Psychologytopics: January 2019

Types of Tests in Psychological Testing

Tests can be broadly grouped into two camps: group tests versus individual tests.
Group tests are largely pencil-and-paper measures suitable to the testing of large groups of persons at the same time.

Individual tests are instruments that by their design and purpose must be administered one on one.An important advantage of individual tests is that the examiner can gauge the level of motivation of the subject and assess the relevance of other factors (e.g., impulsiveness or anxiety) on the test results.

The Main Types of Psychological Tests

Intelligence Tests: Measure an individual's ability in relatively global areas such as verbal comprehension, perceptual organization, or reasoning and thereby help determine potential for scholastic work or certain occupations.

More topics related to Psychological Testing

The Wechsler scales of intelligence

The Wechsler adult intelligence scale fourth edition

The Wechsler intelligence scale for children

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third Edition (WPPSI-III)

Intelligence tests were originally designed to sample a broad assortment of skills in order to estimate the individual’s general intellectual level. The Binet-Simon scales were successful, in part, because they incorporated heterogeneous tasks, including word definitions, memory for designs, comprehension questions, and spatial visualization tasks.
Modern intelligence tests refers to a test that yields an overall summary score based on results from a heterogeneous sample of items. Of course, such a test might also provide a profile of subtest scores as well, but it is the overall score that generally attracts the most attention.

Aptitude Tests: Measure the capability for a relatively specific task or type of skill; aptitude tests are, in effect, a narrow form of ability testing.
Aptitude tests measure one or more clearly defined and relatively homogeneous segments of ability. Such tests come in two varieties: single aptitude tests and multiple aptitude test batteries. A single aptitude test appraises, obviously, only one ability, whereas a multiple aptitude test battery provides a profile of scores for a number of aptitudes.
Aptitude tests are often used to predict success in an occupation, training course, or educational endeavor. For example, the Seashore Measures of Musical Talents (Seashore, 1938), a series of tests covering pitch, loudness, rhythm, time, timbre, and tonal memory, can be used to identify children with potential talent in music.
The most common use of aptitude tests is to determine college admissions.

Achievement Tests: Measure a person's degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject or task.
Achievement tests measure a person’s degree of learning, success, or accomplishment in a subject matter. The implicit assumption of most achievement tests is that the schools have taught the subject matter directly. The purpose of the test is then to determine how much of the material the subject has absorbed or mastered. Achievement tests commonly have several subtests, such as reading, mathematics, language, science, and social studies.
The distinction between aptitude and achievement tests is more a matter of use than content (Gregory, 1994a). In fact, any test can be an aptitude test to the extent that it helps predict future performance. Likewise, any test can be an achievement test insofar as it reflects how much the subject has learned.

Creativity Tests: Assess novel, original thinking and the capacity to find unusual or unexpected solutions, especially for vaguely defined problems.
Creativity tests assess a subject’s ability to produce new ideas, insights, or artistic creations that are accepted as being of social, aesthetic, or scientific value. Thus, measures of creativity emphasize novelty and originality in the solution of fuzzy problems or the production of artistic works.
People were especially impressed that creativity tests required divergent thinking—putting forth a variety of answers to a complex or fuzzy problem—as opposed to convergent thinking—finding the single correct solution to a well-defined problem.

Personality tests measure the traits, qualities, or behaviors that determine a person’s individuality; this information helps predict future behavior. These tests come in several different varieties, including checklists, inventories, and projective techniques such as sentence completions and inkblots.

A. Structured (objective): Provides a self-report statement to which the person responds “True” or “False,” “Yes” or “No.” Examples of objective personality tests include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon,1994), Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), and the Beck Depression Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1996)

B. Projective: Provides an ambiguous test stimulus; response requirements are unclear.example-Rorschach test
Interest Inventories: Measure an individual's preference for certain activities or topics and thereby help determine occupational choice. These tests are based on the explicit assumption that interest patterns determine and, therefore, also predict job satisfaction.

