Study Guides (251,202)
CA (122,733)
U of G (7,191)
PSYC (954)
PSYC 2740 (43)

Personality Exam notes.docx

14 Pages

Course Code
PSYC 2740
Stephen Lewis

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 14 pages of the document.
Personality Exam notes Chapter 14: Approaches to self Self-concept – you understand of yourself Self-esteem – how you feel about who you are Social identity – how you present yourself to others - sometimes it does not match our self-concept Development of self-concept: Begins when child makes distinction between its own body and everything else self-recognition occurs around 18 months of age-average Social comparison – an evaluation of oneself or one’s performance in terms of a comparison with a reference group - Better or worse than others? Private self-concept – hidden side to the self, private attributes, thoughts, feelings, desires e.g. children develop imaginary friends when this develops Perspective taking – ability to take the perspectives of others – or to see oneself as others do – step outside oneself and imagine how one appears to others - develops during teens, can lead to extreme self-consciousness Objective self-awareness – seeing yourself as an object of others attention - often experienced as shyness, can be a chronic problem Self-schemata – Part of our self-concept: possible selves, ought selves, and undesired selves Self-schema – specific knowledge structure or cognitive representation of the self-concept - networks of associated building blocks of self-concept Example: schema of what it means to be masculine includes: assertiveness, strength, independence – it applies this understanding to the self Possible selves – the many ideas people have about who they might become, who they hope to become or who they fear they will become Ideal self – what persons, themselves, want to be – our own goals (promotion focused) Ought self – persons understanding of what others what them to be - Responsibilities + commitments to others – Prevention focus (avoid harm, seek safety) Self-guides – standards that one uses to organize info and motivate appropriate behaviour Evaluation of oneself - People can evaluate themselves positively/negatively in different areas of their lives - High self-esteem in one area = high self-esteem in most areas Research on self esteem Reactions to criticism and failure feedback - how people with high/low self-esteem react to failure/criticism Findings: following failure – low self-esteem persons likely to perform poorly/give up earlier on tasks (they accept failure) Following failure – high self-esteem persons are spurred into action on subsequent tasks – less likely to give up Self-esteem and coping with negative events - strategies people use to get through life Following failure on one area of life: HSE person focuses on other areas of life that are well, LSE person accepts failure at most things in life Self-complexity – each person has many roles + many aspects to our self-concepts – some people have simple self-concept in a few large categories HSE: more complex self-concept LSE: simpler self-concept  failure becomes more devastating Protecting vs. enhancing self LSE people = protect self-concept by avoiding failure more than to enhance self-concept with success Defensive pessimism – strategy in which a person facing a challenge expects to do poorly because the impact of the failure can be lessened if it is expected in advance Self-handicapping – a person deliberately does the things that increase probability he/she will fail - you have an exam that you’re pessimistic about so you get drunk the night before and use the hangover as an excuse for failing so your intelligence or ability is not to blame Self-esteem variability – individual difference characteristics that determine the magnitude of fluctuations in self-esteem 1. Distinction between level and variability of self-esteem (not related to each other) 2. Self-esteem variability is related to the extent to which one’s self-evaluation is changeable by events of life more than others self esteem High variability in self-esteem can be caused because people may: - have enhanced sensitivity to social evaluation events - increased concern about self-view - overview on social sources of evaluation - react to evaluation with anger/hostility Social component of self: Social identity - how you are presented to others - identity has element of continuity, example: gender or ethnicity are constant Nature of identity Continuity – people can count on you to be the same person tomorrow as you are today - people do change in various ways but important aspects remain stable - other aspects change gradually: education, marital status etc. Contrast – your social identity differentiates you from other people - combination of characteristics = unique identity Identity development: - people have some latitude to choose what they want to be known for - struggle for identity during late adolescence Identity crisis – feelings of anxiety that accompany efforts to define or redefine one’s own individuality and social reputation 2 different kinds: Identity deficit – when a person has not formed an adequate identity and has trouble making major decisions - often occurs when a person discards old values/goals - vulnerable to influences by other people Identity conflict – incompatibility between two or more aspects of identity - person is forced to make important/difficult life decision - person wants to reach 2 mutually contradictory goals e.g. promotion at work (longer hours, more work, more money) vs. wanting to spend more time with family Resolution of identity crisis - Commonly occurs in adolescence 1. Decide which values are most important 2. Transform abstract values into desire + actual behaviours e.g. 1. Important to have family  2. Find right spouse who wants a family Chapter 15: Personality and social interaction Selection: Situation selection – people choose to enter some situations and avoid others and this hinges on personality dispositions and how we view ourselves - decision points that direct us to choose one path and avoid another based on personality characteristics of selector Example: going to a party or choosing a partner Personality characteristics desired in marriage partner 1. Mutual attraction – love 2. Dependable character 3. Emotional stability (maturity) 4. Pleasing disposition Males: 16. Chastity 17. Religion 18. Political views Female: 16. Religion 17. Political views 18. Chastity Assortative mating