Running head: PERSONALITY 1

Around and About Personality Testing

Before coming directly in touch with the nuances of personality testing, we must also
open new doors to theorize what do we mean by personality? If we look closely, personality is
‘something broad’ which determines a person’s behavioral pattern and their being-in-the world1.
Apart from being ‘something broad’, it also carries in itself ‘something specific’—something
which is exclusive, which then becomes a defining characteristic of an individual. So, personality
is essentially a play between something which is found in everyone and something which is
fascinatingly unique to an individual. Just like intelligence, various theorists have described
personality in numerous ways and still some excess remains unaddressed in those definitions.
We as a student of psychology must access that excess eloquently. Broadly, theorists have
investigated personality in terms of universal patterns leading to generalizations and have also
stressed on individual differences.
Let us go beyond our textbooks and look at personality the way it is. Genesis of
personality lies outside. It is something which is introjected from the outside—mother, family,
society, culture and zeitgeist. Personality and individuality are not the same thing. Seekers in the
field of psychology must analyze each word carefully. Personality is imposed from the outside; it
is a mask. Individuality is your very being. In-dividual (indivisible)—something which cannot be
divided further. Learning introjected from others is personality and mindful spontaneity is
individuality. It has its own flavor, substance, and authenticity which ‘masks’ long for. That
longing of persona to be unique remains a Sisyphean task. In this moment, reflect on whatever
you have learned about personality. Pause for a moment and turn to the next page.

1
The terminology ‘being-in-the-world’ belongs to the work of 20th century German philosopher Martin Heidegger.
More about ‘being’ can be traced in his work titled Being and Time.
PERSONALITY 2

Where does the word ‘personality’ come from? Is there any relationship between sound
and personality? Yes, there is. Sounds fascinating? Person and personality both have their roots
in the word persona. In linguistics, two interpretations of the word persona can be found. One is
per-sona, “through the sound.” The other interpretation goes back to the Etruscan word phersu,
which means “masks.” Both the interpretations are related to each other. In Greek theatrical
plays, actor’s mask had a funnel-shaped mouth opening that amplified the actor’s voice.
Audiences sitting far away from the actors used to identify the mask, phersu, a persona by its
sound (per-sona) rather than by the appearance (Berendt, 1991). The genesis of personality then,
is only at a surface level—“mask.” Much more is happening at the level of being which even
personality remains unaware of.
Can personality reveal things about a person? Definitely. But can it tell us all about
human capabilities and understanding of one’s being at the core? Students of night psychology
would doubt this. Along with understanding personality, we also must go beyond it. If we dive
deep, there is Nietzsche’s conception of Übermensch, Carl Jung’s idea of Individuation, Ramana
Maharshi’s understanding of Self, Gurdjieff’s Fourth Way and Osho’s Zorba the Buddha—all
waiting for us to be known. We now will be looking at two approaches in psychological testing
and psychology in general.
Idiographic and Nomothetic Approach
Nomothetic approach is interested in creating universal laws to explain behavior—to
reach towards a generalization. It studies what is common across people. In this endeavor,
nomothetic approach utilizes statistical techniques and essentially deals with numbers.
Nomothetic approach is quantitative in nature. Idiographic approach, on the other hand puts an
emphasis on unique and subjective experiences of an individual. Idiographic approach is
qualitative in nature as it is interested in gaining in-depth details about an individual rather than
attempting to generalize a phenomenon. Case studies and interviews are the ways of idiographic
approach. Gordon Allport falls under the idiographic tradition as he utilized extensive case
studies to build his theorizations. Behaviorists and personality psychologists like Eysenck and
Costa and McCrae fall under the nomothetic tradition.
Freud was one of the psychologists who pioneered the use of case studies—Dora, Anna
O, Schreber (Freud’s analysis of Schreber’s case was wrong), Wolfman, Ratman, and Little
Hans. So, we might say that Freud falls under idiographic tradition as clearly, he is interested in
unique experiences of individuals. But here is the catch—Freud also gave Oedipus complex,
which he insisted existed in all people across different cultures. This hypothesis of Freud, which
is like a universal law, suggests that Freud’s theories are not only idiographic but also
nomothetic. Interesting fact: Girindrasekhar Bose, the first president of the Indian Psychoanalytic
Society (1922), was in correspondence with Freud for 20 years. He said to Freud that your
generalizations related to Oedipus complex are not much applicable in the terroir of India. Well,
you know Freud—he smiled, acknowledged Bose’s effort and lastly rejected them. However,
Bose was made a member of the International Psychoanalytic Association.
PERSONALITY 3

What do Personality Tests Test?

