PSY 3303 Final Exam

Lectures 8-12, lectures 1-12 main ideas in separate document

important themes in the trait approach to personality

1. a focus on stability
2. incorporation of biological evidence
3. an inductive approach to exploring human variability
4. clear applications, and research oriented
5. attempts to provide parimonious solution to human individual differences
6. incorporates + has developed, advanced statistical techniques
7. an emphasis on everyday, or “objective” data, as opposed to deeper meanings

early approaches to traits

* in lit across the word, particular worlds are used to describe stable characteristics of individuals (i.e., heroes = righteous, villains = evil)
* “traits” in ancient greece
* hippocrates’ *enduring temperament* of an individual (typical rxn patterns in bodily humours)
* theophrastus’ *character sketches*
* scientific approaches to “traits” began w/ charles darwin’s theory of evolution

hippocrates humours

* sanguine
* phlegmatic
* melancholic
* chloreic

scientific approaches to “traits” cont’d (early approaches to traits)

* enduring patterns of behaviour could be *built through* *natural selection*
* galton measured variability in “inherited human abilities” + intelligence
* the development of *statistical techniques* lead some researchers to search for “core” or “basic” traits that accounted for human variability

the lexical hypothesis

those personality characteristics that are most important in ppl’s lives will become part of a language

* esp. important traits should show up as a 1x word
* emphasis placed on the development of language w/in a community of individuals

the lexical hypothesis serves as the basis for many trait approaches to personality

* gordon allport + henry odbert reported that there were 17,953 terms in the english language that refer to characteristics of individuals
* some argue that being able to distinguish ppl from one another based on traits, and thus label them as “types” of ppl is highly adaptive
* it allows us to build *expectations abt their behaviour,* and how we should interact w/ them in order to gain rewards + avoid cost

factor analysis

involves examining the correlations b/w scores on a wide variety of measures to determine a set of underlying factors

* summarizes a wide range of data, it’s a *data reduction technique* that gets rid of redundant info

raymond cattell used factor analysis to build simpler models of personality from allport and odbert’s work

* cattell suggests that there are 35 primary, or 1st order traits
* 23 of these characterize the “normal pop”, while 12 measure pathological dimensions
* of these, there are 16 basic or “normal” personality factors, that are the most relevant to + most researched in the gen pop

cattell used 3 diff kinds of data to build his model of potential traits for factor analysis

* L-data
* Q-data
* T-data

L-data

info from a person’s life record based on other’s observations

* what others would say

Q-data

info from questionnaires and “subjective” descriptions

* self-report measures + one’s own descriptions abt their lives
* less useful than the other objective tests

T-data

info from “objective” tests

* most important to cattell
* standardized tests, using psychometrics, biological test

raymond cattell’s approach

not found solely convincing by mccrae + costa and others bc they could be put together

factor analysis begins by making multiple specific observations of many individuals. what is the next step?

determining *which variables are related to which other variables*, and to what extent they’re related

correlation coefficients

a mathematical index used to measure the direction + magnitude of the relationship b/w 2 variables (produces a matrix w/ the variables)

factors

unit of personality that consist of clusters of closely related variables

* *factor loadings* = provide a measure of the degree to which an individual score or measure contributes to a particular factor (helps to interpret the meaning of factors)

unipolar and bipolar traits

traits generated through factor analysis may be either unipolar or bipolar

* in order for factors to have meaning mathematically, they’re usually rotated into a specific mathematical relationship (orthogonal or oblique)

unipolar traits

zero to a higher amount

bipolar traits

extending from positive to negative, w/ zero as the midpoint

orthogonal rotation

assumes independence of primary factors, axis are a right angles to one another (favoured by the 5 factor model)

oblique rotation

assumes some negative or positive correlation b/w factors, axis are less than or more than 90 degrees (favoured by cattell)

