PSY 216 Exam 3 - Trait Theories

consistency

assumptions of the dispositional domain (i.e. trait theory, type theory)

• people are different from each other

• there is a degree of consistency in personality over time (though the way it manifests itself may be different)

• traits will exhibit some consistency across situations

you have a disposition to behave in a certain way

trait theory

two approaches:

• ideographic → only interested in studying one individual at a time

  • not studying one particular trait, but the whole

• nomothetic → based on the assumption that there is a finite set of variables in existence that can be used to describe human personality

traits are probabilistic

personality traits vs. types

types are only useful as a summary of multiple trait dimensions (assume you fall into an extreme)

however, they are uninformative for people scoring near the average

situationism

Mischel → situational differences determine behavior

• situation is more important

• traits aren’t useful predictors

• correlations rarely exceed .4

• personality assessment is a waste of time

• people deluded over personality traits (fundamental attribution error, overestimate traits instead of situation)

what’s wrong with situation position?

a correlation of .4 isn’t small

for a variable with more than a few courses, none can be more than .4

situationism is based on lab studies (artificial and extreme)

Mischel is a biased literature review

situational variables have the same effect as personality traits

traits clearly exist (lexical hypothesis)

interactionism

the manifestation of traits depends on the situation

situational selection→ to choose the situation in which one finds oneself

evocation → certain personality traits may evoke specific responses from the environment

manipulation → the various means by which people influence the social situation

summary

different people respond differently to the same situation

situations choose people

people choose situations

different situations influence us differently

people change situations

situations change people

NEO-PI-R

Neo-personality index revised

30 facets (each dimension has 6)

reminder: interactionism

situational selection → extraversion (team sports vs. solitary sports)

evocation → neuroticism and disagreeableness (self-fulfilling prophecies)

manipulation

• extraversion → charm

• neuroticism → silent treatment

• disagreeableness → coercion

cross-cultural support

big 5 found in many countries

not universal → some societies show different structures

importance of traits vary by culture

• Japan → conscientiousness valued most

• Hong Kong and India → agreeableness ranked highest

• Australia → extraversion and agreeableness most desirable

• Europe and U.S. → higher one extroversion and openness, lower in agreeableness vs. Africa and Asia

distribution by location

distribution varies across states

• agreeableness highest in Southeast

• openness highest in major cities

distribution by sex

women higher in agreeableness, neuroticism, and orderliness

men higher in industriousness

larger in wealthier, more egalitarian countries

HEXACO

honesty/humility found most consistently (but does correlate with agreeableness)

religiosity/spirituality would be a better sixth dimension

what else do the metatraits predict?

behavior problems

circadian rhythm

self-monitoring

social networks

entrepreneurship

investment in work, family, religion, volunteerism

stability negatively predicted threat

withdraws from new opportunities

emphasizes the possibility of negative outcomes from novel experiences

gives a sense that different situations are daunting

conveys anxious and overall negative feelings

plasticity positively predicted exploration

approaches new opportunities with a sense of curiosity

emphasizes the possibility of positive outcomes from novel experiences

gives a sense that different situation provide prospects fro adventure

conveys enactment and overall positive feelings

summary → so what are traits?

sub-personalities

frames of reference

domains of competence

systems of value

modes of perception

patterns of behavior

stable motivations