Big Five Inventory Report

Aim
To assess the personality of the participant using the Big Five Inventory.
Basic Concepts
The concept of personality arises from the fascinating spectrum of human individuality.
We observe that people differ meaningfully in the ways they customarily think, feel, and act.
These distinctive behavior patterns help define one’s identity as a person. As one group of
theorists noted, each of us is in certain respects like all other people, like some other people, and
like no other person who has lived in the past or will exist in the future (Kluckhohn & Murray,
1953). The concept of personality also rests on the observation that a given person seems to
behave somewhat consistently over time and across different situations. From this perceived
consistency comes the notion of personality traits that characterize an individual’s customary
ways of responding to his or her world. Although only modest stability is found from childhood
personality to adult personality, personality becomes more stable as we enter adulthood (Caspi &
Roberts, 1999; Terracciano et al., 2006). Nonetheless, even in adulthood, a capacity for
meaningful personality change remains (Lewis, 1999; Roberts et al., 2002).
Combining these notions of individuality and consistency, personality can be defined as
“the distinctive and relatively enduring ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that characterize a
person’s responses to life situations.” It should be noted that this definition refers not only to
personal characteristics, but also to situations. Personality psychologists are therefore interested
in studying “person-by-situation” interactions in their efforts to understand the distinctive
behaviors of individuals (Robins et al., 2007).
The thoughts, feelings, and actions that are seen as reflecting an individual’s personality
typically have three characteristics. First, they are seen as behavioral components of identity that
distinguish that person from other people. Second, the behaviors are viewed as being caused
primarily by internal rather than environmental factors. Third, the person’s behaviors seem to
have organization and structure; they seem to fit together in a meaningful fashion, suggesting an
inner personality that guides and directs behavior. This can be understood by the following
figure:
Figure 1
The behaviors of personality: Certain perceived characteristics of behavior are seen as reflecting
an individual’s personality

Approaches to Study of Personality

Personality theories differ considerably in their conceptions of what personality is and
how it functions. Scientifically useful personality theories organize existing knowledge, allow
the prediction of future events, and stimulate the discovery of new knowledge. Interest in
personality is as old as civilization: Ancient philosophers and poets often speculated about why
individuals were unique and why they differed from each other in so many ways. People have
often relied on the disciplines of Astrology, Palmistry, Tarot Cards among others to get insights
into themselves and significant others.
It can be said that classification has been and continues to be a common urge among
humans. There has been a strong tradition of typological theories since antiquity. For instance
Charaka, the father of Indian medicine, in his Compendium Charaka Samhita gave a humoural
classification of personality (prakriti) during 200 BC (Gopinath, 2001). These humors were wind
(Vata), bile (Pitta), and phlegm (Kapha) which constitute tridosha prakriti. Also, there exists a
strong tradition of conceptualizing personality. It was not until the emergence of a scientific field
of psychology, however, that personality became the focus of systematic research.
 There are seven major theories of personality, each of them offers a point of view and
insights that have added to our understanding of personality. Modern research on personality has
gone well beyond them in many respects.
The Psychodynamic Approach. The psychodynamic perspective evolved from Freudian
Psychoanalytic Theory. It was the first attempt to understand psychological factors in mental
disorders. Over the last half of the 20th century several variants of psychoanalytic theory have
evolved that are together referred to as the psychodynamic perspective.The psychodynamic
perspective emphasizes on the unconscious psychological processes and contends that childhood
experiences are crucial in shaping adult personality.
Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory. Freud theory of psychoanalysis holds 3 major
assumptions: (i) Major portion of mental life is unconscious. (ii) A dynamic interplay of inner
forces shape human behavior. (iii) Past experiences, especially in early childhood determine how
a person feels and behaves throughout life.
With respect to personality, four topics are most central: Levels of Consciousness, The
Structure of Personality, Anxiety and Defense Mechanisms, and the Psychosexual Stages of
Development.
Levels of Consciousness. According to Freud, most of the mind lies below the surface
below the threshold of conscious experience. The Conscious includes Our current thoughts
whatever we are thinking about or experiencing at a given moment. Beneath the conscious realm
is the much larger preconscious. This contains memories that are not part of current thought but
can readily be brought to mind if the need arises. Beneath the preconscious, and forming the bulk
of the human mind, is the unconscious. It has the thoughts, desires, and impulses of which we
remain largely unaware. Although some of this material has always been unconscious, Freud
believed that much of it was once conscious but has been actively repressed, that is, driven from
consciousness because it was too anxiety-provoking. For example, Freud contended that
shameful experiences or unacceptable sexual or aggressive urges are often driven deep within the
unconscious. The fact that we are not aware of them, however, in no way prevents them from
affecting our behavior. Indeed, Freud believed that many of the symptoms experienced by his
patients were disguised and indirect reflections of repressed thoughts and desires. This is why
one major goal of psychoanalysis, the method of treating psychological disorders devised by
Freud, is to bring repressed material back into consciousness. Presumably, once such material is
made conscious and patients gain insight into the early life experiences that caused them to
repress it in the first place, important causes of mental illness are removed.
The Structure of Personality. Freud’s structural model of personality divides personality
into three parts: id, ego and superego. Id includes various bodily needs, sexual desires and
aggressive impulses. According to Freud, id is totally unconscious and operates in accordance
with the pleasure principle. It demands immediate gratification and is not capable of considering
the potential costs of seeking this goal.
The task of ego is to hold id in check until conditions allow for satisfaction of its
impulses. It is partly conscious and operates on the reality principle. It takes into account
external conditions and consequences of various actions and directs behavior so as to maximize
pleasure and minimize pain.
Superego also seeks to control satisfaction of id impulses but in contrast to ego it is
concerned with morality - with whether various ways that could potentially satisfy id impulses
are right or wrong. It works on the morality principle.
When all three parts of personality are in dynamic equilibrium, the individual is thought
to be mentally healthy. However, inner conflicts arise because the three subsystems are striving
for different goals. The conflicts are called inter-psychic conflicts, if unresolved, lead to mental
disorders. Moreover, he suggested that the struggle was often visible in everyday behavior in
what have come to be known as Freudian slips, that is, errors in speech that actually reflect
unconscious impulses that have “gotten by” the ego or superego. An example: “She was
tempting ... I mean attempting to....” According to Freud, the word tempting reveals an
unacceptable sexual impulse.
Figure 2
Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory: Levels of Consciousness and The Structure of Personality
 Defense Mechanisms. Freud believed that when the ego feels it may be unable to control
impulses from the id, it experiences anxiety. To reduce such feelings, the ego uses various
defense mechanisms. Some of them are as shown in the following table.
Table 1
Defense Mechanisms: Reactions to Anxiety

Psychosexual Stages of Development. Freud's theory also placed a great deal of emphasis
on sexual development. Freud argued that sexual drives are the dominant factors in development
of personality even in childhood, Freud believed that the child's basic relationship to the world in
its first several years of life in organised around the pursuit of sensual or sexual pleasure. In
Freud's view, all activities that are physically pleasurable such as eating or moving one's bowels,
are in essence "sexual". His psychosexual stages of development includes five stages - oral, anal,
phallic, latency, and genital.
During each stage, the pleasure seeking energy of the id (libido) focuses on a particular
area of the body (called the erogenous zone) and on activities connected with that area.
Overindulgence or deprivation in any stage can lead to fixation, an inability to progress normally
to the next stage of development. Outcome may be an adult personality reflecting activities of
that stage. The stages are as follows.
Table 2
The Psychosexual Stages of Development

Freud psychoanalysis can be seen as the first systematic approach to show how
psychological processes can result in shaping one’s personality. Unconscious processes have
been universally accepted and research shows that non-conscious mental and emotional
phenomena do indeed occur and affect our behavior.
Carl Jung. Carl Jung was a Neo-Freudian. Neo Freudians are personality theorists who
accepted basic portions of Freud’s theory but rejected or modified other portions. Jung shared
Freud's views concerning the importance of the unconscious, but contended that there is another
part to this aspect of personality that Freud overlooked: the collective unconscious. According to
Jung, the collective unconscious holds experiences shared by all human beings-experiences that
are, in a sense, part of our biological heritage. The contents of the collective unconscious, in
short, reflect the experiences our species has had since it originated on earth. The collective
unconscious finds expression in our minds in several ways, but among these, archetypes are the
most central to Jung's theory. These are manifestations of the collective unconscious that express
themselves when our conscious mind is distracted or inactive; for example, during sleep, in
dreams, or in fantasies (e.g., Neher, 1996). The specific expression of archetypes depends in part
on our unique experience as individuals, but in all cases such images are representations of key
aspects of the human experience: mother, father, wise old man, the sun, the moon, God, death,
and the hero. It is because of these shared innate images, Jung contended, that the folklore of
many different cultures contains similar figures and themes.
Another aspect of Jung's theory was his suggestion that we are all born with innate
tendencies to be concerned primarily either with our inner selves or with the outside world. Jung
labeled persons in the first category introverts and described them as being hesitant and cautious;
introverts do not make friends easily and prefer to observe the world rather than become
involved in it. He labeled persons in the second category extroverts. Such persons are open and
confident, make friends readily, and enjoy high levels of stimulation and a wide range of
activities. Although many aspects of Jung's theory have been rejected by
psychologists-especially the idea of the collective unconscious, the dimension of
introversion-extroversion appears to be a basic one of major importance; it is included in several
trait theories
Alfred Alder. Alfred Alder disagreed with some of Freud’s views. In particular, he
emphasized the importance of feelings of inferiority, which he believed we experience as
children because of our small size and physical weakness. He viewed personality development as
stemming primarily from our efforts to overcome such feelings through what he termed striving
for superiority. If these efforts go too far, we may develop a superiority complex and become a
braggart or a bully (Sutton & Smith, 1999). Under the surface, however, persons who show this
pattern still feel inferior: They are merely covering up with an outward show of strength.
Adler also emphasized the importance of social factors in personality; for instance, he
called attention to the importance of birth order. Only children, he suggested, are spoiled by too
much parental attention, while firstborns are “dethroned" by a second child. Second-borns, in
contrast, are competitive because they have to struggle to catch up with an older sibling. He also
spoke of a creative self, a self-aware aspect of personality that strives to overcome obstacles and
develop the individual’s potential.With the hypothesis of the creative self, Adler shifted the
emphasis of psychodynamic theory from the id to the ego. Because our potentials are uniquely
individual, Adler’s views have been termed individual psychology.
 Karen Horney. Horney was one of the few females in the early psychoanalytic
movement, and she disagreed with Freud strongly over his view that differences between men
and women stemmed largely from innate factors, for example, from anatomical differences
resulting in penis envy among females. Horney contended that although women often do feel
inferior to men, this is a result not of penis envy but of how women are treated by society. She
argued that if women were raised in a different type of environment, they would see themselves
more favorably. In other words, it was not the male penis women envied, but rather the power
and autonomy associated with maleness. In addition, she maintained that psychological disorders
stem not from fixation of psychic energy, as Freud contended, but rather from disturbed
interpersonal relationships during childhood and what she termed basic anxiety children's fear of
being left alone, helpless, and insecure. She suggested that in reaction to excessive levels of such
anxiety, which stem from poor relations with their parents, children adopt one of the three styles:
a passive style, in which they try to cope by being agreeable and compliant;an aggressive style,
in which they fight to get attention; or a withdrawn style, in which they repress their emotions.
All three patterns can lead to serious psychological disorders. By emphasizing the importance of
children's relationships with their parents, then, Horney called attention to the importance of
social factors in shaping personality-a view echoed by modern psychology.
Erik Erikson. Erikson's theory suggests that all human beings pass through specific
stages or phases of development. Erikson believed that each stage of life is marked by a specific
crisis or conflict between competing tendencies. Only if individuals negotiate each of these
hurdles successfully can they continue to develop in a normal, healthy manner. The stages of
Erikson’s Theory have been summarized in the following table.
Table 3
Erikson’s Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development
 Eric Fromm. Erich Fromm was a neo-Freudian psychoanalyst who suggested a theory of
personality based on two primary needs: the need for freedom and the need for belonging. He
suggested that people develop certain personality styles or strategies in order to deal with the
anxiety created by feelings of isolation. Of these character types, he suggested that four of them
are unproductive orientations, while one is a productive orientation.
Fromm believed that character is something that stems both from our genetic inheritance
and from our learning experiences. Some aspects of our character are hereditary. Other aspects
stem from what we learn at home, from school, and from society. And of course, there is the
interplay between the two influences. Fromm also believed that character is something deeply
ingrained and difficult to change. However, being aware of our tendencies and being committed
to change can help inspire change. The different traits that emerge from each of the five character
types have both positive and negative aspects. However, Fromm generally viewed the first four
orientations as unproductive.
● The Receptive Character Type- The receptive type is characterized by a need for constant
support from others. They tend to be passive, needy, and totally dependent upon others.
These people require constant support from family, friends, and others, but they do not
reciprocate this support. Receptive types also tend to lack confidence in their own
abilities and have a difficult time making their own decisions. Individuals who grow up
in households that are overbearing and controlling often tend to have this personality
orientation.
● The Exploitative Character Type- The exploitative type is willing to lie, cheat, and
manipulate others in order to get what they need. In order to fulfill their need to belong,
they might seek out people who have low self-esteem or lie about loving someone they
really don't care about. These types take what they need either through force or deception
and exploit other people to meet their own selfish needs.
● The Hoarding Character Type- The hoarding type copes with insecurity by never parting
with anything. They often collect a massive amount of possessions and often seem to care
more about their material possessions than they do about people.
● The Marketing Character Type- The marketing type looks at relationships in terms of
what they can gain from the exchange. They might focus on marrying someone for
money or social status and tend to have shallow and anxious personalities. These types
tend to be opportunistic and change their beliefs and values depending on what they think
will get them ahead.
● The Productive Character Type- The productive type is a person who takes their negative
feelings and channels the energy into productive work. They focus on building loving,
nurturing, and meaningful relationships with other people. This applies not only to
romantic relationships, but also to other familial relationships, friendships, and social
relationships. They are often described as a good spouse, parent, friend, co-worker, and
employee.
 Out of the five character types described by Fromm, the productive type is the only
healthy approach to dealing with the anxiety that results from the conflict between the need for
freedom and the need to belong.
Object Relations Theory. Following Freud’s death in 1939, Melanie Klein (1975), Otto
Kernberg (1984), Margaret Mahler (1968), and Heinz Kohut (1971) developed a new
psychodynamic emphasis. Object relations theories focus on the images or mental
representations that people form of themselves and other people as a result of early experiences
with caregivers. 1983). Object in this context refers to the symbolic representation of another
person in the infant’s or child’s environment, most often a parent. Through a process of
introjection, a child symbolically incorporates into his or her personality (through images and
memories)
Whether realistic or distorted, these internal representations of important adults—for
example, of the mother as kind or malevolent, the father as protective or abusive—become
lenses, or working models, through which later social interactions are viewed, and these
relational themes exert an unconscious influence on a person’s relationships throughout life
(Westen, 1998). People who have difficulties forming and maintaining intimate relationships
tend to mentally represent themselves and others in negative ways, expecting painful interactions
and attributing malevolence or rejection to others (Kernberg, 1984; Nigg et al., 1992). These
working models often create self-fulfilling prophecies, influencing the recurring relationships
people form with others.
Otto Kernberg, for example, has a theory that people with a borderline personality, whose
chief characteristic is instability (especially in personal relationships), are individuals who are
unable to achieve a full and stable personal identity (self) because of an inability to integrate and
reconcile pathological internalized objects (Kernberg 1985, 1996; Kernberg & Caligor, 2005;
Kernberg & Michels, 2009). Because of their inability to structure their internal world in such a
way that the people they know (including themselves) can have a mixture of both good and bad
traits, they also perceive the external world in abrupt extremes. For example, a person may be
“all good” one moment and “all bad” the next (Koenigsberg et al., 2000).

