Aim:

To assess the subject’s personality using NEO-Five Factor Inventory-3.

Basic concepts :
Introduction to personality
Although personality is difficult to define, we can distinguish two fundamental
features of this vague construct. First, each person is consistent to some extent; we
have coherent traits and action patterns that arise repeatedly. Second, each person is
distinctive to some extent; behavioral differences exist between individuals.
Psychologists and laypersons alike invoke the concept of personality to make sense
out of the behavior and expressed feelings of others. The notion of personality is used
to explain behavioral differences between persons (for example, why one complains
and another is stoical) and to understand the behavioral consistency within each
individual (for example, why the complaining student noted previously was generally
sour and dissatisfied). Mayer (2007–2008) provides a thoughtful discussion of the big
questions in personality psychology, which he defines as “those questions that are
simple, important, and central to many people’s lives.” He identifies 20 big questions,
only a few of which can be addressed through testing and assessment. These questions
involve existential matters such as the purpose of life, the nature of person hood, and
the difficulties encountered in seeking self-knowledge. His captivating article is a
reminder that some vital issues can be approached through the empiricism of
psychological research and testing, whereas other crucial matters remain elusive and
are amenable mainly to philosophical and phenomenological inquiry. In addition to
understanding personality, psychologists also seek to measure it. Literally hundreds of
personality tests are available for this purpose; we will review historically prominent
instruments and also discuss some promising new approaches.

Nature and definitions of personality

Personality is the unique way in which each individual thinks, acts, and feels
throughout life. Personality should not be confused with character, which refers to
value judgments made about a person’s morals or ethical behavior; nor should it be
confused with temperament, the enduring characteristics with which each person is
born, such as irritability or adaptability. Temperament is based in one’s biology,
either through genetic influences, prenatal influences, or a combination of those
influences, and forms the basis upon which one’s larger personality is built. Both
character and temperament are vital parts of personality, however. Every adult
personality is a combination of temperaments and personal history of family, culture,
and the time during which they grew up (Kagan, 2010).

Different perspectives

Psychodynamic Perspective:
Freudian Theory Sigmund Freud believed that one’s personality was essentially set in
early childhood. He proposed a psychosexual stage theory of personality. Stage
theories are ones in which development is thought to be discontinuous. In other
words, the stages are qualitatively different from one another and recognizable, and
people move between them in a stepwise fashion. Stage theories also posit that all
people go through all the stages in the same order. Freud’s theory has four stages: the
oral stage, the anal stage, the phallic stage, and the adult genital stage. Between the
phallic stage and the adult genital stage is a latency period that some people refer to as
a stage. Freud believed that sexual urges were an important determinant of people’s
personality development. Each of the stages is named for the part of the body from
which people derive sexual pleasure during the stage.
During the oral stage (birth to one year), Freud proposed that children enjoy sucking
and biting because it gives them a form of sexual pleasure.
During the anal stage (one to three years), children are sexually gratified by the act of
elimination.
During the phallic stage (three to five years), sexual gratification moves to the
genitalia. The Oedipus crisis, in which boys sexually desire their mothers and view
their fathers as rivals for their mothers’ love, occurs in this stage. Some theorists have
suggested that girls have a similar experience, the Electra crisis, in which they desire
their fathers and see their mothers as competition for his love.
After the phallic stage, children enter latency (six years to puberty), during which they
push all their sexual feelings out of conscious awareness (repression). During latency,
children turn their attention to other issues. They start school, where they learn both
how to interact with others and a myriad of academic skills.
At puberty, children enter the last of Freud’s stages, the adult genital stage. People
remain in this stage for the rest of their lives and seek sexual pleasure through sexual
relationships with others.
Freud suggested that children could get fixated in any one of the stages. A fixation
could result from being either undergratified or overgratified. For instance, a child
who was not fed regularly or who was overly indulged might develop an oral fixation.
Such people, as adults, might evidence a tendency to overeat, a propensity to chew
gum, an addiction to smoking, or another similar mouth-related behavior. Freud
described two kinds of personalities resulting from an anal fixation due to a traumatic
toilet training. Someone with an anal expulsive personality tends to be messy and
disorganized. The term anal retentive is used to describe people who are meticulously
neat, hyperorganized, and a bit compulsive. Fixation in the phallic stage can result in
people who appear excessively sexually assured and aggressive or, alternatively, who
are consumed with their perceived sexual inadequacies. These fixations result from
psychic energy, the libido, getting stuck in one of the psychosexual stages.

The id is propelled by the pleasure principle; it wants immediate gratification. The id

