Personality Traits
Trait theory is a major approach to the study of human personality. Trait psychologists are interested in measuring personality traits, which are enduring dispositions (or tendencies) to think, feel, or behave in a particular, patterned way. It seems intuitively obvious that people differ from one another in their typical ways of behaving and that these differences matter. Psychologists classify personality traits into five broad dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Most of us think about one another in terms of general dispositions and use trait terms extensively in our daily lives. However, Walter Mischel launched a fundamental challenge to trait psychology–proposing a theory known as situationism–in a controversial book published in 1968. Mischel argued that we are all quite mistaken: traits are much less solid and powerful than we, and trait psychologists, imagine.
In his book, Mischel reviewed a large number of studies of behavioral consistency, the extent to which a person’s behavior is consistent in different situations or according to different measures. Although trait psychology assumes a high level of consistency, Mischel repeatedly found that behaviors expressing a single trait in different settings often correlated quite weakly. Another way of saying this is that there is a great deal of within-person variability of behavior across different situations. For instance, a well-known study of children’s moral behavior found that the likelihood of their cheating, lying, and stealing was only marginally correlated when assessed in diverse classroom, home, and social settings. Different children behaved immorally in different situations, and most individual children were not consistently moral or immoral. Similarly, Mischel found that different measures of particular traits rarely reached high levels of consistency, and usually correlated quite modestly. He concluded that behavior is only weakly influenced by traits, and that situational determinants are usually more powerful. Consequently, even if particular dispositions exist–a claim he did not deny–they are of little practical value in predicting behavior.
Needless to say, Mischel’s conclusions were met with a chorus of disagreement from personality psychologists. (In contrast, social psychologists, who focus on situational determinants of behavior, tended to applaud.) Mischel had, after all, cast doubt on the large and successful research enterprise of trait psychology, as well as on the livelihood of psychologists who practiced personality assessment in clinical, educational, and industrial settings. As a result, his findings were subjected to numerous criticisms over many years. Some personality psychologists argued that his review of the literature was selective, others that it focused too much on studies performed in artificial laboratory situations that might not generalize to everyday life. Two criticisms are particularly noteworthy.
First, Mischel maintained that the levels of behavioral consistency revealed in his review were too low to be practically useful, but some psychologists have argued that the low correlations of the sort he dismissed may actually have considerable practical value. Even the relatively low correlations he found can reduce prediction errors and raise the odds of correct predictions. In many practical settings, the correlations found by Mischel are very respectable.
Second, it may well be that Mischel significantly underestimated the degree to which behavior can be predicted by traits. The studies that he reviewed correlated specific behaviors measured on a single occasion with one another or with psychological tests. However, psychologists are often interested not in predicting single instances of particular behaviors, but in predicting tendencies to behave in a certain general manner over a period of time (i.e., aggregated behavior). Aggregated behavior is more predictable than specific instances because the many unpredictable factors that influence each instance tend to even out in the long run. For this reason, aggregated behavior is more consistent and more strongly correlated with trait measures than Mischel claimed.
It is now generally accepted that trait psychology survived the person-situation debate with few lasting injuries.Evidence for the consistency of behavior has accumulated, and growing evidence for the stability of personality traits over time has strengthened the position that traits are influential and predictively valuable sources of behavior. At the same time, trait psychologists have developed a healthy recognition of the level of inconsistency or within-person variability in behavior and of the vital importance of the context in which behavior occurs.
1
Trait theory is a major approach to the study of human personality. Trait psychologists are interested in measuring personality traits, which are enduring dispositions (or tendencies) to think, feel, or behave in a particular, patterned way. It seems intuitively obvious that people differ from one another in their typical ways of behaving and that these differences matter. Psychologists classify personality traits into five broad dimensions: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience. Most of us think about one another in terms of general dispositions and use trait terms extensively in our daily lives. However, Walter Mischel launched a fundamental challenge to trait psychology–proposing a theory known as situationism–in a controversial book published in 1968. Mischel argued that we are all quite mistaken: traits are much less solid and powerful than we, and trait psychologists, imagine.
