Construct Development, Scale Criterion, & Process Analysis

Part I:

Construct Development and Scale Criterion; Construct Measured: Self-Confidence

The chosen construct, self-confidence, is defined in the article of Self-Confidence in Human Factors Research as “extent to which human factors is satisfied with its beliefs and assumptions about how it knows what it knows” (Dekker, Nyce, Winsen,  & Henriqson, 2010, p.27).  Self-confidence is one’s ability to evaluate his or her social abilities, how one thinks independently, and how one can rely on themselves. Conflict resolution is done internally with self-confidence and it processes self-esteem and helps individuals make decisions based on their self-efficacy (Kohn, 1994).

Five Items Used to Sample the Domain:

The survey and scaling method for self-confidence will be conducted as a survey in which it measures one’s ability to understand regarding their level of self-confidence and their knowledge of his or her confidence. The survey will also look at one’s ability to work autonomously and how their comfort level is with their preferred style of working individualistically. In order to determine if this test would be interview or self-report based, the issue needs to be investigated and make an objective assessment based on the investigation. This is a self-report instrument. The five items are designed to be a survey to show one’s self-confidence and how he or she works independently.

The five items that will be sampling the domain will be the following outlined questions:

1.)    When dealing with a problem in your life, what do you tend to do?

  1. Blame others, it is rarely my fault
  2. Complain and vent, but do not address that I am at error
  3. Take responsibility and follow through

2.)    I prefer to work individually versus in a group project so I can work out the details and final edits on my own.

  1. Yes
  2. No

3.)    If my wants and needs are different than others, I am more likely to:

  1. Argue until I get my way
  2. Accommodate, give up or give in
  3. Create a win-win situation for all sides
  4. Avoid conflict at all costs

4.)    I am comfortable coming up with a strategy on my own to solve problems before going to others for help.

  1. Yes
  2. No

5.)    People give me positive feedback on my work and achievements versus a team or group’s feedback altogether.

  1. Often
  2. Sometimes
  3. Rare
  4. Never


Dekker, S. W., Nyce, J. M., Winsen, R. V., & Henriqson, E. (March 20th 2010). Epistemological Self-Confidence in Human. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(1), 27-38. doi:10.1518/155534310X495573

Kohn, A. (1994). The Truth About Self Esteem. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(4), 272-283.


Socio-Economic Class & Intelligence

Written by: Deanna Shelby and Julia Carlson for PSYCH/525

Literature Review: Socio-Economic Class & Intelligence

Although it should never be considered an issue in a perfectly unbiased testing method, socio-economic class is thought to have an effect on levels of intelligence. Basically socio-economic class status dictates and labels where an individual or group of individuals lands financially and demographically in their culture. Knowing someone’s socio-economic status can tell someone what financial bracket said individual would fall into, and based on that one can deduce with some accuracy as to where this individual lives (upscale part of town versus areas that would be considered “the ghetto” or things like that), and even can sometimes lend a hint as to the racial or ethnic identity of the individual (however, this is not accurate in all situations).                    Based on the chances, or lack thereof, that one would obtain based on their socio-economic class level, it can be reasonably said that one may lack the ability to develop an intelligence level to match or exceed that of their counterparts holding higher socio-economic statuses than they currently are. “It is a sociological truism, evidenced by a number of studies, that children of higher social class origins are more likely to aspire to high educational and occupational goals than children of lower social class origins” (Sewell & Shad, 1968). While intelligence is different than achievement, which is usually obtained through observations and through the educational system, intelligence can also be stimulated and motivated through the school system as well.                                                                                                                            

For example, sound judgments and rational thought are factors that are taken into consideration when measuring intelligence levels, and these things can be taught at a young age in school, either through the experiences an individual may come across on their own in that setting, or through actual problem-solving practices employed by the education system and teachers.