exists entirely in the unconscious mind. Babies are propelled solely by their ids. They
cry whenever they desire something without regard to the external world around
them. The next part of the personality to develop is the ego. The ego follows the
reality principle, which means its job is to negotiate between the desires of the id and
the limitations of the environment. The ego is partly in the conscious mind and partly
in the unconscious mind. The last part of the personality to develop is the superego.
Like the ego, the superego operates on both the conscious and unconscious level.
Around the age of five, children begin to develop a conscience and to think about
what is right and wrong. This sense of conscience, according to Freud, is their
superego. Oftentimes, the ego acts as a mediator between the id and the superego. As
you cram for that midterm, the id tells you to go to sleep because you are tired or to
go to that party because it will be fun. The superego tells you to study because it is the
right thing to do. The ego makes some kind of a compromise. You will study for two
hours, drop by the party, and then go to sleep.
Neo-Freudian theories:
A number of Freud’s early followers developed offshoots of psychoanalytic theory.
These approaches are now usually referred to as psychodynamic or neo-Freudian
approaches. Two of the best-known creators of psychodynamic theories are Carl Jung
and Alfred Adler. Jung proposed that the unconscious consists of two different parts:
the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious. The personal unconscious is
more similar to Freud’s view of the unconscious. Jung believed that an individual’s
personal unconscious contains the painful or threatening memories and thoughts the
person does not wish to confront; he termed these complexes. Jung contrasted the
personal unconscious with the collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is
passed down through the species and, according to Jung, explains certain similarities
we see between cultures. The collective unconscious contains archetypes that Jung
defined as universal concepts we all share as part of the human species. For example,
the shadow represents the evil side of personality and the persona is people’s creation
of a public image. Jung suggested that the widespread existence of certain fears, such
as fear of the dark, and the importance of the circle in many cultures, provides
evidence for archetypes. Adler is called an ego psychologist because he downplayed
the importance of the unconscious and focused on the conscious role of the ego. Adler
believed that people are motivated by the fear of failure, which he termed inferiority,
and the desire to achieve, which he called superiority. Adler is also known for his
work about the importance of birth order in shaping personality.

Trait Theories:
Trait theorists believe that we can describe people’s personalities by specifying their
main characteristics, or traits. These characteristics (for example, honesty, laziness,
ambition) are thought to be stable and to motivate behavior in keeping with the trait.
In other words, when we describe someone as friendly, we mean that the person acts
in a friendly manner across different situations and times. Some trait theorists believe
that the same basic set of traits can be used to describe all people’s personalities. Such
a belief characterizes a nomothetic approach. For instance, Hans Eyesenck believed
that by classifying all people along an introversion-extraversion scale and a stable-
unstable scale, we could describe their personalities. Raymond Cattell developed the
16 PF (personality factor) test to measure what he believed were the 16 basic traits
present in all people, albeit to different degrees.

More recently, Paul Costa and Robert McCrae have proposed that personality can be
described using the big five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, openness to experience, and emotional stability (or neuroticism).
Extraversion refers to how outgoing or shy someone is. Agreeableness has to do with
how easy to get along with someone is. People high on the conscientiousness
dimension tend to be hardworking, responsible, and organized. Openness to new
experiences is related to one’s creativity, curiosity, and willingness to try new things.
Finally, emotional stability has to do with how consistent one’s mood is. One might
wonder how psychologists can reduce the vast number of different terms we use to
describe people to 16 or five basic traits. Factor analysis is a statistical technique used
to accomplish this feat. Factor analysis allows researchers to use correlations between
traits in order to see which traits cluster together as factors. If a strong correlation is
found between punctuality, diligence, and neatness, for example, one could argue that
these traits represent a common factor that we could name conscientiousness.
Neuroticism facets
N1: Anxiety
N2: Angry Hostility
N3: Depression
N4: Self-Consciousness
N5: Impulsiveness
N6: Vulnerability

Extraversion facets
E1: Warmth
E2: Gregariousness
E3: Assertiveness
E4: Activity
E5: Excitement-Seeking
E6: Positive Emotions

Openness facets
O1: Fantasy
O2: Aesthetics
O3: Feelings
O4: Actions
O5: Ideas
O6: Values

Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust
A2: Straightforwardness
A3: Altruism
A4: Compliance
A5: Modesty
A6: Tender-Mindedness

Conscientiousness facets
C1: Competence
C2: Order
C3: Dutifulness
C4: Achievement Striving
C5: Self Discipline
C6: Deliberation

Gordon Allport believed that although there were common traits useful in describing
all people, a full understanding of someone’s personality was impossible without
looking at their personal traits. Allport differentiated between three different types of
personal traits. He suggested that a small number of people are so profoundly
influenced by one trait that it plays a pivotal role in virtually everything they do. He
referred to such traits as cardinal dispositions. Allport posited that there are two other
types of dispositions, central and secondary, that can be used to describe personality.
As their names indicate, central dispositions have a larger influence on personality
than secondary dispositions. Central dispositions are more often apparent and describe
more significant aspects of personality. The main criticism of trait theories is that they
underestimate the importance of the situation. Nobody is always conscientious or
unfailingly friendly. Therefore, critics assert, to describe someone’s personality, we
need to take the context into consideration.

Biological Foundations:
Biological theories of personality view genes, chemicals, and body types as the
central determinants of who a person is. A growing body of evidence supports the
idea that human personality is shaped, in part, by genetics. Although many people
associate traits with genetics, traits are not necessarily inherited. Thus far, little
evidence exists for the heritability of specific personality traits. Heritability is a
measure of the amount of variation in a trait in a given population that is due to
genetics. For instance, some traits, like height, are highly heritable; over 90 percent of
the variation in Americans’ height is thought to be due to genetic factors. Other traits,
like intelligence, seem less strongly linked to genetic factors; estimates are that the
heritability of intelligence is in the 50–70 percent range. Conversely, much evidence
suggests that genes play a role in people’s temperaments, typically defined as their
emotional style and characteristic way of dealing with the world. Psychologists and
laypeople alike have long noticed that infants seem to differ immediately at birth.
Some welcome new stimuli whereas others seem more fearful. Some seem extremely
active and emotional while others are calmer. Psychologists believe that babies are
born with different temperaments. A child’s temperament, then, is thought to
influence the development of his or her personality. One of the earliest theories of
personality was biological. Hippocrates believed that personality was determined by
the relative levels of four humors (fluids) in the body. The four humors were blood,
yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. A cheerful person, for example, was said to have
an excess of blood. While Hippocrates’ theory has obviously turned out to be untrue,
he is thought to be one of the first people to recognize that biological factors impact
personality.
Another relatively early biological theory of personality was William Sheldon’s
somatotype theory. Sheldon identified three body types: endomorphs (fat),
mesomorphs (muscular), and ectomorphs (thin). Sheldon argued that certain
personality traits were associated with each of the body types. For instance,
ectomorphs were shy and secretive, mesomorphs were confident and assertive, and
endomorphs were friendly and outgoing. Sheldon’s findings have not been replicated,
and his methodology has been questioned. In addition, his research shows only a
correlation and therefore, even if it were found to be reliable and valid, it does not
show that biology shapes personality.