Like intelligence tests measure IQ, numerical ability, verbal fluency, divergent thinking
and so on. What to personality tests measure? They measure personality traits, symptoms of
distress, dynamic motivation, personal strengths, and attitudinal characteristics (Gregory, 2015,
p. 306). They also measure style and type of personality and self-concept. Not only this,
personality tests have also moved a step ahead and moved out of the box in attempts to access
the excess—innermost needs, fantasies, and conflicts through different projective techniques.
Theory and Practice are Connected
R. D. Laing said “The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice.
And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change; until we
notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds” (Goleman, 1998). A theory not only
brings something new into an understanding of a concept, it also includes hints of what all one
has failed to notice. Each conceptualization in itself carries a tale of what remains unseen,
untouched, unfelt, and ununderstood.
We have a theory of psychoanalysis, we get Rorschach Ink Blot Test, Thematic
Apperception Test etc. We have theorization of analytical psychology by Carl Jung, we get
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) by Myers. Through Eysenck’s hierarchical theorization of
personality in terms of Extroversion – introversion, stable – unstable factors, we get Eysenck
Personality Inventory (EPI). What is all of this suggesting? It suggests that theory and practice
are connected. Are we forever stuck in the play of theory and practice or is there anything else
which can help us to look beyond? Fortunately, there is something—a ‘third’ which is not just
theory or practice. It is praxis. Praxis is what transforms psychology from a subject to
psychology as a way of being. It is about embodying, engaging, and realizing the field in which
one belongs. To be one with what is being researched.
Dispositional Approach
In the field of personality psychology, the terms dispositions and traits are used
interchangeably. What do we mean by dispositions? Dispositions can be understood as the labels
we use to explain a person’s behavior across a range of situations. Dispositions are also theorized
as relatively enduring characteristics of personality that remain stable over a long period of time
rather than changing on a day-to-day basis. Dispositions are conceptualized as being consistent
across cultures but this notion immune to strong criticisms (Pennington, 2003, p. 135).
If we try to historicize dispositional approach, we will find ourselves in ancient Greek
times where Galen would be waiting for us. Theory of bodily humours suggests that there are
four fluids that regulate the body—blood, black bile, yellow bile, and phlegm. Each of these
humours is associated with specific dispositions. Blood was associated with a sanguine
personality—bold, confident, and forceful. Black bile was associated with a melancholic
personality—depressive, anxious, and pessimistic. Yellow bile was associated with a choleric
personality—being restless, angry, and irritable. Phlegm was associated with a phlegmatic
person—cold, aloof, and apathetic. According to Galen, the overall personality of a person
PERSONALITY 4

depends upon the interaction and balance between these four bodily humours (Pennington, 2003,
pp. 135-136).
Important Thinkers related to Personality
Gordon Allport
Before coming to Allport, there is one person who also mastered study of dispositions
with his scientific approach. His name is Galton. Galton maintained the position that dispositions
are inherited. No wonder Charles Darwin’s was his half-cousin. His book Hereditary Genius
which he wrote in 1869 also maintained that intelligence is inherited. Although there were few
flaws in his research. He didn’t include many women in his study and failed to take into account
of people being born into wealth and status.
Gordon Allport has been given the title of founding father of the modern dispositional
approach to personality. It was through his book Personality: A Psychological Interpretation that
people started taking the study of personality comprehensively in the field of psychology. Allport
researched about dispositions and interestingly also recognized the uniqueness of the individual.
He said, “the outstanding characteristic of man is his individuality. He is a unique creation of the
forces of nature. Separated spatially from all other men he behaves throughout his own particular
life in his own distinctive fashion” (Pennington, 2003, p. 3). Allport in his study of dispositions
utilized idiographic approach.
Why Allport falls under idiographic approach?
Allport said no two people are the same. Here is a unique twist. A collection of
dispositions makes a person’s personality and no two people are same. It can be the case that two
people may have the same trait and they may behave in a similar manner. So, how can we say
that no two people are same? Yes, generally people may conceptualize traits like this, but
according to Allport it is not true. Allport’s approach was different and that is what makes his
conceptualizations unique. He said no two people are same—not even identical twins. It is
because he believed the same trait will operate in a unique way in different people.
The use of questionnaire represents a nomothetic approach and Allport disregarded the
use of questionnaire approach. He said that an individual can only be studied through in-depth,
detailed, and long-term case studies. Along with interviews, Allport thought personal documents
such as are also a valuable source of information. Allport’s approach can be said to be
phenomenological2 in nature as he used the method of case studies. There are some
disadvantages of using personal documents. First, we cannot take them at their face value,
second, there are ethical issues in relation to access such documents and third, the ability and
fineness of expression may differ because of educational qualifications. Verbal accounts from

