Different Aspects of Interpersonal Attraction - Essay Example

? PSYCHOMETRIC APPROACH Introduction The study of individual difference is one of the most established traditions in the field of psychology. This study dates back to the last century. Researchers in individual differences’ sphere attempt to describe how and why people are being different. In addition, they take into consideration the impacts and consequences that these differences have upon our life (Brain 2002, p.23-29). Despite the fact the majority of areas in psychology assume that every individual is the same when it comes to social responsibilities, theories of individual differences take into account the differences between people, which make everyone unique. Taking the above into consideration, this assignment focuses on personality and individual differences. It examines many vital underlying issues including psychometric approach, validity issues with testing, standardisation and ethics of testing (Bernstein 2007, p.12-24). Psychometrics Psychometrics is a discipline that concerns the technique and theory of psychological measurement. Psychological measurement entails measurement of knowledge, attitudes, personality characters, capabilities and level of education measurement (Bernstein 2007, p.12-24). This discipline also entails other activities such as validation and construction of measurement tools such as personality assessments, tests and questionnaires (Schulz, 2006). Psychometric tests include evaluation tools that determine one’s capabilities, personality and knowledge (Brain 2002, p.23-29). These evaluation tools play a significant role in the selection of job processes across many industries and for a multitude of positions. Mainly a psychometric test includes both the ability testing unit and a behavioural psychological section (Ohn, Robins & Pervin, 2008). An ability testing unit involves psychometric aptitude tests which entail numerical reasoning, verbal reasoning and other non-verbal reasoning tests while behavioural psychological section concentrates on assessment centre exercises, competency based interviews and personality questionnaires (Brain 2002, p.23-29). Psychometricians are people who practice psychometrics, and while many work as clinical psychologists, others work as development and learning professionals or human resource professionals (Bernstein 2007, p.12-24). Personality Personality is a person’s sole variation on the evolutionary design for a human being, which expresses itself as development of patterns of dispositional characters, integrative life stories and characteristic adaptations, differentially and complexly situated in culture (Gray & McNaughton, 2000). Personality involves three different levels. These include traits, life stories and characteristics adaptation (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). Both life stories and characteristics adaptation try to look at a person’s adaptation to his or her social-cultural context, for instance as an engineer (Ackerman 2009, p. 163). Traits, on the other hand, describe stable patterns of behaviour, emotion, enthusiasm and cognition that do not belong to any socio-cultural context but might be observed in any context, for instance in argumentativeness (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). Although this is proper, it does not indicate that traits will be witnessed on the same degree or with similar manifestations in neither cultures nor those that can be seen in any situation, but rather some traits will be evident in subset situations of any culture (Brown & Braver, 2005). The core project of personality psychology was to come up with a comprehensive taxonomy of traits (Bernstein 2007, p.12-24). To come up with such taxonomy, one needs to classify a set of traits that can be used to establish the general factors which cause covariation in many traits (Bunge & Zelazo, 2006). Personality traits are hierarchically arranged, with many traits varying together, such that each trait can figure out the presence of general traits that account for their covariance (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). Questionnaires research and Lexical have provided a five factor solution which includes broad traits domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness and Conscientiousness. This broad pool of traits is known as the Five Factor model (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary 2005, p.740-730). The five factor model helps one to locate the general factors in the existing questionnaires. These five factors are genetically influenced, therefore, in a given social-culture context shared by people of the same culture; these traits will be so much evident in their personality (Block, 2006). Each of the five factor model comprises many lower level traits known as facets. Traits are probabilistic entities. Each of the five factor models contains many sub traits, and if a person has many of the five factor models, it means that there is a high likelihood of him having a high score on the several sub traits, but this is not always determinable. For instance, human beings that score high in intellect tests will on average score high in openness either (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). Validity Validity means the level that a given test measures what it claims to determine. It is crucial for a check to be valid for the reason of accurately applying and interpreting results. Determination of validity is not by single statistic, but various research bodies which demonstrate the relationship between the behaviour that the test is measuring and the results of the test (Beauducel, Liepmann, Felfe & Nettelnstroth 2007, p.71-78). Therefore, validity helps in ensuring that a given test is in accordance with set standards. There are two primary methods used to measure validity in tests. These are criterion validity and content validity (Murphy & Davidshofer, 1998). Validity entails elucidation of scores from psychometric instruments. The psychometric instruments may range from scales, tests plus observer ratings. Criterion validity in personality usually assesses whether a test is a reflection of a given personality of an individual. This validity method demonstrates that different people have different personalities. Content