The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a 44-item questionnaire used to assess an individual across five broad dimensions of personality: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Respondents indicate the extent to which they agree with statements describing various traits and behaviors associated with the Big Five factors on a 5-point scale. The BFI aims to provide a comprehensive yet concise measure of an individual's standing on the major dimensions of personality.

1. Contemporary
Perspectives on
Personality
Module 31

2. Personality
The Trait Perspective
 Exploring Traits
 Assessing Traits
 The Big Five Factors
 Evaluating the Trait Perspective
2

3. The Trait Perspective
An individual’s unique constellation of durable
dispositions and consistent ways of behaving
(traits) constitutes his or her personality.
Examples of Traits
Honest
Dependable
Moody
Impulsive
3

4. Exploring Traits
Each personality is uniquely made up of
multiple traits.
Allport & Odbert (1936), identified almost
18,000 words representing traits.
One way to condense the immense list of
personality traits is through factor analysis, a
statistical approach used to describe and relate
personality traits.
4

5. Factor Analysis
Hans and Sybil Eysenck suggested that personality
could be reduced down to two polar dimensions,
extraversion-introversion and emotional stability-
instability (aka neuroticism).
5
Neurosis: a functional disorder in which feelings of anxiety, obsessional thoughts, compulsive acts, and physical complaints without
objective evidence of disease, in various degrees and patterns, dominate the personality.

6. Analysis of the answers to specific questions given by people
around the world have found that these two factors
(introversion-extraversion and emotional stability-
instability) inevitably emerge as basic personality
dimensions. The third underlying aspect of personality,
which is not identified in the text, is psychoticism. Playing
a somewhat smaller role in personality than the first two
factors, psychoticism is not a dimension with polar
opposites. Rather, it is an ingredient that is present to
varying degrees in individual personalities. Psychoticism is
characterized by eleven dispositions: solitary (not caring
for people); troublesome or not fitting in; cruel; lacks
feeling; sensation seeking; aggressive; likes odd, unusual
things; disregards danger; likes to make fools of other
people, upsetting them; opposes accepted social customs;
engages in little personal interaction— for example,
prefers “impersonal sex.”

7. Biology and Personality
Personality dimensions are influenced by genes.
2. Brain-imaging procedures show that extraverts
seek stimulation because their normal brain
arousal is relatively low.
3. Genes also influence our temperament and
behavioral style. Differences in children’s shyness
and inhibition may be attributed to autonomic
nervous system reactivity.
7

8. Shyness
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. 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 (restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance) , 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.

9. Cheek and Buss Scale
Instructions: Please read each item carefully and decide to what extent it is characteristic of your feelings and behavior.
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: The revised Cheek & Buss Shyness scale. Cheek, J. M., & Melchior, L. A. (1990). Shyness, self-esteem, and self-consciousness. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social
and evaluation anxiety (Table 1, p. 56). Reprinted by permission of Kluwer Academic Publishers.

10. The Revised Cheek and Buss Shyness Scale, can
be used to test for the shyness 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 college
students.
So the average score is 36. Lower scores
indicate a strong shyness trait.

11. 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).

12. Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents
The researchers reported that “openness to
experience” produced the highest correlation with
historian’s ratings of greatness. The best performers
could learn as 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.

13. Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents
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’.”

14. Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents
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.

15. Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents
• 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 assertive-ness and
a tendency to be straightforward.

16. Personality Traits of U.S. Presidents
The researchers reported that “openness to experience”
produced the highest correlation with historian’s ratings of
greatness. The best performers could learn as 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’.”

17. Assessing Traits
Personality inventories are questionnaires
(often with true-false or agree-disagree items)
designed to gauge a wide range of feelings and
behaviors assessing several traits at once.
17

18. MMPI
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely
researched and clinically used of all personality
tests. It was originally developed to identify
emotional disorders.
The MMPI was developed by empirically
testing a pool of items and then selecting those
that discriminated between diagnostic groups.
18

19. MMPI Test Profile
19

20. One problem with self-report personality inventories is
that some respondents tend to give socially desirable
rather than honest responses. 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. Try this next survey. It is
the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.

