Expert answer:Personality, psychology homework help
Answer & Explanation:I will have the question next week, again, it’s 1000 words essay.Plenty of time left!! At least one month. PersonalityLecture1.pdf PersonalityLecture2.pdf Lecture3.pdf PersonalityLecture4.pdf
personalitylecture2.pdf
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Want to be a good personality
researcher? We’ve got you covered,
regardless of who you are
●
●
Final essay question announced in the last
lecture
words: 1000
What is the point of personality research?
Personality
psychology
could
provide
a
framework
for
describing
and
eventually
explaining how people are all alike, how they
differ from each other, and how they differ
from
themselves
over
time
and
across
situations. It does not quite do all this at
the moment, but research is progressing in
every one of these direction and at some
point we might just get there. Personality
psychology could then serve to integrate the
whole of psychology.
As our biggest success, we have created a descriptive
framework for individual differences – personality
hierarchy – to which most researchers subscribe, although
we do not quite know yet whether this taxonomy is
suitable for providing causal explanations for what it
describes. We have begun to theorize as to how this
framework may be understood in relation to the concepts
used to describe and explain how people are all alike.
For example, theories such as Cybernetic Big Five Theory
describe
Extraversion
and
Neuroticism
as
variable
parameters of universal motivation and goal-management
systems. This work, however, has just begun and is often
more speculative than backed by empirical evidence.
Finally, we have started to consider individuals’
personalities as distributions of states instead of fixed
sets of traits, which will allow for including temporal
and situational dynamics into personality theories.
However, as yet this work is also more of an avant garde
than main-stream research.
In
conclusion,
although
personality
psychology
has
mostly
progressed
as
a
description of individual differences, it is
starting to embrace the other parts of its
broad mission.
Practice essay 2
“Three main things I could contribute to
personality psychology”
Background
Personality psychology is an ambitious
discipline
It is making progress in many direction and
even more needs to be done
Thesis
●
●
Given the progress, we now know a range of
possibly worthwhile avenues to pursue
This gives a job for everyone who wants to
make a meaningful contribution
–
Solving important conceptual problems
–
Helping with measurement
–
Barriers to business often low because of minimal
upfront investment
●
Recycling existing data
●
No costly equipment
Antithesis
●
Personality construct space is already
overpopulated, we have to ensure further
‘refining’ does not create yet more
constructs
–
●
●
Could also contribute to the jingle-jangle fallacy
All too easy to get lost in the construct
and measurement ‘tweaking-mode’
Too easy to loaf
Syntehsis
●
●
There is a a job for everyone:
–
For a Big Thinker
–
For a Small Tinker
–
For a Game Changer
–
For a Psychometrics-Nutter
–
Even for a Slacker
The field needs to ensure it maintains
self-correction mechanisms and standards
–
To avoid wasting resources
Thesis
Solving important problems
●
●
Appropriate units of analysis
–
Trait hierarchy is not ready
–
Or there is no hierarchy at all?
Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma
–
As few as possible, as many as necessary
–
Statistical parsimony vs conceptual meaningfulness
●
Harms et al. (2016)
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Openness
Honesty-Humility
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
HEXACO
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Openness
Lee & Ashton, 2007
Discriminant validity
N
N
E
O
A
C
-0.21
-0.02
-0.25
-0.53
0.40
0.04
0.27
-0.02
-0.02
E
-0.30
O
-0.32
0.53
A
-0.22
0.26
0.44
C
-0.31
0.24
0.35
0.24
0.53
NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992; above diagonal)
Meta-analyses (N = 44,971, van der Linden et al., 2011)
Convergent
validity
Discriminant validity
N
N
E
O
A
C
-0.21
-0.02
-0.25
-0.53
N
0.64
0.40
0.04
0.27
E
0.62
-0.02
-0.02
O
0.51
0.24
A
0.61
C
0.63
E
-0.30
O
-0.32
0.53
A
-0.22
0.26
0.44
C
-0.31
0.24
0.35
0.53
NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992; above diagonal)
Meta-analyses (N = 44,971, van der Linden et al., 2011)
r
Pace & Brannick, 2010
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive
emotionality
Extraversion
Openness
Discriminant validity
N
N
E
O
A
C
-0.21
-0.02
-0.25
-0.53
0.40
0.04
0.27
-0.02
-0.02
E
-0.30
O
-0.32
0.53
A
-0.22
0.26
0.44
C
-0.31
0.24
0.35
0.24
0.53
NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992; above diagonal)
Meta-analyses (N = 44,971, van der Linden et al., 2011)
Negative
emotionality
Disinhibition
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive
emotionality
Positive
emotionality
Extraversion
Openness
Stability (α)
Negative
emotionality
Plasticity (β)
Disinhibition
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive
emotionality
Positive
emotionality
Extraversion
Openness
GFP
Stability (α)
Negative
emotionality
Plasticity (β)
Disinhibition
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Positive
emotionality
Positive
emotionality
Extraversion
Openness
General Factor of Personality (GFP)
“In a competitive world, there are always
rewards (personal and professional) for more
efficient persons—those who are more levelheaded, agreeable, friendly, dependable, and
open …
All happy [or efficient] people resemble one
another; each unhappy [inefficient] person is
unhappy [inefficient] in his or her own way.”