Behavioral Procedures: Objectively describe and count the frequency of a behavior, identifying the antecedents and consequences of the behavior , including checklists, rating scales, interviews, and structured observations. These methods share a common assumption that behavior is best understood in terms of clearly defined characteristics such as frequency, duration, antecedents, and consequences. Behavioral procedures tend to be highly pragmatic in that they are usually interwoven with treatment approaches.
The Parent-Child Interaction Assessment-II (PCIA; Holigrocki, Kaminski & Frieswyk, 1999) is an example of a direct observation procedure that is used with school-age children and parents. The parents and children are video recorded playing at a make-believe zoo. The Parent-Child Early Relational Assessment (Clark, 1999) is used to study parents and young children and involves a feeding and a puzzle task.

Neuropsychological Tests: Measure cognitive, sensory, perceptual, and motor performance to determine the extent, locus, and behavioral consequences of brain damage.Neuropsychological tests attempt to measure deficits in cognitive functioning (i.e., your ability to think, speak, reason, etc.) that may result from some sort of brain damage, such as a stroke or a brain injury.
it can be argued that neuropsychological tests at times offer an estimate of a person's peak level of cognitive performance. Neuropsychological tests are a core component of the process of conducting neuropsychological assessment. One popular test battery is the Halstead-Reitan Test Battery.

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third Edition

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third Edition (WPPSI-III)

Wechsler (1967) decided that a new scale should be developed and standardized especially for children under age 6. The new test was the WPPSI (the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence), usually pronounced “whipsy.” Its publication in 1967 extended the age range of the Wechsler series of intelligence tests downward to

age 4.

The WPPSI was the first major intelligence test that “adequately sampled the total population of the United States, including racial minorities” (Zimmerman & Woo-Sam, 1978, p. 10). This advantage contributed greatly to the success of the WPPSI, especially in an era when standardized tests were under attack for inadequate minority representation in standardization samples. A revision of the WPPSI, the WPPSI-R, was published in 1989. It was designed to assess the intelligence of children from ages 3 years through 7 years 3 months. New items were developed to extend the range of the test both upward and downward.

Published in 2002, the WPPSI-III extended the age range of children who could be tested with this instrument downward to 2 years 6 months.

The WPPSI-III was changed in many ways from its previous edition. Five subtests (Arithmetic, Animal Pegs, Geometric Design, Mazes, and Sentences) were dropped.
Seven new subtests were added: Matrix Reasoning, Picture Concepts, Word Reasoning, Coding, Symbol Search, Receptive Vocabulary, and Picture Naming. On the WPPSI-III, subtests are labeled core, supplemental, or optional, and some tests have different labels at different age levels (for example, supplemental at one age level and optional at another age level). A complete list of all the subtests on all of the Wechsler scales, including the WPPSI-III, the WISC-IV, and the WAIS-IV.

https://psychologytopics2.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-wechsler-preschool-and-primary-scale-of-intelligence-third-edition.html

Subtests. Description

More details of subtests :

The Wechsler scales of intelligence

THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN- FOURTH EDITION (WISC-IV)

THE WECHSLER INTELLIGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN- FOURTH EDITION (WISC-IV)

BACKGROUND : The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) was first published in 1949. It represented a downward extension of the W-B and actually incorporated many items contemplated for use in the (never-published) W-B II. “A well-standardized, stable instrument correlating well with other tests of intelligence” (Burstein, 1972, p. 844), the WISC was not without its flaws, however. The standardization sample contained only White children, and some of the test items were viewed as perpetuating gender and cultural stereotypes. Further, parts of the test manual were so unclear that it led to ambiguities in the administration and scoring of the test.

A revision of the WISC, called the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R), was published in 1974. The WISC-R included non-Whites in the standardization sample, and test material pictures were more balanced culturally. The test’s language was modernized and “child-ized”; for example, the word cigars in an arithmetic item was replaced with candy bars. There were also innovations in the administration and scoring of the test.

The revision of the WISC-R yielded the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children III, published in 1991. This revision was undertaken to update and improve test items as well as the norms.

