Research Theory, Design, & Methods

/in /by

Discussion: Philosophy of Science

How does the lens from which you view the world shape your approach to research inquiry? Why is it important as a scholar-practitioner engaged in research to acknowledge your worldview?

Reflect on how your assumptions about the acquisition of truth and the nature of the world influence your approach to the research process.

Identify an area of interest for a possible research topic. As you read about the different philosophical orientations in this week’s readings, consider if one of these orientations most closely aligns with your worldview and a particular approach to research.

 

Post a brief description of your topic of research interest. Next, state the philosophical orientation that reflects your worldview and explain the epistemological and ontological assumptions of this orientation. Then, explain how these assumptions lend themselves to one or more research approaches.

Be sure to support your Main Issue Post and Response Post with reference to the week’s Learning Resources and other scholarly evidence in APA Style.

 

  • Describe topic of personal research interest – Racism
  • Explain epistemological and ontological assumptions of philosophical orientations
  • Explain relationship between epistemological and ontological assumptions and research approaches
  • Apply APA Style to writing

Babbie, E. (2017). Basics of social research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

  • Chapter 1, “Human Inquiry and Science”

 

Burkholder, G. J., Cox, K. A., Crawford, L. M., & Hitchcock, J. H.  (Eds.). (2020). Research designs and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Chapter 1, “Introduction to Research”
  • Chapter 2, “Philosophical Foundations and the Role of Theory in Research”

Research Interest topic “Racism”

Introduction to Research Gary J. Burkholder

Introduction and Overview In the 19th century, research became an integral part of the university ethos. In the United States specifically, the role of the university assumed a pragmatic function as “American reformers further transformed higher education by stressing the relationship between the university and society through the concept of service and direct links with industry and agriculture” (Altbach, 2011, p. 17). In the United States, this more pragmatic approach was reflected in the requirement that education be more directly connected with the needs of society, such as by ensuring that graduates are well situated to join the workforce. Even today, there is an apparent worldwide shift in focus to employment and employability training, which has opened new paths to professional doctorate degrees oriented toward scholar-practitioners who value the application of theory and research to practical problems. Science plays a significant role in generating new knowledge that can be used by scholar-practitioners to address practical problems. Aristotle was one of the first who formalized an approach to knowledge generation involving a process of inquiry and analysis; general principles can be formulated from what is observed (induction) and, from these general principles, hypotheses for testing can be derived (deduction). The results of tests of hypotheses can then be used to inform validity of theory. The cycle of induction and deduction is what is responsible for the creation of new knowledge (Gauch, 2003). In the 18th and 19th centuries, rationalism, defined as the belief that knowledge can be created through internal reflection and logic, was superseded by empiricism, the belief that what is known is that which is discoverable by the senses and ultimately measurable. It is empiricism that dominates contemporary scientific research. The scientific method has led to the discoveries that have revolutionized technology and the ways we use it, our understanding of the nature of the universe, and the eradication of diseases. These discoveries are based on what can be directly seen in the microscope and the telescope and what can be measured and strictly controlled. Those discoveries came from the natural sciences, such as chemistry and biology, colloquially referenced as the hard sciences. In the social or soft sciences, applying typical scientific standards is more challenging. For example, people behave in expected and unexpected ways that may change in different contexts and times. Thus, it is difficult to isolate one factor that is suspected to cause a certain kind of behavior and measure its impact. This variation in behavior creates a challenge for explanation and prediction. Scientists try to isolate behavior and devise research studies to understand the effects of that behavior; the results are then interpreted and reviewed by the wider community of scientists and the public. Despite measures to isolate variables and validate survey instruments and assessments, thus bringing a measure of objectivity to the process of discovery, interpreting human behavior is ultimately subjective. Such interpretation raises questions about what we can truly know and understand about behavior. Therefore, it is not surprising that people have varying levels of confidence in the social scientific enterprise as well as its evidence-based explanations. Funk and Rainie (2015) compared the beliefs of scientists from the American Association for the Advancement of Science with those from a random sample of the American public and found some encouraging results: Unsurprisingly, 79% of the adults reported that science has made life easier for most people, and 71% felt that investments in science have paid off in the long run. However, other findings provide a more nuanced examination of attitudes toward science. For example, 88% of scientists believed that it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, whereas only 37% of the adults surveyed believed they are safe. The same, but smaller, differences were found with evolution: Overall, 98% of scientists versus 65% of adults believed that humans have evolved over time. With vaccines, 86% of scientists versus 68% of adults believed that vaccination of children should be required. With climate change, 87% of scientists versus 50% of the public believed it was due to human activity. Compare this with the finding that the public believes that only 57% of scientists agree that climate change has been caused by humans. The differences reflected here are startling and suggest a public misperception about the scientific enterprise. Additionally, Pew Center researchers found that perceptions of science and its contribution to society have decreased among scientists and the American public, both down by about 11 points (Funk & Rainie, 2015). It is crucial for new social science researchers to be well grounded in the science that underlies their specific disciplines as well as to understand the strengths and limitations of scientific research. Due to the changing social and political contexts in which social scientists operate, it is important to understand the foundations and language of research as well as its methods. With this understanding, you can be prepared to engage in ethically and socially responsible research and enter confidently and knowledgably into the dialogues that characterize scholarship in the disciplines and in debates engaged in by the larger public. The purpose of this first chapter is to provide an overview of essential terminology of research for scholar-practitioners. The chapter begins with an introduction to research approaches (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods) as well as distinctions among research approach, design, and methodology. Each of these will be carefully defined to ensure that there is no confusion during the reading of this book. Finally, the chapter ends with an overview of a description of the key phases of research, the components of which are described in various chapters throughout the book. Introduction to Foundational Principles of Research Science is a social endeavor in which scientists and practitioners representing multiple disciplines conduct research that supports and refutes theories (Bourdieu, 1991; Kuhn, 2012). The range of scientific disciplines represent varying perspectives on reality and differences in interpretation of which problems are important. Thus, it is not surprising to learn that each discipline has language and practices specific to its own unique perspectives. Methods that guide research in education, for example, may be different from those that guide research in public health; experimental designs may be a more important standard in some disciplines than others. Thus, not all scientists necessarily adopt the same terminology or ways of conducting research. Scientific Method When people think of the scientific method, it usually brings back memories of the high school or college chemistry lab. The researcher measures some chemical, introduces it to the test tube, carefully controls all environmental variables, performs the experiment, and interprets the results. In the social sciences, the research settings are often not laboratories, but rather real-world settings involving individuals and groups. Several researchers have challenged the conventional definition of scientific method (e.g., Bauer, 1992; Windschitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2008) precisely because specific methods, methodologies, and designs have evolved within the scientific disciplines. Each discipline trains and orients researchers to how questions are asked, theory is approached, and data are collected and analyzed that may be specific to that discipline (Bauer, 1992). For example, Windschitl et al. (2008) proposed an alternative to the traditional scientific method, model-based inquiry, in which scientific inquiry is expanded to incorporate the social sciences methods that include testing questions using discipline-specific ways of collecting and analyzing data and expanding the role of science to be evolutionary rather than assuming that any theory or model is the end goal. So what is it that makes the scientific method (or model-based inquiry) “scientific”? Whenever we describe the scientific process in social science research, the following are the principles we have in mind. The scientific method requires systematic observation. Scientists depend on careful, objective, and reliable observation to ensure data are as free from error as possible. This is true whether the data are numeric data, as might be collected in a survey, or textual data, as might be collected in interviews. The scientific method involves theory development and subsequent testing of emerging theories. The goal of science is to generate theory that can then be tested from hypotheses derived from the theory (deduction) or to examine repeated occurrences of events from which a testable theory can be derived (induction). Abduction is a process of finding the simplest

Artical Critique

/in /by

Kelley King Heyworth, “Vaccines: The Reality Behind the Debate,” Parents, May 2010. Reprinted by permission.

“We have to move forward and be willing to accept what science tells us: Vaccines do not cause autism.”

