Studied by 24 people
act frequency approach to personality:
notion that traits are categories of acts - trait categories like “dominance” and “impulsivity” have specific acts as members
formulation of traits as purely descriptive summaries
traits as descriptive summaries:
make no assumptions about internality or causality, merely describes expressed behavior
(ex: the trait of jealousy accurately summarizes the general trend in george’s expressed behavior of glaring at other men who talk to his girlfriend – but no assumptions are are about what cause george’s behavior)
traits as internal causes:
individuals carry their desires, needs, and wants from one situation to the next; those desires and needs are assumed to be causal in the sense that they explain the behavior of the individuals who possess them
(i) internal desire influences external behavior, causing people to act in certain ways
(ii) traits can lie dormant in the sense that the capacities remain present even when particular behaviors are not actually expressed
(iii) when traits viewed as internal cues, other situational causes are ruled out (ex: joan parties a lot bc she’s extroverted, not bc her boyfriend drags her to them)
3 approaches to identifying traits
lexical
statistical
theoretical
what is a lexical hypothesis?
all important individual differences have become encoded within the natural language- over time words were invented to talk about important differences
what two criteria does the lexical approach yield for identifying important traits?
synonym frequency
cross-cultural universality
what is synonym frequency?
if an attribute has more than 1 or 2 trait adjectives to describe it, then it is a more important dimension of individual difference
what is cross-cultural universality?
if a trait is suf- ficiently important in all cultures that its members have codified terms to describe the trait, then the trait must be universally important in human affairs.
In contrast, if a trait term exists in only one or a few languages, then it may be of only local relevance.
2 limitations of the lexical approach:
(1) Lexical approach initially focused on adjectives (ex: they’re friendly, shy,etc) - Only now the field is starting to focus more on other speech like adverb & other descriptive labels, to describe personality
(2) Although helpful to know how the average is like, there might be traits or characteristics that researchers might be interested in, but aren’t captured well in vernacular (Ex: sensitivity to context) - Relying solely on lexicons might lead researchers to miss out on important aspects of personality research
what is a statistical approach to personality?
“boil down” data to reveal underlying trait MVPs – good for crunching big data
Ex: factor analysis
(1) Starting from whatever is given from raw data, then statistically running analyses to look for themes within the given data
(2) Start with LOTS with individual items
(3) Then identify groups of items that covary w/ one another but not w/ other items
(4) Ex: not all 50 items on a survey are directly about conscientiousness, but look for items that clump together and may lead to conclusions about conscientiousness
(a) Paragraph analogy – you’re reading newspaper article, then somehow the words on the paper all get scattered, in order to piece it back together you determine how the items connect to each other, narrow down which items connect with each other
limitation of statistical approach to personality:
(1) It’s only as good what you put in – if the specific items are good, you’re able to capture good connections, whereas if the items are insufficient then you don’t get as good of an analysis
what is the theoretical approach to personality?
You start with a Theory that guides in identifying important variables, not how the data shakes out
(1) Ex: elaboration likelihood model (petty & cacioppo, 1984) - Asked How much are ppl thinking?
“good” theory charts important traits clearly
(1) How might the trait relate to each other and what might that predict?
(2) Comprehensive
(3) parsimony
what does it mean when a personality theory is comprehensive?
the theory does a good job of explaining all of the facts and observations within its domain - explains more empirical findings
what is heuristic value of a theory?
does the theory provide a guide to important new discoveries about personality that were not known before? Theories that steer scientists to making these discoveries are generally superior to theories that fail to provide this guidance.
what is testability of a theory?
does the theory provide precise predictions that can be tested empirically?
what is parsimony of a theory?
does the theory contain few premises and assumptions (parsimony) or many premises and assumptions (lack of parsimony)? As a general rule, theories that require many premises and assumptions to explain a given set of findings are judged to be poorer than theories that can explain the same findings with fewer premises and assumptions.
what are imprecise theories like?
