Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
Psychology
What type of variable is fertility status? Group of answer choices A. Quasi-independent variable B. Predictor variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-dependent variable E. Independent variable F.Dependent variable

What type of variable is fertility status? Group of answer choices A. Quasi-independent variable B. Predictor variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-dependent variable E. Independent variable F.Dependent variable

Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
5th Edition
ISBN:9780134477961
Author:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Chapter1: The Science Of Psychology
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1TY
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question
Read the research article added here, read-only study 1, and answer the question: What type of variable is fertility status? Group of answer choices A. Quasi-independent variable B. Predictor variable C. Outcome variable D. Quasi-dependent variable E. Independent variable F.Dependent variable
Female Fertility and Judgments of Sexual Orientation Accuracy (A') .90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40- Table 1. Accuracy (A) and Response Bias (B') in Judging Sexual Orientation in Studies I Through 3 .30 -1.00 Study and condition Study I Study 2 Study 3a Control Mating prime Study 3b Control Mating prime *p<.001. M .61 .61 .60 .66 .64 .63 7-point scale. The judges showed consensus in their assess- ments (Cronbach's a = .85), and the judgments were therefore averaged across raters for each target. The mean attractiveness ratings were then correlated with the dichotomous ratings of the targets as gay and straight from the main study, and these sensitivity correlations were converted using Fisher's r-to-Z transformation to produce an estimate of the relationship between each participant's categorization and the attractive- ness of the faces. The relationship between attractiveness and the categorizations of the faces was not significant (a = .05), as the 95% confidence interval (CI) surrounding the mean Fisher Z-transformed correlation contained 0, 95% CI= [-0.03, 0.07]. A' SD .12 .06 .08 .12 .06 .07 t t(38) = 5.52* t(33) = 10.39* t(18)= 4.93* t(20) = 6.13* 1.00 t(20) = 10.88* t(20) = 7.64* -.50 .00 .50 Time From Estimated Ovulation Fig. 1. Results from Study I: women's accuracy (A) in categorizing men's sexual orientations as a function of distance in time from estimated ovulation. The graph presents individual data points and a trend line showing the quadratic fit. Effect size (r) .67 .88 .74 .81 .89 .81 M .08 .14 .04 .10 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Michael Slepian on July 20, 2011 B' SD .15 .13 .09 .20 .22 .19 .20 .17 883 Discussion Women's accuracy in judging men's sexual orientations from their faces was greater the nearer the women were to peak ovu- lation. Targets' sexual orientation may therefore be more salient or legible for perceivers when it is more relevant. In previous work, we found that gay men were more accurate judges of male sexual orientation than were straight men (Rule et al., 2007). This could be because gay men are more familiar or experienced with distinguishing sexual orientation, or because information about male sexual orientation is more rel- evant for gay men than for straight men. The present data pro- vide some support for this relevance hypothesis. Specifically, women's success in conceiving is greater nearer to peak ovula- tion. One factor assisting their reproductive success is the abil- ity to identify a suitable mate. Thus, women may be more attentive to sexual orientation nearer to ovulation because tar- gets' candidacy as mates would be more relevant. Yet it is also possible that women may be more attentive overall to nonver- bal appearance cues nearer ovulation. To investigate this pos- sibility, Study 2 measured heterosexual women's ability to judge other women's sexual orientation from their faces. Study 2 Thirty-four heterosexual women not using systemic contracep- tion (cycle length: M= 30 days, SD = 4.6 days) were recruited as in Study 1. Procedures were identical to Study 1, with the exception that participants viewed the faces of 100 lesbian and 100 straight women. Photos were validated in earlier work (Rule et al., 2009). The photos were gray-scale images stan- dardized for size, and none of the targets had adornments. Moreover, the lesbian and straight women did not differ in emo- tional expression, attractiveness, or the use of makeup. Data were again analyzed using signal detection theory. Accuracy was significantly greater than chance guessing (Table 1) but was unrelated to participants' fertility; accuracy