●
Part of a general fitness factor (K)
Rushton et al., 2008
GFP critique
●
Is too weak (Revelle)
●
Reflects rating biases (Pettersson)
–
●
But biases may reflect substantive variance, too
Reflects crud factor (Lykken, Meehl)
Pettersson et al (2012)
●
Items of similar content, different valence
●
Estimated the Big Five and unorthogonal GFP
●
GFP items opposite content, similar valence
●
–
Sluggish, manic
–
Modest, assertive
Big Five factors items similar content,
even with opposite valence
–
Uptight, disciplined
–
Overbearing, sociable
Petterson et al., 2012
The big none
Weiss et al., 2011
Higher-order factors
●
Research ongoing
–
●
But these traits are quite loose
–
●
Based on existing datasets
Even the Big Five
Returns from considering lower-order traits
might be bigger
–
Again recycling existing datasets
Neuroticism
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item
Item Item Item Item Item Item
Assumption: local independence
Neuroticism
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item
Item Item Item Item Item Item
Local independence: often does not hold
GFP
Stability (α)
Plasticity (β)
Negative
emotionality
Positive
emotionality
Disinhibition
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Withdrawal
Volatility
Compassion
Politeness
Industriousness
Orderliness
Positive
emotionality
Extraversion
Enthusiasm
Aspects (DeYoung, 1997)
Assertiveness
Openness
Intellect
Openness
NEO-PI-R Extraversion items, N = 3,551, unpublished
(residual associations controlling for all associations )
Enthusiasm
Assertiveness
GFP
Stability (α)
Plasticity (β)
Negative
emotionality
Negative
emotionality
Disagreeable
disinhibition
Unconscientious
disinhibition
Neuroticism
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Withdrawal
F1
…
Positive
emotionality
Disinhibition
Fn
Volatility
F1
…
Fn
Compassion
F1
…
Fn
Politeness
F1
…
Fn
Industriousness
F1
…
Fn
Positive
emotionality
Orderliness
F1
…
Fn
Extraversion
Enthusiasm
F1
…
Fn
Facets (Costa & McCrae, 1985)
Openness
Assertiveness
F1
…
Fn
Intellect
F1
…
Fn
Openness
F1
…
Fn
●
Extraversion: quantity and intensity of
energy directed outwards
–
Warmth: interest in and friendliness towards others
–
Gregariousness: preference for the company
–
Positive Emotions: tendency to feel positive emotions
–
Assertiveness: dominance, forcefulness of expression
–
Activity: pace of living
–
Excitement Seeking: need for stimulation
●
Neuroticism: proneness to distress
–
Anxiety: level of free floating anxiety
–
Angry Hostility: tendency for anger, frustration,
bitterness
–
Depression: tendency for guilt, sadness, despondency,
loneliness
–
Self-Consciousness: shyness, social anxiety
–
Impulsiveness: tendency to act on cravings and urges
instead of reining them in and delaying gratification
–
Vulnerability: general susceptibility to stress
●
Openness: seeking and appreciation of
experiences for their own sake
–
Fantasy: receptivity to imagination
–
Aesthetics: appreciation of art and beauty
–
Feelings: openness to feelings and emotions
–
Actions: openness to new hands-on experiences
–
Ideas: intellectual curiosity
–
Values: readiness to re-examine own values and those
of authority figures
●
Agreeableness: orientedness towards the
needs of others
–
Trust: belief in others’ sincerity, good intentions
–
Straightforwardness: frankness in expression
–
Altruism: active concern for the welfare of others
–
Compliance: response to interpersonal conflict
–
Modesty: playing down own achievements, being humble
–
Tender-Mindedness: sympathy for others
●
Conscientiousness: degree of organization,
persistence, control and motivation in goal
directed behaviour
–
Competence: belief in own self efficacy
–
Order: personal organization
–
Dutifulness: emphasis placed on importance of
fulfilling moral obligations
–
Achievement Striving: need for personal achievement
and sense of direction
–
Self-Discipline: capacity to begin tasks and follow
through to completion despite boredom or distractions
–
Deliberation: tendency to think things through before
acting or speaking
Facets: work in progress
●
Mostly not derived from empirical analyses
–
●
But would ultimately need to be
An exception: Roberts et al. (2005)
–
36 Conscientiousness-related scales
–
Formed six clusters:
●
●
●
Industriousness, order, self-control,
responsibility, traditionalism, virtue
Predictive validity beyond the Big Five scores
Not yet for other Big Five domains
Alternative Conscientiousness facets
●
Industriousness
●
Perfectionism
●
Tidiness
●
Procrastination refrainment
●
Control
●
Cautiousness
●
Task planning
●
Perseverance
MacCann et al., 2009; Rikoon et al., in press
Impulsiveness
(facet of Neuroticism)
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item
Item Item Item Item Item Item
Mõttus et al. (2015):
29/30 facets lacked local independence (N = 2,711)
NEO-PI-R Warmth items, N = 3,551, unpublished
(residual associations controlling for all associations )
I find it easy to smile and
be outgoing with strangers
I really enjoy
talking to people
I don’t get much
pleasure from
chatting with people
I’m known as a warm
and friendly person
Many people think of me as
somewhat cold and distant
Nuances: substance or noise?
