16 personality Factors (16 PF)

Introduction

In ordinary conversation, the word personality is used to mean the external appearance

of the individual. In philosophy, the meaning of personality has been interpreted in terms of the

self. But in psychology personality indicates neither the external appearance nor the self only,

but it includes both and much more. The word persona means mask, used by the actors to

change their appearance, but in the Roman period it was taken to mean ‘the actor’. This second

meaning has been taken in the modern concept of personality. Thus, personality is not a fixed

state, but a dynamic totality which is continuously changing due to interaction with the

environment. Personality is inferred from the conduct, behaviour, activities, movements and

everything else concerning the individual. In short, personality is the way in which an individual

adjusts with the external environment.

Definition of Personality by Allport

To a psychologist, personality is an area of study that deals with complex human

behaviour, including feelings, emotions, interests, attitudes and cognitive processes. To define

personality is to define the indefinable. That is why the concept of personality has been defined

variously by different experts. G. W. Allport (1948) studied nearly fifty views about personality

and then he arrived at the following definition which recognizes the value of wholeness,

distinctiveness, adjustment and growth in defining the concept. He defines “Personality is the

dynamic organization within the individual of those psycho- physical systems that determine his

unique adjustment to his environment”. Later Allport (1965) revised his definition of
personality as “personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those

psychophysical systems that determine his characteristic behaviour and thought”.

Theories of Personality

Psychologists have developed several theories of personality within a view to study its

structure and development. The theories of personality, in general, can be classified into four

broad categories according to their modes of approach. They are the type approach, the

psyco-analytic approach, the humanistic approach and the trait approach.

Type approach

Theories adopting the type approach advocate that human personalities can be classified

into a few clearly defined types and each person, depending upon his behavioural

characteristics, somatic structure, blood types or fluids in the body can be described as

belonging to a certain type. If we study our own scriptures ancient India had an advanced

system of Ayurveda in which our physicians broadly categorized all human beings on the basis

of three elements in the body, namely pitt (bile), vat (wind) and kuf (mucus). In the same way

ancient Indians had applied the ‘samudrika Sastra’ to classify people into different types and to

define their inner nature in terms of physical attributes. An almost similar approach was

followed by the Greek physicians like Hippocrates, one of the disciples of the great philosopher

Aristotle (Ewen & Ewen, 2014).

Hippocrates classification. According to Hippocrates the human body consists of four types of

fluids such as blood, yellow bile, phlegm (mucus) and black bile. The predominance of one of
these four types of fluids in one’s body would give him unique temperamental characteristics

leading to a particular type of personality as summarized below;

Table: 1

Hippocrates classification of personality

Fluids Personality types Characteristics

Blood Sanguine Hopeful, active, optimistic

Yellow bile Choleric Irritable, easily provoked

Phlegm Phlegmatic Sluggish, cold, dull

Black bile Melancholic depressed, pessimistic

Kretschmer’s classification. Earest Kretschmer, a German psychiatrist thinks that there is a

close relationship between one’s own physical constitution and personality.

There are three types of bodily make up and consequently three types of personality, namely (1)

asthenic (2) athletic and (3) pyknic. The bodily features which will result in typical
temperamental characteristics enable one to classify people into the three distinct types

mentioned (Ewen & Ewen, 2014). The details of the inter relations are provided below:

Table: 2

Kretschmer’s classification of personality

Types Bodily features Characteristics

Asthenic Tail, thin and week Unsociable, withdrawn,

reserved and sensitive

Athletic Strong, sturdy and muscular Energetic, optimistic,

 adjustable and interested in

physical action

Pyknic Short, round and fat Sociable, jolly, easy-going,

fun loving and hilarious

Sheldon’s classification. William Sheldon, an American surgeon too, like Kretschmer,

classified human beings into types according to their physical structures with corresponding

temperamental characteristics. He believes that physical structure of the body is the determinant

of personality characteristics. He divided human beings into three broad categories, namely (1)

endomorphic, (2) mesomorphic and (3) ectomorphic (Ewen & Ewen, 2014).

Table: 3

Sheldon’s classification of personality

 Types Bodily features Characteristics

Endomorphic Round, fat and soft Sociable and affectionate

Mesomorphic Muscular and strong Energetic, ambitious and

assertive

Ectomorphic Thin and tall Fearful, introvert and

restrained

The approach adopted by the psychologists, leading to classification on the basis of

correlation between the structure of the body and personality characteristics, lopsided and

somewhat misleading. No such body-mind or body-heart correlation exists as the propagators of

these approaches have assumed. This criticism does not mean that typology is useless. Typology

has its historical value in the sense that it was the first attempt to typify people, which generated

a great deal of research. The second important contribution of typology is that it attempts to

assess the personality of an individual as a whole. It does not study personality in terms of
fragments of traits. The type approach is very useful for psychologists who attempt to

comprehend the personality of an individual as a whole.

