Module I : Individual differences & Personality

 Personality: Definition& Relevance

 Importance of nature & nurture in Personality Development
 Importance and Recognition of Individual differences in Personality
 Accepting and Managing Individual differences (adjustment mechanisms)
 Intuition, Judgment, Perception & Sensation (MBTI)
 BIG5 Factors

Personality can be defined as a dynamic and organized set of characteristics

possessed by a person that uniquely influences his or her cognitions,
motivations, and behaviors in various situations (Rickman, 2004). The word
"personality" originates from the Greek persona, which means mask.
Significantly, in the theatre of the ancient Latin-speaking world, the mask was not
used as a plot device to disguise the identity of a character, but rather was a
convention employed to represent or typify that character. Almost everyday we
describe and assess the personalities of the people around us. Whether we
realize it or not, these daily musings on how and why people behave as they do
are similar to what personality psychologists do.

While our informal assessments of personality tend to focus more on individuals,

personality psychologists instead use conceptions of personality that can apply to
everyone. Personality research has led to the development of a number of
theories that help explain how and why certain personality traits develop.

 Components of Personality
While there are many different theories of personality, the first step is to
understand exactly what is meant by the term personality. A brief definition would
be that personality is made up the characteristic patterns of thoughts, feelings,
 and behaviors that make a person unique. In addition to this, personality arises
from within the individual and remains fairly consistent throughout life.

Some of the fundamental characteristics of personality include:

         Consistency - There is generally a recognizable order and regularity to
behaviors. Essentially, people act in the same ways or similar ways in a variety of
situations.
Psychological and physiological - Personality is a psychological construct, but
research suggests that it is also influenced by biological processes and needs.
Impact behaviors and actions - Personality does not just influence how we
move and respond in our environment; it also causes us to act in certain ways.
Multiple expressions - Personality is displayed in more than just behavior. It
can also be seen in our thoughts, feelings, close relationships, and other social
interactions.
Philosophical assumptions
1. Freedom versus Determinism
The debate over whether we have control over our own behavior and understand
the motives behind it (Freedom), or if our behavior is basically determined by
some other force over which we might not have control (Determinism). We may
merely respond to external forces like government, parents, professors, the
economic system, etc; or we may even be constrained to behave in certain ways
by our genetics, upbringing, etc. The causation may be probabilistic and
therefore indeterminate.
2. Heredity versus Environment
Personality is thought to be determined largely by either genetics and/or heredity,
or by environment and experiences, or both. There is evidence for all
possibilities. Ruth Benedict was one of the leading anthropologists that studied
the impact one's culture on the personality and behavioral traits of the individual.
3. Uniqueness versus Universality
The argument over whether we are all unique individuals (Uniqueness) or if
humans are basically similar in their nature (Universality).
 4. Proactive versus Reactive
Do we primarily act through our own initiative (Proactive), or do we react to
outside stimuli (Reactive)?
5. Optimistic versus Pessimistic
Finally, whether or not we can alter our personalities (Optimistic) or if they remain
the same throughout our whole lives (Pessimistic).

The structure of the personality

social role,
behavior

Character, motivation
(needs, interests,
attitudes…)

mental abilities

temperament

 Importance of nature & nurture in Personality Development

The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an

individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innativism) versus personal
experiences("nurture,"i.e. empiricism orbehaviorism)in determining or causing individ
 ual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The phrase "Nature versus nurture"
in its modern sense was coined by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in
discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement,
although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare 
Galton was influenced by the book On the Origin of Species written by his
cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized for
its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an
environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to
genetic offspring. The difference being that wealth, education and social privilege
are not part of the human biological system, and so cannot be directly attributed to
genetics. The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from
"nurture" was termed tabula rasa ("blank slate") by philosopher John Locke, and
proposes that humans develop from only environmental influences. This question
was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but
since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development,
most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—
representing an outdated state of knowledge.

 In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be
contrasted with the structure versus agency debate (i.e. socialization versus
individual autonomy). For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and
other human universals, see also psychological nativism.

 Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring
them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any
type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes,
even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies,
abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.” – John B. Watson
 Importance of nature & nurture in Personality Development
History

Where exactly did this all begin? Well, the nature versus nurture debate can be traced
back to 13th century France. A man named Francis Galton used "nature" and "nurture”
to discuss the influence of genes and upbringing on development. Galton states that
“nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that
affects him after his birth.” What Galton stated at this time is very similar to the
definitions of nature and nurture today. On the whole, the nature vs. nurture debate has
its roots in France

 Nature vs nurture in the IQ debate

Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon
childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by
late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more
similar in IQ than strangers. Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood,
adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero),
while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern:
monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more
so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive
siblings (almost 0.0). Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture"
debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the
"nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the
United States.

