The Inappropriateness of Personality Testing among Aboriginal People in Australia - Essay Example

The inappropriateness of personality testing among aboriginal people in Australia Name Institution Abstract The paper focuses on subjectivity of personality tests that are standardized. This is because the methods used in personality tests that are standardized are usually ‘copied and pasted’ from one culture to another with no contextual considerations put in mind (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). The paper raises multi-cultural considerations in judging personality tests. It also explores the biases that are associated with the use of personality tests in a standardized way with disregard for cultural influences. It makes recommendations and finds it inappropriate to use standardized measures that are formulated from a foreign culture and applied on aboriginal groups. Introduction The issue of measures of understanding human behavior from multi cultural settings has been a subject of a lot of methodological debate. This has been build on criticisms for the Eurocentric tests that are usually generalized and applied to all cultures in disregard to vital peculiarities to the diversity of the world in practices and culture. The world is not homogeneous as for measures used in Europe to be lifted to new settings such as Asia or Africa without due thought on the implications of such unconsidered transfer of methodology (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2010). It is against such a background that this paper will seek to explore the pertinent issues that underlie assessment of the people who come from indigenous backgrounds that can hinder the use of personality tests in assessing behavior. The term ‘aboriginal’ has been used by the UN to refer to the indigenous peoples of the world in a cumulative sense. That is, it is used in recognition of the heterogeneity of the world and in respect to the existence of a multiplicity of cultures as manifested in the differences in language, religious beliefs and lifestyles (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2010). Secondly, personality tests refer to any assessments or constructs that assess personalities. This could entail the emotional, physical, mental or psychological constructs or domains. It is this type of test that has come at the center of cross-cultural testing discussions, as to how its use has been insensitive to the peculiarities that are usually created by a difference in cultures and social background in general (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). And lastly, what is understanding behavior? This is using a certain domain or construct to assess the various aspects of people’s observable attributes such as intelligence, mental or emotional health with an ultimate aim of drawing conclusions (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2010). In this paper, understanding behavior will be presented as being influenced by contextual factors and hence tests that are too standardized may not produce the best outcomes especially in respect to aboriginal people. The underlying issue in this paper is to establish how culture, ecological and biological variables have an impact on the behaviors of people. Otherwise put, are the behaviors of people reflections of their culture and background characteristics? This research will use Australian aboriginals to argue its case against personality tests. However, in cross-cultural studies of behavior, three theoretical frameworks exist; cultural absolutism, cultural relativism, and cultural universalism. Discussion Firstly, cultural absolutism does not recognize any contextual variables that impact on behavior. This is the basis of most Eurocentric personality tests which do not pay any attention to the impact cultures have on the personalities of people. It advances on the assumption that observable human characteristics are supposed to be the same irrespective of origin, color or decent. Secondly is cultural relativism which recognizes the role of differences in behavior in determining human behavior. It uses the variables that are productions of cultures in explaining human attributes such as intelligence, temperament and social adjustment (Kim, Yang & Huang 2006). It therefore, does not engage in generalized testing and assessment of human behavior but narrows to the particular situation of a certain people. This is the model that this paper approves as essential in understanding behavior. Cultural Universalism takes a middle stance on the debate. It presents some human behaviors as being influenced by cultural and contextual factors and other as being universally manifested. It finds some basic traits as being similar even in extreme cases of cultural variation although again, admits that culture has a role it plays (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). This stance does not hold so much because of its lack of clarity on the side it really favors. To use an example of Australian aboriginals, one realizes that they have many contextual issues that affect their behavior. It has been pointed out by researches that this population of Australians display some of the highest figures of mental health issues (Kim, Yang & Huang 2006). They have key social determinants which have influenced their observable attributes such emotional and social adjustment. In part, they have a long history of being in a close connection with their land. They also give a lot of importance to kinship ties and identify with spirituality so much (Kline 2013). These are the three basic social issues of Australian aboriginals that shape their view of the world and how they behave. There connection to land created a lot of psychological trauma when colonization set in dispossessing them of their land. This came with the crumbling of some aspects of their culture as they lacked the space to freely express their beliefs (Zastrow & Kirst-Arshman 2010). The repercussions of this have been passing down through years to present. Most of the aboriginal Australians are at the bottom of the pile in socio-economic wellbeing. They are malnourished, live in poor conditions of health and have minimal access to equalizing opportunities such as education. This was further compounded by the withdrawing of children from their families which added to the state of chaos among indigenous populations. As such, many of them suffer mental problems as a result of the social challenges they encounter. Construct bias is the first one which results from using the same score on groups that are of various characteristics. This is in spite of the fact that the construct being tested is not similar across the different cultural populations (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). It also comes about due to the fact that behaviors that symptomize the construct do not carry the same implication or meaning across the cultural groups. This is the worst problem of personality tests, which will regard social maladjustment as the same with no regard to social influences. What might amount to maladjustment in western thought may not expressly apply in Aboriginal people(Zastrow & Kirst-Arshman 2010). In this way, the results are a misrepresentations of the facts on the ground. A second type of bias is related with personality tests is the method bias which results from contacting tests on a construct or domain that is not comparable between people or groups from different backgrounds (Kline 2013). This is especially true when applying the same construct measure among learned non aboriginal people and illiterate aboriginals. This causes administration problems as people from various groups are cultured differently (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). Some may respond due to familiarity with the test. Another method bias can arise from language problems which can cause meaning difficulties among indigenous groups if the test uses a language other than the one that is native to the aboriginal people. The third bias is the item bias which focuses on the ability of the different test groups to respond to the questions with the same level of comfort. There are some personality tests that may traumatize people due to the experience they have been undergoing. Any test that causes a particular group to display difficulty to comprehend, harms or which arouses sentimental responses is an item bias. This is usually the case with personality test that touches on the behavior of indigenous people who are poor, illiterate or marginalized (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). Some tests may not be relevant to them and may only espouse emotions or trauma. In a cross-cultural test in personality indigenous people will have problems responding to the test while the non aboriginal ones will have it easy which results in item bias. Conclusion Studies suggest testing personalities of aboriginal people with more contextual considerations given weight. This means that the standard personality tests are not reliable ways to use. Rather, other means such as observation of particular group’s way of life, their values and cultures should dictate the measurement criteria (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). Cultures that are still remote and are yet to be exposed to influences of modernization need their own measures that are specific to them. The scores collected from the aboriginal group should be related well with the ones from those are not aboriginal (Kline 2013). A score from western people does not carry the same connotation as in Asia or Africa or among global aboriginal people. As long as this is the case, and the ground is not level, personality tests will be subject to all kinds of biases. The paper has focused on the peculiarities around studies on the behaviors of aboriginal people. The Australian ones have been used as a case in point to prove that the Eurocentric measures that are derived from personality tests have minimal reliability. The aboriginal people can be used to expose the need to the need to avoid generalization of abilities and measures as people are subjects of nurture. The role ecology and culture plays in dictating people’s level of ability can not be overlooked in tests. Reference National Disability Service. (2010). A Resource to Promote Culturally Responsive Disability Services in Western Australia. Working With Abioriginal People . De Klerk, G. Cross-cultural testing (2009). In M. Born, C.D. Foxcroft & R. Butter (Eds.), Online Readings in Testing and Assessment, International Test Commission, http://www.intestcom.org/Publications/ORTA.php Zastrow, C., & Kirst-Ashman, K. K. (2010). Understanding human behavior and the social environment. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Kim, U., Yang, G., & Huang, G. (2006). Indigenous and cultural psychology: Understanding people in context. New York, NY: Springer Mcnicol, S.-A. G., & Armour-Thomas, E. (2001). Assessment and Culture: Psychological Tests with Minority Populations. Burlington: Elsevier. Berry, J. W. (2006). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Kline, P. (2013). Handbook of Psychological Testing. London; Routledge. Clauss-Ehlers, C. S. (2008). Encyclopedia of cross-cultural school psychology. New York: Springer. Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (2008). Variational pragmatics: A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Read More