Based on the above mentioned factors, and the fact that socio-economic status is directly related to financial stability/instability, which in turn can be related to the type of education that a person or family can afford, it can reasonably be deduced that intelligence can to some extent be influenced by ones’ socio-economic class and the experiences directly related to that level.

Division of Work Investigated into Themes                                                                                  

Within this paper, there is a breakdown of some of the works under investigation into themes with those in support and those against socio-economic class and intelligence testing.  Along with major contributions that this kind of test offers, the current positions are discussed.  Also considered are challenges of test reliability and validity, and gaps in research for this kind of test. Individuals differ in their abilities to comprehend, learn, and understand all different scopes. SES can play a part into their experiences with reasoning, obstacles, and their environments (Neisser, 1995). 

Support and Advantages of Intelligence Testing                                                                          

With SES intelligence testing, there are advantages and disadvantages. Those that are in support of the testing see more of the advantages and those that do not support see the disadvantage side more. One of the advantages of intelligence testing (IQ Test) is that it can help identify individuals that may benefit from additional assistance and lead them to a better, more sustainable life (Carman, 2010). Behavioral explanations during any type of IQ testing can help provide more information about the socioeconomic status and the personality characteristics. This can help with the stress and anxiety of one’s life. Those that are in favor for the testing also feel that the tests are extremely accurate and standardized, reliable, normed, and validated (Neisser, 1995).                                                                                             

Against Intelligence Testing and Disadvantages                                                                           

Those who oppose the testing typically look at the disadvantages versus the advantages of the testing. Some of the disadvantages relate to classifying individuals into stereotypes based on their socioeconomic status. Those that are not in support of this testing feel that the intelligence tests are inadequate in forecasting non-test and nonacademic activities but are still used to make those presumption’s about the individuals academic abilities (Jensen,1969). The test can be less accurate when it comes to long term predictions because many of them are not controlled or monitored. Some also feel that individuals are capable to have more cognitive abilities than the intelligence testing measures.

Gaps of Research and Contradictions                                                                               

According to the American Psychological Association (APA), there is a large gap of research when it comes to intelligence testing related to socioeconomic status. Tests are consistently being revamped and altered to fit various needs across multiple avenues. However, according to the APA, there are several gaps and contradictions when it comes to the testing (American Psychological Association, 2004).  For example, the APA uses the SAT test. There has been several research projects that assert practical intelligence based on socioeconomic status that show different scores among different statuses. The research showed that by expanding the questions and other related subjects, more college students were able to be more accurate and successful later on in life (Schmitt, Keeney, Oswald, Pleskac, Billington, Sinha,  & Zorzie, 2009).                                                                                                                                      

There is another article that shows the contradictions of student performance using cognitive and non-cognitive predictors and the impact on demographic stats of admitted students. The article covers the gap in research for the grade point averages of several students based on their socioeconomic status and intelligence. The test was given to several colleges in their admission process and added situational judgment based on SES (Schmitt, Keeney, Oswald, Pleskac, Billington, Sinha,  & Zorzie, 2009). 


American Psycholoigcal Association. (2004, June 17). Intelligence and Achievement Testing: Is the Half-Full Glass Getting Fuller? Retrieved from

Carman, C. (2010, April). Socioeconomic Status Effects on Using the Nagileri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to Identify the Gifted/Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75-84.doi:10.1177/0016986209355976

Cohen, R., & Swerdlik, M. (2010). Psycholoigcal testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurements (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Jensen, R. (1969, January). Intelligence, Learning Ability and Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Special Education, 3(1), 23-35. doi:10.1177/002246696900300103

Neisser, U. (1995, August 7). Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. Retrieved from

Schmitt, N., Keeney, J., Oswald, F. L., Pleskac, T. J., Billington, A. Q., Sinha, R., & Zorzie, M. (2009, November). Prediction of 4-year college student performance using cognitive and non-cognitive predictors and the impact on demographic status of admitted students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1479-1497. doi:10.1037/a0016810

Assessments in the Workplace

What are some of the positive and negative effects of the use of assessments in the workplace? What are your feelings/thoughts and experiences about assessments in the workplace? To whom are they valuable?