for personality: search for similar Complimentary needs theory – people are attracted to those who have different personality dispositions Example: Dominant person may have a need to be in a relationship with someone whom they can control or dominate (NO SUPPORT TO THIS THEORY) Attraction similarity theory – people are attracted to those who have similar personality characteristics - extraverted person may want an extraverted partner so they can party together (OVERWHELMING SUPPORT) Assortative mating – people marry people similar to themselves, in addition to personality – similar physical characteristics as well - height, weight, ethnicity, racial, nose breadth, earlobe length etc. Do people get the mates they want? Are they happy? - Do not always get what we want - always fall short, the more a mate deviates from a person’s ideals = less satisfied - higher satisfaction if mate is high on agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, conscientiousness Personality + selective breakup of couples: Violation of desire – breakups should occur more frequently when ones desires are violated than when they are fulfilled - people married to others who lack desired characteristics (dependability, emotional stability) will frequently dissolve the marriage Shyness and selection of risky situations Shyness – tendency to feel tense, worried or anxious during social interactions or even when anticipating a social interactions or even when anticipating a social interaction - common, 90% of population experience shyness at some point Evocation – the ways in which features of personality elicit reaction from others -highly active people elicit hostility/competiveness from others Aggression and evocation of hostility Hostile attribution bias – tendency to infer hostile intent on the part of others in the face of uncertain or unclear behaviour from them - aggressive people: expect others to be hostile and tend to treat others in an aggressive manner because of this - people treated in this manner tend to aggress back  vicious cycle Evocation of anger and upset in partners 1. Person performs actions that cause emotional response in partner – personality characteristics evoke emotions in partner 2. Person elicits actions from another – in turn – upsets original elicitor - strongest predictions: disagreeableness, emotional instability Evocation through expectancy confirmation: Expectancy confirmation – peoples beliefs about personality characteristics of others cause them to evoke in others actions that are consistent with initial beliefs - very fucking similar to self-fulfilling prophecy Manipulation: Social influence tactics Manipulation – social influence, all ways in which people intentionally try to change the behaviour of others - not necessarily with malicious intent Taxonomy of 11 tactics of manipulation: Taxonomy – a classification scheme – the identification and naming of groups within a particular subject field Examples: Periodic table = taxonomy of elements Developed through 2 steps: 1. Nominations of acts of influence or 2. Factor analysis of self-reports and observer reports of previously nominated acts 11 tactics 1. Charm (sweet/nice) 2. Coercion 3. Silent treatment 4. Reason 5. Regression (whine) 6. Self-abasement (act submissive) 7. Force a commitment 8. Hit/be aggressive 9. Pleasure induction 10. Social comparison 11. Monetary reward Personality predictors of tactics of manipulation Dominance/extraversion – use coercion, responsibility invocation Low dominance – self-abasement, aggressive tactics Agreeable – pleasure induction, reason Disagreeable – coercion, silent treatment Conscientiousness – reason Emotionally unstable – aggressive, coercion, monetary reward, regression Personality chapter 16: Sex, gender, personality Sex differences – average differences between women and men in personality behaviour Gender – social interpretations of what it means to be a man or a woman - changes over time Gender stereotypes – beliefs about how men and women differ or are supposed to differ The science and politics of studying sex and gender History of sex differences: Psychology of sex differences: - women are slightly better at verbal ability - men slightly better in mathematical and spatial ability Personality: Men are more aggressive than woman Effect size – how large a particular difference is, how strong a particular correlation is in an experiment or study Calculation of effect size: Sex differences D – Difference in standard deviation ((-).20 – small (-) .50 – medium (-) 0.80 – medium) d of .50 – average difference between groups is half of a standard deviation D of 1.00 – full standard deviation Minimalists vs. Maximalists Minimalists – those who describe sex differences as small and inconsequential Maximalist – magnitude of sex differences is comparable to the magnitude of other effects in psychology, should not be trivialized Sex differences in Personality Temperament in children: Inhibitory control – ability to control inappropriate responses or behaviour - largest sex difference, d = - 0.41 (moderate) - overall better ability of girls to regulate or allocate their attention and supress social undesirable behaviour Perceptual sensitivity – ability to detect subtle stimuli from the environment - d = - 0.38 - girls on average appear to be more sensitive to subtle and low-intensity signals from external world Surgency – a cluster including approach behaviour, high activity and impulsivity - d = 0.33 - boys tend to get into more disciplinary difficulties in school in early years Boys are more physically aggressive than girls (age 13) d = 0.6 Negative affectivity – includes components such as anger, difficulty, amount of distress and sadness - no difference in girls and boys Five factor model: Extraversion: - gregariousness – women are slightly higher than men - activity – men score slightly higher - small difference in extraversion in gender across 50 cultures (d = 0.15) - assertiveness – men score moderately higher than women (d = 0.5) Agreeableness: - 5 cultures, medium gender difference - d = - 0.32 (women slightly higher) Trust – proclivity to cooperate with others, giving others the benefit of the doubt, seeing people as generally good Tender-mindedness – nurturing proclivity – having empathy for others and being sympathetic for the downtrodden - d = -0.97, women subs
More Less
Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document
Subscribers Only

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.