKING, POSITIVE EMOTION NEUROTICISM- ANXIETY, ANGRY HOSTILITY, DEPRESSION, SELF CONSCIOUSNESS, IMPULSIVENESS, VULNERABILITY TO STRESS OPENNESS- FANTASY, AESTHETICS, FEELINGS, ACTIONS, IDEAS, VALUES AGREEABLENESS- TRUST, STRAIGHTFORWARDNESS, ALTRUISM, COMPLIANCE, MODESTY, TENDER MINDEDNESS CONSCIENTIOUSNESS- COMPETENCE, ORDER, DUTIFULNESS, ACHIEVEMENT SEEKING, SELF DISCIPLINE, DELIBERATION |
|
|
GPF |
hypothesized to explain all of human personality in much the same way that represents a general factor of intelligence includes all positive aspects of 5 factor emotional stability (agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness and intellect (2 factors of alpha- emotional stability to get along with others and beta- the flexibility to deal with change, demands) people high in GPF are altruistic, sociable, able to handle stress, relaxed, open to experience, dependable and task focused (40-50% of participants) 2nd factors= 17-26% |
|
|
HEXACO |
Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience - Grew from research of cultures and languages |
|
|
EYSENCK SUPERFACTORS |
PSYCHOTICISM- how tough minded, antisocial, impulsivity, narrow traits: aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, lacking emotion EXTRAVERSION- list used NEUROTICISM- used before |
|
|
WHAT MAKES A GOOD PERSONALITY TEST |
Must be reliable, valid, specify the conditions, population and culture used in study Must have theoretical background and research evidence to prove test is related to certain outcomes |
|
|
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT |
Measurements of individual characteristics of a person |
|
|
INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY |
To see if different items of the same test give similar results |
|
|
PARALLEL- FORMS RELIABILITY |
If scores on parallel forms of the test are similar |
|
|
SPLIT-HALF RELIABILITY |
If scores on one half of the test correlate with scores on the other half |
|
|
TEMPORAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITY |
To have respondents take the test a second time to see if scores are similar |
|
|
TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY |
Re-due the test- careful that participants are not merely remembering what they originally said in the first test or that they just remembered what to do for 2nd test |
|
|
Cronbach's Alpha |
Statistical measure of internal consistency reliability - taking correlation bw scores of 2 halves of a test - the avg correlation among all possible combinations of test items taking them half at a time - the generalizability of the score from one set of items to another - want alpha to be .7 to .8 or higher when comparing individuals (IQ) |
|
|
FACE VALIDITY |
Appears to measure the construct of interest ie: test takers try harder and take a test more seriously if they can see how a test is related to the content of a job |
|
|
CRITERION VALIDITY |
Determines how good a test is, comparing results of the test to an external standard like another personality test or some behavioural outcome |
|
|
CONVERGENT VALIDITY |
If the test is similar to other tests of the same construct or to tests of related constructs |
|
|
INTERRATER RELIABILITY |
Might have two separate judges rate the personality or behaviour of a third person |
|
|
CONSTRUCT VALIDITIY |
Aim to measure underlying concept which derives from theory |
|
|
DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY |
Establishes how good an assessment is by comparing the exults to tests of the theoretically unrelated constructs in order to establish what the test doesn't measure |
|
|
barnum effect |
(ppl quick to trust a test that gave general statements) When ppl falsely believe that invalid personality tests are actually good measures of personality because they contain feedback so general that it applies to many ppl at the same time. |
|
|
GENERALIZABILITY |
Sets the boundaries or limitations of a test |
|
|
what are the 2 types of personality tests |
1. self report- answer about themselves 2. performance- based- unstructured format in which participants must project their own meanings, significances, patterns, feelings, interpretations, concerns onto the stimuli |
|
|
SELF REPORT |
may use a dichotomous 2 choice scale (true or false) Likert- type- ask participants to rate agreement (somewhat agree, disagree) or checklists, forced choice format- limited number of choices rather than a rating scale (select out of list what relates to you) |
|
|
PERFORMANCE BASED TESTS |
1. association techniques: word association, inkblot 2. construction techniques: i.e. draw a person test (TAT)thematic apperception test 3. completion techniques- sentence completion tests 4. arrangement/selection of stimuli- i.e. pick fav colour 5. expression techniques- ie. artwork |
|
|
TAT |
Used to measure motivates including need for affiliation, need for power and need for achievement respondents write a story in response to picture |
|
|
PROBLEM WITH SELF REPORTS |
1.faking good: appear better than they are 2. faking bad: 3. socially desirable responding- not admitting to distasteful but perfectly human tendencies i.e. enjoying gossiping about others 4. acquiescent responding- agreeing always 5. moderate responding- midpoint 6. patterned responding 7. respond sets/non-content responding- set way to tend to respond to report questions i.e.: US more extreme, Jap more moderate |
|
|
HOE TO FIX RESPONDING ERRORS |
