Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
General / Measurement - Coggle Diagram
General / Measurement
Types
Self-report
- e.g. MMPI, NEO-PI, MBTI, PRF
- Pros: easy/cheap, objective, reliable, self-view
- Cons: not rich, easy to fake, relies on self-knowledge
Q-sort
- Sort cards into piles - self, others, diff situations
- Pros: active, gives rankings, use for diff targets
- Cons: see self-report
Other ratings
- Pros: less biased perspective, 'visible' traits, children
- Cons: depends on knowledge & lack of bias
Biological
- e.g. EEG, PET, fMRI
- diseases & genetic conditions
- Pros: not self/other-report
- Cons: difficult/$$$, relationship to personality complex
Behavioural observations
- e.g. experience sampling, code facial expressions
- Pros: captures actual behaviour
- Cons: hard to interpret
Interviews
- e.g. free-form (Kinsey), structured (Type A)
- Pros: deep, flexible
- Cons: interviewer/respondent bias, $$$/time-consuming
Expressive behaviour
- e.g. nonverbal, verbal
- Pros: captures unique behaviour (incl. emotions), good for some (charisma)
- Cons: hard to capture/code/interpret, culture important
Document analysis
- e.g. study personal writing, diaries - individual
- Pros: depth, across time, deceased, objective
- Cons: only some aspects, not complete or always honest
Projective tests
- e.g. Draw-a-Person, Rorschach inkblot, TAT, IAT
- Pros: unconscious, insights
- Cons: subjective, low reliability & validity
Demographics/lifestyle
- Pros: age/gender/occupation/culture
- Cons: can be misleading, doesn't tell much about person
Internet analysis
- Pros: huge data, cheap, current topics, networks, unobtrusive
- Cons: self-presentation bias, ethics
Not good
- Not evidence-based
- e.g. astrology, handwriting analysis
Many types because
- Theoretical: some more suitable
- Methodological: to compensate for bias
But Barnum effect: take vague descriptions to be true & valid
-> use multiple methods
Culture
Influence
- Culture: customs, values, behaviours of nation, ethnic group, class, time period
- Diff social norms in diff cultures
- Most research from WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialised, rich, democratic)
- Cross-cultural diff from geography (e.g. mammals -> agriculture, rice -> collectivist)
- People + cultural products
- Mutual constitution model: culture shapes individual; individual shapes culture
-
Ethnicity/race
- Ethnic - habits, customs; race = physical
- Flawed to use race as grouping
SES (Socioeconomic status)
- = social class, income, education
Generation
- = everyone born in arbitrary 15-20y period
ATSI
- Pre-colonisation: no collective Indigenous ID
- Tribal ID: traditional
- Many IDs: local, pan-Aboriginal; community vs legislative definitions; biological (descent) + meaning; Aboriginality is fluid concept
- Ethnicity: distinct/diff ethnic group - Australia's First People
- Descent + heritage/persistence + dispossession/resistance; seen as 'objects', deficit discourse; essentialism ignores heterogeneity
- 'Authentic': remote > urban, full-blood vs half-caste
- ID: land central
Cultural systems
Individualism: favours self
- e.g. US, later generation
- Focus on personal attributes
- Focus on person -> internal attribution
Collectivism: favours others/society
- e.g. Japan
- Focus on group affiliations
- Focus on situation -> external attribution
Language
- Idiolect: unique version of native language (part of personality)
- Dialect: regional/cultural characteristics
- Language affects personality, e.g. use active verbs -> field-independent
- Bilingual: personality/behaviour according to salient ID
- Social interaction: e.g. tu/vous
- Gender: e.g. no gender-neutral pronouns
Differences in traits
Extraversion
- US/Norway/Switz/Austria/Canada/Serbia/Croatia vs Taiwan/Malaysia/Zimb/SK/Bang/France
- Linked to individualism, low power-distance, economic prosperity, moderate climate
- Higher over generations
Agreeableness
- Greece/Congo/Japan vs Argentina/Ukraine/Japan
- Collectivist, low alcohol consumption
- Lower over generations
- Ref-group effect
Conscientiousness
- Germany/Switzerland vs Mexico/Indonesia/Greece
- Low in 'event-time' cultures - more spontaneity
- Measured behaviourally -> big ref. group effect
Neuroticism
- Japan/Russia/Spain/France/Belgium/Argentina vs Scandi/Indonesia/Congo/Slovenia/Ethiopia
- Uncertainty avoidance: rules that minimise ambiguity; low SES
- No ref group effect
- Higher over generations (disconnection, extrinsic values?)