Behaviourist Perspective:
Radical behaviorists like B. F. Skinner take a very different approach to personality.
In fact, these theorists argue that behavior is personality and that the way most people
think of the term personality is meaningless. According to this view, personality is
determined by the environment. The reinforcement contingencies to which one is
exposed creates one’s personality. Therefore, by changing people’s environments,
behaviorists believe we can alter their personalities. Radical behaviorists are criticized
for failing to recognize the importance of cognition. Today, many psychologists call
themselves cognitive-behavioral or social-cognitive theorists.

Social-Cognitive Theory:
Many models of personality meld together behaviorists’ emphasis on the importance
of the environment with cognitive psychologists’ focus on patterns of thought. Such
models are referred to as social-cognitive or cognitive-behavioral models. Albert
Bandura suggested that personality is created by an interaction between the person
(traits), the environment, and the person’s behavior. His model is based on the idea of
triadic reciprocality, also known as reciprocal determinism. These terms essentially
mean that each of these three factors influence both of the other two in a constant
loop-like fashion. Look at an example. Brad is a friendly person. This personality trait
influences Brad’s behavior in that he talks to a lot of people. It influences the
environments into which he puts himself in that he goes to a lot of parties. Brad’s
loquacious behavior affects his environment in that it makes the parties even more
party like. In addition, Brad’s talkativeness reinforces his friendliness; the more he
talks, the more friendly he thinks he is. Finally, the environment of the party
reinforces Brad’s outgoing nature and encourages him to strike up conversations with
many people. Bandura also posited that personality is affected by people’s sense of
self-efficacy. People with high self-efficacy are optimistic about their own ability to
get things done whereas people with low self-efficacy feel a sense of powerlessness.
Bandura theorized that people’s sense of self-efficacy has a powerful effect on their
actions. For example, assume two students of equal abilities and knowledge are taking
a test. The one with higher self-efficacy would expect to do better and therefore might
act in ways to make that true (for example, spend more time on the test questions).
George Kelly proposed the personal-construct theory of personality. Kelly argued that
people, in their attempts to understand their world, develop their own, individual
systems of personal constructs. Such constructs consist of pairs of opposites such as
fair-unfair, smart-dumb, and exciting-dull. People then use these constructs to
evaluate their worlds. Kelly believed that people’s behavior is determined by how
they interpret the world. His theory is based on a fundamental postulate that
essentially states that people’s behavior is influenced by their cognition and that by
knowing how people have behaved in the past, we can predict how they will act in the
future. Some of the ideas put forth by social-cognitive theorists, including Bandura’s
concept of self-efficacy, are almost like traits that describe an individual’s
characteristic way of thinking. A final example is Julian Rotter’s concept of locus of
control. A person can be described as having either an internal or an external locus of
control. People with an internal locus of control feel as if they are responsible for
what happens to them. For instance, they tend to believe that hard work will lead to
success. Conversely, people with an external locus of control generally believe that
luck and other forces outside of their own control determine their destinies. A
person’s locus of control can have a large effect on how a person thinks and acts, thus
impacting their personality. A number of positive outcomes has been found to be
associated with having an internal locus of control. As compared with externals,
internals tend to be healthier, to be more politically active, and to do better in school.
Of course, these findings are based on correlational research, so we can’t conclude
that locus of control causes such differences.

Humanistic Perspective:
Many of the models of personality already discussed are deterministic. Determinism
is the belief that what happens is dictated by what has happened in the past.
According to psychoanalysts, personality is determined by what happened to an
individual in his or her early childhood (largely during the psychosexual stages).
Behaviorists assert that personality is similarly determined by the environment in
which one has been raised. Neither theory supports the existence of free will, an
individual’s ability to choose his or her own destiny. Free will is an idea that has been
embraced by humanistic psychology. This perspective is often referred to as the third
force because it arose in opposition to the determinism so central to both
psychoanalytic and behaviorist models. Humanistic theories of personality view
people as innately good and able to determine their own destinies through the exercise
of free will. These psychologists stress the importance of people’s subjective
experience and feelings. They focus on the importance of a person’s self-concept and
selfesteem. Self-concept is a person’s global feeling about himself or herself. Self-
concept develops through a person’s involvement with others, especially parents.
Someone with a positive self-concept is likely to have high self-esteem. Two of the
most influential humanistic psychologists were Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers.
Both of these men believed that people are motivated to reach their full potential or
self-actualize. Maslow developed the hierarchy of needs that you read about in the
motivation chapter. Self-actualization sits atop this hierarchy. Rogers created self-
theory. He believed that although people are innately good, they require certain things
from their interactions with others, most importantly, unconditional positive regard, in
order to self-actualize. Unconditional positive regard is a kind of blanket acceptance.
Parents that make their children feel as if they are loved no matter what provide
unconditional positive regard. However, parents who make their children feel as if
they will be loved only if they earn high grades or have the right kind of friends, send
their children the message that their love is conditional. Just as Maslow believes one
needs to satisfy the needs lower on the hierarchy in order to move upward, Rogers
believes that people must feel accepted in order to make strides toward self-
actualization. Humanistic theories of personality are criticized for putting forth an
overly optimistic theory of human nature. If people are innately good and striving to
do their best, it is difficult to explain the number and range of truly terrible acts that
people commit.