There are both advantages and disadvantages of using assessments in the workplace. Assessments are valuable and seen by a variety of individuals including human resources, staffing recruiters, management, executive leadership, and the general population. There are several types of assessments in the workplace. Some are used to screen candidates for a position. Other assessments are used to show how each employee communicates.

Personality tests are often used in the workplace to help promote within or transfer to other departments. However, when there are a handful of senior employees that are able to succeed in a delicate role, these types of tests should never be used. Other evaluations should be made on their performance. Processing the tests and hiring the third party to administer the test can become timely and costly to a company. It can also be difficult to correlate the test with many locations and over a period of time. However, these tests have also proved to help with business costs as it allows the company to know who is promotable and it may be viewed in a positive light as the employee knows the steps necessary to promote. Competencies and behavior are viewed more versus the overall job performance. This can create a less hostile and less competitive work environment.

My personal stance on workplace assessments depends on what they are particularly for. In instances in which a direct report needs to complete an assessment based on their communication skills makes perfect sense. A test that examines if they have the right skills for their current role can seem like a slap in the face or a test and can become uncomfortable for the managerial team and the direct reports. For example, I have taken the DISC assessment every for five years. I am generally the same year over year but things tend to change based on my experiences. For those that are unaware of the DISC, it is an assessment tool that gauges your dominance, inducement, submission, and compliance. The test shows how you are at work vs. how you are at home. It is very valuable as it tells others what you like, what you don’t like, and how to communicate with you.

Another experience I had was a promotion. We had to take an assessment for a promotion. The first test was the competencies of admission in which these were the necessary skills in order to do your current role. Then we had a listening assessment. If we passed those, we moved onto an interview. After the interview we had situational based behavioral questions. I aced all with flying colors and missed one as I did not elaborate enough. This was a 6 month process and I was not happy because I did not get the promotion. It was frustrating because I had the numbers and all the soft skills but because I mixed up a question, I was not qualified. For hiring and communicating purposes my belief is that they can help to an extent.



More Information on the DISC:

Assumption 7: Testing and Assessment Benefit Society

Tests and measurements are benefiting us as a society. Testing can provide help with job placement, military recruits, and placing children in the wrong schools or programs. Without testing and measuring with job placement, individuals may be placed in the wrong department and the entire organization could potentially be at risk. Testing and assessment also benefits society within the military. Military recruits are to take the ASVAB test which shows their basic skills. They are also required to pass other tests if they wish to be in various occupations within the military. This is extremely beneficial to our society because it ensures our safety and security. Without this process, there would be no way to screen the recruits.

In order for testing and assessment to benefit society it must be a reliable and valid test (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). In a world without tests, children may be placed in higher or lower aptitudes based on the teacher’s bias. For example, children with learning disabilities or mental disorders may continue to be placed in the wrong school or class without the specific tests and assessments. If our society did not have tests, we would have individuals with serious mental conditions untreated. Testing and assessment benefits society in almost every way possible. I cannot imagine a world without testing.



Cohen, R. J. & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological Testing and Asssessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. (7th ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill.

How do you define a “fair test?” How do you define a “biased test?” What can be done to eliminate unfair and biased test?

A fair test can be defined as a test in which all aspects are identical. A fair test takes into account what is being measured. There are no specific influences from culture, environments, or any outside factors, strictly statistical information. The questions must be identical and the test-takers must all be on the same level of intelligence. This ensures a fair test and that one person did not have an advantage of another based on their academic skill. A biased test is something completely opposite and typically will go in someone’s favor. This type of testing could lead the administrator to already have a biased opinion of the results based on the specific bias.

