Abstractedness — This factor suggests the degree to which the person is grounded, practical or idea-oriented and imaginative. Lower scores here indicate more of practical approach whereas high score indicates imaginative nature. Privateness — This factor indicates how genuine, forthright low score or non-disclosing and discreet high score the person is.
Apprehension — This factor indicates the degree of self-assurance or self-doubt of the person. Openness to Change — This factor indicates how conventional, attached to the familiar or adaptable and experimenting the person is. Self-Reliance — Indicates how affiliative group-oriented or individualistic the person is. Perfectionism — This indicates the degree of impulsiveness, tolerance to disorder or organized behaviour and self-discipline.
Tension — This factor indicates how relaxed, patient or driven and impatient the person is. I have depicted grouping of source traits to form surface traits in the diagram below — The 16 PF — Grouping of Source Traits that form Surface Traits It is also interesting to see how various groups people show up on the 16 PF inventory.
This factor indicates being curious, intellectual, having wide interests, imaginative and insightful. Conscientiousness — This factor includes traits such as being organized, systematic, thorough, reliable and well-planned. It includes more specific traits such as being outgoing, sociable, talkative, energetic, and assertive. Agreeableness — This factor indicates being affable, trusting, sympathetic, kind, and warm.
Neuroticism — Also referred to as emotional stability by Goldberg. This factor includes more specific traits such as anxious, irritable and moody. It indicates whether one is outwardly focused or inwardly focused. Introverts are people who prefer their internal world of thoughts, feelings, fantasies, dreams, and so on, while extroverts prefer the external world of things and people and activities.
Extroverts find interactions with people energizing whereas introverts get energized by solitude. Jung, as well as MBTI use these terms slightly differently than their everyday connotations. Intuitive preference imagines possibilities about how things could be and sees the bigger picture and how everything connects. Sensing preference focuses on how things are and deals with facts and data in a literal way.
Intuiting As Jung calls this function comes from the complex integration of large amounts of information, rather than simple seeing or hearing as it happens in sensing. An intuitive person tends to prefer interconnections and interrelations of facts, events and can conceive their patterns. The sensing person can notice and recall sensory details such as colors, textures, tastes quite vividly.
The thinking preference values justice, fairness and also enjoys argument, finding flaws. The feeling preference values harmony, forgiveness and pleasing others, pointing out best in others. It should be noted that thinking people can have emotions and quite capable of being warm and considerate; however when it comes to decision-making, their preferred way is impersonal, logical thinking. Likewise, people having feeling preference may have logical thinking, and quite capable of being analytical and rational; but their preferred way is subjective, personal value based when it comes to decision-making.
Before explaining further, it is important to note that MBTI uses both these words in different sense, and not exactly as their everyday meaning.
Thus, people who prefer judging over perceiving are not necessarily more judgemental or less perceptive. The judging preference needs to have matters settled — they usually have detailed plans and respect deadlines, commitments.
The perceiving preference like to keep options open — they are spontaneous, they improvise as they go and see deadlines, commitments as flexible. Interestingly, the judging people are internally perceiving — they take much longer to explore and evaluate various options before deciding their course of action. Once they decide, they usually prefer to lay out meticulous plan and follow it sincerely. On the other hand, the perceiving people are internally judging — they do not explore or evaluate many options beforehand.
They choose an option and improve or change it during the course of their action later. Their plans are flexible and they do change their mind as required. A leader or external intervention such as a consultant with personality insights can choose different people with appropriate preferences for appropriate tasks and help them understand their differences as well as how they complement each other. Like this: Like Loading Published by Manish Hatwalne.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply. Previous Previous post: Top 5 articles from Next Next post: Personality Inventories Epilogue. Loading Comments Email Required Name Required Website. Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. Psychologist Raymond Cattell used a statistical technique known as factor analysis to whittle this list down to 16 different personality factors , while Hans Eysenck narrowed the list down to just three.
One of the most popular approaches to personality today is known as the Big Five theory of personality. This theory suggests that personality is composed of five broad dimensions: extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness.
Today, a wide variety of personality tests have become popular and are often based upon specific theories of systems of personality.