Infrequency scale- inserted into a personality assessment to identify those who may be using a response set (lie scale) i.e.: add very rare questions to check for random responses Q-sort- limits amount of times respondents can choose item i.e.: can only use 5 six times |
|
|
OVER/ CLEAR PURPOSE INTEGRITY TESTS VS DIGUISED PURPOSE INTEGRITY TESTS |
1. responders understand that the intent of the test is to detect honestly 2. tries to assess characteristics related to a range of behaviours i.e. discipline, violence, drug abuse |
|
|
FACTORS THAT UNDERMINE RELIABILITY |
1. measurement error 2. state of participant 3. state of experimenter 4. environment |
|
|
HOW CAN RESPONSE SETS BE REDUCED |
1. reverse item scoring 2. infrequency scales 3. anonymity assurance 4. crowne-marlowe social desirability scale- most widely used scale for detection of faking (only if it's extreme) |
|
|
IS INTELLIGENCE A PERSONALITY TRAIT |
1. big 5 included intelligence in openness , lexical tradition identifies it as culture , others think it is identified as conscientiousness
2. ppl who rate themselves/friends as intelligent are generally thinking of personality descriptions like logic not IQ 3. individual differences in how ppl perceive and process info about the social world- some call this emotional intelligence instead |
|
|
IS RELIGIOSITY A PERSONALITY TRAIT? |
- for many ppl religion is a core part of who they are -saucier and goldberg suggests it is more a secondary trait some studies suggest it is a dimension of personality separate from the 5 factors - Piedmont- discovered that scores on each 3 transcendence scales were only slightly related to scores on 5 factor Spiritual Transcendence Perspective- scores on measures of life outcomes beyond the 5 factors some cases spirituality was stronger than effect of personality |
|
|
IS SEXUALITY A PERSONALITY TRAIT |
Buss found 7 sexuality factors refereed to as the sexy seven : sexual, attractiveness, raltionshup exclusivity, gender orientation, sexual restraint, erotophilic disposition, emotional investment and sexual orientation - discovered these factors overlap 80% with the 5 factors, suggesting they aren't really separate |
|
|
INDIGENOUS PERSONALITY: UNIQUE PERSONALITY TRAITS |
philotimo: greek word for polite, responsible, generous respectful and sense of humour Filial piety- caring for mental and physical well begin of elderly parents- continuing family line, honour to family- important in China Amae- person who others depend on |
|
|
APPLYING 5 FACTOR MODEL TO OTHER CULTURES 5 MAIN FINDINGS |
1. questionnaire measure for 5 factor model reliably replicate across many cultures and languages 2. adjectival measures of big 5 reveal variations of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness but NOT openness in many cultures 3. openess varies across cultures 4. some cultures more than 5 factors are needed to fully describe personality i.e.: Hungary and Korea 5. we need more research on indigenous personality to tryst see which aspects of personality are universal and which are linked to culture |
|
|
PERSONALITY TRAITS IN CHINA FACTOR ANALYSIS |
1. dependability 2. chinese tradition 3. social potency 4. individualism added a 6th using 5-factor model- called interpersonal relatedness (harmony, ten qing, ah-Q and face_ |
|
|
TRANGULATION |
Using 1 or more methods to understand what a person is like- process of using multiple methods within a single rpgram of research T-data O-data S-data L-data |
|
|
CONTINUITY AND CONSISTENCY |
The amount of trait stays about the same- personality CHANGE means that the amount is different- often a degree not change in kind |
|
|
PERSONALITY COHERENCE |
When the underlying trait stays the same but the way it is expressed changes- kids with high task persistence show high achievement orientation in adult hood- aggression longitudinal studies how strong coherence from kids to adults |
|
|
MEAN LEVEL CHANGE |
effects nearly everyone - changes from kids to adults Boat example: boat are ppl, differences bw boats in how they sit in water is INDIVIDUAL CHANGE in personality- they can change unique way due to actions of owner who can change the land of a boat so it rises and falls independently of other boats |
|
|
META - ANALYSIS HOW CONSISTENT ARE PPL OVER TIME |
1. stability increases over the life span (openness only thing that decreases) 2. personality traits measured closer in time tend to be more similar than traits measured further apart consistent peak is at 50- more consistent than happiness and self esteem - |
|
|
NORMATIVE CHANGE |
Normal change - greatest period of change is between 20 and 40 - generally become more assertive, warm, agreeable, conscientious and emotionally stable - openness increases in early life, decreases with old age non normative: ppl who smoke week in adulthood are not becoming more conscientious like the rest - child temperament predicts adult personality - longitudinal study: well adjusted, under controlled, inhibited, confident and reserved - by 18- under controlled: highly impulsive, danger seeking, aggression, interpersonal alienation inhibited kids- low on ^ these confident kids- high on impuslivity reserved kids- low on dominance - well adjusted- typical |
|
|
SELF CONCEPT |
The set of ideas and inferences that you hold about yourself i.e.: your traits, social role, schemas and relationships ie: develops out of physical development and cognitive maturation along with social experiences - we develop it through physical development and cognitive maturation along with social experiences - chimps have self recognition |
|
|
SUMMARIZE HOW WE DEVELOP SENSE OF SELF |
