Studied by 0 peopleTrait
Consistent pattern in the way individuals behave, think and feel
“Trait” implies…consistency and distinctiveness
describes irregularly in a person's behaviors
Collection of traits that define/describe and individual = disposition
Predispose us to act in a certain way
Concern with the traits by which people differ
Theorists do a lot of defining and identifying what traits are
Also interested in measurement
Personality inventories/tests
Identification of individual’s traits and provision of accurate description of person’s personality based on those traits
Traits function to:
describe (taxonomy) - scientific way of classifying things
Goal is to identify the smallest number of traits that are possessed by everyone
Predict
With knowledge about a person’s traits -> should be able to predict how someone with be like in a particular situation or in general
Strength of these traits among individual varies and thus the individuals with behave differently
explain*
*not all trait theorists are concerned with this…
Majority are most interested in describing and predicting
Some suggest that traits can be used to explain a person’s behavior
Trait =
Consistency
Stability
State =
Has to do with a particular situation
Emotional experience of a person
Mood of a person
Immediate situation of a person
How our traits express themselves differently based on the state we are in
Activities =
Things you can observe
Some say you can infer from observable actions how one behaves and what traits they have that results in their behavior
Might reflect traits, but might reflect state
Roles =
In different roles that an individual is in, their traits will present differently
Determines how we behave, think and feel
Gordon Allport (1897 - 1967)
Book had huge impact on the study of personality psychology
Father of personality psychology
Spent most of academic career at Harvard
Humanistic view: person in state of “becoming”
Was trained as a Freudian
Emphasis on the individual’s unique behaviors and thoughts
internal , motivation and cognitive concerns as well
Believed personality was jointly caused by biology and psychology
Allport’s Trait Theory
Traits are neuropsychic structures
Located in a part of our nervous system
Can infer they are via the expression of those traits
Couldn’t prove their “physical” existence
Traits can initiate and guide consistent forms of adaptive and expressive behavior
Traits are common or personal
Much more interested in the personal traits
Can be studied by nomothetic (standardized measures) or idiographic (flexible measures) methods
preferred idiographic method
Allport on trait consistency
Recognized importance of the situation
Traits explain consistency
Situation explains variability
Cardinal Traits
Pervasive and dominant
Pervasive: affect every aspect of our lives
Dominant: very very strong, very important in terms of defining our personality
“Master motives”
“Ruling passions”
Define what we find interesting, stimulating and gravitate towards
Central Traits
important, but control less of one’s behavior; typical descriptors
Cover more limited amount of situations than cardinal traits
More changeable, malleable
Secondary Traits
less important or conspicuous
Personality Development
Concept of the “self”
Uniqueness of the individual
Functional autonomy (ideally)
if the motive is functionally autonomous, the individual is doing that because they want to do that and it expresses a part of their personality
behavior based on present interests and conscious decisions
Behaviors not traceable to childhood experiences
Early development: peripheral motives and guided by tension reduction
Dependence on other people, means to enhance survival through meeting needs
Adult life: shift toward self-strivings
Doing things because it's what we consciously chose to do
Influence by our personality traits
Allport’s Legacy
Valued contributions to personality & trait theory
Lack of explanation for traits
Research concerns:
No clear trait/situation link
No support for claim of hereditary influence
Over-reliance on idiographic methods
All other trait theorists have endeavored to establish a set of traits possessed by every person to some degree
Raymond Cattel (1905 - 1998)
London scientist
Research assistant for Spearman
Spent time at Columbia
Factor analysis method
Surface traits
Source traits
Surface Traits
‘on the surface’; behavioral tendencies
Visible, observable in behaviors
Source Traits
internal psychological structures that are the underlying cause of intercorrelations of surface traits
Surface and Source Trait Relationship
A few source traits can create what seem to be many ‘different’ surface traits
A factor analysis of surface traits can reveal their underlying source traits
Factor Analysis
A statistical tool for summarizing the ways in which a large number of variables are correlated
Premier tool used by trait theorists to identify the structures of personality
Correlation Coefficient
Factor Analysis: Step 1
Collect surface trait ratings from many people
Factor Analysis: Step 2
Calculate correlations among those ratings
Factor Analysis: Step 3
Extract factors from the correlation matrix
Factor Analysis: Step Four
Calculate factor loadings
Factor Analysis: Step 5
Review the loadings and name the factors
Factor Analysis: Step 2 example
calculate correlations among items
Factor Analysis: Steps 4 & 5 example
4: loading of 6 items on 2 factors
5: name the factors
Factor Analysis Benefits
Reduces the multiple reflections of personality to a smaller set of traits.
Provides a basis for arguing that some traits matter more than others.
Helps in developing assessment devices.
