Applications In Personality Testing

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 1/59

CHAPTER 9 Assessment of Normality and Human Strengths

TOPIC 9A Assessment Within the Normal Spectrum

9.1 Broad Band Tests of Normal Personality (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec1#ch09lev1sec1)

9.2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec2#ch09lev1sec2)

9.3 California Psychological Inventory (CPI) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec3#ch09lev1sec3)

9.4 NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec4#ch09lev1sec4)

9.5 Stability and Change in Personality (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec5#ch09lev1sec5)

9.6 Assessment of Moral Judgment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec6#ch09lev1sec6)

9.7 Assessment of Spiritual and Religious Concepts (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec7#ch09lev1sec7)

In the previous chapter we surveyed tests used by psychologists to evaluate clients for a range of symptoms and life difficulties. These instruments included the mainstays of the profession such as the MMPI-2, MCMI-III, Rorschach, and TAT. Such tests might be referred to as “clinical” in nature, because they are well suited to the needs of clinical practice. But what are practitioners to do if they want to evaluate someone who is reasonably normal? In other words, assessment does not always entail delving into symptoms, distress level, defense mechanisms, diagnosis, and the like. One example might be a young executive who wants to know about “growth edges” in regard to leadership positions. Another example might be a college student who desires self-knowledge as part of vocational explorations.

Even though clinical tests such as those surveyed in the previous chapter can be employed within the normal spectrum, they do not excel in this application. In fact, the evaluation of normal personality was not the original purpose of tests such as the MMPI or the Rorschach. For example, the initial objective of the MMPI-2 was the diagnosis of psychopathology, which remains the most dominant and effective application of the instrument. Historically, the purpose of the Rorschach has been described by Frank (1939 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib529) ) and others as providing an “X-ray of the mind” to identify themes hidden away from ordinary observation. Currently,

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 2/59

the most common application of the test is with clients who display complex psychological symptoms that do not fit neatly into the categories of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).

When a practitioner wants to assess personality within the normal spectrum, tests designed expressly for that purpose typically provide a more helpful perspective than instruments developed from the standpoint of psychopathology. Instead of measuring concepts such as depression, paranoia, anxiety, narcissism, or suicide potential, the focus in these alternative instruments is on qualities pertinent to the normal range of human functioning. We are referring here to features like responsibility, social presence, intuition, locus of control, attachment style, or faith maturity. This chapter investigates an assortment of instruments suitable for assessment within the normal continuum and beyond.

Normality differs from abnormality by shades of gray rather than revealing a sharp demarcation (Offer & Sabshin, 1966 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1249) ). Understanding the various definitions of normality would involve a lengthy detour; we do not pursue the topic here. In their comprehensive textbook of psychiatry, Sadock and Sadock (2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1428) ) provide an excellent overview. Our goal here is to focus on useful tests and measures, including some that have been neglected because of the emphasis on psychopathology within the field of clinical psychology.

In Topic 9A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09#ch09box1) , Assessment Within the Normal Spectrum, we explore the qualities of several tests and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. We feature a few widely used scales in this topic, including the venerable Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1197) ), one of the most widely employed personality tests of all time, and the California Psychological Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ), a measure with strong empirical roots.

In addition to their value in the assessment of client personality, tests also contribute to our understanding of both typical and atypical trajectories of personality across the life span. For this reason, we follow a key research issue in personality psychology, namely, whether personality remains stable or tends to shift in specific directions with age. We close the topic with an evaluation of tools for assessing spiritual and religious constructs.

Other forms of assessment pertinent to the normal spectrum of adult functioning also are covered in Topic 9A (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09#ch09box1) . We are referring here to the evaluation of spiritual, religious, and moral constructs. These specialized forms of assessment have received an increasing amount of attention in recent years.

In Topic 9B (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec7#ch09box2) , Positive Psychological Assessment, we examine a number of relatively new scales that have emerged in response to a reawakening of interest in human potential, an interest that has remained largely dormant in psychology since the early 1900s (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1480) ). A special focus in this topic is the assessment of creativity.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 3/59

9.1 BROAD BAND TESTS OF NORMAL PERSONALITY A broad band test is one that measures the full range of functioning, as opposed to limited aspects. Beginning in the 1940s, researchers sought to capture the nuances of normal personality by developing broad-band self-report instruments. The sheer variety of approaches to this task is a testament to the complexity of human functioning. An enduring question, related to the previous topic on theories of personality, is how best to conceptualize the multi-faceted notion of personality. For example, is personality best construed as a limited number of types, with most people resembling one type or another with reasonable precision? Or, is personality best interpreted as several dimensions, with each unique individual revealing a specific level of each dimension? If a dimensional approach is preferred, how many dimensions are needed to describe the array of human responses: 5, 16, 20—or more?

There are no definitive answers to these questions, although dimensional approaches generally have prevailed over typological methods in the history of test development. Even so, useful and popular typological approaches do exist. In fact, we begin the discussion of broad-band tests with an instrument that flexibly permits both a typological and a dimensional approach to the understanding of normal personality.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 4/59

9.2 MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE INDICATOR (MBTI) Originally published in 1962, the MBTI is a forced-choice, self-report inventory that attempts to classify persons according to an adaptation of Carl Jung’s theory of personality types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1197) ; Tzeng, Ware, & Chen, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1674) ). As discussed below, recent adaptations of the test also provide dimensional scores in addition to the well- known four-letter typological codes.

According to the publisher, the MBTI is the most widely used individual test in history, taken by approximately 2 million people a year. Proponents of the instrument deem it valuable in vocational guidance and organizational consulting. It comes in a number of versions, including Form M, a 93-item test which can be purchased by qualified psychologists in a self-scoring paper-and-pencil format, or administered on-line. Other forms such as the 126-item Form G and the 144-item Form Q are available on- line and must be authorized by a psychologist who has agreed to a licensing arrangement with the publisher, Consulting Psychologists Press (www.cpp.com (http://www.cpp.com) ).

Regardless of the version employed, the MBTI is scored on four theoretically independent polarities: Extraversion–Introversion, Sensing–iNtuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–Perceiving. The test-taker is categorized on one side or the other of each polarity, which results in a four-letter code such as ENTJ (Extraversion, iNtuition, Thinking, Judging). Because there are two poles to each of the four dimensions,

this allows for 24 or 16 different personality types. Each of the 16 types has been studied extensively over the years.