●
Cross-rater agreement
●
Temporal stability
●
Heritable variance
●
Predictive validity
Mõttus et al., in revision
●
No systematic attempts to delineate nuances
–
Items of a single questionnaire insufficient
●
Need to be validated
●
Great opportunity
Implications for the aetiology of
traits
●
●
∩-Traits: Intersections
–
Probably the ‘traditional view’
–
Classical test theory
U-Traits: Unions
–
How do we know that we have the right unions?
–
Traits as exhaustive sets of nuances?
McCrae, 2015
McCrae, 2015
There might be no ‘core’ trait at all
McCrae, 2015
Reflective model: latent common causes
●
●
Observables only correlate
because of the common cause
–
Completely exchangeable
–
Only measurement devices
–
One perfectly reliable item may
suffice for identifying a trait
–
Aetiologically redundant
–
Causally impotent
Operationalized as the common
variance of observables
Unobservable
common
cause
●
●
●
Default assumption of factor analysis
–
Silent assumption of much of personality psychology
–
Easy to model
–
Takes care of random measurement error
Aetiological factors operate via the latent
common cause
–
Change the latent trait to change anything
–
Changing behaviours/facets cannot change ‘their’ trait
Causes of personality are causes of latent
traits
–
Facets, nuances, behaviours are only mediators
Formative model: summaries
●
Observables may or may not be
correlated
–
Not exchangeable
–
The source of traits and have causal
implications
–
One item cannot identify a trait
●
Example: socioeconomic status
●
Harder to model
–
●
Unless operationalized as a summary
Does not handle measurement
error
Summary
Measurement models are not a rocket science:
An example based on ‘lavaan’ (free software)
i1
i2
i3
i4
i5 outcome
1 0.49 0.34 -0.63 -2.32 -0.36
0.97
2 0.81 -1.98 -1.17 -1.25 0.44
-0.26
3 -0.20 0.26 -0.96 1.05 0.85
-0.09
4 3.29 1.86 0.59 1.08 -0.02
-0.21
5 1.63 -2.48 -0.30 0.62 -0.59
0.12
6 0.77 -0.58 2.49 1.00 -0.43
-1.28
…
model = ‘ F =~ i1 + i2 + i3 + i4 + i5
outcome ~ F’
fit = cfa(model, data)
model = ‘ F <~ 1*i1 + i2 + i3 + i4 + i5
outcome ~ F '
fit = cfa(model, data)
← data
← reflective model
← formative model
summary(fit, fit.measures=TRUE, standardized=T)
Estimate
Latent variables:
F =~
i1
i2
i3
i4
i5
Regressions:
outcome ~
F
Std.err
Z-value
P(>|z|)
Std.lv
Std.all
0.717
0.532
0.649
0.657
0.522
0.614
1.000
0.645
0.887
0.853
0.621
0.045
0.052
0.049
0.044
14.441
17.174
17.346
14.192
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.981
0.633
0.870
0.837
0.609
0.786
0.048
16.409
0.000
0.772
Network model
Cramer et al., 2012
Types
●
●
Personality differences operationalizable
as types
–
Groups based on configurations of trait levels
–
Similar to what is often done in clinical practice
Descriptive utility over dimensions limited
–
People do not fit well into clusters
–
As they do not fit well into diagnostic groups
–
Introducing “typeness” is re-introducing dimensions
–
But may have heuristic value
Claes (2006)
But types may have conceptual use
●
Could reflect genetic design variants
●
Could reflect environmental niches
Variables vs persons
●
●
Variable-centered approach
–
Individual differences on distinct trait dimensions
–
Focuses purely on individual differences
Person-centered approach
–
Configurations of variables and individual
differences in these configurations
–
Focuses first on within-individual variability and
only then on between-individual differences in
within-individual variability
–
Used for studying development, cross-rater agreement
–
Types are prototypical profiles
–
Underexploited approach?
