* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download doc Chapter 6 McAdams note
Survey
Document related concepts
Developmental psychology wikipedia , lookup
Environmental enrichment wikipedia , lookup
Environmental psychology wikipedia , lookup
Life history theory wikipedia , lookup
Thin-slicing wikipedia , lookup
Sociobiology wikipedia , lookup
Fetal origins hypothesis wikipedia , lookup
Temperament wikipedia , lookup
Race and intelligence wikipedia , lookup
History of anthropometry wikipedia , lookup
Nations and intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Fluctuating asymmetry wikipedia , lookup
Biology and consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Adult development wikipedia , lookup
Trait leadership wikipedia , lookup
Human variability wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Chapter 6 – Continuity and Change in Traits: The Roles of Genes, Environments, and Time The Continuity of Traits - Attributing a trait to a person assumes a certain degree of continuity over time o Although one can’t be clear how long-term that staying power might be Despite momentary fluctuations, people’s traits tend to be stable Trait terms in everyday use: assumes certain psychological features are more-or-less stable “for a while” Therefore, personality trait scales should show high test-retest reliability Two Kinds of Continuity Absolute vs. Differential Absolute continuity - “Constancy in the quantity or amount of an attribute over time” (Caspi) - In absolute terms, e.g. “how much” social dominance a person has in 1972 and in 1982? o If a group of people has the same score, we can say this group showed absolute continuity on the trait of social dominance over a 10-year span - The concept of absolute continuity is never applied to a single individual but is usually understood in terms of group averages on a given trait - You can compare the average score on a given trait with the average score obtained from the same group of people 10 years later - Absolute continuity is important when considering hypotheses and expectations about human development o E.g. in finding out whether there may be absolute continuity across a certain developmental time period (e.g. from adolescents to adulthood) Differential continuity - “the consistency of individual differences within a sample of individuals over time, to the retention of an individual’s relative placement in a group” (Caspi) - How an individual is relative to his peers - Differential continuity is always a matter of individuals’ relative standing to one another on a given dimension - How to have high level of differential continuity (a high correlation coefficient) for a certain trait? o People will need to continue to hold their relative positions on this trait over time o Would require each person in the distribution to “stay the same” and score the same as say,10 years ago - Correlation coefficient: o Calculated between the same individual’s score on the same trait at Time 1 versus Time 2 o High correlation coefficient (r close to +1.0) = high differential continuity - What does a high correlation coefficient tell us? o It tells us that people tended to hold their relative positions on the given trait over the 10-year span Can make predictions - What does a low correlation coefficient tell us? o A low correlation coefficient would mean a certain trait is not showing differential continuity (i.e. people’s relative positions on the given trait dimension change unpredictably over time) o Suggests that people change relative to one another over time on a given dimension o Low differential continuity does NOT tell us in what direction people change Absolute versus Differential continuity - Absolute continuity and differential continuity are completely unrelated to each other Absolute Differential Refers to the consistency of the average score Refers to the stability of individual on a given trait over time differences in scores Differential Continuity Low Absolute Continuity High High High Absolute continuity: o Group average score on a trait dimension High differential continuity: o The relative positions of individuals on the dimension of the trait did not change much - Low = The group average is stable over time but the distribution of individual differences is unstable (cannot predict individual scores) E.g.: “Warm feelings for my parents” - High Absolute continuity: o Group average 10 years ago is highly similar to the present group average - Low Differential continuity: o The people who had the warmest feelings toward parents 10 years ago were not the same people who had the warmest feelings toward their parents in the present = The entire distribution of scores may shift E.g.: income 10 years ago vs. Current in one direction or another, but individuals’ income relative positions in the distribution might - Low Absolute continuity: not change much o The entire distribution E.g.: social anxiety shifted markedly to the - Low Absolute continuity: higher end of the o As a group, the social anxiety income spectrum average score decreased - Low Differential continuity: o Individuals did not hold - High Differential continuity: o The people who were the onto their initial most anxious 10 years ago relative positions in the tended to be the most anxious distribution at present, even though their absolute scores went down Differential Continuity in the Adult Years Personality traits are fairly stable over the adult lifespan, showing substantial differential continuity from early adulthood onward - - - - - Longitudinal prospective studies are used in personality research to examine differential continuity in personality traits in the adult years o Assessed by correlating trait scores at Time 1 with trait scores at Time 2 Longitudinal studies show remarkably high differential continuity in personality traits over the adult lifespan (i.e. everyone kept the same rank order) Conley (1985): 50-year long longitudinal study o Self-reports and spouses reports o Measurements taken: 1935-1938, 1954-1955 and 1980-1981 o Conley found that spouses ratings agreed with self-ratings on many personality traits o For differential continuity, both self-ratings and spouse ratings showed considerable consistency over time o Ratings of Extraversion and Neuroticism showed particularly strong longitudinal consistency Self-ratings on a given trait at Time 1 predicted spouse-rating of a given trait at Time 2 Therefore, differential continuity in trait ratings was displayed when examining: Self-ratings over time Spouse ratings over time The ability of one kind of rating to predict another kind of rating of the same trait over time Costa, McCrae and Arenberg- Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging o Time 1: Subjects ranged from 17-85 years old o Correlations between Extraversion scores at Time 1 and Time 2 (separated by a 6- to 12- year period) = above r=+0.70, i.e. substantial differential continuity o Also found high stability coefficients for ratings of Neuroticism o i.e. Substantial differential continuity has been shown for all Big 5 traits across intervals of time ranging from 3 to 30 years o Stability coefficients found from Costa and McCrae’s Baltimore longitudinal study NEO-PI Factor Time Interval r Neuroticism 6 years 0.83 Extraversion 6 years 0.82 Openness to Experience 6 years 0.83 Agreeableness 3 years 0.63 Conscientiousness 3 years 0.79 Although r=+0.65 is not a perfect correlation, explain why it is so impressive o Measurement errors= personality trait scales are not perfectly reliable measures - If such scales were perfectly reliable, then the correlations over long periods of time would be even higher - Errors in the measures themselves instability/ fluctuation in traits o Test-retest reliabilities are typically around +0.85 or so o Longitudinal consistency over many years Such high correlation means “Hardened plaster”? o NO! o Personality traits are not set in stone by the time we reach our adult years o Trait scores are not