personality psych - test 1

personality

The set of psychological traits and mechanisms within the individual that are organized and relatively enduring and that influence the individuals interactions with, and adaptations to, the intrapsychic, physical and social environments

psychological traits

Characteristics that describe ways in which people are different from each other 

4 questions for research on persoality traits

* How are the traits organized (how is characteristic *X* related to other traits)
* What are the origins of traits (where they come from/how they develop)
* What are the correlates and  consequences of traits (what are the outcomes, behaviour, experience and life outcomes)

mechanisms

Have 3 essential ingredients:

* Inputs (may make people more sensitive to certain kinds of info from the environment)
* Decision rules (may make them more likely to think about specific options)
* Outputs (may guide their behaviour toward certain categories of action)

within the individual

* Personality is something a person carries with themselves over time and from one situation to the next 
* Stable over time and somewhat consistent over situations 

organized and relatively enduring

* Psychological traits and mechanisms for a given person are not a random collection of elements 
* Hot tempered = stable trait over time
* Angry = temporary state 

influential forces

* Personality traits and mechanisms can have an effect on people’s lives 
* Personality traits influences how we think act and feel

individual interactions

Interactions with situations include perceptions, selection, evocations and manipulations

perceptions

how we interpret an environment

selection

 how we choose our friends, hobbies, university, careers 

evocations

the reactions we produce in others 

manipulation

how we intentionally attempt to influence others 

evironment

Personality determines the particular aspect of the environment 

* Argumentative person will be in a disagreeable environment 
* Talkative person will be in a social environment 

Our effective environment represents the small subset of our qualities that our psychological mechanisms direct us to

intrapsychic environment

Intrapsychic: within the mind

* Memories, dreams, desires, fantasies
* Provides a critical context for understanding human personality

3 levels of personality analysis

* human nature


* individual and group differences
* individual uniqueness

human nature

* Many ways we are like everyone else, by understanding that we can understand the general principles of human nature 
* General human nature: linguistic skills, socialization etc.
* like all others

individual and group differences

* Individual differences: ways in which each person is like some other people
* Differences among groups: a group may embody certain personality features in common, that differ from another group 
* like some others

individual uniqueness

* Every individual has personal \n and unique qualities not shared \n by any other person in the world
* like no others

nomothetic research

* Statistical comparisons of individuals or groups requiring samples of subjects on which to conduct research
* Typically applied to identify universal human characteristics and dimensions of individual or group differences 

idiographic research

* Focuses on a single subject, trying to observe general principles that are manifest in a single life over time
* Description of one

psychodynamic theories

Sigmund Freud, Alfred Adler, Carl \n Jung, and Karen Horney

trait theories

Gordon Allport, Raymond Cattell, and Hans \n Eysenck \n

humanistic theories

Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow

learning theories

John Watson and B. F. Skinner

6 domains of knowledge about human nature

* Dispositional domain
* Biological domain
* Intrapsychic domain
* Cognitive experimental domain
* Social and cultural domain
* Adjustment domain

dispositional domain

* Personality is influenced by traits the person is born with and develops over time
* Ways in which individuals differ from one another 
* Cuts across all other domains 

biological domain

* Genetic underpinnings of personality (twin studies)
* The basis of personality in terms of nervous system functioning 
* Psychological mechanisms of human personality have evolved over thousands of years to be adaptive for survival and reproduction

intrapscyhic domain

* Processes within the persons own mind
* Freuds theory of psychoanalysis
* Sexual and aggressive motives 
* Defence mechanisms: repression, denial, projection
* Often operate outside the realm of consciousness

cognitive experiemntal domain

* Personal thoughts, feelings, desires and other subjective experiences 
* Self concept: how we view ourselves, past selves and future selves (are we good/evil? Etc)
* What goals do we strive for (achievement, influence others, affiliation)

social and cultural domain

* Social, cultural, and gendered positions in the world 
* Different cultures may bring out different traits of our personalities in manifest behaviour 

adjustment domain

* Adjustments that the person must make to the inevitable challenges of life 
* Personality is linked with health related behaviour (disorders, smoking, heart disease etc)

the role of personality theory

* provides a guide for researchers
* organizes known findings
* makes predictions

5 scientific standards for evaluating personality theories

* comprehensiveness
* heuristic value
* testability
* parsimony
* compatibility and integration across domains and levels

comprehensiveness

* Does the theory do a good job of explaining all of the facts and observations within its domain?
* Explains most or all known facts

heuristic value

* Does the theory provide a guide to important new discoveries about personality that were not known before?
* Guides researchers to important new discoveries 

testability

* Does the theory provide precise predictions that can be tested empirically?
* Makes precise predictions that can be empirically tested

parsimony

* Does the theory contain few premises and assumptions (parsimony) or many premises and assumptions (lack of parsimony)?
* Contains few premises or assumptions 

compatibilty and integration across domains and levels

* A theory in one domain that violated well established principles in another domain would be judged as highly problematic 
* Consistent with what is known in other domains; can be coordinated with other branches of scientific knowledge

self report data (s-data)