The word “enduring” in the passage is closest in meaning to
Aspecific
Blasting
Cunusual
Drecognizable
2
In his book, Mischel reviewed a large number of studies of behavioral consistency, the extent to which a person’s behavior is consistent in different situations or according to different measures. Although trait psychology assumes a high level of consistency, Mischel repeatedly found that behaviors expressing a single trait in different settings often correlated quite weakly. Another way of saying this is that there is a great deal of within-person variability of behavior across different situations. For instance, a well-known study of children’s moral behavior found that the likelihood of their cheating, lying, and stealing was only marginally correlated when assessed in diverse classroom, home, and social settings. Different children behaved immorally in different situations, and most individual children were not consistently moral or immoral. Similarly, Mischel found that different measures of particular traits rarely reached high levels of consistency, and usually correlated quite modestly. He concluded that behavior is only weakly influenced by traits, and that situational determinants are usually more powerful. Consequently, even if particular dispositions exist–a claim he did not deny–they are of little practical value in predicting behavior.
According to paragraph 2, what did Mischel conclude about measures of personality traits?
ADifferent measures of personality traits are needed for children than for adults
BMeasures of morality were less consistent than measures of other aspects of personality
CDifferent measures of the same trait agreed only slightly.
DNew measures tended to be more consistent than older measures
3
Needless to say, Mischel’s conclusions were met with a chorus of disagreement from personality psychologists. (In contrast, social psychologists, who focus on situational determinants of behavior, tended to applaud.) Mischel had, after all, cast doubt on the large and successful research enterprise of trait psychology, as well as on the livelihood of psychologists who practiced personality assessment in clinical, educational, and industrial settings. As a result, his findings were subjected to numerous criticisms over many years. Some personality psychologists argued that his review of the literature was selective, others that it focused too much on studies performed in artificial laboratory situations that might not generalize to everyday life. Two criticisms are particularly noteworthy.
Why does the author mention “social psychologists” in the passage?
ATo support the claim that personality traits exist
BTo emphasize social psychologists’ support for trait-psychology research
CTo clarify what type of psychologist Mischel was
DTo point out a group of people who tended to support Mischel’s conclusions
4
Needless to say, Mischel’s conclusions were met with a chorus of disagreement from personality psychologists. (In contrast, social psychologists, who focus on situational determinants of behavior, tended to applaud.) Mischel had, after all, cast doubt on the large and successful research enterprise of trait psychology, as well as on the livelihood of psychologists who practiced personality assessment in clinical, educational, and industrial settings. As a result, his findings were subjected to numerous criticisms over many years. Some personality psychologists argued that his review of the literature was selective, others that it focused too much on studies performed in artificial laboratory situations that might not generalize to everyday life. Two criticisms are particularly noteworthy.
Which of the sentences below best expresses the essential information in the highlighted sentence in the passage? Incorrect choices change the meaning in important ways or leave out essential information.
AMischel had cast doubt on the idea that trait-psychology research could be applied successfully to personality assessment in practical settings.
BMischel had cast doubt on the successful field of trait-psychology research and on the livelihood of psychologists who used it in practice.
CThe success of Mischel’s research enterprise threatened the livelihood of personality-trait psychologists working in clinical educational, and industrial settings.
DMischel had, after doing much successful research into trait psychology, cast doubt on the practice of personality assessment.
5
Needless to say, Mischel’s conclusions were met with a chorus of disagreement from personality psychologists. (In contrast, social psychologists, who focus on situational determinants of behavior, tended to applaud.) Mischel had, after all, cast doubt on the large and successful research enterprise of trait psychology, as well as on the livelihood of psychologists who practiced personality assessment in clinical, educational, and industrial settings. As a result, his findings were subjected to numerous criticisms over many years. Some personality psychologists argued that his review of the literature was selective, others that it focused too much on studies performed in artificial laboratory situations that might not generalize to everyday life. Two criticisms are particularly noteworthy.
According to paragraph 3, which of the following was one reason some psychologists criticized Mischel’s conclusions?
AMischel concentrated on studies that might not apply to real-life situations.
BMischel reviewed some literature that was not related closely enough to his conclusions
CMischel did not actually practice in clinical, educational, or industrial settings
DMischel’s research relied too much on personality assessments.