validity takes into consideration the entire range of items that the test should cover. In most cases, individual test questions draw a wide variety of questions which covers a wide range of topics (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). Validity Issues in Personality There are several issues related to validity in individual’s personality leading to inaccurate application and interpretation of results if not handled properly. These issues include the inability in distinguishing validity from reliability, assessment bias and weighing the evidence (Bernstein 2007, p.12-24). When it comes to distinguishing validity from reliability, it is true that validity is the meaning of an assessment, whereas reliability is the consistency of a result. Taking this into consideration, researchers should consider the reliability of the personality of the individual before they even consider its validity (Moutafi, & Crump, 2003). This will help in getting accurate results. When it comes to test accommodations, it is a fact that the principles of representation as well as construct variance can significantly help in identifying various ways in which the researchers can change tests for the purpose of accommodating test takers (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary 2005, p.740-730). It is, therefore, crucial to note that test standards usually place the proof burden for validity in accommodation on the party which is recommending the change (Maltby 2010, p.17-18). On assessment bias, it is true that it usually occurs in a situation where there are disparities of test scores among different groups. Assessment bias produces inaccurate and unreliable results as it becomes difficult to determine the correct results (Coaley 2010, p.28). Validity is usually inconsistent as forms presented by various groups usually shows different meaning for different groups (Moutafi & Crump, 2006). Despite the fact that groups do differ in their score, significant disparities among scores of various groups is a clear indication of assessment bias (Bouchard, Segal, Tellegen, McGue, and Keyes & Krueger 2003). When it comes to weighing the evidence, test makers as well as users usually want as much evidence as possible for the function of understanding the implication of the score in the test. Nevertheless, collecting evidence usually costs significance amount of time and money. In addition, evidence is in most cases incomplete (Ackerman, Beier & Bowen, 2002). Taking this into consideration, test users should, therefore, weigh evidence in order to evaluate the extent at which it supports the validity (Coaley 2010, p.28). Standardization During determination of individual differences in personality using psychometric approach, standardization in test entails carrying out tests administered and scored in a standard and consistent manner (Beauducel, Liepmann, Felfe & Nettelnstroth 2007, p.71-78). Standardized tests get designed in a manner that there is consistency in questions, administering conditions, scoring procedures, as well as interpretations of scores (Nettle, 2006). In addition, standardization ensures that there is administration and scoring in a standard and predetermined manner. A test is standardized, so the testees receive the same test and in the same manner. Standardized tests should not be multiple-choice tests, time-limited tests, or high-stakes tests. Testers usually perceive standardized tests as being fairer as compared to non-standardized tests. Standardization in test helps significantly in providing consistency which in turn permits reliable comparison of results across all the test takers (Coaley 2010, p.28). Through standardization of test, the researchers can be able to determine the actual personality of an individual without any bias. Considerations of validity, as well as reliability, are essential elements when it comes to establishing the value and efficiency of standardization in any test (Beauducel, Liepmann, Felfe & Nettelnstroth 2007, p.71-78). Nevertheless, testers are placing these concerns within a wider context when developing standards and also when making the overall judgment regarding the quality of any given test as a whole within a context (Coaley 2010, p.28). Ethics of testing In case of possible abuse, ethical standards usually guide the development as well as application of tests during determination of personality using psychometric approach. There is a lot of concern regarding the issue of ethics. The concept of individual privacy and rights is an essential part which the testers need to take seriously (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary 2005 p.740-730). Ethics of testing provides the individuals involved the rights to privacy, confidentiality and self-determination (Dorfman & Hersen, 2000). Ethics is usually an essential part with regard to administration of psychological tests for the purpose of determining the individual differences with regard to personality. It is recommendable that all the test users consider the ethical guidelines when undertaking any psychological test (Ackerman 2000 p.121-128). This is for the purpose of ensuring that there is privacy, as well as confidentiality regarding the information of the user. Nevertheless, abuse of psychological tests by various administrators is one of the troubling and constant issue which have a potential to harm the individual involved and the society at large (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary 2005 p.740-730). For testers, abuse of psychological tests may lead to inappropriate decision making or improper diagnoses (Gottfredson, 2002). This is because abuse of the test can result to generation of inaccurate and unreliable data. Ethical standards in testing cover a wide range of ethical issues and concern, having a common purpose of protecting the individuals’ rights (Berg, 2000). In addition to safeguarding the privacy of individuals, ethics of testing, also plays a significant role in protecting the individuals from stigma (Ackerman 2000, p.121-128). Therefore, researchers need to take substantial care when describing the results of the test in terms of the participant. It is a fact that researchers as well as administrators should avoid misusing the tests (Gray & Thompson, 2004). They should embrace these ethics