Term
|
Definition
- 3rd most cited psychologist
- PEN Theory- a trait theory but unconventional
- touches on nature and nurture
- scientifically minded-crisp definitions, importance of testing
|
|
|
Term
| Eysenck Hierarchy of Constructs |
|
Definition
- believed you could not study personality at one level- multiple levels
- first level-simplest act /behaviour
- things that occur over and over-habits
- set of habits-traits-an underlying piece of personality
- related traits-factors or dimensions of personality
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Set up from simplest to most complex, but in a causal direction we start at factors (built in) which causes us to put ourselves in certain situations and respond in different ways
we learn things in situations based on our causal direction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P-Psychoticism/ego control
E-Extrovert/Introvert
N-Neurotic/emotional stability
Originally only EN as he studied the everyday population; added P after studying prisoners |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Unrelated to other dimensions; what you are on the introvert/extrovert dimension says nothing about what you will be on neuroticism/emotional stability |
|
|
Term
| Extroversion/Introversion traits |
|
Definition
Sociability, activity, assertiveness
high levels puts you on the extrovert end, low levels on the introvert end |
|
|
Term
| Neuroticism/Emotional Stability Traits |
|
Definition
anxiousness, depression, self esteem, emotionality
If high in these, on the neuroticism end, if low on the emotional stability end
neither extremes is good but high neuroticism worse |
|
|
Term
| Psychoticism/ego control traits |
|
Definition
aggressivness, lack of empathy, tough mindedness, egocentricity, creativity
High in these on the psychoticism end- not where you want to be, but most people are not |
|
|
Term
| Eysenck PEN measuring methods |
|
Definition
1) first with only assesing the EN dimension used a base of yes/no questions related to the dimensions:EPI Assessment
2) Assessed PEN and expanded the question base: EPQ (more questions on psychoticism) |
|
|
Term
| Personality types through history |
|
Definition
Eysenck's dimensions of personality match Galen and Hypocrates personality types:
stable introvert(calm)-flagmatic
stable extrovert(easy going/optimistic)-sanguine
neurotic extrovert(easily angered)-choleric
neurotic introvert (depressed)-melancholic |
|
|
Term
| Position on Introvert/Extrovert scale |
|
Definition
Based on cortical arousal
Introverts over aroused- react strongly to stimuli and adjust slowly (inhibition) -lower pain tolerance, need more sedative, can't work with distracting stimuli, quicker for pupils to contract, slower to dialate, better learners-slower to forget
Extroverts underaroused -react slowly to stimuli and quickly replaced with inhibition; vise versa to introverts; suggested to be at risk for antisociability as they are slower to learn |
|
|
Term
| Neurochemical explanation: Introversion/Extroversion |
|
Definition
due to level of cortical arousal
show diff levels of psychopathology:
introverts-anxiety, depression-learned easier
extroverts-antisocial- slower to learn social values |
|
|
Term
| Neuroticism/Emotional Stability Neurochemical/physiological underpinnings |
|
Definition
the reactivity of the autonomic nervous system- in neurotics highly reactive (low threshold)- small trauma will result in reaction
-in emotionally stable individuals very unreactive (high threshold)-only a very large trauma will result in reaction |
|
|
Term
| Psychoticism/ego control physiological underpinnings |
|
Definition
1)High levels of testosterone (accounts for why most psyhotics are male) hormone=psychoticism
2) Level of monoamine oxidase(chemical in the synapse between neurons used to break down neurotransmitters)
o Individuals high in psychoticism have low levels of mono amine oxidase, their levels of activity not moderated well associated with high impulsivity and aggression |
|
|
Term
The fundamental reason of our positions on these dimensions |
|
Definition
· Largely genetic in determining your position- determined by the genes you receive from your parents
Introversion/extroversion:40-50% variation due to genetics
Neuroticism/emotional stability: 30% genetics
Psychoticism/ego control: less concrete |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
these trait dimensions are very prominently, though not completely due to genetic heritage
Degree to modify these characteristics is limited |
|
|
Term
| Reason for Differences in Cortical Arousal in Introverts/Extroverts |
|
Definition
Due to the amount of reticular activating system
RAS in extroverts send very few impulses to the cortex, why it is chronically under aroused |
|
|
Term
| Trait Theories in Personality |
|
Definition
The most influential of all theories of personality
Dominance in the field not because it is better than any other theory, but it allows for quantification- to analyze personality components we first need to quantify |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Whittle down the traits by synonyms- give the list of traits to a large sum of individuals to rate themselves- find how much of a trait people share- traits are connected-some strongly correlated to eachother as they are measuring the same underlying factor |
|
|
Term
| What Factor Analysis Does |
|
Definition
o provide us with a mathematical model for how we could account for these high correlations by hypothesizing the existence of a small number of underlying factors |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
§ degree to which individual traits are shaped by the hypothesized underlying factor |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