mccrae & costa and the five factor model history

* began their work on personality traits while working on gerontology research @ the national institute of health in the US
* w/ a large dataset they were focused on building taxonomies of personality traits + exploring the stability & structure of personality traits among aging adults

mccrae + costa’s beginning of the 5-factor model

* began by exploring *extraversion + neuroticism* and then added a 3rd factor: “*openness to experience*”
* much of their early work focused on these 3
* basis for the NEO-PI (neuroticism, extraversion, and openness-personality indicator)
* in 1985 they articulated the 5-factor model which added dimensions of agreeableness + conscientiousness and developed the NEO-PI (neuroticism, extroversion, openness personality index)
* agreeableness + conscientiousness scales weren’t fully developed until the revised NEO-PI in ‘92

the big-five personality traits (and facets)

1. *openness* = og + open to new ideas vs. conventional and narrow in interest
2. *conscientiousness* = responsible + organized vs. irresponsible + careless
3. *extroversion* = sociable + talkative vs. withdrawn + quiet
4. *agreeableness* = trusting + good-nature vs. suspicious + ruthless
5. *neuroticism* = emotionally unstable + moody vs. emotionally stable + easygoing

\
O.C.E.A.N

success of the five factor model

* og was proposed as one of many models of personality traits
* mccrae and costa compared NEO-PI scores w/ scores on other common personality inventories (i.e., MBTI)
* provided answers to 2 major Q’s:


1. what is the structure of personality?
2. how can a common language to refer to personality traits be developed?

why 5 factors in the 5 facot model?

* 5 factors have been found across many cultures, using diff languages
* 5 factors show significant stability w/ age

evolution of the 5 factor theory

* argues behaviour is best predicted by an understanding of *2 central or core components* of personality and *3 peripheral ones*
* central + peripheral components are interconnected w/ one another by *dynamic processes*

core/central components of the 5 factor theory

1. basic tendencies (traits, the big 5)
2. characteristic adaptions (learned flexible behaviours including the self-concept)

peripheral components of the 5 factor theory

1. biological bases (genes, hormones, and brain structure)
2. objective biography (all the experiences of a person across their lifespan)
3. external influences (influences from the particular physical or social situation)

related research on the 5 factor model

* traits have been linked to
* physical health + well-being
* academic success
* more common, everyday outcomes such as mood
* career success, divorce + mortality

research on consistency + change of personality

* evidence of both stability + change in 5 factor model
* longitudinal studies = HL of stability in the big 5 traits + some suggest that this may be influenced by genetic factors
* some degree of personality change often occurs over the life course, through major life events, and in relation to changes in brain function
* large meta-analyses = trends in changes in the big 5 traits over various age stages

controversies w/ the big 5

* do traits rep *biological categories?*
* maybe ppl are prone, or *biased to see others* in terms of 5 dimensions
* evidence of, and explanations for, cultural differences
* some researchers say that big 5 have emerged in empirical studies over a variety of cultures
* others say in diff cultures, the big 5 haven’t emerged
* evidence that some cultures value particular traits over others
* suggests that traits don’t develop or have effects *outside of a cultural context*

keys themes of biological approaches

studies of human + animal biology have had a major influence on a # of theories of personality

* biological perspectives have been formative to many contemporary ideas:


1. genetics as an important *influence or determinant* of behavioural patterns
2. the role of evolution
3. the complexity of gene-environment interactions
4. behavioural similarities across species + behavioural universals
5. relative stability of personality characteristics (proposals that personality characteristics are evolved)
6. controversies abt biological determinism

traits or temperaments

many bio approaches to personality emphasize the role of stable personality characteristics

temperament

stable individual differences in behaviour, usually related to emotional reactivity

