Assignment Cover Sheet
Class Academic Writing Skills
Assignment Short Research Paper
Word Count _____________________________
Date Submitted December 11th 2016
I understand that plagiarism is the act of submitting an assignment that, in part or whole, includes the work of another person. This includes, but is not limited to, copying words from another source without indicating in some manner, i.e. using footnotes, quotation marks, or some other means of reference, that these words or ideas come from a source other than myself. Plagiarism also includes receiving assistance with ideas or language (beyond proofreading) from another person outside of this class; it also includes submitting an assignment that has been submitted for a different class.
In the attached assignment, I have taken care to indicate through the use of quotation marks, footnotes, or some other means, words that were taken from another source.
I hereby state that my attached assignment is not plagiarized, in part or in its entirety.
Student Name Jack Pieters
Teacher Name Marten Boekelo
A comparison between the academic value of type analysis and factor analysis as a method of personality determination.
Jack Pieters
900112ACCY
Marten Boekelo
11 December ‘16
While personality types have become a part of popular psychology, the scientific community does not make use of this method, favoring a method called factor analysis. This study tries to explain why this method is favored by scientists in the field of personality psychology. This is done by
Being able to determine a person’s personality seems like an impossible task, seeing as it involves objectifying the subjective, yet researchers have been developing methods to do so for almost a century. Theories about our personalities have been around for much longer still, starting ca. 400 BC with the first proto-psychological personality theory of the four temperaments by the Greek philosopher and physician Hippocrates. A lot has changed since those early days, at present, the assessment of personality is essentially split into two methods of analysis, the first one being type analysis and the second one being factor analysis. The development of type analysis preceded factor analysis, but the scientific community exclusively uses factor analysis in its research into the field of personality psychology. This begs the question that will be central in this study: Why does the scientific community make extensive use of factor analysis in personality determination, in favor of type analysis?
To understand why factor analysis is the preferred method of research, it is imperative to have a proper understanding of both types of analysis. Since type analysis was the first form of personality analysis, it is the logical order to discuss this first. Type analysis is a method of research that attempts to assign people to a certain personality type, descriptive of their individual personality. A type analysis starts by proposing several dichotomies, through questionnaires subjects are assigned to either extreme of the dichotomy. Both extremes of a dichotomy are marked with a certain letter, to make later reference easier. After assigning subjects to several extremes, each subject is left with a sequence of letters which code for a certain personality type. To further illustrate the concept, I will use the example of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. This method is based on the theories of Carl Jung (Psychological Types, 1921). Jung proposed four main functions of consciousness: two perceiving functions, Sensation and Intuition; alongside with two judging functions, Thinking and Feeling. These functions were then modified by two attitude types: Introversion and Extraversion. The product of combining these 3 dichotomies is a total of 8 personality types. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator added a fourth dichotomy to the list: Judgment or Perceiving. This results in the MBTI distinguishing 16 personality types.
Next we will discuss the form of factor analysis used in personality psychology. Factor analysis is a widely used statistical research method that aims to describe the variance of a large number of observed variables through a smaller number of unobserved variables, called factors. In the field of personality psychology, this method is used to find factors, or personality traits, in a large set of answers to questions about personality in self-report questionnaires. Researchers believe that the frequency of factors can be used to describe an individual’s personality. While most researchers acknowledge the number of factors needed to describe the whole spectrum of personality to be five, they do not yet agree on what these factors should be. But regardless of which set of factors is used, the idea that the personality domain can be described utilizing only a few large personality factors is universally accepted in the scientific community. (Ashton, et al. 2009). The most widely used five factor model is the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1992), a revised version of Costa and McCrae’s (1978) NEO Personality Inventory. This inventory uses the factors Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience, dubbed the ‘big five’ in popular psychology.
While both forms of analysis have been studied extensively, what has not been studied yet is why the field of psychology seems to have favored factor analysis over type analysis (reference). There are two benefits to the use of the former instead of the latter. With the development of the ‘big five’, researchers have finally created what the field of personality research has long been looking for. According to Barrick and Mount (1991), “in order for any field of science to advance, it is necessary to have an accepted classification scheme for accumulating and categorizing empirical findings.” They go on to state that they believe the robustness of the five factor model provides a meaningful framework for testing hypotheses in personality. A second benefit of using factor analysis rather than type analysis is the increase in generalizability that comes with it. It is rare for a person to fit a personality type perfectly, rendering type analysis of low value to researchers looking to determine an individual’s unique personality. Whereas with factor analysis, a tailor made personality type is essentially made for each individual, if conducted properly, which logically leads to high generalizability. The significance of these benefits become apparent when we look at several examples of the use of the big five.
