Approaches and Measurements - Introduction to Psychology - 1st Canadian Edition (2023)

The first theories supposed that the personality was expressed in the physical appearance of the people. An early approach developed by the German physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) and known asphrenologia, guerrabased on the idea that we could measure personality by evaluating the patterns of bumps in people's skulls(Figure 12.1, “Phrenology”). In Victorian times, phrenology was taken seriously and many people encouraged its use as a source of psychological insight and self-knowledge. Machines were even developed to help humans analyze skulls (Simpson, 2005). However, as careful scientific research has not confirmed the theory's predictions, phrenology is now discredited in contemporary psychology.

Another approach known assomatology, defended by the psychologist William Herbert Sheldon (1898-1977).based on the idea that we could determine personality based on people's body type(Figure 12.2, “Sheldon's Body Types”). Sheldon (1940) argued that people with more body fat and a rounder build (endomorphs) tend to be more assertive and courageous, while thinner people (ectomorphs) tend to be more introverted and intellectual. As with phrenology, scientific research has not confirmed the theory's predictions, and somatology is now discredited in contemporary psychology.

Another approach to personality recognition is known asphysiognomy, othe idea that personality can be judged by facial features🇧🇷 Unlike phrenology and somatology, for which no scientific support has been found, contemporary research has found that people can discern some aspects of a person's character, such as whether they are gay or straight and whether they are liberals or conservatives. – at levels above average just by looking at the face (Rule & Ambady, 2010; Rule, Ambady, Adams, & Macrae, 2008; Rule, Ambady, & Hallett, 2009).

Despite these results, the ability to recognize the personality of faces is not guaranteed. Olivola and Todorov (2010) recently examined the ability of thousands of people to guess the personality traits of hundreds of thousands of faces on the website.what is my picture (http://www.whatsmyimage.com). Contrary to what physiognomy predicted, the researchers found that these people would have made more accurate judgments about strangers if they had only guessed, using their expectations of what people are like in general, rather than trying to guess the peculiar facial features of strangers. the individuals. . to help them. It seems, then, that physiognomy predictions will also find little empirical support.

personality as characteristics

personalities are characteristictrains, What are theyrelatively persistent characteristics that influence our behavior in many situations🇧🇷 Personality traits such as introversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, honesty, and kindness are important because they help explain behavioral consistency.

The most popular way to measure traits is through personality tests, in which people report their own traits. Psychologists have studied hundreds of traits using the self-report approach, and this research has found many personality traits that have important implications for behavior. Table 12.1, “Some Personality Traits That Predict Behavior,” provides some examples of personality dimensions that have been studied by psychologists and their impact on behavior.

As with intelligence tests, the utility of self-report personality measures depends on them.reliabilitymiconstruct validity🇧🇷 Some popular personality measures are not useful because they are unreliable or invalid. You may have heard of a personality test known asMyers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)🇧🇷 Then you are not alone, because the MBTI is the most widely used personality test in the world, taken annually by millions of employees in thousands of companies. EastMBTIclassifies people into one of four categories on each of the four dimensions:introversioncontraExtroversion,sensecontraintuitive,Thinkcontrafeeling, mijudgecontrauses.

While completing the MBTI can be useful in helping people reflect on individual personality differences and as an icebreaker in meetings, the measurement itself is not psychologically useful as it is neither reliable nor valid. People's evaluations change over time, and MBTI results are not related to other measures of personality or behavior (Hunsley, Lee, & Wood, 2003). Measures like the MBTI remind us that it is important to assess personality scientifically and empirically. The effectiveness of personality tests assess their stability over time and their ability to predict behavior.

One of the challenges of addressing personality traits is that there are so many of them; There are at least 18,000 words in English that can be used to describe people (Allport & Odbert, 1936). Therefore, one of the main goals of psychologists is to take this large set of descriptors (many of which are very similar to each other) and determine the important or essential underlying characteristics among them (John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988).

The personality traits approach was developed by early psychologists, including Gordon Allport (1897-1967), Raymond Cattell (1905-1998), and Hans Eysenck (1916-1997). Each of these psychologists believed in the idea of ​​the trait as a stable unit of personality, and each tried to provide a list or taxonomy of the most important dimensions of the trait. Their approach was to provide people with a self-report measure and then use statistical analysis to look for underlying factors or clusters of characteristics based on frequency and occurrence of characteristics among respondents.

