This document provides definitions and descriptions of personality from several perspectives. It begins by defining personality according to Guilford, Mackinnon, and the DSM-IV-TR. Cattell's definition focuses on predicting behavior. The document then discusses 3 key facts to consider when defining personality: individuals are unique, behave differently across situations, and there is commonality in human behavior. The history of personality testing from WWI to today is overviewed. Popular modern theories and tests are then described, including the Big Five model and instruments like the NEO-PI-R, CPI, 16PF, and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

1. Personality Testing

2. Definitions: J.P. Guilford (1959)
“An individual’s personality, then, is his
unique pattern of traits.”
– A trait is “any distinguishable, relatively
enduring way in which one individual
differs from others.”

3. Definitions: Mackinnon (1959)
Personality refers to “factors” inside
people that explain their behavior
The sum total of typical ways of acting,
thinking, and feeling that makes a
person unique.

4. Definitions:
DSM-IV-TR (2000)
“Are enduring patterns of perceiving,
relating to, and thinking about the
environment and oneself that are
exhibited in a wide range of social and
personal context.

5. Definitions: R.B. Cattell (1950)
The personality of an individual is that
which enables us to predict what he will do
in a given situation”

6. 3 Facts to Consider When Defining
“Personality”
 Individuals are unique
 Individuals behave differently in
different situations
 Although individuals are unique and
behave inconsistently across
situations, there is considerable
commonality in human behavior

7. History
WW-I: saw the first real organized assessment
of personality- seeing if new recruits could
make adjustment to the military.
– Just focused on one facet of personality
– Very specific (e.g., ability to follow orders,
submission to authority, degree of comfort when
socializing with others)
Over the next 2 decades multiscaled test emerged
that examined assertiveness, anxiety,
impulsiveness

8. History
1930’s and 1940’s—Allport and Murray began
writing about personality and theories of
personality
Then came two camps:
– Objective –empirically derived tests
– Projective—produced items and interpretations
based on the theory of personality. This method
was more unstructured and less defined (e.g., TAT)

9. History
Empirically based tests used statistics
and a criterion to develop test items
– Item correlations
– Factor analytic approach
– Criterion-referenced approach
– These two branched from empirically
based tests of the early part of the century

10. Today
New tests have emerged but most tend
to be variants of the original themes
and theories of personality
Most excepted to use a theory and to
test out items on a criterion as well as
using statistics

11. “Personality” as a construct may include:
– Emotional responses
– Social behavior
– Emotional thoughts and behaviour
– Motivations
– Values
– Interests
Methods of Measuring Personality:
– Paper & pencil tests: questionnaires, inventories
– Situational exercises
– Field or natural observations
– Projective measures

12. Value of Personality Questionnaires
Value to the individual (face validity)
– Self-insight
– Points of discussion
– Norms provide comparison info

13. Value of Personality Questionnaires
Value to research (construct validity)
– Study relationships of personality w/ other variables
– Study changes over time
Value for Counseling
- marital therapy
- university counseling centers
Value for personnel management
– Screening
– Prediction of success

14. Disadvantage of Personality Tests
Social Desirability
Faking “Good”
Faking “Bad”
Random Responding

15. Two Main Personality Theories
1. Trait theory: people differ based on stable
attributes (called “traits”)
– characteristics lie on a continuum
– e.g., the Big Five
2. Type theory: people can be sorted into
categories (either one type or the other)
There are many different personality
inventories that measure traits or types

16. The Big Five
OCEAN
Openness to Experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism

17. Personality Tests – Using Traits
NEO – Personality Inventory Revised (NEO
PI-R, 1992)
- Unaware of the Big Five, Costa & McCrae built the
NEO Inventory in 1978
– Assessed Neuroticism, Extraversion, and
Openness to Experience
– Added Agreeableness and Conscientiousness
– Items are behavioral statements

18. The NEO PI-R (cont.)
Examples of Items:
Neuroticism - Frightening thoughts sometimes come into my
head.
Extroversion - I don’t get much pleasure from chatting with
people.
Openness - I have a very active imagination
Agreeableness - I believe that most people will take
advantage of you if you let them.
Conscientiousness - I pay my promptly and in full.

