Personality Psyc Final

Cultural Tightness-Looseness

describes strength of social norms and tolerance for deviant behavior in sociaty

• functions at multiple levels → national, organization, individual

Cultural Tightness-Looseness Threats

• devlops as cultural adaptation to ecological and historical threats

• Frequent Threats → natural disasters, high population density, disease, resource scarcity, conflict

Cultural Tightness

have strict rules, clear punishments for violations, emphasize order, coordination, and conformity

• correlated with lower crime and more regulation

• pros → encourages conscientiousness, social order, self-control, cooperation

• cons → less creative, conventional thinking, close-mindedness, less open to diversity and innovation

Cultural Looseness

flexible norms, greater behavioral freedom and higher tolerance for deviant behaviors

• correlated with higher innovation, tolerance, and open to change

• pros → fosters tolerance, creativity, adaptability, open-mindedness, people, and change

• cons → social disorder, lack of coordination, impulsive disorder

Cultural Tightness-Looseness Social Outcomes

• tight predict higher religiosity, conservatism, and law enforcement presence

  • stronger social order/lower crime but reduced tolerance for differences

• loose predict greater diversity, innovation, openness, permissiveness, creativity

  • higher social instability → more variable in behavior, weaker enforcement of norms

• when people perceive threat (real or imagined) they want strong rules

  • EX : Americans who felt greater threats from immigration/terrorism wanted more tightness and harsher punishments

    • Trump had top 10 tight states, Biden/Harris had top 10 loose states

Cultural Tightness-Looseness COVID Study

• looser nations (USA, Brazil, Spain) experienced more covid cases and deaths by October 2020 → want individualism, led to resistance

• tighter nations (Singapore, S. Korea, Taiwan) had fewer infections and fatalities during same period

  • easier for gov’ts to enforce rules like masks and social distancing

Subsistence Style Theory

proposes that different modes of living, their mode of subsistence, shape cultural values and behavior

• distinct subsistence styles create different social demands and interdependencies

  • EX : farming, herding, fishing

Subsistence Style Theory - Farming

requires cooperation, coordinated effort (irrigation, planting, harvesting)

• collective values → group harmony, shared responsibility, conformity to social expectations

Subsistence Style Theory - Herding

involves mobility, self-reliance (move to find grazing land, individual decision-making)

• individualistic values → autonomy, independence

Rice Theory

regional differences in traditional agriculture help explain psychological and cultural variation within China

• differences between N & S China almost as large as E. Asia & W. countries

• S. China traditionally cultivates rice, N. China grows wheat

Rice Theory - Rice Farming

requires intensive labor and complex irrigation systems, demand high cooperation and coordination → interdependence

Rice Theory - Wheat Farming

relies mainly on rainfall, require less labor and allowing more individual work and decision making → independence

Rice Theory Study

observed everyday behavior in Starbucks cafes in China

• researchers moved chairs to partially block the aisle

• Northerners more likely to move chair → shows tendency to change environment which is sign of individualism

Food Traditions & Cooperation

cultures differ in food serving tradition - how food is shared among diners

• Chinese/Indian meals shared dishes (family style), requires coordination among diners → take turns, focus on social cues

• French style/Western meals → individually plated, less coordination

Food Traditions & Cooperation Study

Americans paired with strangers, ate some food (chips & salsa) either from shared or separate plates, then completed cooperative tasks (negotiation games)

• results : sharing food from single plate increased perceived coordination, less competition → single plate promote social attunement and cooperation

Subjective Well-Being (SWB)

scientific term for happiness

• captures both cognitive and emotional evaluations of life

• includes 3 interrelated components:

  • life satisfaction

  • positive affect

  • low negative affect

Subjective Well-Being (SWB) - Life Satisfaction

overall judgement about one’s life quality and achievements

Subjective Well-Being (SWB) - Positive Affect

experiencing frequent pleasant emotions

• EX : joy, gratitude

Subjective Well-Being (SWB) - Low Negative Affect

experiencing infrequent unpleasant emotions

• EX : anger, anxiety

Trait-Based Happiness

personality can predict happiness

• traits influence how people perceive, interpret, and react to life events

• people high in positive traits tend to select, create, and maintain happy environments

• happiness not just circumstance → it’s personality expressed over time

Extraversion & Happiness

the strongest positive correlate of happiness

• across cultures, extraverts report more joy, enthusiasm, and life satisfaction

Extraversion & Happiness - Dopamine Driven

links of extraversion to dopamine-driven reward systems

• extraverts’ brains are more wired to find pleasure in stimulation and social connection

Extraversion & Happiness - Positive Affectivity

extraverts tend to seek out enjoyable experiences → socializing, novelty, excitement (creating more opportunities for joy)

• feedback loop - more engagement leads to more positive emotion which motivates more engagement