* infant children show individual differences in how “reactive” they are to environmental stimuli
* longitudinal research = *some stability* over time as these children mature
* for some researchers, these temperamental differences could be related to diff personality traits as children get older

hans eysenck’s biologival view of personality traits

* provided an influential model of personality that attempted to tie personality traits to differences in brain function
* most important of eysenck’s theories

hans eysenck’s biological view of personality traits

accoesing to eysenck, ppl vary on traits of

* introversion-extraversion
* neuroticism (or emotionality)-stability
* psychoticism-superego function

introversion-extraversion (eysenck)

extraverts have a *low level of cortical arousal*, so they seek stimulation

* lead to the most work on this
* introverts have higher cortical arousal so their brains are constantly stimulated = when more stuff comes @ them, doesn’t take long for them to be overwhelmed
* however, introverts also have a *low sensory threshold* = avoid environments that are too stimulating

neroticism (or emotionality)-stability (eysenck)

compared to stable ppl, neurotic ppl are more emotionally reactive

* also have a v *reactive limbic system* (in fight-or-flight mode more often = more anxiety + emotional rxn) that’s *difficult to modulate*

psychoticism-superego function (eysenck)

higher scorers are often egocentric, cold, nonconforming, impulsive, hostile, aggressive, suspicious, and anti-social

* the latest personality factor = not a lot of specific research on bio correlates
* suggests that bio evidence comes from the studies of the heritability of various forms of psychopathology (i.e., schizophrenia) + predicts that evidence may emerge linking psychoticism w/ levels of particular NTs (i.e., DA) + sex hormones (i.e., testosterone)

eysneck’s criteria for personality factors

suggested that psychometric evidence was important, but not sufficient, to understand the structure of human personality

* he proposed *4 key criteria* that should be met in identifying personality factors:


1. psychometric evidence
2. heritability
3. theoretical POV
4. social relevance

psychometric evidence (personality factors)

evidence of reliable + replicable factors from multiple investigators should be established

heritability (personality factors)

evidence of heritability should be collected + should fit an est. genetic theory

must make sense from a theoretical pov (personality factors)

through a deductive method data should be gathered that are logically consistent w/ a theory

must possess social relevance (personaity factors)

mathematically derived factors should have relationships w/ socially relevant variables

heritability

the degree to which individual differences are a result of genetic, inherited factors rather than differences in the envrionment (it’s measurable b/w 0 and 1 to show a certain trait is accounted for by genetic factors)

* research done through the study of twins + siblings

studying twins

* *monozygotic (identical) twins* = develop from a 1x ovum fertilized by a 1x sperm
* same sex + genetic makeup (genotype)
* *dizygotic (fraternal) twins* = 2 separate sperm from 2 separate ova
* share some genetic makeup, like siblings

studying adopted twins for heritability

* if a trait is inherited blood relatives should show some similarities, as they share some genetic makeup
* if *adopted* children are more like their bio fam on a given trait, there may be genetic influences

how similar are twins

* jim lewis + jim springer are identical twins separated @ birth
* met for the 1st time and had many similarities
* both named james
* both married twice, both had sons named james allan
* many similarities in personalities + attitudes

different (critical) perspectives on twin studies

* is the view of human genetics too simple?
* are monozygotic twins genetically identical?
* the *epigenome* (part of our genetics) is deeply affected by the environment
* what about environmental influence?
* are monozygotic twins treated more similarly?
* are similar ppl more likely to experience similar environments?

eysenck’s hierarchy of behaviour organization

* proposed a 4-level hierarchy of behaviour organization
* in this model, cattell’s *35 factors* would be considered *“traits”,* while his *3 super-factors = “types”*

the 4-level hierarchy of behaviour organization

* *specific acts or cognitions* = individual behaviours + thoughts that may or may not be characteristic of a person
* *habitual acts or cognitions* = behaviours that recur under similar circumstances
* *traits* = important semi-permanent personality dispositions
* *types (super-factors)* = made up of 7vral interrelated traits

a biological basis for personality

* in predicting behaviour, eysenck argued that personality factors (P, E, and N) have both antecedents + consequences
* he proposes that personality factors are in the middle of a 5-step progression from DNA to social behaviour