Behavioral Approach. To understand behavior, psychodynamic, humanistic, and trait

theorists emphasize internal personal causes of behavior, such as unconscious conflicts,
self-actualization tendencies, and personality traits. In a sense, they account for behavior from
the inside out. In contrast, behaviorists emphasize environmental causes and view humans as
reactors to external events (Parker et al., 1998). To them, behavior is to be explained from the
outside in. Behaviorists such as Ivan Pavlov, John Watson, and B. F. Skinner were more
interested in discovering universal laws of learning than in identifying individual differences in
behavior, and they rejected the notion of an “internal personality” that directs behavior.
Nonetheless, the laws of learning that they discovered have great relevance for understanding
personality. Many behaviors ascribed to personality are acquired through classical and operant
conditioning, and the role of life experiences is undeniable.
This is how a traditional behaviorist might explain a shy personality. Beginning in
childhood, a person might be exposed to a parent with a rather harsh discipline style (stimulus).
Avoiding the attention of that parent would result in fewer punishments and scoldings, so that
avoidance response is negatively reinforced—the “bad thing” or punishment is avoided by
keeping out of sight and quiet. Later, that child might generalize that avoidance response to other
authority figures and adults, such as teachers. In this way, a pattern (habit) of shyness would
develop. Of course, many learning theorists today do not use only classical and operant
conditioning to explain the development of the behavior patterns referred to as personality.

Social-Cognitive Approach. Despite the power of the environment, however, some

behaviorists believed that a purely behavioral account could not fully capture the workings of
human personality. They believed that the learner is not simply a passive reactor to
environmental forces and that internal processes could not be excluded from an understanding of
personality. They viewed the human as a perceiver, a thinker, and a planner who mentally
interprets events, thinks about the past, anticipates the future, and decides how to behave.
Environmental effects are filtered through these cognitive processes and are influenced, even
changed by them.
Social Cognitive theories therefore, combine the behavioral and cognitive perspectives
into an approach to personality that stresses the interaction of a thinking human with a social
environment that provides learning experiences. Social Cognitive theorists believe that the
debate on whether behavior is more strongly influenced by personal factors or by the person’s
environment is basically a meaningless one (Fleeson, 2004). Instead, according to the
social-cognitive principle of reciprocal determinism, the person, the person’s behavior, and the
environment all influence one another in a pattern of two-way causal links (Bandura, 1986;
Figure 3).
Figure 3
Reciprocal Determinism

Julian Rotter. In 1954, Julian Rotter laid the foundation for today’s social cognitive
approaches. According to Rotter, the likelihood that we will engage in a particular behavior in a
given situation is influenced by two factors: expectancy and reinforcement value. Expectancy is
our perception of how likely it is that certain consequences will occur if we engage in a
particular behavior within a specific situation. Reinforcement value is basically how much we
desire or dread the outcome that we expect the behavior to produce. Thus, a student who strongly
values academic success and also expects that studying will result in high grades is likely to
study (Rotter, 1954).
One of Rotter’s most influential expectancy concepts is internal-external locus of control,
an expectancy concerning the degree of personal control we have in our lives. People with an
internal locus of control believe that life outcomes are largely under personal control and depend
on their own behavior. In contrast, people with an external locus of control believe that their fate
has less to do with their own efforts than with the influence of external factors, such as luck,
chance, and powerful others. Locus of control is called a generalized expectancy because it
applies across many life domains as a general worldview. Locus of control is a highly researched
personality variable. Quite consistently, people with an internal locus of control behave in a more
self determined fashion (Pervin et al., 2005). “Internal” college students achieve better grades
than do “external” students of equal academic ability, probably because they link their studying
to degree of success and work harder. Internals are more likely to actively seek out the
information needed to succeed in a given situation (Ingold, 1989). Interpersonally, internals are
more resistant to social influence, whereas externals tend to give in to high-status people they see
as powerful.
Internal locus of control is positively related to self-esteem and feelings of personal
effectiveness, and internals tend to cope with stress in a more active and problem-focused
manner than do externals (Jennings, 1990). They are also less likely to experience psychological
maladjustment in the form of depression or anxiety (Hoffart & Martinson, 1991).
Albert Bandura. Albert Bandura has made major contributions to the development of the
social-cognitive approach. According to Bandura (1997), a key factor in how people regulate
their lives is their sense of self-efficacy, their beliefs concerning their ability to perform the
behaviors needed to achieve desired outcomes. People whose self-efficacy is high have
confidence in their ability to do what it takes to overcome obstacles and achieve their goals.
A good deal of research has been done on the factors that create differences in
self-efficacy (Figure 4). Four important determinants have been identified (Bandura, 1997). First
and most important is our previous performance experiences in similar situations. Such
experiences shape our beliefs about our capabilities. For example, college women who felt that
they had mastered the martial arts and emotional-control skills taught in a physical self-defense
training program showed dramatic increases in their belief that they could escape from or disable
a potential assailant or rapist (Weitlauf et al., 2000). Bandura stresses that self-efficacy beliefs
are always specific to particular situations. Thus, we may have high self-efficacy in some
situations and low self-efficacy in others. For example, the women who mastered the physical
self-defense skills did not feel more capable in all areas of their lives, despite their enhanced
self-defense efficacy.
Figure 4
Self-efficacy beliefs
 A second determinant of self-efficacy is observational learning, that is, observing others’
behaviors and their outcomes. If you observe a person similar to yourself accomplish a particular
goal, then you are likely to believe that if you perform those same behaviors you will also
succeed. An example of this can be that some athletes might consider it impossible to run a mile
in less than five minutes, however once an athlete does it, the other athletes came to believe that
“if he can do it, so can I”, their new sense of self-efficacy enhanced their performance.
Third, self-efficacy can be increased or decreased by verbal persuasion. The messages we
get from other people who affirm our abilities or downgrade them affect our efficacy beliefs.
Thus, inspirational teachers who convey high standards and a “you can do it” conviction can
inspire their students to great accomplishments. By convincing students, who have trouble doing
well in a subject that they are capable of much more, and by helping them prove their hidden
competencies to themselves, a teacher can help his/her students excel in the subjects.
Fourth, high emotional arousal that is interpreted as anxiety or fatigue tends to decrease
self-efficacy. However, if we find ourselves able to control such arousal, it may enhance efficacy
beliefs and subsequent performance. For example, test-anxious college students who were given
training in stress-management relaxation techniques showed increases in their belief that they
could remain relaxed and focused during tests, and their test performance and grade point
averages improved significantly as they controlled anxious arousal (Smith, 1989). Efficacy
beliefs are strong predictors of future performance and accomplishment (Bandura, 1997). They
become a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. In the words of Henry Ford, “Whether you believe you
can do something or you believe you can’t, you’re probably right.”
Mischel and Shoda. In the most recent formulation of social-cognitive theory, Mischel
and Yuichi Shoda (1999) describe a cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS), an organized
system of five variables that interact continuously with one another and with the environment,
generating the distinctive patterns of behavior that characterize the person (Mischel, 1999). The
dynamic interplay among these five variables (encoding strategies, expectancies and beliefs,
goals and values, affects, and competencies and self-regulatory processes), together with the
characteristics of the situation, accounts for individual differences among people, as well as
differences in people’s behavior across different situations. The five personality variables by
Mischel and Shoda are as follows:
● Encodings: Categories (constructs) for the self, people,events, and situations (external
and internal).
● Expectancies and Beliefs: About the social world, about outcomes for behavior in
particular situations, about self-efficacy.
● Affects: Feelings, emotions, and affective responses(including physiological reactions).
● Goals and Values: Desirable outcomes and affective states;aversive outcomes and
affective states; goals, values, and lifeprojects.
● Competencies and Self-regulatory Plans: Potential behaviors and scripts that one can do,
and plans and strategies for organizing action and for affecting outcomes and one's own
behavior and internal states.
Humanistic-Phenomenological Approach. these theorists believed that our behavior
is not a reaction to unconscious drives and conflicts but rather a response to our immediate
conscious experience of self and environment (Kelly, 1955; Rogers, 1951). This emphasis on the
primacy of immediate experience is known as phenomenology, and it focuses our attention on
the present instead of the past. These theorists also regarded themselves as humanists. They
embraced a positive view that affirms the inherent dignity and goodness of the human spirit, as
well as the individual’s creative potential and inborn striving toward personal growth.
 George Kelly. According to Kelly, people’s primary goal is to make sense out of the
world, to find personal meaning in it. When they are unable to do so, they experience uncertainty
and anxiety. To achieve understanding, they try to explain and understand the events of their
lives, and they test this understanding in the same way scientists do: by attempting to anticipate,
to predict. Kelly’s primary interest was how people construct reality. They do so by their
individual system of personal constructs, cognitive categories into which they sort the people and
events in their lives. In Kelly’s theory, the personal construct system was the primary basis for
individual differences in personality.
From birth onward, Kelly maintained, stimuli are categorized, given meaning, and
reacted to in terms of the categories, or personal constructs, into which they are placed. Every
person has her or his own pattern of preferred personal constructs (such as “good,” “bad,”
“successful,” “powerful,” and so on), which vary in personal importance. By understanding these
constructs, the rules an individual uses to assign events to categories, and her or his hypotheses
about how the categories relate to one another, Kelly believed that we can understand the
person’s psychological world. If we can understand the individual’s internal world, then we can
understand and predict that person’s behavior because according to Kelley, the interpretation of
events is more important than events themselves.
A construct is a person’s unique way of looking at life, an intellectual hypothesis devised
to explain or interpret events. We behave in accordance with the expectation that our constructs
will predict and explain the reality of our world. Like scientists, we constantly test these
hypotheses. We base our behavior on our constructs, and we evaluate the effects. Consider a
student who is in danger of failing an introductory psychology course and is trying to persuade
the professor to give a passing grade. After observing the professor for most of the semester, the
student concludes that the professor behaves in a superior and authoritarian manner in class and
has an inflated sense of personal importance. From this observation, the student forms the
hypothesis, or construct, that acting to reinforce the professor’s exaggerated self-image will bring
a favorable response. The student tests this idea against reality by reading an article the professor
has written and praising it to the professor. If the professor feels flattered and gives the student a
good grade, then the student’s construct has been confirmed. It has been found to be useful and
can be applied the next time the student takes a course with that professor or with any other
professor who behaves similarly. However, if the student receives a failing grade, then the
construct was found to be inappropriate. A new one will be required for dealing with that
professor.
Over the course of our lives, we develop many constructs, one for almost every type of
person or situation we encounter. We expand our inventory of constructs as we meet new people
and face new situations. Further, we may alter or discard constructs periodically as situations
change. Revising our constructs is a necessary and continuous process; we must always have an
alternative construct to apply to a situation. If our constructs were inflexible and incapable of
being revised (which is what would happen if personality was totally determined by childhood
influences), then we would not be able to cope with new situations. Kelly called this adaptability
constructive alternativism to express the view that we are not controlled by our constructs but we
are free to revise or replace them with other alternatives.
Carl Rogers. As a humanist, Rogers believed that the forces that direct behavior are
within us and that when they are not distorted or blocked by our environment, they can be trusted
to direct us towards reaching one’s highest potential. This is one central assumption of Roger’s
theory: Left to their own devices, human beings show many positive characteristics and move
over the course of their lives, toward fully functioning persons. If all human beings possess the
capacity to become fully functioning persons, why don't they all succeed? Why aren't we
surrounded by models of health and happy adjustment? The answer, Rogers contends, lies in the
anxiety generated when life experiences are inconsistent with our ideas about ourselves—in
short, when a gap develops between our self-concept (our beliefs and knowledge about
ourselves) and reality or the ideal self, our perceptions of it. For example, imagine a young girl
who is quite independent and self-reliant, and who thinks of herself in this way. After her older
sibling dies in an accident, however, her parents begin to baby her and to convey the message,
over and over again, that she is vulnerable and must be sheltered from the outside world. This
treatment is highly inconsistent with her self-concept. As a result, she experiences anxiety and
adopts one or more psychological defenses to reduce it. The most common of these defenses is
distortion-changing our perceptions of reality so that they are consistent with our self-concept.
For example, the girl may come to believe that her parents aren't being overprotective; they are
just showing normal concern for her safety. Another defense is denial; she may refuse to admit to
herself that as a result of being babied, she is indeed losing her independence. In the short run
such tactics can be successful; they help reduce anxiety. Ultimately, however, they produce
sizable gaps between an individual’s self-concept and reality. For instance the girl may, cling to
the belief that she is independent when in fact, as a result of herv parent’s treatment, she is
becoming increasingly helpless. The larger such gaps, Roger contends, the greater an individual’s
maladjustment and personal unhappiness. Roger suggested that distortions in self-concept are
common, because most people grow up in an atmosphere of conditional positive regard. That is,
they learn that others, such as their parents, will approve of them only when they behave in
certain ways and express certain feelings. As a result, many people are forced to deny the
existence of various impulses and feelings and their self-concepts are badly distorted.
How can such distorted self-concepts be repaired so that healthy development can
continue? Rogers suggests that therapists can help accomplish this goal by placing individuals in
an atmosphere of unconditional positive regard- a setting in which they will be accepted by the
therapist no matter what they say or do. Such conditions are provided by client-centered therapy.
Figure 5
Congruence in the Real-self and Ideal-self

