European Review of Applied Psychology, Research Paper Example

The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) is a scientific collaboration that was founded to develop standardized measures of behavior and personality. This team created the IPIP-NEO to test for “neuroticism, extraversion, and openness” in addition to agreeableness and conscientiousness based on the Five Factor Model. It is comprised of 300 questions and has been considered provide the most reliable and meaningful results. This psychometric test was developed in 1996 and elements of the tests’ design were published in an article entitled “The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures” (Goldberg et al., 2006). It was developed by evaluating a series of psychometric assessments and determining relevant standardized scoring scales. The IPIP-NEO test was validated by researchers through repeated comparative-validity studies using the test. Its widespread inception indicates that many professional psychologists believe that it is reliable (Goldberg, 1999).

I took the IPIP-NEO test to determine how my real score compared to my predictions. First, I received a score of average (46) on the extraversion test, which indicates that I am neither social nor anti-social (Cattell, 1996). Prior to taking this test, I had believed that I would be fully extroverted. However, I recognized that as I took the test, there were many questions that dealt with determining whether the test taker was adventure seeking. According to my prediction, I should have fallen into the “excitement-seeking” facet, but this was not the case. Since extraversion describes the extent of friendliness, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity level, excitement seeking, and cheerfulness of an individual, the fact that I scored average indicates that I have intermediate levels of each of these qualities. It seems that this discrepancy existed because I didn’t consider that “adventure seeking” was an aspect of extraversion. While I believe that I am outgoing, I may not be considered as such compared to others.

Second, I scored low (0) on the agreeableness test, which indicates that I do not put the needs of others before my own (Digman, 1990). This indicates that I scored low on the relevant facets, which included trust, morality, altruism, cooperation, modesty, and sympathy. The highest score I received on this test was for cooperation, which was a 37. This result was surprising because those who score highly in cooperation dislike confrontation, which I believe describes me well. However, during the test, I noticed that this question was asked many times in several different ways. It was possible that I was asked about my likelihood to fight with others without recognizing the way the question was phrased. Therefore, even though I would consciously like to avoid fighting, it is possible that I indicated high levels of reactivity while answering the other questions. Overall, I predicated that I would score high in this category, and it was surprising that I scored the complete opposite result.

My conscientiousness score was average (53), indicating that I am “reasonably reliable, organized, and self-controlled”. The highest score I received was in the achievement-striving facet (92), which was not surprising because I am very goal oriented and work hard. The facet I scored least in was the dutifulness facet (11), which is also not surprising because I am willing to break rules to achieve my goals. I thought that I would have a high level of conscientiousness. It is likely that I was thinking primarily about my tendency to struggle to achieve over the other facets, including dutifulness, cautiousness, and orderliness.

My neuroticism score was average (55), indicating that my emotional reactiveness is normal compared to the rest of the population. The highest score that I received on one of the facets was anxiety (93). This is not surprising, because I am constantly on edge and always try to prepare for the times that something can go wrong. I also scored very high on anger (92), which is attached to my anxiety. I often get angry that things cannot always go the way I want them to. On the other end of the extreme, my score in immoderation was very low (21) and indicates that I am able to resist urges and temptations. I also scored very low on self-consciousness (22), which indicates that I am not worried about what others think about me. I predicted that I would score low in neuroticism, which was true of half of the categories, but not the others. This discrepancy exists because I forgot to consider the anxiety, anger, and vulnerability facets in my self-analysis.

My openness to experience score was average (39), indicating that I am willing to try some new things but am generally comfortable with what I already know. The facet that I scored the highest in was imagination (83), indicating that I am creative and capable of coming up with new ideas. The lowest scores I received were emotionality (1) and adventurousness (3), which indicates that I have a low emotional awareness and do not enjoy trying new things. I predicted that I would achieve an average score in this domain and was correct. However, I scored high and low extremes on the individual facets, which was surprising because I believed that I was perfectly intermediate between wanting to try new things and tendency towards caution.

Although I was originally doubtful that the IPIP-NEO would be able to predict my personality more accurately than I would myself, after completing this psychometric test, I discovered that I was incorrect. Since the IPIP-NEO is designed to reflect all facets of the Five Factor Model, it was able to more accurately consider every aspect of each factor, while I was only able to generate a broad understanding of where I would fall to each extreme. Overall, I believed I would score either high or low for each factor, and discovered that I scored approximately average for each. Ultimately, I believe that this test was a true assessment of my personality. I would recommend it to those who believe they can self-assess their personality to demonstrate how biased this task really is.

References

Cattell, H.E. (1996). The original big five: A historical perspective. European Review of Applied Psychology, 46: 5–14.

Digman, J.M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41: 417–440.

Goldberg LR. (1999). A broad-bandwith, public domain, personality inventory measuring the ower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7: 7-28.

Goldberg LR, Johnson JA, Eber HW, Hogan R, Ashton MC, Cloninger R, Gough HG. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Retrieved from http://ipip.ori.org/Goldberg_etal_2006_IPIP_JRP.pdf