21. 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. Before voting, I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the
candidates.
• 2. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help someone in trouble.
• 3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not
encouraged.
• 4. I have never intensely disliked anyone.
• 5. On occasion, I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life.
• 6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way.
• 7. I am always careful about my manner of dress.
• 8. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a
restaurant.
• 9. If I could get into a movie without paying and be sure I was not
seen, I would probably do it.

22. • 10. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I
thought too little of my ability.
• 11. I like to gossip at times.
• 12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in
authority, even though I knew they were right.
• 13. No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener.
• 14. I can remember “playing sick” to get out of something.
• 15. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone.
• 16. I’m always willing to admit when I make a mistake.
• 17. I always try to practice what I preach.
• 18. I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loudmouthed,
obnoxious people.
• 19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget.
• 20. When I don’t know something, I don’t at all mind admitting it.
• 21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable.
• 22. At times, I have really insisted on having things my own way.
• 23. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things.

23. • 24. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my
wrongdoings.
• 25. I never resent being asked to return a favor.
• 26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very
different from my own.
• 27. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car.
• 28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good
fortune of others.
• 29. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off.
• 30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me.
• 31. I have never felt that I was punished without cause.
• 32. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune, they only got
what they deserved.
• 33. 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.

24. Because some respondents tend to give socially desirable
rather than honest responses, the Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale, attempts to assess this response
tendency. For example, the fourth item states that “I have
never intensely disliked anyone.” Probably everyone has
at one time or another intensely disliked another person.
People who indicate they have not are trying to present
themselves in a socially desirable light.
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.
Crowne and Marlowe report a mean of 13.72 for
undergraduate college students. People with high scores
tend to present themselves in a favorable light that
probably does not reflect reality.

25. The Big Five Factors
Today’s trait researchers believe that earlier trait
dimensions, such as Eysencks’ personality dimensions,
fail to tell the whole story. So, an expanded range (five
factors) of traits does a better job of assessment.
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion
25

26. Endpoints
26

27. 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. Is talkative 23. Tends to be lazy
2. Tends to find fault with others 24. Is emotionally stable, not easily
upset
3. Does a thorough job 25. Is inventive
4. Is depressed, blue 26. Has an assertive personality
5. Is original, comes up with 27. Can be cold and aloof
new ideas
6. Is reserved 28. Perseveres until the task is
finished
7. Is helpful and unselfish with 29. Can be moody
others

28. 8. Can be somewhat careless 30. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences
9. Is relaxed, handles stress well 31. Is sometimes shy, inhibited
10. Is curious about many different 32. Is considerate and kind to almost
everyone
things
11. Is full of energy 33. Does things efficiently
12. Starts quarrels with others 34. Remains calm in tense situations
13. Is a reliable worker 35. Prefers work that is routine
14. Can be tense 36. Is outgoing, sociable
15. Is ingenious, a deep thinker 37. Is sometimes rude to others
16. Generates a lot of enthusiasm 38. Makes plans and follows through with
them
17. Has a forgiving nature 39. Gets nervous easily
18. Tends to be disorganized 40. Likes to reflect, play with ideas
19. Worries a lot 41. Has few artistic interests
20. Has an active imagination 42. Likes to cooperate with others
21. Tends to be quiet 43. Is easily distracted
22. Is generally trusting 44. 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.

29. 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.

30. • 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.

31. • 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.

32. Questions about the Big Five
Quite stable in adulthood.
1. How stable are these traits? However, they change over
development.
Fifty percent or so for each
2. How heritable are they?
trait.
These traits are common across
3. How about other cultures? cultures.
32

33. Evaluating the Trait Perspective
The Person-Situation Controversy
Walter Mischel (1968, 1984, 2004) points out
that traits may be enduring, but the resulting
behavior in various situations is different.
Therefore, traits are not good predictors of
behavior.
33

34. The Person-Situation Controversy
Trait theorists argue that behaviors from a
situation may be different, but average behavior
remains the same. Therefore, traits matter.
34

35. The Person-Situation Controversy
Traits are socially significant and influence our
health, thinking, and performance
(Gosling et al., 2000).
John Langford Photography
Samuel Gosling 35

36. Consistency of Expressive Style
Expressive styles in speaking and gestures
demonstrate trait consistency.
Observers are able to judge people’s behavior
and feelings in as little as 30 seconds and in one
particular case as little as 2 seconds.
36