A biased test could have lots of distractions on lean more to one side. For example, in order for a test to be fair there are certain elements that need to be adhered by. A great example of a fair test is the test that is given to residents that are on the path for citizenship, this test must be in English only. This is to ensure fairness into passing the test and that everyone is on the same middle ground. One biased part to this test could be offering the test in different languages. This could dramatically skew the mean and the test could be deemed unreliable.

There are many things that can be done to ensure fair and unbiased testing. First, the measurements need to be the same and the questions also need to be identical. The test administrators also need to be aware of the testing subjects. It is imperative the test is more generic than specialized in order to get to the results without bias.

Describe two of the four methods of establishing reliability. How are these methods similar? How are they different?

One method is the test-retest method.  Test/retest administrations occur at two different times with the same test presented to the same group. This method tests the same thing at two different times. The book uses the ruler example; however another example would be giving a group of students a geography/history test at the beginning of a semester and then giving them the same test at the beginning of the next semester, the results should be somewhat similar (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). Another method to establish reliability is alternate-forms or parallel-forms. Administrators will give a parallel test (second test) after they have administered the first test. This helps to check for errors amongst the test and deems it reliable or unreliable (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The methods are similar because each one uses two tests. Each test has the initial test and a follow up or second test. Both methods are looking for the same type of measurements.  However, these two methods also differ because in alternate-forms/parallel-forms, the administrator and test are looking for the average or mean. With test-retest method, the administrators and tests are looking for the same answer as in the first test. Also with this method, there should not be many factors that can skew or differentiate the second test because it is the same method, just at a different place in time. For the alternate-forms/parallel-forms, there are several factors that can contribute for this second test to differ from the first (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).                            



Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurements (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

My NEO Personality Inventory

This report compares Julia from the country USA to other women between 21 and 40 years of age. (The name used in this report is either a nickname chosen by the person taking the test, or, if a valid nickname was not chosen, a random nickname generated by the program.)

This report estimates the individual’s level on each of the five broad personality domains of the Five-Factor Model. The description of each one of the five broad domains is followed by a more detailed description of personality according to the six subdomains that comprise each domain.

A note on terminology. Personality traits describe, relative to other people, the frequency or intensity of a person’s feelings, thoughts, or behaviors. Possession of a trait is therefore a matter of degree. We might describe two individuals as extraverts, but still see one as more extraverted than the other. This report uses expressions such as “extravert” or “high in extraversion” to describe someone who is likely to be seen by others as relatively extraverted. The computer program that generates this report classifies you as low, average, or high in a trait according to whether your score is approximately in the lowest 30%, middle 40%, or highest 30% of scores obtained by people of your sex and roughly your age. Your numerical scores are reported and graphed as percentile estimates. For example, a score of “60” means that your level on that trait is estimated to be higher than 60% of persons of your sex and age.

Please keep in mind that “low,” “average,” and “high” scores on a personality test are neither absolutely good nor bad. A particular level on any trait will probably be neutral or irrelevant for a great many activities, be helpful for accomplishing some things, and detrimental for accomplishing other things. As with any personality inventory, scores and descriptions can only approximate an individual’s actual personality. High and low score descriptions are usually accurate, but average scores close to the low or high boundaries might misclassify you as only average. On each set of six subdomain scales it is somewhat uncommon but certainly possible to score high in some of the subdomains and low in the others. In such cases more attention should be paid to the subdomain scores than to the broad domain score. Questions about the accuracy of your results are best resolved by showing your report to people who know you well.

John A. Johnson wrote descriptions of the five domains and thirty subdomains. These descriptions are based on an extensive reading of the scientific literature on personality measurement.


Extraversion is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy being with people, are full of energy, and often experience positive emotions. They tend to be enthusiastic, action-oriented, individuals who are likely to say “Yes!” or “Let’s go!” to opportunities for excitement. In groups they like to talk, assert themselves, and draw attention to themselves.