(1) Lead to Difficulty in behavior predictions & connections
(2) Not falsifiable
(3) Inherently disconnected from daily life & experience – low generalizability
(4) Lack of clarity could lead to inappropriate assumptions
(a) Type 1 and type 2 error could occur at the same time
what are hallmarks of eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality (trait taxonomy)?
hierarchical structure: 4-tiered, nested system (you can look down to the specific acts of personality & up to supertraits)
biological underpinnings:
He asserted that there is a causal relationship between ppl’s behavior and physiological factors “important” traits should…
Be heritable
Have a psychophysiological foundation – physiological differences as the starting point of characteristic differences (There is more than what we can with our naked eyes behind behavior)
what 3 traits fit Eysenck’s hierarchical model of personality?
Psychoticism (P)– when person is high in psychoticism, lack of empathy, lack of feelings of remorse, high impulsivity, sometimes cruelty, pleasure & stimulation seeking
aggressive, antisocial, cold, impersonal
Extraversion-introversion (E) – enjoying and seeking sensations
sociably, lively, active, assertive
Neuroticism-emotional stability (N) - proneness to experience negative emotions (depression, anxiety, etc)
anxious, depressed, shy, moody, emotional
Eysenck holds PEN
what was cattell’s 16 factor system
goal: identify & measure personality’s basic units
cattell was a proponent of statistical approach - factor analysis
cattell identified 16 dimensions of personality including:
warmth
reasoning
emotional stability
dominance
liveliness
rule-consciousness
social boldness
sensitivity
vigilance
abstractedness
privateness
apprehension
openness to change
self-reliance
perfectionism
tension
what is the pro of cattell’s 16 factor system?
Comprehensive model
what are the limitations of cattell’s 16 factor system?
(1) Can get cumbersome, or have to sacrifice some items in analysis
(2) 16 factors not always replicable
(3) Parsimony problem – are the 16 factors all distinguishable? Or can they collapse into common factors
how does wiggins’ circumplex model work?
wiggins interested in interpersonal traits (interpersonal - interactions among people involving exchanges) & the 2 resources that define social exchange are love and status
dimensions of status and love define the 2 major axes of the wiggins circumplex
what are the 3 pros of wiggins’ circumplex model?
provides an explicit definition of interpersonal behavior (possible to locate any transaction in hich the resources of status or love are exchanged within a specific area of the circumplex pie)
specifies the relatinships b/t each trait and every other trait within the model
adjacency - how close the traits are to each other in the circumplex (positively correlated)
bipolarity - traits located at opposite sides of the circle & negatively correlated
orthogonality - traits that are perpendicular to each other on the model, entirely unrelated (ex: dominance is orthogonal to agreeableness)
alerts investigators to gaps in investigations of interpersonal behavior
how does the five-factor model (big five) of personality work?
i) Thought of as on a dimensional range (high to low)
ii) Started in the lexical approach
OCEAN:
Openness: novelty seeking (new experiences), openness to change (adaptability), openness to knowledge
if low, then not comfortable to change, new experiences, not high in adaptability
conscientiousness: organized, detail-oriented, punctual, tidiness
on the extreme, perfectionism
someone low on conscientiousness more of a go-with-the-flow kind of person, not caring abt deadlines as much
extraversion: sensation-seeking characteristics
agreeableness: more important to get along than to go against standards, caring, nurturing
neuroticism: anxiousness, overthinking, frequent mood changes (emotional instability/volatility)
someone who’s low on neuroticism varies less in emotions
there is greater consensus on the ______ model than any other taxonomy
the “big five” bc there’s replication across
samples
items formarts
ages
languages/formats
what are the limitations of the “big five” model?
“troublesome” 5th factor – openness out of the five factors, tougher to be replicated
Conceptually, the definition of openness varies a lot
Data gets messy bc of diff operational definitions
McAdams &Walden (2010):
There is more to personality than just traits
The model doesn’t capture other dimensions of personality
“HEXACO can replace the big five”
what were Block’s criticisms of the Big Five according to the article by McAdams and Walden & what do the authors state abt the criticisms?
Atheoretical – M&W state that it might have been atheoretical before, but not so much in modern day
Overreliance on factor analysis – M&W disagree bc there has been additional work to support the model’s construct validity (does it capture the elements of the concept it seems to talk about)
*Omits important traits (like honesty) –*W&M agree but state that later works have incorporated other traits like honesty
Antiquated view of trait measurement – W&M agree, but this criticism should be applied to the entire field of personality psychology
`Cumulative vs. differential (cumulative would say that more of a trait is positive but higher is not always better (differential)
Can be trumped by a 2-factor system: W&M say that if Block thinks the big five misses out on traits, then it doesn’t make sense to leave out even more elements
how do McAdams and Walden supplement the big five model with ideas of the actor, agent, and author?