6
First, Mischel maintained that the levels of behavioral consistency revealed in his review were too low to be practically useful, but some psychologists have argued that the low correlations of the sort he dismissed may actually have considerable practical value. Even the relatively low correlations he found can reduce prediction errors and raise the odds of correct predictions. In many practical settings, the correlations found by Mischel are very respectable.
The word “dismissed” in the passage is closest in meaning to
Arejected
Bquestioned
Cdefended
Dobtained
7
Second, it may well be that Mischel significantly underestimated the degree to which behavior can be predicted by traits. The studies that he reviewed correlated specific behaviors measured on a single occasion with one another or with psychological tests. However, psychologists are often interested not in predicting single instances of particular behaviors, but in predicting tendencies to behave in a certain general manner over a period of time (i.e., aggregated behavior). Aggregated behavior is more predictable than specific instances because the many unpredictable factors that influence each instance tend to even out in the long run. For this reason, aggregated behavior is more consistent and more strongly correlated with trait measures than Mischel claimed.
Paragraph 5 supports which of the following statements about aggregated behavior?
APsychologists are less interested in aggregated behavior than in particular behaviors.
BAggregated behavior does not correlate well with the results of psychological tests
CAggregated behavior can be predicted by traits better than individual behaviors can.
DMischel studied aggregated behavior intensely in his reviews.
8
It is now generally accepted that trait psychology survived the person-situation debate with few lasting injuries.Evidence for the consistency of behavior has accumulated, and growing evidence for the stability of personality traits over time has strengthened the position that traits are influential and predictively valuable sources of behavior. At the same time, trait psychologists have developed a healthy recognition of the level of inconsistency or within-person variability in behavior and of the vital importance of the context in which behavior occurs.
Paragraph 6 supports which of the following statements about the effect of Mischel’s claims on the field of psychology?
AMischel’s focus on aggregated behavior established the importance of personality traits.
BSituationism failed to replace trait theory as an explanation for human behavior.
CMischel’s ideas about behavioral consistency fundamentally changed trait psychology.
DPsychologists now believe that the most important influence on behavior is context
9
Second, it may well be that Mischel significantly underestimated the degree to which behavior can be predicted by traits. The studies that he reviewed correlated specific behaviors measured on a single occasion with one another or with psychological tests. [■] However, psychologists are often interested not in predicting single instances of particular behaviors, but in predicting tendencies to behave in a certain general manner over a period of time (i.e., aggregated behavior). [■] Aggregated behavior is more predictable than specific instances because the many unpredictable factors that influence each instance tend to even out in the long run. For this reason, aggregated behavior is more consistent and more strongly correlated with trait measures than Mischel claimed.[■]
It is now generally accepted that trait psychology survived the person-situation debate with few lasting injuries. [■] Evidence for the consistency of behavior has accumulated, and growing evidence for the stability of personality traits over time has strengthened the position that traits are influential and predictively valuable sources of behavior. At the same time, trait psychologists have developed a healthy recognition of the level of inconsistency or within-person variability in behavior and of the vital importance of the context in which behavior occurs.
Look at the four squaresthat indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage
This was confirmed by a study that showed that trait measures correlated with aggregated behaviors by two to three times as much as Mischel had found for individual behaviors.
Where would the sentence best fit？Click on a square sentence to the passage.
10
Walter Mischel challenged trait psychology by concluding that personality traits are not as important as had been thought
AMischel claimed that individual personality traits do not exist and that most people will respond the same way in the same types of situations.
BMischel’s review of the literature on behavior revealed great inconsistencies in the way behavior psychologists measured personality traits
CCritics claimed that even the low correlations Mischel found have predictive value and that aggregated behavior correlates more closely with traits than do the instances Mischel studied
DMischel concluded that human behavior had more to do with the contexts of particular situations than with personality traits, so traits could not predict behavior well.
EAs a result of Mischel’s work, additional personality traits were identified that, taken together with the five broad dimensions, better predicted behavior in specific situations.
FThough psychologists now have more evidence of consistent behavior and stable personality traits, they also recognize the importance of context and within-person variability