Allport (1937) began his work by reducing the 18,000 strokes to a set of about 4,500 stroke-like words, which he classified into three levels of importance. she calledcardinal properties(the most important properties),core properties(the basic and most useful properties), misecondary resources (the least obvious and least consistent🇧🇷 Cattell (1990) used a statistical method known asfactorial analysisbyAnalyze the correlations between the characteristics and identify the most important ones🇧🇷 Based on your research, you identified what it meantThose(more important) miAppear(less important) and developed a measure that assessed 16 trait dimensions based on personality adjectives from everyday speech.

Hans Eysenck was particularly interested in the biological and genetic origins of personality and made an important contribution to understanding the nature of a fundamental personality trait:Extroversioncontraintroversion(Eysenk, 1998). Eysenck suggested that people who areoutgoing(d.h.,who enjoy being with others)have a lower level of natural arousal than the caseintroverts(Who doesn't like to be with others?🇧🇷 Eysenck argued that extroverts have a greater desire to socialize with others to raise their arousal levels, which are naturally very low, while introverts, who are naturally very aroused, are unwilling to engage in social activities because they are too stimulants.

The seminal work on feature dimensions by Allport, Cattell, Eysenck and many others has resulted in contemporary feature models, the most important and best validated of which is this one.Five factor model (Big Five) of personality🇧🇷 According to this modelThere are five basic dimensions of underlying traits that are stable over time, shared across cultures, and explain a significant part of behavior.(Costa & McCrae, 1992; Goldberg, 1982).Big Five) sonOpen to experience,conscientiousness,Extroversion,Compatibility,mineuroticism.(You can remember them using the aquatic acronyms OCEAN or CANOE).

A large body of research has supported the five factor model. The Big Five dimensions appear to be cross-cultural, as the same five factors were identified in participants from China, Japan, Italy, Hungary, Turkey, and many other countries (Triandis & Suh, 2002). The Big Five dimensions are also accurate in predicting behavior. For example, a pattern of high conscientiousness, low neuroticism, and high agreeableness predicts successful professional performance (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Openness to experience ratings are positively correlated with leadership success ratings, while agreeableness ratings are negatively correlated with success (Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, & Ones, 2000). Disorders such as anxiety and depression (Oldham, 2010; Saulsman & Page, 2004).

One advantage of the five factor approach is that it is cost effective. Instead of examining hundreds of traits, researchers can focus on just five underlying dimensions. The Big Five may also capture other dimensions that have been of interest to psychologists. For example, the characteristic dimension ofperformance needrefers to the Big Five variable of consciousness, andSelf esteemrefers to low neuroticism. On the other hand, the big five do not seem to capture all the important dimensions of personality. For example, the Big Five do not capture moral behavior, although this variable is important in many personality theories. And there is evidence that the big five factors are not exactly the same in all cultures (Cheung & Leung, 1998).

Situational influences on personality.

One challenge to the personality traits approach is that traits may not be as stable as we think. When we say that Malik is kind, we mean that Malik is kind today and will be kind tomorrow and even next week. And by that we mean that Malik is exceptionally friendly in all situations. But what if Malik was friendly to his family members but hostile to his classmates? This would conflict with the notion that traits are stable over time and situation.

The psychologist Walter Mischel (1968) reviewed the existing literature on traits and found that only a relatively low correlation (aboutr= .30) between the qualities that a person expressed in a situation and those that he expressed in other situations. In a relevant study, Hartshorne, May, Maller, and Shuttleworth (1928) examined the correlations between different behavioral indicators of honesty in children. They also tricked children into being honest or dishonest in different situations, such as making it easy or difficult for them to steal and cheat. The correlations between children's behavior were low, generally less thanr= 0.30, showing that children who steal in one situation are not always the same children who steal in another situation. And equally low correlations were found in adults on other measures, including dependency, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Bem & Allen, 1974).

Psychologists have suggested two possibilities for these low correlations. One possibility is that people's natural tendency to see qualities in others leads us to believe that people have stable personalities when, in fact, they don't. In short, perhaps the traits are more in the minds of the people making the judgment than in the behavior of the people being observed. The fact that humans tend to use human personality traits like the Big Five to judge animals in the same way that they use these traits to judge humans is consistent with this idea (Gosling, 2001). And this idea also fits with research showing that people use their knowledge representations (schemas) about other people to help them interpret the world around them, and that these schemas color their judgments about the personality of others (Fiske & Taylor , 2007).