M&W agree that the big five model is good for what it tries to do – good at describing traits BUT, there’s several levels of personality:
ACTOR – dispositional traits (temperament), inferred from social behavior; emerges in birth & early childhood
Observable traits & linked to the big five
AGENT - clear and self-conscious comprehension of the self as purposive and goal-directed. Agents form goals, strivings, projects, plans, and the like for their own lives; emerges in late childhood & adolescence
AUTHOR – person is their own meaning-making narrator, develops and internalizes an evolving, self-defining life story that explains how the person came to be and where their life may go in the future; emerges in early adulthood
what is the HEXACO model?
Considered a potential replacement of the five-factor model
6th factor: honesty-humility (on opposite side, arrogant, conceited, greedy, pompous)
Ex:
“I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large”
“I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money if I were sure I could get away with it” (R -reverse coded)
Connections to “dark triad”
Narcissism, Machiavellianism (tendency to use others, to be manipulative and calculating), psychopathy
what are the 3 common assumptions across personality researchers?
“meaningful individual differences exist”
“traits are relatively stable over time”
“there is some consistency to traits across situations”
what does the assumption “meaningful individual differences exist” mean?
Humans differ from each other in important ways that impact aspects of their lives (goals, traits)
Influences researchers’ ability to capture traits
Statistics are important to trait researchers bc they can measure & compare, make predictions about individuals based on those stats
Color wheel analogy – you can start from what feels like a small number of colors, but when you put them together, you can see a wider spectrum of colors
Diff amounts and combos of traits give rise to the vast variability when it comes to human outcomes
what does the assumption “traits are relatively stable over time” mean?
(Initially in the field, researchers thought traits were stable over time, but now it is “relatively” bc there’s been empirical work that clarified that not everyone is the same throughout the entirety of their lifetime)
BUT Behavioral manifestations may change
Relatively strong negative correlation between number of childhood tantrums & job longevity (r=-0.45)
There are behavioral expressions of the same underlying traits (the trait itself didn’t change, only how it’s expressed)
Rank order differences:
To assess this, you can track traits over time(longitudinal studies), accounting for expected changes
Ex: we generally assume that kids are more impulsive than adults, if jimmy is more impulsive than Timmy when they’re young -→ we expect jimmy and Timmy to be less impulsive when they grow u -→ but rank order diff states that jimmy is likely more impulsive than Timmy even at an older age
discussion on relative stability of traits & the pandemic
COVID pandemic has given people a chance to become more aware of their traits
Ex: ppl spend more of their time at home, they become more introverted bc they spend less time with others & also ppl became more aware that they like spending time with others in the vast amount of free time allowed towards the end of quarantine (so more extroverted)
New research suggests that it has…
Decreases in Openness, conscientiousness, extraversion & agreeableness
Increases in neuroticism- Esp. pronounced among YOUNG ADULTS (college students)
“disrupted maturity” (sutin et. Al., 2022) (iv)
what does the assumption “there is some consistency to traits across situations” mean?
Original assumption: Behavior=Person (behavior is a function of who you are as a person)
Ex: if they display outgoing behavior, it must be because they’re extroverted
what did the invisibilia podcast on the myth of personality state about the assumption “there is some consistency to traits across situations”?
Push-back on idea of consistency of traits across situations
situanism= behavior due to context, not just behavior, if the behavior changes when the context changes
Hartshone & may’s (1928): “honesty study”
Student who cheated in one class was a stellar student who never cheated in another class = according to context, people’s behavior changes
Michel’s marshmallow test: behavior is shaped largely by the exigencies of a given situation and the notion that individuals act in consistent ways across different situations, reflecting the influence of underlying personality traits, is a myth
What was the original aim of Mischel’s marshmallow test?