Introverts lack the exuberance, energy, and activity levels of extraverts. They tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and disengaged from the social world. Their lack of social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression; the introvert simply needs less stimulation than an extravert and prefers to be alone. The independence and reserve of the introvert is sometimes mistaken as unfriendliness or arrogance. In reality, an introvert who scores high on the agreeableness dimension will not seek others out but will be quite pleasant when approached.

Domain/Facet………… Score





..Activity Level………..73



Your score on Extraversion is high, indicating you are sociable, outgoing, energetic, and lively. You prefer to be around people much of the time.

Extraversion Facets

  • Friendliness. Friendly people genuinely like other people and openly demonstrate positive feelings toward others. They make friends quickly and it is easy for them to form close, intimate relationships. Low scorers on Friendliness are not necessarily cold and hostile, but they do not reach out to others and are perceived as distant and reserved. Your level of friendliness is high.
  • Gregariousness. Gregarious people find the company of others pleasantly stimulating and rewarding. They enjoy the excitement of crowds. Low scorers tend to feel overwhelmed by, and therefore actively avoid, large crowds. They do not necessarily dislike being with people sometimes, but their need for privacy and time to themselves is much greater than for individuals who score high on this scale. Your level of gregariousness is high.
  • Assertiveness. High scorers Assertiveness like to speak out, take charge, and direct the activities of others. They tend to be leaders in groups. Low scorers tend not to talk much and let others control the activities of groups. Your level of assertiveness is high.
  • Activity Level. Active individuals lead fast-paced, busy lives. They move about quickly, energetically, and vigorously, and they are involved in many activities. People who score low on this scale follow a slower and more leisurely, relaxed pace. Your activity level is high.
  • Excitement-Seeking. High scorers on this scale are easily bored without high levels of stimulation. They love bright lights and hustle and bustle. They are likely to take risks and seek thrills. Low scorers are overwhelmed by noise and commotion and are adverse to thrill-seeking. Your level of excitement-seeking is high.
  • Cheerfulness. This scale measures positive mood and feelings, not negative emotions (which are a part of the Neuroticism domain). Persons who score high on this scale typically experience a range of positive feelings, including happiness, enthusiasm, optimism, and joy. Low scorers are not as prone to such energetic, high spirits. Your level of positive emotions is high.


Agreeableness reflects individual differences in concern with cooperation and social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with others. They are therefore considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to compromise their interests with others’. Agreeable people also have an optimistic view of human nature. They believe people are basically honest, decent, and trustworthy.

Disagreeable individuals place self-interest above getting along with others. They are generally unconcerned with others’ well-being, and therefore are unlikely to extend themselves for other people. Sometimes their skepticism about others’ motives causes them to be suspicious, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Agreeableness is obviously advantageous for attaining and maintaining popularity. Agreeable people are better liked than disagreeable people. On the other hand, agreeableness is not useful in situations that require tough or absolute objective decisions. Disagreeable people can make excellent scientists, critics, or soldiers.

Domain/Facet………… Score








Your high level of Agreeableness indicates a strong interest in others’ needs and well-being. You are pleasant, sympathetic, and cooperative.

