The Five-Factor Model (FFM) is one of the most dominant and widely acceptedframeworks of personality, however it has been criticised for its primarily Eurocentric individualistic focus on aspects of personality as a result of its development within the English lexicon (McCrae &Terracciano, 2005).The use of imported etic inventories presents an array of difficulties for personality assessment within South Africa, as indigenous and collective personality traits are absent from these measures of personality (Nel, 2008). This study, therefore, aimed to explore the collective dimension of personality using the South African Personality Inventory (SAPI) and the Cross-cultural Personality Assessment Inventory-2 (CPAI-2) in a non-probability convenience sample of 489 South African first-year Psychology students from the University of the Witwatersrand. A quantitative section was conducted to investigate the internal consistency reliability, construct validity and construct biasof the collective dimension of the two instruments. From the results it was evident that both instruments had adequate internal consistency reliability for the scales and subscales of the collective dimensions of personality, but some reliability coefficients were low; particularly for Social Desirability and its sub-clusters, as well as Ren Qing, Discipline and Thrift vs Extravagance. Construct validity for the SAPI was found to be problematic in that the five factor structure proposed by Nel (2008) did not replicate; however a three factor structure was found to be the best fit. Construct validity for the CPAI-2 was found to be good in that the six factor structure of the Interpersonal Relatedness factor proposed by Cheung et al. (2008) was replicated. Evidence for construct bias across gender, race and home language was found in both instruments. Finally a qualitative thematic content analysis of data obtained from two focus groups of 19 first year Psychology students from the original sample was conducted and issues related to a general understanding of personality, the innate existence of personality vs the overt expression of personality, collectivism in personality, a national identity, culture, psychometric testing and social desirability were explored. This study thus contributed to both the local and international context in terms of personality theory and assessment in organisations, as well as theoretically to the etic-emic debate.

Thesis--Catholic Univ. of America. / Pub. also as Studies in psychology and psychiatry from the Catholic University of America, v. 7, no. 3, April 1948. Bibliography: p. 100-103.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Auburn University, 2009. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 77-87).

No description available.

Four studies were conducted with the aim of developing a measure of narcissism that, unlike previous measures, is not inherently pathological. In Study 1, the NPI—the closest approximation to such a measure—was administered to a large-scale sample. Two separate Principal Component Analyses (PCAs) failed to replicate its reported structure, and revealed further psychometric problems. Use of an alternative item format (Likert ratings) was shown to yield much higher reliabilities than the original forced-choice format. Using the Likert item-format, the Profile of Narcissistic Dispositions (POND) was developed in Study 2. The items were based on a comprehensive analysis of the literature on "normal" narcissism. Five reliable subscales emerged from an oblique factor analysis. All five loaded substantially on the first unrotated principal component. The relationship of the POND to established self-report measures was also explored. In Study 3, the POND's structure was replicated and empirical relations were expanded: In particular, the POND showed negative correlations with various self-reports of psychopathology. In Study 4, the POND was shown to predict peer ratings of narcissism. Further peer-ratings elaborated the character of normal narcissism, that is, an interpersonal style that is marked by a dominant and secure but disagreeable social presence.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

Motivational Distortion is a construct of replicable error characterized by a shift in one's responding on a personality measure from an anonymous role to a role motivated by the testing situation. The Sixteen Personality Factor (16PF) contains an embedded scale designed to measure the this construct. Scores on this scale provide a basis for correcting scores on the primary factors.To date, individual studies on Motivational Distortion have not adequately addressed the construct validity of the scale. The present study utilized a sample of teleeducation students in an attempt determine if varying levels of role aptitude and role-congruent settings does impact Motivational Distortion.The results of regression and Aptitude-by-treatment interaction analysis (ATI) have two implications for Motivational Distortion. Namely, The relation of Motivational Distortion and its components may be moderating instead of causal, and the relation of the construct and other personality factors is more limited. / Department of Psychological Science

