This webpage will contain notes (e.g., from transparencies in class) that go beyond what is in the readings.
Some of what we cover in class basically recapitulates readings so you can use readings as a reference, but other topics we cover are not addressed in readings and these are what's referred to here, in a brief (parsimonious) format.
More will be added as the term goes on.
--last updated 14 March. 2002
material from after the midterm is in the bottom half
Outline of ideas presented in class that go beyond the readings...
ACROSS TIME, How Stable Are Ratings of Personality Attributes?
Generally very stable, with these caveats:
The farther back into childhood -- the younger the age -- the less stability
Stability may be partly due to crystallizing of self-image ... self-fulfilling prophecies
Or to progressively greater control over which situations one selects and enters
Prediction poorer for low base-rate characteristics (e.g., crime from childhood aggression)
Lower for Agreeableness
Lower if you partner with people unlike you
IS THERE REALLY ‘PERSONALITY'? (Characteristics stable across time and across situations?)
No! ...If you mean perfectly stable
No! ...If you mean characteristics representing rare or highly unusual behaviors
No! ...If you mean "attributes are not affected by changes in environment at all"
No! ...If you mean stable "across the most widely different points in lifespan" or "across the most extremely different situations"
But yes -- If you acknowledge that stability may be partly due to
* Self-fulfilling prophecy or expectancy effects
* Effect of person selecting his/her situations to fit own preferences (...reinforcing the preferences)
Yes -- if we're speaking comparatively -- one person's characteristics relative to those of other people
What are the most important traits?
That is, which traits are worth measuring?
And for those traits deemed important...
* How are these traits best classified (structured)?
* Is the classification generalizable -- will it work anywhere?
What counts as a personality descriptor?
* Apparent trait terms obviously (since Allport, Cattell)
* Temporary states? Emotions?
* Strongly evaluative terms?
* Intelligence and abilities?
* Attitudes/ideologies?
* Appearance? Attractiveness?
With differing variable selections, studies may fail to converge
Traditional views of personality -- differences of kind, or differences of degree
Formal catalogs of virtues
Confucius (c500 BCE): Goodness (courteous, loyal, diligent), Wisdom, Bravery
Pindar and Aeschylus (c 450BCE): Courage, Wisdome, Temperance, Justice, Piety -- Plato accepted first four as "cardinal virtues"
Emic lexical study
Based on lexical rationale:
Important attributes tend to be represented as single words
Degree of representation in language corresponds (somewhat) with importance of attribute
Is a key source of the Big Five model
The Big Five
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability (versus Neuroticism), Intellect (or Openness to Experience)
Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: The paradigm
Based on lexical rationale
As many terms as possible are extracted from a dictionary (or other word-list)
Most important or frequent of these selected
And used as stimuli for descriptions of real people (self, others)
Correlations among terms subjected to exploratory factor analysis -- parsimonious set of dimensions sought
"Emic" because each language-community can (potentially) generate its own structure based on its unique set of variables
Optimal model of personality-attribute structure would be...
Replicable, have cross-cultural generality, comprehensive, high utility
Which candidate model best satisfies these criteria? Does the Big Five?
* Replicability within-language sometimes tenuous
* Cross-cultural generality a major question
Need for a culturally decentered model of personality attributes
Most controversial part of McCrae and Costa's (1998) "five factor theory"
"Personality traits are endogenous basic tendencies"
Affected by biological bases and nothing else
Not affected by patterns of strivings, self-concept, attitudes, cultural norms, or life events (i.e., dynamic processes)
...in fact, few other than McCrae and Costa seem to believe the five factors are both (a) the main basic tendencies and (b) have this near-identity with biological factors
Some controversial points in Allport (1931) reading
not controversial: trait as like complex habit but more generalized than a habit
* Trait has capacity of directing responses (honestly, Judge, that wasn't me, it was my disagreeableness that made me do it!)
* Real traits are free of "preconceived moral significance" – this would imply use of only non-evaluative concepts (which many would find too limiting)
LANGUAGES in which lexical studies conducted
English (* by Saucier; Tellegen & Waller)
German
Dutch
Polish
Czech
Turkish (* by Goldberg & Somer)
Korean
French
Spanish*
Italian
Hungarian
Filipino (Tagalog)*
Hebrew*
* studies of wider range of variables
Most psychological models have imperfection(s)...
How about the Big Five?
Widely imposable, but limited from emic standpoint
Factors reliable...