Demonstrate how situation changes behavior - Examine Delayed gratification, impulsivity
Mischel state that People can be flexible when there’s reframing of the situation (ex: if kids are told the marshmallow is fake, more likely to wait)
how does assumtion #3: “there is some consistency to traits across situations” get tweaked due to challenges?
#3 tweak: person-situation interaction
&
#3 tweak: aggregation
what does the tweaked #3 assumption about person-situation interaction state?
B= f(P*S) ; behavior is a function of personality and situation
Strong vs. weak situations
Strong situation = the situational constraints are so powerful they control the behavior (almost anyone would behave the same way under the same circumstances)
Weak situation = not a lot of pressure, leads to personal differences in behavior
interactions with situations include selection, evocation, and manipulation (which reflect our personalities)
selection: we choose situations to enter (how we choose our friends, romantic partners, hobbie, classes, careers)
ex: someone who’s outgoing selects team-oriented activities
evocation: the reactions we produce in other UNINTENTIONALLY (we create he social environment that we inhabit)
ex: someone who’s very talkative unconsciously makes the people around feel like they can’t talk
manipulation: ways in which we INTENTIONALLY attempt to influence others
ex: someone who knows that their friend is going through a tough time brings them flowers and candy to make them feel better
what does the tweaked #3 assumption about aggregation state?
More data= more accurate picture
Jackson et al. (2015)
Predicting longevity from S-data vs. lots of O-data
Aggregated O-data (from friends)= better predictor of someone’s longevity than S-data
Personality tests are better predictors of general tendencies rather than single acts
what are the 3 measurement issues of personality?
carelessness
faking
wording
what is carelessness when measuring personality?
people may not be completing the survey with quite the care and effort that you would expect them to
Satisficing (Krosnick) – ppl may be using mental shortcuts or not putting effort into taking the test
Ex: acquiescence, nay-saying (saying yes to every single question or no to every Q)
what are solutions to carelessness in measuring personality?
(1) Short(er) surveys
(2) Duplicate items (if same Q answered differently,then redflag)
(3) Reverse-coding
(4) Infrequency scale
*some of these prevent carelessness, some of them lets the researcher recognize the participants’ carelessness
what is faking when measuring personality?
faking goodness – social desirability bias (making yourself seem better than in reality for social acceptance)
faking bad – access to certain resources that you would not get if you didn’t meet the criteria (ex: faking injury as more severe to get it covered by insurance)
what are solutions to faking when measuring personality?
(1) faking good/bad profiles (Cattell et al, 1970) - made fake profiles so they could compare with answers and see if they were similar
(2) neutral wording (instead of saying “on a scale of 1-10, how depressed are you?” you ask “how often do you feel apathetic?”)
(3) anonymity – if person is able to stay anonymous, no need to fake responses for their benefit
how is wording a measurement issue?
difficult wording of questions, ambiguous wording, assuming questions (asking how long ago someone got their license when they didn’t actually get their license), Qs that ask more than one Q, lead participants to be confused or not understand the question, which could lead to invalid responses
how do categories vs. dimensions differ when measuring traits?
categories – opting for dichotomies can lead to misrepresentation/lack of inclusivity of people
categorizing is a problem bc ppl in reality fall on a dimensional spectrum of conditions, and may not show the same symptoms/behavior as some others who have the same illness
What did carters “personality in moderation” study examine?
if more is always better -→ examined dominance vs. ideal point models of personality measurement
found that more is not always better and there are sweet spots to traits
what is the barnum effect & how is it a measurement issue?
cognitive bias that occurs when individuals believe that generic personality descriptions and statements apply to themselves.
In reality, the description is general and vague enough to apply to almost everyone.
ex: “omg not being able to commit to a single job is so me” but 10 other people agree
바, 너만 그런거 아니야 (barnum)
how is integrity testing a measurement issue?
Modern lie detector – polygraph – mechanical devise relies on psychophysiological measures like heart rate, respiration, skin conductance
Use of physiological measures began in 1900s, w/ idea that it’s useful for detecting nervous arousal that often accompanies lying
Originally designed to detect guilt reactions that arise from denying specific criminal acts, but employers used to screen general honesty
During the 1970s-1980s, most people took a polygraph test as part of an employment screening procedure, often when applying for jobs in fast-food outlets
However, lying is not always accompanied by physiological arousal and sometimes physiological arousal is not accompanied by lying -→ no “lie detection” test was foolproof
In 1988, congress banned the use of polygraph in private sector
Instead of polograph, companies use integrity tests that are designed to assess whether a person is generally honest, trustworthy, reliable, helpful and dependable
what are criticisms of the MBTI (myers-briggs type indicator) test?
