The Social Sciences: Psychological, Sociological and Cultural - Essay Example

The social sciences approach research from many different perspectives, for example psychological, sociological and cultural. The article "Differences in personality traits across ethnic groups within New Zealand and across an international sample" by Packman, Brown, Englert, Sisarich, and Bauer (2005), will be critiqued using a psychological perspective to investigate personality across ethnic groups. First, an outline of what the study hoped to achieve will be provided. Second, a brief summary of the main points of the article shall be presented. Next, the method used to collect data will be highlighted, and the main outcomes of the study stated. It will then be made clear why the article was considered to have taken a cultural approach to the investigation of personality. Finally, a comparison of the Packman et al study shall be made with two other research articles that have investigated the psychology of personality in regards to ethnic groups. Packman et al (2005) undertook their research in light of the lack of literature investigating personality difference between ethnic groups in New Zealand, especially in regards to employment selection procedures. They stipulate that empirical study of personality traits has been ignored as compared to cognitive differences between ethnicities. It is of concern to Packman et al that personality assessment data pertaining to ethnic differences has been ignored because: A personality assessment is considered to produce an adverse impact when the individuals of a specific demographic group are less likely to be selected for employment than individuals of other demographic groups (Cook, 1998 as cited in Packman et al., 2005 p. ). Further, Packman et al. state that personality differences can add to findings of cognitive differences and so provide more depth of information of potential employee's suitability for job performance. The article of Packman et al. had several main points. First, it appears that personality assessment within the workforce is a fairly recent phenomenon. As such, personality trait differences within ethnic groups and across cultures have not been adequately investigated. Empirical study of personality trait differences is necessary in a global community to ensure fairness of the selection processes for occupations. At present, theories, models and assessment procedures of personality tend to be ethnocentric, in that they are based on the English language and oriented for a Western culture. Hence, there may be a lack in the ability to generalise personality assessment across ethnic groups. A dominant theory of personality within psychology is the Five Factor Model (FFM), commonly referred to as "The Big Five". The five factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The two global personality traits of Conscientiousness and Neuroticism have been consistently identified as strong predictor of occupational performance (i.e., a high score on the Conscientiousness trait and a corresponding low score on the Neuroticism trait). Hence, significant ethnic differences on these two traits may increase the likelihood of adverse impact during the employment selection process. Cross-culturally, analyses of descriptions of personality in languages other than English have identified five factors similar to that of the FFM. However, cross-cultural factors rarely correspond to the original English five factors, and this is likely due to socio-environmental influences during lifespan development, and subsequent differences in language semantics. So that even though a five-factor personality structure can be replicated across ethnic groups, it does not support or negate that various personality traits are equivalent across cultures. Bearing this in mine, research has found that there are significant differences across ethnic groups on personality traits. Packman et al. hypothesised that significant differences would be found across ethnic groups of New Zealand, as well as across three English speaking countries. The method used in the Packman et al study was quantitative in that analysis was based on numerical levels of measurement. Secondary data resources were used from an archival search of psychometric tests scores on the 15 Factor Questionnaire Plus (15FQ+), from the OPRA Consulting Group database. The sample was comprised of 726 New Zealanders from three ethnic groups: European New Zealanders (n = 546), Maori (n = 102), and Pacific Islanders (n = 78); as well as 268 Australian and 1, 128 South African respondents. The respondents came from a diverse range of occupations, ranged in age from 17 to 65 years, were of both genders, and completed their assessment between March 1999 and May 2004. The 15FQ+ is a self-report survey instrument for assessing personality internationally in the context of occupational selection. Qualified test administrators supervised the assessment following a standard procedure and testing conditions. The 16 facet traits of the 15FQ+ have been found to have high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha .74 - .85), and high test-retest reliability (.77 to .89). It also has good construct validity. It is made up of 200 questions on 3-point Likert scales. The 16 facet personality traits it measures are: Empathy, Intellectance, Emotionally Stable, Dominant, Enthusiastic, Conscientious, Socially-Bold, Tender-Minded, Suspicious, Abstract, Restrained, Apprehensive, Radical, Self-Sufficient, Self-Disciplined, and Tense-Driven. The facet traits comprise the five global personality traits that complement the FFM. The mean group difference for each facet trait and global trait were used in analysis. The main research outcomes for Packman et al were that significant differences were found across ethnicities and across countries on both facet and global personality traits. There were small but significant differences between ethnic and country groups for the traits Conscientiousness and Neuroticism, which are considered the best predictors of job performance. For Neuroticism, European New Zealanders scored lower on average as compared to Maori and Pacific Islanders. There were no ethnic differences on the Conscientiousness trait. However, between country groups Conscientiousness and Neuroticism traits had small to moderate differences. South Africans had slightly higher scores on the Conscientiousness trait as compared to Australians and New Zealanders. And Australians scored significantly higher than New Zealanders on Conscientiousness. South Africans also scored higher on the Neuroticism trait as compared to the other country