Cattel: 3 categories of source traits
Ability traits
Temperament traits
Dynamic traits
Ability Traits
skills that allow the individual to function effectively
Temperament Traits
traits involved in emotional life
Dynamic traits
traits involved in motivational life
The Five Factor Model
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Considered good theory but not perfect
An adequate number of traits/factors to describe everyone’s personality
Each one of us possesses each of these traits on a continuum
The Big Five Trait Factors and Scales
Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-Cultural Research
Are the Big Five universal? Methodological issue: translation
DiBlas & Forzi, 1999
E, A & C replicated in Italian
DeRaad & Peabody, 2005
E,A, C “cross-lingually recurrent”
Costa and McCrea: Big five structure is a human universal
NEO Personality Inventory (Neo-PI-R)
Primary assessment tool to assess the traits in an individual
Measures five factors & six ‘facets’
Good reliability & validity
Reliability: consistent results
Validity: measures what it says it measures
Agrees with other Big Five instruments
If someone takes it and another assessment tool that measures the big five the results will be similar
Correlates with Eysenck’s inventories & Cattell’s 16 factors
Big Five - Six Facets
Integration of Theories
Eysenck’s Extraversion and Neuroticism virtually identical to Extroversion and Neuroticism dimensions of Big Five
Eysenck’s Psychoticism corresponds to combination of Low Conscientiousness + Low Assertiveness
NEO-PI-R relates meaningfully with Q-Sort
Costa and McCrea: Big Five more than descriptors
Each factor is a universal structure
Everyone has each psychological structure (trait) in varying amounts
Psychological structures (traits) causally influence psychological development
How we develop psychologically is due in part to the strength of these particular traits
Costa and McCrea beliefs
Factors have a biological basis
Differences linked to the Big Five determined by genetic influences on neural structure & brain chemistry
The five traits are not influenced by the environment; strongest “nature” position possible
Problematic Issues (Five Factor)
How to link personality structures to personality processes
Response: those are to be filled in by different theorists
Claim that traits are not affected by social factors
There is research that directly challenges this assertion
Five-factor theory claims everyone has all five factors
Growth and Development: longitudinal research
Evidence of stability over long time periods
Significant correlations among repeated measures
Change evident, despite stability
Greater stability in adulthood than in childhood
Growth and Development
What accounts for differences across the lifespan?
Personality change?
Cohort effects?
Differences in different groups of people
Cohort: people who “go through life together”
Different cohorts experience the same events but within the context of the particular cohort
How particular events affect each cohort are different
Maybe we missed one? The Six Factor Model
Big Five model had been consensus since the 1980s
Sixth factor suggested: honesty/humility
Six Factor Model?
Individual differences in the tendency to be truthful and sincere vs. cunning and disloyal are a reliable sixth factor
Validated across 7 languages
Not yet incorporated into theory or research
Evaluation: Trait Theory
DATABASE: excellent
SYSTEMATIC: Cattell, yes; Eysenck, so-so; Costa & McCrea, not so much
TESTABLE: very good
COMPREHENSIVE: yes & no
APPLICATIONS: yes, in re: predictions; not strong in re: clinical usefulness
Factor Analysis Benefits
Reduces the multiple reflections of personality (trait terms that you can use to describe somebody) to a smaller set of traits.
Provides a basis for arguing that some traits matter more than others.
If a factor accounts more a large amount of variability (load strongly) they are more important
Helps in developing assessment devices.
Aim to describe individuals based on trait theory
Cattel: 3 categories of Source Traits
ability traits
temperament traits
dynamic traits
Ability Traits (Cattel)
skills that allow the individual to function effectively
Success in dealing with the ups and downs of life
Temperament Traits (Cattel)
traits involved in emotional life
Dynamic Traits (Cattel)
traits involved in motivational life
What propels us to engage in particular activity
Traits involved in selection and pursuit of activities
The 16-PF Test (Cattel)
Every human being possesses these traits to a certain extent
Response on test determines where they fall on the continuum of a particular personality factor
Provide reasonable accurate description of personality
Benefits: fewer items to assess and terms to identify
Drawback: may not be entirely comprehensive - many not adequately/accurately describe a personality, things may be missing
Cattel’s Legacy…
Strong foundation based on systematic research efforts
16 PF continues to be widely used in applied settings
Work exerts little impact in contemporary personality science
The 16 factor approach is not parsimonious
Still too many
Based his theory on measurement, which is risky
Hans Eysenck (1916-1997)
Born in berlin
Parents well known actors
Left germany in 1930s after Hitler assumed power
University of Dijon and then University of London
Majority of professional life in hospice
Took factor analytic method further
3 factor model
Emphasized biological foundation of personality
Secondary Factor Analysis (Eysenck)
used to identify a simple set of factors that are statistically independent (not correlated with each other)
Conducted factor analysis and secondary factor analysis
Re-factor-analyzed the first
Factors are commonly correlated; intercorrelations among factors can themselves be factor-analyzed
Superfactors
Factor analytic trait dimensions derived from factor analysis
Highest level of hierarchy of traits
superfactor
trait level
Habitual response level: typical responses
Specific response level: responses based in specific contexts
Most people fall somewhere in the middle for most
Proposed that in addition to the 16PF not being independent, but that individuals who took that test would often end up with scores that correlated with other factors (overlap)
Extraversion (superfactor)
organizes lower-level traits such as sociability, activity, liveliness and excitability
Neuroticism (superfactor)
(emotional stability vs. instability) organizes traits such as anxious, depressed, shy, and moody
General Personality Dimensions
introversion/extroversion
emotional stability/instability
Anyone can be described within this two-dimensional space according to Eysenck
Psychoticism (superfactor)
“abnormal” qualities, including
aggressiveness, a lack of empathy, interpersonal coldness, and antisocial behavioral tendencies
Not everyone would have this
Only comes into play with individuals who display “abnormal” traits qualities
Measuring Superfactors
Eysenck developed simple, self-report items designed to tap each of the factors
Included “lie scale” items:
(Yes / No response format)
Do you sometimes laugh at a dirty joke?
