CH-1-3 Introduction to Personality Psychology – Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature : Chapter Notes

This Document Contains Chapters 1 to 3 Chapter 1 Introduction to Personality Psychology Chapter Outline Personality Defined Personality is the Set of Psychological Traits . . . And Mechanisms . . . Within the Individual . . . That Are Organized and Relatively Enduring . . . And That Influence . . . His or Her Interactions with . . . And Adaptations to . . . The Environment Three Levels of Personality Analysis Human Nature How we are “like all others” Traits and mechanisms of personality that are typical of our species and possessed by nearly everyone Individual and Group Differences How we are “like some others” Individual differences refer to ways in which each person is like some other people (e.g., extraverts, sensations-seekers, high self-esteem persons) Group differences refer to ways in which the people of one group differ from people in another group (e.g., cultural differences, age differences) Individual Uniqueness How we are “like no others” Individual uniqueness refers to the fact that every individual has personal and unique qualities not shared by any other person in the world Individuals can be studied nomothetically or ideographically Nomothetic research involves statistical comparisons of individuals or groups, requiring samples of participants on which to conduct research; applied to identify and learn more about universal human characteristics or dimensions of individual or group differences Ideographic research focuses on a single person, to identify general principles that are manifest in a single life over time; often results in case studies or psychological biography of a single person A Fissure in the Field Gap within personality psychology has not yet been bridged successfully—the gap between the human nature level of analysis, and the analysis of individual and group differences This translates into a gap between grand theories of personality (human nature level of analysis) and contemporary research in personality (individual and group differences level of analysis) Grand Theories of Personality Attempt to provide universal account of the fundamental psychological processes and characteristics of our species Statements about the universal core of human nature lie at the center of grand theories of personality, such as Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory Contemporary Research in Personality Most current personality research addresses ways in which individuals and groups differ, not human universals Personality psychologists specialize in a particular domain, such as biological aspects of personality or how culture impacts personality Bridging the Fissure: The Notion of Domains of Knowledge One way to make sense of the vast amount of research in many different areas of personality is to appreciate that this research occurs along several key domains of knowledge Domain of knowledge is a specialty area of science and scholarship, in which psychologists have focused on learning about specific and limited aspects of human nature This specialization is reasonable, but we must strive to integrate diverse domains of knowledge to get the “big picture” of personality Six Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature Dispositional Domain Deals with ways in which individuals differ from one another and, therefore, cuts across all other domains Focus on number and nature of fundamental dispositions Goal of those working in this domain is to identify and measure the most important ways in which individuals differ from one another Also interested in the origin of individual differences and how these develop over time Biological Domain Core assumption of biological approaches to personality is that humans are collections of biological systems, and these systems provide building blocks for behavior, thought, and emotion Behavioral genetics of personality Psychophysiology of personality Evolutionary personality psychology Intrapsychic Domain Deals with mental mechanisms of personality, many of which operate outside conscious awareness Classic and modern versions of Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis, including work on repression, denial, projection, and motives for power, achievement, and affiliation Cognitive-Experiential Domain Focuses on cognition and subjective experience, such as conscious thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and desires about oneself and others Self and self-concept Goals we set and strive to meet Emotional experiences, in general and over time Social and Cultural Domain Assumption that personality affects, and is affected by, cultural and social contexts Much work on cultural differences between groups (e.g., in social acceptability of aggression) Also much work on individual differences within cultures—how personality plays out in the social sphere, including work on sex differences and gender differences in personality processes, traits, and mechanisms At human nature level of analysis, all humans have common set of concerns they struggle with in the social sphere Adjustment Domain Personality plays key role in how we cope, adapt, and adjust to events in daily life Personality linked with important health outcomes and problems in coping and adjustment THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY THEORY STANDARDS FOR EVALUATING PERSONALITY THEORIES IS THERE A GRAND ULTIMATE AND TRUE THEORY OF PERSONALITY? SUMMARY AND EVALUATION Personality research is often informed by personality theory Theory has several key purposes Serves as a guide for researchers Organizes known findings Makes predictions about behavior and psychological phenomena that no one has yet documented or observed Scientific theories need to be distinguished from beliefs Beliefs are based on leaps of faith, not on reliable facts and systematic observations, whereas theories are based on systematic observations that can be repeated by others to yield similar conclusions KEY TERMS Trait-Descriptive Adjectives Domain of Knowledge Personality Dispositional Domain Psychological Traits Biological Domain Average Tendencies Intrapsychic Domain Psychological Mechanisms Cognitive-Experiential Domain Within the Individual Social and Cultural Domain Organized and Enduring Adjustment Domain Influential Forces Good Theory Person-Environment Interaction Theories and Beliefs Adaptation Standards for Evaluating Personality Theories Environment Comprehensiveness Human Nature Heuristic Value Individual Differences Testability Parsimony Differences Between Groups Compatibility and Integration Across Domains and Levels Nomothetic Idiographic Chapter Overview This chapter provides students with a brief overview and introduction to the field of personality psychology. The authors present a definition of personality as “ . . . the set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring, and that influence his or her interactions with, and adaptations to, the environment (including the intrapsychic, physical, and social environment).” Each aspect of this definition is examined in detail. The authors introduce three key levels of analysis in personality psychology: human nature, individual and group differences, and individual uniqueness. Next, the authors discuss a long-standing fissure in the field of personality psychology, between the human nature level of analysis, and the analysis of individual and group differences. The authors suggest that focusing on several domains of knowledge about personality can bridge this fissure. These