The purpose of this blog is to assess two traits of my personality from the Big Five; these traits were openness and extraversion. To assess these traits four methods were used. The findings of this data suggested that I am extroverted; but not open to experience. However, in order to better understand these results we must look at the strengths and weakness of each data.
Self-report data was obtained using the BFI-44 (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991). As mentioned by Professor Jhangiani in a lecture on September 18, 2012, to a PSYC 305A class, the BFI-44 (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991), is known to have a test-reset reliability of 0.85, a strong Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88, a convergent validity with the TDA (Triggered Displaced Aggression) test of 0.9, a discriminate validity of approximately 0.2; high face validity, with good concurrent validity, and content validity.
The main Issue with this self-report data is that the I, who was the participant and the researcher, could have been bias and had given a socially desirable answer to this report. I was aware of what I was measuring, and having this knowledge might have subconsciously influenced my answers (Funder 2010) on the BFI-44 (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991). Also self-verification (me trying to influence my friend and family to treat me in a way that confirms my self- conception) might have played a role in the closeness of the self-report and informant scores.
Nonetheless, this data is strong due to the fact that I knowing myself the best; and my aspects of self-view playing a part in my behaviour. Furthermore, informant data here also used the BFI-44 (John, Donahue & Kentle, 1991); therefore resulting in the same test-retest reliability, Cornbach’s alpha, convergent validity, discriminate validity, face validity, concurrent validity, and content validity as self-report data.
One weakness of this data is that the informants might have been bias by letting their emotions play a role in their scores. Additionally, the informants might have been untruthful to avoid conflict with me, and avoid hurting my feelings. This might have occurred due to the fact that, they were aware of me looking at their ratings. On the other hand, the strength of this data includes real world bases, and the fact that the informants might know aspects of my personality that are not visible to me.
Life-outcome data for extraversion was based on a previous study done by Eswaran, Islam, and Muhd-Yusuf (2011), they argued that individuals who score high on extraversion have good social interactions and perform well in sale and customer service jobs. Due to this study, I decided to measure life-outcome data for extraversion by taking into account my previous employments. However, no concrete scale was used to measure the relationship between extraversion and my customer service jobs. My score here was based on an assumption that I made myself (self-reported).
Further, life-outcome data for openness was achieved by looking at my field of education and how creative it requires me to be. Also, no concrete scale was used here to measure life-outcome data for openness. Both my extraversion and openness scores for life-outcome data were based on my assumptions and not on concrete measurements. Thus, it can be conclude that this data had both poor validity and reliability. However, the strengths of this data included the study begin based on real-life outcomes and showing my personality as a result of these outcomes.
Behaviour data measured talkativeness for extraversion. Since talkativeness is one of the attributes of extroversion (funder 2010) this data is determined to be valid. Nonetheless this data did not use a scientific measurement. The score of this data was gathered by self-repot; thus resulting in weak validity. This data also had poor reliability.