Research has also shown that people tend to see more qualities in other people than in themselves. You can get an idea of ​​this by taking the short test below. First, think of a person you know, your mother, your roommate or classmate, and choose which of the three answers on each of the four lines best describes that person. Then answer the questions again, but this time about yourself.

Richard Nisbett and his colleagues (Nisbett, Caputo, Legant & Marecek, 1973) had college students do the same task for themselves, their best friend, their father, and the (then well-known) American newscaster Walter Cronkite. As you can see in Figure 12.3 “We tend to overestimate the traits of others”, participants chose one of the two trait terms more often for other people than for themselves and “depending on the situation” more often for themselves. themselves than for themselves. for the other people. These results also suggest that people perceive the characteristics of others as more consistent than they should be.

The human tendency to perceive traits is so strong that it is very easy to convince people that their descriptions of their own traits are accurate. Imagine you took a personality test, and the psychologist who administered the measure gave you this description of your personality:

You have a strong need to be loved and admired by other people. You tend to criticize yourself. You have a lot of spare capacity that you haven't used to your advantage. Although you have some personality flaws, you can usually make up for them. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to worry and insecure on the inside. Sometimes you have serious doubts about whether you made the right decision or did the right thing.

I imagine you might think that describes you. You probably criticize yourself at least sometimes, and you probably worry sometimes. The problem is that you probably would have found some truth in a personality description that was the opposite. Does this description also apply to you?

You tend to stand up for your own opinions, even if it means others judge you negatively. You tend to find the positive in your own behavior. You work to the best of your ability. They have few personality flaws, but some can show up under stress. Sometimes you confide in others that you are worried, but internally you maintain discipline and self-control. You generally believe that you made the right decision and did the right thing.

The Barnum effectrefers tothe observation that people tend to believe descriptions of their personality that purport to describe them, but in reality could describe almost anyone🇧🇷 The Barnum Effect helps us understand why many people believe in astrology, horoscopes, fortune telling, palmistry, tarot card reading and even some personality tests (Figure 12.4, “Horoscopes and Palmistry”) . People are likely to accept descriptions of their personality if they believe they were written for them, even if they cannot distinguish their own tarot cards or horoscope readings from other people's better than by chance (Hines, 2003). Again, people seem to believe in traits more than they should.

A second response by psychologists to Mischel's 1968 findings on traits was to look even more carefully for the existence of traits. One finding was that the relationship between a trait and a behavior is not perfect because people can express their traits in different ways (Mischel & Shoda, 2008). For example, people with a lot of extroversion can become teachers, salesmen, actors, or even criminals. Although the behaviors vary widely, they all fit the meaning of the underlying trait.

Psychologists have also found that because people behave differently in different situations, personality only predicts behavior when behaviors are added together or calculated across different situations. We may not be able to use the opening personality trait to experiment to determine what Paul will do on Friday night, but we can use it to predict what he will do next year in a variety of situations. When many measures of behavior are combined, there is much clearer evidence for trait stability and trait effects on behavior (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Srivastava, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2003).

Taken together, these findings reveal a very important point about personality, namely that it not only comes from within, but is also shaped by the situations we are exposed to. Personality is derived from our interactions with and observations of others, our interpretations of those interactions and observations, and our decisions about which social situations we prefer to enter or avoid (Bandura, 1986). In fact, behaviorists like B.F. Skinner explains personality entirely in terms of environmental influences experienced. Because we are deeply influenced by the situations we face, our behavior changes from one situation to the next, making the personality less stable than we might expect. And yet personality matters: we can, in many cases, use measures of personality to predict behavior in different situations.

The MMPI and projective tests

One of the most important personality measures (mainly used to assess deviations from a normal or average personality) is the Minnesota.Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI),a test used worldwide to identify mental and personality disorders(Tellegen et al., 2003). The MMPI was developed by creating a list of more than 1,000 true-false questions and selecting those that best differentiate patients with different mental disorders from other people. The current version (MMPI-2) has over 500 questions, and the items can be combined into a variety of different subscales. Some of the most important are listed in Table 12.3 “Some of the most important MMPI subscales”, but there are also scales that include family problems, attitudes at work, and many other dimensions. The MMPI also has questions designed to identify respondents' tendencies to lie, falsify, or simply not answer questions.