 Nature vs nurture in personality traits

Personality is a frequently cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied
in twins and adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in
personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins
are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar
in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that
 personality is heritable to a certain extent. However, these same study designs
allow for the examination of environment as well as genes. Adoption studies also
directly measure the strength of shared family effects. Adopted siblings share only
family environment. Unexpectedly, some adoption studies indicate that by adulthood
the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar than random pairs of
strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality are zero by
adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared environmental effects are
often found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That is, environmental effects
that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an
impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify. One possible source of
non-shared effects is the environment of pre-natal development. Random variations
in the genetic program of development may be a substantial source of non-shared
environment. These results suggest that "nurture" may not be the predominant factor
in "environment".

 Moral considerations of the nature nurture debate

Some observers offer the criticism that modern science tends to give too much
weight to the nature side of the argument, in part because of the potential harm that
has come from rationalized racism. Historically, much of this debate has had
undertones of racist and eugenicist policies — the notion of race as a scientific truth
has often been assumed as a prerequisite in various incarnations of the nature
versus nurture debate. In the past, heredity was often used as "scientific" justification
for various forms of discrimination and oppression along racial and class lines.
Works published in the United States since the 1960s that argue for the primacy of
"nature" over "nurture" in determining certain characteristics, such as The Bell
Curve, have been greeted with considerable controversy and scorn.

A critique of moral arguments against the nature side of the argument could be that
they cross the is-ought gap. That is, they apply values to facts. However, such
 appliance appears to construct reality. Belief in biologically determined stereotypes
and abilities has been shown to increase the kind of behavior that is associated with
such stereotypes and to impair intellectual performance through, among other
things, the stereotype threat phenomenon. The implications of this are brilliantly
illustrated by the implicit association tests (IATs) out of Harvard. These, along with
studies of the impact of self-identification with either positive or negative stereotypes
and therefore "priming" good or bad effects, show that stereotypes, regardless of
their broad statistical significance, bias the judgements and behaviours of members
and non-members of the stereotyped groups.

 Philosophical considerations of the nature vs nurture debate

Are the traits real?
 It is sometimes a question whether the "trait" being measured is even a real thing.
Much energy has been devoted to calculating the heritability of intelligence (usually
the I.Q., or intelligence quotient), but there is still some disagreement as to what
exactly "intelligence" is.

 Determinism and Free will

If genes do contribute substantially to the development of personal characteristics
such as intelligence and personality, then many wonder if this implies that genes
determine who we are. Biological determinism is the thesis that genes determine
who we are. Few, if any, scientists would make such a claim; however, many are
accused of doing so.
Others have pointed out that the premise of the "nature versus nurture" debate
seems to negate the significance of free will. More specifically, if all our traits are
determined by our genes, by our environment, by chance, or by some combination
of these acting together, then there seems to be little room for free will. This line of
reasoning suggests that the "nature versus nurture" debate tends to exaggerate the
degree to which individual human behavior can be predicted based on knowledge of
genetics and the environment. Furthermore, in this line of reasoning, it should also
 be pointed out that biology may determine our abilities, but free will still determines
what we do with our abilities.

Comparison chart

Nature Nurture

What is it?: In the "nature vs nurture" In the "nature vs nurture"

debate, nature refers to an debate, nurture refers to
individual's innate qualities personal experiences (i.e.
(nativism). empiricism orbehaviorism).

Example: Nature is your genes. The Nurture refers to your

physical and personality childhood, or how you were
traits determined by your brought up. Someone could
genes stay the same be born with genes to give
irrespective of where you them a normal height, but be
were born and raised. malnourished in childhood,
resulting in stunted growth
and a failure to develop
as expected.

Factors: Biological and family factors Social and environmental

factors

We all have strong opinions on how we became and who we really are. It is obvious that
physical traits are mostly inherited. I did not get my brown eyes from spending too much
time with my best friend, nor will my eyes change to a blue color if I spend too much
time with another friend. I will not suddenly grow taller if live next to and see a tall man
every day. Anyway, I think you get the point. The environment and our surroundings will
not change physical traits like eye color or height, only surgery can do that…
Indeed, there are two sides to this argument: behavior is determined by our genes and
behavior is shaped by our environment. While in the past few posts I argue for the
environment, or nurture, shaping our personalities, there is also evidence for the nature
theory as well. I understand that both sides are valid arguments; however, I see that
nurture plays more of an important role in shaping behavior. I will examine arguments
for both sides by examining certain issues in this post. Each paragraph below will focus
on one idea.