six domains of knowledge are the dispositional domain, the biological domain, the intrapsychic domain, the cognitive-experiential domain, the social and cultural domain, and the adjustment domain. Each of these domains of knowledge is discussed in turn. The authors end with a discussion of the key features of a scientific theory and address how scientific theories differ from unsubstantiated beliefs, such as the belief in astrology. Learning Objectives Define personality and understand each of the elements of the definition of personality. Describe and provide examples of the three levels of personality analysis. Describe the fissure in the field of personality psychology between studies designed to investigate human nature analysis and studies designed to investigate individual and group differences. Describe and understand how a focus on domains of knowledge may bridge the fissure in contemporary personality psychology. Describe and be familiar with the six domains of knowledge in personality psychology. Discuss the three key purposes of scientific theories, and be able to distinguish theories from beliefs. Lecture Topics and Lecture Suggestions Desirable Features of a Personality Theory. Students are often are interested in learning more about what makes a good personality theory (in addition to what makes a good theory, more generally, as addressed in Larsen and Buss). Introducing students to the desirable features of a personality theory early in the term provides students with the opportunity to reflect back on these features and assess the extent to which each new theory they learn about includes these features. Many of the theories include several of these features, but do not include others of these features. The instructor can address these successes and failures, and students can be referred back to the presentation of the desirable features of a personality theory. Specifies what motivates people (what gets them out of bed in the morning; toward what goals they direct their energy). Included in this are: Universal motives, if any Sex differentiated motives, if any Individually differentiated motives, if any Culturally differentiated motives, if any Articulates a theory of why people are motivated in these ways. Included in this are Why the sexes differ in the ways that they do Why individuals differ in ways that they do Specifies what units will be employed, as well as providing a rationale for those units (these could include: traits, motives, psychological mechanisms, needs, internal states, schemas, constructs, strategies, tactics, goals, acts, personal projects, personal constructs, emotions) Identifies major ways in which individuals differ (including sex differences, cultural differences, and individual differences within sex and within culture) Provides an account of why individuals differ in the major ways that they do (including an account of sex differences, cultural differences, and individual differences within sex and within culture) Provides an account of personality development (i.e., what changes over time; how people differ in development over time; and why) Provides an account of the major forms of contextual and social inputs into the basic psychological mechanisms of individuals (given that social, contextual, and cultural environments differ in many ways, what are the major inputs?) Accounts for known empirical phenomena (e.g., replicable trait structures such as the “Big Five;” known sex differences in personality, such as in aggression and sexuality; known age differences, such as decrease in sensation seeking and risk-taking with age) Has heuristic value (i.e., provides a powerful guide to empirical phenomena and to important domains of inquiry Has predictive value (i.e., can generate precise predictions of an array of phenomena, which are then confirmed by rigorous empirical tests) Is consistent with what is known about the causal forces that govern all other forms of organic life and physical matter (e.g., is consistent with the laws of gravity, is consistent with evolution by natural selection) Provides a comprehensive explanation of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors at any given time, as well as over time Provides links with the everyday concerns and actions of people Stages of Scientific Development (Kuhn, 1970). The history of personality psychology, like the history of any branch of psychology or science, more generally, is one of an ebb and flow of dominant and challenging paradigms and theories. Students will appreciate a brief introduction to the stages of scientific development as presented by Kuhn (1970). Alert students early in the course to the fact that personality psychology is not different from other areas of psychology, or from other areas of science, in that it is characterized by shifts in paradigms and challenges to current theories that lead to the development of new paradigms and new theories. If students are introduced to this topic early in the course, they will be better situated to appreciate the ebb and flow of theories in personality psychology. Developmental Stage Characterized by continual competition between a number of distinct schools and views of nature Each school believes it functions according to dictates of scientific method and observation What differentiates competing schools is not commitment to scientific method, but differing views of the world At this stage of development, there is no common body of data and belief, so each school builds the field from its own foundation and chooses its own supporting observations Fact gathering has random quality—no systematic accumulation of knowledge During this stage, the field is without a commonly accepted model or paradigm that defines the field of observations and research methods Normal Science Stage Begins with the acceptance of paradigm and is based on scientific achievement During this stage, there is acceptance of and commitment to a model that defines which problems are legitimate areas of research and points out the appropriate research methods More rigid definition of field occurs, research is more focused, observations more restricted, knowledge more cumulative During this stage, scientists are somewhat tradition-bound and committed to the accepted model Instead of many competing schools, there are few, and frequently just one Scientific Revolution Stage Some observations during the period of normal science don’t fit the accepted model These observations create crisis in which tradition is shattered and, after a period of turmoil, a new paradigm is accepted (Copernicus, Newton, Einstein) New theory is incompatible with the old one and offers explanations of critical observations that could not be explained with the earlier paradigm Acceptance of a new paradigm occurs after a period of intense struggle among competing views and a period of wide-open research—this period shares features with the early developmental stage What differentiates this stage from the early developmental stage is that it follows a period of articulation of paradigm and is a response to particular observations that presented problems for that paradigm New paradigm is accepted because it offers solutions to critical issues in the field Replaces old paradigm and involves re-evaluation of prior facts Once accepted, the new paradigm is accompanied by a period of normal science until new observations arise and set the stage for another scientific revolution Conclusion: Successive transition from one paradigm to another via revolution is usually a developmental pattern in mature science, including