§ look at the trait dimensions that go together- will be associated with something you know |
|
|
Term
| What Factor Analysis Does Not Do |
|
Definition
o Factor analysis does not find anything, just describes hypothetical constructs- the factors
• Just a mathematical model of hypothetical constructs-does not mean its real
o Does not say what these underlying constructs are; not necessarily traits, just that trait theorists use it on trait data |
|
|
Term
Costa and Macrea
Factor argument |
|
Definition
in order for a factor to be a basic component of personality it must have the following characteristics:
o Must be reliable/stable- must get roughly the same ratings along the factor over time- your relative position along the factor should be fairly consistent
• Assumption about the nature of personality- Mischel and Bandura would not make that statement
o The factor and its name and description is something that both scientists and everyday people could relate to
o Should be able to find the factor everywhere because it is about basic human nature
o Because of the basic assumptions involved in the trait approach, that there is an indication that this factor has a biological basis |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
first to do factor analysis to trait theory
• Studied under Charles Spearman the creator of factor analysis
• Came up with 16 personality factors-did the calculations by hand – rapidly ran out for regular names for the factors
• Created greek/latin names |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o 5 sets of intercorrelated traits
named by number and name
extroversion/introversion, agreeableness, consciousness, neuroticism, openness |
|
|
Term
| Underlying Traits Dimension 1 + Dimension2 |
|
Definition
o Dimension 1: positive emotionality, assertiveness, warmth, activity level, excitement
• Highly inter-correlated, all being influenced by the same factor
o Dimension 2: trust, altruism, modesty, straight forwardness, compliance, tender mindedness |
|
|
Term
| Underlying Traits Dimension 3 + 4 + 5 |
|
Definition
Dimension 3:competence, order, dutifulness, self discipline, achievement striving
Dimension 4:anxiety, depression, impulsiveness, anger, vulnerability
Dimension 5: fantasy, love of beauty, aesthetics, expression of feelings, accepting |
|
|
Term
| Costa and Macrea Factors change with age |
|
Definition
o Conscientiousness goes up
o Social dominance (opposite of introversion) goes up with age (especially between early adult hood and middle age)
o Emotional stability goes up
o Neuroticism goes down (between 20 and 40)
o Social vitality goes up in adolescence and down in old age
o Openness goes up in adolescence and down in old age
o Agreeableness goes up especially when you reach mid life |
|
|
Term
| Two Purposes of Factor Analysis |
|
Definition
Exploratative Factor Analysis - when you are initially looking for factors and have no expectations of what the data will reveal
Confirmatory Factor Analysis-Once set of factors extracted, look at different data sets and see if those same factors can be extracted from them- you are constraining the factor analysis to look for those factors
|
|
|
Term
| Cutural Differences in Position on Factors |
|
Definition
• Find that Europeans/north americans are higher in extroversion than Africans and Asians; everyone is immigrants in these countries, had to likely be extroverted to move away from home- brought the genetic underpinnings of high extroversion- in Europe perhaps tendencies to extroversion could be encouraged vs other parts of the world
• Higher in openness, creativity, etc. in Europe and NA
o Tend to be lower in agreeableness- tolerance for others, go along with others, friendliness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• NEO-PI used originally to assess just 3 of the 5 factors
o Neuroticism
o Extroversion
o Introversion
• Expanded it later to include all the 5
• Contains a questionnaire of 240 strongly agree/disagree, etc. statements
o Statements relate to specific traits- the facets of each dimension |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Studying mostly impulsive sensation seeking-people who like thrills, new experiences
o Reasonably correlated with extraversion
• Composed alternative 5 model
o Sociability- part of extraversion/agreeableness
o Neuroticism/anxiety- virtually identical to neuroticism/emotional stability
o Impulsive Sensation Seeking-split in other models between introversion/extroversion and conscientiousness
o Aggression/hostility-corresponds to agreeableness
o Activity- part of extraversion and openness |
|
|
Term
|
Where Zuckerman thinks these personality dimensions come from
|
|
Definition
Interested in physiological underpinnings like eysenck ú In Zuckerman’s model the optimal arousal is different for introverts and extroverts
· The extroverts have a high level of chemical activity (dopamine acytivity) yet below their optimal level
· Introverts have a lower level of brain activity is still higher than the optimum because they have a lower optimum than the extroverts
· Not interested in the level of dopamine activity in the model, but the relation between the level of dopamine activity and the optimum, and in that case we find exactly the same relationship as eysenck proposed
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
· All looking at the same pieces of personality just arranging them differently- all looking at roughly the same things- trait theories |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Although we can find evidence of 5 factors in the dictionaries (lexacons) of different languages, some are not so supported in some languages
