Chapter 4 Personality Traits Situations and Behaviors Lecture

Objectives • Introduce the trait approach to understanding personality • Discuss the person-situation debate • Discuss how personality affects and predicts important life outcomes • Discuss the resolution of the person-situation debate © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1

The Trait Approach 1. Most research within the trait approach relies on correlational designs – Traits should be able to predict behavior 2. Focus is on individual differences – Strength: assesses and attempts to understand how people differ – Weakness: neglects aspects of personality common to all people and how each person is unique © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 2

The Trait Approach • “Every man is in certain respects (a) like all other men, (b) like some other men, (c) like no other man” (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1961, p. 53, as cited on p. 114) • Trait approach focuses on the second level • Traits are the building blocks of personality © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 3

People Are Inconsistent • Personality traits are not the only factors that control behavior • Ask yourself: – Do traits exist? – Is everybody basically the same, and behavior changes according to the situation? Ø Your answers may depend on your age • People differ in how consistent they are © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 4

The Person-Situation Debate • Which is more important for determining what people do, the person or the situation? • Mischel, Personality and Assessment (1968) • Why this is important © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 5

The Person-Situation Debate: Three Issues 1. Does the personality of an individual transcend the immediate situation and provide a consistent guide to actions, or is what a person does utterly dependent on the situation at that time? © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 6

The Person-Situation Debate: Three Issues 2. Are common, ordinary intuitions about people fundamentally flawed or basically correct? 3. Why do psychologists continue to argue about the consistency of personality? • Situationism © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 7

The First Situationist Argument: Predictability • There is an upper limit to how well one can predict what a person will do based on any measurement of that person’s personality, and this upper limit is low • Mischel looked at relationships of self, informant, and behavioral data to behavioral data • Correlations rarely exceeded. 30 – Nisbett says. 40 © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 8

The Response to the First Situationist Argument: Predictability • Unfair, selective literature review by Mischel – Studies with poor methodology – But some found evidence of consistency © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 9

The Response to the First Situationist Argument: Predictability • We can do better – The. 40 limit may be due to poor methodology – Get out of the laboratory – Study individual consistency as a moderator variable • Self-monitoring – Focus on behavioral trends – This is difficult to do © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 10

The Response to the First Situationist Argument: Predictability • A correlation of. 40 is not small. – Comparison to an absolute standard: number of correct and incorrect predictions • BESD: r =. 40 → 70% accuracy – Comparison to a relative standard: how well situations predict behavior © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 11

The Second Situationist Argument: Situationism • Situations are more important than personality traits in determining behavior • Determining how personality affects behavior: correlate personality and behavior © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 12

The Second Situationist Argument: Situationism • Determining how situations affect behavior: total variance minus variance explained by personality – Not legitimate – Could be due to other personality traits – Says nothing about important aspects of the situation © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 13

The Response to the Second Situationist Argument: Situationism • How the effects of situations on behavior should be determined – Convert statistical significance tests to effect sizes – Funder & Ozer, 1983: situational effect sizes =. 36 to. 42 • Conclusion: both personality and situations are important determinants of behavior © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 14

The Response to the Second Situationist Argument: Situationism Situational Variable Incentive Hurry Number of bystanders Isolation of victim Proximity of authority figure © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Behavioral Variable Attitude change Helping Obedience Effect Size r Minus. 36 Minus. 39 Minus. 38. 42. 36 15

The Response to the Second Situationist Argument: Situationism • Absolute versus relative consistency – Individual differences are maintained across situations, even when absolute behavior changes – Situations influence behavior, but people are still consistent © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 16

The Third Situationist Argument: Person Perceptions Are Erroneous • The professional practice of personality assessment is a waste of time and everyday intuitions about people are fundamentally flawed • Responses – The effects of personality on behavior are large enough to be perceived accurately – The importance of traits is reflected in our language 17 © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Personality and Life • “Personality is important on more than just theoretical grounds” (p. 137). • Personality affects and predicts important life outcomes • Over time, how a person acts will add up © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 18

Personality Trait Extraversion Individual Outcomes Happiness, Gratitude, Longevity, Psychological health Agreeableness Religious involvement, forgiveness, humor, heart health and longevity, psychological health Conscientiousne Religious ss beliefs, good health habits and longevity, avoidance of drug abuse Interpersonal Outcomes Peer acceptance, success in dating and relationships, attractiveness, status Peer acceptance, dating satisfaction Institutional Outcomes Occupational satisfaction, community involvement, leadership Family satisfaction, dating satisfaction Job performance, occupational success, political conservatism, avoidance of criminal behavior Occupational dissatisfaction, criminal behavior Artistic interests, political liberalism Neuroticism Unhappiness, poor coping Poor family relations Openness Forgiveness, inspiration, substance abuse © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Social interests, job attainment, avoidance or criminal behavior 19

Persons and Situations • “Personality traits are better for describing how people act in general” (p. 140). • Relationships, jobs, and business – You act somewhat differently with each person – Conscientiousness predicts citizenship performance – Corporate chief executive officers (CEOs) borrow more money for companies and also for their personal homes (cross-situational consistency) © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 20

Persons and Situations • Interactionism – The effect of a personality variable may depend on the situation, or vice versa – Certain types of people go to or find themselves in different types of situations – People change the situations that they are in – Example: Stanford Prison Experiment © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 21

Persons and Situations • Persons, situations, and values – Situationism’s view of human nature • People are free to do whatever they want • Everybody is equal, and differences are a function of the situation • “If the situation can really be all powerful, then nothing we do is ever really our fault” (p. 143) © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 22

Persons and Situations • Persons, situations, and values – Personality’s view of human nature • Behavior is determined by personality • People can develop consistent identities and styles that allow them to be themselves across situations © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 23

Persons and Situations • Resolution of the person-situation debate – “People maintain their personalities even as they adapt their behavior to particular situations” (p. 144). – People can flexibly adapt to situations AND have a generally consistent personal style. • Conclusion: People are psychologically different, and these differences matter © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 24

Clicker Question #1 The person-situation debate a) was based on a disagreement about whether the personality coefficient had an upper limit of about. 30. b) was a waste of time. c) was based on the finding that people are somewhat inconsistent across time. d) was resolved with the finding that personality is more important than the situation for determining behavior. 25 © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Clicker Question #2 Which of the following is true of the trait approach to understanding personality? a) It is based mostly on correlational research. b) It is based on case studies. c) It focuses on how people are similar to each other. d) It proposes that traits are the only things that influence behavior. © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 26

Clicker Question #3 The trait approach proposes that a) personality matters because it affects and predicts important life outcomes. b) personality is important because it has small effects on behavior that add up over time. c) personality is better for explaining how people behave in general than are situations. d) all of the above. © 2016 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. 27