19. The NEO PI-R (cont.)
Example Neuroticism facet: Anxiety
I am not a worrier.
I am easily frightened.
I rarely feel fearful or anxious.
I often feel tense and jittery.
I am seldom apprehensive about the future.
I often worry about things that might go wrong.
I have fewer fears than most people.
Frightening thoughts sometimes come into my head.

20. Personality Tests – Using Traits
NEO – Personality Inventory Revised (NEO
PI-R, 1992)
– 5 traits x 6 facets each x 8 items each = 240 total
– Items are all very face valid - anchored by SD to
SA
– No Validity Scales
– Raw scores for the domain converted to T scores
– Norms provided for adults (21 and up) & college
age individuals (17 - 20)
– Norms come from 500 men and 500 women (U.S)

21. List of Domain and Facet Scores
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness
Anxiety Warmth Fantasy
Angry Hostility Gregariousness Aesthetics
Depression Assertiveness Feelings
Self-Consciousness Activity Actions
Impulsiveness Excitement-Seeking Ideas
Vulnerability Positive Emotions Values
Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Trust Competence
Straightforwardness Order
Altruism Dutifulness
Compliance Achievement Striving
Modesty Self-Discipline
Tender-Mindedness Deliberation

22. The NEO PI-R (cont.)
Other test characteristics:
- criterion validity: conscientiousness
- construct validity (e.g., openness to exp.)
- practical uses?
- relies on honesty of examinee
- reliability of domain scales – excellent (highest is .
92 for N, lowest is .86 for A)
- reliability of facet scales – acceptable
(highest is .80 for ideas facet of O, lowest is .58 for
Actions facet of O)

23. Personality Tests – Using Traits
California Psychological Inventory (CPI)
 Gough (1957)
 “sane person’s MMPI”
 revised in 1987
 based on 20 concepts
 to predict behavior in social/interpersonal
situations
 13 special purpose scales (e.g., leadership,
managerial potential)

24. California Psychological Inventory
CPI - one of the most popular personality
inventory
Measures: various facets of normal personality;
helps to make predictions about behaviours
Gough’s theory (3 assumptions):
 Important characteristics in all societies and cultures
 Understandable and useful for both sides
 Valid predictors of future behavior in similar social contexts

25. CPI
462 true-false items covers 20 scales:
– Dominance, Social Presence, Sociability, Self-
Acceptance, Self-Control, Responsibility, Well-
Being, Achievement vs. Conformity, Achievement
vs. Independence, Psychological Mindedness,
Flexibility, Capacity for Status, Empathy, Tolerance,
Femininity vs. Masculinity, Independence, Good
Impression, Socialization,Communality (p.380)
– 3 scales provide measures of test-taking attitudes

26. CPI (cont.)
 test construction: empirical approach (13 scales),
internal consistency (4), combo of both (3)
 either high or low scores
 administration: 1 hr
 scores: count the “true” responses
 profiles
 extensive norms: 6000
 gender specific norms
 converts raw scores to T scores
 CPI had factor loading on 4 of 5 - Big 5 Factors
(extroversion, openness, neuroticism,
conscientiousness) - not agreeableness

27. CPI (cont.)
• interpretation of profiles: (p.383)
1. profile “validity”
2. height of scales
3. high and low scores
4. analyze patterns (examples)

28. CPI (cont.)
Other test characteristics
– Construct validity: 20 scales are not independent
– Predictive validity: best predicts
academic underachievement
potential delinquency
Job performance in a number of careers
Performance in school

29. CPI
Advantages:
1. Looks at interpersonal relating well
2. Predicts underachieving, potential
delinquency, job performance
3. Has good norming sample

