8

THEORIES AND MEASUREMENT OF

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter you should be able to:

x describe how psychologists have sought to define human personality and how it can
be distinguished from other attributes;
x distinguish between the different approaches relating to assessment of individual dif-
ferences in personality;
x describe and evaluate the different theories;
x evaluate critically the use of personality questionnaires, the issues involved and their
limitations.

WHAT IS THIS CHAPTER ABOUT?

Whatever you call it, it’s about power and money. It has been known by a number
of aliases such as nature, temperament, disposition, character, and even charisma.
Here we call it personality. Knowing about it well gives power over others through
being able to predict or manipulate their behaviour. That power might lead to
wealth, especially by selling such knowledge to others who also want to use it for
their own ends. This explains the proliferation of books about it. Construct a popu-
lar questionnaire and it too might make you rich. As with intelligence any science
of personality needs to be clear about what we mean by it, how it is distinguished
from other constructs, and how we might measure it. We also need to be clear about
the theories underlying assessment methods. Theory and assessment always work
Šƒ†Ǧ‹ǦŠƒ†ǡ‡•’‡…‹ƒŽŽ›‹–Š‡ϐ‹‡Ž†‘ˆ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•Ǥ‡™‹ŽŽŽƒ•–Ž›…‘•‹†‡”
the use of questionnaires to describe personality characteristics, the issues involved,
and their limitations.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 224 20-Feb-14 5:41:14 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 225

THE CONCEPT OF PERSONALITY

We all have a natural curiosity about why people behave as they do. Differences in
behaviour have always grabbed our attention and have led to many attempts to
‘†‡Ž ‹–ǡ •‘‡ ‘”‡ •…‹‡–‹ϐ‹… –Šƒ ‘–Š‡”•Ǥ ‡”…‡’–‹‘• ‘ˆ •’‡…‹ϐ‹… „‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”•
thought to be consistent have led to a vast accumulation of words representing
characteristics, as any dictionary will demonstrate. So psychology doesn’t really own
the phenomenon of personality, for example famous writers have been rewarded
for their ability to create characters in a psychologically meaningful way. Thinking
and theorizing have gone on for a long time and appear to be a natural tendency
amongst just about everyone. Consequently, many different approaches have been
adopted by both psychologists and non-psychologists.
‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹•ƒ…‘…‡’–—•‡†‹†ƒ‹Ž›Ž‹ˆ‡„‡…ƒ—•‡‘ˆ–Š‡Œ—†‰‡‡–•™‡ˆ‘”ǡ
consciously or not, about others. Often, when the word ‘personality’ is used by
people, it refers to a global implicit judgement made
up of all the impressions and feelings created by
someone. When people tend to react to situations in
a fairly consistent manner, this will be observed by
the typical non-psychologist. But any everyday
assessment is bound to be subjective and associated
™‹–Š ’‡”•‘ƒŽ ‡ƒ‹‰• ƒ† ‹’”‡••‹‘•Ǥ ‡‘’Ž‡
often tend to muddle up different aspects, like affili-
ation with others and self-confidence.
As with intelligence, the ‘pet’ theories people have
are called implicit personality theories (Bruner &
Tagiuri, 1954). These proliferate because everyone has
got one and they are overwhelmingly based on super-
ϐ‹…‹ƒŽǡ…ƒ•—ƒŽƒ†…Šƒ…‡‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ‡…ƒ—•‡‘ˆ–Š‹•
there is often a focus upon the most noticeable charac-
–‡”‹•–‹…•Ǥ‡‘’Ž‡–ƒŽ‘ˆ•‘‡‘‡Šƒ˜‹‰ǮŽ‘–•‘ˆ’‡”•‘-
ality’ or ‘no personality’ or ‘a strong personality’, referring probably to social
competence and popularity. Someone might be ‘a personality’ or even ‘a big person-
ƒŽ‹–›ǯǤ‡‘’Ž‡—•‡„”‘ƒ†‰‡‡”ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘•ƒ†•–‡”‡‘–›’‡•Ǥ˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›
could be based upon how someone reacts to situations or the person’s behavioural
–‡†‡…‹‡•ǡ ”‡ϐŽ‡…–‹‰ •—„Œ‡…–‹˜‡ ‹’”‡••‹‘• ‘” ˆ‡‡Ž‹‰•Ǥ  •Š‘”–ǡ ƒ• ™‹–Š ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ǡ
’‡‘’Ž‡ǯ•˜‹‡™•ƒ„‘—––Š‡’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–‹‡•‘ˆ‘–Š‡”•”‡ϐŽ‡…–’‡”•‘ƒŽǮ‡˜‡”›†ƒ›ǯ–Š‹‹‰Ǥ
…‡ƒ‰ƒ‹ǡ™‡‡‡†–‘„‡•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ǡ–‘—•‡‡’‹”‹…ƒŽ‡–Š‘†•ƒ†–‘„‡‡š’Ž‹…‹–Ǥ
Research into personality focuses on objective descriptions. To understand a person
or to understand differences between individuals we need to know more, for exam-
ple, about behavioural style, intellectual functioning, motives, attitudes, beliefs and
˜ƒŽ—‡•ǡƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ•Š‘™–Š‡•‡ƒ”‡‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡†Ǥ‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›…‘„‹‡•™‹–Š–Š‡ƒŽŽ–‘
…‘•–”—…––Š‡‘—–™ƒ”†ƒ‹ˆ‡•–ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ•‘‡‘‡Ǥ›•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡‡†•–‘
be more comprehensive and precise. Therefore, the science of individual differences

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 225 20-Feb-14 5:41:14 PM

 226 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

is founded upon an explicit empirical approach which views personality from a

psychological perspective.
The difference between the explicit and implicit views lies between formal mod-
els and theories on the one hand and, on the other, those intimate ‘theories’ which
seem to guide people’s everyday interactions with each other relating to personal
attributions, social perceptions, values, attitudes and other aspects of their own
thinking. The emphasis of our formal models and approaches is on what is testable
and empirical, focusing upon an evaluation of more permanent characteristics and
individual differences. Our approach is designed to be comprehensive yet precise,
to make predictions founded on measurement through the use of scores on rating
scales and to involve statistical techniques.
•›…Š‘Ž‘‰‹•–•ƒ”‡‹–‡”‡•–‡†‹†‡•…”‹„‹‰–Š‡™Š‘Ž‡”ƒ‰‡‘ˆ…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•–Šƒ–
a person has with the aim of being able to predict how that person will behave. The
word ‘characteristic’ implies consistency. We can distinguish between enduring
characteristics which allow us to make predictions about behaviour and transient
emotional states which may result in behaviour which is unpredictable.
A complete description of personality would include many factors, for example
behavioural style, intellectual ability, special talents, motives acquired in the process
of development and maturing, emotional reactivity, attitudes, beliefs and moral val-
—‡•Ǥ •›…Š‘Ž‘‰› •‡‡• –‘ †‹•…‘˜‡” ‘– Œ—•– ™Šƒ– …Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…• ƒ ’‡”•‘ Šƒ•ǡ „—–
also the way in which these are organized within the person to make that individual
different from others. It is concerned with the individual’s unique way of under-
standing and interacting with the world and with the resulting manifestation of
combinations of characteristics.
–Š‡ϐ‹‡Ž†‘ˆ’•›…Š‘‡–”‹…•’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹•Ž‹‡†–‘‘”‡’‡”ƒ‡–…Šƒ”ƒ…-
teristics or traits which are based upon how a unique individual adjusts to the
environment and upon differences between individuals in doing this. As we saw in
Chapter 1, there is a distinction between relatively enduring or more stable char-
acteristics, known as traits, which can predict behaviour (McCrae & Costa, 1990)
and other more transient emotional responses or moods called states (McConville
& Cooper, 1992). A sudden experience of fear will pass with time, being a state. But
if it persists it can become a trait, as with a person who has always been timid
ϐ‹†‹‰‹–†‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž––‘…Šƒ‰‡ǤŠ‹•†‹•–‹…–‹‘‹•ǯ–ƒ„•‘Ž—–‡ǡ–Š‘—‰Š–”ƒ‹–•ƒ”‡ƒŽ™ƒ›•
long term and are less likely to change. They represent implied associations
between observed behaviour and inner tendencies to act in certain ways. In psy-
chometrics the focus is upon precise and objective measurement. Traits like emo-
tional stability or impulsiveness can be measured in populations and their mean
levels calculated, enabling normative assessment on reliable and valid scales. As
we discussed in Chapter 3, the term ‘normative’ means that a person’s trait char-
acteristics can be compared with those of others having a similar background.
All being well, trait characteristics tend to be generally stable over the long
term. However, as we saw in Chapter 7 in discussing the nature-nurture debate,
both personality and ability develop through the complex interaction of genetic
and environmental factors. Some personality traits might be more genetic in

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 226 20-Feb-14 5:41:14 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 227

origin with the genotype shaping environmental experiences, for example

through intellectual stimulation and interests. Some determinants may arise
from basic neural structures, resulting in perhaps a reactive inhibition from
conception. Researchers have found three ways in which an individual’s genotype
may shape the environment. Firstly, the genotype may result from the genetic
similarity of parents and children. This is likely to result in the parents auto-
matically creating an environment compatible with the child’s personality, for
example intellectual stimulation or reinforcement of interests. Highly intelligent
parents may provide a more stimulating environment for their child, thus creat-
ing surroundings which will interact in a positive way with the child’s genetic
endowment for high intelligence.
Secondly, the child’s genotype may evoke particular kinds of reaction from the
social and physical environment. For example, active happy babies evoke more
positive responses from others than do passive unresponsive infants. Lastly, the
child’s genotype may play a more active role in shaping the environment. In this
case the child seeks out or builds an environment which is congenial. Similarly,
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒ›‡Šƒ…‡…‡”–ƒ‹–‡†‡…‹‡•Ǥš–”ƒ˜‡”–‡†…Š‹Ž†”‡ƒ›•‡‡–Š‡
company of others, thus enhancing their own inclinations to be sociable.
So we can see here that genes affect the kinds of experiences which people have.
This is immediately evident if we think about the effects that gender, IQ and tem-
perament can have on our life experiences. Genes will seek to create an environment
which is compatible with predisposing characteristics, providing basic underlying
tendencies to respond to the world in particular ways. But the environment itself
™‹ŽŽ ƒŽ•‘ Šƒ˜‡ ƒŒ‘” ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡• –Š”‘—‰Š ƒ —„‡” ‘ˆ •‘—”…‡•Ǥ Š‡•‡ ‹…Ž—†‡ –Š‡
effects of the culture in which we live, for example British undergraduates have been
found to be less anxious, more introverted, emotionally sensitive and radical than
American students. The environment will begin with the family, the treatment of
the child within the family, and its structure, as well as social differences between
families. The nature of the socialization experienced by a child provides another
‹ϐŽ—‡…‡ǡƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ•‡†—…ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•Ǥ‘…‹ƒŽ‹œƒ–‹‘ƒŽ•‘†‡’‡†•—’‘…—Ž-
–—”ƒŽƒ†•‘…‹ƒŽ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•Ǥ
When we say that babies differ in temperament, we mean that they differ in
systematic ways in their emotional and arousal responses to various stimuli, and in
their tendency to approach, withdraw, or attend to various situations. Our early
temperament is thought to be the substrate from which our personality develops.
–ƒ”–‹‰ ƒ– ƒ„‘—– –™‘ –‘ –Š”‡‡ ‘–Š• ‘ˆ ƒ‰‡ǡ ƒ’’”‘š‹ƒ–‡Ž› ϐ‹˜‡ †‹‡•‹‘• ‘ˆ
–‡’‡”ƒ‡–…ƒ„‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†ǡƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š•‘‡™‹ŽŽ‡‡”‰‡Žƒ–‡”–Šƒ‘–Š‡”•ǣ

x Fearfulness.
x Irritability and frustration.
x ‘•‹–‹˜‡ƒˆˆ‡…–Ǥ
x Activity level.
x Attentional persistence (concentration level).

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 227 20-Feb-14 5:41:14 PM

 228 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

These seem to be related to the major dimensions of adult personality. The tem-
perament of an infant has profound effects on a variety of important developmental
processes, such as learning and relationships with others. Socialization also pre-
sents another source of personality difference, for example through how any one
child is treated within the family group compared to other siblings, and there is the
‹’ƒ…–‘ˆˆƒ‹Ž›•–”—…–—”‡ƒ††‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•„‡–™‡‡ˆƒ‹Ž‹‡•Ǥ†—…ƒ–‹‘‹•›‡–ƒ‘–Š‡”
source of personality change. Lastly, we cannot discount the influence of television,
technology and other media upon behavioural differences.
There are clearly some personality attributes which appear to be more genetic
‹‘”‹‰‹ƒ†›‡–‘–Š‡”•™Š‹…Š‹‰Š–„‡‘”‡–Š‡”‡•—Ž–‘ˆ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•ǡ
and some others which could be the result of an interaction between the two. As
™‹–Šƒ„‹Ž‹–›‹Šƒ’–‡”͹ǡ–Š‡ϐ‹†‹‰•‘ˆ–™‹•–—†‹‡•ƒ†Š‡”‹–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›”‡•‡ƒ”…Šƒ”‡
–Š‡‡ƒ•‘ˆ‹†‡–‹ˆ›‹‰–Š‡‹ϐŽ—‡…‡‘ˆ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•ǤŠ‡•‡…ƒ‹†‡–‹ˆ›
the factors which affect variability in test scores. In addition, factors which affect
variability in the interpretations given to those scores could include some form of
test bias or misunderstanding of the cultural backgrounds of individuals.
We can see, therefore, that the factors of socialization, social environment, fam-
ily (including differences in treatment of different members) and educational dif-
ferences will all have an impact on personality. To these are added other factors
such as race, ethnicity, culture, age and gender. The term ‘race’ relates to the major
division of humans into those having distinct physical characteristics through
‰‡‡–‹…Š‡”‹–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›Ǥ–Š‹…‹–›ǡŠ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ‹•Ž‹‡†–‘–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆ†‹•–‹…–•‘…‹ƒŽ
groups, each having a common tradition and origin. Culture is linked to customs,
civilization and group achievements. And lastly, the term ‘gender’ relates to sexual-
‹–›ǡ‹Ǥ‡Ǥ–Š‡…Žƒ••‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’‡‘’Ž‡‹•‡š—ƒŽ–‡”•Ǥ‡‘ˆ–‡‡’Šƒ•‹œ‡–Š‡†‹ˆˆ‡”-
‡…‡• „‡–™‡‡ ‰”‘—’•ǡ ƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ †‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡• ƒ”‡ ‘”‡ ‘ˆ–‡ ‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†Ǥ
There are also trait and behavioural differences between people, and there can be
a gradual change in these over the lifespan. A greater change in personality may
sometimes occur as a result of a traumatic experience, although the environment
Šƒ•ƒƒŒ‘”‹ϐŽ—‡…‡—’‘†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–‰”‘—’•–Š”‘—‰Š–Š‡‹ϐŽ—‡…‡‘ˆ…—Ž–—”‡Ǥ–Š‡”
factors which also impact upon different race, ethnicity, culture, age and gender
groups concern socialization (e.g. the family unit, education, television, and other
forms of technology). All of these can create behavioural differences between peo-
ple. Another aspect of interest here is that groups may appear distinct sometimes
because of expressed behavioural differences rather than actual trait differences.

Situational and Dispositional Approaches

Some social psychologists have argued that personality doesn’t exist. They say peo-
ple change their behaviour across situations and over time, demonstrating no con-
sistency, an approach called situationalism (Mischel, 1968, 2004; Wright & Mischel,
1987). The counter-argument suggests there is behavioural change, but that this
can be accommodated in the way we measure characteristics. Change will depend
on events, for example there are ‘strong’ situations having a big impact, whilst there
ƒ”‡ Ǯ™‡ƒǯ ‘‡• Šƒ˜‹‰ Ž‹––Ž‡ ‡ˆˆ‡…–Ǥ ‡‘’Ž‡ ™‹ŽŽ –Š—• ƒ†ƒ’– –Š‡‹” „‡Šƒ˜‹‘—” –‘ ϐ‹–Ǥ

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 228 20-Feb-14 5:41:14 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 229

Figure 8.1 The situational view (A) sees personality as being inconsistent, while the
dispositional approach (B) sees it as being consistent and unchanging on a trait
continuum

–”‘‰ •‹–—ƒ–‹‘• ‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ› ‘……—” Ž‡•• ‘ˆ–‡ –Šƒ ™‡ƒ ‘‡•Ǥ ˜‡ ‹ ‘……ƒ•‹‘ƒŽ
highly structured situations where behaviour is constrained, people will still dem-
onstrate some aspect of their personality, even if only in a cautious way such as a
sly nod or ‘wink’.
Studies show people do behave consistently across different events, with most
behavioural correlations being above 0.7 and others above 0.3 (Small et al., 1983).
A number of characteristics have also been shown to remain largely invariable after
the age of 30. So the evidence is that personality does exist. This counter-argument
is sometimes called the dispositional approach, and it views personality through
consistent and unchanging dispositions, regardless of circumstances.

How Do We Define Personality?