To interpret the results, the clinician considers the pattern of responses in the different subscales and makes a diagnosis of the possible psychological problems the patient is facing. Although clinicians prefer to interpret the patterns themselves, research has shown that computers can often interpret the results as well as clinicians (Garb, 1998; Karon, 2000). Extensive research has found that the MMPI-2 can accurately predict a person's different mental disorders (Graham, 2006).

One potential problem with a measure like the MMPI is that it asks people to consciously share their internal experiences. But much of our personality is determined by unconscious processes of which we are vaguely or completely unaware.projective measuressonPersonality measures, in which participants are given unstructured stimuli, such as inkblots, pictures of social situations, or incomplete sentences, and asked to freely list what comes to mind when they think of the stimuli.🇧🇷 Experts then rank responses to personality cues. The suggested benefit of these tests is that they are more indirect: they allow the respondent to freely express whatever comes to mind, perhaps including the content of their unconscious experiences.

A commonly used projective test is theRorschach inkblot test, developed by the Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922).Or Rorschach inkblot testit isa measure of projective personality in which the respondent expresses his thoughts about a series of 10 symmetrical inkblots(Figure 12.5, “Rorschach stains”). The Rorschach is administered millions of times a year. Participants are asked to respond to the inkblots, and their responses are systematically scored in terms of what, where, and why they saw what they saw. For example, people who focus on the details of inkblots may have compulsive tendencies, while those who talk about sex or aggression may have sexual or aggressive problems.

Another commonly used projective test is theThematic Apperception Test (TAT), developed by psychologist Henry Murray (1893-1988). EastThematic Apperception Test (TAT)it isa measure of projective personality in which the respondent is asked to create stories on sketches of ambiguous situations, most of them of people, alone or with others🇧🇷 Sketches are shown to people who are asked to tell a story about what is happening in the picture. The TAT assumes that people may not be willing or able to admit their true feelings when asked directly, but those feelings come out in the stories that accompany the photos. Trained coders read the stories and use them to develop a personality profile of the respondent.

Other popular projective tests include those that ask the respondent to draw pictures, such as B. the draw-a-person test (Machover, 1949) and free association tests in which the respondent quickly answers with the first word that comes to mind. the mind when the examiner says a test word. Another approach is to useanatomically correct wristsafeature representations of the male and female genitalia🇧🇷 Investigators have children play with the dolls and then use the game to try to determine if the children may have been sexually abused.

The advantage of projective tests is that they are less direct and allow people to bypass their defense mechanisms and thus show their true personality. The idea is that when people look at ambiguous stimuli, they describe it in terms of the aspects of their personality that matter most to them, and thus get around some of the limitations of a more conscious response.

However, despite its widespread use, the empirical evidence for the use of projective tests is mixed (Karon, 2000; Wood, Nezworski, Lilienfeld, & Garb, 2003). The reliability of the measurements is low, since people tend to give very different answers on different occasions. The construct validity of the measures is also questionable, as there are very few consistent associations between Rorschach or TAT scores and most personality traits. Projective tests often fail to distinguish between people with mental disorders and those without mental disorders or do not correlate with other measures of personality or behavior.

In short, projective tests are more useful as an icebreaker for getting to know a person better, putting the person at ease, and gaining insight into issues that may be important to that person, than for accurately diagnosing personality.

references

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. y Sanford, R.N. (1950).the authoritarian personality. . . . New York, NY: Harper.

Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: a psychological interpretation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Allport, G. W. y Odbert, H. (1936).Resource names: a psycholexical study. No. 211. Princeton, NJ: Psychological Review Monographien.

Ayman, R., Chemers, M.M. and Fiedler, F. (1995). The contingency model of leadership effectiveness: its level of analysis.Leadership Das Quarterly, 6(2), 147–167.

Bandura, A. (1986).Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Sociocognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, Nueva Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Current Developments in Transformational Leadership: Research and Application.Manager of Psychologists Magazine, 3rd edition(1), 5–21.

Well, D. J. and Allen, A. (1974). On the prediction of some people at some point: the search for intersituational consistencies in behavior.Psychological review, 81(6), 506–520.