• At least 3 languages – openness cannot be found (Italian, Hungarian, and Greek)
• Phillipino- find a dimension that doesn’t match anything (1+3)
• A number of languages (dutch, hungarian, French, german, and Italian) find 6 factors
o Use exploratory analysis to find 6 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• 6 factors:
o honesty/humility
o emotionality
o eXtroversion
o agreeableness
o conscientiousness
o openness
• basically like the 5 factor model, just with one more trait |
|
|
Term
| Critique on trait theory (1) |
|
Definition
o Say little or nothing about personality development
• Makes sense because they think they are built in
• Could say more about why we change with age and culture
o Nobody applies it in the clinical setting-nothing to do with it
o Factors are thought to be orthogonal, but there is a fait bit of overlap between the factors- more introverts that are neurotic, etc. – intercorrelation between the factors
o Psychodynamic perspective- no mention of unconscious processes at all! |
|
|
Term
| Critique on trait theory (2) |
|
Definition
o No indication of the relationship between traits, thoughts and cognitions
o Most important criticism- a more scientific approach to personality which makes it seem to be a better prediction of personality, but not true- no theory of personality is particularly good at explaining what people will do in the future
o In some ways the predictions from trait theory is circular- not really making a prediction, not going beyond the data people give you- big deal! Statements |
|
|
Term
| Misconception of evidence that their is a biological basis to personality |
|
Definition
similarity between family members
• i.e. Bach and family- all musicians/composers; Mozart
• indication of genetic transition- or is it?
• Similarity can be do to the environment and parental influence
• Embedded in the culture of their families |
|
|
Term
| Various Factors that can shape personality (3): |
|
Definition
• Genetics- we inherit things from our parents which leads us to have tendencies to have certain personality characteristics rather than others
• Environmental Factors:
o 2 sub factors:
• shared environment- experiences shared by a number of people that make them similar
i.e. within the family or outside the family-same teachers, same culture, same parents, etc.
• non-shared environment- even people living together experience differently
i.e. diff activities, diff friends, etc. |
|
|
Term
| Original and Current order of influence |
|
Definition
• for a very long time, genetic influence thought to be the biggest, followed by shared experience, and lastly non shared experience
• now we know non shared experience is very very big in shaping personality |
|
|
Term
Terminology of Genetics
PHENOTYPE AND GENOTYPE |
|
Definition
• Phenotype – set of observable of measurable characteristics that you have (i.q, height, body type) phenotypic characteristic something we can measure and observe (IQ , personality, etc.)
• Genotype- to what extent is our phenotype affected buy our genotype- those genes we inherit from our parents |
|
|
Term
The way we have always tried to determine the relative importance of our genotype for personality |
|
Definition
comparing the similarity the phenotypic similarity of those who differ in genetic similarityo
commonly use twin studies-not the best way- to compare the similarity of mono and di- zygotic twins |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• mono=100% genetic similarity
• Di= separate eggs that developed at the same time, only approx. 50% of their genes in common
• Two types of twins that we know how similar they are genetically• Can now compare the twins in some phenotypic way
o compare the correlation of mz twin reared together to mz twins reared apart- if 100% genetic identical- they should be the same correlation (1.00) no matter what
• Even though they experience diff enviro’s it doesn’t matter to them
o Can compare mz and dz twins reared together and mz and dz twins reared apart, and look at the correlation between their scores
o Should see the same; 1.00 for mz twins whether reared together or reared apart, .50 for dz twins reared together or reared apart, given 100% genetic determination of the trait (no enviro influence assumed) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Know the genetic similarity between any two relatives
o Correlation between siblings, siblings and parents, etc. can come up with mathematical estimates of the relative importance of genotype to phenotype |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Look at the child and the biological and adoptive parents; on average share non of their genes with their adoptive parents (assumption)
o We can look to see how similar in phenotypic characteristics to their adoptive parents vs. their biological parents
o Expect a higher correlation to biological parents
o With this correlation we can estimate the general importance to the characteristic made by the genotype or enviro experience |
|
|
Term
| Problems with twin studies |
|
Definition
DZ twins misclassified as MZ twins- the only problem that leads to the underestimation of genetics- will dilute the similarity
o Selective Placement-mz twins reared together vs. apart- expect to see the same similarity-assumption is that twins reared apart are in uncorrelated environments-adoption agencies try to put them in the same kind of home- very often reared in similar enviro’s
• Similarities due to enviro- leads to over estimate in the power genetics
Differences between Mz and Dz twins and genetic similarity
• Assume that mz twins are sharing an enviro that has a certain degree of similarity for both of them; same assumption for DZ twins
• but..