30. 16 Personality Factor (16PF)
Raymond Cattell developed the Cattel Sixteen
Personality Factor Test (1949)
Revised 4 times (1956, 1962, 1968, 1993)
Survey all words in the the English language that
described personal characteristics (approx. 4000)
Categorized the words into 45 groups and approx. 15
factors
Designed to measure more personality traits and
conflicts than psychopathology
185 items across 16 scales
3 Point Likert Scale

31. 16PF
Suggests Personality is made up of 16 independent
traits - Warmth, Reasoning, Emotional Stability,
Dominance, Liveliness, Rule-Consciousness, Social
Boldness, Sensitivity, Vigilance, Abstractedness,
Privateness, Apprehension, Openness to Change,
Self-Reliance, Perfectionism, Tension (p. 389)
Each item is scored a between 0,1, or 2 depending if
the item is scored correctly
Raw score are changed to standard scores know as
sten (out of 10). Standard scores are calculated in
reference to the norm group.

32. Psychometrics of 16PF
Reliability: test-retest (.80 x2wk; .70 x3wk)
Internal consistency reliability .74
Only sporadic studies found reliability below .70
Most validity studies have validity coefficients
above .70

33. 16PF
Supports:
1. Less time to give than MMPI-2
2. Has 5 global factors than correspond to the BIG FIVE
3. Reliability and Validity
Criticisms:
1. Overeducated sample
2. New version more complicated to score
3. Converts raw scores to “stens”- hard for people to
understand

34. 16PF Applications
Research and Clinical Settings
Vocational Psychology
Personnel selection and placement
With adults or adolescents (16-year-
olds) and 5th
grade reading level

35. Type Theories of Personality
Type A - Coronary-prone behavior pattern:
aggressive, need to achieve more and more,
workaholic, hidden lack of self-esteem (always need to
prove self), always hurried, hostile
Type B – easygoing, noncompetitive, relaxed
People fall on a continuum somewhere between the
two
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

36. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Myers-Briggs: based on Jungian theory
of personality
– Classifies individuals along 4 theoretically
independent dimensions.

37. MBTI (cont.)
1. Introversion / Extroversion(E-I) : How is your
general attitude toward the world?
2. Sensing / Intuition (S-N) : How do you acquire
information?
3. Thinking / Feeling (T-F) : How is information
processed?
4. Judging / Perceiving (J-P): How do you make
decisions?

38. MBTI Scales
Extroversion-
Introversion Scale
E: Oriented primarily
toward the outer world;
focus on people and
objects
I: Oriented primarily
toward the inner world;
focus on concepts and
ideas
Sensing-Intuition
Scale
S: Individual reports
observable facts
through one or more of
the five senses
N: Reports meanings,
relationships and/or
possibilities that have
been worked out
beyond the reach of the
conscious mind

39. MBTI Scales
Thinking-Feeling
Scale
T: Judgment is
impersonally based on
logical consequences
F: Judgment is primarily
based on personal or
social values
Perception-Judging
Scale
P: Preference for using a
perceptive process for
dealing with the outer
world
J: Preference for using a
judgment process for
dealing with the outer
world

40. MBTI Psychometrics
Test-retest intervals range from:
1. Introversion / Extroversion(E-I) : .73 to .83
2. Sensing / Intuition (S-N) : .69 to .87
3. Thinking / Feeling (T-F) :.56 to .82
4. Judging / Perceiving (J-P): .60 to .87
Internal Consistency intervals range from:
1. Introversion / Extroversion(E-I) : .55 to .65
2. Sensing / Intuition (S-N) : .64 to .73
3. Thinking / Feeling (T-F) :.43 to .75
4. Judging / Perceiving (J-P): .58 to .84

41. MBTI (cont.)
Uses:
– Career counseling
– Team building
– Family counseling
Criticisms:
– Profiles generally positive
– Barnum effect
– Validation evidence is sticky
– Factor analysis shows Big Five solution

42. MMPI
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory
MMPI-II – most widely used
psychological test
10 clinical scales and several
Auxiliary

43. MMPIMMPI
Table 4-6

45. The MMPI (cont.)
Scale Descriptor: Psychopathic Deviate
Tend to act without considering consequences.
Experience absence of emotional response.
May feign guilt and remorse when in trouble.
Are impulsive.
Are not seen as overwhelmed by emotional turmoil.