perfectly stable (even after accounting for measurement errors) - People’s positions in the distribution can and do change from one assessment to another o Personality scores at Time 1 in adulthood are good but not perfect predictors of scores on those same traits at Time 2 Time interval between testing influences the strength of differential continuity: - The longer the time interval, the lower the differential continuity - Schuerger at al., 1989: meta-analysis of personality longitudinal studies o Focused on Extraversion and Neuroticism (anxiety) o Findings: i. Found test-retest correlations on traits declined as the time interval increased - 0.70 for short time interval and drop to 0.50for very long time intervals ii. Found that Extraversion showed higher differential continuity than Neuroticism (anxiety) and higher continuity than other traits too Age of the participants influence differential continuity: - Older people are more likely to show higher differential continuity than younger people - Roberts and Delvecchio (2000) o Findings: - Stability coefficients were the lowest in studies of children’s traits (r=+0.41) - Young adults: r=+0.55 - Adults between ages of 50 and 70: plateau r=+0.70 - Early in the lifespan, people do not hold onto their places in the distribution as firmly over time - Roberts and Devecchio (2000) raises the issue of personality traits in children o Children seem to be developing in a rapid pace and in a more fluid manner than adults o Most research on personality traits has focused on adults o What is the relation between aspects of children’s personality and adult personality traits? o Temperament [Summary]Factors that influence differential continuity: 1. Errors of trait measures 2. Time interval between testing 3. Age of the participants in the study Childhood Precursors: From Temperament to Traits - The same infant can be very different from how (s)he was from the very beginning - There are inborn differences in personality among children (siblings born and raised in the same family are very different) - Definition of Temperament: o “Temperament refers to the characteristic phenomena of an individual’s nature, including his susceptibility to emotional stimulation, his customary strength and speed of response, the quality of his prevailing mood, and all the peculiarities of fluctuation and intensity of mood, these being phenomena regarded as dependent on constitutional make-up, and therefore largely hereditary in origin” – Caspi & Kagan - Three different types of temperament patterns: - Show consistently positive mood - Low-to-moderate intensity of emotional reactions Easy babies - Regular sleeping and eating cycles Difficult babies Slow-to-warm-up babies - - Consistently negative moods Intense emotional reactions Irregular sleeping and eating cycles A combination of the previous two forms Relatively negative moods Low intensity of emotional reactions Tendency to withdraw from new events at first but then approach them later Rothbart’s (1986) 6 Temperament dimensions: 1. Activity level 2. Smiling and laughter 3. Fearfulness 4. Distress to limitations 5. “Soothability” 6. Vocal activity What are the temperament dimensions that appear to have important implicatinos for personality development? Behavioural inhibition, Effortful control Behavioural Inhibition - Kagan (1989): Behavioral inhibition o Extremely inhibited young children show great timidity for novel events and people o Inhibited children: 15% of Caucasian children in the second year of life are consistently shy and emotionally subdued in unfamiliar situations o Uninhibited children: 15% that are consistently sociable and affectively spontaneous with novel toys o Physiological response: - Inhibited children show more intense physiological responses as compared to uninhibited children More dilated pupils (when confronted with mildly stressful social situations) Higher heart rates (when confronted with mildly stressful social situations) Higher levels of morning cortisol o What was Kagan’s explanation for the differences between inhibited and uninhibited children: - Two separable genetic types that affect the thresholds of reactivity in the brain’s limbic system manifested as behavioural differences - Inhibited children have lower threshold of reactivity more easily aroused in social situations and respond by withdrawing o Kagan’s physiological portrait of temperamental inhibition is reminiscent of Eysenck’s account of introversion - Behaviourally inhibited children are more likely to show neural activation of the right frontal lobe while uninhibited children are more likely to show activation of the brain’s left frontal lobe - Inhibited: Right frontal lobe - Uninhibited: Left frontal lobe - o Right frontal activity: associated with negative affectivity (fear and depression) and the behavioural inhibition system o Left frontal activity: associated with positive affectivity (joy and happiness) and the behavioural approach system Stability of inhibited children: will they grow into introverted and neurotic adults? o By birth: 20 out of 100 o 2 years of age: 15 out of 100 (75%) o Adolescence: 10 out of 100 o By Adulthood: 6 or 7 out of the original 20 will still remain extremely introverted - Two-thirds will lose their excessive shyness by adulthood (maybe due to environmental influences) - However, Kagan thinks “shyness physiology” maintains for this two-thirds of adults Effortful Control - Rothbart & Bates (1998): Effortful Contol - “Child’s active and voluntary capacity to withhold a dominant response in order to enact a subordinate response given situational demands” - Strong capacity for effortful control able to delay immediate gratification in order to focus their attention on longer-term goals - What do high levels of effortful control predict? - Successful interpersonal functioning in childhood - Better school grade - Fewer behavioural problems - Effortful control may be an important factor in moral development and the consolidation of conscience o Compliance and the ability to interact with others in a respectful and cooperative manner - Factors associated with the capacity for effortful control: o Sex: Girls show better effortful controls than boys o SES: Children from economically deprived families show lower levels of effortful control than do children from more affluent families o Age: Older children have less trouble controlling their impulses than do younger children - Considerable improvement: between 2 to 4 years old - Stability of effortful control: individual differences in effortful control show moderately high longitudinal consistency o Li-Grinning (2007) Delayed gratification study: - Tested African American and Latino children between the ages of 2 and 4 and then again 16 months later - Findings: Overall correlation of r=+0.40 between Time 1 and Time 2 scores - Showed moderately high interindividual stability on effortful control over a 16-month period - Big 5 of effortful control = Conscientiousness Why is it difficult to study the relationship between early childhood temperament variables and adult personality traits? - The methods and conceptual systems used by researchers that study infant and child temperament and adult personality are very different o Temperament scales: rely on maternal reports and behavioural observations o Personality traits scales: self-report rating Taxonomies that are used to organize temperaments: - Irritability - Positive affect - Activity level - Rhythmicity - Adaptability - Sensory threshold - Soothability - Intensity of mood, etc. Can the Big Five framework be used to classify dimensions of childhood functioning? Some argued yes, some are skeptical Caspi et al., 2003- The Dunedin Longitudinal Study - A landmark study for the relationship between childhood temperament and adult personality 1,000 subjects born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin Tested at ages 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21 and 26 years At age 3, each child