Abraham Maslow. Another phenomenological theorist who emphasized the development

of self was Abraham Maslow. Maslow believed that each person has an essential nature that
“presses” to emerge, like the "press" within an acorn to become an oak tree. In his view, we all
have higher-level growth needs such as the need for self-actualization and understanding of
ourselves but that these higher needs only assume a dominant role in our lives after our more
primitive needs (physiological needs, safety needs, needs for love and "belongingness," and
self-esteem needs) are satisfied (Figure 6). The growth needs, Maslow believed, help make us
distinctly human. Maslow stressed that "the human being is not a white rat" and emphasized that
“man has a higher and transcendent nature” (Maslow, 1971, p. 349).
Figure 6
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

He studied models of self-actualized people who appeared to have fulfilled their basic
potentialities. He found some of his subjects in history (Lincoln, Jefferson, Thoreau, Beethoven)
and others from among his contemporaries (Eleanor Roosevelt, Einstein, a friend who was an
unusually creative housewife, another who was a clinical psychologist, and others who were in
business, sports, and the arts). Maslow (1967) found that this group of "optimal" people shared
some distinguishing characteristics.
● They were open to experience "vividly, selflessly, with full concentration and total
absorption."
● They were in tune with themselves, their inner beings.
● They were spontaneous, autonomous, independent, with a fresh, unstereotyped
appreciation of people and events.
● They devoted total effort to their goals, wanting to be first rate, or at least as good as they
could be.
● They were dedicated, fully and creatively, to some cause outside themselves.
● They related to a few specially loved others on a deep emotional plane.
 ● They resisted conformity to the culture; they could be detached and private.
Few people can be labeled self-actualizing in this complete sense. Yet most of us have
had moments of true self-actualization, or what Maslow referred to as peak experiences-a burst
of insight, a betrothal, the birth of a baby, a mountain top sunrise. During these highly focused,
vivid moments, there is often a disorientation in time and space, a feeling of richness and unity.
The accompanying emotional reaction "has a special flavor of wonder, of awe, of reverence, of
humility and surrender before the experience as before something great" (Maslow, 1968, p. 82).
“The person at the peak is godlike not only in senses but in the complete loving, uncondemning,
compassionate and perhaps amused acceptance of the world and of the person” (pp. 87-88).

Biological Approach. Several theorists have proposed comprehensive factor models of

personality that specify biological underpinnings of the major dimensions along which
personality varies. In one sense, they correspond to the factor models, but instead of building
only on a description of personality through verbal reports, they correlated it from the outset with
biological variation.
Eysenck’s Model. Hans Eysenck (1967; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) and others who
expanded his approach (Gray, 1999) built their biological models of personality on Pavlov's
analysis of strong and weak nervous systems (Strelau, 1997). Like Pavlov's laboratory dogs, each
person has both excitatory and inhibitory processes in the nervous system that (respectively)
respond to, or defend against, incoming stimuli. Physiological measures, such as brain scan
recordings to varying flashes of light or auditory stimuli, have been used to measure these
differences (Buckingham,2002). Variations in excitatory and inhibitory processes produce
interesting implications for personality. Specifically, people whose excitatory processes are
stronger (who have a "strong nervous system") are extraverts, while those with relatively greater
inhibitory processes (who have a "weak nervous system") are introverts. Extraversion is the first
of Essenck’s three proposed factors of personality. The others, also based on biological
differences between people, are Neuroticism and Psychoticism. The first two factors when
combined, bear a striking similarity to the ancient Greek temperaments (Robinson, 2001).
The factor Extraversion, with its opposite pole Introversion, illustrates how subtle
differences in the balance of biological processes can have great implications on personality.
Extraverts (strong nervous system) crave stimulation as they can tolerate relatively intense
stimuli without being overwhelmed by them, including stimuli that comes from social
interactions. Introverts, in contrast, have a “weak” nervous system that is quickly overwhelmed
by intense stimuli. The second factor in Eysenck's model is Neuroticism. Greater activity in the
limbic system causes some people to become more emotionally aroused when they are
threatened or placed in stressful situations. These people are high in the factor of Neuroticism.
Others, low on that factor, do not become so emotional in the same situation. Greater emotional
arousal can, in turn, cause neurotics to make use of defense mechanisms; hence the term
"neuroticism." (Notice that the factor of extraversion-introversion corresponds to cortical
arousal, in contrast to the emotional arousal that is at issue in neuroticism.) On written
personality tests, people with high neuroticism scores report that they are less self-accepting than
those with lower scores (McCroskey, Heisel, & Richmond, 2001).
Eysenck's third factor refers to a tendency toward nonconformity or social deviance
(Zuckerman, Kuhlman, & Camac, 1988). Eysenck (1992) labeled this factor Psychoticism, an
unfortunate label because it exaggerates the image of pathology. In fact, people who are creative
tend to have high Psychoticism scores (Eysenck, 1993, 1994). Although psychotic patients score
high on this factor, so do creative people who are not suffering from disorders. In fact, one study
that measured the Psychoticism scores of college students found that, ten years later, those
scoring high had no increased risk of psychosis (Chapman, Chapman, & Kwapil, 1994). On
average, those who score high on the Psychoticism scale do have characteristics that put them at
risk for deviance: They are more impulsive, hostile, sadistic, and unempathic than those who
score low (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991). Research suggests that those who score high on
Psychoticism prefer to watch violent and that they view it as more enjoyable and comical than
those who score lower.
Genetics and Personality. Imagine being able to look at a person's genes and know what
kind of personality he or she would possess. That molecular genetic approach is, even as a
vision, oversimplified since personality develops from a combination of biological and
environmental influences. But there are intriguing hints about the role of particular genes for
personality. One recent study obtained DNA samples from preschool children and correlated
those analyses with data obtained from their mothers' reports and from observations of peer play
at age 4. They found that children with long repeat alleles of the DRD4 gene, which regulates a
form of dopamine, were described by their mothers as having problems with aggression
(Schmidt et al., 2002). Studies of twins and other relatives have established that scores on many
personality tests show substantial genetic influences, usually with heritability estimates of about
0.50 (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; L. A. Clark & Watson, 1999; Loehlin, McCrae, & Costa,
1998). The heritability estimate is a description of how much of the variability of a trait, studied
in a particular population, can be attributed to the genetic variation in that population, based on
studies of twins and other relatives who are raised together or apart. One review concludes that
“virtually every trait that has ever been examined…has substantial genetic component” (L.A.
Clark & Watson, 1999, p. 411). Studies that consider whether twins and other relatives have been
raised together or adopted out into different homes make it clear that it is the genetic influence,
and not the fact of having been raised by the same parents, that produces similarity among
siblings. It is surprising how many characteristics, besides the usual personality factor tests, show
significant heritability: coping styles (Busjahn, Faulhaber, Freier, & Luft, 1999); ego
development (Newman, Tellegen, & Bouchard, 1998); happiness, or subjective well being
(Lykken & Tellegen, 1996); the likelihood of divorce (McGue & Lykken, 1992); authoritarian
attitudes (McCourt et al., 1999); and other social attitudes (Tesser, 1993).
Sometimes individuals seem quite different from the rest of the family, and we may
wonder how this can be. One genetic interpretation is that traits that we observe (phenotypic
traits) are composed of combinations of many different genes, and these combinations are not
simply additive in their effect in the case of emergenic traits (Lykken, McGue, Tellegen, &
Bouchard, 1992). Among emergenic traits are extraordinary mathematical genius that can
emerge in some individuals, such as Karl Gauss and the Hindu mathematician Srivinvasa
Ramanujan, without evidence of particular talent in that area among other family members. Thus
the impact of genetics on personality can't be studied only by documenting similarity in
observable personality among those who are genetic relatives. Ultimately, to account for
emergenic traits, we will need to understand the mechanisms by which genes, in their
environmental context, influence personality.
Type Approach. The type approaches attempts to comprehend human personality by
examining certain broad patterns in the observed behavioral characteristics of individuals. Type
theorists have explained personality on the basis of physique and temperament. Temperament
refers to emotional aspects of the personality like changes in mood, tensions, excitement, etc. A
‘type’ is simply a class of individuals said to share a common collection of characteristics.
 Hippocrates. The concept of personality has been studied for at least 2,000 years,
beginning with Hippocrates in 370 BCE (Fazeli, 2012). Hippocrates theorized that personality
traits and human behaviors are based on four separate temperaments associated with four fluids
(“humors”) of the body: choleric temperament (yellow bile from the liver), melancholic
temperament (black bile from the kidneys), sanguine temperament (red blood from the heart),
and phlegmatic temperament (white phlegm from the lungs) (Clark & Watson, 2008; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1985; Lecci & Magnavita, 2013; Noga, 2007). Centuries later, the influential Greek
physician and philosopher Galen built on Hippocrates’s theory, suggesting that both diseases and
personality differences could be explained by imbalances in the humors and that each person
exhibits one of the four temperaments. For example, the choleric person is passionate, ambitious,
and bold; the melancholic person is reserved, anxious, and unhappy; the sanguine person is
joyful, eager, and optimistic; and the phlegmatic person is calm, reliable, and thoughtful (Clark
& Watson, 2008; Stelmack & Stalikas, 1991). Galen’s theory was prevalent for over 1,000 years
and continued to be popular through the Middle Ages.
Table 4
Hippocrates Type Approach: The Four Temperaments