* This data can be obtained through: interviewing a person, periodic reports by a person to record the events as they happen, questionnaires, or surveys
* Questionnaire: individuals respond to a series of items that request info about them (most commonly used self-report assessment procedure) 

advantages of self report data (s-data)

* You know yourself in ways that other don’t
* Researcher perspective: 
* Can be easier
* Cheap
* Less time intensive data to collect 

disadvantages of self report data (s-data)

* Lack objectivity about yourself (personal biases)
* You might not want to admit certain things about yourself
* You might not know certain things about yourself 

experience sampling

* type of s-data


* People answer some questions about a subject (mood, physical symptoms) every day for several weeks or longer
* Can find links between day of the week and the subject of study

observer report data (o-data)

* type of o-data


* Ask friend or partner to fill out questionnaire or interview about you and your behaviour

naturalistic observation

* type of o-data


* Observers witness and record events that occur in the normal course of the lives of their participants

artifical observation

* type of o-data
* Experimenters instruct participants to perform a task


* Examine how individuals behave in these constructed settings 

advantages of observer report data (o-data)

* Observers can give info that isn’t available through other sources 
* Can have multiple observers 
* Inter-rater reliability: use of multiple observers allows investigators to evaluate the degree of agreement among observers 
* Multiple social personalities can be assessed (kind to friends, mean to enemies, sweet to kids etc)

disadvantages of observer report data (o-data)

* You usually rely on the individual to recruit/nominate people that they know
* Can be more time-intensive and difficult data to collect than self-report data
* Observers may also have their own biases and limits of knowledge 
* Observing in artificial settings may not reflect how people behave in everyday life

test data (t-data)

* An objective test of some kind (standardized test), such as measuring blood pressure or your time in running a mile 
* Directly observe behaviour or some other response 
* Example: measuring neuroticism 
* Stress situation
* Measure cortisol, heart rate

advantages of test data (t-data)

* Generally prone to less bias than other data sources like self and observer reports 
* You can elicit behaviour in a controlled setting or in everyday life, depending on the study 

disadvantages of test data (t-data)

* People can guess what you’re measuring and alter their behaviour 
* Experimenters themselves may influence participants to get the findings that they expect

mechanical recording devices

* used in t-data
* Actometer: modified self winding watch 
* Strapped to the arms or legs of participants 
* Movement activates winding mechanism, tracks activity on hands of the dial
* Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
* Identifies areas of the brain that activate (light up) when performing certain tasks

projective techniques

* The person is given a standard/ambiguous stimulus and asked what they see 
* Inkblots (Hermann Rorschach)

life outcome data (l-data)

* Public record data, such as: if you’re married, divorced, have kids, your occupation, income, etc (concrete, real life observable outcomes)
* Often need other forms of data to provide the psychological context (S data, O data to predict L data)

advantages of life data (l-data)

Unlike other measures, these outcomes have clear importance in people’s lives

disadvantages of life data (l-data)

* Need other forms of data to provide the psychological context 
* A lot of factors that may influence these outcomes beyond the scope of our field alone

reliability

The degree to which test/indicator represents “true” level of trait being measured

* measurement of the same thing accurately each time (consistency does not equal accuracy or validity)

test-retest reliability

Similarity between scores on two different test outings (repeated measurement)

inter-rater reliability

The degree to which 2 or more observers agree about the personality of the target (ex: contest judges)

internal consistency reliability

Repeatability, consistency or precision of scores over items on a questionnaire 

low reliability

Not a personality construct (too inconsistent ‘anger on occasion’) or too much error of measurement (random error)

validity

The extent to which test/indicator measures what it claims to measure (are we measuring what we intend to measure)

construct validity

*  Test that measures what it claims to measure (broad category that includes: face, convergent, discriminant validity) 
* Personality variables are theoretical constructs 

face validity

Does the test appear to measure what it is supposed to measure?

convergent validity

Does the test correlate with other measures that it should correlate with?