Š‡ƒ•™‡”‹•ǡ™‹–Š†‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž–›Ǩ”‘—„Ž‡‹•–Š‡”‡Šƒ•„‡‡ƒ—Ž–‹–—†‡‘ˆ†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘•Ǥ
– ™ƒ• ‘…‡ •ƒ‹† –Šƒ– –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ ƒ• ƒ› †‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘• ƒ• –Š‡”‡ ƒ”‡ –Š‡‘”‹•–•ǡ ™Š‹…Š
ƒ‡• ˆ‘” ƒ Ž‘–ǡ ƒ† •‘ –Š‡”‡ ‹• ‘ ‡ƒ•‹Ž› ‹†‡–‹ϐ‹ƒ„Ž‡ …‘‘ ƒ’’”‘ƒ…ŠǤ ”‘
ancient times thinkers have attempted to identify the main factors by which people
†‹ˆˆ‡”ƒ†–‘…”‡ƒ–‡•‘‡ˆ‘”‘ˆ…Žƒ••‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ†›‡––Š‡”‡‹••–‹ŽŽ‘ƒ‰”‡‡‡–Ǥ
‡”Šƒ’•–Š‡’”‘„Ž‡‹•–Šƒ–’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹•ƒ…‘…‡’–™Š‹…Š‹•„”‘ƒ†ƒ†‡„—Ž‘—•ǡ
ƒ‹‰‹–†‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž––‘†‡ϐ‹‡•—……‹…–Ž›ǤŠƒ–†‘‡•ǯ–Š‡Ž’‡‹–Š‡”‹•–Š‡ˆƒ…––Šƒ–†‡ˆ-
initions are based mostly on differing theories. But the fact remains that how we
†‡ϐ‹‡ƒ…‘…‡’–’Žƒ›•ƒ…”—…‹ƒŽ”‘Ž‡‹Š‘™™‡‹˜‡•–‹‰ƒ–‡‹–ǡƒ‹‰–Š‹•ƒ‹’‘”-
–ƒ– ƒ––‡”Ǥ  •‹’Ž‡ †‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘ ‹‰Š– „‡ Ǯ’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–› ‹• •‘‡–Š‹‰ ™Š‹…Š ƒ‡•
everyone either similar or different to others’. But this could equally be said of other
traits such as intelligence and doesn’t explain enough to make it satisfactory.

‘”†‘ŽŽ’‘”–†‡ϐ‹‡†’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹ͳͻ͵͹ƒ•Ǯ–Š‡†›ƒ‹…‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘™‹–Š‹
the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine a unique adjustment
–‘–Š‡‡˜‹”‘‡–ǯǤͳͻ͸ͳŠ‡ƒ‰ƒ‹†‡ϐ‹‡†‹–ǡ–Š‹•–‹‡ƒ•Ǯ–Š‡†›ƒ‹…‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 229 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 230 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

inside the person of psychophysical systems that determine the person’s character-
‹•–‹…’ƒ––‡”•‘ˆ„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒ†–Š‘—‰Š–ǯǤ‹•†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡–Š‡‘•–“—‘–‡†Ǥ
There has been a multitude of other attempts as well, and the most common refer-
‡…‡•ƒ”‡–‘ǣ

x a style or mode of behaviour;

x relatively stable or enduring characteristics enabling prediction;
x uniqueness;
x adaptation or adjustment to the environment;
x characteristic patterns of behaviour, thinking and feelings.

There has often been reference made to personality as arising from a combination
of relatively enduring dimensions of individual differences, which means that other
characteristics, such as intelligence and cognitive abilities, motives, values and atti-
tudes, also have to be considered (Carver & Scheier, 2000). The reason for this is
–Šƒ–•‘‡–Š‡‘”‹•–•Šƒ˜‡–”‹‡†–‘•–—†›‹–ˆ”‘ƒŠ‘Ž‹•–‹…’‘‹–‘ˆ˜‹‡™Ǥ‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›
thus becomes a unique combination of cognitive and affective characteristics which
make up a relatively consistent pattern of behaviour. However they choose to define
it, theorists will generally say that any significant behaviour should distinguish one
person from others and be consistent over situations and time. Most psychologists
™‘—Ž†’”‘„ƒ„Ž›•—„•…”‹„‡–‘–Š‡ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™‹‰ƒ•ƒ„”‘ƒ††‡ˆ‹‹–‹‘ǣ

The characteristic, stable patterns of behaviour and modes of thinking and feeling
that determine a person’s unique way of adjusting to the environment.

The only problem is that we might include within this definition some other aspects
which we want to assess. So how do we distinguish between personality and other
attributes, such as attitudes, values and motivation?

Making Important Distinctions

Attitudes
The study of personality aims to distinguish it from what we often call the ‘atti-
–—†‡•ǯ‘ˆƒ’‡”•‘ǤŠ‹•Žƒ––‡”–‡”‹•—•‡ˆ—Ž‘–™‘…‘—–•ǣˆ‹”•–Ž›ǡ™Š‡–”›‹‰
to explain someone’s past or present behaviour towards some other person or
object, and secondly, when predicting how the person will behave in the future
towards this same person or object. If we observe that an individual avoids cer-
tain others, frequently makes disparaging remarks about them, and visibly bris-
tles when one enters the room, then we will attribute to that individual a specific
kind of negative attitude. Therefore, an attitude is an attribution. All that we
observe is that someone behaves consistently towards a category of other people
or objects across a large number of situations. It is this consistency which leads
us to make the attribution. It is an invention of the observer in an attempt to make
sense of someone’s behaviour.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 230 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 231

‡Ž‘‘‡†ƒ–ƒ––‹–—†‡•‹Šƒ’–‡”ʹǤŽŽ’‘”–ǯ•†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘‘ˆƒƒ––‹–—†‡™ƒ•“—‘–‡†
–Š‡”‡ǣǮƒ––‹–—†‡‹•ƒ‡–ƒŽƒ†‡—”ƒŽ•–ƒ–‡‘ˆ”‡ƒ†‹‡••ǡ‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡†–Š”‘—‰Š‡š’‡-
”‹‡…‡ǡ‡š‡”–‹‰ƒ†‹”‡…–‹˜‡‘”†›ƒ‹…‹ϐŽ—‡…‡—’‘–Š‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽǯ•”‡•’‘•‡–‘
all objects and situations with which it is related’ (Allport, 1937, 1961). So it’s a
learned disposition to respond positively or negatively to any person, object, issue
or event. Some psychologists have viewed this in terms of a tendency to evaluate a
•–‹—Ž—•™‹–Šƒ†‡‰”‡‡‘ˆˆƒ˜‘—”‘”†‹•ˆƒ˜‘—”ǡƒ†–Š‹•–‡†‡…›ƒ›„‡”‡ϐŽ‡…–‡†‹
thoughts, feelings or behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). The common view is that
our attitudes provide a predisposition to behave in a particular way.

Interests
These are thought to be a subset of a person’s attitudes relating to the evaluation
of personal beliefs. If we have a particular belief and feel positive about it, then we
are more likely to want to do more or think more about that belief. Therefore we
will tend to show more interest in it.

Values
Values relate to the usefulness, importance or worth we attach to either activities
or objects and to how people should behave, and can be linked to our interests and
ƒ––‹–—†‡•Ǥ ‡ †‡ϐ‹‡ ˜ƒŽ—‡• ƒ• –Š‡ —Ž–‹ƒ–‡Ž› †‡•‹”ƒ„Ž‡ ‰‘ƒŽ• ‘” ‡† •–ƒ–‡•ǡ …ƒŽŽ‡†
–‡”‹ƒŽ˜ƒŽ—‡•ǡƒ„‘—–™Š‹…Š™‡Šƒ˜‡•–”‘‰ˆ‡‡Ž‹‰•ȋ‘…‡ǡͳͻ͹͸ȌǤšƒ’Ž‡•‹‰Š–
be ‘happiness’, ‘a healthy body’, ‘fame’, ‘security’, or ‘a loving family’. We are thought
to strive towards our values and to use them as a means of judging our actions and
those of others. It is generally also thought that our values are developed through-
out childhood.

Motivation
Motivation is a characteristic made up of our needs, interests and aspirations. This
focuses upon what drives us to do some things but not others (i.e. our driving force),
its direction and our persistence. A number of theories have been put forward to
explain this, including instincts, drive theories, arousal theories and hedonistic (i.e.
pleasure-seeking) theories (see Chapter 9 for more).

Beliefs
These are the expression, internal or external, of our feelings or thoughts about
something.

Ability
This refers to an underlying capacity to be able to do something or to behave in a
particular way.
On this basis, we can now distinguish between personality and other attributes of a
person. Attitudes, values and ability are more likely to have longer-term stability,

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 231 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 232 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

whilst interests, beliefs and motivation could be more transient. Motivation, oddly
enough, could be a state or a trait, given that some people are always highly motivated
whatever they are doing (and therefore, a trait), compared to other people who might
„‡‘–‹˜ƒ–‡†„›‘‡•’‡…‹ϐ‹…–›’‡‘ˆƒ…–‹˜‹–››‡–”‡ƒ‹…‘’Ž‡–‡Ž›—‘–‹˜ƒ–‡†„›
other activities (a state). Whenever you read a novel you may well be able to apply
these kinds of attributes to different characters.

SUMMARY
Despite the views of ‘situationalist’ psychologists, who see personality as being ever-
changing, researchers in psychometrics have taken a dispositional approach which
views it as being made up of relatively consistent trait-based internal characteristics.
We have discussed the difference between implicit and explicit theories of person-
ƒŽ‹–›ƒ†‡’Šƒ•‹œ‡†–Š‡‹’‘”–ƒ…‡‘ˆ‘—”‡’‹”‹…ƒŽƒ†•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ’’”‘ƒ…ŠǤƒ›
ƒ––‡’–•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡ƒ†‡–‘†‡ϐ‹‡‹–ǡ‘•–‘–ƒ„Ž›„›ŽŽ’‘”–ǡƒ†–Š‡‘•–…‘-
mon aspects refer to patterns of behaviour, thoughts and feelings. It has also been
distinguished from other attributes such as attitudes, values and motivation. As with
ability, personality seems to be founded upon a complex interaction between genetic
and environmental factors, as well as with race, ethnicity, culture, age and gender.

THEORIES OF PERSONALITY
There have been a number of contrasting approaches to understanding this elusive
concept. Not all theories embrace the same subject matter, viewing it instead in
widely disparate ways, and this has had a big impact on assessment measures.
‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹•ƒ…‘’Ž‡š…‘…‡’–ƒ†…ƒ„‡…‘…‡’–—ƒŽ‹œ‡†‹ƒ›™ƒ›•Ǥ–‹•‘–
ϐ‹š‡†ƒ†‹•‹ϐŽ—‡…‡†„›ˆƒ…–‘”•–Šƒ–ƒ”‡„‘–Š‹–‡”ƒŽƒ†‡š–‡”ƒŽ–‘ƒ›‹†‹-
vidual. Unsurprisingly, therefore, different ways of modelling and theorizing about
it have emerged. No single theory encompasses everything. Methods of investigation
have also varied widely, too.
Another important reason for the differences relates to how individuals or
schools of thought have been limited by knowledge and understanding at the time
of their thinking. Therefore, theories have their origins in different paradigms (i.e.
ƒŽ–‡”ƒ–‹˜‡ ƒ••—’–‹‘• ƒ† ’ƒ––‡”• ‘ˆ –Š‹‹‰ ”‡Ž‡˜ƒ– ƒ– ƒ •’‡…‹ϐ‹… Š‹•–‘”‹…ƒŽ
time). There is a common aim, however, to develop a model providing a systematic
account of the unique personality structure shared by people. Through this, theo-
rists hope to generate a way of understanding individuals and individual differences.
Some theories have a greater focus on assessment than others, for example psycho-
metric and type approaches have used questionnaires, while social and behavioural
ones tend to use rating scales.
•—•—ƒŽǡ‹–Š‡Ž’•–‘…Žƒ••‹ˆ›–Š‡‘”‹‡•„—–•‘‡‹••—‡•ƒ‡–Š‹•†‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž–Ǥ‡…‘—Ž†
…Žƒ••‹ˆ›–Š‡‹–‡”•‘ˆ™Š‡–Š‡”ƒ•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ’’”‘ƒ…ŠŠƒ•„‡‡—•‡†ǡ™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡›
make use of personality ‘types’ or not, or whether they link personality to biology

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 232 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 233

or other aspects of the body. Alternatively, we could distinguish between them on

the basis of how they see people, either as unique individuals or from an individual
†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•˜‹‡™’‘‹–ǤŠ‹•‡ƒ•–Šƒ–ǡ„‡ˆ‘”‡†‹•…—••‹‰–Š‡‘”‹‡•ǡ™‡‡‡†ϐ‹”•–Ž›
to clarify two issues.

Types, Traits and Competencies

It has always been natural for people to think about personality ‘types’ and to ste-
reotype others. Doing this makes it easier to cope with a complex social world
through labelling, like the ‘bookish’ or ‘bossy’ types we all know so well. The con-
…‡’–• ‘ˆ –Š‡ ǮŽ‡ƒ†‡”ǯ ƒ† Ǯ…Šƒ”‹•ƒǯ ƒŽ•‘ ”‡ϐŽ‡…– –›’‡ –Š‹‹‰Ǥ Š‡ •‹’Ž‡•– –›’‡
appears to have arisen in modern times, namely that which distinguishes ‘winners’
from ‘losers’. Types have sometimes been linked to body structure or physiological
functioning. Most non-psychologists are type rather than trait theorists because this
seems to be a natural and easy way to think about other people.
Types can be seen as categories or clusters of traits. McCrae and Costa (1990)
†‡ϐ‹‡†–Š‡ƒ•Ǯ†‹•–‹…–‰”‘—’•‘ˆ’‡‘’Ž‡…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹œ‡†„›ƒ—‹“—‡…‘ϐ‹‰—”ƒ–‹‘
of features’. They represent the oldest and simplest way of thinking about people,
and this has made them popular. In the nineteenth century the Italian Lombroso
characterized all criminals as having ‘enormous jaws, high cheek bones and prom-
inently arched eyebrows’. In the days before modern science, therefore, it was not
unusual to attempt to distinguish people, often on the basis of observable differ-
ences in personality or bodily appearance, and this potentially-discriminatory view
has persisted. However, these ‘typologies’ fail to recognize that human characteris-
tics are normally distributed in any population and that it isn’t really possible to
classify all of the world’s people using just a few categories.
In essence, they regard people as differing categorically from each other despite
–Š‡ˆƒ…––Šƒ––Š‡›ƒ›•–‹ŽŽ•Šƒ”‡•‘‡…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•ǣˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ–Š”‡‡‰”‘—’•‘ˆ
’‡‘’Ž‡ƒ›„‡†‹•–‹‰—‹•Š‡†„›Ǯ–ƒŽŽ‡••ǯ‹–Š‡ϐ‹”•–ǡ–Š‡•‡…‘†Šƒ˜‹‰ƒ’ƒ”–‹…—Žƒ”
skin colour and the third speaking a language unknown by the other groups, yet
everyone within all of these groups could still be studying psychology. The dangers
of this approach include the predisposition to ‘stereotype’ people. They also use
”‹‰‹†Žƒ„‡Ž•ǡ™Š‹…Š…ƒ„‡‹•Ž‡ƒ†‹‰ǡ„‡‹‰–‘‘‰‡‡”ƒŽƒƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š–‘ƒ‡ϐ‹‡
discriminations between people, and individual differences can result from a few
basic observable differences in mental or physical functioning. Type theories could
be grouped together, but can also be separated because of having their origins in
different ways of thinking. There has been a proliferation of various type question-
naires over the years, such as the Belbin Team Role Inventory and the Honey and
Mumford Learning Styles Test.
Overwhelmingly, trait questionnaires are viewed in terms of normative scales,
being based on norms. They compare people with other people and are said to be
norm-referenced (check back to Chapters 1 and 3). In contrast, type questionnaires
can often be constructed on the basis of data gathered from the general population
ƒ†›‡–„‡‹†‹‘‰”ƒ’Š‹…‹–Š‡‹”ϐ‹ƒŽˆ‘”ȋ–Š‡‡š–•‡…–‹‘‡š’Žƒ‹•–Š‹•ȌǤŠ‹•‡ƒ•ǡ

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 233 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 234 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

therefore, that the positions of individuals on each dimension are given relative to
their position on every other dimension rather than comparing the scores to norma-
tive data. In Chapter 3 we described this approach as being self-referenced and used
the label ‘ipsative’. The process of making questionnaires this way is often called
‘ipsativity’. As we concluded there, questionnaires having these characteristics are
best reserved for discussion activities rather than for selection decisions.
Traits also have their limitations. For one thing, as with the type approach, there
‹•ƒ‰”‡ƒ–—„‡”‘ˆ–Š‡Ǥƒ…‹ͳͻ͵͸ŽŽ’‘”–ƒ††„‡”–‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†ͳͺǡͲͲͲǤŠ‡
use of factor analysis and their separation into different forms have helped to reduce
this number considerably. They are more straightforward than types, and are capa-
ble of measurement. They form a normally distributed continuum on a scale, having
ƒ‡ƒ•…‘”‡ƒ––Š‡…‡–”‡ǤŠ‡ϐ‹”•–ƒ••‡••‡–‘ˆ‡š–”ƒ˜‡”•‹‘ˆ‘—†–Šƒ–‹–™ƒ•
distributed like this. In general, we identify traits by observing individuals behaving
consistently in response to a variety of environmental conditions. In some instances
traits are interpreted more narrowly as representing biological characteristics, as
™‡•ŠƒŽŽ•‡‡‹†‹•…—••‹‰†‹ˆˆ‡”‡––Š‡‘”‹‡•ǣ‹ƒ›–Š‡›•‹’Ž›‹†‹…ƒ–‡™‹–Š‹Ǧ
person consistencies of behaviour.
–Š‹•„ƒ•‹•ǡ–”ƒ‹–•…ƒ„‡†‡ϐ‹‡†ƒ•”‡Žƒ–‹˜‡Ž›‡†—”‹‰—†‡”Ž›‹‰…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”-
istics (Cattell, 1973). They are assumed to be generally stable over the lifespan,
especially after reaching adulthood. A trait is, therefore, any persistent characteris-
–‹…ǡ‡‘–‹‘ƒŽǡ…‘‰‹–‹˜‡‘”„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒŽǡ™Š‹…Š‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•–Š‡™ƒ›‹™Š‹…Š’‡”•‘-
ality is demonstrated. Being essentially abstractions, as they do not exist in the real
™‘”Ž†ǡ–Š‡›ƒ”‡‹†‡’‡†‡–‘ˆƒ›•’‡…‹ϐ‹…‹‡†‹ƒ–‡•–‹—Ž—•‡š–‡”ƒŽ–‘–Š‡’‡”-
son which elicits a response. Traits provide some stability and are non-situational
(i.e. the person has these characteristics in all situations although they may be
‘†‹ϐ‹‡†•‘‡–‹‡•„›Š‘™–Šƒ–’‡”•‘”‡•’‘†•–‘‡˜‡–•ȌǤ
”ƒ‹–•ƒŽ•‘”‡ˆ‡”–‘•‹‰Ž‡†‹‡•‹‘•ƒ†‡—’‘ˆ”‡Žƒ–‡†…‘’‘‡–•ǣˆ‘”‡šƒ-
ple neuroticism, isolated as a fundamental and unique trait, includes behaviours
and thoughts associated with guilt, low self-esteem, depression, phobia, anxiety and
psychosomatic illnesses. Other examples might be how outgoing, assertive or caring
‘ˆ‘–Š‡”•™‡ƒ”‡ǤŠ‡”‡ƒ”‡–Š‘—•ƒ†•‘ˆ™‘”†•™Š‹…Š‹‰Š–„‡–Š‘—‰Š––‘”‡ϐŽ‡…–
traits. (The term ‘trait’, by the way, is derived from the Latin word traho, meaning ‘I
†”ƒ™ǯ‹–Š‡•‡•‡‘ˆǮ’—ŽŽǯǤ–‹•’”‘‘—…‡†ƒ•‹–‹••’‡Ž–ǡ™‹–Š–Š‡ϐ‹ƒŽǮ–ǯ•’‘‡
rather than silent.)
So the key distinction between types and traits is that where the type approach
puts people into discrete categories, the trait viewpoint considers each character-
istic as a continuum and describes personality in terms of where the person is
placed on a number of continuous scales. On this basis, someone may be near the
centre of a scale of intelligence, towards the low end of a scale measuring anxiety,
towards the high end of a scale measuring dominance, and so on until an overall
picture is gained.
We should also consider the distinction between traits and competencies used
in organizations to evaluate job performance and individual development.
Competencies are the set of behaviour patterns which someone needs to bring to a