In the following viewpoint, Kelley King Heyworth reports that the medical community is overwhelmingly supportive of childhood vaccinations. Heyworth believes that despite a growing movement that insists on a causal connection between vaccinations and autism, evidence refutes this claim. As one doctor explains in Heyworth’s viewpoint, there is more likely a coincidental link between immunization schedules and diagnoses of autism because the disease tends to arise when children are young—around the same ages that they are receiving vaccinations. Heyworth warns that refusing vaccination for fear of autism endangers the unvaccinated child and the whole community because formerly controlled diseases such as measles and whooping cough have reemerged in unvaccinated populations. Kelley King Heyworth is a writer who has written for Parents and Sports Illustrated magazines. She is married to a medical researcher.

As you read, consider the following questions:

1. As Heyworth writes, what mercury-containing preservative in vaccines did Andrew Wakefield argue might push infants’ mercury exposure beyond safe limits?

2. According to the author, what happened to Wakefield’s notorious publication in February 2010?

3. As Heyworth reports, why did the drug manufacturer Merck recall certain lots of the Hib vaccine distributed in 2007?

As Summer Estall approached her first birthday, her mom, Lisa, had more on her mind than party plans. Summer was about to receive not only cake, and presents, but also—surprise!—her fourth round of shots in ten months. “Her last vaccinations had been tough,” says Estall, of Grand Forks, North Dakota. “She was her usual happy self after being examined by the doctor, but then we were called into a room where two nurses were both holding long needles. They told me to lay Summer on the table, pull her pants down, and pin down her arms. Of course, she started to scream, and it felt like I was preparing her for torture. By the time the nurses got the Band-Aids on, Summer seemed to be okay—but I was a wreck.”

However, it wasn’t just the painful pricks that worried Estall about her daughter’s 12-month shots. “Everywhere I go, someone’s talking about the danger of vaccines,” she says. “There are moms posting about their kids’ side effects on just about every online parenting forum. The other day I had coffee with two friends, and one of them said she wasn’t vaccinating her kids. I can’t help but wonder: Should I really be injecting a healthy child with these things?”

Medical Community Supports Vaccination

The answer from the vast majority of medical experts is a resounding “yes.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend that healthy children get vaccinated against 14 diseases by age 2 (with boosters later for some), along with an annual inoculation against the flu. In fact, the government supports vaccines so strongly that any uninsured child can walk into a clinic and get his or her shots for free. “Immunizations are simply one of the greatest public-health achievements,” says Mary Glodé, M.D., professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado in Denver.

And yet, despite doctors’ reassurances and mounting evidence that underscores the safety and value of vaccination, many educated, dedicated parents are still wary of vaccines—or passionately opposed to them. Although the national immunization rate has remained stable over the past decade (76 percent of children aged 19 to 35 months were up-to-date on all of their shots in 2008), that’s still short of the government’s goal of 80 percent. In some pockets of the country, a rising number of parents are delaying shots for their kids or skipping certain ones altogether, citing religious or philosophical exemptions from state laws that require kids to be vaccinated in order to attend school. As a result, there have been recent outbreaks of serious diseases that vaccines had virtually wiped out in the U.S., including measles, mumps, pertussis (whooping cough), and haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), which was once the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in kids under 5.

Infectious-disease specialists say these cases are due to a breakdown of what’s known as “herd immunity.” In order for a community to be fully protected against a disease, 80 to 90 percent of its population needs to have been vaccinated, says pediatrician Lance Rodewald, M.D., director of the Immunization Services Division of the CDC. Whenever coverage drops significantly below that level, a school, a church, or a neighborhood becomes susceptible to the disease. Babies who aren’t old enough to get the shot yet are at the greatest risk of becoming sick.

Most of the recent measles outbreaks have been traced to individuals who visited a country where vaccine-preventable diseases still flourish. “The fact is, all of these diseases still exist—some circulate in this country and others are only a plane ride away.” says Dr. Rodewald. “They could easily become widespread again if more people refuse vaccines.”

Refuting Autism-Vaccination Link

Ask parents what scares them most about the shots, and you’ll likely get one answer: autism. Many people believe that the increased number of vaccines—children now get twice as many as they did in 1980 and can receive up to 20 injections by their first birthday—are to blame for the rise in kids with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The idea first made headlines in 1998, when Andrew Wakefield, M.D., a British gastroenterologist, published a study of 12 children in The Lancet that linked the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) combination vaccine with intestinal problems that he believed led to autism. The following year, the AAP issued a warning about thimerosal, the mercury-containing preservative that was found in most vaccines. Though it didn’t mention autism specifically, it suggested that the use of vaccines with thimerosal could theoretically push an infant’s total exposure of mercury, a neurotoxin, above safe limits, and it recommended that the preservative be removed from shots. The vaccine-autism hypothesis was solidly in the mainstream by the time actress Jenny McCarthy went public with her belief that vaccines caused her son’s autism, describing in heartbreaking detail how “the soul left his eyes” on a 2007 segment of the The Oprah Show. “It was enough to scare any mother,” says Eileen Pike, of West Palm Beach, Florida, who has chosen to delay certain vaccines for her son, now 23 months.

However, at least seven large studies in major medical journals have now found no association between the MMR vaccine and ASD—and this February [2010], The Lancet officially retracted Dr. Wakefield’s original paper. (Revelations that he had failed to disclose connections to lawyers involved in vaccine litigation also emerged.) In March, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Office of Special Masters, a group of judges appointed to handle cases of families who believe immunizations were responsible for their child’s autism, ruled that thimerosal in vaccines does not increase the risk of the disorder. (In 2008, a federal judge did award compensation to the family of Hannah Poling, a child with mitochondrial disorder, a rare condition that can show symptoms of autism, which she was diagnosed with shortly after receiving five vaccines.) Several demographic analyses have also found that autism rates continued to rise even after thimerosal was removed from all vaccines except some flu shots.

So why are there so many stories of children developing autism shortly after immunizations—not just in the media, but also in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the federally cosponsored program that collects reports of suspected vaccine-related injury or illness? Experts believe that the association is almost certainly coincidental. Children get their first dose of the MMR vaccine at 12 to 15 months, the age at which autism symptoms typically become noticeable, says Paul Offit, M.D., director of the vaccine education center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the author of Autism’s False Profits: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. “It’s the same reason why there are reports of SIDS [sudden infant death syndrome] deaths after DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) immunizations,” says Dr. Offit. “Infants start the DTaP vaccine between 2 and 6 months, which is the time they’re also most likely to die from SIDS.” In fact, some autism activists now believe that we should’t even do more studies about a possible vaccine connection because they take attention and money away from important research that is investigating other potential causes of the disorder. “We have to move forward and be willing to accept what science tells us: Vaccines do not cause autism,” says Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation and the mother of a child with autism.

Weighing the Risks

That doesn’t mean that vaccines aren’t capable of causing adverse effects beyond a sore arm and a slight fever. In 1986, the government created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to reimburse families whose children had serious side effects, and it has awarded nearly $2 billion on 2,398 claims. But most doctors say that the odds of experiencing a vaccine-related injury are greatly outweighed by the dangers of catching a vaccine-preventable disease. The measles vaccine, for instance, can cause a temporary reduction in platelets (which control bleeding after an injury) in 1 in 30,000 children, but 1 in 2,000 will die if they get measles itself. The DTaP vaccine can cause seizures or a temporary “shocklike” state in 1 in 14,000 people, and acute encephalitis (brain swelling) in 11 in 1 million. But the diseases it prevents—diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis—are fatal in 1 in 20 cases, 1 in 10 cases, and 1 in 1,500 cases, respectively.

If the FDA determines that a vaccine poses a real risk to more than a tiny percentage of children, the agency won’t let it be used. “Before a new vaccine is approved, it goes through a prospective, placebo-controlled trial involving tens of thousands of children,” says Dr. Offit, who was a cocreator of RotaTeq, one of two current rotavirus gastroenteritis vaccines. Once a vaccine is in use, side-effect reports are analyzed by the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a program that collects patient information from managed-care organizations. In 2001, government scientists concluded that Wyeth’s Rotashield, an earlier vaccine against rotavirus, could cause one extra case of bowel obstruction for every 10,000 babies who were immunized each year, and they halted its use in the U.S. Sometimes vaccines are pulled from shelves as a precaution: In 2007, certain lots of Merck’s Hib vaccine were recalled after the company found bacteria on manufacturing equipment, even though the vaccines themselves tested negative for contamination.