personality psychology Reference: Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Classroom Activities and Demonstrations At the beginning of the first class, ask the students to write on a sheet of paper their definition of “personality.” Give students about five minutes to do this, and then ask them to fold the paper in half to conceal their responses and hand the paper in to you. Do not ask them to put their names or any other identifying information on the paper. Ask a few students to volunteer their definitions of personality. Then read through at random a few of the responses submitted by students. Highlight how the students’ definitions are similar to the definition provided by Larsen and Buss. Use this as a launching point to introduce the definition of personality provided by Larsen and Buss. At the beginning of the first class (perhaps after, before, or instead of exercise #1), ask the students to generate on a sheet of paper two columns of terms or phrases—one column that describes themselves and a second column that describes a close friend. Give students about five minutes to do this, and then ask them to fold the paper in half to conceal their responses and hand the paper in to you. Do not ask them to put their names or any other identifying information on the paper. Ask a few students (one at a time) to volunteer a few of the characteristics they reported for themselves. Then ask the same students (again, one at a time) to report a few of the characteristics they reported for their close friends that are similar to characteristics they reported for themselves. Finally, ask the same students (one at a time) to report a few of the characteristics they reported for themselves that are different from the characteristics they reported for their close friends. Highlight for students that this is an informal exercise in personality psychology. Personality psychology, in part, addresses how and why people are the same, and how and why people are different. Also note for students that the focus on characteristics or “trait-descriptive adjectives” is the primary focus of one group of personality psychologists known as “trait psychologists.” Distribute Activity Handout 1–1 on page 15 of this document (“What Are Your Goals?”) to students. Have students take about five minutes to complete the handout during class. Ask for volunteers to share their responses. Use these responses as a springboard for discussing that our social environment—the challenges we encounter in our struggles for belongingness, love, and esteem from others—is central to an understanding of personality. Following the second Exercise Box in this chapter, ask students to write and hand in at the next class session a one-page essay about a good friend, someone they know well, in which the student describes what is characteristic, enduring, and functional about the person. Ask students to include in this description those elements of the ways in which the person they are writing about interacts with, or adapts to, the physical, social, and intrapsychic environments. Collect these essays at the beginning of the next class session. Ask students to volunteer their responses and use this as a springboard for discussing the key elements of personality, as defined by Larsen and Buss. According to Larsen and Buss, the field of personality psychology can be cleaved into six distinct domains of knowledge about human nature. Personality is influenced by biological events (the biological domain), by conflicts within the person’s own mind (the intrapsychic domain), by traits the person is born with or develops (dispositional domain), by personal and private thoughts, feelings, desires, beliefs, and other subjective experiences (the cognitive-experiential domain), by social, cultural, and gendered positions in the world (the social and cultural domain), and by the adaptations and adjustments that people must make to the inevitable challenges of life (the adjustment domain). Ask the students to count off in sixes (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.). Have the students arrange themselves by number into six different groups. Note for the students that some people are very shy, experiencing great anxiety in the presence of others, particularly in a social setting in which they are expected to interact with others. Instruct each group of students to discuss and generate three possible causes for this person’s shyness. Assign the “1s” the biological domain. These students will discuss and generate three possible biological causes for this person’s shyness. Assign the “2s” the intrapsychic domain. These students will discuss and generate three possible conflicts within the person’s own mind that might cause his shyness. And so on for group 3 (the dispositional domain), 4 (the cognitive-experiential domain), 5 (the social and cultural domain), and 6 (adjustment domain). Close the discussion by highlighting for students that each of these domains is needed for generating a comprehensive understanding of shyness and all other aspects of personality variation. Note how one domain often generates only part of the picture, and that these six domains usually generate complementary and not competing insights into personality. Distribute Activity Handout 1–2 on page 16 of this document (“Levels of Analysis in Personality?”) to students. Have students take about five minutes to complete the handout during class. Ask for volunteers to share their responses for each of the questions. Use these responses as a springboard for discussing the three levels of personality analysis presented by Larsen and Buss. Help students see that the same phenomena—for example, emotional stability or agreeableness—can be studied at each of these three levels of analysis. Chapter 2 Personality Assessment, Measurement, and Research Design Chapter Outline Sources of Personality Data Self-Report Data (S-Data) Information provided by a person, such as through a survey or interview Individuals have access to a wealth of information about themselves that is inaccessible to anyone else S-data personality tests Unstructured items—open-ended Structured items—response options provided Limitations of S-data People may not respond honestly People may lack accurate self-knowledge Observer-Report Data (O-Data) Information provided by someone else about another person Key features of O-data Provide access to information not attainable through other sources Multiple observers can be used to assess a person Selecting observers Professional personality assessors People who actually know the target person Often in better position to observe target’s natural behaviors than professional personality assessors Allows for assessment of multiple social personalities Because of relationship to target, however, observer may be biased Naturalistic versus artificial observation Naturalistic observation: Observers witness and record events that occur in the normal course of lives of the participants Artificial observation: Occurs in artificial settings or situations Naturalistic observation has the advantage of being able to secure information in realistic context, but at the cost of not being able to control events witnessed Artificial observation has the advantage of controlling conditions and eliciting relevant behavior, but at the cost of sacrificing realism Test-Data (T-Data) Information provided by standardized tests or testing situations Idea is to see if different people behave differently in identical situations Situation designed to elicit behaviors that serve as indicators of personality