Apparently, personality psychology seems to be caught among conflicting goals, themes, and forces. On the one hand it is a psychology of "individual differences" with a commitment to an idiographic approach. On the other hand, the study of individual differences requires (at least initially) a focus on general processes, mechanisms, and dimensions of behavior (e.g., nomothetic traits, general principles of social learning). Similarly, personologists have been mainly attentive to the search for intraindividual stability, with the person as the main unit of analysis. Intraindividual behavioral stability, however, turns out to be heavily dependent on the social-situational context and subject to variation as a function of both cognitive and social-situational factors. Personality theorists increasingly embrace the view that individual social behavior is partially shaped by the expectations and observation of actors in social interaction settings (Magnusson & Endler, 1977 and Mischel, 1973). Behavior may be determined as much by the inferences an actor draws about his/her own dispositions, the requirements of a situation, and the behavior of others as it is by fully formed predispositions or traits. A social psychological interpretation of personality focuses on the dynamic growth and development of consistent patterns of behavior over the course of a social interaction sequence (Darley & Fazio, 1978). A cognitive-social psychological interpretation supplements this position by focusing on the role of prior inferences and current perceptions about the self and others and the situation in shaping an individual's social responses.
The current broadening of personality psychology results in a discipline concerned as much with general processes as with specific dimensions of individual differences, a discipline as sensitive to the dynamic, interactional character of social behavior as it is devoted to finding underlying stability and generality (Magnusson & Endler, 1977). Personality psychology in its broadened form shares substantially with both social and cognitive psychology. The focus on cognitive mediation, the role of goals, expectations, and interpretations in shaping behavior joins personologists and cognitivists in common cause. Social and personality theorists similarly join forces in a concern with the subtle control of situational variables over behavior and the interactive, dynamic nature of social behavior.
From this regard, there are several ways to assess personality of an individual. The following section will be discussing the two well-known assessment methods of personality i.e. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).
A. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R)
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory, or NEO PI-R, is a mental personality assessment test; a 240-query evaluation of the Five Factor Model: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Basically, the examination determines and analyzes the six alternative categories of each of the Five Factor Model. The personality assessment examination was established by Paul T. Costa, Jr. and Robert R. McCrae for utilization with males and females over the age of 20 without any psychological disorders (Butcher, 2002).
How the test works
With the final module, there are two types of documents for the NEO, one for self evaluation (document S) and one for the perceptions of the observers (document R). Both documents contain 240 factors (perceptions of attitudes and traits) detailed on a five point scale, starting from “intensely disagree” to “intensely agree” Lastly, there includes a 60 item evaluation of factors only pertained to as the “NEO FFI.” There are ordinary and printed forms of all documents accessible (Millon, 1997).
The circumstances under which using the test would be indicated
The module indicates that implementation of the entire version must last at approximately half an hour at most. The evaluation must not be done if there are aspects of more than 20 that are left without answers. Experts mention that in spite of the fact that the test is well-equipped to manage the impacts of negligence and indecisiveness of the participants, that if more than a hundred answers, or less than a hundred answers, are “agree” or “intensely agree,” the outcomes must be analyzed with extreme care.
The reliability and validity of the instrument
The theoretical foundations of the NEO PI-R have been put under intense criticism. Neither Paul T. Costa, Jr. nor Robert R. McCrae had any established backgrounds in the aspect of personality assessment. Also, the concept of mentality forms, which the NEO PI-R aims to functionalize, is not established on any valid psychological research cases. Experts mention that the NEO PI-R procedures basically involve critical thinking and recall, procedures generally neglected by the modern subject of psychology (Morey, 2003).
The factors that users such test should consider
One factor that the users of the NEO PI-R personality assessment needs to consider is the subjective authentication included. Therefore, it is probable that the users of the NEO PI-R personality assessment could believe on unstable assessments concerning their personalities.
