1. Personality: structure, theories, measurement 9.10.2007

2. How would you describe yourself?  cool, reservedorwarm, easy going  concrete thinkingorabstract thinking  easily upsetorcalm, stable  not assertiveordominant  sober, seriousorhappy-go-lucky  expedientorconscientious  tough-mindedortender-minded  trustingorsuspicious  practicalorimaginative  forthrightorshrewd  self-assuredorapprehensive  conservativeorexperimenting  group-orientedorself-sufficient  undisciplinedorself-disciplined  relaxedortense, driven

3. Definition of personality  Personality consists of all the relatively STABLE and DISTINCTIVE styles of thought, behavior and emotional response that characterize a person’s adaptations to surrounding circumstances.

4. 2 questions  Why don’t people react in the same way to the same situation?  early life experiences  biological makeup  learning  Can we predict behavior? Does it depend on personality traits or on situation?  is personality assessment meaningful?

5. Different personality theories  psychoanalytic approach  trait theories  social cognitive approach  humanistic approach  evolutionary/biological approach

6. Psychoanalytic approach  Sigmund Freud  childhood experiences  the role of unconscious in motivating human actions

7. Trait theories  What are fundamental elements of personality?  A trait: any relatively enduring way in which one individual differs from another  stable in time  consistent over situations  their combination is the cause of the individual differences

8. Social cognitive approach  active, conscious aspects of our personality  different ways in which individuals interpret events  personality styles are shaped by observational learning  self-efficacy

9. Humanistic approach  emphasizes human potential for growth, creativity and spontaneity  self-concept

10. Biological approaches  evolutionary approach  behavioral genetic approach

11. The structure of the personality social role, behavior Character, motivation (needs, interests, attitudes…) mental abilities temperament

12. Assessment of personality  observation  interview  rating…  personality inventory  projective techniques

13. History of personality assessment  Pseudosciences: phrenology, physiognomy, graphology

14. History of personality assessment  Type theories:  Galen – theory of body humors (sanguine, choleric, melancholic, phlegmatic type)  Kretschmer, Lombroso, Sheldon – body type theories

15. Contemporary assessment of personality  Trait theories:  Allport, Cattel… (factor analysis)  Hans Eysenck: 3 dimensions, biological basis of differences  Big Five  no theory of development  relies too heavily on simple mathematical techniques  exaggerate the consistency of human behavior  can lead to circular reasoning

16. Contemporary assessment of personality  Humanistic theories:  self concept scales  MMPI (empirical basis)

17. Projective Testing Techniques

18. Projective techniques  not psychometric instruments  used in clinical settings, special training  study of personality and adjustment  use symbolic, pictorial, verbal and expressive stimuli uncovering of covert, latent, unconscious aspects of personality uncovering of covert, latent, unconscious aspects of personality

19. The concept of “projection”  unwittingly attributing one’s own drives, needs, perceptions, attitudes and style to others  giving meaning to relatively ambiguous or unstructured stimuli by drawing upon one’s own private desires, traits, fears, and experience

20. Projective techniques: disguised tests  no awareness of psychological interpretation  responses should be free of personal censorship  dominant psychological characteristics are “hidden” in the responses

21. Classification of “projectives” Frank, 1948 Frank, 1948  what they require or seek to evoke from the subject  constitutive  constructive  interpretive  cathartic  refractive

22. Rorschach’s “Ink blot test”

24. Criticism  Lack of satisfactory internal consistency, or test-retest reliability.  Failure to provide cogent evidence for clinical validity.  Failure of the individual Rorschach scoring categories to relate to diagnosis.  Lack of prognostic, or predictive validity with respect to the outcome of treatment, or later behavior.  Individual differences between groups of normal subjects.  Failure to find any significant relationships between Rorschach scores and intelligence, or creative ability.

25. Draw a person test

26. TAT – Thematic apperception test (Murray, 1943)

27. Rozenzweig’s Picture-frustration Study

28. Make a Picture Story

29. Thank you for your attention!