Personality Measurements Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:



Psychological construct look and explain specific patterns of activity which are believed to exist or occur. However, most of the pattern cannot be measured or observed for instance a person’s personality unless there is a constructive measure to do so. To determine a person’s personality, there is a combination of qualities or characteristics that are distinctive with individual (Paunonen & LeBel, 2012). This essay considers the construct of personality through Myers Briggs Type Indicators and The Big Five measures.

According to Thalmayer, Saucier & Eigenhuis (2011), the Big Five measure help to find out about a person’s personality. Through its five fundamental domains, it is possible to describe the human personality. The five dimensions ensures that different traits do not overlap and therefore, preferable in use for personality. Most studies, self descriptions, observations and interviews through the big five show consistency in outcomes. According to Paunonen & LeBel (2012), under each factor, there are correlated specific traits or qualities that can be found making the measure more broad and comprehensive. As a commonly used measure, its usefulness is derived from the manner in which it allows people describe themselves and reduce a lot of information to most important parts. McAbee & Oswald (2013) points out that, the procedure contains statements that rate the level of agreement and if filled within a minimum time allocated, it becomes a very reliable method of analysis. An opportunity to rate someone close or a friend is also a very useful point of comparison as it promotes an accurate assessment of personality.

Openness to experience basically differentiates between a curious/inventive vs. cautious/ consistent persons. There are wide areas that allow analyzing the dimension including appreciation for art, unusual ideas, having a variety of experience, adventure, emotion and curiosity. The person’s degree of curiosity, preference for novelty, creativity as well as variety of person is reflected by openness to experience. A person can understand whether they are independent or imaginative and look at how a person prefer to various activities instead of sticking to strict routine (Janowsky, 2000).

According to Gurven, et al. (2013), conscientiousness dimension differentiates between the efficient/organized vs. careless/easy-going personality. The degree to which a person exhibit tendency for self-discipline, are focused towards achieving and act dutifully. The dimension reflects how the person inclines to planned or structured rather than a spontaneous behavior and degree to which a person is organized and dependable.

Extraversion dimension measures the degree to which a person is energetic/outgoing vs. being reserved/solitary. The personality exhibit positive emotions, vigor, are assertive and talkative, sociable as well as seeking stimulation from various groups of persons.

Agreeableness dimension measures how friendly/compassionate vs. unkind/cold a person can be. It is possible to analyze oneself through the aspects of the tendency of being cooperative and compassionate compared to being suspicious and antagonistic in interactions towards others. The person can realize the degree to which they can trust others, offer help naturally and whether they are well tempered (Gurven, et al. 2013).

As Janowsky (2000) elaborates, neuroticism dimension differentiate between the sensitive/nervous vs. confident/secure personality. It shows a person the degree to which they easily experience unpleasant emotions in terms of anger, depression, anxiety and vulnerability. It refers to a person’s emotional stability and ability to control impulses.

As Salter (2005) points out, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measures psychological preferences of the manner in which people perceive the world as well as how they make decisions. It is of practical use through the use of indicator. Personality preference knowledge is helpful for persons to identify where they can be most effective and comfortable (Tett, 2009). It focuses on any population and it lays emphasis on the value of natural occurring differences. The human specific preferences promote the way the construe their experiences where the preferences directly underlie one’s values, needs, motivation and interests. The use of four dichotomies allows a good comparison as a measure of personality. Each index compares how extroverts and introverts tend to behave or portray an experience.

Attitudes are measure by extraversion/introversion. Some people are outward-turning while others are inward-turning. The preferences are often referred to as attitudes. Extraverted attitude as a cognitive function operate in a person’s external world of action, behavior, with things and people. Extroverted people tend to draw energy, act, reflect and act further. Introversion preferences reflect acts and reflect again. Introverts spend some time away from activity or quite alone. The introverted attitude cognitive functions operate through internal world through ideas and reflection.

Salter (2005) deliberates on functions as part of personality is revealed by sensing/intuition and thinking/feeling. The pairs of psychological functions depict the perceiving functions and judging functions. Though the four functions can be applied in different contexts according to specific needs, only one can be use used proficiently and dominantly by an individual. Those with preferences to sensing tend to trust concrete, present and tangible information which they understand with their senses. As Harrington & Loffredo (2010) finds out, those with preferences to intuition are likely to trust abstract or more theoretical information associated with general and wider information. The others who prefer thinking and feeling tend to be proficient in decision-making. They make rational decisions which are promoted by data from sensing and intuition. Preferences to thinking lead a person to decide from a detached standpoint as they measure decision by what is more reasonable, consistent, logical and causal. The others who prefer feeling come to decisions through association or empathy with situations. They look at situation from inside looking for balance, consensus, the needs of people involved and harmony.

Lifestyle dimension involves judging/perception where people tend to have preference in using the judging function or perceiving function in relation to outside world. Those people that are oriented to judging always want mattes settled. The perception types prefer keeping their decisions open (Salter, 2005).

The correlation of the two measures of personality construct organizes a complete set for basic personality domains. The four scales of MBTI and BIG Five personality trait scores provides various dimensions that are applicable to each person and can show the consistency of thoughts, decisions, actions and behavior but MBTI lacks in an aspect of emotional dimension found in Big Five (McAbee & Oswald, 2013). However, the four indices measure the various aspects commonly in conceptual framework of Big Five. MBTI is quite elaborate but complicated as a measure of personality compared to its counterpart Big Five as dimensions can overlap (Pittenger, 2005).


Gurven, M., et al. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 104(2), 354-370. doi:10.1037/a0030841.

Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D. A. (2010). MBTI personality type and other factors that relate to preference for online versus face-to-face instruction. The Internet and Higher Education13(1), 89-95.

Janowsky, D. (2000). Over-representation of Myers Briggs type indicator introversion in social phobia patients. Depression & Anxiety (1091-4269), 11(3), 121-125.

Johnson, W. J. (2001). A Higher Order Analysis of the Factor Structure of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association), 34(2), 96. 

McAbee, S. T., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). The criterion-related validity of personality measures for predicting GPA: A meta-analytic validity competition. Psychological Assessment, 25(2), 532-544. doi:10.1037/a0031748.

Paunonen, S. V., & LeBel, E. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 103(1), 158-175. doi:10.1037/a0028165.

Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 57(3), 210-221. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210.

Salter, D. J. (2005). Two Approaches to Examining the Stability of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Scores. Measurement & Evaluation In Counseling & Development (American Counseling Association), 37(4), 208-219. 

Tett, R. (2009). The use of personality test norms in work settings: Effects of sample size and relevance. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 639-659.

Thalmayer, A., Saucier, G., & Eigenhuis, A. (2011). Comparative validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995-1009. doi:10.1037/a0024165