Agreeableness Facets

  • Trust. A person with high trust assumes that most people are fair, honest, and have good intentions. Persons low in trust see others as selfish, devious, and potentially dangerous. Your level of trust is high.
  • Morality. High scorers on this scale see no need for pretense or manipulation when dealing with others and are therefore candid, frank, and sincere. Low scorers believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. People find it relatively easy to relate to the straightforward high-scorers on this scale. They generally find it more difficult to relate to the unstraightforward low-scorers on this scale. It should be made clear that low scorers are not unprincipled or immoral; they are simply more guarded and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth. Your level of morality is average.
  • Altruism. Altruistic people find helping other people genuinely rewarding. Consequently, they are generally willing to assist those who are in need. Altruistic people find that doing things for others is a form of self-fulfillment rather than self-sacrifice. Low scorers on this scale do not particularly like helping those in need. Requests for help feel like an imposition rather than an opportunity for self-fulfillment. Your level of altruism is high.
  • Cooperation. Individuals who score high on this scale dislike confrontations. They are perfectly willing to compromise or to deny their own needs in order to get along with others. Those who score low on this scale are more likely to intimidate others to get their way. Your level of compliance is average.
  • Modesty. High scorers on this scale do not like to claim that they are better than other people. In some cases this attitude may derive from low self-confidence or self-esteem. Nonetheless, some people with high self-esteem find immodesty unseemly. Those who are willing to describe themselves as superior tend to be seen as disagreeably arrogant by other people. Your level of modesty is low.
  • Sympathy. People who score high on this scale are tenderhearted and compassionate. They feel the pain of others vicariously and are easily moved to pity. Low scorers are not affected strongly by human suffering. They pride themselves on making objective judgments based on reason. They are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy. Your level of tender-mindedness is high.


Conscientiousness concerns the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses. Impulses are not inherently bad; occasionally time constraints require a snap decision, and acting on our first impulse can be an effective response. Also, in times of play rather than work, acting spontaneously and impulsively can be fun. Impulsive individuals can be seen by others as colorful, fun-to-be-with, and zany.

Nonetheless, acting on impulse can lead to trouble in a number of ways. Some impulses are antisocial. Uncontrolled antisocial acts not only harm other members of society, but also can result in retribution toward the perpetrator of such impulsive acts. Another problem with impulsive acts is that they often produce immediate rewards but undesirable, long-term consequences. Examples include excessive socializing that leads to being fired from one’s job, hurling an insult that causes the breakup of an important relationship, or using pleasure-inducing drugs that eventually destroy one’s health.

Impulsive behavior, even when not seriously destructive, diminishes a person’s effectiveness in significant ways. Acting impulsively disallows contemplating alternative courses of action, some of which would have been wiser than the impulsive choice. Impulsivity also sidetracks people during projects that require organized sequences of steps or stages. Accomplishments of an impulsive person are therefore small, scattered, and inconsistent.

A hallmark of intelligence, what potentially separates human beings from earlier life forms, is the ability to think about future consequences before acting on an impulse. Intelligent activity involves contemplation of long-range goals, organizing and planning routes to these goals, and persisting toward one’s goals in the face of short-lived impulses to the contrary. The idea that intelligence involves impulse control is nicely captured by the term prudence, an alternative label for the Conscientiousness domain. Prudent means both wise and cautious. Persons who score high on the Conscientiousness scale are, in fact, perceived by others as intelligent.

The benefits of high conscientiousness are obvious. Conscientious individuals avoid trouble and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence. They are also positively regarded by others as intelligent and reliable. On the negative side, they can be compulsive perfectionists and workaholics. Furthermore, extremely conscientious individuals might be regarded as stuffy and boring. Unconscientious people may be criticized for their unreliability, lack of ambition, and failure to stay within the lines, but they will experience many short-lived pleasures and they will never be called stuffy.

Domain/Facet………… Score








Your score on Conscientiousness is high. This means you set clear goals and pursue them with determination. People regard you as reliable and hard-working.