2
Phenomenology the way it is can be traced back to a 20th century philosopher named Edmund Husserl. It is about
studying the experience the way it is rather than being driven by some preconceived notions about it. Husserl gave
the concept of ‘bracketing’ which suggests suspending the judgment about the natural world and focusing on
analysis of experience. Instead of explaining a phenomena, it focuses on describing the phenomena in detail.
Husserl was influenced by Franz Brentano who said consciousness is consciousness of something.
PERSONALITY 5

the person in that sense are more valuable as compared to personal documents (Pennington,
2003, p. 140).
Cardinal, central, and secondary traits
As the words disposition and trait are used interchangeably, Allport being the founding
father of modern dispositional approach is also known as a trait psychologist. As stated earlier,
dispositions can be understood as the labels we use to explain a person’s behavior across a range
of situations. Allport identified over 18,000 words in English-language dictionary which
described personality traits. Allport differentiated between common traits and personal
dispositions. Common traits are those traits which are those traits that allow comparison between
people belonging to different cultures or societies. According to Allport, different cultures gave
emphasis to different common traits. For example, western cultures often encourage common
trait of competitiveness and east on the other hand fosters the common trait of sharing. Personal
dispositions are traits that are characteristic of an individual and distinguish one person’s
personality from that of another person. Any individual personal disposition could be classified
according to the extent to which it influences a person’s behavior. Hence, Allport came up with
cardinal, central and secondary traits (Pennington, 2003, p. 138).
Cardinal trait exerts the most powerful influence on a person’s behavior. It is the most
dominant and tied to a person’s personality in such a way that the person becomes almost
synonymous with those qualities. Allport illustrated the concept of cardinal traits by reference to
famous historical or fictional figures—like, Christ-like for the trait of holiness, Machiavellian for
the trait of manipulativeness (Pennington, 2003, p. 138). Interesting fact: Niccolò Machiavelli
was an Italian diplomat who wrote The Prince in 1513. In that book, he also spoke of staging
one’s death to fool the enemies. Actor/rapper/activist Tupac Shakur read The Prince while he
was in prison in 1995. The book influenced him so much that he referred to himself as
‘Makaveli.’ Tupac died at the age of 25 in 1996 and many theorists suggest that he staged his
own death the way Niccolò Machiavelli suggested and is alive and well. Allport’s idea of
cardinal trait influenced thinkers like Cattell, Eysenck, and Costa and McCrae.
After cardinal traits come central traits. They, too, exert a major influence on a person’s
behavior, but less than cardinal traits. According to Allport, most people have five to ten central
traits. If you think of the major terms you might use to describe your overall character; then those
are probably your central traits (e.g., loyal, friendly, diligent, honest, etc.). Traits which lie on the
periphery are known as secondary traits. They exert a minor influence on the behavior and are
activated only in specific situations. A person has many secondary traits, but they are not the
defining characteristic of that person. Secondary traits are often known only through a closer
acquaintance with a person. On the other hand, central traits would be noticed after only a short
conversation with a person (Pennington, 2003, p. 139).
Allport’s concept of proprium
Allport gave the term proprium, which refers to the central experiences of self-awareness
and self-knowledge as a person grows psychologically and moves forward in life. Allport (1961)
PERSONALITY 6

suggested proprium has seven emerging aspects, representing the psychological growth of the
person. Each of these seven aspects has a personality function.
Proprium Emergent period Personality function
1. Bodily self First year Pleasures, pains, and
sensations of the body.
2. Self-identity Second year Continuity of experience,
especially through language
use.
3. Self-esteem Third year Independence and sense of
achievement.
4. Self-extension Four to six years Possession and knowledge of
‘mine.’
5. Self-image Four to six years Good and naughty self.
Sensitive to praise and blame.
6. Self as rational coper Six to twelve years Realistic solutions and
problem solving.
7. Propriate strivings Adolescence Ownership of feelings,
thoughts, needs. Life goals
identified.
Self-awareness Adulthood Awareness of self through all
seven aspects coming
together.

