Report on:

Criticism and Evaluation of Mini reports on Big-Five Personality

Stage 1

Submitted to
Professor Arpana Rai

By
Ranga Senthil Kumaran B,
20111995

On
23/ 09/ 2020
Criticism on Openness to Experience:

My assessment on Openness to experience was done by Rampavan Kumar. He asked me

some questions to test my personality in this trait. It was a very good and long interview. He
has divided the trait into five factors such as Ambiguity, Creative and innovative mind,
imagination levels, Curiosity and susceptibility.

In the report he has given excerpts from the interview but it seems lacking a deep analysis.
He has quoted the excerpts and just given a single point about the factor on how he has rated.
It would have been better if he had given a deep analysis on each and every factor to
understand why he has given such rating. The report is lacking analysis.

I would agree with the rating he has given for factors here in the report. I would say I am
comfortable in handling ambiguity, moderately innovative, has high imagination, moderate
curiosity and less susceptible to decline in my performance over the time. He has given me a
rating of Moderate in the Openness to Experience personality trait. I would say I can agree
with that. Overall, the report could have been better by adding a deeper analysis in the end.

Criticism on Conscientiousness:

My assessment on Conscientiousness was done by Rahi Kiran. The interview had some
questions based on situations and some open-ended questions where she asked me to relate
with examples in my life experience. The report was divided based on few factors such as
Efficiency, reliability, organization and Achievement orientation.

The mini report consists of more excerpts than the Analysis. She has given excerpts from the
interview and just directly rated the factor based on that. But there is no analysis why she has
given such rating to me in that particular factor. Due to this reason I am unable to understand
why she has given any such rating for the factors given in the report.

The ratings which she has given for the factor are all correct to my understanding as well. She
has given myself as moderately organized and I would agree with that as I tend to go with the
flow. I find myself efficient and reliable and as well as achievement-oriented person who
looks for recognition. On the overall rating I would agree with the rating which she has given
which is High on Conscientiousness. But if there is a deeper analysis it could have helped
easily in more understanding of the report.
Criticism on Extraversion:

My assessment of Extraversion was done by Radhika Bharani. The interview consisted of

few open-ended questions and situational questions which was asked by her. I answered
based on my life experiences for all the questions asked by her. The report was divided on
factors such as Talkative, Enjoying Social Situations, Being outgoing and Sociable.

The report is done in a good manner where she has used excerpts from the interview as
example and given an analysis based on the answers. She has rated each and every factor and
has given the reason why she has given me the particular rating in that factor. So, it is easy to
understand why she has given that particular rating.

After assessing the factors, she is also given an overall analysis of my personality in that
particular trait. So, it is very easy to relate with the assessment and the personality trait.
However, the report does not clearly state the overall rating of my personality in that trait. So,
if she could have given the overall rating clearly and could have highlighted it, it could have
been easier for people who study to get an idea in the beginning of the report instead of
reading the whole report to understand.

Criticism on Agreeableness:

My assessment of Agreeableness was done by Pritam Mondal. He asked me many situational

questions to understand how I react to the situation given by him. It was a very good
interaction rather than interview. The report is divided into different factors such as
trustworthy, cooperative and Good natured.

The report has a good initiation with by giving excerpts from the interview. Then it has a
deep analysis based on the particular factor based on my response for the questions posed to
me. He has rated all the factors considered and stated a reason for that as well. So it was a
pretty much straight forward report.

In the report he has analyzed all the factors in a very informative way. But he didn’t conclude
with an overall conclusion for that personality trait. The overall conclusion would have
helped the reader to interpret more information about the personality of that person. I would
agree with the given ratings for all the factors which was high, as I can relate myself with the
situations given to me. But the report didn’t have a overall rating for the personality trait.
Criticism on Neuroticism:

My assessment on Neuroticism was done Sravan Kumar Rapaka. He asked me many

situation-based questions to understand my neurotic levels. My answers were open and
honest. The report has been divided into factors such as Anxiety, Anger and Depression.

The report mainly consists of Excerpts rather than analysis. He has given the interview
excerpts mostly rather than giving his understanding of my personality based on my answers.
He has given a very little information about why has given any ratings for the factors in the
consideration.

The report consists of rating of my personality in the factors considered. I would agree with
all the ratings given. Sravan has did a good job in assessing the personality but in the report,
he failed to reflect the same. Overall, the report could have had more detailed analysis rather
than a very small information given as it is hard to relate his understanding with the rating.
Conclusion:

Learnings from Stage I:

For the stage I report, I found out about the Big 5 Personality, and the different angles behind
them. The principal takeaway was learnings I had about myself. The different answers that I
gave for the inquiries that were posed to caused me to investigate my character past the
surface level and evaluate how I was in the various circumstances presented by my
companions. Another significant key learning was the manner by which to answer an
individual question. In addition to the fact that I did my own examination to concoct a
methodology, yet additionally saw the number of various ways there are to take an interview,
as I have seen from the interview taken of me by my companions. From this I had an
understanding that even a basic discussion can be examined to the most profound levels. In
conclusion, I had the option to pick up many learnings about my friends from this activity, as
I became acquainted with my companions on a lot further and genuine level which probably
won't have been conceivable without this activity.

Learnings from Stage II:

The stage II report felt like a response of the stage 1 report on myself. In any case, on a
similar note, one can contend that I have just begun my self-assessment measure from the
principal stage where I was called out for various inquiries and how I responded to them,
which gave me an underlying lift to my stage 2 cycle fulfillment. The Big-5 personality test
made me question my scores and percentiles, permitting me to plunge further about my
character, what I concur with, and whether the appropriate responses I have given in the
earlier week or the activities really coordinate the scores. This permitted me to comprehend
the distinction between my character from a lot more extensive sense versus my own point of
view, permitting me to understand that it might be both right and wrong from case to case.
This distinction permitted me to ground myself towards the reality and away from simply my
contemplations on who I think I am.
Learnings from Stage III:

In stage III, I was opened to an altogether unique perspective about me. Every one of my
companions saw me from their own viewpoints, and that gave me some thought of how
individuals see me in general. From this I had the option to distinguish my qualities and
shortcomings from my point of view just as theirs. I was additionally ready to comprehend
the difference between my assessment and theirs if there is any. This stage additionally gave
me experiences into how every one of them utilized my interview responds for their analysis.
I would state that my companions have done a great job on increasing such complex bits of
knowledge into my character which I might have barely noticeable, all from an aspect of a
basic discussion that I had with them for a few minutes. This permitted me to have a superior
comprehension of myself just as about the Big-5 personality test. This activity has permitted
me to recognize my character, where I should focus on and where my companions believe is
a decent part about me.

Appendix:

MINI REPORT EVALUATION TABLE

PERSONALITY FACTOR ASSESSED BY MY EVALUATION

O Rampavan Kumar Rank 3
C Rahi Kiran Rank 5
E Radhika Bharani Rank 1
A Pritam Mondal Rank 2
N Sravan Kumar Rank 4