 Importance and Recognition of Individual differences

in Personality
 Accepting and Managing Individual differences
(adjustment mechanisms)

“No two persons are born exactly alike; but each differs from the other in natural
endowments, one being suited for one occupation and the other for another.”
Individual difference examines how people are similar and how they differ in their
thinking, feeling and behavior.  No two people are alike, yet no two people are
unlike.  So, in the study of individual differences we strive to understand ways in
which people are psychologically similar and particularly what psychological
characteristics vary between people.
It is generally assumed  that:
 People vary on a range of psychological attributes
 It is possible to measure and study these individual differences
 individual differences are useful for explaining and predicting behaviour and
performance

We can classify people psychologically, according to their intelligence and

personality characteristics, for example, with moderate success, however people are
complex and much is still left unexplained.  There are multiple and often conflicting
theories and evidence about individual difference psychology. Scientists refer to the
ways in which people differ from one another as individual differences, and such
unique qualities can have major influences on our thinking and behavior as well as
our lives and careers. Because such factors play a role in many aspects of behavior
 in work settings, they have long been of interest to experts in the field of
organizational Behavior. As such, in this chapter we provide a broad overview of this
knowledge.
Our plan is as follows. First, we focus on personality,
one very important aspect of individual differences. Here, we first consider the matter
of how various facets of personality combine with elements of the work environment
to influence behavior. This is important, of course, because according to the popular
interactionist perspective to organizational behavior, how we behave is based on
both who we are (i.e., individual influences) and the contexts in which we operate
(i.e., situational influences).
Following this, we turn to the question of how personality can be measured. Since
traits and abilities are not physical quantities that can be observed readily, this is not
the easiest thing to do, but, as you’ll see, something scientists are able to do quite
effectively. Then, after describing these measurement methods, we describe a wide
variety of personality variables that have been found to have important effects in the
workplace. Finally, in another major section, we’ll examine several abilities (mental
and physical capacities to perform various tasks) and skills (proficiency at performing
specific tasks acquired through training or experience) and their effects on various
aspects of organizational behavior.
Personality Differences

Variety is a fact of group life. No matter how skilled, prepared, motivated and
responsible the individuals involved in a group, personality differences exist.
Personality “difference” is not the same as personality conflict. Differences can often
lead to conflict, however, if they are
1)     Not understood,
2)     Blamed on ethical or intellectual failure rather than individual or cultural
preferences, or
3)     Not discussed until emotions get out of hand.
Sometimes people think it is impolite to talk about differences honestly. (Your mother
probably taught you not to point at kids who were “different.”) In other situations, people
just don’t have the vocabulary to talk about differences productively. (You never
learned any other way to describe “weird” people.) Either way, differences can get in
the way of group work. Because they can’t be discussed productively, they can easily
turn into conflict.
• How we are “like some others”
• Individual differences refer to ways in which each person is like some other
people (e.g., extraverts, sensations-seekers, high self-esteem persons)
• Group differences refer to ways in which the people of one group differ from
people in another group (e.g., cultural differences, age differences)
• How we are “like no others”
• Individual uniqueness refers to the fact that every individual has personal and
unique qualities not shared by any other person in the world
• Individuals can be studied nomothetically or ideographically
• Why don’t people react in the same way to the same situation?
• early life experiences
• biological makeup
• learning
• Can we predict behavior? Does it depend on personality traits or on situation?
• is personality assessment meaningful?

• Differential psychology studies the ways in which individuals differ in their

behavior. This is distinguished from other aspects of psychology in that although
psychology is ostensibly a study of individuals, modern psychologists often
study groups or biological underpinnings of cognition. For example, in evaluating
the effectiveness of a new therapy, the mean performance of the therapy in
one treatment group might be compared to the mean effectiveness of
a placebo (or a well-known therapy) in a second, control group. In this context,
differences between individuals in their reaction to the experimental and control
manipulations are actually treated as errors rather than as interesting
phenomena to study.

