Learning from individual differences - Research Paper Example

Learning from individual differences Personality refers to the nature of a human being and the measure of their differences when compared to other humans. Several tests have been established on personality; these tests attempt to determine how and why people differ and develop character patterns. There are as many methods of collecting data on personality as there are personalities such methods range from laboratory experiments to field studies that involve questionnaires. All these tests aim at establishing different classifications of personality, relate the differences arrived at to foretell differences in others and examine the dynamics of such differences in personality. Self- assessment tests involve administration of a series of questions to individuals and rating their responses. One such test is the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire test whose authors are psychologists Sybil B. G Eysenck and her husband Hans Jurgen Eysenck who were based at the Institute of Psychiatry in London. This test was an improvement on the Maudsley Medical Questionnaire which most psychologists criticized of not being wholesome in its determination of differences in personality. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire test is administered by psychiatrists. We note that there are two versions of this test; the short version, which takes between 10-15 minutes to administer while the standard version that take 20-35 minutes. The tests’ costs vary from $ 19 to $50 depending on the system of administration, that is, manual or computerized (Eysenck, 1996). In 1994, the Educational Industrial Testing Service published a manual that show cases the show cases the test-user guidelines for the use of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire test in personality evaluation. The guide which is written in English by Hans Eysenck himself, clearly gives an in-depth description of the test by illustrating its principal and normative information. This manual is a revised version of the book Know Your Own Mind published by Hans Eysenck in 1972. In this earlier version, Hans gave a brief description of the study and its implications for the person taking it. Both manuals, however, set to show the different kind of personalities in humans by examining their traits. The professor endeavored to briefly highlight these different personalities and influence people to take the test to get a clear picture of their traits and hence understand their personalities (Canli, 2004). Over the years, the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire study has undergone a number of revisions aimed at improving its administration and effectiveness. Previously the test was administered manually through the pencil-paper structure and quizzes, however, we not that there have been developments done to factor in computerized systems of administration. Both manual and computerized systems of this test were conducted on several mental patients both outpatients and inpatients with a goal to find out which method is more reliable. The psychiatrists conducting the tests noted that both systems provide reliable results; so they resolved that the computerized form may be the better option as it is both economical and more feasible as it required less paperwork and was also better appreciated by the patients. However, we note that the test is also administered through the paper-pencil format, which is most suitable for persons who are less computer oriented. The test involves individual administration as opposed to other tests that are administered on a group basis (Eysenck, 1996). We note that the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire test was designed for people of all age groups and is aimed at measuring a person’s temperament. Hans Eysenck, who was a behavioral scientist, was convinced that personality is determined by a person’s genetic inheritance. Although he deemed nurture as playing a significant role in determining temperament, and by extension personality, he based his test on temperament on the genetically inborn attributes, rather than nurture. The test, which uses the factor analysis technique where a number of dimensions are factored from a collection of data, can be done through self-rating or ratings by friends and loved ones, measures one’s personality. The first test sort to determine traits such as introversion and neuroticism. Introversion under this test refers to refer to the course of one’s attitude regarding oneself, while neuroticism is referred to as the sense of security in oneself. However, we note that Hans thought there was a need for further testing in other dimensions, so he included the extraversion dimension to the test. Extroversion was a primary topic in the test as it set to determine one’s talkativeness, outgoingness, and emotional expressiveness. Further research on the test showed the need for more inclusion, so Hans teamed up with his wife and included the evaluation of psychoticism to the dimensions of the test. Psychoticism refers to the trait of aggressiveness and interpersonal antagonism displayed by people (Eysenck, 1996).   