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 234 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 235

Person 1 Person 2

Type 1 Type 2

Person 1 Person 2
Trait
Scale

Figure 8.2 Types distinguish between people using categories, while traits
distinguish them using scores on scales

job or other situation in order to be able to undertake tasks or functions compe-

tently. These are often represented as a set of knowledge, skills, abilities or other
“—ƒŽ‹–‹‡•ǡ™‹–Šƒ’”‡†‘‹ƒ–ˆ‘…—•‘•‹ŽŽ••‡–•Ǥšƒ’Ž‡•‹…Ž—†‡…‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘
‘”‹–‡”’‡”•‘ƒŽ•‹ŽŽ•ǡ…—•–‘‡”ˆ‘…—•ǡϐŽ‡š‹„‹Ž‹–›ǡŽ‡ƒ†‡”•Š‹’ƒ†ϐ‹ƒ…‹ƒŽƒ™ƒ”‡-
ness. These are different from traits in that they are more skills based, are linked
with behaviour patterns, and are more related to performance in some situation.
Another important distinction between traits and states (e.g. moods or feelings)
was discussed earlier in Chapter 1.
The design and construction of trait-based questionnaires have a number of
implications and limitations. The approach is focused upon objectivity and the
empirical construction of scores on continuous scales, resulting in an overall trait
†‡•…”‹’–‹‘‘”’”‘ϐ‹Ž‡‘ˆƒ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽǤ‘–Š–Š‡‘˜‡”ƒŽŽƒ’’”‘ƒ…Šƒ†–Š‡†‡•…”‹’-
–‹‘•‰ƒ‹‡†Šƒ˜‡–Š‡„‡‡ϐ‹––Šƒ––Š‡›…ƒ„‡‡š’Žƒ‹‡†–‘‘Ǧ’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰‹•–•ǤŠ‡
questionnaires can be administered to individuals or to groups and useful descrip-
tions of typical behaviour can be derived. But the information gained is only descrip-
tive of the person and there is no explanation of that person’s development, how he
‘” •Š‡ ‰‘– –Šƒ– ™ƒ›Ǥ š’Žƒƒ–‹‘• ‘ˆ •—”ˆƒ…‡ „‡Šƒ˜‹‘—” ‘Ž› ƒ”‡ ‘ˆ–‡ ‰ƒ‹‡† ƒ†
this means that a one-to-one discussion is needed in order to test out any resulting
hypotheses. In the modern world there is a wide range of questionnaires available,
having good reliability and validity, though registration is required within many
countries to gain access to these.

Idiographic versus Nomothetic Approaches

Developing a theory about people will depend on what kind of a theory you want
and what you want it to achieve. You might take a holistic view, believing in unique
individuals and that to understand personality you need to evaluate as much of their

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 235 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 236 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

mental processes as possible (Magnusson & Torestad, 1993). You might think the
differences between people outweigh the similarities. On this basis, data collection
will involve qualitative methods such as interviews and observations. Assessments
might include the Rorschach Ink-Blot or the Repertory Grid technique. This approach
ˆ‘…—•‡•‘–Š‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽƒ†”‡•—Ž–•‹ƒ’‘–‡–‹ƒŽŽ›‹ϐ‹‹–‡—„‡”‘ˆ†‡•…”‹’–‹‘•Ǥ
It is referred to as an idiographic approach, derived from the ancient Greek word
idios, meaning ‘private’ or ‘personal’. Researchers who use it prefer to investigate
people on an individual basis only, for example in a therapeutic environment. Freud
used it to create his theory. The idiographic paradigm is therefore based on an
assumption that people have unique characteristics and cannot be described in
identical terms. Although it provides a richer understanding of individuals, it is dif-
ϐ‹…—Ž––‘‰‡‡”ƒŽ‹œ‡ϐ‹†‹‰•–‘‘–Š‡”•Ǥ
An alternative method would be to identify some attribute which you think is an
important aspect of personality and measure this within a large group, possibly
using standardized questionnaires. By doing so you can identify individual differ-
ences in the extent of a particular trait or set of traits. The focus this time is on
similarities, with the view that each person can be represented in terms of different
degrees of the same thing. This is called the nomothetic approach, the term being
derived again from an ancient Greek word for ‘law’. It assumes the existence of a
ϐ‹‹–‡ —„‡” ‘ˆ ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡• ™Š‹…Š ƒ……‘—– ˆ‘” †‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡• ƒ† –Šƒ– –Š‡•‡ …ƒ „‡
described, explained and predicted. Trait-based theories do this, and the psycho-
‡–”‹…ƒ’’”‘ƒ…ŠŽ‹•–”ƒ‹–•ƒ†‡ƒ•—”‡‡–ȋ•‡‡ƒ„Ž‡ͺǤͳȌǤŠ‡„‡‡ϐ‹–‹•–Šƒ–
they enable predictions to be made of behaviour.
Despite this distinction, psychologists using the nomothetic approach have argued
that they do still accept and can work with uniqueness (Carver & Scheier, 2000). The
uniqueness comes from a person’s particular combination of personality variables,
the degrees to which they exhibit them, and their interactions. Combinations and

Table 8.1 Comparing idiographic and nomothetic approaches

Idiographic Nomothetic

Approach Sees individuals as unique Sees common themes in the ways

people behave
Aim To understand each person To identify traits which best describe
all personality
Research approach Qualitative Quantitative
Data collection Interviews, diaries, clinical/ Scores on self-report questionnaire
therapeutic data scales
Advantages Deeper understanding of Comparison between individuals and
the person ability to make predictions
Disadvantages Problems in trying to make Purely descriptive profiles which are
generalizations more superficial

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 236 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 237

interactions make each one unique. Those working within the idiographic paradigm
ƒŽ•‘‘ˆ–‡‡˜ƒŽ—ƒ–‡…ƒ•‡•–—†‹‡•–‘ϐ‹†…‘‘–Š‡‡•ǡ…”‡ƒ–‡–Š‡‘”‹‡•ǡƒ†ƒ‡
predictions. So the differences may not be so clear-cut.
We can now review the principal theories of personality and its assessment. The
literature abounds with different taxonomies and labels, so I have opted to use the
term ‘paradigm’ as this enables us to group together theories which relate to similar
patterns of thinking. Some theories will not be accommodated easily into just one
paradigm and may be placed in others as well. We will consider assessment issues,
especially reliability and validity.

The Physiological Paradigm

Approaches to personality here view it as being associated with the physiological
characteristics of people. They range from simple descriptions of behaviour through
to suggestions that characteristics are the result of different kinds of physiology.
Theories which link personality to the wider aspects of biological functioning are
more complex and so don’t belong to this category. At this point we will meet clas-
sical and constitutional theories which take a type approach.

Classical typology
A classical typology comes from our old friends, the Greeks, who theorized about
–›’‡• ƒ† ǮŠ—‘—”•ǯǤ Š‡ ’Š›•‹…‹ƒ ‹’’‘…”ƒ–‡• ƒ†‡ ™Šƒ– ‹• ’”‘„ƒ„Ž› –Š‡ ϐ‹”•–
attempt at a formal theory to account for differences between people around 400
ǡƒ†Š‹•‹†‡ƒ•™‡”‡’‘’—Žƒ”‹œ‡†„›
ƒŽ‡‹–Š‡•‡…‘†…‡–—”›Ǥ‹’’‘…”ƒ–‡•
suggested that temperament was determined by relative amounts of certain bodily
ϐŽ—‹†•ǡ ”‡•—Ž–‹‰ ‹ ˆ‘—” ‹†• ‘ˆ –‡’‡”ƒ‡–Ǥ ‡ †‹•–‹‰—‹•Š‡† „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡
†‡’‡†‹‰‘™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡’”‡†‘‹ƒ–ϐŽ—‹†™ƒ•„Ž‘‘†ǡ„Žƒ…„‹Ž‡ǡ›‡ŽŽ‘™„‹Ž‡‘”
phlegm and mucous, as indicated in Table 8.2. The terms he gave to these types
(sanguine, melancholic, choleric and phlegmatic) are still widely used today and

Table 8.2 The four temperaments of Hippocrates

Type label
Predominant body fluid characteristics Temperament

Blood Sanguine Optimistic, cheerful,

easy-going
Black Bile Melancholic Depressive, gloomy,
slow to respond, sad
Yellow Bile Choleric Quick to anger,
vehement, irascible
Phlegm and Mucous Phlegmatic Apathetic, listless,
reticent

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 237 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 238 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

‹ϐŽ—‡…‡† –Š‡ ™‘” ‘ˆ ›•‡…Ǥ – ™ƒ•ǯ– …‘•‹†‡”‡† ’‘••‹„Ž‡ ˆ‘” –Š‡•‡ –›’‡• –‘
combine in any way and they were thought to be inherited. They have been linked
with the effects of endocrine activity on temperament.
The problem with this approach is that it assumes people have to slot into one
of the categories rather than being made up of mixtures or combinations. It’s per-
fectly possible in real life for many people to demonstrate something of more than
one, possibly of three types, for example someone who is depressed, apathetic and
easy to anger. This is often a problem where people are ‘dropped’ into boxes.

Constitutional typology
In the twentieth century other theorists sought to link personality with individual
physique, an approach described as presenting a constitutional typology. Kretschmer
(1925) began by stating, incorrectly as it happened, that schizophrenia could be
associated with tall thin people, while short fat people were more prone to manic-
depressive psychoses. An alternative was devised by W. H. Sheldon in the 1940s. He
…Žƒ••‹ϐ‹‡†„‘†›„—‹Ž†‹–‘–Š”‡‡•‘ƒ–‘–›’‡•ǡ‡ƒ…Š”‡ˆ‡””‹‰–‘ƒ’Š›•‹“—‡™Š‹…Š‹•
expressed in relation to extreme types. His somatotypes were based on ‘endomor-
phy’, ‘mesomorphy’ and ‘ectomorphy’ components after he had studied thousands
‘ˆ’Š‘–‘‰”ƒ’Š•‘ˆƒŽ‡„‘†‹‡•ȋŠ‡Ž†‘ǡͳͻ͹ͲȌǤ†‘‘”’Š›”‡Žƒ–‡†–‘–Š‡†‹‰‡•–‹˜‡
system and level of fatness observed, mesomorphy to the muscles and amount of
musculature, and ectomorphy to the nervous system and brain and thus the body’s
leanness or fragility. These resulted in three somatotypes known as endomorphs,
mesomorphs and ectomorphs, whose differing types of physique are described in
Table 8.3. Sheldon used correlational studies to show that each type could be asso-
ciated with temperament. Accumulating data on 45,000 participants, he also con-
structed tables of male body types using a grading scale to match individuals against
the extremes.
Sheldon’s work gave rise to debate and other studies of the relationship between
personality and biology. He reported strong statistical relationships between body
structure and personality, although he did not take account of measurement error.

Table 8.3 Sheldon’s somatotypes

Physique label Physique description Personality characteristics

ECTOMORPH Skinny, fragile High physiological arousal,

social restraint, need for
solitude
MESOMORPH Athletic, trim Energetic, forceful, tough-
minded
ENDOMORPH Flabby, plum Sociable, relaxed, high need for
affection, love of comfort

Source: Sheldon, W. (1970) Atlas of Men. New York: Macmillan.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 238 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 239

‡ ™ƒ• …‘˜‹…‡† •…‹‡–‹ϐ‹… •–—†‹‡• ™‘—Ž† ‡˜‡–—ƒŽŽ› •—’’‘”– Š‹• Š›’‘–Š‡•‡•ǡ

although this has not since been the case. However, he was an early pioneer in apply-
ing the concepts of psychometrics, for example in conducting surveys, using ques-
tionnaires and in trying to conduct correlational analyses. Thus he seems to have
taken a partly empirical and rational approach to understanding personality.

The Psychodynamic Paradigm

•›…Š‘†›ƒ‹… –Š‡‘”‹‡• ƒ”‡ …‘…‡”‡† ™‹–Š †›ƒ‹… ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹‘• „‡–™‡‡ …‘-
scious and unconscious psychological drives. They originated with Sigmund Freud
(1856–1939), whose theory of psychoanalysis was both a form of therapy and a
system of psychology. Freud began his pioneering work in the nineteenth century
as a medical doctor dealing with psychiatric problems and became interested in the
role of the unconscious as a driving force. Based on his observations, Freud saw
’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›ƒ•„‡‹‰Ž‹‡ƒ‹…‡„‡”‰ǣŽ‹––Ž‡‡š‹•–•‹–Š‡…‘•…‹‘—•‹†ǡ™Š‹Ž‡‘•–
lies submerged in the unconscious. To understand any individual we need to under-
stand the structure and content of the unconscious mind (Freud, 1940/1969).
‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›™ƒ•ƒ†‡—’‘ˆ–Š”‡‡’ƒ”–•ǣ–Š‡Ǯ‹†ǡǯǮ‡‰‘ǯƒ†Ǯ•—’‡”‡‰‘ǯǤŠ‡‹†…‘-
tained the primitive, raw, inherited passions and desires of the personality and pro-
vided energy to drive the organism. Freud (1901/1965; 1923/1960) considered
sexual and aggressive impulses to be the most powerful forces. The id seeks imme-
†‹ƒ–‡‰”ƒ–‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ‹–•’”‹‹–‹˜‡†”‹˜‡•ǤŠ‡‡‰‘”‡’”‡•‡–•–Š‡‡š‡…—–‹˜‡…‘’‘-
nent which attempts to channel the id’s drives into realistic processes. While the id
is irrational and impractical, the ego is rational and practical. The superego adds a
moral component. It can be considered as the conscience and seeks to counter the
impulses of the id and to persuade the ego to consider moral and other rules in
†‡…‹†‹‰Š‘™–‘•ƒ–‹•ˆ›‹’—Ž•‡•Ǥ‘ϐŽ‹…–•„‡–™‡‡–Š‡•‡•›•–‡•Ž‡ƒ†–‘ƒš‹‡–›Ǥ
The ego copes by using defence mechanisms to distort reality so that people change
the way they think about the anxiety. These mechanisms include denial, rationaliza-
–‹‘ǡ ”‡’”‡••‹‘ ƒ† ’”‘Œ‡…–‹‘Ǥ ‡‘’Ž‡ †‹ˆˆ‡” ‹ –Š‡ „ƒŽƒ…‡ „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ …‘’‘-
nents and also in the mechanisms they use. Freud also believed that personality
develops through a series of psychosexual stages.
Rather than being a single theory, like psychoanalysis, psychodynamics repre-
sents a group of associated theories which were developed from Freud’s work by
†‹ˆˆ‡”‡– –Š‹‡”•ǡ ‹…Ž—†‹‰ †Ž‡”ǡ —‰ǡ ƒ…ƒǡ ‘”‡›ǡ ”‘ǡ ”‹•‘ ƒ†
McDougall. The term ‘neo-Freudian’ is sometimes used to refer to these. In some
instances they have adapted or rejected parts of Freud’s ideas, although the under-
lying assumptions of psychoanalysis remain. The major contribution of psychody-
namics lies in its recognition that behaviour is motivated by unconscious needs and
…‘ϐŽ‹…–•Ǥ
Freud did seek to consider the complexity of human behaviour and his model
Šƒ•„‡‡–Š‘—‰Š––‘’‘••‡••ˆƒ…‡˜ƒŽ‹†‹–›‹–‡”•‘ˆ–Š‡…‘ϐŽ‹…–‘ˆ–‡‡š’‡”‹‡…‡†
in making choices and the anxiety involved. Defence mechanisms also appear to
provide good explanations of some common behaviours. The psychodynamic

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 239 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 240 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š ‹• •–‹ŽŽ ‹ϐŽ—‡–‹ƒŽ ‹ ƒ› ™ƒ›• ƒ† Šƒ• ƒ†‡ ƒ ƒŒ‘” …‘–”‹„—–‹‘ –‘
Ž‹–‡”ƒ”›–Š‡‘”›‹–Š‡–™‡–‹‡–Š…‡–—”›ǤŽ–Š‘—‰Š’•›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›•‹•’Žƒ›‡†ƒ•‹‰‹ϐ‹-
cant role in the development of more humane treatment of mental patients, there
has been much debate about its therapeutic value. From an assessment point of
˜‹‡™ǡ ’•›…Š‘†›ƒ‹… –Š‡‘”‹‡• Žƒ… •…‹‡–‹ϐ‹… ”‹‰‘—” ƒ† ‡–Š‘†•Ǥ – ‹• †‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž– –‘
design objective experiments to test Freud’s hypotheses, which were based on his
interpretations through observations of individuals. His theory is also not conducive
to prediction because different behaviours could be indicators of the same underly-
ing impulse. His views focused much upon the role of the unconscious and his own
rational views of others, though less upon the importance of individual learning or
–Š‡‹ϐŽ—‡…‡‘ˆ‰‡‡–‹…‘”‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽŽ‡ƒ”‹‰Ǥ•›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›–‹…’”ƒ…–‹…‡„‡‰ƒ
™‹–Š ˆ”‡‡ ƒ••‘…‹ƒ–‹‘ ƒ† †”‡ƒ ‹–‡”’”‡–ƒ–‹‘ǡ ‘˜‹‰ ‘ Žƒ–‡” –‘ ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡ –Š‡
development of projective assessments. (Chapter 9 includes a more detailed discus-
sion of these.)