Sheldon. Sheldon classified people according to three body types, or somatotypes:

endomorphs, who are rounded and soft, were said to have a tendency toward a “viscerotonic”
personality (i.e., relaxed, comfortable, extroverted); mesomorphs, who are square and muscular,
were said to have a tendency toward a “somotonic” personality (i.e., active, dynamic, assertive,
aggressive); and ectomorphs, who are thin and fine-boned, were said to have a tendency toward a
“cerebrotonic” personality (i.e., introverted, thoughtful, inhibited, sensitive). He later used this
classification system to explain delinquent behavior, finding that delinquents were likely to be
high in mesomorphy and low in ectomorphy and arguing that mesomorphy’s associated
temperaments (active and aggressive but lacking sensitivity and inhibition) tend to cause
delinquency and criminal behavior. Although his research was groundbreaking, it was criticized
on the grounds that his samples were not representative and that he mistook correlation for
causation.
Table 5
Sheldon’s Somatotype Personalities

Charak Samhita of Ayurveda. Charak Samhita, a famous treatise on Ayurveda classifies

people into categories of Vata, Pitta and Kapha on the basis of the three humoural elements
called Tridosha. Each refers to a temperament called (basic nature) of a person.
Table 6
The Three Doshas of the Ayurveda

Doshas Character Shape

Vata Changeability, unpredictability, Slender with proportioned

variability - features, joints and veins, with
in size, shape, mood and action, cool dry skin, eat, and sleep
moody, enthusiastic, imaginative, erratically prone to anxiety,
and impulsive, quick to grasp ideas insomnia, premenstrual syndrome,
and good at initiating things but and constipation.
poor at finishing them. Energy
fluctuates, with jagged peaks and
valleys able, comfort-loving,
 peaceful.

Pita Relatively predictable, quick, Medium build. strength and

Articulate, biting intelligence, and endurance. Well-proportioned and
can be critical or passionate with easily maintains a stable weight.
short, explosive tempers. Efficient Often fair haired, red or blond,
and moderate in daily habits, eats ruddy complexion. Tends to
and sleeps regularly perspire heavily and are warm and
often.thirsty. Prone to acne, ulcers,
hemorrhoids, and stomach
ailments.

Kapha Relaxed, slow to anger, slow to eat, Solid, heavy, and strong, with a
slow to act. They sleep long and tendency to be overweight, slow
heavily. Tend to procrastinate and digestion and somewhat oily hair,
be obstinate. and cool, damp, pale. skin. Prone
to high cholesterol, obesity,
allergies, and sinus problems.

