New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

PSYC250 Exam 1 Class Notes

by: Yiyi Wang

PSYC250 Exam 1 Class Notes PSYC250

Yiyi Wang

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover everything in class for Exam 1
Psyc of Personality
Jaime Derringer
Class Notes
Psychology, Personality Psychology
25 ?




Popular in Psyc of Personality

Popular in Psychology (PSYC)

This 15 page Class Notes was uploaded by Yiyi Wang on Tuesday September 13, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC250 at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign taught by Jaime Derringer in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views. For similar materials see Psyc of Personality in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.


Reviews for PSYC250 Exam 1 Class Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/13/16
PSYC250: Personality  Personality is dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine characteristics patterns of behavior and thought  Emphasis on complex set of characteristics  Focused on the individual, not the situation, environment, or culture  Weds psychological and physical (biological)  Deterministic (e.g. casual)-things about you that cause your behavior  Emphasizes what is “characteristic,” That is, on what is enduring not transitory  Focuses on behavior and thought as tangible examples of personality  Trait: a consistent characteristic  Observable, measureable characteristic may result from unobservable, not directly measureable (latent) traits  Operationalization: the process of defining an ambiguous concept so that it can be measured  What is Love?  Linguistic Relativity: language influences perception  Lexical Hypothesis: Important traits have many synonyms within a language  Core human traits can be described in many languages  The Big Five: Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience  Personality as Hierarchy  Factor analysis  Two-factor solution-all categories are not independent, can correlate with another category  Stability: Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness  More positively correlated with each other than plasticity  Plasticity: Extraversion, Openness to Experience  Willingness to seek out different experiences  Thought Experiment-  If every single person in the class failed the exam, curve would be huge and everyone would get a perfect score, but who would actually cooperate and who would compete?  Prisoner’s Dilemma  Game theory: Study of strategic decision making  Basis for most reasoning in evolutionary psychology  How do you choose to cooperate or compete?  How well do you know them?  Kin Selection: tendency to help individual who are more closely related to yourself in order to increase reproductive success of related others  Inclusive fitness: successful transmission of one’s genes from all sources to the next generation  Individuals are more likely to help healthy relatives  Both life/death scenarios or everyday scenarios, likelihood to help linearly correlates to how genetically related you are  More likely to help women than men because women are more reproductively viable  Negatively correlated with age, the older the less likely to help  How long will you have to deal with them?  Reciprocal Altruism  One person helps another person in exchange for future help  Helping others will aid your own gene reproduction because (1) you receive help in return and/or (2) the person you help shares some of your genes  Altruism likely developed to increase Inclusive Fitness  Argument where true Altruism really doesn’t exist  Most people cooperate more than they should If we were “selfish” (rational)  We cooperate even more if there is a system in place to punish cheaters  People cooperate more in the Prisoner’s Dilemma if they know they will be “playing” again with the same person  How much do you like them?  Potential mate?  How do you choose a partner? Similar or opposite?  Spouse Correlation:  Height: +.22  Education: +.57  Religious Participation: +.82  Political Affiliation: +.64  Conservatism: +.62  Neuroticism: +.09  Potential rival for mating?  Assortative Mating  Primary AM: mates choose each other based on similarity  Social homogamy: choose each other due to selected-environment proximity  The tendency to hang around people with the same social interests as you, moreso than people with different social interests  Convergence: mates become more similar to each other the more time spent with one another  What do you want in a partner? (Buss 1990)  Surveyed 10,000 people on 6 continents  Various religious and economic groups  Asked participants, on a scale of 0 (not important) to 3 (indispensable), how important are these 18 characteristics in a long-term partner  1. Mutual attraction/love  2. Dependable character (conscientiousness)  3. Emotional stability and maturity (low neuroticism)  4. Pleasing disposition (agreeableness)  3 of top 4 are personality traits!  Conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability (-neuroticism)  If people were all looking for the same sort pf personality type, why don’t we all have those personality types due to natural selection?  