Jungian type theory

Initially Carl Jung worked with Freud, although they later disagreed and Jung devel-
oped his own system of thinking which was related to psychoanalysis. His ‘analyti-
…ƒŽ’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰›ǯ™ƒ•‹ϐŽ—‡…‡†„›ƒ…‘„‹ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ’Š‹Ž‘•‘’Š›ƒ†›–Š‘Ž‘‰›Ǥ‹‡
Freud, Jung saw personality or ‘psyche’ as being made up of interacting components
such as the ego. This, he said, was the conscious part of the mind which faced con-
ϐŽ‹…–ˆ”‘„‘–Šƒ’‡”•‘ƒŽƒ†ƒǮ…‘ŽŽ‡…–‹˜‡—…‘•…‹‘—•ǯǡ‹…Ž—†‹‰”‡’”‡••‡†‹†‹-
vidual and collective human experiences. The collective form contained aspects of
experience which had been passed down through generations and were shared by
all humans, enabling him to account for behavioural similarities. An outline of Jung’s
work is provided by Bennett (1983).
Jung’s conception of personality was based upon the view that individual differ-
‡…‡•™‡”‡–Š‡”‡•—Ž–‘ˆƒˆ‡™„ƒ•‹…‘„•‡”˜ƒ„Ž‡†‹•’ƒ”‹–‹‡•‹ˆ—…–‹‘‹‰ǤŠ‡ϐ‹”•–
involved his distinction between extraversion and introversion, with people having
ƒ’”‡ˆ‡”‡…‡ˆ‘”„‡‹‰‡‹–Š‡”‡š–”ƒ˜‡”–ȋȌ‘”‹–”‘˜‡”–ȋȌǤ‡˜‹‡™‡†–Š‡–™‘‘”‹-
entations or ‘attitudes’ as being distinct categories. The extravert is interested in
the outer world and seeks external stimulation, whilst the introvert is oriented
towards the inner world, needing internal stimulation. Further categorizations were
made according to four fundamental functions by means of which a person sees the
world and makes choices. These were.

Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)

‘‡•ƒ’‡”•‘’‡”…‡‹˜‡„›‡ƒ•‘ˆ–Š‡ϐ‹˜‡•‡•‡•—•‹‰‡’‹”‹…ƒŽ‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘ǡ‘”
go beyond what is present to focus upon associations between what is perceived
and make use of inner judgement? Sensing concerns realistic representations of the
world, whilst intuition is an unconscious process focused on the basic essence of
reality. Note that intuition is represented by the letter N because I had already been
used to represent introversion.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 240 20-Feb-14 5:41:15 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 241

Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)

Are a person’s decisions made objectively or subjectively? The Thinking function
tends to be more intellectual and bases perceptions on objective facts and logic,
while Feeling centres evaluations in the emotions, having an emphasis on attitudes,
beliefs and values.
Jung combined these differing orientations by considering that people would
Šƒ˜‡’”‡ˆ‡”‡…‡•„‡–™‡‡ƒ†ǡƒ†ǡƒ†ƒ† ǤŠ‡’”‡ˆ‡””‡†’‘Ž‡‹‡ƒ…Š
case would make up one personality attribute and these would then be combined.
‡‘ˆ–Š‡’”‡ˆ‡””‡†ˆ—…–‹‘•ǡ–Šƒ–—•‡†‹–Š‡’”‡ˆ‡””‡†ƒ––‹–—†‡ȋ‘”Ȍǡ‹•”‡ˆ‡””‡†
to as the dominant function and the other is the auxiliary function. For the introvert
the dominant is used in the inner world and the auxiliary in the outer world; for the
extravert the dominant is in the outer world and the auxiliary in the inner. The
theory was developed further by Isabel Myers and Katherine Briggs, who added
another dimension to help identify dominant and auxiliary functions.

Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)

‘‡•ƒ’‡”•‘„‡…‘‡ϐ‹š‡†™Š‡ƒ†‡…‹•‹‘‹•ƒ†‡‘””‡ƒ‹‘’‡–‘‘”‡‹ˆ‘”-
mation? Is there a preference for an organized lifestyle or for spontaneity and
improvisation? If Judging is chosen, either Thinking or Feeling is used mostly in the
‘—–‡”™‘”Ž†Ǥˆ‡”…‡‹˜‹‰‹•…Š‘•‡ǡ‡‹–Š‡”‡•‹‰‘”–—‹–‹‘‹•—•‡†‘•–Ž›‹–Š‡
outer world. The dominant function will vary for extraverts and introverts.
Myers and Briggs constructed a questionnaire known as the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator (MBTI). Individuals who complete the questionnaire are assigned to one
•‹†‡‘ˆ‡ƒ…Š†‹‡•‹‘ƒ†ƒ”‡ƒŽŽ‘––‡†ƒˆ‘—”ǦŽ‡––‡”–›’‡…‘†‡ǡˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ƒ†
INFJ, out of 16 possible types. They acknowledged that it was possible for a person
to be balanced in the middle of any dimension. The instrument has been extensively
used worldwide, having a strong following (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). Some modern
versions have been constructed, the most notable being the Jung Type Indicator, which
was constructed using modern test theory, and the Type Dynamics Indicator, which
can also compare how people see themselves and how they would prefer to be.
Opinions on the MBTI are divided. Supporters say Jung’s types have been opera-
tionalized successfully and that this is useful in selection and development assess-
ments (DeVito, 1985). But its origin lies in psychoanalysis and it is, therefore,
•’‡…—Žƒ–‹˜‡ȋŽ‹‡ǡʹͲͲͲȌǤ‹‡ ”‡—†ǯ•™‘”‹–Žƒ…•ƒ•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ˆ‘—†ƒ–‹‘ǡƒ‹‰
any rigid application of the types insupportable. The 16 outcomes appear to repre-
•‡–Ǯ’—”‡ǯ–›’‡•ƒ†‹–‹•—Ž‹‡Ž›’‡‘’Ž‡™‹ŽŽ„‡’—”‡Ž›‘‡‘ˆ–Š‡•‡Ǥ‡‘’Ž‡…ƒ„‡
‡š–”ƒ˜‡”–‡†‹•‘‡•‹–—ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†‹–”‘˜‡”–‡†ƒ–‘–Š‡”•ǣ–Š‡›ƒ›„‡…ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡‘ˆ„‘–Š
objective and subjective thought. On these grounds, the approach could be too gen-
eral to make sensitive discriminations and appears to take a more rational theory-
„ƒ•‡†ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š–‘’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ–†‘‡•ǯ–…‘•‹†‡”‰‡‡–‹…Ǧ‡˜‹”‘‡–ƒŽ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•
upon the person or the importance of learning.
Another issue is that the MBTI doesn’t include any assessment of test-takers’
attitudes, so conclusions can be distorted. Any true typology is expected to be

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 241 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 242 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

bimodal (i.e. having two score distributions centred upon the extremes; see
Chapter 4) although this is not the case with the MBTI. The picture is even more
†‹ˆˆ‹…—Ž–”‡‰ƒ”†‹‰˜ƒŽ‹†‹–›ȋ–”‹…‡”Ƭ‘••ǡͳͻ͸ͶǢƒ”Ž›ǡͳͻ͹͹ȌǤ˜‹†‡…‡ˆ‘”–Š‹•
is based upon correlational studies (see Chapter 6) yet the MBTI is partially ipsa-
tive, and therefore these are difficult to do. So there is inadequate evidence for its
validity. Its use is best confined to discussion activities such as development, team,
coaching or counselling activities (Kline, 2000).

The Cognitive-Behavioural Paradigm

‘…‹ƒŽŽ‡ƒ”‹‰–Š‡‘”›‰”‡™‘—–‘ˆ…Žƒ••‹…ƒŽŽ‡ƒ”‹‰–Š‡‘”‹‡•ǡŽ‹‡–Š‘•‡‘ˆƒ˜Ž‘˜
(1906, 1927, 1928) and Watson and Skinner, which disagreed fundamentally with
’•›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›•‹•ƒ††‡ƒ†‡†”‹‰‘”‘—••…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…‡–Š‘†•ǤŠ‡•‡„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”‹•–•Žƒ‹†
–Š‡ˆ‘—†ƒ–‹‘•ˆ‘”ƒ‘”‡•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Šƒ†‰ƒ˜‡”‹•‡–‘–Š‡™‘”‘ˆ‘ŽŽƒ”†
and Miller (1941, 1950), who saw the value of thinking in terms of ‘cognitive pro-
cessing’. They also stressed the importance of observational learning because the
performance of role models could be observed and imitated by others. From this
basis social learning theorists see personality in behavioural terms, suggesting that
‘—”„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”†‡ϐ‹‡•‘—”’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–‹‡•Ǥ
‹ŽŽ‡” ƒ† ‘ŽŽƒ”† ”‡†‡ϐ‹‡† ’•›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›–‹… …‘…‡’–• ‹ –‡”• ‘ˆ •–‹—Ž—•Ǧ
response relationships which result in learning to behave in certain ways. Therefore,
’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹••Šƒ’‡†–Š”‘—‰Š–Š‡†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–‘ˆŠƒ„‹–•ƒ†–Š‡‹ϐŽ—‡…‡‘ˆ”‡™ƒ”†•
ƒ† ’—‹•Š‡–Ǥ ƒ”Ž› ˜‹‡™• ˆ‘…—•‡† ‘ ‘„•‡”˜ƒ„Ž‡ „‡Šƒ˜‹‘—” ƒ† •ƒ™ Ž‡ƒ”‹‰
ƒŽ‘•–ƒ•ƒ”‡ϐŽ‡šƒ…–‹‘Ǥƒ–‡”’‡”•’‡…–‹˜‡•ǡˆ”‘‘––‡”ǡƒ†—”ƒƒ†‹•…Š‡Žǡ‹…‘”-
porated cognitive and social factors. In their view behaviour patterns are still seen
in relation to external conditions, but greater emphasis is given to internal variables.
Importance was also given to the interpretation of any situation by individuals,
‹…Ž—†‹‰ ‹–‡ŽŽ‡…–—ƒŽ –Š‹‹‰ •–›Ž‡ ƒ† •‘…‹‘…—Ž–—”ƒŽ ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•Ǥ ƒ†—”ƒ ȋͳͻ͹͹ǡ
1995, 1999, 2002) demonstrated the use of self-reinforcement, while Rotter referred
to the expectancies applied in situations as locus of control (1966, 1982). At the
Internal end of this dimension are people who view behaviour and events as being
—†‡” ’‡”•‘ƒŽ …‘–”‘ŽǤ – –Š‡ ‘–Š‡” ‡š–”‡‡ ƒ”‡ š–‡”ƒŽ• ™Š‘ ’‡”…‡‹˜‡ –Š‡‹”
„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”–‘„‡‹ϐŽ—‡…‡†„›‡˜‡–•‘—–‘ˆ–Š‡‹”…‘–”‘Žƒ†•—„Œ‡…––‘Ž—…ǡ‘”‡
powerful others, and fate. Rotter’s measure of this dimension is still used in research,
clinical and occupational work.
Social learning has not had much impact in terms of the wider assessment of
personality. Its focus has been more upon assessments involving individuals and
situational variables, making use of observations, diaries and interviews. But it has
had an impact in encouraging improvements in assessment and the measurement
of locus of control has been popular. There is evidence of an empirical approach and
an emphasis on the importance of learning and the more objective views of others
in understanding behaviour and underlying personality traits. Modern cognitive
’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰›ǡ ™Š‹…Š –”‹‡• –‘ •…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒŽŽ› ‹˜‡•–‹‰ƒ–‡ ‹‡” ‡–ƒŽ …‘•–”—…–•ǡ ƒ›
also be an outcome.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 242 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 243

The Behaviour-Analytic Approach

The methodology of the behaviour-analytic approach, sometimes referred to as
behaviour analytics, appears to have some of its origins in social learning, though
it also has some links with the trait approach in that it seeks to adopt the measure-
ment of traits through observations. It is based on the fact that psychological con-
•–”—…–• ƒ”‡ ‘– †‹”‡…–Ž› ‘„•‡”˜ƒ„Ž‡ ‡˜‡ ™Š‡ –Š‡› ’Žƒ› ƒ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ– ’ƒ”– ‹
explaining observed behaviour. Thus, whilst we don’t directly observe personality
itself, we do recognize its impact on behaviour. We observe the behaviour of others
and as a result make inferences that individuals demonstrate certain characteristics
or types. In order to establish this and that it is not based upon chance observations,
we need to show it meets certain criteria, for example that it can be reliably meas-
ured (see the discussion of inter-rater reliability in Chapter 5), is relatively stable
over time, and has validity as a psychological construct. Therefore, the approach is
„ƒ•‡†—’‘‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†–Š‡…Žƒ••‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒŽ…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•Ǥ
In the rating scale method, another person evaluates an individual’s traits either
from what is already known or from direct observation. For the rating to be mean-
ingful the rater must have a clear understanding of the scale. The techniques can
ƒŽ•‘„‡‹’”‘˜‡†„›–Š‡–”ƒ‹‹‰‘ˆ”ƒ–‡”•ƒ†„›…Ž‡ƒ”†‡ϐ‹‹–‹‘•‘ˆ™Šƒ–‡ƒ…Š’‘‹–
on the scale would mean in terms of behaviour. This is known as behavioural anchor-
‹‰Ǥ›”ƒ–‡”—•–„‡•—ˆϐ‹…‹‡–Ž›‘™Ž‡†‰‡ƒ„Ž‡ƒ„‘—––Š‡–ƒ”‰‡–’‡”•‘‘”Šƒ˜‡
•—ˆϐ‹…‹‡–‘’’‘”–—‹–›–‘‘„•‡”˜‡•‘–Šƒ–‡ƒ‹‰ˆ—ŽŒ—†‰‡‡–•…ƒ„‡ƒ†‡Ǥ–‹•
ƒŽ•‘ ‡…‡••ƒ”› –Šƒ– ”ƒ–‡”• ƒ”‡ ‘– ‹ϐŽ—‡…‡† ‹ ƒ‹‰ Œ—†‰‡‡–• –Š”‘—‰Š ƒ›
favourable or unfavourable impression.
š–‡•‹˜‡ —•‡ Šƒ• „‡‡ ƒ†‡ ‘ˆ „‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒŽ ƒƒŽ›•‹• ‹ ƒ —„‡” ‘ˆ ƒ”‡ƒ• ‘ˆ
applied psychology. The rating scale method has been used, for example, in making
observations during assessment centres or other approaches to selection used by
‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘•ǤŽ•‡™Š‡”‡ǡ‹–Šƒ•‡ƒ„Ž‡†ƒ‰”‡ƒ–‡”—†‡”•–ƒ†‹‰‘ˆ…Š‹Ž†”‡™‹–Š
learning problems through analysis of playground and classroom behaviours and
‘ˆ ’‡‘’Ž‡ Šƒ˜‹‰ …‘—‹…ƒ–‹‘ †‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž–‹‡•Ǥ ‘‡ ™‡ŽŽǡ –Š‡ ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š ƒ’’‡ƒ”• –‘
Šƒ˜‡ƒ‡’‹”‹…ƒŽ˜‹‡™’‘‹–™Š‹…Š‹•ˆ‘…—•‡†—’‘–Š‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ•–ƒ„Ž‡–”ƒ‹–•
and the objective view of observers. One of the problems, however, is that an indi-
vidual under observation can ‘act out’ a particular attitude or behaviour purely for
the occasion. As with social learning theory, there is evidence of an emphasis upon
the importance of learning and the more objective views of others in understanding
behaviour and personality.

The Phenomenological Paradigm

The phenomenological approach originated among philosophers who concentrated
on direct personal and subjective experiences, and is linked to the twentieth cen-
–—”›ǯ•‡š‹•–‡–‹ƒŽ‹•–‘˜‡‡–Ǥ‡‘’Ž‡™‘”‹‰‹–Š‹•–”ƒ†‹–‹‘„‡Ž‹‡˜‡—‹“—‡‹†‹-
viduals can only be understood in terms of inner experiences and that psychology
should focus on them. Any separation of personality into its elements is thought to
do an injustice to it. They form a diverse group but are united by the view that

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 243 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 244 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

personality can only be understood in terms of immediate and unanalysed experi-

ences. Individuals are seen as responding to the world through perceptions which
create personal experiences and meanings. The core position of this approach is,
therefore, one of subjectivity.

