Karteikarten
8 Personality Assessment
Karten in diesem Stapel (16)
- 1Personality Testing - Introduction 1Used by 64% of UK companies (Anderson & Shackleton, 1993), in spite of poor predictive validity, 0.21 - 0.40.
Little correlation between personality results of any trait predicted by tests, vs. actual trait exhibited in the workplace.
Can lead to stereotyping, & stagnation within organisational cultures and development.
Also issues regarding potential cultural and gender discrimination, though opinions are mixed. - 2Personality Testing - Introduction 2First used in WW1, to sift out disturbed potential soldiers.
Studies centre around 4 main areas:
1)Leadership (n.b. Bion 1946 "Leaderless Group Test");
2) Motivation;
3) Employee "withdrawal" behaviours (lateness, absenteeism, turnover);
4) Goal-setting behaviour - 3Personality Testing - Approaches - 1 PsychodynamicFreudian/Jungian in origin, with "introversion" & "extraversion".
Myers & Briggs (MBTI - Myers Briggs Type Indicator) re individual differences.
As also used by Eysenck in three factor personality model, EPQ. (See also as per biological approach) - 4Personality Testing - Approaches - 2 BiologicalEysenck's 1967 EPQ model, with emphasis on heredity and biology in formation and development of personality; claimed that introversion and extraversion were linked to the RAS (Reticular Activating System) in the brain - how a person's dispositional qualities affect their behaviour in any given context in the environment.
- 5Personality Testing - Approaches - 3 BehaviouralFrom USA in the 1950s, Skinner and others;
challenged as to relevance of "personality", arguing instead for external factors and learning being the only relevant influences on behaviour.
i.e. "conditioning" of behaviours, and the "reinforcement" of "habitual responses".
Behaviourism now essentially superseded by cognitive paradigms. - 6Personality Testing - Approaches - 4 Phenomenological & HumanisticPremised on people being creative & actively engaged in their experiences, as opposed to the passive behavioural approach. Such as:
Lewin (1930s) "Lifespace"; Snygg & Coomb 1930; Kelley (1954) Personal Construct Theory; Maslow "Self-Actualisation Theory"; Roger re "unconditional personal regard"; Schulz 1978 FIRO - questionable validity - (person having 3 needs - inclusion, control, and affection) - 7Personality Testing - Approaches - 5 Social CognitiveDeveloped on from behaviourism and learning theory, but includes cognitive factors - Bandura & Robert Walters, both of 1970s. Observation & imitation of others leads to mimicking of people's role models. Importance of context on behaviour - hence Schoda et al 1994 more situational- behavioural, rather than individual-specific.
- 8Personality Testing - Approaches - 6 TraitPredominant approach to personality today, though criticised as being atheoretical. Includes -
Eysenck & Eysenck 1967; Cattell's 16PF (and spin-offs - ICP, NEO, OPQ); and
Costa & McCrae's 1997 "Big Five" (Claimed to be largely untaimted by cultural issues) - 9Personality Testing - Classification of people - types vs. traitsTYPES - Broad categories and syndromes identified (e.bg. Belbin's Team Types);
TRAITS - identifying individual differences between people.
i.e. a trait highlights a specific individual difference (EPQ,16PF, OPQ).
Models can use a combination of both.
Traits generally considered stable qualities within personality, as opposed to more transient "moods". - 10Applying Personality Tools 1 - StabilityGenerally assessed via longitudinal studies, Furnham 1992, can have restriction of range problems.
Hampton (1997, 1998) re 3 types of inconsistency affecting stability - temporal, cross-situational, internal (idealised vs. realistic self); Mischel 1969, re context-dependency;
Ackerman 1999 - people's traits becoming more conventional as they age. - 11Personality Testing - 2 Predictive Validity 1Recent research suggests increasing support for personality's predictive validity of job performance, particularly when used in conjunction with other testing tools.
e.g. Furnham & Heaven 1999; Barrick et al 2002 re sales reps, Bartram 1995 re military - 12Personality Testing - 2 Predictive Validity 2 Bandwidthi.e. no. of dimensions:
Cattell - 16;
Eysenck & Eysenck - 3;
Costa & McCrea - 5 (idea no.?);
Note "Jangle Fallacy" same trait names used in different questionnaires, having different meanings. - 13Personality Testing - 2 Predictive Validity 3 - Most Predictive Factor?Most research suggests Conscientiousness for personality, Barrick et al 2003, as well as cognitive "g" regards job performance (Robertson & Kinder 1993); 5 Criticisms of "most predictive factor" studies":
1) An over-broad aggregation of job performance; 2) Use of multiple occupational groups; 3) Low level of analysis; 4) Cross-definitions of sub-factors; 5) Overuse of meta-analysis - 14Personality Testing - Distortion and FakingMany tests are self-reporting.
Some faking unconscious, not malicious, could be due to limited self-insight, but also outright deliberate manipulation/ impression management.
Can minimise via:
The instructions supplied; Pacing;
Inclusion of Social Desirability scales;
Item Opacity;
Results feedback;
Response format (e.g. Ipsative response format) - 15Personality Testing - EthicsTwo issues:
1) Use of personality tests in deselection, or to justify/support one's own viewpoint or political ends within the company;
2) Reducing discrimination of minorities - as claimed by Hough et al 1990, and disputed by Ryan et al 1998. - 16Applying Personality Tools - Teamsregarding work carried out in a team context.
Not much research exists;
Difficult to assess a fit of (individual) personality variables for a team in aggregate.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- D842 Karteikarten am 8 Personality Assessment, erstellt von mifrrole am 18/04/2013.
- Erstellt von
- mifrrole
- Aufrufe
- 45
- Tags
- Bewertung