For instance, the use of factor analysis has opened up a new field of study that aims to find correlations between the expressivity of certain genes in the human body and the prevalence of certain factors of the “big five”. While the number of studies in this field is still modest, correlations substantial enough to imply a biological, tangible, basis for the personality factors have already been found. (Calati et al., 2014) Research like this is not possible with type analysis, because it would not produce the empirical evidence needed to find correlations.
Another example of the application of factor analysis lies in psychopathology, namely in the prediction of mental illness. The quantification of a subjective concept like psychology has made it possible for researcher to look for correlations between character traits and certain behaviors. A recent study by researchers of the University of Twente exemplified this by showing that a correlation exists between the character trait Emotional Stability, reversed Neuroticism, and psychopathology. In contrast, the study also found correlations between Extraversion and Agreeableness and positive mental health. (Lamers, Westerhof, Kovács, Bohlmeijer, 2012) These correlations make the character traits predictors of mental health. While researchers could also look for correlations between personality types and psychopathology, these correlations cannot be used to draw conclusions on predictiveness for psychopathology, because people seldom fit one personality type perfectly.
Finally, a third use for factor analysis has recently emerged in the form of job performance prediction. While modest, correlations have been found between job performance and the personality trait conscientiousness. In the words of Hurtz and Donovan (2000): “We conclude that global measures of the Conscientiousness dimension have a rather moderate impact on performance, although this validity does appear rather stable and generalizable across occupations and criteria.” Hurtz and Donovan also recognize potential for improving the validity of personality predictors.
While factor analysis is an important addition to the toolkit of personality researchers, it is not a perfect method yet. One of the points of critique on the method of factor analysis, is on the way in which researchers collect the data. Because researchers often employ self-report questionnaires, there is a considerate risk of social desirability bias (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002), a phenomenon where subjects alter their answers to seem more desirable to others, often leaving out answers that would paint a negative picture of their personality.
This study was set out to compare the academic value of type analysis and factor analysis as tools in personality psychology. In short, factor analysis has two major benefits over type analysis in the field of personality psychology when it comes to academic value, the first one being its ability to produce empirical data much needed for correlational research. Furthermore, factor analysis has a higher generalizability than type analysis, making it more widely applicable and flexible in terms of personality assessment. Its value becomes apparent when looking at its applications, which are plentiful and growing in number. With practical uses in psychopathology, professional psychology and scientific research, factor analysis clearly has a much higher academic value than type analysis. However, it is not a perfect tool yet and future research is needed to refine its factors and eliminate limitations such as social confirmation bias.
Works Cited
Ashton, M. C., Kibeom, L., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher-Order Factors of Personality: Do They Exist? Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2009 May; 13(2): 79–91. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309338467.
Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance : a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 1991, 44. Retrieved from: http://jwalkonline.org/docs/Grad%20Classes/Fall%2007/Org%20Psy/big%205%20and%20job%20perf.pdf
Calati, R., Signorelli, M. S., Gressier, F., Bianchini, O., Porcelli, S., Comings, D. E., Serretti, A. (2014). Modulation of a Number of Genes on Personality Traits in a Sample of Healthy Subjects. Neuroscience Letters 566 (2014) 320-325. Retrieved from: http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/science/article/pii/S0304394014000950
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Donaldson, S. I. & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding Self-Report Bias in Organizational Behavior Research. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 17, No. 2. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092818
Hurtz, G. M. & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and Job Performance: The Big Five Revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000, Vol. 85, No. 6, 869-879. DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.85.6.869
Jung, C. G. (1921) Psychologische typen. Zürich: Rascher Verlag
Lamers, S. M. A., Westerhof, G. J., Kovács, V., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2012). Differential relationships in the association of the Big Five personality traits with positive mental health and psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 517–524. Retrieved from: http://doc.utwente.nl/83834/1/Lamers12differential.pdf