Conscientiousness Facets

  • Self-Efficacy. Self-Efficacy describes confidence in one’s ability to accomplish things. High scorers believe they have the intelligence (common sense), drive, and self-control necessary for achieving success. Low scorers do not feel effective, and may have a sense that they are not in control of their lives. Your level of self-efficacy is high.
  • Orderliness. Persons with high scores on orderliness are well-organized. They like to live according to routines and schedules. They keep lists and make plans. Low scorers tend to be disorganized and scattered. Your level of orderliness is low.
  • Dutifulness. This scale reflects the strength of a person’s sense of duty and obligation. Those who score high on this scale have a strong sense of moral obligation. Low scorers find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining. They are likely to be seen as unreliable or even irresponsible. Your level of dutifulness is average.
  • Achievement-Striving. Individuals who score high on this scale strive hard to achieve excellence. Their drive to be recognized as successful keeps them on track toward their lofty goals. They often have a strong sense of direction in life, but extremely high scores may be too single-minded and obsessed with their work. Low scorers are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. Your level of achievement striving is high.
  • Self-Discipline. Self-discipline-what many people call will-power-refers to the ability to persist at difficult or unpleasant tasks until they are completed. People who possess high self-discipline are able to overcome reluctance to begin tasks and stay on track despite distractions. Those with low self-discipline procrastinate and show poor follow-through, often failing to complete tasks-even tasks they want very much to complete. Your level of self-discipline is high.
  • Cautiousness. Cautiousness describes the disposition to think through possibilities before acting. High scorers on the Cautiousness scale take their time when making decisions. Low scorers often say or do first thing that comes to mind without deliberating alternatives and the probable consequences of those alternatives. Your level of cautiousness is average.


Freud originally used the term neurosis to describe a condition marked by mental distress, emotional suffering, and an inability to cope effectively with the normal demands of life. He suggested that everyone shows some signs of neurosis, but that we differ in our degree of suffering and our specific symptoms of distress. Today neuroticism refers to the tendency to experience negative feelings. Those who score high on Neuroticism may experience primarily one specific negative feeling such as anxiety, anger, or depression, but are likely to experience several of these emotions. People high in neuroticism are emotionally reactive. They respond emotionally to events that would not affect most people, and their reactions tend to be more intense than normal. They are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. Their negative emotional reactions tend to persist for unusually long periods of time, which means they are often in a bad mood. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish a neurotic’s ability to think clearly, make decisions, and cope effectively with stress.

At the other end of the scale, individuals who score low in neuroticism are less easily upset and are less emotionally reactive. They tend to be calm, emotionally stable, and free from persistent negative feelings. Freedom from negative feelings does not mean that low scorers experience a lot of positive feelings; frequency of positive emotions is a component of the Extraversion domain.

Domain/Facet………… Score








Your score on Neuroticism is low, indicating that you are exceptionally calm, composed and unflappable. You do not react with intense emotions, even to situations that most people would describe as stressful.

Neuroticism Facets

  • Anxiety. The “fight-or-flight” system of the brain of anxious individuals is too easily and too often engaged. Therefore, people who are high in anxiety often feel like something dangerous is about to happen. They may be afraid of specific situations or be just generally fearful. They feel tense, jittery, and nervous. Persons low in Anxiety are generally calm and fearless. Your level of anxiety is average.
  • Anger. Persons who score high in Anger feel enraged when things do not go their way. They are sensitive about being treated fairly and feel resentful and bitter when they feel they are being cheated. This scale measures the tendency to feel angry; whether or not the person expresses annoyance and hostility depends on the individual’s level on Agreeableness. Low scorers do not get angry often or easily. Your level of anger is low.
  • Depression. This scale measures the tendency to feel sad, dejected, and discouraged. High scorers lack energy and have difficult initiating activities. Low scorers tend to be free from these depressive feelings. Your level of depression is low.
  • Self-Consciousness. Self-conscious individuals are sensitive about what others think of them. Their concern about rejection and ridicule cause them to feel shy and uncomfortable abound others. They are easily embarrassed and often feel ashamed. Their fears that others will criticize or make fun of them are exaggerated and unrealistic, but their awkwardness and discomfort may make these fears a self-fulfilling prophecy. Low scorers, in contrast, do not suffer from the mistaken impression that everyone is watching and judging them. They do not feel nervous in social situations. Your level or self-consciousness is low.
  • Immoderation. Immoderate individuals feel strong cravings and urges that they have difficulty resisting. They tend to be oriented toward short-term pleasures and rewards rather than long- term consequences. Low scorers do not experience strong, irresistible cravings and consequently do not find themselves tempted to overindulge. Your level of immoderation is average.
  • Vulnerability. High scorers on Vulnerability experience panic, confusion, and helplessness when under pressure or stress. Low scorers feel more poised, confident, and clear-thinking when stressed. Your level of vulnerability is average.