THE TEST TODAY : The WISC-IV is the latest version of this scale to measure global intelligence and, in an attempt to mirror advances in the understanding of intellectual properties, the WISC-IV also provides composite index (Wechsler, 2003). The original form of the WISC was based on Form 11 of the Wechsler–Bellevue scale, which provided a point scale measure of intelligence for children between the ages of 6 years and 16 years, 11 months. The WISC-IV contains 15 subtests, 10 of which were retained from the earlier WISC-III and 5 entirely new ones. Three subtests used in earlier versions- picture arrangement, object assembly, and mazes- were entirely deleted.

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV)

The predecessors of the WAIS-IV, from the most recent on back, were the WAIS-III, the WAIS-R, the WAIS, the W-B II (Wechsler-Bellevue II),and the W-B I (Wechsler-Bellevue I).

The test’s heritage : In the early 1930s, Wechsler’s employer, Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan, needed an instrument for evaluating the intellectual capacity of its multilingual, multinational, and multicultural clients. Dissatisfied with existing intelligence tests, Wechsler began to experiment. The eventual result was a test of his own,the

W-B I, published in 1939. This new test borrowed from existing tests in format though not in content.
Unlike the most popular individually administered intelligence test of the time, the Stanford-Binet, the W-B I was a point scale, not an age scale. The items were classified by subtests rather than by age. The test was organized into six verbal subtests and five performance subtests, and all the items in each test were arranged in order of increasing difficulty. An equivalent alternate form of the test, the W-B II, was created in 1942 but was never thoroughly standardized (Rapaport et al., 1968).
Research comparing the W-B to other intelligence tests of the day suggested that the W-B measured something comparable to what other intelligence tests measured. Still, the test suffered from some problems:

Related Topics:

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third Edition (WPPSI-III)

The Wechsler scales of intelligence

The Wechsler intelligence scale for children

(1) The standardization sample was rather restricted;

(2) some subtests lacked sufficient inter-item reliability;

(3) some of the subtests were made up of items that were too easy; and

(4) the scoring criteria for certain items were too ambiguous.

Sixteen years after the publication of the W-B, a new
Wechsler scale for adults was published: the Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS; Wechsler, 1955).
Like the W-B, the WAIS was organized into Verbal and Performance scales. Scoring yielded a Verbal IQ, a Performance IQ, and a Full Scale IQ. However, as a result of many improvements over its W-B predecessor, the WAIS would quickly achieve the status as “the standard against which other adult tests can be compared” (Lyman, 1972, p. 429).

A revision of the WAIS, the WAIS-R, was published in 1981 shortly after Wechsler’s death in May of that same year. In addition to new norms and updated materials, the WAIS-R test administration manual mandated the alternate administration of verbal and performance tests. In 1997, the third edition of the test (the WAIS-III) was published, with authorship credited to David Wechsler.
The WAIS-III contained updated and more user -friendly materials. In some cases, test materials were made physically larger to facilitate viewing by older adults. Some items were added to each of the subtests that extended the test’s floor in order to make the test more useful for evaluating people with extreme intellectual deficits. Extensive research was designed to detect and eliminate items that may have contained cultural bias. Norms were expanded to include test takers in the age range of 74 to 89. The test was co-normed with the Wechsler Memory Scale-Third Edition (WMS-III), thus facilitating comparisons of memory with other indices of intellectual functioning when both the WAIS-III and the WMS-III were administered. The WAIS-III yielded a Full Scale (composite) IQ as well as four Index Scores -Verbal Comprehension, Perceptual Organization, Working Memory, and Processing Speed—used for more in-depth interpretation of findings.

