L6: better phrasing for an essay Flashcards
(16 cards)
introducing personality
Gordon Allport (1961) defined personality as “a dynamic organization, inside the person, of psychophysical systems that create the person’s characteristic patterns of behavior, thoughts and feelings.”
Over time, various psychological perspectives have emerged to explain these patterns, each offering unique insights into the nature of personality. These include the trait approach, biological and physiological theories, cognitive perspectives, psychoanalytic theory, learning theory, and the humanistic approach. The study of personality is essential for understanding the unique psychological makeup of individuals and how it shapes their behavior, thoughts, and emotions. This knowledge helps answer fundamental questions such as: What makes us unique? In addition, personality research enables the development of reliable and valid measures that can be used in both clinical and research settings to assess individual differences. By understanding personality traits and processes, psychologists can also predict behavior across different situations, contributing to applications in education, employment, health, and interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, studying personality sheds light on its developmental origins, examining how early life experiences, social environments, and biological factors interact to shape individual traits. This understanding supports the creation of interventions aimed at promoting positive behavior change, particularly in clinical and therapeutic contexts. Moreover, research in personality psychology contributes to the ongoing investigation of the relative influence of heredity and environment, as well as the biological underpinnings of personality, helping to bridge the gap between psychology and neuroscience.
lexical hypothesis?
The trait approach is one of the most enduring and empirically grounded perspectives in personality psychology. It is based on the premise that individuals possess consistent and measurable personality characteristics, known as traits, which influence behavior across various situations. A foundational concept in this approach is the lexical hypothesis, first proposed by Sir Francis Galton (1822–1911), which suggests that the most significant and socially relevant personality characteristics become encoded in language. According to this view, the more important a trait is to society, the more likely it is to have multiple synonyms and a higher frequency of usage. For example, Galton’s early work—and subsequent research—identified that the English language contains numerous descriptors for traits like honesty (31 words), warmth (13), and pedantic tendencies (9), ultimately identifying 18,000 personality-related words.
This list was refined by Gordon Allport (1897–1967), who narrowed it to approximately 4,500 terms that could be considered stable personality traits. Building on this work, Raymond Cattell (1905–1998) applied factor analysis, a statistical method used to identify clusters of related traits. He distinguished between surface traits (observable behaviors) and source traits (underlying structures), reducing Allport’s list to 171 traits, then to 46 surface traits, and ultimately proposing 16 core personality factors, which he argued formed the basic structure of personality.
Later, Hans Eysenck (1916–1997) further streamlined the model, suggesting that personality could be captured by just three dimensions: extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. His model was notable for its emphasis on biological and genetic influences, and it gained strong empirical support across cultures. For instance, neuroticism was associated with emotional instability, while psychoticism was linked to traits such as impulsivity and risk-taking. Eysenck’s work laid the groundwork for later trait models, including the Five-Factor Model (Big Five), and his robust and widely used personality assessments remain influential today.
the trait approach
A trait is defined as “a dimension of personality used to categorize people according to the degree to which they manifest a particular characteristic” (Burger, 1997, p. 166). The trait approach posits that personality has a basic structure made up of a finite number of variables, and an individual’s uniqueness lies in their particular combination of these variables. Traits are stable across time and situations, influencing behavior.
One prominent model within the trait approach is the Five-Factor Model (or Big Five), which was developed by several scientists. The Big Five traits are: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN). These traits are hierarchical, with each having six subordinate traits. The Big Five is measured using tools like the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The FFM traces its roots to the lexical paradigm, which rests on the compelling premise that what is of most importance, interest or meaning to persons when describing themselves and others will be encoded within the language. Fundamental domains of personality emerge as persons develop more and more words to describe the gradations, variations and nuances of a respective domain. The natural, inherent structure of personality is provided by the empirical relationship among the trait terms, and the structure of the English language has converged well onto the “Big Five”. The Big Five have also been replicated within the German, Czech, Dutch, Filipino, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, Polish, Russian, Spanish and Turkish languages, albeit the replication of neuroticism and openness is not as strong as the replication of the domains of agreeableness, extraversion and conscientiousness1. (Widiger and Crego, 2019)
Openness reflects curiosity, imagination, and preference for variety (e.g., high openness = curious, independent; low openness = conventional, narrow interests).
Conscientiousness involves organization and goal-oriented behavior (e.g., high = disciplined, reliable; low = impulsive, disorganized).
Extraversion captures sociability and energy levels (e.g., high = outgoing, adventurous; low = quiet, reserved).