Transcribed Image Text:Female Fertility and Judgments of Sexual Orientation Accuracy (A') .90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40- Table 1. Accuracy (A) and Response Bias (B') in Judging Sexual Orientation in Studies I Through 3 .30 -1.00 Study and condition Study I Study 2 Study 3a Control Mating prime Study 3b Control Mating prime *p<.001. M .61 .61 .60 .66 .64 .63 7-point scale. The judges showed consensus in their assess- ments (Cronbach's a = .85), and the judgments were therefore averaged across raters for each target. The mean attractiveness ratings were then correlated with the dichotomous ratings of the targets as gay and straight from the main study, and these sensitivity correlations were converted using Fisher's r-to-Z transformation to produce an estimate of the relationship between each participant's categorization and the attractive- ness of the faces. The relationship between attractiveness and the categorizations of the faces was not significant (a = .05), as the 95% confidence interval (CI) surrounding the mean Fisher Z-transformed correlation contained 0, 95% CI= [-0.03, 0.07]. A' SD .12 .06 .08 .12 .06 .07 t t(38) = 5.52* t(33) = 10.39* t(18)= 4.93* t(20) = 6.13* 1.00 t(20) = 10.88* t(20) = 7.64* -.50 .00 .50 Time From Estimated Ovulation Fig. 1. Results from Study I: women's accuracy (A) in categorizing men's sexual orientations as a function of distance in time from estimated ovulation. The graph presents individual data points and a trend line showing the quadratic fit. Effect size (r) .67 .88 .74 .81 .89 .81 M .08 .14 .04 .10 Downloaded from pss.sagepub.com by Michael Slepian on July 20, 2011 B' SD .15 .13 .09 .20 .22 .19 .20 .17 883 Discussion Women's accuracy in judging men's sexual orientations from their faces was greater the nearer the women were to peak ovu- lation. Targets' sexual orientation may therefore be more salient or legible for perceivers when it is more relevant. In previous work, we found that gay men were more accurate judges of male sexual orientation than were straight men (Rule et al., 2007). This could be because gay men are more familiar or experienced with distinguishing sexual orientation, or because information about male sexual orientation is more rel- evant for gay men than for straight men. The present data pro- vide some support for this relevance hypothesis. Specifically, women's success in conceiving is greater nearer to peak ovula- tion. One factor assisting their reproductive success is the abil- ity to identify a suitable mate. Thus, women may be more attentive to sexual orientation nearer to ovulation because tar- gets' candidacy as mates would be more relevant. Yet it is also possible that women may be more attentive overall to nonver- bal appearance cues nearer ovulation. To investigate this pos- sibility, Study 2 measured heterosexual women's ability to judge other women's sexual orientation from their faces. Study 2 Thirty-four heterosexual women not using systemic contracep- tion (cycle length: M= 30 days, SD = 4.6 days) were recruited as in Study 1. Procedures were identical to Study 1, with the exception that participants viewed the faces of 100 lesbian and 100 straight women. Photos were validated in earlier work (Rule et al., 2009). The photos were gray-scale images stan- dardized for size, and none of the targets had adornments. Moreover, the lesbian and straight women did not differ in emo- tional expression, attractiveness, or the use of makeup. Data were again analyzed using signal detection theory. Accuracy was significantly greater than chance guessing (Table 1) but was unrelated to participants' fertility; accuracy
Mating Interest Improves Women's Accuracy in Judging Male Sexual Orientation Nicholas O. Rule', Katherine S. Rosen², Michael L. Slepian², and Nalini Ambady² 'University of Toronto and Tufts University Keywords sexual orientation, social perception Received 12/17/10; Revision accepted 3/22/11 Abstract People can accurately infer others' traits and group memberships across several domains. We examined heterosexual women's accuracy in judging male sexual orientation across the fertility cycle (Study I) and found that women's accuracy was significantly greater the nearer they were to peak ovulation. In contrast, women's accuracy was not related to their fertility when they judged the sexual orientations of other women (Study 2). Increased sexual interest brought about by the increased likelihood of conception near ovulation may therefore influence women's sensitivity to male sexual orientation. To test this hypothesis, we manipulated women's interest in mating using an unobtrusive priming task (Study 3). Women primed with romantic thoughts showed significantly greater accuracy in their categorizations of male sexual orientation (but not female sexual orientation) compared with women who were not primed. The accuracy of judgments of male sexual orientation therefore appears to be influenced by both natural variations in female perceivers' fertility and experimentally manipulated cognitive frames. Recent evidence has shown that perceivers are capable of