discriminant validity

Does the test not correlate to measures should not correlate with? (no relationship, not a negative correlation)

predictive or criterion validity

Does the test predict criteria external to the test? (ex: measure traits, get class grades, do the traits predict class grades, if so =predictive validity)

response sets

Tendency of some people to respond to the questions on a basis that is unrelated to the question content (noncontent responding)

acquiescence

* The tendency to simply agree with the questionnaire items regardless of the content of those items 
* Psychologists counter act acquiescence by intentionally reverse scoring some of the questionnaire items (extraversion item that states: I prefer to be alone)

extreme responding

* The tendency to give endpoint responses such as “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree” and to avoid the middle part of response scales 

social desirability

* Tendency to answer items in such a way as to come across as socially attractive or likeable 

approaches against social desirability

* Measure social desirability (crowne/marlow scale) and remove it statistically from the other questionnaire responses 
* Developing questionnaires that are less susceptible to this type of response (only questions that do not correlate with social desirability) 
* Forced choice questionnaire (paired statements, which statement is more true, each statement is similar in terms of social desirability/undesirability)

generalizability

* How much the measurement retains its validity across various contexts 
* Goal: questionnaire retains its predictive validity across age groups, genders, cultures or ethnic groups 
* Different conditions: does a questionnaire/scale predict an outcome in contrasting settings? (business setting/informal setting)

3 broad groups of research designs

* Case studies
* Correlational studies
* Experimental studies

case studies

In depth examination of the life of one person

advantages of case studies

* Provide in depth knowledge about an outstanding figure, such as a political or religious figure 
* Naturalistic

disadvantages of case studies

* Results based on the study of a single person cannot be generalized to others 
* Potential for bias 
* Ambiguous about causality 

correlational studies

* Statistical procedure for determining whether there is a relationship between two variables 
* Designed to identify “what goes with what” (not designed to identify causal relationships)

advantages of correlational studies

* Naturalistic 
* Easily reported/interpreted effect size 
* Replicable (compared to a case study)

disadvantages of correlational studies

* Directionality problem: correlation not equal to causation (if you measure over time it can help with the directionality problem)
* Third variable problem 
* Is there a third unknown variable affecting this correlation?

experimental methods

Used to determine causality (if one variable influences another variable)

* Two basic forms
* Between participant: different people in different conditions 
* Within participant: same people in both conditions 
* Each type requires different ways to make sure the groups are the same (equivalence) 

manipulation

* Manipulating a variable to test whether one variable causes an effect on a different variable 
* A comparison of X and ‘not X’
* Manipulate the independent variable (X) and measure its effect on the dependent variable (Y)

between participant experiment

* Random assignment to condition
* Person should have an equal chance to be randomly assigned to each group

within participant experiment

* Counter balance each condition 
* Each person should have a random order in which they go through each condition 

advantages of experimental methods

* Allows for causal inference
* Confounds are like third variable problem
* Replicable 

disadvantages of experimental methods

* Artificial (manipulation is key) generalizability 
* Significant ethical and practical limits 

replication

Replication is the repetition of findings previously presented or published 

conceptual replication

Attempt to copy in a different samples, times, or situations to see if results generalize 

exact/direct replication

An exact copy of an earlier study to see if you get the same results 

operational replication

Also refers to direct and conceptual replications respectively 

failure to replicate

* Original result may have been fake (infrequent) 
* False positive: original result due to chance 
* False positive rate of the original result inflated (due to questionable practices) 
* Mistake or bias in replication attempt 
* Different context, culture, psychological situation, or other boundary condition (falsifiability is still important)
* Failed replications have the extra burden of proof to overturn existing findings 
* Finding a ‘non significant’ result could mean no effect or it could mean bad method/measurement 
* Replication studies need large samples and multiple labs working on it
* Get significant results but the findings are not as big as originally suggested

replication crisis in psychology

* Started around 2010
* Social psychology especially 
* Psychological science articles were particularly guilty of this 
* Tremendous media attention for these studies 

HARKing

* hypothesizing after results are known
* a questionable research practice (QRP)

examples of questionable research practices

* Selective reporting of variables 
* Collect more data after checking for significant results (peeking at your data)
* Selectively reporting only the studies that worked 
* Rounding off a p-value just above 0.054 claiming below 0.05
* HARKing
* Not reporting conditions of a study 
* Ignoring important demographic variables in analyses

controversial studies

* Daryl Bem: Extrasensory perception (ESP) is real
* Diederik Stapel (2011): dutch social psychologist
* Amy Cuddy: Power poses (2010)

many labs 2 (klein 2018)

* Group of labs tried to replicate 28 published studies 
* 54% of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding 

standard deviation

Measure of variability within each condition

p value

Tells you how likely it is that your data could have occurred under the null hypothesis

correlation coefficient

* Ranges from +1.00 through 0.00 to –1.00
* + indicates a positive relationship, - indicates a negative relationship
* The closer to 1.00, the stronger the relationship

when to use experimental study designs

* Establish causal relationships among variables 
* Bad at: identifying the relationships among variables as they occur naturally in every day life

when to use correlational study design

* Establishing the relationships between two or more variables that occur in everyday life 
* Bad at: establishing causality