Finding a Middle Ground

Not all parents are reassured by facts like these. After all, most have met a child with autism; probably few have seen one who has crippling polio. Moms want to eliminate even a remote chance that their child will experience side effects from a vaccine, and they may fear that multiple injections could overwhelm the immune system. In fact, a national survey of parents published in Pediatrics [in April 2010] (although conducted in 2009, before the retraction of Dr. Wakefield’s study), found that 54 percent of parents were concerned about the serious adverse effects of vaccines, and 25 percent believed that some vaccines cause autism.

Enter Robert Sears, M.D., author of The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child. Published in 2007, it includes a different immunization schedule that delays or spaces out several vaccines so that children never receive more than two shots at a time—and it has become a bible for many parents. Dr. Sears says that his main purpose is to make sure that children whose parents would otherwise opt out of immunizations get at least some protection. His top concern is aluminum, an ingredient that is added to half of all vaccines to boost their effectiveness. “Most experts believe the amount of aluminum contained in vaccines is safe, but studies in human infants haven’t proven that,” says Dr. Sears. “Spacing them out seems like the best way to limit overexposure.”

Research has shown, however, that kids are exposed to more aluminum in breast milk or infant formula than through vaccines. And in 2004, The Cochrane Collaboration, an international not-for-profit health-care research organization, analyzed five studies on the effects of aluminum-containing vaccines and concluded that children who receive them are no more likely to experience any serious or long-lasting health problems than those who don’t. For parents who are concerned about overburdening their child’s immune system with multiple vaccines, Dr. Offit points out that young children are exposed to more antigens—bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other substances that can stimulate disease-fighting antibodies—in a single day of eating, playing and breathing than they are through immunizations.

While popular with some parents, Dr. Sears’s alternative schedule has been criticized by the AAP. “Vaccines protect babies’ immature immune system,” says Margaret Fisher, M.D., a pediatrician at The Children’s Hospital at Monmouth Medical Center, in New Jersey, and chair of the AAP section on infectious diseases. “When you delay vaccines, you leave children unprotected against dangerous diseases at the time when they’re most vulnerable.” In 2008, for example, three of the five kids in Minnesota who developed invasive Hib disease (one of whom died) had parents who’d chosen to postpone vaccination. “People always ask me, ‘Which shot can I skip?'” says Dr. Fisher. “Honestly, I can’t think of one I’d wait on.”

Protecting Children and Community

At the heart of the vaccine debate is the idea that when you immunize your children you don’t just protect them—you help shield your entire community. Since some kids can’t get certain vaccines because they are allergic to ingredients like eggs, or because they have immune-system deficiencies that prevent vaccines from working (such as those with cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy), many people feel that it’s up to healthy children to keep vaccination rates at a level that protects the “herd” as much as possible.

This argument isn’t just pitting parents against parents—it’s also turning parents against their pediatricians. “Parents often have a hard time reasonably assessing the risks involved because they’ve never had any experience with many of the diseases that vaccines prevent,” says Parents advisor Ari Brown, M.D., a pediatrician in Austin, Texas, and author of Baby 411. “But I’ve seen children with serious cases of measles, mumps, and whooping cough, and I have seen a child die from chicken pox. I promise you that these are diseases you don’t want your child to get.”

Although some doctors are refusing to take on patients whose families don’t plan to immunize, it’s important for parents and pediatricians to have respectful conversations. In the end, many doctors say that the strongest statement they can make in favor of vaccinating kids is to point to the family photos on their office walls. “Sometimes the only way that I can get through to nervous parents is by telling them that I don’t do anything different for my own two children,” says Dr. Brown. “Fortunately, most parents do decide to vaccinate.”

That was the case [in 2009] when Lisa Estall overcame her fears and celebrated Summer’s first birthday with a round of immunizations. And it was the case when Alison Singer brought her 12-year-old daughter, Jodie, who has autism, in for an H1N1 shot. “Kids were dying all across the country from this flu. Just because my daughter has autism doesn’t mean she should be denied a potentially lifesaving vaccine,” she says. “On the contrary, I wanted her to be protected.”

 

FURTHER READINGS

Books

· Arthur Allen Vaccine: The Controversial Story of Medicine’s Greatest Lifesaver. New York: Norton, 2007.

· Tony Barnett and Alan Whiteside AIDS in the Twenty-First Century: Disease and Globalization. 2nd ed.; fully revised and updated. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

· John M. Barry The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History. New York: Penguin, 2005.

· David P. Clark Germs, Genes, & Civilization: How Epidemics Shaped Who We Are Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2010.

· Madeline Drexler Emerging Epidemics: The Menace of New Infections. New York: Penguin, 2003.

· Helen Epstein The Invisible Cure: Why We Are Losing the Fight Against AIDS in Africa. New York: Picador, 2007.

· Laurie Garrett Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health. New York: Hyperion, 2001.

· John Iliffe The African AIDS Epidemic: A History. Athens: Ohio University Press, 2006.

· Maryn McKenna Superbug: The Fatal Menace of MRSA. New York: Free Press, 2010.

· Joseph Mercola with Pat Killeen The Great Bird Flu Hoax: The Truth They Don’t Want You to Know About the “Next Big Pandemic.” Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2009.

· Neil Z. Miller Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Santa Fe, NM: New Atlantean, 2008.

· Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey Fineberg The Epidemic That Never Was: Policy-Making and the Swine Flu Scare. New York: Vintage, 1983.

· Gary Null AIDS: A Second Opinion. New York: Seven Stories, 2002.

· Michael B.A. Oldstone Viruses, Plagues, and History: Past, Present, and Future. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

· Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxil The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-Made Epidemic. New York: Thomas Dunne, 2010.

· Abigail A. Salyers and Dixie D. Whitt Revenge of the Microbes: How Bacterial Resistance Is Undermining the Antibiotic Miracle. Washington, DC: ASM, 2005.

· Jessica Snyder Sachs Good Germs, Bad Germs: Health and Survival in a Bacterial World. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.

· Alan Sipress The Fatal Strain: On the Trail of Avian Flu and the Coming Pandemic. New York: Viking, 2009.

· Michael Specter Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. New York: Penguin, 2009.

· Brad Spellberg Rising Plague: The Global Threat from Deadly Bacteria and Our Dwindling Arsenal to Fight Them. New York: Prometheus, 2009.

· Sherri J. Tenpenny Saying No to Vaccines. Middleburg Heights, OH: NMA Media, 2008.

· Barry E. Zimmerman and David J. Zimmerman Killer Germs. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 2003.

Periodicals

· Sharon Begley and Jeneen Interlandi “Anatomy of a Scare,” Newsweek, March 2, 2009.

· Neil Genzlinger “Vaccinations: A Hot Debate Still Burning,” New York Times, April 27, 2010.

· Andrew Grant “Vaccine Phobia Becomes a Public-Health Threat,” Discover, January/February 2010.

· Harriet Hall “Vaccines and Autism,” Skeptic, June 3, 2009.

· Claudia Kalb “Stomping Through a Medical Minefield,” Newsweek, November 3, 2008.

· Deborah Kotz “A Closer Look at Vaccines,” U.S. News & World Report, February 2009.

· Chris Mooney “Vaccination Nation,” Discover, June 2009.

· Alice Park “How Safe Are Vaccines?” Time, June 2, 2008.

· Joel Stein “The Vaccination War,” Time, September 28, 2009.

· Elizabeth Weise “Doctors: Letting Kids ‘Get’ the Flu Is Not a Good Idea,” USA Today, October 21, 2009.

· Keith J. Winstein “Fear of Vaccines Spurs Outbreaks, Study Says,” Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2009.

 

Source Citation:

Kelley King Heyworth. “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Opposing Viewpoints: Epidemics. Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. COLUMBIA SOUTHERN UNIV. 18 July 2012 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&prodId=OVRC&userGroupName=oran95108&tabID=T010&docId=EJ3010133275&type=retrieve&contentSet=GSRC&version=1.0>.

· How to Cite

Comparing the personality theories of Freud, Jung, Rogers, and Maslow.

/in /by

Gateway THEME Personality refers to the consistency we see in personal behavior patterns. Measures of personality reveal individual differences and help predict future behavior.

Da vi

d St

oe ck

le in

/C or

bi s

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Rural Colorado. The car banged over one last, brain-jarring rut and lurched toward the dilapi- dated farmhouse. Annette awaited one of your authors on the porch, hooting and whooping and obviously happy to see an old friend arrive.