Neuroticism & Happiness

the strongest negative predictor of happiness

• high neuroticism = emotionally reactive, frequent, and strong negative emotions

• EX : anxiety, guilt, sadness

Neuroticism & Happiness - Threat Sensitivity & Negative Affectivity

linked to biological sensitivity to threat and punishment

• heightened threat sensitivity amplifies distress

• people high in neuroticism interpret neutral events as threatening

• even positive experiences may be overshadowed by worry or self-criticism

Extraversion vs. Neuroticism

together, they explain most individual differences in emotional well-being

• extraversion → positive affectivity (joy, enthusiasm, energy)

• neuroticism → negative affectivity (anxiety, irritability, sadness)

Health & Happiness

health is strongest and most consistent demographic predictor of happiness

• health behaviors (sleep, exercise, balanced diet) produces small but cumulative daily gains in positive affect

Health & Happiness - Objective Health

actual health status

• can predict well-being

Health & Happiness - Subjective Health

perceived health

• can predict well-being

Health & Happiness - Mental Health

explains more variance in happiness than any other factor (EX : income, marital status, age, etc.)

• absence of depression and anxiety

• people adapt partially to chronic illness but rarely to poor mental health

Income & Socioeconomic Status (SES)

money matters most when it helps meet basic needs (food, housing, healthcare)

• beyond basic comfort → little impact on daily mood

Social Relationships & Happiness

humans are ultra social species → survival depended on forming social bonds

• strong social ties consistently predict well-being and life satisfaction

• feeling connected → increases happiness, reduce stress, improve physical health

Social Relationships & Happiness - Loneliness & Isolation

loneliness and isolation → linked to depression, stress, and poorer mental health outcomes

• quality (supportive, close) and diversity (friends, family, community) of relationships are key predictors of happiness

“Very Happy People” Study

what do happiest people have in common?

• participants : 222 U.S. adults from diverse backgrounds → assessed for life satisfaction, mood, personality, income, health, religion, social activity

• identified top 10% happiest individuals → compared to moderately happy/unhappy participants

• top 10% showed strong, consistent pattern : spent more time with family and friends, reported higher relationship quality

  • no differences in income, religious activity, or physical health

The Alameda County Study

how social connections (marital status, close friends, community groups) relate to health behaviors and mortality

• researchers followed over 7000 adults living in Alameda County, CA for 9yrs

• participants with fewer social connections were 2-3x more likely to die early, even after controlling for income, smoking, obesity

• strong social integration predicted longer life and better psychological well-being

The Commuter Train Study

talking to strangers

• Chicago commuters randomly assigned to talk to stranger vs. sit quietly vs. act normally

• people predicted talking would be awkward and unpleasant

• results : talking led to higher positive mood, greater enjoyment, and stronger sense of connection

  • people underestimate how rewarding social interactions are

Small Interactions

even brief social contact satisfies our need to belong → a universal human motive

• everyday interactions reinforce social identity → “I’m part of a community”

• introverts tend to underestimate enjoyment, but still benefit

Small Interactions : Self-Expansion

meeting new people broadens perspective and curiosity

Maximizers

people who believe that one should always seek to get as much as one possibly can

• decision style focused on finding optimal choice

• involves extensive info search, frequent comparisons, and high sensitivity to opportunity costs

• strong anticipation of regret and fear of missing better options → prolonged decision making

• correlates with neuroticism, perfectionism, and regret proneness

• lead to greater indecision, regret, and lower satisfaction → even when outcomes are objectively good

Satisficers

people who believe that one should seek to achieve an outcome that is “good enough”

• choose 1st option that meets needs or criteria rather than searching for the best

• focus on adequacy, personal fit, and efficiency over exhaustive comparison

• results in quicker, low-effort decisions with reduced cognitive burden

• mildly associated with lower neuroticism and higher emotional stability

• associated with greater contentment, less regret, and higher well-being

Maximizers vs. Satisficers

• maximizers experience more uncertainty and second-guessing after choosing

• satisficers show greater confidence and closure post-choice

• most people use both based on context

Choice Overload

more choice is appealing, but too many options can be overwhelming

• comparing many options creates cognitive fatigue → reducing decision quality and potential decision paralysis

• maximizers more vulnerable

• modern environments (online shopping, apps, menus) amplifies choice overload

Maximizers - Relationships

they are more likely to worry about “better” partners, compare their partner to hypothetical or idealized standards

• higher risk of regret/uncertainty in long-term commitment decisions

Satisficers - Relationships

focus on fit, values, and adequacy in partners rather than perfection

• linked to higher relational satisfaction and long-term stability

Work & Career Decisions Study

studied graduating college seniors seeking 1st full time job

• maximizers conducted longer, more exhaustive job searches

  • earned ~20% higher salaries than satisficers

  • reported lower satisfaction, more regret and negative emotions about job decision

