Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Abstract
Personality studies are some of the most problematic issues in psychology, mostly because there is no standard for the assessment of one’s personality type. More to the point, the entire concept of personality classification is rather questionable, seeing how there is no dominant principle of personality evaluation.
Even though there are only four basic methods to consider the specifics of human psychics, the lack of cohesion between the personality types defined with the help of these methods, as well as the fact that these types are very generic, begs the question whether the existing means of personality classification can be credited as trustworthy.
Personality Types and Their Assessment: Diving into the Depth of Psychoanalysis and Personality Evaluation
As a rule, various approaches towards personality types classification are defined in traditional psychoanalysis. Eysenck’s theory, however, is traditionally considered by far the most common one, with its tendency to differentiate between people’s characters based on their interactions with others.
To be more exact, Eysenck defines four key personality types known as Introverted-Neurotic, Extraverted-Neurotic, Introverted-Stable and Extraverted-Stable.
It is also noteworthy that, apart from splitting people into groups based on their interactions with the outside world, Eysenck differentiates between different types of character based on people’s emotional reactions towards various stimuli (Cooper, Robertson & Tinline, 2003, p. 23).
Eysenck’s approach, however, is not the only one that is used in psychoanalysis. Apart from the concept based on emotional stability of the patients, the idea of splitting them into groups based on their key traits is also quite widespread.
Compared to Eysenck’s theory, the given one seems more reasonable, seeing how the “norm” of emotional responses to particular stimuli has not been defined yet, whereas traits are relatively easy to identify. What has been defined as a “relatively stable, enduring predisposition to behave in a certain way” (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2014, p. 440), though, clearly lacks precision, seeing how the number of personalities is quite difficult to count.
Individual differences are unique, which predetermines immense variability of the traits and, therefore, vagueness of the classification method (Engler, 2013, p. 240). The humanist theory, in its turn, presupposes that a positive reward and the unceasing personal evolution will finally lead to the creation of a fully functioning person. Hence, the given theory splits people into fully functioning and developing ones.
It is remarkable that, of all theories mentioned above, this is the only one that classifies people’s personalities according to the stages of personal development, i.e., the superior and the inferior ones. Finally, according to the Social Cognitive Theory, people can be classified as the ones with strong and weak self-efficacy (Paivandu, 2010, p. 22).
The stages of personality assessment vary depending on the type of personality theory that has been chosen in order to conduct an assessment. However, as Hockenbury and Hockenbury explain, there are two basic types of tests that are designed to define the specifics of one’s personality.
Known as projective tests and self-report inventories (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2014, p. 447), these tests traditionally consist of three basic steps.
The first step presupposes the introduction of questions to the participant, the second one involves the participant responding to the questions, and the final stage can be described as the analysis of the answers and the definition of the participant’s personality type (Kline, 2013, p. 231).
It is also remarkable that Hockenbury and Hockenbury specify five stages of one of the personality tests that they describe; to be more accurate, they mention the famous “Big Five” that is traditionally related to the Freudian evaluation of personality.
The stages in question, or the “factor model of personality” (Hockenbury & Hockenbury, 2014, p. 442) are also identified as openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (Maltby, Day & Macaskill, 2010, p. 172).
The benefits of personality assessments are obvious. Such tests help people learn about their character, find out the best interaction patterns that they can adopt in order to communicate with the rest of the world efficiently, and work on the improvement of their self-esteem, as well as realize what their needs are and how they can satisfy these needs.
More importantly, such personality classifications and tests help determine one’s key assets and, therefore, limit the number of areas in which one may attain success. Apart from personal growth, personality tests can also be viewed as perfect tools for HRM experts in determining the qualities of the candidate (Wolsey, Abrams & Minten, 2011, p. 108).
While it would be wrong to use such tests as the means to define whether the candidate will be useful for the company, they will clearly show what type of work the candidate in question can be assigned with.
The results of some personality assessments, however, should be taken with a grain of salt. While providing relatively accurate results, these tests are not tailored to the specifics of a particular person and his/her character – quite on the contrary, such tests attempt at embracing as many personality types as possible and, therefore, are very generic.
Hence, the test results are not to be viewed as the ultimate guide to self-perfection; instead, they should be seen as a chance to take a closer look at one’s personality and learn to determine and coordinate one’s needs and capabilities.
Reference List
Cooper, D., Robertson, I. T. & Tinline, G. (2003). Recruitment and selection: A framework for success. London, UK: Thompson.
Engler, B. (2013). Personality theories. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Hockenbury, D. H. & Hockenbury, S. E. (2014). Discovering psychology (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
Kline, P. (2013). Fact and fantasy in Freudian theory (RLE: Freud). New York, NY: Routledge.
Maltby, J., Day, L. & Macaskill, A. (2010). Personality, individual differences and intelligence. Harlow, UK: Pearson, Inc.
Paivandu, S. L. (2010). The validity of cognitive constructs in cognitive information processing and social cognitive career theories. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
Wolsey, C., Abrams, J. & Minten, S. (2011). HRM in the sports and leisure industry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.