Assessment of Personality

The methods vary according to the theory of personality used to develop as one may
expect. Most psychological professionals doing a personality assessment on a client
do not necessarily tie themselves down to one arithmetical view point and prefer to
take a more eclective view of personality. This eclective view is a way of choosing
the part of various theories that seem to best fit the particular situation rather than
using only one theory to explain a phenomenon.
When psychologists ask questions and note down answers in survey process it collects
the information known as interview. One of the oldest methods of assessment long
before invention of writing. People undoubtedly made judgement about each other by
observing them and talking with them. Interviewers can obtain information about a
persons’ thoughts, feelings and other internal states as well as information about
current and past relationships, experiences and behaviour. Interview as an assessment
method is very important and popular among psychodynamic and phenomenological
humanistic workers.

Behavioral assessment
Personality psychologist sometime observe behavior that are interested in rather than
asking about them. The behavioral categories contain behavioral interests. Requires
precision and conditions under which they occur. In behavioral assessment
psychologist devise explicit coding system that contains behavioral interests. Then
they train observers until they show high levels of agreement in using coding
categories to record behaviour. Many kinds of behavioral procedures are available for
assessing the antecedents and consequences of behavior, including checklists, rating
scales, interviews, and structured observations. These methods share a common
assumption that behavior is best understood in terms of clearly defined characteristics
such as frequency, duration, antecedents, and consequences. Behavioral procedures
tend to be highly pragmatic in that they are usually interwoven with treatment
approaches.

Personality scales or inventories are widely used in assessing personality in both

research or clinical work. They are considered objective measures as they contain
standard questions as they use rating scale. As they agree on scoring key.
We have another approach called empirical approach

Projective techniques:
Projective tests are often used by psychoanalysts. They involve asking people to
interpret ambiguous stimuli. For instance, the Rorschach inkblot test involves
showing people a series of inkblots and asking them to describe what they see. The
thematic apperception test (TAT) consists of a number of cards, each of which
contains a picture of a person or people in an ambiguous situation. People are asked to
describe what is happening in the pictures. Since both the inkblots and TAT cards are
ambiguous, psychoanalysts reason that people’s interpretations reflect their
unconscious thoughts. People are thought to project their unconscious thoughts onto
the ambiguous stimuli. For instance, someone who is struggling with his or her
unconscious aggressive impulses may be more likely to describe violent themes.
Scoring projective tests, however, is a complicated process. For instance, the
Rorschach test looks not only at the content people describe but also the way they
hold and turn the card and whether they focus on the whole inkblot or just a portion of
it. Many people believe that projective tests are particularly unreliable given that they
rely so extensively on the therapists’ interpretations. A far simpler and more
widespread method of personality assessment is to use self-report inventories. Self-
report inventories are essentially questionnaires that ask people to provide information
about themselves. Many different kinds of psychologists, such as humanistic
psychologists, trait theorists, and cognitive-behavioral psychologists, might use self-
report inventories as one means by which to gather data about someone. These kinds
of tests are often referred to as objective personality tests since people’s scores are
determined simply by their answers and are thus unlikely to be affected by evaluator
bias. An interview, on the other hand, is a subjective assessment. Although such
subjectivity decreases reliability and opens the door to bias, some believe that
subjective measures yield richer and more valid data.
The Minnesota Multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI-2) is one of the most widely
used self-report instruments. A potential problem with such inventories is that people
may not be completely honest in answering the questions. Some tests have “lie scales”
built in to try to detect when people are not being honest.

Purpose of test:
The NEO-FFI-3 can help you understand your client’s basic emotional, interpersonal,
experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles. It can also help you quickly develop
rapport with your client, provide meaningful feedback and insight that will help your
client develop greater self-understanding, enable you to anticipate the course of
therapy, and help you select the optimal treatment or program based on your client’s
personality. Fifteen NEO-FFI-3 items have been replaced to improve readability and
psychometric properties. This revision combined with new norms makes the test
appropriate for respondents 12 years and older. It provides a quick, reliable, and
accurate measure of the five domains of personality and is particularly useful when
time is limited and when global information on personality is needed.

History of test:
First published by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae in 1989, NEO-FFI-3 is a shortened
version of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised, an implementation of a successful,
and extensively empirically-validated five-factor model of human personality. In
accordance to the two methods of personality assessment outlined below—personality
questionnaire and peer rating—NEO-FFI-3 offers two observer-rating forms (for
rating men and women) along with the standard self-report form, as well as a college-
age self-report form. All 60 items of the NEO-FFI-3 test require a response rated on
the five-point Likert scale. The published expects most people to complete NEO-FFI-
3 within 15 minutes with scoring taking only 1 or 2 minutes (Costa & McCrae, 2005).
The NEO-FFI-3 test is published in 9 foreign languages (including British English)
and has validated versions available in other 25 languages.

