Personality Assessment
IPIP Report
The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) report estimates an individual’s standing on five personality traits, that is, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, imagination (or intellect) and emotional stability. Based on the IPIP 50, I scored highly for agreeableness and conscientiousness, with 41 and 39 respectively; an average score of 33 for imagination (or intellect), 25 for emotional stability; and a below-average score of 21 for extraversion. These scores are consistent with those tested using the IPIP 100 – 80 for agreeableness, 79 for conscientiousness, 56 for imagination or intellect, 43 for extraversion and 49 for emotional stability. The homogeneity of IPIP 50 and IPIP 100 shows that the scales are highly correlated, consistent with past research (Zheng et al., 2008).
Generally, I tend to go along with decisions made among my peers, such as going to a cafe they had agreed upon, even if I dislike the food there. I also have a tendency to steer conversations towards topics that are less confrontational as getting along with people is important to me; conflicts could only jeopardise and risk my relationship with others. These life examples complement the characteristics of agreeableness; thus, I would agree with the scores on my IPIP profile (i.e. IPIP 50 – 41; IPIP 100 – 80).
Growing up, I was always particular about being organised, not only at home but also in my studies. I always make it a point to jot down every event and deadline I have in a planner. This keeps my life in order as I would be well-informed and adept in maintaining productivity. Moreover, I desire to do well in tasks and responsibilities assigned to me. By setting short-term goals, I can eventually accomplish the long-term goal. For example, setting my own due dates for each stage of my final year project (e.g., writing a proposal, collecting data, analysing data, drafting my thesis, etc.) so that I can meet the final deadline. Storybooks and textbooks on my shelves at home are also arranged in such an order that they are easily distinguished from one another (e.g., colour-coordinated, alphabetical). These behaviours are strong indicators of conscientiousness, which is reflective of the scores on my IPIP profile (i.e. IPIP 50 – 39; IPIP 100 – 79).
With regards to the imagination or intellect aspect of personality, I would say that the score is fairly accurate as I definitely appreciate art, especially in photography, and I love visiting museums – it has always been a must-go place whenever I travel overseas. I am also adventurous when it comes to discovering new activities and travelling to foreign lands. However, I find it hard to adapt to change and I would rather work in environments that are routinely structured. I do not usually think out-of-the-box unless prompted to do so, and I am not very creative in generating new ideas. Hence, I agree that I am only slightly above average within the imagination domain (i.e. IPIP 50 – 33; IPIP 100 – 56).
Emotional stability, on the other hand, is not something I would expect myself to score highly in as I am very reactive to stress. I place a lot of pressure on myself to do well academically. In doing so, I often experience mental and emotional breakdowns. This goes hand-in-hand with my highly conscientious nature. Thus, anxiety is easily one of the emotions that I frequently engage in, both academically and at life in general (e.g., jumping to the worst conclusions at every turn). Nonetheless, the average score (i.e. IPIP 50 – 25; IPIP 100 – 49) may be an indication that despite having strong reactivity to stress, I am still able to stay sane and maintain productivity in my studies.
Furthermore, I am not surprised that my score for extraversion was below average (i.e. IPIP 50 – 21; IPIP 100 – 43). Although I love having company around, I find it hard to socialise with people. Starting a conversation or keeping up with it has not always been my forte, especially when it involves strangers or acquaintances. One thing I absolutely detest is being at the centre of attention. I prefer blending in the crowd and doing things behind-the-scenes. This may be one of the reasons why I do not cope well with presentations and public speaking.
This research seeks to understand my relation to the social world from a personality perspective. Therefore, the IPIP test will be administered to two individuals who have played a central role in my life (i.e. my sister, Charis; and my best friend, Samantha). IPIP 50 will be adopted in this research because the task of completing long-form questionnaires can be quite tiresome and boring; it may lead to transient measurement errors (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). Psychometric evidence of the IPIP 50 shows high cross-cultural validity (e.g., Mlacic & Goldberg, 2007; Zheng et al., 2008), high internal consistency, and strong correlations with the major dimensions of personality (Ypofanti et al., 2015). Given the fact that the IPIP 50 is reliable and valid, this measurement will be applied instead of the IPIP 100. My IPIP 50 scores, along with my sister’s and friend’s are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1
IPIP 50 scores
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Emotional Stability
Extraversion
Imagination/Intellect
Caryn
39
41
25
21
33
Charis
34
42
32
32
28
Samantha
32
42
46
35
28
Effects of Birth Order on Personality: Implications on Academic Achievement
Over more than a century has passed since researchers have first brought up the question of whether an individual’s position among siblings would substantially affect their life course. Due to the significance of research regarding birth order and intelligence (e.g., Bjerkedal, Kristensen, Skjeret, & Brevik, 2007; Rohrer, Egloff, & Schmukle, 2015), scholars were led to further examine the relationship between birth order and academic achievement. First-borns in general were shown to have an advantage over later-borns (Bonesronning & Massih, 2011; Iacovou, 2008). This is partly due to the relationship between birth order and personality as first-borns are typically projected to be more conscientious, while later-borns are more agreeable and open to experience (Sulloway, 1999). As achievement-related behaviours are conscientious in nature (Healey & Ellis, 2007), it is reasonable to expect that first-borns would fare better in academics compared to later-borns.