Also very similar to what people want in friends  Natural Selection: Darwin’s theory evolution  “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”  Animals develop through natural (and sexual) selection  Humans are animals, natural selection applies to humans just as much as it does for animals  Therefore, humans have developed through natural (and sexual) selection  Early humans who were able to stand up on their hind legs could carry more food to survive caused humans to stand on two legs  If natural selection were true, we would all be conscientiousness, low neuroticism, and agreeableness  If a trait not ALWAYS positive or beneficial, so it can no longer spread to the rest of popular  1. Variation: Individuals of a particular species show variation in their behavioral, morphological and/or physiological traits—their phenotypes (individual differences)  this is what “selection” occurs on  If everyone were the same, we would not be selecting within that trait  2. Inheritance: a part of this variation between individuals is “heritable”: some of that variation will be passed on from one generation to the next  Offspring will tend to resemble their parents more than they do other individuals in the population  3. Adaption: There is competition among individuals for scarce resources such as food, mates, and somewhere to live, and some of these variants allow their bearers to compete more effectively  4. Evolution: Some individuals will leave more offspring than others because of the particular traits they possess  The offspring of such individuals will have inherited these successful traits from their parents. Through this process organisms become adapts to their environment  5. Fitness: a measure of relative reproductive success  The success with which a trait is propagated in future generations relative to other variants of that trait  Personality and number of grandchildren:  10,000 sample  consistent association of decreased conscientiousness and decreased openness in both male and female to number of grandchildren  Agreeableness (f), openness (f)(m), conscientious (m) Effect goes away if we control for education  Neuroticism had no correlation to increased grandchildren  Females with decreased conscientiousness had more grandchildren  Males with increased Extraversion had more grandchildren  When people are asked how they pick their long-term mate is different from who you end up biologically producing with  Evolution occurred in a very different environment to the one in which we now live  The environment in which we evolved in is the Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation (EEA)  “Kin” Selection: idea that you help individuals that you are more genetically similar to you  Not true anymore, because people would save their pet over a stranger (human)  Implications for Personality  Why do individual differences in personality persist?  No set “best” strategy  Success of a characteristic depends on environmental conditions (if environment changes, selection will change)  Selection is slower than environmental change  If a characteristic is an observable across cultures (chronological, geographical), it is probably old  How did the characteristics stay around or spread?  Cultural transmission: Memes  Biological Transmission: Genes  How does birth order affect personality?  What source of knowledge do you use to answer this question? Personal experience  Hypothesis/Rumor:  First born children are smarter  Middle children are rebellious  Later born children are more creative, funny  The way people tend to gather information is not very systematic  We tend to seek information that is consistent with our beliefs and ignore inconsistent information (not systematic)  We tend to assume that propositions that “feel” wrong to us are invalid  Confirmation Bias: We tend to seek out information that is consistent with our expectations  Discounting: We reject information that is inconsistent with those expectations  Deem it as just a “random fluke”  Ignore information that doesn’t go along with our hypothesis  The Pleasant Truth Problem: we tend to believe an idea is true if the deal makes us feel good  We believe those things whether or not we have really good evidence  What we should be doing:  Establishing whether there is an effect/association  Increasing the precision of the estimate of the effect/association  If birth order affects personality, which traits does it affect and how big is the effect  The Scientific Method: a way of answering these types of questions:  The science is the process of constructing causal theories about natural phenomena, then testing and correcting causal theories through the use of systematic, transparent, repeatable empirical observation, anything that is not those, is not science but philosophy  The goal is to come to know both pleasant and unpleasant truths and protect yourself from pleasant untruths, things that make us feel better that are not in fact reality  Our theories are almost always causal, we want to know if something happen, and if it does happen, what causes it to happen  How do we determine causality?  Association (does one thing tend to go with something else), Isolation (do those two things go together separated from all other possible explanation), Direction (does the thing we think is causal come before what we think is the outcome)  Test whether the association holds across lots of people (correlation, regression)  A goes along with B  Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation  How to establish isolation: control or rule as many alternative explanation as possible—systematic fashion as possible  Describes as the “third variable problem”  Go through a correlation and rule out in a systematic fashion as many possible third variables as we can  Use an experimental design where you randomly select individuals from a representative population to enter the experimental or control groups  Two groups have to be equivalent in every way except for the independent variable  Rarely can do random assign in personality (can’t assign personality traits)  Natural experiments: e.g. identical twins raised in separate families  Statistical controls (using regression)  The most common method for controlling