This is because psychological research depends upon statistical controls that are

only defined upon groups of people. Individual difference psychologists usually
 express their interest in individuals while studying groups by seeking dimensions
shared by all individuals but upon which individuals differ.

 Intuition, Judgment, Perception & Sensation (MBTI)

The theory of psychological types described by C. G. Jung is understandable and useful

in people’s lives. The essence of the theory is that much seemingly random variation in
the behavior is actually quite orderly and consistent, being due to basic differences in
the ways individuals prefer to use their perception and judgment."Perception involves all
the ways of becoming aware of things, people, happenings, or ideas. Judgment involves
all the ways of coming to conclusions about what has been perceived. If people differ
systematically in what they perceive and in how they reach conclusions, then it is only
reasonable for them to differ correspondingly in their interests, reactions, values,
motivations, and skills.

Fundamental to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is the theory of psychological type as

originally developed by Carl Jung. Jung proposed the existence of two dichotomous
pairs of cognitive functions:

 The "rational" (judging) functions: thinking and feeling

 The "irrational" (perceiving) functions: sensation and intuition

Jung believed that for every person each of the functions are expressed primarily in
either an introverted or extraverted form.

Type

Jung's typological model regards psychological type as similar to left or right

handedness: individuals are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of
perceiving and deciding. The MBTI sorts some of these psychological differences into
four opposite pairs, or dichotomies, with a resulting 16 possible psychological types.
None of these types are better or worse; however, Briggs and Myers theorized that
individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of type differences. In the same way
that writing with the left hand is hard work for a right-hander, so people tend to find
using their opposite psychological preferences more difficult, even if they can become
more proficient (and therefore behaviorally flexible) with practice and development.

The 16 types are typically referred to by an abbreviation of four letters—the initial letters
of each of their four type preferences (except in the case of intuition, which uses the
abbreviation N to distinguish it from Introversion). For instance:

 ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)

 INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)
Attitudes: extraversion/introversion (E/I)

Myers-Briggs literature uses the terms extraversion and introversion as Jung first used

them. Extraversion means "outward-turning" and introversion means "inward-
turning".These specific definitions vary somewhat from the popular usage of the words.
Note that extraversion is the spelling used in MBTI publications.

The preferences for extraversion and introversion are often called "attitudes". Briggs
and Myers recognized that each of the cognitive functions can operate in the external
world of behavior, action, people, and things ("extraverted attitude") or the internal world
of ideas and reflection ("introverted attitude"). The MBTI assessment sorts for an overall
preference for one or the other.

People who prefer extraversion draw energy from action: they tend to act, then reflect,
then act further. If they are inactive, their motivation tends to decline. To rebuild their
energy, extraverts need breaks from time spent in reflection. Conversely, those who
prefer introversion "expend" energy through action: they prefer to reflect, then act, then
reflect again. To rebuild their energy, introverts need quiet time alone, away from
activity.

The extravert's flow is directed outward toward people and objects, and the introvert's is
directed inward toward concepts and ideas. Contrasting characteristics between
extraverts and introverts include the following:
 Extraverts are "action" oriented, while introverts are "thought" oriented.
 Extraverts seek "breadth" of knowledge and influence, while introverts seek
"depth" of knowledge and influence.
 Extraverts often prefer more "frequent" interaction, while introverts prefer more
"substantial" interaction.
 Extraverts recharge and get their energy from spending time with people, while
introverts recharge and get their energy from spending time alone.
Functions: sensing/intuition (S/N) and thinking/feeling (T/F)

Jung identified two pairs of psychological functions:

 The two perceiving functions, sensing and intuition

 The two judging functions, thinking and feeling

According to Jung's typology model, each person uses one of these four functions more
dominantly and proficiently than the other three; however, all four functions are used at
different times depending on the circumstances.

Sensing and intuition are the information-gathering (perceiving) functions. They

describe how new information is understood and interpreted. Individuals who
prefer sensing are more likely to trust information that is in the present, tangible, and
concrete: that is, information that can be understood by the five senses. They tend to
distrust hunches, which seem to come "out of nowhere".

They prefer to look for details and facts. For them, the meaning is in the data. On the
other hand, those who prefer intuition tend to trust information that is more abstract or
theoretical, that can be associated with other information (either remembered or
discovered by seeking a wider context or pattern). They may be more interested in
future possibilities. For them, the meaning is in the underlying theory and principles
which are manifested in the data.