Agreeableness measures kindness and cooperativeness (e.g., high = empathetic, trusting; low = critical, uncooperative).
Neuroticism represents emotional stability and tendency to experience negative emotions (e.g., high = anxious, insecure; low = calm, emotionally stable).
These traits exist on a spectrum, and each person scores differently across them, with specific subordinate traits linking to the broader categories. This model allows for quantitative data on personality, highlighting how different levels of each trait influence behavior and interpersonal interactions.
big 5 markers?
The Big Five personality traits are measured through specific markers—statements or items designed to assess each personality dimension. The NEO-PI-R (Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory - Revised) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate these traits, with each item corresponding to a particular dimension. Here are examples of markers for each trait and what they measure:
Extraversion: “I am the life of the party.” A high score on this item indicates a high score on Extraversion (outgoing, sociable).
Neuroticism: “I get stressed out easily.” A high score here indicates a high level of Neuroticism (emotional instability, anxiety).
Openness: “I have a rich vocabulary.” High scorers on this item tend to score high on Openness (curiosity, intellectual engagement).
Conscientiousness: “I am always prepared.” A high score on this item indicates high Conscientiousness (organization, reliability).
Agreeableness: “I am interested in people.” A high score here shows high Agreeableness (empathy, cooperativeness).
Each trait in the Big Five has subordinate traits, allowing for a more nuanced view of personality. For example, Neuroticism includes facets such as anxiety, depression, vulnerability, and impulsiveness. Similarly, Extraversion is further broken down into warmth, assertiveness, and activity level.
These traits form a spectrum, meaning people can score anywhere along the continuum, from high to low. The markers are designed to capture these varying levels and provide reliable, stable results across assessments. In the NEO-PI-R, the consistency of your answers across similar items (such as multiple questions measuring aspects of Neuroticism or Extraversion) reassures researchers that you’re providing stable and coherent responses.
etic or emic?
Measuring the Big Five: Emic vs. Etic Approach
When studying personality, two primary approaches are used to measure the Big Five model across cultures: Emic and Etic.
Etic Approach: This approach assumes that the Big Five personality traits are universal and cross-culturally valid. It tests whether a theoretical personality model, like the Big Five, can be successfully replicated in different cultural contexts. This approach focuses on finding similarities across various populations.
Emic Approach: This approach emphasizes the cultural relevance of personality characteristics. It aims to identify personality traits that are specific to particular cultures, rather than assuming a universal structure. The emphasis is on the individual differences that arise within a cultural context.
Support for the Five-Factor Model (Big Five)
Both Emic and Etic approaches have shown support for the Big Five personality traits.
Emic (Lexical) Approach:
In this approach, the lexical hypothesis is applied, where personality descriptors from different languages are analyzed. For example, Saucier & Goldberg (2001) re-analyzed data from instruments measuring other personality models and found a five-factor solution.
German language studies of personality descriptors (500 words) also revealed the five-factor structure (Saucier & Ostendorf, 1999), supporting the universality of the Big Five.
Etic Approach:
The Big Five has been translated into several languages and consistently produced the same structure across these languages (McCrae et al., 1997), reinforcing its cross-cultural applicability.
Stability over time: Research has shown that the Big Five traits remain stable across different time periods and cultures (McCrae et al., 1997).
six-factors?
Sixth Factor (HEXACO Model):
One proposal for expanding the Big Five model is the HEXACO model, which includes a sixth factor: Honesty-Humility. This was introduced by Ashton and Lee (2007). The HEXACO model suggests that Honesty-Humility captures traits like fairness, modesty, and sincerity, which are important in some cultures, such as the German language. This factor adds a new dimension to personality beyond OCEAN (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism).
General Factor of Personality: The general factor of personality (Musek, 2007) posits that all personality traits can be divided into two broad dimensions:
Stability: Low Neuroticism (emotional stability), high Conscientiousness, and high Agreeableness.
Plasticity: High Extraversion and high Openness.
This model suggests that these dimensions may be part of an evolutionary process that favors certain traits for success in society. For instance, traits that align with stability (e.g., emotional stability and conscientiousness) are seen as favorable for long-term success, while plasticity (e.g., openness and extraversion) reflects a need for exploration and adaptability.