groups. Although, on average New Zealanders scored significantly higher than Australians for the Neuroticism trait. The hypothesis for Packman et al was supported in that they found significant differences in the average personality trait scores between ethnic groups and countries. This supported previous research cited in their literature review. They concluded that it was unlikely that the differences were due to differences in personality structures across the groups as the assessment was based on the FFM, which has been found to be robust across cultures. It was also determined that because Conscientiousness and Neuroticism trait scores are strong predictors of occupational performance that employment selection may be influenced. Packman et al also highlight that some of the ethnic and country group sample sizes were small, which may account for the small but significant differences found, and so results need to be interpreted tentatively. It is evident that a psychology perspective of personality trait assessment across ethnic groups was used for this study. Psychology is the social science that investigates the cognitive processes and behaviours of an individual, either as part of a group or on their own (Lamiell, 2003). Personality psychology explores the enduring characteristics of an individual in the form of psychological patterns of emotion, behaviour and thought (Vitorrio & Cervone, 2000). Packman et al used a personality psychology approach because they investigated major psychological processes of participants, in this case traits (Vitorrio & Cervone, 2000). A trait theory approach to personality explores psychological patterns that occur in a consistent manner across socio-environmental contexts (Vitorrio & Cervone, 2000). Packman et al investigated the idea of "average" personality traits across ethnic groups, to provide insight into individual members of these ethnic groups in regards to predicting their job performance. For example, between the New Zealand ethnic groups there was no significant difference on the trait Conscientiousness; hence, it can be assumed that European New Zealanders, Maoris and Pacific Islanders do not differ, on average, in terms of their orderliness and sense of duty towards a prospective job. Whereas across country groups, it appears that Australians, on average, may be more prone to react emotionally, and negatively as compare to New Zealanders and South Africans. Packman et al utilised a psychology perspective to investigate "average" ethnic traits, and the differences between ethnic groups. As such, they took measurements of psychological patterns from the individual and used these to generalise to wider populations. Using data from individual respondents they were able to calculate average personality trait scores across ethnicities and countries. Also, using psychometric tests to assess individual psychological patterns is a distinctly psychological technique (Lamielle, 2003). A study by Hough, Oswald and Ployhart (2001) used a psychological perspective in their meta-analytic investigation, as they explored personality, cognitive and physical abilities across ethnicities in regards to employment selection processes. Similar to Packman et al., Hough and colleagues utilised individual assessments to generalise findings to a wider group, in this case ethnic groups. Individual psychological patterns were explored to see if predictors of job selection at an individual level could be transferred to the group level. In Hough's study the ethnic groups were all based in the USA: Anglo-American, African-American, Hispanic, Asian-American and Native American individuals were assessed on the Five Factor Model, as were participants in the Packman study. Hough and colleagues found that there were significant ethnic differences on the trait of Conscientiousness. Hispanics and Asian-Americans consistently scored higher than other groups, on average. In contrast, for the Conscientiousness trait, African-American, Anglo-American and Native American respondents had very similar scores. However, no significant differences were found on the trait Neuroticism. However, as the study was a meta-analysis it is likely that testing procedures were not standardised and so confidence in the results is tentative. Alternatively, McCrae and Costa (1997) used a psychological perspective to investigate cross-cultural personality trait structure. As such, like Packman et al, McCrae and Costa used responses from individual participants to generalise conclusions across ethnic groups. McCrae and Costa also used the Five Factor Model in comparing Korean, Chinese, Japanese, North American Portuguese and German countries. They found that each country showed similar personality trait structures, and concluded that the FFM implied that personality trait structure was a universal phenomenon. They did not find significant differences on either traits of Conscientiousness or Neuroticism. However, again, standardised assessment procedures may not have been followed and so it is difficult to compare results confidently. In conclusion, Packman et al used a psychology perspective in their investigation of personality differences between ethnic groups. Personality is an enduring psychological pattern of thinking, feeling and behaviour for a person that remains consistent across socio-environmental contexts. Personality occurs at the level of the individual, though it is influenced by lifespan development and the culture a person is socialised within. Packman et al generalised the findings of individual personality assessments to ethnic and country groups. They concluded that personality trait differences do exist for Conscientiousness and Neuroticism and that these scores could adversely affect the employment selection of some groups. References Hough, L. M., Oswald, F. L., & Polyhart, R. E., 2001, 'Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: Issues, evidence and lessons learned', International Journal of Selection Assessment, vol. 9, 152(42). McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., 1997, 'Personality trait structure as a human universal', American Psychologist, vol. 52, no. 2, p. 509(7). Packman, T., Brown, G. S., Englert, P., Sisarich, H., & Bauer, F., 2005, 'Differences in personality traits across ethnic groups within New Zealand and across an international sample', New Zealand Journal of Psychology, vol. 34, no. 2 p. 77(9). Lamiell, J. T., 2003, Personality: Beyond individual and group differences, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Vittorio, C., & Cervone, D., 2000, Personality, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Read More