If anyone was suited for a move to the “wilds” of Colorado, it was Annette, a strong and resourceful woman. Still, it was hard to imagine a more radical change. After separating from her husband, she had traded a comfortable life in the city for rough times in the high country. Annette was working as a ranch hand and a lumberjack (lumberjill?), trying to make it through some hard winters. She had even recently decked a guy twice her size who was harassing her in a tavern. The changes in Annette’s life were radical, and we worried that she might be entirely different. She was, on the contrary, more her “old self” than ever.

Perhaps you have had a similar experience. After several years of separation, it is always intrigu- ing to see an old friend. At first, you may be struck by how the person has changed. (“Where did you get that haircut!?”) Soon, however, you will probably be delighted to discover that the semi- stranger before you is still the person you once knew. It is exactly this core of consistency that psy- chologists have in mind when they use the term personality.

Without doubt, personality touches our daily lives. Falling in love, choosing friends, getting along with coworkers, voting for a president, or coping with your zaniest relatives all raise ques- tions about personality.

What is personality? How does it differ from character, temperament, or attitudes? Is it possible to measure personality? Can we change our personality? We’ll address these questions and more in this chapter.

Gateway QUESTIONS 12.1 How do psychologists use the term personality? 12.2 Are some personality traits more basic or

important than others? 12.3 How do psychodynamic theories explain

personality? 12.4 What are humanistic theories of personality? 12.5 What do behaviorists and social learning theorists

emphasize in their approach to personality?

12.6 How do heredity and environment affect personality?

12.7 Which personality theory is right? 12.8 How do psychologists measure personality? 12.9 What causes shyness and what can be done

about it?

403

Personality

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Chapter 12404

The Psychology of Personality— Do You Have Personality?

Gateway Question 12.1: How do psychologists use the term personality? “Annette has a very optimistic personality.” “Ramiro’s not hand- some, but he has a great personality.” “My father’s business friends think he’s a nice guy. They should see him at home where his real personality comes out.” “It’s hard to believe Tanya and Nikki are sisters. They have such opposite personalities.”

It’s obvious that we all frequently use the term personality. But if you think that personality means “charm,” “charisma,” or “style,” you have misused the term. Many people also confuse personality with the term character, which implies that a person has been evaluated as possessing positive qualities, not just described (Bryan & Babelay, 2009). If, by saying someone has “personality,” you mean the person is friendly, outgoing, and upstanding, you might be describing what we regard as good character in our culture. But in some cultures, it is deemed good for people to be fierce, warlike, and cruel.

Psychologists regard personality as a person’s unique long-term pattern of thinking, emotions, and behavior (Burger, 2011; Ewen, 2009). In other words, personality refers to the consistency in who you are, have been, and will become. It also refers to the special blend of talents, values, hopes, loves, hates, and habits that makes each of us a unique person. So, everyone in a particular culture has personality, whereas not everyone has character—or at least not good character. (Do you know any good characters?)

Psychologists use a large number of concepts and theories to explain personality. It might be wise, therefore, to start with a few key ideas to help you keep your bearings as you read more about personality.

Traits We use the idea of traits every day to talk about personality. For instance, Daryl is sociable, orderly, and intelligent. His sister Hollie is shy, sensitive, and creative. As we observed in our reunion with Annette, personality traits like these can be quite stable (Rantanen et al., 2007; Engler, 2009). Think about how little your best friends have changed in the last 5 years. It would be strange indeed to feel like you were talking with a different person every time you met a friend or an acquaintance. In general, then, personality traits like these are stable qualities that a person shows in most situations (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2009). As you will see when you read further into this chapter, there is considerable debate about just why traits are stable qualities. But more about that later.

Typically, traits are inferred from behavior. If you see Daryl talk- ing to strangers—first at a supermarket and later at a party—you might deduce that he is “sociable.” Once personality traits are iden- tified, they can be used to predict future behavior. For example, noting that Daryl is outgoing might lead you to predict that he will be sociable at school or at work. In fact, such consistencies can span many years (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005; Harker & Keltner, 2001). Traits even influence our health as well as our marital and occupational success (Roberts et al., 2007). For example, who do you think will be more successful in her chosen career: Jane, who is conscientious, or Sally, who is not (Brown et al., 2011; Chamorro- Premuzic & Furnham, 2003)?

Types Have you ever asked the question, “What type of person is she (or he)?” A personality type refers to people who have several traits in common (Larsen & Buss, 2010). Informally, your own thinking might include categories such as the executive type, the athletic type, the motherly type, the hip-hop type, the techno geek, and so Does this man have personality? Do you?

© R

au l V

eg a/

Co rb

is

Psychologists and employers are especially interested in the personality traits of individuals who hold high-risk, high-stress positions involving public safety, such as police, firefighters, air traffic controllers, and nuclear power plant employees.

Ta tia

na B

el ov

a/ Sh

ut te

rs to

ck

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Personality 405

Character Personal characteristics that have been judged or evaluated; a person’s desirable or undesirable qualities.

Personality A person’s unique and relatively stable patterns of thinking, emotions, and behavior.

Personality trait A stable, enduring quality that a person shows in most situations.

Personality type A style of personality defined by a group of related traits. Introvert A person whose attention is focused inward; a shy, reserved,

self-centered person. Extrovert A person whose attention is directed outward; a bold,

outgoing person. Self-concept A person’s perception of his or her own personality traits.

forth. If you tried to define these informal types, you would prob- ably list a different collection of traits for each one.

How valid is it to speak of personality “types”? Over the years, psychologists have proposed many ways to categorize personalities into types. For example, Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung (yoong) pro- posed that people are either introverts or extroverts. An introvert is a shy, reserved person whose attention is usually focused inward. An extrovert is a bold, outgoing person whose attention is usually directed outward. These terms are so widely used that you may think of yourself and your friends as being one type or the other. However, knowing if someone is extroverted or introverted tells you little about how conscientious she is, or how kind or open to new ideas he is. In short, two categories (or even several) are often inadequate to fully capture differences in personality. That’s why rating people on a list of traits tends to be more informative than classifying them into two or three types (Engler, 2009).

Even though types tend to oversimplify personality, they do have value. Most often, types are a shorthand way of labeling peo- ple who have several key traits in common. For example, in the next chapter we will discuss Type A and Type B personalities. Type A’s are people who have personality traits that increase their chance of suffering a heart attack; Type B’s take a more laid-back approach to life (see • Figure 12.1). Similarly, you will read in Chapter 14 about unhealthy personality types such as the paranoid personality, the dependent personality, and the antisocial personality. Each prob- lem type is defined by a specific collection of traits that are not adaptive.

Self-Concept Self-concepts provide another way of understanding personality. The rough outlines of your self-concept could be revealed by this request: “Please tell us about yourself.” In other words, your self- concept consists of all your ideas, perceptions, stories, and feel- ings about who you are. It is the mental “picture” you have of your own personality (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & Larsen McClarty, 2007).

We creatively build our self-concepts out of daily experiences. Then, we slowly revise them as we have new experiences. Once a stable self-concept exists, it tends to guide what we pay attention to, remember, and think about. Because of this, self-concepts can greatly affect our behavior and personal adjustment—especially when they are inaccurate (Ryckman, 2008). For instance, Alesha is a student who thinks she is stupid, worthless, and a failure, despite getting good grades. With such an inaccurate self-concept, she tends to be depressed regardless of how well she does.

Type A

Ambitious

Competitive

Hostile

Striving

Personality TypeTraits

Agreeable

Cautious

Honest

• Figure 12.1 Personality types are defined by the presence of several specific traits. For example, several possible personality traits are shown in the left column. A person who has a Type A personality typically possesses all or most of the high- lighted traits. Type A persons are especially prone to heart disease (see Chapter 13).

Co py

rig ht

© 2

01 2

W ad

sw or

th , C

en ga

ge L

ea rn

in g,

In c.

Self-concepts can be remarkably consistent. In an interesting study, old people were asked how they had changed over the years. Almost all thought they were essentially the same person they were when they were young (Troll & Skaff, 1997). Ninety-three-year-old Nelson Mandela, for example, has been a highly dignified and influential human rights activist for his entire adult life.

