HKU SPACE Centre for Degree Programmes

Personality & individual differences

Module Code 35083

2015-16

Module Handbook

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 1 of 17

Personality & individual differences

Module Code 35083

2015-16

Aims and distinctive featuresThis module will introduce students to the study of individual differences in personality and behaviour. The aim of this module is to provide students with a grounding in how personality and individual differences can be described, measured, explored and applied to the understanding of society and individual behaviour.

Learning outcomes1. Knowledge of the historical background to the development of psychometric

measurement and the major theoretical perspectives on personality (biological, traits dispositional, behavioural, social-cognitive).

2. Understanding of the social, contextual and technical issues arising when measuring ability and personality (e.g. reliability, validity, cultural bias)

3. Knowledge about the way in which assessment of individual differences can be applied in educational, industrial and clinical settings

Teaching and Learning StrategiesThe following teaching & learning strategies are used within this module: 2-hour lecture/tutorial sessions

Teaching TimetableLectures for this module will take place in the weeks commencing 29 February 2016. Tutorials will be held in the following two weeks.Students are expected to attend all sessions. If you are absent from any sessions, you must inform the lecturer. It is your responsibility to catch up on any module content which you have missed.

All lectures will take place in ADC312, 9am–1pm 29 Feb–4 Mar).Tutorials for group one will be in ADC312, 10am–12pm, 7 Mar–23 Mar (see timetable)Tutorials for group two will be in ADC312, 12pm–2pm, 7 Mar–23 Mar (see timetable)

Standard timetable: 9.00-9.50 (50 mins) Lecture 1 10.10-11.00 (50 mins) Lecture 211.30-1.00 (90 mins) Daily seminar

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 2 of 17

Assessment Strategies One 2500 word essay. The essay titles will be given in the week of lectures (50%).

The submission date for this assessment is 7 April 2016. One 2 hours written examination. A sample exam paper will be provided (50%).

Arrangements for revision and private studyThroughout the course students will be directed to relevant reading for each of the topics covered in lectures, and the workshops will address the main themes of the course for private study and revision.Additional study skills and topic-related materials will be provided in class and via the eBridge module site. It is your responsibility to regularly check your Hull email for notification of updates to the eBridge site.At any time during the semester, you may contact the Module Leader, Dr. Iain Brennan with any queries (email: I.Brennan@hull.ac.uk)

Lecture Outline

1. Defining personality and exploring individual differences2. Exploring personality3. Biological theories of personality4. Learning theories of personality5. Trait theories of personality6. Psychodynamic theories of personality7. ‘Big’ personalities: the psychology of leadership8. Disordered personalities9. Intelligence and ability10.Psychological characteristics: measurement and application

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 3 of 17

Reading

Core textbooks:

Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Ebook - [https://www.dawsonera.com/abstract/9780273722946]

This text is available in hard copy form from HKU library and is also available as an ebook from University of Hull.

There are a range of textbooks that cover the material in these lectures. Some useful texts are listed below, but this list is not exhaustive. Any introductory textbook about personality/individual differences published since 2006 will be suitable. More recent developments will be addressed through the use of journal articles.

Buss, D.M. & Hawley, P.H. (2011). The evolution of personality and individual differences. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195372090.001.0001/acprof-9780195372090]

Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2008). Perspectives on personality (8th Ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

Engler, B. (2009). Personality theories (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Haslam, N. (2007). Introduction to personality and intelligence. London: Sage [http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305067.001.0001/acprof-9780195305067 ]

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 4 of 17

Lectures

1. Defining personality and exploring individual differences

This lecture investigates the concepts of ‘personality’ and ‘individual differences’ and how they are defined. We will question the stability of personality ‘traits’, the psychological factors that influence behaviour and ask how can these characteristics be used to inform psychological research and practice.