37. Personality
The Social Cognitive Perspective
 Social Cognitive Perspective
 Personal Control
 Assessing Behavior in Situations
 Evaluating the Social Cognitive Perspective

38. Social-Cognitive Perspective
Today’s psychological
science views persons as
biopsychosocial organisms.
The Social-cognitive
perspective on personality
proposed by Bandura (1986,
2001, 2005) emphasizes the
interaction of our
biologically influenced
psychological traits with our
situations. Much as nature
and nurture always work
together, so do persons and
their situations. Albert Bandura
38

39. Reciprocal Influences
Bandura called the process on interacting with our
environment reciprocal differences.
“Behavior, internal personal factors, and environmental
influences,” he said, “all operate as interlocking
determinants of each other.”
For example: children’s TV viewing habits (past
behavior) influence their viewing preferences
(internal factor), which influence how television
(environmental factor) affects their current behavior.
The influences are mutual.

40. Individuals & Environments
Specific ways in which individuals and
environments interact
Different people choose The school you attend and the
different environments. music you listen to are partly
based on your dispositions.
Our personalities shape how Anxious people react to
we react to events. situations differently than
relaxed people.
Our personalities shape How we view and treat people
situations. influences how they treat us.
40

41. Because of how we interact with our environment, we
become both the products and architects of our
environment—that is we become products of our
environments, however, we also have a hand in
choosing those environments, thus making us the
architect as well.
This all supports the notion that behavior emerges
from the interplay of external and internal
influences.
At every moment, our behavior is influenced by our
biology, our social experiences, and our cognition
and personality.

42. Behavior
Behavior emerges from an interplay of external
and internal influences.
42

43. Personal Control
Social-cognitive psychologists emphasize our sense of personal
control, whether we control the environment or the environment
controls us.
The full name that Rotter gave the construct (personal control) was
Locus of Control of Reinforcement. In giving it this name, Rotter was
bridging behavioral and cognitive psychology.
Rotter's view was that behavior was largely guided by
"reinforcements" (rewards and punishments) and that through
contingencies such as rewards and punishments, individuals come to
hold beliefs about what causes their actions. These beliefs, in turn,
guide what kinds of attitudes and behaviors people adopt.
43

44. Locus of Control
External locus of control refers to the
perception that chance or outside forces
beyond our personal control determine our
fate.
Internal locus of control refers to the perception
that we can control our own fate.

45. Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence, Apr 06, 2001
Adults and children with an internal locus of control are inclined to take responsibility for
their actions, are not easily influenced by the opinions of others, and tend to do
better at tasks when they can work at their own pace.
By comparison, people with an external locus of control tend to blame outside
circumstances for their mistakes and credit their successes to luck rather than to their
own efforts. They are readily influenced by the opinions of others and are more likely
to pay attention to the status of the opinion-holder, while people with an internal
locus of control pay more attention to the content of the opinion regardless of who
holds it.
Some researchers have claimed that "internals" tend to be more intelligent and more
success-oriented than "externals." In the elementary grades, children with an internal
locus of control have been found to earn higher grades, although there are conflicting
reports about whether there is a relationship between college grades and locus of
control.
There is also a relationship between a child's locus of control and his or her ability to
delay gratification (to forgo an immediate pleasure or desire in order to be rewarded
with a more substantial one later). In middle childhood, children with an internal
locus of control are relatively successful in the delay of gratification, while children
with an external locus of control are likely to make less of an effort to exert self-
control in the present because they doubt their ability to influence events in the
future.

46. Personal Control
Control is a concept that plays an important role in several psychological theories. It is central to
Seligman’s (1975) probability analysis of control and theories of learned helplessness.
Seligman (1975) has defined the concept of control most explicitly. He defines an event as
controllable when a person’s voluntary responses have an impact on the consequences of
that event. By contrast, an event is considered to be uncontrollable when no voluntary
response has an impact on the event. For example, when an organism receives electric
shocks regardless of its efforts to stop them, the electric shocks are uncontrollable to the
organism. However, when the organism has the ability to prevent the shocks by pressing a
button, the shock is considered to be controllable. Loss of control exists when there is a lack
of contingency between behaviors and outcomes. This can lead to motivational, emotional,
and cognitive deficits.
Such deficits can be traced to the discovery that loss of control leads to learned helplessness, a
state similar to depression. Seligman (1975) assumes that experiences of uncontrollability,
such as the loss of a loved one, can lead to the expectancy that future events will also be
uncontrollable. This expectancy leads to learned helplessness and depression. Thus,
according to this theory, depressed individuals differ from nondepressed persons in that they
tend to expect to be unable to control events.