for the purpose of getting results that are accurate and reliable (Gottfredson & Deary, 2004). Duty of Care The purpose of care in a psychological test of determining individual’s personality is to make sure that those concerned do not suffer any harm or loss during the test (Nettle & Liddle, 2008). In most cases, duty of care usually arises, when an individual or a group undertakes a test that could harm another, either mentally, physically or economically (Ackerman 2000, p.121-128). The guidelines used in psychological testing put a significant emphasis on the test being a professional activity which is subject to the principles of codes and ethics of the society (Moutafi & Tsaousis, 2006). Taking this into consideration, the principles of responsibility, propriety and competence have been the main influence when it comes to the formulation of these guidelines (Ackerman 2000, p.121-128). The use of psychological tests by researchers and administrators involves a duty of care to those tested (Kline, 1998). This includes getting the informed consent and then specifying the limits of confidentiality. This is for the purpose of reminding the people involved the duty as well as conditions that foster tests. Conclusion Psychological tests form the basis for interference, which goes beyond the content of the item and for which the researcher has the ethical responsibility of the test in professional use. Researchers, together with psychologists, while administering tests should ensure that tests meet the requirements following the set guidelines. This will ensure that the results of the tests are accurate and reliable. Bibliography Ackerman, P.L. (2000). Domain-specific knowledge as the “dark matter” of adult intelligence: Gf/Gc, personality, and interest correlates. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 55B, 69-84. Ackerman, P. L. (2009). Personality and intelligence. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 162-174). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E., & Bowen, K. R. (2002). What we really know about our abilities and our knowledge. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 587–605. Berg, C. A. (2000). Intellectual development in adulthood. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 117-140). New York: Cambridge University Press. Beauducel, A., Liepmann, D., Felfe, J., & Nettelnstroth, W. (2007). The impact of different measurement models for fluid and crystallized intelligence on the correlation with personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 71-78. Block, J., & Block, J. H. (2006). Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later, Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 734-749. Bouchard, T., Segal, N., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R. (2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson conservatism scale: a reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 959-969. Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2005). Learned predictions of error likelihood in the anterior cingulate cortex. Science, 307, 1118-1121. Bunge, S. A. & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). A Brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 118-121. Brain, C. (2002). Advanced psychology: applications, issues and perspectives. Cheltenham, Nelson Thornes. Bernstein, D. A. (2007). Psychology. Boston, Mass, Houghton Mifflin. Coaley 2010 p.28) An Introduction of Psychological Assessment and Psychometrics. Sage:London Dorfman, W.I. and Hersen, M. (Eds) (2000). Understanding Psychological Assessment. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, Chapter 1 Gottfredson, L. S. (2002). g: Highly general and highly practical. In R. J. Sternberg & E. L. Grigorenko (Eds.), The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? (pp. 331– 380). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gottfredson, L. S., & Deary, I. J. (2004). Intelligence predicts health and longevity, but why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 1-4. Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I. J. (2005). The personality–intelligence interface: Insights from an ageing cohort. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 751-761. Gray, J. A. & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system (Second edition). New York: Oxford University Press. Gray, J. R., & Thompson, P. M. (2004). Neurobiology of intelligence: Science and ethics. Kline, P. (1998) The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge (152.8 KLI), Chapters 1, 2 & 4 Maltby, J., Day, E., & Macaskill (2010) Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence. Chapters 11, 13, 24 & 25 Murphy, K.R. & Davidshofer, C.O. (1998) Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, Chapters 1, 5, 6, 7 8, 9 & 10 Murphy, K.R. & Davidshofer, C.O. (1998) Psychological Testing: Principles and Applications. New Jersey: Prentice Hall International, Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 471-482.Intelligence and Personality 37 Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2003). Demographic and personality predictors of intelligence: A study using the NEO Personality Inventory and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. European Journal of Personality, 17, 79-94. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2006). What facets of openness and conscientiousness predict fluid intelligence score? Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 31–42. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Paltiel, L. (2004). Why is Conscientiousness negatively correlated with intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1013–1022. Moutafi, J., Furnham, A., & Tsaousis, I. (2006). Is the relationship between intelligence and trait neuroticism mediated by test anxiety? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 587–597. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622-631. Nettle, D., & Liddle, B. (2008). Agreeableness is related to social-cognitive, but not socialperceptual, theory of mind. European Journal of Personality, 22, 323-335. Ohn, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Pervin, L. A. (2008). Handbook of personality: theory and research. New York, Guilford Press. Schulz, R. (2006). Encyclopedia of aging 1. [A-K]. New York, NY, Springer. Read More