extracting information from the nonverbal behaviors and appearance of other people. Teachers' nonverbal behaviors predict their students' and principals' evaluations (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993), facial maturity predicts job opportunities and court verdicts (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995; Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991), and inferences of personality from faces can predict leaders' success in business and politics (Rule & Ambady, 2010). One domain in which perceivers are particu- larly efficient is categorizing people according to group memberships (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Perceivers effortlessly categorize people according to age, race, and gen- der, in part because the physical characteristics distinguishing these groups are somewhat obvious (Brewer, 1988). Yet per- ceivers also have a capacity to categorize people according to characteristics that are not as visually obvious, such as sexual orientation (Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999). In the study reported here, we explored one factor that might influence judgments of other people sexual interest in a particular domain judgments of sexual orientation. Previous work has found that sexual orientation can be judged with surprising accuracy by guessing from facial cues. Psychological Science 22(7) 881-886 ©The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611412394 http://pss.sagepub.com SSAGE Both male and female sexual orientation were judged signifi- cantly better than chance when participants viewed faces for as little as 40 ms (e.g., Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009). One question that arises from these demonstrations of accuracy concerns individual differences. Regarding sexual orientation, gay men tend to make more accurate judgments than do straight men (Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2007). This could be because gay men are more attentive to differences in targets' sexual orientations or because gay men have more expertise judging sexual orientation. These hypotheses are common to theories of in-group effects in perception and memory (Sporer, 2001). For instance, individuals perform bet- ter at distinguishing emotions from the faces of in-group ver- sus out-group members (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003). Yet there are also group- and individual-level variations in judging nonverbal behavior that are not directly related to in- group effects. Women tend to be better judges of nonverbal Downloaded from passagepub.com by Michael Sepan on July 20, 2011 Corresponding Author: Nicholas O. Rule, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St. Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 3G3 E-mail rule@psych.utoronto.ca behavior than men are (e.g., Hall & Andrzejewski, 2008), and extraverts are often better judges of other peoples' traits than are introverts (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). In the domain of deception detection, people are slightly but significantly more accurate than chance in judgments of deception from nonverbal cues (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), but there is consid- erable interindividual variation in this ability (Bond & DePaulo, 2008). One biological factor known to exert an influence on per- ceptions of other people is variation in women's fertility cycles. Women have been found to categorize male faces faster than female faces at periods of high fertility (around ovulation) compared with periods of nonfertility (Johnston, Arden, Macrae, & Grace, 2003; Macrae, Alnwick, Milne, & Schloerscheidt, 2002). Similarly, women nearer ovulation rated masculinized faces (Penton-Voak et al., 1999) and mas- culine body gaits (Provost, Troje, & Quinsey, 2008) as more attractive. These effects did not apply to men, women using systemic contraceptive medication, and pregnant women (Johnston et al., 2003). Moreover, lesbian women actually showed opposite effects: They categorized female faces faster than male faces during high fertility (Brinsmead-Stockham, Johnston, Miles, & Macrae, 2008). Attention to sexually rele- vant targets thus varies depending on women's fertility status, and women's fertility can have multiple effects on social per- ception (Jones et al., 2008). It seems reasonable, then, that women's accuracy in judg- ing male sexual orientation might also depend on fertility cycles and sexual relevance. We therefore tested heterosexual women's accuracy in judging sexual orientation across the fer- tility cycle; our hypothesis was that accuracy for male faces would be greater nearer to peak ovulation (Study 1) but that ovulation would not affect the categorization of sexually irrel- evant women's faces (Study 2). Finally, we examined whether increasing women's sexual interest through cognitive priming might increase their accuracy in judging sexual