Psych 150 Lecture 3 (Personality assessment and judgement)

non scientific methods

Astrology

• Personality assessment based on birth date

Physiognomy

• Personality assessment based on shape of body, particularly the face

Phrenology

• Personality assessment based on morphology (shape) of skull

Myers-Briggs (MBTI)

Enneagram

why non scientific methods are no valid

• Not developed scientifically

• Not reliable...

       - 50% of people get a different score/type when they re-take the test a few weeks later (score shouldn’t change drastically)

• Not much evidence for predictive validity

      - Scores do not predict health, happiness, job performance, and other life outcomes

• All dimensions are positive (not all dimensions are positive)

• Assumes personality falls into categories

     - You’re either an extravert or an introvert (though, in actuality, most people fall in the

middle)===very black and white makes u make a forced choice

• Use of types is problematic (promotes categorical thinking)

• The Barnum Effect

     - Summaries of “types” often have generalized statements or events that people

naturally assign to themselves and give specific meaning

landmarks in personality assessment

• Projective tests*

    - 1920-30s Rorschach and TAT (meaningless inkblot test) reveals something abt personality

• “Objective” tests (measures w intent)

   - 1943 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

   - 1956 California Psychological Inventory (CPI)

   - 1980s NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)

   - 1990s Big Five Inventory (BFI)

   - 2000s

      - Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR)

      - Data mining (e.g., Instagram, Facebook)

      - McAdams Life Story Interview

most commonly used measures

Big Five personality traits

• NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)

• Big Five Inventory (BFI)

Life Narratives

• McAdams Life Story Interview

Measures for one construct

• Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

• Dispositional Optimism Scale

• Self-Control Scale

All developed through rigorous psychometric approaches

self report items

Transparent

• “If I ruled the world it would be a much better place”

Non-transparent

• “People pretend to care more about one another than they really do”

• “I used to like hopscotch” [low]

features of scientific personality assessments

• Captures thoughts, feelings, AND behaviors

• Assessed on a continuum – NOT categories or types

• Assesses both positive and negative dimensions of personality

• Aims to know what you are like in general

• Reliable

• Valid

features of scientific personality assessments: reliability and validity

personality judgement

Everyone does it. ALL the time.

• Who am I? Who is.... my best friend, the barista at the coffee shop, my brother, my classmate, my cat?

These judgments can have important consequences

• Opportunities

• Employment

• Relationships

• Expectancies/self-fulfilling prophecies

accuracy

What criteria can be used to assess accuracy of personality judgments?

Depends on who you ask!

• Answer from constructivism: none; personality is a social construction

• Answer from critical realism: all information that might be helpful

Possible criteria for determining accuracy

• Convergent validity

• The “duck test”

• Interjudge agreement

• Behavioral prediction and predictive validity

First impressions 

**w/in culture have a degree of accuracy (different in every culture obvs)

Mostly automatic

We use visible (non-verbal) information such as:

• Face

• Clothes

• Belongings

• Eye contact

We use verbal cues such as:

• Gestures

• Storytelling

• Musical preferences

• How loud you talk

• Affect expression

how much info do do you need

More information is usually better, especially for some traits

The longer you know someone, the more accurate you are

• BUT even 5 min of interacting with a stranger is almost just as “accurate” for predicting behavior as a well-informed judge!

The information needs to be of good quality

• E.g., weak versus strong situations

who makes a good judge and target

• Good judges tend to be socially skilled, open minded, well- adjusted, and attributionally complex

• Being a good judge is beneficial!

• People vary in the extent to which they can be accurately judged (aka judgability)

• Good targets tend to be well-adjusted, behaviorally consistent, extraverted, agreeable, and healthy