Arguments For and Against Personality Predictors

Arguments For and Against record PredictorsArguments in favourAny ace seeking to broadsheet spirit has an abundance of useful psychometric instruments at their disposal, include the Minnesota Multiphasic personality Inventory (MMPI) (e.g. Archer, 2005), the Weschler acquaintance Scale for Children (WISC) (Watkins et al, 1997), the Myers Briggs case Indicator (MBTI) (Myers McCauley, 1985 McCrae Costa, 1989), and the, NEO Personality Inventory (revised) (Costa McCrae, 1992), and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) (Cramer, 1996), just to point a few. Thus it should be simple matter to generate a reliable and effectual stage set of scores, which merchantman then be apply to make non-homogeneous predictions about future tense deportment. Studies obligate shown that the much established someoneality tests turn out acceptable levels of reliability (i.e. they measure temper consistently, both in toll of stability over time/across situations, and internally), and ha rdship (they seem to measure spirit, rather than some new(prenominal) mental feature) (e.g. Costa McCrae, 1992 Watkins et al, 1997). Indeed, use of some of these measures is so widespread that they clear belong a exemplification part of psychological assessments in health c ar and recruitment, marriage counselling, and otherwise fields (Davey, 2004 Myers, 2007). The data obtained crowd out for example be used to make a prediction about the success of a marriage, sea captain abilities of a candidate for a job, or medical outcomes. For example, the MMPI is regularly used to make determinations about future deportmental problems in psychiatric patients (Arbisi et al, 2002). The NEO Personality Inventory and Myers Briggs Type Indicator have been storage to be particularly useful at predicting future demeanor. For example Moutafi et al (2003) asked 900 people to complete various psychological tests as part of an exercise conducted by a business consulting company. These test s included the MBTI and the revised form of the NEO Personality Inventory. Multiple regression depth psychology showed that various disposition scales contained in both constitution inventories reliably predict multiple dimensions of intuition, at the 5% level of significance (Howitt Cramer, 2005). Clearly, the approachability of tried and well-tried measuring stick tools suggests that it temperament can be measured reasonably accurately, and hence used as the land for making predictions.Another argument concerns the dispositional temper of nature traits. Personality has long been conceptualised as a permanent and enduring feature that once developed does not change much during a persons lifetime (Allport, 1937 Ryckman, 2004). This stability means it is possible to formulate a clear mood about the nature of a persons temperament (e.g. using a character test) (Myers, 2007). This idea, once formed, can then be used to make predictions. To better appreciate this argument consider to a greater extent volatile psychological characteristic like underline or coping (Janis, 1986). A persons stress levels can fluctuate astray over any given period of time. For example, an individual may experience high stress levels when the go to work during the day, but then feel relaxed once they return home. Similarly an individual may become highly agitated when flying in an aircraft and then subsequently experience little or no stress once they are back on the ground. Given the volatility of stress levels it may be rather difficult for a researcher to conduct an overall and accurate assessment of a persons worry. By contrast, nature shows sufficient continuity to enable a researcher develop a reliable record profile (Engler, 2006) for any one individual.The accuracy of personality measure is facilitated by the availability of suitable statistical tools, notably factor in analysis (Tabachnick Fidell, 1996 Field, 2000). Factor analysis is a statistical method acting that allows one to condense a large amount of data into a small number of more manageable dimensions. In particular, a persons responses to a large number of items in an inventory can be reduced to a small number of basic dimensions that encapsulate the individuals personality. This is important given that personality is a multidimensional creation that can be described with thousands of words, phrases, and sentences, in the English language (Livesley Jackson, 1986). Consequently, personality theorists have routinely used this test to identify the basic dimensions of personality, such Goldbergs (1993) Big Five personality themes agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. It is well known that renowned psychologist Hans Eysenck (Haggbloom, 2002) was one of those to first grasp the utility of factor analysis for developing accurate measures of personality. He subjected a large number of personality items to factor analyses, over some(prenominal)(prenominal) decades, yielding several dimensions a proclivity to experience negative feelings, which he called neuroticism an interest in social activity, labelled extraversion and later a susceptibility to mental illness (e.g. schizophrenia), named psychoticism. These dimensions have been used to make predictions about a wide variety of behaviours, in many divers(prenominal) situations (e.g. see criticism by Riggio Riggio, 2002).Furthermore, a persons personality is a significant determinant of their behaviour in many different situations (Ryckman, 2004 Myers, 2007). This is a scientific fact, as demonstrated by the large number of studies that have used personality measures as the basis for determining various aspects of human behaviour under disparate conditions (McCrae Costa, 1990). For example, studies have shown how a defensive, unreceptive, or