The test today: The WAIS-IV is the most recent edition to the family of Wechsler adult scales. It is made up of subtests that are designated either as core or supplemental . A core subtest is one that is administered to obtain a composite score. Under usual circumstances, a supplemental subtest (also sometimes referred to as an optional subtest ) is used for purposes such as providing additional clinical information or extending the number of abilities or processes sampled. There are, however, situations in which a supplemental subtest can be used in place of a core subtest. The latter types of situation arise when, for some reason, the use of a score on a particular core subtest would be questionable. So, for example, a supplemental subtest might be substituted for a core subtest if:

■ the examiner incorrectly administered a core subtest
■ the assessee had been inappropriately exposed to the subtest items prior to their administration
■ the assessee evidenced a physical limitation that affected the assessee’s ability to effectively respond to the items of a particular subtest

More details of subtests click:

Wechsler Scales of intelligence

Reliability of the WISC-IV
When the WISC-IV was revised, developers intended to maintain the strong psychometric properties of its predecessors, which they largely did. The procedure for calculating reliability coefficients for the WISC-IV was analogous to that used for the WISC-III and WAIS-IV. Split-half reliabilities for the WISC-IV composites range from .88 for processing speed to .97 for the FSIQ (Wechsler,2003, p.35). Naturally, reliabilities for individual subtests run lower, as in all forms of tests.

WISC-IV Validity
In providing evidence of its validity, the WISC-IV manual relies on the modern trend that rejects the distinction between various types of validity and instead examines all of the relevant evidence that indicates whether a test score measures what it purports to (Wechsler, 2003, p. 47). The manual presents several lines of evidence of the test’s validity, involving theoretical considerations, the test’s internal structure, a variety of inter correlational studies, factor analytic studies, and evidence based on WISC-IV relationship with a host of other measures. As with its main competitor, the Binet, the WISC-IV manual presents extensive and comprehensive support for its validity.

THE WECHSLER SCALES OF INTELLIGENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

Wechsler consistently defined intelligence as "the aggregate or global capacity of the individual to act purposefully, to think rationally and to deal effectively with his environment" (Wechsler, 1958, p. 7).

He also emphasized that intelligence involved more than intellectual ability, although "the capacity to do intellectual work is a necessary and important sign of general intelligence" (Wechsler, 1958, p. 12). General intelligence or, more precisely, intelligent behavior depends on such variables as "persistence, drive, energy lew!, etc." (Wechsler, 1949, p. 5).

Beginning in the 1930s, David Wechsler, a psychologist at Bellevue Hospital in New York City, conceived a series of elegantly simple instruments that virtually defined intelligence testing in the mid- to late twentieth century.

Origins of the Wechsler Tests:

Wechsler began work on his first test in 1932, seeking to devise an instrument suitable for testing the diverse patients referred to the psychiatric section of Bellevue Hospital in New York (Wechsler, 1932). In describing the development of his first test, he later wrote, “Our aim was not to produce a set of brand new tests but to select, from whatever source available, such a combination of them as would meet the requirements of an effective adult scale” (Wechsler, 1939).

Wechsler was not so much a creative talent as a pragmatist who fashioned a new and useful instrument from the spare parts of earlier, discontinued attempts at intelligence testing.
Related Topics:

The Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence- Third Edition (WPPSI-III)

The Wechsler intelligence scale for children

The Wechsler adult intelligence scale fourth edition

The first of the Wechsler tests, named the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scales, was published in 1939.

Wechsler (1941) explained that existing instruments such as the Stanford-Binet were woefully inadequate for assessing adult intelligence. The Wechsler Bellevue was designed to rectify several flaws noted in previous tests:

--- The test items possessed no appeal for adults.

---Too many questions emphasized mere manipulation of words.
---The instructions emphasized speed at the expense of accuracy.

---The reliance on mental age was irrelevant to adult testing.

Wechsler designed his test specifically for adults, added performance items to balance verbal questions, reduced the emphasis upon speeded questions, and invented a new method for obtaining the IQ. Specifically, he replaced the usual formula.

This new formula was based on the interesting presumption —stated in the form of an axiom—that IQ remains constant with normal aging, even though raw intellectual ability might shift or even decline. The assumption of IQ constancy is basic to the Wechsler scales. As Wechsler (1941) put it:---

The constancy of the I.Q. is the basic assumption of all scales where relative degrees of intelligence are defined in terms of it. It is not only basic, but absolutely necessary that
I.Q.’s be independent of the age at which they are calculated, because unless the assumption holds, no permanent scheme of intelligence classification is possible.