Low test-retest reliability (Categorical treatment of continuous traits)
Barnum effect – vague items/ statements
Treats some traits as mutually exclusive (Ex: thinking “v” perceiving – you have to be either thinking OR perceiving (not a mix of both)
High Face validity – easy to determine what trait is being determined (ppl can decide the way they want to present themselves, too obvious)
Low Construct validity – does this thing actually measure what we think it measures? (The MBTI test doesn’t really correlate to a lot of stuff)
Low predictive validity
what are the 3 commonly used tests in personnel selection?
Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)
Identifying significant dysfunction
California personality inventory (CPI)
Law enforcement suitability
Hogan personality inventory (HPI)
Good psychometric properties – high reliability, high validity, good at predicting, has correlations to many things
Go-to for business settings
why is behavioral genetics a touchy topic?
Worries about misuse of BG findings
Holocaust
“the bell curve” – started by looking at intelligence differences across groups
Legal implications - If someone has a genetic propensity for violence, is a person responsible for the genes they inherited?
*Genetic determinism: belief that genetic contributions to phenotypes are exclusively or at least much more important than the contributions of other factors such as epigenetic and environmental ones, even in the case of complex traits such as behaviors and personality
Remember: “is ≠ ought”
Role of free will
what is genotype?
genetic info
i) Allele is a variation of a gene
what is phenotype?
physical, observed characteristics (physical expression of underlying genes)
traits
what is polygeny?
many genes influence a trait (few, if any, are causal)
genotype vs. phenotype
the GENOTYPE DRD4 – “novelty seeking gene” is associated with the PHENOTYPE of extraversion, impulsivity, quick-temperednedd, excitable, exploratory
what is molecular genetics?
focused on gene structure & function
more fine-grained
starts with what gene is thought to be linked with that outcome
candidate gene studies – searching for what one single gene does
“warrior gene” (MAOA)
what is behavioral genetics?
Starting at phenotypic level
What “mix” of nature & nurture accounts for observed trait diffs?
*nature-nurture debate exists only at group level, across diff groups= for individuals, there is inseparable intertwining of genes & environment
what is heritability?
Proportion of phenotypic variance across individuals that’s explained by genetic variance (Ex: height)
Falconer’s formula: Heritability= 2 (minozygotic r – dizygotic r)
Monozygotic twins are genetically identical, dizygotic twins share fewer genes
‘r’ is the correlation coefficient
How similar are identical twins compared to fraternal twins
Can’t be applied to a single individual
Is NOT constant across time/pops
Heritability is an estimate – there are other factors that affect personality
what is selective breeding?
artificial selection- as occurs when dogs are bred for certain qualities-can take place only if the desired characteristics are under the influence of heredity.
selective breeding occurs by identifying the dogs that possess the desired characteristics and having them mate only with other dogs that also possess the characteristic
manipualtion of behavioral and physical traits
if heritability of the desired trait is high, then selective breeding will be highly successful and will happen rapidly
what are family studies?
correlate the degree of genetic relatedness among family members with the degree of personality similarity.
They capitalize on the fact that there are known degrees of genetic relatedness among family members.
If a personality characteristic is highly heritable, then family members with greater genetic relatedness should be more similar to each other than are family members with less genetic relatedness.
If a personality characteristic is not at all heritable, then even family members who are closely related \n genetically, such as siblings, should not be \n any more similar to each other than are family \n members who are less genetically related to \n each other.
the Jim twins: example of heritability
Identical twins raised apart
A high number of similarities although raised in diff environments
components of behavioral-genetics methods to personality:
MZ vs DZ twins
equal environments assumption (EEA)
adoption studies
twins reared apart
MZ vs. DZ twins as a behavioral genetics method:
Are MZ more similar than DZ? (identical vs. fraternal twins?)