46. The MMPI (cont.)
Example Items:
I am about as able to work as I ever was.
I work under a great deal of tension.
I am sure I get a raw deal from life.
I find it hard to keep my mind on a task or job.
I am certainly lacking in self-confidence
I have difficulty in starting to do things.
When in a group of people I have trouble thinking of
the right things to talk about.
I cannot keep my mind on one thing.

47. Original MMPI
Items on the clinical scales of the original MMPI
were selected on the basis of their ability to
discriminate between normal and clinical groups.
Clinical groups were comprised of depressed,
paranoid, schizophrenic, hypomanic,
hypocrondriacal
Normal groups were comprised of University of
Minnesota students
Initially items were selected from various sources –
clinical cases, textbooks, and previous tests

48. MMPI II
MMPI-II was normed on a nationally
representative sample – 1138 men and 1462
women
MMPI added several content and
supplementary scales
A high score on a particular scale indicates
the likelihood that the individual possesses
those characteristics

49. Projective Personality Tests

50. The Projective Techniques
Projective tests allow the examinee to
respond to vague stimuli with their own
impressions
Assumption is that the examinee will project
his unconscious needs, motives, and conflicts
onto the neutral stimulus
Word association tests, inkblot tests,
sentence completion tests, storytelling in
response to pictures, etc.

51. The Projective Techniques
(cont.)
Three features:
- Disguised: no face validity
- Global: the whole personality
- Reveals unconscious aspects of personality
- Types:
- Inkblot: Rorschach
- Picture interpretation: TAT
- Sentence completion: Rotter Incomplete SB
- Picture construction: DAP

52. The Rorschach Inkblot Test
The Rorschach Inkblot Test is the most
commonly used projective test
– In a 1971 survey of test usage, it was used
in 91% of 251 clinical settings survey
– It is one of the most widely used tests that
exists
– It is widely cited in research

53. History
The earliest use of inkblots as projective
surfaces was J. Kerner's (1857)
– He was the first to claim that some people make
idiosyncratic or revealing interpretations
In 1896, Alfred Binet suggested that inkblots
might be used to assess personality (not
psychopathology)

54. History
Herman Rorschach, a
Swiss psychiatrist, was the
first to suggest (1911) the
use of inkblot responses
as a diagnostic instrument
– In 1921 he published his
book on the test,
Psychodiagnostik (and soon
thereafter died, age 38)

55. History
Rorschach's test was not well-received,
attracting little notice
– David Levy brought it to the United States - thought it was
scientifically unsound.
– His student, Samuel Beck, popularized its use here, writing
several papers and books on it starting with Configurational
Tendencies in Rorschach Responses (1933)
Several other early users also published work
on he Rorschach
– Several offered their own system of administration, scoring,
and interpretation, leading to later problems in
standardization

56. What is the Rorschach?
The stimuli were generated by dropping ink onto a
card and folding it
– They are not, however, random: the ten cards in the
current test were hand-selected out of thousands
that Rorschach generated
Ten blots – 5 black/white, 2 red/gray (II & III) and 3
color (VIII – X)
Thought to tap into the deep layers of personality and
bring out what is not conscious to the test taker
The following are the inkblots

61. Administering the Rorschach
The test is usually administered with as little
instruction and information as possible
– The tester asks 'What might this be? and gives no clues
or restrictions on what is expected as a response
– Anxious subjects often do ask questions, and vague
answers are offered
– Some advocate sitting beside the subject to avoid
giving clues by facial expression
– If only one response is given, some hint to find more
may be offered: "Some people see more than one
thing.“

