This is a summary for the first-year psychology subject 'Psychology of Personality'. I used these notes for the exam and passed with a 7. Good luck! :)
● Personality traits imply consistency and stability → people have a set of basic trait
dimensions that persist over time and across situations
● Most widely used system: The Big 5 / the Five Factor Model
○ OCEAN: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
neuroticism
● Criticism → people don’t act consistently across situations because people are
influenced a lot by situations
● Important feature of personality traits → they reflect continuous distributions rather
than distinct personality types
○ Introverts vs. extraverts → not really two distinct types of people, but people
who score relatively low or relatively high along a continuous distribution
● There are 3 criteria that characterize personality traits
○ 1: consistency
■ individuals must be somewhat consistent in their personality across
different situations (example: if someone is very talkative at home,
they also tend to be talkative at work)
○ 2: stability
■ individuals with a certain trait are somewhat stable over time in their
behaviors (example: if someone is very talkative at age 30, they also
tend to be talkative at age 40)
○ 3: individual differences
■ for example, people differ in how frequently they talk and how active
they are → that’s why personality traits like talkativeness and activity
level exist
● Allport & Odbert (1936) → the lexical hypothesis
○ All important personality characteristics should be reflected in the language
we use to describe others
, ○ Allport & Odbert went through the dictionary and started combining words to
describe certain personality traits (for example: friendly was combined with
sociable because they go together in personality traits)
● Walter Mischel: Personality and Assessment (1968)
○ Mischel suggested that personality actually isn’t that consistent
○ Debate after Mischel published his book → the person-situation debate
■ The power of personality vs. the power of situational factors
○ Mischel thought that psychologists should focus on people’s distinctive
reactions to specific situations
○ Research shows that on average, the effect of the situation is about as large as
the effect of someone’s personality traits
Module 2
Chapter 2: Personality Assessment
What makes a good assessment?
● Validity: How well the measure captures the trait (and not something else)
○ Construct validity → does it fit the theory?
■ Example of low construct validity → no good theoretical foundation +
a heavy focus on a “dominant trait” and no information on other traits
○ Face validity → does it look like it’s measuring what it should to participants?
○ Predictive validity → does it predict associated behaviors / life outcomes?
■ Behaviors: helps other people, is always on time, keeps promises, etc
■ Life outcomes: job performance, income, relationship satisfaction, etc
■ Example of low predictive validity: personality types are weak at
predicting relevant outcomes
○ Convergent validity → does it correlate with other assessments of the trait?
○ Discriminant validity → does it not correlate with other assessments of
different traits?
● Reliability: How precise the measure is in measuring the trait
○ Test-retest reliability → Do I get the same score if I use the measure again in
a week?
, ■ Example of low test-retest reliability: your personality type can easily
change across measurement occasions
○ Internal consistency → Do items of the same trait correlate with each other?
○ Inter-rater reliability → Do multiple interviewers administering the same
measure arrive at the same conclusion?
Other relevant criteria
● Generalizability/Fairness: Can the measure be applied to different genders, ages,
languages, cultures, educational levels? Is the test fair or does it discriminate against
certain groups?
● Scaling/norms/standardization: Does the test have good comparison samples and
standardized scores to compare test takers?
● Fakeability: Is the test safe against the possibility to “fake” better scores?
● Efficiency: Is the test cheap and fast to administer?
● Useability: Is the physical/cognitive/mental burden on participants reasonably low?
Different theoretical models have generated strategies for measuring characteristics:
● Humanistically oriented theories argue that people have clear, well-defined goals and
actively strive to achieve those → it would make sense to directly ask them about
themselves and their goals
● Psychodynamically oriented theories propose that people lack insight into their
feelings and motives → their behavior is influenced by processes that operate outside
of their awareness → people are unaware of these processes, so it wouldn’t make
sense to ask them
Objective Tests
● Objective tests involve giving people a standard set of questions with a limited set of
response options (disagree, neutral, agree, etc)
● The term ‘objective’ refers to the method used to score responses, not the responses
themselves
○ The responses themselves might be highly subjective and can be influenced by
a number of different rating biases
, Self-report measures
● Advantages
○ The biggest source of information is the person filling out the survey about
themselves (because who knows more about you than you yourself? → you
have direct access to your feelings, thoughts, motives)
○ Asking people to describe themselves is the simplest and most cost-effective
approach to assessing personality
○ Self-report personality tests have high validity → example: self-ratings of
conscientiousness are significant predictors of both overall academic
performance and job performance
● Disadvantages
○ Participants might present themselves in a socially desirable way → especially
when test scores are used for a job application, for example
○ Personality ratings reflect a self-enhancement bias → people are motivated to
downplay their less desirable characteristics and instead focus more on
positive characteristics
○ The reference group effect → when we base our self perceptions on how we
compare to others in our sociocultural reference group (example: if you work
harder than most of your friends you think you score high on
conscientiousness but that doesn’t mean it’s actually the case)
○ Acquiescence: agreeing to statements in general → can be addressed by using
reverse coded items
○ Extreme response style or middle response style
Situational Judgment Test
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper avavanreisen. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