Ever wonder what your personality type means? Sign up to find out more in our Healthy Mind newsletter. Assessment of personality and psychopathology with self-report inventories. Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology. Smith SR. Projective Assessment Techniques. In: Goldstein S. A, eds. Springer, Boston, MA; Moyle P, Hackston J. Personality assessment for employee development: Ivory tower or real world? J Pers Assess. The clinical assessment in the legal field: An empirical study of bias and limitations in forensic expertise.
Front Psychol. Social desirability in personality inventories: symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scand J Psychol. Vazire S, Carlson EN. Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Soc Personal Psychol Compass.
Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for VerywellMind. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data.
We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes. Table of Contents View All.
Table of Contents. However, they are criticized for having poor reliability and validity, lacking scientific evidence, and relying too much on the subjective judgment of a clinician. The Rorchach test consists of ten inkblots, which were created by Herman Rorschach dribbling ink on paper and then folding over the paper to create a symmetrical design. During the test, participants are shown the inkblots and asked what each one looks like. The test administrator then asks questions about the responses, such as which part of the inkblot was linked to each response.
Simulated inkblot : This simulated inkblot is similar to those that make up the Rorschach test; a Rorschach inkblot would be filled in rather than a dotted pattern. Test-takers are asked to tell a story about each picture, including the background that led up to the story and the thoughts and feelings of the characters.
Not all personality measures are created equal. When it comes to examining the validity and reliability of personality measures, some have better psychometric properties than others. Validity refers to whether or not a test actually measures the construct that it is meant to measure; reliability refers to the degree to which a test produces stable and consistent results. Because of this, objective tests are said to have more validity than projective tests.
The challenge of objective tests, however, is that they are subject to the willingness and ability of the respondents to be open, honest, and self-reflective enough to represent and report their true personality; this limits their reliability. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory MMPI attempts to account for these weaknesses by including validity and reliability scales in addition to its clinical scales.
Beutler, Nussbaum, and Meredith gave the MMPI to newly recruited police officers and then to the same police officers two years later. When the test was given an additional two years later four years after starting on the job , the results suggested high risk for alcohol-related difficulties. For a clinical population, this information can reveal what is normative for that particular population; however it limits the usage and application to other nonclinical populations. The MMPI-2 used a normative sample from within the general population that was thought to be representative of all major demographic variables, expanding its applicability.
Many objective personality measures were created after years of research, such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Eysenck spent many years working with factor analysis and conducting countless laboratory experiments. The result is that the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire has excellent reliability and validity. Additionally, there is a large body of research that demonstrates the practical uses of the Eysenck measure. Projective measures like the Rorschach Inkblot Test and the Thematic Apperception Test have been criticized for having poor reliability and validity, for lacking scientific evidence, and for relying too much on the subjective judgment of a clinician.
Some projective tests, like the Rorschach, have undergone standardization procedures so they can be relatively effective in measuring depression, psychosis, and anxiety. In the Thematic Apperception Test, however, which involves open-ended storytelling, standardization of test administration is virtually nonexistent, making the test relatively low on validity and reliability. Projective tests are often considered best used for informational purposes only, and not as a true measure of personality.
For many decades, traditional projective tests have been used in cross-cultural personality assessments. However, it was found that test bias limited their usefulness. Astrological signs : Horoscopes are often endorsed because of the Forer effect.
The generalized nature of the descriptions allows for a large number of individuals to believe that they are accurate. One problem with personality measures is that individuals have a tendency to endorse vague generalizations.
This is one reason why horoscopes continue to be popular and trusted despite their lack of reliability or validity. In , Bertram Forer gave a personality inventory to his students in which he gave them each what he claimed was a unique personality profile, and he asked the students to rate how well the profile applied to each of them.
What the students did not know is that they all received the exact same profile, consisting of very generalized descriptions which could apply to almost anyone. Overall, the students all rated the profile as near excellent at describing them. In another study, students were given a personality inventory and then were given two personality profiles: an accurate one based upon the results of the inventory they took, and a generalized one that could apply to almost anyone.
The students were then asked which of the two personality profiles was their own. More than half of the students selected the generalized profile as their own. Both of these studies demonstrate how personality measures can provide general or vague descriptions and still be accepted by individuals as accurate.
This effect has come to be known as the Forer effect. Discuss the personality assessments most commonly used in the workplace and the controversies surrounding such use.
0コメント