The humanistic viewpoint

The most prominent contributors to the ‘humanistic’ school were Carl Rogers (1902–
1987) and Abraham Maslow (1908–1970). According to them, the element of the
‡˜‹”‘‡–™Š‹…ŠŠƒ•‡ƒ‹‰ˆ‘”ƒ‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ‹•–Š‡’Š‡‘‡ƒŽϐ‹‡Ž†ƒ†–Š‡
self is one element of this. The sum of all the attributions made about the self by a
person is the self-concept. In growing up people discover they are the objects of
conditional positive regard, which means they are accepted by others provided they
live up to certain standards of attitude and behaviour or ‘conditions of worth’. As
adults, therefore, they are unable to achieve a fully functioning capacity unless others
provide unconditional positive regard, which amounts to a warm and genuine accept-
ance of their worth. Free will and individual uniqueness are core aspects.
Rogers, who was a clinical psychologist, thought personality problems were a
result of patients experiencing a gap between what they were (their real selves) and
what they would ideally like to be (their ideal selves) and how they tried to cope
with this gap (1956, 1961, 1977). To evaluate these he thought patients’ subjective
experiences provided the most useful data. As a consequence of his theory he

Self-actualization

Esteem needs

Identity needs

Safety needs

Physiological needs

Figure 8.3 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Source: Maslow, A. H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 244 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 245

became the founder of person-centred therapy, which was designed to provide a

supportive environment for treatment. The aim was to help individuals create pos-
itive change while a therapist supported them.
Humanistic thinkers believe that, basically, people are generally well-intentioned
and have a need to develop their potential. They place emphasis upon the positive
…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•‘ˆ‰”‘™–Šǡ•‡ŽˆǦ‡š’”‡••‹‘ƒ†•‡ŽˆǦˆ—Žϐ‹Ž‡–Ǥƒ•Ž‘™ǡˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ
is well known for saying that everyone strives to reach a state of self-actualization,
which represents an idealistic harmony between the real and ideal selves (Maslow,
1954, 1968, 1969). Self-actualization was seen as a major force in the development
‘ˆ ’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›ǣ ‹– ™ƒ• ƒŽ•‘ –Š‡ ‡› –‘ ‡–ƒŽ Š‡ƒŽ–Šǡ ƒ† –Š—• ’‡‘’Ž‡ ™‹ŽŽ ’Žƒ› ƒ
active role in determining their own personalities.
‡„‡‡ϐ‹–‘ˆŠ—ƒ‹•‹•–Šƒ–‹–„”‘—‰Š––‘ƒ––‡–‹‘…”‘••Ǧ…—Ž–—”ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•
in assessment. However, although some people do still cling to Maslow’s hierarchy
of needs (including physiological and safety needs, the need for belonging and love,
ƒ†‡•–‡‡‡‡†•Ȍ–Š‹•Šƒ•‘–•–‘‘†—’–‘•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…˜ƒŽ‹†ƒ–‹‘Ǥ‹•™‘”ƒ†–Šƒ–
‘ˆ ‘‰‡”• ƒ”‡ Ž‹––‡”‡† ™‹–Š ‹ŽŽǦ†‡ϐ‹‡† …‘…‡’–• „ƒ•‡† ‘ Ž‹––Ž‡ ‡˜‹†‡…‡ǣ –Š‡› ƒ”‡
idiographic, lacking objective methods. Assessments tend to be focused on inter-
views and case studies. The emphasis appears to be upon a rational understanding
of a person, though often through that person’s self-related views, as well as a devel-
opmental view of personality.
Some techniques for evaluating feelings and attitudes have been developed,
including Stephenson’s Q-sort (1953), along with some self-concept scales and self-
esteem inventories. The Q-sort provides cards with statements on them, such as ‘I
worry about what people think of me’, which participants must sort into piles rang-
ing from the most relevant to the least relevant. This is repeated so that changes
…ƒ„‡‘‹–‘”‡†ƒ†•‘’”‘˜‹†‡•ƒ“—ƒ–‹ϐ‹ƒ„Ž‡‡ƒ•—”‡‘ˆƒ’‡”•‘ǯ•ˆ‡‡Ž‹‰•‘˜‡”
time (Rogers & Dymond, 1954; Block, 1961), although there are issues concerning
†‹•–‘”–‹‘ƒ†–Š‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘‘ˆ”‡ƒŽ•‘—”…‡•‘ˆ…Šƒ‰‡Ǥ‡ŽˆǦ‡•–‡‡‹˜‡–‘”‹‡•
tend to have poor validity.

Personal constructs and the Repertory Grid

Like social learning theorists, George Kelly (1905–1966) believed people could be
understood only in terms of personal experiences. Kelly (1955, 1958, 1963) thought
that internal models (which he called ‘constructs’) were formed by individuals
„‡…ƒ—•‡ –Š‡› „‡Šƒ˜‡† Ž‹‡ •…‹‡–‹•–•Ǥ ‡‘’Ž‡ ™ƒ–‡† –‘ —†‡”•–ƒ† ‡˜‡–• ƒ† –‘
make predictions about them, so they created internal construct systems by con-
tinually formulating hypotheses about the world and then testing these out. In this
way they would develop personal systems which determined behaviour and per-
•‘ƒŽ‹–›ǤŠ‘•‡•›•–‡•™Š‹…Š†‹†‘–’”‘’‡”Ž›”‡ϐŽ‡…––Š‡™‘”Ž†”‡•—Ž–‡†‹’•›…Š‘-
logical ill-health.
‡ŽŽ›ǯ• ‡”•‘ƒŽ ‘•–”—…– Š‡‘”› Šƒ• „‡‡ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ– ‹ –Š‡ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡– ‘ˆ
assessment techniques. The Role Construct Repertory Grid, known commonly as
the Rep Grid Test (although Kelly insisted it was not a test), was designed to elicit
and investigate constructs. It is based on an assumption that everyone interprets

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 245 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 246 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

events differently. The rep grid focuses upon ‘elements’ in the life of a person, which
could be the self, other people, objects and even events. An example of its use is as
ƒ…ƒ•‡•–—†›ǤŠ‡“—‡•–‹‘•–Š‡ƒ”‡–Š‡•‡ǣŠ‘™†‘‡•–Š‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ…‘•–”—‡•—…Š
elements and what are their relationships?
Š‡”‡’‡”–‘”›‰”‹†‹‰Š–„‡†‡ϐ‹‡†ƒ•Ǯƒ‡–Š‘†ˆ‘”‰ƒ–Š‡”‹‰–Š‡•‡ŽˆǦ”ƒ–‹‰•
of a person in relation to a set of statements’. A person may list or be presented with
a list of people, whose names are given in groups of three, and the individual is asked
to indicate how two of the three are similar and the third is different from the oth-
ers. For example, someone might say that two are generous whilst the third is mean.
ˆˆ‡…–‹˜‡Ž›ǡ–Š‡’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ––Š‡•‘”–•’‡‘’Ž‡‹–‘…ƒ–‡‰‘”‹‡•‘ˆ’‡”•‘ƒŽ”‡Ž‡˜ƒ…‡Ǥ
This is repeated for different groups of three people from the list, enabling the
constructs used to organize information to emerge.
In many instances constructs are represented by two terms or phrases which
have opposing meanings, such as decisive/indecisive or friendly/unfriendly.
ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–• ƒ”‡ ‡…‘—”ƒ‰‡† –‘ ’”‘˜‹†‡ †‹•–‹…– ’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽ ƒ––”‹„—–‹‘• ”ƒ–Š‡”
than physical or other descriptions. Gradually, a matrix can be built up through this
process, having the elements across the top and the constructs elicited listed down
–Š‡•‹†‡•ǡƒ••Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ͺǤͶǤˆ–‡”ƒ•—ˆϐ‹…‹‡–—„‡”Šƒ˜‡„‡‡”‡…‘”†‡†ȋ—•—-
ally about 12), the participant can be asked to rate each element on a scale, such as
ͳ –‘ ͷ ‘” ͳ –‘ ͹ǡ ‹ –‡”• ‘ˆ ‡ƒ…Š …‘•–”—…–Ǥ šƒ‹ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ƒ–”‹š ‹†‹…ƒ–‡•
which dimensions are important.
Although there is no standard method for scoring, a wide range of analyses is
possible, ranging from a simple evaluation of the similarities to factor analysis.
Analysis can focus on the number of constructs elicited, their nature, which attrib-
utes of others are most emphasized, and any differences between elements. High
correlations between two or more constructs may indicate an underlying core com-
ponent. It has been suggested, therefore, that the method can assess the cognitive
complexity of individuals (Bieri, 1955).
Kelly saw the therapist’s role as helping people to become more aware of faulty
…‘•–”—…–•ƒ†–Š‡‡‡†–‘…Šƒ‰‡–Š‡Ǥ–—†‹‡•™‡”‡•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹ϐ‹†‹‰†‹ˆˆ‡”-
ences between the personal construct systems of patients suffering from schizo-
phrenia and those experiencing depression, neuroses and mild organic disorders,
and with a healthy control sample. This technique has been adapted for other appli-
cations, for example, becoming an objective method for conducting job analysis in
organizations.
The method can provide a useful awareness of the ways in which people perceive
their world, how they organize attitudes and beliefs, how emotional responses are
‰‡‡”ƒ–‡†ƒ†–Š‡‹”‹ϐŽ—‡…‡•‘„‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒ†’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ–ˆ‘…—•‡•‘—‹“—‡-
ness whilst also viewing everyone within the same conceptual framework, and is
adaptable to situations. For these reasons it has been popular with therapists, coun-
sellors, psychologists and Human Resources professionals. A good introduction to
its use is provided by Fransella (2003).
Š‡ ‡’‡”–‘”›
”‹†ǯ• ƒ‹ ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡ Šƒ• „‡‡ –Š”‘—‰Š –Š‡ ‹†‡–‹ϐ‹…ƒ–‹‘ ‘ˆ ƒ
person’s constructs and perceptions. But the process of undertaking this however

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 246 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 247

Table 8.4 Kelly’s repertory grid

Sister Brother Friend Father Mother

Generous 3 1 3 4 2 Mean
Decisive 4 2 2 3 1 Indecisive
Friendly 5 1 5 4 3 Unfriendly
Intelligent 3 3 5 3 3 Dim
Gentle 1 5 2 1 5 Violent
Caring 4 1 3 3 5 Uncaring
etc. etc.

is complex, especially if factor analysis is used, demanding expertise and being time-
consuming. It tends also to focus too much on thought processes at the expense of
other aspects of personality and could be seen as mechanistic. Its effective use
depends on expertise in interpreting outcomes and no systematic interpretation is
provided, introducing some subjectivity. There may also be the problem of whether
participant and assessor have a mutual understanding of the constructs elicited.
The participant might seek to sabotage or distort the process by making inappropri-
ate or inadequate disclosures, and this can be controlled by establishing a good
”ƒ’’‘”–ǡ ‘ˆˆ‡”‹‰ …‘ϐ‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‹–› ƒ† ˆ‡‡†„ƒ…ǡ ƒ† …‘†‹ˆ›‹‰ ƒ† “—ƒ–‹ˆ›‹‰ –Š‡
constructs obtained. Any bias in the approach used might be controlled by support-
ing a good understanding and evaluation of the criteria involved.
Being idiographic in nature, the repertory grid cannot enable any standardiza-
tion process or identify individual differences. A new version needs to be con-
structed each time it is employed, meaning that the reliability and validity will have
to be re-checked. It seems to view personality as stable and based upon individuals’
”‡ϐŽ‡…–‹‘•ƒ„‘—––Š‡•‡Ž˜‡•Ǥ ‘”–Š‡•‡”‡ƒ•‘•ǡ–Š‡”‡’‰”‹†‹•‘–”‡ƒŽŽ›ƒ‘„Œ‡…-
–‹˜‡‡ƒ•—”‡‘ˆ’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›ǣˆ—†ƒ‡–ƒŽŽ›ǡ‹–‹••‹’Ž›ƒ•–”—…–—”‡†™ƒ›‘ˆ‘„–ƒ‹-
ing personal information.

Murray’s Theory of Needs

˜‡”›‘‡‘ˆ—•Šƒ•‡‡†•ƒ†–Š‡•‡ƒ”‡ƒ‹’‘”–ƒ–†”‹˜‹‰ˆ‘”…‡‹…‘•–”—…–‹‰
personalities, according to H.A. Murray (1938). The concept of needs has a long his-
tory and Murray was prominent among thinkers, suggesting that they arise in parts
of the brain. Older theories said that whenever a gap arises between a person’s state
and the equilibrium required for survival, the experience produced is felt as tension
and a need arises to overcome this. Feeling hungry, for example, creates a need for
food. Murray focused on psychological needs which would also reduce tension.
His theory sees personality as a result of the relative amounts of each need and
–Š‡™ƒ›•‹™Š‹…Š–Š‡›ƒ”‡‘”‰ƒ‹œ‡†Ǥ‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†ƒŽ‘‰Ž‹•–‘ˆ–Š‡ǡ‹–‘–ƒŽ‘”‡
than 30. Some have stood the test of time and are still researched, for example the

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 247 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 248 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

need for achievement, or ‘achievement motivation’ (McClelland, 1976; Koestner &

…Ž‡ŽŽƒ†ǡͳͻͻͲȌǤŠ‹•Šƒ•„‡‡†‡ϐ‹‡†ƒ•–Š‡‡‡†–‘ƒ……‘’Ž‹•Š•‘‡–Š‹‰•‹‰-
‹ϐ‹…ƒ–ƒ†•—”’ƒ••‘–Š‡”•Ǥ™‘‘–Š‡”‹–‡”‡•–‹‰‡‡†•ƒ”‡–Š‡‡‡†ˆ‘”ƒˆϐ‹Ž‹ƒ–‹‘ǡ
linked to trust, affection and empathy, and the need for power.
—””ƒ›†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†–Š‡ϐ‹”•–ƒ••‡••‡–‘ˆ‡‡†•ǡ–Š‡Š‡ƒ–‹…’’‡”…‡’–‹‘‡•–
(TAT), seeing it as a tool for understanding personality. A projective assessment (see
Chapter 9), it consists of a series of unstructured pictures which were designed to
„‡‘’‡–‘†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–‹–‡”’”‡–ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ‘‡‡šƒ’Ž‡•ƒ”‡ǣ

x A young boy looks at a violin on a table.

x A young woman stands with her face in her hands, her left arm against a door.
x A small girl climbs a winding staircase.
x Strange clouds overhang a snow-covered cabin.

Designed to be sufficiently ambiguous to elicit differing stories from people, the

pictures are used to encourage participants to create stories about their perceptions.
They may be asked to say what is happening, who the people are, what has hap-
pened before and what could be the outcome, although there has been much vari-
ation in the administration, scoring and interpretation of responses, as well as in
which subset of cards is administered. Responses are analysed using a strict scoring
system to identify recurring themes, as well as potential ‘projections’. The manual
provides a range of needs and emotions which can be identified. Many theories of
personality can be applied to interpret responses, especially the psychoanalytic
approach.
Originally the technique was popular and highly regarded. How the interpreta-
tion is conducted is of importance and different interpreters should be expected to
‘„–ƒ‹•‹‹Žƒ”…‘…Ž—•‹‘•ƒ„‘—–’ƒ”–‹…‹’ƒ–•ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥ–Š‡‹”ϐ‹†‹‰••Š‘—Ž†…‘””‡Žƒ–‡ǣ
this type of correlation was called inter-rater reliability in Chapter 5). Having a clear
guide for scoring suggests there is a satisfactory level for this form of reliability and
ƒϐ‹‰—”‡‘ˆͲǤͻŠƒ•„‡‡…Žƒ‹‡†Ǥ—––Š‡‹••—‡‘ˆ‘–Š‡”ˆ‘”•‘ˆ”‡Ž‹ƒ„‹Ž‹–›‹•‘”‡
complex and subject to debate. Murray emphasized the need for well-trained and
Ǯ‰‹ˆ–‡†ǯ–‡•–‡”•ǡƒŽ–Š‘—‰ŠŠ‘™–Š‡•‡ƒ”‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†‹•ƒ’”‘„Ž‡Ǥ•‡†™‡ŽŽǡ–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡ǡ
the TAT could provide good information about personality, but its pictures have
been described as old-fashioned, are not seen as relevant to applied settings, and
take a long time to score. The approach is purely idiographic, being adopted by
clinicians who place emphasis upon the depth of understanding they gain of indi-
viduals. From a psychometric view, there are problems relating to administration
and a lack of objectivity and standardization, meaning there can be no comparison
of individuals, and therefore use of the TAT has declined. There appears to be no
indication of whether the approach to personality is based upon a stable or devel-
opmental view of the self or the importance of learning. Study of the need for
achievement by McClelland has attracted more attention.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 248 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 249

The Biological Paradigm

Links between biology and psychology make sense. When you’re hungry or tired
–Š‡…Šƒ…‡•ƒ”‡–Šƒ–›‘—™‹ŽŽ„‡…‘‡„ƒ†Ǧ–‡’‡”‡†ǣ–Š‡„”ƒ‹‹•ƒ––Š‡…‡–”‡‘ˆƒŽŽ
this. Being enormously complex, it is connected throughout the body and can trans-
mit messages rapidly. It manages both our unconscious body systems, such as diges-
tion, and our conscious processes, including thinking which links to behaviour. If
you suffer brain damage there is a chance you may suffer changes in your personal-
‹–›ƒ•™‡ŽŽǤ‡—”‘’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰›‹•…‘…‡”‡†™‹–Š–Š‡•‡Ž‹•ƒ†•‡‡•–‘—•‡•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…
methods in understanding them. It’s not surprising, therefore, that attempts have
been made to develop biological models of personality.