Along with this, there is also a typology i.e., Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. Sattva Guna
includes attributes like cleanliness, discipline, truthfulness, dutifulness, detachment, etc. Rajas
guna includes intensive activity, desire, sense of gratification, dissatisfaction, envy for others and
a materialistic mentality. Tamas guna characterizes anger, arrogance, depression, laziness,
feelings of helplessness etc. All these three gunas are present in each and in different degrees.
The dominance of one or other guna may lead to a particular type of behavior.
Freedman and Rosenman. Meyer Friedman and Ray Rosenman, cardiologists, noticed
in the 1950's that the chairs in his waiting room got worn out from the edges. They hypothesized
that his patients were driven, impatient people, who sat on the edge of their seats when waiting.
They labeled these people ‘Type A’ personalities. Type A personalities are work-alcoholics,
always busy, driven, somewhat impatient and so on.Type underline B personalities, on the other
hand are laid back and easy going. "Type A personality" has found its way into general parlance.
Friedman talked about two types of personality traits- Type A and Type B.
Type A behavior Pattern -A cluster of traits that includes competitiveness, impatience and
hostility related to important aspects of health, social behavior and task performance. Type A
persons are hard driving and competitive. They live under pressure largely by their own making.
They seek recognition and advancement and take on multiple activities with deadlines to meet.
When put under stressful conditions, they cannot control, they are likely to become hostile,
impatient, anxious and disorganized.
Type B behavior Pattern-Type B persons are quite opposite. They are easy going, non
competitive. They tolerate stress easily in some ways. They are like the tortoise in the lake.
Maybe a little dull but he/she is likely to live longer than the hare like Type A personality.
Type A personalities are more prone to heart attack compared to Type B as they perceive more
stress.
Trait Approach. When we describe other persons, we often do so in terms of specific
personality traits-stable dimensions of personality along which people vary, from very low to
very high. This strong tendency to think about others in terms of specific characteristics is
reflected in trait theories of personality. Such theories focus on identifying key dimensions of
personality-the most important ways in which people differ. The basic idea behind this approach
is as follows: Once we identify the key dimensions along which people differ, we can measure
how much they differ and can then relate such differences to many important forms of behavior.
Therefore we can say that Trait theories are theories of personality that focus on identifying the
key dimensions along which people differ.
Gordon Allport. One of the first efforts to identify key human traits-the most important
dimensions along which personalities vary was the work of Gordon Allport. He proposed that
personality traits could be divided into several categories that varied in their importance. The
least important are secondary traits: these are traits that exert relatively weak and limited effects
on behavior. More important are central traits-five to ten traits that together account for the
uniqueness of an individual's personality. Such traits are stronger and more resistant to situational
forces. Finally, Allport noted that a few people are dominated by a single all-important cardinal
trait. A few examples of such persons and the cardinal traits that seemed to drive their
personalities: Napoleon (ambition), Florence Nightingale (empathy), Alexander the Great lust for
power), and Don Juan (just plain lust).
Perhaps an even more important aspect of Allport's theory of personality is his concept of
functional autonomy (Allport, 1965) the idea that patterns of behavior that are initially acquired
under one set of circumstances, and which satisfy one set of motives, may later be performed for
very different reasons. For example, initially a child may learn to read because this pleases his
teachers and parents and because failure to do so is punished. Later in life, however, the same
person may read because he has come to enjoy this activity in and of itself intrinsically
motivated. Notice how this contrasts with Freud's view that the roots of adult personality are
planted firmly in the soil of childhood-that, as Freud put it, "The child is the father [mother] of
the man [woman]." For Allport, such connections are not necessarily present, and our adult
behavior may spring from roots entirely different from those that gave rise to our childhood
behavior.
Raymond Cattell. Another, and in some ways more sophisticated, trait theory was
proposed by Raymond Cattell. He and his colleagues focused on the task described earlier:
identifying the basic dimensions of personality. Instead of beginning with hunches or insights,
however, Cattell used a very different approach. He conducted extensive research in which
literally thousands of persons responded to measures designed to reflect individual differences on
hundreds of traits. These responses were then subjected to a statistical technique known as factor
analysis. This technique reveals patterns in the extent to which various traits are correlated. In
this manner, it can help to identify important clusters of traits-groups of traits that seem to be
closely linked to one another. As such clusters are identified, Cattell reasoned, the number of key
traits in human personality can be reduced until we are left with those that are truly central.
Using this approach, Cattell and his associates (e.g., Cattell & Dreger, 1977) identified
sixteen source traits-dimensions of personality that underlie differences in many other, less
important surface traits. The source traits identified by Catell are mentioned in Table 7. It is not
yet clear whether Cattell's list is actually valid, but at least this list is considerably briefer than
previous ones.
Table 7
Major Personality Factors by Cattell
 Costa and McCrae, The “Big Five” Factors. Researchers, as well as practitioners in the
field of personality assessment, were faced with a bewildering array of personality scales from
which to choose, with little guidance and no organizing theory or framework at hand. What made
matters worse was that scales with the same name might measure concepts that were quite
different, and scales with differ ent names might measure concepts that were quite similar.
Although diversity and scientific pluralism can be useful, systematic accumulation of findings
and communication among researchers has become almost impossible amidst the cacophony of
competing concepts and scales. What personality psychology lacked was a descriptive model, or
taxonomy, of its subject matter. One of the central goals of scientific taxonomies is the definition
of overarching domains within which large numbers of specific instances can be understood in a
simplified way. Thus, in personality psychology, a taxonomy would permit researchers to study
specified domains of related personality characteristics, rather than examining separately the
thousands of particular attributes that make human beings individual and unique. Moreover, a
generally accepted taxonomy would facilitate the accumulation and communication of empirical
findings by offering a standard vocabulary, or nomenclature. After decades of research, the field
has now achieved an initial consensus on a general taxonomy of personality traits, the “Big Five”
personality dimensions. These dimensions do not represent a particular theoretical perspective
but were derived from analyses of the natural-language terms people use to describe themselves
and others. Rather than replacing all previous systems, the Big Five taxonomy serves an
integrative function because it can represent the various and diverse systems of personality
description in a common framework.
The five-factor model, or the Big Five represent the core description of human
personality, that is, the only dimensions necessary to understand what makes us tick. Proponents
of the Five Factor Model believe that when a person is placed at a specific point on each of these
five dimensions by means of a psychological test, behavior ratings, or direct observations of
behavior, the essence of her or his personality has been captured (McCrae & Costa, 2003). The
Big Five factors are mentioned below. (The acronym OCEAN represents Openness,
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism).
Openness. Openness to experience is a dimension ranging from imaginative, witty, and
having a broad range of interests at one end to down-to-earth, simple, and having narrow
interests at the other. The factor Openness to experience is perhaps the most difficult to describe,
since it doesn't correspond to everyday language as well as the other factors (McCrae, 1990).
Experts have given this factor various names: Culture, Intellect, Intellectual Interests,
Intelligence, and Imagination (John, 1990; Sneed, McCrae, & Funder, 1998). In lay man
language people recognize it by the terms artistic, curious, imaginative, insightful, original, and
wide interests (Sneed, McCrae, & Funder, 1998). Liberal values often go along with this factor
(Costa & McCrae, 1992a). On the Rokeach Values Survey, people scoring high on Openness
report that they value imaginativeness, broadmindedness, and a world of beauty. People low in
Openness, in contrast, value cleanliness, obedience, and national security (Dollinger, Leong, &
Ulicni, 1996).
Conscientiousness. A dimension ranging from well-organized, careful, self-disciplined,
responsible, and precise at one end to disorganized, impulsive, careless, and undependable at the
other. Conscientiousness, also called Dependability, Impulse Control and Will to Achieve (John,
1990), describes differences in people’s orderliness and self-discipline. Conscientious people
value cleanliness and ambitiousness (Dollinger, Leong & Ulicni, 1996). Described by their peers
as well organized, punctual, and ambitious (McCrae & Costa, 1987), the student who has a neat
notebook and list of assignments and who keeps up with reading and completes work on time
would score high on conscientiousness. Conscientiousness students are generally motivated to
achieve; they achieve high Grade Point Average and perform better in medical school (Ferguson
et al., 2000). Conscientiousness predicts higher job satisfaction, income, and occupational status
(Judge et al., 1999). Conscientious workers achieve more and set higher goals. Conscientious
employees have better attendance records (Judge et al., 1997). Among police officers, low
conscientiousness is associated with more job disciplinary actions for various kinds of
misconduct, including sexual misconduct, insubordination, theft, and other unprofessional
behaviour (Sarchione et al., 1998).
Extraversion. A dimension ranging from energetic, enthusiastic, sociable, and talkative at
one end to retiring, sober, reserved, silent, and cautious at the other. An important dimension of
personality, extraversion predicts many social behaviors. Ask an extravert what he or she values
in life, and the answer will often be cheerfulness and an exciting life (Dollinger, Leong, &
Ulicni, 1996). Extraverted subjects, in a study in which they kept records of their social
interactions, interacted with more people than did those low in extraversion; they also reported
having more control and intimacy in those interactions (Barrett & Pietromonaco, 1997). Their
peers consider extraverted people to be friendly, fun-loving, affectionate, and talkative (McCrae
& Costa, 1987). Fellow group members perceive extraverted members as making valuable
contributions to group projects (Barry & Stewart, 1997). While people with low score on
extraversion are likely to have porter relationships with parents and peers.
Agreeableness. A dimension ranging from good-natured, cooperative, trusting, and
helpful at one end to irritable, suspicious, and uncooperative at the other. Agreeableness, which
is sometimes instead called Social Adaptability or Likability (John, 1990), indicates a friendly,
compliant personality, one who avoids hostility and tends to go along with others. Their friends
find them sympathetic and softhearted, in contrast to those low in Agreeableness, who are
described as suspicious, ruthless, and uncooperative (McCrae & Costa, 1987). On a survey of
values, people scoring high in Agreeableness report that they value being helpful, forgiving, and
loving (Dollinger, Leong, & Ulicni, 1996). They report little conflict in their interpersonal
relationships; when conflict occurs, it reduces their self-esteem (Barrett & Pietromonaco, 1997).
People high in Agreeableness avoid direct attempts to assert power as a means of resolving con
flict with other people, but large sex differences have also been found. Men, even those high in
Agreeableness (who use less power to resolve conflict than men low in Agreeableness), are more
likely to assert power than women (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996).
 Neuroticism. A dimension ranging from poised, calm, composed, and not
hypochondriacal at one end to nervous, anxious, high-strung, and hypochondriacal at the other.
Neuroticism describes people who frequently are troubled by negative emotions such as worry
and insecurity (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Emotionally, they are labile (readily aroused) instead of
stable, like their low-scoring peers; thus, the factor, turning attention to its opposite pole-low
Neuroticism-has also been called Emotional Stability, Emotional Control, and Ego Strength
(John, 1990). People who score low on Neuroticism are happier and more satisfied with life than
those who score high (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Hills & Argyle, 2001; Schmutte & Ryff, 1997).
Another study reports that adults in the community who scored high on neuroticism also
reported-in a diary in which they checked life events that had occurred each day-that more
unpleasant events with family and friends, leisure, and finance had happened to them, which may
explain why their mood was generally negative (David, Green, Martin, Suls, 1997). Neuroticism
is higher in people with diverse types of disturbances, the specifics of which can be understood
by considering their other personality factors (Claridge & Davis, 2001).
The five-factor model is rapidly becoming the consensus model of personality. Support
for the five-factor approach comes from several sources, including factor analysis of trait terms
in language and the analysis of personality from an evolutionary perspective. The use of trait
terms in the analysis of personality is based upon the fundamental lexical hypothesis: “The
essential point of this hypothesis is that trait terms have survived in language because they
convey important information about our dealings with others: The variety of individual
differences is nearly boundless, yet most of these differences are insignificant in people’s daily
interactions with others and have remained largely unnoticed. Sir Francis Galton may have been
among the first scientists to recognize explicitly the fundamental lexical hypothesis—namely
that the most important individual differences in human transactions will come to be encoded as
single terms in some or all of the world’s languages” (Goldberg, 1990).
Recent Research on the Five-factor Model of Personality
The Big Five model is a widely accepted framework for the description of personality
(John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). Several well-established questionnaires covering the Big Five
domains are available, including the NEO Personality Inventory revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and
McCrae, 1992a, Costa and McCrae, 1992b) and its accompanying short version, the 60-item
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) or the 44-item Big Five
Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991). In recent years, there is a growing interest to
include psychological constructs and especially personality into large panel studies, even if those
studies were not initiated with a psychological focus (Wagner, Frick, & Schupp, 2007). However,
given the strict time-constraints in studies covering a wide range of topics, including objective
living conditions, information about work and education as well as political and religious
interests, personality measures are supposed to be as short as possible. On the other hand, even
short scales need to demonstrate satisfying psychometric properties to offer sufficient utility.
A couple of brief measures for the Big Five domains have been developed, for example
the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI, Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), and the Five-Item
Personality Inventory (FIPI; Gosling et al., 2003). Also, a brief German measure, the Big Five
Inventory 10 (BFI-10), was developed by Rammstedt and John (2007). Despite its shortness, the
BFI-10 scales show overall mean correlations of .83 with the full BFI and .67 with the
NEO-PI-R. However, using two items per scale, leads to limitations especially for the
Agreeableness scale (Rammstedt & John, 2007).
Research on personality and its relationships to important personal, social, and economic
constructs is as vibrant and influential as ever (Funder, 2001), and such research has been
credited with prompting many of the major advances in fields such as organizational behavior
(Hough, 2001). Much of this contribution can be linked directly to theoretical and statistical
reviews of the role of personality, such as the pivotal meta-analyses of correlations between
personality and work performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, &
McCloy, 1990). Such integrations of research have allowed researchers to assess the major
features of these relationships and have provided guidance for future studies. Academic
performance was found to correlate significantly with Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and
Openness. Where tested, correlations between Conscientiousness and academic performance
were largely independent of intelligence. When secondary academic performance was controlled
for, Conscientiousness added as much to the prediction of tertiary academic performance as did
intelligence. Strong evidence was found for moderators of correlations. Academic level (primary,
secondary, or tertiary), average age of participant, and the interaction between academic level
and age significantly moderated correlations with academic performance.
A very interesting study by Bouchard, Lussier & Sabourin (1999) on Personality and
Marital Adjustment shows that an individual's level of neuroticism (the negative affectivity and
emotional instability) has been the most consistent and powerful personality predictor of
relationship outcomes. Self-reported neuroticism frequently was negatively associated with
diverse measures of marital adjustment (Buss, 1991; Geist & Gilbert, 1996; Kurdek, 1997). For
instance, the results of a broad longitudinal study conducted over 50 years on a sample of 300
couples revealed that the level of neuroticism of both spouses was a key determinant of their
marital adjustment (Kelly & Conley, 1987). More specifically, the spouses who divorced and the
spouses who were dissatisfied with their union scored higher on neuroticism that was measured
before their marriage. Karney and Bradbury (1995) recently emphasized that, considering the
huge predictive power of neuroticism, the influence of other personality traits in marital
outcomes remains to be investigated, after controlling for the level of neuroticism.
Significant relationships also were observed between self-reported marital adjustment
and particular personality traits, such as psychotism. agreeableness, and internal locus of control.
A high level of psychotism was negatively associated with self-reported marital adjustment, and
the other two personality factors were positively associated (Russell & Wells, 1994; Smolen &
Spiegel, 1987). Furthermore, personality factors such as perspective taking (the tendency to put
oneself in another person's place), emotional expressiveness. and ambivalence in emotional
expressiveness also A were significant predictors of marital adjustment. The first two related
positively to marital adjustment, and the last one related negatively (King, 1993; Long &
Andrews, 1990). Finally, outcomes of the personality factor of extraversion offered mixed
results. A high level of extraversion was positively related (Richmond, Craig, & Ruzicka, 1991) ,
negatively related (Bentler & Newcomb, 1978; Geist & Gilbert, 1996) , and unrelated (Russell &
Wells, 994) to marital adjustment scores.
According to Smith et al. (2019) there is an important link between perfectionism and
personality traits included in the five-factor model (FFM). However, inconsistent findings,
underpowered studies, and a plethora of perfectionism scales have obscured understanding of
how perfectionism fits within the FFM. Meta-analysis with random effects revealed
perfectionistic concerns (socially prescribed perfectionism, concern over mistakes, doubts about
actions, and discrepancy) were characterized by neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low
extraversion; perfectionistic strivings (self-oriented perfectionism, personal standards, and high
standards) were characterized by conscientiousness. Additionally, several perfectionism–FFM
relationships were moderated by gender, age, and the perfectionism subscale used. Findings
complement theory suggesting that perfectionism has neurotic and non-neurotic dimensions.
Results also underscore that the (mal)adaptiveness of perfectionistic strivings hinges on
instrumentation. There is much research done with regard to the Five-factor model of
personality. It can be studied in relation to academic performance, marital relationships,
performance in jobs, in short, life outcomes in general. This Theory of personality provides an
underpinning for the multiplicity of instruments available in the field.
Assessment of Personality
In psychological testing, a fundamental distinction often is drawn between ability tests
and personality tests. Defined in the broadest sense, ability tests include a plethora of instruments
for measuring intelligence, achievement, and aptitude. In the preceding seven chapters we have
explored the nature, construction, application, reliability, and validity of ability tests. The many
ways in which theorists conceptualize personality clearly have impacted the design of personality
tests and assessments. This is especially evident with projective techniques such as the
Rorschach inkblot method, which emanated from psychoanalytic conceptions of personality.
Self-Report Inventories. A self-report inventory is a type of psychological test in which
a person fills out a survey or questionnaire with or without the help of an investigator. Self-report
inventories often ask direct questions about personal interests, values, symptoms, behaviors, and
traits and in this case personality types. Inventories are different from tests in that there is no
objectively correct answer; responses are based on opinions and subjective perceptions. Most
self-report inventories are brief and can be taken or administered within five to 15 minutes,
although some, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), can take
several hours to fully complete. They are popular because they can be inexpensive to give and to
score, and their scores can often show good reliability. There are three major approaches to