The four polarities (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) do not necessarily correspond to common understandings of the anchor terms and hence require some explanation. It is also important to note that the concepts are intended to be value-neutral and merely descriptive. Thus, it is neither better nor worse to manifest Extraversion or Introversion. Likewise, Thinking and Feeling are simply different modalities and one is not better than the other, and so forth. The opposite ends of each polarity are simply different modes of being that may have a variety of implications for relationships, vocation, leadership, and personal functioning. Possessing the qualities of one polarity or the other may be advantageous (or not) in different situations.

Extraversion–Introversion is probably the easiest to describe. An extravert (E) directs energy outward to people and conversations, whereas an introvert (I) directs energy inward to his or her inner world. A note of clarification: The MBTI retains the original spelling of Extraversion, preferred by Jung, instead of using the synonymous concept of Extroversion, preferred by contemporary psychologists. Sensing–iNtuition involves two opposite ways of perceiving. Those who prefer sensing (S) rely on the immediate senses, whereas those who prefer intuition (N) rely upon “relationships and/or possibilities that have been worked out beyond the reach of the conscious mind” (Myers & McCaulley, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1197) ). Of course, the letter N is used to designate intuition because the letter I already is taken to label Introversion. Thinking– Feeling refers to basing conclusions on thinking (T), that is, logic and objectivity, as opposed to feeling (F), which involves a reliance on personal values and social harmony. Finally, Judging–Perceiving indicates a preference for decisiveness and closure (J) or an open-ended flexibility and spontaneity (P). Whereas in common parlance the notion of “judging” often has a negative connotation, this is not the case when the term is applied to this polarity of the MBTI.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 5/59

The 16 possible four-letter types are not equally represented in the general population, and some types are more common in specific occupational groups. For example, in a sample of 231 education graduate students from a Midwestern university, the ENFP type was by far the most common (N = 43), followed by ENFJ (N = 28) in frequency. Codes beginning with the letter E (Extraversion) constituted nearly two-thirds of this sample, which highlights the importance of Extraversion in the field of education. Paraphrasing from Myers and McCaulley (1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1197) , p. 78), the work expectations for someone who embodies the ENFP type are as follows:

prefers to work interactively with a succession of people away from the desk likes to work with a succession of new problems to be solved prefers to provide service that is appreciated likes to work in changing situations that require adaptation

These qualities align well with the role expectations for people heading into the field of education.

Standardization data for the MBTI is extensive and based on large samples collected over many decades (Myers & McCaulley, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1197) ). One particularly useful table is a list of occupations empirically attractive to the sixteen types. For example, 18 percent of attorneys are INTJ in type, whereas only 2 percent of elementary school teachers fit this code. This is useful information for clients who take the test in search of personal or career guidance. Split-half reliabilities for the four scales are in the .80s for the combined subject pool of nearly 56,000 participants. Test–retest reliabilities for the four scales are somewhat lower and depend on the interval between tests. When the interval is short, on the order of a few weeks, results are strong, with coefficients mainly in the .70s and higher. Yet, when the interval is longer, on the order of several years, the coefficients are predictably lower, in the .40s and .50s. With regard to reliability, an important question with the MBTI is the stability of the four letter code from test to retest. The test manual reports on a dozen studies of code type stability, with retest intervals ranging from 5 weeks to 5 years (most intervals a year or two). On average, about 41 percent of examinees retained their identical code type, that is, all four letters of the code remained the same from test to retest. About 38 percent of examinees remained stable on three of the four letters, that is, one letter changed for them. About 17 percent of examinees retained two of their four letters, but switched on the other two. And, 3 percent retained only one letter, switching on the other three. Overall, these are impressive results as to the long-term stability of the MBTI code types.

In a review of 17 studies reporting reliability coefficients, Capraro and Capraro (2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib268) ) found respectably strong reliability coefficients of .84 (E-I), .84 (S-N), .67 (T-F), and .82 (J-P). Salter, Forney, and Evans (2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1431) ) conducted an especially rigorous evaluation of MBTI reliability, looking at the stability of MBTI categories across three administrations with 231 graduate students in education. The three administrations were at the beginning of the first year, beginning of the second year, and end of the second year. Their report included extensive analyses, but of interest here is the percentage of respondents who received the same classification (e.g., Extraversion or Introversion) on all three occasions. The percentage who displayed complete consistency for each dimension was as follows:

• E-I 67%

• S-N 66%

• T-F 69%

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 6/59

• J-P 71%

Given the stringency of the reliability approach (agreement across three administrations), these are respectable findings.

More than 400 references citing the MBTI were found in PsychINFO from 2000 to 2009, many pertaining to the validity of the instrument. For example, in a study of 177 managers, Higgs (2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib743) ) reported a significant relationship between emotional intelligence and the dominant MBTI function of iNtuition. Emotional intelligence is monitoring emotions of self and others and using this information to guide thinking and actions (Mayer & Salovey, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1071) ). A positive relationship with MBTI iNtuition is strong support for the validity of this dimension.

Another recent study also provides support for the validity of the polarities assessed by the MBTI. Furnham, Moutafi, and Crump (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib556) ) tested 900 adults with two instruments: the MBTI and the Revised NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib353) ). The NEO-PI- R is a well validated measure of personality that evaluates five factors of personality known as the “big five.” These factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness (to experience), Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. As predicted by the authors, the MBTI dimensions revealed healthy and appropriate correlations with corresponding factors from the NEO-PI-R. Specifically, the following averaged concurrent validity correlations were found between the MBTI dimensions and the NEO-PI-R scales: E-I correlated .71 with Extraversion; S-N correlated −.65 with Openness; T-F correlated −.35 with Agreeableness; and, J-P correlated .46 with Conscientiousness. The negative correlations indicate an inverse relationship, that is, those categorized as S (Sensing) on the MBTI obtained low scores on Openness, whereas those categorized as N (iNtuition) obtained high scores on Openness. In like manner a T or Thinking type tended to obtain low scores on Agreeableness whereas an F or Feeling type tended to obtain high scores. All of these correlations are consistent with theoretical understandings of the MBTI and hence buttress the validity of the instrument.