Description of Test:
Standardization:
A test is considered to be standardize if the procedures for administrating the tests are
uniform from one setting to another. If the scores obtained from different persons are
to be compared, testing conditions has to be same for all.

Norms:
All items are taken from the NEO-PI-3; thus, the NEO-FFI-3 is also appropriate for
respondents age 12 years and older. The bottom sheet provides templates for scoring
The domain scales of the NEO-FFI-3 and provides profile areas for converting raw
scores to T scores and for graphing the individual's scores. T-scores are based on age-
specific data for male, female, and combined-gender norms.
Standard instructions suggest using Profile Forms for Although derived from an
analysis of lay terms, adult norms for interpreting the scores of an individual age
‘factors were familiar to personality psychologists when 21 to 30 years’. However,
because these young adults lend studied similar traits. Since 1985, using the to obtain
scores that are intermediate between those Inventories has demonstrated that the same
five factors by adolescents and older adults, it may sometimes account for the major
dimensions in personality be appropriate to use the Adolescent Profile Forms instead.

Reliability:
According to Anastasi (1976), reliability refers to the consistency of scores obtained
by the same persons when reexamined with the same test on different occasions, or
with different sets of equivalent items, or under other variable examining conditions.
Internal consistency estimates ranged from .66 (in observer ratings of Openness in
middle school children) to .88. Item factor analyses were conducted separately for
each sample and form, and factor scores were calculated. Table 11 shows that these
rotated item factors corresponded closely to the domain scores for adolescents and
adults and reasonably well for middle school students.
Cross-observer correlations were calculated for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 samples; the
criteria were the full, 48-item NEO-PI-3 domain scales for the factor. Two additional
items from the A scale (which was opposite form, These values ranged from 34 to 60.
A (the weakest of the five) had relatively low loadings and comparison of these values
for the full NEO-PI-3 scales shows that NEO-FFI-3 scales have slightly lower
consensual validity; they explain about 90% as much variance as the full scales. This
is, of course, understandable given their reduced length.

Validity:

Validity refers to degree to which study accurately reflects or assesses the specific
concept that researcher is attempting to measure while reliability concern with
accuracy of actual instrument or procedure validity is concerned with studies success
at measuring what researchers set out to measure.
The NEO Inventories have been translated into more than 50 languages and have been
used extensively in multi-national studies (¢.g., McCrae, Terracciano, et al., 2005a,
2005b). Several of these translations have been published, and evidence of the validity
of these versions is documented in their published manuals. In addition, however,
there are many studies that provide evidence for the validity of unpublished
translations. Lodhi and Deo (2009) replicated age differences in Personality trait
levels in a Marathi-speaking Indian sample. Such studies attest to both the
universality of personality and the validity of the NEO Inventories.
Hong, Paunonen, and Slade (2008) conducted a study to establish criterion validity of
different NEO-FFI-3 scales. They found the significant correlations between the test
scales as criteria like alcohol consumption (scale C, r = -.33), routine exercise (scale
E, r = .29), playing musical instruments (scale O, r = .35), self-rating of honesty (scale
A, r = .45) and self-rating of popularity (scale E, r = .57).

Applications and Uses of Test:

The publisher positions the NEO-FFI-3 test as a tool for quick individual personality
testing in counseling and clinical setting but there is already a large body of research
reporting use of this test in educational, organizational domains.
A meta-analysis of O’Connor and Paunonnen (2007) reports a number of studies
where NEO-FFI-3 was used to predict academic performance (GPA, course grade,
and average exam grade) with Conscientiousness scale most consistently linked to
post-secondary academic success.
Furnham and Bachtiar (2008) reported significant correlations between NEO-FFI-3,
Extraversion and four different measures of creativity. Up to 47% of the variance in
divergent thinking could be accounted by the NEO-FFI-3 factors, while intelligence
measured by Wonderlic Personnel Test provided no incremental variance in creativity
scores, according to Furnham and Bachtiar.
NEO-FFI-3 is a convenient tool for many industrial and organizational applications,
including candidate screening and placement, performance prediction—as well as
wide applications in research.
Limitations of test:
Because NEO-FFI-3 scales include only high-level dimensions of the FFM model,
caution should be exercised in interpreting the results in many cases. As McCrae,
Costa, and Busch (1986) argue, even though the traits that make up a particular factor
covary, it does not imply that they are interchangeable: “A moderate score in
Extraversion, for example, might be obtained by individual who was energetic but
aloof, or lethargic but friendly. For many purposes these distinctions are essential.”
Because NEO-FFI-3 provides only global measures, nothing beyond most generally-
stated conclusions should be endeavored based on its results.
Schneider, Hough, and Dunnette (1996) discussing the validity of high-level
dimensions in predicting job performance argue that global measures can predict only
global performance, which has questionable practical value.
Topping and Gorman (1997) found that the validity of all NEO- FFI scales apart from
Agreeableness, were significantly compromised by attempts to ‘fake good’.
As a variation of ‘faking good’, Scandell and Wlazelek (1999) found that self-
presentation can also significantly affect Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness to
Experience scales of NEO- FFI. Further Scandell and Wlazelek reported that ‘faking
bad’ also significantly reduced Extraversion on the NEO- FFI scale.
Certain issues with cultural independence of the overall FFM model (rather than
NEO- FFI in particular) were reported by Yang and Bond (cited in McCrae & John,
1992): five personality factors that were discovered in Chinese do not show a one-to-
one correspondence to those found in English.