for third variable statistically: multiple regression  Test whether the association holds across lots of people  Correlation, regression  A goes along with B taking into account x, y, z  How to establish direction  Design the study so that your independent variable comes before your dependent variable  Longitudinal, prospective design (measure 2+ variables over the course of time)  An experiment in which you manipulate (control) the independent variable  For our question, birth order comes before personality (at least for latter born children)  The cause precedes the effect  How to summarize: Meta-analysis & Big Data Analysis  In meta-analysis, researchers compile estimates of effect sizes across everyone’s studies, not just their own or the ones they like  Not just “is there an effect” but “how big is the effect”  Lots of “small” studies  Common in medical research  In a “mega-analysis” (Big Data), researchers gather a very very VERY large sample (~N=100,000+)  The goals of both are to estimate the EFFECT SIZE  “Significance” is arbitrary & depends on sample size  Birth Order & Personality/IQ Correlations (r) in N=270,000  .04 C maturity  .03 C tidiness  .02 C impulsiveness~~~~  .08 IQ verbal (largest, but still not good correlation)  All the personality traits found close to 0 correlations between personality and birth order  Results don’t change when controlling for (with regression):  Age, sex, family structure, Sibship size, SES, other, personality/IQ measures  Concluded no relationship between personality and birth order  Files in the ointment: even when science is done well, there can be problems  Even when science is done well, there can be problems  Significance is a function of both effect size and sample size within any give research report  If you find a large enough sample, you will find a correlation  Given the use of the way we usually test for “statistical significance” (null hypothesis significance testing, NHST), we will find something by chance 5% of the time  Arbitrary threshold  Sampling error: any sample we gather is not everyone that is available to study  Necessarily not going to be perfectly representative of the population being studied  Given enough studies/test we might be able to find evidence for things that are not true  Scientists are humans too  File drawer effect: motivation to write up interesting, significant research; others get forgotten in a “file drawer”  Human error! (role in research findings that aren’t replicated)  Confirmation bias leads to citing only confirming studies  No method is definitive  Correlation (and regression) may not reflect causation, but sometimes it is the best we can do  Important topics that lack experimental evidence related causally:  Tobacco consumption and health outcomes  Socioeconomic status and anything  Race/ Ethnicity and anything  Sex/Gender and anything  Lack of random assignment: any results are only correlational  Impossible, impractical, unethical  Experiments may increase our ability to infer causality, but they seldom allow us to test the thing we wanted to test in the first place (external validity- the way people behave in the real world)  How to avoid:  Accumulate evidence across many studies  Don’t rely on one study  Look for replications  No single study will be definitive  Look for meta-analytic evidence  Researchers compile estimates of effect sizes across everyone’s studies, not just their own or the ones they like  “Crude factor”  “In the social sciences and arguably in the biological sciences, ‘everything correlates to some extent with everything else’”  “Significant” versus meaningful  Statistical significance (p<.05) depends on the effect size and sample size:  Even a VERY VERY VERY SMALL effect can be “significant “ in a large enough sample  BUT…is the effect meaningful? Informative?  In a sample of 1000 people, you have an 80% chance of detecting the effect of birth order on verbal IQ (r=.08)  Correlation is necessary but not sufficient for causation  Theory/Observation/Kooky Idea  Overall the scientific method is a process that we try to move through in a cyclical fashion, requires repetition and refinement  Hypothesis, prediction, test, refine theory, repeat/replicate  Do all of this in such a way that other people can repeat what we did – transparency  Why shouldn’t you believe personal experience?  Cannot establish sufficient evidence for association  Cannot establish directionality  Isolated other factors that might also be responsible  How to avoid flies in the ointment  Accumulate evidence across many studies  Don’t rely on one study  Look for replications  No single study will be definitive  Look for meta-analytic evidence  Researchers compile estimates of effect sizes across everyone’s studies, not just their own or the ones they like  Evaluate not just significance, but meaningful  Science as a process vs science as an ideal  Science is not a perfect method, but it is the best one we’ve got for establishing reliable knowledge  The scientific process is an ideal; one that we strive to achieve (but don’t always succeed)  How meaningful/important research seems  The onus is on you to think critically  Search for alternative explanations to the questions of association, direction, and isolation  Is personality/psychology a science? It can be  The material you study does not change the scientific method  Lack of random assignment just makes it harder (but not impossible) to make definitive inferences  Non-human animals  When did personality evolve?  