Teaching Assignment on Differential and Personality Psychology

The students worked out four different job requirement profiles, based on Cattell’s 16pf test, and then related four personality profiles to them, in group work. They examined the factor structure and validity of the 16pf, furthermore. We intensively studied the NEO-PI test and the Five-Factor Model. As a more recent development in factorial personality psychology, increasingly shorter, compact versions of tests based on the IPIP item collection emerged, on the other hand limiting themselves to the Big Five factors and omitting the facets. Finally, everyone took the not-so-short BFI-2 virtual test…

On one hand, I only touched C.G. Jung’s theory of types – starting from a sixty-year-old publication by Jung I handed out! On the other hand, this theory was significantly operationalized in the MBTI by Katherine Myers and Isabel Briggs Myers. Determining the participants’ preferences (not their types!) in group and partner work demonstrated how enthusing the self-assessment can be and ultimately determining the reported type can be. Just as important to me, however, was the critique provided by factorial personality psychology – in a presentation.

The Freiburger Personality Inventory is certainly based on the Big Five and, consequently, the NEO-PI-R. Yet, it also reflects the theoretical concepts and experiences of its authors. The test comprises 138 items that are easily understood and devoid of clinical jargon. The new scaling and linguistic revision, representative of the general population, are particularly noteworthy.

It was critically noted in scientific literature that the authors of the FPI initially did not impart an overall concept of the personality and did not explicitly relate to big-five inventories and 16PF. However, extensive studies on validation and careful test maintenance followed.

We have thus related to clinical findings, for example to eating disorders or asthma. However, the presentation on relations between FPI categories and psychiatric-forensic assessment was particularly interesting.

However, differential and personality psychology do not necessarily require the factorial psychology approach. Other models have emerged from different empirical evidence, which will be discussed further.

Abraham Maslow:

he presents a well-known theory of motivation (“needs”); however, biographical studies and the observation of “self-actualizing” individuals (Einstein…) form his (rather weak) empirical basis.

George A. Kelly:

Repertory Grid as an essential “test” from which constructs are determined:

Carl Rogers:

Originally, he sought clearly definable and measurable preconditions for constructive change of personality. Later, he used recordings and analyses of therapy sessions as empirical evidence.

The Clifton Strengthsfinder (R) is, first and foremost, an ipsative test, meaning it doesn’t rely on normative scaling. It also remains unclear whether the strengths represent ability, motivation, or personality dimensions. I therefore view the echnique with skepticism—which doesn’t stop it from providing with further insights about oneself. I would even recommend it as a self-test.

Geert Hofstede clearly deserves credit for promoting the acceptance of other cultures, based on a positive view of humanity. However, his punlications are methodologically not particularly transparent and are based on an extremely large sample, which on the other hand does not really represent the general population. His cultural dimensions have since been added to and worked over by Erin Meyer. However, I’d be interested in trait-oriented tests of intercultural sensitivity and competence; one depends on the other, but they’re not the same! We’ll assess the TIHK and take the TMIK ourselves!