The use of personality tests in hiring processes, army recruitment, and their general usage by ordinary people to categorize themselves or to pass the time has contributed to their widespread popularity. Their origins stem from psychological research and most of the tests present themselves as light questionnaires that determine your strengths and talents. Nonetheless, the credibility of such tests and, from this, their utility, remains questionable, especially when basing interpersonal relations and job qualifications on the results. Personality tests hence require further experimental study to derive absolute results, while their current status allows only for an approximation of human characteristics is generally confining categories.
The Purpose of Personality Tests
A personality test intends to create a categorization process for different types of people, from which some kind of comfort from a sense of belonging may be derived. A book by Urbina (2014) defines personality tests as constituting of “instruments whose responses are neither evaluated nor scored as right-wrong or pass-fail” (p. 3). Thus, ranking the results of a personality test as good or bad becomes implausible, and the failsafe and professedly insightful outcome of testing becomes an alluring attribute. The origins of personality testing lie in assessments that were similar in definition but differing in content, which was created to profile army recruits (Urbina, 2014). The purpose of such testing has since developed and spread from military drafting to civilian spheres of interest and even recreational use, thus encompassing a wide range of applications, from profiling to amusement.
Types of Personality Tests
The different kinds of personality tests depend on varying psychological research, each focusing on a different way of analysis and interpretation of human behavior. Thus, they rely on the works of psychologists, primarily those who use a neo-psychoanalytic approach, influenced by Sigmund Freud. Of those, we can focus on the efforts of Alfred Adler (ruling, learning, avoiding, socially useful typology), Karen Horney (compliant, aggressive, detached types), and Carl Jung (Schultz & Schultz, 2017). Freudian theory influenced both Adler and Horney but their personality types focus more on superiority and inferiority, in the former case, and neurosis in the latter, both disagreeing with Freud (Schultz & Schultz, 2017). From a wide range of psychological research arises an even more extensive array of personality tests, conventionally relaying information on individual characteristics.
The most popular personality test today is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), which is presented as practical and easy to use. The test bases itself on Carl Jung’s psychological types, dividing all people into only sixteen categories based on the intersection of four scales (Schultz & Schultz, 2017). By analyzing the disposition of a person to dichotomies of introversion-extraversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, judging-perceiving the MBTI attempts to predict not only the patterns of action but also possible relationship strength between different personality types (Urbina, 2014). This inclination towards different personality types, thus, may also influence work preferences, ways of communication, and possibly even appearance. Dividing the whole population of the earth into only sixteen types seems implausible, but it becomes conceivable with an allowance for variation within the typology groups.
Reliability
The results of such testing rely not only on the personal honestly of those questioned but also require a degree of self-awareness not everyone possesses. Skewing the results becomes especially easy in multiple-choice questionnaires, as the subversion of test results relies on modest factors, such as language (Urbina, 2014). The distortion of results can be caused by posing the questions in a certain way, appealing to the audience with the use of certain words, and the imposed constriction of an “agree-disagree” binary. Another essential factor to consider is cultural relatability and the readiness of people to reply to delicate questions (i.e., regarding sex or drug use) (Schultz & Schultz, 2017). Thus, a test becomes only as honest as the person taking it is, and even then, the outcome relies not only on truthful answers but also on competent test preparation.
The use of a scientific system during creation, and not just knowledge of the theory of psychoanalysis, determines if a personality test will be credible. Omitting the use of such a system will probably lead to an analysis not yielding correct results, especially keeping in mind the impression that language and reply rubrics have on those attempting personality tests (Urbina, 2014). The balance between implicit and explicit (self-reported) measures creates a competent testing tactic, eliciting a response between thought and instinct (Gawronski & Houwer, 2014). Thus, a prerequisite for constructing personality tests that will generate legitimate results is a substantial methodological base that considers not just scholarly knowledge but also explores the responsiveness of individuals to questions.
Application
Personality tests are not new in the workplace, with employers actively implementing them to judge the characteristics of their workers. A study of employees’ attributes by Potgieter and Coetzee (2013) proposed that “the overall [extraverted, intuitive, feeling, perceptive] profile of the participants suggests that they may be enthusiastic, idealistic and creative in pursuing their careers” (p. 7). Transferring the effects of personality traits into the workplace is inevitable, and therefore all the positive and negative aspects of an employee’s personality will influence workplace interactions. Using MBTI, as the most popular personality test, to analyze staff may seem like a key to productive employment and work-force distribution, but this still leaves the honesty of answers up for debate.
Another issue with the application of personality tests in the workplace, or in relationships (as is often done with the MBTI or Socionics), lies in their definition. The idea that personality is as important as qualification, skills and education has permeated the recruitment scene, and become an important factor when selecting people for positions that require communicative skills (Potgieter & Coetzee, 2013). If we take Urbina’s (2014) meaning of personality testing as an evaluation with no grading rubric consisting of correct answers, then their use to assign value to employees subverts the rule. There may exist an argument that such assessment may not necessarily attach grading connotations to the results, but it instead assesses employee utility in certain situations. As an example, we can attempt to appraise the statement that extroverts do not spend as much time editing a hastily written text as introverts would (Chin & Wright, 2014). The decision on the usefulness of this skill would be determined by whether the job requires quality or quantity of communication.
Conclusion
Although personality tests have an adequate amount of scientific research behind them, like in any testing, there exists a chance of skewed results through the awareness of testing expectations. Their use in the workplace may be implemented to create a preliminary judgment, but it is not enough basis for the prognosis of work results. The test outcomes hence have more scientific value than practical use, with the comparison of results and reality having more potential.
References
Chin, D., & Wright, W. (2014). Social media sources for personality profiling. Web.
Gawronski, B., & Houwer, J. (2014). Implicit measures in social and personality psychology. In H. Reis & C. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed.) (pp. 283-310). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Potgieter, I., & Coetzee, M. (2013). Employability attributes and personality preferences of postgraduate business management students. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1-10. Web.
Schultz, D., & Schultz, S. (2017). Theories of personality (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.