Did you always do as you were told as a child?
Objective Measures: The “Lemon Drop Test”
Introverts & extraverts differ in amount of saliva produced
Based in reticular activating system
Introverts = more saliva
Very sensitive and highly responsive to stimuli
Extrovert = less saliva
Need more stimulation
Suggests a biological basis to individual differences
Individual differences in introversion-extraversion
Introverts: more cortical arousal
Extroverts: less cortical arousal
Twin Studies
suggest heredity accounts for some differences in extraversion
Psychopathology (according to Eysenk)
Neurotic symptoms = biology + environment
Majority of neurotic patients: high N & low E scores
Criminals & antisocial persons: high N,E, & P
Five Factor Model: “The Big Five”
Evidence-based approach focused on individual differences (Costa & McCrea 1992)
Individual Differences
“How do people differ from each other?”
“Is there a set of basic…?”
Is there a set of factors that can accurately describe everyone’s personality?
Five Factor Model Research Evidence
Factor Analyses of 3 types of data:
Trait terms in the natural language
cross-cultural research
Relation of trait questionnaires to other questionnaires
Temperament - Thomas & Chess (1977)
Studied infants throughout childhood and adolescence
Biologically based
Primarily from developmental psychology
Individual differences
How we differ from each other personality-wise
Emotional & motivational tendencies
Evident early in life
Longitudinal Study Design
Allows researchers to determine if psychological qualities in life are enduring over a long period of time
2000: 1 year old
2007: 7 years old
2014: 14 years old
New York Longitudinal Study
100 children from birth to adolescents
Used parental ratings of reactions to different situations (biased)
Found that temperament styles tended to endure over the growth of the babies
Having parents rate them on things like, activity level, mood, persistence in task
New York Longitudinal Study Infant Temperament Types - Easy
playful & adaptable
Easy to sooth, adapt readily to routines, “go with the flow”
New York Longitudinal Study Infant Temperament Types - Difficult
negative & not adaptable
Easily upset and not easily calmed, not highly adaptable to routine
New York Longitudinal Study Infant Temperament Types - Slow to warm up
low reactivity & mild responses
More reactive than easy babies but not as reactive as difficult babies
In between the two
“Goodness to fit”
The particular environments that the caregivers provide are better fits for certain types of temperament styles in babies
Ex: a difficult baby would do better in a more quiet and calm household environment
Difficult babies found more trouble adjusting to things later in life, and easy babies had an easier time
Buss & Plomin (1984) - Dimensions of Temperament
Used parental ratings of children’s behaviors (biased)
Found that individual difference in temperament were found stable across time and largely heritable
Twin studies supported genetic influence
Biological systems that underlie temperament were not identified
Dimensions of Temperament (Buss & Plomin)
Emotionality
Ease of arousal in upsetting situations
General distress
Activity
How strongly and how fast the child’s motor movements are
Sociability
How responsive the child is to other
open/closed to new people
Do they make friends easily
Kagan (1994, 2003, 2012)
Direct, objective measure used
Children in lab and observed behavior there
Reduced likelihood of bias, but in artificial setting
2 clearly defined temperament profiles: INHIBITED/UNINHIBITED
Inhibited (temperament profile)
reacted to unfamiliar situations/people with restraint, discomfort, distress - take longer time to settle down and relax in new situation, quiet, sought parental comfort, run and hide
Uninhibited (temperament profile)
responded with curiosity and spontaneity to new things, laughing, smiling, engaging, much more comfortable
Findings (inhibited vs. uninhibited) - Kagan
High reactivity should -> inhibited
Low reactivity should -> uninhibited
Videotaped in lab setting when exposed to novelty
20% children = high reactivity
40% children = low reactivity
40% children = a mix
Found continuity in these results within longitudinal studies
Found that over time many reactive children did not become consistently fearful as they grew (influenced impart by parental attachment)
Biological Influences on Inhibition
Uninhibited and inhibited people differ in brain
Amygdala
Strong emotions, fear and anger
Inhibited children = higher activity
Frontal cortex
Higher level of brain, involved in regulation of emotional response, influencing the amygdala
Stathmin (protein) & influence of gene
Studied in lower animals
Directly influences the activity/functioning of the amygdala
Mice with or without the protein differed in behavior
Consistency....and change of temperament
Influence of mother’s behavior during infancy
Degree of mother’s social support in early childhood
(Fox et al., 2005)
Evolutionary psychology
Human nature is the product of evolutionary process via natural selection
Characteristics that enhance survival of the species are more likely to be passed on to future generations
Important to survival & reproductive success
Proximate causes: biological processes operating in the organism at the time the behavior is observed
Ultimate causes: Why is a given biological mechanism a part of the organism?
