Psychology of Personality, Lecture 1
Psychology of Personality, Lecture 1 PSY 01230 1
Popular in Psychology of Personality
PSY 01230 1
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychology (PSYC)
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Notetaker Magazzu on Monday September 19, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSY 01230 1 at Rowan University taught by Dinzeo in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 33 views. For similar materials see Psychology of Personality in Psychology (PSYC) at Rowan University.
Reviews for Psychology of Personality, Lecture 1
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: 09/19/16
Psychology of Personality The following notes include material from Professor Tom Dinzeo’s first PowerPoint lecture, as well as my inclass notes following each slide. Personality – complex organization of cognitions, affects, and behavior that give direction and pattern to a person’s life. (Pervin, 1996) many people believe that personality reflects both experience and biology also involves how we think of ourselves May reflect our genes and also life experiences personality affects the behaviors we choose to engage in tendencies to react certain ways in certain situations all relevant and complex things that interact with each other over time Theories differ on their emphasis on: Overt observable differences ex:) trait theories The processes that drive behavior ex:) unconscious urges vs. genetics specific domains of characteristics (high/low) that people use in their theories to attempt to explain our "personalities"… How we are/why we do things Why do we need to know about someone's "personality"? (Why is this concept useful?) helps us simplify a complex world we intuitively perceive continuity in people's behaviors and reactions wide array of people engaging in many different behaviors you can predict one's future behavior based off of their previous behavior patterns theories are the best attempts to explain the behaviors that we engage in we all have intuitive theories of personality ex:) when you meet someone you initially think to yourself, "is this person a threat to me?" What are theories? An organizing principle that seek to explain events/phenomena Each theory views phenomena through a particular lens (each theory sees the world through a different lens) each have strengths and weaknesses what you think drives certain behaviors will determine how you theorize your plans Perspectives The analogy of many different scientists looking at a different, small part of a large elephant all see a different things and come to different conclusions through their small, different lenses. when you focus on a certain "circumference" of a phenomenon, you can determine your conclusion which may be completely different than someone else's dealing with the same thing from different perspectives all perspectives have their own ideas, but missing the real point Ideally, theories should: be detailed and precise have heuristic value The testicle and falsifiable... Because we assume there may be issues within our theories… We want to be able to fix issues as we move along with the scientific method parsimony is also desirable... Go with the more simple/streamline theory went two theories are very similar you should be able to have clear ideas within your theories How do we study and test theories? "Research" see if theory predicts outcome Scientific method systematic way of gathering scientific evidence and testing assumptions self correcting slow process able to show other labs what you found that may be relevant to other research, even if it's something you find that is incorrect from your original thought/hypothesis Over time, you come up with a more accurate picture Qualitative studies Data analysis = words goal = summary/comparison of what people have said looking at people's verbiage/speaking experiences Quantitative studies Data analysis = numbers Goal = statistical summary/comparison of numbers using numbers to derive statistics *combining qualitative and quantitative is called a mixed method approach Methods of Observation •case study an indepth examination of one person or small group can be rich in information good for theory development used in instances where there's a need to retrospectively go back and do interviews (example: a school shooter) Drawbacks of case study approach? poor generalizability does our understanding of a certain case study (school shooter) help us prevent/understand future school shootings? No... (Poor generalizability) variables cannot be controlled May be biased by reporting errors or distortions Correlational method determine the association between two qualitative variables The correlation coefficient (r) indicates the magnitude of this association (can be positive or negative) apply correlational method to determine association... The range of our = 1 to +1 perfect positive correlations are "never" seen in psychology no correlation means no trend in behaviors *correlation does not mean causation for example, ice cream sales go up as violence rates go down ice cream does not cause people to be violent there are other factors, "extraneous variables" that can be confounding our results (The sun, nice weather, the season of summer…) Experimental method attempt to control all extraneous variables manipulate one variable (independent variable) see how this change affects another variable (dependent variable) How do you design a study looking at the effectiveness of medication on depression using the experimental method? Random assignment have a control group execute a screening process to determine people's levels of depression to determine even groups based off of their baselines (you can't have a group with a depressed people and another group with no depressed people) you want to control as much as you can before beginning the experiment (The more you have under control, the more confident you'll be heading into your experiment) drawback: if your experiment is too controlled, it's no longer a "real life" situation, it's unrealistic Reliability The extent to which a test yields the same result on repeated trials Degree of stability, consistency, predictability and accuracy you want to ask yourself if your situation is consistent over time... Example: there is a reliable way of timing athletes in the Olympics so the timing system is reliable and athletes' statistics are able to be compared to previous/future Olympic athletes' times Validity The degree to which something measures what it was intended to measure we deal with constructs (schizophrenia) in psychology any definition we have for schizophrenia is limited by our construct of schizophrenia there are limitations of how we see, define, and deal with certain things, such as schizophrenia The difference between Reliability and Validity A test can be reliable, but not valid The opposite is not possible a clock is reliable if it moves at a proper 60 seconds per minute, even if you move it an hour ahead A clock is not valid of present time if you move it ahead one hour TestRetest Reliability Administering a test to the same group of people at least twice correlate scores across time higher correlations across time points denotes greater test – retest reliability if you have low retest over thousands of people, chances are... the way that your testing them/gathering information is off test retest has to be determined by interpretation of the construct •Intelligence… Steady scores over six months •Depression… (Hopefully) higher to lower scores overtime Internal Consistency Reliability how well items on a test assess the same characteristic average correlation between all possible pairs of items allows us to find the items that don't seem to correlate with other aspects of evaluation, and take them out InterRater Reliability examine correlations between two people rating the same thing example: two researchers code the verbal responses of students watching a movie help determine if you and another psychologist are diagnosing things in the same way Common Indicators of Validity Face validity • does a test appear to be measuring what it is intended to measure? example: "I feel sad most of the time" on a test of depression • A problem with this would be that people can stretch the truth, may be embarrassed, or may interpret questions differently Construct Validity The degree of agreement between a theoretical concept ("construct") and a test what does the concept of "depression" involve? look for evidence of convergent and discriminant validity are we asking about all aspects regarding the construct? (sleep, eating, social, etc...) Convergent Validity two tests of the same construct correlate highly with each other look to see how our scores correlate with previous studies of depression for example… They should correlate highly Discriminant Validity Low correlation with results from tests of unrelated constructs we wouldn't expect people with high levels of depression to have high levels of happiness Criterion Validity The accuracy of the test when compared with a known validated "criterion" test •ex: The use of drugs not always a good standard to compare data to… We do our best you can't biologically test people every day, but maybe you can randomly test people instead criterion validity can be "predictive" or "concurrent" can we use our data to protect a larger group's? Examples of threats to validity language or cultural differences testtaker distortions • response sets • intentional lying • defensiveness person responding may just always say "yes" or answer the way they think the researcher wants them to
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'