As mentioned, recent versions of the MBTI yield additional information beyond the four-letter typological classification. For example, the 144-item form Q, available on-line, provides a highly detailed and sophisticated summary report that partitions each of the four polarities into five facet scores. Hence the report includes a total of 20 facet scores in addition to the four-letter code. For example, the Thinking- Feeling dimension includes bipolar facets such as Logical-Empathetic, Reasonable-Compassionate, and Tough-Tender. The dimensions and facets of this version of the MBTI are displayed in Table 9.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec2#ch09tab1) . The report includes not only the typological classifications (e.g., T or F) but also a rating for each bipolar facet on an 11-point continuum. This kind of nuanced dimensional information appeals to many users.

TABLE 9.1 Dimensions and Facets of the MBTI, Form Q

Extraversion (E) (I) Introversion

  Initiating   Receiving

  Expressive   Contained

  Gregarious   Intimate

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 7/59

  Active   Reflective

  Enthusiastic   Quiet

Sensing (S) (N) Intuition

  Concrete   Abstract

  Realistic   Imaginative

  Practical   Conceptual

  Experiential   Theoretical

  Traditional   Original

Thinking (T) (F) Feeling

  Logical   Empathetic

  Reasonable   Compassionate

  Questioning   Accommodating

  Critical   Accepting

  Tough   Tender

Judging (J) (P) Perceiving

  Systematic   Casual

  Planful   Open-Ended

  Early Starting   Pressure-Prompted

  Scheduled   Spontaneous

  Methodical   Emergent

One concern about the MBTI is that the increasing cost of administering the instrument—in the range of $10 to $30 per individual—provides a disincentive for outside researchers who want to conduct reliability or validity studies. This is an issue not only for the MBTI but also for the most widely used contemporary tests. Understandably, test publishers want to profit from their massive and expensive efforts at test development. But the downside is that scholarly researchers need substantial funding if they desire to administer newer versions of the MBTI to large samples of examinees. Partly in reaction to the paucity of independent research on newer versions of this test, reviewers continue to suggest caution in its use, especially when making simplistic inferences from the four-letter type formulas (Pittenger, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1307) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 8/59

9.3 CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY (CPI) Originally published in 1957, the CPI is a true–false test designed expressly to measure the dimensions of normal personality (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ; McAllister, 1988). The instrument is available in two forms, the CPI-434 (Gough, 1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib628) ) and the CPI-260 (www.skillsone.com (http://www.skillsone.com) ), which is available only online. The component scales and the interpretive strategies are nearly identical for the two versions, which differ mainly in the number of items—434 versus 260. Psychometric properties of both versions are similar and strong. Because of its ease of administration and the immediacy with which the practitioner receives an extensive computer- generated report, the CPI-260 rapidly is gaining favor among psychological practitioners.

The CPI-260 is scored for 20 folk measures of personality, 7 work-related scales, and 3 broad vectors. The purpose of the test is to provide a clear picture of the examinee by using descriptors based on the ordinary language of everyday life (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ). Three of the basic personality scales also provide information on test-taking attitudes and therefore function as validity scales. These scales are Good Impression (Gi), which assesses the extent to which the individual presents a favorable image to others; Communality (Cm), which measures unusual responses that might arise from carelessness or faking bad; and Well-being (Wb), which gauges the portrayal of serious emotional problems.

TABLE 9.2 Brief Description of Standard and Work-Related CPI-260 Scales

Standard Scales Common Interpretation of High Score

Do Dominance dominant, persistent, good leadership ability

Cs Capacity for Status personal qualities that underlie and lead to status

Sy Sociability outgoing, sociable, participative temperament

Sp Social Presence poise, spontaneity, and self-confidence in social situations

Sa Self-acceptance self-acceptance and sense of personal worth

In Independence high sense of personal independence, not easily influenced

Em Empathy good capacity to empathize with other persons

Re Responsibility conscientious, responsible, and dependable

So Social Conformity strong social maturity and high integrity

Sc Self-control good self-control, freedom from impulsivity and self-centeredness

Gi Good Impression concerned about creating a good impression

Cm Communality valid and thoughtful response pattern

Wb Sense of Well-being not worrying or complaining, free from self doubt

To Tolerance permissive, accepting, and nonjudgmental social beliefs

Ac Achievement via Conformance

achieves well in settings where conformance is necessary

Ai Achievement via Independence

achieves well in settings where independence is necessary

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev1… 9/59

Cf Conceptual fluency high degree of personal and intellectual efficiency

Is Insightfulness interested in and responsive to the inner needs, motives, and experiences of others

Fx Flexibility flexible and adaptable in thought and social behavior

Sn Sensitivity sensitive to others’ feelings, personally vulnerable

  Work-Related Scales Common Interpretation of High Score

Mp Managerial Potential good judgment, effective at dealing with people

Wo Work Orientation strong work ethic, rarely complains about work

Ct Creative Temperament creative thinker who prefers what is new or different

Lp Leadership strong leadership skills, deals well with stress

Ami Amicability collegial and cooperative, a good team player

Leo Law Enforcement Orientation

practical, well suited to work in law enforcement

Source: Based on Gough, H. G. and Bradley, P. (1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Also, Megargee, E. (1972 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1119) ). The California Psychological Inventory handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; and McAllister, L. (1988). A practical guide to CPI interpretation. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

The 20 folk measures and 7 work-related scales are listed and briefly described in Table 9.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec3#ch09tab2) . These scales are reported as T-scores normed to a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 in the general population. The test developers used an empirical methodology of criterion-keying to develop the majority of the scales. Specifically, extreme groups of participants (mainly college students) were formed on such scale- relevant criteria as school grades, sociability, and participation in curricular activities. Item-endorsement frequencies were then contrasted to ferret out the best statements for each scale. For example, the Sociability (Sy) scale was constructed by contrasting item-endorsement rates for persons reporting a large number of social activities versus those reporting few or no social activities. In constructing four of the folk scales, the authors used a rational basis backed up by indices of internal consistency.