personality and behaviour

* eysenck reports that extraverts show a greater demand for change + novelty in both lab studies + studies of social behaviour
* extraverted children would perform better w/ active + discovery oriented learning, while introverted children would perform better w/ more passive + reception oriented learning
* when creative children are also high in psychoticisms this may help them to resist the criticisms of others to come closer to their creative potential

personality and disease

* eysenck + grossarth-maticek conducted a series of studies abt relationship b/w personality factors + diagnosis and progression of cancer + heart disease
* type 1 = hopeless/helpless response to stress (links to neuroticism) were more likely to die from cancer
* type 2 = angry + aggressive response to frustration (links to neuroticism) were more likely to die of heart disease
* argues that cigarette smoking alone doesn’t cause cancer, but when combined w/ stress + personality factors, it can help to contribute to death by cancer + heart disease

recent critiques on eysenck’s view of IQ + heritability (Colman, 2016)

* eysenck believed that IQ was highly heritable + genetically determined
* suggested that the black-white gap in IQ scores in the US was likely due to largely genetically determined

\
colman = challenged these links b/w heritability + genetic determinism of IQ

critiques regarding scientific integrity in eysenck’s personality + disease research (Pelosi)

* Pelosi questions the results of this study
* they had crazy effect sizes
* pelosi found evidence of serious scientific + ethical criticisms and potential links w/ tobacco companies

overview of evolutionary theory

the evolutionary occurs through natural selection, sexual selection, and chance

* *artifical selection* = occurs when humans “breed” desirable traits w/in a species
* *natural selection* = when nature selects traits w/in a species bc those traits help w/ survival. over time these traits will become more prominent w/in a species
* *sexual selection* = operates when members of the opposite sex find certain traits more appealing + attractive than others = produce offspring w/ those traits

the 3 outcomes of the evolutionary process

1. adaptions
2. by-products
3. noise

adaptions (evolutionary process)

evolved strategies that solve important survival or reproductive problems, should have a genetic or inherited basis to them

\
i.e., sweat glands for thermal regulation

by-products (evolutionary process)

traits that happen as a result of adaptions but aren’t part of the functional design, and “come along for the ride” of natural or sexual selection

\
i.e., being able to drive a car could be a by-product of quick reflexes, hand-eye coordination + muscle ctrl

noise (evolutionary process)

random effects that occur when evolution produces random changes in design that don’t affect function, noise tends to be produced by chance + isn’t selected but can be inherited

\
i.e., belly buttion’s as an “innie” or “outie”

evolutionary psychology

the scientific study of human thought + behaviour that explains human thought, behaviour, motivation, and personality through the concepts of adaptions + mechanisms

evolutionary psychology focuses on 4 big Q’s

1. why is the human mind designed the way it is, and how did it come to take its current form?
2. how is the human mind designed aka what are its part + current structure?
3. what function do the parts of the mind have, and what are they designed to do?
4. how do the evolved mind + current environment interact to shape human behaviour

buss’ evolutionary theory of personality

assumes that the origins of personality characteristic (traits) reach far back into ancestral times

* personality, like other psychological phenomenon, has origin in evolution
* our personality is caused by an interaction b/w a changing environment + a changing body and brain

for buss, *personality traits are evolved mechanisms* = help individuals solve problems of survival + reproduction

* the big 5 is a way that *we signal to others* our ability to solve survival + reproductive problems
* being sensitive + aware of differences in personality traits = reproductive advantages to the perceiver
* traits + dispositions are inherently *evaluative*, they allow others to evaluate us in our ability to solve adaptive problems

the “big five” according to buss

* buss’ model of personality close resembles the five factor model of mccrae & costa but it isn’t identical
* he argues for the role of 5 very similar trait dimensions but *emphasize their adaptive significance (function),* these are the most important traits bc they most directly provide answers to adaptive problems

buss’ big 5

1. surgency
2. agreeableness/hostility
3. conscientiousness
4. emotional stability/neuroticism
5. openness/intellect

surgency (buss’ big 5)

the disposition to experience positive emotional states, to engage in one’s environment + to be sociable and self-confident