If yes, then it’s evidence of heritability
Higher tendency of genes to have affected traits bc identical twins share genes more than fraternal twins
Something about the shared genetic makeup that contributes to similarity more than fraternal twins who only share 50% of their genetic makeup
what is the equal environments assumption (EEA)?
twin method assumes that the environments experienced by identical twins are no more similar to each other than are the environments experienced by fraternal twins (“environments for MZ & DZ twins are equally similar”)
If they are more similar, then the greater similarity of the identical twins could be due to the fact that they experience more similar environments rather than the fact that they have more genes in common.
If identical twins are treated by their parents as more similar than fraternal twins are treated by their parents—for example, if the parents of identical twins dress them in more similar clothing than do the parents of fraternal twins—then the greater similarity of the identical twins might be due to more similar treatment.
If parents dress their identical twins in the same way, compared to fraternal twins who were dresses differently -→ violation of the assumption
research finding: however twins are labeled, the environments experienced by identical twins do not seem to be functionally more similar to each other than the environments experienced by fraternal twins.
how do adoption studies work?
does child resemble adoptive or bio parents more
nurture: when kids resemble their adoptive parents more than bio parents
nature: when kids resemble their bio parents more than adoptive parents
how are studies on twins reared apart the best of both worlds?
they allow direct estimates of genetic effects on behavior and health, because they share all their genes, but differ in their environments.
BG findings on personality traits: Big Five heritability
Big Five (OCEAN) heritability estimates b/t 20% and 50%
20-50% of observed individ diffs = due to genetic diffs
A, C, O: 20-45% (heritability lower than E & N)
E & N 55-60% (we have a better foundation of these traits in physiology)
Environmentality – percentage of observed behavior NOT due to genetics
heritability of attitudes/preferences:
attitudes tend to be stable over time, sometimes linked with actual behavior
convervative values preferred over modern values, heritability of .59
genes appear to influence occupational preferences -→ occupational preferneces like desire for competititon and wealth can lead to choosing occupations in which more status and income are actually achieved
however, heritability nonexistent for belief in god, involvement in religious affairs, and racial integration
heritability of drinking/smoking:
drinking & smoking seen as behavioral manifestations of personality dispositions, like sensation seeking, extraversion, and neuroticism
Individual differences in drinking and smoking habits also show evidence of heritability. - identical twin who smoked was 16 times more likely than an identical twin who didn’t smoke to hve a twin who also smoked
heritability tests for drinking more mixed, but show moderate heritability
but for alcoholism,shows stronger heritability -→ genetic link b/t alcoholism and conduct disorder (antisocial behavior)
Which sets of environmental factors are the most influential in explaining trait differences: shared vs. nonshared?
Shared: features shared by siblings (Ex: # of books in the home, vacations taken)
Non-shared: features that diff across siblings; helps us identify differences in traits (Ex: peer group)
Current research: non-shared environmental influences = critical for personality
what is the Genotype-environment correlation?
Diff genotypes exposed to diff environments -→ we’re more likely to find the same genotypes in certain environments
ex: individuals with different genotypes (e.g., those with high versus low verbal abilities) are exposed to different environments (e.g., high versus low stimulation)
Correlation can be…
Passive: individ didn’t do anything to be in that environment (passive genotype-environment correlation)
kid w/ good verbal skills lives in a house with lots of books bc parents like to read
reactive: related to evocation, eliciting responses without intention (reactive genotype-environment correlation)
kid who loves to be touched “trains” parents to hold her
active: related to selection, individ chose to be in that environment (active genotype-environment correlation)
thrill-seeker chooses to take up sky-diving
what is the genotype-environment interaction?
diff genotypes in same environment lead to diff responses
ex: introverts vs. extroverts perform differently in equally loud setting
what is the “warrior gene”?