47. Learned Helplessness vs.
Personal Control
When unable to avoid repeated adverse events
an animal or human learns helplessness.
47

48. People given little control over their world in
prisons, factories, colleges, and nursing homes
experience lower morale and increased stress.
Measures that increase control—allowing
prisoners to move chairs and control room
lights and the TV, having workers participate
in decision making, offering nursing home
patients choices about their environment—
noticeably improve health and morale.

49. In one famous study of nursing home patients, 93
percent of those encouraged to exert more control
became more alert, active, and happy (Rodin, 1986).
Perceived control is important to human functioning.
It is important that we create environments that
enhance our sense of control and personal efficacy.
Bottom line: Under condition of personal freedom and
empowerment, people thrive.

50. Is More Better?
It’s not always or necessarily true that more is better.
Is more freedom better?
No.
Barry Schwartz (2000, 2004) notes that the excess freedom in
today’s Western cultures contributes to decreasing life
satisfaction , increased depression, and sometimes paralysis.
Also, looking at consumer choices, after choosing among 30 brands
of jam or chocolate, people express less satisfaction than those
choosing among a half-dozen options.
This tyranny of choice brings information overload and a greater
likelihood that we will feel regret over some of the unchosen
options.

51. Optimism vs. Pessimism
An optimistic or pessimistic explanatory style is
your way of explaining positive or negative
events.
Positive psychology aims to discover and
promote conditions that enable individuals and
communities to thrive.
51

52. Positive Psychology and Humanistic
Psychology
Positive psychology, such as humanistic
psychology, attempts to foster human
fulfillment. Positive psychology, in addition,
seeks positive subjective well-being, positive
character, and positive social groups.
Positive Psychology Center/ University of Pennsylvania
Courtesy of Martin E.P. Seligman, PhD Director,
Martin Seligman 52

53. Explanatory Style
Explanatory style is the way in which we explain the
events that happen to us in our lives, either good or
bad. Some of us may have a more pessimistic
explanatory style, so that we blame ourselves when
things don't go right (eg "it was my fault") and will
not take credit for successes, (eg "it was just
luck"). Some of us may have a more optimistic
explanatory style so that we do not blame ourselves
100% for things that go wrong and we realize there
are other external influences on what happens.

54. Pessimistic vs. Optimistic Explanatory
Life Style
Optimists explain positive events as having happened because of
them (internal). They also see them as evidence that more
positive things will happen in the future (stable), and in other
areas of their lives (global). Conversely, they see negative
events as not being their fault (external). They also see them
as being flukes (isolated) that have nothing to do with other
areas of their lives or future events (local).
For example, if an optimist gets a promotion, she will likely
believe it’s because she’s good at her job and will receive
more benefits and promotion in the future. If she’s passed
over for the promotion, it’s likely because she was having an
off-month because of extenuating circumstances, but will do
better in the future.

55. Pessimistic vs. Optimistic Explanatory
Life Style
Pessimists think in the opposite way. They believe that negative
events are caused by them (internal). They believe that one
mistake means more will come (stable), and mistakes in other
areas of life are inevitable (global), because they are the
cause. They see positive events as flukes (local) that are
caused by things outside their control (external) and probably
won’t happen again (unstable).
A pessimist would see a promotion as a lucky event that
probably won’t happen again, and may even worry that she’ll
now be under more scrutiny. Being passed over for
promotion would probably be explained as not being skilled
enough. She'd therefore expect to be passed over again.

56. Excess pessimism is an internal stressor to the body. When
encountering a challenging situation a pessimist's fight or
flight response will be triggered more often and stay switched
on for longer than an optimistic person.
Pessimism decreases our stress resistance. When we are
pessimistic it is difficult to have hope when we face
difficulties. We think the difficulties will go on forever and we
tend to think we cannot do anything to change or influence
events. This stops us taking any action that would improve
our situation.
Excess pessimism undermines our confidence and interferes
with our quality of life. It makes life harder and we stop
trying to achieve our goals because we think we will fail
before we've even started.