His idea of proprium can be seen to be having resemblance with Erik Erikson’s
psychosocial stages of development. Interesting fact: Erik Erikson was Sudhir Kakar’s analyst in
Germany. During the transference situation that developed between both, Kakar started dreaming
in German. We can only imagine the impact in Kakar’s mind of those therapeutic sessions. This
comes as an important event to understand as there are many people who maintain that therapy
where analyst and analysand belong to different cultures cannot be successful.
When Allport met Freud
Allport completed his PhD in psychology from Harvard University. Allport was an
admirer of Sigmund Freud. He wrote a letter to Freud expressing his desire to meet him. Freud
agreed to meet him. Soon he travelled to Europe. While Allport was on a train to Vienna, he
observed a boy who was afraid of getting dirty. Allport looked at the child’s mother who was
very neat and thought perhaps this dirt phobia was acquired by the child through his mother. The
moment he reached Freud’s place, Allport was in complete awe. Seeing Freud for the first time
and going through large rooms with dream paintings, Allport thought how to break the ice with
Freud? So, he told Freud about his observation of a boy in the train who was afraid of getting
dirty. Freud after observing Allport in silence for a long time said, “was that little boy you?”
Allport in his mind thought Freud’s attempt to connect the train incident to some
unconscious episode from his childhood was disavowing his present by focusing on the past.
Allport maintained that psychoanalysis tries to analyze too much and didn’t agree with Freud’s
PERSONALITY 7

emphasis on sexual instinct and unconscious forces (Allport, 1967). Allport died in 1967. What
if Allport’s encounter with Freud would have been an enriching one, rather than one of
disappointment? If that would have been the case, perhaps Allport would have extended
psychoanalytic tradition. Still, the encounter didn’t go in vain as Allport developed a theory of
personality which was entirely different from that of Freud’s.
Raymond Cattell
Cattell defined personality as “that which permits a prediction of what a person will do in
a given situation” (Cattell, 1950). Cattell believed in a strong genetic basis to personality. The
horror of the First World War affected him to such extent that he started taking his studies
seriously. Cattell’s approach towards personality is a nomothetic one. He published more than 40
books and 400 research articles (Pennington, 2003, p. 143). Traits cannot be directly seen but
behavior can be observed systematically. One of the main preoccupations of Cattell was to
predict how people will behave in a range of social and work situations. For this, he gave a
formula:
R = f (s, p)—where R is the behavioral response which is equal to the function (f) of both
situation (s) and the personality of the individual (p). Cattell’s three main sources of data
collection were L-data, Q-data, and T-data. L-data refers to life data obtained through life
records of the person such as personal achievements, diaries, awards, views of parents and
teachers, and observations made in naturalistic settings. Q-data refers to questionnaire data and
includes self-ratings on personality questionnaires (Cattell developed many questionnaires). T-
data refers to test data and the main sources of data here are the observations of behavior made in
controlled laboratory and experimental conditions. Although Cattell said that data should be
combined through all these three sources for a more accurate description of personality, he
himself stressed the most on data collected through questionnaires (Pennington, 2003, p. 144).
Surface and source traits
Surface traits are clusters of traits which often go together—for example, talkativeness,
sociability, and gregariousness. Allport’s list of 18,000 words reflecting trait names was reduced
to 4,500 surface traits by Cattell. Surface traits, as the name suggests, are seen directly in how
people behave. Cattell thought that if clusters of surface traits go together, then there should be
some underlying, more general trait to which the cluster of surface traits relate. These were
referred to as source traits by Cattell. Unlike surface traits, source traits are lesser in number and
are not readily observable. For example, talkativeness, sociability, and gregariousness might be
linked to a single source trait of friendliness.
Cattell utilized data obtained from L-data, Q-data, and T-data along with factor analysis
to investigate source traits. As surface traits would be helpful to describe and characterize
behavior, knowledge of source traits would help with predictions to be made about the behavior.
Cattell further divided source traits into three parts—ability traits, temperament traits, and
dynamic traits. Ability traits refer to the skills and qualities we posses that allow us to achieve
certain goals in life. For Cattell, intelligence is an ability trait. Temperament traits refer to our
approach in life and how to interact with other people—e.g. being moody or friendly etc.
PERSONALITY 8