One Factor?: Some argue for the possibility of a single general factor of personality, often referred to as the GFP (General Factor of Personality). The hypothesis behind this is that humans have evolved to exhibit traits that would be beneficial in society, such as low neuroticism and high conscientiousness. The theory also touches upon social desirability, which suggests that people may self-report traits they perceive as socially desirable, either consciously or unconsciously, which could affect personality test results.
Idealization in Personality Tests:
One key consideration when interpreting personality tests is idealization—the tendency of individuals to present themselves in a more favorable light, consciously or unconsciously. This is particularly relevant when personality tests are self-reported, as people may endorse traits they believe are socially desirable (e.g., positive emotions, assertiveness, etc.).
genetics?
Behavioral Genetics studies the influence of genetic factors on individual differences in behavior, including personality. It looks at how traits are passed down from one generation to the next and examines the interplay between genetic and environmental influences.
Research in behavioral genetics has shown that genetic factors play a significant role in shaping personality traits, particularly traits like neuroticism and extraversion. For example, studies on twin and adoption populations show that identical twins tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality.
However, environmental influences (such as upbringing, culture, and life experiences) also play a critical role in shaping individual personality. Therefore, personality is a product of both nature (genetics) and nurture (environment).
Genotype:
The internal genetic code or blueprint for constructing and maintaining a living individual.
Made up of genes, which are instructions for building proteins in the body.
The genotype is inherited from one’s parents and remains largely unchanged throughout life.
Phenotype:
The observable traits of an individual (e.g., physical attributes like height, eye color, or behavioral traits like extraversion).
The phenotype is a result of both genotype (genetic factors) and environmental factors.
Phenotype = Genotype + Environmental factors.
Heritability refers to the proportion of observed variation in a trait within a population that can be attributed to genetic variation. It helps to estimate the extent to which genetic differences contribute to individual differences in traits (e.g., personality, intelligence).
Heritability estimate (h²):
A statistical concept that quantifies how much of the variation in a phenotype (e.g., personality trait) is due to genetic factors.
The heritability estimate ranges from 0 to 1:
0 means the trait is not influenced by genetics.
1 means the trait is entirely due to genetic factors.
What heritability is not:
Heritability does not mean that a trait is 100% due to genetics in an individual. It only refers to the population level, estimating how much of the variance in the trait is due to genetics within a population.
Heritability does not tell us about specific gene/environment interactions for an individual or provide insights into the absolute influence of genetics on a trait in a particular person.
adoption studies
Adoption studies are a useful method for studying heritability because they separate the influences of genetics and environment. By comparing the similarities between adopted children and their biological vs. adoptive parents, researchers can determine how much of a personality trait is influenced by genetics (heritability) versus the environment.
Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn (1985) conducted an adoption study examining extraversion. They found that the biological parents’ influence on personality was greater than the adoptive parents’ influence:Loehlin, Willerman, and Horn (1985) conducted an adoption study to assess the genetic influence on extraversion by comparing personality traits between biological and adoptive parents. They found that personality traits such as social presence and sociability were more strongly correlated with the biological parents than with the adoptive parents, suggesting that genetic factors play a larger role in shaping personality. Specifically, the study showed that traits like extraversion were more similar between adopted children and their biological parents, indicating a higher heritable component.
additive model
Heritability is assessed as the proportion of shared variance in a phenotype between biologically related individuals, such as parents, children, siblings, or twins. It is based on the additive assumption, which states that phenotype is determined by two main dimensions: genetic and environmental influences. These two components are assumed to contribute additively, meaning that together they explain 100% of the variance in a phenotype. The additive model expresses this as: Phenotype = additive genetic effects + environmental effects. Therefore, when we calculate the heritability index (h²), we are estimating how much of the phenotypic variance is due to genes, and by implication, how much is due to the environment. However, a key limitation is that environmental effects are not directly measured, so when h² is large and the environmental contribution (E) appears small, this may reflect a lack of data rather than a true absence of environmental influence. Additionally, not all genetic variance is purely additive. Genes can also contribute through dominant effects (where one allele masks another), epistatic effects (interactions between genes), and other hierarchical or static influences. This complexity means that the additive model, while useful, can oversimplify how genes and environment truly interact to shape phenotype.