The purpose of this study was to determine whether counselor personality characteristics as measured by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, (MMPI), influence the extent of client reported satisfaction in the cognitive and affective spheres of the counseling process as measured by the Inventory of Fulfillment of Client Expectancy, (IFCE). The objective of the study was to determine whether the MMPI has adequate discriminatory power to estimate potential counselor effectiveness based on some knowledge of counselor personality features. The underlying question which prompted this study was as follows: What personality characteristics distinguish between counselors who tend to facilitate client reported satisfaction and counselors who tend to achieve less client reported satisfaction in the cognitive and affective spheres of the counseling process?The method whereby this question was investigated included (1) obtaining MMPI profiles from 54 counselors (26 males, 28 females), and (2) acquiring IFCE satisfaction ratings from 173 volunteer clients (63 males, 110 females) who had received therapy from the participating counselors. The data were collected during the Spring quarter, 1974.The counselors in the five groups acquired a near equal combined composite mean score on the counselee reported satisfaction inventory in the cognitive and affective spheres of the counseling process. Consequently, discrimination between groups of counselors on the basis of counselee ratings was impossible.The statistical treatment of the data to determine the relationship between counselor personality features and client reported satisfaction included the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) and the multiple correlation (R). The necessary value of r for significance at the .05 level of confidence was .27, and the necessary value of R for significance at the .05 level was an F ratio of 4.03.The mean score for each of the 24 individual MMPI scales was subjected to exploratory correlation with the mean score for all the cognitive, affective, and composite items reported in the IFCE. An obtained r of .91 between cognitive and affective items resulted in the use of the composite client reported satisfaction ratings for determining correlation significance.The outcomes contained only minimal evidence of any significant relationship between the MMPI and the IFCE. The obtained correlations of significance between the MMPI scale scores and the IFCE composite scores included the ~ scale at .34 (representative of dependency needs within the personality) and the Re scale at -.30 (descriptive of assuming obligations and being dependable and trustworthy). Scale K approached significance with an r of -.25 (purportedly indicative of self-assurance). Multiple regression analysis based on combinations of MMPI scale scores was used for purposes of improving efficiency or accuracy of predicting IFCE composite ratings. The relationship between the Dy scale and IFCE composite ratings accounted for most of the variance in evidence between the two instruments.Two plausible conclusions based on the outcomes of this study with respect to counselor effectiveness may be possible assuming that the significance obtained on the Dy and Re scales, and the near significance on the K scale were not a chance difference.The combined composite mean score on the counselee rating inventory for both male and female counselors was considered relatively high at 3.99 on a five point Likert scale. The significant positive correlation obtained on the Dy scale in which the mean T score was considerablylow for both male and female counselors in the study tentatively suggests that as dependency needs within the personality structure of the counselor increase client reported satisfaction ratings will also increase and vice versa. The significant correlation between the Dy scale and composite IFCE ratings does not represent a wide span, however, as evidenced by the relatively high composite IFCE ratings and the considerably low mean T score on the Dy scale.The significant negative correlation obtained on the Re scale in which the mean T score was slightly elevated and a near significant negative correlation on the K scale in which the mean T score was considered high for both male and female counselors in the study tentatively implies that too ideal a model of personality adjustment on the part of the counselor with respect to handling social obligations or responsibilities, and demonstrating self-assurance within the therapy setting may possibly hinder client reported satisfaction within the counseling process.The MMPI profile findings of the counselor population were quite consistent with the outcomes reported in previous studies. Thus, the counselors participating in this study were considered to be in close approximation to counselors in previous reported research.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the hypotheses that the thirteen independent or predictor variables selected from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS), the F-Scale; Forms 40 and 45 (F-Scale), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), would be significant discriminators between the criterion variables, which were matched-pair groups of law enforcement officers and convicted felons.A review of the relevant literature on available crime statistics in contemporary society, and on the selection, training, and education of police officers supported the need for this study. In addition, the research indicated that techniques for reliably evaluating characteristics that contribute to psychologically effective law enforcement officers were not extant.A total of fifty subjects participated in this study. Twenty-five law enforcement officers were matched in pairs with twenty-five convicted felons on the extraneous variables of age, race, sex, scholastic capacity, and socio-economic status. The law enforcement officers were agents of a state police organization, a county police department, four city police departments, and a university police department, located in the Midwest, whose official function was maintenance of law and order, peace-keeping, and enforcement of the regular criminal code. The convicted felons were inmates of a county jail in the same Midwestern state, who had been adjudicated through due process of the commission of a crime of such a serious nature that they had been sentenced to a year or more in a correctional institution. The total population in the study ranged between the ages of 21-2 and 49-1.Three instruments were used to measure personality needs and traits of the subjects in the two groups. They included 13 needs, factor-dimensions, scores, and traits selected from a possible 41 measured by the EPPS, the F-Scale, and the 16 PF. The administration, scoring, computer analyses, and interpretation was done between June 1, 1973, and July 4, 1974.Statistical treatment of the data consisted of the application of a stepwise multiple regression. A level of F ratio for entering and removing a variable from the equation was specified. At each step in the regression, the variable that made the treatest increment to R2 was entered, if it exceeded the prespecified F for entering a variable. The contribution of each variable was examined by entering it last in the equation until no variable had an F to enter larger than the prespecified F for entering, and no smaller than the prescribed F for removal. Additionally, a multi-variate stepwise discriminant analysis was run on the data. The results were congruent with those achieved by the stepwise multiple regression.The results indicated that predictor variables factor-dimension Q4 (Ergic Tension) of the 16 PF, the final score on the F-Scale (Authoritarianism) and the Change and Dominance variables of the EPPS were the best discriminators between the criterion variables. The measure of Ergic Tension was the strongest predictor variable, accounting for 41.76 percent of the variance. The measure 9.71 percent, the change variable accounted for 4.74 percent, and the of authoritarianism accounted for four predictor variables that were dominance variable accounted for 3.77 percent of the variance. The needs for aggression, exhibition, heterosexuality, amounts of ego strength, submissiveness, protension, shrewdness, guilt proneness, and strength of self sentiment, as measured by the EPPS and the 16 PF were not significant predictors and did not discriminate between the criterion variables in this study.An additional finding of the study was that given the raw scores of one hundred individuals on the significant discriminators between the law enforcement officers and the convicted felons, the examiner could correctly discriminate between the two in eight-four of one hundred cases.