Chapter 4
Theoretical and Measurement Issues in Trait Psychology

Chapter Outline

 

Theoretical Issues

Meaningful Differences Between Individuals

• There are meaningful differences between individuals (trait psychology is also called differential psychology)
• People differ in amounts of traits, and differences can be accurately measured
• According to trait psychologists, every personality is the product of a combination of a few basic, primary traits

Consistency Over Time

• Research indicates consistency over time for broad traits
• Although consistent over time, how a trait is manifested in behavior might change over time
• How can there be consistency in a trait if it is known to change with age (e.g., impulsivity)? Focus on the rank order differences between people
  

Consistency Across Situations

• Trait psychologists traditionally assumed cross-situation consistency
• If situations mainly control how people behave, then the existence or relevance of traits is questionable
• Hartshorne and May (1928): Low cross-situation consistency is in honesty, helpfulness, self-control
• Mischel (1968): Personality psychologists should abandon their efforts to explain behavior with traits, focusing instead on situations
• Situationism: If behavior varies across situations, then situational differences and not personality traits determine behavior
• Mischel’s (1968) critique encouraged debate in personality psychology about the importance of traits compared to situations in causing behavior
• Both sides tempered views: Trait psychologists acknowledged the importance of situations, and situationists acknowledged the importance of traits
• Debate led to two lasting changes: Focus on person-situation interaction and practice of aggregation

Person-Situation Interaction

• Two possible explanations for behavior:
• Behavior is a function of personality traits
• Behavior is a function of situation
• Integration: Personality and situation interact to produce behavior
• Differences between people make a difference only under certain circumstances
• Situational specificity: Certain situations can provoke behavior that is out of character for an individual
• Strong situation: Situations in which most people react in a similar way (e.g., grief following loss of loved one)
• When situations are weak or ambiguous, personality has its strongest influence
• Three additional ways in which personality and situation interact to produce behavior
• Selection: Tendency to choose or select situations in which one finds oneself, as a function of personality
• Evocation: Certain personality traits may evoke specific responses from others
• Manipulation: Various means by which people influence the behavior of others; tactics of manipulation vary with personality

           
Aggregation

• Longer tests are more reliable than shorter ones and are better measures of traits
• Single behavior or occasion may be influenced by extenuating circumstances unrelated to personality
• Aggregation implies that traits are only one influence on behavior
• Aggregation also implies that traits refer to the person’s average level
• Thus, personality psychologists will never be good at predicting single acts or single occasions

Measurement Issues

• Trait approach relies on self-report surveys to measure personality
• Personality psychologists assume that people differ in the amounts of various traits, so a key measurement issue is determining how much of trait person has
• Traits are often represented as dimensions along which people differ
• Trait psychologists are aware of and address circumstances that affect accuracy, reliability, validity, and utility of self-report trait measures

 

Carelessness

• Method for detecting such problems is an infrequency scale embedded in test
• Infrequency scale contains items that most people answer in a particular way
• If a participant answers differently than most, this suggests carelessness
• Another method for detecting carelessness is to include duplicate items spaced far apart in the survey—if the person answers the same item differently, this suggests carelessness

Faking on Questionnaires

• “Fake good”: Attempt to appear better off or better adjusted than one is
• “Fake bad”: Attempt to appear worse off or less adjusted than one is
• Method to detect is to a devise scale that, if answered in particular way, suggests faking

Response Sets

• Acquiescence: Tendency to agree with items, regardless of content; psychologists counteract by reverse-keying some items
• Extreme responding: Tendency to give endpoint responses
• Social desirability: Tendency to answer items in such a way so that one comes across as socially attractive or likable
• Two views on social desirability:
• Represents distortion and should be eliminated or reduced
• Resolved by (1) measuring and statistically removing, (2) designing surveys that are less susceptible to this response set, or (3) using forced-choice format
• Valid part of other desirable personality traits, such as agreeableness, and should be studied
• Self-deceptive optimism versus impression management