Lastly we can say that they serve one very important function as reference points or guidelines

for the examination of dimensions of personality formulated by different psychologists.

Psychoanalytic approach

Psychoanalytical theories understand personality in terms of interactions and conflicts

from needs and impulses of person, which is arising from unconscious mind. Freud proposed a

dynamic concept of personality by exploring the unconscious mind of human beings. According

to him the mind has three levels – the conscious, the preconscious and the unconscious. The

unconscious mind consists of suppressed desires and experiences and human personality and the

behaviour is determined by that. He believes that the personality has three major systems – the

id, the ego and the superego. Each of these systems has its own roles to play in personality.

These systems interact with one another personality is the result of that interaction between

systems (Mahrer, 1970).

Jung’s analytic psychology

Jung believes that personality structure is composed of three elements – the conscious ego, the

personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is made up of

universal ideas which are called archetypes. The archetypes are the persona, the anima and

animus, the shadow and the self. Jung classified people into two categories – introverts and

extroverts. Introversion involves an orientation towards the inner, subjective world. On the other

hand, extroversion represents an orientation towards the external objective world (Schultz &
Schultz, 2016). In the real world we rarely come across an individual who is solely an introvert

and extrovert. Because of this, a third type named ambivert also has been conceived. An

ambivert may exhibit certain qualities of an extrovert in one situation; but he may exhibit the

traits of an introvert in certain other situations. It is in this manner that an ambivert can be

successful in achieving harmony between self and his surroundings (Mahrer, 1970).

Humanistic approach

The humanistic approach to personality is the contribution of the humanistic school of

psychology. It believes in the goodness of man and in its positive nature. It also stresses the

conscious experience of an individual to describe the structure of personality. They pointed out

that each human being has the potential for self-actualization through spontaneity, creativity and

personal development (Pervin & John, 1999).

Trait approach

In our daily life, we label individuals in terms of traits and qualify them as honest,

aggressive, lazy …etc. A trait of personality refers to any distinctive character of a person’s

thoughts, feelings and actions which makes him different from others. A trait must describe the

consistent style of behaviour of an individual. Trait may be defined as ‘a property within the

individual that accounts for his unique but relatively stable reactions to enviornment’. Among

trait theories, classification made by G. W Allport, R. B Cattl and H. J Eysenck deserves special

attention.

Allport theory of personal disposition.

 Allport was the first theorist who adopted the trait approach. Personal disposition is the

used by him to represent trait. According to Allport, traits are the basic elements of personality.

Each of us develops a unique set of such organized tendencies termed as traits in the course of

our continuous and gradual development. Allport explains three types of traits namely, cardinal

traits, central traits and secondary traits. Cardinal traits combined with a few central traits form

the core of the characteristic traits responsible for giving uniqueness to one’s personality. The

remaining traits, not so generalized and consistent an individual can be observed in other people

in general. Thus Allport emphasised that each person is different from others but at the same

time every one has common traits within the boundaries of cultural norms (Pervin & John,

1999).

Eysenck’s theory of three basic dimensions.

Eysenck conceived type as a group of correlated traits resulting in a specific pattern of

behavioural style typical of the personality of an individual. On the basis of such patterns he has

identified various types of personality such as introvert, extrovert, neurotic and psychotic.

According to him development of personality takes place along four hierarchical levels of

behavioural organization such as specific response level, habitual response level, trait level and

type level (Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015).

Cattell’s theory of surface and source traits.

Cattell defined trait as a structure of personality, inferred from behaviour in different

situations. He classified traits into four categories namely common traits, unique traits, surface

traits and source traits. The theory propagated by Cattell attributes certain specific dimensions
to personality by which individual behaviour related to a particular situation can be predicted

(Fleeson & Jayawickreme, 2015).

Development of 16PF

Cattell did factor analysis to sixteen dimensions of human personality traits: emotional

stability, warmth, apprehension, openness to change, liveliness, abstractedness,perfectionism,

intelligence, privateness, tension, rule consciousness, sensitivity, self- reliance, social boldness,

vigilance, and dominance (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

He developed a personality assessment (16PF) based on these 16 factors. Each dimension

is scored over a continuum from high score to low score instead of looking for a trait present or

absent. Cattell and his colleagues explained the primary traits, which can explain individual

personality differences. These primary traits will help to understand and predict the complexity

of behavior. Then they factor-analyzed the primary traits and introduced second-order or global

factors – the original Big Five. Both the primary and global levels of 16PF traits provide a

comprehensive, profound understanding of personality (Cattell & Schuerger, 2003).

