Five-Factor Model of Personality Assessment - Research Paper Example

Running head: Psychology of Personality [Insert s Personality forms the fundamental component that triggers individual differences in the society. An individual undergoes dramatic evolution throughout their lives that eventually shapes their personality, which can either be due to a genetic disposition or environment factors. Personality is a dynamic phenomenon and constitutes of a wide variety of psychological traits hence, researchers have come up with personality tests to provide a rough measure of these attributes. The substance of this prose assesses the application and implication of the of the Five Factor Model (FFM) that measures one’s personality across five primary attributes that is also called the ‘Big Five Factors’ that includes Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. The substance of the following prose examines in light of self-reports and observation, which highlights the validity of the results and how readily they apply in providing an assessment of my personality. (Larsen & Buss, 2010; Costa & McCrae, 1992) Psychology of Personality I. Introduction Personality is an abstract phenomenon that is established in an individual as a result of their thought processes and cognitions, which in turn is believed to regulate one’s conduct and attributes. The study of how mental functions shape personality is referred to as the ‘Psychology of Personality’ and is indeed a multifaceted concept that dictates a person’s behavior and attitude towards various situations in his or her life and also determines how one interacts with others. Clinicians have postulated that personality is trichotomized into three levels that pave way for an analysis; these levels are human nature, group differences and individual uniqueness, which are believed to have a major influence on the shaping of one’s personality. The term ‘human nature’ encapsulates the entire repertoire of emotions and cognitions that an individual experiences throughout his life. This level entails a universal approach towards human expressions and characteristics that are possessed by everyone. Human nature is further narrowed down in to groups, which are then referred to as ‘group differences’. It attempts to divide and classify people with similar traits and seeks to explain as to how different factions of individuals may differ or are similar to one another. The final level is called the ‘Individual difference’; its name is quite self-explanatory and the term is used to underline the uniqueness of each individual. Psychological research has led to the realization that every person in this world possesses a unique set of attributes and each entity is distinct. The classification of these levels was a mere attempt to simplify the concept of personality that paves way for an analysis across these three levels. (Larsen & Buss, 2010) II. Personality Paradigms Researchers have been greatly intrigued by this concept and have subsequently proposed a number of theories to explain the dynamics behind the development of personality. Psychologists are more interested in discovering a theory that has greater generalizability or universal application, but the implications are vastly ostensible given the fact that all human entities are endowed with a unique combination of traits. Scientists continue to work to come up with theories to further elucidate and comprehend the contribution of various stages of one’s life in order to understand its growth and development. Freud’s ‘Psychoanalytic Theory’ epitomizes this aspect, as he tried to associate personality development with psychosexual development that takes place during the early years of one’s life. Though, Freud’s theory provides a plausible explanation but it cannot be denied that it is vastly reductionist in nature. In other words, it narrows down an entire phenomenon to childhood events and unconscious mind processes; due to its intangibility, it is difficult to study and therefore cannot provide a valid method to study personality. Researchers now aim to divide their theoretical approaches to three distinct paradigms that are Biological, cognitive and the neo-analytical paradigm. The biological paradigm focuses on an individual’s genetic predisposition or hereditary as one of the plausible causes for triggering a trait with an individual. (Buss, 1995, 1-2) To further cement the biological paradigm, researchers tried to demonstrate these aspects through family, twin and adoption studies, whereby the overlapping traits and similarities within family members can be observed. All the aforementioned studies are established under the assumptions that all family members were exposed to the same kind of environment. As per the theory, the repertoire of skills and knowledge obtained from one’s environment are then stored in the genes, which are passed on to and exhibited by the behavior of one’s offspring. (Canli, 2006, 61-64) Genetic researches have provided great insight into individual preferences and it has also acted as a strong determinant that helps highlight one’s smoking and drinking habits by studying their genetic pattern. Besides the Genetic model, the neo-analytic model exhibits Freudian influences in the overall premise of its hypotheses. Researchers have speculated that childhood events are found to be very crucial in shaping cognitions and the unconscious mind plays a critical role in giving rise to and the resolution of conflicts. However, the latter is not always considered to have such an all-encompassing role in the growth of the personality as it was theorized by Freud. The paradigm focuses on the evolution of personality, which is an individual’s transition from immaturity to maturity. Although the paradigm was inspired by Freud’s research, but it has undergone several changes and was tailored by subsequent researches in order to overcome its limitations. It further implies that sexuality is a part of personality and not vice versa, as Freud had suggested. A disturbed childhood usually triggers conflict and repression of memories, which in turn causes the individual to have distortions in their personality. Though, the unconscious is known to trigger conflicts, but researchers have claimed that the unconscious may not be deemed as the prime source of motivation when it comes to behavior and ego perception. However, the aforementioned process is purely hypothetical and due to the abstract nature of the unconscious mind, it is difficult to find tangible evidences that would cement these claims. The cognitive paradigm on the other hand, works on the hypothesis that the thought processes form the basis of all individual actions, which then shapes personality. As the name suggests, the cognitive paradigm focuses on a set of mental processes and seeks to explain how every individual differ in analyzing a situation. The set of mental processes include perception, interpretation, memorization, establishing beliefs and then finally it involves the setting up of expectations. It is believed that before adopting behaviors in response to a particular situation, the individual carries out all certain mental tasks that helps evaluate an incident that would help the person regulate their behavior accordingly. These set of processes depend upon an individual’s locus of control, which refers to the events or factors that are under the individual’s manipulation and also involves personal responsibility for a particular occasion. The perceived locus of control determines the individual’s response to the situation that further decides whether the individual will remain passive or will give out a more active reaction. In certain situations, an individual realizes that events are out of his locus of control, the state is known as the ‘learned helplessness’ and the person transitions into a passive state and becomes accepting of the situation. The inferential ability of the individual oscillates between a global and specific perspective; stable and unstable and internal and external (Larsen and Buss, 2010). Therefore, the cognitive paradigm is more comprehensive in its explanation of how certain traits or characteristics are formed in an individual as a result of their thought processes and inferences. All these three psychological models may differ drastically in their definition of personalities, but nevertheless they have provided substantial insight into human behavior. Paradigms are developed meant to try to explain the origins of one’s personality, whereas psychometric tests are designed to analyze the degree to which all the traits are embedded in an individual’s psyche. The Neo Five Factor Model has discovered a method to narrow down personality to certain traits to help researchers draw out an analysis of individual characters. Major personality traits as identified by Costa and McCrae (1992) include Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism; these traits are often referred to as the Big Five Factors, which have further transcended into a Five Factor Model (FFM) that forms the basis for the NEO FFM psychometric tests. III. NEO FFM The Neo FFM assesses an individual’s personality across the five factors or dimensions; the test consists of a series of questions that the individual then signifies the degree to which those situations apply to their lives. The five personality factors have been given varying definitions by all the psychologists, who reviewed the model; however, the general meanings associated with the five aforementioned traits are as follows. Extraversion refers to the individual’s ability to express their self in social situations; their level of talkativeness, sociability and assertiveness when they are interacting with other people. Agreeableness involves a set of trait that signifies the level of care and love an individual exhibits towards their fellow beings. It is kindness and the overall attitude towards others, which further entails the amount trust one is capable of putting in others and the degree of affection they possess; all these characteristics come under the term agreeableness. Conscientiousness involves goal-oriented behaviors and the ability to organize oneself; it is vastly considered to refer to an individual’s extent of thoughtfulness and realization of responsibilities. Neuroticism refers to the emotional instability of an individual and their likelihood of experiencing anxiety, moodiness and irritability. The term basically discusses and analyzes how easily a person gets aggravated in various situations. Openness is defined as the individual’s ability to develop insights regarding various issues. It refers to the scope of one’s imagination and further determines the range of interests in their life. The Neo FFM quantifies these traits and a high score usually means that the individual possesses high levels of that trait. Each of these traits is associated with and helps clinicians determine the level of excellence that the individual is capable of achieving on various fronts of life. For instance, high level of conscientiousness is associated with high academic achievement. The findings of the research carried out by Wolfe and Johnson (1995) further discovered a high correlation between high SAT scores and high conscientious scores on the NEO FFM test. Various researches on the subject have also discovered that agreeableness and openness are also associated with academic performance, but conscientiousness plays a more dominant role. Similar to academic standing, high conscientiousness is also attributed to a stable occupational growth and professional excellence (Lounsbury & Gibson, 1998). On the other hand, social functioning is associated with high openness, agreeableness; Also low levels of neuroticism further enables an individual to establish and sustain stable adult relationships. Moreover, high scores on these traits also indicate towards enhanced self efficacy; which makes the individual more robust and resilient, motivating the individual to