Openness
- Chile/Belgium/Bangladesh vs Ukraine/Japan
- Moderate climates, high SES
- Few studies
- Lower over generations
Testing
Testing culture's personality
Hard because
- Reference-group effect: compare self to others in same culture
- Perception of national character: typical member of culture - better - measures stereotypes
- Big Five: some have no O, China adds interpersonal relatedness
Cultural-bias
- Using race is flawed (culture <> physical appearance)
- -> Culture-free: e.g. Ravens - NOT culture-free
- -> Culture-fair: control/rule out cultural effects, e.g. response time - NOT culture-free
- Compare biased & culture-fair subscales to see if testing appropriate
-> consider culture part of personality
Definition
Definition: usual pattern
of behaviours / feelings / thoughts
across time & situations (enduring)
that differentiate people (distinctive)
Lewin: behaviour = f(personality, situation)
Allport - individual differences
- dynamic organisation (loose knit, depends on context)
- of psychphysical systems (mind/body, nature/nurture)
Cattell - human universals
- population-based characteristics = nomothetic (what we share)
- to predict behaviour
People change
- Usual tendencies: behaviour most of time (patterns), when you have choice
- Measure over shorter periods
Scientific Theory
Deductive: general -> specific
- Top-down
- Apply theories to situations
Inductive: specific -> general
- Bottom-up
- Observations -> hypo -> revise
Differences
- Types: limited distinct categories - qualitative - most general
- Traits: gradual transitions - quantitative - most specific
- Factors: broader than traits - quantitative
-
Types
Qualitative
- Someone - depth & experience
- Interviews, archival data
- Uses transcription, coding
3. Case studies
- Intensive, systematic - individual, small community - to gather ideas
- Strengths: not artificial, flexibility, depth
- Weaknesses: no causation, not objective, can't generalise
Thematic
- ID themes/patterns across data
- Strengths: > individual, interpretation, categories
- Weaknesses: subjective, removed from individual
Quantitative
- Everyone, trends
- Mean & SD
- Controlled (min. context)
2. Experiment
- Manipulate IV & measure DV - compare groups - usually natural
- Strengths: specific variable, cause & effect, objective
- Weaknesses: artificial, not all measurable, demand char., moderators
1. Correlation
- Degree to which 2 variables related - use correl. coefficients & factor analysis
- Strengths: wide range of variables, easy, large samples
- Weaknesses: no causation, self-report reliability, no depth
-
Parameters
-
-
Choosing test items
- Should discriminate
- Should be interrelated
- Should have useful distribution
- Reliability/validity vs length
Bias
Ethnic
- Should consider context & culture -> compare within culture
- Cultural strength can be seen as weakness
- Difficult to see prejudice
Gender
- Environment / expectations often ignored
- But some gender differences
Response set
- Unrelated to characteristic measured
- Acquiescence/naysay: agree/disagree with everything -> reverse-score
- Social desirability: present favourably to please -> choose between equally desirable
- Random responses: can't read, subvert, tired -> lie scales
- Use various assessments
Good Theory
Purpose
- Explain phenomena
- Predict new info
Evaluating
- Verifiable / testable
- Comprehensive: broad range of behaviours
- Applied value
- Parsimony: as few as possible
- Heuristic value: suggest new research
- Empirical validity
- Breadth of info: diff sources of info
Basic Issues
Issues
- Unconscious: vs conscious
- Self: what is it
- Nomothetic (laws) vs idiographic (individuals)
- Gender diff
- Situation influence
- Culture: nurture (vs nature)
- Usefulness: application
Person / Situation
- Both important, work together
- Situation: other people, environment
- Person-situation debate: stable traits predict behaviour vs only situation important
- -> both predict equally well
- Have diff experiences
- Respond diff to same situation
- People choose situation
- People change situation
Ethics
- Can ID strengths/weaknesses
- But harmful if biased, poorly constructed, used incorrectly,