Chapter 1 “Overview” (pp. 36-24) in Liebert, R.M. & Liebert, L.L. (1998). Liebert & Spiegler’s personality: strategies and issues (8th Ed.). London: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Chapter 1 “Personality theory in context” (pp. 1-20) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Chapter 1 “Introduction to individual differences” (pp. 1-6) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

2. Exploring personality

This lecture explores the methods used to measure personality and individual differences scientifically. Issues of reliability and validity will be discussed in the context of psychometric measures. Students will be encouraged to think of alternative methods for measuring personality.

Critical questions: Is the concept of a stable personality supported by scientific and anthropological evidence? If personality traits have only limited reliability, what are the implications for the study of personality?

Chapter 25 An introduction to psychometric testing (pp 636–675) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

3. Biological bases of personality

This lecture introduces the first of three approaches to personality that we will study: biological influences. We will discuss issues of arousal, motivation, the heredity of personality characteristics and behaviour and methods for researching biological factors in isolation of environment.

Critical questions: How do biologically determined characteristics interact with environmental influences? Is the nature/nurture debate a useful one?

Chapter 14 “Heredity and personality” (pp. 323-343) in Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. & Smith, R.E. (2004). Introduction to personality: toward an integration (7th Ed.) Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 5 of 17

Chapter 10 “Biological and social bases of personality” (pp. 155-170) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

Chapter 8 “Biological bases of personality: genetic heritability of personality and biological and physiological models of personality” (pp. 178-207) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

4. Learning theories of personality

This lecture approaches the understanding of personality from the perspective of the behaviourists and learning theorists. We examine a number of important psychological concepts including conditioning, attribution bias and behavioural schemas.

Critical question: Are environmental influences on personality too complex to understand?

Chapter 9 “Social learning theories” (pp. 233-260) in Engler, B. (2009). Personality theories (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Chapter 4 “Learning theory perspectives on personality” (pp. 70-101) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

5. Trait theories of personality

This lecture explores the concept of personality traits which can be used to describe individuals. Trait theory is a popular but controversial area of theory and research. We will question whether the complexities of an individual can be summarised in a meaningful way and whether traits can be used to predict behaviour in different situations.

Critical question: Is it possible to separate trait theories of personality from situational influences? Which is a more powerful predictor of behaviour – personality traits or situational influences?

Chapter 7 “Trait theories of personality” (pp.102-117) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

Chapter 7 “The trait approach to personality” (pp. 154-177) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

6. Psychodynamic theories of personality

This lecture will discuss the contribution of Sigmund Freud and the psychoanalytic movement to our understanding of personality.

Critical question: How can we test the scientific validity of theories that have become part of our general way of thinking (how can we separate science from culture)?

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 6 of 17

Chapter 2 “The basis of the Psychoanalytic approach to personality” (20–41) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

7. Disordered personalities

This unit will look at abnormal personalities through the exploration of traits. It will discuss the spectrum of personality traits and how an extreme quantity of any trait is maladaptive. We will discuss Personality Disorders, Type A personalities and personality traits associated with criminality.

Critical question: Is it possible to separate psychological and sociological theories of bad people? Is there any value in having a purely psychological theory of offending?

Moeller, F.G. et al. (2001). Psychiatric aspects of impulsivity. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 1783–1793.

Mitchell, S.H. (1999). Measure of impulsivity in cigarette smokers and non-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 455–464.

Elvenden, J. (1999). Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology, 146, 348–361.

Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L. & Boden, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.

8. ‘Big’ personalities: the psychological characteristics of leaders

This unit will explore the concept of leadership and try to identify personality traits that make good leaders. Through a critical exploration of the literature, we will draw conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of psychology’s ability to predict the individual differences that make good leaders.

Critical question: Do successful leaders think of themselves as great? What happens to leaders who ignore the importance of followers?

Chapter 1 “The old psychology of leadership: great men and the cult of personality” in Halsam, A., Reicher, S. & Platow, M. (2010). The new psychology of leadership: identity, influence and power. London: Psychology Press.

http://www.dawsonera.com/depp/reader/protected/external/AbstractView/S9780203833896

Judge, T.A. et al. (2002). Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780.