Dynamic traits refer to the interests and motivations of a person—e.g. ambitiousness or

sportiness. Cattell also distinguished between normal and abnormal traits. Abnormal traits are
more to do with depressive and psychotic disorders than normal traits (Pennington, 2003, p.
145).
The 16 Personality Factor (16 PF) questionnaire
Cattell’s system measures 16 major source traits each on a bipolar scale. The 16 factors
are arranged in such a way that first factor (outgoing – reserved) would be most important out of
the 16 source traits. It is because Cattell found out that this trait (outgoing – reserved) which is at
the top has a broad and pervasive influence on behavior. Surface traits of aloof, critical, precise,
distrustful, and independent fall under the source trait of reserved. Surface traits of warm-
hearted, easygoing, good-natured, and trustful fall under source trait of outgoing (Pennington,
2003, p. 145). Cattell’s 16 source personality factors are listed below:
Cattell’s 16 source personality factors
outgoing - reserved
more intelligent - less intelligent
high ego strength - low ego strength
assertive - humble
happy-go-lucky - sober
conscientiousness - expedient
adventuresome - sly
toughminded - tenderminded
trusting - suspicious
imaginative - practical
shrewd - forthright
apprehensive - self-assured
experimenting - conservative
group-dependent - self-sufficient
casual - controlled
relaxed - tense

In the above table, the order of importance is from top to bottom. The 16 PF consists of
187 questions in which the person completing the questionnaire has to make a choice from a
PERSONALITY 9

number of alternatives provided. Below is the table which shows the items from the 16 PF
designed to measure outgoing versus reserved factor. Options with a * would score for the
outgoing trait.
1. I would rather work as (a) an engineer
(b) a social science lecturer*
2. I could stand being a hermit (a) true
(b) false*
3. I am careful to turn up when someone expects me (a) true
(b) false
4. I would prefer to marry someone who is (a) a thoughtful companion
(b) effective in a social group*
5. I would prefer to read a book on (a) national social service*
(b) new scientific weapons
6. I trust strangers (a) sometimes
(b) practically always*

The score obtained by a person in each of the 16 personality factors is deciphered in

relation to a specific norm group. Average scores are also standardized by country e.g. United
States, United Kingdom and so forth. By comparing a person’s score to that of the average of an
appropriate reference group, it can be determined whether the score is within the average range
for the group or it lies towards one of the two extremes. When comparing each of the 16 scores
to those of a reference group, the score of the 16 personality factors is given on a scale of one to
ten. The 16 PF is utilized for basic research purposes and is additionally applied in the field of
occupational psychology for staff selection, to match personality to type of job, to comprehend
leadership style that a senior manager exhibits, and to understand how a person works and
contributes to a group (Pennington, 2003, p. 148).
Hans Eysenck
Eysenck received his PhD in psychology from the University of London in 1940. He has
written more than more than 75 books and thousands of articles. He critiqued psychoanalysis and
strongly and psychotherapy in general. He said people are cured with time and not with therapy
(Eysenck, 1952). Eysenck was a controversial personality because of his strong views about the
importance of hereditary for both personality and intelligence (Pennington, 2003, p. 149). He
paid more attention to the biological basis than anything else. He maintained that different racial
groups differ in terms of the level of intelligence due to which he received criticism too.
Three dimensions of personality and Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)
Eysenck proposed a hierarchical model of personality with three main dimensions—
extroversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. Eysenck and Cattell both were the proponents of
factor analysis, yet Eysenck couldn't help contradicting Cattell over the number of factors of
PERSONALITY 10