Reflecting the care with which the scales were constructed, reliability data for the CPI are respectable. Most alpha coefficients are in the .70s and .80s, with a median value of .76. The test–retest reliability coefficients tend to be somewhat lower, with a median retest correlation of .68. The authors provide a wealth of normative data, including average test scores for 52 samples of males and 42 samples of females, subdivided by education, occupation, college major, gender, and other variables. The basic normative sample consists of 3,000 males and 3,000 females of varying age, social class, and geographic region (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ).

In addition to the wealth of information provided by the individual scale scores, the CPI also is scored on three broad dimensions or vectors derived from decades of factor-analytic studies with the instrument. The three vectors include two basic orientations and a third theme reflecting ego integration. The first basic orientation called vector 1 or v.1 has two polarities: toward people or toward one’s inner life. This vector is similar to the extraversion–introversion dimension found in nearly every personality theory ever proposed. The second basic orientation or v.2 also has two polarities: rule-favoring or rule-questioning. This vector reflects a conventional–unconventional dimension also found in many studies. These first two

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 10/59

bipolar orientations, v.1 and v.2, provide a 2 × 2 typology of four lifestyles termed the Implementer, Supporter, Innovator, and Visualizer lifestyles, described below. The third vector or v.3 assesses a 7-point continuum variously referred to as self-realization, psychological competence, or ego integration. In the client feedback report provided by the publisher, v.3 is referred to as Level of Satisfaction and scored 1 (low) to 7 (high). This vector acts as a moderator for each of the lifestyles, with high scores on v.3 leading to a positive expression and low scores leading to a negative expression.

Results from several correlational studies confirm distinctive psychological portraits for the four lifestyles mentioned above (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) ). Briefly, the four life styles are as follows:

Implementers (extroverted and rule-favoring) tend to do well in managerial and leadership roles. Supporters (introverted and rule-favoring) function well in supportive or ancillary positions. Innovators (extroverted and rule-questioning) are adept at creating change. Visualizers (introverted and rule-questioning) work best alone in fields such as art or literature.

The CPI Manual provides a wealth of information about each lifestyle, including adjective correlates obtained from spouses, peers, and professional evaluators. From these empirical sources, a clear portrait of each lifestyle emerges. For example, the summary statement for Innovators is as follows:

Gammas attend to and seek the monetary, prestige, and other rewards offered by society, but are often at odds with the culture concerning the criteria by which these rewards are apportioned. Their values are personal and individual, not traditional or conventional. Gammas [Innovators] are the doubters, the skeptics, those who see and resist the arbitrary and unjustified features of the status quo. At their best, they are innovative and insightful creators of new ideas, new products, and new social forms. At their worst, they are rebellious, intolerant, self-indulgent, and disruptive; and at low levels on the v.3 scale, they often behave in wayward, rule-violating, and narcissistic ways. (Gough & Bradley, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib633) , p. 50)

The reader will notice that the third vector, v.3, moderates the expression of the Implementer lifestyle, for better or for worse. When v.3 is high, the Implementer is innovative and insightful. When v.3 is low, the Implementer is wayward and narcissistic. A similar pattern holds true for the other three lifestyles—each can have a positive or negative expression, depending on the level of personal integration reflected on the v.3 scale.

The CPI is heir to a long history of empirical research that substantiates a number of real-world correlates for distinctive test profiles. Due to space limitations, we can only list several prominent areas in which the value of the test has been empirically confirmed. The CPI is useful for helping predict the following:

Psychological and physical health High school and college achievement Effectiveness of student-teachers Effectiveness of police and military personnel Leadership and management success

The CPI is particularly effective at identifying adolescents or adults who follow a delinquent or criminal lifestyle. For example, Gough and Bradley (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib631) ) studied a sample of

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 11/59

672 delinquent or criminal men and women, contrasting their CPI scale scores with a large sample of controls. Of the 27 scales evaluated, they found significant mean differences on 25 for men and 26 for women. The most discriminating scale was Social Conformity (So), which revealed healthy point-biserial correlations of .54 for men and .58 for women. They also found that low scores on v.3 (a measure of ego integration) were associated with greater incidence of delinquency. The reader can find further details on the real-world empirical correlates of CPI profiles in Groth-Marnat (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib658) ) and Hargrave and Hiatt (1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib703) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 12/59

9.4 NEO PERSONALITY INVENTORY-REVISED (NEO PI-R) The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PIR) embodies decades of factor-analytic research with clinical and normal adult populations (Costa & McCrae, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib353) ). The test is based upon the five-factor model of personality described in the previous chapter. It is available in two parallel forms consisting of 240 items rated on a five-point dimension. An additional three items are used to check validity. A shorter version, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is also available (Costa & McCrae, 1989 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib356) ). We limit our discussion to the NEO PI-R. Form S is for self-reports whereas Form R is for outside observers (e.g., the spouse of a client). The item format consists of five-point ratings: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, strongly agree. The items assess emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational variables.

The five domain scales of the NEO PI-R are each based upon six facet (trait) scales (Table 9.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec4#ch09tab3) ). The internal consistency of the scales is superb: .86 to .95 for the domain scales, and .56 to .90 for the facet scales. Stability coefficients range from .51 to .83 in three- to seven-year longitudinal studies. Validity evidence for the NEO PI-R is substantial, based on the correspondence of ratings between self and spouse, correlations with other tests and checklists, and the construct validity of the five-factor model itself (Costa & McCrae, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib353) ; Piedmont & Weinstein, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1297) ; Trull, Useda, Costa, & McCrae, 1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1668) ).

The NEO PI-R is an excellent measure of personality that is especially useful in research. Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1415) ) describe a particularly fascinating research project with the test in which all U.S. presidents were evaluated by 115 highly informed, expert presidential biographers who filled out the NEO PI-R on behalf of the presidents, from George Washington through George H. W. Bush. The authors developed a typology of presidents from the data and related facets of the test to presidential success (i.e., historical greatness). They also published individual presidential profiles, such as the following results for George Washington (50 is average in the general population):

Neuroticism 47

Extraversion 44

Openness 39

Agreeableness 40

Conscientiousness 72

The portrait that emerges is of a leader who is well-adjusted, slightly introverted, not particularly open to experience, markedly disagreeable, and extremely conscientious. After reviewing the specific facet scores (see Table 9.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec4#ch09tab3) ), the authors concluded that Washington “falls quite short of the modern political commodities of warmth, empathy, and open-mindedness.”

