drcb

  • drcb commented on the page, on the site Personality Psychology (740) 2 months ago

    I found a paper (Mudrack, 1989) showing decreases in Machiavellianism over the lifespan, as we suspected.

    Mach scores appeared to decline with age; respondents aged 38 yr. and older had significantly lower scores than did the two younger groups of respondents (17 yr. to 21 yr., and 22 yr. to 24 yr.).

  • drcb commented on the page, on the site Personality Psychology (740) 2 months ago

    “failed to provide a clear rationale for why the HEXACO model might be better ”

    I got the sense their rationale was – because it hasn’t been done before – which isn’t a strong case.

  • drcb commented on the page, on the site Personality Psychology (740) 2 months ago

    “whether this was enough to quantitatively measure the behavior”

    Right, especially given the potential for social desirability here.

    • I agree that the methodology of Study 1 seemed somewhat ambiguous. I’m not sure how the study design effectively manipulated and effectively measured “investment“. Additionally the results suggest that intellectual curiosity does not benefit learning in situations that appear not to offer opportunities for intellectual engagement – it was unclear to me how the design of study one manipulated opportunities for intellectual engagement in a way where investment could be observed. I feel that the constructs of the study are too broad, which was a result of the broad operational definitions of the constrict “investment”.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      I double-checked into the subfacets of O.

      According to the Costa and McCrae model (1992), the six sub-factors of Openness are Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas and Values).

      BUT features of Openness are aesthetic sensitivity, awareness of one’s emotions, vivid imagination, preference for novelty and variety and INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY (Costa & McCrae, 1992; McCrae, 1993; McCrae & Costa, 1997).

      The two are clearly related, but intellectual curiosity is not technically a subfacet of O.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      There was also cognitive ability’s effects in knowledge attainment.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      C is normally not associated with intelligence, but perhaps it would be a factor in a study of learning.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      I think you meant this, but to clarify, N would likely inhibit learning.

    • I agree that the use of psychology students as the study population is definitely a limitation. It would be interesting to assess this dark triad and relational aggression across majors and potentially across the lifespan.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      “whether this was enough to quantitatively measure the behavior”

      Right, especially given the potential for social desirability here.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      “failed to provide a clear rationale for why the HEXACO model might be better ”

      I got the sense their rationale was – because it hasn’t been done before – which isn’t a strong case.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      I found a paper (Mudrack, 1989) showing decreases in Machiavellianism over the lifespan, as we suspected.

      Mach scores appeared to decline with age; respondents aged 38 yr. and older had significantly lower scores than did the two younger groups of respondents (17 yr. to 21 yr., and 22 yr. to 24 yr.).

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      I like your vignettes idea for validation purposes.

    • drcb replied 2 months ago

      “personality disorders stem from a deep-seated insecurity or low self-esteem that often is compensated for by some of the grandiose behaviors”

      Similarly, there’s some data showing a heightened rate of narcissism (likely vulnerable) in prison populations. The idea being that these convicts’ underlying sense of self is fragile, and they lashed out.

  • I agree there could be a better term – like your idea of behavior patterns or dispositions, as mentioned in class.

  • Human personality is 50% heritable. The other 50% necessarily comes from environmental factors (like “training” and etc.,)

  • “My dog is very friendly, but this friendliness can also mean getting treats and extra playing time.”

    Social interaction is rewarding to an extraverted human, and they are similarly reinforced by it.

  • “how would it be reasonable for people to make personality judgments in dogs as “accurately as in humans” when it is not even possible to accurately assess the Big Five personality traits of another human being (such as neuroticism as we have seen in past articles)?”

    Good point, given our past articles!

  • This point came up in class, and I think it’s important to reflect that this happens in humans too (“training”), but does that make those characteristics any less personality? For example, if a boy’s mom “trains” him to be very neat and reliable, does his conscientious style not count as personality? I would say that regardless of how we arrive at…[Read more]

  • Assessing older and younger people would have also been useful since there are normative changes in attachment over the lifespan (avoidance up, anxiety down). So perhaps avoidance becomes less damaging to relationships, even in more collectivist cultures, with age.

  • I agree that confirming participants’ personal individualism/collectivism would have been worthwhile.

  • Here is the cultural research by which they categorized the three cultures. As this site states, “there can be quite a bit of within-country variation; these maps should be seen as rough ‘climate maps’ of culture.” Hofstede’s research is considered the gold standard of these cultural dimensions.…[Read more]

    • I agree that the study did not seem to actually measure or define any “personality” constructs for dogs. I believe this is an extension of my earlier point that humans do not have the perception or empathetic understanding of dog behaviors and emotions to accurately operationally define traits for these animals.