personality. Cattell suggested sixteen and Eysenck initially proposed only two—extroversion –
introversion and stable – unstable. Stable – unstable depicts the neuroticism dimension. These
two dimensions were related with normal functioning of the person. Later, he added
psychoticism dimension which has to do more with abnormal functions such as delusional
thinking, anti-social behavior, and more general psychopathic behavior (Pennington, 2003, p.
150).
The extroversion-introversion dimension has close associations with Carl Jung’s idea of
introversion – extroversion, with Cattell’s first factor named outgoing – reserved, and with big
five personality traits (extroversion is one of the big five personality traits). The stable versus
unstable dimension is about the emotional behavior of the person. People who are emotionally
stable are carefree, even-tempered, and reliable. People who are emotionally unstable are moody,
touchy, restless, and anxious (neurotic). The psychoticism dimension is different as compared to
the above two dimensions as it is conceptualized as a continuum rather than having two different
extremes. In this continuum, at one end, there are propensities towards anti-social behaviors,
aggressiveness, and egocentricity. The other end of this dimension is characterized by relative
absence of anti-social behaviors, aggressiveness, and egocentricity. This indicate high degree of
self-control. On the other hand, psychoticism is characterized by lack of self-control
(Pennington, 2003, p. 150).
Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) measures two main dimensions—extroversion –
introversion and stable – unstable. The EPI comprises of 57 questions which are yes and no type.
24 questions out of 57 measure extroversion – introversion dimension, 24 questions measure
stable- unstable dimension, and the remain 9 questions are intended to measure whether the
person is presenting themselves in a socially desirable manner or not. Score between 1 to 24 is
obtained for the two dimensions and meaning is generated by comparing the scores to a norm
group (Pennington, 2003, p. 151).
As we noted earlier that Eysenck’s emphasis was more in biological basis, he linked
individual differences related to extroversion – introversion to the activity of a lower part of the
brain known as the Reticular Activating System (RAS). Eysenck maintained that extroverts have
a relatively low level of cortical arousal coming about because of inhibitory actions of the
Reticular Activating System. As a result, they seek a high level of stimulation in the outside
world. On the other hand, introverts have a high level of cortical activity resulting from the
excitatory effect of the Reticular Activating System. Thus, they avoid higher levels of outside
stimulation (Pennington, 2003, p. 154).
The big five personality traits
Galton gave lexical hypothesis which proposes that the differences in the ways people
interact with each other is coded in words. In simple language, behavioral difference is related to
word function. As we noted earlier, Allport to understand personality traits came up with 18,000
words in the English language, Cattell suggested 16 personality factors, and Eysenck focused on
three dimensions. It was Thurstone in 1934 who suggested that five factors are adequate to
characterize the important aspects of human personality. Goldberg did a metanalysis of several
PERSONALITY 11

researches related to the dispositional approach to personality and found out five consistent
factors evident across researches.
The most agreed upon five factors are neuroticism, extroversion, openness, agreeableness
and conscientiousness. There are numerous researchers who concur that there are five factors,
but do not agree as to what those five factors are. These five factors were also arrived at through
factor analysis. The five-factor model of personality was developed by Costa and McCrae. Costa
and McCrae also fall under the nomothetic approach as they developed a questionnaire to
measure these five factors which are said to be present in different degrees in people. Their
theoretical framework had four main points.
First, structure of personality can be described sufficiently in terms of the five factors.
Each factor comprises of six specific traits which are measured by NEO-PI-R. Second, scores
that a person obtains on the main five factors will remain stable over a period of time (if the
person is about 30 years old and above) and has a biological basis. This is similar to Eysenck’s
endeavor to locate the roots of extroversion – introversion to biological underpinnings. Third, the
way these five factors are orchestrated in a person have a genetic basis to it. Costa and McCrae
here are following the path of Cattell and Eysenck, suggesting a strong biological basis to
personality. This affirmation is laid down with the help of twin studies but has faced criticisms
too. Fourth, that these five factors relate to causal mechanisms in such a way that each factor
represented in the individual will be consistent with their actual behavior (it means that these five
factors are linked to actual behavior of a person) (Pennington, 2003, p. 157).
At first Costa and McCrae developed a questionnaire to measure only three factors—
Neuroticism, Extroversion, and Openness. It was simply NEO-PI. Here ‘PI’ stands for
Personality Inventory. Later they revised their questionnaire and incorporated agreeableness and
conscientiousness. It was called NEO-PI-R (‘R’ stands for revised). Each of these five factors
contain six sub-scales. Each sub-scale consists up to ten items. Each must be answered on a five-
point rating scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’. It includes items such as:
• I really like most people I meet
• I often crave excitement
• Sometimes I feel completely worthless
The table below shows the five factors of NEO-PI-R along with their six sub-scales:
Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Anxiety Warmth Fantasy Trust Competence
Angry hostility Gregariousness Aesthetics Straightforwardness Order
Depression Assertiveness Feelings Altruism Dutifulness
Self- Activity Actions Compliance Achievement-
consciousness striving
Impulsiveness Excitement- Ideas Modesty Self-descriptive
seeking
Vulnerability Positive Values Tendermindedness Deliberation
emotions
PERSONALITY 12