To m

S to

dd ar

t A rc

hi ve

/G et

ty Im

ag es

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Chapter 12406

can they be helped? To answer such questions, psychologists have created a dazzling array of theories. A personality theory is a sys- tem of concepts, assumptions, ideas, and principles proposed to explain personality (• Figure 12.2). In this chapter, we can explore

Self-Esteem and Culture—Hotshot or Team Player?Human Diversity

You and some friends are playing soccer. Your team wins, in part because you make some good plays. After the game, you bask in the glow of having performed well. You don’t want to brag about being a hotshot, but your self-esteem gets a boost from your personal success.

In Japan, Shinobu and some of his friends are playing soccer. His team wins, in part be- cause he makes some good plays. After the game, Shinobu is happy because his team did well. However, Shinobu also dwells on the ways in which he let his team down. He thinks about how he could improve, and he resolves to be a better team player.

These sketches illustrate a basic differ- ence in Eastern and Western psychology. In individualistic cultures such as the United States, self-esteem is based on personal suc- cess and outstanding performance (Lay & Verkuyten, 1999). For us, the path to higher self-esteem lies in self-enhancement. We are pumped up by our successes and tend to downplay our faults and failures (Ross et al., 2005).

Japanese and other Asian cultures place a greater emphasis on collectivism, or interde- pendence among people. For them, self- esteem is based on a secure sense of belonging to social groups. As a result, peo-

ple in Asian cultures are more apt to engage in self-criticism (Ross et al., 2005). By correct- ing personal faults, they add to the well- being of the group (Kitayama, Markus, & Kurokawa, 2000). And, when the group suc- ceeds, individual members feel better about themselves, which raises their self-esteem.

Perhaps self-esteem is still based on suc- cess in both Eastern and Western cultures (Brown et al., 2009). However, it is fascinating that cultures define success in such different ways (Schmitt & Allik, 2005). The North American emphasis on winning is not the only way to feel good about yourself.

ContentedCalm

TouchyMoody

Active Sociable

Q ui

et Pa

ss iv

e

EXTR O

V E RTED

UNSTABLE

IN TR

O V

ER TE

D

Ca ref

ul

Th ou

gh tfu

l

Pe ac

efu l

Co ntr

oll ed

Re lia

ble

Pla cid

Outgoing Talkative

Responsive

EasygoingLively Carefree

Anxious RigidSoberPessimistic

Reserved Unsociable

Re stle

ss

Ag gre

ssi ve

Exc ita

ble

Ch an

gea ble

Im pu

lsiv e

Op tim

isti c

Melancholic Choleric

STABLE

Phlegmatic Sanguine

• Figure 12.2 English psychologist Hans Eysenck (1916–1997) proposed the personality theory that many personality traits are related to whether you are mainly introverted or extroverted and whether you tend to be emotionally stable or unstable (highly emotional). These characteristics, in turn, are related to four basic types of temperament first recognized by the early Greeks. The types are melan- cholic (sad, gloomy), choleric (hot-tempered, irritable), phlegmatic (sluggish, calm), and sanguine (cheerful, hopeful). Adapted from Eysenck, 1981.

Self-Esteem Note that in addition to having a faulty self-concept, Alesha has low self-esteem (a negative self-evaluation). A person with high self-esteem is confident, proud, and self-respecting. One who has low self-esteem is insecure, lacking in confidence, and self-critical. Like Alesha, people with low self-esteem are usually anxious and unhappy. People who have low self-esteem typically also suffer from poor self-knowledge. Their self-concepts are inconsistent, inaccurate, and confused. Problems of this type are explored later in this chapter.

Self-esteem tends to rise when we experience success or praise. It also buffers us against negative experiences (Brown, 2010). A person who is competent and effective and who is loved, admired, and respected by others will almost always have high self-esteem (Baumeister et al., 2003). The reasons for having high self-esteem, however, can vary in different cultures. See “Self-Esteem and Culture” for more information.

What if you “think you’re hot,” but you’re not? Genuine self- esteem is based on an accurate appraisal of your strengths and weaknesses. A positive self-evaluation that is bestowed too easily may not be healthy (Kernis & Lakey, 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001). People who think very highly of themselves (and let others know it) may at first seem confident, but their arrogance quickly turns off other people (Paulhus, 1998).

The Whole Human: Personality Theories As you can already see, it would be easy to get lost without a frame- work for understanding personality. How do our thoughts, actions, and feelings relate to one another? How does personality develop? Why do some people suffer from psychological problems? How

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Personality 407

Self-esteem Regarding oneself as a worthwhile person; a positive evaluation of oneself.

Personality theory A system of concepts, assumptions, ideas, and principles used to understand and explain personality.

Trait theorist A psychologist interested in classifying, analyzing, and interrelating traits to understand personality.

Common traits Personality traits that are shared by most members of a particular culture.

Individual traits Personality traits that define a person’s unique individual qualities.

only a few of the many personality theories. These are the four major perspectives we will consider:

1. Trait theories attempt to learn what traits make up per- sonality and how they relate to actual behavior.

2. Psychodynamic theories focus on the inner workings of per- sonality, especially internal conflicts and struggles.

3. Humanistic theories stress private, subjective experience, and personal growth.

4. Behaviorist and social learning theories place importance on the external environment and on the effects of condi- tioning and learning. Social learning theories attribute differ- ences in personality to socialization, expectations, and mental processes.

With these broad perspectives in mind, let’s take a deeper look at personality.

The Trait Approach—Describe Yourself in 18,000 Words or Less

Gateway Question 12.2: Are some personality traits more basic or important than others?

The trait approach is currently the dominant method for study- ing personality. Trait theorists seek to describe personality with a small number of key traits or factors. Take a moment to check the traits in ■ Table 12.1 that describe your personality. Don’t worry if some of your key traits weren’t in the table. More than 18,000 English words refer to personal characteristics. Are the traits you checked of equal importance? Are some stronger or more basic than others? Do any overlap? For example, if you checked “domi- nant,” did you also check “confident” and “bold”?

Answers to these questions would interest a trait theorist. To better understand personality, trait theorists attempt to analyze, classify, and interrelate traits. In addition, trait theorists often think of traits as biological predispositions, a hereditary readiness of

humans to behave in particular ways (Ashton, 2007). (We have encountered this idea before, in Chapter 3, in which we humans were described as having a biological predisposition to learn lan- guage.) As we have noted, traits are stable dispositions that a per- son shows in most situations (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2009). For example, if you are usually friendly, optimistic, and cau- tious, these qualities are traits of your personality.

What if I am also sometimes shy, pessimistic, or uninhibited? The original three qualities are still traits as long as they are most typical of your behavior. Let’s say our friend Annette approaches most situations with optimism, but tends to expect the worst each time she applies for a job and worries that she won’t get it. If her pessi- mism is limited to this situation or just a few others, it is still accu- rate and useful to describe her as an optimistic person.

Predicting Behavior As we have noted, separating people into broad types, such as “introvert” or “extrovert,” may oversimplify personality. However, introversion/extroversion can also be thought of as a trait. Know- ing how you rate on this single dimension would allow us to pre- dict how you will behave in a variety of settings. How, for example, do you prefer to meet people—face-to-face or through the Inter- net? Researchers have found that students high in the trait of introversion are more likely to prefer the Internet because they find it easier to talk with people online (Koch & Pratarelli, 2004; Rice & Markey, 2009). Other interesting links exist between traits and behavior. See “What’s Your Musical Personality?”

Classifying Traits Are there different types of traits? Yes, psychologist Gordon Allport (1961) identified several kinds. Common traits are characteristics shared by most members of a culture. Common traits tell us how people from a particular nation or culture are similar, or which traits a culture emphasizes. In America, for example, competitive- ness is a fairly common trait. Among the Hopi of northern Ari- zona, however, it is relatively rare.

Of course, common traits don’t tell us much about individuals. Although many people are competitive in American culture, vari- ous people you know may rate high, medium, or low in this trait. Usually we are also interested in individual traits, which describe a person’s unique qualities.