was in a 90-minute developmental testing session o Psychologists rated the children on 22 behavioural characteristics o The ratings were statistically grouped to produce five different temperament types: - Appropriate levels of self-control when it was demanded of them Well-adjusted - Expressed adequate self-confidence - Did not become unduly upset when confronting novel situations children - N=405 - Impulsive, restless, negativistic, and distractible - Showed strong and volatile emotional reactions Undercontrolled - N= 106, 62% of whom were boys - Turned out to be one of the most predictable groups at age 26 children - Adult = High levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness - Adjusted to the testing situation quickly and showed the characteristics of friendliness, impulsivity and enthusiasm Confident children - N=281 - Socially reticent, fearful, easily upset by the examiner - N=80, 60% of whom were girls - Turned out to be one of the most predictable groups at age 26 - Adult = overcontrolled and non-assertive personality style Inhibited children o High scores on constraint and low scores on positive emotionality o Big 5: Low Extraversion, i.e. High introversion - Timid and somewhat uncomfortable in the testing session - But showed less shyness and caution than did the inhibited children Reserved children - N=151 - Adult= Tended toward introversion and low Openness to Experience - - - At age 26, self-reports and friends and acquaintances reports o Caspi et al. administered self-report personality scales to all subjects o Also collected trait ratings of the same individuals from their friends and acquaintances Results of Caspi’s Dunedin longitudinal study: o Which groups of children were most predictable? - The undercontrolled and inhibited types o Over a 23-year span, the undercontrolled children grew up to score highest on trait measures of negative emotionality - They were easily upset, likely to overreact to minor events and reported feeling mistreated, deceived and betrayed by others - Described by others as antagonistic, unreliable, tense, and narrow-minded o In terms of Big 5 dimensions, what does the undercontrolled pattern of childhood temperament predicts? - It predicts high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness o What do the inhibited children grow up as? - Overcontrolled and non-assertive personality style o In terms of Big 5 dimensions, what does the inhibited pattern of childhood temperament predicts? - It predicts low level of Extraversion, i.e. introverted o The three remaining temperament types did not show clear-cut personality profiles in adulthood Significance of the Dunedin’s longitudinal study: o Certain predictable trajectories can indeed be documented o There are also considerable amount of unpredictability and discontinuity over the long haul o Temperament is a rough template that is flexible and subjected to alteration by environmental input for adult personality traits “Developmental Elaboration” Capsi (1998) - Developmental elaboration is the process through which personality is structuring around the psychobiological core, this core is temperament - Temperament dimensions gradually develop into more fully articulated personality traits - Person × Environment Interaction: o Developmental elaboration is a complex interplay though which inborn tendencies shape and are shaped by environmental inputs over a long period of time - Six mechanisms of developmental elaboration o Table 6.2 on Pg. 217 - Inborn temperament differences influence: - How children learn - How they construe their environments - How other people in the environment respond to them - How they compare themselves to other children - What kinds of environment they choose - How they manipulate environments once they choose them - Initial dispositions in infancy gradually gain strength and scope and become more cognitively and socially elaborated over time SIX MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENTAL ELABORATION: HOW TEMPERAMENT DIMENSIONS DEVELOP INTO PERSONALITY TRAITS Temperamental differences impact what children learn and how Learning Process they learn it, which contributes to the formation of personality traits Temperamental differences elicit different reactions from the Environmental elicitation environment, which may reinforce the initial differences Temperamental differences influence how children understand Environmental construal and process information about their environments, shaping their experiences of the environments Temperamental differences impact how children compare Social and temporal themselves with others and with themselves over time, which comparisons shapes their developing self-concepts Temperamental differences influence how children choose Environmental selection environments, which in turn influences the development of personality traits. Children may choose environments that are consistent with their temperaments to begin with, reinforcing dispositions that are already present Once children’s self-concepts are firmly established, they will Environmental manipulation alter, modify, or manipulate their environments to match, confirm, or elaborate the temperamental dispositions they already have The Origins of Traits: Genes and Environments - - - - University of Minnesota study of identical twins raised apart: o Coincidences between MZA (monozygotic twins that were raised apart): May be more than chance because of the sheer number and detail of similarities observed o Hint that a person’s genetic makeup is a major factor in determining his or her standing on personality trait dimensions The Logic of Twin and Adoption Studies McAdams: everyone’s personality traits are products of the interaction of our genes and our environments o Genes cannot have impact on behaviour if there is no environment within which the person can act o Environments can have no impact on behaviour If there are no genes out of which to make the person in the first place Sensible question: what are the relative contributions of genetic and environment in resulting in the variability in people’s personalities in a group of individuals – why is it that people differ For height: o 90% of variability in the group comes from genetic differences among people o 10% is associated with environmental differences (nutritional levels and social class) - The HQ for height is noncontroversial - Height is determined by the working of many different genes, i.e. there is no single gene that matches cleanly to height Heritability Quotient = “A HQ estimates the proportion of variability in a given characteristic that can be attributed to genetic differences between people” - - - - - - - - - - Differences or variability among a group of people, it does not apply to any particular person Depends dramatically on characteristics of the population to begin with An HQ tells us how much of the observed variation is associated with genetic variation among people in the group Heritability refers not to an individual but to accounting for variance in groups o Variance in groups is due to many factors within a group Humans are highly similar to one another genetically o Many human genes – about 90% are identical from one person to another o In discussing heritability, we are focusing on exclusively on the 10% of the human genome that vary Methods through which scientists have sought to make heritability estimates for personality traits: o Twins and adopted children studies Formula for the heritability quotient: o Subtract the DZ correlation from the MZ correlation and then multiply by 2, i.e. - HQ= 2×(rmz - rdz) Adopted children studies: o Researchers compare correlations between trait scores of: pairs of biological siblings and pairs of non-biologically related siblings Adoption studies: o Locate the biologically related parents or siblings of adoptive children and administer trait measures to them o Any significant positive correlations between trait scores of adopted children and