Personality and Prediction

• Whether someone does well in an employment setting may be determined, in part, by whether a person’s personality traits mesh with job requirements
• Personality traits may predict who is likely to do well in particular a job, so it makes sense to select people for employment based on measures of traits
• But using tests to select employees has limitations and potential liabilities
• Lawsuits have challenged the use of tests on the grounds ranging from discrimination, to invasion of privacy, to freedom of religion
• Most employers receive overall test scores; however, not the applicant’s answers to specific questions
• In 1978, the EEOC standardized federal guidelines for the use of tests in employment selection
• Two main concerns that the employer must satisfy to use for employment selection
• Test must predict performance on a specific job or jobs like the ones people are being selected for
• Test must not be biased or have “undue impact” on persons from protected groups, such as women and minorities

 

Personnel Selection—Choosing the Right Person for Job as Police Officer

• Personality tests frequently used to screen out “wrong” individuals from a pool of applicants for police officers
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• California Personality Inventory (CPI)
• 16 Personality Factor (16PF) Questionnaire

Beware of Barnum Statements in Personality Test Interpretations

• Barnum statement: generality that could apply to anyone

Educational Selection: The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and Success in Graduate School

• Most graduate schools require applicants to take the GRE, and most schools use GRE scores to some degree in deciding whom to accept into program
• GRE is an aptitude test thought to reflect intelligence or the capacity to learn
• Many studies have been conducted to assess the degree to which GRE scores predict success in psychology graduate school
• Meta-analyses reveal that GRE scores do predict success in graduate school, but correlations are only modest (.15 to .40)
• Four arguments for why GRE scores can be useful, even though they only modestly predict success in graduate school
• Even small increments in predictability above chance can be useful
• Costs of failing to select the right people into graduate school can be high
• GRE scores can be useful if used with appropriate criterion (i.e., what we want to predict)
• Criterion problem: Concerns how we define and measure the criterion we want to predict
• Validity of GRE depends on which criterion used to define success in graduate school—if defined as obtaining Ph.D., GRE scores are valid predictors
• Research indicates that, without range restriction, correlations between GRE scores and success in graduate school are high, ranging from .30 to .70

Selection in Business Settings—The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and Choice of Leaders

• MBTI is most widely used personality assessment device in business settings
• Assesses eight fundamental preferences, which reduce to four scores:
• Extraverted versus introverted
• Sensing or intuitive
• Thinking or feelings
• Judging or perceiving
• Four scores combined to yield 16 types
• MBTI used widely to select applicants for leadership positions
• But criticism, especially regarding reliability and predictive validity

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

• Hallmark of trait perspective is the emphasis on the differences between people
• Trait psychologists assume that people will be relatively constant over time and across situations in behaviors, because of their differences in various traits
• Traits are more likely to influence a person’s behavior when the situation is weak and ambiguous and doesn’t push for conformity from all people
• Personality traits refer to the average tendencies in behavior
• Trait psychologists are interested in the accuracy of measurement
• Interest in measurement and prediction has led trait psychologists to apply these skills to the selection or screening of job applicants and other situations where personality might make a difference

 

KEY TERMS

Differential Psychology                     False Negative
Consistency                                        False Positive
Rank Order                                        Response Sets
Situationism                                       Noncontent Responding
Person-Situation Interaction              Acquiescence
Aggregation                                       Extreme Responding
Situational Specificity                                   Social Desirability
Strong Situation                                 Forced-Choice Questionnaire
Situational Selection                          Integrity Tests
Evocation                                           Job Analysis
Manipulation                                      Barnum Statements
Average Tendencies                           Criterion Problem
Infrequency Scale                              Restriction of Range
Faking                                                Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Chapter Overview