* stable across time (adults r .6 )
* agreement across observers ( r .3 to .7 )
...but other models may do as well
Have power to predict...
...but more comprehensive model would do better
Integrative to a degree....
...but some attributes poorly represented
* Those implying moral evaluations (e.g., trustworthiness, social acceptability)
* Social attitudes (religiousness, materialism, etc.)
* Varieties of attractiveness and sex-related attributes
PERSONALITY DISORDERS – traits that lead to
* subjective distress, or
* functional impairment
DSM "PD" categories
* committee (not empirically) derived
* overlap each other ("comorbidity" common)
Differences of kind or of degree (level of severity, dimensions)?
As in many applied areas, optimal level of measurement may be more specific than broad factors
Studies have investigated specific "symptoms" that make up current "PD"s – to arrive at stronger empirical basis
Axis II disorders as extremes of five personality factors
(after Widiger et al., 1994, p. 42)
Extraversion <-----------------------------------> Introversion
Histrionic, Borderline.......................Avoidant, Schizoid
Agreeableness <------------------------> Disagreeableness
Dependent................Antisocial, Paranoid, Narcissistic
Conscientious <---------------------------> Unconscientious
Obsessive-compulsive...Antisocial, Passive-Aggressive
Emotionally stability <-------------------> "Neuroticism"
Schizoid....................Borderline, Dependent, Avoidant, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Schizotypal, Obs.-comp.
Openness/Intellect <--------------------------------> Low O/I
Schizotypal...(??"excessive conformity to authority" --McCrae, 1994, p. 306)
Three laws of behavior genetics
1. All human behavioral traits are heritable
2. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes
3. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families [nonshared environment...]
--E. Turkheimer (2000, CDPS, p. 160)
Genes, environment, personality...
On average, biological relatives tend to resemble each other to a greater degree than nonbiological relatives (who share a common rearing environment) do
Environment has substantial effects on personality, but works mainly in ways "nonshared" by members of a family
Parents have positive effects on kids' personality, but more often in unique-to-that-kid ways; people outside home also have effect
As of yet, no powerful sources of nonshared env. effects identified
What looks like effect of shared environment could be effect of shared genes
There are genetic differences between parent and child, or sibling and sibling (except MZ twins)
Genetic effects are not always constant
Examples of gene-environment correlation
Aggressive parents
----> chaotic home environment, plus
----> genetically aggressive tendencies to children
(passive)
Attractive woman and handsome man
----> showered with attention
----> thus their environment altered by their genetically influenced traits
(reactive)
Tough, fearless, aggressive bully
----> chooses to hang out on street corner
(active)
Bright child
----> chooses to read or hang out at public library
(active)
...Any of these can look like a pure environment effect!
Examples from D. Rowe (1999, in Derlega volume)
*******
Allele - any of two or more alternative forms found in a piece of DNA that is occupying a given locus (position on a chromosome)
One allele is inherited from each parent
Genotype -- pair of alleles at a locus; more generally, total genetic constitution of individual organism
Phenotype -- visible or observable appearance, character, or attributes of individual organism
Genetic heterogeneity -- identical phenotype arising from any of several genetic loci (e.g., Alzheimers)
Polygenic inheritance -- variations in multiple genes lead jointly to the phenotype
*******
Each of roughly 1 trillion cells in human body contains:
23 pairs of chromosomes (long, long molecules)
The same set of genes -- about 30,000?
About 3 billion DNA base-pairs
--heterocyclic amines labeled A, T, G, C
--function of about 90% of the sequences unknown
Various genes tell cells how and when to make amino acids that--
Make up various proteins and enzymes
Make RNA (transcribes/translates DNA)
Play regulatory role -- turn other genes on/off
Protein functions, emphasizing those of most direct psychological importance
Nerve impulsive transmission (e.g., receptors)
Transporters
Regulatory (e.g., hormone receptors)
Catalysis (e.g., enzymes)
Structural (e.g., nerve tissue)
Protection (e.g., antibodies)
Motion
Storage
*******
Many candidate ‘personality biochemicals' (e.g., 5HT, DA, MAO, NE, DBH) have been theoretically linked to impulsivity vs. constraint
Differences in testosterone levels seem more linked to assertive, perhaps dominant, combative, persistent behavior as well as to sexual behavior
Relation to aggression seems to occur mainly for rel. uneducated men from lower socioeconomic classes: could be due to hormone X env. interaction, or interaction with other biol. tendencies
Some complexity: hormone levels change as result of experience -- genetic variables may help clarify this area
*******
AFTER THE MIDTERM:
Biology provides a repertoire of potential responses
...individual differences may set different ranges or central tendencies within that repertoire
...THE REST REFLECTS LEARNING
Contingency (if this, then that) as key to what is learned (i.e., we learn and keep re-learning, the likely meaning of stimuli and behaviors – as well as reference values and self-efficacies)
Classical conditioning (passive, reaction-focused):
if this stimulus, then this cognition (& response)
Operant conditioning or reinforcement (active):
if this behavior, then this cognition (& response)
Personality, in large part, reflects these contingencies
...change the contingencies, change the pattern (of behaving, feeling, thinking)
Rules (from S. de Shazer) for behavior change---
Do more of what already works well
Otherwise, do something different
Presuppose (positive) change
REINFORCEMENT --
a. a reward that increases the frequency of a behavior, when applied following the behavior (the reward may be the removal of something aversive or unpleasant)
b. a stimulus that has been consistently paired with a (desired, rewarding, unconditioned) stimulus
VALUE -- a preference, or a belief about what's relatively desirable.