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 13/59

TABLE 9.3 Domain and Facet (Trait) Scales of the NEO PI-R

Domains Facets

Neuroticism Anxiety Self-Consciousness

  Angry Hostility Impulsiveness

  Depression Vulnerability

Extraversion Warmth Activity

  Gregariousness Excitement Seeking

  Assertiveness Positive Emotions

Openness to Experience Fantasy Actions

  Aesthetics Ideas

  Feelings Values

Agreeableness Trust Compliance

  Straightforwardness Modesty

  Altruism Tender-Mindednesss

Conscientiousness Competence Achievement Striving

  Order Self-Discipline

  Dutifulness Deliberation

The test also shows promise as a measure of clinical psychopathology. For example, Clarkin, Hull, Cantor, and Sanderson (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib309) ) found that patients diagnosed with borderline personality disorder scored very high on Neuroticism and very low on Agreeableness, which resonates strongly with every clinician’s response to these challenging patients. Ranseen, Campbell, and Baer (1998 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1332) ) determined that 25 adults with attention deficit disorder scored significantly higher than controls in the Neuroticism domain and significantly lower in the Conscientiousness domain, demonstrating the usefulness of the NEO PI-R in understanding attention deficit disorders in adulthood. One minor concern about the instrument is that it lacks substantial validity scales—only three items assess validity. The administration of the NEO PI- R assumes that subjects are cooperative and reasonably honest. This is usually a safe assumption in research settings but may not hold true in forensic, personnel, or psychiatric settings.

For purposes of education and research, several psychometricians have constructed websites where it is possible to self-administer an equivalent version of the NEO PI-R. Although not identical to the commercial version of the test (Costa & McCrae, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib353) ), these parallel adaptations do provide estimates of examinee standing on the five broad domains and 30 subdomains of personality tested by the NEO PI-R and also provide useful narrative reports. One such site can be found at www.personalitytest.com (http://www.personalitytest.com) . Another useful site is available at http://ipip.ori.org (http://ipip.ori.org) . This location hosts the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), advertised as a “scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality and other individual differences.” The term collaboratory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss54) was coined by Finholt and Olson (1997

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 14/59

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib498) ) to describe Internet-based arrangements that facilitate the collaboration of test specialists, regardless of geographical location. For example, the specific mission of IPIP is to bring test development into the public domain and serve as a forum for the dissemination of research findings and psychometric developments.

Recently, the developers of the NEO-PI-R produced a new version that is more readable and therefore better suited to students as young as 12 years of age. The NEO-PI-3 is a careful and modest revision of the original instrument that addresses a number of problematic items difficult for adolescents and young adults to comprehend (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1086) ). As noted above, the NEO-PI-R consists of 240 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The authors identified 30 items using words on a par with laissez-faire, fastidious, and adhere that even adults might find challenging. The authors rewrote these items for transparency and carefully tested them for equivalence in a new sample of 500 respondents. Three illustrations of old items and replacement items (in boldface) are shown below. These are representative only, not the actual items and revisions:

1. I feel angst about the future. 1. I feel nervous about the future. 2. I think of myself as laissez-faire. 2. I think of myself as easy-going. 3. I enjoy situations of raucous hilarity. 4. I like to laugh.

An additional 18 items were rewritten because they revealed low item-total correlations with the facet (trait) scale to which they belonged. The resulting instruments, the NEO-PI-3, retained the original five- factor structure and revealed better internal consistency and readability than the previous version. In sum, the authors improved their test, especially for applications with adolescent and college-aged clients (Costa, McCrae, & Martin, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib360) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 15/59

9.5 STABILITY AND CHANGE IN PERSONALITY Most of us have heard adages like “People don’t change” or “Personality traits become exaggerated with age” or “You have to hit bottom before change is possible.” Opinions abound on the stability or malleability of personality. What the lay public seldom recognizes, however, is that issues of stability and change in personality can be approached with empiricism through psychological assessment. As we will see, a few tests figure prominently in lifespan developmental research, especially instruments that embody the five- factor approach (Costa & McCrae, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib353) ).

One question central to the field of personality psychology is whether personality remains stable throughout life, or reveals predictable shifts in certain qualities as we age. On the surface this question appears amenable to straightforward longitudinal research. Simply administer a suitable instrument to a large sample of the general population, and retest every five years or so. Then, chart the trends in dimensions of personality over the life span. But this is not as simple as it seems. One problem is selective attrition, in which less healthy individuals tend to drop out, disappear, or discontinue the project for reasons known and unknown (Barry, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib103) ). Although there are methodological adjustments for minimizing the impact, selective attrition nonetheless may skew results toward an unrealistically optimistic picture of trends in aging. Another problem with longitudinal research is that decades of time are needed to follow individuals over the life span. Long-term developmental research is difficult and expensive.

An alternative strategy is cross-sectional research in which a large sample of individuals of all ages (from teenagers to persons in their 90s) is tested at one point in time, allowing for immediate age comparisons in personality characteristics. This is an appealing technique but also fraught with methodological concerns. In particular, the cross-sectional strategy is vulnerable to a research problem known as cohort effects (Schaie, 2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1455) ). A cohort is a group of individuals born at roughly the same time who therefore share particular life experiences and historical influences. A cohort effect is the inference that differences between age groups (cohorts) are due to disparities in the nature and quality of early developmental or historical experiences rather than caused by the impact of aging. A hypothetical example will serve to illustrate. Suppose we observe in a cross-sectional study of neuroticism (anxiety-proneness) that persons in their 70s score higher than those in their 50s. We might be tempted to attribute the apparent increase in neuroticism to the impact of aging and its attendant concerns. But that inference overlooks the possibility that the older participants in our study were always higher in neuroticism than the younger members, perhaps because their early formative years occurred during the frantic uncertainty of World War II, or for other unknown reasons. In this hypothetical example, the higher level of neuroticism would not be a general trend or result of traversing into old age, but a specific quirk of the older cohort. Again, this is an hypothetical example. Real age trends in neuroticism are reviewed below.