• satisficers reported greater commitment and enthusiasm when accepted to job

  • paradox - maximizing improves objective outcomes but harms subjective well-being

Situational Factors that Trigger Maximizing

• high stake choices → jobs, housing, and finances increase maximizing behavior

• large options → encourages more comparisons

• social pressure → fear of judgement amplifies desire to choose the “best”

• uncertainty or incomplete info increases search effect

Downward Counterfactual Thinking

way to manage maximizing, focus on how things could have turned out worse rather than better

• imagining worse possibilities → produce relief/gratitude and reduce regret

Regret

a negative, cognitively based emotion that arises when we compare an actual outcome with a better imagined alternative

• involves counterfactual thinking → “if only I had…”

• includes affective pain - feeling bad about the comparison → pain, frustration, disappointment

• requires a sense of personal responsibility for the outcome

• distinct from guilt and disappointment

Guilt

moral emotion about harming others

Disappointment

negative outcome without self-blame

Regret Proneness

trait like tendency to experience regret across many situations

• higher scorers often replay decisions and imagine better alternatives

• strongly linked to neuroticism and maximizing → seeking “best” choice but rarely feeling satisfied

• leads to choice paralysis and lower well-being

Regret Proneness - Chronic Regret

lower happiness, higher anxiety and depression

Regret Proneness - Moderate Regret

can be adaptive, motivate learning and better future decisions

Experienced Regret

felt after an undesired outcome

• EX : “I shouldn’t have said that in the interview”

Anticipated Regret

imagined before deciding, used to prevent future remorse

• encourages risk avoidance and ethical or preventative action

• EX : considering future regret increases vaccination uptake

Upward Counterfactual Thinking

imagining better possible outcomes → produce regret

Counterfactual Thinking

regret arises from this → imagining “what might have been”

• “if only ….”

• near misses amplify regret → closer the alternative outcome, stronger the emotion

Olympic Medalist Study

analyzed TV footage of 1992 Barcelona Olympics

• coders (blind to medal type) rated athletes’ facial expressions on 1-10 happiness scale

• results : silver medalists compared upward (“I almost won gold”) vs. bronze medalists compared downward (“at least I got a medal”)

  • bronze medalists appeared happier despite worse results than silver

  • emotional satisfaction depends on counterfactual comparisons, not objective success

Action Regret

negative feeling about something we did that turned out badly

• typically involves immediate emotional pain (guilt, frustration, embarrassment)

• easier to justify or repair over time → emotional intensity fades

• EX : saying smtn hurtful, making bad purchase, quitting job impulsively

Inaction Regret

negative feeling about something we failed to do that could have led to better outcome

• feels less intense at first but grows stronger over time

• harder to rationalize b/c the “what if” remains open-ended

• EX : not expressing love, not taking a risk, missed opportunities

Most Common Regrets

• Education → “wish i stayed in school”

• Love/Romance → “should’ve told them”

• Career → “wish i took more risks”

• Parenting/Family → “i wish i spent more time with my kids”

• Health/Self-Care → “i wish i hadn’t started smoking”

• relationship regrets are often most emotionally intense and enduring

Reducing Regret - Reappraisal

focus on lessons learned rather than losses

• EX : “i learned this”

• cognitive strategy

Reducing Regret - Acceptance

acknowledging what can’t be changed

• cognitive strategy

Reducing Regret - Downward Counterfactuals

imagining worse alternatives help restore perspective and reduce distress

• cognitive strategy

Reducing Regret - Behavioral Strategies

• make amends or take corrective action

• close unfinished goals to regain control

• self compassion reduces harsh self-blame

  • EX : “i wish i had…” → “next time, i will…'“

“Plaster Hypothesis”

personality seen as fixed and mostly “set” by age 30, changes after early adulthood considered minimal/trivial

• until 1990s

Paradigm Shift / Persistent Plasticity

personality shaped by multiple influences → biological, social, cultural, major life transitions

• traits continue to develop and change across the lifespan

• early 2000s

Life Stages - Childhood

• 0-9

• traits present but highly flexible

Life Stages - Late Childhood

• 10-12

• growth in self-regulation, low trait stability

Life Stages - Adolescence

• 13-17

• dynamic developmental periods, major biological, cognitive, and social transitions → trait fluctuations

Life Stages - Emerging Adulthood

• 18-25

• role transitions, increases in maturity

Life Stages - Early Adulthood

• 26-35

• greater responsibility, rising stability

Life Stages - Early Middle Adulthood

• 36-50

• peak conscientiousness, stable in jobs and family

Life Stages - Late Middle Adulthood

• 51-66

• gradual declines in energy/openness

Life Stages - Late Adulthood

• 67+

• lower extraversion/openness, higher emotional stability

Cross-Sectional Designs

survey different age groups at same time

• pros : fast, inexpensive, covers full lifespan quickly

• cons : vulnerable to cohort effects - generational differences due to different historical or social environments (war, COVID, etc)