These findings sparked my curiosity, and it had prompted me to probe about my sister’s past academic achievements to examine whether birth-order effects were pertinent to us. My sister, Charis, and I have a three-year gap difference, with her being 24 years old this year, while I am 21. Grades will be used as criterion variables as they are the dominant measure of academic performance frequently used in research (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005). I compared our results from the Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) and Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examinations as they were the two most recent assessments that we had sat for. There were no differences – we had straight As for both examinations. Our academic achievements continue to persist today despite us pursuing different degrees. Currently, Charis has graduated from medical school, and I am in my final year pursuing a Psychology degree with a CGPA of 3.97. Hence, birth order did not have much of an effect on our academic achievements.
Given that the relationship between birth order and academic achievement is void between Charis and I, I intend to investigate whether the birth order-personality relationship that has long been established in research (Bleske-Rechek & Kelley, 2013) is also counteracted. I tested this hypothesis by comparing Charis’ personality scores with mine. With the exception of extraversion and imagination or intellect, our scores on the IPIP test were similar. Although we were akin to Sulloway’s (1999) stance in terms of later-borns being more open to experience (i.e. imagination or intellect) than first-borns, his notion that first-borns are more conscientious and neurotic, or that later-borns are more agreeable did not apply to us. To be exact, I even scored slightly higher than Charis in conscientiousness, while her scores on agreeableness and emotional stability (i.e. opposite of neuroticism) were higher than mine. Nonetheless, although these outcomes contradict research that were documented several decades ago, they seem to be consistent with contemporary research – birth order has no significant influence on personality (Bleske-Rechek & Kelley, 2013; Rohrer et al., 2015).
With regards to academic achievement, agreeableness and conscientiousness are two domains closely related to it (De Raad & Schouwenburg, 1996). This is consistent with the IPIP scores of my sister and I, together with the fact that we both had relatively high academic achievements. Agreeableness not only facilitates cooperation in the learning process, but it also increases one’s focus and compliance to the teacher’s instructions (Poropat, 2009). On the other hand, conscientiousness is commonly associated with achievement-related behaviours, but narrow traits such as achievement-striving and orderliness, are better predictors of performance (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). While we both have scores that are above average, it is possible that our conscientious nature is regarded from different facets or sub-traits. For example, Charis values punctuality and takes obligations and responsibilities to others seriously. My conscientious nature is more towards being efficient and organised. Although I enjoy spontaneous outings, I prefer behaviours that are more strategic and well-planned. At the same time, both of us can be real perfectionists – Charis can spend hours on end just to finish a handmade card for her friend; even a simple thank you card would take her at least half a day to complete. Similarly, when it comes to assignments, I spend longer hours completing them as compared to my friends. I would also be the one volunteering to proofread and do the final editing in any group assignment as it would make me feel more at ease knowing that everything is in order. The fact that my conscientious score was slightly higher than Charis’ could be due to biasness of certain sub-traits in the IPIP test.
The inconsistency between our scores and Sulloway’s (1999) theory could also be a result of the changing social contexts between past and present times. In the olden days, siblings are together most of the time, so it is not surprising if the younger sibling’s entire childhood was spent being in the shadow of the older one (Harris, 2011). This would reinforce the older sibling’s conscientious trait as it pushes him or her to be more responsible and more likely to assume leadership roles. Modern-day families, however, encourage independence equally among their children. Stereotypes on how the older or younger sibling should behave is no longer as prominent as it once had been. Sulloway’s research was also based on parents’ assessment of their children rather than individual self-reports. Parents’ judgements are of doubtful validity as they tend to contradict those reported by people outside the family. Additionally, their descriptions are frequently grounded on comparisons between first-borns and later-borns. Because first-borns are generally more responsible and conscientious due to their maturity, such reports would be flawed. This explains why birth-order effects are typically found at home; they are absent in assessments made outside of the family context (Harris, 2011).
In conclusion, the relationship between birth order and personality is null. The fact that Charis and I showed no significant difference in our personality supports the findings of contemporary research; birth order is merely an idea that has persisted due to its precise confounding with age (Damian & Roberts, 2015). Given the fact that our birth order is not related to personality, it made sense that birth order is also not associated with academic achievement as personality has important implications on school success.
Complementarity or Similarity as a Predictor of Interpersonal Closeness
As personality is important for the development of social relationships, peers are another group of people that has been of interest. I aim to examine whether complementarity or similarity has a larger influence in predicting interpersonal closeness. This topic pulled my interest because I wanted to find out how friends were made to be, and in particularly, how my best friend and I became as close as we are today. Perhaps after getting to know each of our personalities better, I would be able to understand how personality traits had influence our close bond. Although there are existing studies with regards to the role of complementarity and similarity in friendships (e.g., Dryer & Horowitz, 1997; Yaughn & Norwicki, 1999), these studies have been done over two decades ago; it may no longer be applicable in today’s context.