Eysenck’s theory
Š‡‘•–™‡ŽŽǦ‘™‹•–Šƒ–‘ˆƒ•›•‡…ȋͳͻ͸͹ǡͳͻͻͲǡͳͻͻͶȌǡ™Š‘™ƒ•‘‡‘ˆ
–Š‡ϐ‹”•––‘†‡˜‹•‡ƒ„‹‘Ž‘‰‹…ƒŽ‘†‡ŽǤ……‘”†‹‰–‘›•‡…ǡ–Š‡„”ƒ‹…‘–ƒ‹•–™‘
•‡–•‘ˆ‡—”ƒŽ‘’‡”ƒ–‹‘•ǡ‘‡‡š…‹–ƒ–‘”›ƒ†–Š‡‘–Š‡”‹Š‹„‹–‘”›ǤŠ‡ϐ‹”•––”‹‡•–‘
keep us active and awake whilst the other is focused on inactivity, and we must try
to maintain a balance. Sitting at the base of the brain is the ascending reticular
activating system (ARAS) which controls the arousal level of the cortex above, effec-
tively acting as a kind of ‘dimmer switch’.
›•‡…ǯ•–Š‡‘”›•—‰‰‡•–•–Šƒ––Š‡•›•–‡•ˆ‘”‡š–”ƒ˜‡”–•ƒ†‹–”‘˜‡”–•™‘”ƒ–
different levels, with the introvert’s cortex being more aroused. Most people prefer
a moderate arousal level and any very high or low level is perceived as unpleasant.
Therefore, in situations where external stimulation is present introverts will expe-
rience greater arousal and try to escape from it. As a result they will need more
effort to adapt, whilst extraverts, having a need for more arousal, will be more com-
fortable. Because of their natural arousability levels, introverts try to avoid intense
stimuli while extraverts seek them out.
›•‡…ƒŽ•‘”‡ˆ‡””‡†–‘ƒ•‡…‘†„”ƒ‹’”‘…‡••‹˜‘Ž˜‹‰ƒ’ƒ”–‘™ƒ•–Š‡
limbic system which, he said, accounted for individual differences in neuroticism.
Š‹•‹•†‡ϐ‹‡†ƒ•„‡‹‰ƒ†‡—’‘ˆ–”ƒ‹–••—…Šƒ•ƒš‹‡–›ǡ™‘””›‹‰ƒ†‘‘†‹‡••ǡ
ƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š›•‡…˜‹‡™‡†‹–‹–‡”•‘ˆ‡‘–‹‘ƒŽ‹–›ȋŠ‹‰ŠŽ›‡—”‘–‹…’‡‘’Ž‡–‡†-
ing to experience more extreme emotional responses). This was associated with
the arousability of the limbic system which is connected in turn to the autonomic
‡”˜‘—• •›•–‡ ȋȌǣ ”‡‰—Žƒ–‹‰ ‹˜‘Ž—–ƒ”› ’”‘…‡••‡• •—…Š ƒ• –Š‡ ƒ…–‹˜‹–› ‘ˆ
muscles, heart rate and sweat glands. The ANS is also known as the peripheral
•›•–‡„‡…ƒ—•‡‹–ˆ—…–‹‘•‘•–Ž›‘—–•‹†‡‘ˆ–Š‡„”ƒ‹ƒ†•’‹ƒŽ…‘Ž—Ǥƒ”–‘ˆ
this, the sympathetic nervous system (SNS), appears to be over-active in anxious
’‡‘’Ž‡ǡ ™Š‹Ž•– –Š‡ ƒ••‘…‹ƒ–‡† ’ƒ”ƒ•›’ƒ–Š‡–‹… ‡”˜‘—• •›•–‡ ȋȌ ‘’’‘•‡• ‹–
and is calming, being stronger in more unemotional people. Neurotic individuals
possess a hyper-arousable limbic system and are more likely to experience emo-
–‹‘ƒŽ”‡ƒ…–‹‘•Ǥ›•‡…ƒŽ•‘•—‰‰‡•–‡†–Šƒ–‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•‹’•›…Š‘–‹…‹•
might be linked to a chemical messenger in the brain.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 249 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 250 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

Gray’s theory
 •‹‹Žƒ” ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š …ƒ‡ ˆ”‘ ‡ˆˆ”‡›
”ƒ›ǡ ™Š‘ •–—†‹‡† —†‡” ›•‡…Ǥ ‹•
reinforcement sensitivity theory (Gray, 1970, 1981, 1987) suggests that personality
‹• …‘‡…–‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‹–‡”ƒ…–‹‘ „‡–™‡‡ –™‘ „”ƒ‹ •›•–‡•ǣ –Š‡ ‡Šƒ˜‹‘—”ƒŽ
Approach System (BAS) and the Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS). The BAS cen-
tres on motivations to approach the environment, causing people to be sensitive to
rewards and to look for them, while the BIS focuses on motivations to avoid, causing
people to be sensitive towards dangers. These were associated with the character-
istics of impulsivity and anxiety, with individuals high on approach being more
impulsive and those high on inhibition more anxious. A questionnaire based on the
two scales was developed in the USA.

Cloninger’s theory
–Š‹”†‘†‡Ž™ƒ•’”‘’‘•‡†„›Ǥ‘„‡”–Ž‘‹‰‡”ǡ™Š‘…‘„‹‡†ϐ‹†‹‰•ˆ”‘
psychological, social and medical sciences. His theory is related to seven personal-
ity domains, including ‘temperament’ domains of novelty-seeking, harm avoidance,
reward dependence and persistence, and ‘character’ domains of self-directedness,
cooperativeness and self-transcendence (Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger et al., 1993).
Self-directedness relates to a person’s level of autonomy, cooperativeness to links
with society, and self-transcendence to beliefs about mystical experiences. Cloninger
linked these to neurotransmitters in the brain, as well as to learning through rewards
ƒ† ’—‹•Š‡–•Ǥ ‹• ™‘” ‹• ƒ••‘…‹ƒ–‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ ›•‡… ƒ†
”ƒ› ‘†‡Ž•ǡ ˆ‘”
‡šƒ’Ž‡”‡™ƒ”††‡’‡†‡…‡”‡ϐŽ‡…–•
”ƒ›ǯ••›•–‡Ǥ
The evidence for these biological theories is inconsistent and contradictory
despite much research (Matthews & Gilliland, 1999) and evidence linking physiology
–‘’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›‹••–‹ŽŽ‡‡†‡†Ǥ‘‡ϐ‹†‹‰•Šƒ˜‡•—’’‘”–‡†›•‡…ǯ•–Š‹‹‰‹
terms of arousal, as well as for the approach/inhibition systems of Gray, although
others have not shown support for these and suggest a weak relationship. A link
between neuroticism and arousal is not generally supported. However, it seems that
characteristics are associated with physiological activities such as heart rate, skin
conductance and brain activity. Given that the brain is a complex organism with sub-
•–ƒ–‹ƒŽ‹–‡”…‘‡…–‹‘•ǡ‹–‹•’‘••‹„Ž‡–Šƒ–‡ƒ…Š–Š‡‘”›”‡’”‡•‡–•ƒ‘˜‡”•‹’Ž‹ϐ‹…ƒ-
tion and that some combination is needed to establish a connection with personality.
The theories have contributed to assessment, including the questionnaire
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ˆ‘”
”ƒ›ǯ• •…ƒŽ‡• ƒ† Ž‘‹‰‡”ǯ• ”‹Ǧ†‹‡•‹‘ƒŽ ‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›
Questionnaire (revised as the Temperament and Character Inventory), based on
his biological factors and used to assess personality disorder. The Cloninger inven-
–‘”›ƒ›„‡ƒ˜ƒ”‹ƒ–‹‘‘›•‡…ǯ•‘†‡ŽǤ‘•–‘–ƒ„Ž‡ǡŠ‘™‡˜‡”ǡƒ”‡–Š‡‹–‡”-
…‘‡…–‹‘• „‡–™‡‡ –Š‡ –Š‡‘”‹‡• ƒ† –Š‡ ˆƒ…– –Šƒ– ›•‡…ǯ• ‹• Ž‹‡† –‘ Š‹•
factor-analytic studies of personality and his development of a psychometric trait-
based measure. There have thus been attempts to relate biology to the empirical
measurement of personality, though it is not clear whether there are any links to
developmental or stable characteristics, genetic or environmental factors, or the
importance of learning.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 250 20-Feb-14 5:41:16 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 251

The Trait Paradigm

Forget all the theorizing about personality for a moment and let’s ask some basic
questions. Is personality just one thing itself? Can it be taken apart? If so, what do the
parts look like? Is it like a Lego model made up of
a lot of parts joined together? Some historical
approaches might answer that it can’t be pulled
apart, that it is something to be understood purely
as a whole. This is an idiographic view. But it makes
•‡•‡–‘…‘’ƒ”‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡…‡•ǣ•‘‡‘‡
might appear to be a dominant person, but just
how much more dominant compared to others?
Logic indicates that we need to be able to distin-
guish between people who are mildly, moderately
or very dominant. If personality is one thing then
we can’t make those distinctions and so we will
have to try to take it apart. We might decide to
separate it into types. The alternative, however, is
–‘–ƒ‡ƒŠƒ‡”–‘‹–ƒ†‡šƒ‹‡™Šƒ–™‡ϐ‹†Ǥ
Doing this goes back to Allport in 1937 and the
†‡‘Ž‹–‹‘™‘”Šƒ••‹…‡„‡‡…‘–‹—‡†„›‘–Š‡”••—…Šƒ•›•‡…ǡƒ––‡ŽŽǡƒ†
Costa and McCrae. They suggested that personality is made up of components called
traits, which we have discussed a number of times thus far. Measured perfectly on
them people’s scores are spread along a continuum, probably looking like a normal
distribution curve, having most people around the average and fewer at the extremes
(as Figure 8.4 shows), which we saw in Chapter 4.

Low Average High

emotional emotional
stability stability

Figure 8.4 A normal distribution of people on the trait of emotional stability

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 251 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 252 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

This approach describes personality in terms of continuous scales and an inventory

(which is the name given to many questionnaires) is made up from any number of the
scales . Someone may be at the centre of a scale measuring intelligence, towards the low
end of a scale of anxiety, towards the high end for impulsiveness or openness to change,
and so on, until an overall picture is gained. In everyday life we come closest to the trait
approach in making comments such as ‘shy,’ ‘quite dominant’ or ‘not very confident’.
Thousands of words might be considered as traits and psychologists have attempted to
…‘•–”—…–ƒ•Š‘”–Ž‹•–‘ˆ–Š‡‘•–‹’‘”–ƒ–ǤŠ‡–”ƒ‹–’ƒ”ƒ†‹‰ƒ••—‡•–Šƒ–ǣ

x our thoughts, feelings and behaviours vary in a number of ways;

x these variations can be measured;
x when they are measured, they are normally distributed like other characteristics.

–Š‹•„ƒ•‹•–Š‡”‡‹•‘•—…Š–Š‹‰ƒ•–”ƒ‹––Š‡‘”›„‡…ƒ—•‡‹–ǯ•‘–ƒ–Š‡‘”›ǣ‹–ǯ•ƒ„‘—–
what the parts of personality might be, not about the aspects of a typical theory
such as how it develops and whether it can be changed. All we have developed is a
system for specifying the components and measuring them, and this provides a
means of describing what any personality is like but does not explain how it devel-
oped. For this reason some people will say we are just labelling and quantifying
personality. Maybe that’s so, but then along any dimension there are different places
for different people, and when we look at one individual’s positions on a number of
dimensions we can combine them in a unique description. Having a normal distribu-
tion enables us to do parametric statistics, and because of this the discovery of traits
has made a major contribution to the study of personality.
That recurring technique called factor analysis has enabled researchers to identify
the underlying basic dimensions or ‘factors’ of many trait labels. A few factors can be
ˆ‘—†–‘—†‡”’‹Š—†”‡†•‘ˆ–”ƒ‹–•ǣˆ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡŽƒ„‡Ž••—…Šƒ•ˆ”‹‡†Ž›ǡ…‘Ǧ‘’‡”ƒ–‹˜‡
and good-natured might be found under the heading of ‘agreeableness’. This is some-
times called the ‘lexical hypothesis’, going back to Galton (1884), and the approach was
†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡†ˆ—”–Š‡”„›ƒ—„‡”‘ˆ–Š‡‘”‹•–•ǡ‹…Ž—†‹‰›•‡…ƒ†ƒ––‡ŽŽǤŠ‡–‡”
‘lexical’ suggests that this approach was founded upon the words which are used in
Žƒ‰—ƒ‰‡•Ǥƒ•‹‰Š‹•™‘”‘‡’‹”‹…ƒŽ‘„•‡”˜ƒ–‹‘•ƒ†Žƒ”‰‡Ǧ•…ƒŽ‡ƒƒŽ›•‡•ǡ›•‡…
ȋͳͻ͸͹Ȍ•—‰‰‡•–‡†–Š‡”‡™‡”‡–Š”‡‡†‹‡•‹‘•ƒŽ‘‰™Š‹…Š’‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›˜ƒ”‹‡•ǣ

x –”‘˜‡”•‹‘Ȃš–”ƒ˜‡”•‹‘Ǥ
x Neuroticism – Stability.
x •›…Š‘–‹…‹•Ȃ‘”ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ

These major dimensions resulted from correlations between groups of traits. For
example, extraversion derives from traits including sensation-seeking, assertiveness,
activity, liveliness, sociability and others all found to correlate with each other. His
‡—”‘–‹…‹• ‹…Ž—†‡• –‡•‹‘ǡ ‰—‹Ž–ǡ †‡’”‡••‹‘ǡ ƒš‹‡–› ƒ† ‘‘†‹‡••Ǥ ›•‡…
described his third dimension as representing the degree to which a person is tough-
minded and called it ‘psychoticism’, following observations that people suffering from

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 252 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 253

a psychosis score highly on this. They are impulsive, impersonal, egocentric, cold,
aggressive, anti-social, and lack empathy. They are also creative, which according to
›•‡…™ƒ•…‘•‹•–‡–™‹–Š–Š‡–Š‡‘”›–Šƒ–‰‡‹—•ƒ†ƒ†‡••ƒ”‡Ž‹‡†Ǥ˜‡”ƒŽŽǡ
–Š‡†‹‡•‹‘•‡…‘’ƒ••ʹͳ–”ƒ‹–•Ǥ›•‡…ǯ•–Š‡‘”›”‡•—Ž–‡†‹Š‹•†‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–
‘ˆ“—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•ǣ–Š‡ƒ—†•Ž‡›‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›˜‡–‘”›ȋȌǡ–Š‡›•‡…‡”•‘ƒŽ-
‹–› ˜‡–‘”› ȋȌǡ ƒ† –Š‡ ›•‡… ‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–› —‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡ ȋȌǤ  ‘†‡”
˜‡”•‹‘‘ˆ–Š‡‹•–Š‡›•‡…ǡ‘‘ǡ”‹’’•……—’ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ—”˜‡›ȋȌǤ
Cattell’s original interest lay in determining whether the unitary patterns of per-
sonality discussed by clinical psychologists could be measured objectively. He
checked out their models by obtaining extensive empirical databases and by devel-
‘’‹‰ ƒ† ”‡ϐ‹‹‰ ‡ƒ•—”‹‰ ‹•–”—‡–• ˆ‘” ƒ••‡••‹‰ –Š‡ †‹‡•‹‘• ‘ˆ –Š‡‹”
‘†‡Ž•Ǥ‡•—„•‡“—‡–Ž›‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†ͳ͸‹’‘”–ƒ–†‹‡•‹‘•‘”Ǯ•‘—”…‡–”ƒ‹–•ǯǡ•‘‡
‘ˆ™Š‹…Š…‘””‡•’‘†‡†™‹–Š›•‡…ǯ•ϐ‹†‹‰•ȋƒ––‡ŽŽ‡–ƒŽǤǡͳͻ͹ͲȌǤ
In order to do this he collected some 17,953 trait names used in everyday lan-
guage to describe behaviour before eliminating synonyms (words or phrases that
mean exactly or nearly the same as other words or phrases), and combined the data
with information from other sources such as observations of behaviour.
Questionnaires were also used to explore the perceptions of individuals. Lastly,
objective data were obtained from observations of what people did, rather than
what they said, in pre-planned structured situations. All of the data were collated
and subjected to correlation and the techniques of factor analysis.
‡‘’Ž‡™‡”‡”ƒ–‡†‘–Š‡”‡ƒ‹‹‰†‡•…”‹’–‹‘•ǡ”‡˜‡ƒŽ‹‰•‘‡ͶͲȂͷͲ†‹‡•‹‘•
which were factor analysed down to 12 factors. A questionnaire was developed and
the outcomes were once again analysed, leading to four more dimensions, making a
total of 16 including the addition of a general reasoning scale. These form the basis of
–Š‡ͳ͸‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–› ƒ…–‘”‹˜‡–‘”›ȋ‘”ͳ͸ ˆ‘”•Š‘”–ȌǤ‡…ƒŽŽ‡†–Š‡•‡’”‹ƒ”›ˆƒ…–‘”•ǡ
although they are source traits and represent enduring aspects of behaviour, account-
ing for the variation in more observable surface traits (Cattell, 1950). What we see on
a daily basis are the surface ones corresponding to common generalizations and these
are less stable. Source traits are fundamental units which govern behaviour whilst
interacting together and with other characteristics. When analysis was conducted again
–Š‡›”‡˜‡ƒŽ‡†•‡…‘†Ǧ‘”†‡”ˆƒ…–‘”•ǡ‹…Ž—†‹‰›•‡…ǯ•‡š–”ƒ˜‡”•‹‘ƒ†ƒš‹‡–›Ǥ
Š‡‘”‹‰‹ƒŽͳ͸ Šƒ•‰‘‡–Š”‘—‰Šƒ—„‡”‘ˆ”‡˜‹•‹‘•ƒ†•‘–‘†ƒ›–Š‡”‡ƒ”‡
also equivalent questionnaires which will measure much the same factors, such as
•›–‡…Šǯ•ͳͷ ƒ…–‘”—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•ȋ–Š‡ͳͷ ƒ†–Š‡ͳͷ ΪȌǤ…‘–”ƒ•–ǡ•‘‡‹˜‡-
tories appear to measure more of the original surface traits, such as the Occupational
‡”•‘ƒŽ‹–›—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡ȋȌǤŠ‡•‘—”…‡–”ƒ‹–•‘ˆ–Š‡‘†‡”ͳͷ Ϊƒ†‹–••‡…-
ond-order factors are shown in Table 8.5. Looking at these you might ask why are there
no D, K or J factors and why there are Q1 to Q4 factors. The reason for this is that some
ˆƒ…–‘”•†‹†‘–’”‘˜‡–‘„‡”‡’Ž‹…ƒ„Ž‡‹ƒ†—Ž–•ȋ‹Ǥ‡Ǥǡ ƒ†Ȍ‹–Š‡‘”‹‰‹ƒŽͳ͸ ƒ†
were removed and that Cattell’s original letter labels remained unchanged. Four others
were found in questionnaires only and not in the analysis of language and are distin-
guished as factors Q1 and Q4. There have been debates about Cattell’s work and its
outcomes, and arguments over scale reliabilities, although these have been improved.
–Š‡…ƒ•‡‘ˆ–Š‡ͳͷ Ϊƒ––‡ŽŽǯ•‘”‹‰‹ƒŽˆƒ…–‘”ǡ‡ƒ•—”‹‰‰‡‡”ƒŽ”‡ƒ•‘‹‰ƒ†

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 253 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 254 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

Table 8.5 Descriptions of the 16 source traits and four second-order factors of the 15FQ+

Factor Low Score Distribution High Score Description

fA Distant Aloof Empathic

fB Low Intellectance High Intellectance
fC Affected by Feelings Emotionally Stable
fE Accommodating Dominant
fF Sober Serious Enthusiastic
fG Expedient Conscientious
fH Retiring Socially Bold
fI Hard-Headed Tender-Minded
fL Trusting Suspicious
fM Concrete Abstract
fN Direct Restrained
fO Confident Self-Doubting
fQ1 Conventional Radical
fQ2 Group-Orientated Self-Sufficient
fQ3 Informal Self-Disciplined
fQ4 Composed Tense-Driven

E Introversion Extraversion
N Low aNxiety High aNxiety
O Pragmatism Openness
A Independence Agreeableness
C Low Self-Control High Self-Control

Source: Reproduced by special permission of the publisher, Psytech International Ltd

having poor reliability, has been replaced by that of ‘intellectance’, a measure of per-
sonal preference for complex thinking. The letters designated for the second-order
factors relate to the ‘Big Five’ scales which we shall discuss soon.