Adjective Checklist

Check the traits you feel are characteristic of your personality. Are some more basic than others?

aggressive organized ambitious clever

confident loyal generous calm

warm bold cautious reliable

sensitive mature talented jealous

sociable honest funny religious

dominant dull accurate nervous

humble uninhibited visionary cheerful

thoughtful serious helpful emotional

orderly anxious conforming good-natured

liberal curious optimistic kind

meek neighborly passionate compulsive

■ TABLE 12.1

Copyright © Cengage Learning 2013

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Chapter 12408

Here’s an analogy to help you separate common traits from individual traits: If you decide to buy a pet dog, you will want to know the general characteristics of the dog’s breed (its common traits). In addition, you will want to know about the “personality” of a specific dog (its individual traits) before you decide to take it home.

Allport also made distinctions between cardinal traits, central traits, and secondary traits. Cardinal traits are so basic that all of a person’s activities can be traced to the trait. For instance, com- passion was an overriding trait of Mother Teresa’s personality. Likewise, Abraham Lincoln’s personality was dominated by the cardinal trait of honesty. According to Allport, few people have cardinal traits.

Central Traits How do central and secondary traits differ from cardinal traits? Cen- tral traits are the basic building blocks of personality. A surpris- ingly small number of central traits can capture the essence of a person. For instance, just six traits would provide a good descrip- tion of Annette’s personality: dominant, sociable, honest, cheerful, intelligent, and optimistic. When college students were asked to describe someone they knew well, they mentioned an average of seven central traits (Allport, 1961).

Secondary traits are more superficial personal qualities, such as food preferences, attitudes, political opinions, musical tastes, and so forth. In Allport’s terms, a personality description might there- fore include the following items:

Name: Jane Doe Age: 22 Cardinal traits: None Central traits: Possessive, autonomous, artistic, dramatic,

self-centered, trusting Secondary traits: Prefers colorful clothes, likes to work alone,

politically liberal, always late

Source Traits How can you tell whether a personality trait is central or secondary? Raymond B. Cattell (1906–1998) tried to answer this question by directly studying the traits of a large number of people. Cattell began by measuring visible features of personality, which he called surface traits. Soon, Cattell noticed that these surface traits often appeared together in groups. In fact, some traits clustered together so often that they seemed to represent a single, more basic trait. Cattell called these deeper characteristics, or dimensions, source traits (or factors) (Cattell, 1965). They are the core of each indi- vidual’s personality.

How do source traits differ from Allport’s central traits? Allport clas- sified traits subjectively, and it’s possible that he was wrong at times. To look for connections among traits, Cattell used factor analysis, a statistical technique used to correlate multiple measurements and identify general underlying factors. For example, he found that imaginative people are almost always inventive, original, curious, cre- ative, innovative, and ingenious. If you are an imaginative person, we automatically know that you have several other traits, too. Thus, imaginative is a source trait. (Source traits are also called factors.)

Cattell (1973) identified 16 source traits. According to him, all 16 are needed to fully describe a personality. Source traits are mea- sured by a test called the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (often referred to as the 16 PF). Like many personality tests, the 16 PF can be used to produce a trait profile, or graph, of a person’s score on each trait. Trait profiles draw a “picture” of individual personalities, which makes it easier to compare them (• Figure 12.3).

The Big Five Noel is outgoing and friendly, conscientious, even-tempered, and curious. His brother Joel is reserved, hostile, irresponsible, tem- peramental, and disinterested in ideas. You will be spending a week in a space capsule with either Noel or Joel. Who would you

What’s Your Musical Personality?Discovering Psychology

Even if you like all kinds of music, you probably prefer some styles to others. Of the styles listed here, which three do you enjoy the most? (Circle your choices.)

blues jazz classical folk rock alternative heavy metal country soundtrack religious pop rap/hip-hop soul/funk electronic/dance

In one study, Peter Rentfrow and Samuel Gosling found that the types of music peo- ple prefer tend to be associated with their personality characteristics (Rentfrow & Gos-

ling, 2003). See if your musical tastes match their findings (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2007):

• People who value aesthetic experiences, have good verbal abilities, and are liberal and tolerant of others tend to like music that is reflective and complex (blues, jazz, classical, and folk music).

• People who are curious about new expe- riences, enjoy taking risks, and are physi- cally active prefer intense, rebellious music (rock, alternative, and heavy metal music).

• People who are cheerful, conventional, extroverted, reliable, helpful, and conser-

vative tend to enjoy upbeat conventional music (country, soundtrack, religious, and pop music).

• People who are talkative, full of energy, forgiving, and physically attractive, and who reject conservative ideals tend to prefer energetic, rhythmic music (rap/ hip-hop, soul/funk, and electronic/dance music).

Unmistakably, personality traits affect our everyday behavior (Rentfrow, Goldberg, & Levitin, 2011).

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Personality 409

Cardinal trait A personality trait so basic that all of a person’s activities relate to it.

Central traits The core traits that characterize an individual personality.

Secondary traits Traits that are inconsistent or relatively superficial.

Surface traits The visible or observable traits of one’s personality.

Source traits (factors) Basic underlying traits, or dimensions, of personality; each source trait is reflected in a number of surface traits.

Factor analysis A statistical technique used to correlate multiple measurements and identify general underlying factors.

Trait profile A graph of the scores obtained on several personality traits.

Five-factor model Proposes that there are five universal dimensions of personality.

choose? If the answer seems obvious, it’s because Noel and Joel were described with the five-factor model, a system that identifies the five most basic dimensions of personality.

Five Key Dimensions The “Big Five” factors listed in • Figure 12.4 attempt to further reduce Cattell’s 16 factors to just five uni- versal dimensions, or source traits (Costa & McCrae, 2006; Noftle & Fleeson, 2010). The Big Five may be the best answer of all to the question, What is the essence of human personality?

If you would like to compare the personalities of two people, try rating them informally on the five dimensions shown in • Figure 12.4. For Factor 1, extroversion, rate how introverted or extroverted each person is. Factor 2, agreeableness, refers to how friendly, nurturant, and caring a person is, as opposed to cold, indif-

ferent, self-centered, or spiteful. A person who is conscientious (Fac- tor 3) is self-disciplined, responsible, and achieving. People low on this factor are irresponsible, careless, and undependable. Factor 4, neuroticism, refers to negative, upsetting emotions. People who are high in neuroticism tend to be anxious, emotionally “sour,” irritable,

Tense

Self-controlled

Self-sufficient

Experimenting

Apprehensive

Shrewd

Imaginative

Suspicious

Sensitive

Bold

Conscientious

Happy-go-lucky

Dominant

Emotionally stable

Abstract thinking

Outgoing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Writers Creative artists

Airline pilots

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Relaxed

Undisciplined

Group-dependent

Conservative

Self-assured

Forthright

Practical

Trusting

Tough-minded

Shy

Expedient

Serious

Submissive

Affected by feelings

Concrete thinking

Reserved

• Figure 12.3 The 16 source traits measured by Cattell’s 16 PF are listed beside the graph. Scores can be plotted as a profile for an individual or a group. The profiles shown here are group averages for airline pilots, creative artists, and writers. Notice the similarity between artists and writers and the difference between these two groups and pilots. Adapted with permission from Cattell, R. B. “Personality Pinned Down,” Psychology Today, July 1973.

Extroversion

Loner Quiet Passive Reserved

Joiner Talkative Active Affectionate

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

Agreeableness

Suspicious Critical Ruthless Irritable

Trusting Lenient Soft-hearted Good-natured

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

Conscientiousness

Negligent Lazy Disorganized Late

Conscientious Hard-working Well-organized Punctual

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

Neuroticism

Calm Even-tempered Comfortable Unemotional

Worried Temperamental Self-conscious Emotional

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

Openness to Experience

Down-to-earth Uncreative Conventional Uncurious

Imaginative Creative Original Curious

Low 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High

• Figure 12.4 The Big Five. According to the five-factor model, basic differences in personality can be “boiled down” to the dimensions shown here. Rate yourself on each factor. The five-factor model answers these essential questions about a person: Is she/he extroverted or introverted? Agreeable or difficult? Conscientious or irrespon- sible? Emotionally stable or unstable? Smart or unintelligent? These questions cover a large measure of what we might want to know about someone’s personality. Trait descriptions adapted from McCrae & Costa, 2001.

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Chapter 12410

and unhappy. Finally, people who rate high on Factor 5, openness to experience, are intelligent and open to new ideas (Ashcraft, 2012).