Cacioppo, J. T. and Petty, RE (1982). The need for knowledge.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.

Cattell, R.B. (1990). Advances in the Catellian theory of personality. In L.A. Pervin (ed.),Personality Handbook: Theory and Research(S. 101-110). New York, New York: Guilford Press.

Cheung, FM and Leung, K. (1998). Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples.Journal of Intercultural Psychology, 29(1), 233–248.

Costa, PT, Jr. & McCrae, RR (1992).NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Revised Manual🇧🇷 Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Eysenck, H. (1998).personality dimensions, Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F. and Buss, A.H. (1975). Public and private self-awareness: evaluation and theory.Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology,43, 522-527.

Fiske, S. T. y Taylor, S. E. (2007).Social cognition, from brain to culture. . . . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Garb, H.N. (1998). computers and judgment. In H. N. Attire (ed.),Studying the Clinician: Critical Inquiry and Psychological Assessment(S. 207-229). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: some explorations in the language of personality. In CD Spielberger and J.N. Butcher (eds.),Advances in personality assessment.(Volume 1). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gosling, S.D. (2001). From mouse to human: what can we learn about personality from animal research?Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 45–86.

Graham, Jr. (2006).MMPI-2: Assessment of Personality and Psychopathology(4. Aufl.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press.

Hartshorne, H., May, MA, Maller, JB y Shuttleworth, F.K. (1928).Studies on the nature of the character.. . . . New York, NY: Macmillan.

Hines, T. (2003).Pseudoscience and the paranormal(2ª ed.). Amherst, Nueva York: Prometheus Books.

Hunsley, J., Lee, CM, and Wood, J.M. (2003). Controversial and questionable valuation techniques. In. Lilienfeld, S.J. Lynn and J.M. Lohr (Eds.),Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology(Art. 39-76). New York, New York: Guilford Press.

John, OP, Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: a historical review of taxonomic research on traits.European Personality Magazine, 2(3), 171–203.

Karon, BP (2000). Clinical interpretation of the thematic apperception test, Rorschach, and other clinical data: a reexamination of statistical versus clinical prediction.Occupational Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(2), 230–233.

Kenny, D.A. & Zaccaro, S.J. (1983). An estimate of the variance due to leadership characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(4), 678–685.

Macover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure (a method of personality exploration). In K. Machover (ed.),Personality projection in the drawing of the human figure: a method of personality exploration(Page 3-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

McClelland, D.C. (1958). Methods to measure human motivation. In John W. Atkinson (ed.),Motives in fantasy, action and society. . . . Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand.

Mischel, W. (1968).personality and evaluation. . . . New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (2008). Toward a unified theory of personality: integration of dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system. In O.P. Juan, R.W. Robins, and L.A. Pervin (eds.),Handbook of personality psychology: theory and research(3. Aufl., S. 208–241). New York, New York: Guilford Press.

Nisbett, RE, Caputo, C., Legant, P. & Marecek, J. (1973). Behavior from the perspective of the actor and the perspective of the observer.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(2), 154-164.

Oldham, J (2010). borderline personality disorder andDSM-5.Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 16(3), 143–154.

Olivola, CY and Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by the first impression? Review of the diagnostic value of inferences based on appearance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324.

Pieterse AN, Van Knippenberg D, Schippers M, and Stam D (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: the facilitating role of psychological empowerment.Organizational Behavior Journal, 31(4), 609–623.

Roberts, B.W. & DelVecchio, W.F. (2000). The rank order consistency of personality traits from infancy to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin, 126(1), 3–25.

Rosenberg, M. (1965).Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, Nueva Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Rotter, J. (1966). Pervasive internal versus external reinforcement locus of control expectations.Psychological Monographs, 80.

Rubenzer, S.J., Faschingbauer, T.R. and Ones, D.S. (2000). Ranking of US Presidents using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory.rating 7(4), 403–420.

Rule, N.O. & Ambady, N. (2010). Democrats and Republicans can be distinguished by their faces.PLEASE EINS, 5(1), e8733.

Rule, N.O., Ambady, N., and Hallett, K.C. (2009). Female sexual orientation is perceived accurately, quickly and automatically by the face and its features.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(6), 1245–1251.