Yet, the proposal that historical forces can shape the personality of an entire cohort is accurate. Elder (1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib452) ) has documented historical impacts on personality in a path-breaking longitudinal study of children raised during the Great Depression (1929–1941). Among other findings, these children grew into adults who responded with habits of greater frugality than preceding or subsequent cohorts.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 16/59

In studying age trends in personality, a certain degree of tentativeness is warranted, because no single study or method is conclusive. Some researchers combine longitudinal and cross-sectional methods in what is known as the cross-sequential approach (Nestor & Schutt, 2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1226) ). This method involves the longitudinal retesting of cross-sectional study participants on at least one additional occasion. The beauty of the cross-sequential method is that cohort effects can be distinguished from genuine longitudinal trends. This allows researchers to identify typical changes resulting from intrinsic maturation.

It is important to mention that core issues of personality change may not be wholly amenable to traditional methods of measurement. Consider the case study of Ann, interviewed on videotape five times over a span of 40 years, from age 21 to age 61 (Mitchell, 2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) ). She was one of more than 100 participants in the monumental Mills Longitudinal Study, conducted by Ravenna Helson (Helson & Soto, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib733) ). Mitchell (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) ) analyzed the videotaped interviews of Ann through the lens of attachment theory, which we summarize briefly before returning to her story.

Attachment theory (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1965 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib14) ) broadly distinguishes secure attachment from insecure attachment. In secure attachment, distressed infants seek proximity to caregivers and receive nurturance from them without pause or ambivalence. In insecure attachment, distressed infants are unable to receive a sense of security from caregivers who are themselves limited or erratic (George & Solomon, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib578) ). Insecure attachment is further subdivided into three types: avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized (Main & Hesse, 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1032) ). Volumes have been written about these styles; we can provide only the barest of outlines here. In the avoidant style, the distressed infant appears emotionally distant and the caregiver is disengaged. In the ambivalent style, the distressed infant becomes anxious, insecure, and angry, and the caregiver is inconsistent. In the disorganized style, the distressed infant seems depressed, angry, and passive, and the caregiver is extremely erratic.

Attachment theory is relevant to adult personality development because, in the words of Mitchell (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) ), “Attachment status becomes personality style” (p. 97). Corresponding to the four styles of infant attachment mentioned above (secure, avoidant, ambivalent, and disorganized), the linked attachment styles in adulthood are described as secure, dismissing of attachment, preoccupied with attachment, and disorganized-fearful (Main & Solomon, 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1033) ). Questionnaires have been developed to assess attachment style in adulthood (e.g., Simpson, Rholes, & Nelligan, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1501) ), but they are limited and drab in comparison to qualitative analysis of interview materials.

In the case study of Ann, Mitchell (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) ) determined that Ann started her journey into adulthood (age 21) with a distinctly insecure attachment of the avoidant

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 17/59

style. In narrative statements, Ann described a frightening childhood in which her mother died a prolonged death from cancer. This was bad enough, but compounding the trauma was that her father, previously a source of security, proved incapable of breaking the painful news to Ann, leaving it to her grandfather instead. Then, her father withdrew and became distant, which Ann experienced as even more devastating than the death of her mother. Ann developed an avoidant attachment style. She feared abandonment for most of her life:

This narrative presents a set of rich characters in a plot that devolves from intimate tenderness to death, abandonment, and benign neglect. The strong-minded girl escaped, but in the process a door was closed that would not open again for nearly 40 years. (Mitchell, 2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) , p. 100)

The door opened gradually after the birth of an adored daughter, four years of therapy to deal with attachment concerns, divorce, falling in love again, remarriage, return to school, and a new career. When last interviewed, Ann revealed an amazing shift to a secure attachment style:

At 61, Ann was phasing in retirement and was “much less stressed, much more easy going.” She was learning foreign languages, doing photography, involved in local politics, and often with her partner, family, and friends (p. 113).

The analysis provided by Mitchell (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1167) ) is full of rich detail that we cannot recount here. The point of this somewhat lengthy digression into the case of Ann is that analyses based on average test scores from large groups of research participants, whether longitudinal or cross-sectional, will not capture the depth and vibrancy available from the qualitative study of individual lives in transition. Even so, empirical analyses provide a general framework for understanding stability and change in personality. Thus, we review key studies and conclusions below.

Personality Stability and Change in Middle and Late Life Do people change in personality traits across the life course? Several researchers have sought to identify mean-level changes or normative changes that are generalizable patterns of development found in most people (Caspi & Roberts, 1999). Most commonly, investigators use the Big Five model of personality as their measurement perspective (Goldberg, 1981b (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib605) ). As the reader will recall, this is the view that personality is best conceived as five factors labeled neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

Individual reports of developmental trends in the Big Five factors over the life course often seem inconclusive or contradictory. In a study of 2,274 participants in their forties retested after 6 to 9 years, Costa, Herbst, McCrae, and Siegler (2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib354) ) found minimal or no change in mean level of the Big Five factors, even though popular accounts indicate that midlife is a time of crisis and turmoil. In contrast, others report that personality traits continue to transform in middle and old age, with increases in conscientiousness and agreeableness, and decreases in some elements of extraversion (Helson, Kawn, John, & Jones, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib734) ).

How can we reconcile these contradictory reports? Perhaps the best approach to this dilemma is a comprehensive synthesis of all relevant studies by means of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is a sophisticated statistical procedure for combining data from multiple studies. In this method, results from

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 18/59

studies using different measurement techniques can be transformed to a common metric, the effect size, and then combined for powerful statistical analyses (Cohen, 1988 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib317) ). One type of effect size is Cohen’s d, which is the mean difference on a variable between two comparison groups divided by the standard deviation of the pooled groups on that variable, or d = (M1 − M2)/sp. While effect sizes exist theoretically on an infinite range in positive and negative directions, it is rare in everyday research that they exceed the bounds of +3.0 to −3.0, a value of 0 indicating no difference between groups. The beauty of meta-analysis is that studies using diverse tests, measuring slightly different constructs, based on varying scales of measurement, nonetheless can be transformed to the common metric of effect size and then combined for comprehensive analysis.