Thinking and feeling are the decision-making (judging) functions. The thinking and

feeling functions are both used to make rational decisions, based on the data received
from their information-gathering functions (sensing or intuition). Those who
prefer thinking tend to decide things from a more detached standpoint, measuring the
decision by what seems reasonable, logical, causal, consistent, and matching a given
set of rules. Those who prefer feeling tend to come to decisions by associating or
empathizing with the situation, looking at it 'from the inside' and weighing the situation to
achieve, on balance, the greatest harmony, consensus and fit, considering the needs of
the people involved. Thinkers usually have trouble interacting with people who are
inconsistent or illogical, and tend to give very direct feedback to others. They are
concerned with the truth and view it as more important than being tactful.

As noted already, people who prefer thinking do not necessarily, in the everyday sense,
"think better" than their feeling counterparts; the opposite preference is considered an
equally rational way of coming to decisions (and, in any case, the MBTI assessment is a
measure of preference, not ability). Similarly, those who prefer feeling do not
necessarily have "better" emotional reactions than their thinking counterparts.

Dominant function

A diagram depicting the cognitive functions of each type.

According to Jung, people use all four cognitive functions. However, one function is
generally used in a more conscious and confident way. This dominant function is
supported by the secondary (auxiliary) function, and to a lesser degree the tertiary
function. The fourth and least conscious function is always the opposite of the dominant
function. Myers called this inferior function the shadow.

The four functions operate in conjunction with the attitudes (extraversion and
introversion). Each function is used in either an extraverted or introverted way. A person
whose dominant function is extraverted intuition, for example, uses intuition very
differently from someone whose dominant function is introverted intuition.

BIG5 Factors

A summary of the factors of the Big Five and their constituent traits:

 Openness to experience – (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious). Appreciation

for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, curiosity, and variety of experience.
Openness reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity and a preference for
novelty and variety a person has. It is also described as the extent to which a person is
imaginative or independent, and depicts a personal preference for a variety of activities
over a strict routine. Some disagreement remains about how to interpret the openness
factor, which is sometimes called "intellect" rather than openness to experience.
 Conscientiousness – (efficient/organized vs. easy-going/careless). A tendency to
show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; planned rather than
spontaneous behavior; organized, and dependable.
 Extraversion – (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved). Energy, positive
emotions, surgency, assertiveness, sociability and the tendency to seek stimulation in
the company of others, and talkativeness.
 Agreeableness – (friendly/compassionate vs. cold/unkind). A tendency to
be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards
others. It is also a measure of ones' trusting and helpful nature, and whether a person is
generally well tempered or not.
 Neuroticism – (sensitive/nervous vs. secure/confident). The tendency to experience
unpleasant emotions easily, such as anger, anxiety, depression, or vulnerability.
Neuroticism also refers to the degree of emotional stability and impulse control, and is
sometimes referred by its low pole – "emotional stability".

The Big Five Traits were discovered and defined by several independent sets of
researchers. These researchers began by studying known personality traits and then
factor-analyzing hundreds of measures of these traits (in self-report and questionnaire
data, peer ratings, and objective measures from experimental settings) in order to find
the underlying factors of personality. The Big five personality traits was the model to
comprehend the relationship between personality and academic behaviors.

Extraversion: A tendency to seek stimulation and to enjoy the company of other

people. This reflects a dimension ranging from energetic, enthusiastic, sociable, and
talkative at one end, to retiring, sober, reserved, silent, and cautious on the other.
Agreeableness: A tendency to be compassionate toward others. This dimension
ranges from good-natured, cooperative, trusting, and helpful at one end, to irritable,
suspicious, and uncooperative at the other.
Conscientiousness: A tendency to show self-discipline, to strive for competence and
achievement. This dimension ranges from well organized, careful, self-disciplined,
responsible, and precise at one end, to disorganized, impulsive, careless, and
undependable at the other.
Neuroticism: A tendency to experience unpleasant emotions easily. This dimension
ranges from poised, calm, composed.
.Openness to experience: A tendency to enjoy new experiences and new ideas. This
dimension ranges from imaginative, witty, and having broad interests at one end, to
down-to-earth, simple, and having narrow interests at the other.
These five basic dimensions of personality are measured by means of questionnaires
in which the people whose personalities are being assessed answer various questions
about themselves. Some sample items similar to those on popular measures of the Big
Sample openness

 I have a rich vocabulary.