Longitudinal Designs

same individuals measured repeatedly over years

• pros : shows true within-person change, voids cohort effects

• cons : slow, expensive, more likely for participants to drop out

• longitudinal findings : increases in social dominance, agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness

  • patterns largely match cross-sectional results

2 Indicators of Personality Stability

1. Absolute (mean-level) stability

2. differential/rank-order stability

Indicators of Personality Stability - Absolute (Mean-Level) Stability

consistency in the average level of a trait over time

• average difference in trait levels across time or age groups

• shows whether traits rise or fall on average in a population

• EX : are people more/less/equally conscientious at 10yrs vs. 30yrs

Indicators of Personality Stability - Differential/Rank-Order Stability

consistency in people’s relative rankings over time

• examines how stable the differences between individuals are across life spans

• stability increases through adulthood, peaks ~60yrs, then declines

• never perfect → lifelong personality plasticity, traits can change at any age

• EX : are the most /least conscientious at 10yrs still the most/least at 20yrs or 40rys

Disruption Hypothesis (Adolescence)

• temporary dip in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion

• temporary increase in neuroticism and impulsivity

• driven by both biological changes and shifting social demands

• pattern found in both cross-sectional and longitudinal data

• supported by self-report (S data) and informant report (I data)

Maturity Principle (Emerging & Early Adulthood)

• increases in emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness

• maturity traits peak and stabilize in middle adulthood

• Social Investment Theory

Maturity Principle (Emerging & Early Adulthood) - Social Investment Theory

adult roles promote personality maturation

• university work, relationships, parenthood require responsibility and self-regulation

Old Age (limited research) - Resource View

reduced cognitive or physical capacity

Old Age (limited research) - Adaptiveness View

fewer social/work demands

Homotypic Stability

trait has same behavioral expression across lifespan

• EX : shyness

Heterotypic Stability

trait is stable, but expression changes with age

• EX : aggression expressed differently in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood

Mechanisms of Change - Physical Development

changes in strength and mobility shape how traits are expressed

• adolescents show more active and outgoing behaviors

• older adults may express traits in quieter ways

Mechanisms of Change - Cognitive Development

improved reasoning and language support better self-regulation

• leads to more thoughtful, socially appropriate behavior (EX : less impulsivity)

Mechanisms of Change - Social Roles

roles (student, worker, parent, etc.) create expectations for responsibility

• encourage growth in traits like conscientiousness and patience

Mechanisms of Change - Goals across Lifespan

related to changes in social roles and perspective about time

• when younger → prep for future, build skills, explore opportunities, set up long-term goals

• when older (age 70+) → focus on things that are emotionally meaningful in the present, prioritize close relationships and positive emotional experiences

Mechanisms of Change - Social Clock

societal expectations about when major life milestones should occur

• being “on time” → greater social approval, sense of moving in sync with peers and society

• being “off time” or delayed → less social approval, feelings of being out of step or behind

• EX : graduating, starting career, marriage

Mechanisms of Stability - Biology

temperament - early emotional and behavioral tendencies- is partially determined by genetics

• basic aspects : positive and negative emotionality, effortful control

Mechanisms of Stability - Physical & Stable Environmental Factors

affects personal experiences and personality

• tend to stay consistent → height, city vs. country, physical attractiveness, socioeconomic status, etc.

Mechanisms of Stability - Birth Order

based on idea that parents treat the 1st child different from other children, mixed research support

Mechanisms of Stability - Early Experiences

both adverse and positive events shape long-term tendencies → can shape personality

• parent child attachment influences lifelong relationship style

  • secure attachment, insecure attachment, etc.

• parental education and parenting style have lasting effects of personality development

  • applies to both biological and adoptive children

Desire for Personality Change

almost everyone wants to change at least 1 Big 5 Trait

• EX : neuroticism → most want change , agreeableness → fewer want change

• survey across 60 countries:

  • 61% wanted aspect of their personality to change

  • more women than men

  • highest in Thailand & Russia

  • lowest in Israel & USA

Methods of Personality Change - Psychotherapy

long used to alter enduring behavior and personality patterns

• downsides/complexities : linked to higher stress and depression, lower self-esteem

  • likely reflects entering therapy during distressing life periods

Methods of Personality Change - Psychiatric Medications

often paired with therapy → treats depression, higher extraversion, lower anxiety

• EX : fluoxetine / prozac

Methods of Personality Change - Short term

short term expression changes

• EX : alcohol temporarily increases extraversion