Is this biological mechanism somehow enhancing survival?
Ultimate causes
Some biological features are better than others
Possession those features -> more likely to survive, reproduce, & be ancestors
The biological mechanism evolves: Population reflects beings who possess the adaptive biological mechanism
Evolved tendencies
Some may no longer be adaptive
Persist even though they may no longer be adaptable
Are domain specific: solve particular problems in specific settings
Problems solved differently in:
Mate preferences
Parenthood
jealousy
Buss: contents of human nature
Need to belong
Survival and reproduction relies on the ability to connect with others in the group: cooperating, achieving status (resources, attention, importance)
Being ostracized would be damaging
Helping & altruism
Helping others makes it more likely that you are going to receive help when you need it
Altruism: doing something good because you just want to do something good and don’t expect anything to be reciprocated
When people are helpful or altruism they are hoping it will be helpful for their survival
Universal Emotions - Ekman, 1973
Provides support for evolutionary psychologists
Traveled around the world and took pictures of facial expressions and all the different subjects identified these seven different emotions
~Contempt~Anger~Disgust~Fear~
~Happiness~Sadness~Surprise!
Mate preferences - parental investment theory: women
Biological differences cause women to invest more in parenting
Carry burden of pregnancy
Can pass genes on to fewer offspring
“mate value” (of men) dependent upon ability to provide protection & resources
Parental investment theory: men
Men less concerned with protection
Can potentially pass genes on to large # of offspring
“mate value” (of women) determined by reproductive fitness: youth & physical attractiveness
Parenthood
Women: certainty in regard to offspring
Men: potential for uncertainty in regard to paternity
Need to take steps to ensure investment is directed toward own offspring
Jealousy
Buss: men & women should differ in terms of events that provoke jealousy
Research suggests…
Males: sexual infidelity more concerning
Women: emotional infidelity more concerning
Eagly & Wood, 1999
Robustness/accuracy of EP research conclusions?
Societal characteristics
Similarity of roles
Greater gender equality
Interactions between biology & social factors suggested
The fundamental lexical hypothesis
" “the most important individual differences in human transactions will come to be encoded as single terms in some or all of the world's languages”"
Goldberg
Behavior Genetics
The study of genetic contributions to behavior
Estimate degree to which variation in psychological characteristics is due to genetic factors
Interaction between genes & environment
And where in the environment our genes have their effect
Heritability
A statistic that refers to the proportion of observed variance in a group of individuals that can be accounted for by genetic variance
refers to the variation in the population examined in a given study (not generalizable outside of the group of individuals being studied)
If h^2 is <1.0, there exists variance that is not accounted for by genetic factors
If 0 - genetics has no factor in the studied differences
If < 0 - environment plays a role
Describes the degree to which genetic differences among individuals cause differences in an observed property
(e.g., height, extraversion, optimism)
Interpretation of h^2
h^2 DOES NOT indicated the degree to which genetics accounts for the fact that a particular individual has a particular characteristic
h^2 of .40 for inhibition DOES NOT MEAN that 40% of that trait is inherited
h^2 of .40 for inhibition means that genetics accounts for 40% of the variability between the people in the population studied
Investigating Heritability - selective breeding
Done on animals
Animals with a desired trait are selected and mated
Same processed used through offspring to try to maintain consistency in traits
Concluded that heritability must play a factor in personality traits as demonstrated by the success of selective breeding
Investigating Heritability - twin studies
Monozygotic (identical)
If two organisms are genetically identical, then any observed differences can be attributed to environment
Effects of biology endure even across different environments
Dizygotic (fraternal)
If two genetically different organisms are reared in the same environment, the differences are attributed to genetic material
Adoption studies
Studies that look at children raised by people other than their biological parents and are then compared to adoptive vs. biological parents
Note
Flashcard