This chapter introduces students to key theoretical and measurement issues in trait psychology. The authors begin with a review of several important theoretical issues, including a review of the key assumptions that most trait psychologists share. These include that there exist meaningful differences between individuals, and that these differences are stable across time and across some situations. The authors review the history of trait psychology, noting that a heavy emphasis on the primacy of traits in explaining behavior has now been tempered with the recognition that situations and traits interact to produce behavior. The authors review three key ways in which traits and situations interact to produce behavior, including situation selection, evocation of responses from others, and manipulation of others. Another lasting change in trait psychology caused by the challenges of situationists is the reliance on aggregation to measure the average tendencies of individuals. Aggregation refers to averaging several single observations and produces a more reliable measure of a personality trait than a single observation. Next, the authors review several key measurement issues in trait psychology, including carelessness, faking, and response sets. One such response set that has received a great deal of theoretical and empirical attention is socially desirable responding. The authors next review the use of trait measures to predict performance, including the use of trait measures in employment selection and educational selection. A key problem reviewed by the authors in using trait measures to predict performance is the restriction of range. This occurs when the range of one or both variables being correlated is restricted, producing a smaller correlation than would be the case if no range restriction occurred.

Learning Objectives

 

• Identify and discuss three assumptions about personality traits that most trait psychologists share.

• Define and discuss situationism. Provide an example of a situationist interpretation of individual behavioral differences.

 

• Discuss the idea of person-situation interaction. Provide an example of an interactionist interpretation of individual behavioral differences.

• Define and give an example of situational specificity.

 

• Define and give an example of a strong situation.

• Discuss and give examples of selection, evocation, and manipulation as ways in which traits and situations can interact to produce behavior.

• Discuss aggregation and why it is now a standard practice among trait psychologists.

 

• Discuss the measurement issue of careless responding and how trait psychologists might address this problem.

• Discuss the measurement issue of faking and how trait psychologists might address this problem.

 

• Discuss the measurement issue of response sets and how trait psychologists might address this problem.

• Discuss the two major views of socially desirable responding among trait psychologists.

 

• Discuss the application of trait measures to employment selection. What are some of the benefits and liabilities of using traits measures for employment selection?

• Discuss the use of the GRE as a means of selecting applicants for admission to graduate school in psychology.

 

• Define and discuss the “criterion problem” that one faces when attempting to use trait measures to predict real-world behavior.

• Define and discuss “restriction of range” as a problem one can face when attempting to use trait measures to predict real-world behavior.

 

• Discuss integrity testing as a means of employment selection.

 

Lecture Topics and Lecture Suggestions

• Training the Scientists and Engineers of Tomorrow: A Person-Situation Approach (Cross, 2001). This lecture is designed to provide students with an example of how one might conduct research informed by the perspective that behavior is the product of the interaction between personality and situations. This is an interesting study that includes an assessment of sex differences. The topic of sex differences is a reliable attention-grabber for students and is a good way to maintain student interest and appreciation for the importance of the interactions between personality and situations in explaining behavior. Use this lecture as a springboard for discussing the interaction between personality traits and situations in generating behavior. For instructors interested in generating controversial discussion, encourage students to discuss the possibility that sex (male, female) might be appropriately considered a personality variable, or at least an important individual difference. For particularly sharp controversy, encourage students to consider whether sex should be used as a means of selecting applicants for particular jobs—why or why not? Do students agree that employment selection on the basis of sex should be illegal?

 

• According to Cross (2001), the United States may face a shortage of well-trained scientists and engineers in the near future
• This prospective study examined the issue of women’s low rates of participation in these fields from a person-situation perspective, focusing on the early years of graduate school
• 63 graduate students completed questionnaires their first year of graduate school, and at follow-up a year later
• Results
• Although men and women were similar in many respects (e.g., in Graduate Record Exam scores and grades), women evaluated their abilities related to intelligence lower than did men
• There were no gender differences in students’ perceptions of the academic climate
• Longitudinal analyses revealed that students’ self-evaluations and gender moderated the effects of perceived supportiveness of their academic departments on changes in well-being from the end of their first year to the end of their second year

Reference:

Cross, S. E. (2001). Training the scientists and engineers of tomorrow: A person-situation approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 296–323.

