Which Research Method to Use on Personality

Throughout the year, we have learned several different methods of research to understand different things. When looking at personality, do we use case studies, surveys, or experimentation? The answer is that it depends on which perspective we are looking into.

Lets look at all four:

Psychoanalytic approach: This is Freud’s theory. It says personality deals with the conflict between our biological and social restraints and how we deal with these impulses.  The players in this conflict are three interacting systems: the id, the ego, and the superego. To study this, it would be best to use case-study or a survey. Not only are these less expensive, but also the results would tend to be reliable. The reason you can use this approach is because you can look in depth at an individual in a case study and understand their conscious drive, and a survey would also tell you about the person.

Humanistic: Maslow’s theory looks at positive psychology and the goodness in humans while maintaining the idea that humans are basically good. The only way to research this approach is through case studies, since it focuses so much on the person.

Trait: Trait researchers have attempted to describe personality in terms of stable and enduring behavior patterns, or predispositions to feel and act. Many effective methods can be used to look at the trait theory, including personality inventories, such as Myer-Briggs and MMPI.

Social-Cognitive: This approach applies principles of learning and cognition to the study of personality. Using observations, surveys, and experimentation are the best method of researching this perspective.

General Intelligence vs. Multiple Intelligences

      Spearman, Cattell, and Thurstone are generalists. This means that they believe that everybody has a general intelligence. Spearman said that there is a G scale of intelligence. He said that if you are intelligent, you are good at a multitude of things including mathematical, mechanical, verbal, spatial things, and if you are not intelligent, you are not good at any of those. He measured using psychometric testing. Cattell divided the general intelligence into two parts: crystallized intelligence, which is one's knowledge, and fluid intelligence, which is one's ability to see complex problems and solve them quickly. Cattell also holds that if you are good at one of Spearman's aspects, you are good at all, and if you are not good at one, you are not good at any. As opposed to Spearman, Thurstone had 7 aspects of intelligence including verbal comprehension, verbal fluency, arithmetic ability, memory, perceptual speed, inductive reasoning, spatial visualization. Studies have shown that Spearman is right in the sense that those who scored high on one thing, tended to score high on other sections as well.

      Gardner and Sternberg believed that people possess multiple intelligences. They believed people could be intelligent at one thing, but not necessarily at another. Gardner proved this based on two things: an idiot savant could have a very low IQ, but could be amazingly intelligent at one specific thing. I have a friend with autism who can tell me the day of the week any date is on. If I tell him my birthday, he can successfully tell me what day I was born on. Another way Gardner proved that people have multiple intelligences is with brain damage people, they could have brain damage in some parts of the brain, but in others, they could still be very intelligent. Sternberg held by his triarchic theory. He said that there are different ways of being smart. Analytical intelligence includes knowledge, performance, and metacognitive performance. This includes doing well in school and being good at memorizing things. Creative intelligence is exactly what it sounds like. It includes coming up with creative ideas and being able to adapt to new situations well. Practical intelligence is not just about your IQ, but it is also about how you interact and your social intelligence. If you have a mixture of all three parts of his theory, Sternberg would say you will be very successful. 


     


     

       

Erikson Development at the Sarachek Tournament

I'm sitting here on the bleachers at the YU basketball tournament. It's halftime of the DRS vs Northshore game. I was thinking of what I needed to get done for psych class. Then, I had a moment of insight. This is where one spontaneously finds the answer for what one is looking for. So know with my insight, I am writing my blog post.

I wanted to speak about two of Erikson's stages that are being displayed at the tournament. The first is the 1st Erikson stage from age 0-1. This is the trust vs mistrust stage. If not developed by caring parents in childhood, and for example regular feeding patterns as a baby, people grow up being very uptight and not trusting people they normally should. For example, I've seen some guys on our team unnecessarily locking the bathroom door and hiding their stuff.

The next stage prevalent at this tournament is the 2nd stage: autonomy vs shame and doubt, acquired between age 2-3. This is where you either develop independence, or you are very hesitant and doubtful in your decisions, developed early on by things like potty training. For example, a new kid on our team (not saying names) ordered something at Noah's Ark last night but switched his order after 15 minutes. Classic. He may not have totally finished developing during this critical 2nd stage of Erikson development.

Psychology is everywhere, and people you might think are done developing may not actually be totally finished.