57. Persistence
Optimists don’t give up as easily as pessimists, and they are more likely to
achieve success because of it. Some optimistic business men, like Donald
Trump, have been bankrupt (even multiple times), but have been able to
persist and turn their failures into millions.
Emotional Health
In a study of clinically depressed patients, it was discovered that 12 weeks of
cognitive therapy (which involves reframing a person's thought processes)
worked better than drugs, as changes were more long-lasting than a
temporary fix. Patients who had this training in optimism had the ability to
more effectively handle future setbacks.
Increased Longevity
In a retrospective study of 34 healthy Hall of Fame baseball players who
played between 1900 and 1950, optimists lived significantly longer. Other
studies have shown that optimistic breast cancer patients had better health
outcomes than pessimistic and hopeless patients.
Less Stress
Optimists also tend to experience less stress than pessimists or realists.
Because they believe in themselves and their abilities, they expect good things
to happen. They see negative events as minor setbacks to be easily overcome,
and view positive events as evidence of further good things to come. Believing
in themselves, they also take more risks and create more positive events in
their lives.

58. Published studies have reported that optimism influences
health. Among the findings:
• Optimistic coronary bypass patients were only half as likely as
pessimists to require re-hospitalization.
• Highly pessimistic men were three times more likely to
develop hypertension.
• People with positive emotions had lower blood pressures.
• In one study, the most pessimistic men were more than twice
as likely to develop heart disease compared with the most
optimistic.

59. Assessing Behavior in Situations
What underlying principle guides social-cognitive psychologists in
their assessment of people’s behavior and beliefs?
Social-cognitive psychologists observe people in realistic and
simulated situations because they find that it is the best way
to predict the behavior of others in similar situations.
59

60. Assessing Behavior in Situations
One ambitious example was the U.S. Army’s World War II
strategy for assessing candidates for spy missions.
Rather than using paper and pencil tests, army
psychologists subjected the candidates to simulated
undercover conditions. They tested their ability to
handle stress, solve problems, maintain leadership, and
withstand intense interrogations without blowing their
covers. Although time consuming and expensive, this
assessment of behavior in a realistic situation helped
predict later success on actual spy missions (OSS
Assessment Staff, 1948).

61. Evaluating the Social-Cognitive
Perspective
The social-cognitive perspective on personality
sensitizes researchers to the effects of situations on
and by individuals. It builds on learning and
cognition research.
Critics say that social-cognitive psychologists pay
a lot of attention to the situation and pay less
attention to the individual, his unconscious mind,
his emotions, and his genetics.
61

62. Criticism of Social-Cognitive Approach
Remember, personality traits have been shown
to predict behavior at work, love, and play.
The social-cognitive approach focuses so much
on the situation that it misses another very
important factor: a person’s inner traits.

63. Personality
Exploring the Self
 The Benefits of Self-Esteem
 Culture and Self-Esteem
 Self-Serving Bias
63

64. Exploring the Self
Research on the self has a long history because the
self organizes thinking, feelings, and actions and is a
critical part of our personality.
 Research focuses on the different selves we
possess. Some we dream and others we dread.
 Research studies how we overestimate our
concern that others evaluate our appearance,
performance, and blunders (spotlight effect).
64

65. Hazel Markus
Hazel Markus is a prominent social psychologist.
Markus' most significant contribution to social psychology was the
introduction of the concept of the "self-schema" (Markus, 1977). She
described the self-schema as a cognitive representation of the self that is
used to organize knowledge about the self and guide processing of self-
relevant information.
In Study 1 of Markus (1977), participants completed a reaction time task,
where they were presented with personality traits and asked to hit a
button labeled "Me" if the trait was self-descriptive and another button
labeled "Not Me" if the trait was not self-descriptive. When participants
classified a trait that they had previously said described themselves, they
were faster to categorize the trait with the "Me" button than participants
who had previously said the trait was only moderately descriptive.
The faster response time of people who felt the trait was self-descriptive
reflects an association of that trait with their self-schema. Self-schema
and the self-concept remain among the most researched concepts in
social psychology today.