• Managerial Personality and Performance: A Semi-Idiographic Approach (Chatman, Caldwell, & O'Reilly, 1999). This lecture is designed to provide students with an example of how personality can be used to predict performance in a real-world setting. This study investigated whether personality traits can predict managerial performance. Students will find this study interesting, as it speaks to the likelihood that they will find and maintain employment on the basis of personality traits. Use this lecture as a springboard for discussing the relationships between personality traits and job performance, and for discussing the error in predicting job performance on the basis of personality traits.

 

• According to Chatman et al. (1999), understanding the relationship between personality and behavior requires accounting for a broad set of traits within each person and the demands of a specific role or situation
• To address these requirements, the authors assessed the relevance or ordering of traits within an individual (an idiographic approach) and compared these orderings across individuals occupying similar organizational situations (a nomothetic approach)
• The utility of this semi-idiographic approach is illustrated with a longitudinal study of 83 MBA students
• The MBA students whose personalities were more similar to a template of the successful young manager:
• Received more job offers upon graduating and, subsequently,
• Earned higher salaries,
• Were more likely to be working full-time, and
• Had changed jobs less often than did those who fit the managerial template less well

Reference:

Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1999). Managerial personality and performance: A semi-idiographic approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 514–545.

Classroom Activities and Demonstrations

 

• Larsen and Buss note that, although a trait might be consistent over time, how it manifests itself in actual behavior might change substantially. Consider the trait of disagreeableness. As a child, a highly disagreeable person might be prone to temper tantrums and fits of breath holding, fist pounding, and undirected rage. As an adult, a disagreeable person might be difficult to get along with, and hence might have trouble sustaining interpersonal relationships and holding down a job. Distribute Activity Handout 4-1 (“Trait Consistency, but Behavioral Variability”). Give students about five minutes to complete the handout. Ask several students to volunteer their responses. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing the idea that trait consistency does not mean behavioral invariance, the fact that different behaviors can be generated by the same underlying traits, and the interaction between traits and situations as a means of accounting for trait consistency in the face of behavioral variability.

• Larsen and Buss note that one common method for detecting carelessness of participants who complete a personality inventory is to design and incorporate an infrequency scale into the measure. An infrequency scale includes items that most or all people would answer in a particular way. Distribute Activity Handout 4-2 (“Designing an Infrequency Scale”) to students. Give students five minutes to complete the handout. Ask several students to volunteer a few of the items they wrote. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing the use of infrequency scales for detecting carelessness in responding.

 

• Larsen and Buss discuss how measures of personality traits have been used in employment selection and educational selection. This activity will give students an opportunity to identify 10 traits that they think might be used to identify and select applicants for admission as an undergraduate into a university or college. Distribute Activity Handout 4-3 (“Selecting Applicants for Admission to Undergraduate Education”). Give students five minutes to complete the handout. Ask several students to volunteer a few of the traits they identified, and to explain briefly why they identified those particular traits. Use this activity as a springboard for discussing the use of personality measures to predict performance in the real world and, in particular, for selecting applicants into educational programs.

Questions for In-Class Discussion

 

• Trait psychologists make three key assumptions about personality. Ask students to identify and discuss each of these assumptions. Guide students to the following three assumptions: (1) There are meaningful differences between individuals that can be measured, (2) there is some degree of consistency in personality over time, and (3) there is some degree of consistency in behavior across situations, and that this consistency is attributable to personality stability. Challenge students to criticize each assumption. How might each assumption be incorrect? Do they agree with each assumption? Why or why not?

• A key response set that personality psychologists have long been concerned about is socially desirable responding. Ask students to define socially desirable responding. Ask students to present and discuss the two major perspectives on social desirability. Guide students to the following two perspectives: (1) Socially desirable responding represents distortion or error and should be eliminated or minimized, and (2) socially desirable responding is a trait and does not represent error or distortion. Which perspective do students subscribe to? Why?

 

• Ask students to discuss the question, “Should personality measures be used in hiring prospective applicants?” Why or why not? Might the use of personality tests be more appropriate for some jobs than for others? If so, for which jobs should hiring be influenced by scores on personality tests? For which jobs should we not use personality scores during the hiring process?

Critical Thinking Essays

 

• According to trait psychologists, the vast differences among people can be captured and represented by a few key personality traits. How is it that the uniqueness of every individual can be portrayed by just a few traits? Answer this question first as a trait psychologist might, and then challenge the trait psychologist with an argument that he or she is wrong—that is, argue that the uniqueness of every individual cannot be portrayed by just a few key personality traits.

• According to Larsen and Buss, aggregation implies that traits are only one influence on behavior. First, define aggregation as it is used in studying personality traits. What do Larsen and Buss mean by this statement? Larsen and Buss also note that aggregation implies that traits refer to a person’s average level. What do Larsen and Buss mean by this statement?

 

• Larsen and Buss note that it is a mathematical fact that the correlation between two variables will shrink as the range of scores on one (or both) variable is restricted. Discuss, in your own words, what this means and why this is the case. Give an example of how range restriction might produce a small positive correlation between a personality trait and a real world behavior, when in reality there is a large positive correlation between the trait and the behavior.

 

Research Papers

• Person-situation interactionism is the perspective adopted by most modern personality psychologists. This perspective assumes that behavior is produced by an interaction between personality traits and situational factors. Conduct a review of the psychological research literature. Identify three articles published in the last five years that present a person-situation interactionist perspective on the relationships between personality traits, situational factors, and manifest behavior. For each article, summarize what the researchers investigated, how they investigated it, and what they found.
• A key response set that personality psychologists have long been concerned about is socially desirable responding. First, define socially desirable responding. Next, review the two major perspectives on social desirability, as presented by Larsen and Buss. Finally, conduct a review of the psychological research literature. Identify three articles published in the last five years that address personality traits and that include an assessment of socially desirable responding. For each article, summarize what the researchers investigated, how they investigated it, and what they found. In your discussion of the results of each paper, explain how socially desirable responding was addressed in each study.

 

• Larsen and Buss review empirical work on the relationship between scores on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and performance or success in graduate school. Discuss, in your own words, what Larsen and Buss conclude, on the basis of their review of the literature. Next, conduct a review of the psychological research literature. Identify three articles not discussed or cited by Larsen and Buss that investigate the relationship between GRE scores and performance or success in graduate school. For each article, summarize what the researchers investigated, how they investigated it, and what they found. For each article, address whether the results are consistent or inconsistent with the conclusions provided by Larsen and Buss. If they not consistent with the conclusion provided by Larsen and Buss, what might account for this inconsistency?

Recent Research Articles and Other Scholarly Readings

 

Chatman, J. A., Caldwell, D. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1999). Managerial personality and performance: A semi-idiographic approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 514–545.

Chou, H.-W. (2001). Effects of training method and computer anxiety on learning
performance and self-efficacy. Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 51–69.

Costa, P. T., Jr., Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., et al. (2000). Personality at midlife: Stability, intrinsic maturation, and response to life events. Assessment, 7, 365–378.

Cross, S. E. (2001). Training the scientists and engineers of tomorrow: A person-situation approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 296–323.

DeBourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2000). Personal and family determinants of dietary behaviour in adolescents and their parents. Psychology and Health, 15, 751–770.

Doster, J. A., Wilcox, S. E., Lambert, P. L., et al. (2000). Stability and factor structure of the Jackson Personality Inventory—Revised. Psychological Reports, 86, 421–428.

Fogg, L. F., & Rose, R. M. (1999). Use of personal characteristics in the selection of astronauts. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 4, 27–33.

Gao, S., Dolan, N., Hall, K. S., et al. (2000). The association of demographic factors and physical illness with personality change in a community sample of elderly African Americans. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8, 209–214.
Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., Skodol, & A. E. (2000). Stability and course of personality disorders: The need to consider comorbidities and continuities between Axis I psychiatric disorders and Axis II personality disorders. Psychiatric Quarterly, 71, 291–307.

Herbst, J. H., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., et al. (2000). Self-perceptions of stability and change in personality at midlife: The UNC Alumni Heart Study. Assessment, 7, 379–388.

Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2000). Personnel selection: Looking toward the future—Remembering the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 631-664.

Kenrick, D. T. (1999). Of hunter-gatherers, fundamental social motives, and person-situation interactions. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 226–229.

Lance, C. E., & James, L. R. (1999). nu-sup-2: A proportional variance-accounted-for index for some cross-level and person-situation research designs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 395–418.

Links, P. S., Heslegrave, R. J. (2000). Prospective studies of outcome: Understanding mechanisms of change in patients with borderline personality disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 23, 137–150.

Malle, B. F., Knobe, J., O’Laughlin, M. J., et al. (2000). Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: Beyond person-situation attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 309–326.

Max, J. E., Koele, S. L., Castillo, C. C., et al. (2000). Personality change disorder in children and adolescents following traumatic brain injury. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 6, 279–289.

Max, J. E., Robertson, B. A. M., & Lansing, A. E. (2001). The phenomenology of personality change due to traumatic brain injury in children and adolescents. Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 13, 161–170.

McNeil, D. C., & Reddon, J. R. (2000). Utility and stability of the Basic Personality Inventory in psychiatric patients with longstanding psychotic disorders in a new psychiatric rehabilitation program over a two-year period. Psychological Reports, 87, 767–775.

O’Hara, L. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students’ thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 197–210.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78–90.

 

Paunonen, S. V., Rothstein, M. G., & Jackson, D. N. (1999). Narrow reasoning about the use of broad personality measures for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 389–405.

Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2000). The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Its dimensionality, stability and personality correlates in Estonian. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 701–715.

Shiloh, S., Koren, S., & Zakay, D. (2001). Individual differences in compensatory decision-making style and need for closure as correlates of subjective decision complexity and difficulty. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 699–710.

Shiner, R. L. (2000). Linking childhood personality with adaptation: Evidence for continuity and change across time into late adolescence. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 310–325.

Smith, D. B., Hanges, P. J., & Dickson, M. W. (2001). Personnel selection and the five-factor model: Reexamining the effects of applicant’s frame of reference. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 304–315.

Stewart, A. J., Ostrove, J. M., & Helson, R. (2001). Middle aging in women: Patterns of personality change from the 30s to the 50s. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 23–37.

Thomas-Peter, B. A., Jones, J., Campbell, S., et al. (2000). Debasement and faking bad on the Millon Clinical Multi-axial Inventory III: An examination of characteristics, circumstances and motives of forensic patients. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 5, 71–81.

Van Kenhove, P., & De Wulf, K. (2000). Income and time pressure: A person-situation grocery retail typology. International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 10, 149–166.

Zickar, M. J., & Robie, C. (1999). Modeling faking good on personality items: An item-level analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 551–563.

Activity Handout 4-1:
Trait Consistency, but Behavioral Variability

Instructions: Larsen and Buss note that, although a trait might be consistent over time, how it manifests itself in actual behavior might change substantially. Consider the trait of disagreeableness. As a child, a highly disagreeable person might be prone to temper tantrums and fits of breath holding, fist pounding, and undirected rage. As an adult, a disagreeable person might be difficult to get along with, and hence might have trouble sustaining interpersonal relationships and holding down a job. In the spaces below, provide three additional examples of behavioral variability generated by the same underlying traits operating at two different points in an individual’s lifetime.

 

Example 1:

 

 

 

 

Example 2:

 

 

 

 

Example 3:

 

Activity Handout 4-2:
Designing an Infrequency Scale

Instructions: Design a 10-item “infrequency scale.” Assume that the measurement scale goes from 0 = “I have never performed this act” to 10 = “I frequently perform this act.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                          

 

Activity Handout 4-3:

Selecting Applicants for Admission to Undergraduate Education

 

Instructions: Imagine that your university or college decided to use personality measures as a way of selecting only some of the people who apply to study as undergraduates at your school. In the spaces provided below, identify 10 personality traits that you think are most important to academic success (defined as receiving your degree) at your school.