* function = in ancestral times these individuals were high in status + attractive + desirable mates

agreeableness/hostility (buss’ big 5)

marked by a person’s willingness + capacity to co-operate and help the group or to be hostile + aggressive

* function = these individuals tend to get along w/ others + foster group cohesion, potential to increase survival of individuals in the group

conscientiousness (buss’ big 5)

one’s capacity + commitment to work and to be focused, detail-oritented and reliable

* function = signals to others who we can trust w/ tasks + responsibilities and who we can depend on in times of needs

emotional stability/neuroticism (buss’ big 5)

reolves around our response to danger or threat. some individuals are calm under stress while others are high strung much of the time

* function = having some degree of fear + anxiety is adaptive, w/o them we wouldn’t survive as individuals or as a species

openness/intellect (buss’ big 5)

involves one’s propensity fo rinnovation + ability to solve problems. closely linked w/ intelligence, but also involves a willingness to try new things

* function = in ancestral times this quality might have been expressed in a willingness to explore new territories for food or vegetation

nature and nurture in buss’s evolutionary theory

buss argues that theories that focus on nature to the detriment of nurture, or vice versa could be influenced by *2 cognitive biases:*


1. *fundamental situation error*
2. *fundamental attribution error*

fundamental situation error

the tendency to assume that the environment alone can produce behaviour void of a stable internal mechanism

fundamental attribution error

our tendency to ignore situational + environmental forces when explaining the behaviour of other ppl and instead focus on internal dispositions

an evolutionary theory of personality should address the necessary role of both internal mechanisms + environmental/situational factors, as well as how they interact:

* evolved mechanisms only exist in response to + w/ input from the environment
* all biological structures + psychological systems have come abt in the context of a particular environment and what was happening in that environment
* for evolutionary psychologists, the *environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA)* refers to a group of selection pressure occurring during an adaption’s period of evolution responsible for producing the adaptation
* in the EEA, some individuals have qualities + behavioural dispositions (traits) that worked in that environment, at that time = more likely to survive + reproduce

the concept of psychological mechanisms

evolutionary theories of personality suggest that personality can be better understood by exploring *evolved mechanisms*

* *mechanisms* are adaptions that help individuals solve one of two basic problems: *survival and reproduction*

mechanisms

* operate according to principles specific to diff adaptive domains
* likely # in the dozens or hundreds
* are complex to specific adaptive problems (i.e., sweat glands regulate body T, but don’t heal wounds)

2 major kinds of mechanisms

1. *physical mechanisms* - physiological organs + systems that evolved to solve problems or survival
2. *psychological mechanisms* - internal + specific cognitive, motivational, and personality systems that solve specific survival + reproductive problems

psychological mechanisms and personality

* according to buss, psychological mechanisms that are relevant to personality can be grouped into 3 main categories:
* *goals/drives/motives*
* *emotions*
* *personality traits*
* two goals + motives (drives) that act as evolved mechanisms are power and intimacy
* *power* = aggression, dominance, achievement + status
* *intimacy* = love, attachment, and reciprocal alliances

goals/drives/motives (categories of psychological mechanisms)

motivations that directly affect the well-being of the person

emotions (categories of psychological mechanisms)

internal + expressive states that directly alert the individual to situations that are either harmful or beneficial to their well-being

personality traits (categories of psychological mechanisms)

stable behaviours + tendencies directly linked to specific drives and emotions (i.e., drive to win = dominance)

the origins of individual differences

* buss and greiling propose that there are 4 distinct sources for individual differences in personality
* these sources involve both nature + nurture
* four sources of influence:


1. environmental sources
2. heritable/genetic sources
3. non-adaptive sources
4. maladaptive sources

environmental sources (origins of individual differences)

numerous ways that the environment contributes to adaptive individual differences