developing self-report inventories: theory-guided, factor analysis, and criterion-keyed.
Theory-Guided. Theory-guided inventories are constructed around a theory of
personality or a prototype of a construct. The construction of several self-report inventories was
guided closely by formal or informal theories of personality. In these cases, the test developer
designed the instrument around a preexisting theory. An example of a theory-guided inventory is
the Personality Research Form (PRF), based on Murray’s (1938) need-press theory of
personality. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is also a very popular self-report measure
of anxiety, used in research and clinical settings (Spielberger, 1983, 1989).
 Criterion- Keyed. In a criterion-keyed approach, test items are assigned to a particular
scale if, and only if, they discriminate between a well-defined criterion group and a relevant
control group. For example, in devising a self-report scale for depression, items endorsed by
depressed persons significantly more (or less) frequently than by normal controls would be
assigned to the depression scale, keyed in the appropriate direction. A similar approach might be
used to develop scales for other constructs of interest to clinicians such as schizophrenia, anxiety
reaction, and the like. An example can be the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940, 1943; McKinley & Hathaway, 1940, 1944; McKinley,
Hathaway, & Meehl, 1948) and the Millon’s Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III).
Factor-Analytically derived Inventories. Factor analysis uses statistical methods to
organize groups of related items into subscales. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)
was designed to measure the major dimensions of normal and abnormal personality (Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1975). Based on a lifelong program of factor-analytic in most self-report inventories.
The 16PF is also Factor- Analytically derived personality inventory.
Advantages. Self-report inventories are often a good solution when researchers need to
administer a large number of tests in a relatively short space of time. Many self-report
inventories can be completed very quickly, often in as little as 15 minutes. This type of
questionnaire is an affordable option for researchers faced with tight budgets. They are also
much more reliable and valid than projective techniques. Scoring of the test is standardized and
based on the previously established norms.
Disadvantages. Unlike IQ tests where there are correct answers that have to be worked
out by test takers, for personality, attempts by test-takers to gain particular scores are an issue in
applied testing. Test items are often transparent, and people may "figure out" how to respond to
make themselves appear to possess whatever qualities they think an organization wants. In
addition, people may falsify good responses, be biased towards their positive characteristics, or
falsify bad, stressing negative characteristics, in order to obtain their preferred outcome. In
clinical settings, patients may exaggerate symptoms in order to make their situation seem worse,
or under-report the severity or frequency of symptoms in order to minimize their problems. For
this reason, self-report inventories are not used in isolation to diagnose a mental disorder, often
used as screeners for verification by other assessment data. Many personality tests, such as the
MMPI or the MBTI add questions that are designed to make it difficult for a person to
exaggerate traits and symptoms.
Projective Techniques. Frank (1939, 1948) introduced the term projective method to
describe a category of tests for studying personality with unstructured stimuli. In a projective test
the examinee encounters vague, ambiguous stimuli and responds with his or her own
constructions. Disciples of projective testing are heavily vested in psychoanalytic theory and its
postulation of unconscious aspects of personality. These examiners believe that unstructured,
vague, ambiguous stimuli provide the ideal circumstance for revelations about inner aspects of
personality. The central assumption of projective testing is that responses to the test represent
projections from the innermost unconscious mental processes of the examinee. The assumption
that personal interpretations of ambiguous stimuli must necessarily reflect the unconscious
needs, motives, and conflicts of the examinee is known as the projective hypothesis. The
challenge of projective testing is to decipher underlying personality processes (needs, motives,
and conflicts) based on the individualized, unique, subjective responses of each examinee. In the
sections that follow we will examine how well projective tests have met this portentous
assignment. The projective technique can be classified into four:
Association to inkblots or words. A form of projective technique where participants are
presented with a target stimulus and are asked to respond with the first thing that comes to mind.
Association techniques include the widely used Rorschach inkblot test and its psychometrically
superior cousin the Holtzman Inkblot Technique, as well as word association tests.
Construction of stories or sequences. Construction techniques include the Thematic
Apperception Test (Murray, 1935, 1938) and the many variations upon this early instrument. In
administering the TAT, the examiner requests the examinee to make up a dramatic story for each
picture, telling what led up to the current scene, what is happening at the moment, how the
characters are thinking and feeling, and what the outcome will be. The examiner writes down the
story verbatim for later scoring and analysis. Children’s Apperception Test is also an example of
the same.
Completions of sentences or stories. In a sentence completion test, the respondent is
presented with a series of stems consisting of the first few words of a sentence, and the task is to
provide an ending. As with any projective technique, the examiner assumes that the completed
sentences reflect the underlying motivations, attitudes, conflicts, and fears of the respondent.
Forer Structured Sentence Completion Test and Geatric Sentence Completion Form are examples
of tests that use this technique.
Expression with drawings or play. Expressive techniques in which the subject is required
to organize and incorporate a particular stimulus into a self-expressive process, such as role
playing, psychodrama, dance, etc. Psychodynamically minded psychologists adapted the
procedure to the projective assessment of personality. Karen Machover (1949, 1951) was the
pioneer in this new field. Her procedure became known as the Draw-A-Person Test (DAP). Her
test enjoyed early popularity and is still widely used as a clinical assessment tool. The DAP is
administered by presenting the examinee with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil with eraser,
then asking the examinee to “draw a person.” When the drawing is completed the examinee
usually is directed to draw another person of the sex opposite that of the first figure. Finally, the
examinee is asked to “make up a story about this person as if he [or she] were a character in a
novel or a play” (Machover, 1949). The H-T-P (House- Tree- Person) is a projective test that uses
freehand drawings of a house, tree, and person (Buck, 1948, 1981).
Advantages. Do such tests really work-do they meet the criteria of reliability and
validity? For some projective tests, such as the TAT, which is used to measure achievement
motivation and other social motives, the answer appears to be yes; such tests do yield reliable
scores and do seem to measure what they are intended to measure. For others, such as the famous
Rorschach test, which uses inkblots, the answer is more doubtful. Responses to this test are
scored in ways. For instance, one measure involves responses that mention pairs of objects or a
reflection (e.g, the inkblot is interpreted as showing two people, or one person looking into a
mirror). Such responses are taken as a sign of self focus and excessive concern with oneself,
Other scoring involves the number of times individuals mention movement, color, or shading in
the inkblots. The more responses of this type they make, the more sources of stress they
supposedly have in their lives.
Limitations. The Rorschach test, like other projective tests, has a standard scoring
manual (Exner, 1993) that tells psychologists precisely how to score various kinds of responses.
Presumably, this manual is based on careful research designed to determine just what the test
measures. More recent research, however, suggests that the scoring advice provided by the
Rorschach manual may be flawed in several respects and does not rest on the firm scientific
foundation psychologists prefer (Misra et al., 1996; Wood, Nezworski, & Stejskal, 1996). Thus,
projective tests of personality, like objective tests, may vary with respect to validity. Only tests
that meet high standards in this respect can provide us with useful information about personality.
Behavioral Assessment. Behavioral assessment concentrates on behavior itself rather
than on underlying traits, hypothetical causes, or presumed dimensions of personality. The many
methods of behavioral assessment offer a practical alternative to projective tests, self-report
inventories, and other unwieldy techniques aimed at global personality assessment. Typically,
behavioral assessment is designed to meet the needs of therapists and their clients in a quick and
uncomplicated manner. But behavioral assessment differs from traditional assessment in more
than its simplicity. The basic assumptions, practical aspects, and essential goals of behavioral
and traditional approaches are as different as night and day. Traditional assessment strategies
tend to be complex, indirect, psychodynamic, and often extraneous to treatment. In contrast,
behavioral assessment strategies tend to be simple, direct, behavior- analytic, and continuous
with treatment. Behavior therapists use a wide range of modalities to evaluate their clients,
patients, and subjects. The methods of behavioral assessment include, but are not limited to,
behavioral observations, self-reports, parent ratings, staff ratings, sibling ratings, judges’ ratings,
teacher ratings, therapist ratings, nurses’ ratings, physiological assessment, biochemical
assessment, biological assessment, structured interviews, semi structured interviews, and
analogue tests. In their Dictionary of Behavioral Assessment Techniques, Hersen and Bellack
(1988) list 286 behavioral tests used in widely diverse problems and disorders in children,
adolescents, adults, and the geriatric population. Dozens more are referenced in a more recent
compendium (Hersen & Bellack, 1998).
Interviews. Interviews are also used to measure the specific aspects of personality.
Psychoanalysis, of course, uses one type of interview to probe supposedly underlying aspects of
personality. But in modern research special types of interviews, in which individuals are asked
questions assumed to be related to specific traits, are often used instead. For instance, interviews
are used to measure the Type A behavior pattern, an important aspect of personality closely
related to personal health.
History and Development of the Test
To address the need for a short instrument measuring the prototypical components of the
Big Five that are common across investigators, John, Donahue, and Kentle (1991) constructed
the Big Five Inventory (BFI; reprinted in Benet-Martinez & John, 1998). The standard BFI
consists of 44 short-phrase items, rated on a five-point scale from “disagree strongly” to “agree
strongly”. The items were selected using both consensual expert judgment and empirical factor
analysis to represent the core traits that define each Big Five domain. The goal was to create a
brief inventory that would allow efficient and flexible assessment of the five dimensions when
there is no need for more differentiated measurement of individual facets.
The BFI does not use single adjectives as items because such items are answered less
consistently than when they are accompanied by definitions or elaborations (Goldberg &
Kilkowski, 1985). Instead, the BFI uses short phrases based on the trait adjectives known to be
prototypical markers of the Big Five (John, 1990). One or two prototypical trait adjectives served
as the item core to which elaborative, clarifying, or contextual information was added. For
example, the Openness adjective “original” became the BFI item “Is original, comes up with new
ideas” and the Conscientiousness adjective “persevering” served as the basis for the item
“Perseveres until the task is finished.” Thus the BFI items retain the advantages of adjectival
items (brevity and simplicity) while avoiding some of their pitfalls (ambiguous or multiple
meanings and salient desirability).
Although the BFI scales include only eight to ten items, they do not sacrifice either
content coverage or good psychometric properties. For example, the 9-item Agreeableness scale
includes items related to at least five of the six facets postulated by Costa and McCrae (1992)
namely, Trust (forgiving; trusting), Altruism (helpful and unselfish), Compliance (not
quarrelsome), Modesty (not fault finding with others), and Tender- mindedness (considerate and
kind).
Description of the Test
The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report inventory designed to measure the Big Five
dimensions. It is quite brief for a multidimensional personality inventory (44 items), and consists
of short phrases with relatively accessible vocabulary. Despite its brevity, the BFI does not
sacrifice either content coverage or good psychometric properties. The items are rated on a
five-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly); scale scores are
computed as the participant’s mean item response (i.e., adding all items scored on a scale and
dividing by the number of items on the scale).
There are multiple descriptors for some BFI items; there is a second phrase that provides
an elaboration of the first concept. For example, such as “being relaxed, handles stress well”, is
understood as “being relaxed, in the sense of being good at handling stress”. Specifically,
“relaxed” is typically a low-Neuroticism item and means “not anxious, not easily upset or
stressed out.” But some people might misunderstand “relaxed” to mean “easy-going, having fun”
which would be a high-Extraversion item. Thus, to rule out this misinterpretation, the authors use
“handles stress well” to elaborate what is meant by “being relaxed”.
The BFI measures the ‘Big Five’, or OCEAN, and encompasses a set of five broad factors
or dimensions of personality. Briefly, Extraversion implies an energetic approach toward the
social and material world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and
positive emotionality. Agreeableness contrasts prosocial and communal orientation toward others
with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty.
Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and
goal-directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms
and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks. Neuroticism contrasts emotional
stability and even-temperedness with negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous,
sad, and tense. Finally, Openness to Experience (vs. closed-mindedness) describes the breadth,
depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life.
Standardization of the Test
Reliability
In U.S. and Canadian samples, the alpha reliabilities of the BFI scales typically range from
0.75 to 0.90 and average above .80; three-month test-retest reliabilities range from 0.80 to 0.90,
with a mean of 0.85 (Rammstedt & John, 2007).
Test-retest correlations across an 8-week interval in a US sample of 726 students (mean
age = 21 years) at a large public university was found to be .83 and across a 6-week interval in a
German sample of 457 students (mean age = 25 years) was reported to be .85. The scales
differed somewhat from each other; Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism showed
greater stability, and Agreeableness and Openness somewhat less stability (Rammstedt & John,
2007).
Schmitt, Allik, McCrae, and Benet-Martinez (2007) reported data obtained from 200
English-speaking adult Indians in their study of personality, including the BFI, across 56 nations
in 10 world regions. Their data suggest adequate internal reliabilities of the BFI scales (ranging
from .70 for Agreeableness to .79 for Neuroticism); however, the scales are clearly less internally
consistent than the English-language originals, which typically average in the mid-.80s (e.g.,
Soto & John, 2009).
Validity
Factor analytic studies have supported a clear five-factor structure for the BFI.
Standardized validity coefficients from confirmatory factor analysis are .94, .92, .92, .90, .92 for
E, A, C, N, O respectively with an average of .92 for the total scale (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Convergent validity correlations with the NEO-PI-R domain scales averaged .73 across
Big Five domains for the full BFI-44 scales. After correcting for attenuation using alpha, the first
three of the Big Five (Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) showed mean
validities clearly exceeding .90, suggesting virtual equivalence between the instruments.
However, the correlations for Extraversion and Openness did not reach .90, suggesting that the
conceptualizations of these factors are not fully equivalent across these two instruments (John &
Srivastava, 1999).
Norms
Norms for the BFI are based on the Gosling-Potter Internet Personality Project, a
personality study of volunteers recruited and assessed over the World Wide Web (Srivastava,
John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003). Personality and demographic data were available for 132,515
participants (54% female) between the ages of 21 and 60; the mean age of the participants was
31 years (SD = 9 years). All selected participants lived in the United States or Canada (the latter
represented 9.2% of the sample).
Applications of the Test
Personality tests can be used to help clarify a clinical diagnosis, guide therapeutic
interventions, and help predict how people may respond in different situations. Personality tests
are administered for a number of different purposes, including: Assessing theories, Evaluating
the effectiveness of therapy, diagnosing psychological problems, Looking at changes in
personality and screening job candidates. Personality tests are also sometimes used in forensic
settings to conduct risk assessments, establish competence, and in child custody disputes. Other
settings where personality testing may be used are in school psychology, career and occupational
counseling, relationship counseling, clinical psychology, and employment testing. These tests
can also help one learn more about himself/herself and better understand both his/her strengths
and weaknesses. And while all personality tests are different, learning that one might be high on
a specific trait can help him/her gain greater insight into their own behavioral patterns. For
example, a person’s results on a personality test might indicate that he rates high on the
personality trait of introversion. This result suggests that he has to expend energy in social
situations, so he needs to find time alone to recharge his energy. Knowing that he has this
tendency can help him recognize when he is getting drained from socializing and set aside quiet
moments to regain his equilibrium.
Limitations of the Test
The Big 5 traits are too broad. This is arguably the greatest strength and the greatest
weakness of the test. The fact that it measures personality in broad and non-conditional terms
make it easy to use, generalizable, and universally relevant. However, this also makes the test
subject to inaccuracy - people generally do not naturally use a trait system to describe
themselves, rather, they will tend to make conditional statements (eg, "I am very quiet when I
have things on my mind'). These subtleties, which capture the finet aspects of a personality, and
may very well reflect variation in behavior from one situation to the next, are omitted in the Five
Factor Personality Test.
For similar reasons, it is superficial. There is a lot of evidence that one can get a fairly
accurate sense of a stranger's big 5 traits in a single minute. This is why McAdams refers to the
test as the psychology of a stranger. Think about someone who you know really well. McAdams
writes, “What is it you know about him or her that you don't know about other people. Is it traits?
Probably not.”
The Big 5 traits are only descriptive While Trait Theory can effectively describe a
personality, it says nothing about why or how these personalities exist. In a world where
self-improvement is a seemingly universal goal, the Five Factor Personality Test is lacking in it’s
inability to answer these important questions “Yes, I'm high in neuroticism and I'm 18. But why
is that the case, and how can I change it?”
The Big 5 traits may be better understood as a rough indication of how a person moves
through their life in terms of social and emotional behavior. This by no means negates the value
of the test; it is still one of the best (or more likely, the best) description of personality structure.
This only reminds us that with the multitude of tests and measurements available, there are many
cases when we must not rely solely on the Five Factor Personality Test.
Method
Materials Required
The test was conducted through video calling platform Google Meet. Therefore the
materials required was only The “Big Five” Factor Inventory. The answers were filled in
digitally by the respondent. Other material used later by the tester include pen and paper to write
the calculations, a calculator to calculate the mean, S.D. and z score. The norms table and the
descriptive category table was also used by the tester.
Preliminary Information
Name: Vaasvi Agarwal
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Qualification: Bachelors of Science (III Year)
Place: Lucknow
Date: 20th January, 2022
Time: 5:30 P.M.
Mode: Online
Procedure
Lab Settings. The test was administered online through video calling. The responses
were filled digitally by the participant. A meeting was scheduled on Google Meet and both
participant and the tester joined the meeting at 5:30 PM.
Rapport Formation. The participant was first made to feel comfortable and to break the
ice, the examiner spoke of the beautiful weather outside. She made eye contact with the
participant and spoke in a soothing voice. She talks to the participant about the psychological test
and was made to understand the procedure. She also discusses her right to privacy and
confidentiality. She was asked to drink water and relax a bit before starting the test. The
examiner read the instructions to her and ensured she understood everything.
Consent. Before beginning the test, a consent was taken from the participant. The
Consent letter was signed digitally. All the conditions written in the letter were read to the
participant. Any queries regarding it were cleared by the examiner. The participant was also
informed that she can leave the test at any time if she wanted (see Appendix B)
 Instructions. The following instructions were given to the participant: “Here are a
number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you
are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please write a number next to each statement
to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement.”