twin studies
Twin studies are a powerful tool for understanding the heritability of traits by comparing monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. MZ twins share 100% of their genetic material, as well as all of their shared environmental influences, while each twin also has their own non-shared environmental influences. In contrast, DZ twins share on average 50% of their genetic material, but also experience the same shared environment and their own individual non-shared environments. Shared environmental factors include things like growing up in the same home, having the same parents, attending the same school, or eating similar food. On the other hand, non-shared environmental factors involve unique experiences, such as different parenting styles, illnesses, schools, hobbies, or friendship groups. Heritability (h²) can be calculated using the formula:
h² = 2 × (rMZ − rDZ),
where r represents the correlation or similarity between twin pairs. Once heritability is known, environmental contributions can be estimated as 100 − h², allowing us to approximate how much variance in a trait is due to genetics versus environment. This approach helps disentangle the complex interactions that shape human behaviour and traits.
german and polish twin study
Riemann et al. (1997) conducted a twin study involving over 1,000 German and Polish twins to investigate the heritability of different personality dimensions. By comparing correlations in monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins, they found varying levels of heritability across traits. For example, extraversion showed correlations of 0.56 in MZ twins and 0.28 in DZ twins, suggesting a heritability (h²) of around 56%. Neuroticism showed even higher heritability at 80% (MZ = 0.53, DZ = 0.13), indicating a strong genetic influence. Other traits included agreeableness (46%), conscientiousness (72%), and openness to experience (38%). These findings highlight that while all five major personality traits show some degree of genetic influence, traits like neuroticism and conscientiousness appear to be more strongly influenced by genetic factors than others. This supports the view that personality is shaped by both genes and environment, but the extent of genetic influence varies across different traits.
swedish, finland and australia twin study
Loehlin (1989) conducted a large-scale twin study across Sweden, Finland, and Australia, analysing over 20,000 twins using Eysenck’s measures of extraversion and neuroticism. The study included both male and female monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. Across all three countries, MZ twins consistently showed higher correlations for both traits than DZ twins, indicating a significant genetic influence. For example, extraversion correlations among MZ twins ranged from 0.46 to 0.54, while DZ twin correlations ranged from 0.13 to 0.21. Similarly, neuroticism correlations in MZ twins were around 0.46 to 0.54, compared to 0.12 to 0.26 for DZ twins. Importantly, there were no substantial gender differences in the heritability estimates across the samples. These findings provide robust cross-cultural support for the genetic basis of personality traits, particularly extraversion and neuroticism, and further validate the twin method for estimating heritability.
meta analysis
Research across multiple countries and personality models has consistently shown that personality traits are moderately heritable. Twin studies have been instrumental in these findings, allowing researchers to compare identical (MZ) and fraternal (DZ) twins to estimate the genetic contribution to traits like extraversion, neuroticism, and others. Across various populations including Swedish, Finnish, Australian, American, and Canadian samples, the pattern remains clear: MZ twins tend to show greater similarity in personality traits than DZ twins, indicating a genetic influence. Traits such as extraversion and neuroticism often show particularly high heritability, with relatively consistent findings across both the three-factor and five-factor models of personality. However, some traits like agreeableness may show lower heritability, suggesting a greater role of the environment. Despite minor variations in the exact estimates, these results demonstrate that genetic influences on personality are robust and relatively stable across different cultures and populations.
problems with twin studies
Twin and adoption studies provide valuable insights into the genetic and environmental contributions to personality traits. However, there are concerns about potential overestimation of genetic heritability. One reason for this is that identical twins (MZ) often share more similar environments than fraternal twins (DZ), which may lead to an overestimation of genetic influence (Kamin & Goldberger, 2002).
Research by Pedersen et al. (1988) using the Swedish twin registry examined both twins reared together and apart. For extraversion, MZ twins reared together had a correlation of 0.54, while MZ twins reared apart showed a lower correlation of 0.30, suggesting the influence of shared environment in addition to genetics. DZ twins reared together had a very low correlation (0.06), and those reared apart had an even lower correlation (0.04), further suggesting that shared environment plays a significant role.
Similarly, Hershberger et al. (1995) conducted a study focusing on aging and personality traits. Their findings were consistent with the idea that shared environment influences personality traits. For extraversion, MZ twins reared together had a correlation of 0.20, while those reared apart showed a higher correlation of 0.36. This finding further supports the idea that the environment can shape personality traits in addition to genetic factors.
These studies highlight the complexities of measuring heritability, demonstrating that both genetics and environment play important roles in shaping personality traits, and cautioning against overemphasizing the genetic component in twin studies.
misestimations of genetic contributions to heritability
Misestimations of Genetic Contributions to Heritability: The Role of Gene x Environment Correlations
When measuring heritability — the proportion of variance in a phenotype due to genetic factors — twin and adoption studies are often used to estimate the relative contributions of genes and environment. However, these estimates may be biased due to certain complexities in the way genes and environment interact, particularly through gene-environment correlations. These correlations can lead to misestimations of genetic contributions to heritability, as they complicate the direct separation of genetic and environmental influences.