LOOK AT GRAPH |
|
|
OBJECTIVE SELF-AWARENESS |
Seeing the self as an object of social scrutiny |
|
|
REFLECTED APPRAISALS |
Opinions of significant others that are used as a mirror to evaluate ourselves - big emphasis on fam and friends |
|
|
LOOKING GLASS SELF |
Seeing ourselves as others see us |
|
|
IDENTITY |
Our place in society, definitions and standards imposed on us by others including interpersonal aspects, potentialities and values |
|
|
STEREOTYPE THREAT |
Distress people feel in a situation where their performance may confirm a stereotype- causes them to perform worse than they are capable of |
|
|
4 coding schemes for the 20 statements test |
1. physical "I am male" 2. social 3. attributive 4. global "I am human, I am me" |
|
|
INDEPENDENT VS INTERDEPENDENT SELVES |
Independent self exists wart from other people and is autonomous and self-contained - encouraged to embark on process of self-actualizaation and self-discovery to develop their potential Interdependent selves include others "ppl cannot truly be themselves without others" these 2 interact with each other |
|
|
HOPED FOR SELVES |
Might include the successful self, creative self, rich self and thin self |
|
|
FEARED SELVES |
Might be the alone self, depressed self, incompetent self, alcoholic self (anything negative) |
|
|
POSSIBLE SELVES |
Help us chose our aspirations, maintain motivation and provide continuity in our self concepts over time - |
|
|
POSITIVE POSSIBLE SELF EXPERIMENT |
derived from our past experiences, set against the backdrop of our time, place and culture- and role models - social influences has the biggest influence on our possible selves - the more salient a straight possible self was, the less life satisfaction and more regrets a participant reported also the less likely they were to be out to others CONTRAST - the more salient a gay self was, the greater life satisfaction, fewer regrets and more open about his/her life - the more ppl were invested in their best possible gay self- (easily vividly imaging a gay life) the less distress participants felts over time |
|
|
SELF ESTEEM |
the 'greatest love' the amount of value people place on themselves. It is a matter of degree - low self esteem lacking positive views about oneself - referred to as a general evaluation of one's self-concept |
|
|
SELF ESTEEM STABILITY |
refers to how stable or variable pals general feelings of self worth are over time - measured by asking ppl how they feel about themselves at the moment that they are answering the question then ask it again once or twice a day over 4-7 day period - ppl with variable low self esteem may not be so bad compared to stable low self esteem - ppl with high variable self esteem may have more difficulty coping and are more defensive |
|
|
SELF CONCEPT CLARITY |
How well people know, or think they know themselves - consistency of our self concepts whereas self esteem stability refers to consistency of our self esteem, our feelings about our self concepts - those clearer would give more extreme answers (ppl with low self esteem give midpoint answers) |
|
|
SELF HANDICAPPING |
When we purposely set ourselves ip for possible failure- we if fail we have ready made excuse and measure of self protection 1. condition- success proved high ability but failure proved nothing 2. ppl believed failure meant they lacked ability but that success meant nothing ppl with low self esteem used hand more than high SE, used more Handi when success meant they are smart |
|
|
RESEARCH METHODS- QUALITATIVE DATA AND CONTENT ANALYSIS |
1. identify the research question 2. decide if content analysis will answer the research question 3. decide what type of material will answer the research question and how best to obtain out 4. determine the unit of analysis to be coded 5. select or develop a content coding system 6. test and refine the coding system with pilot data 7. train coders to obtain adequate intercoder agreement 8. collect responses 9. code the data 10. analyze the data 11. interpret the results |
|
|
SELF PRESENTATION |
2 places we likely engage in self presentation: acting, speaking or dressing in a certain way to convey a specific image of ourselves to others MOST COMMON: integration: likeable, affection, flattery (avoid: being found out see as sycophant) 'flattery will get you everywhere' intimidation- dangerous, fear, claims of performance (avoid being too threatening) "Ill huff and I'll Puff" self promotion: competent, respect, claims of performance (avoid being too conceit) 'when you've got it flaunt it' exemplification: good example, guild, self-denial, avoid hypocrisy "Do as I do" supplication- helpless, nuturance, arouse empathy, invoke responsibility, (avoid loss of self esteem victim blame) "you're my only hope" |
|
|
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT |
The regulation of public self presentation |
|
|
AUTHENTIC SELF PRESENTATION |
ppl can present themselves truly as they are or they can attempt to create a specific image for some ulterior motive using strategic self presentation |
|
|
SELF MONITORING |
personality trait that describes the extent to which ppl are aware of and manage their self presentations, expressive behaviours and nonverbal displays of emotion to control the images and impressions others form of them - continuum high: sensitive to the behaviour of others in social situations0 use others as a guild line for own behaviour low self monitoring: less concern for social appropriateness pay less attention to what others in a situation are doing |