biologically related relatives would have be due to genetic effects (since these individuals did no share environments) Behaviour genetics: o The logic of twin and adoption studies undergirds research in the field of behaviour genetics o A scientific discipline with roots in psychology o Explores the empirical evidence concerning the relative influences of genetic and environmental factors in accounting for variability in human behaviour Heritability Estimates of Traits The research shows that virtually all personality traits that can be reliably measured are at least moderately heritable A twins study in Sweden obtained heritability estimates of slightly more than 50% for both Extraversion and Neuroticism o i.e. about half of the variation in trait scores can be attributed to genetic differences between people University of Minnesota obtained heritability estimates (greater than 40%) for the traits of leadership, mastery, traditionalism, stress reaction, absorption, alienation, well-being, avoidance of harm, and aggressiveness Phlomin, Chipuer, and Loehlin (1990) review: o On average, across diverse personality dimension, MZ correlations are about 0.50 and DZ correlations are about 0.30 o These twin correlations suggest that genetic influence on personality is significant and substantial o HQ = 40% Table 6.3 on Pg. 223 Jang, Livesley & Vernon, (1996) MZ Twins .41 .55 .58 .41 .37 - DZ Twins .18 .23 .21 .26 .27 Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Range for MZ twins: +.37 to +.58 Range for DZ twins: +.18 to +.27 Jang’s et al.’s conclusion: heritabilities for the Big 5 traits were mainly in the 40-50% range - Strongest heritability in this study: Openness to Experience Later studies showed the not only do the Big 5 dimensions show substantial heritability but that many of the smaller traits or facets also appear to be substantially heritable Two puzzling findings: 1. MZ correlations are more than twice as high as DZ correlations MZ twins vs. DZ twins: Difference was bigger than expected This violates the conventional wisdom that “because MZ twins share 100% common genes and DZ twins share 50% common genes, MZ twins should be no more than twice as similar to one another as DZ twins” This conventional wisdom follows the assumption that genetic variance should be additive Identical twins seem to be even more similar to each other than expected 2. Studies of adoption yield significantly lower heritability estimates Biological vs. Adoption siblings: Difference was smaller than expected If heredity is a major factor in determining traits, then we would expect that biological siblings (50% common genes) should be significantly more similar to each other than adoptive siblings (0% common genes) A number of adoption studies showed surprisingly small differences between correlations, yielding heritability estimates around 20% Biological siblings are less similar to each other than expected Explanation for the puzzling findings: Nonadditive genetic variance - Genes do not influence traits in a linear, additive way, but rather combine and interact in a “configural “ pattern - Configural pattern: all components are essential and the absence of, or a change in any one (i.e., any gene) can produce qualitative or a large quantitative change in the result - In this sense, 50% is not much more than 0% - Therefore, biological siblings are not very much more similar to each other than are adoptive siblings - The nonadditive genetic variance explains why siblings are so different Emergenesis and nonadditive genetic effects: - Emergenesis = “an emergent property of a configuration of genes or perhaps a configuration of more basic traits that are themselves genetic in origin” - The behavioural tendency is an emergent property of the pattern - McAdams’s poker analogy: The value of your poker hand is determined by its unique configuration of cards. The cards came from two other hands that did not have this unique configuration (with the exception of MZ twins, every person is dealt a unique hand) - i.e. certain behavioural tendencies can be emergent properties that come from particular configurations of genes Shared Environment - University of Minnesota’s study: Personality Similarity in MZ Twins Reared Apart and Together Trait MZ Together MZ Apart .58 .48 Well-being .65 .56 Social potency .51 .35 Achievement .57 .29 Social closeness .52 .61 Stress Reaction .55 .48 Alienation .43 .46 Aggression .41 .50 Control .55 .49 Harm Avoidance .50 .53 Traditionalism1 .49 .61 Absorption - - Mean Correlation .52 .49 These correlations are very similar to the twin correlations for the Big 5 Traits (Table 6.3, Pg. 223) MZ twins reared apart are just about as similar to each other as MZ twins reared together (0.52 vs. 0.49) Except for social closeness (0.57 vs. 0.29) the evidence for the effects of common environment is sparse Expectable pattern = MZ twins reared together would be even more similar to each other but research repeatedly showed that growing up in the same family has little impact on personality traits The common environments experienced by the MZ twins raised together almost worth nothing but there are exceptions What are the few exceptions to the rule that shared environment has little impact on personality traits? 1. Social closeness Traits having to do with intimacy and love for others may show family environment effects But the trait of loneliness show NO effect of shared family environment 2. Religiousness Shows shared environment effects among adolescents 3. Juvenile delinquency Shows considerable influence of family environment Adult criminality does NOT 4. Severe maltreatment Child abuse and extraordinary neglect appear to have deleterious effects on psychological development, which show up clearly in personality traits Another evidence that shared environment has no impact on personality traits: Adoption studies - Adoptive children show virtually no predictable similarity on traits to the members of the families who adopt them Eaves, Eysenck, and Martin (1989)’s study showed - For Extraversion: The correlation between adopted children and their biological mother >> the correlation between these adopted children with their adoptive mothers r with biological mothers = 0.21 r with adoptive mother = 0 Half of the variance in personality traits can be attributed to genetics, what accounts for the remaining half of the variation that cannot be accounted for by genetic and family effects? - Errors in traits measure scales - Unexplained variation - Even the most reliable index of Extraversion does not give you exactly the same score for the same person from one day to the next - Test-retest reliabilities of good trait measures may be between +.80 and +.90 Really good but never perfect - It is likely that some of that unexplained variance in traits is simply a function of error in the measures - 10-20% of the variance in scores for trait measures in any given sample is simply due to the inherent imperfections in the measurement devices used - Non-shared environment effects Many researchers now believe that non-shared environment effects much account for the rest of the variance in personality traits Definitions: Shared environment effects Non-shared environment effects - - = Those environmental influences that operate to make family members alike. These would include various kinds of conditions and experiences that different members of a family might share and then might work to increase similarity among family members = Those environment influences that operate to make family members unalike. Non-Shared Environment Just because people grow up in the same family, it does not follow that they experience the family in the same way There are many factors within family environments that vary significantly across family members A good example is birth order Birth order: A major part of the first-born’s nonshared environment may be the exalted status of being the oldest and smartest The second-born may need to find a comfortable