Material required:
NEO Inventories Professional Manual (2005), NEO Inventories test booklet , laptop,
response test sheet, pencil, screen

Table arrangement:
A chair was placed towards the left side of the tester for the subject a screen was kept
in between that it bilaterally divides tester, and manual and other material were kept
behind. NEO- FFI-3 booklet were placed at subject side of table. Other things such as
manual, paper and other required things were hidden behind the screen.

Rapport Formation:
The subject was called to the psychology and was made to sit comfortably. A friendly
conversation was held by asking him about his interests in general. When the subject
felt at ease, he was asked if he was ready for the test to begin. After an affirmative
answer from him, he was given the instructions.

Preliminaries:
Name : Aabha Sharma
Age : 47
Sex: Female
Educational Background: PhD

Instructions:
Provide each respondent with a NEO-FFI-3 Item Booklet and a pencil. Tell the
respondent to read the instructions for completing the NEO-FFI-3, which are on the
first page. After the instructions have been read and the respondent understands the
nature of the task, tell him or her to turn to the second page of the Item Booklet and to
provide the identifying information requested at the top of that page. [ identification
number is to be used, provide the respondent with the number so he of she can enter
it, or fill it in yourself ].
If Form R is being used, the respondent should provide the name (or initials) of the
person being rated is the examiner's responsibility to ensure that the person being
rated can be correctly identified by name, initials, ID number, and/or the name of the
rater, The examiner is also responsible for ensuring that all identifying information is
properly marked on the Item Booklet. Note that responses to the NEO-FFI-3 are made
across the rows of the response grid.

Administration:
After making sure that the subject had understood the instructions, the test was started
even though there was no time limit, the starting time and the time she ended the test
was noted down. After he completed the test he was asked to write introspective
report.

Precautions:
1. The subject was not allowed to open the test booklet until and unless asked to do
so.
2. It was ensured that the subject has filled the responses correctly in the response
sheet.
3. The subject should only move forward.

Scoring:

Missing Responses:
‘Once the measure has been completed, examine the response area of the Item
Booklet to be sure. that a response has been given for each item. If unanswered items
are found, the respondent should be asked to complete them.
If a respondent is unsure of the meaning of an item. or is unsure of how to respond, he
of she may be told to use the neutral response option. 1 is also appropriate to
explain the meaning of words the respondent does not understand.

If the respondent did not provide a response to every item and the respondent is no
longer available to the examiner, the examiner must determine whether the data may
be validly scored and interpreted. If 10 or more items have ‘been left blank, the test is
considered invalid and should not be formally scored. If nine or fewer items have
been left blank, the blank items should be scored as if the neutral response option was
selected, Any domain for which there are more than four missing responses should
be interpreted with caution.

Validity Checks:
At the bottom of the third page of the NEO-FFI-3 Item Booklets, three yes-or-no
items ask the respondent if he or she has (a) responded to all of the statements, (b)
entered responses across the rows, and (c) responded accurately and honestly. In most
cases, if the respondent indicated that responses were not entered in the correct boxes
or were not answered honestly and accurately, the test should not be scored.
Table 1: Scores
Five Factors Raw Scores T-scores
Neuroticism (N) 9 33
Extraversion (E) 39 66
Openness to Experiences(O) 35 59
Agreeableness (A) 31 45
Conscientiousness (C) 45 69

Graphical representation:
Your NEO Summary is a one-page form designed to provide feedback to the
individual in understandable terms regarding his or her-scores on the five
domains. It may be used to report the results of the five domain or factor scores from
the NEO-PI-3, the NEO PI-R, and the NEO-FFI-3. The top portion contains an
introductory statement explaining what the NEO Inventories do and do not measure.
The remainder of the form presents five rows of descriptions, one for each domain,
which, characterize high (T > 55), average (T = 45-55), and low
(< 45) scorers within each domain. The test administrator should check off the
appropriate boxes based on the individual's scores before providing it to the
individual.
As the subject has scored high on Neuroticism, he is sensitive, emotional and prone to
experience feelings that are upsetting, Average on Extraversion and he is moderate in
activity and enthusiasm and enjoys the company of others but also values privacy of
others, High on Openness to Experiences, the subject is open to new experiences and
has broad interests and is very imaginative, Very low on Agreeableness that means
the subject is hardheaded, skeptical, proud and competitive and tends to express anger
directly, and Low on Conscientiousness, the subject is easy going and not very well-
organized and sometimes careless and prefers not to make plans.

Discussion:
The aim of the test was to assess the subject’s personality using NEO-Five Factor
Inventory-3.

Personality is the unique way in which each individual thinks, acts, and feels
throughout life. Personality should not be confused with character, which refers to
value judgments made about a person’s morals or ethical behavior; nor should it be
confused with temperament, the enduring characteristics with which each person is
born, such as irritability or adaptability.
Temperament is based in one’s biology, either through genetic influences, prenatal
influences, or a combination of those influences, and forms the basis upon which
one’s larger personality is built. Both character and temperament are vital parts of
personality, however.
Personality scales or inventories are widely used in assessing personality in both
research or clinical work. They are considered objective measures as they contain
standard questions as they use rating scale. As they agree on scoring key. We have
another approach called empirical approach.
Paul Costa and Robert McCrae have proposed that personality can be described using
the big five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
openness to experience, and emotional stability (or neuroticism).
Extraversion refers to how outgoing or shy someone is.
Agreeableness has to do with how easy to get along with someone is.
People high on the conscientiousness dimension tend to be hardworking, responsible,
and organized.
Openness to new experiences is related to one’s creativity, curiosity, and willingness
to try new things.
Finally, emotional stability has to do with how consistent one’s mood is. One might
wonder how psychologists can reduce the vast number of different terms we use to
describe people to 16 or five basic traits. Factor analysis is a statistical technique used
to accomplish this feat. Factor analysis allows researchers to use correlations between
traits in order to see which traits cluster together as factors. If a strong correlation is
found between punctuality, diligence, and neatness, for example, one could argue that
these traits represent a common factor that we could name conscientiousness.