orientation, just as natural variations in sexual interest are brought on by the fertility cycle (Study 3). Study I Although it is fairly well established that fertility influences women's attention to sexually relevant cues, it is not known whether this increased attention might also benefit the accu- racy of person judgments. In Study 1, we therefore asked het- erosexual women to judge sexual orientation from men's faces, and we related the women's accuracy to their fertility status. Method Participants. Forty heterosexual undergraduate women responded to an advertisement requesting female under- graduates not using systemic contraceptive medication to par- ticipate in a psychology study in exchange for monetary compensation. Respondents verified that they were not using any contraceptive medications at the time of scheduling and at the end of their respective experimental sessions. One participant reported irregular cycles and was excluded from analysis. Stimuli. Photos of faces of self-identified gay men (n = 40) and straight men (n=40) were taken from a stimulus set vali- dated in earlier studies (Rule et al., 2007; Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008). The photos were gray-scale images standardized for size, and none of the targets had adornments (e.g., jewelry, facial hair). Moreover, the gay and straight men did not differ in emotional expression or attractiveness (see Rule et al., 2008, for details). Procedure. Participants were instructed that they would view men's faces on a computer screen and would be asked to indi- cate each man's probable sexual orientation as gay or straight by pressing a key. Participants were encouraged to use their intuition in making judgments and not to think about any one face too much. Afterward, the women volunteered their own sexual orientations and reported the duration of time since last menses and the typical length of their fertility cycle. These data were used to estimate each woman's point in her cycle using a backward-counting method implemented in previous research (e.g., Brinsmead-Stockham et al., 2008). Results Accuracy and response bias were calculated using signal detection theory (e.g., Sporer, 2001). Accuracy was signifi- cantly greater than chance guessing (.50; see Table 1) and, more important, varied according to fertility status. Peak ovu- lation was estimated as 14 days prior to next expected menses. For women who were postpeak, the distance in time from peak ovulation was calculated by dividing the number of days post- peak by 14, and for women who were prepeak, the number of days prepeak was divided by the difference between peak ovu- lation and reported cycle length (cycle length: M- 30 days, SD-4 days). This yielded positive proportions for postpeak women and negative proportions for prepeak women, with peak ovulation centered at 0. These proportions showed a significant curvilinear rela- tionship, such that the nearer women were to peak ovulation, the more accurate they were in judging men's sexual orienta- tions, F(2, 36)-4.71, p.02, R-21 (Fig. 1). Response bias showed a tendency for women to perceive men as straight rather than gay, but it was unrelated to the women's fertility and thus showed neither linear nor curvilinear trends, Fs< 1.86, ps>.17. Although our previous work found no differences in attrac- tiveness between the gay and straight men in this stimulus set (Rule et al., 2008), perceptions of attractiveness are known to be related to women's fertility. We therefore asked 24 separate participants to judge the attractiveness of the faces along
Transcribed Image Text:Mating Interest Improves Women's Accuracy in Judging Male Sexual Orientation Nicholas O. Rule', Katherine S. Rosen², Michael L. Slepian², and Nalini Ambady² 'University of Toronto and Tufts University Keywords sexual orientation, social perception Received 12/17/10; Revision accepted 3/22/11 Abstract People can accurately infer others' traits and group memberships across several domains. We examined heterosexual women's accuracy in judging male sexual orientation across the fertility cycle (Study I) and found that women's accuracy was significantly greater the nearer they were to peak ovulation. In contrast, women's accuracy was not related to their fertility when they judged the sexual orientations of other women (Study 2). Increased sexual interest brought about by the increased likelihood of conception near ovulation may therefore influence women's sensitivity to male sexual orientation. To test this hypothesis, we manipulated women's interest in mating using an unobtrusive priming task (Study 3). Women primed with romantic thoughts showed significantly greater accuracy in their categorizations of male sexual orientation (but not female sexual orientation) compared with women who were not primed. The accuracy of judgments of male sexual orientation therefore appears to be influenced by both natural variations in female