The Main Issues and Challenges Involved in Measuring Individual Differences in Personality - Essay Example

Discuss the main issues and challenges involved in measuring individual differences in personality. Introduction In psychology, individual differences explore the similarities and differences between people in terms of thinking, behaviour, and feeling. Challenges may arise when measuring individual differences in personality; owing to the complexity of people. This can be attributed to the fact that everyone has unique qualities, characteristics, and personality, different from others. As a result, people will exhibit varying degrees of personality, which may reveal significant personality differences. This paper seeks to discuss the main issues as well as challenges encountered in measuring individual differences in personality. The paper will focus on how personality and individual differences may pose challenges when it comes to their measurement. Issues and challenges involved in measuring individual differences in personality. According to Carl Jung’s theory of personality types, individuals may be different from one another in numerous ways. The ability of a person to relate to others highly depends on his or her personality type. As such, individual behaviour may be limited to the personality that the person has. Moreover, the relationship between a person and others in the society may be guided by the personality type, which they exhibit. The distinct personality types denote that an individual is not like others (Furr & Funder 2007, p. 274). Everyone has his or her own traits, which define the difference with other members of the society. As a result, challenges may be encountered in measuring individual differences based on personality. Challenges and issues in measuring individual differences in personality may emanate from the differences in perception, cognition, emotional response, and varying judgements. In evaluating personality differences in individuals, psychologists may be confronted by the challenge of drawing a clear distinction between individuals based on their varying views and emotional responses. For example, it may be challenging to classify individuals as belonging to a certain personality type. Individuals deemed to belong to the same personality type may behave differently from one another. Therefore, it may be hard to come up with a generalization that an individual, who has a certain personality trait, has a certain personality type (Caprara & Daniel 2000, p. 10). There are processes and factors that may underlie personality traits and individual differences. This may pose a challenge in the theoretical understanding of unique, individual traits. Personality differences may be influenced by the context, which the individual finds himself or herself. An individual can behave differently, with regard to the situation they find themselves (Mark & Rick 2009, p 13). Contextual behaviour is not constant; individuals keep on changing their behaviour based on where they are. As a result, significant variability may be witnessed from one situation to another. This may have an impact on the clear understating of the actual personality type. Consequently, individual differences in personality may prove hard to determine (Caprara & Daniel 2000, p. 11). Measurement of individual differences in personality may pose significant challenges in terms of methodology. This stems from the fact it may not be easy to measure personality dispositions in sensitive and accurate ways. Psychologists and personality researchers have not succeeded in devising accurate and reliable ways of measuring personality traits (Messick, 1995, p. 742). As a result, the results from personality tests may not be accurate and reliable. This brings to question the need to come up with proper ways of measuring personality and individual differences. Dues to lack of accurate measurement, the resultant findings, cannot be used to measure individual differences in personality. Thus, methodology poses a challenge in the measurement of individual differences in personality. Issues may also arise on whether to use general methods in measuring an individual’s personality. The specificity of the method used should be in line with other variables considered in measuring personality and individual differences. Challenges may be experienced in matching the method used to the variables that should be measured. This may lead to incompatibility between the methods used and the variables to be measured (John & Benet-Martinez 2000, p. 340). For example, personality differences may not be correctly measured due to lack of compatibility between attitudes and behaviour. Results may be inaccurate to come up with viable conclusions regarding the personality differences. As such, the challenge of compatibility can be regarded as a central issue in the measurement of individual differences in personality. Another challenge that can be experienced in the measurement of individual differences could be a lack of objectivity. Endeavours to measure individual and personality differences may be subjective. For example, the traits, which determine the personality and individual differences, may give inaccurate results, limited to a few variables only (Messick, 1995, p. 744). Individuals may differ in a variety of aspects, such as attitudes, intelligence, social skills, and physical characteristics. However, all these differences/variables may not be considered in measuring individual differences. Studies to measure individual and personality differences are not all inclusive; this questions the extent to which the results can be trusted. For example, organizations may not use all variables in interpreting individual differences when hiring employees. Thus, the findings may be incomplete. Kagan (2005, p. 125) concludes that the use of single measures of personality can be regarded as an issue of concern in the determination of individual differences. In most cases, psychologists and social researchers tend to use only one method in the determination of personality. The results of such a study cannot be considered as credible since a single measure cannot comprehensively determine individual differences. This calls for the application of multiple measures in order to determine the actual traits that can be used to define the personality type. Multiple measures give a clue on the common behaviour type that correctly defines an individual’s personality. The main objective of measuring individual differences is to allow for accuracy in estimating the relationships between the variables used and emotions, thoughts, and behaviours. On the contrary, the various personality measures do not achieve this goal. Measurement mainly takes place in the context of methodological strategies; these strategies cannot be perfect. This brings a challenge based on the use of experimental designs, which can be criticized for lack of sound accuracy, validity, and appropriateness. Therefore, there are no comprehensive methods that can measure the correlation between the various variables that determine individual differences (John & Benet-Martinez 2000, p. 342) Research on individual differences has focussed on the exclusive measurement of individual differences without focus on the underlying processes of cognition, emotional response, perception and judgement. There should be a focus on personality traits in order to enhance theoretical understanding of individual differences. Failure to focus on personality traits may lead to negative outcomes, and unreliable results (Mark & Rick 2009, p 14). Personality studies do not analyze the underlying strategies of planning as well as interpretation that may wholly explain individual differences. Besides, cognitive ability is not used in measuring individual differences in personality. Cognition