Rule, N.O., Ambady, N., Adams, R.B., Jr., and Macrae, C.N. (2008). Accuracy and Awareness in the Perception and Categorization of Male Sexual Orientation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1019–1028.

Saulsman, L.M. & Page, A.C. (2004). The five-factor model and the empirical literature on personality disorders: a meta-analytic review.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 1055–1085.

Shah, J., Higgins, T., and Friedman, R.S. (1998). Incentives and means of performance: how regulatory alignment affects the achievement of objectives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285–293.

Sheldon, W. (1940).The diversity of the human body: an introduction to constitutional psychology. . . . New York, NY: Harper.

Simonton, DK (1988). Presidential style: personality, biography and achievements.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 928–936.

Simonton, DK (1994).Greatness: who makes history and why. . . . New York, New York: Guilford Press.

Simonton, D.K. (1995). Intellectual and personality predictors of leadership. In D.H. Saklofske & M. Zeidner (eds.),International manual of personality and intelligence. Perspectives on individual differences(pp. 739–757). New York, NY: Plenary.

Simpson, D. (2005). Phrenology and Neuroscience: Contributions by F.J. Gall, and J.G. Spurzheim.ANZ Journal of Surgery, 75(6), 475-482.

Srivastava, S., John, OP., Gosling, SD. and Potter, J. (2003). Personality development in early and mid adulthood: defined as patchy or permanent change?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 1041–1053.

Sternberg, RJ (2002). Success Intelligence: A New Approach to Leadership. In re. Riggio, S. E. Murphy and F. J. Pirozzolo (eds.),Multiple Intelligences and Leadership(Page 9-28). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sternberg, R. and Lubart, T. (1995).Challenging the Crowd: Cultivating Creativity in a Compliance Culture. New York, New York: Free Press.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R. y Kaemmer, B. (2003).The restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2: development, validation and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. and Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: a meta-analytic review.Personal Psychology, 44(4), 703-742.

Triandis, H. (1989). Personal and social behavior in different cultural contexts.Psychological review, 93., 506–520.

Triandis, H.C. & Suh, E.M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality.Annual Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 133–160.

Wood, JM, Nezworski, MT, Lilienfeld, SO and Garb, HN (2003).What's wrong with Rorschach? Science Addresses Controversial Inkblot Test. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Zaccaro, S.J. (2007). Trait-based leadership perspectives.american psychologist, 62(1), 6–16.

Zuckermann, M. (2007).Sensationalism and risk behavior🇧🇷 Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

image mappings

Figure 12.1:1895 Dictionary Phrenolog from Webster's Academic Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1895-Dictionary-Phrenolog.png) is in the public domain.

Figure 12.3:Adapted from Nisbett, Caputo, Legant & Marecek, 1973.

Figure 12.4:„star sign' by Tavmjong is licensed under theCC-BY 3.0License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en). 🇧🇷erica mangos"ViaMatthäus Romackis licensed underCC POR 2.0License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en_CA).

Figure 12.5:„Rorschach-Blot 02“ of Hermann Rorschach is notpublic domain. „Rorschachfleck 08“ of Hermann Rorschach is notpublic domain. „Rorschachfleck 09“ of Hermann Rorschach is notpublic domain. „Rorschach-Blot 10“ of Hermann Rorschach is notpublic domain.

Figure 12.6:Elizabeth May (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMay2010.JPG); The Queen Mother with Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:QueenMotherandWLMK.jpg) is in the public domain; Hayley Wickenheiser (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hayley_Wickenheiser_cropped.jpg) used under CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en); Barack Obama signs the guestbook of the Parliament of Canada by Pete Souza (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama_signs_Parliament_of_Canada_guestbook_2-19-09.JPG) is in the public domain.

long descriptions

Figure 12.1 long description:Phrenology. 1. Science of the special functions of the various parts of the brain, or of the supposed connection between the faculties of the mind and the organs of the brain. 2. Physiological hypothesis that mental abilities and character traits are manifested on the surface of the head or skull; craniology[Back to Figure 12.1]

[Back to Figure 12.3]
Figure 12.6 long description:Top left: Canadian Green Party leader – Elizabeth May; Top center: The Queen Mother with Prime Minister William Lyon MacKenzie King; Top right: Hayley Wikenheiser, captain of the Canadian women's national hockey team; Below: Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama sign the guest book of the Canadian Parliament.[Back to Figure 12.6]