Passive Gene-Environment Correlation and Overestimation of Genetic Influence
One common issue arises from passive gene-environment correlations, where a child’s genetic inheritance influences both their genotype and the environment they are exposed to. For example, if parents with certain genetic traits (such as impulsivity) also create an environment that reinforces those traits in their children (like a chaotic or unstructured home life), it may appear that the child’s behavior is more genetically determined than it actually is. In twin studies, this could lead to an overestimation of the genetic contribution to heritability, since identical twins (who share all their genetic material) may be exposed to similar environmental influences that non-identical twins (who share only half of their genetic material) are not, artificially inflating the role of genetic influences.
Evocative (Reactive) Gene-Environment Correlation and Overestimation of Genetic Influence
Evocative gene-environment correlations occur when a child’s genetic predispositions evoke certain responses from the environment. For example, a child with a natural predisposition for extraversion may be treated differently by parents, teachers, and peers, receiving more attention and positive feedback. These responses are driven by the child’s genetic tendencies, creating a feedback loop that strengthens the apparent influence of genetics. In twin studies, this can again lead to overestimations of heritability because both MZ twins may evoke similar responses due to their shared genetic traits, further inflating the genetic influence while potentially masking environmental contributions.
Active (Selective) Gene-Environment Correlation and Misinterpretation of Environmental Influence
Active gene-environment correlations refer to the tendency of individuals to seek out environments that align with their genetic predispositions. For example, a genetically predisposed sensation seeker may choose to associate with peers who engage in risky behaviors, like drug use. In twin studies, if one twin is more likely to engage in such environments due to their genetic predispositions, it might be misinterpreted as a purely genetic influence on their behavior, even though it is a product of their active choice of environment. This can lead to underestimation of the environmental contribution, as the environment is selected by the individual based on their genetic makeup, complicating the interpretation of genetic and environmental effects.
Gene-Environment Interactions and Sensitivity
Another critical issue in the misestimation of genetic contributions is the role of genetic sensitivity to environmental effects. Some individuals may be genetically more sensitive to environmental influences, such as drugs or stress, which could skew the heritability estimates. For example, one twin might be genetically predisposed to addiction, making them more susceptible to the environmental risk factor of drug exposure. This differential sensitivity can complicate the distinction between genetic and environmental contributions, as the interaction between genes and environment could be interpreted as a stronger genetic effect.
Assortative Mating and Underestimated Genetic Similarity
Assortative mating refers to the tendency for individuals to choose partners with similar genetic traits. This can lead to increased genetic similarity between partners and their offspring. In studies that assume a 50% genetic similarity between parent and child, assortative mating could artificially lower the apparent genetic variance because the genetic differences between parents and children may be smaller than expected. As a result, the heritability estimate might be underestimated because the genetic contribution is perceived to be less than it actually is due to the higher similarity between parents and offspring.
seminar
Hudson et al. (2019) investigated whether people can change their personality by engaging in trait-typical behaviors rather than simply desiring change. The study aimed to test if completing prewritten behavioral “challenges” over 15 weeks predicted increases in Big Five traits, including extraversion and conscientiousness. Participants self-reported personality weekly and could accept or decline challenges (e.g., “call a friend”). The key finding was that only completing challenges, not merely accepting them, led to trait growth—a clear example of discriminant validity, showing that intention alone was insufficient. The more challenges participants completed, the greater the trait increases, showing a dose-response relationship. These results held even after controlling for baseline traits, analyzing dropouts, and ensuring changes were specific to targeted traits—strengthening the study’s reliability. Compared to the 2015 Hudson & Fraley study, which mixed goal-setting with structured interventions, the 2019 design better isolates action from intention. The findings support a volitional model of personality change, where traits shift through consistent behavior, transitioning from temporary “states” to stable “traits.” This aligns with theories like operant conditioning, where reinforced behaviors (e.g., punctuality rewarded at work) shape traits over time. Alternative paradigms include CBT, habit formation, and social role training, but unlike these, Hudson et al.’s challenge-based model is unique in its targeted, self-selected behavioral focus. Ultimately, the study concludes that personality can change if individuals follow through on their goals by acting consistently and receiving feedback—suggesting that behavior, not desire, drives enduring personality change.