1 2 3 4 5
Disagree Disagree a little Neither agree Agree a little Agree strongly
Strongly nor disagree

Administration. The participant was asked to sit comfortably. After the rapport
formation and the thorough reading, understanding, and signing on the consent form, she was
provided with all the important information and instructions. Preliminaries were noted down.
Queries were resolved if any. Then the BFI test was given to the participant and it was ensured
that all the items were marked. After the completion of the test the participant was asked to write
an introspective report (their experience and what they thought while giving the test), then the
participant was thanked for voluntary participation.
Precautions. It was ensured that the family members of the participant were informed
prior to the administration of the test that they are not to interrupt the tester and the participant. It
was ensured that the room chosen had suitable temperature and light. It was ensured that the
participant used the rating scale from 1 to 5 to respond to all the items The test was administered
in a comfortable, quiet and undisturbed setting.
Introspective Report
“I was both excited and nervous at the beginning of the experiment because it would help
me know about myself. Initially when the experimenter explained the experiment to me I thought
it’ll be very easy as one just had to talk about themselves but when I was answering the questions
I realized that I had to think a lot about each and everything. It helped me understand my
emotions, behaviors and mentality better and made me think about my own mind more deeply.”
Tester’s Observation
The examinee seemed to be excited about the test as she was told that the test will help
her know herself better. She showed some signs of nervousness but quickly overcame it. She
asked a number of questions in the beginning that showed her curiosity to attempt the test. She
was asked to relax and find a comfortable place to sit. While giving the test, she was asking
questions about the parts she was not able to understand. At times, she was unable to get what
the question meant, and she was duly explained. She was deeply thinking about each score she
was giving to the questions. After completing the test, she rechecked her scores. She was
interested in knowing the results as soon as possible.
Scoring and Results
For the Big Five Inventory, first we obtained the raw scores for the five dimensions
(keeping in mind reverse scoring of certain items). Then referred to the norm tables (see
Appendix A) that provide the mean and standard deviation for separate age groups from 21-60
years (in our case 21 years). Then we converted the raw scores to z scores by using mean and
standard deviation of the relevant age. Z score is a standard score with Mean of 0 and SD of 1, it
indicates the position of a score in relation to the mean expressed in standard deviation units. The
formula is:

Also the z score was translated into a T score by using the formula: 50+10z. T score is a
standard score with a Mean of 50 and SD of 10. Finally, descriptive categories based on the
range of z scores were assigned to the five dimensions The table below was used for the same:
Table 8
Descriptive Categories of z Scores

z score Descriptive Category

Below – 1.50 Very Low

–0.51 to –1.50 Low

–1.50 to +0.50 Average

+0.51 to +1.50 High

Above +1.50 Very High

Table 9
Scores and descriptive category assigned to the participant on the five dimensions of the Big
Five Inventory