MAOA-L: monoamine oxidase A
Lower levels of MAO (enzyme)-→ higher levels of circulating neurotransmitters -→ linked to less inhibition, higher levels of impulsivity, violence, aggression
inhibits the brake system in brain
Role of environment:
Upbringing: People who had lower activity MAOA and had committed multiple violent crimes found to have had difficult childhood environment
Social support -→ less social support, lower MAOA-L activity
McDermoot Et Al (2009) study on MAOA & hot sauce: PROCEDURE
aim: To investigate whether the MAOA gene predicts behavioral aggression after provocation
Participants of McDermott et al:
-78 male subjects in 2 different groups \n -Some carrying MAOA-H (high) \n -Some carrying MAOA-L (low)
Procedure of McDermott et al:
~~-~~Subjects could administer unpleasantly hot (spicy) sauce to an opponent who doesn't like the taste \n -How much hot sauce administered was the behavioral measure of aggression
Procedure 2
-In each round subjects had a portion of their earnings (experimentally manipulated) taken from a vocabulary task from an anonymous, fictional person \n -Participants could punish the player through forced administration of hot sauce
Procedure 3
Participants were told they were given a new supply of hot sauce each time which they could forcefully administer or trade in for money
What were the levels of amount taken?
80% and 20% \n High take is 80% \n Low take is 20%
McDermoot Et Al (2009) study on MAOA & hot sauce: RESULTS
-Researchers found evidence of a gene-environment interaction
- having more taken made them angrier regardless of gene \n -but Individuals with low MAOA (neurotransmitter build-up) were more likely to administer hot sauce to their opponent when 80% of their earnings were taken more than those with high MAOA \n -Lower differences between MAOA groups when only 20% of the money was taken
McDermoot Et Al (2009) study on MAOA & hot sauce: CONCLUSION
= “warriors” with low MAOA react more aggressively under conditions of high provocation
what are some commonly used physiological measures?
electrodermal activity (EDA)
cardiovascular activity (Blood pressures & heart rate)
brain activity (EEG & fMRI)
saliva testing
blood testing
how does electrodermal activity (EDA) testing work?
tests sweat gland permeability on palms of hands or soles of feet, observed as changes in the resistance of the skin to a small electrical current -→ the more water present in the skin, the more easily the skin carries/conducts electricity
SNS (sympathetic nervous system) arousal -→ prepares body for fight-or-flight mechanism during episodes of anxiety, startle, or anger
why are cardiovascular activities (blood pressure & heart rate) measured?
BP(blood pressure)-activation of the SNS in fight-or-flight response
HR (heart rate) – anxiety, arousal, cognitive effort
how is brain activity measured by electroencephalogram (EEG)?
measures electrical activity in the brain using small, metal discs (electrodes) attached to the scalp - obtained while person is asleep, is relaxed but awake, or is doing task -→ provides info about patterns of activation in various parts of the brain, which may be associated with diff types of medical conditions or cognitive tasks
what does the fMRI(functional magnetic resonance imaging) test?
images show which portions of the brain are active while the person is performing a specific task
why is saliva tested?
hormone levels (testosterone, oxytocin, cortisol)
indicator of how competently a person’s immune system is functioning -→ quality of immune system goes up and down w/ stress or emotions and thereby may relate to personality
what is blood tested?
MAOA levels
physiology-based theories of personality include:
extraversion-introversion (eysenck)
reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST)
sensation seeking
neurotransmitters & personality
morningness-eveningness
brain asymmetry & affective style
Eysenck’s personality questionnaire (EPQ) testing extraversion-introversion:
extraversion/introversion is more than just a social difference and is indicative of underlying physio diffs
Eysenck’s original theory:
introverts= higher baseline levels of cortical activity in ARAS (brain stem structure associated with arousal)
BUT… EEG findings stated that there was no diff @ rest = in the absence/low level of stimulation, arousal levels were comparable b/t introverts and extroverts
Eysenck’s revised theory:
Diff b/t introverts & extroverts = arousability
Introverts = more reactive to stimulation
Extroverts = “stimulation hungry”
Ppl have diff sweet spots for arousal that they operate best under
The Geen Study on arousability levels b/t introverts & extroverts: PROCEDURE
“IV1”: EPI(Eysenck personality inventory) score (extravert, introvert) – ppl come into take a personality survey, if above a certain number then extrovert, if not then introvert
Participants have to perform a task while there’s noise in the room
IV2: 3 noise conditions
Choice- 1/3 of participants can choose the level of noise they want to work under
assigned same – if extrovert, you don’t get to choose but researchers choose the level of noise other extroverts chose, same for introverts
assigned other – if introvert, then receives noise level that the last extrovert chose (same for extrovert- introvert choose for them)
DV1: measured “physio arousal” (HR, EDA)
DV2: learning task performance
The Geen Study on arousability levels b/t introverts & extroverts: RESULTS
personality main effects:
Introverts selected quieter noise levels (M=55dB) than extroverts (M=72dB)
Introverts = more physio arousal than extroverts (HR of introverts significantly higher than that of extroverts)
interactive effect on learning:
High bars = bad performance
When both introverts and extroverts under choice condition, they set it at their optimal level and they perform equally well
When assigned the same noise condition, when in the noise environment of the same genotype, performance is still relatively high for both introverts and extroverts
In the assigned other condition, both extroverts and introverts do not perform well, but introverts perform much worse than extroverts when not in their optimal environment a. Extroverts are understimulated if they’re in introverts’ desired noise level b. Introverts are overstimulated when they're in extroverts’ desire noise level
The Geen Study on arousability levels b/t introverts & extroverts: CONCLUSION
Geen’s findings fit w/ Eysenck’s revised model bc diffs emerge in reaction to stimulation -→ introverts and extroverts have different sweet spots for arousal
what is the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST)?