In regard to shifts in Big Five personality factors over the life course, Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1373) ) completed a meta-analysis of 92 longitudinal samples to determine the patterns of normative change. Their findings constitute an authoritative synthesis of research in the field. They sorted the various personality test results into six categories closely resembling the Big Five taxonomy of personality traits. Their categories are effectively identical to the Big Five, except they split extraversion into two subcategories of social dominance and social vitality. The six categories they investigated were emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness, social dominance, social vitality, and openness to experience. They summarize their findings as follows:

This study demonstrates that personality traits show a clear pattern of normative change across the life course. People become more socially dominant, conscientious, and emotionally stable mostly in young adulthood, but in several cases also in middle and old age. We found that individuals demonstrated gains in social vitality and openness to experience early in life and then decreases in these two trait domains in old age (Roberts et al., 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1373) , p. 14).

Further, they note that contrary to popular views about personality development, the biggest shifts occur not in adolescence, but in young adulthood when social role expectations are more taxing. Young adulthood is when most persons leave home, find a career, and integrate with the community. The authors caution that their findings are based entirely on Western samples and generalization to non-Western cultures therefore is unknown.

Soto, John, Gosling, and Potter (2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1525) ) pursued the question of age differences in personality traits with an intriguing and massive cross-sectional research project. Their sample consisted of an astonishing 1,267,218 individuals (age 10 to 65) who responded to a Web-based questionnaire on Big Five personality traits. Their assessment instrument was the Big Five Inventory (BFI), a simple 44-item measure with excellent psychometric qualities (John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib839) ; John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib840) ). The BFI is freely available to researchers for noncommercial purposes. The format of the instrument is depicted in Table 9.4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec5#ch09tab4) . The test developers isolated two distinctive subscales, called Facet scales, for each of the Big Five domains.

TABLE 9.4 The BFI Facet Scales: Names and Example Items

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 19/59

BFI Facet Scale Example ItemsBFI Facet Scale Example Items

Extraversion  

  Assertiveness 1. Has an assertive personality. 2. Is sometimes shy, inhibited. (R)

  Activity 3. Is full of energy. 4. Generates a lot of enthusiasm.

Agreeableness  

  Altruism 1. Is helpful and unselfish with others. 2. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone.

  Compliance 3. Has a forgiving nature. 4. Starts quarrels with others. (R)

Conscientiousness  

  Order 1. Tends to be disorganized. (R) 2. Can be somewhat careless. (R)

  Self-Discipline 3. Perseveres until the task is finished. 4. Is easily distracted. (R)

Neuroticism  

  Anxiety 1. Worries a lot. 2. Remains calm in tense situations. (R)

  Depression 3. Is depressed, blue. 4. Can be moody.

Openness to Experience

  Openness to Aesthetics

1. Values artistic, aesthetic experiences. 2. Has few artistic interests. (R)

  Openness to Ideas 3. Likes to reflect, play with ideas. 4. Is curious about many things.

Note: Reverse-keyed items are denoted by (R). The common stem for all BFI items is “I see myself as someone who . . .” BFI _ Big Five Inventory.

Source: Reprinted with permission from Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1525) ). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330–348.

Their assessment tool, the BFI, is appropriate for children and adults of any age with a fifth-grade reading level. However, for participants younger than 10 and older than 65, sample sizes were too small to provide highly reliable estimates. The minimum sample size for each year of age was 922, and at least 422 persons of each gender were included. Their study is vast and comprehensive in its conclusions. We need to keep in mind that cross-sectional age differences may not mirror longitudinal age trends. As discussed above, cohort effects always could be at play. However, Soto et al. (2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1525) ) collected their cross-sectional data over a period of 7 years, and thus were able to examine for cohort effects, which they did not find. We summarize here a few essential and remarkable findings:

Scores for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness take a nosedive after age 10, reaching their lowest levels by far in the entire life span at age 13 and then climbing sharply into young adulthood at age 20. The popular stereotype that young teenagers are disagreeable and lacking in self-discipline rings true in this study. Scores on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience all climb gradually or moderately throughout the entire span of adulthood, from age 20 to 65. Some qualities do appear to improve indefinitely with age (at least to age 65). Scores on Extraversion are at their highest level at age 10, drop sharply until age 15, and then remain level across the life span. The contribution of the Activity component (e.g., “Is full of

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 20/59

energy”) appears to explain the very high scores on Extraversion at age 10. After age 15 there is essentially no change in Extra-version scores. Scores on Neuroticism reveal abrupt gender differences. Women outscore men, sometimes dramatically so, at all age levels. For women, scores rise sharply to their highest levels at age 15– 16 and then decline at a moderate pace for the remainder of the life span. It appears that the mid- teen years are especially difficult for girls. For men, scores on Neuroticism decline moderately from age 10 to 20, remain level from age 20 to age 50, and then decline moderately to age 65. The higher scores for women compared to men document an established epidemiological trend in which women are more likely to manifest anxiety and depression than men (McLean, Asnaani, Litz, & Hofmann, 2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1108) ). Women score higher than men at all ages for Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Extraversion. Gender differences on Openness to Experience are complex, but at all ages men score higher than women on the Ideas facet. The interpretation of these gender differences is unclear.

The literature on age differences and longitudinal trends in Big Five personality domains is vast. We refer the reader to Helson and Soto (2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib733) ), Lüdtke, Roberts, Trautwein, and Nagy (2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib956) ), Specht et al. (2011 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1529) ), and Wortman, Lucas, and Donnellan (2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1789) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 21/59

9.6 THE ASSESSMENT OF MORAL JUDGMENT

The Moral Judgment Scale Kohlberg has proposed one of the few theories of moral development that is both comprehensive and empirically based (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & Lieberman, 1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib322) ; Kohlberg, 1958 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib905) , 1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib906) , 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib907) ; Kohlberg & Kramer, 1969 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib909) ). Although he was more concerned with theory-based problems of moral development than with the nuances of standardized measurement, Kohlberg did generate a method of assessment that is widely used and intensely debated. We will review the underlying rationale for his measurement tool and discuss the psychometric properties of the instrument as well. In addition, we will take a brief look at a more objectively based adaptation of Kohlberg’s approach known as the Defining Issues Test (Rest, 1979 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1353) ; Rest & Thoma, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1355) ).