Elicited behavior “scored” without reliance on inference Limitations Participants might try to guess what trait is being measured and then alter their behavior to create certain impressions Difficult to know if participants define testing situation as intended by experimenter Researcher might influence how participants behave Mechanical recording devices “Actometer” used to assess children’s activity Strengths Not hampered by biases of human observer May be used in naturalistic settings Disadvantage: few personality dispositions lend themselves to mechanical assessment Physiological data Includes information about a person’s level of arousal, reactivity to stimuli—potential indicators of personality Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) Key benefit is that it is difficult to fake responses Disadvantages Often used in artificial laboratory setting Accuracy of recording hinges on whether participant perceives situation as experimenter intended Projective Techniques Person presented with ambiguous stimuli and asked to describe what she sees; assumption is that person “projects” personality onto ambiguous stimuli Strengths: May provide useful means for gathering information about wishes, desires, fantasies that a person is not aware of and could not report Disadvantages: Difficult to score, uncertain validity, and reliability Life-Outcome Data (L-Data) Information that can be gleaned from events, activities, and outcomes in a person’s life that is available for public scrutiny—e.g., marriage, speeding tickets Can serve as important source of “real life” information about personality Issues in Personality Assessment Links among different data sources When they do and do not exist and how to interpret these linkages Fallibility of personality measurement All sources of data have limitations Results that replicate through “triangulation” (across different data sources) are most powerful Evaluation of Personality Measures Reliability Degree to which measure represents “true” level of trait being measured Types of reliability Test-retest reliability: scores at one administration positively correlate with scores at second administration Inter-rater reliability: applicable only to observer-based personality measures; ratings provided by one observer correlate with ratings provided by another observer Internal consistency reliability: items within test positively correlate Response Sets Acquiescence: Tendency to agree with items, regardless of content; psychologists counteract by reverse-keying some items Extreme responding: Tendency to give endpoint responses Social desirability: Tendency to answer items in such a way so that one comes across as socially attractive or likable Two views on social desirability: Represents distortion and should be eliminated or reduced Resolved by (1) measuring and statistically removing, (2) designing surveys that are less susceptible to this response set, or (3) using forced-choice format Valid part of other desirable personality traits, such as agreeableness, and should be studied Self-deceptive optimism versus impression management Validity Degree to which test measures what it claims to measure Types of validity Face validity: whether test appears to measure what it is supposed to measure Predictive or criterion validity: whether test predicts criteria external to the test that it is expected to predict Convergent validity: whether test score correlates with other measures that it should correlate with Discriminant validity: whether test score does not correlate with other measures it should not correlate with Construct validity: subsumes other types of validity; broadest type of validity Generalizability Degree to which measure retains validity across different contexts, including different groups of people and different conditions Generalizability subsumes reliability and validity Greater generalizability not always better; what is important is to identify empirical contexts in which a measure is and is not applicable Research Designs in Personality Experimental Methods Used to determine causality—whether one variable causes another Two key requirements: Manipulation of variables—experimenter manipulates independent variable and measures effects on dependent variable Ensuring that participants in each experimental condition are equivalent to each other—accomplished through random assignment Correlational Studies Correlation is a statistical procedure for determining whether there is a relationship between two variables Designed to identify “what goes with what” in nature, and not designed to identify causal relationships Major advantage is that it allows us to identify relationships among variables as they occur naturally Correlation coefficient varies from–1 (perfect negative relationships) through 0 (no relationship) to +1 (perfect positive relationship) Correlation does not indicate causation Directionality problem Third variable problem Case Studies In-depth examination of the life of one person Advantages Can find out about personality in great detail Can give insights into personality that can be used to formulate a more general theory that is tested on a larger sample Can provide in-depth knowledge about an outstanding figure, such as a political or religious figure Disadvantages Results based on the study of single person cannot be generalized to others When to Use Experimental, Correlational, and Case Study Designs Each design has strengths and weakness; strength of one is weakness of another Which design a researcher uses depends on the research question and the goal of research Taken together, three designs provide complementary methods for exploring personality SUMMARY AND EVALUATION Decisions about data source and research design depend on the purpose of study There is no perfect data source There is no perfect research design But some data sources and some methods are better suited for some purposes than for others KEY TERMS Self-Report Data (S-Data) Criterion Validity Structured and Unstructured Convergent Validity Likert Rating Scale Discriminant Validity Experience Sampling Construct Validity Observer-Report Data (O-Data) Theoretical Constructs Inter-Rater Reliability Generalizability Multiple Social Personalities Experimental Methods Naturalistic Observation Manipulation Test-Data (T-Data) Random Assignment Functional Magnetic Resonance Counterbalancing Imaging (fMRI) Statistically Significant Projective Techniques Correlational Method Life-Outcome Data (L-Data) Correlation Coefficient Reliability Directionality Problem Repeated Measurement Third Variable Problem Response Sets Case Study Method Non content Responding Acquiescence Extreme Responding Social Desirability Forced-Choice Questionnaire Validity Face Validity Predictive Validity Chapter Overview This chapter provides students with an introduction to the sources of personality data, how personality measures are evaluated, and to research designs in personality. The authors first address the four primary sources of data collected by personality psychologists. These are Self-report data (S-data), Observer-report data (O-data), Test-data (T-data), and Life-outcome data (L-data). The authors then address the conditions under which links are and are not expected among data collected from the different sources. Because personality data are fallible, the authors recommend collecting data from more than one data source. Results that transcend data sources are more powerful. The authors then discuss how personality measures are evaluated. This section of the chapter includes discussions of a measure’s reliability, validity, and generalizability. Next the authors discuss the three key research methods used by personality psychologists. These are experimental designs, correlational designs, and case studies. Each research method has strengths and weaknesses. The strength of one design is a weakness of another, and the weakness of one design is a strength of another. The authors note that the type of design one uses will depend on the research question and the purpose of the investigation. The authors close by noting that no source of data is perfect and that no research method is perfect. Whether a data source or method is appropriate will depend on the research question and the purpose of the research. Learning Objectives Describe and provide examples of the four sources of data collected by personality psychologists: Self-report data (S-data), Observer-report data (O-Data), Test-data (T-data), and Life-outcome data (L-data). Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each source of personality data. Discuss how each source of data can provide information not provided by the other sources of data. For O-data, discuss the problems of selecting observers and of naturalistic versus artificial observations. For T-data, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of mechanical recording devices and physiological recording devices, and provide examples of each type of device. For T-data, discuss and provide examples of projective techniques, including identifying the strengths and weaknesses of these sources of data. Discuss the conditions under which one might expect links among different sources of data, and how the presence or absence of these links can be interpreted. Define reliability, including a discussion of test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability, and internal consistency reliability. Define validity, including a discussion of face validity, predictive or criterion validity, convergent validity, discriminative validity, and construct validity. Define and discuss generalizability, including a discussion of the different “contexts” to which a measure might be generalizable. Describe and provide examples of the three types of research methods used by personality psychologists: experimental methods, correlational designs, and case studies. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of each type of research method Identify and discuss when it might be appropriate to use one of the three research methods instead of the others. Discuss how each type of research method can provide information not provided by the other research methods. Lecture Topics and Lecture Suggestions Personality and Mate Preferences: Five Factors in Mate Selection and Marital Satisfaction (Botwin, Buss, & Shackelford, 1997). Students will appreciate the presentation of a research paper in personality psychology that employs multiple sources of data. In addition, the topics of mate preferences, mate selection, and relationship satisfaction are consistently well received. Instructors can use this study as a spring board for discussions of the different sources of data, including such issues as the limitations of self-report and observer-report, as well as the relationship of personality to “real world” outcomes such as relationship satisfaction. Personality characteristics figure prominently in what people want in a mate (see, e.g., Buss, 2004, for a review) Little is known, however, about which personality characteristics are most important among mate preferences whether men and women differ in their personality preferences whether individual men and women differ in what they want in a mate, and whether individuals actually get what they want in a mate To explore these issue, two parallel studies were conducted, one using a sample of dating couples (N = 118) and one using a sample of married couples (N = 216) The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality (proposing five major dimensions covering the range of personality variations: Surgency or Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, and Openness/Intellect) guided investigation The FFM, operationalized in adjectival form, was used to assess personality characteristics from three data sources Self-report (S-data) Partner-report (O-data) Independent interviewer-report (O-data) Participants evaluated on a parallel 40-item instrument their preferences for the ideal personality characteristics of their mates Results were consistent across both studies Women expressed greater preference than men for a wide array of socially desirable personality traits Individuals differed in which characteristics they desired, preferring mates who were similar to themselves and actually obtaining mates who embodied what they desired Personality characteristics of one’s partner significantly predicted marital and sexual dissatisfaction, most notably when the partner was lower than desired on Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Openness/Intellect References: Botwin, M. D., Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Personality and mate preferences: Five factors in mate selection and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 65, 107–136. Buss, D. M. (2004). The evolution of desire (rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books. Personality and Day-to-Day Physical Symptoms (Larsen & Kasimatis, 1991). One of the research methodologies used to study personality and not explicitly discussed in Larsen and Buss is what is often called the “daily diary design.” This design is similar to an experience sampling design, in that data are collected on an ongoing basis from the same set of participants. In daily diary studies, data are collected on a daily basis about events such as physical symptoms, emotions, and self-esteem. In addition, personality researchers often collect personality data either before or after the daily diary phase. Students will likely enjoy hearing about this sort of research design, which highlights the critical role of the participant in making personality research work. In addition, the topic of the relationships between personality and health is likely to capture the interest of a large portion of students enrolled in personality psychology courses. Larsen & Kasimatis (1991) explored the relationship between personality and ongoing health status in 43 undergraduates The students completed mood and symptom reports three times a day for eight weeks A daily event approach was used to model three temporal parameters of day-to-day health Occurrence rate of symptoms Duration of symptoms, and Covariation of symptoms and moods over time The researchers then determined if these variables related to three personality variables Neuroticism (emotional instability) Anger/hostility, and Type A behavior (excessive achievement striving, competitiveness, impatience, hostility, and vigorous speech and motor mannerisms) Results Occurrence of illness related most strongly to neuroticism Duration of illness related most strongly to the trait of aggressive responding Type A behavior related to less unpleasant affect reported during episodes of respiratory infection, aches, and depressive symptoms The researchers conclude with a discussion of how alternative models of health/illness are made possible by the daily event perspective. Reference: Larsen, R. J., & Kasimatis, M. (1991). Day-to-day physical symptoms: Individual differences in the occurrence, duration, and emotional concomitants of minor daily illnesses. Journal of Personality, 59, 387–423. Classroom Activities and Demonstrations