9. Intelligence and ability

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 7 of 17

‘Intelligence’ is one of the most pervasive in psychology but measurement of this concept is steeped in controversy. We will look at definitions of intelligence, how it can be measured and what the applications of this powerful concept can be.

Critical questions: Is there any value in having a definition of intelligence that is not universal? What do changing definitions of intelligence tell us about our culture?

Chapter 11 “An introduction to intelligence” (pp.264-279) in Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence (2nd Ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Chapter 11 “The structure and measurement of abilities” (pp.171-191) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

10. Psychological characteristics: measurement and application

In this final lecture we look at psychometric tools and other methods for describing, exploring, comparing and predicting individual differences. The research implications of these quantitatively-focused tools will be explored.

Critical question: Will we ever be able to accurately measure intelligence through intelligence tests? If a test that measures risk reoffending has poor predictive ability, should it be used to keep someone in prison? Can a test based only on past behaviour and personality ever predict future behaviour?

Chapter 2 “Methods in the study of personality” (pp. 14-27) in Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2008). Perspectives on personality (8th Ed.). London: Pearson.

Chapter 3 “Issues in personality assessment” (pp. 28-41) in Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (2008). Perspectives on personality (8th Ed.). London: Pearson.

Chapter 2 “Measuring individual differences” (pp. 7-24) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

Chapter 4 “The reliability and validity of psychological tests” (pp.45-64) in Cooper, C. (2002). Individual differences. London: Arnold.

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 8 of 17

University of Hull Undergraduate Grading Descriptors

1 Introduction The University of Hull Grading Descriptors for levels 4, 5 and 6 have been developed to align with the Quality Assurance Agency’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (2008) and the SEEC Credit Level Descriptors for Higher Education (2010). The appropriate descriptors for the level of study that students are undertaking should be made available to students in all programme and module documentation.

The descriptors outlined in this document are necessarily generic as they need to be applicable to all academic disciplines. They aim to provide a framework for articulating expected standards of students’ work. The framework provides clear and consistent statements to describe student performance which, in turn, facilitate transparency in feedback to students, helping students to understand how to improve their performance.

2 Using the grading descriptors: some key principlesThe descriptors included here outline the key features and general characteristics of assessed work associated with each grade-band. However, in order that students are able to understand exactly how they are being assessed and the standard of work they are expected to achieve, their work should always be assessed against published assessment criteria. A programme of study’s published assessment criteria differ from grading descriptors as they create a direct link between the learning outcomes of the module(s) under study, the generic grading descriptors contained in this document and the particular level of study (i.e. Level 4, 5 or 6) at which the student is working. For further information on the differences between Levels 4, 5 and 6 please refer to the Quality Assurance Agency’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (2008) available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/FHEQ08.pdf

The grading descriptors outlined in this document are not mutually exclusive. Students’ work may demonstrate some characteristics of, for example, the 50-59 and 60-69 categories. The final grade for the work should always be matter of academic judgement based on the balance of this. Examiners should be prepared to award the full range of marks and should interpret the descriptors in the context of their discipline, field of study or area of practice. The emphasis given to each descriptor, and the way it is used in the published assessment criteria will necessarily vary depending on the nature of the assessment task, the level of study and the disciplinary area. For example, module leaders will need to be able to identify and explain what exemplary, outstanding, excellent, good or satisfactory looks like in relation to the learning outcomes of their module in order that students are able to understand why they have received the grade they have and how they could improve their work.

In relation to this, where Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements or course-specific requirements indicate a pass/threshold mark which is different to the University norm outlined in this framework, additional marking/grading criteria should be provided to students with an explanation as to why and how this differs from the norm. Work representing unsafe or unfit practice, for students registered on professional courses with fitness to practise requirements, will be marked as a fail.

University of Hull Grading Descriptors UG May 2014: Version 1 Page 9 of 17

THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL UNDERGRADUATE GRADING DESCRIPTORS (Levels 4, 5 and 6)

Exemplary First Class Honours90-100All learning outcomes and associated assessment criteria have been achieved to an exemplary standard.