The 60-item short form of this questionnaire is known as NEO-FFI (‘FFI’ stands for Five
Factor Inventory). The generality of the five factors is seen in Israel, Germany, Japan, Portugal,
China, and Korea. However, it was noted that in China, one other factor apart from what NEO-
PI-R measures was found. This factor was called ‘Chinese tradition’—demonstrating a way of
life different from the western cultures. It is plausible that other cultures may produce a specific
cultural factor (Pennington, 2003, p. 160).
Five factor model is utilized in various fields like estimating job performance, job
satisfaction, and in relation to the treatment of personality disorders. A high score on
conscientiousness and agreeableness indicated people’s success at jobs as compared to those who
scored low on these factors. Above-average scores on extroversion and low scores on
neuroticism were found to be key predictors of job satisfaction. It was noted that high
neuroticism, low extroversion, high openness, and low conscientiousness is associated with
substance abuse disorder. High neuroticism, low extroversion, high openness, and low
agreeableness is associated with anxiety disorders. High neuroticism, low extroversion, high
openness, and high conscientiousness is associated with depression (Pennington, 2003, p. 161). It
is to be noted that despite the fact that the five factors are said to be rooted biologically, not
much research has been done to support this claim.
Critique of Dispositional Approach
Whenever we will reach towards a critique of dispositional approach, we would find
Walter Mischel waiting for us. He wrote a book titled Personality Assessment in 1968 where he
challenged the idea that traits result in consistent behavior across various situations. He said that
the behavior is substantially more situation specific than believed by trait theorists. He found out
that traits such as aggression, rigidity, honesty etc. had a low correlation with the actual
behavior. Mischel suggested that the behavior is situation specific and the same person would
behave diversely across different situations. Mischel went a step further and disavowed the
existence of traits totally. We have something known as the fundamental attributional error
which is a general inclination to ignore situational aspects in explaining the cause of behavior. Is
that the case that the dispositional approach has fallen under the lap of the fundamental
attributional error? Not only person’s so-called traits are influencing behavior, but different
situations also impact behavior. Like we have nature vs nurture debate, this debate between role
of traits and the situation in predicting behavior is known as person-situation debate. Amid all
these debates, it is important to note that traits are useful for describing the behavior (recall
Galton’s lexical hypothesis).
Behaviorists critiqued trait approach by saying that the behavior is observable unlike
traits. Along these lines, it very well may be the situation that traits are hypothetical constructs
and not the actual psychological phenomena as guaranteed by trait theorists. There is the
problem of social desirability in terms of questionnaires used by trait theorists and still there is
no consensus as to which five factors should be in the big five. The debates are still ongoing. It is
PERSONALITY 13

likewise to be noted that dispositional approach is highly influential in the field of personality
testing extending to the areas of clinical and organizational psychology.
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Allport, G. W. (1967). An autobiography. In E. G. Boring & G. Linzey (eds.). A history of
psychology in autobiography (vol. 5). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Berendt, J. E. (1991). The word is sound, Nada Brahma: Music and the landscape of
consciousness. Vermont: Inner Traditions.
Cattell, R. B. (1950). Personality: A systematic, theoretical and factual study. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 16, pp. 319-324.
Goleman, D. (1998). Vital lies, simple truths: The psychology of self-deception. London:
Bloomsbury.
Gregory, R. J. (2015). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications (7th ed).
England: Pearson.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Pennington, D. C. (2 003). Essential personality. London: Arnold.