Basic Features of the 16pf Questionnaire

The 16 PF published in 1949. It has gone through four major revisions, in 1956, 1962,

1968, and 1993. The fifth edition was in 1993 and it contains 185 multiple-choice items, with a

three point answer format. The contents of item are about daily behavior, interests, and
opinions. This test is meant for the people who are aged from 16 years and older and is written

at a fifth grade reading level.

The 16 PF gives scores on the 16 primary scales, 5 global scales, and 3 response bias

scales. All scales are bipolar and are given in stens ranging from 1 to 10. The mean value of the

score is 5.5 and standard deviation is 2.0. Administration the 16 PF is very easy because it is

un-timed and simple. Since it has given straight forward instructions it needs minimal

supervision. The time is about 35–50 minutes for paper-and-pencil format, and 25–40 minutes

for computer administration (Cattell & Mead, 2008).

Descriptives

Test–retest reliabilities for the 16PF primary scales average 0.80 over a two-week interval

ranging from 0.69 to 0.87, and 0.70 over a two-month interval ranging from 0.56 to 0.79.

Global scales of the 16PF show higher test–retest reliabilities; average 0.87 for a two week

interval ranging from 0.84 to 0.91, and 0.78 for a two-month interval ranging from 0.70 to 0.82

(Cattell & Mead, 2008). Internal consistency for the 16PF primary scales on a varied sample of

4,660, range from 0.66 to 0.86, with a mean of 0.75 (Conn and Rieke, 1994). Research provides

a considerable amount of evidence regarding the construct and criterion-related validity of the

primary and global 16PF scales. There are many studies that reveal high connections between

trait scores for 16PF scales and those of other personality inventories.

Uses and Applications

Since 16 PF has a strong scientific background it is used in different settings such as,

counseling and clinical, industrial/organizational, educational, basic research and medical

settings. 16 PF provides comprehensive, objective information. So it is considered as a powerful

tool in industrial/organizational settings such as employee selection, coaching, promotion,

development or outplacement counseling.

16 PF is widely used in counseling especially in career counseling. Because it is a measure of

normal range of personality and it can provide an in-depth and integrated picture of an

individual including strength and weakness. It can contribute to facilitating rapport and

empathy, identifying adjustment problems, selecting proper therapeutic strategies, helping

clients improve self-awareness, and planning goals (Cattell, 1997; Karson et al., 1997).

Limitations

Less predictive of job performance When being used alone

Many hiring managers include a personality assessment in the recruitment process, expecting it

to predict how well someone will perform in the job. However, that’s not the main goal of a

personality test. They can tell you a lot about how someone works, which can assist you in

finding the best ways to manage that person and decide whether they are likely to fit into the

team. However, they are not hugely indicative of job performance when used alone. In order to

most accurately predict job performance, hiring managers would need to use an assessment that

includes both personality traits and cognitive ability questions.

Reliability of Answers

Whether intentionally or unconsciously, many job candidates will answer personality tests by

selecting the responses that they think the hiring manager would prefer. This can make the results
of the 16PF (Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire) largely invalid or hard to interpret in any

meaningful fashion.

References

Calsyn, D. (1982). Interpreting 16 PF Profile Patterns. Journal of Personality Assessment,

46(4), 439-440.

Cattell, H. E., & Mead, A. D. (2008). The sixteen-personality factor questionnaire (16PF).

The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, 2, 135-178.

Cattell, H. E., & Schuerger, J. M. (2003). Essentials of 16PF assessment (Vol. 45). John

Wiley & Sons.

Epstein, S. (1994). Trait theory as personality theory: Can a part be as great as the whole?

Psychological Inquiry, 5(2), 120-122.

Ewen, R., & Ewen, R. B. (2014). An introduction to theories of personality. Psychology Press.

Fleeson, W., & Jayawickreme, E. (2015). Whole trait theory. Journal of Research in

Personality, 56, 82-92.

Harrell, T. H., & Lombardo, T. A. (1984). Validation of an automated 16PF administration

procedure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(6), 638-642.

Karson, S., & O'Dell, J. W. (1976). A guide to the clinical use of the 16 PF.
Mahrer, A. R. (Ed.). (1970). New approaches to personality classification. New York:

Columbia University Press.

Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (Eds.). (1999). Handbook of personality: Theory and research.

Elsevier.

Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2016). Theories of personality. Cengage Learning.