adopt healthy habits. Low neuroticism further indicates a lower susceptibility to developing mental disorders and has greater ability to cope with difficult situation. A healthy life also requires a stable social support structure, whereby it can be clearly observed that all these traits are closely interrelated in integrating an individual’s personality and habits. IV. NEO FFM Test results and Self Report Raw Scores Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Self-Report 11 43 21 25 37 Mom 11 36 27 39 35 Alisha 6 44 28 33 35 Reggie 14 27 18 25 44 Average 10.2 37.5 23.5 30.5 37.7 The aforementioned table demonstrates the scores I obtained and was given by my peers in the test. After I had taken the NEO FFM test, my results showed a great congruency to my real personality that will be further juxtaposed with the test scored that were assigned to me by my mother, a colleague and a very close high school friend. According to my test results, I scored particularly high on extraversion and then conscientious, whereas the score for openness and agreeable was fairly average; my score for neuroticism also was also very low. Hence, the results indicate that I have sound academic achievements and it is indeed true that I do possess a flair for academic activities. However, this flair only developed after my enlistment in the military, as prior to my enlistment I was not really good at academics and my grades oscillated between a pass and a fail, therefore my experiences in the army has enabled me to become more organized and disciplined in improving my study habits. When it comes to agreeableness and openness, I was always considered to be helpful towards my peers and later on in my relationships I adopted the same attitude. However, I did go through a divorce with my first wife because of her constant battles with Post-Partum depression after delusional attitude that caused our marriage to fall apart. My family never approved of my relationships, nor they approved of my decision to join the army, but despite their disapproval I took many risks and made choices that may have caused me to go through trying times but I have never regretted making those choices in my life. This attitude seems to explain the high score I achieved on extraversion and I do agree that I have been quite single-headed in all my decisions. Previously, I was not as focused on my professional achievements as I am now; my enlistment in the army was a matter of fluke and not something I had set my hearts on from the beginning. Despite my parents censure, my enlistment was one of the most favorable experiences of my life and even found a penchant for the food industry. Therefore, my enlistment in the army enabled me to explore new areas in my life and strive to obtain my degree to further progress towards a profession in food service. Despite my scores indicating a vastly stable health pattern, but in actuality, I have had some minor health issues; such as sleep apnea and weight problems, ever since I came back from my military service. I can say I lived a healthier and more robust during my time in the army as I was subjected to a strict regimen and after that it is understandable that I gave in to the luxuries and indiscipline that normal life offered me. However, psychologically I believe that I have a steady mindset and concur with my test results in this regard. I never had the misfortune of being posted to the more turbulent regions of the world like Iraq and Afghanistan; therefore, I do not exhibit symptoms of PTSD and was unscathed by military duty that vastly involved carrying out simple, yet laborious tasks. When I took the NEO FFM test, I found a strong congruency in the test results and my actual personality, but to further validate the results my mother; my colleague, Alisha and my very close friend, Reggie also rated me on the NEO FFM. Despite slight discrepancies in the results, their view of my personality was vastly consistent with mine. The discrepancy in their view can be easily explained due to the difference in the manner I interact with each of them. For instance, my mother rated me exceptionally high on agreeableness, which makes sense for it is only natural for me to be affectionate towards my mother and try to please her more than other people I interact with on a daily basis. Alisha’s score was the most consistent with mine and unlike my mother; she gave me an average score for the amount of agreeableness I possessed, as we both were the closest during out time in the military; though our friendship was strictly platonic. Even my friend, Reggie gave me a low score on agreeableness, but it makes sense for I always valued and respected Reggie as a good friend, but the lack of affectionate gestures towards him is clearly understandable. As for me, I have always been over critical of myself and having dealt with people from all walks of life during my military service, I think this experience has hardened me because of which I do not consider myself agreeable or affectionate; but I do try to help others as much as I can. Furthermore, out of all the scores, Reggie gave me the highest score on conscientiousness. This can be explained as Reggie and I collaborated with each other on a number of class assignments and having participated in numerous extracurricular activities together, we established an excellent rapport over time and have great respect for each other, which is why the test score clearly indicates that Reggie seems to have an exaggerated idea of this quality in my personality. I believe that had I taken this test during my years in high school, my test results would have been completely different for various experiences have greatly changed my views on life and are subjected to change as I continue to grow and mature in my life. The test results provided great insight into my personality along with a nearly accurate sketch, but the model has its share of limitations, which may not be considered to be an accurate measure of my personality or others