evasive personality can lead audiences to reject health warnings issued on a variety of topics and in a multipl icity of situations (see review by Eagly Chaiken, 1993). Empirical studies show that personality scores predict a significant amount of the variance in various behavioural scores, with the find of chance factors falling below the five percent level (e.g. Moutafi et al, 2003). For this reason psychologists have spent a considerable amount of time and effort studying this construct. Once an accurate measuring stick of a persons personality have been obtained it should be fairly simple to make a significant prediction about their flow or future behaviour in any given situation, using analytical procedures such as multiple regression analysis.Arguments againstPsychologists cannot agree on the proper definition of personality, let alone measure it accurately and make reliable predictions. Open any relevant psychology textbook and one is confronted with several different theoretical accounts of precisely what personality means (e.g. Davey, 2004 Myers, 2007). For example, the legendary Sigmund Freud conceptualises personality as a multidimensional construct (incorporating the id, ego, and superego) that transcends the conscious, preconscious, and subconscious, and is driven by unconscious emotional problems. By contrast behaviourists, such as Burrhus Skinner, view personality as learned behaviours shaped by reinforcement and conditioning. Trait theorists like Gordon Allport conceptualise personality as stable behavioural characteristics that manifest across different situations. Thus, psychologists are far from reaching a consensus. Therefore, the idea that personality can be measured accurately is nonsensical. How can one measure a phenomenon that isnt clearly defined? Until psychologists can agree on a universal definition of personality, accurate bar will remain an unattainable dream. At the beginning of this essay I provided a list of measurement tools for assessing personality, for example the MMPI, MBTI, and NEO personality inventory. While these instrumen ts do come along to have some accuracy, their psychometric properties are continually the subject of doubt and criticism (e.g. McCrae Costa, 1989 Watkins et al, 1997). Reliability coefficients, while good, arent often high enough, and severeness tests are rarely conclusive (Arbisi et al, 2002). Given these problems in the measurement of personality, accurate prediction of behaviour is give to be impaired. For example, it is known fact that measurement error, resulting from the use unreliable and invalid measurement tools, can unidentified significant relations between variables, resulting in a type II error (Baron Kenny, 1986 Howitt Cramer, 2005).The idea that personality could be used to predict behaviour across situations rests on an important assumption that how people suffice in any given situation is necessarily predictable. The truth is that a persons behaviour may sometimes be random with no apparent cause. This idea is echoes chaos theory (Gleick, 1987), a scientifi c school of thought that proposes that an crimsont may be unpredictable due to various complexities or errors in its antecedent conditions. For example, long-term weather forecasting is often difficult because so many smooth climatic factors interact in such a complex fashion that minor changes in the nature of these interactions, and the elements which interact, could produce random, unpredictable, and escalating weather patterns. Chaos theory is applicable to the social sciences (Kiel Elliot, 1997). Different personality characteristics may interact (Howitt Cramer, 2005) in extremely complex fashions that any slight changes in the nature of these interactions or the variables involved can produce statistical and computational problems that reduce predictive power (Field, 2000). For example, any error in measurement of personality will be magnified to such an extent that it would obscure significant relationships between personality and behaviour. Baron and Kenny (1986) documen t this magnification in measurement error resulting from interactions between multiple variables. It means that behaviours produced by overly complex interactions between personality characteristics may to all intents and purposes be mathematically unpredictable, and hence appear random and sporadic, irrespective of the situation (Gleick, 1987). This is especially likely when trying to predict fleeting or capricious behaviours (e.g. deliberate self-harm) often resulting from the complicated interplay between not just personality traits, but also other psychological phenomena, not to mention situational factors.There are others concerns. Psychologists cant agree on whether personality traits are best conceptualised as stable entities that persist across situations or variable characteristics that change from one situation to the next (Davey, 2004). Which is it? Whatever view one subscribes to has measurement implications. Stable personality dispositions are more often than not more difficult to measure accurately, for various reasons (Leventhal et al, 1993). For example, people are less accurate at describing how they more often than not behave, showing a memory bias towards positive rather than negative characteristics in which field of study it would be more difficult to predict behaviour in any given situation, due to reliability and rigourousness constraints. Finally, there is what social psychologists call the fundamental attribution error (Aronson, 1995). This refers to the tendency to overestimate the effect of personality on behaviour and dishonor the impact of the situation. Consider for example a person who has a misgiving of flying. They become highly stressed, agitated, and sometimes even