BOX 8.1 Personality and Management Development

Development centres provide one of the most useful tools for accurately identifying the
gaps between an individual’s abilities and those needed for jobs. They give information
on individual abilities and provide a mechanism for empowering people to develop them-
selves and to improve organizational performance. Psychometric assessments can make a
major contribution to outcomes and are most effectively used as one element in a range of
procedures (Coaley & Hogg, 1994; Lee & Beard, 1994).

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 254 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 255

Mrs Greene took part in a development programme provided by an international com-

pany. This was designed to enhance organizational performance through the identifica-
tion of potential and to encourage self-development. In taking part Mrs Greene completed
the 15FQ+. The outcomes of this, discussed during feedback, revealed that she was ambi-
tious to progress in management.
The analysis suggested Mrs Greene was able to cope with most social situations,
although she did not always choose to socialize. She was reasonably expressive and warm
towards others, at times liking to be sociable and at others preferring non-social activities.
She tended towards being precise and exact in her work and could be assertive, although
she would defer to others wherever appropriate.
Mrs Greene was not easily intimidated and did not often experience anxiety. She was
confident in interactions with others and was comfortable speaking to groups. She was
communicative and self-disclosing to a typical level, although tended to lack concern for
maintaining a socially approved image, and overall maintained a balance between being
dependent upon others and high independence.
In thinking style Mrs Greene suggested she took an objective approach to her work
and was able to adjust to the facts of situations. She was open to change, but did not
have any need for excessive variety. In general, she preferred to think things through
before committing herself to action and would take issues seriously and anticipate dif-
ficulties. She would be guided by rules to a typical extent and had a realistic level of
scepticism. In evaluating information, she could shift flexibly between focusing on the
practical and being oriented towards ideas, balancing operational and strategic needs.
In work style, she was confident and thoughtful. She preferred to work in a team,
and was likely to be tactful and diplomatic. Preferring to be organized and to plan ahead
to meet goals, Mrs Greene experienced typical levels of tension. She was able to cope
with life’s demands and to tolerate frustration as much as others. She did not experience
selfdoubt to any great extent, and could remain relatively calm in difficult situations.
Following the programme Mrs Greene undertook an MBA and is now a senior manager.

Š‡ͳͷ ƒ†ͳͷ Ϊ™‡”‡„”‘ƒ†Ž›…‘•–”—…–‡†‹ƒ•‹‹Žƒ”ƒ‡”–‘–Š‡ͳ͸ 

using interviews, observations and initial questionnaires. These were followed
by the use of factor analysis, although both the questionnaires were designed to
have items which were more applicable to organizational environments. From
these methods the scales were developed. The original standardization sample
for the 15FQ was made up of more than 5,500 adults in the UK. The aim was to
ƒ‹–ƒ‹–Š‡ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡•‘ˆ–Š‡ͳ͸ ƒ†–‘‘˜‡”…‘‡‹–•’”‘„Ž‡•ǡ•—…Šƒ•–Š‡
low reliability and poor face validity of some of the original scales. Large sam-
ples of people over a wide range of occupational groups were used to establish
both of these questionnaires, and they have particular relevance to personnel
assessment and selection as well as to training and development contexts. The
–‡…Š‹…ƒŽ ƒ—ƒŽǡ ™Š‹…Š …ƒ „‡ †‘™Ž‘ƒ†‡† ˆ”‘ –Š‡ •›–‡…Š ™‡„•‹–‡ǡ •Š‘™•
there is good evidence of both reliability and validity for all of the scales. Both

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 255 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 256 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

questionnaires also include distortion measures, including social desirability,

infrequency and central tendency (more about these soon). Because of their
similarity in research design and construction, both correlate highly with the
‘”‹‰‹ƒŽͳ͸ Ǥ
‘”„‘–Š–Š‡ͳ͸ ƒ†–Š‡˜‡”•‹‘•‘ˆ–Š‡ͳͷ –Š‡’”‹ƒ”›†‹‡•‹‘•™‡”‡
obtained by a detailed factor analysis. The dimensions are statistically related,
although they are functionally independent of each other. They each measure per-
sonality traits which are different from any of the other dimensions. Thus any one
item contributes to an individual’s score on one and only one factor. Correlational
ƒƒŽ›•‹•…‘ϐ‹”•–Š‡†‡‰”‡‡‘ˆ•–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽ”‡Žƒ–‹‘•Š‹’„‡–™‡‡ˆƒ…–‘”•ǣ–Š‡…‘””‡Žƒ-
–‹‘…‘‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–•„‡–™‡‡–Š‡ƒ”‡“—‹–‡•ƒŽŽǡ•—‰‰‡•–‹‰–Šƒ–‡ƒ…Š‘‡’”‘˜‹†‡•
new information about the individual concerned. If the correlations between the
factors are subjected to a further factor analysis, then the series of ‘second order’
factors is derived. These are often referred to as ‘global factors’ and sometimes as
‘higher-order factors’. They help to provide a broader picture of personality. In gen-
eral, we need to consider both the primary factors and the second-order ones
„‡…ƒ—•‡–Š‡›’”‘˜‹†‡ƒ‰”‡ƒ–‡”—†‡”•–ƒ†‹‰‘ˆ•‘‡‘‡ǯ•’”‘ϐ‹Ž‡Ǥ ‘”‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ
factors C, Q4 and O are all components of the higher order factor of anxiety. It helps
–‘ƒ’’”‡…‹ƒ–‡–Š‡‰‡‡”ƒŽŽ‡˜‡Ž‘ˆƒš‹‡–›ǡƒ•™‡ŽŽƒ•–Š‘•‡•’‡…‹ϐ‹…’”‹ƒ”›ˆƒ…–‘”•
which contribute to it.
”‹ƒ”›ˆƒ…–‘”•…ƒƒŽ•‘„‡”‡Žƒ–‡†–‘•’‡…‹ˆ‹……”‹–‡”‹ƒ•—…Šƒ•…”‡ƒ–‹˜‹–›‘”
leadership. The sten scores (remember these from Chapter 4?) are multiplied
by particular fractional weightings and the results are added together in a spec-
ification equation. The result of this process gives an idea of the degree to which
a person conforms to the picture of, for example, the creative individual or the
good leader. In recent years software programs have been designed for this
purpose.
The assessment materials discussed so far have had a number of dimen-
•‹‘•ǡ”ƒ‰‹‰ˆ”‘›•‡…ǯ•ˆ‘—”ˆƒ…–‘”•–‘ƒ––‡ŽŽǯ•ͳ͸Ǥ‘™‡˜‡”ǡ”‡•‡ƒ”…Š‡”•
have discovered that essentially all personality can be reduced to just five com-
ponents. Tupes, Chrystal and Goldberg were the first to discover this, with a
review by Goldberg (1981). Costa and McCrae (1985; 1992) also factor ana-
lysed a number of broad-based questionnaires and their work has become the
most well-known. Despite using different terms the research has produced five
main factors, said to describe all of personality ‘space’ and making up the mod-
ern dominant model of personality. Labels for the traits found differ among
researchers and from questionnaire to questionnaire, although the ideas mak-
ing up the scale contents are the same. Known as the ‘Big Five,’ the most com-
‘–‡”•ƒ’’‡ƒ”–‘„‡ǣ

x š–”ƒ˜‡”•‹‘Ǣ
x ‘–‹‘ƒŽ•–ƒ„‹Ž‹–›Ǣ

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 256 20-Feb-14 5:41:17 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 257

x Agreeableness;
x Conscientiousness;
x Openness to experience.

As a result it should be possible to summarize any profile on the basis of these fac-
tors alone. Many psychologists would now agree that when the data are summarized
‹ –Š‹• ™ƒ› –Š‡ •ƒ‡ ˆ‹˜‡ …‘•–”—…–• ‡‡”‰‡ǡ ƒ† –Šƒ– ›•‡…ǯ• ˆ‹”•– –™‘ ˆƒ…–‘”•
…‘””‡•’‘†™‹–Š–Š‡ˆ‹”•––™‘‘ˆ–Š‡Ǯ‹‰ ‹˜‡ǯǤŽ‡‡–•‘ˆ–Š‡”‡ƒ‹‹‰‹‰ ‹˜‡
…ƒ ƒŽ•‘ „‡ ˆ‘—† ‹ ›•‡…ǯ• ˆ‹ƒŽ ˆƒ…–‘”Ǥ ‘•–ƒ ƒ† …ƒ‡ ȋͳͻͻʹȌ †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡† ƒ
‡ƒ•—”‡„ƒ•‡†—’‘–Š‡•‡ˆ‹†‹‰•‘™ƒ•–Š‡ƒ•ƒƒ…”‘›ˆ‘”–Š”‡‡‘ˆ
the five traits (i.e. neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience). The sec-
‘†Ǧ‘”†‡”ˆƒ…–‘”•ƒ”‹•‹‰ˆ”‘ƒ›“—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•…ƒ‘ˆ–‡„‡ƒŽ‹‰‡†™‹–Š–Š‡ǣ
ˆ‘” ‡šƒ’Ž‡ǡ –Š‘•‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ͳͷ  ƒ† –Š‡ ͳ͸  …ƒ „‡ ƒŽ‹‰‡† ™‹–Š –Š‡ ‘†‡Žǡ ƒ•
•Š‘™‹ƒ„Ž‡ͺǤ͸Ǥƒ…Š‘ˆ–Š‡‹‰ ‹˜‡ˆƒ…–‘”•…ƒ„‡†‡•…”‹„‡†ƒ•ˆ‘ŽŽ‘™•ǣ

x Extraversion, or positive affect, represents a predisposition to experience

positive emotional states, having more social confidence and feeling good
ƒ„‘—–‘‡•‡Žˆƒ†–Š‡™‘”Ž†‹‰‡‡”ƒŽǤ‡‘’Ž‡™‹–ŠŠ‹‰Š‡”Ž‡˜‡Ž•‘ˆ‡š–”ƒ˜‡”-
sion are more socially outgoing and have a predisposition towards the com-
pany of others.
x Neuroticism represents a tendency to experience negative emotional states and
negative views of oneself, such as anxiety, self-consciousness and vulnerability.
‡‘’Ž‡™‹–ŠŠ‹‰Š‡”Ž‡˜‡Ž•‘ˆ‡—”‘–‹…‹•‡š’‡”‹‡…‡‘”‡‡‰ƒ–‹˜‡‘‘†•ƒ†
•–”‡••ƒ†ƒ”‡Ž‡••ƒ„Ž‡–‘…‘’‡™‹–Š†‹ˆϐ‹…—Ž–•‹–—ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ
x Agreeableness represents a tendency to get along well with others, as well as a
desire to get things done, to make things happen. This links personality to our
responsiveness in many situations.
x Conscientiousness represents a tendency to be careful, meticulous, organized and
structured in behaviour. It also includes how much individuals internalize moral
values and rules in an environment.
x Openness to experience represents a tendency to be more open to a wide vari-
ety of experiences, to be original and creative, and tolerant towards differing
views. Someone high on this scale is likely to be more open to change.

The importance of the Big Five factor model of personality is that it provides
an organizing framework for the overall domain of personality, in the same way
as the concept of ‘g’ does for ability and intelligence. It reduces the wide complex
domain of personality to just five main components. There has been some varia-
tion in the names given by different researchers, yet the scale contents are essen-
tially similar regardless of the names given. The simplicity, conciseness and
straightforward nature of the Big Five make them appealing.

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 257 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 258 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

An overall view
Overall, a review of the different theories of personality, from typology to traits,
would suggest that all of the various approaches to personality can offer insights
into and ways of understanding its complexity, although none of these provides an
‡–‹”‡Ž›ƒ†‡“—ƒ–‡’‡”•’‡…–‹˜‡Ǥ•›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›–‹…ƒ†Š—ƒ‹•–‹…˜‹‡™•‰‹˜‡ƒ—†‡”-
•–ƒ†‹‰‘ˆ–Š‡–‘–ƒŽ‘”™Š‘Ž‡’‡”•‘„—–ƒ”‡‘–…‘†—…‹˜‡–‘•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…˜ƒŽ‹†ƒ–‹‘
and cannot predict behaviour adequately. Type approaches are too generalist and
tend to over-simplify the nature of personality. However trait, biological and social
Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡•ƒ”‡„ƒ•‡†—’‘•…‹‡–‹ϐ‹…”‡•‡ƒ”…Šǡƒ†ƒ”‡–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡…ƒ’ƒ„Ž‡
of being evaluated in an empirical way. On the one hand, social learning theory has
tended to focus upon behaviour but neglect other aspects of the person, whilst the
trait approach enables us to describe an individual in detail although it fails to con-
•‹†‡” •‹–—ƒ–‹‘ƒŽ ƒ† †‡˜‡Ž‘’‡–ƒŽ ˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡•Ǥ •›…Š‘ƒƒŽ›–‹…ǡ Š—ƒ‹•–‹…ǡ •‘…‹ƒŽ
Ž‡ƒ”‹‰ƒ†–›’‡˜‹‡™•ϐ‹†–Š‡‹”‘•–—•‡ˆ—Žƒ’’Ž‹…ƒ–‹‘•‹–Š‡”ƒ’‡—–‹…ǡ…‘ƒ…Š‹‰ǡ
counselling and personal development settings. The trait approach tends to be most
—•‡ˆ—Ž‹–Š‡ϐ‹‡Ž†‘ˆ‘”‰ƒ‹œƒ–‹‘ƒŽ’•›…Š‘Ž‘‰›™Š‡”‡™‡ƒ”‡‘”‡‹–‡”‡•–‡†‹–Š‡
‘what’ rather than the ‘why’ of personality.
No single theory is capable of providing an over-arching and comprehensive
description of personality, probably because we are trying to understand the most
…‘’Ž‡š‘”‰ƒ‹•‘™–‘Š—ƒ‹†ǣ‘—”•‡Ž˜‡•ǤŽŽŠƒ˜‡•‘‡–Š‹‰–‘‘ˆˆ‡”‹
the various areas of human activity, although we should always remember the dan-
‰‡”• ‘ˆ –Š‡‹” ‹•—•‡Ǥ ‡”•‘ƒŽ ƒ––”‹„—–‹‘• ƒ„‘—– ‘–Š‡”• ƒ”‡ •—„Œ‡…– –‘ ƒ ”ƒ‰‡ ‘ˆ
„‹ƒ•‡•ǣ”‡•‡ƒ”…ŠŠƒ•†‡‘•–”ƒ–‡†–Šƒ–’‡‘’Ž‡Šƒ˜‡ƒ’‘‘”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›‹ƒ‹‰Œ—†‰‡-
ments of others. This means there will always be a need for evidence of both good
reliability and validity.

Table 8.6 Matching 15FQ and 16PF global factors with the Big Five

The Big Five 15FQ 16PF

Extraversion Introversion – Extraversion Introversion – Extraversion

Neuroticism Anxiety Anxiety
Agreeableness Independence Independence
Conscientiousness Control Self-Control
Openness to Pragmatic Tough Poise/Tough-Minded
Experience

SUMMARY
Theory and practice are necessarily linked. We have reviewed a range of personal-
ity theories and their relationships with assessment methods, from classical typol-
‘‰›–‘–”ƒ‹––Š‡‘”›Ǥ•›…Š‘†›ƒ‹…–Š‡‘”‹‡•Šƒ˜‡”‡•—Ž–‡†‹ƒ••‡••‡–••—…Šƒ•

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 258 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 259

the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, whilst cognitive-behavioural thinking led to a few

scales, most notably locus of control. The phenomenological perspective provided
the humanists’ Q-sort technique, the repertory grids of Kelly and the Thematic
Apperception Test. A biological view prompted the development of some question-
ƒ‹”‡•ǡƒ•ƒŽ•‘†‹†›•‡…ƒ†ƒ––‡ŽŽ‹–Š‡‹”–”ƒ‹–ƒ’’”‘ƒ…ŠǤŠ‹•Žƒ––‡”ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š
provides the most objective and empirical assessment of personality characteristics.
Š‡„‡‡ϐ‹–•ƒ†Ž‹‹–ƒ–‹‘•‘ˆ†‹ˆˆ‡”‡–ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡†‹•…—••‡†Ǥ

PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRES: ADVANTAGES AND

LIMITATIONS
The trait model, as we have seen, focuses on traits relevant to how individuals adjust
to the environment and the differences between people. Sometimes also being called
the psychometric model, it involves a normative process with the placing of scores
on scales and use of statistical methods. To do this questionnaires are generated.
˜‡™Š‡”‡–Š‹•‘†‡Ž‹•ǯ–—•‡†ǡƒ•™‹–Š–›’‡ƒ’’”‘ƒ…Š‡•ǡ“—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•ƒ”‡‘ˆ–‡
developed. These are usually self-report, though such questionnaires have both
advantages and limitations.

