Notes from Lecture 2 - Good and Bad Indicators of Personality
Notes from Lecture 2 - Good and Bad Indicators of Personality Psych 115S
Popular in Personality Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Emme Notetaker on Monday August 3, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to Psych 115S at Stanford University taught by Yun Zhang, Natalie Colich in Spring 2015. Since its upload, it has received 207 views. For similar materials see Personality Psychology in Psychlogy at Stanford University.
Reviews for Notes from Lecture 2 - Good and Bad Indicators of Personality
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 08/03/15
Good and Bad Indicators Of Personal how do we studv personalitv scientific method gt formulate or revise a theory general claimstheories based on variables that you are interested in generate a hypothesis states what the direction of the relationship is must be testablepractical and falsifiable must decide what you want to measure and how you re going to measure it must figure out which results you want to predict test the hypothesis carry out the experiment to collect various types of data SILB correlational study no induced variables looking at the correlation between two preexisting variables can t easily make causational claims experimental study inducing a certain variable upon the participants after a selfreport eg inducing shyness following a selfreport of how shy the participant is types of personality data gt behavior gt watch what the participant does life outcomes gt life outcomes eg divorce mortality informant gt ask someone who knows the person subjectselfreport gt ask the person directly about their expenences interpret your results null hypothesis testing gt testing the null hypothesis no relationship between variables against the alternative hypothesis existing relationship between variables your hypothesis correlation gt scatter plots gt outcome typically on the yaxis positive and negative correlations 1 lt gt 1 correlation at causation categorical data participants fit into a certain category continuous data participants fit somewhere on a spectrum or scale did your results support your hypothesis are there other variables that could explain the results can your result be generalized to different age groups cultures areas etc revise your theory change your theory based on your results if necessary what can we use to measure personalitv validity gt degree to which an instrument reflects what it is supposed to measure convergent validity gt relates to things it should be related to discriminant validity gt doesn t relate to things it shouldn t be related to predictive validity gt relates to meaningful behaviorsoutcomes reliability gt degree to which a measure is consistent internal consistency gt items or subscales of the measure should be highly correlated with each other testretest reliability gt the same person should receive the same score at different times generalizability gt questions whether or not your results can be generalized across different people of different ages situations cultures areas of the world etc MversBridas Personalitv Test how strong is the MversBridds personality test Feeling vs Thinking lntuitive vs Sensing Perceiving vs Judging lntroversion vs Extroversion is it a ClOOd measure of personalitv valid gt convergent if continuous it is reliable gt if put in typescategories not reliable discriminant mixed validity predictive mixed validity reliable gt internal consistency yes reliable testretest for continuous it is reliable gt if put in categories not reliable generalizability gt still not sure no research has been done problems with the MBTI the different categories that the test puts you in show poor reliability andor validity oversimplified into these certain categories no normal on which to base results whv do peoole believe their MBTI results so generalized and not specific that people choose to believe their results because they are less specific people have a selective memory to believe the positives your results may cause you to start wondering about and questioning yourself factors depend on the words that you include in your questionnaireanalysis factors are defined by the researcher oftentimes results are difficult to interpret the Big Five Openness fantasy aesthetics feelings ideas actions values Conscientiousness selfdiscipline dutifulness competence order deliberation achievement striving Extraversion gregariousness activity level assertiveness excitement seeking positive emotions warmth Agreeableness straightforwardness trust altruism modesty tendermindedness compliance Neuroticism anxiety selfconsciousness depression vulnerability impulsiveness anger hostility selfreports vs peerreports gt sometimes selfreports include things that you m to be or are striving to be not what you actually are NEO is accurate when it comes to predicting certain behaviors studying the Big Five across various cultures gt etic gt translating important questionnaires NEO into the language of the place in which you want to test emic gt instead of translating the test directly many different steps would be taken gt must explore the culture in which you wish to administer the test researching common words for certain characteristic definitions so that it isn t as much of a direct translation but more of a culturally aware translation per se openness is pretty iffy in different cultures independent vs interdependent cultures