62. Administering the Rorschach
The cards are shown twice:
–The first time responses are obtained - free
association phase
–The second time they are elaborated –
inquiry phase

63. Rorschach (cont.)
Exner’s Comprehensive Scoring System
1. Location
- W = whole (intellectual potential)
- D = subdivisions (common sense)
- Dd = details (compulsive tendencies)
- DW (confabulated detail)
2. Content (i.e., general class to where response
belongs)
- people, part of a person, clothing, animal,
part of an animal, nature, anatomical

64. Rorschach (cont.)
3. Determinants (i.e., specific property of the blot)
- F = shape/outline (rational approach)
- M = movement (imagination)
- C = color (emotional reactions)
- Y = shades of grey (depression)
4. Form Quality
5. typical vs. unusual response
6. time

65. Rorschach (cont.)
 norms = unrepresentative
 inter-rater reliability
 test-retest reliability
 construct validity
 criterion validity

66. Psychometric Properties of the
Rorschach
The Rorschach is a popular test, however, it has been
plagued by low reliability and validity.
Obviously, it is difficult to measure any of the usual
psychometric properties in the usual way
– Validity and reliability are usually low because of the
open-ended multiplicity of possibility that is allowed
and by the lack of universally-accepted
standardized instructions, administration protocol,
and scoring procedure

67. Interpreting the Rorschach
Uses norms for five groups: nonpatient, outpatient
nonpsychotic, inpatient character problem, inpatient
depressive, inpatient schizophrenics one
Deviation from norms can mean an invalid protocol, or
brain damage, or emotional problems, or a low mental
age (or just an original person)

68. Psychometric Properties of the
Rorschach
Reliability studies that have been done find r-values varying
from 0.1 to 0.9
Parker (1983) analyzed 530 statistics through meta-analysis (9
studies) and found an internal reliability of .83
W responses has been linked to general intelligence (r = 0.4);
Movement responses are said to suggest strong impulses or
high motor activity; DW (confabulatory) responses are taken as
signs of a disordered state; low response rate is associated
with mental retardation, depression, and defensiveness
Overall, more research is needed to determine the reliability
and validity of the Rorschach.

69. Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)
Construct a story about what you see on the
following picture
Describe:
- what led up to the scene
- what is happening
- what the characters in the story might think
or feel
- how the story will end

71. Thematic Apperception Tests
The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT): 30
grayscale pictures + one blank for elicitation of
stories – each contain a dramatic event or critical
situation
Most subjects see 10-12 cards, over two
sessions
Based on Murray's (1938) theory of 28 social
needs (sex, affiliation, dominance, achievement,
attitudes etc.)
People would project into their story their needs
Attention is paid to the protagonist in each story
and his/her environmental stressors
Many variations on this 'story-telling' test exist

72. TAT (cont.)
Administration: not standardized
- Not the same 20 cards
- Not the same order
- Seldom 2 sessions
- Instructions differ
• Scoring is Minimal
• Low Reliability & Validity

73. TAT – scoring/interpretation
Scoring
Congruence with picture stimuli
Conformity with directions
Conflict
Psychometric properties:
internal consistency is low;
high reliability but diminishes with time, 2 months, r
= .80; 10 months r = .50;
Inter-rater reliability vary with studies: range .3 to .9

74. Examples of Projectives
Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank (RISB)
Complete the following sentences to express
your real feelings:
- I like ……..
- My greatest fear ……..
- This PSY 3090.D instructor is ……..

