We will write a custom Essay on Personality Measurement: Mischel’s and Hogan’s Views specifically for you
301 certified writers online
The question of the validity of personality measurement has attracted both criticism and support. In this paper, the articles containing a positive evaluation of the notion are going to be viewed. The authors of these studies do not attempt to ignore the issues related to the concept but endeavor to address them.
The article “On the Future of Personality Measurement” by Walter Mischel (1977) is devoted to the issues connected to the notion of personality assessment and to the forthcoming research that, in the author’s opinion, is bound to resolve the related difficulties and significantly improve our knowledge of the human psychology. Upon analyzing the previous experience connected to the issue, the author comes to the following conclusions. First of all, he points out the multitude and complexity of the variable factors that influence human behavior. He insists that focusing on one of them leads to limited inferences and should be avoided. This idea is connected to that of specificity or contextualism, which may be used to describe the behavioral conditions that exist as a system of coexisting and interrelated factors. Mischel (1977) points out that at the times of his studies, both the environment and the inherent inner factors were receiving due attention.
Subsequently, the author calls for a careful approach to the related studies along with “modest” scientific goals. This suggestion is also caused by the fact that the scope of information, which the field attempts to embrace, is enormous. From the point of view of avoiding bias and oversimplification, smaller goals are preferable.
Apart from that, Mischel (1977) points out that the subjects of relevant studies, regardless of their possible scientific ignorance, are capable of contributing to the research, which is an opportunity that should not be ignored.
Finally, the author suggests that naturally occurring behavior is a priority, as he points out the fact that numerous studies are being conducted in overly simplified, artificial situations. In general, the author defines a number of mistakes his peers tend to commit and suggests paying attention to them.
Hogan and the Defense of Personality Measurement
In his article “In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners,” Robert Hogan (2005) expresses his opinion about the reasons due to which the idea of personality measurement needs defense. He believes that the concept of personality measurement is not flawed and can be very helpful (particularly in the field of employee recruitment), but it is underrepresented in scientific circles and not studied enough. Therefore, it may be pointed out that not all the issues that Mischel (1977) had mentioned were eliminated.
Hogan (2005) also concludes that the critics of the notion tend to ignore the data that proves the validity of personality measurement and its usefulness. The author proceeds to describe personality, pointing out that it is not a set of traits, but a generalized idea of human nature or an attempt of explaining the differences between individuals that manifests subjectively in the form of identity and objectively in the form of reputation. The author also suggests that the researchers of the issue attempt to avoid vagueness as it is not appreciated in the scientific circles. In general, this article includes the criticisms of the research devoted to personality management and points out the potential of the notion.
Personality Measurement: a Personal Perspective
This is not the only article that Robert Hogan has devoted to personality management. For example, the article created by Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan (2007) contains a study that proves the usefulness of personality measurement for employee selection. Again, the authors point out that the criticism of the idea exists: for example, it is believed that the possibility of faking the personality measurement results during an interview renders it useless. However, the research conducted by the authors showed that this possibility turned out to be rather irrelevant and outweighed by the promise of personality measurement.
It appears that while admitting the possible flaws and issues connected to the personality measurement, psychologists have been enthusiastic about the possibilities it opens up. For example, Church (2001) has attempted to create guidelines for cross-cultural personality measurement. According to the author, the very idea of personality varies across cultures, which poses additional difficulties. At the same time, Church (2001) believes that these problems can be eliminated with the help of proper methods.
It appears that psychologists are still interested in the personality measurement ad actively use it in their practice (Musewicz, Marczyk, Knauss, & York, 2009). Personally, I believe that the difficulties connected to personality measurement are at least partially defined and predicted, which means they can be avoided. At the same, the possibility of learning more about human nature and human psychology is extremely appealing, and this is what the idea of personality measurement offers. I agree with the points presented in the above-mentioned studies, and I believe that the notion of personality measurement deserves proper attention.
Church, A. (2001). Personality Measurement in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Journal Of Personality, 69(6), 979-1006. Web.
Hogan, J., Barrett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1270-1285. Web.
Hogan, R. (2005). In Defense of Personality Measurement: New Wine for Old Whiners. Human Performance, 18(4), 331-341. Web.
Mischel, W. (1977). On the future of personality measurement. American Psychologist, 32(4), 246-254. Web.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Musewicz, J., Marczyk, G., Knauss, L., & York, D. (2009). Current Assessment Practice, Personality Measurement, and Rorschach Usage by Psychologists. Journal Of Personality Assessment, 91(5), 453-461. Web.