The beauty of the Big-Five model is that almost any trait you can name will be related to one of the five factors. If you were selecting a college roommate, hiring an employee, or answering a singles ad, you would probably like to know all the personal dimen- sions covered by the Big Five. Now, try rating yourself as you read “Which Personality Are You (and Which Is Best)?”

The Big Five traits have been related to different brain systems and chemicals (Ashton, 2007; Nettle, 2008). They also predict how people will act in various circumstances (Sutin & Costa, 2010). For example, people who score high in conscientiousness tend to perform well at work, do well in school, and rarely have automobile accidents (Arthur & Doverspike, 2001; Brown et al., 2011; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). They even live longer (Martin, Friedman, & Schwartz, 2007).

Which Personality Are You (and Which Is Best)?Discovering Psychology

According to the five-factor model, your rating on each of five basic personality di- mensions, or factors, gives a good overall de- scription of your personality. Try it (see • Figure 12.4). How well do you think your ratings describe you?

When you were rating yourself, did you notice that some of the traits in • Figure 12.4 don’t seem very attractive? After all, who would want to score low in extroversion? What could be good about being a quiet, passive, and reserved loner? In other words, aren’t some personality patterns better than others?

OK, so what is the best personality pattern? You might be surprised to learn that there is no one “best” personality pattern. For exam- ple, extroverts tend to earn more during their careers than introverts and they have more sexual partners. But they are also more likely to take risks than introverts (and to land in the

hospital with an injury). Extroverts are also more likely to divorce. Because of this, extro- verted men are less likely to live with their children. In other words, extroversion tends to open the doors to some life experiences and close doors to others (Nettle, 2005).

The same is true for agreeableness. Agree- able people attract more friends and enjoy strong social support from others. But agree- able people often put the interests of friends and family ahead of their own. This leaves agreeable people at a disadvantage. To do creative, artistic work or to succeed in the business world often involves putting your own interests first (Nettle, 2008).

How about conscientiousness? Up to a point, conscientiousness is associated with high achievement. However, having impos- sibly high standards, a trait called perfection- ism, can be a problem. As you might expect, college students who are perfectionists tend

to get good grades. Yet, some students cross the line into maladaptive perfectionism, which typically lowers performance at school and elsewhere (Accordino, Accordino, & Slaney, 2000). Authentic Navajo rugs always have a flaw in their intricate designs. Navajo weavers intentionally make a “mistake” in each rug as a reminder that humans are not perfect. There is a lesson in this: It is not al- ways necessary, or even desirable, to be “per- fect.” To learn from your experiences you must feel free to make mistakes (Castro & Rice, 2003). Success, in the long run, is more often based on seeking “excellence” rather than “perfection” (Enns, Cox, & Clara, 2005).

Except for very extreme personality pat- terns, which are often maladaptive, most “personalities” involve a mix of costs and benefits. We all face the task of pursuing life experiences that best suit our own unique personality patterns (Nettle, 2008).

Knowing where a person stands on the “Big Five” personality factors helps predict his or her behavior. For example, people who score high on conscien- tiousness tend to be safe drivers who are unlikely to have automobile accidents.

© E

le an

or B

en ta

ll/ Co

rb is

Knowledge Builder Personality and Trait Theories

RECITE 1. When someone’s personality has been evaluated, we are making a

judgment about his or her a. temperament b. character c. extroversion d. self-esteem

2. A personality type is usually defined by the presence of a. all five personality dimensions b. a stable self concept c. several

specific traits d. a source trait 3. An individual’s perception of his or her own personality constitutes

that person’s ___________________________. 4. Central traits are those shared by most members of a culture. T or F? 5. Cattell believes that clusters of ______________ traits reveal the

presence of underlying ______________ traits. 6. Which of the following is not one of the Big Five personality factors?

a. submissiveness b. agreeableness c. extroversion d. neuroticism

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Personality 411

Psychoanalytic theory Freudian theory of personality that emphasizes unconscious forces and conflicts.

Psychoanalytic Theory—Id Came to Me in a Dream

Gateway Question 12.3: How do psychodynamic theories explain personality? Psychodynamic theorists are not content with studying traits. Instead, they try to probe under the surface of personality—to learn what drives, conflicts, and energies animate us. Psychodynamic theorists believe that many of our actions are based on hidden, or unconscious, thoughts, needs, and emotions. What psychodynamic theorists tend to share in common with trait theorists is the view that human personality is based on a set of biological dispositions.

As we discussed in Chapter 1, psychoanalytic theory, the best- known psychodynamic approach, grew out of the work of Sig- mund Freud, a Viennese physician. As a doctor, Freud was fasci- nated by patients whose problems seemed to be more emotional than physical. From about 1890 until he died in 1939, Freud evolved a theory of personality that deeply influenced modern thought ( Jacobs, 2003; Schultz & Schultz, 2009). Let’s consider some of its main features.

The Structure of Personality How did Freud view personality? Freud’s model portrays personality as a dynamic system directed by three mental structures: the id, the ego, and the superego. According to Freud, most behavior involves activity of all three systems. (Freud’s theory includes a large num- ber of concepts. For your convenience, they are defined in ■ Table 12.2 rather than in glossary boxes.)

The Id The id is made up of innate biological instincts and urges. The id operates on the pleasure principle. It is self-serving, irrational, impulsive, and totally unconscious. That is, it seeks to freely

express pleasure-seeking urges of all kinds. If we were solely under control of the id, the world would be chaotic beyond belief.

The id acts as a power source for the entire psyche (sigh-KEY), or personality. This energy, called libido (lih-BEE-doe), flows from the life instincts (or Eros). According to Freud, libido underlies our efforts to survive, as well as our sexual desires and pleasure seeking. Freud also described a death instinct. Thanatos, as he called it, produces aggressive and destructive urges. Freud offered humanity’s long history of wars and violence as evidence of such urges. Most id energies, then, are aimed at discharging ten- sions related to sex and aggression.

The Ego The ego is sometimes described as the “executive,” because it directs energies supplied by the id. The id is like a blind king or queen whose power is awesome but who must rely on others to carry out orders. The id can only form mental images of things it desires. The ego wins power to direct behavior by relating the desires of the id to external reality.

Are there other differences between the ego and the id? Yes. Recall that the id operates on the pleasure principle. The ego, in contrast, is guided by the reality principle. The ego is the system of think- ing, planning, problem solving, and deciding. It is in conscious control of the personality and often delays action until it is practi- cal or appropriate.

REFLECT Think Critically

7. In what way would memory contribute to the formation of an accurate or inaccurate self-image?

8. Can you think of a Big Five trait besides conscientiousness that might be related to academic achievement?

Self-Reflect

See if you can define or describe the following terms in your own words: personality, character, trait, type, self-concept, self-esteem.

List six or seven traits that best describe your personality. Which system of traits seems to best match your list, Allport’s, Cattell’s, or the Big Five?

Answers: 1. b 2. c 3. self-concept 4. F 5. surface, source 6. a 7. As discussed in Chapter 7, memory is highly selective, and long-term memories are often distorted by recent information. Such properties add to the moldability of self-concept. 8. In one study, conscientiousness was positively related to academic performance, as you might expect. Students high in neuroticism were also better academic performers, but only if they were not too stressed (Kappe & van der Flier, 2010).

Freud considered personality an expression of two conflicting forces, life instincts and the death instinct. Both are symbolized in this drawing by Allan Gilbert. (If you don’t immediately see the death symbolism, stand farther from the drawing.)

© R

yk of

f C ol

le ct

io n/

Co rb

is

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Chapter 12412

The Superego What is the role of the superego? The superego acts as a judge or censor for the thoughts and actions of the ego. One part of the superego, called the conscience, reflects actions for which a person

has been punished. When standards of the conscience are not met, you are punished internally by guilt feelings.

A second part of the superego is the ego ideal. The ego ideal reflects all behavior one’s parents approved of or rewarded. The ego ideal is a source of goals and aspirations. When its standards are met, we feel pride.

The superego acts as an “internalized parent” to bring behavior under control. In Freudian terms, a person with a weak superego will be a delinquent, criminal, or antisocial personality. In contrast, an overly strict or harsh superego may cause inhibition, rigidity, or unbearable guilt.