perceivers' fertility and experimentally manipulated cognitive frames. Recent evidence has shown that perceivers are capable of extracting information from the nonverbal behaviors and appearance of other people. Teachers' nonverbal behaviors predict their students' and principals' evaluations (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993), facial maturity predicts job opportunities and court verdicts (Collins & Zebrowitz, 1995; Zebrowitz & McDonald, 1991), and inferences of personality from faces can predict leaders' success in business and politics (Rule & Ambady, 2010). One domain in which perceivers are particu- larly efficient is categorizing people according to group memberships (Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). Perceivers effortlessly categorize people according to age, race, and gen- der, in part because the physical characteristics distinguishing these groups are somewhat obvious (Brewer, 1988). Yet per- ceivers also have a capacity to categorize people according to characteristics that are not as visually obvious, such as sexual orientation (Ambady, Hallahan, & Conner, 1999). In the study reported here, we explored one factor that might influence judgments of other people sexual interest in a particular domain judgments of sexual orientation. Previous work has found that sexual orientation can be judged with surprising accuracy by guessing from facial cues. Psychological Science 22(7) 881-886 ©The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0956797611412394 http://pss.sagepub.com SSAGE Both male and female sexual orientation were judged signifi- cantly better than chance when participants viewed faces for as little as 40 ms (e.g., Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009). One question that arises from these demonstrations of accuracy concerns individual differences. Regarding sexual orientation, gay men tend to make more accurate judgments than do straight men (Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2007). This could be because gay men are more attentive to differences in targets' sexual orientations or because gay men have more expertise judging sexual orientation. These hypotheses are common to theories of in-group effects in perception and memory (Sporer, 2001). For instance, individuals perform bet- ter at distinguishing emotions from the faces of in-group ver- sus out-group members (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2003). Yet there are also group- and individual-level variations in judging nonverbal behavior that are not directly related to in- group effects. Women tend to be better judges of nonverbal Downloaded from passagepub.com by Michael Sepan on July 20, 2011 Corresponding Author: Nicholas O. Rule, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St. Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 3G3 E-mail rule@psych.utoronto.ca behavior than men are (e.g., Hall & Andrzejewski, 2008), and extraverts are often better judges of other peoples' traits than are introverts (Lieberman & Rosenthal, 2001). In the domain of deception detection, people are slightly but significantly more accurate than chance in judgments of deception from nonverbal cues (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), but there is consid- erable interindividual variation in this ability (Bond & DePaulo, 2008). One biological factor known to exert an influence on per- ceptions of other people is variation in women's fertility cycles. Women have been found to categorize male faces faster than female faces at periods of high fertility (around ovulation) compared with periods of nonfertility (Johnston, Arden, Macrae, & Grace, 2003; Macrae, Alnwick, Milne, & Schloerscheidt, 2002). Similarly, women nearer ovulation rated masculinized faces (Penton-Voak et al., 1999) and mas- culine body gaits (Provost, Troje, & Quinsey, 2008) as more attractive. These effects did not apply to men, women using systemic contraceptive medication, and pregnant women (Johnston et al., 2003). Moreover, lesbian women actually showed opposite effects: They categorized female faces faster than male faces during high fertility (Brinsmead-Stockham, Johnston, Miles, & Macrae, 2008). Attention to sexually rele- vant targets thus varies depending on women's fertility status, and women's fertility can have multiple effects on social per- ception (Jones et al., 2008). It seems reasonable, then, that women's accuracy in judg- ing male sexual orientation might also depend on fertility cycles and sexual relevance. We therefore tested heterosexual women's accuracy in judging sexual orientation across the fer- tility cycle; our hypothesis was that accuracy for male faces would be greater nearer to peak ovulation (Study 1) but that ovulation would not affect the categorization of sexually irrel- evant women's faces (Study 2). Finally, we examined whether increasing women's sexual interest through cognitive priming might