Study of Values: A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests in Personality by Gordon Allport used to be a breakthrough article in terms of defining the strength and values of different personalities through case studies. This review will outline the main features of the article and will point out its weaknesses and strengths within psychology as per the time it was published.
The focus of the experiment was to create and apply a test in order to identify people’s interests and how they differ presented on a certain scale. There were different layers and professions explored due to these personalities test. It was estimated that various people with different occupations were good at totally different spheres of studies and life overall. As such, business administration students were better at economics, priests – at religion studies, and medical students showed great skills in theory.
Unlike many readers who foresee the conclusion, these tests do not necessarily mean to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of a particular person as a negative factor. On the contrary, personality tests like that aim for showing the relative intensity of the six values, rather than absolute strength which implies specific values’ obvious advantage and the possibility to apply them to the working environment efficiently.
One of the disadvantages of the test, however, is judgmental and invidious definitions. As it is seen from the test questions, they are far from being unbiased since the theoretical and aesthetic values are appreciated, whereas political and economic values are considered bad ones. Therefore, within the scope of such studies, it is interesting enough what the way out of such bias will be since the questions are created by the test author who actually decides himself what the right and wrong answers are.
Another advantage and the disadvantage at the same time is the language which is wholly academic. Therefore, the test will fit academic groups of the interviewed, whereas its applicability to other groups outside academia is questionable. Another omission in the test that has to be noted is non-relevant questions for the individual cases. This is a serious mishap in the scope of such studies when the cases have to reflect overall and particular cases’ surveys. The idiographic rule of psychology is being strictly violated in this case. Therefore, it can be said that the value of the test is rather limited. However, if used within the appropriate context, it has significant value.
The new review of the article presents newly formatted text with simplified language, no question, and streamlined scoring evaluations. As such, the test presented a good means to unveil which of the classes a person largely belonged to. The general implications cannot be ultimately claimed as bad or good ones (Allport et al., 1960). The present days’ reviewer can divide the questions into groups and follow Spranger’s theory as it is.
The third review by Shaffer offers totally different approach towards the theory. The amendments made to the tests before were only rewordings and changing the irrelevant cultural content of the questions. The new alternations, however, seemed to leave the meaning unchanged for many further years. There are changes presented in a manual on how the test has been altered as per the consistency of the items. The number of students drawn is 1,816 and now the findings are registered according to the sex and occupational group, as well. Moreover, the new testing format eliminates the extra score sheet and simplifies the process of evaluating data.
Reference
Allport, W.G., Vernon, P.E., Gardner, L. (1960). Study of Values: A Scale for Measuring the Dominant Interests in Personality, Revised Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.