The Dynamics of Personality How do the id, ego, and superego interact? Freud didn’t picture the id, ego, and superego as parts of the brain or as “little people” run- ning the human psyche. Instead, they are conflicting mental pro- cesses. Freud theorized a delicate balance of power among the three. For example, the id’s demands for immediate pleasure often clash with the superego’s moral restrictions. Perhaps an example will help clarify the role of each part of the personality:

Freud in a Nutshell Let’s say you are sexually attracted to an acquaintance. The id clamors for immediate satisfaction of its sexual desires, but is opposed by the superego (which finds the very thought of sex shocking). The id says, “Go for it!” The superego icily replies, “Never even think that again!” And what does the ego say? The ego says, “I have a plan!”

This is, of course a drastic simplification, but it does capture the core of Freudian thinking. To reduce tension, the ego could begin actions leading to friendship, romance, courtship, and marriage. If the id is unusually powerful, the ego may give in and attempt a seduction. If the superego prevails, the ego may be forced to displace or sublimate sexual energies to other activities (sports, music, danc- ing, push-ups, cold showers). According to Freud, internal struggles and rechanneled energies typify most personality functioning.

Is the ego always caught in the middle? Basically yes, and the pres- sures on it can be intense. In addition to meeting the conflicting demands of the id and superego, the overworked ego must deal with external reality.

According to Freud, you feel anxiety when your ego is threat- ened or overwhelmed. Impulses from the id cause neurotic anxi- ety when the ego can barely keep them under control. Threats of punishment from the superego cause moral anxiety. Each person develops habitual ways of calming these anxieties, and many resort to using ego-defense mechanisms to lessen internal conflicts. Defense mechanisms are mental processes that deny, distort, or otherwise block out sources of threat and anxiety.

The ego-defense mechanisms that Freud identified are used as a form of protection against stress, anxiety, and threatening events. See Chapter 13, pages 456–458.

BRIDGES

Key Freudian Concepts

Anal stage The psychosexual stage corresponding roughly to the period of toilet training (ages 1 to 3).

Anal-expulsive personality A disorderly, destructive, cruel, or messy person.

Anal-retentive personality A person who is obstinate, stingy, or compulsive, and who generally has difficulty “letting go.”

Conscience The part of the superego that causes guilt when its standards are not met.

Conscious The region of the mind that includes all mental contents a person is aware of at any given moment.

Ego The executive part of personality that directs rational behavior. Ego ideal The part of the superego representing ideal behavior; a source

of pride when its standards are met. Electra conflict A girl’s sexual attraction to her father and feelings of

rivalry with her mother. Erogenous zone Any body area that produces pleasurable sensations. Eros Freud’s name for the “life instincts.” Fixation A lasting conflict developed as a result of frustration or

over-indulgence. Genital stage Period of full psychosexual development, marked by the

attainment of mature adult sexuality. Id The primitive part of personality that remains unconscious, supplies

energy, and demands pleasure. Latency According to Freud, a period in childhood when psychosexual

development is more or less interrupted. Libido In Freudian theory, the force, primarily pleasure oriented, that

energizes the personality. Moral anxiety Apprehension felt when thoughts, impulses, or actions

conflict with the superego’s standards. Neurotic anxiety Apprehension felt when the ego struggles to control

id impulses. Oedipus conflict A boy’s sexual attraction to his mother, and feelings of

rivalry with his father. Oral stage The period when infants are preoccupied with the mouth as a

source of pleasure and means of expression. Oral-aggressive personality A person who uses the mouth to express

hostility by shouting, cursing, biting, and so forth. Also, one who actively exploits others.

Oral-dependent personality A person who wants to passively receive attention, gifts, love, and so forth.

Phallic personality A person who is vain, exhibitionistic, sensitive, and narcissistic.

Phallic stage The psychosexual stage (roughly ages 3 to 6) when a child is preoccupied with the genitals.

Pleasure principle A desire for immediate satisfaction of wishes, desires, or needs.

Preconscious An area of the mind containing information that can be voluntarily brought to awareness.

Psyche The mind, mental life, and personality as a whole. Psychosexual stages The oral, anal, phallic, and genital stages, during

which various personality traits are formed. Reality principle Delaying action (or pleasure) until it is appropriate. Superego A judge or censor for thoughts and actions. Thanatos The death instinct postulated by Freud. Unconscious The region of the mind that is beyond awareness,

especially impulses and desires not directly known to a person.

■ TABLE 12.2

9781285519517, Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior with Concept Maps and Reviews, Thirteenth Edition, Coon/Mitterer – © Cengage Learning. All rights reserved. No distribution allowed without express authorization.

 

 

Personality 413

Levels of Awareness Like other psychodynamic theorists, Freud believed that our behavior often expresses unconscious (or hidden) forces. The unconscious holds repressed memories and emotions, plus the instinctual drives of the id. Interestingly, modern scientists have found that the brain’s limbic system does, in fact, seem to trigger unconscious emotions and memories (LeDoux, 2000).

Statistical Reasoning in Psychology

/in /by

PSY 315 Statistical Reasoning in Psychology

 

PSY 315 Week 1 Practice Worksheet (***** Correctly Solved All Problems + Table + References *****)

 

Complete the University of Phoenix Material: Week 1 Practice Worksheet.

 

Week 1 Practice Worksheet

 

Provide a response to the following questions. Written responses should be at least 30 to 45 words each.

 

1.      Explain and provide an example for each of the following types of variables:

 

a.       Nominal:

b.      Ordinal:

c.       Interval:

d.      Ratio scale:

e.       Continuous:

f.       Discrete:

 

g.      Quantitative:

 

h.      Qualitative:

 

 

2.      The following are the speeds of 40 cars clocked by radar on a particular road in a 35 miles-per-hour zone on an afternoon:

30, 36, 42, 36, 30, 52, 36, 34, 36, 33, 30, 32, 35, 32, 37, 34, 36, 31, 35, 20

24, 46, 23, 31, 32, 45, 34, 37, 28, 40, 34, 38, 40, 52, 31, 33, 15, 27, 36, 40

Create a frequency table and a histogram. Then, describe the general shape of the distribution.

3.      Raskauskas and Stoltz (2007) asked a group of 84 adolescents about their involvement in traditional and electronic bullying. The researchers defined electronic bullying as “…a means of bullying in which peers use electronics (such as text messages, emails, and defaming Web sites) to taunt, threaten, harass, and/or intimidate a peer” (p. 565). The table below is a frequency table showing the adolescents’ reported incidence of being victims or perpetrators of traditional and electronic bullying.

a.       Using the table below as an example, explain the idea of a frequency table to a person who has never taken a course in statistics.

b.      Explain the general meaning of the pattern of results.

 

Incidence of Traditional and Electronic Bullying and Victimization (N = 84)
Forms of bullying N %
Electronic victims 41 48.8
  Text-message victim 27 32.1
  Internet victim (websites, chatrooms) 13 15.5
  Camera-phone victim 8 9.5
Traditional victims 60 71.4
  Physical victim 38 45.2
  Teasing victim 50 59.5
  Rumors victim 32 38.6
  Exclusion victim 30 50
Electronic bullies 18 21.4
  Text-message bully 18 21.4
  Internet bully 11 13.1
Traditional bullies 54 64.3
  Physical bully 29 34.5
  Teasing bully 38 45.2
  Rumor bully 22 26.2
  Exclusion bully 35 41.7

 

4.      Describe whether each of the following data words best describes descriptive statistics or inferential statistics. Explain your reasoning.

  1. Describe:
  2. Infer:
  3. Summarize:

 

 

5.      Compare the three types of research methods and statistics.

 

 

6.      Regarding gun ownership in the United States, data from Gallup polls over a 40-year period show how gun ownership in the United States has changed. The results are described below, with the percentage of Americans who own guns given in each of the 5 decades.

 

Year %
1972 43
1982 42
1992 48
2002 40
2012 43

 

  1. Are the percentages reported above an example of descriptive statistics or inferential statistics?  Why?
  2. Based on the table, how would you describe the changes in gun ownership in the United States over the 40 years shown?

 

7.      Refer to the Simpson-Southward et al. (2016) article from this week’s electronic readings. Was this an example of inferential statistics and research or descriptive statistics and research? Justify your response.