increase their accuracy in judging sexual orientation, just as natural variations in sexual interest are brought on by the fertility cycle (Study 3). Study I Although it is fairly well established that fertility influences women's attention to sexually relevant cues, it is not known whether this increased attention might also benefit the accu- racy of person judgments. In Study 1, we therefore asked het- erosexual women to judge sexual orientation from men's faces, and we related the women's accuracy to their fertility status. Method Participants. Forty heterosexual undergraduate women responded to an advertisement requesting female under- graduates not using systemic contraceptive medication to par- ticipate in a psychology study in exchange for monetary compensation. Respondents verified that they were not using any contraceptive medications at the time of scheduling and at the end of their respective experimental sessions. One participant reported irregular cycles and was excluded from analysis. Stimuli. Photos of faces of self-identified gay men (n = 40) and straight men (n=40) were taken from a stimulus set vali- dated in earlier studies (Rule et al., 2007; Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008). The photos were gray-scale images standardized for size, and none of the targets had adornments (e.g., jewelry, facial hair). Moreover, the gay and straight men did not differ in emotional expression or attractiveness (see Rule et al., 2008, for details). Procedure. Participants were instructed that they would view men's faces on a computer screen and would be asked to indi- cate each man's probable sexual orientation as gay or straight by pressing a key. Participants were encouraged to use their intuition in making judgments and not to think about any one face too much. Afterward, the women volunteered their own sexual orientations and reported the duration of time since last menses and the typical length of their fertility cycle. These data were used to estimate each woman's point in her cycle using a backward-counting method implemented in previous research (e.g., Brinsmead-Stockham et al., 2008). Results Accuracy and response bias were calculated using signal detection theory (e.g., Sporer, 2001). Accuracy was signifi- cantly greater than chance guessing (.50; see Table 1) and, more important, varied according to fertility status. Peak ovu- lation was estimated as 14 days prior to next expected menses. For women who were postpeak, the distance in time from peak ovulation was calculated by dividing the number of days post- peak by 14, and for women who were prepeak, the number of days prepeak was divided by the difference between peak ovu- lation and reported cycle length (cycle length: M- 30 days, SD-4 days). This yielded positive proportions for postpeak women and negative proportions for prepeak women, with peak ovulation centered at 0. These proportions showed a significant curvilinear rela- tionship, such that the nearer women were to peak ovulation, the more accurate they were in judging men's sexual orienta- tions, F(2, 36)-4.71, p.02, R-21 (Fig. 1). Response bias showed a tendency for women to perceive men as straight rather than gay, but it was unrelated to the women's fertility and thus showed neither linear nor curvilinear trends, Fs< 1.86, ps>.17. Although our previous work found no differences in attrac- tiveness between the gay and straight men in this stimulus set (Rule et al., 2008), perceptions of attractiveness are known to be related to women's fertility. We therefore asked 24 separate participants to judge the attractiveness of the faces along
Expert Solution
Answer

In this study 1, fertility status is a Quasi independent variable. 

trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Recommended textbooks for you
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Ciccarelli: Psychology_5 (5th Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:
9780134477961
Author:
Saundra K. Ciccarelli, J. Noland White
Publisher:
PEARSON
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Psychology
ISBN:
9781337408271
Author:
Goldstein, E. Bruce.
Publisher:
Cengage Learning,
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and …
Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and …
Psychology
ISBN:
9781337565691
Author:
Dennis Coon, John O. Mitterer, Tanya S. Martini
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology in Your Life (Second Edition)
Psychology
ISBN:
9780393265156
Author:
Sarah Grison, Michael Gazzaniga
Publisher:
W. W. Norton & Company
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a…
Cognitive Psychology: Connecting Mind, Research a…
Psychology
ISBN:
9781285763880
Author:
E. Bruce Goldstein
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Theories of Personality (MindTap Course List)
Psychology
ISBN:
9781305652958
Author:
Duane P. Schultz, Sydney Ellen Schultz
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS