Personality Profile Report: PSY2007, Theories, and Evaluation

This personality profile report, completed for the PSY2007 module, provides an overview of personality theories, focusing on trait theory and psychometric assessment. The report begins with an introduction to various personality theories, including those of Hippocrates, Freud, Jung, and biological theories, before concentrating on the trait approach. It details the five-factor model (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness) and the use of questionnaires to assess these traits. The report includes a table of personality scores and interpretations for each factor, followed by the test-taker's personal evaluation of the profile's accuracy and relevance to their life. The report concludes with an evaluation of trait theory and psychometric tests in a modern context, acknowledging both their value and potential challenges, such as individual biases and cultural differences. References to supporting literature are also included.

PERSONALITY PROFILE REPORT
Module Code: PSY2007
INSERT THE TEST REFERENCE HERE, AS SHOWN ON SESSION NOTES
1) Introduction
Theories of Personality are modes to not only define but also to understand different
behaviours and personal traits. Each theory takes it own view of personality and delves into
how and what relevant factors affect one's personality. The earliest of these theories given by
Hippocrates was based in 4 biological fluids called humors and subsequent to that came
Freud's Psychodynamic theory which was based in the intrinsic components of an individual
mind named: Id, Ego and Superego. The same was developed further by others like Jung
adding the dimensions of social environment. Biological theories were classically rooted in
the notion of brain affecting the ultimate nature of one's personality.
Biological theories of personality argue that the inherent different between individuals lie in
the distinction between the inherited predispostions one has. This way they bring the aspects
of heredity along with parallel reference to individual physiological methods. Social
cognitive abilities were given due regard by certain others who argued on the basis of
individual reason and thinking. These would involve behavioural aspects and learning
abilities which are an intrinsic part of a being. One may choose and try to model or remodel
one's approach by learning along with possible suitable changes in behaviour if required.
Traits approach on the other hand targets some fundamental traits of human behaviour and
links it with some aspects of biology. The last part was particularly a peculiar feature of
Eyseneck’s theory. It not only explains the modes of acquiring certain behavioural traits but
also adds the notion of maturity with age explaining why people behave the way they do.
This helps in categorising the individuals on the difference in their behaviour and predicts the
trend. Allport took the idea of certain central traits as a medium to explain behaviour by
categorising them as stable traits as being core to every being. He also devised other
categories like cardinal traits and secondary traits to explain the individual development. This
is the modern trait theory.
His work though didn’t give a medium to categorise individuals and to anticipate future
behaviour. Cattell in is work provides a framework based on inductive reasoning to
categorise individuals based on traits to anticipate future behaviour. It is called the

Exploratory Factor analysis. The most common way used today is the Principal components
analysis which employs deductive reasoning by the use of questionnaires. It is the basis of
several psychometric tests. There are 5 factors under PCA while Cattell gave a 16F tool using
EFA. Trait theories are sometimes referred to as psychometric trait theories as they tend to
focus on them. These tests are self administered using a questionnaire and aim to determine
the underlying factors which can explain the interaction between several quantitative
variables. Factors are identifiable and labelled. 5 factors under the PCA scheme form 5 factor
Model and feature :
1. Neuroticism : as a measure of sensitivity to stress and balance of emotions
2. Extraversion: It is a factor to understand how one chooses one’s fellows and the
energy levels
3. Openness or Conformity: is the adaptability to the conventions and capability to
adjust as per the requirements
4. Agreeableness: It highlights one’s tendencies to authority and the behaviour to power
and consequent resistance
5. Conscientiousness : This factor is all about details and one’s perception to over look
or look into subtle or detailed aspects
This analysis helps in understanding the future behaviour and thereby a good way to
understand a prospective employee and suitability. Career choices can be suitably advised
based on one’s standards of different factors as they help understand the temperament and
overall tendencies.
2) Table of Personality Scores and Personality Profile
FACTORS SCORE SCORE RANGE INTERPRETATION
Neuroticism 22 About average The score has been
referred as “About
average” because the
same was interpreted
as being in the bell
curve region : neither
in bottom nor top
30%.

Aspects like : comfort
with oneself, liking
oneself , feeling blue
were used
Openness 27 About average The score has been
referred as “About
average” because the
same was interpreted
as being in the bell
curve region: neither
in bottom nor top
30%.
Aspects like :
understanding or
inclination to art,
culture and
development were
talked
Extraversion 25 About average The score has been
referred as “About
average” because the
same was interpreted
as being in the bell
curve region : neither
in bottom nor top
30%.
Aspects like: meeting
new people, being the
lifeline of party were
asked
Agreeableness 28 About average The score has been
referred as “About
average” because the
same was interpreted
as being in the bell
curve region : neither
in bottom nor top
30%.
Aspects like : trusting
people, good opinion
of others, cut them
open were asked
Conscientiousness 32 About average The score has been

referred as “About
average” because the
same was interpreted
as being in the bell
curve region : neither
in bottom nor top
30%.
Aspects like:
planning and
completing ideas,
duties and
responsibility were
tested
3) Test-taker’s Evaluation of the Profile
The test accurately understands several aspects of the test - takers life. I have been engaged in
social issues and care about subtle details in my life both personal and professional. These not
only make me more organised and effective but allow me to take a balanced view of the
reality. At times, there is a chance that i feel low or might not feel like talking and the score
of 22 does indicate that. It is o the lower side of the about average zone. It is not a usual thing
but i tend to lose energies faster in gatherings and seldom do i feel that i am the lifeline of a
party or an event. Whenever that is a case, it is extremely rare that i feel balanced. I am either
in ecstasy or feel lost and can’t take in the stuff. It makes me clueless for a while and might
even tend to lose on some agreeableness. It is also relevant to mention that there is an average
tendency to respect rules. I am not generally breaking rules i find social utility in and for a
greater good than harm. I don’t really promote people to follow or break rules unless it is for
a greater good like usage of masks and healthy practices these days. So, if an authoritative
person is abusing the position chances are I would be taking a stand which won’t really go
well with the status of agreeableness. Though a balance and liberal approach is what i prefer
until the loss is grave.
This aligns with the lower “about average” status as me being possibly sensitive to certain
aspects. The same is thus, a challenge to my agreeableness to authority. My skills focus on
reading and being more and more open to ideas and they allow for maintain a balance and
that is why I would always have something to say but may choose not to on the basis of the
situation and overall analysis. Workplace events are a good example particularly usage of
unethical means creating undue loss of Academic resources.

4) Evaluation of Trait Theory and Psychometric Tests in a MODERN Context
By this test process and a few readings on the subject, one can feel that there are certain
challenges to the schema of psychometric testing. The testing though is widely applicable and
thus of great possible value in several sectors (Vnukovskaya, 2020) one can’t really avoid the
individual understanding of several different parts or individual questions. The tests can have
variable relevance despite high levels of reliability and validity due to specific relationship to
the sector (Korotkov, 2004) as well as on an individual basis. There are at times personal bias
involved (Fraine, 2009) or altogether a different perspective as per the cultural values
endemic to a region, a society or even a household (Ardila, 2005).
Another key aspect from individual experience would be that of relative difference in the
understanding of intensity as mentioned in the multiple choice question and what is felt.
5) References
Ardila, A. (2005). Cultural values underlying psychometric cognitive
testing. Neuropsychology review, 15(4), 185.
Fraine, N., & McDade, R. (2009). Reducing bias in psychometric assessment of culturally
and linguistically diverse students from refugee backgrounds in Australian schools: A
process approach. Australian Psychologist, 44(1), 16-26.
Korotkov, D., & Hannah, T. E. (2004). The five-factor model of personality: Strengths and
limitations in predicting health status, sick-role and illness behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 36(1), 187-199.
Vnukovskaya, T. (2020). Applied possibilities of psychometry. In Digitalization and Industry
4.0: Economic and Societal Development (pp. 415-424). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.