* *early experiential calibration* - childhood experiences make some behavioural strategies more likely than others
* *alternative niche specialization* - individuals find what makes them stand out from others in order to gain attention from parents or potential mates

heritable/genetic sources (origins of individual differences)

traits have diff extents of genetic influence (i.e., body type, facial morphology, degree of physical attractiveness)

non-adaptive sources (origins of individual differences)

sources of individual differences that don’t benefit survival or reproductive success (i.e., neutral genetic mutations)

maladaptive sources (origins of individual differences)

traits that actively harm one’s chance for survival or descrease one’s sexual attractiveness (i.e., genetic defect, environmental trauma)

benefits + costs of the big 5 personality dimensions

common misunderstands abt evolution (what’s used to critique evolutionary theories of personality)

1. evolution implies genetic determinism, behaviour as set in stone + void of influence from the environment
* bio + psych mechanisms change in relation to changes in the environment
* epigenetics describes changes in gene function that doesn’t involve changes in DNA, but allow environmental influences
2. executing adaptions requires conscious mechanisms
* evolutionary “strategies” aren’t conscious + wilful acts, ppl often have no awareness of evolutionary influences
3. mechanisms aren’t optimally designed
* adaptions aren’t always “optimal” + can be “award”, they occur over 100s of gens (i.e., human preference for fatty + sugary foods)

behaviourism + envrionmental determinism

themes of behaviourist (learning) approach:

* enduring patterns of behaviour are *learned responses* to the environment
* similarities b/w human learning + that of other animal species
* behaviour is *fully determined + predictable* by environmental contingencies
* internal processes are fictions + unnecessary to understand behaviour
* behavioural principles can be applied to improve individual well-being + to improve society

john locke and the behaviourists

* locke argued that human knowledge is constructed from experiences in the world
* in opposition to rationalist views of the mind that proposed a set of innate ideas
* the *empiricists doctrine* has had a major influence on the behaviourist + learning approaches to psych and personality
* for behaviourists, what’s important to understanding “personality” are the *observable, learned behaviours* of individuals in response to a *changing environment*

pavlov’s research on classical conditioning

*classical conditioning* = the pairing of a stimulus known to produce a particular response w/ a neutral stimulus, which then comes to produce the same response

* *the unconditional reflex (UCR)* = an already existing reflex (i.e., salivating)
* *the unconditioned stimulus (UCS)* = stimuli producing a given reflex (i.e., food producing salivation)
* *the conditional stimulus (CS)* = a neutral stimulus presented before the UCS (i.e., a bell)
* *the conditioned reflex (CR)* = the resulting reflex dependent on the CS-UCS pairing (i.e., salivation @ the sound of a bell)

\
UCR → CS → UCS → CR = classical conditioning

the process of conditoned learning

* extinction
* generalization
* discrimination

extinction (conditioned learning)

the process by which a CR is extinguished through repeated presentations of the CS (bell) w/o the UCS (food)

* the weakening of the relex to a conditional stimulus which is repeated a certain # of times w/o reinforcement

generalization (conditioned learning)

when a response conditioned to stimulus A also occurs, to a certain degree, in response to stimuli that are similar to stimulus A

discrimination (conditioned learning)

the ability to distinguish b/w diff stimuli due to the response

* if food followed a bell to one tone and not another, the dog would eventually discriminate these diff tones
* the conditioned response would then occur after one tone and not the other

john b. watson’s behaviourist manifesto

challenged the introspective approach to psych that was prominent in field

* instead, watson promoted psych as the “purely objective” natural science focusing on the study of observable behaviour

watson’s direction of psychology

1. psychology should be firmly established as a natural science
2. its primary goals should be the prediction + ctrl of behaviour
3. introspective methods should be discarded
4. the field should fully accept an evolutionary model, as an explanation of both human + animal behaviour