panic stricken once a plane reaches cruising altitude. However, their anxiety disappears once the plane is back on the ground. The primary determinant of this individuals emotional stress is situational flying in a plane. Although personality may be importa nt for example, he/she may have a neurotic personality, making them more prone to stress (Riggio Riggio, 2002) it would be a mistake to underestimate the effect of the situation (Janis, 1986 Engler, 2006). The essence of the fundamental attribution error here is thus even if personality could be measured accurately, it may still fail to predict behaviour effectively to the extent that the behaviour in question is primarily a function of the situation rather than personality characteristics.Conclusion faeces we predict a persons response in any given situation if personality could be measured accurately? This essay presents arguments for and against. Regarding the former, psychometrically useful measures of personality abound, yielding reasonably reliable and valid personality scores that can be used for making behavioural predictions. Furthermore, analytic tools like factor analysis and the purportedly stable property of personality traits may both facilitate accurate measurement and further improve predictive power. Various empirical studies exist the support these arguments. However, there are several strong counterarguments that are difficult to refute. There is as yet in psychology no hale definition of personality. This raises serious questions about the psychometric attributes of any instrument that purports to measure personality. Indeed existing personality inventories are continually plagued by concerns about reliability and validity. Even without these psychometric issues, a persons behaviour is often heavily (if not entirely) determined by the prevailing situation, rather than their personality characteristics. Thus, even the just about accurate personality measures will exhibit poor predictive power. In any case it is questionable whether human behaviour is always predictable. Certain responses may appear random, sporadic, and to all intents and purposes, unpredictable, due to analytic and methodological limits of existing science. In the mids t of these constraining realities it is unlikely that personality traits could reliability predict behaviour across different situationsReferencesAllport, G. W. (1937). Personality A Psychological Interpretation. New York Holt,Rinehart Winston.Arbisi, P., Ben-Porath Y. McNulty J (2002). A comparison of MMPI-2 validity inAfrican American and Caucasian psychiatric inpatients. Psychological judgement 14, pp.3-15.Archer, R.P. (2005). MMPI-A Assessing Adolescent Psychopathology LawrenceErlbaum AssociatesAronson, E. (1995) The loving Animal. New York Freeman.Baron, R. M. Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychological research Conceptual, strategic, and statisticalconsiderations. Journal of Personality and Social psychological science, 51,pp.11731182.Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and NEOfive-factor inventory professional manual. Florida Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc.Cramer, P. (1996) Storytelling, Narrative, and the Thematic Apperception Test. NewYork City Guilford Press.Davey, G. (ed) (2004) Complete Psychology. London Hodder Stoughton.Eagly, A. Chaiken, S (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth, TXHarcourt Brace JovanovichEngler, B. (2006). Personality Theories. Boston Houghton Mifflin.Field, A. (2000) Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows Advancedtechniques for the Beginner. London Sage.Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. AmericanPsychologist, 48, pp.26-34.Haggbloom, S.J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.Review of General Psychology, 6, pp.139-152.Howitt, D. Cramer, D. (2005) Introduction to Research Methods in Psychology.London Pearson.Janis, I.L. (1986). Coping patterns among patients with grave diseases.Issues in Mental Health. Nursing, 7, pp.461476.Kiel, L. D. Elliott, E.W. (eds) (1997). Chaos Theory in the Social SciencesFoundations Applications. Ann Arbor University of Michigan Pre ss..Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N. (1986). The internal conformity and factorial structureof behaviors judged to be associated with DSM-III personality disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, pp.1473-1474.Leventhal, E.A., Suls, J. Leventhal, H. (1993) Hierarchical analysis of coping severalize from lifespan studies. In. H.W. Krohne (ed) Attention and Avoidance.(pp.71-99) Seattle, Hogrefe and Huber Publishers.McCrae, R.R. Costa, P.T (1989) Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorFrom the Perspective of the Five-Factor Model of Personality. Journal ofPersonality, 57, pp.17-40Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personalitypredictors of intelligence A study using the Neo Personality Inventory andMyers Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, pp.7994.Myers, D. G. (2007). Psychology Eighth edition in modules. New York WorthPublishers.Myers, I., McCauley, M.H. (1985), A Guide to the Development and Use of theMyers Briggs Type Ind icator, Palo Alto, CA Consulting Psychologists Press.Ryckman, R. (2004). Theories of Personality. Belmont, CA Thomson/Wadsworth.Riggio, H.R. Riggio, R.E. (2002) Emotional expressiveness, extraversion neuroticism a meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26, pp.195-218.Tabachnick, B.G. Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate Statistics. New YorkHarperCollinsWatkins, M.W., Kush, J., Glutting, J.J. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validityof the WISC-III ACID profile among children with learning disabilities.Psychology in the Schools, 34, pp.309-319.