Dz twins- parents attempt to treat them as differently as they can
• Mz twins- parents attempt to treat them as similarly as they can |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Assumption that on average the parents of a child will have virtually no genes in common
• A child will resemble a parent on 50%- assumption of random mating
• False in many cases- some of your genes will overlap especially for I.Q- usually choose someone at a similar intelligence level, could happen for personality as well
• Ppl with high IQ tend to marry others of high IQ
• Child will be more similar to one parent than you would expect because they can get one parents genes from the other parent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| variability in the distribution of scores in the population (i.e. I.Q) want to mathematically characterize the extent of that variability- quantify it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o total amount of variance –V sub T- what are its components?
• some of the variance due to the fact we have diff genes, differences contributes to variance in a characteristic
called Vsub G- Variance sub genetics
• remainder comes from individuals in the pop having diff environmental experiences –Vsub E
• Total variance Vsub G+Vsub E- difference between one score to another |
|
|
Term
heritability coefficient (h^2) |
|
Definition
the extent to which genetics attributes to total variability is what we are interested in
the heritability coefficient is the ratio of genetic variance to total variance
• What proportion of all the variability to whatever we are measuring can be contributed to the genetic variation in the individuals in our population |
|
|
Term
Formulas for calculating
heritability coefficient:
Correlation coefficient |
|
Definition
o If you have the correlation coefficient for a trait between mz twins reared apart, you already have an estimate of the heritability coefficient
• Not a fixed known number
• Theoretically this should be the highest number estimate of the heritability coefficient
• Only factor contributing to similarity should be their genetic similarity- why mz twins reared apart is the purest and highest correlation
• Can’t use mz twins reared together, the correlation confounds two sources of similarity (enviro and genes)
h^2=r(mza) |
|
|
Term
| Formulas for Calculating Heritability Coefficient |
|
Definition
o Correlation for dz twins reared apart but have to double the correlation because they share only 50% of their genes in common
h^2=2r (dza) |
|
|
Term
| Formulas for Calculating Heritability Coefficient |
|
Definition
correlational data from both mz and dz twins, we can combine those in a single formula and calculating the heritability coefficient
o Do that by taking the correlation from mz twins and subtracting the correlation of dz twins and doubling the result (double to get the estimate of the full genetic effect)
o Both mz and dz twins have to be reared under the same conditions
h^2= 2(r[mz]-r[dz]) |
|
|
Term
| Epigenetic problems with gene heritability |
|
Definition
• Mz twins share 100% of their genes, but not 100% of their gene activity in common, as gene activity is determined in part by the epigenome- markers that cause those genes to be silenced
o Markers can be placed there by experience, making them not 100 percent genetically identical in effects |
|
|
Term
| Common Misunderstandings about the heritability coefficient |
|
Definition
Not about any individual, it applies to a group only
o Heritability Coefficient not a constant; a variable that changes within a given population, varies from country, time, and place
• i.e. an immigrant country variability in genetics is probably very high (i.e Canada)
• measuring where the variation in the population comes from, not measuring the contribution of genes or the environment
• hitler example- 1.00 heritability due to environment
• Star treck 1.00 heritability genes
• Higher heritability higher in countries with low enviro vsriability, or it the genetic variability is low but that is unlikely
o The quality of the data you use effect the quality of answer you get- need reliable, valid measures of the phenotypic characteristic you are looking at |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| difficult to define it but we know what it is when we see it; refers to an individuals general pattern of responding |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Looking at infants
• Rating them on 9 diff dimensions: level of motor activity- how much movement do they do, pos response to a new objects, regularity ion bio functions, friendliness/good mood, adaptation to changes in the enviro, usual degree of energy in responding- high energy vs. low energy |
|
|
Term
Thomas Chess and Birch
Baby Types |
|
Definition
• Looked at the correlation between the dimensions
• Determined 3 categories of kids:
Easy infants: had regular bio rhythms, happy, good mood, adapted well to change, accepted novelties (objects, people), showed low to moderate levels of energy * did not include level of activity- did not correlate btwn
Difficult Infants: Irregular bio ryhthms, grumpy, did not accept change well, new objects/people, adapted poorly to changes in routine, exhibited high levels of energy *again no level of motor activity
Slow to warm up- mix btwn the to |
|
|
Term
| Chess and Birch Proof for biological tendencies in temperment- not learned |
|
Definition
• To show this had to be reliable- consistent over time in them
Showed this-lasted for years- could show the same pattern from 1-14
• Demonstrate that it makes a difference- if you follow the kids, they take diff trajectories through life- easy infants require much less psych help
• Did not calculate heritability coefficients |
|
|