    • This point came up in class, and I think it’s important to reflect that this happens in humans too (“training”), but does that make those characteristics any less personality? For example, if a boy’s mom “trains” him to be very neat and reliable, does his conscientious style not count as personality? I would say that regardless of how we arrive at the characteristic, if it exists in us and we consistently show it, it is personality.

    • “how would it be reasonable for people to make personality judgments in dogs as “accurately as in humans” when it is not even possible to accurately assess the Big Five personality traits of another human being (such as neuroticism as we have seen in past articles)?”

      Good point, given our past articles!

    • “My dog is very friendly, but this friendliness can also mean getting treats and extra playing time.”

      Social interaction is rewarding to an extraverted human, and they are similarly reinforced by it.

    • Human personality is 50% heritable. The other 50% necessarily comes from environmental factors (like “training” and etc.,)

    • I agree there could be a better term – like your idea of behavior patterns or dispositions, as mentioned in class.

    • This study implies that an incongruence in internalized cultural identities leads to psychological discomfort, which impacts interpersonal relationships. The researchers posit that an “avoidant” attachment style will be associated with interpersonal relation conflict and dissatisfaction in collectivist cultural contexts.However, the researchers go on to state that East Asian cultures (which they have collapsed under a “collectivist” category) emphasize loyalty and commitment over romantic love. Already, this implication seems to be a contradiction; if an “avoidant” attachment style encourages emotional distance and is to be associated with interpersonal conflicts in collectivist cultures. Essentially, it seems that is study is implying that greater acculturation to a host culture is associated with better psychological outcomes.

      The authors seem to conflate “Western” and “Eastern” identities with “individualistic” and “collectivistic” cultures, respectively. This is particularly interesting, because the authors have sampled from Hong Kong, which is a more industrialized and “Western” region of China. Although Mexico is geographically located in the West; it is clearly an example of scientific othering, that Mexicans are categorized as being of similar cultural categories as people from Hong Kong. This gross oversight in categorizing the samples proves to call into the question the validity and reliability of this study’s findings. Considering these implications, I wonder if the researchers considered that the relationship attachments styles they are observing as constructs, have not been validated to apply to non-Western cultures. The operational definitions of these constructs are highly subjective and the findings of the study do not seem to support the hypothesis.

      • Here is the cultural research by which they categorized the three cultures. As this site states, “there can be quite a bit of within-country variation; these maps should be seen as rough ‘climate maps’ of culture.” Hofstede’s research is considered the gold standard of these cultural dimensions.

        The 6D model of national culture

    • I agree that it seems that the researchers used a very reductionist way of interpreting cultures. I think by simply dividing these cultures into western versus non-western cultures challenges the validity and reliability of these outcomes. It is important and critical to examine the effects of acculturation and immigration when considering any American population in terms of culture. The same goes for countries with large westernized populations as a result of imperialism and instability. Particularly when evaluating countries part of the global south, such as Mexico. Westernization and industrialization is a large confounding variable. And the impact of westernization can influence interpersonal relationships.

    • I agree that confirming participants’ personal individualism/collectivism would have been worthwhile.

    • Assessing older and younger people would have also been useful since there are normative changes in attachment over the lifespan (avoidance up, anxiety down). So perhaps avoidance becomes less damaging to relationships, even in more collectivist cultures, with age.

  • Actually, the other-self agreement that the authors looked at is a common way of validating accuracy of reports.

  • The maturity principle means having the traits that make one better able to handle adult “life” stuff, like work, close relationships, and kids. These traits (lower N, and higher A/C) are functional because they help one function well as an adult in society.

    • The maturity principle means having the traits that make one better able to handle adult “life” stuff, like work, close relationships, and kids. These traits (lower N, and higher A/C) are functional because they help one function well as an adult in society.

    • Actually, the other-self agreement that the authors looked at is a common way of validating accuracy of reports.

  • Causes of aggression are thought to range from biology (low serotonin, high testosterone) to media effects (habituation effects), to poor parental treatment and broader social environment. As well as momentary causes (high temperatures). So many different causes!

  • The interaction between trait aggressiveness and situations would probably hold for older adults as well, since there is variability in TA at all ages. Although 15 to 35 tends to be the peak of aggression, aggressive behaviors persist into old age.

    Liu J, Lewis G, Evans L. Understanding aggressive behaviour across the lifespan. Journal of…[Read more]

  • Load More