niche in the family system, making for a very different experience of family life Frank Sulloway (1996) – Birth Order: a Non-shared Environmental effect - Took the evolutionary viewpoint - Children compete for parental investment in any family setting - Sulloway gave historical examples Darwin (a later-born) launched a scientific revolution that defied the authority of the church and many accepted scientific canons of the day Later-born scientists were 9 times more likely to support evolutionary perspectives than were first-borns Oldest children - - Likely to identify stronger with the parents Adopt traditional viewpoints of authority writ large Conservative and resist innovation But if the innovation begins to bear fruit, they will catch on and then strive to attain dominant positions in the new status quo Should be more dominant (E) and Conscientious Later-born - - Must define themselves over and against the dominant first-borns so that they can carve out a niche that will bring them parental resources More likely to adopt a rebellious and contrarian attitude toward authority More open to innovation and change Should be more Open to experience Adler’s Psychoanalytic theory: - First-borns should be relatively conservative and power-oriented - Second-borns should be rebellious, competitive, and sceptical of authority Empirical research on personality traits and birth order has not produced many clear-cut findings - Reason: because they correlate birth order with trait measures in samples of unrelated individuals A well-designed and important study: Paulhus, Trapnell, & Chen (1999) - Examined individuals within the same families - Confirmed Sulloway’s claim - Findings: First-borns: scored higher on achievement and conscientiousness Younger siblings: showed higher levels of rebelliousness and agreeableness Problems with these studies: Third-variable problem - Possible confounds and things to consider: Sex Social class Ethnicity And many others (Sibship size, Family education and income, Age of parent, Spacing, Culture, Immigrant status) Rowe (1999) – Six Categories of non-shared family effects that have impacts on personality traits 1. Injuries or damage sustained by the fetus before birth Perinatal trauma 2. E.g. physical injuries, winning the raffle prize at the state Accidental events fair 3. Includes birth order and birth spacing Family constellation 4. Alliances of various sorts, competing and cooperating, Sibling mutual interaction adopting a wide range of social roles 5. Unequal parental treatment Each parent having their own “favourite” 6. Influences outside the family - E.g. Teachers, peers Non-shared environment research: ideas are many but good data are few There is not yet much research to support the claims directly Dunn and Plomin (1990) - Figure 6.2, Pg. 230* Non-shared Environment Error Genetic Shared Environment - = 35%* = 20% = 40% (should be updated to 50%) = 5% *This figure for non-shared environment comes from a process of elimination 100% - 40% (genetic) – 20% (error) – 5% (shared environment) = 35% This 35% can be thought of as unexplained variance - We do not know what those environments are or how they work The 35% must be attributable to nonshared environment effects because there is nothing left to attribute it to! How Genes Shape Environments Thinking of genes and environment as two separated things is misleading since genes and environments work together - The collaboration between the two is not fully reciprocal Environment cannot alter genes but genes can shape environments - Genes alter and shape people’s construes of their environments - Genes shape what environments people will choose to experience - Environments cannot alter genes although it can change behaviours Environments can alter brain development and functioning, but it cannot alter genes Behaviour genetics studies: Environments themselves are heritable - MZ reared together report their environments to be more highly similar than do DZ twins reared together - Caspi: “What appear to be stable and enduring features of the environment, may be a reflection of stable, enduring, and partially heritable individual differences in personality traits” - Heritability Increases with Age Elkins, McGue, & Iacono (1997): Influence of Genetic differences on Perceptions of environments Increase with Age - Examined how MZ and DZ twins in two different age groups (11-year-old and 17-year-old) described their family environments - Findings: MZ twins were more similar than DZ twins in their reports - This suggests adolescents’ perceptions of family environments are heritable The 17-year-olds showed significantly higher heritabilities on family dimensions than did the 11-year-olds, especially in the realm of father-son relationship - Explanation for findings: Their partially heritable personality tendencies take on more power in shaping their perceptions of their environments as they grow older Older children have more responsibilities genes have more control over the envir. Plomin and Bergman (1991) - Socialization environments measures are confounded with genetic variation - Researchers typically measure the environment (what is “out there”) through the reports of people who are experiencing them - Researchers did not take into account how a person reports her environment is influenced by her own genotype Scarr and McCartney (1983)- Three ways that one’s genotype may shape the environments that ultimately shape personality traits - Evocative and passive influences are likely to predominate in childhood and early adolescence, but the active influence will intensify as the person grows older - People respond to a child according to his genotype - E.g. Easy babies evoke better caregiving than somber and Evocative Influence irritable ones - Biological parents provide an environment for the child that is compatible with their own genotype i.e. parental genotypes determine the children’s environment Passive Influence - E.g. Parents who are genetically inclined to read buy more books for their children - The direct selection of and search for environments that fit one’s genotype Active Influence - Genotype drives niche choosing - E.g. an athletic girl joining a softball team - Active influence on environmental selection driven by genotypes explains why heritability may increase with age E.g. heritability estimates for religiousness are higher among adults than they are among adolescents Moving from adolescent to adulthood, genotypes begin to exert more influence and shared environments begin to exert less influence Without parental control, adults fall back on the genotypic tendencies that were there all along - Genes × Environment Interactions: New Findings From Neuroscience Problem: we know that genes must exert substantial influence on traits development, but we do not know which genes and how No single genes is identified to be linked up directly with particular traits Genetic influence on traits involves many different genes operating in complex and contingent ways, over time, with development, and environmental input Serotonin 5-HT Transporter Gene (5-HTTP) - The 5-HTTP is a gene that is involved in producing the protein molecules that are responsible for removing serotonin from the synaptic cleft between neurons - Each person has two alleles of the serotonin 5-HTTP gene - The SHORT alleles appear to be linked to less efficient reuptake of serotonin in the synaptic cleft - Having at least one short allele for 5-HTTP may be a risk factor for anxiety and depression Lesch et al. (1996)’s finding: - People who carried one or two short alleles of this gene scored higher on Neuroticism and lower on Agreeableness compared to people with two long copies Implications of Lesch study: Less efficient reuptake of serotonin traits as anxiety, depressiveness and disagreeableness Lesch’s study could not be replicated by some Caspi’s Longitudinal Study: Having at least one short allele of 5-HTTP leads to higher levels of depression only when combined