Distribute Activity Handout 2–1 on page 14 of this document (“Twenty Statements Test,” or TST) to students. Have student take about five minutes to complete the test during class. Ask for volunteers to share their responses. Use this discussion as a springboard to talk about the TST, in particular, and the value of self-report data, more generally. Highlight for the students that the TST requests self-report information that cannot be obtained from any other person except the students themselves. Finally, ask students to discuss what they think this test reveals about them. Distribute Activity Handout 2–2 on page 15 of this document (“How Accurately Can You Describe Yourself?”). This is a measure of standings on the five factors of personality, or the “Big Five.” The Big Five are Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness/Intellect. Give students about five minutes to complete the inventory. You will then need to allow students about 10 minutes to score their responses. Ask students to write down the scoring instructions because they will need them to complete a future exercise (see #3 below). This measure is scored as follows: To get a score for each of the five factors, take the mean of the indicated items. Items with an asterisk (*) should be reverse coded BEFORE entered into the mean. Reverse code as follows: 1 = 7, 2 = 6, 3 = 5, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, and 7 = 1 Surgency: 1, *6, *11, 16, 21, *26, 31, *36 Agreeableness: 2, *7, 12, *17, *22, 27, *32, 37 Conscientiousness: 3, 8, 13, 18, *23, *28, 33, *38 Emotional Stability: *4, *9, *14, 19, *24, 29, *34, 39 Openness/Intellect: 5, 10, 15, *20, 25, 30, *35, *40 This is a valuable exercise, not only because students will learn about their standings on five major personality dimensions, but also because students will participate firsthand in taking and scoring a personality test. They will better appreciate how item scores are aggregated to form scale scores, for example. After students have completed Activity Handout 2–2, distribute Activity Handout 2–3 on page 16 of this document (“How Accurately Can you Describe ________”). Instruct students to have someone who knows them well complete the measure for the student. That is, this other person will rate the student on the 40 items. Instruct the students to bring the completed and scored measure with them to the next class session. Before the next class session, students should consider how their self-reported standing on each of the five factors differs from their observer-reported standing on these factors. Questions that can be raised for discussion include: How close were your self-reported standings and your observer-reported standings on each of the factors? Which factors had the greatest discrepancy between self-report and observer-report? Which had the least? If there are discrepancies, which set of ratings is “correct?” Why? Chapter 3 Traits and Trait Taxonomies Chapter Outline Introduction Trait-descriptive adjectives: Words that describe traits, attributes of a person that are characteristic of a person and perhaps enduring over time Three fundamental questions guide those who study traits How should we conceptualize traits? How can we identify which traits are the most important from among the many ways that individuals differ? How can we formulate a comprehensive taxonomy of traits—a system that includes within it all the major traits of personality? What Is a Trait? Two Basic Formulations Traits as Internal Causal Properties Traits are presumed to be internal in that individuals carry their desires, needs, and wants from one situation to next Desires and needs are presumed to be causal in that they explain behavior of individuals who possess them Traits can lie dormant in that capacities are present even when behaviors are not expressed Scientific usefulness of viewing traits as causes of behavior lies in ruling out other causes Traits as Purely Descriptive Summaries Traits as descriptive summaries of attributes of a person; no assumption about internality, nor is causality assumed Argue that we must first identify and describe important individual differences and subsequently develop casual theories to explain them The Act Frequency Formulation of Traits—An Illustration of the Descriptive Summary Foundation Starts with the notion that traits are categories of acts Act Frequency Research Program Act nominations: Designed to identify which acts belong in which trait categories Prototypicality judgments: Involves identifying which acts are most central or prototypical of each trait category Monitoring act performance: Securing information on actual performance of individuals in their daily lives Evaluation of the Act Frequency Formulation Does not specify how much context should be included in the description of the trait-relevant act Seems applicable to overt actions, but what about failures to act or covert acts not directly observable? May not successfully capture complex traits Atheoretical—nothing within approach provides guide to which traits are important or explanation for why individuals differ in frequency of act performance over time Accomplishments of act frequency formulation Helpful in making explicit the behavioral phenomena to which most trait terms refer Helpful in identifying behavioral regularities Helpful in exploring the meaning of some traits that are difficult to study, such as impulsivity and creativity Identification of the Most Important Traits Lexical Approach Starts with lexical hypothesis: All important individual differences have become encoded within the natural language over time Trait terms are important for people in communicating with others Two criteria for identifying important traits Synonym frequency Cross-cultural universality Problems and limitations Many traits are ambiguous, metaphorical, obscure, or difficult Personality is conveyed through different parts of speech (not just adjectives), including nouns and adverbs Lexical approach is a good starting point for identifying important and individual differences, but should not be the exclusive approach used Statistical Approach Starts with a large, diverse pool of personality items—e.g., trait words or series of questions about behavior, experience, and emotion Most researchers using lexical approach turn to statistical approach to distill ratings of trait adjectives into basic categories of traits Goal of statistical approach is to identify major dimensions of personality Factor analysis Identifies groups of items that covary or go together, but tend not to covary with other groups of items Provides means for determining which personality variables share some property or belong within the same group Useful in reducing the large array of diverse traits into smaller, more useful set of underlying factors Factor loading: Index of how much of a variation in an item is “explained” by a factor Cautionary note: You only get out of factor analysis what you put in; thus, researchers must pay attention to the initial selection items Theoretical Approach Starts with a theory, which then determines which variables are important Example: Sociosexual orientation (Simpson & Gangestad, 1991) Strengths coincide with strengths of a theory, and weaknesses coincide with the weaknesses of a theory Evaluating the Approaches for Identifying Important Traits In practice, many personality researchers use a combination of three approaches Norman (1963) and Goldberg (1990) started with the lexical strategy to identify the first set of variables for inclusion Then used factor analysis to reduce