The work represents an exemplary response to the task and attains the very highest standards of scholarship that can be expected of an undergraduate submission. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics: Technical Characteristics: All requirements for the assessment task have been adhered to; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where

appropriate, are exemplary throughout; There is an exemplary standard of written and/or oral communication and the use of disciplinary

terminology and techniques displays the highest level of accuracy and understanding that can be expected.

Higher Order Academic Criteria: There is an exemplary display of in-depth understanding, exploration and insight and/or research; The work is inspirational, creative, innovative and authoritative. Levels of intellectual rigour,

independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation are exemplary; Use and application of a depth and breadth of contextual evidence, ideas, concepts, theory and other

relevant information and artefacts is exemplary; There is exemplary evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal; The work displays exemplary levels of creativity, initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

10

Outstanding First Class Honours80-89All learning outcomes and associated assessment criteria have been achieved to an outstanding level and some to an exemplary standard.

The work represents an outstanding response to the task and attains some of the highest standards of scholarship that can be expected of an undergraduate submission. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:

Technical Characteristics: All requirements for the assessment task have been adhered to; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where

appropriate, are outstanding throughout; There is an outstanding standard of written and/or oral communication and the use of disciplinary

terminology and techniques displays the highest level of accuracy and understanding that can be expected.

Higher Order Academic Characteristics: There is an outstanding display of in-depth understanding, exploration, insight and/or research; The work is inspirational, creative, innovative and authoritative. Levels of intellectual rigour,

independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation are outstanding; Use and application of a depth and breadth of contextual evidence, ideas, concepts, theory and other

relevant information and artefacts is outstanding; There is outstanding evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal; The work consistently displays outstanding levels of initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

11

First Class Honours70-79All learning outcomes and associated assessment criteria have been achieved to high level of excellence and some to an outstanding.

The work represents an excellent response to the task and mostly attains the highest standards of scholarship that can be expected of an undergraduate submission. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:

Technical Characteristics: All requirements for the assessment task have been adhered to; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where

appropriate, are excellent throughout; There is an excellent standard of written and/or oral communication and the use of disciplinary

terminology and techniques displays the highest level of accuracy and understanding that can be expected.

Higher Order Academic Characteristics: There is an excellent display of in-depth understanding, exploration, insight and/or research; The work is inspirational, creative, innovative and authoritative. Levels of intellectual rigour,

independence of judgement and insightful contextualisation are excellent; Use and application of a depth and breadth of contextual evidence, ideas, concepts, theory and other

relevant information and artefacts is excellent; There is evidence of high quality analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal; The work consistently displays excellent levels of initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

12

Upper Second Class Honours - 2(i)60-69

All learning outcomes and assessment criteria have been achieved to a good standard with many (at the higher ranges of this band) achieved to a very good/excellent standard.

The work represents a good to very good response to the task and attains good standards of scholarship. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:Technical Characteristics: All requirements for the assessment task have been adhered to; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work, including referencing where

appropriate, are good throughout; There is a good standard of written and/or oral communication and the use of disciplinary

terminology and techniques display good levels of accuracy and understanding. Higher Order Academic Characteristics: There are no significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors; There is a good display of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research; The work shows evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and insightful

contextualisation though it may lack finesse; The work displays evidence of creativity and innovation in the use of ideas, concepts, theory and

other relevant information and artefacts; There are some good examples of critical analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical appraisal; The work displays good levels of initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

13

Lower Second Class Honours - 2(ii)50-59

All learning outcomes and assessment criteria have been achieved to a satisfactory standard with some (at the higher ranges of this band) achieved to a good standard.

The work represents a satisfactory response to the task and attains competent standards of scholarship. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:Technical Characteristics: There may be some minor divergences from the specifications of the assessment task; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work are satisfactory, although some

instances of poor organisation or limited use of referencing conventions may be present; There is a reasonable standard of written and/or oral communication, though some errors may be

present. The use of disciplinary terminology and techniques displays satisfactory levels of accuracy and understanding.