with negative environmental inputs - Examined genetic patterns, life history and depressive symptoms - Findings (33% vs. 17%): 33% of those who carried at least one short allele of the 5-HTTP gene AND who report at least 4 highly stressful life events showed symptoms of depression compared to only 17% of subjects with comparable levels of life stress but who carried two long alleles for this genes - Neither having the short allele of the 5-HTTP gene nor experiencing high levels of environmental stress predicted depression but the interaction of the two factors was a strong predictor - Life stress interacts with the short 5-HTTP to cause excessive activation of the amygdala depression and anxiety Kaufman (2004) - The expression of short allele of 5-HTTP gene is moderated by two environmental factors: - The level of abuse experienced by children - Level of stress experienced by their (abusing) parents Fox, Hane and Pine (2007) - Variants in the 5-HTTP gene combined with low social support in parents to predicted behavioural inhibition in 7-year-old children - Children showed consistent pattern of shy and inhibited behaviour only when: - The children has a short copy of the 5-HTTP gene AND - When their mothers experienced low levels of social support Demonstrated that neither the gene itself nor the environmental stressor alone predicted the behavioural pattern Instead it was the interaction of the two that yielded significant effect (i.e. Stressed parents with low social support × Children 5-HTTP gene) - For many children, it take both a genetic vulnerability and a stressful environment to produce excessive shyness and behavioural inhibition Antisocial behaviour in adolescents: - Scientific fact: behavioural patterns linked to antisocial behaviour in adolescents have substantial genetic underpinning - Environmental factors must have some effect since heritability for antisocial behaviour is less than 100% Although difficult to identify environmental factors that explain the variance in antisocial behaviour Parental conflict and adolescent’s anti-social behaviour longitudinal study: - 11-year-old twins were asked to report on: How often their parents criticized them - - - The extent to which their parents trusted them to make their own decisions, etc. (Pg. 234) Then measured anti-social behaviours 3 years later Findings: Genetic influences was strong, however differences still existed between twins In those twin pairs that have largest discrepancies in antisocial behaviour, parental conflict at age 11 proved to be a strong predictor of the difference Among identical twin pairs who showed dramatic differences in antisocial behaviour at age 14, those individuals who: - Reported high levels parental conflict at 11 showed high levels of antisocial behaviours at 14 - Reported low levels of parent conflict showed low levels of antisocial behaviours at 14 Importance of finding: Certain genotypes combine with certain environments to produce individual differences in antisocial behaviour for certain individuals Note: the gene × environment effects identified showed up only for certain twin pairs Dispositional traits may develop in different ways for different people The specific ways that genes combine with environments to produce a given trait may vary from one person to another: Aron and Aron (1997) - Two main developmental varieties that lead to the end result of an introverted and anxious adult: - Behavioural inhibition and a lifelong, genetically mediated temperamental tendency toward shyness and negative affectivity - Negative childhood experience - i.e. either born that way or made that way Two different kinds of children: Dandelions and Orchids (Boyce & Ellis, 2005) - Dandelions: grow into their predictable form regardless of the environmental contingencies Designed to follow their genetic endowment closely Regardless of context, dandelions manage to survive “in the middle” (not necessarily the best or worst) Dandelions = children high low stress reactivity - Orchids: extremely sensitive to environmental conditions Depending on context, orchids can turn out to show the best or the worst outcomes Orchids = children with high stress reactivity Boyce & Ellis (2005)- Stress Reactivity - Stress reactivity = the tendency to show a wide range of strong physiological responses, such as great activation of the amygdale and greater secretion of cortisol, in response to threat or challenge in the environment Stress reactivity is a biological sensitivity to context - Higher stress reactivity is always bad? NO, not necessarily - High biological sensitivity to context “increases adaptive competence in highly stressful environments by augmenting vigilance to threats and in highly protective environment by increasing susceptibility to social resources and ambient support” Change and Complexity - - Differential continuity is very high across the adult years Heritability of traits also supports a continuity view Traits are “simple”: they convey clear, straightforward, and non-conditional behavioural tendencies in people Although it does not predict any given behaviour in any given situation, we single out one discrete personality dimension and examine its manifestations across a range of situations Traits are relatively stable over time and predict broad behavioural tendencies across situations and over time Three major points: 1. Despite the strong evidence for differential continuity, personality traits can be shown to change over time 2. Traits are organized in different patterns, and different patterns change in different ways over time 3. Those aspects of psychological individuality that appear most likely to change dramatically over time may not be traits at all Different Meanings of Change Roberts, Caspi, and Moffitt (2001)- An 8-year Longitudinal Study - Even when test-retest correlations on traits are relatively high for the sample, most people show substantial change in at least one in five traits over that time frame i.e. Some people change in some traits more than other people do Changing for the better: Personality Development - Associated with notions such as “maturation”, “adaptation”, “self-actualization”, etc. Gordon Allport: Personality development should ideally move in the direction of 5 criteria for maturity: 1. Emotional security and the regulation of behaviour by social rules designed to reduce interpersonal friction and obtain social rewards 2. The capacity for investing the self in significant life projects and endeavours rather than being preoccupied with immediate needs 3. The capacity for compassionate and intimate relations with others 4. A realistic appraisal of self and others 5. The establishment of a personally derived philosophy of life Staudinger and Kessler (in press) - Defined personality maturity as: Deep and broad insights into the self and the world The ability to regulate emotions A concern for the well-being of others and the world Studying lifespan personality change: Cross-sectional vs. Longitudinal studies Compare data from individuals in two or more discrete age groups - Different age groups sampled at the same time Cross-sectional studies - Do not study change and development directly (can be due to cohort effect) - Disadvantage: cohort effect Longitudinal studies - - - Follow a single sample of individuals over time, comparing scores at different age points Cohort effect: refers to a finding in psychological research whose cause lies within the particular historical cohort being studied Cross-sectional design is subjected to this effect and thus, one cannot really draw the conclusion that any difference found is due to pure developmental change Different cohorts (since they were born in different years) experienced different historical events and represent different historical generations Trait Change in the Adult Years Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies do NOT show dramatic shifts in personality over the course of the adult lifespan Gradual and systematic changes in all of the Big Five trait domains can be found Overall, studies show that through early to middle adulthood: Decline: Extraversion, Neuroticism & Openness to experience Rise: Conscientiousness & Agreeableness Late teens and early 20’s = the most important and most dynamic period personality development McCrae et al. (1999) – A cross-sectional study in Five Nations (German, Portuguese, Italian, Croatian, and South Korean) - Findings: Higher levels of E, N and O and lower levels of A and C among college-age adults compared with middle-age adults Srivastava, John, Gosling, & potter (2003) - Scores on A and C increased through early and middle adulthood - Scores on N for women but NOT for men decreased across the same span Donnellan, Conger, and Burzette (2007) – Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire - Administered the MPQ - Same group of subjects 10 years apart (age 17 and age 27) - Findings: Significant increase in measures of achievement and constraint Significant decrease in aggression, alienation, and stress reaction - What was one interesting finding in this study? Those individuals who at age 17 already showed high levels of social maturity (Conscientiousness) and low scores on the factor of negative emotionality (Neuroticism) tended not to change much over the following 10 years They reached a mature level earlier and this further change was not necessary Longitudinal studies that paralleled cross-sectional findings: Watson and Walker (1996) Decline in N as subjects moved toward middle adulthood Mortimer, Finch, and Kumka (1982) Decline in sociability (E) as subjects moved toward middle adulthood Jesser (1983) Longitudinal increases in achievement (C) McGue, Bacon, and Kykken (1993) See below McGue, Bacon and Kykken (1993)- A 10-year Longitudinal Twin study - Average age of twins at the beginning ~ 20 years old - Findings: Unexpected result: Did not find decrease in Extraversion over the 10-year period Did find decline in stress reaction (i.e. decline in N), absorption (i.e. O) and aggression (i.e. increase in A) Found increase in achievement and control (i.e. C) Helson and Klohnen (1998) - Longitudinal study, traced from age 27 to 43 - Found decrease in N and increases in C and positive affect What is the common finding of longitudinal studies of adult development? The development toward greater levels of competence, autonomy, and responsibility with increasing maturity in adulthood - Two especially influential studies: The AT&T Study and the Mills College Longitudinal Study The AT&T Longitudinal Study - Followed 266 male candidates over 20 years - Started when the subjects were 20 years old and ended when they were 40 years old - Measurements: put Ss through behavioural simulations, interviews, administered cognitive, personality, attitudinal and biographical measures - Major focus: to explore career and personal development among managers in corporate America - Findings: Interesting finding: There was a strong drop in measures of ambition over the 20-year span (after 8 years in the company, they expressed more realistic views of their career) Measures of autonomy: substantial increase - Increase in autonomy came at the cost of interpersonal relationship Decreased in measures of friendliness and empathy for others Ravenna Helson - The Mills Longitudinal Study - 140 women (Mills College) from college graduation to age 61 - Interesting cohort because of significant historical events, like Women movements (American society think women should forgo careers to get married and have a family life) - Also collect husband-reports - Finding: From college graduation to age 43: Increased scores in responsibility, self-control, and responsiveness to others From 40s into 50s: the women became increasingly less dependent and self-critical and increasingly more confident and decisive - Also found increases in intellectuality, logical analysis and tolerance for ambiguity - Over time, these women became increasingly more comfortable with their self-conceptions and believe more strongly that their accomplishments reflected well their basic needs and aspirations Gutmann (1987) – Sex differences in developmental trajectories - Early parental period: Women = more communal (nurturance) Men = more agentic (dominance and competence) - Late parental period: Women: become increasingly agentic Men: become increasingly communal Wink and Helson (1993) - Provided support for Gutmann’s (1987) finding - Compared Mills women and their husband in the early parental (age 27) and postparental (age 52) - Findings: Women scored lower on “competence” measures than their husbands at age 27 But at age 52, they scored about the same - This is the result of changing gender roles and historical events on personality traits ☼Brent Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006) – A meta-analysis of the personality trait scores across the life course☼ - Meta-analysis of 92 longitudinal studies - Spanned the years from age 10 to age 70 - General findings: Increase in C and A, decrease in N - Findings: Figure 6.5 Pg. 243 For Conscientiousness - Increase steadily from age 20 to age 60 Increase in Agreeableness is not smooth - Average of A creep up very slowly until about age 50 - From age 50 to 60: sharp increase in Agreeableness For Emotional stability (reverse of N) - Strong increase up to age 40, and then levels off For Extraversion: - Social dominance: Strong increase from age 10 to 30 - Social vitality: Decrease after age 50 For Openness to experience: - Increases up to age 20 - Decreases after age 50 Neyer and Lehnart (2007) - Shown that changes in personality traits over time tend to reflect changes in peer and family relationship - The transition to serious romantic relationship is associated with: Decrease in Neuroticism Increase in self-esteem and Conscientiousness What did Mroczek and Spiro (2007) found to be a predictor for mortality for older men? High average levels of Neuroticism as well as increases in Neuroticism over time tended to predict higher levels of mortality for older men - Steady increase in Neuroticism = no good for old men - (need to consider average score and changes of those scores over time) Summary: - Longitudinal studies of adult personality development show change in mean levels of personality traits, at least through late midlife - Continued decrease in N through the late 70s - As people move from early to middle adulthood: become more comfortable with themselves, decrease self-criticism, negative affects, and N - Positive affect appear to rise even when Extraversion scores tend drop gradually - Adults: more responsible, self-confident, autonomous and Conscientious Increase in self-confident is especially apparent in well-educated women - People tend to feel somewhat better about themselves as they grow older, at least into middle age Patterns of Traits over Time (Typological research) Jack Block- Ego Control and Ego resilience - Pioneered the California Q-sort and other measures to chart developmental patterns in adult lives - Advocated the use of expert observers (instead of traditional self-reports) who evaluate overall patterns of traits in people’s lives Q-sort - 100 statements - Advantage: each of the 100 items are grouped into one of the nine stacks with other items that are relatively equally characteristic of the same individual Why is the Q-sort so appealing? Enables researchers to examine patterns of personality traits within the person Comparing Q-sorts of the same individual over time allows the researcher to examine the longitudinal coherence of these patterns - How the Q-sort works: Measurements collected at several time points in life one separate file for each time point in life For each file, trained psychologists composed a Q-sort for each participant and arrange the 100 personality descriptors into nine groups based on the information on the person contained in the file - Block identified clusters of individuals manifesting similar patterns of traits over time - Each cluster represented a personality type, specified in terms of an individual’s displaying a particular pattern of traits that evolve in particular fashion over time E.g. The “belated adjusters” personality type are males that show a pattern of rebelliousness in adolescent but then develop in the direction of conscientiousness and prosocial behaviour Block’s Two Central Dimensions of Personality 1. Ego Control - The extent to which a person typically modified the expression of impulses - A continuum: Undercontrolled Overcontrolled - Undercontrollers = Cannot inhibit desires and impulses Cannot delay gratification for longer-term rewards Become enthusiastic about many different things in their lives, but their involvements are fleeting and frustrating Impromptu rather than planned - 2. Distractible and exploratory Overcontrollers = Especially conforming and restrained Their inhibitions sometimes keep them from spontaneous joy and creativity Medium level of ego control is the best for mental health Ego Resilience - The capacity to modify one’s typical level of ego control – in either directions – to adapt to the demands of a given situation - The more the better - People with high ego resilience: resourceful and flexible and able to adapt to a wide range of life challenges In Funder and Block’s (1989) study, what factors were found to be the best predictors for delay gratification behaviours? 1. Ego control 2. Ego resiliency 3. Intelligence (IQ) Norman Hann (1981) - Analyzed longitudinal studies for developmental trends in six basic personality factors: Cognitively invested - Verbally fluent, intellectual, philosophically inclined, achievement-oriented Emotionally under/overcontrolled - Highly volatile and dramatic vs. Calma nd restricted Open/closed self - Self-aware and insightful vs. Conventional and repressive Nurturant/hostile - Warm and responsive vs. Cold and suspicious Under/overcontrolled heterosexual - Uninhibited vs. Inhibited sexual expression Self-confident - Findings: The Q-sort scores on these dimensions were stable for both men and women but more stable for women Over time, both men and women become more cognitively invested, more open to self, more nurturant, and more self-confident Sexual expressiveness peaked in late adolescence, drop to lower levels at age 30 and then rise again to surprisingly strong levels when they reached their 40s York and John – “The Four Faces of Eve” - Women’s personality at midlife - York and John argued personality types should be defined as prototypes rather than discrete categories of traits - They analyzed graduates of Mills College when the women were in their 40s - Used “Inverse factor analysis”: Individuals, rather than variables, are intercorrelated across a range of personality characteristics - Person-centred rather than variable-centred - The “Four faces” - Strong ambition in life with interpersonal warmth and sensitivity Highest levels of ego resiliency of all four types Relatively low levels of ego control Of all the types, most flexible and adaptive in expressing feelings, needs and desires i.e. Spontaneous and uninhibited in their expression of impulses but they knew well when to hold themselves back and when to let go Score high on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness to experience Traditional - High level of ego control Score high on Conscientiousness and Agreebleness Prone to feeling of guilt Conflicted - Lowest level of ego resiliency Highest levels of Neuroticism Appear less satisfied with themselves than the other types Anxious, hostile and aloof Assured - The most emotionally stable Narcissistic and interpersonally detached Most confident, rational, productive, and sceptical Relatively high levels of ego resiliency and Conscientiousness Lowest levels of Neuroticism Least likely to suffer from guilt and doubt Least likely to engage in fantasy and introspection Individuated - Personality typologies organize groups of trait dimensions into patterns that show both continuity and change over time - Provide a more holistic, person-centred understanding of human behaviour and experience than is possible through the examination of single, independent traits - Typological research provide support for both change and continuity of personality - - - What Else Might Change? Individual differences in traits show remarkable longitudinal stability Stability due to: - Heritabilities of traits - The ways which genotypes contribute to the selection of environments that are consistent with those genotypes themselves Happiness Over the Adult Lifespan Most people report that they are at lease moderately happy with their lives Components of well-being (not a personality trait) Positive affect Negative affect Life satisfaction Like traits, there is evidence for both continuity and change in well-being over the human lifespan - - Well-being can fluctuate from one moment from time to time but it fluctuates around a set point Day-today changes in well-being parallel shifting in success and failures in our lives But each of us tends to return to our own set point eventually Evidence for set point: despite fluctuations, individual differences in well-being show considerable differential continuity over time There are evidence that well-being may be inheritable What factors would prevent a person from returning to the set point? 1. Divorce 2. Prolonged unemployment Exert strong and long-term effects on well-being: these setbacks are so severe that they may alter a person’s basic set point for happiness - Macrosocial variables (e.g. race, sex, social have) have very little impact on overall wellbeing - Income and education account for only 2% of the variance in well-being - Other predictors of well-being: being married, have strong religious convictions show small association - Lykken and Tellegen: Happiness is mainly the luck of the draw (in your genes) Do overall levels of happiness change over the lifespan? - Mixed picture Ingelhart (1990) - Cross-sectional examination - Compared ratings made by young, midlife, and elderly adults in 16 countries - Findings: Some nations showed decrease in happiness among their oldest cohorts but some showed increase, some showed a dip in happiness in midlife Mroczek and Kolarz – age 25 to 74 - Finding: General pattern: positive affect tends to go up and negative affect tends to go down across the age span they studied Sex differences: - Men scored high on Extraversion reported high levels of positive affect at all ages - Score of negative affect goes down for men over lifespan but women did not show age-related decrease - Married men: mainly for married men that an inverse relation between age and negative affect was found (i.e. old married man showed especially low levels of negative affect) Significant events in life that change people’s personality? NO! These beliefs are mistaken. - Personality is very hard to change, takes a lot of effort and time - Sure, people change, but not so much their traits Significant personality change may occur, but that change may not be captured in a person’s trait scores since the very definition of trait includes the assumption of longitudinal consistency Psychological individuality that change are not traits - E.g. psychotherapists targets specific problems, not traits Caspi and Moffitt (1993) - If anything, major life changes sometimes accentuate or consolidate the trait tendencies that people have to begin with - Paradoxical effect: significant event affirm people of who they are and behaved in the first place What else might change? - Definition not traits but the other 2 levels of personality - Can change: Characteristic desires and wants, goals and motives, life plans and projects, values and beliefs, coping strategies and defence mechanisms, pattern of interests, developmental concerns, etc. These are features of a person’s unique adaptation to the world at any given point in time But none of them is well expressed as a trait There are more to personality than traits