Not easy to put a date on it  No known genes (not like lactase persistence)  No physical evidence (not like bipedalism)  Cross-species comparisons may parallel inferences from cross-cultural comparisons  Things that differ between cultures are recent (<60,000 years)  Things are the same between cultures are more likely to be old (>60,000 years)  BUT even cross-cultural similarities could be due either biological OR cultural transmission  What about traits we share with other species?  Common traits may imply a common source (LCA, last common ancestor)  “New” traits have recent common ancestor, appear in fewer species  “Old” traits appear in many species, have less recent LCA  Shared traits more likely to have BIOLOGICAL influences (assuming no cross- species cultural transmission)  (Alternative possibility: Convergent evolution)  Animal benefits: ability to measure physiological characteristics  Opportunities for naturalistic observation  Longitudinal studies more practical (reduced time and cost)  Experimental control  Do animals have personality?  What is “personality”: Temperament, behavioral syndromes, behavioral types  Relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish individuals from one another and that are elicited in specific environments  Can we measure personality?  Rating vs. Coding  Subjective rating of broad traits by knowledgeable observers  Objective coding of an animal’s overt behaviors  Reliability: Independent assessments must agree; consistency of measurement  can the test be used two or more times and get the same result  Types of Reliability:  Test-retest: similar assessment at different points in time  Inter-rater: agreement among multiple observers  Internal consistency: correlation among separate items within a single measure  Validity: ratings must reflect attributes of targets (not observers’ implicit personality theories)  Does the test measure what it claims to measure  Assessments must predict behaviors and real-world outcome  Accuracy of measurement  Types of Validity:  Face validity: sounds like it measures what it claims to measure  Convergent: correlated to other measures of same construct  Discriminant: uncorrelated with (distinct form) theoretically separate constructs  Construct: overall evaluation of the above  Generalizability: degree to which measure retains validity & reliability across different contexts, including different groups of people and different conditions  Subsumes reliability & validity  Principle of Aggregation: The sum of multiple measures is more reliable and valid than any one of those measures alone  Personality dimensions across species  3/5 of Big Five that we observe in human personality research are easily observable across an incredibly wide range of species, regardless of species studied:  Extraversion: Surgency, sociability, energy, vivacity, boldness, approach/avoidance  Neuroticism: Fearfulness, emotional reactivity, excitability, nerve stability  Agreeableness: Affability, affection, affinity, aggression, hostility, fighting  Traits are so consistent, which implies that these three traits are the oldest  Openness: non-observable across all the species, but can be measured in higher level mammals  Chimpanzees, rhesus monkeys, vervet monkeys, hyenas, dog, cat, pig  Operational definition of openness same as non-verbal humans (infants): Curiosity, exploration playfulness (imaginative)  NOT open to new ideas or art  Similar to “early openness” in human infants  Interest in novel objects or events  Conscientiousness: only an apparent trait in our most close non-human cousins: chimpanzees  In human & chimpanzees (LCA ~6mya (least consistently observed))  Meta-cognitive, not only do you have to go through systematic steps to achieve a goal, but we assume that this goal something that is fitting with societal norm  No motivation to be good at something, only for survival  Attention, goal-directedness, erratic, unpredictable, disorganized behavior  Why not more species?  Requires planning & awareness of “norms”  Following rules thinking before acting, controlling impulses  Dominance: looked at more in non-humans than humans, a little different trait than what we see in humans, makes up for missing traits: conscientiousness  Could be just a sub-facet in extraversion in adults  In non-humans: High E, Low A, Low N  In humans: high E  Activity: low level assessment that is probably still a facet of human behavior, but we have more complex ways of behaving so activity itself is not so salient to our understanding to each other  low validity in human real world, but in animals, it may be the best information we can get  In chimpanzee & humans, may merge with Extraversion after puberty  Low level assessment that is probably a sub facet of human behavior  How much you move around  Why are there individual differences?  Different traits predict “success” in different environments  Bold animals travel farther (encounter more potential mates and resources), but also fight more (and maybe lose) non-bold vice versa  Aggressive fish grow faster in simple environments (monopolize resources), slower in complex environments, go through different situations to survive (with disperse resources)  Bold bighorn sheep reproduce earlier, are more likely to be eaten by cougars  Slow-exploring female great tits nest more successfully, fast-exploring males gather resources more successfully  Different personality traits predict different rates of success depending on sex  Unless personality traits are carried on the sex chromosome, you have to have everything move towards an average, cannot selectively pass on a trait to specific sex  Limitations:  Same construct? Can never be 100% certain that we are looking at the same construct, have to operationalize our own definitions of personality traits  Anthropomorphism/personification: attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being (Wikipedia) (researchers always try to rule out)  Same Mechanism? We can have the same mechanism and same construct, and same outcome  Based on social structure of species  Ethical considerations, cannot get informed consent from non-human animals  Rely on decision-making process to figure out if something is worth doing on non-human  Do pros outweigh the cons? Do we think any negative outcome that will come is outweighed by the potential of information we can gather for humans  Summary: things we can practically do with animals that we cannot do with humans  Animal personality exists, can be measured, and predicts behavior  Animal studies allow greater experimental control and more information  Not all animal research will directly translate into information about humans  What can animal studies teach us about personality?  