REINFORCEMENT VALUE (Rotter): degree of a person's preference for that reinforcement to occur (if the possibilities of occurrence of all alternatives were equal)
EXPECTANCY (Rotter) -- probability held by the individual that a particular reinforcement will occur due to a specific behavior on his/her part in some kind of situation(s)
SELF-EFFICACY EXPECTANCY (Bandura) -- perceived probability that one can do something successfully (belief about self)
Contemporary relationships – some questions
What selection standards does person use?
For short-term or for long-term bond?
How do individuals (within gender) differ...
Externals (appearance, resources) or internals (personality, values/beliefs) – which is more important when?
How important is it to be similar?
Romance or passion -- or companionship or altruism?
Effects of culture, and historical change?
Some research-based generalizations about the self
* Complex, not just one thing, might be integrated array of dynamically interacting "subselves", e.g.
-- Neisser's (1993) 5 points of view on self
-- Markus et al.'s "possible selves"
-- parts of psyche, as in Freud and Jung
* Infants are rather egocentric, but in most cultures one is socialized to a socially-based identity.
-- Social identity connected with one's name, roles, roots, affiliations, occupation, in-groups
-- D. Riesman (1950): "Tradition-directed self"
* Personal forms of identity more salient in complex, industrialized, and/or individualist societies, where social identities become fragmented, in conflict
-- D. Riesman: achieving "Inner-directed" self, peer-oriented "Outer-directed" self
* In any society, interindividual variation on the above
Low self-esteem (global negative self-evaluation) does have undesirable effects, e.g.
* Misinterpreting reactions of others (esp. how much one is liked by relative strangers)
* Reacting to failure and negative feedback with
-- attempt to lower expectations for self
-- generalizing failure to other tasks
-- attempts to avoid challenges
* More depression, coping more poorly with negative moods
But this may not mean that
* Everyone has a self-esteem problem
* Everyone's self-esteem needs to be raised
* High self-esteem cannot also be a problem
Scientific measurement of motives
* Problems with self-reports of motives
– affected by social desirability considerations
- are constructions, schemas – reflect values – not a complete record of goals/actions
* Problems with Freud's free association method
- representative sample of person's fantasy?
- affected by day, context, interviewer
...not systematic or objective enough
* Murray's TAT solves some such problems:
- standardized stimuli that are vague, ambiguous
- collect apperceptions (assignments of meaning)
- sample of imaginative verbal material
- exact record preserved
- reflection of motives, wishes, goals, et cetera
- scoring systems are developed:
often by experimental methods
* Validity has been demonstrated for several such motive scores (e.g., Achievement)
–- based on David G. Winter (1996, chapter 5)
Major "SOCIAL MOTIVES"
Achievement (preoccupation with success)-- for men at least, differences brought out by
Potential for competing to "do better"
Entrepreneurial situations
Moderate risk of failure and success
--for domestically-oriented women, achievement sphere may be friends, popularity, glamor, building a large and happy family
Power (preocc. with prestige, impact on others)--expression of high "n Power" depends on birth position (Winter, 1988)? Predicts...
Profligate impulsivity, if no younger sibs
Responsible power, if younger sibs
...Also predicts success as a manager
Affiliation - avoiding conflict/losing relationships
Intimacy - predicts positivity of interpersonal relationships, standing close to others
Brief characterization of Affiliation Motive (from Winter, 1996)
WHAT CAN I DO TO GAIN FRIENDS AND AVOID REJECTION?
Seeking communion through agency (Not motive to enjoy, with surrender of control, as in int motiv)
typical verbal images: warmth, friendship, unity
assoc actions and negotiating style: cooperative and friendly under ‘safe' conditions, defensive and even hostile under threat
Views partner in negotiations as either "fellow worker" or "opportunist"
Seeks help from friends and similar others (not experts)
Political-psychological manifestations are peacemaking and arms limitation, but vulnerability to scandal
Chronically accessible constructs?
Some attributes Americans are likely to hear referred to especially frequently:1
Happy
Busy
Smart
Intelligent
Great
Kind
Friendly
Honest
Tall
Attractive
Beautiful
Pretty
1- Adjectives with highest frequency ratings (Saucier, 1997)
Why are these concepts used so much?
* Linguist A. Wierzbicka --very high frequency terms indicate a culture's key concepts...
* Individual differences in chronic accessibility related to personality (Dodge et al, Downey et al, Zelli et al) and self (..."schematic" for X)
When you're schematic for an attribute, you tend to...
* Identify the attribute as characteristic of you, and an important aspect of you
* Have things related to it salient in memory (short-term, working, even long-term)
* Respond to (mention of) the term/concept more quickly
* Remember a lot of attribute-relevant information about yourself (but not info relevant to other attributes)
Culture -- shared meaning and rules, shared understandings of symbols and representations, shared ideas, beliefs, norms, values, patterns of social action (from R. A. LeVine, 1984)
-- set of attitudes, values, beliefs shared by a group of people and transmitted from one generation to the next (Matsumoto, 1997, following Barnouw, 1985)
Subjective culture -- patterns in self (self-statements) shared by an interacting language community (from Triandis, 1989)
More concepts from Triandis (1989)
Self -- Following Cooley (1902), "all statements made by a person, overtly or covertly, that include the words ‘I', ‘me', ‘mine', and ‘myself.'"
Private self -- assessment of self by self
Public self -- assessment of self by others in general
Collective self -- assessment of self referencing some specific group (often an ingroup in which one has membership -- related to ‘social identity')
Sampling of these selves -- from among this universe of selves, what is probability each one is referenced?
What conditions make change in some personality characteristic (from X to Y) more likely?
Good candidates are favorable influences related to...
Cultural setting -- Y is normative in new setting, present setting, X was characteristic of old setting (can this be applied to "subcultures"?)
Who you are with -- Y is a quality of the new person/group you're with, X more characteristic of the old one (see Caspi & Herbener, 1990; personality stability highest if you associate with people already like you)
...one example: go see a professional who'll support your quest to be more Y
Values -- Y is associated with some set of values person desires (becomes increasingly more desirable than X), or Y itself becomes a goal
Expectancies -- Y is probabilistically associated with expected reinforcement (reward, pleasure or removal of pain)
Self-efficacy -- person increases belief that he/she is capable of becoming Y, or doing behaviors associated with Y
Observational learning -- person watches people being Y and learns better how to do Y-related behaviors
Psychodynamic (psychoanalytic) motive theories that diverged from Freud:
Adler: aggression (later: will to power) as basic motive: people want to feel strong/superior (avoid feeling weak/inferior) -- but in healthy people this blended with social interest (community feeling)
Horney: reactions to ‘basic anxiety' (isolation, helplessness; or the ‘basic hostility' that follows) -- including construction of "idealized self"-- generate conflicts/problems
"Ego psychologists" (Klein, Mahler, et al.): people are "object seekers" -- internalized images of lost relational objects (stemming from disrupted [early] relationships) dominate our unconscious motivation
Jung: basic unconscious motive is wholeness, this generates compensation tendencies (express undeveloped portions of psyche), and involves projecting collective symbols in the process
Murray (and Fromm): multiple motive systems...
Subliminal psychodynamic activation (Silverman & Weinberger)
Original study: 24 hospitalized with schizophrenia were assessed before subliminal stimulation and after, for psychopathology (thought disorder, nonverbal indicators)
Three within-subjects conditions (each with appropriate picture):
MOMMY AND I ARE ONE --> positive effect
PEOPLE ARE THINKING
DESTROY MOTHER --> increased pathology
"Daddy and I are one" worked better with female patients ("my lover and I are one" with college women)
Also shown to help smoking cessation, and various presenting problems
Why does it help? Perhaps (a) allays anxiety (protects, comforts), (b) gratifies dependency needs, (c) leads to ‘transference' onto helping persons.