Wechsler also hoped to use his test as an aid in psychiatric diagnosis. In pursuit of this goal, he divided his scale into separate verbal and performance sections. This division allowed the examiner to compare an examinee’s facility in using words and symbols (verbal subtests) versus the ability to manipulate objects and perceive visual patterns (performance subtests). Large differences between verbal ability (V) and performance ability (P) were thought to be of diagnostic significance. Specifically, Wechsler believed that organic brain disease, psychoses, and emotional disorders gave rise to a marked V > P pattern, whereas adolescent psychopaths and persons with mild mental retardation yielded a strong P < V pattern.

General Features of the Wechsler Tests :

The latest editions of the Wechsler intelligence tests -the WPPSI-IV, WISC-IV, and WAIS-IV—possess the following common features:

• Thirteen to fifteen subtests. The multi subtest approach allows the examiner to analyze intra-individual strengths and weaknesses rather than just to compute a single global score. In addition, it is possible to combine subtest scores in theoretical meaningful ways that provide useful information on the broad factors of intelligence. As the reader will learn subsequently, the pattern of subtest and factor scores may convey useful information that is hidden in the overall level of
performance.
• An empirically based breakdown into composite scores and a full scale IQ. Whereas the original Wechsler intelligence scales provided only two composite scores—Verbal IQ and
Performance IQ—the revisions have been moving toward a more sophisticated partitioning into composites confirmed from
factor-analytic research. The WISC-IV and WAIS-IV now yield composite or index scores in the same four areas:

Verbal Comprehension
Perceptual Reasoning
Working Memory
Processing Speed

The WPPSI-IV provides five index scores similar to the above (for ages 4:0 to 7:7) but also includes a Fluid Reasoning composite.

• A common metric for IQ and Index scores.The mean for IQ and Index scores is 100 and the standard deviation is 15 for all tests and all age groups. In addition, the scaled scores on each subtest have a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of approximately 3, which permits the examiner to analyze the subtest scores of the examinee for relative strengths and weaknesses.

• Common subtests for the different test versions. For example, the preschool, child, and adult Wechsler tests (WPPSI-IV, WISC-IV, and WAIS-IV) all share a common core of the same six subtests . An examiner who masters the administration of a core subtest on any of the Wechsler tests (such as the Information subtest on the WAIS-IV) easily can transfer this skill within the Wechsler family of intellectual measures.

Subtest Composition of the Wechsler Intelligence Tests

General Types of Items Used in Wechsler Tests

Subtest: -----------------Description

INFORMATION --------In what continent is Brazil? Questions such as these, which are wide-ranging and tap general knowledge, learning, and memory, are asked. Interests, education, cultural background, and reading skills are some influencing factors in the score achieved.

COMPREHENSION.--------- In general, these questions tap social comprehension, the ability to organize and apply knowledge, and what is colloquially referred to as “common sense.” An illustrative question is Why should children be cautious in speaking to strangers?

SIMILARITIES. ------------ How are a pen and a pencil alike? This is the general type of question that appears in this subtest. Pairs of words are presented to the examinee, and the task is to determine how they are alike. The ability to analyze relationships and engage in logical, abstract thinking are two cognitive abilities tapped by this type of test.

ARITHMETIC.----------- Arithmetic problems are presented and solved verbally. At lower levels, the task may involve simple counting. Learning of arithmetic,alertness and concentration, and short-term auditory memory are some of the intellectual abilities tapped by this test.

VOCABULARY.------------The task is to define words. This test is thought to be a good measure of general intelligence, although education and cultural opportunity clearly contribute to success on it.

RECEPTIVE VOCABULARY -----The task is to select from four pictures what the examiner has said aloud. This tests taps auditory discrimination and processing,auditory memory, and the integration of visual perception and auditory input.

PICTURE NAMING --------The task is to name a picture displayed in a book of stimulus pictures. This test taps expressive language and word retrieval ability.

DIGIT SPAN------------The examiner verbally presents a series of numbers, and the examinee’s task is to repeat the numbers in the same sequence or backwards. This subtest taps auditory short-term memory, encoding, and attention.

LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING-------------Letters and numbers are orally presented in a mixed-up order. The task is to repeat the list with numbers in ascending order and letters in alphabetical order. Success on this subtest requires attention, sequencing ability, mental manipulation, and processing speed.

PICTURE COMPLETION -------The subject’s task here is to identify what important part is missing from a picture. For example, the testtaker might be shown a picture of a chair with one leg missing. This subtest draws on visual perception abilities, alertness, memory, concentration, attention to detail, and ability to differentiate essential from nonessential detail. Because respondents may point to the missing part, this test provides a good nonverbal estimate of intelligence. However, successful performance on a test such as this still tends to be highly influenced by cultural factors.

PICTURE ARRANGEMENT ---------In the genre of a comic-strip panel, this subtest requires the testtaker to re-sort a scrambled set of cards with pictures on them into a story that makes sense. Because the test taker must understand the whole story before a successful re-sorting will occur, this subtest is thought to tap the ability to comprehend or “size up” a situation. Additionally, attention, concentration, and ability to see temporal and cause-and-effect relationships are tapped.

BLOCK DESIGN.----------A design with colored blocks is illustrated either with blocks themselves or with a picture of the finished design, and the examinee's task is to reproduce the design. This test draws on perceptual-motor skills, psychomotor speed, and the ability to analyze and synthesize. Factors that may influence performance on this test include the examinee’s color vision, frustration tolerance, and flexibility or rigidity in problem solving.

OBJECT ASSEMBLY --------- The task here is to assemble, as quickly as possible, a cut-up picture of a familiar object. Some of the abilities called on here include pattern recognition, assembly skills, and psychomotor speed. Useful qualitative information pertinent to the examinee’s work habits
may also be obtained here by careful observation of the approach to the task. For example, does the examinee give up easily or persist in the face of difficulty?

CODING --------------- If you were given the dot-and-dash equivalents of several letters in Morse code and then had to write out letters in Morse code as quickly as you could, you would be completing a coding task. The Wechsler coding task involves using a code from a printed key.The test is thought to draw on factors such as attention, learning ability, psychomotor speed, and concentration ability.

SYMBOL SEARCH----------The task is to visually scan two groups of symbols, one search group and one target group, and determine whether the target symbol appears in the search group. The test is presumed to tap cognitive processing speed.

MATRIX REASONING--------- A non verbal analogy-like task involving an incomplete matrix designed to tap perceptual organizing abilities and reasoning.

WORD REASONING.--------- The task is to identify the common concept being described with a series of clues. This test taps verbal abstraction ability and the ability to generate alternative concepts.

PICTURE CONCEPTS-------- The task is to select one picture from two or three rows of pictures to form a group with a common characteristic. It is designed to tap the ability to abstract as well as categorical reasoning ability.

CANCELLATION----------- The task is to scan either a structured or an unstructured arrangement of visual stimuli and mark targeted images within a specified time limit. This subtest taps visual selective attention and related abilities.

Freud’s Psychosexual Stages in psychology

Sigmund Freud - The psychosexual stages are five different developmental periods—oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stages— during which the individual seeks pleasure from different areas of the body that are associated with sexual feelings. Freud emphasized that a child’s first five years were most important to social and personality development.

In Freud’s theory, there is often conflict between the child and parent. The conflict arises because the child wants immediate satisfaction or gratification of its needs, while the parents often place restrictions on when, where, and how the child’s needs should be satisfied.

Freud emphasized the importance of a child’s first five years in influencing future social development or future personality problems.

1 Oral Stage Period: Early infancy—first 18 months of life.

Potential conflict: The oral stage lasts for the first 18 months of life and is a time when the infant’s pleasure seeking is centered on the mouth.Pleasure-seeking activities include sucking, chewing, and biting.

If child were locked into or fixated at this stage because his oral wishes were gratified too much or too little, he would continue to seek oral gratification as an adult.

2 Anal Stage Period: Early infancy— 1 to 3 years.

Potential conflict: Does an infant’s experience during breast feeding have lasting effects? The anal stage lasts from the age of about 1 to 3 and is a time when the infant’s pleasure seeking is centered on the anus and its functions of elimination.