Neuroticism:
Neuroticism (N) is defined primarily by anxiety and depression. The six facets of this
domain are anxiety, hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and
vulnerability (describing people who do not feel safe). Neuroticism is a trait
characterized by sadness, moodiness, and emotional instability. Individuals who are
high in this trait tend to experience mood swings, anxiety, irritability, and sadness.
Those low in this trait tend to be more stable and emotionally resilient. In the present
study, the subject has obtained raw score of 9 and T-score of 33 which is very low,
that means subject is emotionally stable and resilient.

Extraversion:

Extraversion (E) refers to the degree of sociability or withdrawal a person tends to

exhibit. Its six facets are warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement
seeking, and positive emotions. Extraversion (or extroversion) is characterized by
excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional
expressiveness. People who are high in extraversion are outgoing and tend to gain
energy in social situations. Being around other people helps them feel energized and
[Link] who are low in extraversion (or introverted) tend to be more reserved
and have less energy to expend in social settings. Social events can feel draining and
introverts often require a period of solitude and quiet in order to "recharge." In the
present study, the subject has obtained raw score of 39 and T-score of 66 which is
very high, that means subject is excitable, sociable, talkative and has high amounts of
expressiveness.

Openness:

Openness (O) refers to the breadth of experience to which a person is amenable. Its
six facets are fantasy, aesthetics, feelings (openness to feelings of self and others),
actions (willingness to try new activities), ideas (intellectual curiosity), and values.
This trait features characteristics such as imagination and insight. People who are high
in this trait also tend to have a broad range of interests. They are curious about the
world and other people and eager to learn new things and enjoy new
[Link] who are high in this trait tend to be more adventurous
and creative. People low in this trait are often much more traditional and may struggle
with abstract [Link] the present study, the subject has obtained raw score of 35
and T-score of 59 which is high, that means subject is imaginative and has broad
insights to every situation.

Agreeableness:

Agreeableness (A) is the degree to which a person is warm and cooperative as

opposed to unpleasant and [Link] personality dimension includes attributes
such as trust, altruism, kindness, affection, and other prosocial behaviors. People who
are high in agreeableness tend to be more cooperative while those low in this trait
tend to be more competitive and sometimes even manipulative. In the present study,
the subject has obtained raw score of 31 and T-score of 45 which is average, that
means the subject is trustworthy, warm and kind most of the times but competitive
and stubborn in other situations.

Conscientiousness:
Conscientiousness (C) is the degree to which a person is persevering, responsible, and
organized as opposed to lazy, irresponsible, and impulsive. The standard features of
this dimension include high levels of thoughtfulness, good impulse control, and goal-
directed behaviors. Highly conscientious people tend to be organized and mindful of
details. They plan ahead, think about how their behavior affects others, and are
mindful of deadlines. In the present study, the subject has obtained raw score of 45
and T-score of 69 which is very high, that means subject is conscientious, and mindful
in all the situations and strives to the excel more.

Neuroticism facets
N1: Anxiety N2: Angry Hostility N3: Depression N4: Self-Consciousness N5:
Impulsiveness N6: Vulnerability
Extraversion facets
E1: Warmth E2: Gregariousness E3: Assertiveness E4: Activity E5: Excitement-
Seeking E6: Positive Emotions
Openness facets
O1: Fantasy O2: Aesthetics O3: Feelings O4: Actions O5: Ideas O6: Values
Agreeableness facets
Al: Trust A2: Straightforwardness A3: Altruism A4: Compliance A5: Modesty
A6:Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness facets
C1: Competence C2: Order C3: Dutifulness C4: Achievement Striving C5: Self
Discipline C6: Deliberation
Rapport Formation:
The subject was called to the psychology and was made to sit comfortably. A friendly
conversation was held by asking him about his interests in general. When the subject
felt at ease, he was asked if he was ready for the test to begin. After an affirmative
answer from him, he was given the instructions.
The subject’s name is Aabha Sharma, she is 47 years old, and is student.
Instructions:
Provide each respondent with a NEO-FFI-3 Item Booklet and a pencil. Tell the
respondent to read the instructions for completing the NEO-FFI-3, which are on the
first page. After the instructions have been read and the respondent understands the
nature of the task, tell him or her to turn to the second page of the Item Booklet and to
provide the identifying information requested at the top of that page. [ identification
number is to be used, provide the respondent with the number so he of she can enter
it, or fill it in yourself ].
The examiner is also responsible for ensuring that all identifying information is
properly marked on the Item Booklet. Note that responses to the NEO-FFI-3 are made
across the rows of the response grid.
Administration:
After making sure that the subject had understood the instructions, the test was started
even though there was no time limit, the starting time and the time she ended the test
was noted down. After she completed the test she was asked to write introspective
report.