for that matter. V. Discussion The test enabled me to find a close correlation between the perceptions of myself with that of others, but the test can still not be considered to be an accurate representation of my true personality. The model reduces the personality to mere digits without considering the causal factors in one’s life. For instance, as per my test results, researchers might come to the conclusion that I am an excellent student, but in reality this development is relatively a new aspect of my personality that unfurled only now. Moreover, the perception of the agreeableness of my nature elicited varying views; as Reggie and I scored my personality low on agreeableness, whereas Alisha and my mother gave me a decent score. This indicates that the test cannot be an accurate measure for this trait as an individual’s behavior and attitude towards a person is affected by a number of factors; the factors include the degree of one’s closeness, gender, relationship and number of years I have known a particular person. Therefore, the perception of these traits will vary from person to person, generating a different result every time. The test is more objective in nature and is very low on qualitative data and even researchers have criticized the model for being reductionist as it diminishes personality down to five dimensions. Personality is generally shaped by a number of factors and it consists of a number of characteristics and traits, which the model does not take in to account when assessing one’s personality. This is why critics have argued that the model is not an accurate representation of the theory of personality (John, Robins & Pervin, 2007, p. 142). The validity of this test is further lowered as psychologists have been unable to agree on set definition of each of these traits and due to the inconsistent meanings attached with each of these traits; it is highly likely that every professional will have a different analysis for all the individuals who took the test. Therefore, a different psychological professional analyzing my test scores would give me an entirely diverse view of my personality. Moreover, the hypothesis which associates the big five factors with academic achievement is further nullified as SAT scores and grade point averages are a cumulative result of a person’s score. Therefore, the big five can also not be an accurate measure of intelligence as per the findings of Wolfe and Johnson (1995). (Lounsbury et.al, 2003) For instance, throughout my school life, I have had dwindling grades and only now in university I managed to maintain quite a decent grade point average of 3.5. However, the score is generated through a mean of all my subjects and does not provide any additional details regarding my academic, such as the fact that English was once one of my weakest areas. Even then, my scores on the Neo FFM speculate that I have an above average intelligence and fail to take into account some of my gaping holes in my knowledge. Therefore, the results of this test are vastly based on speculations and gives rise to the problem of generalizing the scores to every aspect of one’s life. Another inconsistency that I discovered in my test results was the fact that through my test scores it is easy to derive that I have stable professional goals and growth, but in reality army enlistment was not something I planned, but did it because I did not have a better option at and then, but I am dedicated to whatever that is handed to me. Even so, I may not be as goal-oriented and focused as my test results describe me as. It may be considered that I am being over-critical of myself, but it is true most of my professional choices were vastly coincidences and it is only now that I have discovered a career that truly interests me. VI. Conclusion In conclusions, the Neo FFM may have several limitations, but most of the analysis was accurate and was further substantiated by the scores that were assigned to me by my kith and kin. Personality is a complex phenomenon and cannot be narrowed down into a few traits, but through the study of the smaller facets of this vast concept, researchers are aiming to piece together the bigger picture of an individual’s personality. However, it still cannot be denied that studying personality is a formidable task, considering that all entities are unique, which makes generalization of the findings incredibly difficult. I am not saying that the Five Factor Model is completely inept; as a matter of fact, despite its limitations the model may still be used to open new doors of research and insight into different personalities that can be further assessed. If not completely accurate, the Neo FFM still provides a rough idea regarding the skills and characteristics of an individual. Hopefully future researches can broaden the number of traits that are under scrutiny and psychologists can look beyond these traits to examine an individual’s personality. References: Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associated LTD. P.p 1-2 Canli, T. (2006). Biology of Personality and Individual Differences. New York, NY: Guilford Press. P.p 61-64 Costa, P.T & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Neo Personality Inventory and Neo Five Factor Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. John, O.P, Robins, R.W & Pervin, L.A. (2007). Handbook of personality: Theory and Research. New York, NY: Guilford Press. P. 142 Larsen, R. J. & Buss, D. M. (2010). Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge About Human Nature, Fourth Edition. New York, NY: McGrawHill. Lounsbury, J. W., & Gibson, L. W. (1998). Personal Style Inventory: a work-based personality measurement system. Knoxville, TN: Resource Associates. Lounsbury, J.W. et.al (2003). Intelligence, ‘Big Five’ personality and work drive as predictors of course grades. Knoxville, TN: Elsevier LTD. Wolfe R.N & Johnson, S.D. (1995). Personality as a predictor of College Performance. New York, NY: Educational and Psychological measurement. Read More