Self-report data
In completing questionnaires people will, of course, answer questions about them-
selves. The accuracy of the data gained will therefore depend on personal insight. This
‹•˜ƒ”‹ƒ„Ž‡ǣ‹–ǯ•’‘••‹„Ž›Ž‹‡†–‘ƒ‰‡ǡƒ–—”‹–›ƒ†‹–‡ŽŽ‹‰‡…‡ǡƒŽ–Š‘—‰Š™‡…ƒ‘–
be sure. Interpretation should be conducted with caution and include discussion with
–Š‡‹†‹˜‹†—ƒŽ…‘…‡”‡†‹ƒˆ‡‡†„ƒ…‹–‡”˜‹‡™Ǥ—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡•ƒ”‡‘ˆ–‡ǡŒ—•–‹ϐ‹ƒ„Ž›ǡ
considered susceptible to sabotage and distortion by test-takers, especially in selec-
–‹‘•‡––‹‰•Ǥ–‹•–Š‡”‡ˆ‘”‡‡…‡••ƒ”›–‘†‹•–‹‰—‹•Š„‡–™‡‡–Š‡•‡–™‘–”‹…•–‡”•ǣ

x Sabotage is a deliberate intention by the test-taker to misrepresent the outcome

‘ˆ–Š‡ƒ••‡••‡–Ǥ‡‘’Ž‡™Š‘†‡•’‡”ƒ–‡Ž›™ƒ––‘‰‡–…Š‘•‡ˆ‘”ƒŒ‘„™‹ŽŽ–Š—•
deliberately misrepresent themselves in responding to items.
x Distortion also involves a misrepresentation of the outcome although through
less conscious factors, for example because of a particular mood state, fatigue,
or a lack of motivation to complete the questionnaire.

Variability in scores can be influenced in two ways. Firstly, the variability can be
introduced by factors which influence responses, for example as sabotage or distor-
tion or a lack of understanding of the language used. Secondly, there can be vari-
ability caused by how the scores are subsequently interpreted by the person giving
the questionnaire to others as a result of a misunderstanding or misrepresentation
of the outcomes, for example through a lack of training in how to understand a
personality profile and give feedback. This can sometimes occur when a feedback-

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 259 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 260 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

giver makes statements which are designed to please the person who completed
the questionnaire. (This is often referred to as the ‘Barnum effect’, which will be
explained in Chapter 9.)
The construction of questionnaires is deigned to minimize such problems, but it
is also the responsibility of the administrator to neutralize such tendencies as much
as possible. It is important to develop a good rapport with people undertaking the
“—‡•–‹‘ƒ‹”‡ ƒ† Ž‡– –Š‡ •‡‡ –Šƒ– ‹– …ƒ „‡•– …‘–”‹„—–‡ –‘ –Š‡‹” ‘™ „‡‡ϐ‹– ‹ˆ
they cooperate with frank and honest reports. This is clearly easier to do where it
is being used for development purposes. In recruitment, it may be helpful to state
that the questionnaire is only one aspect of the selection procedure being used and
that they will gain helpful feedback. The results can then be linked to other known
aspects of the individual. Applicants will, of course, be less happy in the job if they
gain it through suggesting that they have characteristics they don’t really possess.
Questionnaire items are often chosen to be as ‘neutral’ in value as possible, to
emphasize both desirable and undesirable aspects at both ends of trait scales. In
addition, items which are not ‘face valid’ (i.e. which do not obviously refer to the
trait but which are known to measure it through correlational research) are chosen
wherever possible as an in-built protection against sabotage, distortion or faking.
In any case, this problem of faking is probably less serious than people often
think since they are most likely to complete the questionnaire when they realize
that an accurate result will contribute best to their own welfare (i.e. during develop-
ment projects). If time is taken to ensure that people understand the importance of
careful and truthful responses, a long step towards achieving good measures will
have been taken. Not all personality questionnaires include methods to assess all
of the possible test-taking styles in various assessment situations, although they
will generally include a measure of ‘socially desirable’ responding if the question-
naire is to contribute towards some form of decision making.

Socially Desirable Responding

In some instances people will ‘fake’ responses to questions as a result of their expec-
tations or mindset, especially where an inventory is used in decision making. They
might portray themselves in an unrealistically positive light and as being socially
Ž‹‡ƒ„Ž‡ǡ‹†‹…ƒ–‹‰Š‹‰Š‡”Ǯ•‘…‹ƒŽ†‡•‹”ƒ„‹Ž‹–›ǯȋƒ—ŽŠ—•ǡͳͻͺͶǢ‡‡•ǡͳͻͻͻȌǤŠ‹•…ƒ
„‡ ‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡† „› –Š‡ ‹…Ž—•‹‘ ‘ˆ ‹–‡• •’‡…‹ƒŽŽ› †‡•‹‰‡† –‘ †‡–‡”‹‡ ™Š‡–Š‡”
someone is responding in this way and which can be scored. Simply mentioning the
‡š‹•–‡…‡‘ˆƒ†‹•–‘”–‹‘‡ƒ•—”‡†—”‹‰–Š‡ƒ†‹‹•–”ƒ–‹‘•‡••‹‘…ƒ•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–Ž›
”‡†—…‡†‹•–‘”–‹‘Ǥ–…ƒƒŽ•‘„‡”‡†—…‡†„›–Š‡‘ˆˆ‡”‘ˆˆ‡‡†„ƒ…ƒ†…‘ϐ‹†‡–‹ƒŽ‹–›Ǥ
Social desirability might also be seen as another aspect of personality itself, repre-
senting a desire to be accepted by others.

Random responding
This is a particular problem when respondents have little motivation to complete a
questionnaire or have been strongly encouraged or coerced to do so. There is a risk

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 260 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 261

that they may select responses at random and be unlikely to read items. Such an
event is relatively rare in selection settings, although it may arise in forced pro-
‰”ƒ‡•‘ˆƒ••‡••‡–Ǥƒ†‘”‡•’‘•‡•…ƒ„‡‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡†„›–Š‡‹…Ž—•‹‘‘ˆƒ
infrequency scale, consisting of items which have only one correct answer, but unlike
those used in reasoning tests the answer is obvious, for example ‘Babies generally
walk before they can crawl’. A random-responder is unlikely to notice that this is
factually incorrect. The problem is that these types of item tend to be obvious to
people who are reading carefully and can then pose a distraction. Some inventories
ƒ”‡Ž‹‡†–‘•‘ˆ–™ƒ”‡—•‹‰ƒ‹ˆ”‡“—‡…›•…ƒŽ‡™Š‹…Š‹†‡–‹ϐ‹‡•”‡•’‘•‡•Šƒ˜‹‰
a low endorsement rate.

Central tendency
Central tendency is the name given to the style of people who constantly choose the
middle option for items, having a response set –‘†‘–Š‹•Ǥ‡‘’Ž‡‹‰Š–„‡†‡ˆ‡•‹˜‡
and don’t want to reveal too much information, or they may be young people who
lack certainty about themselves. Careful wording of items can minimize the effect
and it can be measured also through the use of software (Rust, 1996; Huba, 1997).
ˆ•…‘”‡•ƒ”‡Š‹‰Š‘ƒ…‡–”ƒŽ–‡†‡…›•…ƒŽ‡ǡ–Š‡–Š‡’”‘ϐ‹Ž‡ƒ›‘–˜ƒŽ‹†Ž›”‡’-
resent the test-taker. The person may have been disinclined to reveal too much, is
lacking in personal insight, or genuinely holds moderate views and attitudes com-
pared to most other people. A good feedback interview afterwards could help deter-
‹‡™Š‡–Š‡”–Š‡’”‘ϐ‹Ž‡‹•‰‡—‹‡Ǥ

Measurement error
Scales used in inventories are subject to measurement error, as Chapter 5 shows.
There can be no 100% accuracy and rating scales should have evidence of good
reliability. Reputable inventories will usually have carefully researched items
†‡•‹‰‡†–‘‡•—”‡ƒ…‘•‹•–‡–ƒ••‡••‡–‘ˆ–”ƒ‹–•Ǥ˜‡™‹–Š–Š‡„‡•––Š‡”‡™‹ŽŽ
„‡ ƒ ƒ”‰‹ ‘ˆ ‡””‘”ǡ ƒ† –Š‹• ‡ƒ• •…‘”‡• …ƒǯ– „‡ •‡‡ ‹ ƒ› ”‹‰‹† ™ƒ›ǣ –Š‡›
should be considered as guides to how individuals might behave in many circum-
stances. Having said this, it is still a better guide than the subjective views of an
interviewer.

Correlational Approaches to Validation

In Chapter 6 we discussed validation. We saw that in many of the processes designed
to provide evidence for construct validity publishers will correlate scores with those
on other measures. High correlations will then suggest they are measuring the same
or a similar thing. However, in the case of assessing the validity of scales within a
personality inventory the use of correlations raises a problem. This is caused to
some extent by the fact that there are often more scales in an inventory (from just
–Š”‡‡‹–Š‡…ƒ•‡‘ˆ–Š‡ǡ–‘ͳ͸‹–Š‡ͳ͸ ǡƒ†͵Ͳˆ‘”–Š‡ȌǤˆ•…‘”‡•‘ƒ
number of scales are correlated with scores on other measures we can end up with
cross-correlational matrices. Imagine I develop a personality inventory having 15

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 261 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 262 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

Table 8.7 An example of a correlation matrix

Personality Scales

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O
Appraisal ns ns Ns Ns ns ns ns .53 ns ns Ns ns ns ns ns
evaluation
Qualification ns .47 Ns Ns ns ns .5 .57 .42 ns Ns ns ns ns ns
Level
Attendance ns ns Ns Ns ns ns .6 .61 ns ns Ns ns ns .44 ns
Punctuality ns ns Ns Ns ns ns Ns Ns ns .4 Ns ns ns ns ns
Customer ns ns Ns Ns ns ns Ns Ns ns ns Ns .4 ns ns ns
Ratings
Length of ns ns Ns Ns ns ns .6 .58 ns ns Ns ns ns ns ns
Experience

scales, called factor A to factor O, and that I then correlate the scores acquired from
a large sample of employees with their scores on six measures of performance. The
correlation matrix produced is shown in Table 8.7.
This matrix shows 15 x 6 (i.e. 90) correlations. Of these, 12 are given as being
•–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽŽ›•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–ǡ–Š‡‘–Š‡”•Šƒ˜‹‰Ǯ•ǯ”‡…‘”†‡†ƒ•„‡‹‰‘–•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–ǤŠ‡
publisher might, on this basis, state that there is good evidence for the validity of
factors G and H, whilst there is some support, albeit lower, for factors B, I, J, L and N.
But there is a problem here arising from probability theory which says that if lists of
random numbers are continually recorded one or more of them will eventually cor-
relate reasonably well with some of the criteria, suggesting that some of the random
numbers are valid. If the sample size is small a set of random numbers giving a high
correlation will rapidly become clear. In contrast, if the sample size is large then it
will take a longer time before a set of higher correlations becomes available.
Therefore, ‘spurious’ correlations can occur purely by chance depending on the sam-
’Ž‡•‹œ‡ȋ–Š‡™‘”†Ǯ•’—”‹‘—•ǯŠ‡”‡•‹‰‹ϐ‹‡•–Šƒ––Š‡•‡™‹ŽŽƒ’’‡ƒ”
–‘„‡•–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽŽ›•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–™Š‡–Š‡›ƒ›‘–‹ˆƒ…–„‡•‘ȌǤ
•—ƒŽŽ›–‡•–•‘ˆ•–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽ•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ…‡™‹ŽŽ–ƒ‡•ƒ’Ž‡•‹œ‡
into account in any research process and deal with it. There are
corrections which can be applied. But this is often not consid-
ered in the case of validation studies having large matrices. In
–Š‡…ƒ•‡‘ˆ•–ƒ–‹•–‹…ƒŽ–‡•–•–Š‡’”‘„ƒ„‹Ž‹–›‘ˆƒ•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–…‘”-
relation occurring by chance is less than 5% or 1 in 20. If a
matrix of 20 correlations is constructed using random numbers,
–Š‡ ‘‡ ‘ˆ –Š‡ ™‹ŽŽ Šƒ˜‡ ƒ Š‹‰Š …Šƒ…‡ ‘ˆ „‡‹‰ •‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–
purely by chance. When the matrix has 100 correlations, by the
Žƒ™•‘ˆ’”‘„ƒ„‹Ž‹–›™‡…ƒ‡š’‡…––Šƒ–ƒ–Ž‡ƒ•–ϐ‹˜‡‘ˆ–Š‡™‹ŽŽ
„‡•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–„›…Šƒ…‡ƒŽ‘‡Ǥ’—„Ž‹•Š‡”‹‰Š––ƒ‡ƒ†˜ƒ–ƒ‰‡

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 262 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 Theories and Measurement of Personality Characteristics 263

‘ˆ–Š‹•ƒ†’—„Ž‹•Š–Š‡ϐ‹˜‡…‘””‡Žƒ–‹‘•ǡ•—‰‰‡•–‹‰–Šƒ––Š‡›‹†‹…ƒ–‡‡˜‹†‡…‡‘ˆ˜ƒŽ‹†-
‹–›ƒ†Š‘’‹‰›‘—†‘ǯ–‘™ƒ„‘—––Š‹•‡ˆˆ‡…–Ǥ—–‘™›‘—†‘ǨŠ‹•’”‘˜‹†‡•ƒ™‘”†
of warning for anyone buying a personality inventory.
‘‘—”ƒ–”‹š‹…Ž—†‡•ͻͲ…‘‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–•ǡͳʹ‘ˆ–Š‡‰‹˜‡ƒ••‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–Ǥ ‘”‡ƒ…Š
ʹͲ…‘‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–•‘‡…‘—Ž†„‡•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–„›…Šƒ…‡ǡ•—‰‰‡•–‹‰–Šƒ–ͶǤͷΨ…‘—Ž†‘……—”
among the total. We can’t have half a correlation, so we will round this up to 5. The
—„‡”‘ˆ•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–…‘‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–•‡‡†•–‘„‡‰”‡ƒ–‡”–Šƒ–Š‹•–‘Šƒ˜‡•‘‡™Š‹…Š
are potentially genuine, and this is the case. Obviously, the spurious ones occur at
random and therefore don’t appear as a pattern. In our example the factors which
appear most valid would be H and G, although it is worth saying that the matrix is
’”‘˜‹†‡†‘Ž›ƒ•ƒ•‹’Ž‹ϐ‹‡†‡šƒ’Ž‡ƒ†‘”‡•‹‰‹ϐ‹…ƒ–…‘‡ˆϐ‹…‹‡–•™‘—Ž†‘”-
mally be generated. A statistical correction can eliminate the effect.

SUMMARY
The use of self-report questionnaires to assess personality characteristics continues
to grow. Issues concerning their use, such as those relating to response styles,
including sabotage, distortion, central and random responding, as well as measure-
ment error, have been largely met by developments in technology and the applica-
tion of codes of good practice for their administration, data management and
feedback interviews to individuals.

WHAT HAVE WE DISCOVERED ABOUT THE

ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT OF PERSONALITY?
In this chapter we have looked at personality and its assessment. This area has been
much debated over a long time and there are no simple solutions to how it should
be assessed, although good professional practice suggests a need for objective and
‡’‹”‹…ƒŽ ‡–Š‘†•Ǥ ‘•– ƒ••‡••‡–• Šƒ˜‡ „‡‡ Ž‹‡† –‘ –Š‡‘”‹‡• ™Š‹…Š ”‡ϐŽ‡…–
†‹ˆˆ‡”‡– Š‹•–‘”‹…ƒŽ ’‡”‹‘†• ƒ† ‡ƒ…Š Šƒ• ‹–• „‡‡ϐ‹–• ƒ† Ž‹‹–ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ —” …Š‘‹…‡
depends upon whether we take a more holistic view, as in counselling and develop-
ment settings, or whether we are seeking to make comparisons between people. We
Šƒ˜‡Ž‡ƒ”‡†ƒ„‘—–ǣ

x the distinction between subjective and objective models, and contrasting views
relating to the nature of personality;
x Š‘™ƒ––‡’–•Šƒ˜‡„‡‡ƒ†‡–‘†‡ϐ‹‡ƒ††‹•–‹‰—‹•Š‹–ˆ”‘‘–Š‡”…Šƒ”ƒ…–‡”‹•–‹…•Ǣ
x how thinkers and scientists have evolved different models and processes, some
of which have enabled the assessment of individual differences;
x how personality inventories have been constructed, why they are useful, and
–Š‡‹”„‡‡ϐ‹–•ǡ‹••—‡•ƒ†Ž‹‹–ƒ–‹‘•Ǥ

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 263 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM

 264 An Introduction to Psychological Assessment & Psychometrics

SOME KEY QUESTIONS

How would you distinguish between personality, attitudes, interests, values, motivation,
beliefs and ability?
Is personality simply a result of genetics? What do you think?
Compare the different theoretical approaches to personality. How useful are these?
How would you explain Jungian type theory and its uses?
Why do you think the trait or psychometric approach is widely used for the assessment of
personality?
Explain what is meant by the ‘Big Five’. Why is this thought to be so important?
What are some of the problems relating to the use of personality questionnaires?

08_Coaley_Aipas_A2A0079_Ch-08.indd 264 20-Feb-14 5:41:18 PM