Recollections of AIPAC

While I was in DC on Aipac, several different ideas from psychology came to mind. I know they don't have to do with what we have learned this past week in school, but I haven't been in school for a while, so I have no clue what's going on. Here we go:
On AIPAC, individuals who support the committee financially receive different laniards (depending on how much many they gave) which have different colors. Certain colors permit you to enter into different membership clubs and receive different benefits. The orange laniards get you into the most clubs while the blue ones do the least for you. Anyways, I noticed that a lot of different people on the convention were constantly looking at the colors their peers had, often in jealousy. This concept has to do with the adaption-level phenomenon and the relative-deprivation principle. The adaptation-level phenomenon is our tendency to assess stimuli (including material possessions) by contrasting them with a neutral level that changes with our experience. The relative-deprivation principle is our perception that we are less well off than others with whom we compare ourselves. Thus, happiness is relative to both our past experience and our comparisons with others.
Another thing I did a lot of on AIPAC was visit different museums. I went to Art Museums and history museums. I realized how much history and art I had forgotten since learning about it in school. Then I thought about Ebbingaus' forgetting curve.Encoded memories may fade after storage. From his research on learning and retention, Ebbinghaus determined that the course of forgetting is initially rapid, then levels off with time; this principle became known as the forgetting curve.
In all, I had a great trip. But it did get me thinking about AP Psych

Derrick Rose: Is he intelligent?

I haven't posted in a while, so hello everybody. I am still taking AP Psychology and I believe our teacher is Mrs. Perl...Anyways...
In order to answer the question of whether or not Derrick Rose is intelligent, we need to define intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to learn from experience, solve problems, and use knowledge to adapt to new situations.
Before AP Psychology, I had the notion that Derrick Rose was simply not intelligent. He scored in the lowest of the percentiles on the SAT and ACTs. The question is does Rose failing these tests prove he isn't intelligence? Perhaps. The SAT requires cognitive skills that revolve around solving problems and using knowledge to adapt to new problems you have never seen before. One can argue that because Rose couldn't do these on the SAT, he isn't an intelligent individual.
However, this definition is expanded by individuals like Spearman, who argues that there are g and s factors in measuring intelligent. If you are intelligent, you are more likely to be good at mechanics, spatial, verbal, and numerical operations. He holds by the generalist ideas.
Other individuals, such as Gardener, propose 8 different types of intelligences. While Rose may lack mathematical and verbal intelligence, he may be extraordinarily intelligent in terms of movement and understanding of the natural environment around him, which are two forms of intelligence we don't see on the SAT.
In the end, it all depends on the definition and the practicalities. The fact that Derrick Rose can split two defenders and realize that he has a man who trailing behind him ready for a dunk requires a form of intelligence that a man with an IQ of 150 may not have.

America the Superficial

Although we learned it just yesterday and not last week, I still feel the need to post about the fact that our definition of intelligence is in no way assessed by common intelligence tests. Take the IQ test for example. This intelligence quotient test gauges what many to believe general intelligence. Even if this was so, which I don't agree with, it still doesn't note how we use what we learn from experience to adapt to new situations. All the IQ test does is examine one's logic.

What's more, it doesn't even only assess logic, it assesses who knows stupid, irrelevant facts. What does it matter if I know what the capital of Russia is? I don't know the answer to that, but i still feel I'm an intelligent person.

Either we need to change our definition of intelligent, or we need to find tests that actually assess what we know as intelligent.

Oh to be a savant...

One of the most fascinating things we learned so far, in my opinion, is that of the idiot savant. I find it so interesting how someone would be classified as unable to perform even the most menial task but can be so far advanced in a single skill. There are idiot savants who are capable of looking at an entire city for just a minute and then being able to draw an exact replica of the entire scene, or the one who is able to calculate what day of the week it was for any date that you ask, within seconds. The power of their minds are sort of a two -sided coin, impossibly smart on one side but then impossibly autistic on the other. It could be easy fro one of these idiot savants to tell you the first 7,000 digits of pi, but very difficult to tie their own shoe.

Researchers are still not exactly sure what causes or enables these people to have such incredible mental capabilities, but then be so restricted by their autism. However, imagine what will happen when they do figure it all out. There will no doubt be a movement to modify regular people's minds to have the same insane capabilities paired with a normal, non-autistic way of life. I know I will certainly be in line for that!

NBA Players --> Reliability, Validity, and Standardization

To play in the NBA, you got to have some serious skillz. But, on top of that, you need to have intangibles that set you apart from the rest. I am not here to discuss what it takes to make the NBA, rather, I am here to apply an NBA player to the main ways we evaluate a test, namely reliability, validity, and standardization.
1. Reliability (The extent to which scores produced by an instrument or measure are consistent) - In order to be labeled as the most reliable player in the NBA you have to be consistent and smooth. The epitome of that definition is none other than The King himself. Yes, you heard it. LeBron James. He is a consistency machine, and when he does not shoot 50% from the field with 25+ points, people often think something is wrong with the man. He is on his way to 4 MVPs in the past 5 seasons, and the label he is playing at right now is simply scary. People often say that he is not human or from this planet, and by simply looking at the man, you would think that this is true.
2. Validity (the extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure) - In order to be labeled as a player who is "valid like salad" you have to be good at one thing and one thing only. Now, a couple of years ago, I tould have put Kevin Durant under this title, but he has improved his game so much that I do not think it would be fair to label him as a mere scorer anymore. So, I choose Carmelo Anthony. Right now, Anthony leads the NBA in scoring, but that is about all he is or wants to be: a pure scorer. He does not pass well, rebound, or play great defense. He is what he claims to be. The problem with this is that with this mentality, Melo will never win the chip, he has to be multi-faceted if he wants to reach this level.
3. Standardization (Basis for comparing invidual scores) - Well, this one is pretty easy. For this decade, it would be LeBron James, but, for the purpose of this award, I am going to go back in the history books a little. Yea, I said it, MJ, "His Airness", Michael Jordan. Whenever you want to compare someone in the NBA, you compare him to the greatest of all time and that is MJ. There is no question that MJ set the standard for what an NBA player, leader, and winner should look like.

Intelligence

Many people would agree that there are usually two types of students, a math science type of guy, and then an english history person. The math and science guy is usually one who is better at logic problems and arithmetic problems and someone who is a stronger english history person is usually better at memorization, writing and will usually have a larger vocabulary. Many have dubbed the first type of person a street smart person and the second someone who is book smart. Another way to classify these two types of intelligence are the ability to learn new facts, history/english, and the ability to apply knowledge to a subject, math/science. This past week we discussed multiple types of THEORIES (please see my past post) about intelligence the second multiple theory addresses these types of students, Robert Sternberg- Triarchic theory of intelligence. He split up multiple types of intelligence into three separate categories that do not effect each other analytical, creative, and practical intelligence. Analytical intelligence is split up into three further categories knowledge acquisition, performance components, and metacognative components. A history/english student would achieve high knowledge accusation scores. A science/math student would probably achieve higher performance components scores.

The Locus of Control

There's a concept introduced in the social-cognitive perspective of personality called personal control. The concept basically asks where one's locus, or point, of control is. The locus of control is one's perception of how much control he or she has over a certain situation. The locus of control can be divided into two sides: the internal locus of control, and the external locus of control. The internal locus of control is the perception that one has complete control over his or her destiny. One that is shown to have an internal locus of control achieves more in school, acts more independently, copes with stress, can delay gratification, etc. This person's perception of being in complete control of a situation helps that person actually control it. If somebody with an internal locus of control fails a test, the person will blame his or herself for not studying enough or paying attention in class. The external locus of control is the perception that other forces one's destiny. Usually people in this category don't try that hard, because they think that, since they aren't in control of their own destiny, what they do won't make a difference. If somebody with an external locus of control fails a test, he or she will blame the teacher for not teaching the material right. I find this concept very interesting, but at the same time I'm having trouble believe that it is 100% concrete (just like almost every other concept in psychology). Why? Because just because somebody has one kind of locus of control doesn't mean he or she shows those traits. For instance, I can believe I have control over my destiny, but fail a test because I don't care--I'm not a hard worker, but that doesn't mean I'm not in control of my own destiny. Also, I vaguely remember the book mentioning something about religious people having an external locus of control. This is an ignorant assumption--just because you believe in G-d doesn't mean that you have an external locus of control. Again, it's an intriguing concept, but that doesn't make it a concrete one.