66. Self Schema
The term self-schema refers to the beliefs and ideas people have about themselves. These beliefs are
used to guide and organize information processing, especially when the information is significant
to the self. Self-schemas are important to a person's overall self-concept.
Once we have developed a schema about ourselves there is a strong tendency for that schema to be
maintained by a bias in what we attend to, a bias in what we remember, and a bias in what we are
prepared to accept as true about ourselves. In other words our self-schema becomes self-
perpetuating. The self-schema is then stored in long-term memory and both facilitates and biases
the processing of personally relevant information.
Self-schemas vary from person to person because each individual has very different social and cultural
life experiences. A few examples of self-schemas are; exciting/ dull, quiet/ loud, healthy/ sickly,
athletic/ nonathletic, lazy/ active, and geek/ jock. If a person has a schema for geek/ jock, for
example, he might think of himself as a bit of a computer geek and so he would possess a lot of
information about that trait. Because of this he would probably interpret a lot of situations based
on their relevance to being a geek.
For another example consider the healthy/ sickly schema. A person with this schema might consider
herself a very health conscious person. Her concern with being healthy would then affect every
day decisions like what to buy at the grocery store, what restaurant to eat out at, or how much
exercise she should get daily. Women who are schematic on appearance exhibited lower body
image, lower self-esteem, and more negative mood than did those who are aschematic on
appearance.

67. While every schema varies from cultural backgrounds, etc., there are different ways of defining
the schemas themselves. First, there is Schematic, which means having a particular schema
for a particular dimension. For instance, you could play in a rock band at night, and there you
would have your "rocker" schema. However, during the day, you work as a tire salesman, so
you have your "tire salesman" schema on during that period of time.
Another good example of this are super heroes, such as the ones in comic books. People like
Superman, Spider-Man, The Hulk, etc., all have their schema for when they are just doing
their normal job during the day. However, when duty calls, they adorn their superhero
schema.
Second, there is Aschematic, which is not having a schema for a particular dimension. This
usually occurs when we are not involved with or concerned about a certain attribute. For
instance, some of us will never be tire salesmen, so some of us will never have to worry
about it. This also includes schoolwork to a particular level. If you plan on being a musician,
then having a schema in aeronautics will not attribute to you.
Since it has been defined that most people have multiple schemas does this mean that we all
have multiple personalities as well? The answer is no. At least not in the pathological sense.
Indeed, for the most part, multiple self-schemas are extremely useful to us in our daily lives.
Without our conscious awareness, they help us make rapid decisions and to behave
efficiently and appropriately in different situations and with different people. They guide
what we attend to, and how we interpret and use incoming information and they activate
specific cognitive, verbal, and behavioral action sequences—which in cognitive psychology
are called scripts and action plans—that help us meet our goals more efficiently.

68. Self Concept
Self-concept is the cognitive or thinking aspect
of self (related to one's self-image) and
generally refers to
"the totality of a complex, organized, and
dynamic system of learned beliefs, attitudes
and opinions that each person holds to be
true about his or her personal existence" (
Purkey, 1988).

69. We develop and maintain our self-concept through the process of taking action and then
reflecting on what we have done and what others tell us about what we have done. We
reflect on what we have done and can do in comparison to our expectations and the
expectations of others and to the characteristics and accomplishments of others (Brigham,
1986; James, 1890). That is, self-concept is not innate, but is developed or constructed by
the individual through interaction with the environment and reflecting on that interaction.
This dynamic aspect of self-concept (and, by corollary, self-esteem) is important because it
indicates that it can be modified or changed. Franken (1994) states:
"there is a growing body of research which indicates that it is possible to change the self-
concept. Self-change is not something that people can will but rather it depends on the
process of self-reflection. Through self-reflection, people often come to view themselves in
a new, more powerful way, and it is through this new, more powerful way of viewing the
self that people can develop possible selves" (p. 443).
There are a several different components of self-concept: physical, academic, social, and
transpersonal. The physical aspect of self-concept relates to that which is concrete: what
we look like, our sex, height, weight, etc.; what kind of clothes we wear; what kind of car
we drive; what kind of home we live in; and so forth. Our academic self-concept relates to
how well we do in school or how well we learn. There are two levels: a general academic
self-concept of how good we are overall and a set of specific content-related self-concepts
that describe how good we are in math, science, language arts, social science, etc. The
social self-concept describes how we relate to other people and the transpersonal self-
concept describes how we relate to the supernatural or unknowns.
Self-esteem is constructed by one's conscious reflections and supports the self concept.