Dimension Raw score z-score T score Descriptive

Category

Neuroticism 3.38 +0.07 50.7 Average

Extraversion 3.75 +0.56 55.6 High

Openness 4.3 +0.57 55.7 High

Agreeableness 4.11 +0.65 56.5 High

Conscientiousness 3.78 +0.45 54.5 Average

Interpretations and Discussion

Contemporary personality psychologists believe that there are five basic dimensions of
personality, often referred to as the “Big Five” personality traits. The five broad personality traits
described by the theory are extraversion (also often spelled extroversion), agreeableness,
openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism. Evidence of this theory has been growing for
many years, beginning with the research of D. W. Fiske (1949) and later expanded upon by other
researchers including Norman (1967), Smith (1967), Goldberg (1981), and McCrae & Costa
(1987). The “big five” are broad categories of personality traits. The dimensions can be
represented by the acronym OCEAN. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report inventory
designed to measure the Big Five dimensions. It is quite brief for a multidimensional personality
inventory (44 items total), and consists of short phrases with relatively accessible vocabulary
The test was administered on the participant online, on the Google Meet, video calling
platform. As the pandemic was going on and colleges were not open, the video conferencing
platform made it easier for us to conduct the test. We went online at 5:30 PM and started by
rapport formation. Since it was online, the participant was asked to sit in a quiet and comfortable
place, where she wouldn't be disturbed. It was made sure that the participant had understood all
the instructions and was at ease, before starting the test.
The participant, Vaasvi Agarwal, is a 21 year old B.Sc. student at Miranda House,
University of Delhi. She is an enthusiastic learner and talks freely and comfortably with her
friends and family. She easily became comfortable with the examiner too. During the
administration of the test, she was discussing each of the statements with the examiner and was
making sure if she had understood them correctly. While filling her responses, she was also
commenting on each of the statements with regard to how relatable she finds them. She seemed
to be a bit confused while filling out the statements related to socializing and talking to strangers.
After the smooth administration (see Appendix C) of the “Big Five” Inventory, the raw
scores were obtained and they were converted to z scores by referring to the norm table. To
interpret the z scores, the table with the Descriptive Category (Table 8) of each score was
referred to. On interpreting the scores, it was found that the participant obtained a high score on
Agreeableness, Openness to experience and Extraversion and an average score on Neuroticism
and Conscientiousness (Table 9). The details of each of the traits has been discussed further.
Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral
characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, and considerate. It
contrasts a prosocial and communal orientation towards others with antagonism and includes
traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty. The participant has obtained the
highest score in this dimension of personality. She obtained a raw score of 4.11 and a z-score of
+0.65 as shown in Table 9. The z score indicates the position of a score in relation to the mean
expressed in standard deviation units. The participant’s score lies 0.65 standard deviations above
the mean. T score obtained for agreeableness is 56.5 which turns out to be a “High” Score. This
shows that the participant is likely to be highly cooperative in a social setting. She is warm and
generous towards others and therefore can work well in groups. She would have the tendency to
easily lend her things and be kind and caring to her friends. She is likely to be one of those
individuals who would console a friend when he/she is upset. She is very less likely to get into
strenuous relationships as she is highly agreeable. She also has the tendency to trust others easily
as well as being trustworthy herself. She is not likely to become irritable or suspicious easily. She
agreed strongly to statements like, “Is generally trusting”, “Is curious and unselfish with others”,
“Has a forgiving nature” and also “Is considerate and kind to almost all individuals”. Agreeable
people also have an optimistic view of human nature. Disagreeable individuals place self-interest
above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others' well-being, and are
less likely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’
motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative. However, here our
participant is completely the opposite and is Highly Agreeable as indicated by the test scores.
Openness to experience means a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual
ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. intellectually curious, open to emotion,
sensitive to beauty and willing to try new things. This dimension ranges from being imaginative,
witty, and having broad range of interests at one end to down-to-earth, simple, and having
narrow range of interests at the other. It is said that this trait describes the breadth, depth,
originality and complexity of an individual’s mental and experiential life. People at the low pole
of this trait are conservative and prefer familiarity and routine over novelty and variety. Vaasvi,
the participant had a raw score 4.3 and z score of +0.57 which is 0.57 standard deviations above
the mean. The T score obtained was 56.7. Therefore the Participant is “High” on Openness to
experience scale on the “Big Five” Inventory. This is also quite evident when she responds with
‘4’ i.e., “Agree a little” for statements like “Is original, comes up with new ideas” and “Is
ingineous, a deep thinker”. Well, on top of that she responds as ‘5’ (Strongly Agree) on the
statement “Is curious about many different things” indicating that she is High on the scale of
Openness. She seems to have many artistic interests and values art, music, literature and
aesthetic experiences. She has the tendency to reflect and play with ideas. People with High
scores on Openness “take the time to learn something simply for the joy of learning; Watch
documentaries for educational TV and come up with novel set up for their living space; Look for
stimulating activities to break up the routine” (John & Nauman, 2007). While speaking to
Vaasvi, she opened up about how she has taken up doodling and has made many art pieces out of
it. She has created an aesthetic set up in her room with fairy lights and pictures. While discussing
this trait with her ,she also spoke about how, randomly, she starts watching documentaries or
series that show interesting facts, just as it’s mentioned in the research. Therefore, she is likely to
show better performance on creativity tests, success in artistic jobs and create distinctive-looking
work and home environments.
The trait Extraversion refers to a dimension ranging from energetic, enthusiastic,
sociable, and talkative at one end to retiring, sober, reserved, silent, and cautious at the other.
Extraverts enjoy interacting with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to
be enthusiastic, action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and
assert themselves. Extraverted people may appear more dominant in social settings, as opposed
to introverted people in this setting. Behaviorally, extraverts tend to talk a lot, take charge in
group situations, and express positive emotions, whereas introverts tend to feel uncomfortable in
social situations, and keep their thoughts and feelings to themselves. The participant has obtained
a “High” score on the extraversion scale. She has a raw score of 3.75 that when translated in z
score, it becomes +0.56 (T score turns out to be 55.6). This means that the participant is 0.56
standard deviations above the mean. However the thing to note here is that Vaasvi’s score is very
close to being “Average” in the descriptive category (Table 8). This means that she lies
somewhere in the middle of being an extrovert and introvert. This was quite evident when during
the administration she seemed to be confused about marking the statements like “Is reserved”,
and “Is talkative”, she agrees with both the statements, even though they are in sharp contrast
with each other. One of the responses which is marked as “Neither agree nor disagree” also
indicates how sometimes she can be shy and sometimes very assertive and enthusiastic,
depending on the situation. On enquiring about this with her, the examiner got to know that she
is very enthusiastic and talkative with people who she knows from a very long time, while taking
time to adjust among new people. She is able to talk to new people, but is a bit hesitant in the
beginning. She is not completely inhibited also, because like most introverts, she does not face
social anxiety, or fears social interaction. That is the reason why she might have got a high rating
on the scale of extraversion. She is likely to be very energetic and sociable in a group setting
after she has got to know some people in the group. She tends to be reserved and silent at times
but her mood is quickly elevated when she is around her friends and family.
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, nervousness,
anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability, as it concerns the extent to
which someone is prone to experiencing negative emotions and moods. It is reversed as
Emotional Stability which signifies being calm, poised, content, and emotionally stable. Highly
neurotic individuals experience more frequent and intense negative emotions, such as fear,
sadness, and frustration, and have frequent mood swings. Those low in Neuroticism remain calm
and optimistic, even in difficult situations, and find it easier to regulate their emotions. The
participant has obtained a raw score of 3.38 which when converted is +0.07, z score. This means
that the participant is 0.07 standard deviations above the mean. The score indicates that the
participant has an “Average” rating on the scale of Neuroticism. This means that the participant
sometimes tends to be neurotic. She is likely to face negative emotions like anxiety and
nervousness and also tends to be stressed in certain situations. The score being average also
indicates that she is likely to come out of these negative emotions really quick. She agrees to
statements like “Worries a lot” and “Gets nervous easily”, while disagrees with some of them
like, “Is emotionally stable, not easily upset”, “Is relaxed, handles stress well” while at the same
time she also disagrees with the fact that she can be moody. This shows that she is at the lower
end of the average spectrum and can be emotionally unstable a lot of times. She is likely to get
worried in certain situations while in some she might be able to manage. She is very likely to
become nervous as it was visible when she started with the test. She only became relaxed after
attempting 5-6 statements.
Conscientiousness describes an individual’s capacity to organize things, complete tasks,
and work toward long-term goals. Its key facets include orderliness (vs. disorganization),
self-discipline (vs. inefficiency), and reliability (vs. inconsistency). Highly conscientious
individuals prefer order and structure, are productive workers, tend to follow rules and norms,
and are better able to delay gratification, whereas those low in Conscientiousness have difficulty
controlling their impulses and are easily distracted from tasks. The participant is “Average” on
the rating scale of Conscientiousness. She obtained a raw score of 3.78 and z score of +0.45, this
when translated to T score it becomes 54.5. The scores show that the participant is an orderly
person but at the same time she is likely to become lazy and break that order depending on the
situation. She strongly agrees to the statements like “Does a through a job”, “Is a reliable
worker”, “Perseveres until the task is finished”, and agrees to statements like “Does things
efficiently”, and is usually organized. On talking to her, she spoke about how she keeps her
things in an organized way and in order. Even the folders in her laptop are properly named and
arranged. Though she said that at times she “doesn’t feel like doing all this arrangement”. She
usually keeps everything neatly, makes notes regularly, and submits assignments on time. She
also remarked that she sometimes makes plans for the next day in a ‘to do list’ but is unable to
follow it. Such examples can be the reason for her “Average’ rating on Conscientiousness. Since
Conscientiousness describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-
directed behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and
rules, and planning, organizing and prioritizing tasks, the participant does keep up with such
things but lags behind at times in certain conditions. She is likely to study hard and score good
grades. As she stays organized and committed, she is likely to be good at the job she has in
future.
Each of the Big Five has been shown to predict a number of important life outcomes
(Soto & Jackson, 2013). We can get to know about what a person can be like in future. Although
there are many chances that the personality can change over years due to environmental and
biological causes (Bleidorn et al., in press) but if we take personality as a relatively stable
construct there are many things that can be predicted about the future. For instance, in our
participant’s case, her high rating on Agreeableness is an important predictor of social outcomes.
Agreeable individuals tend to be accepted and well-liked by their peers, and experience greater
dating and relationship satisfaction, whereas those low in Agreeableness are more likely to
experience peer rejection and bullying. Agreeable individuals like Vaasvi, tend to seek out and
succeed in social occupations and collaborative work environments. She might also tend to be
more religious, is more likely to volunteer and assume community leadership positions, and is
less likely to engage in criminal behavior. Since she is high on Agreeableness scale, she is likely
to live longer than individuals on the lower rating as she is less likely to suffer from serious
health issues like heart disease. Openness to Experience is also an important predictor of
intellectual outcomes. Highly open individuals tend to perform better on tests of intelligence and
creativity, and complete more years of formal education. Therefore, Vaasvi is especially likely to
succeed in her scientific, and technical career (She is pursuing a B.Sc in Computer Science and
Mathematics). Compared with her less open peers, she is also more likely to hold liberal political
and social attitudes.
Extraversion positively predicts interpersonal outcomes such as peer acceptance and
friendship, social status, number of dating partners, and relationship satisfaction. The participant
is likely to prefer and perform better in social and enterprising occupations; since the participant
has a “High” score on Extraversion is also more likely than introverts to assume leadership
positions in their workplaces and communities. Psychologically, she tends to have higher
self-esteem and greater subjective well-being, especially more frequent and intense positive
affect; compared with introverts. Neuroticism is a strong, negative predictor of subjective
well-being: highly neurotic individuals tend to experience greater negative affect and less
satisfaction with life, as well as lower self-esteem. This general unhappiness extends to
more-specific life domains. The participant score was translated as an “Average” on Neuroticism
scale. Therefore we can say that she may tend to feel less secure and satisfied about her family,
peers, and romantic relationships. She may tend to get easily worried. However life span
development studies have shown that Neuroticism tends to decrease with age (Roberts, Walton,
& Viechtbauer, 2006). Therefore it's quite possible that she might start feeling less stressed later
on and her nervousness and anxiety created in certain settings also decreases. Of the Big Five,
Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of overall academic and occupational success. In
general, conscientious students earn higher grades and conscientious employees perform better in
a variety of jobs, whereas individuals low in Conscientiousness are more likely to engage in
counterproductive work behaviors. Since Conscientiousness is also an important, positive
predictor of physical health, mental health (including self-esteem and subjective well-being), and
longevity, Vaasvi is likely to live longer as she has relatively high Conscientiousness. She has an
average mark but is still at the higher end of it. She is likely to be particular about her work. She
may deviate from the tasks a little and might get distracted but her orderly and neat ways may
help her come out as a diligent worker at her workplace.
As discussed above, the participant's personality can be described as a curious and
imaginative individual who is kind, considerate to others, is socially active and enthusiastic, likes
to keep everything organized but at the same time can get distracted. She is the kind of person
who can get stressed and nervous at times and tends to procrastinate. She is like a people’s
person, she likes social interaction and has a strong, active imagination. She is someone who is
likely to work well in teams, as she is cooperative and trusting as well as assertive, so she is
likely to take up leadership positions. She is optimistic about life, takes initiatives and enjoys
novelty. She likes to complete her work to moderate satisfaction but puts in her efforts
whole-heartedly. She can get tense moderately and worried in certain situations. She would like
to explore the world deeply, feel compassionately about others, interact with people frequently,
be productive in work but will also tend to be lazy and stressed at times. However before arriving
at a conclusion, it is important to address the limitations of the “Big Five” Inventory.
It is necessary that we remain cautious while making interpretations about the participant
as the “Big Five” Inventory was developed in the West and the norms developed through it are
also in context of the people of the USA and Canada. The test was not standardized for the
Indian population and the Indian culture differs significantly from the western culture. Since the
inventory is a self-report test, it is possible that a participant might fake the responses or because
of the social desirability bias, they might mark responses in such a way that they are viewed
favorably by others. This would not give accurate results about the personality of the person.
Another reason for not completely relying on the inventory is that the personality of an
individual is affected by many factors including biological and environmental causes. For
example, individual differences in change on the Big Five are moderately heritable (suggesting
genetic influence), but have also been linked with particular life events and experiences
(suggesting environmental influence). Cross-cultural research indicates that, across a variety of
cultures, people tend to become more agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally stable with age
(suggesting a biological basis for this general pattern); however, the culture-specific timing of
these age trends may depend on the normative onset of adult social role responsibilities such as
employment, marriage, and parenthood (suggesting an environmental basis for this cross-cultural
variability) (Bleidorn et al., in press). Moreover personality is a large domain of study and it
cannot be wrapped up into just five traits. Since the Inventory is based on the Five Factor Model,
some experts argue that the FFM oversimplifies personality. In other words, they claim that there
are additional aspects of personality that are not captured by the Big Five.
Conclusion
The aim of administering the “Big Five” Inventory was to assess the personality of the
participant. It was observed that the z score of the participant in Agreeableness was +0.65, in
Openness to experience was +0.57, in Extraversion was +0.57, in Conscientiousness was +0.45
and in Neuroticism was +0.07 . This indicates that the participant scores high on Agreeableness
which means that she is considerate, forgiving and respects people because of which she will be
able to work well in collaborative work environments. Her high score on Openness to experience
depicts that she is an explorer, is creative and has aesthetic sensitivity, this will help her build
onto new ideas and predicts good intellectual outcomes. She has a high score on Extraversion
which indicates that she is talkative, outgoing and assertive. This score also predicts
interpersonal outcomes like peer acceptance, friendships and social status. She is likely to have
more emotional resilience and greater subjective well being. The participant has an Average
score on the scale of Neuroticism which predicts that she is likely to suffer from moderate
amounts of stress and anxiety in certain situations. Although she likes challenges (As she is open
to experiences) but they might make her feel negative emotions and might have some difficulty
in coping with negative events. She has an average score on Conscientiousness also, which
indicates that she has a moderate capacity to organize things, complete tasks, and work toward
long-term goals. Sometimes she might get distracted and start procrastinating but is still a
productive worker.
 References

Baron, R.A., Misra, G. (2022a). Psychology (5th ed.). Pearson India.

Bouchard, G., Lussier, Y., Sabourin, S. (1999). Personality and marital adjustment: Utility of the
five-factor model of personality. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 651–660.

Butcher, J.N., Mineka, S., Hooley, J.M. Abnormal psychology (e-book) (16th Ed.). Pearson.

Cattell, H., & Mead, A. (2008). The sixteen personality factor questionnaire (16pf)[image]. In G.
J. BoyleG. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske The SAGE handbook of personality theory and
assessment: Volume 2 — Personality measurement and testing (pp. 135-159). SAGE
Publications Ltd, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479.n7

Ciccarelli, S. K., & White, N. J. (2014). Psychology (e-book) Plus NEW MyLab psychology (4th
ed.). Pearson.

Cherry, K. (2020, December 14). How Erich Fromm described different personalities.
VerywellMind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/fromms-five-character-orientations-2795956#:%7E:text=
Erich%20Fromm%20was%20a%20neo,created%20by%20feelings%20of%20isolation.

Cherry, K. What are the Big 5 Personality Traits? (2021, February 20). VerywellMind.
https://www.verywellmind.com/the-big-five-personality-dimensions-2795422

Kamenskaya, E. & Georgy, Kukharev. (2008). Recognition of psychological characteristics from

face [image].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255662363_Recognition_of_psychological_cha
racteristics_from_face/citation/download
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. (1995). A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of
Personality:Reconceptualizing Situations, Dispositions, Dynamics,and Invariance in
Personality Structure, 246–268.

Hahn, E., Gottschling, J. Spinath, F.M. Short measurements of personality -Validity and
reliability of the GSOEP Big Five Inventory (BFI-S). (2012, June 1). ScienceDirect.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656612000578

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322-338. doi:10.1037/a0014996

PMHEALTH NP. (2022, January 5). Sigmund Freud psychoanalytic theory. PSYCH-MENTAL
HEALTH HUB.
https://pmhealthnp.com/pmhnp-topics/sigmund-freud-psychoanalytic-theory/

Schultz, S.E., Schultz, D.P. (2017). Theories of Personality (11th ed.) [E-book]. Cengage India.

Smith, R.E., Passer, M.W. (2009). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour (4th ed.).
McGraw Hill Education.

Srivastava, S. (2022). Measuring the Big Five Personality Factors.

https://psdlab.uoregon.edu/bigfive.html.
 Appendix A
BFI Norms Table
Appendix B
Consent Form
 Appendix C
BFI Response Sheet