Openness to Experience

Openness to Experience describes a dimension of cognitive style that distinguishes imaginative, creative people from down-to-earth, conventional people. Open people are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty. They tend to be, compared to closed people, more aware of their feelings. They tend to think and act in individualistic and nonconforming ways. Intellectuals typically score high on Openness to Experience; consequently, this factor has also been called Culture or Intellect. Nonetheless, Intellect is probably best regarded as one aspect of openness to experience. Scores on Openness to Experience are only modestly related to years of education and scores on standard intelligent tests.

Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience. Depending on the individual’s specific intellectual abilities, this symbolic cognition may take the form of mathematical, logical, or geometric thinking, artistic and metaphorical use of language, music composition or performance, or one of the many visual or performing arts. People with low scores on openness to experience tend to have narrow, common interests. They prefer the plain, straightforward, and obvious over the complex, ambiguous, and subtle. They may regard the arts and sciences with suspicion, regarding these endeavors as abstruse or of no practical use. Closed people prefer familiarity over novelty; they are conservative and resistant to change.

Openness is often presented as healthier or more mature by psychologists, who are often themselves open to experience. However, open and closed styles of thinking are useful in different environments. The intellectual style of the open person may serve a professor well, but research has shown that closed thinking is related to superior job performance in police work, sales, and a number of service occupations.

Domain/Facet………… Score



..Artistic Interests…….39





Your score on Openness to Experience is average, indicating you enjoy tradition but are willing to try new things. Your thinking is neither simple nor complex. To others you appear to be a well-educated person but not an intellectual.

Openness Facets

  • Imagination. To imaginative individuals, the real world is often too plain and ordinary. High scorers on this scale use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world. Low scorers are on this scale are more oriented to facts than fantasy. Your level of imagination is high.
  • Artistic Interests. High scorers on this scale love beauty, both in art and in nature. They become easily involved and absorbed in artistic and natural events. They are not necessarily artistically trained nor talented, although many will be. The defining features of this scale are interest in, and appreciation ofnatural and artificial beauty. Low scorers lack aesthetic sensitivity and interest in the arts. Your level of artistic interests is average.
  • Emotionality. Persons high on Emotionality have good access to and awareness of their own feelings. Low scorers are less aware of their feelings and tend not to express their emotions openly. Your level of emotionality is high.
  • Adventurousness. High scorers on adventurousness are eager to try new activities, travel to foreign lands, and experience different things. They find familiarity and routine boring, and will take a new route home just because it is different. Low scorers tend to feel uncomfortable with change and prefer familiar routines. Your level of adventurousness is high.
  • Intellect. Intellect and artistic interests are the two most important, central aspects of openness to experience. High scorers on Intellect love to play with ideas. They are open-minded to new and unusual ideas, and like to debate intellectual issues. They enjoy riddles, puzzles, and brain teasers. Low scorers on Intellect prefer dealing with either people or things rather than ideas. They regard intellectual exercises as a waste of time. Intellect should not be equated with intelligence. Intellect is an intellectual style, not an intellectual ability, although high scorers on Intellect score slightly higher than low-Intellect individuals on standardized intelligence tests. Your level of intellect is low.

Liberalism. Psychological liberalism refers to a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. In its most extreme form, psychological liberalism can even represent outright hostility toward rules, sympathy for law-breakers, and love of ambiguity, chaos, and disorder. Psychological conservatives prefer the security and stability brought by conformity to tradition. Psychological liberalism and conservatism are not identical to political affiliation, but certainly incline individuals toward certain political parties. Your level of liberalism is average