70. Self Esteem
Self-esteem is the affective or emotional aspect
of self and generally refers to how we feel
about or how we value ourselves (one's self-
worth). Self-concept can also refer to the
general idea we have of ourselves and self-
esteem can refer to particular measures about
components of self-concept.

71. Benefits of Self-Esteem
Maslow and Rogers argued that a successful
life results from a healthy self-image (self-
esteem). The following are two reasons why
low self-esteem results in personal problems.
1. When self-esteem is deflated, we view
ourselves and others critically.
2. Low self-esteem reflects reality, our failure in
meeting challenges, or surmounting
difficulties.
71

72. Culture & Self-Esteem
People maintain their self-esteem even with a low status
by valuing things they achieve and comparing
themselves to people with similar positions. 72

73. Some members of stigmatized groups have faced discrimination
and lower status, yet, according to Jennifer Crocker and
Brenda Major (1989), they maintain their self-esteem in
three ways:
2. They value the things at which they excel
3. They attribute problems to prejudice
4. They do as everyone does—they compare themselves to
those in their own group
These findings help us understand why, despite the realities of
prejudice, such groups report levels of happiness roughly
comparable to others.

74. Self-Serving Bias
Defined as our readiness to perceive ourselves favorably: Self-serving
bias.
We accept responsibility for good deeds and successes more than for bad
deeds and failures.
Most people see themselves as better than average.
We remember and justify our past actions in self-enhancing ways.
We exhibit an infalted confidence in our beliefs and judgments.
We often seek out favorable, self-enhancing information.
We are quicker to believe flattering descriptions of ourselves than
unflattering ones, and we are impressed with psychological tests that
make us look good.
74

75. When threatened, people with large egos may do more
than put others down; they may react violently.
540 undergraduate volunteers were instructed to write
an essay and another student either praised (Great!)
or negatively criticized (Horrible!) the essay. Then
the essay writers played a reaction-time game
against the critiquing student. The essay writers
could assault the critiquing student with noise of any
intensity for any durations. Result?

76. Those with unrealistically high self-esteem were exceptionally
aggressive. They delivered three times the auditory torture
of those with normal self-esteem.
Threatened egotism, more than low self-esteem, predisposes
aggression.
“Encouraging people to feel good about themselves when they
haven’t earned it” poses problems (Baumeister, 2001).
“Conceited, self-important individuals turn nasty toward
those who puncture their bubbles of self-love” (Baumeister,
2001).

77. If self-serving bias seems to be prevalent, then why do so many
people disparage themselves?
There are 3 reasons:
3) Sometimes self-directed put-downs are subtly strategic,
meaning they elicit reassuring strokes.
4) Or sometimes like before a big game, they may prepare us
for possible failure (because no one wins 100% of the time).
5) Sometimes disparagement refers to one’s old self. People
are much more critical of their distant past selves than of
their current selves—even when they have not changed.

78. There are two types of self esteem: defensive and secure.
Defensive self-esteem is fragile. It focuses on sustaining itself, which makes
failures and criticism feel threatening. Such egotism exposes one to
perceived threats, which feed anger and disorder. Thus, like low self-
esteem defensive self-esteem correlates with aggressive and antisocial
behavior.
Secure self-esteem is less fragile, because it is less contingent on external
evaluations. To feel accepted for who we are, and not for our looks,
wealth, or acclaim, relieves pressures to succeed and enables us to focus
beyond ourselves. By losing ourselves in relationships and purposes
larger than self, we may achieve a more secure self-esteem and greater
quality of life.

79. Having a healthy self-esteem is important. But healthy
does not mean high, large, or more in abundance.
Having a very high self-esteem is not healthy. This is where
you see your self-indulgent, conceited, self-centered
individuals.
We function best with modest self-enhancing illusions not
the grand disillusions of those in high self-esteem.
Analogous to the Japanese and European magnetic
levitation trains—we function optimally when riding just
off the rails, not so high that we gyrate and crash, yet not
so in touch (so low) that we grind to a halt.