I administered IPIP to my best friend, Samantha, and compared her results with mine. Samantha’s IPIP 50 was slightly contrasting with my profile. The only thing we both scored similarly in was agreeableness. Past research has documented that the most consistent relationship was found between agreeableness and friendship (Demir & Weitekamp, 2007). As both Samantha and I are relatively agreeable in our interactions, our friendship itself has been of higher quality and lower conflict, a finding that was consistent with previous research (Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). Although research revealed that conflicts could provide opportunities for individuals to develop social skills and strengthen the bond between one another (Mund & Neyer, 2014), Samantha and I rarely get into serious arguments; the most we have encountered was only playful banter and teasing. This may be partly due to our nature, as we both value getting along with people. According to Knack, Jacquot, Jensen-Campbell and Malcolm (2013), adolescence who are agreeable not only react more constructively when faced with interpersonal conflicts, they also put more effort in suppressing negative emotions during social exchanges compared to peers who are less agreeable.
Samantha scored above average for extraversion, which is not at all surprising as she has always been the more extraverted one. This is closely associated with her high score on emotional stability, as extraverted people are usually those who experience positive emotions frequently (Li, Pang, Guo, & Wang, 2007). As an athlete who is actively involved in sports (e.g., basketball, captain ball), Samantha is action-oriented and loves seeking thrills. In this sense, I believe her extraverted personality complements my introverted nature as I tend to be more deliberate, low-key and quiet. Thus, whenever we are out together, especially in situations that require a lot of talking, I would have the security of knowing that I could depend on Samantha.
Both of us are opposites when it comes to conscientiousness. Samantha lives a busy and fast-paced life, but despite having countless of activities, she fails to note them down in a planner, or even in her phone. As a result, not only does she gets her events mixed up and overlapped, she also occasionally forgets about them. Whenever we have upcoming events with our shared cliques and classmates, I would have to regularly remind her about the day and time of those meet-ups. While conscientiousness has obvious interpersonal implications, its association with social behaviour is not as direct as compared to agreeableness and extraversion (Harris & Vazire, 2016). Similar to agreeableness, conscientiousness plays a role in maintaining friendships, with lesser conflicts, better friendship quality (Wilson, Harris, & Vazire, 2015), and more positive feelings of the friendship itself (Mund & Neyer, 2014).
Having a score that is towards the higher end of the emotional stability scale would suggest that Samantha is less tense, less reactive to stress, and less likely to experience negative emotions. I believe that this could be a reason why our friendship has persisted thus far. Being low on emotional stability myself is enough of a burden to carry; having a friend who is also low on emotional stability would only increase my anxieties. This makes it easier for me to depend on Samantha for emotional support as she has always been the calmer and more sensible one out of the both of us. For instance, Samantha would occasionally bring me out for supper so that I would be able to destress and take a break from studying.
Although openness to experience (i.e. imagination or intellect) encourage individuals to seek out contact opportunities, this trait has little to no relation with friendship variables (Wilkinson & Walford, 2001). Non-personality factors, however, may have played a role. Friendships are voluntary relationships fostered over a variety of activities such as shopping, hiking, or travelling. My friendship with Samantha has grown into what it is today because we often hung out with each other, not only within our own dyad, but also with our cliques. Having the same clique in primary school, high school, and college, definitely played a role in building our close attachment with one another. Besides growing up in the same academic institutions, Samantha and I stay in the same town area, making it easy for us to meet up often. As surprising as it may be to some, Samantha and I even communicate daily on WhatsApp for what appears to be close to four years now. Because online communication is positively related to the closeness of friendships (Valkenburg & Peter, 2007), it is no wonder that our friendship is stronger compared to the ones we have with other peers.
Though friendship is not defined by quantity (e.g., number of years of friendship), but by quality, knowing Samantha for more than 14 years definitely made a difference. Both of us grew up getting to know the other better, and even up until today, we are still discovering new things. Quantity of time and quality of interaction were both associated with friendship satisfaction (Wilson et al., 2015). This explains why people tend to maintain connections with their longest and closest relationships as they are the ones who have been a consistent source of support.
Besides our tendencies to be agreeable, mediocre day-to-day activities such as cycling or playing “Tetris”, as well as having the same preference for broccoli and coffee are some of the things we have in common. Although similarity in specific personality dimensions is predictive of friendship dyads, it is not an absolute criterion (Hamm, 2000). The findings of this study, however, are consistent with those documented previously – close friendships among young adults are marked by complementary personality styles (Yaughn & Norwicki, 1999). Complementary individuals are attractive because they increase the possibility that one’s needs will be satisfied (Kaur, 2016); such friendships leave room for individuals to explore various values and negotiate views within the sanctuary of a compatible relationship.