75. RISB (cont.)
Designed to screen for emotional maladjustment
Info about wishes, desires, likes, dislikes, fears,
and locus of control
40 items: easy to administer (group or ind.)
Rigorous scoring system: high interrater r
Scoring ranges from 0 to 6
Responses are scored as to the degree of conflict
expressed, optimism shown, length of responses,
omissions
Psychometrically sound but less used

76. Draw-a-Person Test
- Originally to assess children’s intelligence
- Now: a screening procedure for emotional
disturbance
- Cannot constitute a diagnosis
- The administration:
• Draw a person
• Draw a person of the opposite sex
• Draw yourself

77. Draw-a-Person Test
Administrator Asks:
- Can you please draw a person?
- Draw whatever you like in any way you like?
Administrator Then Asks:
- Draw a person of the opposite sex?

78. Draw-a-Person Test (cont.)
Subjective vs. quantitative scoring system
Clinician looks for:
– Sequence of body parts
– Verbalizations during the drawing process
– Size & placement of figures on the page
– Amount of action depicted
– Systematization in doing the task
– Number of erasures
– Shading
– Gender of picture
– Over attention to certain body parts

79. Draw-a-Person Test (cont..)
Among the plausible but empirically untrue
relations that have been claimed:
- Large size = Emotional expansiveness or acting out
- Small size = emotional constriction; withdrawal, or
timidity
- Overworked lines = tension, aggression
- Distorted or omitted features = Conflicts related to
that feature
- Large or elaborate eyes = Paranoia

80. Other common projective tests
CAT – Children Apperception Test – (Bellak,
1975)
Word Association Test – Rapaport et al. (1946,
1968) – 60 words: neutral and traumatic – scored:
popularity, RT, content, test-retest responses
Sentence Completion – Rotter Incomplete
Sentences Blank – 40 sentences – evaluated on 7
point scale by “need for therapy” to “extremely
good adjustment”
House-Tree-Person Test (Buck, 1948) & Draw-A-
Person (Machover, 1949): Subject is asked to draw
– Scoring is on absolute size, relative size of elements,
omissions
"If there is a tendency to over-interpret projective test data
without sufficient empirical grounds, then projective drawing
tests are among the worst offenders."
Kaplan & Saccuzo, Psychological Testing, 2001, p. 467

81. Sources of Inaccuracy in Personality
Testing
Personality assessment largely depends on
self-report
Response sets may affect personality results

82. Social Desirability
Some test takers choose socially acceptable
answers or present themselves in a favourable
light
People often do not attend as much to the trait
being measured as to the social acceptability of
the statement
This represents unwanted variance

83. Social Desirability (cont.)
Example items:
– Friends would call me spontaneous.
– People I know can count on me to finish what I
start.
– I would rather work in a group than by myself.
– I often get stressed-out in many situations.

84. Faking
Faking -- some test takers may respond in a
particular way to cause a desired outcome
– may “fake good” (e.g., in employment settings) to
create a favourable impression
– may “fake bad” (e.g., in clinical or forensic settings)
as a cry for help or to appear mentally disturbed
– may use some subtle questions that are difficult to
fake because they aren’t clearly face valid

85. “Faking Bad”
– People try to look worse than they really are
Common problem in clinical settings
– Reasons:
Cry for help
Want to plea insanity in court
Want to avoid draft into military
Want to show psychological damage
– Most people who fake bad overdo it

86. Random Responding
Random responding may occur when test takers
are unwilling or unable to respond accurately.
– likely to occur when test taker lacks the skills (e.g.,
reading), does not want to be evaluated, or lacks
attention to the task
– try to detect by embedding a scale that tends to
yield clear results from vast majority such that a
different result suggests the test taker wasn’t
cooperating

87. Random Responding
– Detection:
Duplicate items:
“I love my mother.”
“I hate my mother.”
Infrequency scales:
“I’ve never had hair on my head.”
“I have not seen a car in 10 years.”

88. Impression Management
– Mitigating IM:
Use positive and negative impression scales
(endorsed by 10% of the population)
Use lie scales to “flag” those who score high
(e.g., “I get angry sometime”).
Inconsistency scales (e.g., two different
responses to two similar questions)
(Use multiple assessment methods (other
than self-report)