Jeffrey created model of human personality based on 2 hypotheiszed biological systems in the brain:
behavioral activation system (BAS)
behavioral inhibition system (BIS)
what is the BAS in (behavioral activation system) in the reinforcement sensitivity theory?
responsive to incentives, such as cues for reward, and regulates approach behavior, most likely through the dopamine system
ex: a child learns about an ice cream truck that makes deliveries to their neighborhood while playing music -→ when child hears music (cue of reward), their BAS creates the urge to run out into the street to find the truck (approach motivation)
associated with impulsivity, desire to engage in new stuff (high Extroversion, moderate Neuroticism)
accelerator that motivated approach behavior
what is the BIS in (behavioral inhibition system) in the reinforcement sensitivity theory?
responsive to cues for punishment, frustration, and uncertainty. The effect of BIS activation is to cease or inhibit behavior or to bring about avoidance behavior.
ex: child scolded by mother for running into the street, street becomes a punishment cue to the BIS, which causes the child to inhibit their behavior
associated with anxiety (high neuroticism, lower extraversion)
brake that inhibits behavior/help stop person what they’re doing
how is the RST (reinforcement sensitivity theory) high in integration?
Connections to other domains
Neural underpinnings for individual diffs in:
Coping/adjustment
Anxiety/fearfulness due to sensitive BIS
Motivation
Processing of threats vs. incentives
Sensitive BIS
Learning:
Ex: impulsive folks learn better via sensitive BAS
Hebb’s theory on sensation seeking & sensory deprivation studies (physiology based theory of personality):
sensation seeking: Tendency to seek out excitement, take risk, avoid boredom
Hebb (1950s):
Sensory deprivation studies – at some point, ppl tapped out of the study (to be completely devoid of sensations was aversive)
Some ppl went longer, some ppl were not as bothered-→ there are individual diffs in the optimal level of arousal (some amount of stimulation that is actually desirable for a person, we are motivated to seek that out)
this was controversial at the time bc it was radical that ppl voluntarily seek out sensation
Zuckerman’s theory on sensation seeking & role of MAO (physiology based theory of personality):
believed that people least tolerant of sensory deprivation were in high need of sensation
developed sensation-seeking scale (questionnaire designed to measure the extent to which a person needs novel/exciting experiences &enjoys thrills/excitements)
predicted how well ppl tolerated the sensory deprivation sessions
moderately strong positive correlation b/t extraversion and sensation seeking
thus, there is a physiological basis for sensation-seeking behavior -→ role of neuroTs
MAO responsible for maintaining proper levels of neuroTs -→ high sensation seekers tend to have low levels of MAO in bloodstream -→ sensation seeking is caused by/maintained by having high levels of neuroTs in nervous system
3 neurotransmitters correlated to personality:
dopamine
serotonin
norepinephrine
what correlation does dopamine have to personality?
pos association w/ pleasure & pleasure-seeking behavior
what correlation does serotonin have to personality?
neg association w/ depression, irritability
what correlation does norepinephrine have to personality?
activates “fight or flight” response
Note 
Flashcard (20)