 I have a vivid imagination.
 I have excellent ideas.
 I am quick to understand things.
 I use difficult words.
 I spend time reflecting on things.
 I am full of ideas.
 I am not interested in abstractions. (reversed)
 I do not have a good imagination. (reversed)
 I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (reversed)

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for

achievement against measures or outside expectations. The trait shows a preference
for planned rather than spontaneous behavior. It influences the way in which we control,
regulate, and direct our impulses. The average level of conscientiousness rises among
young adults and then declines among older adults.

Sample conscientiousness

 I am always prepared.
 I pay attention to details.
 I get chores done right away.
 I like order.
 I follow a schedule.
 I am exacting in my work.
 I leave my belongings around. (reversed)
 I make a mess of things. (reversed)
 I often forget to put things back in their proper place. (reversed)
 I shirk my duties. (reversed)

Extraversion

Extraversion is characterized by breadth of activities (as opposed to depth), surgency

from external activity/situations, and energy creation from external means. The trait is
marked by pronounced engagement with the external world. Extraverts enjoy interacting
with people, and are often perceived as full of energy. They tend to be enthusiastic,
action-oriented individuals. They possess high group visibility, like to talk, and assert
themselves.

Introverts have lower social engagement and energy levels than extraverts. They tend
to seem quiet, low-key, deliberate, and less involved in the social world. Their lack of
social involvement should not be interpreted as shyness or depression, they are simply
more independent of their social world than extraverts. Introverts simply need less
stimulation than extraverts and more time alone. They should not be seen as
deliberately unfriendly or antisocial, instead they are reserved in social situations.

Sample extraversion items

 I am the life of the party.

 I don't mind being the center of attention.
 I feel comfortable around people.
 I start conversations.
 I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
 I don't talk a lot. (reversed)
 I keep in the background. (reversed)
 I think a lot before I speak or act. (reversed)
 I don't like to draw attention to myself. (reversed)
 I am quiet around strangers. (reversed)
 I have no intention of talking in large crowds. (reversed)

Agreeableness

Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than

suspicious and antagonistic towards others. The trait reflects individual differences in
general concern for social harmony. Agreeable individuals value getting along with
others. They are generally considerate, friendly, generous, helpful, and willing to
compromise their interests with others. [38] Agreeable people also have an optimistic view
of human nature.

Although agreeableness is positively correlated with good team work skills, it is

negatively correlated with leadership skills. Those who voice out their opinion in a team
environment tend to move up the corporate rankings, whereas the ones that don't
remain in the same position, usually labelled as the followers of the team.

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

A person with a high level of agreeableness in a personality test is usually warm,

friendly, and tactful. They generally have an optimistic view of human nature and get
along well with others. A person who scores low on agreeableness may put their own
interests above those of others. They tend to be distant, unfriendly, and uncooperative.

Sample agreeableness

 I am interested in people.
 I sympathize with others' feelings.
 I have a soft heart.
 I take time out for others.
 I feel others' emotions.
 I make people feel at ease.
 I am not really interested in others. (reversed)
 I insult people. (reversed)
 I am not interested in other people's problems. (reversed)
 I feel little concern for others. (reversed)

Neuroticism[
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety,
or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability, or is reversed and referred to
as emotional stability. According to Eysenck’s (1967) theory of personality, neuroticism
is interlinked with low tolerance for stress or aversive stimuli. Those who score high in
neuroticism are emotionally reactive and vulnerable to stress. 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. For instance, neuroticism is connected to a
pessimistic approach toward work, confidence that work impedes with personal
relationships, and apparent anxiety linked with work. Furthermore, those who score high
on neuroticism may display more skin conductance reactivity than those who score low
on neuroticism. These problems in emotional regulation can diminish the ability of a
person scoring high on neuroticism to think clearly, make decisions, and cope
effectively with stress. Lacking contentment in one's life achievements can correlate to
high Neuroticism scores and increase a person's likelihood of falling into clinical
depression.

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.

Emotional stability refers to a person's ability to remain stable and balanced. At the
other end of the scale, a person who is high in neuroticism has a tendency to easily
experience negative emotions. Neuroticism is similar but not identical to being neurotic
in the Freudian sense. Some psychologists prefer to call neuroticism by the term
emotional stability to differentiate it from the term neurotic in a career test

Sample neuroticism

 I am easily disturbed.
 I change my mood a lot.
 I get irritated easily.
 I get stressed out easily.
 I get upset easily.
 I have frequent mood swings.
 I often feel blue.
 I worry about things.
 I am relaxed most of the time. (reversed)
 I seldom feel blue. (reversed)
 I am much more anxious than most people.