If child were locked into or fixated at this stage, he would continue to engage in behavioral activities related to retention or elimination. Retention may take the form of being very neat, stingy, or behaviorally rigid. Elimination may take the form of being generous or messy.

3 Phallic Stage Period: Early childhood— 3 to 6 years.

Potential conflict: The phallic (FAL-ick) stage lasts from about age 3 to 6 and is a time when the infant’s pleasure seeking is centered on the genitals.

During this stage, child (he) will compete with the parent of the same sex (his father) for the affections and pleasures of the parent of the opposite sex (his mother). Problems in resolving this competition (called the Oedipus complex ) may result in he going through life trying to prove his toughness.

4 Latency Stage Period: Middle and late childhood—from 6 to puberty.

The latency stage, which lasts from about age 6 to puberty, is a time when the child represses sexual thoughts and engages in nonsexual activities, such as developing social and intellectual skills.

At puberty, sexuality reappears and marks the beginning of a new stage.

5 Genital Stage Period: Puberty through adulthood.

The genital stage lasts from puberty through adulthood and is a time when the individual has renewed sexual desires that he or she seeks to fulfill through relationships with members of the opposite sex.

If he successfully resolved conflicts in the first three stages, he will have the energy to develop loving relationships and a healthy and mature personality.

ATTRIBUTION MEANING,HEIDER THEORY, CAUSE AND BIAS IN PSYCHOLOGY

ATTRIBUTION MEANING,HEIDER THEORY, CAUSE AND BIAS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

ATTRIBUTION

The process of explaining one’s own behavior and the behavior of others.

CAUSES OF BEHAVIOUR : Attribution theory was originally developed by social psychologist Fritz Heider (1958) as a way of not only explaining why things happen but also why people choose the particular explanations of behavior that they do. There are basically two kinds of explanations— external and internal causes.

1)When the cause of behavior is assumed to be from external sources, such as the weather, traffic, educational opportunities, and so on, it is said to be a situational cause.For example, if John is late, his lateness might be explained by heavy traffic or car problems.

2) if the cause of behavior is assumed to come from within the individual, it is called a dispositional cause. In this case, it is the person’s internal personality characteristics that are seen as the cause of the observed behavior.

There’s an emotional component to these kinds of attributions as well. When people are happy in a marriage, for example, researchers have found that when a spouse’s behavior has a positive effect, the tendency is to attribute it to an internal cause (“He did it because he wanted me to feel good”). When the effect is negative, the behavior is attributed to an external cause (“She must have had a difficult day”). But if the marriage is an unhappy one, the opposite attributions occur: “He is only being nice because he wants something from me” or “She’s being mean because it’s her nature to be crabby” (Fincham et al., 2000; Karney & Bradbury, 2000).

The best-known attributional bias is the FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR, which is the tendency for people observing someone else’s actions to overestimate the influence of that person’s internal characteristics on behavior and underestimate the influence of the situation. In explaining our own behavior, the tendency to use situational attributions instead of personal is called the actor–observer bias because we are the actor, not the observer. In other words, people tend to explain the actions of others based on what “kind” of person they are rather than looking for outside causes, such as social influences or situations (Blanchard-Fields et al., 2007; Harman, 1999; Jones & Harris, 1967; Leclerc & Hess, 2007; Weiner, 1985).

One study has found that attribution of motive may also create conflict between groups (Waytz et al., 2014). The study compared Israelis and Palestinians in the Mideast as well as Republicans and Democrats in the United States. Obviously, these groups continue to experience a great deal of animosity, conflict, and an unwillingness to shift from long held beliefs. Over the course of five studies, in which participants were asked to rate the motives of others for engaging in conflict, researchers found that each side felt that their side was motivated by love more than hate but that the other side’s motivating force was hate. Calling this idea motive attribution asymmetry, the researchers suggest that this is at least one reason compromise and negotiation are so difficult to obtain—if the other side hates you, you believe them to be unreasonable and negotiations impossible.