The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire was established to assess adults, but it has now been adjusted to accommodate teenagers. The test norm group was youth and was set on establishing factors that cause criminal behavior; Eysenck attributed one’s introversion, extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism to their susceptibility to engage in criminal behavior. He established that psychosicism is linked to mannerisms such as aggressiveness, impersonality, impulsivity, disruptive and cold characteristics which contribute to criminal behavior. He also noted that extraversion connected to features of assertiveness, activeness, sensation-seeking and dominance. This is chiefly notable in young persons. The test, on the other hand, correlates neuroticism with traits such as depression, anxiety, low self esteem, tenseness, irrationality and emotionalism. This dimension was, however, a better forecaster in older persons. Eysenck noted that all this factors could be used, as forward planners, to determine criminal behavior. He especially viewed the measure of the psychoticism factors as a significant condition in the distinction of criminals and non-criminals (Eysenck, 1996). The test seeks to link these personal traits to heredity and thus associate criminal actions to genetics. He asserts that criminality is associated with low stimulation levels in the brain which is, in turn, correlated to attributes such as lack of interest, loss of attention and fatigue. All these traits are noted in the factor of extraversion; thus, the test seeks to prove that person’s heredity of a nervous system that produces lower arousal is related to criminality. The professor was convinced that th enzyme, monoamine oxidase (MAO), which is inherited, is associated with antisocial behavior; low levels of the enzyme in the body system results, in lowered inhibition leading to acts of violence and impulsivity. The test reports findings that relate mutation in the structure of the MAO gene lowers aggression and impulsivity. This test’s normative traits in determining one’s personality as being either introversive or extroversive establish a favorable level of or arousal. It dictates that arousal is measureable through the skin’s conductance, sweating patterns and brain waves. At extremely low and high levels of such arousal, performance are noted as low, while performance is maximized during medium levels of arousal. Extroverts are, therefore, less aroused while introverts, on the other hand, are mostly over-aroused. When considering neuroticism, Eysenck notes that it is featured by significant degrees of negative tendencies such as anxiety and depression. He notes that neuroticism is centered on the foundation of the sympathetic nervous system which is part of the brain concerned with the fight-or-flight response when in danger. The norm here is shown by heart rate, muscular tension and blood pressure. Neurotic persons have low activation limits and are unable to contain their emotions, and exhibit negative moves in regards to the fight-or-flight decisions. They are composed in the face of considerable distress but become anxious to minor distress. There are four principal dimensions that characterize extraversion and introversion, and emotional security or instability (neuroticism). These dimensions are stable extraverts (sanguine) who exhibit characteristics such as talkativeness, responsiveness and liveliness. These individuals are typically seen in leadership roles. Unstable extraverts (cholerics) exhibit qualities such as anxiety, excitability, touchiness and irresponsibility. Stable introverts (phlegmatic) have traits such as calmness, reliability, thoughtfulness, carefulness and passiveness. These people are generally susceptible to being care givers such as nurses. Lastly there are unstable introverts (melancholic) who are quiet, pessimistic, anxious and moody (Canli, 2004). We also note that psychoticism is linked to episodes of departure from reality and aggression. Psychotic behavior centers on strong mindedness, lack of consideration, reckless behavior, hostility, anger and refusal to comply. Eysenck suggest that the basis for this personality is testosterone as most psychotics are noted to have exceedingly high levels of this substance as compared to non-psychotics who show lower testosterone levels (Boeree, 1998).  The test further asserts that persons who inherit a certain nervous system that is known to be unresponsive to low stimulation degrees are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. A dissimulation scale was added in the test to determine the patterns of response in individuals to recognize dissimulation. Dissimulation in this context refers to faking one’s goodness. This scale is best applied when assessing extraversion, psychoticism and neuroticism. The procedure uses lie and Social Desirability (SD) dimensions aimed at finding out whether one is lying or not. A clinical test was carried out wherein participants were administered measures either in standard conditions or given directions to simulate decency. The test noted that the Item response Theory (IRT) centered measures were not reliable in detecting dissimulation, while the Lie and SD scales were much better in detecting dissimulation. The dissimulation scale was rolled up in two forms, A and B, to aid in easier assessment and to facilitate retests. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) was revised to EPQ-R when it encompassed psychoticism as a key scale in the determination of personality. We, however, note that pyschoticism cannot be appropriately established through the questions asked in the questionnaire (Lajunena and Scherler, 1999). The test encompasses a wide variety of adjectives from which the person receiving the test chooses adjectives best describe them. For instance, a test comprising words such as “outgoing”, “wild”, “shy”, “introverted” and so on are used in the establishment of one’s personality. In the test, people who rate themselves as shy are deemed as introverted while people who describe themselves as outgoing or wild are termed to be extroverts. The test’s factor analysis singles out dimensions such as shy and outgoing in order to assert one’s personality through examination of the choices selected by the patient, thus giving the factor names such as introversion or extraversion. The test also uses other criteria that seek to determine the best suited match in the available dimensions while others unveil dimensions that systemize other dimensions usually as headings manage topic contents (Boeree, 1998). The thesis of the Eysecnk Personality Questionnaire extroversion and introversion is typically about one’s inhibition and excitation. Eysenck describes inhibition as the brain pacifying itself through the normal process of relaxing and going to sleep, or the logic of protecting itself from excessive stimulation. Excitation, on the other hand, refers to the brain toiling itself up or getting itself into an attentive state. He postulated that an individual who is extraverted has strong and good reserverdness, thus when confronted by distressing situations such as being involved in a car crash, the person’s brain shields itself by “freezing”. This means that the extravert will get a feeling of losing consciousness, so the person is likely to not remember much about the traumatic experience. The extravert’s behavior is likely to fuel his desire to participate in the traumatic experience as soon as he recovers. On the other hand, we note that an introvert exhibits weak inhibition and poor reticence. When faced with a similar traumatic situation, an introvert’s brain does not shut down; therefore, it does not shelter them from the immediate impact of the traumatic experience. Instead, the introvert is highly alert, studies and understands the situation, thus is more likely to remember everything pertaining the traumatic experience and will cease participation in the action that brought on the trauma. This plays in to characteristics such as wildness and shyness as the extrovert can be deemed as wild because he/she is willing to immediately participate in the action that brought about the trauma while an introvert will shy away from such actions altogether (Boeree, 1998). The test notes that violent criminals are distinguished by their traits of non-neuroticistic extraversion as they are less likely to learn from past experiences. However, the test is deemed unreliable in ascertaining the violent nature of a criminal as they are capable of participating in actions not only done by non-neuroticistic extraverts, but neuroticistic introverts. Interpretation of the Eysecnk Personality Questionnaire uses percentiles when relating variables in test results. The test-users personality ratings are based on the results achieved. For instance, one who scores highly in psychoticism are likely to be troublesome, hostile, highly aggressive, do not care about other people and think they do not fit in any environment. These people are, therefore, referred to as psychotics. Extraverts are persons who score highly in sociability, impulsivity, take chances, are aggressive and are temperamental. They also seek excitement and noise, and have a low threshold for dullness. Introverts, on the other hand, are low scorers in aggressiveness and tend to be quiet and envision the future (Boeree, 1998). Test-users who score highly in questions pertaining nervousness, being constantly worried, moody and depressed have a neuroticistic personality. On the social desirability score, high scorers have a high affinity to fake by giving answers that are deemed socially acceptable. Test-users with this personality trait are liable to social compliance. A clinical examination was done to study the personalities of interpreters working in English, Spanish and French booths. The test was referred to as the technical Questionnaire and was done in February 2004 (Bartol and Bartol 2008). We note that the trivial number of test-users was inadequate in providing an authoritative statement regarding the persons that particular profession. It is noted that the values of males and female participants are above the norm when considering psychoticism. This can be attributed to the fact that interpreters are meant to match a meticulous set of standards when in one environment and adjust to another when in a different environment. This is deemed to be responsible to their being solitary beings. When determining extraversion, males were noted to be below the norm, while female interpreters were above the norm. This implies that they are neither introverted nor extraverted. They are willing to take risks, but not excessively as to endanger them and they must also plan ahead. The examination of neuroticism showed both sexes being below the norm. This means that neither appeared to be worried, moody or anxious. However, this could be because interpreters are deemed to be well prepared for questioning. The social desirability score for both sexes in all groups is above the norm. We can, thus deduce that the interpreters wanted to appear agreeable and adapt to the established norms of interpreting. Later when asked whether they are amenable to interpreting using technology similar to the experiment, half of the respondents were agreeable, but when asked whether they think others would accept, 70% responded in the affirmative. We can thus establish that because most respondents thought their peers would accept the technology, they were inclined to also accepting as this decision was deemed socially acceptable (Bartol and Bartol 2008). The Eysecnk Personality Questionnaire’s assertion that personality is linked to genes and heredity validity is somewhat improbable as it encourages persons with low arousal stimulations and extroverts to seek stimulation elsewhere to account for the lower levels. This means that individuals who inherit the nervous system attributed to such low levels can receive stimulation to boost their arousal. However, we note that in trying to administer the proper stimulation, individuals are involved in highly risky activities such as sexual promiscuity, drug abuse and criminal behavior. This test’s unreliability is also shown in the fact that not all persons who have low levels of arousal or those that are extraverts will search for these risky activities as nurture also comes into play through one’s environment. We, therefore, establish that it is through the right environment and personality that a person becomes antisocial or develops criminal predisposition. Using test results from this test, can predispose one to believe that the test-user will develop criminal behavior or is involved in criminal behavior when in the true sense they are not. It is, therefore, necessary to include the scope of environment in this test in order to make it wholesome in the determination of personality (Canli, 2004). The use of this test has grown with added support on its ideology through experiments and demonstrations. The test is considered a viable tool due to its predictive strength in matters relating to criminality, education and in determining proneness to mental illness and accidents. This study was considered reliable enough to form the basis of Kurt Lewin’s testable hypothesis. However, more errors in the tests have been established, for instance, it is noted that deficiencies in MAOA action is more prevalent, and do not serve as predisposing factors to antisocial and aggressive tendencies. The secondary version of the EPQ measuring the different dimensions was administered to two groups of children; boys and girls whose ages ranged from 11 to 15. Children in the control group were tested and retested under similar direction while children in the other group were tested on standard directions and retested under directives to fake goodness. There were high variations in the experimental group who tended to lie more and were less neuroticism. However, there were no variations in responses, in the control group. We, therefore, note that reliability of tests and retests is limited as responses are aimed at social desirability; thus the results are affected (Bartol and Bartol 2008). The test showcases a number of strengths and weaknesses which must be factored before choosing to take the test. For instance, the test’s strength is seen in its ability to predict events such as proneness to accidents and criminal behavior by looking into heredity and genes. However, herein also lies a weakness as the test does not allow for nurture to be examined. Reviewers insist on the need for any test to combine both nature and nurture in the determination of personality for the test to be effective and efficient. Moreover, we note that the test’s strengths lies in its easy application and affordability. The test is also available from the internet, so one does not require visiting a psychiatrist for administration. Moreover, the test gives a score on all its dimensions, this accommodates all individuals as one is not inclined to choose either one or another in the responses. Therefore, one can be in-between the scores and will still understand one’s personality. By getting a high or low score, it does not mean you belong to one personality group and not the other, but rather means you are more likely to develop traits associated with that particular personality. For instance, currently the terms emotional stability is used in place of low neuroticism. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire is considered by most psychologists as a great test as its theories are sound and it encompasses a majority of traits seen in human beings, aiming at classifying them into different personalities (Lajunena and Scherler, 1999). In conclusion, this test has a reliable construction pattern as its principles highlights and examines most of the traits present in human kind. The normative group and information further exemplify the essence of this study as it is vital in the determination of criminal tendencies in different people. However, more research is required to allow for more reliability by, for example, including the scale of nurture to the already substantial scales employed by the test. This will increase the test’s reliability by improving on its validity. References Canli, T. (2004). Functional brain mapping of extraversion and neuroticism: Learning from individual differences in emotion processing: Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1105-1132 Lajunena, T and Scherler, H. R. (1999). Is the EPQ Lie Scale bidimensional? Validation study of the structure of the EPQ Lie Scale among Finnish and Turkish university students. Personality and Individual Differences 26 (4): 657– 664. Eysenck, H. J. (1996). The biological basis of personality. Springfield: Thomas. Boeree, C. G. (1998). Hans Eysenck (1916 - 1997) and other temperament theorists. Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/eysenck.html  Hans, J. and Sybil B. G. Eysenck (1999). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bartol and Bartol (2008). Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach (8th ed.). New Jersey: Upper Saddle River, Read More