Personality Assessment and Judgement

astrology

personality assessment based on birth date (not really based in science)

physiognomy

personality assessment based on shape of the body, particularly the face

phrenology

personality assessment based on morphology (shape) of skull

• ex. indent in spirituality part of the skull means you won’t be very spiritual

• doesn’t actually predict anything, shape of skull dependent on how your parents placed you as a baby

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

• mother and daughter duo created it, mother had a history in agriculture, then became a housewife, and so did her daughter

• Both were interested in readings from an old psychologist what had interest in what humanity shares in subconscious

non scientific methods of personality assessment

• astrology

• physiognomy

• phrenology

• MBTI

• enneagram

why are non scientific methods of personality assessment not good

• not developed scientifically

• not reliable

  • 50% people get a different score/type when they retake the test a few weeks later

• not much evidence for predictive validity

  • scores do not predict health, happiness, job performance, and other life outcomes

• all dimensions are positive

  • MBTI only lists strengths, despite everyone having personality weaknesses

• assumes personality falls into categories

• use of types is problematic

• Barnum Effect

barnum effect

summaries of ‘types’ often have generalized statements or events that people naturally assign to themselves and give specific meaning

• general statements that we apply to ourselves

scientific methods of personality assessment

• projective tests

• objective tests

projective tests

• more often used in clinical and sometimes work settings

• not super reliable within normal range personality

• 1920-30’s, Rorschach and TAT

objective tests used in 1943

minnesota multiphasic personality inventory

objective tests used in 1956

california psychological inventory

objective tests used in 1980’s

NEO-personality inventory

objective tests used in 1990’s

big five inventory

objective tests used in 2000’s

• electronically activated recorder

• data mining

• McAdams Life Story Interview

most commonly used measures (Today)

• big five personality traits

• life narrative

• measures for one construct

• all developed through rigorous psychometric approaches

example of big five personality traits measures

• NEO personality inventory

• big five inventory

example of life narrative personality assessment measures

McAdams Life story interview (examines your whole life)

example of personality assessments that measure one construct

• rosenburg self esteem scale

• dispositional optimism scale

• self control scale

self report items (transparent questions)

• obvious what the question is testing

• ex. “If I ruled the world, it would be a much better place”

  • testing for narcissism

self report items (non transparent questions)

• not obvious what the question is testing for

• ex. People pretend to care more about one other than they really do

• ex. i used to like hopscotch

• both ex testing for narcissism

self report items

• transparent

• non-transparent

features of scientific personality assessments

• captures thoughts, feelings, and behaviors

• assessed on a continuum — not categories or types

• assess both positive and negative dimensions of personality

• aims to know what you are like in general

• reliable

• valid

reliability

of a target, are you hitting the same spot each time? (or, are your results consistent?)

validity

of a target, are you actually hitting the bullseye (or, are you testing what you are aiming to test?)

personality judgement

judging others’ personalities, has important consequences, such as

• employment (are you fit for the job? based on handshake, seeing if you’re stuttering or stumbling)

• relationships

• expectancies/self-fulfilling prophecies

  • ex. a teacher might not try as hard to teach you if they think you’re dumb

accuracy

what critera can be used to assess accuracy of personality judgements

possible critera for determining accuracy

• convergent validity

• the duck test

• interjudge agreement

• behavioral prediction and predictive validity

convergent validity

are different tests assessing/yielding the same results

duck test

if it quacks and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck

• if many things are pointing to the same conclusion, that conclusion is probably accurate

inter judge agreement

if i ask the different people about you, will they say the same thing

behavioral prediction and predictive validity

what can I tell about this persons future based on their personality? (ex. an extroverted person will probably go into marketing)

first impressions

• mostly automatic

• we use visible (non-verbal) info

• we use verbal cues

ex. of non-verbal/visual info for first impressions

• face

• clothing

• belongings

• eye contact

ex. of verbal cues for first impressions

• gestures

• storytelling

• musical preferences

• how loud you talk

• affect expression

how much info do you need to get to know someone?

• more info better, especially for some traits

• the longer you know someone, the more accurate you are

• the info needs to be good quality (ex. weak vs. strong situations)

relationship between how long you know someone and how accurately you know them

even 5 mins of interacting with a stranger is almost as accurate for predicting behavior as a well informed judge

weak situations vs. strong situations when knowing someone

weak situation —> classroom, lots of rules, a specific way to behave

strong situation —> situations where you can act freely

what makes a good judge of personality/character

socially skilled, open minded, well adjusted, and attributionally complex

what makes a good target for being judged for personality

well adjusted, behaviorally consistent, extraverted, agreeable, healthy, easy to observe, highly visible

• disorders can overshadow base personality traits

personality tests

• not necessarily reliable or valid

• type indicators problematic because categorization, losing individual uniqueness and nuance