Psychology 305: Lecture 9. Person-Situation Debate & Personality Stability and Change

Transcription

1 Psychology 305: Lecture 9 Person-Situation Debate & Personality Stability and Change 1

2 Five Factor Model Wrap-Up 2

3 FFM has received most empirical support of any model Based on lexical studies of the dictionary Started with 17,953 trait terms (Allport & Odbert) Statistical Approach (factor analyses) found 5 factors Replicated MANY times, in many different samples High correlations between self and other ratings Cross-cultural replication Genetic links Cross-species replication (i.e., dogs, hyenas, monkeys) 3

4 FFM: Extraversion Extraversion Gregariousness Activity level Assertiveness Warmth Excitement Seeking Positive Emotions Extraverts love social attention and leadership, and are happier 4

5 FFM: Agreeableness Agreeableness Trust Altruism Modesty Compliance Straightforwardness Tendermindedness Agreeable people resolve conflicts, are politicians, and are well-liked -Do you know people who are high A yet low E? 5

6 FFM: Conscientiousness Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievementstriving Self-Discipline Deliberation Conscientious people are successful in school and work, and have more stable, committed romantic relationships 6

7 FFM: Neuroticism Neuroticism Anxiety Depression Vulnerability Impulsiveness Selfconsciousness Angry Hostility Neurotic people are highly emotional, have mood swings, instability in relationships, less successful, more fatigued 7

8 FFM: Openness to experience Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Ideas Actions Values Open people remember dreams better, are more creative, enjoy novel experiences 8

9 What s Missing from Big 5? Positive evaluation and Negative Evaluation Big 7 Religiosity/spirituality 9

10 FFM and PEN Extraversion PEN Extraversion Agreeableness PEN Psychoticism (low) Conscientiousness PEN Psychoticism (low) Neuroticism PEN Neuroticism Openness to Experience PEN? 10

11 Person-Situation Debate 11

12

13 What was going on in 68? Changes in Field of Personality: End of the era of mega-theories (Freud, Jung, Maslow, etc.) Era of middle-level theories Domain-specific Personality traits used to explain and predict certain types of behavior B = f (P) Behavior is determined by personality 13

14 What was going on in 68? Rise of Social Psychology Lewin s Interactionism Behavior as a function of person and situation B = f (P x S) Festinger s Situationism Reduced to B = f (S) Personality = error variance, irrelevant 14

15 Situationism Emphasis on the power of the situation to shape people s behavior Asch s conformity study Milgram s obedience study Zimbardo s prison study 15

16 Mischel s Critique Personality does not predict behavior B = f (P) is wrong People act differently in different situations Knowing a person s level on a particular trait does not allow you to predict their behavior on any specific occasion 16

17 The result of Mischel s critique Personality psychology suffered! Fewer grad programs Currently, almost no solely P programs in the US or Canada, and possibly more pure S programs than combined S-P Fewer researchers in the area Personality is one of many sub-groups of Social-Personality Psychology Fewer jobs 17

18 The Result of Mischel s Critique Social Psychology blossomed Huge area of research Many grad programs, researchers, and jobs Over time, personality psychology fought back and became stronger 18

19 Personality s Response 1. Personality traits predict behavior, but over the long-term Your level of Extraversion is a good predictor of the total number of times you will go to parties this quarter but, a weak predictor of whether you will go to a party this Friday night Like batting average; seasonal weather To predict behaviors, use aggregation Averaging/summing together a set of behaviors 19

20 Personality s Response 2. Broad traits predict broad behaviors, narrow traits predict narrow behaviors Conscientiousness academic performance Punctuality showing up to class on time 20

21 Personality s Response 3. People may differ in how they behave across situations, but are consistent relative to other people 21

22 Rank-order consistency Talkativeness Same slope = perfect rank order consistency Angelina Brad 0 At Church At Jack's Party 22

23 Rank-order consistency 8 7 Personality differences in talkativeness Talkativeness } Angelina Brad 1 0 At Church At Jack's Party 23

24 Rank-order consistency Talkativeness At Church At Jack's Party Angelina Brad Situational differences in talkativeness 24

25 Personality s Response 4. Personality traits are stable over long periods of time The degree to which a person is shy, organized, creative, friendly, etc. tends to be consistent from week to week, year to year, and even across the entire lifespan 25

26 26

27 Adult Personality is Linked to Child Temperament Temperament Dimension Big Five Dimension Activity level Sociability Emotional reactivity Attention level Orienting sensitivity Extraversion Extraversion, Agreeableness Neuroticism Conscientiousness Openness 27

28 Resolution of Debate: Interactionism Both personality and situation are important predictors of behavior 28

29 So how do we know which matters, when? Situational characteristics are better predictors of behavior when situation is strong with a high level of constraint Personality traits are better predictors of behavior when situation is weak with a low level of constraint 29

30 Degree of constraint High people likely to show little variation in behavior (situation most important) Low people likely to show most variation in behavior (personality most important) Situation Church Job interview Elevator Family dinner Class Movies Restroom Bus Date Bar Football game Dorm lounge Park Own room 30

31 Personality Stability and Change 31

32 Stability of Personality By definition, traits are stable dispositions across: Situations Time But, traits are not completely set like plaster 32

33 Normative Change in Personality As a group, people tend to increase or decrease on certain traits over time 33

34 Have you changed during college? Have you increased, decreased, or stayed the same in: Extraversion: Agreeableness: Conscientiousness: Neuroticism: Openness: 34

35 Personality Change Study Study compared personality scores at end and beginning of college Two Assessments Year 1 (beginning of first year) Students filled out the NEO-Five Factor Inventory Year 4 (end of senior year) Students filled out the NEO-FFI again 35

36 Developmental Research Longitudinal Examining the same group of individuals repeatedly, over time Differences between T1 and T2 = developmental change Cross-Sectional Comparing groups of different ages Differences between G1 and G2 = developmental change (maybe) 36

37 Developmental Research: Pros and Cons Longitudinal Costly, difficult, and time-consuming Differences found can be attributed to developmental change Inferences of change and development made Cross-Sectional Cheap & Easy Differences found may be due to development, but may also be due to other group differences (e.g., cohort effects) Cannot assume change or development 37

38 Next Class Genetic Approach Read Larsen & Buss Chapter 6 38