Why haven’t we evolved to a single “optimum” species-wide personality  Because different traits are adaptive in different environments  Because there are different paths to “success” (fitness) Extraversion vs Introversion  The Four Humors/Temperaments: predicted personality based on different levels of blood  The history of the existence of these different personality types  Hippocrates & Galen  Blood (sanguine): courageous, hopeful, amorous  Yellow bile (choleric): easily angered, bad tempered  Black bile (melancholic): despondent, sleepless, irritable  Phlegm (phlegmatic): calm, unemotional  Trait: a consistent characteristic, infinitely contextually complec: use factor analysis (alpha & beta and facets) more helpful because you get more information  Type: a category whose members share one or more characteristic  Efficient way of summarizing a group of objects because we assume the category/type includes members who share one or more characteristics  TYPES are defined by a common set of traits that are shared by group members  Existence of types doesn’t mean traits don’t exist, if types do exist, they also have traits, can coexist  We could also just use the traits to describe each group member individually  Extraversion: “variation in the responsiveness of positive emotions”  Precursor to MBTI:  Psychological types  Perceiving functions (sensation & intuition)  Judging functions (thinking & feeling)  Attitude types (extraversion & introversion)  MBTI Reliability: “The type to which you are born will be the one you take to your grave”  High standard error of measurement (SEM): “uncertainty” of assessment  50% test-takers switch types within 5 weeks  BUT even highly reliable measures can show change  MBTI Validity:  Face: “Barnum Effect”: people likely to agree with flattering, vague statements  How many types of people are there?  Convergent: Poor  Does not predict success within occupation  Discriminant: Poor  Confounded with sex: Sex difference in Types & Occupations explain Apparent relationships between Types & Occupations  Psychology is WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic  Introversion:  Get energy from the inner environment of reflection and thoughts  Focus energy and attention inwards in reflection  Extraversion:  Get energy from outer environment of people & experiences  Focus energy and attention outwards in action  The good: bolder with potential mates, tend to be happier, often assume leadership positions  Driven by lower-order facets, sociability, dominance  The bad: don’t learn as much as other students, drive faster and more recklessly and therefore get in more accidents  Lower-order facet: SENSATION SEEKING  Atheoretical: data-driven, not pre-specified (recall: lexical hypothesis, factor analysis)  High Extraversion: Talkative, extraverted, assertive, forward, outspoken  Low extraversion: shy, quiet, introverted, bashful, inhibited  Sensation Seeking:  Dopamine: neurotransmitter involved in reward-motivated behavior  Increased levels in humans after sex, cocaine, a good meal  Genetically engineered mice  High Dopamine=very active, explore cage  Low Dopamine=lethargic, don’t eat or drink that much  DRD4: Long 7R variant: No consistent evidence in meta-analysis, long form of the gene, contains 7 copies  C-521T: Meta-analysis of published literature shows consistent effect  Statistical evidence of publication bias (file drawer effect)  Large, direct replication failed  Best case scenario: r<.07  Parkinson’s Disease: degenerative CNS disorder; death of cells that produce dopamine  Treat with dopamine agonists: increased novelty seeking, increased reward sensitivity  Openness to Experience: “the propensity to seek out and explore complex…stimuli”  Flexible Perception  Intelligence  “the 5 factor”-> everything that didn’t fit (covary) with the other 4 (CEAN)  High Openness: creative, imaginative, intellectual  Low Openness: Uncreative, unimaginative, unintellectual  Sources of Personality Data  Reliability: Consistency of measurement  Validity: Accuracy of measurement  Principle of Aggregation: sum of multiple measures is more reliable and valid than any one of those measures alone  What is love?  