The raw scores for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,

Agreeableness and Conscientiousness are 9, 39, 35, 31 and 45 respectively. The
subject is scoring low on Neuroticism, Very high on Extraversion, High on Openness
to Experiences, Average on Agreeableness and Very High on Conscientiousness.
The T-scores for Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness
and Conscientiousness are 33, 66, 59, 45 and 69 respectively. (Refer to Table 1)

As the subject has scored low on Neuroticism, she is secure, hardy and generally
relaxed, even under stressful conditions, Very High on Extraversion and she is
extraverted, outgoing, active and high spirited and prefers to be around people most of
the time, High on Openness to Experiences, the subject is open to new experiences
and has broad interests and is very imaginative, Average on Agreeableness that means
the subject is generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, sometimes be stubborn and
competitive, and Very High on Conscientiousness, the subject is conscientious and
well-organised and has high standards and always strive to achieve her goals.

Compared with the norms of the NEO-FFI-3 derived from American populations,
some of the current findings corroborated with the “egalitarian commitment”
suggested by Smith et al., (1996). For example, the noticeably higher average score in
Agreeableness amongst Americans compared with a lower average score of the
sample population in the current study. On the other hand, a comparison of scores in
our study related to the two “egalitarian-related” traits, namely Openness and
Extraversion and those in the Smith et al., (1996) study showed no real difference.
It is reasonable though to note that the scores obtained from a sample of dental
students located in a “non-democratic” community might not be simply compared
with the norms derived from large representative population sample of democratic
society. We might also consider the impact that closer intercultural ties and improved
cross-cultural communications have on enhancing an individual’s choice of
personality expression.

Terracciano and Costa (2004) provided evidence at true statistical interaction. They
studied histories of cigarette smoking in a sample of 1,638 adults and found
significant effects for N, A, and C: Individuals scoring high in Neuroticism or low in
Agreeableness or Conscientiousness were more likely to smoke and less likely to have
quit. In the present study, the subject’s tendency to smoke is very low as she has
scored very low in Neuroticism and moderate in Agreeableness and very high on
Conscientiousness. High scores on neuroticism displays anxiety, self-consciousness,
anger hostility and vulnerability but subject is less anxious and vulnerable to
situations hence less prone to smoking.
McCrae & Terracciano (2005) suggested that members of cultures in democratic
societies and democratic “values” or “freedoms” are likely to score highly in
Extraversion, Openness and Agreeableness trait scores. Conservative religious culture
however, may suppress the influence of individualistic values on personality fostered
by democratic societies and reduce Extraversion, Openness and Agreeableness trait.
In the present study, the subject lives in democratic society and has scored very high
in Extraversion, high on Openness and moderate on Agreeableness. This shows that
the subject is more open to experiences and keeps his views clearly but does may
agree to everyone but be stubborn or competitive in some situations.
The importance of studying the relationship between approaches to learning and
personality is nested in the concept that one of the major factors related to students
learning and characteristics is personality (Biggs, 1993). Although, contentious
argument has been raised about the difficulty to conceptualise the relationship
between learning approaches and personality (Zhang & Sternberg, 2000), Jackson and
Lawty-Jones (1996) stated that evidence exists to support the conclusion that learning
approaches could be fully explained by personality scales and that all learning
approaches had at least one significant correlation with one personality trait (Jackson
& Lawty-Jones, 1996). Conversely though, other researchers have concluded that
learning approaches were only partially explained by personality (Duff et al., 2004).
A more subtle kind of interaction was reported by Weiss and colleagues (2009). They
looked at Personality traits and styles as predictors of the development of depression
in 512 Medicare patients who had completed the FFI. Only two factors—high N and
low C, are significant predictors in univariate analysis. But were examined, certain
combinations of N or C with other factors were also significant, For example, patients
high in both N and O (i.e. Hypersensitive ) were more likely to develop major
depression, whereas those low in N and high in A (i.e. Easy-Going) were least likely
to become depressed.
In the present study, the subject has scored very low on neuroticism and average on
agreeableness that means she is less prone towards depression as she is found to be
easy going by scoring very low on N and high on O.

Conclusion:
As the subject has scored low on Neuroticism, she is secure, hardy and generally
relaxed, even under stressful conditions, Very High on Extraversion and she is
extraverted, outgoing, active and high spirited and prefers to be around people most of
the time, High on Openness to Experiences, the subject is open to new experiences
and has broad interests and is very imaginative, Average on Agreeableness that means
the subject is generally warm, trusting, and agreeable, sometimes be stubborn and
competitive, and Very High on Conscientiousness, the subject is conscientious and
well-organised and has high standards and always strive to achieve her goals. The
subject can adjust well within the surroundings and will face less problems under high
pressure situations.

References:

Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological Testing, Fourth Edition, New York: Macmillan

Publishers.

Chadyuk, O. (2009). NEO Five-Factor Inventory and its Applications in Industrial /

Organizational Psychology, Washington: Walden University.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (1992). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor

Inventory, Revised Order (2003), Maryland: Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institute on Aging, NIH.

Costa, P. & McCrae, R. (2002). NEO Inventories for the NEO-PI-3, NEO-FFI-3,
NEO-PI-R, Revised Order (2005), Cambridge: PAR Publications.

Gregory, R. J. (2014). Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications,

Seventh Edition, England: Pearson Education

Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2018). Psychological Testing: Principles,

Applications, and Issues, Ninth Edition, Boston: Cengage Learning.