Lecture 6 Flashcards
Macadams on people changing behavior situationally
Fundamental attribution error happens when talking about others but not about ourselves, we give situational
he currency of talk about traits is generalizations. May be useful but do not apply to every situation
Despite limitations, trait talk is a useful way to account for life
Ken Sheldon 2005
Profs example extraverted buddy at school
Interested in hoe much people say they change in circumstances
Asked people to do big 5 assessments for four situations,
At school
At work
With parents
With friends
Analyzed the data
80% f variation was within participants (ie the changes from one situation from anthers) the rest was between participants
People were least introverted at school (maybe because lecturer lectures, most neurotic at school (exams) least agreeable with family and most conscientious at work
BUT these differences were CONSISTENT in the traits expression. So everyone was least agreeable at home etc. And so the validity of the traits is still there because even though everyone is on average less agreeable at home, the trait for the individual accounts for where they are in that spectrum of disagreeable at home. Those who are already very disagreeable are maximally at home as are those who are trait agreeable
EXAMPLE
Friend passed noted
High E
DID moderate his behaviour at school (this is where he was least E) but still as more E than other students
Quiet story about intraverts
Prof always felt he was more E when doing structured activities
Is common for low E people
Situational effects are real but peoples responses will still depend on personality
Profs dating trip example
1st year of grad school
Had a gf, research assistant
Wanted to go on romantic getaway
When driving from Rochester to Ithaca asked him to stop
Said she was shocked to hear him talking with the bus driver and janitor about football
Said he was Crude, Coarse, Uncouth and Clownish. She was very upset
Is a function of O. High O are cultured, low O are not
He said people change based on who they are talking to and what about. She said she didn’t
He said his parents are migrants with a 8th grade education and was poor. Maybe that’s why, she accepted
She was super rich. Maybe that’s why she accepted
This O was a super important trait to her. It was not to prof. Maybe that is why he changes on it a lot situationally.
Eventually she threw him a surprise party and he was horrified as all four of his friends were there and he could not act independently with all of them.
They broke up 3 days later
Walter Mischel on variablity
Thought the best corralent between personality and behaviour is .3
Is actually big
Did not believe personality is a thing
Dudycha 1936 study of personality
Religious college All boys 10 assessments of punctuality from: 8am class\Appointments Extracurricular activities Vesper services Entertainment
Correlation =.19
Said it showed o consistent pattern of punctuality. Probably does
Darryl Ben (1974)
Assume that not all traits are equally important for everyone
Measured friendliness with 24 item inventory
Measured how relevant fendilines was to the ptps
5 independent measures
peer report mother report father report Observation of behaviour in group Observation of spontaneous friendliness
Correlation in high relevance: .55, low relevance: .21
SO varied based on if important or not
Zuckerman (1989)
Replicated the finding that high relevance traits are less variable across situations than low ones.
Snyder and self-monitoring
People differ meaningfully in the extent they can and do engage in expressive control
High SM - social pragmatists, willing and able to project images desired by others
Low SM - unwilling and unable to do this. Usually think this is distasteful
Developed a scare which measures this, reliable and has some predictive validity
Lippa via Bem
Followed up the Bem cohort
Assessed them for SM
High SM = more variation on scores for friendliness
Low SM = stable scores from everyone
Lippa (1976)
Got a cohort to pretend they were teachers and deliver a 2 min presentation on triangles to 7th graders
Knew the subjects standing on E-I and measured SM
Asked to do it three times
Extrovert
Introvert
Naturally (as themselves)
These were then rated by blind coders on their verbal and nonverbal behaviors
Results
Introverts who were high SM could make themselves act much more extraverted (3-5 rating) vs control
Extraverts who are high SM can make themselves appear more introverted than introverts
Profs wife stroke speech
was surprised how extraverted he seemed in his presentation, is high SM
Correlates of Self-Monitoring: High (3 things)
Quickly assess demands of a situation and act accordingly
Low consistency between traits and behaviors
Many friends, engage i narrow range of behaviors with each. Do not encourage contact among friends. Cannot behave differently with each of they’re all available.
Correlates of Self-Monitoring: Low (3 things)
Less sensitive to nuances of situation and less likely to alter behavior
High consistency between trait and behavior
Fewer friends but many behaviors with all of them and encourage social contact between them even if they’re very different.
George from seinfield
High N Low A
High SM