the set to a more manageable number (five) This strategy solves two problems central to the science of personality: Problem of identifying key domains of individual differences Problem of describing order or structure that exists among individual differences identified Taxonomies of Personality Eysenck’s Hierarchical Model of Personality Model of personality based on traits that Eysenck believed were highly heritable and had psychophysiological foundation Three traits met criteria: Extraversion-Introversion (E), Neuroticism-Emotional Stability (N), Psychoticism (P) Extraversion: High scorers like partiers, have many friends, require people around to talk to, like playing practical jokes on others, display carefree, easy manner, and have a high activity level Neuroticism: High scorers are worriers, anxious, depressed, have trouble sleeping, experience array of psychosomatic symptoms, and over-reactivity of negative emotions Psychoticism: High scorers are solitary, lack empathy, often cruel and inhumane, insensitivity to pain and suffering of others, aggressive, penchant for strange and unusual, impulsive, and has antisocial tendencies Hierarchical structure of Eysenck’s System Super traits (P, E, N) at the top Narrower traits at the second level Subsumed by each narrower trait is the third level—habitual acts At the lowest level of the four-tiered hierarchy are specific acts Hierarchy has the advantage of locating each specific, personality-relevant act within increasingly precise nested system Biological underpinnings—key criteria for “basic” dimensions of personality Heritability: P, E, and N have moderate heritabilities, but so do many other personality traits Identifiable physiological substrate Extraversion is linked with the central nervous system reactivity Neuroticism is linked with the degree of lability of autonomic nervous system Psychoticism is linked with the testosterone levels and MAO levels, a neurotransmitter inhibitor Limitations Many other personality traits show moderate heritability Eysenck may have missed important traits Cattell’s Taxonomy: The 16 Personality Factor System Cattell’s goal was to identify and measure the basic units of personality Believed that the true factors of personality should be found across different types of data, such as self-reports and laboratory tests Identified 16 factors Major criticisms Some personality researchers have failed to replicate the 16 factors Many argue that a smaller number of factors captures important ways in which individuals differ Circumplex Taxonomies of Personality The Wiggins Circumplex (1979) Wiggins developed measurement scales to assess traits Started with the lexical assumption Argued that trait terms specify different kinds of ways in which individuals differ: Interpersonal, temperament, character, material, attitude, mental, and physical Wiggins was concerned with interpersonal traits and carefully separated these out Defined “interpersonal” as interactions between people involving exchanges Two resources that define social exchange are love and status Dimensions of status and love define axes of Wiggins circumplex Wiggins circumplex has three key advantages Provides an explicit definition of what constitutes “interpersonal” behavior Specifies relationships between each trait and every other trait in the model (adjacency, bipolarity, orthogonality) Alerts investigators to “gaps” in work on interpersonal behavior Key limitation: Interpersonal map is limited to two dimensions—other traits may have important interpersonal consequences Five-Factor Model Five broad factors: Surgency or Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness/Intellect Originally based on the combination of lexical and statistical approaches Big Five taxonomy has achieved a greater degree of consensus than any other trait taxonomy in the history of personality trait psychology Empirical evidence for five-factor model of personality Replicable in studies using English language trait words as items Found by more than a dozen researchers using different samples Replicated in every decade for the past half century, suggesting five- factor solution replicable over time Replicated in different languages Replicated using different item formats The troublesome fifth factor: Some disagreement remains about the content and replicability of fifth factor Empirical correlates of the five factors Is the five-factor model comprehensive? Possible omissions include positive evaluation, negative evaluation, masculinity/femininity, religiosity or spirituality, attractiveness, sexuality Personality-descriptive nouns SUMMARY AND EVALUATION There are different approaches to identifying the important traits Personality psychologists sometimes blend the approaches Formulating an overarching taxonomy of personality traits is fundamental KEY TERMS Lexical Approach Orthogonality Statistical Approach Five-Factor Model Theoretical Approach Extraversion Lexical Hypothesis Social Attention Synonym Frequency Agreeableness Cross-Cultural Universality Conscientiousness Factor Analysis Emotional Stability Factor Loadings Openness Sociosexual Orientation Combinations of Big Five Variables Interpersonal Traits Personality-Descriptive Nouns Adjacency Bipolarity Chapter Overview This chapter provides students with an overview of historical and current research on personality traits and trait taxonomies. The authors begin by identifying three fundamental questions that guide trait psychologists: How should we conceptualize traits? How can we identify which traits are the most important traits from among the many ways in which individuals differ? How can we formulate a comprehensive taxonomy of traits—a system that includes within it all the major traits of personality? The authors then present two basic formulations for defining traits: Traits as internal causal properties and traits as purely descriptive summaries of the attributes of persons. The authors present the act frequency formulation of traits as an example of the descriptive summary perspective. The authors then review three approaches to identifying the most important traits: Lexical, statistical, and theoretical approaches. Next the authors review four major taxonomies of personality. Eysenck’s hierarchical model identifies three super-traits (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism) and highlights biological underpinnings of basic traits. Cattell’s 16 Personality Factor system has received empirical support, but many argue it proposes too many “basic” traits. The circumplex model of personality organizes interpersonal traits around a circle defined by two orthogonal dimensions of status and love. The five-factor model of personality (Surgency or Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Openness-Intellect) dominates trait psychology today and was originally based on a combination of the lexical and statistical approaches. The five-factor model has achieved greater consensus among personality psychologists than any other taxonomy in the history of personality psychology. Several questions remain for future work on the “Big Five,” however, including identifying factors that may have been omitted from the taxonomy, and clarifying the content of the fifth factor. Learning Objectives Identify and provide examples of trait-descriptive adjectives. Identify and discuss the three fundamental questions that guide psychologists who study personality traits. Identify and discuss the two basic formulations for answering the question “What is a trait?” Discuss the act frequency formulation of traits, including a brief review of each of the four steps involved in this program of research. Be familiar with accomplishments and critiques of the act frequency formulation of traits. Identify and discuss the three basic approaches to identifying the most important traits. Discuss Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality, including brief reviews of the basic super-traits identified by this model. Discuss the advantages and limitations of Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality. Discuss Cattell’s 16 personality factor system, including a brief review of each of the 16 basic traits identified in this system. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of Cattell’s 16 personality factor system. 11. Discuss Wiggins’ circumplex model of personality, including its advantages and limitations. 12. Identify and briefly discuss the five factors of the five-factor model of personality. Discuss the empirical evidence for the five-factor model of personality. Discuss the troublesome nature of the fifth factor of the five-factor model of personality. Discuss whether the five-factor model of personality provides comprehensive coverage of individual differences. Lecture Topics and Lecture Suggestions Do People Know How They Behave? Self-Reported Act Frequencies Compared with On-Line Codings by Observers (Gosling, John, Craik, & Robins, 1998). This lecture is designed to encourage students to think more deeply about the act frequency approach, which was presented in detail by Larsen and Buss. Use this lecture as a springboard for discussing the act frequency approach, including its strengths and weaknesses. Behavioral acts constitute the building blocks of interpersonal perception and the basis for inferences about personality traits How reliably can observers code the acts individuals perform in a specific situation? How valid are retrospective self-reports of these acts? Participants in this research interacted in a group-discussion task and then reported their act frequencies, which were later coded by observers from videotapes For each act, observer-observer agreement, self-observer agreement, and self-enhancement bias were examined Results Agreement varied greatly across acts Much of this variation was predictable from properties of the acts (observability, base rate, desirability, Big Five domain) On average, self-reports were positively distorted, and This was particularly true for narcissistic individuals Discussion focuses on implications for research on acts, traits, social perception, and the act frequency approach Reference: Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared with on-line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1337–1349. Sexual Dimensions of Person Description: Beyond or Subsumed by the Big Five? (Schmitt & Buss, 2000). Students will find this research intriguing and interesting, and this lecture can be used as a springboard for discussing the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model of personality (or lack thereof), and whether sexuality is a dimension of personality. Challenge students to consider whether they think sexuality-descriptive words represent a dimension so important that it should be included in the five-factor model, which then would comprise six factors. Why or why not? This research was designed to accomplish five goals (1) to explore the sexual dimensions of person description (2) to evaluate the psychometric properties of scales derived from the lexicon of sexuality (3) to detail the links between the sexual lexicon and the five dimensions uncovered by previous lexical researchers (4) to examine whether additional dimensions beyond the Big Five are needed to incorporate the sexual lexicon, and (5) to discover whether sex differences exist along lexical sexuality dimensions Results Participants had a mean age of 23 years Using self-ratings of 67 sexuality adjectives made by 217 female and 150 male participants and on 207 observer-ratings of the opposite sex, the authors found seven sexual dimensions of person description Sexual Attractiveness, Relationship Exclusivity, Gender Orientation, Sexual Restraint, Erotophilic Disposition, Emotional Investment, and Sexual Orientation The seven sexuality factor scales displayed moderate to high levels of construct validity and were modestly correlated with the Big Five It is argued that the sexuality factors are best viewed as a reapportionment of general personality variation along seven sex-specific and evolution-relevant dimensions of individual differences Significant sex differences existed on four of the seven sexuality factors Reference: Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2000). Sexual dimensions of person description: Beyond or subsumed by the Big Five? Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 141–177. Classroom Activities and Demonstrations Distribute Activity Handout 3–1 on page 14 of this document (“Eysenck’s Model of Personality”). Give students about five minutes to complete the handout. Asking students to place themselves along the three basic traits of Eysenck’s system, and then requiring them to justify this placement has several key benefits. Students will become actively involved in the learning process. Individual differences are typically of great interest to students, and students especially enjoy attempting to place themselves along the three trait dimensions. Requiring students to justify briefly why they placed themselves where they did gets students further involved in thinking more deeply about this personality taxonomy, and is likely to increase retention of and appreciation for the material. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality. Distribute Activity Handout 3–2 on page 15 of this document (“Wiggins’ Circumplex Model of Personality”). Give students about five minutes to complete the handout. As with Activity Handout 3–1, asking students to place themselves along Wiggins’ circumplex, and then requiring them to justify this placement has several key benefits. Students will become actively involved in the learning process. Individual differences are typically of great interest to students, and students especially enjoy attempting to place themselves in the circumplex. Requiring students to justify briefly why they placed themselves where they did gets students further involved in thinking more deeply about this personality taxonomy, and is likely to increase retention of and appreciation for the material. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing Wiggins’ and Leary’s circumplex models of personality. Distribute Activity Handout 3–3 on page 16 of this document (“Five Factor Model of Personality”). Give students about five minutes to complete the handout. As with Activity Handouts 3–1 and 3–2, asking students to place themselves along the five factors of personality, and then requiring them to justify this placement has several key benefits. Students will become actively involved in the learning process. Individual differences are typically of great interest to students, and students especially enjoy attempting to place themselves along the five factors. Requiring students to justify briefly why they placed themselves where they did gets students further involved in thinking more deeply about this personality taxonomy, and is likely to increase retention of and appreciation for the material. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing the five-factor model of personality. Instructor Manual for Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature Randy Larsen, David Buss 9780078035357