How to prove the reality of traits?
Rank-order consistency
over time
Terracciano et al., 2006
Mõttus et al., 2014
Mõttus et al., 2014
Moderators of cross-rater correlations
●
Cross-rater agreement may be imperfect due
to reasons other than irreality of traits
●
Observability
●
Low evaluativeness
●
Trait content
–
Highest for Extraversion and Agreeableness domains
Other ‘reality’ criteria for traits
●
Heritability
●
Predictive validity
●
Experimental manipulations
Challenges to be solved
●
●
●
Any combination of stable items is stable
Any combination of agreed-upon items is
agreed-upon
Trait (aggregate) takes on the properties
of its constituents
–
●
Not always realized
We need a more refined solution
–
Experimental manipulations of the underlying trait?
–
Consistency in genomic correlates?
–
Great opportunity
Person-situation debate
●
Kurt Lewin (1936):
–
●
Behaviour = f(Person, Situation)
Prediction of actual behaviour modest
–
Mischel (1968)
–
“Personality coefficient” (r < 0.30)
–
Situations more important than personality
●
Strong situations: personality less important
●
Weak situations: personality more important
Personality in situations (if ... then)
●
●
Shoda et al. (1994)
–
Aggressive behaviour of children at a summer camp
–
High stability of situation-behaviour profiles
–
Low consistency across dissimilar situations, but
consistency across similar situations
More of such studies needed
–
Great opportunity
Leikas, Lönnqvist & Verkasalo (2012)
●
People with actors who behaved differently
–
Dominant
–
Submissive
–
Agreeable
–
Quarrelsome
●
Behaviour rated from video recordings
●
Some cross-situations consistency behaviour
–
Despite different situations
–
More molar behaviours more consistent
Leikas et al., 2012
Increasing the prediction of behaviour
●
Aggregation of behaviour
–
●
Just like traits aggregate … well, behaviours
The danger of circularity
–
Traits operationalized as summaries behaviour
–
Predicting behaviour, traits predict themselves?
Person-situation debate over
●
Both matter
●
Yet situations have often been disregarded
●
–
No established taxonomies have existed
–
Costly to study
–
Difficult to analyse
–
One-off questionnaire-only research is cheaper and
analytically simpler
Debate has sparked a new wave of research
–
Lots of opportunities
Operationalizing situations
●
Situations have objective, consensual and
idiosyncratic aspects
–
●
●
Which aspect to consider?
Situation-specific dimensions vs
psychological dimensions?
DIAMONDS: tailored taxonomy for consensual or
idiosyncratic situation perceptions
–
Only the first shot
Rauhtman et al., 2015
DIAMONDS
●
Duty
●
Intellect
(is deep information processing required)
●
Adversity
(is someone being overtly threatened)
●
Mating
●
pOsitivity
(is the situation pleasant)
●
Negativity
(do negative things taint the situation)
●
Deception
●
Sociality
(does something need to be done)
(is the situation romantically charged)
(is someone deceptive)
(is social interaction and relationship
formation possible, desired, or necessary)
Rauthman et al., 2015
Within-individual variability
●
●
Studies beginning to look into withinindividual variability
–
Experience sampling/momentary assessment methodology
–
Personality states as units
Third of variability due to individual
differences
–
Two thirds within-individual variability (and error)
Fleeson, 2007; Sherman et al., 2015; Mõttus et al., submitted
Validating the variability?
●
Meaningful contingencies on situational
variables
Sherman et al. (2015)
●
Situation characteristics (DIAMONDS)
●
Personality traits
●
Personality states (HEXACO)
●
States predicted by traits and situations
●
–
Selected hypotheses tested
–
Contemporaneous associations
–
Interactions often not significant
Both traits and situations matter
Sherman et al., 2015
Immediate avenues of progress
●
Descriptive model for personality states
●
Lagged associations
●
–
More informative in terms of causation
–
Causality takes time
Objective validity criteria
Big Thinkers – welcome on board
●
Personality psychology needs a big theory
–
●
Joins within- and between-individual differences
Ultimate challenge
Improving measurement
●
Method effects are substantial
●
Teasing apart substance and bias
●
–
Social desirability
–
Extreme or acquiescent responding
–
Reference group ef ...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades