Personality
OUTLINE OF RESOURCES
I.
Introducing Personality
Introductory Exercise: Fact or Falsehood? (p. 4)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Issues in Personality Theory (p. 4)
Classroom Exercises: Introducing Personality (p. 4)
Your Theory of Personality (p. 5)
Video: Psychology: The Human Experience, Module 26: Origins of Personality*
Feature Film: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (p. 4)
II. The Psychoanalytic Perspective
Classroom Exercise: Fifteen Freudian Principle Statements (p. 7)
Video: Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition: The Mind Hidden and Divided*
A. Exploring the Unconscious
Lecture/Discussion Topics: Freudian Slips (p. 8)
Freud’s View of Humor (p. 9) NEW
The Case of Little Hans (p. 10)
Classroom Exercises: Demonstrating Personality Structure (p. 7) NEW
Defense Mechanisms (p. 10)
Defense Mechanism Miniskits (p. 11)
Instructor’s Video Tool Kit for Introductory Psychology: Personality Structure: Id, Ego, and Superego*
NEW
B. The Neo-Freudian and Psychodynamic Theorists
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Freud’s Legacy and the Neo-Analytic Movement (p. 12)
C. Assessing Unconscious Processes
D. Evaluating the Psychoanalytic Perspective
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Unconscious Insights (p. 12) UPDATED
Classroom Exercise: The False Consensus Effect (p. 13)
Instructor’s Video Tool Kit for Introductory Psychology: Repression: Reality or Myth?*
NEW
III. The Humanistic Perspective
A. Abraham Maslow’s Self-Actualizing Person
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Obstacles to Self-Actualization (p. 14)
B. Carl Rogers’ Person-Centered Perspective
Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Perceived Self Versus Ideal Self (p. 14)
Feature Film: Dead Poets Society—Burying the True Self (p. 14)
Instructor’s Video Tool Kit for Introductory Psychology: Self-Image: Body Dissatisfaction Among Teenage
Girls* NEW
*Video, ActivePsych, and Instructor’s Video Tool Kit titles followed by an asterisk are not repeated within the core
resource chapter. They are listed, with running times, in the Preface of these resources and described in detail in their
Faculty Guides, which are available at www.worthpublishers.com/mediaroom.
1
2 Chapter 12 Personality
C. Assessing the Self
D. Evaluating the Humanistic Perspective
IV. The Trait Perspective
A. Exploring Traits
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents (p. 15)
Classroom Exercise: Shyness (p. 15) UPDATED
Videos: Psychology: The Human Experience: Module 29: Personality Traits*
Moving Images: Exploring Psychology Through Film, Program 18: Sensation-Seeking:
The Biology of Personality*
ActivePsych: Scientific American Frontiers Teaching Modules, 3rd ed.: Genes and Personality:
Understanding Williams Syndrome*
Instructor’s Video Tool Kit for Introductory Psychology: Genes and Personality* NEW
A Happiness Trait?* NEW
Personality and the Brain* NEW
B. Assessing Traits
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The NEO Personality Inventory (p. 18) UPDATED
Classroom Exercises: Empirically Derived Tests and the Importance of Cross-Validation (p. 16)
Assessing Social Desirability (p. 16)
The Self-Monitoring Scale (p. 17)
Videos: Psychology: The Human Experience: Module 28: Personality Testing for Career Choice*
Moving Images: Exploring Psychology Through Film, Program 20: Personality Assessment: The
Barnum Effect*
C. The Big Five Factors
Lecture/Discussion Topics: Evolution and the Big Five Personality Traits (p. 18)
Personality Traits in the Workplace (p. 21)
The Hogan Personality Inventory (p. 22) NEW
Classroom Exercise: “Big Five” Inventories (p. 19)
D. Evaluating the Trait Perspective
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The HEXACO Model of Personality Structure (p. 22)
Classroom Exercises: The Barnum Effect (p. 22)
Astrology and the Barnum Effect (p. 23)
NEW
V. The Social-Cognitive Perspective
Lecture/Discussion Topics: Perceived Efficacy and Acquirable Skills (p. 23)
George Kelly’s Personal Construct Theory (p. 24)
Classroom Exercise: Self-Efficacy Scale (p. 23) NEW
Video: Psychology: The Human Experience, Module 27: The Social/Cognitive Model*
A. Reciprocal Influences
Feature Film: The Shawshank Redemption and Reciprocal Influences (p. 24)
B. Personal Control
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Locus of Control (p. 25)
Classroom Exercises: Satisficers Versus Maximizers (p. 26) UPDATED
The Life Orientation Test and Optimism (p. 27) UPDATED
Defensive Pessimism (p. 28) UPDATED
PsychSim 5: Helplessly Hoping (p. 27)
Feature Film/Classroom Exercise: Schindler’s List and Personal Control (p. 24)
C. Assessing Behavior in Situations
D. Evaluating the Social-Cognitive Perspective
VI. Exploring the Self
Classroom Exercises/Student Projects: Possible Selves (p. 29) NEW
Exploring Possible Selves as Roadmaps to the Future (p. 29)
NEW
Chapter 12 Personality 3
A. The Benefits of Self-Esteem
Lecture/Discussion Topics: The Dark Side of Self-Esteem (p. 31)
The Sociometer Theory of Self-Esteem (p. 32)
Classroom Exercises: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (p. 30)
A Single-Item Measure of Self-Esteem (SISE) (p. 30) UPDATED
Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale (p. 30)
Self-Concept Clarity (p. 32)
Videos: Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition: The Self*
Moving Images: Exploring Psychology Through Film, Program 19: Fostering Self-Esteem: The
Hazards of Pride*
B. Self-Serving Bias
Classroom Exercises: The Name-Letter Effect (p. 33)
Biased Self-Ratings (p. 33) UPDATED
Self-Handicapping (p. 34)
Taking Credit for Success, Denying Responsibility for Failure (p. 35)
CHAPTER OBJECTIVES
After completing their study of this chapter, students should be able to:
1. Define personality, and explain how Freud’s treatment of psychological disorders led to his study of the
unconscious mind.
2. Describe Freud’s view of personality structure in terms of the id, ego, and superego.
3. Identify Freud’s psychosexual stages of development, and describe the effects of fixation on behavior.
4. Discuss how defense mechanisms serve to protect the individual from anxiety.
5. Contrast the views of the neo-Freudians and psychodynamic theorists with Freud’s original theory.
6. Describe how projective tests are used to assess personality, and discuss some criticisms of them.
7. Summarize psychology’s current assessment of Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis, including its portrayal of the
unconscious.
8. Describe the humanistic perspective on personality in terms of Maslow’s focus on self-actualization and Rogers’
emphasis on people’s potential for growth.
9. Explain how humanistic psychologists assessed personality, and discuss the major criticisms of the humanistic
perspective on personality.
10. Discuss psychologists’ interest in identifying fundamental personality traits and in understanding biological
influences on those traits.
11. Discuss the value of using personality inventories to assess traits, and identify the Big Five trait dimensions.
12. Summarize the person-situation controversy, and explain its importance as a commentary on the trait
perspective.
13. Describe the social-cognitive perspective, and discuss the important consequences of personal control, learned
helplessness, and optimism.
14. Explain why social-cognitive researchers assess behavior in realistic situations, and state the major criticism of
the social-cognitive perspective.
15. Explain why psychology has generated so much research on the self, and discuss the importance of self-esteem
to human well-being.
16. Discuss some evidence for self-serving bias, and contrast defensive and secure self-esteem.
4 Chapter 12 Personality
What makes a personal quality part of your
personality?
CHAPTER OUTLINE
I.
Introducing Personality (p. 419)
Introductory Exercise: Fact or Falsehood?
The correct answers to Handout 12–1, as shown below,
can be confirmed on the listed text pages.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
T (p. 422)
F (p. 425)
T (p. 426)
F (p. 426)
F (p. 427)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
T (p. 433)
F (pp. 434–435)
T (p. 438)
F (p. 442)
F (p. 447)
Feature Film: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the
Ring
The text uses J. R. R. Tolkien’s character Sam Gamgee,
loyal companion to Frodo Baggins, to illustrate the distinctiveness and consistency that define personality.
Sam never fails Frodo. He is cheerful, conscientious,
optimistic, and, most notably, loyal. To complement the
text description you may want to show a clip that
occurs at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, the
first in the series. Scene 39 on the DVD, titled “The
Road Goes Ever On . . .,” contains the moving moment
in which Frodo leaves by boat for the dreaded land of
Mordor. Sam, following at some distance, pursues
Frodo, even though he can’t swim. Sam’s neardrowning ends with the friends clasping hands and
Sam’s statement of allegiance never to leave: “I made a
promise, Mr. Frodo. . . .” Scene 39 begins at 2:44
hours. You can run it for four minutes, or if you prefer,
to the end of the scene.
Classroom Exercise: Introducing Personality
John Brink provides an excellent small-group exercise
for introducing the topic of personality. Tell your class
that in attempting to understand personality, a good
place to start is with ourselves. Have students describe
their own personality by simply answering the question
“Who am I?” on a piece of paper. Have them write at
the top of the page “I am . . .” and then number from 1
to 20. Beside each number they should list what they
consider to be some of their own positive and negative
personality qualities.
After giving them 5 minutes or so to answer, have
them form small groups of 4 to 6 students each. Write
the following instructions on the chalkboard:
1. Introduce yourself to the other group members and
tell them about your personality.
2. As a group identify the four descriptive terms used
most frequently on the exercise. Why do you think
these specific terms were used to describe
personality?
3. Identify any of the self-descriptive terms that do
not really qualify as personality characteristics.
Brink concludes the exercise by introducing a definition of personality that parallels the one in the text:
“Personality is the organization of enduring behavior
patterns that often serve to distinguish us from one
another.”
In highlighting important components of this definition, he notes first that personality involves distinctiveness or uniqueness of character. Thus, understandably, personality psychologists study individual differences and construct tests to measure those differences.
Second, personality involves enduring behavior patterns, and thus consistency or predictability of character. We expect people to stay somewhat the same over
time. Thus, when we see an old friend after an absence
of several years, we often think, “Yes, it’s the same old
Harry.” Finally, personality involves the organization of
individuality. Personality involves an internal coherence
or unified organization of character that embraces the
whole person. Personality theorists have argued that an
adequate understanding of behavior demands an integrative understanding of various processes operating
within the individual. In attempting a grand synthesis,
personality psychologists easily run the risk of generalizing and providing speculative analyses. But this is
also what makes personality theory exciting. It seeks to
address big questions such as the following: How are
mind and body related? Is personality inherited or
learned? Do humans have free will? Is there a self? Is
the self knowable?
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Issues in Personality Theory
B. R. Hergenhahn observes that while other psychologists are concerned with human perception, intelligence, motivation, or development, personality theorists
are in the unique position of studying the entire person.
They have the monumental task of synthesizing the best
information from the diverse fields of the discipline
into a coherent, holistic configuration. In the course of
their work, personality theorists address fundamental
issues of human nature and individual differences.
Duane Schultz has suggested that a theorist’s answers to
the following basic questions define his or her image of
human nature.
1. Free will or determinism? Do we have a conscious
awareness and control of ourselves? Are we free to
choose, to be masters of our fate, or are we victims
of biological factors, unconscious forces, or external stimuli?
2. Nature or nurture? Is our personality determined
primarily by the abilities, temperaments, or predispositions we inherit, or are we shaped more strongly by the environments in which we live?
Chapter 12 Personality 5
3. Past, present, or future? Is personality development
basically complete in early childhood? Or is personality independent of the past, capable of being
influenced by events and experiences in the present
and even by future aspirations and goals?
4. Uniqueness or universality? Is the personality of
each individual unique or are there broad personality patterns that fit large numbers of persons?
5. Equilibrium or growth? Are we primarily tensionreducing, pleasure-seeking animals or are we motivated primarily by the need to grow, to reach our
full potential to reach for ever-higher levels of selfexpression and development?
6. Optimism or pessimism? Are human beings basically good or evil? Are we kind and compassionate,
or cruel and merciless?
Hergenhahn, B. R., & Olson, M. H. (2007). An introduction to theories of personality (7th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. (2009). Theories of personality
(9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Classroom Exercise: Your Theory of Personality
In a once-popular text on personality, Charles Potkay
and Bem Allen provided a brief questionnaire, Handout
12–2, that enables students to explore their own personality theory. It serves as a good introduction to Chapter
12, demonstrating that we all have a personal theory of
human behavior. It can also be used after Chapter 12
has been discussed. Have students compare their
responses with the ideas of the major theorists, as provided by Potkay and Allen and reprinted on the next
page. Not all theorists are covered on every dimension;
the authors have included only theorists whose positions are clearest or most representative of a particular
school of thought. The scale uses a range of 1 to 7, with
the theorists listed below 1 closest to the left-hand perspective and those listed under 5 closest to the righthand perspective.
6 Chapter 12 Personality
Theorists’ Assumptions About Personality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Eysenck, Cattell,
Skinner, Watson, Rotter,
Sheldon, Freud, Jung
Bandura, Rogers
1.
heredity
2.
self
3.
unchanging
4.
past
5.
general
6.
self-centered
7.
reward
8.
personal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Rogers, Maslow, Fromm
Skinner, Bandura, Mischel
social
9.
constructive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Adler, Rogers, Maslow
Freud
destructive
10.
no purpose
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
_________________________________________________
Rogers, Maslow, Erikson,
Watson, Skinner, Rotter,
Horney, Jung
Mischel
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Freud, Eysenck, Cattell
Rogers, Mischel,
Social Learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Freud, Jung, Fromm,
Adler, Rogers, Maslow,
Eysenck
Bandura
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Watson, Skinner, Eysenck,
Adler, Rogers, Bandura,
Fromm
Rotter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Freud, Jung
Adler, Fromm, Maslow,
Rogers, Bandura
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Skinner, Bandura, Freud,
Watson
Maslow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
_________________________________________________
Skinner, Watson,
Adler, Fromm, Horney,
Bandura, Mischel
Rogers, Maslow, Jung
environment
no self
changing
future
unique
altruistic
punishment
purpose
Source: Reprinted by permission of the authors from Potkay, C. R., and Allen, B. P. (1986). Personality: Theory, research, and
applications. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. © Charles R. Potkay.
Chapter 12 Personality 7
II.
The Psychoanalytic Perspective
(pp. 420–429)
Classroom Exercise: Fifteen Freudian Principle
Statements
Marianne Miserandino has designed an exercise to
introduce the psychoanalytic perspective, and more
specifically to help students appreciate the impact of
Sigmund Freud on modern American culture. In Handout 12–3 students indicate their degree of agreement or
disagreement with 15 statements designed to represent
the breadth of Freudian concepts. The statements are
worded so that a Freudian psychologist would strongly
agree with 9 and disagree with 6 of them. In scoring
their own responses, students should first reverse the
numbers they placed in front of statements 1, 2, 7, 9,
13, and 15. Then, to obtain a total score, they should
add the numbers in front of all 15 statements. Scores
can range from 15 to 75, with higher scores reflecting
greater agreement with a Freudian perspective.
Miserandino suggests that discussion focus on why
students believe as they do. How did they come to
accept or reject these statements? What kinds of evidence should be used to evaluate the truth or falsehood
of the statements? Were some of the statements true in
the past but not today? Would people from other cultures respond to these statements differently? Do
responses indicate a double standard of acceptable
behavior for men and women on questions about fathers
and daughters (statement 8) versus mothers and sons
(statement 4) or of dating an older person (statements
11 and 14)? Finally, can students identify the Freudian
concepts and reasoning behind the statements?
Miserandino provides a brief summary of the basic
tenets of Freud’s theory as they relate to Handout 12–3:
—Freud argued that humans are driven by life instincts
(e.g., sex) and by death instincts (e.g., aggression).
—If either anxiety or social constraints prevent direct
expression of these drives, they will be expressed
indirectly or unconsciously. Freud maintained that the
aggressive drive is often sublimated into competition
and achievement.
—Dreams and Freudian slips provide two ways of
studying unconscious wishes or impulses.
—Individuals pass through a series of psychosexual
stages during which id impulses of a sexual nature
find a socially acceptable outlet.
—Unresolved conflicts between id impulses and social
restrictions during childhood continue to influence
one’s personality in adulthood.
—People who smoke, overeat, or chew gum presumably
have had trouble with feeding and weaning early in
the oral stage.
—Problems with toilet training during the anal stage
may lead to the development of anal-expulsive or
anal-retentive personalities in adulthood.
—Problems during the genital stage may be expressed
in an Oedipus complex and castration anxiety in men
and in an Electra complex and penis envy in women.
Because of penis envy, women fixated at this stage
symbolically castrate men through embarrassment,
deception, and derogation.
Miserandino, M. (1994). Freudian principles in everyday
life. Teaching of Psychology, 21, 93–95.
A. Exploring the Unconscious (pp. 420–423)
Classroom Exercise: Demonstrating Personality
Structure
Dan J. Segrist provides a very helpful exercise for
demonstrating Freud’s view of personality structure.
After you have introduced the id, ego, and superego in
class, recruit nine volunteers for the demonstration.
Take them outside the classroom and randomly
assign them to one of three groups. Briefly tell each
group that it will play a part of your psyche and give
them instructions for id, ego, or superego. Although the
scenario involves sexual attraction, it can readily be
changed to a nonsexual situation, for example, being
hungry, feeling angry at a parent, finding a lost wallet
with money in it, or being in a crowd of customers during a store special sales event and attempting to get a
high-demand consumer product that has been advertised but is in short supply.
ID instructions:
Welcome to my psyche! Your group is going to be my
ID! Imagine that I am at a shopping mall and have just
seen an attractive woman walk by. Remember that the ID
is driven by the pleasure principle and seeks to have
physical needs met immediately—with no regard for
consequences. Your group’s task is to come up with ideas
of what the ID might “say” in this situation.
EGO instructions:
Welcome to my psyche! Your group is going to be my
EGO! Imagine that I am at a shopping mall and have just
seen an attractive woman walk by. Remember that the
EGO is governed by the reality principle and seeks to
gratify the id’s impulses in realistic ways that will bring
long-term pleasure rather than pain or destruction. Your
group’s task is to come up with ideas of what the EGO
might “say” in this situation.
SUPEREGO instructions:
Welcome to my psyche! Your group is going to be my
SUPEREGO! Imagine that I am at a shopping mall and
have just seen an attractive woman walk by. Remember
that the SUPEREGO is the voice of conscience, strives
for perfection, and focuses solely on how we ought to
8 Chapter 12 Personality
behave. Your group’s task is to come up with ideas of
what the SUPEREGO might “say” in this situation.
Tell the groups that they should be prepared to
respond to statements from other parts of the psyche.
Add a few important caveats. If you use sexual attraction, make it clear that the model does not implicitly
assume heterosexuality. For simplicity, Segrist indicates
that the volunteers should assume he is attracted to
women. Also tell the groups (the id group in particular)
that their comments have the potential to be offensive to
some students and disconcerting to any student who has
been sexually victimized. Thus, they should avoid clearly objectionable or hostile comments.
When you return to the classroom, place each
group behind you, corresponding to how “conscious”
Freud considered each structure to be. So, place the id
farthest back, behind you on your right. Place the ego
immediately behind you on the left side, and the superego behind the ego even farther to the left.
Sit facing the class and announce theatrically,
“Here I am sitting in the mall, and look at that. . . . an
attractive woman is walking by.” The groups then shout
out statements according to their psyche role (e.g., id:
“WOW, look at THAT! She’s HOT!; superego: “You
should be ashamed of yourself! Look at the ring on
your finger! What would your wife and kids say!”; ego:
“Go ahead and look, just don’t touch.”).
In class discussion, include consideration of the
placement of the three structures relative to their levels
of consciousness. You can also include discussion of the
defense mechanisms the ego might employ (e.g., denial:
“She’s really not that attractive.”). Ask your class which
group was “loudest” or “strongest” and what might that
imply about your personality. For example, if the superego is dominant, one might feel anxious or ashamed
and experience little pleasure.
Segrist suggests possible alternatives to this exercise, including dividing the entire class into triads in
which each student plays the role of id, ego, or superego. Another option is to have each student alternate
between the three structures, discussing which role
seems most difficult and why. Students can even create
their own scenarios in which the id, ego, and superego
would be in conflict. These various strategies all enable
your class to see the id, ego, and superego in action and
provide a better understanding of Freud’s view of personality structure.
Segrist, D. J. (2009). What’s going on in your professor’s
head? Demonstrating the id, ego, and superego. Teaching
of Psychology, 36, 51–54. Copyright 2009. Reprinted by
permission of the author.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Freudian Slips
The president of the Austrian parliament opens a session by thundering, “I declare this meeting closed!” In
answering his phone, a preoccupied business executive
picks up the receiver and bellows, “Come in.” At a
copying machine, a secretary counts copies: “eight,
nine, ten, jack, queen, king.” A jogger, just finishing
her run, tosses her shirt into the toilet instead of the
laundry hamper.
Freud believed that such slips were motivated by
unconscious conflicts. A hidden motive could presumably be found for even the most innocuous mistake if it
were investigated with psychoanalytic methods. “The
Austrian president,” wrote Freud, “secretly wished he
was already in a position to close the meeting from
which little good was to be expected.”
Today’s cognitive psychologists favor a more parsimonious explanation for the slips that are part of everyday life. They argue that they are a natural by-product
of how our minds process information and direct action.
For example, the single most common type of slip
seems to involve the intrusion of a strong habit. An
activity that is more familiar, is more frequent, or has
been recently performed interferes with the intended
behavior. The secretary at the copy machine had recently been playing cards.
Psychologist Donald Norman calls this kind of
mistake a “capture error.” Norman states: “Pass too near
a well-formed habit and it will capture your behavior.”
If the habit is strong enough, even cues that only partially match the situation in which it usually occurs are
likely to activate it. Norman cites William James’ report
of the absentminded person who went to the bedroom to
dress for dinner but instead put on his pajamas and got
into bed.
Most actions, argues Norman, are carried out automatically, by subconscious mechanisms. At a conscious
level we make a general selection, but the actual execution of the intended act occurs without further reflection. Such “mental laziness” is typically beneficial, for
it permits us to save our mental resources for more
important things. Occasionally, however, we may forget
whether we have performed the action, as is evident in
this psychologist’s report: “As I was leaving the bathroom this morning, it suddenly struck me that I couldn’t
remember whether or not I had shaved. I had to feel my
chin to establish that I had.”
Attention is the critical factor in preventing slips.
When attention lags, a competing response is more likely to replace the intended one. Sometimes the components of an action may become “misblended,” as when
indecision about whether to say “momentary” or
“instantaneous” produces “momentaneous.” Or Norman
Chapter 12 Personality 9
gives an example many of us can identify with: We
decide not to take another bite of a delicious but calorie-laden cake but, after a brief lapse, the cake somehow
is eaten anyway!
Jerry Burger notes the inherent difficulty of studying Freudian slips experimentally. They occur when we
least expect them and research participants could talk a
long time without ever making one. However,
researchers have developed ingenious ways of circumventing the problem. For example, male undergraduates
in one study were asked to complete some innocentlooking sentences either in the presence of an attractive
and scantily clad female experimenter or with a male
experimenter. According to Freud, which group would
make more slips of the tongue? When completing sentences such as “With the telescope, the details of the
distant landscape were easy to . . . .” those in the
female-experimenter group were more likely to say
“make out” than were other participants. For the sentence, “The lid won’t stay on regardless of how much I .
. .” the same men were more likely to respond with
“screw it.” In a second study, males were asked to read
quickly presented word pairs. Those in the presence of
the female were more likely to read “bine-foddy” as
“fine body” and “lood-gegs” as “good legs.”
As Burger indicates, these findings may be used to
support Freudian theory. However, other interpretations
are clearly possible. For example, linguists would be
likely to explain these slips in terms of cognitive connections and the activation of linguistic pathways. That
is, the salience of sexuality in these situations activates
our memory of sexually related information. They prepare a kind of cognitive pathway between the beginning
of the sentence and the double-entendre word, making
selection of the sexually related word more likely.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Norman, D. A. (1980, April). Post-Freudian slips.
Psychology Today, 42–50.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Freud’s View of Humor
The text notes that Freud viewed jokes as expressions
of repressed sexual and aggressive tendencies. Was he
right? It’s a fascinating classroom topic.
For example, researchers have found that one type
of aggressive humor never disappears. It seems particularly popular among adolescents, but no age group is
exempt. Your students may recognize it in the form of
“dead baby,” “Helen Keller,” or “Mommy, Mommy”
jokes (“Mommy, why do I keep running in circles?”
“Shut up, kid, or I’ll nail your other foot down.”
“Mommy, mommy, may I go out and play with
Grandma? “Shut up, kid, you dug her up twice already
this week.”
In Freud’s day, “marriage broker” jokes were popular. They always began with a young man visiting a broker to arrange a marriage with a young woman. For
example, Freud relates the following:
The bridegroom was most disagreeably surprised when
the bride was introduced to him, and drew the broker to
the side and whispered his remonstrances: “She’s ugly
and old, she squints and has bad teeth and bleary eyes.
. . . .” “You needn’t lower your voice,” interrupted the
broker, “she’s deaf as well.”
Most people groan, half-smile, and follow it with a
complaint about the joke being in bad taste. Nonetheless, the jokes are passed on and remain popular.
Freud analyzed such humor in Jokes and Their
Relation to the Unconscious. Although he fully recognized that jokes could take different forms, he was most
interested in tendentious humor, which presumably
brought insight into the unconscious of the joke teller as
well as the listener who laughs. Tendentious jokes,
maintained Freud, deal with hostility and sex.
For Freud, “Mommy, mommy” and “marriage broker” jokes allow the expression of impulses normally
kept in check. Our egos and superegos typically prevent
attacks on others. Aggressive jokes allow us to express
our hostile impulses in a socially appropriate manner.
Who could object to an innocent and harmless joke?
Freud wrote, “By making our enemy small, inferior,
despicable, or comic, we achieve in a roundabout way
the enjoyment of overcoming him.”
Similarly, jokes on sexual topics provide a socially
appropriate outlet for our sexual impulses. Jerry Burger
shares his experience of normally conservative and
proper people who would never bring up the topic of
sex in public yet feel comfortable dealing with the
taboo topic by repeating a joke “someone told me.”
Researchers have found that sexual jokes provide adolescent girls with a way to introduce embarrassing topics into their lunchtime conversations.
Freud observed that laughter following a tendentious joke is rarely justified by the content of the joke
itself. We laugh not because the joke is funny but as a
form of tension reduction, or catharsis. The description
of aggressive or sexual behavior creates tension at the
beginning of the joke. The punch line releases that tension. We experience pleasure from the jokes not
because they are clever or witty but because they reduce
anxiety. “Strictly speaking,” concluded Freud, “we do
not know what we are laughing at. The technique of
such jokes is often quite wretched, but they have
immense success in provoking laughter.”
Contemporary research indicates that people often
find jokes and cartoons funnier when they contain sexual or aggressive themes. We also enjoy hostile humor
more when it is aimed at someone we dislike. Several
10 Chapter 12 Personality
3. Hans wanted his mother all to himself, was jealous
of his father, and feared his mother would prefer
his father’s bigger widdler, which was “like a
horse.”
4. Hans was most afraid of horses with black muzzles,
similar to his father’s black moustache. Hans had
“accidentally” knocked a statue of a horse from its
stand. When he saw a real horse fall down, he recognized his own aggressive impulse that his father
fall down and die, an idea that frightened him and
that he could not consciously acknowledge. Horses,
then, were symbolic substitutes for Hans’s father,
whom he both feared and hated.
5. Through psychoanalysis, the unconscious was
made conscious. Hans’s fears were brought into the
open and he achieved insight. Freud observed,
“Hans was really a little Oedipus who wanted to
have his father ‘out of the way,’ to get rid of him,
so that he might be alone with his handsome
mother and sleep with her.”
studies also indicate that laughter can be an effective
means to combat daily tension and stressful events. One
alternative explanation is that humor is often a response
to incongruity. That is, it results from an inconsistency
between what we expect in a situation and what happens in the joke. According to this analysis, people may
find sexual and aggressive humor funny simply because
sex and aggression are out of place in the joke setting.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Freud, S. (1886–1936/1964). The complete psychological
works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 1–24). London: Hogarth.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The Case of Little Hans
Charles Potkay and Bem Allen describe Freud’s case
study of Little Hans as the cornerstone of Freud’s ideas
about the Oedipus complex.
Five-year-old Hans was afraid to leave his house
because of an irrational fear that a horse would bite
him. Hans developed the fear after having seen a horse
fall down in the street. Freud believed that the real target of Hans’ fear was something else; through displacement Hans’s unconscious anxiety had merely been redirected from its original source onto horses. Freud suggested that Hans was actually afraid of his erotic feelings toward his mother and aggressive wishes toward
his father. He supported his hypothesis with the following observations.
Potkay, C. R., & Allen, B. P. (1986). Personality: Theory,
research and application. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Classroom Exercise: Defense Mechanisms
Handout 12–4 allows students to apply their understanding of most of the major defense mechanisms
described in the text: repression, regression, reaction
formation, rationalization, displacement, sublimation,
and projection. The exercise will help them move from
the abstract to the concrete and to recognize the operation of these defenses in everyday behavior. After students have read the text material and you have briefly
reviewed the general form each defense mechanism
takes, distribute the handout, asking students to work
individually or in small groups. Correct answers (students may suggest other possibilities) are given below,
using the following key.
1. Hans has said he wanted to sleep with his mother,
“coax with” or caress her, be married to her, and
have children “just like daddy.”
2. Hans experienced castration anxiety. His parents
warned that if he continued to play with his “widdler” (penis), it would be cut off. He noticed that
his sister had no “widdler.”
Key:
A. Repression
B. Regression
C. Reaction Formation
D. Rationalization
1. E
2. A
3. C
4. G
5. F
6. D
7. E
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
E. Displacement
F. Sublimation
G. Projection
F
B
A
C
E
G
D
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
B
F
A
C
D
B
E
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
A
F
G
D
C
G
F
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
C
B
D
G
B
E
A
Chapter 12 Personality 11
Classroom Exercise: Defense Mechanism Miniskits
Mary Inman of Hope College uses miniskits to provide
students with the opportunity to apply their understanding of the major defense mechanisms. Your class is certain to find her exercise both helpful and enjoyable.
Prepare copies of the dialogues below and solicit
pairs of volunteers to enact the skits for the rest of the
class. Give the actors a minute or two to review the scenarios before presenting (reading) them to their classmates. After each dialogue, ask your students what
defense mechanism was illustrated. Also ask your class
why they gave that answer. Correct answers are the following: 1. Regression; 2. Displacement; 3. Sublimation;
4. Reaction Formation; 5. Rationalization;
6. Repression; 7. Projection; 8. Rationalization;
9. Sublimation (Although the text also includes denial,
that defense mechanism was not part of Inman’s
exercise.)
Skit 1 (Two friends)
1.
(coll) college student
2.
(hs) senior in high school
(hs: knock on the door of college friend)
coll:
(Answers. Surprised to see #2 very happy)
coll:
Come in! Welcome to college!
hs:
What’s college like?
coll:
I love it. I’m so independent. I have my own
checkbook, car, I do what I want. I can skip
class if I want. I’m my own boss. I call the
shots. I feel so mature.
hs:
That’s cool. I’d like to stay the weekend if
that’s OK.
coll:
Sure!
hs:
By the way, do you have that $50 you owe me?
I won’t be able to go to the prom without it. I
need it now.
coll:
(Hostile) I can’t believe you demand this out of
the blue! I don’t have it.
hs:
Well, I want it now. You are so irresponsible.
I’m leaving! (Storms out)
coll:
(Whines, pouts, picks up the phone and calls
mom for help and advice, looking for comfort,
sucks thumb if necessary.) Hi, Mommy, it is so
nice to hear your voice. You won’t believe what
Jane/John Smith just did. (Whining) He/she
just showed up out of the blue and demanded
money from me. I miss you so much. Could
you give me advice like you always used to?
(pause) I miss the days when you would take
care of me.
Skit 2 (One person)
Act like you are a top baseball player. You are up to bat.
Twice you swing and miss (two strikes). The third is an
easy pitch. Again you swing and strike out. When this
happens you throw the bat, kick the dirt, and yell at the
umpire with all your might.
Skit 3 (Two friends, one returning from the Iraqi
war)
Person 1:
(friend): Welcome back, buddy! I hear you
have been back from the Gulf War for
about a month. I heard there was a lot of
violence over there. What are you doing
with yourself now?
Person 2:
(war vet): (Enthusiastically) I had a good
time in Iraq. Now, I’m working as a police
officer in the dangerous upper side of
town.
Skit 4 (One person: male)
(You have a strong attraction toward women but you
will become a woman hater.)
(call up a friend on the phone)
male: Hi, Bill. This is Kevin. What are you doing?
Oh, you have Shelly there. Yeah, aren’t women
great? It would be nice to have a relationship.
(pause) Oh, you ask how my date went with
Kathy? Well, (pause) you know, I was looking
forward to going out with her. She did not take
to me too well.
Now, I figure . . . What’s the use. You know the
phrase: Women, you can’t live with them and
you can’t shoot them. I have decided, who
needs women?—they are the cause for many
of our society's problems.
Skit 5 (Two friends at a bar: John, who is a habitual
drinker, and Tim, his friend)
John is sitting at the bar drinking. Tim approaches.
Tim:
Hey, John. How long have you been sitting
here?
John: All day. (guzzling beer)
Tim:
Hey, don’t you think you had enough? You
have been drinking a lot every day for several
months.
John: Don’t worry. I really don’t like the taste of
alcohol. I’m just drinking to hang out and be
sociable.
Skit 6 (Two people: an interviewer (I) and a concentration camp survivor (Eisel))
I:
I’m talking with Eisel who lived in Auschwitz
concentration camp for two months when she
was 15 years old. Tell me, Eisel, what was it
like in the camp?
Eisel: I really don’t remember. I recall the police taking us to the trains and the next thing I knew,
we were being released.
12 Chapter 12 Personality
Skit 7 (Two people: an employee and boss)
Employee: (Works at a store and shows temptation to
steal some of the merchandise.)
Another day at Circuit City. (Look around
making sure no one is watching. Start
dusting a CD player.) Boy, this CD player
looks mighty fine. It would go great in my
room, with that big 36-inch TV over there.
(You spot the boss and go back to work.
Then you go over to the boss, a little nervous, and start a conversation).
Employee: Hello, Mr. Biggs. I must say you are running a great store here. (pause, show nervousness) I must tell you something
though. I think that other employees are
stealing from you. I’ve seen a few of them
looking hungrily at the CD players and
television sets.
Boss:
Why, thank you, Peters, I’ll keep a close
look out.
Skit 8 (Two students coming out of an exam)
Student 1 (noncheater): Boy, that was a hard exam.
Don’t you agree? In fact, I saw
you peeking at Kim’s answers.
Student 2 (cheater):
Yeah, I cheated, but I think
cheating is legitimate with an
unfair exam like this one.
Student 1: (rolls eyes). Yeah, whatever.
Skit 9 (Two females: a concerned mother and her
friend)
Kim:
Hi, Becky. I am really worried about my son,
Johnny. He pulls wings off flies and jabs pins
in the dog.
Becky: Don’t worry. His pulling wings off flies is a
good sign that he might become a dentist
(pause) and his pleasure in sticking animals
could be useful if he becomes a nurse.
B. The Neo-Freudian and Psychodynamic Theorists
(pp. 423–424)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Freud’s Legacy and the NeoAnalytic Movement
In reflecting on Sigmund Freud’s legacy, Drew Westen
begins, “Freud, like Elvis, has been dead for a number
of years but continues to be cited with some regularity.”
Westen notes that “Many aspects of Freudian theory are
indeed out of date, and they should be: Freud died in
1939, and he has been slow to undertake further revisions. His critics, however, are equally behind the
times, attacking Freudian views of the 1920s as if they
continue to have some currency in their original form.
Psychodynamic theory and therapy have evolved con-
siderably since 1939 when Freud’s bearded countenance
was last sighted in earnest.”
Westen argues that contemporary psychoanalysts
and psychodynamic theorists no longer write about ids
and egos or view psychotherapy as the search for lost
memories. However, they do embrace the following five
core postulates, which in large measure reflect Freud’s
enduring contributions to the understanding of human
personality.
1. The most central proposition is that much of mental life—thoughts, feelings, and motives—is unconscious. This means that people show behavior patterns and develop symptoms that are inexplicable
to themselves.
2. Mental processes, including affective and motivational processes, operate in parallel, so that individuals can have conflicting feelings toward the same
person or situation. These conflicting feelings motivate them to act in opposing ways and often lead to
compromise solutions.
3. Stable personality patterns start to form in early
childhood, and people’s early experiences play a
significant role in personality development,
especially in the ways they form later social
relationships.
4. Mental representations or understandings of the
self, others, and relationships guide people’s social
interactions and influence the ways in which they
develop psychological symptoms.
5. Personality development involves more than learning to regulate sexual and aggressive impulses. It
requires moving from immature, social dependence
to mature independence.
Cooper, A. (2006). Contemporary psychoanalysis in
America: Leading analysts present their work.
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Dufresne, T. (2007). Against Freud: Critics talk back.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Orange, D. (2009). Thinking for clinicians: Philosophical
resources for contemporary psychoanalysis and the
humanistic psychotherapies. New York: Routledge.
Westen, D. (1998). The scientific legacy of Sigmund
Freud: Toward a psychodynamically informed psychological science. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 333–371.
C. Assessing Unconscious Processes (pp. 424–426)
D. Evaluating the Psychoanalytic Perspective
(pp. 426–428)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Unconscious Insights
Robert Siegler asks the following intriguing questions:
Do our insights occur at an unconscious (i.e., nonre-
Chapter 12 Personality 13
portable) level before they occur consciously? Do our
insights arise suddenly or gradually? The questions
have been difficult to address empirically simply
because we cannot know that people have an insight
until they tell us.
Working with Elsbeth Stern, Siegler found a way to
obtain independent measures of conscious and unconscious insights and thus to examine the relation between
them. On an inversion problem of the form A + B – B
(e.g., 18 + 24 – 24), the answer is always A. Such a
problem can be solved in either an insightful or a computational way. In addition to allowing both insightful
and noninsightful solutions, the inversion task has the
unusual property of allowing independent measurement
of conscious insight through verbal report and unconscious insight through solution time. (Insightful solution
times are significantly shorter.)
Previous research has indicated that young schoolage children are quite accurate in reporting their arithmetic strategies. Thus, they were involved in testing the
unconscious activation hypothesis, namely, that people
first use a strategy unconsciously and then, as the activation increases they become conscious of using the
strategy. In short, the unconscious shortcut emerges
before the conscious version of the strategy.
Siegler and Stern created two experimental conditions. In the blocked-problems condition, children were
presented only problems that could be solved by the
inversion principle. In the mixed-problems condition,
half the problems could be solved by the shortcut strategy. On the basis of the unconscious activation hypothesis, the researchers predicted that presenting inversion
problems on all trials would lead children to activate the
shortcut more rapidly, which in turn would lead to (a)
more rapid discovery of the shortcut strategy (discovery
after fewer inversion problems), (b) a shorter gap
between discovery of the unconscious shortcut (short
solution time but nonreport of strategy) and conscious
(short solution time and report of strategy) discovery of
the shortcut, (c) more consistent use of the shortcut on
inversion problems once it was discovered, and (d)
greater generalization of the strategy to novel problems.
Working with 31 German second graders, the
researchers found support for each of their predictions.
Almost 90 percent of the children discovered the unconscious version of the shortcut before the conscious version. Moreover, relative to the children in the mixedproblems condition, children in the blocked-problems
condition discovered both the unconscious-shortcut and
shortcut strategies after seeing fewer inversion problems, they exhibited a shorter gap between discovery of
the two strategies, they used the strategies more often
once they discovered them, and they generalized the
strategies more widely to novel types of problems.
Interestingly, results in the blocked-problems condition
indicated that just before their first use of the uncon-
scious shortcut, all the children used the computational
strategy. After their initial use of the unconscious shortcut, most of them continued to use the unconscious
shortcut over the next three trials. By the fourth trial,
half the children reported using the shortcut. By the
fifth trial, 80 percent of the children did so.
Results indicated that insights are not always conscious. Furthermore, insights are abrupt in one sense
but gradual in another. The dramatic reduction in solution times that accompanied the first use of the unconscious shortcut indicated insight was abrupt. On the
other hand, insight was gradual in that children initially
discovered the strategy in a nonreportable form and
only later became able to report using it.
Chapter 3 of these resources provides examples of
unconscious adult insights, including the role of the
unconscious in decision making and evaluative judgment. If you did not use the Lecture/Discussion topics
“’Deliberation-Without-Attention Effect” or
“Psychological Distance and Evaluative Judgment” earlier, you may want to do so now.
Siegler, R. (2000). Unconscious insights. Contemporary
Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 79–83.
Classroom Exercise: The False Consensus Effect
Mary E. Kite provides a brief yet effective classroom
demonstration of the false consensus effect. Present students with an opinion—for example, “Barack Obama is
a good president,” or “I like Jay Leno,” and ask them to
indicate their degree of agreement on a scale ranging
from (1) strongly agree to (5) strongly disagree. (To
simplify, you could use a yes-no format.) Also ask students to estimate the percentage of people in the class
that they believe share their opinion. By a show of
hands, ask how many selected each response and record
the number on the board. After computing the percentage of students choosing each option, have students
indicate by a show of hands whether they overestimated
the number of people in agreement with them. Kite
reports that in her classes at least 60 percent of students
overestimated the commonality of their opinions.
Note that research indicates that the false consensus effect seems to hold across reference groups (e.g.,
friends in school versus all students in general) and
issues (e.g., preferred type of bread or preferred presidential candidate). However, the strongest false consensus effects emerge with factual information or political
expectations (e.g., future use of nuclear weapons, outcome of presidential elections). Some have suggested
that the bias may reflect people’s tendency to overestimate the probability of events easily brought to mind
(the availability heuristic). Ask students what might be
some costs and benefits of a false consensus for individuals and society. Finally, ask them whether having
others agree with us makes our opinions “correct.”
14 Chapter 12 Personality
Kite, M. (1991). Observer biases in the classroom.
Teaching of Psychology, 18, 161–164.
III. The Humanistic Perspective (pp. 429–432)
A. Abraham Maslow’s Self-Actualizing Person
(pp. 429–430)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Obstacles to SelfActualization
If the tendency toward self-actualization is innate, why
are not more adults self-actualized? Maslow estimated
that only 1 percent are. He offered four basic explanations for this low number.
1. Self-actualization is at the top of the motivational
hierarchy. This makes it the weakest of all needs
and the most easily impeded. He wrote, “This inner
nature is not strong and overpowering and unmistakable like the instincts of animals. It is weak and
delicate and subtle and easily overcome by habit,
cultural pressure, and wrong attitudes toward it.”
2. Maslow identified the Jonah complex as another
obstacle to self-actualization. We fear and doubt
our own abilities and potentialities. To become selfactualized, one must have enough courage to sacrifice safety for personal growth. Too often,
fear takes precedence over the challenge of selfactualization.
3. The cultural environment may also stifle selfactualization by imposing certain norms on major
segments of the population. Definitions of “manliness” may prevent the male child from developing
traits such as sympathy, kindness, and tenderness,
all of which characterize the self-actualized person.
4. Childhood experiences may inhibit personal
growth. Maslow observed that children from warm,
secure, friendly homes are more likely to choose
experiences that lead to personal growth. Excessive
control and coddling is obviously harmful but so is
excessive permissiveness. Too much freedom in
childhood can lead to anxiety and insecurity, which
can prevent further growth. Maslow called for
“freedom within limits” in which there is the right
mixture of permissiveness and regulation.
Hergenhahn, B., & Olson, M. (2007). An introduction to
theories of personality (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
B. Carl Rogers’ Person-Centered Perspective
(pp. 430–431)
Feature Film: Dead Poets Society—Burying the True
Self (14 minutes)
Dead Poets Society, an older film students are sure to
appreciate, and readily available on DVD, provides a
good opportunity to explore some of the central themes
of the humanistic perspective. Robin Williams portrays
English professor John Keating, who inspires students
to find and express their true selves. He tries to provide
a growth-promoting environment through genuineness,
acceptance, and empathy. Like Abraham Maslow and
Carl Rogers, Keating obviously recognizes the human
need for self-actualization.
At the same time, his school promotes conformity
and his students’ parents, in imposing their own dreams
for their children, inhibit their sons’ growth. They bury
their children’s true selves. One of the most moving
scenes comes 93 minutes into the film and runs approximately 14:30 minutes. Students who have wrestled
with parental expectations will clearly identify with
Neal Perry. Set the scene for your class by describing
how, inspired by Keating, Neal is for the first time fulfilling his dream to be an actor. He does so in spite of
his father’s strong objections and expectation that his
son will become a doctor. The clip begins with Neal’s
extraordinarily well-received performance in a community play. Clearly, Neal relishes his role as actor; he has
found his true self. However, midway through the play
his father unexpectedly appears in the audience. His
strong disapproval is obvious. Taking his son away
immediately after the play, he delivers a tongue-lashing.
He announces that Neal will be transferring to a military school. Initially protesting, Neal succumbs. Asked
by his father what he’s feeling, he finally responds,
“Nothing.” He buries his true self. The scene concludes
tragically. During the night, Neal commits suicide.
Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Perceived Self
Versus Ideal Self
Patricia Jarvis, Cynthia Nordstrom, and Karen Williams
suggest a useful classroom exercise to highlight the distinction between the perceived self and the ideal self.
As the text indicates, Carl Rogers suggests that if our
self-concept is negative, that is, if we fall far short of
our ideal self, we feel dissatisfied and unhappy. It follows that parents, teachers, and friends should help others know, accept, and be true to themselves.
Distribute two sheets of paper and have your students label the first sheet “Perceived Self.” Give them
10 minutes or so to write a description of how they see
themselves. Giving them some examples of how you
yourself might begin such an essay will help them get
started.
After the allotted time, have them label the second
sheet “Ideal Self.” Tell them they have some “fantasy”
time to describe who they would like to be. Again give
them 10 minutes or so to write.
Begin the discussion by asking your class if anyone
wrote the same thing on both pages. Probably no one
Chapter 12 Personality 15
has described the perceived and ideal selves in the same
way. Note that from a humanistic perspective, a fully
functioning, self-actualized person finds the perceived
self as completely congruent with the ideal self.
Ask volunteers to indicate what might account for
the discrepancies or incongruence. Why is there not
complete overlap? Among the possible answers might
be that people, particularly young people, are growing
or maturing, or that most people have not yet achieved
all the goals that parents or teachers have set for them.
From a humanistic perspective, self-actualization
includes the process of completely knowing and
accepting ourselves. So, our major challenge is to
achieve congruence among who we think we are
(description 1), who we really are, and who we want to
be (description 2).
Jarvis, P. A., Nordstrom, C. R., & Williams, K. B.
(2001). In-class activities manual for instructors of introductory psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
C. Assessing the Self (p. 431)
D. Evaluating the Humanistic Perspective
(pp. 431–432)
IV. The Trait Perspective (pp. 432–439)
A. Exploring Traits (pp. 432–433)
Classroom Exercise: Shyness
You can extend a discussion of the trait perspective by
introducing shyness, a trait that 80 percent of
Americans claim to have possessed at some time and
that 40 percent say continues to cause problems.
Indeed, some celebrities have considered themselves to
be shy, including David Letterman and Garrison
Keillor.
What is shyness? One model suggests that it consists of a cognitive component (acute public selfconsciousness, self-deprecating thoughts, and worries
over a negative evaluation), a physiological component
(heart pounding, upset stomach, and sweating), and a
behavioral component (social incompetence, reticence,
and inhibition). Jonathan Cheek reports that shy people
suffer most from interactions with strangers, particularly those of the opposite sex. Shy people also typically
feel more responsible for failure than for success, they
remember mostly negative information about themselves, and they have a low expectancy for social
success.
Neuroscientists suggest that shy persons may have
a more reactive amygdala (the part of the limbic system
associated with fear). For example, Carl Schwartz and
his colleagues found that adults who had been assessed
as shy in early childhood showed a greater fMRI
response within the amygdala to novel versus familiar
faces, compared with “nonshy” adults. Jacqueline
Bruce’s research team examined levels of the stress hormone cortisol in first-graders during the first week of
school. They found that, in contrast to their nonshy
counterparts, shy first graders showed an elevated cortisol level continuing into the fifth day.
Jules Asher’s review examines the interaction of
biology and environment in shyness. Some infants show
a strong physiological response to even mildly stressful
situations and seem inherently inhibited. Others do not
become shy until early adolescence, perhaps because
their parents are socially anxious and provide models of
shyness. Even the temperamentally shy, however, can be
helped through good parenting and, if necessary, psychotherapy.
Handout 12–5, the Revised Cheek and Buss
Shyness Scale, can be used to test students for this trait.
Reverse the scores for items 3, 6, 9, and 12 (5 = 1, 4 =
2, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). Cheek and Buss report a mean
score of 36 for students. Keep the handouts anonymous;
the shy students will naturally be embarrassed.
Asher, J. (1987, April). Born to be shy? Psychology
Today, 56–64.
Bruce, J., Davis, E. P., & Gunnar, M. R. (2002).
Individual differences in children’s cortisol response to
the beginning of a new school year. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 27, 635–650.
Cheek, J. M., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Shyness and sociability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,
330–339.
Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, selfesteem, and self-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 47–82).
New York: Plenum.
Schwartz, C. E., Wright, C. I., Shin, L. M., Kagan, J., &
Rauch, S. L. (2003). Inhibited and uninhibited infants
“grown up”: Adult amygdalar response to novelty.
Science, 300, 1952–1953.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Personality Traits of U.S.
Presidents
Steven J. Rubenzer and his colleagues have provided an
interesting analysis of the personality traits of past U.S.
presidents. The researchers asked 115 biographers, historians, and political scientists to help them rate the
presidents on detailed personality trait scales in the five
years before they took office. Rubenzer and his colleagues were particularly interested in the qualities
linked to successful presidential job performance (ratings of success were obtained from hundreds of
historians).
The researchers reported that “openness to experience” produced the highest correlation with historian’s
ratings of greatness. The best performers could learn as
16 Chapter 12 Personality
they went along. Being an extravert, assertive, and
achievement-oriented were also strongly associated with
success. On the other hand, being agreeable was not.
That is, being cooperative and easily led did not mesh
with greatness. Being straightforward was not predictive of greatness. In fact, a tendency to tell the truth,
suggests Rubenzer, can actually harm a president’s shot
at being considered historically “great.” Finally, “tendermindedness” is predictive of effectiveness. Great
presidents “know it’s all about feelings,” argued
Rubenezer, “theirs and the voters’.”
Other interesting findings:
• In general, the historians rated all the presidents as
far less “straightforward” than typical citizens.
Presidents scored only at the fifteenth percentile.
Among those scoring lowest on being honest were
Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Lincoln seemed to soften his position on slavery in
an attempt to keep the country unified.
• Over time, presidents have become more extraverted but less curious and creative.
• Washington was at the top of the class at being
conscientious but ranked lower than today’s
average American in openness, extraversion, and
agreeableness.
• Lincoln was moderately extraverted, agreeable, and
conscientious. But, unlike other successful presidents, he was neurotic, occasionally suffering bouts
of deep despair.
• Being a bit disorganized, like Lincoln, was also an
asset. Tidiness was not.
• Openness to experience overlaps with intelligence,
because one must be intelligent to appreciate new
experiences. Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson scored
high on both.
• Jimmy Carter had two fatal flaws: a lack of
assertiveness and a tendency to be straightforward
(as demonstrated).
Dingfelder, S. F. (2004, November). A presidential personality. Monitor on Psychology, 26–28.
Rubenzer, S., Ones, D. S., & Faschingbauer, T. (2000,
August). Personality traits of U.S. presidents. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
B. Assessing Traits (pp. 433–435)
Classroom Exercise: Empirically Derived Tests and the
Importance of Cross-Validation
An inventory is empirically derived by testing a large
pool of items and then selecting those that are found to
differentiate particular groups. For example, Alfred
Binet developed the first intelligence test by selecting
items that successfully discriminated children who were
and were not progressing in Paris schools.
When the original pool contains a large number of
items, there is the real possibility that some will distinguish between the criterion groups by chance alone. To
deal with this problem, the researcher must administer
the test again with a new sample of participants. This
cross-validation is a crucial step because an item is not
likely to distinguish between both groups on a chance
basis. Any item that does discriminate twice is likely to
be a valid item.
W. S. Blumenfeld demonstrated the importance of
the cross-validation process by using Art Buchwald’s
amusing North Dakota Null-Hypothesis Brain
Inventory, Handout 12–6, as his item pool. Distribute
the test and have students complete it. Blumenfeld
attempted to determine whether the items would discriminate between different levels of college or university ability using grade point average (GPA) as the criterion. Students in an introductory management course
at Georgia State University completed the test, and nine
items distinguished those with a higher GPA from those
with a lower GPA. The items that correlated positively
with GPA are scored as follows: 5-F, 6-T, 11-F, 16-T,
17-T, 18-T, 20-T, 27-T, 31-T.
Is the nine-item test a good measure of postsecondary ability? When these items were given to a new
sample of participants, all nine were unrelated to GPA.
In this way, Blumenfeld demonstrated the importance of
cross-validation. It would, of course, be relatively easy
to replicate Blumenfeld’s study in class. If students
anonymously place their GPA at the top of their completed survey, you can do a median split and see if any
items discriminate between different levels of ability.
These items can then be administered to a second group
of students.
Blumenfeld, W. S. (1972). “I am never startled by a fish.”
APA Monitor, 3(9, 10), 3, 14.
Classroom Exercise: Assessing Social Desirability
One problem with self-report personality inventories is
that some respondents tend to give socially desirable
rather than honest responses. Handout 12–7, the
Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, attempts to
assess this response tendency. To score the inventory
students should give themselves one point for indicating true to items 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24,
25, 26, 27, 29, 31, and 33, and one point for indicating
false to 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 28, 30,
and 32. Douglas Crowne and David Marlowe report a
mean of 13.72 for undergraduate students. People with
high scores tend to present themselves in a favorable
light that probably does not reflect reality.
Explain the purpose of the scale by reviewing a few
specific items with students. For example, the fourth
item states that “I have never intensely disliked anyone.” Probably everyone has at one time or another
Chapter 12 Personality 17
intensely disliked another person. People who indicate
they have not are trying to present themselves in a
socially desirable light. As Jerry Burger notes,
Marlowe-Crowne scores are particularly useful when
testing the discriminant validity of a new scale. For
example, suppose you had developed a self-report
inventory for friendliness in which most of the items
were relatively straightforward, such as, “Do you make
a good friend?” While high scores may reflect friendliness, they might instead be respondents’ attempts to
present themselves as pleasant people. If the scores on
the new scale and that of Marlowe-Crowne are highly
correlated, you really have no way of knowing whether
the scale is measuring friendliness, social desirability,
or both. If, however, friendliness scores do not correlate
highly with social desirability scores, you can be fairly
confident that the new scale does in fact measure
friendliness.
Social desirability is only one response tendency
testers have to worry about. Another is an acquiescence
response set in which people tend to agree with test
questions regardless of their content. For this reason, it
becomes important that scores for a particular trait are
not simply the number of “true” answers on a scale. To
be safe, many test makers word as many as half the
items in the opposite direction. The Marlowe-Crowne
scale is itself a good example—social desirability is a
sum of both true and false statements.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of
social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Classroom Exercise: The Self-Monitoring Scale
People who perceive themselves as strongly innerdirected tend to act more consistently across different
situations than do people who perceive themselves as
shaping their behavior to fit specific situations. Mark
Snyder has developed the Self-Monitoring (SM) Scale
(Handout 12–8) to assess the extent to which people
observe and control their expressive behavior and selfpresentation out of a concern for social appropriateness.
Have students complete the scale and score their own
responses. The items are keyed for high selfmonitoring.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
F
F
F
F
T
T
T
T
F
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
T
T
F
T
F
T
T
F
T
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
T
F
F
F
F
T
T
Snyder conducted a series of studies to validate the
scale. In one study, he had participants complete the
scale themselves, then asked their peers to complete the
scale as the items related to the participants. He found,
for example, a significant positive relationship between
scores and peer ratings on a number of self-monitoring
attributes (e.g., “To what extent does he express his true
inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs?”). Snyder also reasoned that professional actors are in particularly good
control of their expressive behavior and self-presentation, while the behavior of hospitalized psychiatric
patients is likely to be less variable across situations.
Thus, the former should score higher on the scale than
the latter. Results were consistent with this prediction:
Stage actors scored 18.41 and patients scored 10.19. In
yet another study, Snyder found that high self-monitors,
when given the opportunity, were better at communicating an arbitrary emotional state through their vocal and
facial expressions.
Jeffrey Simpson has suggested that individual differences in self-monitoring can be strongly and systematically related to important aspects of social behavior.
In research on commitment to dating relationships,
Mark Snyder and Simpson hypothesized that because
the social behavior of low self-monitors tends to be
guided by relatively stable factors, such as personal attitudes and feelings, they should have more stable relationships with persons toward whom they have strong,
positive attitudes and feelings (e.g., dating partners). In
contrast, high self-monitors, who are guided by more
transient external factors, should have less durable and
rather short-term relationships with others. Two separate
studies confirmed the hypothesis.
Simpson devised Handout 12–9 for classroom
demonstration of their research. After students have
completed and scored the SM scale on Handout 12–8,
distribute this dating survey. If time permits and your
class is not too large, collect and analyze student
responses immediately. Otherwise, analyze the data outside of class and report the results during the next
session.
A median split on the SM scale divides the class
into high and low self-monitors. Students who answer
“yes” to the first question on the dating survey are
referred to as exclusive daters. Those who answer “no”
to the first question but “yes” to the third are referred to
as multiple daters. (Those who respond “no” to both 1
and 3 because they are married or do not date cannot
provide data for analysis. However, Simpson reports
that they represent only about 15 to 20 percent of students and they still find the exercise interesting and
valuable.) A larger percentage of exclusive daters
should be low rather than high self-monitors. Conversely, a larger percentage of multiple daters should be
high rather than low self-monitors.
18 Chapter 12 Personality
Responses to the second question should indicate
that among exclusive daters, low self-monitors have
dated their current partner for a significantly longer
time than have high self-monitors. Responses to the
fourth question should reveal that among multiple
daters, high self-monitors have dated a larger number of
persons than have low self-monitors. Finally, responses
to questions 6 to 8 should show that high self-monitors
choose a significantly larger number of friends as preferred dating partners than do low self-monitors.
Simpson, J. (1988). Self-monitoring and commitment to
dating relationships: A classroom demonstration.
Teaching of Psychology, 15, 31–33.
Snyder, M. (1987). Public appearances/private realities:
The psychology of self-monitoring. New York: Freeman.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30,
526–537.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The NEO Personality
Inventory
You might complement the text discussion of the Big
Five (discussed in the next text section) and the MMPI
with coverage of the NEO inventories in class (see also
the Classroom Exercise on Empirically Derived Tests).
The NEO Personality Inventory and its successors, the
NEO-PI-R and the NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEOFFI), were developed by Paul Costa and Robert
McCrae in an effort to assess the major domains in the
five-factor model of personality described in the text.
In contrast to the MMPI, which measures psychological
disorders, the NEOs are designed to measure “normal”
personality. These inventories have become among the
most popular for research on personality and for clinical use.
The five-factor model states that emotional stability
(or neuroticism), extraversion, openness, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness are the basic personality factors.
The NEO-PI-R, the current full inventory that replaced
the original NEO-PI in 1992, consists of 240 items,
each answered on a 5-point scale from ”strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree.” Any given statement is scored
for only one factor and thus each factor is assessed with
48 items. (The NEO-FFI, a shortened version with five
12-item scales measuring the major domains, can usually be completed in 10 to 15 minutes. It comes as a combination test booklet and answer sheet and, remarkably,
can be scored in less than a minute.)
Unlike the MMPI, NEO items were not empirically
derived. Rather, the items were chosen on the basis of
their correlation with other measures of the factor being
studied (criterion validity), as well as their adherence to
standards of plausibility and reasonableness (content
validity). Thus, it is fairly obvious what each item is
designed to assess. For example, “I am easily frightened” is an item from the neuroticism scale; “I am a
warm and friendly person” is a statement from the
extraversion scale.
In addition to measuring the major domains of personality, the NEO-PI-R assesses the narrower traits or
facets covered by each domain. In fact, because each
dimension includes six “subtraits,” the NEO-PI-R has a
total of 30 different scale scores. Neuroticism covers
anxiety, anger-hostility, depression, self-consciousness,
impulsiveness, and vulnerability. Extraversion includes
warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotions. Openness covers
fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values.
Agreeableness includes trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tendermindedness.
Conscientiousness is composed of competence, order,
dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and
deliberation.
Developed for use with normal populations, the
inventories have separate norms for males and females,
and for postsecondary-age individuals and adults.
Psychological Assessment Resources, who publish the
test, provide machine-scorable answer sheets that can be
interpreted by a computer. The interpretations provide a
global assessment of the respondent’s personality, along
with a detailed interpretation of the facets and possible
implications (e.g., how the individual is likely to cope
with daily stress). Finally, there are two versions of the
NEO-PI-R: one for the respondent and one for an
observer, which can be completed by a peer, spouse, or
psychologist. If both complete the inventory, a fairly
detailed and complicated profile emerges. The test can
be administered individually or in small groups.
Assuming small enough classes and the necessary
time and competence, it is possible that you could have
your students complete the inventory. The NEO-PI-R
Comprehensive Kit (approximately $260) includes a
manual, 20 reusable test booklets (10 for respondents,
10 for observers), 25 hand-scorable answer sheets, 50
profile forms (25 for respondents, 25 for observers),
and 25 feedback sheets. Address: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc., 16204 N. Florida Avenue,
Lutz, FL 33549. Telephone: 1-800-331-TEST. The Web
site is www3.parinc.com.
Liebert, R., & Liebert, L. (1998). Personality: Strategies
and issues (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
C. The Big Five Factors (p. 436)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Evolution and the Big Five
Personality Traits
Lawrence Pervin and his colleagues note that many personality theorists view traits from within an evolution-
Chapter 12 Personality 19
ary perspective. For example, Lewis Goldberg suggests
that, over time, humans have found that certain basic
traits underlie all social interaction and that knowing
how people differ in these traits can help us understand
these interactions. These traits can be identified through
answers to the following questions, using terms that we
all recognize from the list of the Big Five (X refers to
the person with whom we are interacting).
1. Is X active and dominant or passive and submissive
(Can I bully X or will X try to bully me)?
2. Is X agreeable (warm and pleasant) or disagreeable
(cold and distant)?
3. Can I count on X (Is X responsible and conscientious or undependable and negligent)?
4. Is X crazy (unpredictable) or sane (stable)?
5. Is X smart or dumb (How easy is it for me to teach
X)?
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons.
In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social
psychology (pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of
personality”: The Big-Five structure. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A., (2008). Personality: Theory
and research (10th ed.) New York: Wiley.
Classroom Exercise: “Big Five” Inventories
Handout 12–10, designed by Samuel Gosling and his
colleagues, provides a brief measure of the Big Five
personality dimensions. The authors state that the
instrument, although somewhat inferior to standard
multi-item scales, showed significant convergence with
widely used Big Five measures in self, observer, and
peer reports; test-retest reliability; patterns of predicted
external correlates; and self and observer ratings.The
scale takes only a minute to complete, so using it in the
classroom can provide an efficient introduction to trait
theory.
In scoring, students should reverse the numbers
they place in response to items 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 (1 = 7,
2 = 6, 3 = 5, 4 = 4, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1). Then they
should combine the numbers for items 1 and 6 to obtain
their extraversion score, 2 and 7 for agreeableness, 3
and 8 for conscientiousness, 4 and 9 for emotional stability, and 5 and 10 for openness to experience. Scores
can range from 1 to 14 for each trait, with higher scores
reflecting strong exhibition of a trait.
Handout 12–11, the Big Five Inventory designed by
Oliver P. John and his colleagues, provides another
assessment of the Big Five personality dimensions.
Following are directions for students to measure the
degree to which they exhibit each dimension:
• Extraversion: First reverse the numbers placed in
front of items 6, 21, and 31 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3,
4 = 2, 5 = 1), then add all the numbers for 1, 6, 11,
16, 21, 26, 31, and 36. Scores can range from 8
to 40, with higher scores reflecting greater
extraversion.
• Agreeableness: First reverse the numbers placed in
front of items 2, 12, 27, and 37 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3,
4 = 2, 5 = 1), then add all the numbers for 2, 7, 12,
17, 22, 27, 32, 37, and 42. Scores can range from
9 to 45, with higher scores reflecting greater
agreeableness.
• Conscientiousness: First reverse the numbers
placed in front of items 8, 18, 23, and 43 (1 = 5,
2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1), then add all the numbers
for 3, 8, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33, 38, and 43. Scores can
range from 9 to 45, with higher scores reflecting
greater conscientiousness.
• Neuroticism: First reverse the numbers placed in
front of items 9, 24, and 34 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3,
4 = 2, 5 = 1), then add all the numbers for 4, 9, 14,
19, 24, 29, 34, and 39. Scores can range from 8
to 40, with higher scores reflecting greater
neuroticism.
• Openness: First reverse the numbers placed in front
of items 35 and 41 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2,
5 = 1), then add all the numbers for 5, 10, 15, 20,
25, 30, 35, 40, 41, and 44. Scores can range from
10 to 50, with higher scores reflecting greater
openness.
Stephen Dollinger and Anne Kilman LaMartina
describe a class exercise that encourages students to
reflect on the relationship between the five personality
dimensions and behavior. The exercise also provides a
good review of the correlational approach in psychological research that was first introduced in text Chapter 1.
Dollinger and LaMartina suggest that some time before
your discussion of personality, invite students to participate in an extra-credit research day in which the volunteers complete various questionnaires, including the
NEO Personality Inventory (or you could use the Big
Five Inventory—Handout 12–11) and a “twenty- to
forty-item behavior checklist of actions or activities that
college students occasionally perform and that are of
psychological interest.” You may want to use Dollinger
and LaMartina’s questions or you can design your own.
Their questions follow:
“Have been in (or currently in) therapy/
counseling?”
“Been addicted to the Internet?”
“Ever cheated on a college test?”
“Ever had a spring break in Florida or Mexico?”
20 Chapter 12 Personality
“Ever dated a person of a different race or
nationality?”
“Ever kept a personal journal or diary of your life
and feelings?”
“Ever read twelve or more books in one year, not
counting those for school assignments?”
“Ever marched or protested against an injustice?”
“Ever fell in love at first sight?”
“Ever thrown a party for twenty or more people?”
“Ever got drunk for the sake of getting drunk?”
“Ever written a poem spontaneously (not for a class
assignment)?”
“Ever smoked marijuana?”
“Ever listened to music by yourself in the dark?”
“Ever had a lover whose name you have
forgotten?”
“Ever pulled an all-nighter to complete an
assignment?”
Have students use optical scanning forms to
respond so their answers can be readily scored and
intercorrelations between the personality dimensions
and behavior can be more easily calculated. (Scores on
each personality dimension are correlated with each
Neuroticism
Correlation
“Have been in (or currently
in) therapy/counseling?”
positive
“Been addicted to the
Internet?”
“Ever cheated on a college
test?”
“Ever had a spring break in
Florida or Mexico?”
“Ever dated a person of a
different race or nationality?”
“Ever kept a personal journal
or diary of your life and
feelings?”
“Ever read twelve or more
books in one year, not
counting those for school
assignments?”
“Ever marched or protested
against an injustice?”
negative
“Ever fell in love at first
sight?
“Ever thrown a party for
twenty or more people?”
“Ever got drunk for the sake
of getting drunk?”
behavior, with 0 = did not engage in the behavior or
1 = engaged in the behavior.) These calculations are to
be completed in preparation for the small-group, inclass activity.
After you have introduced the five-factor model of
personality, divide your class into small groups of four
or five students each and have them predict the relationship (positive or negative correlation) that they think
might exist between each personality factor and each
behavior that appears on the checklist. To simplify the
process, Dollinger and LaMartina suggest creating a
handout with a grid listing the five personality factors
as column headings and the specific behaviors as rows.
Include only those behaviors that showed a significant
correlation with one or more of the personality factors.
To further simplify the task for students, you can (in
parentheses behind each behavior) indicate how many
personality dimensions (from 1 to 5) correlated with the
behavior. After the small groups have made their predictions, announce the results and, if you like, declare
the small group with the best predictions the winner.
Alternatively, you can use Dollinger and
LaMartina’s results, which are listed below and on the
next page.
Extraversion
Correlation
Openness
Agreeableness
Correlation Correlation
Conscientiousness
Correlation
positive
negative
negative
positive
positive
positive
negative
positive
positive
positive
positive
negative
Chapter 12 Personality 21
Neuroticism
Correlation
Extraversion
Correlation
“Ever written a poem
spontaneously (not for a
class assignment)?”
“Ever smoked marijuana?”
“Ever listened to music by
yourself in the dark?”
“Ever had a lover whose name
you have forgotten?”
“Ever pulled an all-nighter to
complete an assignment?”
Openness
Agreeableness
Correlation Correlation
Conscientiousness
Correlation
positive
positive
positive
negative
negative
Source: Stephen J. Dollinger. “Predicting Personality-Behavior Relations: A Teaching Activity.” Teaching of Psychology, 2004,
31, 48–51. Copyright 2004. Reprinted by permission of Stephen J. Dollinger.
Dollinger and LaMartina also found interesting correlations between the Big Five and other personality measures, including the following: Emotional Stability and
Extraversion showed a negative correlation with shyness, social anxiety, and loneliness. Openness showed a
negative correlation with authoritarianism. Emotional
stability, extraversion, and conscientiousness all correlated positively with life satisfaction.
Dollinger, S. J., & LaMartina, A. K. (1996, August).
Predicting behavior from personality: A teaching activity. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr.
(2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality
domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37,
504–528.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait
taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. O. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook
of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp.
102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Personality Traits in the
Workplace
Psychologists have long debated the usefulness of personality tests to predict occupational success. Research
with the Big Five traits provides much stronger support
for the relationship between personality and job performance than was found in earlier research that typically used a larger number of personality variables as
predictors.
Jerry Burger poses this dilemma: Assume that you
own a business and have to make a quick decision to
hire one of five nearly identical applications. You do
have the applicants’ scores on the Big Five personality
dimensions. Each applicant is high on a different
dimension—Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, or Conscientiousness. Which of
these people should you hire? Who is likely to be the
best employee?
Although one could build a case for each applicant,
significant research indicates that, of the Big Five, conscientiousness may be the best predictor of job performance. Respondents who score high on this dimension
are careful, thorough, and dependable. In addition, they
take time to do a job accurately and completely. They
tend to be organized, plan oriented, and persistent.
One study examined the job performance of sales
representatives for an appliance manufacturer. Consistent with other research, conscientiousness was a significant predictor of how many appliances the salespersons
sold. A closer look at these employees indicated why
this trait may be associated with superior job performance. Highly conscientious workers set higher goals for
themselves than did other employees. In addition, they
were more committed to reaching those goals. They
expended greater effort to reach their targets and were
more persistent than others when encountering the
inevitable obstacles. One team of investigators concluded, “It is difficult to conceive of a job in which the traits
associated with the conscientiousness dimension would
not contribute to job success.” Research findings also
indicate that highly conscientious employees receive
higher evaluations from their supervisors and are least
likely to be laid off when companies are forced to
reduce their labor force.
Obviously, conscientiousness is not the only trait
related to job performance. Depending on role requirements, a case could also be made for hiring applicants
high in agreeableness. These people are trusting, cooperative, and helpful—characteristics particularly important if the job requires teamwork. Other studies indicate
that extraverts may have the advantage over introverts in
the business world. Clearly, the best match between personality and job demands varies across occupations.
Handout 12–12 provides Lewis R. Goldberg’s
measure of conscientiousness. Have students reverse the
22 Chapter 12 Personality
numbers they placed before the 10 items with an asterisk and than add all 20 responses together. The mean
score obtained in a sample of students was 123.11.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for
the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment,
4, 26–42.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The Hogan Personality
Inventory
Appendix B of these resources includes a discussion of
the Hogan Personality Inventory, which focuses on the
relationship between specific personality traits and job
performance. Robert Hogan utilized research on the
Big Five traits in developing his own measure of personality relevant to the workplace. You may choose to
discuss his research now.
D. Evaluating the Trait Perspective (pp. 437–438)
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The HEXACO Model of
Personality Structure
Recently, Michael C. Ashton and Kibeom Lee have proposed a new six-dimensional framework for personality
structure as an alternative to the Big Five model.
HEXACO has been developed in the same way that the
Big Five model emerged, namely with a lexical
approach that analyzes personality-descriptive adjectives. HEXACO’s six factors have emerged across
numerous languages, including English, Dutch, French,
German, Hungarian, Italian, Korean, and Polish. The
analyses have found variants of the Big Five factors,
plus a new sixth factor: Honesty-Humility.
HEXACO’s six factors (along with common
descriptive adjectives) include the following:
Honesty-Humility: sincere, honest, faithful, loyal,
modest/unassuming, fair-minded versus sly, greedy,
pretentious, hypocritical, boastful, pompous
Emotionality: emotional, oversensitive, sentimental, fearful, anxious, vulnerable versus brave, tough,
independent, self-assured, stable
eXtraversion: outgoing, lively, extraverted, sociable, talkative, cheerful, active versus shy, passive,
withdrawn, introverted, quiet, reserved
Agreeableness: patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild,
agreeable, lenient, gentle versus ill-tempered, quarrelsome, stubborn, choleric
Conscientiousness: organized, disciplined, diligent,
careful, thorough, precise versus sloppy, negligent,
reckless, lazy, irresponsible, absent-minded
Openness to Experience: intellectual, creative,
unconventional, innovative, ironic versus shallow,
unimaginative, conventional
Ashton and Lee note that the HEXACO model
(partly by virtue of its inclusion of the HonestyHumility factor) has outperformed the Big Five model
in predicting several variables of practical importance.
For example, HEXACO better predicts workplace delinquency and the likelihood that the person will engage in
sexual harassment.
Ashton, F. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical,
and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 11, 150–166.
Classroom Exercise: The Barnum Effect
Before students read the text, you might demonstrate
the Barnum effect in class. Have students complete
some bogus personality scale, such as the North Dakota
Null-Hypothesis Brain Inventory in Handout 12–6. At
the next class meeting, give each student a computerized personality description supposedly based on
responses to the inventory. (Alternatively, you can have
them submit a sample of their handwriting to be analyzed or even some basic information such as their
birthdate, hair color, sex, weight, height, etc.)
Make a copy of B. R. Forer’s set of Barnum
descriptions (see below) for your students and ask them
to evaluate its accuracy. Most will agree that the
description fits very well. You can then reveal the hoax,
using it to introduce the Barnum effect—our tendency
to accept as valid descriptions of our personality that
are generally true of everyone. This tendency is
strongest, of course, when the descriptions are generally
favorable. Explain how astrologers, palm readers, and
crystal-ball gazers regularly use the effect to persuade
people that they can accurately assess their personalities
and problems.
You can conclude discussion of the Barnum effect
with Handout 12–13, which contains quotes from David
Levy’s hilarious “Psychometric Infallibility Realized:
The One-Size-Fits-All Psychological Profile.” Students
will surely want to share it with their friends.
Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A
classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118–123.
Copyright 1949 American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission of the publisher and the author.
Levy, D. A. (1993). Psychometric infallibility realized:
The one-size-fits-all psychological profile. Copyright ©
1993 by Wry-Bred Press, Inc. Journal of Polymorphous
Perversity, 10, 3–6.
Chapter 12 Personality 23
Personalized Personality Description for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
You have a strong need for other people to like you and for them to
admire you. You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a
great deal of unused energy which you have not turned to your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally
able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has presented some
problems for you.
Disciplined and controlled on the outside, you tend to be worrisome and
insecure inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have
made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain
amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in
by restrictions and limitations.
You pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept
other opinions without satisfactory proof. You have found it unwise to be
too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are extraverted, affable, and sociable, while at other times you are introverted, wary, and
reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic.
Levy, D. A. (1993). Psychometric infallibility realized: The one-size-fits-all psychological profile. Copyright © 1993 by WryBred Press, Inc. Journal of Polymorphous Perversity. Reprinted by permission of Dr. Glenn Elenbogen.
Classroom Exercise: Astrology and the Barnum Effect
Our tendency to accept astrologers’ descriptions of our
personality as valid can be explained in terms of the
Barnum effect. William Balch provides a classroom
exercise that permits testing the validity of astrology.
Distribute Handout 12–14 to students and have them
complete the 12 items. Each set of adjectives denotes
traits associated with one of the zodiacal signs. After
students have completed the exercise, instruct them to
draw a vertical line through all the scales, so that six of
their responses (vertical marks) appear on each side.
Next, read the zodiacal signs for each set of traits along
with the following corresponding dates.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Aries: March 21–April 19
Taurus: April 20–May 20
Gemini: May 21–June 21
Cancer: June 22–July 22
Leo: July 23–August 22
Virgo: August 23–September 22
Libra: September 23–October 22
Scorpio: October 23–November 21
Sagittarius: November 22–December 21
Capricorn: December 22–January 19
Aquarius: January 20–February 18
Pisces: February 19–March 20
Now have students determine whether their rating
of the description for their own sign is relatively applicable (on the right side of the median line) or inapplicable (on the left side). A show of hands will indicate a
roughly equal number of each. Also ask students to
indicate whether the median line they drew falls to the
right of the midpoint. Most hands will go up. People
tend to agree with all the personality descriptions, a fact
that helps explain the apparent validity of astrologers’
descriptions.
Balch, W. R. (1980). Testing the validity of astrology in
class. Teaching of Psychology, 7(4), 247–250.
V.
The Social-Cognitive Perspective
(pp. 439–446)
Classroom Exercise: Self-Efficacy Scale
Chapter 4 of these resources included Gilad Chen and
his colleagues’ measure of self-efficacy along with relevant research findings. If you did not use the scale earlier, you may choose to do so now.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Perceived Efficacy and
Acquirable Skills
“Unless people believe they can produce desired
effects, and forestall undesired ones by their actions,”
argues Albert Bandura, “they have little incentive to act,
or to persevere in the face of difficulties.” Furthermore,
he observes that perceived efficacy is closely linked to
our belief that important skills can be acquired through
practice.
In a study conducted with his colleague Bob Wood,
Bandura asked business graduates to manage a computer simulation of an organization. Perceived efficacy was
manipulated by telling the participants that the simulation demanded skills that were either innate, or that
could be acquired through practice. Those who thought
the skills could be acquired set challenging goals for
themselves, were efficient in their analytic thinking, and
achieved high performance. In contrast, those who
believed the skills were innate set lower goals and were
more erratic in their thinking, and their performance
gradually deteriorated.
24 Chapter 12 Personality
These findings highlight the danger of what
Bandura calls “Bell Curve thinking,” the belief that
intelligence is largely innate. “We argue over small
ethnic and racial differences (but) we ignore the huge
influence of motivation and self-management factors in
intellectual performance.”
Bandura’s daughter, Mary Bandura, has demonstrated that children who view intelligence as an
acquirable skill are highly resilient in their personal
efficacy beliefs. Setbacks are viewed as correctable, as
due to insufficient effort, lack of knowledge, or faulty
strategies rather than as the result of inherent personal
deficiencies. Children with strong efficacy beliefs
redouble their efforts in the face of difficulty. While one
must be realistic about difficult odds, it is equally
important to be optimistic that one can beat the odds.
Bandura’s ideas are related to the distinction Carol
Dweck has made between entity theorists who believe
human traits are fixed and incremental theorists who
maintain that traits are malleable. A classroom exercise
to assess this difference can be found in Chapter 1 of
these resources. If you did not use it earlier, you may
want to do so now.
Kester, J. D. (2001, July/August). Bandura: Beliefs,
Bobo, and behavior. American Psychological Society
Observer, 8–9.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: George Kelly’s Personal
Construct Theory
You can extend the text discussion of the socialcognitive perspective on personality by introducing
George Kelly’s personal construct theory. Kelly’s basic
assumption is that we are strongly motivated to make
sense of our worlds. Like scientists, we are always
attempting to make better predictions about what will
happen to us. Thus we generate and test hypotheses.
Kelly argued that we use bipolar personal constructs to interpret and predict events. For example, we
might use the personal constructs warm–cold, flexible–
dogmatic, intelligent–unintelligent, and tall–short to
create an image of a new acquaintance. Using these
bipolars, a person might conclude that the stranger is
warm, flexible, intelligent, and tall. One may use further
bipolar constructs to judge the nature of his intelligence, for example, academically intelligent–common
sense intelligent.
Personality differences result largely from differences in the way people construe their worlds. We may
use very different descriptors to characterize the same
person. Those different construals will produce different
social behaviors toward the person. Our relatively consistent patterns of behavior occur because of the relatively stable way we construe the world.
To understand their own personal constructs, students need only reflect on what they tend to notice first
about a person. To assess individual differences in personal constructs, Kelly introduced the Role Construct
Repertory Test, or the Rep Test for short. Handout
12–15, designed by Jerry Burger, represents a shortened
version of the Rep Test. Although it is abbreviated, it
can provide students with insight into how they construe the world. They may be surprised by the ways they
typically organize the people in their social lives.
As a practicing psychotherapist, Kelly rejected the
idea that psychological disorders are the result of past
traumatic experiences. Rather, people suffer from psychological problems because of defects in their construct systems. He called anxiety the “most common of
all clinic commodities.” We feel anxious when our personal constructs fail to make sense of life events.
Healthy people are constantly generating new constructs
to replace old, inadequate ones.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
A. Reciprocal Influences (pp. 439–440)
Feature Film: The Shawshank Redemption and
Reciprocal Influences
Chapter 11 of these resources identifies a clip from The
Shawshank Redemption that illustrates the principle of
reciprocal determinism (as well as perceived control, as
noted in Chapter 11) and how individuals and situations
interact. If you did not show the clip in connection with
stress and health, you may want to use it now.
Responses by Andy and Brooks to the prison environment illustrate how our personalities shape interpretations and reactions to events. Andy’s success in prison
also illustrates how our personalities help create the situations to which we react.
B. Personal Control (pp. 440–444)
Feature Film/Classroom Exercise: Schindler’s List and
Personal Control
A brief clip from Schindler’s List provides an excellent
introduction to the psychological research on personal
control. Start the clip at 98 minutes 16 seconds into the
film and run it for 4 minutes, 35 seconds. While at the
commandant’s house party, Schindler walks down the
steps to the basement and introduces himself to Helen,
a Jewish maid and prisoner. In reflecting on her experience, Helen explains her despair to Schindler. She has
learned that her actions and outcomes are unrelated.
After vividly describing the arbitrary beating she
received at the hands of the brutal commandant on her
arrival, she goes on to give an account of how he
recently shot and killed a passerby without reason.
“There are no set rules to live by,” she laments.
Although Schindler tries to reassure her, it is clear that
Helen has lost all sense of personal control. After show-
Chapter 12 Personality 25
ing this powerful clip you might form small groups to
discuss the following questions.
1. One important aspect of personality is our sense of
personal control—whether we learn to see ourselves as controlling, or as controlled by, our environments. Briefly describe a time in your life when
your efforts seemed to make little difference. What
effects did those feelings have on you?
2. Concentration camp and prison inmates experience
little control over their lives. What other groups are
likely to feel that they have little control over their
outcomes? What do you think are the long-term
effects on them?
3. How do you think gender, age, and race might
influence one’s feelings of control? How might religious faith influence one’s feelings of control?
4. Do you feel you have more control in some areas
of life than others? Describe and explain one
difference.
5. What are the most important factors influencing
one’s sense of control?
Lecture/Discussion Topic: Locus of Control
Handout 12–16 is the Personal Efficacy subscale of
Delroy Paulhus’ locus of control measure. It measures
one’s sense of control in personal achievement situations; two other subscales measure control in interpersonal encounters and in social and political matters.
Researchers find that respondents’ sense of personal
control may vary across different situations. To score,
have students reverse the numbers they placed before
statements 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (i.e., 1 = 7, 2 = 6,
3 = 5, 5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1). Then they should add the
numbers in front of all 10 items. Jerry Burger reports
that for a sample of students, the means were 51.8 and
52.2 for males and females, respectively.
Considerable research has been done on the locus
of control concept, and the brief text discussion can be
readily expanded in class. Internals not only believe that
they can control their own destinies, but in fact they are
more effective in influencing their environments. Researchers consistently find that internals receive higher
grades and better teacher evaluations than do externals.
Although this is true across ages, the relationship is particularly strong for adolescents. Internals feel more
responsible for their achievements, believe that studying
will pay off, and generally seem to have a better idea of
how to prepare for an exam. They are more likely to
attribute their grades to their abilities or effort and thus
are more likely to study for the next exam. Given the
task of changing others’ beliefs, they are more successful. In one study, for example, internals proved more
persuasive in altering students’ attitudes toward fraternities and sororities. Internals themselves, however,
seem to be less susceptible to control and influence
from others. They are particularly resistant to subtle
forms of attempted influence. Internals are less likely to
conform and are not as likely to respond to the prestige
of a message’s source as are externals. Internals are,
however, more accepting of information when it has
merit.
Just as internals are more effective in controlling
their social world, they also seem to exhibit greater selfcontrol. Among those who attempt to quit smoking,
internals show fewer relapses. They are also more likely
to engage in physical exercise, better at losing weight,
more apt to use seatbelts, and more likely to practice
preventive dental care. As hospital patients, they are
likely to know more about their medical condition and
to be less satisfied with the amount of information they
receive from physicians and nurses. Although many
studies find a positive correlation between internality
and health, it is not always true. Julian Rotter noted that
behavior is a function of both expectancy and value.
Thus, believing that your actions affect your health is
not enough. One must also place a high value on good
health if one is to take appropriate action.
What fosters internality? Research suggests that
family environments characterized by warmth, protection, and nurturance are likely to lead to an internal
locus of control. Furthermore, consistent parental
behavior is positively correlated with internality.
Ordinal position in the family also seems to affect locus
of control. Generally, first-born and earlier-born children tend to be more internal. Conversely, persons with
limited access to social power or material resources
often develop external orientations. Minority membership and lower socioeconomic status is associated with
externality.
Hostages and prisoners of war often report that the
most debilitating aspect of their experience was the
uncertainty of their fate and the loss of personal control
over their environment. The sense of helplessness may
lead to physical illness, sometimes even death. Every
effort will be made by these people to maintain some
sense of control. Among the Americans held captive by
Iranian students in the early 1980s, one hostage would
save a small bit of food and then offer it to anyone who
came to his cell. That strategy had the effect of turning
the cell into a living room and the hostage into a host
welcoming visitors.
While it may be better to be internal than external,
internality also has limits. To believe one can control
everything is maladaptive. Some Jews in Nazi Germany
who were forewarned of disaster remained, believing
they could control their fate. Believing one can control
the uncontrollable may also lead to unwarranted selfblame when success does not come.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
26 Chapter 12 Personality
Lefcourt, H. M. (1982). Locus of control: Current trends
in theory and research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Paulhus, P. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 44, 1253–1265.
Classroom Exercise: Satisficers Versus Maximizers
In discussing personal control, the text notes Barry
Schwartz’s claim that “an excess of freedom” in today’s
Western cultures has contributed to decreasing life satisfaction. Schwartz has also suggested that the way
people make choices affects their sense of well-being.
In considering life’s many choices—from selection
of toothpaste to that of college or university—some of
us ask, “Is this alternative acceptable?” Others are more
likely to wonder, “Is this the best?” Satisficers set
“good enough” as their criterion for outcomes. For maximizers, outcomes must be optimal. Barry Schwartz and
his colleagues designed Handout 12–17 to assess these
two contrasting orientations to choosing goals.
To score, students should simply add the numbers
they circled. Total scores range from 13 to 91, with
higher scores reflecting a greater tendency to be a maximizer, trying to get the very best or absolute most out
of every situation. Several samples of adults obtained a
mean score slightly above 50.
In some cases, maximizing is the better strategy for
making decisions. For example, in responding to a serious health threat, seeking and settling only for the best
treatment increases your chances of survival. Maximizers plan more carefully in solving problems, and
their high standards may spur them on to greater
achievement.
However, maximization can come at a significant
cost to well-being. In several samples of adults, the
researchers found that maximization was negatively
related to happiness, life satisfaction, optimism, and
self-esteem. It seems that the tendency to want to maximize outcomes is highly correlated with potential regret
over choices that have been made.
Maximizers seem especially susceptible to social
comparison and adaptation (processes discussed in
Chapter 11) that can drain joy from life. Maximizers
also tend to keep their options open, which lowers life
satisfaction.
To some degree, we all compare our life’s outcomes with those of others. The gap between what we
have and what our friends and neighbors possess can
foster feelings of relative deprivation. As Chapter 11
explains, an important reason that money fails to boost
life satisfaction is our strong tendency to compare ourselves with those who have more. Especially as we
climb the ladder of success, we are more likely to
compare ourselves with those one rung higher than
with those a rung lower, and so we often become
dissatisfied.
Maximizers, in their eagerness to decide whether
they have attained the “best” life outcomes, need some
standard for making that judgment. Because an objective criterion often is not available, they compare themselves with others. Research confirms that, relative to
satisficers, maximizers do engage in more social comparison and experience greater feelings of relative
deprivation.
Our remarkable capacity to adapt also short-circuits
happiness. Good experiences—a promotion, a new car,
gaining entrance to a prestigious school—boost our
spirits only briefly. Similarly, bad experiences—a car
accident, a rejected job application, a low score on an
entrance exam—deflate us, but only temporarily.
Although we may understand the adaptation principle, we underestimate its power. We adapt more quickly
than we think. And because maximizers have higher
standards of acceptability than do satisficers, they tend
to find adaptation more distressing. Given the huge
investment they have made in weighing alternatives
before making a choice, maximizers feel that they
deserve a higher rate of return. Expecting more from
every situation, maximizers more often experience
disappointment.
Finally, maximizers strive to keep their options
open. For this they may pay an unanticipated price. Dan
Gilbert and Jane Ebert conducted an intriguing series of
studies in which participants made a reversible or irreversible choice. Participants strongly preferred keeping
their options open to having their choice made final.
Surprisingly, however, the researchers found that participants were less satisfied with the outcomes of
reversible decisions than with those that were irreversible. Why? Perhaps when we make a final decision,
we work to convince ourselves that we made the right
choice. In keeping their options open, as maximizers
tend to do, they remain ambivalent.
See Barry Schwartz’s popular The Psychology of
Choice: Why More Is Less for additional coverage of
how excessive freedom can undermine life satisfaction.
The book also includes more comprehensive coverage
of the important differences between maximizing and
satisficing.
Gilbert, D. T., & Ebert, J. E. J. (2002). Decisions and
revisions: The affective forecasting of changeable outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82,
503–514.
Schwartz, B. (2005). The psychology of choice: Why
more is less. New York: Harper Perennial.
Schwartz, B., et al. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197.
Chapter 12 Personality 27
PsychSim 5: Helplessly Hoping
In this activity, students learn the importance of a sense
of personal control over the events in their lives.
Students participate in a simulated experiment on
learned helplessness in dogs and then consider how the
results might apply to the behavior of people trapped in
unpleasant situations.
Classroom Exercise: The Life Orientation Test and
Optimism
Handout 12–18 is Michael Scheier and Charles
Carver’s Life Orientation Test, which assesses a person’s optimism, or more specifically, a person’s expectations regarding the favorability of future outcomes. In
scoring their scale, students should first reverse their
responses on items 3, 8, 9, and 12 (0 = 4, 1 = 3, 2 = 2,
3 = 1, 4 = 0) and then add up their responses for items
1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 to obtain a final score (items
2, 6, 7, and 10 are filler items). Scores can range from
0 to 32, with higher scores reflecting greater optimism.
The mean score is approximately 21.
You can readily extend the text discussion of optimism by drawing from Scheier and Carver’s review of
relevant research. For example, a growing number of
studies have now shown that optimists typically maintain higher levels of subjective well-being during times
of stress than do people who are less optimistic. A study
of undergraduate students’ adjustment to their first
semester of school indicated that optimism was associated with lower distress three months after starting
school. The effects of optimism were independent of
other personality variables, such as self-esteem and
locus of control. Another study investigating the development of postpartum depression in women having
their first child reported that initial optimism was
inversely associated with depression three weeks postpartum, even when the initial level of depression was
controlled statistically.
Optimism also confers benefits on physical wellbeing. A study conducted on men undergoing heart
bypass surgery found that optimism is negatively associated with certain physiological changes that would
make one susceptible to suffer a heart attack during
surgery. Optimism also predicted rate of recovery
during the immediate postoperative period. Optimists
were faster to achieve behavioral milestones of recovery, such as sitting up in bed and walking around the
room. The benefits of optimism were also apparent at
the six-month follow-up. Optimistic patients were more
likely than pessimistic patients to have resumed vigorous physical exercise and to have returned to work fulltime. In a much larger study involving 2428 Finnish
middle-aged men, Susan Everson reported that those
who felt hopeless about the future and their chances of
attaining goals were far more likely to die early than
those who were equally healthy but more hopeful.
Everson and her colleagues controlled for risk factors
such as blood pressure, weight, and smoking. Six years
later, the researchers found that, as compared with the
hopeful, hopeless men were about twice as likely to
have died of any cause. The hopeless had double the
heart attack risk; they were also significantly more likely to die from accidents and violence. Recently, Hilary
Tindle’s research team, using data from the Women’s
Health Initiative (an ongoing government study of more
than 100,000 women over age 50) found that, eight
years into the study, optimistic women were 14 percent
more likely to be alive than their pessimistic peers.
“Taking into account income, education, health behaviors like controlling blood pressure and whether or not
you are physically active, whether or not you drink or
smoke, we still see optimists with a decreased risk of
death compared to pessimists,” reported Tindle. “I was
surprised that the relationship was independent of all of
these factors. . . . Our study reveals interesting findings.
Now we need to replicate them and find out why this
association is happening.”
According to Scheier and Carver, research from a
variety of sources indicates that optimists cope in more
adaptive ways than do pessimists. They are more likely
to take direct action to solve their problems, are better
at making plans to deal with adversity, and are more
focused in their coping efforts. Optimists tend to accept
the reality of the stressful situations they encounter, and
they also seem intent on growing personally from negative experiences. They try to make the best of bad situations. In contrast, pessimists are likely to react to stressful events by denying that they exist or by avoiding
dealing with problems. Pessimists are more likely to
quit trying when difficulties arise.
There may be additional pathways through which
optimism conveys its benefits. For example, optimism
seems to promote social contact, and so optimists may
enjoy greater social support. In contrast, pessimists tend
to be loners, and social isolation is a reliable predictor
of poor health. Optimists, of course, are also resistant to
depression, which has been linked to increased risk for
disease and poor health. Finally, findings indicate that
the immune systems of optimists respond better to a
challenge than do the immune systems of pessimists.
This may explain why, compared with pessimists, optimists have a longer survival time after the development
of AIDS symptoms.
Both nature and nurture probably play a role in the
development of optimism. Differences in optimismpessimism may be partly inherited. For example, in a
sample of more than 500 same-sex pairs of middle-aged
Swedish twins, the heritability of optimism and pessimism was estimated to be about 25 percent. It also
seems reasonable that optimism and pessimism are
learned from prior experiences with success and failure.
28 Chapter 12 Personality
To the degree that a person has been successful in the
past, he or she should expect success in the future.
Children may also acquire a sense of optimism from
their parents through modeling. Finally, parents may
shape children’s tendencies by instructing them in problem solving. Parents who teach adaptive coping skills
will produce children who are better problem solvers
and thus ultimately more optimistic.
Scheier and Carver recognize that optimism may
not always be good. Unbridled optimism may lead people to become inactive, that is, to simply sit and wait
for good things to happen. Optimism may also be
detrimental in situations that are not amenable to constructive action. For example, the optimist’s head-on
approach may be maladaptive in situations that are
uncontrollable.
Elias, M. (1995, March 23). Pessimism linked to early
death. USA Today, p. D1.
Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature (3rd
ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, A. (2009, March 5). Study: Optimistic women tend
to live longer. Posted at www.time.com/time/health/
article/0,8599,1883402,00.html.
Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 26–30.
Classroom Exercise: Defensive Pessimism
Does pessimism ever work? Nancy Cantor and her students coined the term defensive pessimism to refer to a
cognitive strategy in which people set low expectations
for a future performance despite having done well in
similar situations in the past.
Obviously, setting low expectations helps “cushion”
the blow of possible failure. More important, people
may use the strategy to reflect on what might happen,
and thus give special attention to problems they might
encounter. They then work hard to prepare for the
upcoming situation or performance. Often, defensive
pessimists feel anxious and out of control. Their strategy helps them harness their anxiety as motivation, with
the result being a better performance.
Handout 12–19, designed by Nancy Cantor, is the
Defensive Pessimism Questionnaire (DPQ). The items
reflect two important characteristics of defensive pessimists. In addition to having negative expectations,
they reflect extensively about possible positive and negative outcomes. Items 1, 2, 6, and 15 assess the “pessimism” factor, and items 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 17
assess the “reflectivity” factor. To score, students should
reverse the numbers (1 = 7, 2 = 6, 3 = 5, 4 = 4,
5 = 3, 6 = 2, 7 = 1) placed before items 2 and 16 and
then add the numbers in front of these 12 items. Scores
can range from 12 to 84, with higher scores reflecting
greater defensive pessimism. Items 5 and 9 are filler
items and items 11 and 13 are experimental items. Item
3 tests for “realistic” pessimism—that is, if respondents
have done poorly before in a similar situation, they are
simply being realistic when they think their future performance may be poor. Cantor indicates that in student
samples, fewer than 20 percent rate themselves below 5
on this item.
Theoretically, defensive pessimism has its basis
in the need to manage anxiety. Thus, it is not surprising that it is positively correlated with trait anxiety,
neuroticism, the fear of negative evaluation, and selfhandicapping. It correlates negatively with self-esteem
and with self-clarity.
Most of the research on defensive pessimism has
contrasted it with strategic optimism (they obtain low
scores on Handout 12–18). Whereas defensive pessimists manage anxiety through extensive reflection
about possible outcomes, strategic optimists distract
themselves to avoid anxiety and thereby maintain their
positive outlook. Both perform well in tasks in which
they are allowed to pursue these respective strategies.
On the other hand, defensive pessimists perform more
poorly if they are instructed to focus only on positive
outcomes and strategic optimists perform more poorly
if they are encouraged to reflect about the upcoming
task.
As Jerry Burger notes, the benefits of defensive
pessimism extend beyond achievement to social interactions. For example, in one study defensive pessimists
were told that after a short conversation with a stranger,
they would be evaluated by the stranger. (This experimental situation is similar to first dates and job interviews in which we are concerned about making a good
impression.) Some defensive pessimists were instructed
to think about all the things that could go wrong (what
defensive pessimists typically do); other defensive pessimists were told to imagine positive outcomes. All the
participants then spent 5 minutes talking to a stranger.
In comparison to the defensive pessimists told to think
about positive outcomes, the defensive pessimists who
had contemplated negative consequences talked significantly more with the stranger and were liked more by
the person. The pattern was not found for optimists.
Thus, in both social and achievement situations, thinking about the worst seems to help some people do their
best.
In her review of the research, Cantor suggests that
defensive pessimism seems to be an excellent strategy
for those who are tense because it addresses their psychological reality, namely, the need to control anxiety,
which does not simply go away by wishful thinking. At
the same time, there may be long-term costs. Preliminary data indicate that after three years in college,
defensive pessimists report slightly lower grade-point
Chapter 12 Personality 29
averages and more physical and psychological symptoms. Because people often react negatively to others’
anxiety, defensive pessimists may also create negative
impressions, annoying the people around them.
Defensive pessimists do not necessarily become less
anxious or generally more positive over time. In fact,
the strategy, because it works, may be self-perpetuating.
Burger, J. (2008). Personality (7th ed). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Norem, J. K. (2001). Defensive pessimism, optimism,
and pessimism. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice
(pp. 77–100). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
C. Assessing Behavior in Situations (p. 445)
D. Evaluating the Social-Cognitive Perspective
(p. 445)
VI. Exploring the Self (pp. 446–449)
Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Possible Selves
Handout 12–20, designed by Randy Larsen and David
Buss, introduces students to the concept of possible
selves. Proposed by Hazel Markus and her colleagues,
possible selves include our visions of the self we dream
of becoming but also the self we fear becoming.
After students have completed the survey, have
them compare their ratings for items that describe them
now with their ratings of future descriptions. When the
ratings are the same, this indicates that they believe this
attribute will remain stable over time. The items that
change reflect ways in which they believe their
personality will change.
Ask your students to identify aspects of their
desired self, that is, the sort of person they want to
become, as well as aspects of their feared self, the sort
of person they do not wish to become. Hazel Markus
and her colleagues have suggested that possible selves
motivate us by identifying specific goals and eliciting
energy to work toward them. As the text states, “dreams
do often give birth to achievements.” Possible selves
provide an important bridge between our present and
our future.
Tory Higgins expands the concept of possible
selves by distinguishing the ideal self (what persons
themselves want to be) from the ought self (a person’s
understanding of what others want him or her to be).
Higgins refers to these two types of possible selves as
self-guides, that is, standards that one uses to organize
information and motivate appropriate behavior. They
can generate strong emotion. If the real self fails to
match the ideal self, one may feel sad, disappointed,
despondent. If the real self does not match the ought
self, one can feel anxious and guilty.
Higgins further argues that the ideal self focuses
our attention on achievement and goal attainment, what
he calls a promotion focus. The ought self, on the other
hand, shifts our attention to avoiding harm and seeking
safety, what he calls a prevention focus. Some people
tend to be more promotion focused and direct their
behavior to goals they want to achieve; others are more
prevention focused and direct their behavior to what
they do not want to happen.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). The “self digest”: Self-knowledge
serving self-regulatory functions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 71, 1062–1083.
Classroom Exercise/Student Project: Exploring Possible
Selves as Roadmaps to the Future
To help your class understand how the concept of possible selves may motivate us to lay out specific goals
and call forth the energy to work toward achieving
them, challenge students to apply the concept to themselves.
In their investigations, Daphna Oyserman and her
research team have had participants think of “next year”
possible selves. The procedure is straightforward. First,
students think about who they would like to be next
year. Explain that each of us has some image or picture
of what we will be like and what we want to avoid
being like in the future. Have your students describe
what they expect they will be like and what they will
likely be doing next year. Next to each expected goal,
they should also indicate whether they are currently
doing something to achieve that expectation. And, finally, for each goal, they should write down specifically
what they are doing this year to attain it.
Students should then describe what they do not
want to do or want to avoid being. They should identify
the concerns or selves to be avoided, indicate whether
they are currently working on avoiding that concern or
self, and write down specifically what they are doing
this year to reduce the chances that this will describe
them next year.
After students have completed the exercise (in or
between classes), conduct a full-class discussion of the
importance of possible selves. Have volunteers share
what they learned from applying the concept to themselves. In particular, have them comment on how possible selves and specific strategies for attaining possible
selves are, as Oyserman’s team suggests, “roadmaps” to
the future.
Larsen, R., & Buss, D. M. (2008). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge about human nature. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves.
American Psychologists, 41, 954–969.
30 Chapter 12 Personality
D. Oyserman et al. (2004) “Possible selves as roadmaps.”
Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 130–149.
Copyright © 2004. Reprinted by permission of the
author.
A. The Benefits of Self-Esteem (p. 447)
Classroom Exercise: Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
The text defines self-esteem as a person’s feelings of
high or low self-worth. Handout 12–21, the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale (SES), has been the most frequently
used instrument for assessing self-esteem. In scoring it,
students should first reverse the numbers (1 = 4, 2 = 3,
3 = 2, 4 = 1) placed in front of items 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10,
then add the numbers in front of all 10 items to obtain a
total score. Scores can range from 10 to 40, with higher
scores reflecting a greater sense of self-worth.
The SES is designed to assess the degree to which
people are generally satisfied with their lives and consider themselves worthy people. Other researchers have
attempted to measure self-judgments relative to specific
areas of daily functioning, with self-esteem being a
summation of subscale scores. As the text indicates,
research suggests that those with high self-esteem are
less likely to conform; are more persistent at difficult
tasks; and are less shy, anxious, and lonely. They are
also more persistent at difficult tasks and experience a
greater sense of well-being. Feeling good about oneself
in a general way seems to cause a rosy glow over one’s
specific self-schemas and possible selves.
Rosenberg, M. (1989). Society and adolescent socialimage. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Classroom Exercise: A Single-Item Measure of
Self-Esteem (SISE)
Richard Robbins and his colleagues demonstrated that a
single item can provide a valid measure of global selfesteem. The item? Rate on a 5-point scale from 1 (not
very true of me) to 5 (very true of me) this statement:
“I have high self-esteem.”
Undergraduates from diverse backgrounds scored a
mean of 3.5, a median of 4, and a mode of 4. In three
separate studies using adult participants, correlations
with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) were in
the range of .75 to .80. The SISE and RSE had nearly
identical correlations with a wide range of criterion
measures, including domain-specific self-evaluations,
self-evaluative biases, social desirability, personality,
psychological and physical health, peer ratings of group
behavior, academic outcomes, and demographic
variables.
Self-esteem scores correlated positively with extraversion, conscientiousness, optimism, life satisfaction,
and physical well-being. Self-esteem also related positively to peer ratings of effectiveness at a group task,
talkativeness, and being task-oriented. Self-esteem
scores correlated negatively with neuroticism, shyness,
depression, and perceived stress. No significant correlation was found between self-esteem and SAT scores,
high school GPA, college GPA, or attrition rates. Males
showed higher self-esteem than females. Those higher
in self-esteem also proved more prone to selfenhancement bias and self-serving attribution.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H.
(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg SelfEsteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
Classroom Exercise: Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale
Jennifer Crocker and Connie Wolfe argue that we can
better understand the links between self-esteem and
behavior by examining specific sources of self-esteem.
“Contingencies” of self-worth are the areas of life in
which people believe that success means they are
worthwhile and failure means they are worthless.
Handout 13–22 contains sample items from the
Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale designed by Crocker
and her colleagues. The scale identifies several possible
domains that are relevant to a person’s self-esteem.
The full Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale uses
five items, not just one, to assess the importance of
each domain to one’s sense of self-worth. Still, students
can make some initial comparisons with Crocker and
Wolfe’s (2001) sample of 1300 college students, comparing their number for each statement with the following mean scores (also on a scale from 1 to 7) from the
researchers’ sample.
(1) Family support = 5.3
(2) Competition = 5.0
(3) Appearance = 4.9
(4) God’s love = 4.2
(5) Academic competence = 5.3
(6) Virtue = 5.5
(7) Others’ approval = 4.6
Crocker and Wolfe do not claim that this is an
exhaustive list of the areas in which people find their
self-worth or that one contingency is necessarily preferable to another. The list merely reflects some of the
more common domains that respondents identify as
important to their self-esteem. Perhaps your students
can identify other domains that might be important.
The source of our self-esteem provides a powerful
guide for our behavior. If our self-worth is rooted in
being virtuous, we will act quite differently from someone whose self-esteem is based on appearance.
In a study of 600 college freshmen, self-esteem
based on appearance was linked to spending more hours
per week grooming, shopping, and partying. Selfesteem rooted in God’s love was linked to spending
more hours in religious activities, such as praying and
going to church, synagogue, or mosque, and to fewer
Chapter 12 Personality 31
hours partying. Self-esteem based on academic competence was associated with greater success in gaining
admission to graduate school.
Crocker and Wolfe argue that major problems such
as depression, drug abuse, and aggression may be
linked not so much to our general level of self-esteem
as to the source of our self-esteem. For example,
research indicates that basing one’s self-esteem on physical appearance increases one’s susceptibility to eating
disorders. Similarly, people who have high but fragile
self-esteem that is based on social approval seem especially prone to anger and hostility when others challenge them.
People who are unable to secure self-respect on one
basis may shift to another source. Frustrated in their
pursuit of self-esteem, they may even reject goals that
are important to a successful life. Some research suggests that the high drop-out rate among AfricanAmerican college students is the result of disconnecting
self-worth from academic performance after numerous
frustrating attempts to succeed in an environment that
assumes they are academically inferior. Others who
don’t have the means to garner a positive image on the
basis of good grades in school or strong relations with
peers may organize their self-esteem around strength,
power, or physical superiority. Shifting sources of selfworth also explains why overall level of self-esteem
does not decline as we grow older. As people age, contingencies of self-worth typically shift from competition
and appearance to a more internal and intrinsic basis
such as virtue or family.
More recently, Crocker and Katherine Knight have
challenged the notion that self-esteem is a fundamental
human need and have argued that, in fact, pursuing selfesteem by attempting to prove one is a success—for
example, through competition or appearance—is costly.
Although the successful pursuit of self-esteem may
have short-term emotional benefits such as increased
happiness, such boosts are “analogous to sugar: tasty
but not nutritious.” The long-range pursuit of selfesteem has costs for learning, relatedness, autonomy,
self-regulation, and, over time, physical and mental
health. People are distracted from the task, become
focused on themselves rather than on others, feel pressured, and experience extraordinary stress. Rather than
attempting to help children find some area in which
they can prove their self-worth, parents and teachers
might better help children by focusing on what they
want to contribute, create, or accomplish and what they
need to learn or improve in themselves in order to do
so.
Crocker, J., & Knight, K. M. (2005). Contingencies of
self-worth. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
14, 200–203.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A.
(2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students:
Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 894–908.
Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. T. (2001). Contingencies of selfworth. Psychological Review, 108, 593–623.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The Dark Side of Self-Esteem
In a Psychological Review article, Roy Baumeister and
his colleagues draw the following provocative conclusion: “The societal pursuit of high self-esteem for
everyone may literally end up doing considerable
harm.”
In a massive interdisciplinary review of the literature on aggression, crime, and violence, the authors
conclude that high (not low) self-esteem underlies violent behavior, particularly “favorable self-appraisals that
may be inflated or ill-founded and that are confronted
with an external evaluation that disputes them.” In
short, some people turn aggressive when they receive
feedback that contradicts their favorable images of
themselves.
Clearly, Baumeister and his colleagues are not saying that everyone with high self-esteem is predisposed
to violence. Rather, it is primarily those who refuse to
lower their inflated self-appraisals who become violent.
Teenagers who do not feel they have received the
respect they deserve are more likely to strike out than
those who genuinely believe themselves unworthy.
Studies of murder, rape, domestic abuse, and even terrorism show that violence occurs when a person with a
high, often inflated, opinion of himself or herself is
challenged by someone considered inferior. For example, one study of sexual offenders found that rapists
sometimes choose a particular victim in order “to disabuse her of her sense of superiority. That is, the woman
gave the man the impression that she thought she was
better than he was and so he raped her as a way of proving her wrong.”
Another interesting example of the relationship
between high self-esteem and aggression involves racist
violence. Nazism includes an ideology of racial superiority that justifies violence against those deemed weak
or inferior. At its peak, the Ku Klux Klan was most violent toward two groups that challenged the idea of
White supremacy, namely upwardly mobile Blacks and
Whites who helped Blacks by treating them as equals.
One study of Whites belonging to hate groups indicated
that those engaged in violent behavior actually were
better educated and had higher career aspirations than
the less violent members of such groups.
Baumeister and his colleagues conclude that if, as
some have argued, low self-esteem (or even hidden
self-doubts) is the cause of violence, “it would be
32 Chapter 12 Personality
therapeutically prudent to make every effort to convince
rapists, murderers, wife-beaters, professional hit men,
tyrants, torturers, and others that they are superior
beings.” However, there is clear evidence that this is
something they already believe. “If any modifications
to self-appraisals were to be attempted,” suggest the
authors, “then perhaps it would be better to try instilling
modesty and humility.”
Clearly, questions about the relationship between
self-esteem and aggression continue. M. Brent
Donnellan and his colleagues reported a significant
relationship between low self-esteem and real-world
externalizing problems such as delinquency and antisocial behavior. The relationship held for research participants from both the United States and New Zealand and
for both adolescents and college students. In attempting
to reconcile their findings with Baumeister’s results, the
researchers suggest that we must draw a distinction
between narcissism (Baumeister’s primary focus) and
healthy self-regard. They believe it is reasonable to conclude that both low self-esteem and narcissism contribute to externalizing problems.
In addition, Donnellan and his colleagues suggest
that self-esteem may relate differently to laboratory
aggression than it does to real-world aggression. For
example, lab studies typically examine aggression provoked by a competitive task in which self-evaluation
processes have been activated. It may be socially
appropriate to blast one’s opponent with white noise in
the context of an experiment that has been sanctioned
by a university. In contrast, real-world externalizing
problems occur in a wide range of contexts and may
have distinct correlates. Clearly, real-world externalizing problems are explicitly undesirable, antisocial, and
in most cases illegal.
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). The
relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological
Review, 103, 5–33.
Donnellan, M. B., et al. (2005). Low self-esteem is related to aggression, antisocial behavior and delinquency.
Psychological Science, 16, 328–335.
Lecture/Discussion Topic: The Sociometer Theory of
Self-Esteem
The construct of self-esteem has long occupied a central place in psychology. Some psychologists have
assumed that people have an inherent need to feel good
about themselves. Humanistic psychologists suggest
that self-esteem tells us when we are behaving in selfdetermined, autonomous ways. Still other psychologists
propose that people seek high self-esteem because it
fosters goal achievement.
Mark Leary has proposed that self-esteem is a psychological meter or gauge that monitors the quality of
people’s relationships with others. His sociometer theory states that the so-called self-esteem motive does not
function first of all to maintain self-esteem but rather to
minimize the likelihood of social rejection or more precisely relational devaluation. The theory assumes that
people’s pervasive drive to maintain significant interpersonal relationships evolved because early human
beings who belonged to social groups were more likely
to survive and reproduce than those who did not. Leary
argues that in focusing on the monitor rather than on
what it measures, psychologists have been distracted
from the underlying interpersonal process and the
importance of social acceptance to human well-being.
Leary argues that sociometer theory provides a parsimonious explanation for much of what we know about
self-esteem. For example, it explains why events that
are known by others have much greater effects on selfesteem than events only known by individuals themselves. It also accounts for why the primary determinants of self-esteem involve the perceived reactions of
others as well as self-judgments on dimensions that the
person thinks are important to significant others. Most
often, self-esteem is lowered by criticism, rejection, and
other events that have negative implications for relational evaluation. On the other hand, self-esteem is positively associated with the belief that one possesses socially
desirable attributes such as competence, personal likability, and physical attractiveness.
Sociometer theory challenges the humanistic
assumption that self-esteem based on the approval of
others is false or unhealthy. If, in fact, the function of
self-esteem is to avoid social ostracism, then the system
must be responsive to others’ reactions. Sociometer theory also challenges the notion that low self-esteem is a
cause of psychological difficulties such as depression,
loneliness, substance abuse, or criminal behavior. Leary
notes that, in fact, the relationships between self-esteem
and psychological problems is weaker and more scattered than typically assumed. Moreover, problems are
not caused by low self-esteem but rather by a history of
low relational evaluation if not outright social rejection.
As a gauge of relational evaluation, self-esteem may
parallel these problems, but it is a co-effect, not a cause.
Leary, M. (1999). Making sense of self-esteem. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 32–35.
Classroom Exercise: Self-Concept Clarity
A good classroom complement to the text discussion of
self-esteem is self-concept clarity. It refers to the extent
to which the contents of an individual’s self-concept
(e.g., perceived personal attributes) are clearly and confidently defined, internally consistent, and temporally
stable. Handout 12–23 is Jennifer Campbell and her
colleagues’ Self-Concept Clarity Scale. In obtaining a
total score, students should first reverse the numbers
Chapter 12 Personality 33
they gave in response to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
and 12 (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1) and then add
the numbers in front of all the items. Total scores can
range from 12 to 60, with higher scores reflecting
greater self-concept clarity. Mean scores for males and
females are approximately 40 and 39, respectively.
Ask students how self-concept clarity might make a
difference in a person’s life. Campbell and her associates’ research indicated that self-concept clarity showed
a strong positive relationship to self-esteem. If there is a
causal relationship between clarity and self-esteem, its
direction is unclear. Higher self-esteem may contribute
to greater self-clarity, or vice versa. In terms of the “Big
Five” personality dimensions, self-concept clarity was
positively related to conscientiousness, agreeableness,
and emotional stability but showed little correlation
with extraversion or openness to experience. Findings
also suggested that whereas people with confused selfconcepts may have a greater tendency toward chronic
self-analysis, they may be less in tune with their internal states than people with more clearly articulated selfschemas. Interestingly, Japanese research participants
showed lower levels of self-concept clarity and lower
correlations of self-concept clarity with self-esteem.
You might ask students to explain these latter relationships in terms of Japan being a more collectivist
society.
Campbell, J. D., et al. (1996). Self-concept clarity:
Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,
141–156.
B. Self-Serving Bias (pp. 447–449)
Classroom Exercise: The Name-Letter Effect
Angela Lipsitz and Lance Gifford suggest using the
name-letter effect to illustrate self-serving bias as well
as processing without conscious awareness. Both are
important topics in this chapter.
Research indicates that people think of the letters
in their own name as better letters. This name-letter
effect may be a specific example of the mere ownership
effect—valuing objects that are part of oneself more
than objects that are not.
To demonstrate the name-letter effect distribute a
copy of Handout 12–24 to each student. Acknowledge
that, although the task may seem silly, you would like
them to rate how much they like each letter. Each
student should do so rapidly just giving immediate
impressions.
After everyone has finished, have each student
print his or her first and last names at the top of the
handout. Next, explain the meaning of the letters above
the columns on the right: IYFN represents “in your first
name,” NIYFN stands for “not in your first name,”
IYLN represents “in your last name,” and “NIYLN”
stands for “not in your last name.” Tell students to fill
in the rating for each letter under the appropriate column and finally calculate the mean for each column.
Then ask, “How many of you had a higher average for
letters in your first name than for letters not in your
first name?” Most hands will go up. Repeating the
question for the last name will typically give the same
result.
Explain the name-letter and mere-ownership
effects. Indicate that they have been found in over a
dozen languages. Through careful research, psychologists have shown that the name-letter effect is not due to
name letters being more frequent, to an attachment to
letters first written, or to participants guessing the purpose of the research.
Lipsitz, A., & Gifford, L. A. (2003). The name-letter
effect. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 58–59.
Classroom Exercise: Biased Self-Ratings
USA Today “Snapshots” provide good examples of selfserving bias. A total of 85 percent of respondents rated
their own manners as good or excellent but only 23 percent rated others’ manners as good or excellent.
Similarly, a survey several years ago of NFL rookies
found no lack of self-esteem. Asked to identify their
favorite athlete, 5 percent identified Michael Johnson;
7 percent indicated Barry Sanders; another 7 percent,
Deion Sanders; 13 percent, Jerry Rice; 28 percent,
Michael Jordan; and 28 percent identified themselves.
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi reports that adolescents have
particularly unrealistically high expectations of becoming professionals. In his survey, 15 percent expected to
become either doctors or lawyers (about 15 times more
than the actual number of doctors and lawyers in the
labor force). And the 6 percent who expected to become
professional athletes were overestimating their chances
by about 500-fold.
Recently, Nicholas Epley and Erin Whitchurch
found that self-serving bias extends to more automatic,
perceptual judgments as well. They reported that people
see their own faces as being more physically attractive
than they actually are. In the study, participants’ faces
were made more or less attractive using a morphing
procedure. Epley and Whitchurch found that participants were more likely to recognize themselves in an
attractively enhanced version from a lineup that included their actual face along with attractive and unattractive morphs. The participants also identified an attractively enhanced version of their face more quickly in a
lineup of distractor faces. The enhancement bias correlated with implicit but not explicit measures of selfesteem. This latter finding is consistent with the notion
that this particular form of self-serving bias is relatively
automatic rather than a deliberative process.
34 Chapter 12 Personality
On nearly any dimension that is both subjective and
socially desirable, most people see themselves as better
than average. Handout 12–25 provides a vivid demonstration of the better-than-average phenomenon. Have
students complete the exercise and then calculate their
mean rating for the 15 items and write it at the top of
the sheet. To avoid invading privacy, collect the handouts, shuffle, and redistribute so that each student
reports another’s score. By a show of hands ask how
many have a mean over 5.0. Virtually every hand will
go up.
Handout 12–26 demonstrates how self-serving bias
is also reflected in unrealistic optimism. The key questions are 3 and 5. You can tally your students’ responses
between classes or, alternatively, collect the handouts,
shuffle, and redistribute so students report on a
response other than their own. By a show of hands ask
how many have surveys predicting a higher GPA for the
upcoming term than that obtained for the prior term.
Virtually all hands will go up. Even more telling will be
students’ responses to 5. The vast majority, if not all,
will predict a grade well above the average grade given
the prior semester.
Handout 12–27, designed by John Brink, provides
another dramatic demonstration of self-serving bias.
There’s an extremely high correlation between our selfrating on a trait and its perceived importance to us.
Although you may want to collect the handouts and calculate the correlations for the entire class, it’s not necessary. The effect is so powerful students will see it by
simply examining their own responses.
Three explanations have been offered for selfserving bias. First, self-presentation theory states that
we like to present a good image both to an external
audience (other people) and to an internal audience
(ourselves). This explains why people express more
modesty when their self-flattery is vulnerable to being
debunked or when experts will be scrutinizing their
self-evaluations. The other two explanations suggest
that we genuinely perceive ourselves in self-enhancing
ways. First, self-serving bias is a by-product of the way
we process and remember information about ourselves.
For example, we may assume more responsibility for
our successes than for our failures because we intend
success, not failure, and our efforts usually do produce
positive outcomes. If we occasionally fail, it makes
sense for us to blame unusual circumstances. Second,
we are strongly motivated to protect and enhance our
self-esteem. Studies indicate that the emotions we experience after success and failure play a role in selfserving bias. For example, after people have completed
a test, those given information that implicates their selfesteem by casting doubt on their ability exhibit greater
self-serving bias than do people who are less egoinvolved.
Epley, N., & Whitchurch, E. (2008). Mirror, mirror on
the wall: Enhancement in self-recognition. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1159–1170.
Myers, D. G. (2008). Social psychology (9th ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Classroom Exercise: Self-Handicapping
Self-handicapping—protecting one’s self-image by
creating a ready excuse for failure—is an interesting
topic for class discussion. It fits well with the text discussion of self-serving bias. As the text notes, we often
protect our self-image by attributing our failure to
external factors rather than to ourselves. And with selfhandicapping, we enhance the opportunity to externalize failure. If we fear failure on a job interview, for
example, we might deliberately party the night before.
Similarly, we might avoid studying before an important
exam. If we fail, we have a ready excuse and we have
not damaged our sense of competence. If we succeed,
we have done so despite a significant obstacle. Only
when we are provided a ready excuse for failure does
self-handicapping become unnecessary. Self-handicapping creates a no-lose situation for our self-esteem, as
shown in Michael Strube’s review of research.
Researchers have shown, for example, that high selfhandicapping intercollegiate swimmers and golfers
practice little or not at all prior to competitions that
pose a threat to their self-esteem. Similarly, shy individuals are more likely to admit to shyness in situations
where their performance might be evaluated negatively.
Interestingly, when students were required to solve anagrams, they performed best on those that were alleged
to be very difficult when supposedly distracting music
was played. Having an excuse for failure, students
could try hard without risking their self-esteem.
In a series of studies, Miron Zuckerman and
Fen-Fang Tsai examined the association of selfhandicapping to various health-related measures. They
found that, over time, self-handicappers scored lower on
measures of well-being, higher on negative mood and
symptoms, lower on competence satisfaction, higher on
substance use (of alcohol and marijuana, for example),
and lower on intrinsic motivation. Zuckerman and Tsai
report that self-handicapping was related over time to
lower self-esteem, and lower self-esteem was also related over time to higher self-handicapping. These reciprocal relations between self-handicapping and poor
adjustment tend to make a bad situation worse.
Once you have students thinking about selfhandicapping behavior, administer the Self-Description
Inventory designed by Edward Jones and Frederick
Rhodewalt (Handout 12–28). It is called the SelfDescription Inventory so as not to give its purpose
away. Reverse the score for items 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 20, 22,
and 23 (5 = 0, 4 = 1, 3 = 2, 2 = 3, 1 = 4, 0 = 5). The
Chapter 12 Personality 35
mean scores for undergraduate males and females were
32.99 and 33.15, respectively.
Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory, self-protective
acts. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.),
Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn’t. New York:
Plenum.
Strube, M. F. (1986). An analysis of the selfhandicapping scale. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 7, 211–224.
Zuckerman, M., & Tsai, F. F. (2005). Costs of selfhandicapping. Journal of Personality, 73, 411–442.
Classroom Exercise: Taking Credit for Success,
Denying Responsibility for Failure
Studies indicate that people readily accept credit for
success but attribute failure to such external factors as
bad luck or a problem’s inherent “impossibility.” Hand-
ing back a psychology test provides a good opportunity
to demonstrate this self-serving bias. After students
have received their score and grade on a test, distribute
Handout 12–29 and have them complete it. Collect the
questionnaires and, between class sessions, perform the
necessary calculations. Do a median split on the basis
of test performances and calculate the mean ratings on
each item of Handout 12–29 for high scorers and then
for low scorers. Comparisons between these ratings will
show that those who did well are more likely to attribute their scores to their ability or effort, while those
who performed poorly are more likely to explain their
performance in terms of test difficulty or bad luck. The
latter are also less likely to see the test as a good measure of what they know. When you report these results to
your students, be sure to note that teachers make similar attributions, taking credit for positive outcomes of
their students and blaming failure on the student.
36 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–1
Fact or Falsehood?
T F
1. Freud believed that boys develop unconscious sexual desires for their mother when
they are between 3 and 6 years of age.
T F
2. One of the most reliable and valid measures of personality is the Rorschach inkblot
test.
T F
3. Freud believed that personality forms during the first few years of life.
T F
4. Psychologists generally agree that painful experiences commonly get pushed out of
awareness and into the unconscious.
T F
5. Dreams are disguised wish fulfillments that can be interpreted by skilled analysts.
T F
6. Personality differences among dogs are as evident and as consistently judged as personality differences among humans.
T F
7. Most people recognize that personality descriptions based on horoscopes are invalid.
T F
8. From a few minutes’ inspection of our living and working spaces, someone can, with
reasonable accuracy, assess our emotional stability.
T F
9. Older people are happiest when they do not have to take responsibility for everyday
decisions that affect their lives.
T F
10. The majority of people suffer from low self-esteem.
Chapter 12 Personality 37
HANDOUT 12–2
A Personal Personality Theory
Instructions: For each of the following statements, circle the number that corresponds most closely to your point of
view.
1.
Human behavior results primarily from heredity, what has been genetically transmitted by parents, or from environment, the external circumstances and experiences that shape a person after conception has occurred.
heredity
2.
changing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
future
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
unique
People are motivated to cooperate with others mainly because they are self-centered, expecting to receive some
personal gain, or mainly because they are altruistic, seeking to work with others only for the benefit of doing
things with and for others.
self-centered
7.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
The most important characteristics about people are general ones, those commonly shared by many people, or
unique ones, those that make each person different from every other person.
general
6.
no self
The most important influences on behavior are past events, what has previously occurred to a person, or future
events, what a person seeks to bring about by striving to meet certain goals.
past
5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
Personality is relatively unchanging, with each person showing the same behavior throughout a lifetime, or personality is relatively changing, with each person showing different behavior throughout a lifetime.
unchanging
4.
environment
An important part of every person is a self, some central aspect of personality referred to as “I” or “me,” or
there really is no self in personality.
self
3.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
altruistic
People learn best when they are motivated by reward, involving pleasure, or by punishment, involving pain.
reward
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
punishment
38 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–2 (continued )
8.
The main reason you behave as you do (for example, attend college) is because of conscious personal decisions
to do so, or because social factors outside your control leave you little real choice in the matter.
personal
9.
social
Human nature is essentially constructive, with people showing positive, personal growth and a desire to help
others fulfill their potentials, or destructive, with people showing behavior that is ultimately self-defeating and a
desire to keep others from improving themselves.
constructive
10.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
destructive
Human beings have no purpose or reason for their existence other than what they experience on a day-to-day
basis, or human beings have some purpose for living that is outside themselves.
no purpose
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
________________________________________________
purpose
Source: Reprinted by permission of the authors from Potkay, C. R., and Allen, B. P. (1986). Personality: Theory, research,
and applications. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. © Charles R. Potkay.
Chapter 12 Personality 39
HANDOUT 12–3
Issues in Personality
Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements using the following response scale. Place
the appropriate number in the blank before each item.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = neutral
4 = agree
5 = strongly agree
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Events that occurred during childhood have no effect on one’s personality in adulthood.
Sexual adjustment is easy for most people.
Culture and society have evolved as ways to curb human beings’ natural aggressiveness.
Little boys should not become too attached to their mothers.
It is possible to deliberately “forget” something too painful to remember.
People who chronically smoke, eat, or chew gum have some deep psychological problems.
Competitive people are no more aggressive than noncompetitive people.
Fathers should remain somewhat aloof to their daughters.
Toilet training is natural and not traumatic for most children.
The phallus is a symbol of power.
A man who dates a woman old enough to be his mother has problems.
There are some women who are best described as being “castrating bitches.”
Dreams merely replay events that occurred during the day and have no deep meaning.
There is something wrong with a woman who dates a man who is old enough to be her father.
A student who wants to postpone an exam by saying “My grandmother lied . . . er, I mean died,” should
probably be allowed the postponement.
Source: TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY by Miserandino. Copyright 1994 by Taylor & Francis Informa UK ltd. Journals. Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd. Journals in the format Other Book via
Copyright Clearance Center.
40 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–4
Defense Mechanisms
Next to each of the statements below indicate with the appropriate letter the defense mechanism that is illustrated. Use
the following code.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Repression
Regression
Reaction Formation
Rationalization
E. Displacement
F. Sublimation
G. Projection
1. Even a top baseball player will sometimes strike out on an easy pitch. When this happens, his next action
may be to throw his bat or kick the water cooler with all his might.
2. Soldiers exposed to traumatic experiences in concentration camps during wartime sometimes had amnesia
and were unable to recall any part of their ordeal.
3. The mother of an unwanted child may feel guilty about not welcoming her child. As a result, she may try
to prove her love by becoming overindulgent and overprotective of the child.
4. Mrs. Brown often accuses other women of talking too much and spreading rumors. It is rather obvious to
those who know her that she is revealing her own inclinations in that area.
5. Paul, an aggressive child, had problems in elementary school, as he would frequently fight with other children. Paul found when he entered high school that he could channel this hostility into sports such as football and soccer.
6. The habitual drinker may insist that he really doesn’t care much for the taste of alcohol but feels that he is
obliged to drink with friends “just to be sociable.”
7. Mrs. James can’t understand why her husband has been so grumpy and irritable for the past week. It certainly isn’t her fault that he didn’t receive the anticipated promotion at the factory.
8. Parents might be reassured to know that children who pull wings off flies and jab pins in the dog may
eventually find their niche in the areas of dentistry or surgery.
9. Mike is always trying to impress his pals with how strong and independent he has become. However, when
Mike has social or emotional problems, he still wants his dad to figure out the solution.
10. A student forgot that his dreaded final exam in geometry was scheduled for Friday. This seemed unusual as
the date of the exam had been marked on his calendar for several weeks.
11. A boy will sometimes react against the strong sexual attraction that he feels toward girls by becoming a
confirmed “woman hater.”
12. The majority group of a culture may blame all the various ills of society on a small minority group. This is
a process termed “scapegoating” and is a factor in racial and religious prejudice.
13. The individual who actually likes to have others do things for him may be quick to criticize other people
for being dependent and lazy.
14. James Riley has suffered heavy financial losses recently while playing the stock market. Upon trading his
big luxury car for an old small car, Jim informed his associates that he bought the cheaper car to do his
part in the battle against air pollution.
15. David Walters recently lost his executive position in a large corporation. Rather than seek a new job, David
finds comfort and escape through drinking, as alcohol helps him forget the details of being fired.
16. Tory is apt to become annoyed when he recalls his earlier conviction as a Peeping Tom. Tory has left his
sordid past behind and now is a busy photographer for Playboy magazine.
17. Joan has discovered an amazing coincidence in relation to her attendance at school. Every time a test in
Spanish is scheduled, she oversleeps and arrives at school too late for the class.
18. Reformers may conduct campaigns against pornographic literature in order to fight their own erotic interest in such material. They campaign to convince others of their own purity and goodness.
Chapter 12 Personality 41
HANDOUT 12–4 (continued )
19. Margaret is convinced that she received a “C” in her chemistry class instead of an “A” because of widespread cheating by her fellow students. She is sure that she must be as capable in the chemistry course as
in her other subjects.
20. The young wife, after a bitter conflict with her husband, gives up her marriage as a failure and returns to
the home of her parents. She again takes on the role of the dependent child who expects unlimited love and
indulgence.
21. The high school teacher was criticized by the principal for having a disruptive class. When the teacher got
home that night, he argued with his wife and kicked the dog.
22. Adults who were sexually molested during childhood often report that all the details of the painful episode
have been forgotten.
23. It is possible that smokers have graduated from earlier stages of thumb-sucking and pencil-chewing, neither of which would be acceptable behavior in adult society. Smoking is a socially acceptable outlet for the
oral need.
24. The woman with a strong sexual drive may feel that most other women exhibit flirtatious behavior or wear
revealing clothes.
25. After John was rejected by the admissions office at Yale, he claimed that he wouldn’t enjoy attending such
a large school anyway. Besides, he might receive higher grades at a smaller local college.
26. Mary has secretly disliked her mother since she was a young child. As these feelings arouse anxiety, Mary
usually tells friends that she loves her mother very much.
27. Roger is a heavy drinker but has managed to keep this behavior a secret from his friends. He is sure that
most people actually drink as much as he does.
28. One psychological theory holds that the desire for sexual gratification, if frustrated or blocked, may eventually find expression in painting or the writing of poetry.
29. A number of psychologists believe that social crusaders who advocate various forms of social control may
in reality be struggling with their own unconscious desires.
30. A 6-year-old child, who gave up bed-wetting at the age of 3, moves with his parents to a new neighborhood. During the stressful period of adjusting to his new home, he again wets the bed for several nights.
31. The girl who was not invited to the school dance told her friends that she would not have attended if asked.
She said that her teachers had assigned more homework than usual and that she was simply too busy for
any unimportant social functions.
32. It is typical for the person who is most difficult to convince in an argument to say that everyone else is
stubborn.
33. When a new baby arrives in the family, the older child will sometimes cry more than usual and be more
insistent about receiving caresses from the parents.
34. Billy always teases and annoys his younger brother after he himself is disciplined by his parents.
35. Mr. Martin carried around a letter in his coat pocket for weeks. The note, which he somehow neglected
mailing, was an invitation to his mother-in-law to visit the family for several months.
Source: SIMULATION AND GAMING ONLINE by Kellogg. Copyright 1976 by Sage Publications Inc., Journals.
Reproduced with permission of Sage Publications Inc., Journals in the format Other book via Copyright Clearance
Center.
42 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–5
Cheek and Buss Scale
Instructions: Please read each item carefully and decide to what extent it is characteristic of your feelings and behavior. Fill in the blank next to each item by choosing a number from the scale printed below.
1 = very uncharacteristic or untrue, strongly disagree
2 = uncharacteristic
3 = neutral
4 = characteristic
5 = very characteristic or true, strongly agree
1.
I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well.
2.
I am socially somewhat awkward.
3.
I do not find it difficult to ask other people for information.
4.
I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions.
5.
When in a group of people, I have trouble thinking of the right things to talk about.
6.
It does not take me long to overcome my shyness in new situations.
7.
It is hard for me to act natural when I am meeting new people.
8.
I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority.
9.
I have no doubts about my social competence.
10.
I have trouble looking someone right in the eye.
11.
I feel inhibited in social situations.
12.
I do not find it hard to talk to strangers.
13.
I am more shy with members of the opposite sex.
14.
During conversations with new acquaintances, I worry about saying something dumb.
Source: Cheek et al. Shyness, self-esteem and self-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (Table 1, p. 56). Copyright 1990. Reprinted with kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media.
Chapter 12 Personality 43
HANDOUT 12–6
North Dakota Null-Hypothesis Brain Inventory
Respond to each item by circling the “T” for true or “F” for false.
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
I salivate at the sight of mittens.
If I go into the street, I’m apt to be bitten by a horse.
Some people never look at me.
Spinach makes me feel alone.
My sex life is A-okay.
When I look down from a high spot, I want to spit.
I like to kill mosquitoes.
Cousins are not to be trusted.
It makes me embarrassed to fall down.
I get nauseous from too much roller skating.
I think most people would cry to gain a point.
I cannot read or write.
I am bored by thoughts of death.
I become homicidal when people try to reason with me.
I would enjoy the work of a chicken flicker.
I am never startled by a fish.
My mother’s uncle was a good man.
I don’t like it when somebody is rotten.
People who break the law are wise guys.
I have never gone to pieces over the weekend.
I think beavers work too hard.
I use shoe polish to excess.
God is love.
I like mannish children.
I have always been disturbed by the sight of Lincoln’s ears.
I always let people get ahead of me at swimming pools.
Most of the time I go to sleep without saying goodbye.
I am not afraid of picking up door knobs.
I believe I smell as good as most people.
Frantic screams make me nervous.
It’s hard for me to say the right thing when I find myself in a room full of mice.
I would never tell my nickname in a crisis.
A wide necktie is a sign of disease.
As a child I was deprived of licorice.
I would never shake hands with a gardener.
My eyes are always cold.
Source: Reprinted by permission of Art Buchwald from his North Dakota Null-Hypothesis Brain Inventory (1965). Quoted in
Blumenfeld, W. S. (1972). “I am never startled by a fish.” APA Monitor, 3(9, 10), 3, 14.
44 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–7
Personal Attitudes and Traits
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each item and decide whether
the statement is true or false as it pertains to you personally.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Before voting, I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates.
I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.
It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged.
I have never intensely disliked anyone.
On occasion, I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life.
I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.
I am always careful about my manner of dress.
My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant.
If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not seen, I would probably do it.
On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability.
I like to gossip at times.
There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority, even though I knew they
were right.
No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.
I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something.
There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.
I’m always willing to admit when I make a mistake.
I always try to practice what I preach.
I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loudmouthed, obnoxious people.
I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
When I don’t know something, I don’t at all mind admitting it.
I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.
At times, I have really insisted on having things my own way.
There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.
I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings.
I never resent being asked to return a favor.
I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own.
I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.
There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others.
I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
I have never felt that I was punished without cause.
I sometimes think when people have a misfortune, they only got what they deserved.
I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.
Source: Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Chapter 12 Personality 45
HANDOUT 12–8
Self-Monitoring Scale
The statements below concern your personal reactions to a number of different situations. No two statements are
exactly alike, so consider each statement carefully before answering. If a statement is TRUE or MOSTLY TRUE as
applied to you, circle the “T.” If a statement is FALSE or NOT USUALLY TRUE as applied to you, circle the “F.”
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
T
T
F
F
18.
19.
T
T
T
T
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people.
My behavior is usually an expression of my true inner feelings, attitudes, and beliefs.
At parties and social gatherings, I do not attempt to do or say things that others will like.
I can only argue for ideas that I already believe.
I can make impromptu speeches even on topics about which I have almost no information.
I guess I put on a show to impress or entertain people.
When I am uncertain how to act in a social situation, I look to the behavior of others for cues.
I would probably make a good actor.
I rarely need the advice of my friends to choose movies, books, or music.
I sometimes appear to others to be experiencing deeper emotions than I actually am.
I laugh more when I watch a comedy with others than when alone.
In a group of people I am rarely the center of attention.
In different situations and with different people, I often act like very different persons.
I am not particularly good at making other people like me.
Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time.
I’m not always the person I appear to be.
I would not change my opinions (or the way I do things) in order to please someone else or win
their favor.
I have considered being an entertainer.
In order to get along and be liked, I tend to be what people expect me to be rather than anything
else.
I have never been good at games like charades or improvisational acting.
I have trouble changing my behavior to suit different people and different situations.
At a party I let others keep the jokes and stories going.
I feel a bit awkward in company and do not show up quite so well as I should.
I can look anyone in the eye and tell a lie with a straight face (if for a right end).
I may deceive people by being friendly when I really dislike them.
Source: Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30,
526–537. Copyright © 1974 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission.
46 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–9
Dating Survey
1.
Are you currently dating someone exclusively (that is, one person and no one else)? (Check one.)
Yes
No
2.
If yes, how many months have you dated this person?
3.
If you are not dating one person exclusively at the present time, have you dated at least two different people in the
past year? (Check one.)
Yes
No
4.
If yes, how many different persons have you dated in the past year?
5.
If you are currently dating someone (whether exclusively or not), please write your current (or most steady)
dating partner’s initials on the first line below. Then write the initials of 3 opposite-sex friends on the lines that
follow.
Current partner
Friend No. 1
Friend No. 2
Friend No. 3
6.
If you could ideally form a close, intimate dating relationship with either your current dating partner or Friend
No. 1, whom would you choose?
7.
If you could ideally form a close, intimate dating relationship with either your current dating partner or Friend
No. 2, whom would you choose?
8.
If you could ideally form a close, intimate dating relationship with either your current dating partner or Friend
No. 3, whom would you choose?
Source: TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY by Simpson. Copyright 1988 by Taylor & Francis Informa UK ltd. - Journals.
Reproduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd. Journals in the format Other Book via Copyright
Clearance Center.
Chapter 12 Personality 47
HANDOUT 12-10
Following is a list of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement
to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair
of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other.
Disagree
strongly
1
Disagree
moderately
2
Disagree
a little
3
Neither
agree nor
disagree
4
Agree
a little
5
Agree
moderately
6
Agree
strongly
7
I see myself as:
1. Extraverted, enthusiastic.
2. Critical, quarrelsome.
3. Dependable, self-disciplined.
4. Anxious, easily upset.
5. Open to new experiences, complex.
6. Reserved, quiet.
7. Sympathetic, warm.
8. Disorganized, careless.
9. Calm, emotionally stable.
10. Conventional, uncreative.
Source: Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality
domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 525 (Appendix A).
48 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–11
The Big Five Inventory (BFI)
Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which
you agree or disagree with that statement.
Disagree
strongly
1
Disagree
a little
2
Neither agree
nor disagree
3
Agree
a little
4
Agree
strongly
5
I see myself as someone who . . .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Is talkative
Tends to find fault with others
Does a thorough job
Is depressed, blue
Is original, comes up with new ideas
Is reserved
Is helpful and unselfish with others
Can be somewhat careless
Is relaxed, handles stress well
Is curious about many different things
Is full of energy
Starts quarrels with others
Is a reliable worker
Can be tense
Is ingenious, a deep thinker
Generates a lot of enthusiasm
Has a forgiving nature
Tends to be disorganized
Worries a lot
Has an active imagination
Tends to be quiet
Is generally trusting
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
Tends to be lazy
Is emotionally stable, not easily upset
Is inventive
Has an assertive personality
Can be cold and aloof
Perseveres until the task is finished
Can be moody
Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
Is sometimes shy, inhibited
Is considerate and kind to almost everyone
Does things efficiently
Remains calm in tense situations
Prefers work that is routine
Is outgoing, sociable
Is sometimes rude to others
Makes plans and follows through with them
Gets nervous easily
Likes to reflect, play with ideas
Has few artistic interests
Likes to cooperate with others
Is easily distracted
Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature
Source: Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2/e. New York: Guilford.
Copyright © 1991 by Oliver P. John. Reprinted with permission.
Chapter 12 Personality 49
HANDOUT 12–12
Indicate the extent to which each of the following terms describes you. Use a 9-point scale to indicate your response
with 1 = extremely inaccurate to 9 = extremely accurate.
Careful
Careless*
Conscientious
Disorganized*
Efficient
Haphazard*
Negligent*
Organized
Practical
Prompt
Sloppy*
Steady
Inconsistent*
Inefficient*
Impractical*
Neat
Systematic
Thorough
Undependable*
Unsystematic*
Source: Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment,
4, 26–42. Copyright © 1992 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted by permission.
50 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–13
Your Personality Profile
Your Developmental History
You are the kind of person who was biologically conceived by two, opposite-sexed parents. However, no one, including your mother or father, ever asked you if you wanted to be born. For a period of time, you were totally dependent
on others for food, shelter, and safety. On more than one occasion your cries went unheeded. Things are different now.
You are not as young as you were. You’ve had numerous experiences in your life. You’ve had some problems and suffered some disappointments. When things haven’t worked out the way you intended them to, you wished that they
had.
Your Physiological Processes
. . . You’re the kind of person who derives pleasure from scratching an itch. Pain hurts you. In fact, you typically
attempt to avoid pain. When you are too cold, you have a strong tendency to seek heat . . . . When you feel sick, you
desire to feel better. When having sex, you’re the type of person who would prefer to have an orgasm, rather than not
having one. You experience a sense of satisfaction, even pleasure, after relieving your bladder or bowels . . . .
Personality Characteristics
You have many sides to your personality. There are some parts of your personality that you like more than others.
Deep down, you have some pretty deep feelings . . . . When your feelings are hurt, you’re the kind of person who
doesn’t like it. Given the choice, you’d rather feel good than bad. Sometimes you are happy; sometimes you
aren’t. . . .
Interpersonal Functioning
You are similar to other people in some ways, but not in other ways. There are many people whom you just do not
know. You enjoy having the respect of others. You like some people more than others. When you lose someone dear,
you’re likely to feel sad. In your relationships with others, you’re trying to strike a balance between autonomy and
closeness. Deep down, you crave love and approval. You want to be understood. You are the kind of person who
prefers not being ridiculed, mocked, or tortured by others.
Goals and Expectations
You wish that you could be more like the person who you really want to be. You wish that you had more control over
your life. You want to accomplish more. You would prefer to be successful rather than unsuccessful.
Diagnostic Impressions
You have intrapsychic conflict.
You have control issues.
You have boundary issues.
You have trust issues.
You have inner-child issues.
You have ambivalent feelings toward your parents.
You have unfinished business.
You have repressed introjects.
You are searching for meaning in life.
You are your own worst enemy.
You come from a dysfunctional family.
You have a biochemical imbalance.
Source: Levy, D. A. (1993). Psychometric infallibility realized: The one-size-fits-all psychological profile. Copyright © 1993
by Wry-Bred Press, Inc. Journal of Polymorphous Perversity. Reprinted by permission of Dr. Glenn Blenbogen.
Chapter 12 Personality 51
HANDOUT 12–14
Astrology
Rate the 12 personality types below in terms of their applicability to your own personality. For each type place a vertical mark (“|”) anywhere on the scale, ranging from completely inapplicable to completely applicable. Although not
every adjective in a type will necessarily apply equally, respond to each set of three as one description.
Inapplicable
Applicable
1.
_____________________________________________________________________________
pioneering, enthusiastic, courageous
Inapplicable
Applicable
2.
_____________________________________________________________________________
stable, stubborn, well-organized
Inapplicable
Applicable
3.
_____________________________________________________________________________
intellectual, adaptable, clever
Inapplicable
Applicable
4.
_____________________________________________________________________________
sensitive, nurturing, sympathetic
Inapplicable
Applicable
5.
_____________________________________________________________________________
extraverted, generous, authoritative
Inapplicable
Applicable
6.
_____________________________________________________________________________
critical, exacting, intelligent
Inapplicable
Applicable
7.
_____________________________________________________________________________
harmonizing, just, sociable
Inapplicable
Applicable
8.
_____________________________________________________________________________
secretive, strong, passionate
Inapplicable
Applicable
9.
_____________________________________________________________________________
honest, impulsive, optimistic
Inapplicable
Applicable
10.
_____________________________________________________________________________
ambitious, hard-working, cautious
Inapplicable
Applicable
11.
_____________________________________________________________________________
original, open-minded, independent
Inapplicable
Applicable
12.
_____________________________________________________________________________
kind, sensitive, creative
Source: TEACHING OF PSYCHOLOGY by Balch. Copyright 1980 by Taylor & Francis Informa UK ltd. - Journals.
Reproeduced by permission of Taylor & Francis Informa UK Ltd. Journals in the format Other Book via Copyright
Clearance Center.
52 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–15
Personal Constructs
The following is an abbreviated version of Kelly’s Rep Test (the Minimum Context Form). By taking a few minutes to
complete the test, you can obtain a quick idea of the constructs you use to organize information about the people you
know and meet. After you complete the test, you may want to compare your responses with those of other people. No
doubt you will find a few overlapping constructs, but also many that you hadn’t thought of. Of course, these differences in personal constructs represent differences in personality that should translate into individual differences in
your behavior.
To begin, write down the names of the following 12 people. Although a person may fit into more than one category,
you need to compile a list of 12 different people. If there is no one who fits in a category, name someone who is similar to the category description. For example, if you have no brother, then select someone who is like a brother to you.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
A teacher you liked
A teacher you disliked
Your wife (husband) or boyfriend (girlfriend)
An employer, supervisor, or officer you found hard to get along with
An employer, supervisor, or officer you liked
Your mother
Your father
Brother nearest your age
Sister nearest your age
A person with whom you have worked who was easy to get along with
A person with whom you have worked who was hard to understand
A neighbor with whom you get along well
Next, take three of these people at a time, as indicated below, and describe in what important way two of them are
alike but different from the third. Put your description of the two alike people in the Construct list and your description of the third person in the Contrast list.
Names
Construct
Contrast
3, 6, 7
1, 4, 10
4, 7, 8
1, 6, 9
4, 5, 8
2, 11, 12
8, 9, 10
2, 3, 5
5, 7, 11
1, 10, 12
Source: Burger, J. (2000). Personality (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 476–477.
Chapter 12 Personality 53
HANDOUT 12–16
Locus of Control
Indicate the extent to which each of the following statements applies to you. Use the following scale:
1 = disagree strongly
2 = disagree
3 = disagree slightly
4 = neither agree nor disagree
5 = agree slightly
6 = agree
7 = agree strongly
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
When I get what I want, it’s usually because I worked hard for it.
When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work.
I prefer games involving some luck over games requiring pure skill.
I can learn almost anything if I set my mind to it.
My major accomplishments are entirely due to my hard work and ability.
I usually don’t set goals because I have a hard time following through on them.
Competition discourages excellence.
Often people get ahead just by being lucky.
On any sort of exam or competition, I like to know how well I do relative to everyone else.
It’s pointless to keep working on something that’s too difficult for me.
Source: Paulhus, D. (1983). Sphere-specific measures of perceived control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
44, 1253–1265. Copyright © 1983 by the American Psychological Association. Adapted by permission.
54 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–17
Respond to each of the statements by using the following scale:
1 = completely disagree
2 = disagree
3 = disagree somewhat
4 = neither disagree nor agree
5 = agree somewhat
6 = agree
7 = completely agree
1.
When I watch TV, I channel surf, often scanning through the available options even while attempting to watch one program.
2.
When I am in the car listening to the radio, I often check other stations to see if something better
is playing, even if I’m relatively satisfied with what I’m listening to.
3.
I treat relationships like clothing; I expect to try a lot on before I get the perfect fit.
4.
No matter how satisfied I am with my job, it’s only right for me to be on the lookout for better
opportunities.
5.
I often fantasize about living in ways that are quite different from my actual life.
6.
I’m a big fan of lists that attempt to rank things (the best movies, the best singers, the best athletes, the best novels, etc.).
7.
I often find it difficult to shop for a gift for a friend.
8.
When shopping, I have a hard time finding clothing that I really love.
9.
Renting videos is really difficult. I’m always struggling to pick the best one.
10.
I find that writing is very difficult, even if it’s just writing a letter to a friend, because it’s so hard
to word things just right. I often do several drafts of even simple things.
11.
No matter what I do, I have the highest standards for myself.
12.
I never settle for second best.
13.
Whenever I’m faced with a choice, I try to imagine what all the other possibilities are, even ones
that aren’t present at the moment.
Source: Schwartz, B., et al. (2002). Maximizing versus satisficing: Happiness is a matter of choice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1178–1197. Copyright © 2002 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted by permission.
Chapter 12 Personality 55
HANDOUT 12–18
Scheier & Carver’s Life Orientation Test
Indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements using the following response scale:
0 = strongly disagree
1 = disagree
2 = neutral
3 = agree
4 = strongly agree
Place the appropriate number in the blank before each item.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.
It’s easy for me to relax.
If something can go wrong for me, it will.
I always look on the bright side of things.
I’m always optimistic about my future.
I enjoy my friends a lot.
It’s important for me to keep busy.
I hardly ever expect things to go my way.
Things never work out the way I want them to.
I don’t get upset too easily.
I’m a believer in the idea that “every cloud has a silver lining.”
I rarely count on good things happening to me.
Source: HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY by Scheier and Carver. Copyright 1985 by Informa Clinical Medicine - Journals.
Reproduced with permission of Informa Clinical Medicine - Journals in the format Other book via Copyright Clearance
Center.
56 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–19
When you answer the following questions, please think about how you prepare for and think about academic situations. Each of the statements below describes how people sometimes think or feel about these kinds of situations.
In the blank space beside each statement, please indicate how true it is of you, in academic situations.
1
2
Not at all
true of me
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
3
4
5
6
7
Very true
of me
I go into these situations expecting the worst, even though I know I will probably do OK.
I generally go into these situations with positive expectations about how I will do.
I’ve generally done pretty well in these situations in the past.
I carefully consider all possible outcomes before these situations.
When I do well in these situations, I often feel really happy.
I often worry, in these situations, that I won’t be able to carry through my intentions.
I often think about how I will feel if I do very poorly in these situations.
I often think about how I will feel if I do very well in these situations.
When I do well in these situations, it is usually because I didn’t get too worried about it beforehand.
I often try to figure out how likely it is that I will do very poorly in these situations.
I’m careful not to become overconfident in these situations.
I spend a lot of time planning when one of these situations is coming up.
When working with others in these situations, I often worry that they will control things or interfere
with my plans.
I often try to figure out how likely it is that I will do very well in these situations.
In these situations, sometimes I worry more about looking like a fool than doing really well.
Prior to these situations, I avoid thinking about possible bad outcomes.
Considering what can go wrong in academic situations helps me to prepare.
Source: Norem, J. K. (2001). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and pessimism. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice, pp. 77–100. Copyright © 2001 by the American Psychological
Association. Reprinted by permission.
Chapter 12 Personality 57
HANDOUT 12–20
Each person’s personality is in some ways stable over time; in other ways it changes over time.
In this exercise, you can evaluate yourself in terms of what describes you now and how you think
you will be in the future. Following is a list of items. For each one, simply rate it on a 1 to 7 scale,
with 1 meaning “does not describe me at all” to 7 meaning “is a highly accurate description of me.”
Give a rating for each of two questions: (1) Does this describe me now? And (2) Will this describe
me in the future?
Items
Describes me now
Describes me in the future
Is happy
Is confident
Is depressed
Is lazy
Travels widely
Has lots of friends
Is destitute (poor)
Is sexy
Is in good shape
Speaks well in public
Makes own decisions
Manipulates people
Is powerful
Is trusted
Is unimportant
Is offensive
Source: Randy Larsen and David Buss. PERSONALITY PSYCHOLOGY; DOMAINS OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HUMAN
NATURE, 3/E. Copyright 2008. Reprinted by permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies.
58 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–21
For each of the following statements, use the scale below to indicate your agreement or disagreement.
1 = strongly disagree
2 = disagree
3 = agree
4 = strongly agree
1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities.
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
4. I am able to do things as well as most people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. I certainly feel useless at times.
10. At times, I think I am no good at all.
Source: pp. 325–327 in Morris Rosenberg, Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. © 1989 by Morris Rosenberg and reprinted
by permission of Wesleyan University Press.
Chapter 12 Personality 59
HANDOUT 12–22
Contingencies of Self-Worth Scale
Instructions: The sample items below assess domains that may or may not be relevant to your sense of self-worth.
Please respond to each of the following statements by using the following scale.
1 = completely disagree
2 = disagree
3 = disagree somewhat
4 = neither disagree nor agree
5 = agree somewhat
6 = agree
7 = completely agree
1.
When my family members are proud of me, my sense of self-worth increases.
2.
My self-worth is affected by how well I do when I am competing with others.
3.
When I think I look attractive, I feel good about myself.
4.
My self-worth is based on God's love.
5.
Doing well in school gives me a sense of self-respect.
6.
Whenever I follow my moral principles, my sense of self-respect gets a boost.
7.
My self-esteem depends on the opinions others hold of me.
Source: Crocker, J., et al. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894–908. Copyright 2003. Reprinted by permission of Jennifer Crocker.
60 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–23
Self-Concept Clarity Scale
Indicate your degree of agreement with each of the following items using a scale from 1 = strongly disagree to
5 = strongly agree:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
My beliefs about myself often conflict with one another.
On one day, I might have one opinion of myself and on another day, I might have a different opinion.
I spend a lot of time wondering about what kind of person I am.
Sometimes I feel that I am not really the person I appear to be.
When I think about the kind of person I have been in the past, I’m not sure what I was really like.
I seldom experience conflict between the different aspects of my personality.
Sometimes, I think I know other people better than I know myself.
My beliefs about myself seem to change very frequently.
If I were asked to describe my personality, my description might end up being different from one day to
another.
10. Even if I wanted to, I don’t think I could tell someone what I’m really like.
11. In general, I have a clear sense of who I am and what I am.
12. It is often hard for me to make up my mind about things because I don’t really know what I want.
Source: Campbell, J. D., et al. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates, and cultural boundaries.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 145 (Table 1). Copyright © 1996 by the American Psychological
Association. Reprinted by permission.
Chapter 12 Personality 61
HANDOUT 12–24
Indicate how much you like each letter by circling a number ranging from 1 = do not like to 5 = like a lot.
Letters
IYFN
Do not like
Like a lot
R
1
2
3
4
5
H
1
2
3
4
5
D
1
2
3
4
5
Y
1
2
3
4
5
K
1
2
3
4
5
I
1
2
3
4
5
L
1
2
3
4
5
P
1
2
3
4
5
G
1
2
3
4
5
J
1
2
3
4
5
M
1
2
3
4
5
Z
1
2
3
4
5
S
1
2
3
4
5
F
1
2
3
4
5
X
1
2
3
4
5
N
1
2
3
4
5
A
1
2
3
4
5
W
1
2
3
4
5
T
1
2
3
4
5
Q
1
2
3
4
5
E
1
2
3
4
5
V
1
2
3
4
5
O
1
2
3
4
5
B
1
2
3
4
5
U
1
2
3
4
5
C
1
2
3
4
5
NIYFN
IYLN
NIYLN
62 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–25
Self-Ratings
Compared with other college students of the same class level and sex as yourself, how would you rate yourself on the
following characteristics? Use the following scale in marking your responses.
1 = considerably well below average
2 = well below average
3 = below average
4 = slightly below average
5 = average
6 = slightly above average
7 = above average
8 = well above average
9 = considerably well above average
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
leadership ability
athletic ability
ability to get along with others
tolerance
energy level
helpfulness
responsibility
creativeness
patience
trustworthiness
sincerity
thoughtfulness
cooperativeness
reasonableness
intelligence
Source: Martin Bolt Instructor’s Manual to accompany Social Psychology, 6/e. Copyright 1999. Reprinted by permission
of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Chapter 12 Personality 63
HANDOUT 12–26
Academic Survey: Introductory Psychology
1.
Please indicate your current enrollment status. (Check one.)
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
Other
2.
What was your overall grade point average (GPA) for the college courses you completed last term or, if this is
your first semester in college, your overall high-school GPA? (Use numbers—for example, 2.87.)
3.
Try to predict your GPA for the upcoming term. (Use numbers.)
4.
Why did you enroll in this course? (Check as many as apply.)
To satisfy a general college requirement
To satisfy a requirement related to my college major
The course description sounded interesting
My academic advisor recommended it
A family member or friend recommended it
5.
Last year over 150 students took introductory psychology from your professor. The average grade these students
received in this course was a B–. What do you think your final grade in this course will be? (Check only one
grade as your single best estimate.)
A
A–
B+
B
B–
C+
C
C–
D+
D
D–
F
64 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–27
Please try to respond to the following questions as honestly as you can. Circle the number that best corresponds to
your feelings. Your answers will remain completely confidential.
1. How athletic are you?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
2. How much do you care about whether or not you are athletic?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
4
5
6
7
Very much
3. How intelligent are you?
Not at all
1
2
3
4. How much do you care about whether or not you are intelligent?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
6
7
Very much
5. How physically attractive are you?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6. How much do you care about whether or not you are physically attractive?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
7. How creative are you?
Not at all
1
2
8. How much do you care about whether or not you are creative?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
6
7
Very much
9. How mechanically skilled are you?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
10. How much do you care about whether or not you are mechanically skilled?
Not at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Very much
Chapter 12 Personality 65
HANDOUT 12–28
Self-Description Inventory
Please indicate (by writing a number in the blank before each item) the degree to which you agree with each of the
following statements as a description of the kind of person you think you are most of the time. Use the following
scale.
0 = disagree very much
1 = disagree pretty much
2 = disagree a little
3 = agree a little
4 = agree pretty much
5 = agree very much
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
When I do something wrong, my first impulse is to blame circumstances.
I tend to put things off until the last moment.
I tend to overprepare when I have an exam or any kind of “performance.”
I suppose I feel “under the weather” more often than most people.
I always try to do my best, no matter what.
Before I sign up for a course or engage in any important activity, I make sure I have the proper preparation or background.
I tend to get very anxious before an exam or “performance.”
I am easily distracted by noises or my own creative thoughts when I try to read.
I try not to get too intensely involved in competitive activities so it won’t hurt too much if I lose or do
poorly.
I would rather be respected for doing my best than admired for my potential.
I would do a lot better if I tried harder.
I prefer small pleasures in the present to larger pleasures in the dim future.
I generally hate to be in any condition but “at my best.”
Someday I might “get it all together.”
I sometimes enjoy being mildly ill for a day or two because it takes off the pressure.
I would do much better if I did not let my emotions get in the way.
When I do poorly at one kind of thing, I often console myself by remembering I am good at other things.
I admit that I am tempted to rationalize when I don’t live up to others’ expectations.
I often think I have more than my share of bad luck in sports, card games, and other measures of talent.
I would rather not take any drug that interfered with my ability to think clearly and do the right thing.
I overindulge in food and drink more often than I should.
When something important is coming up, like an exam or a job interview, I try to get as much sleep as
possible the night before.
I never let emotional problems in one part of my life interfere with other things in my life.
Usually, when I get anxious about doing well, I end up doing better.
Sometimes I get so depressed that even easy tasks become difficult.
Please fill out the following information about yourself.
1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )
2. Where would you put yourself on the following scale?
/
/
Distinct
Normal
Distinct
Underachiever
Achiever
Overachiever
Source: Reprinted by permission of Frederick Rhodewalt from Self-Description Inventory by Edward E. Jones and
Frederick Rhodewalt. Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the preference for anticipatory
self-protective acts. In R. L. Higgins, C. R. Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isn’t (p.
77). Copyright 1990. Reprinted by permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers.
66 Chapter 12 Personality
HANDOUT 12–29
In order to get some meaningful feedback on student reactions to course testing procedures, I would appreciate your
candid responses to the following questions. In each case, circle the number that best corresponds to your opinion.
To what extent do you think your score on this test was due to:
1.
Not at all
This particular test—how easy or difficult it was:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2.
Not at all
To a great extent
My academic ability or lack of ability:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3.
Not at all
To a great extent
Study—how much or little I studied:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4.
Not at all
To a great extent
Luck—good or bad:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
To a great extent
5. Was this test:
A poor measure
of what I knew 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6.
An excellent measure
of what I knew
What score did you receive on the test?
Number correct =
.
Source: Martin Bolt Instructor’s Manual to accompany Social Psychology, 6/e. Copyright 1999. Reprinted by permission of
The McGraw-Hill Companies.