Higher Order Academic Characteristics: Inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors are mostly minor; There is some evidence of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research, but there are some

gaps; The work shows some but limited evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and

insightful contextualisation; The work shows some but limited examples of creativity and innovation in the use of ideas, concepts,

theory and other relevant information and artefacts; The work is conscientious and attentive to the subject matter or task set but is balanced more

towards a descriptive approach than a critical and analytical approach. Topics are mostly addressed but not always examined in sufficient detail;

The work displays some but limited examples of initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

14

Third Class Honours40-49

All learning outcomes and assessment criteria have been met but only to the minimum required level.

The work represents an adequate, but weak response to the task and attains very limited standards of scholarship. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:Technical Characteristics: There may be some major divergences from the specifications of the assessment task; The organisation, structure and standard of presentation of the work are poor; There is a basic but poor standard of written and/or oral communication. The use of disciplinary

terminology and techniques displays minimal levels of accuracy and understanding. Higher Order Academic Characteristics: Inaccuracies, misunderstandings and/or errors are present, but are not significant enough to impact

on the ability of the work to meet the learning outcomes and assessment criteria; There is limited evidence of understanding, exploration, insight and/or research; The work shows limited evidence of intellectual rigour, independence of judgement and insightful

contextualisation; Students’ grasp of ideas, concepts, theory and other relevant information is weak and is poorly

articulated or contains flaws; The work displays a descriptive approach and evidence used is likely to be limited to that provided

by lecturers; The work displays very limited examples of initiative, decision-making, and self reflection.

15

Marginal Fail 30-39

One or more of the learning outcomes and assessment criteria have not been met.

The work represents an unsatisfactory response to the task. It may display some strengths but these are outweighed by several weak features. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:Technical Characteristics: The work pays insufficient attention to the assessment criteria and significantly diverges from the

specifications of the assessment task; The work is disorganised and unclear and the standard of presentation, including referencing where

appropriate, is weak; There is an unsatisfactory standard of written and/or oral communication; there may be significant

flaws in spelling, grammar and composition which undermine the clarity of meaning. The use of disciplinary terminology and techniques does not meet required levels of accuracy and understanding.

Higher Order Academic Characteristics: There are substantial inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors which affect the ability of the work

to meet the learning outcomes and assessment criteria; The work does not meet expected levels of understanding and exploration of major ideas. It contains

some material of merit but shows very limited insight and/or research; There is insufficient demonstration of learning outcomes to justify a pass grade; The work draws on a very limited range of contextual evidence, theory, literature and other

artefacts. There is very little evidence of wider reading and very limited evidence of the mechanics of scholarship;

The work does not make any real attempts to assess or apply the evidence or theory. Examples are occasionally provided but are poorly articulated;

The work demonstrates no substantive evidence of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and self-reflection.

16

Fail1-29

Most or all of the learning outcomes and assessment criteria have not been met.

The work represents a very unsatisfactory response to the task. Any strengths of the work are heavily outweighed by its weaknesses. It is likely to demonstrate most or all of the following characteristics:Technical Characteristics: The work pays insufficient attention to the assessment criteria and there are serious deviations

from the specifications of the assessment task; The work is disorganised and unclear and the standard of presentation, including referencing where

appropriate, is extremely poor; There is an unsatisfactory standard of written and/or oral communication - there are significant

flaws in spelling, grammar and composition which undermine the clarity of meaning. The use of disciplinary terminology and techniques is extremely limited and unsophisticated.

Higher Order Academic Characteristics: There are significant inaccuracies, misunderstandings or errors; The work does not meet expected levels of understanding and exploration of major ideas. It shows

very limited insight and/or research; The work draws on a very limited range of contextual evidence, theory, literature and other

artefacts. Citations are almost or entirely absent and awareness of mechanics of scholarship is very weak;

The work is wholly descriptive and lacks any sustained arguments or critical appraisal; The work demonstrates no evidence of initiative, personal responsibility, decision-making and self-

reflection.

Non-submission0

17