This is using a certain domain or construct to assess the various aspects of people’s observable attributes such as intelligence, mental or emotional health with an ultimate aim of drawing conclusions (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2010). In this paper, understanding behavior will be presented as being influenced by contextual factors and hence tests that are too standardized may not produce the best outcomes especially in respect to aboriginal people. The underlying issue in this paper is to establish how culture, ecological and biological variables have an impact on the behaviors of people.

Otherwise put, are the behaviors of people reflections of their culture and background characteristics? This research will use Australian aboriginals to argue its case against personality tests. However, in cross-cultural studies of behavior, three theoretical frameworks exist; cultural absolutism, cultural relativism, and cultural universalism. Discussion Firstly, cultural absolutism does not recognize any contextual variables that impact on behavior. This is the basis of most Eurocentric personality tests which do not pay any attention to the impact cultures have on the personalities of people.

It advances on the assumption that observable human characteristics are supposed to be the same irrespective of origin, color or decent. Secondly is cultural relativism which recognizes the role of differences in behavior in determining human behavior. It uses the variables that are productions of cultures in explaining human attributes such as intelligence, temperament and social adjustment (Kim, Yang & Huang 2006). It therefore, does not engage in generalized testing and assessment of human behavior but narrows to the particular situation of a certain people.

This is the model that this paper approves as essential in understanding behavior. Cultural Universalism takes a middle stance on the debate. It presents some human behaviors as being influenced by cultural and contextual factors and other as being universally manifested. It finds some basic traits as being similar even in extreme cases of cultural variation although again, admits that culture has a role it plays (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001). This stance does not hold so much because of its lack of clarity on the side it really favors.

To use an example of Australian aboriginals, one realizes that they have many contextual issues that affect their behavior. It has been pointed out by researches that this population of Australians display some of the highest figures of mental health issues (Kim, Yang & Huang 2006). They have key social determinants which have influenced their observable attributes such emotional and social adjustment. In part, they have a long history of being in a close connection with their land. They also give a lot of importance to kinship ties and identify with spirituality so much (Kline 2013).

These are the three basic social issues of Australian aboriginals that shape their view of the world and how they behave. There connection to land created a lot of psychological trauma when colonization set in dispossessing them of their land. This came with the crumbling of some aspects of their culture as they lacked the space to freely express their beliefs (Zastrow & Kirst-Arshman 2010). The repercussions of this have been passing down through years to present. Most of the aboriginal Australians are at the bottom of the pile in socio-economic wellbeing.

They are malnourished, live in poor conditions of health and have minimal access to equalizing opportunities such as education. This was further compounded by the withdrawing of children from their families which added to the state of chaos among indigenous populations. As such, many of them suffer mental problems as a result of the social challenges they encounter. Construct bias is the first one which results from using the same score on groups that are of various characteristics. This is in spite of the fact that the construct being tested is not similar across the different cultural populations (Mcnicol & Armour-Thomas 2001).

Read More