Test-Data (in-lab, experimental, objective)  Life-Outcome Data (observational, objective)  Observer-report data (observational, subjective)  Information provided by someone else about another person  Key features of Observer-report data  Provide access to information not attainable through other sources  Multiple observers can be used to assess a person  Thin Slices of Behavior: Judging from <1 second exposure to a picture of a face participants accurately perceive:  Sexual Orientation: Snap judgements were better than deliberative judgements  Extraversion: But not the other Big 5 traits  Aggression  Effects are small (minor deviation from chance)  More than 1 second still useful  More experience with a persona does lead to more accurate estimates  Correlations between self-reports and observer reports range from .3 to .5  Correlations reach asymptote after around 10 events  Self-report data (observational, subjective)-most common  Information provided by a person, such as through a survey or interview  Individuals have access to a wealth of information about themselves that is inaccessible to anyone else  Self-Monitoring  “the self-monitoring individual is one who, out of concern for social appropriateness, is particularly sensitive to the expression and self-representation of others in social situations and uses these cues as guidelines for monitoring his own self-representation”  High: people who act differently in different situations  Low: people who cannot control their emotions in public situations and tells it how it is  Practicality:  Are there any ethical concerned?  Some random assignments cannot be ethically done: life partners  What is the best information to get?  What is the easiest information to get?  Kosinski, Stillwell, & Graepel 2013  N>58,000  Data collection very easy, but data analysis not  Lacks face validity, but shows  Personality characteristics predicted by facebook likes  Reliability of an inventory=upper bound of a correlation Sex and Gender  Controversy  Sex differences could be used to support discriminatory policies  But if the difference are real…we need to know and understand them  The existence for sex differences is not the same thing as biological determinism  Cannot tell the difference of cultural and biological differences for sex differences  Social change is impossible without first identifying what sex differences exist  Limitations  Discriminant validity: how do we investigate separate effects of sex, gender, sexual orientation, perceiver bias?  Random assignment is impossible & unethical  Confounding sex & Gender  Genderbread Person  Gender Identity: Girl/Women, Boy/Man, Transgender/gender non-conforming  Sexual Orientation: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Queer, Asexual, Bisexual  Biological Sex: Female, Male, Intersex  Gender Presentation: how we present ourselves - Feminine, Masculine, Androgynous  Genetic “Categories”?  XY=male (But if Y has inactive SRY gene: Androgen (what causes puberty) Insensitivity Syndrome)  XX=female (But if cross-over event in father’s spermatogenesis inserts SRY from Y into X: XX male syndrome)  Sex chromosome aneuploidy  X0 (Turner syndrome-infertility, short stature)  XXY (Klinefelter syndrome-infertility, tall stature, slightly feminine appearance)  1 in 1000 normal phenotype, XXX, XYY  more common, but no impact on phenotype, usually never diagnosed  How to ethically “Randomize Gender” by observer behavior  Moss-Racusin (2012): Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students PNAS  Males were all rated higher in every factor (salary, competence, hire ability, mentoring)  Only difference was the perceived gender of the applicant, the name on the top of the resume  Effect Size:  Cohen’s d=two means divided by a standard deviation for the data  .2 small difference, .5 medium difference, .8 large difference  If it’s positive, males scored higher  If it’s negative, females scored higher  Effect sizes in GPA, verbal ability, math of sex differences are so small you would not be better than chance in guessing  Openness consistently shows no difference across cultures in sex differences  Cognitive Ability  Overall, global measured IQ, no average difference  Exception: Spatial Rotation (.75)  Throwing a spear or a football so that it correctly anticipates a moving target (animal receiver)  Still says nothing about any individual  Males tend to have more variable IQ/ Females tend to have less variable IQ  high end, more males but actual numbers (277 vs 203); low end, more males more likely to have intellectual disability (188 vs. 133)  Total effect is small even at the extreme ends  Socialization  Boys and girls become different because boys are reinforced for being masculine and girls being feminine  Social learning: Kids learn by observing the behaviors of other  Su, R (2009): meta-analysis of sex differences in interests (N>500,000)  Male Interests:  Things vs people (d=.93)  Realistic (d=.84)  Investigative (d=.26)  Science (d=.36)  Math (d=.34)  Engineering (d=1.11)  Female Interests:  Artistic (d=-.35)  Social (d=-.68)  Conventional (d=-.33)  If gender is just social learning  Then gender presentation could be changed with difference social models  Gender presentation could vary between cultures  You could randomly assign individuals to a gender, and they would identify with that gender  John/Joan case study:  Pair of twin boys and underwent circumcision  Second boy, penis was burned off  Parents contacted John Money (socialist- world expert who believed in gender identity being solely socialization)  He told the mother to raise him as a girl, and he will be just fine  He ended up committing suicide  Hormonal Theory: Males and females differ because of underlying hormones, not different social treatment  Then sex differences should be largest when hormonal differences are largest  Absolutely true for aggression and depression  Confounding sex & gender  Majority of people in population identity personally as cisgender  Difficult to look at correlations between sex  Problem of Identity Autonomy  How do we “science”  If we can’t measure it, we can’t do science on it  “Gender” is inherently culturally relative-impacts generalizability  Lexical encoding caries widely even within language  Self-report requires knowing the concepts & willingness to self-report


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.