should be integrated in the measurement of personality differences; failure to include such an aspect does not give complete results (Furr & Funder 2007, p. 281). Measuring personality traits using such methods as self reports may cause a number of potential problems. Self reports entail questioning the respondent about their personality traits and characteristics that may be used to distinguish them from others. The structure of the question may have an impact on the extent to which the reported information measures what it should measure. Self reports are imperfect sources of data; minor changes in the wording of questions, format, or context may result to significant changes in the final results (Moskowitz 1986, p. 296). Errors may also be encountered on the part of the respondent. For example, bias may occur as respondents give answers that will present them as favourable. Thus, the responses may not reflect the respondent’s actual thoughts, emotions, feelings, or behaviour. The desire for impression management is yet another challenge that may be encountered when measuring individual differences using personality. Individuals always portray themselves in a manner that shows a positive impression. For example, a person may exhibit behavioural traits that they do not usually have; when they realize that they are under study (Paulhus & Vazire 2007, p. 226). The variation of behaviour in individuals may make it confusing to understand their real behavioural traits, which define their personality. As a result, it may be challenging to come up with viable findings regarding the actual personality type or individual traits. Regular change of behaviour results to distorted results, which cannot be used to determine individual and personality differences (Ozer & Benet‐Martinez 2006, p. 406). In Tomas (2007; p42), multiple personality disorder may also pose a challenge in the measurement of individual differences in personality. This disorder results from severe traumas that may cause dissociations in an individual. A person with multiple personality normally exhibits several personality types. For example, they may have impulsive tendencies, deficiency in emotional intelligence, or post-traumatic stress disorder. The fact that an individual can portray several personality types makes it a challenge to come up with comprehensive conclusions regarding individual differences. As a result, it may be challenging to measure individual differences in personality. Individual differences can only be measured accurately when an individual exhibits a single personality type. Multiple personalities indicate that there is no single trait, which can be associated with the individual. Therefore, the deductions that a person belongs has a certain personality type may not be perfect. Studies of personality have a close intersection and relationship with the concerns of social psychology. This means that individual interactions change from depending on the situations. An individual responds to different environmental stimuli in different ways. These behavioural differences may make it hard for an individual to exhibit a unique personality trait. Therefore, it may be difficult for researchers to come up with comprehensive and valid arguments that a person has some differences from others (Kagan 2005, p 126). If an individual’s behaviour never changes, then it would be easy to measure how different they are from others. Thus, the variability in behaviour based on the circumstance can act as a barrier in measuring individual differences in personality. The use of methods such as informant reports to measure personality may also pose significant challenges. While using informant reports, many costs may be incurred. It consumes a lot of valuable time to collect data from informants; regarding the appropriate behaviour and traits that can be used to classify individuals based on personality. Moreover, time is needed to recruit informants, who will provide the required data. Informants can be uncooperative; this may raise issues such as giving dishonest information (Moskowitz 1986, p. 302). The lack of honesty means that information to be collected cannot be trusted or used for the purposes of the study. Researchers have devised ways of overcoming this challenge by proposing that data can be obtained from the internet. This would reduce the burden of asking other people about a target. Therefore, the lack of honesty on the part of the respondents in cases of informant reports can be regarded as a challenge to measuring individual differences in personality. Behavioural methods of measuring individual differences in personality may also pose some challenges. It may be extremely difficult to get the actual or real trait by observing the behaviour. The link between a certain form of behaviour and a personality type may not be direct. As a result, the results obtained not may be inadequate to measure the individual differences in personality (Moskowitz 1986, p. 304). The difficulties in linking behaviour to a personality trait become a challenge in the measurement of individual differences in personality. Behavioural methods have also received a lot of criticism on the basis that researchers can influence the behaviour of the individual under study. Conclusion In conclusion, individual differences entail the similarities as well as differences between people in such aspects as behaviour, thinking, and emotions. There are numerous challenges and issues in measuring individual differences in personality. Individuals may exhibit varying degrees in behaviour depending on aspects such as the situation and the tendency to change behaviour. Human beings are unpredictable; therefore, they may change behaviour. Besides, the complex nature of individuals makes it challenging to come up with a more reliable method of measuring individual differences in personality. Multiple personality disorders, which entail having several personality traits in an individual, also pose a challenge in the measurement of individual differences in personality. Moreover, such methods as behavioural methods can be criticized since the researcher can influence the respondent to act in a favourable way. Human beings tend to change behaviour when they realize that they are subjects to a study, a phenomenon known as the placebo effect. Thus, it may be difficult to measure individual differences in personality owing to the limitations of the methods used. References List Caprara, V. G. & Daniel, C. (2000). Personality: Determinants, Dynamics, and Potentials. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 8-12. Furr, R. M, & Funder, D. C. (2007). Behavioral observation, Handbook of research methods in Personality psychology, London, The Guilford Press. pp. 273-291. John, O. P. & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability, construct validation, and scale construction, Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. pp. 339-369. Kagan, J. (2005). A time for specificity, Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 125-127. Mark, R. & Rick, H. H. (2009). Handbook of individual differences in social behavior. London, Guilford Press. pp. 12-15. Moskowitz, D. S. (1986). Comparison of self-reports reports by knowledgeable informants, and behavioral observation data, Journal of Personality, 54, 294-317. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749. Paulhus, D. L. & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method: Handbook of research methods in personality psychology, London, The Guilford Press. pp. 224-239. Ozer, D. J. & Benet‐Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential Outcomes, Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401‐421. Tomas, O. (2007). Personality and individual differences, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. pp 40-46. Read More