Stages of Moral Development Kohlberg’s theory grew out of Piaget’s (1932 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1291) ) stage theory of moral development in childhood. Kohlberg extended the stages into adolescence and adulthood. In order to explore reasoning about difficult moral issues, he devised a series of moral dilemmas (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss209) . One of the most famous is the dilemma of Heinz and the druggist:

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. (Kohlberg & Elfenbein, 1975 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib908) )

After reading or hearing this story, the respondent is asked a series of probing questions. The questions might be as follows: Should Heinz have stolen the drug? What if Heinz didn’t love his wife? Would that change anything? What if the person dying was a stranger? Should Heinz steal the drug anyway? Based on answers to this and other dilemmas, Kohlberg concluded that there are three main levels of moral reasoning, with two substages within each level (Table 9.5 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec6#ch09tab5) ). One use of his measurement instrument, the Moral Judgment Scale, is to determine a respondent’s stage of moral

reasoning.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec6#ch09fn1)

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 22/59

The Moral Judgment Scale consists of several hypothetical dilemmas such as Heinz and the druggist, presented one at a time (Colby, Kohlberg, Gibbs, & others, 1978 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib321) ). In its latest revision, the scale comes in three versions called Forms A, B, and C. Scoring is quite complex, based on the examiner’s judgment of responses in relation to extensive criteria outlined in a detailed scoring manual (Colby & Kohlberg, 1987 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib320) ). Although there are several different dimensions to scoring, the one element most frequently cited in research studies is the overall stage of moral reasoning that characterizes a respondent.

TABLE 9.5 Kohlberg’s Levels and Stages of Moral Development

Level 1:

Preconventional

Stage 1.

Punishment and obedience orientation: The physical consequences determine what is good or bad.

Stage 2.

Instrumental relativism orientation: What satisfies one’s own needs is good.

Level 2:

Conventional

Stage 3.

Interpersonal concordance orientation: What pleases or helps others is good.

Stage 4.

“Law-and-order” orientation: Maintaining the social order and doing one’s duty is good.

Level 3:

Postconventional or Principled

Stage 5.

Social contract-legalistic orientation: Values agreed upon by society determine what is good.

Stage 6.

Universal ethical-principle orientation: What is right is a matter of conscience derived from universal principles.

Source: Based on Kohlberg (1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib907) ).

Critique of the Moral Judgment Scale Early versions of the Moral Judgment Scale suffered serious shortcomings of scoring and interpretation. For example, in his doctoral dissertation, Kohlberg (1958 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib905) ) proposed two scoring systems: one using the sentence or completed thought as the unit of scoring, the other relying upon a global rating of all the subject’s utterances as the unit of analysis. Neither approach was fully satisfactory, and early reviews of the scale were justifiably critical of its reliability and validity (Kurtines & Greif, 1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib933) ).

In response to these criticisms, Kohlberg and his associates developed a scoring system that is unparalleled in its clarity, detail, and sophistication (Rest, 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1354) ). Fortuitously, since the moral dilemmas of the Moral Judgment Scale have remained constant over the years, it is possible to apply the new scoring system to old data. The capacity to reanalyze old data and compare

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 23/59

them with new data is invaluable in determining the reliability and validity of an existing scale. A most important study in this regard has been published by Kohlberg and associates (Colby et al., 1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib322) ).

This investigation reports the results of using the new scoring system in a longitudinal study spanning more than 20 years. The results are impressive and offer strong support for the reliability and validity of the instrument. Test–retest correlations for the three forms were in the high .90s, as were interrater correlations. Longitudinal scores of subjects tested at three- to four-year intervals over 20 years revealed theory-consistent trends. Fifty-six of 58 subjects showed upward change, with no subjects skipping any stages. Furthermore, only 6 percent of the 195 comparisons showed backward shifts between two testing sessions. The internal consistency of scores was also excellent: about 70 percent of the scores were at one stage, and only 2 percent of the scores were spread further than two adjacent stages. Cronbach’s alpha was in the mid-.90s for the three forms. These findings have been corroborated by Nisan and Kohlberg (1982 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1238) ). Heilbrun and Georges (1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib730) ) also report favorably upon the validity of the Moral Judgment Scale, insofar as postconventional development is correlated with higher levels of self-control, as would be predicted from the fact that morally mature persons often oppose social pressure or legal constraints. In sum, the Moral Judgment Scale is reliable, internally consistent, and possesses a theory-confirming developmental coherence.

The Defining Issues Test The Defining Issues Test (DIT) is similar to the Moral Judgment Scale but incorporates a much simpler and completely objective scoring format (Rest, 1979 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1353) , 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1354) ). The examinee reads a series of moral dilemmas similar to those designed by Kohlberg and then chooses a proper action for each. For example, one dilemma involves a patient dying a painful death from cancer. In her lucid moments, she requests an overdose of morphine to hasten her death. What should the doctor do? Three options of the following kind are listed:

______He should give the woman a fatal overdose ______Should not give the overdose ______Can’t decide

The examinee’s choice does not enter directly into the determination of the moral judgment score. The real purpose in forcing a choice is to cause the examinee to think about the importance of various factors in making the decision. Following the choice of proper action, the examinee rates the importance of several factors on a five-point Likert scale: great, much, some, little, or no importance. The factors are distinct for each dilemma. The factors differ in the level of moral judgment they signify, ranging from Kohlberg’s stage 1 through stage 6. In the case of the preceding dilemma, the factors include such matters as follows:

______Whether the doctor can make it look like an accident ______Can society afford to let people end their lives when they want to ______Whether the woman’s family favors giving the overdose or not

These ratings form the basis for generating several quantitative scores that pertain to the moral judgment of the examinee. The most widely used score is the P score, which is a percentage of principled thinking. Reliability of the P score ranges from .71 to .82 in test–retest studies (Rest, 1979

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 24/59

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1353) , 1986 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1354) ). Validity has been studied by contrasting groups known to differ on principled thinking. For example, graduate students in moral philosophy and political science, general college students, high school seniors, and ninth-grade students were found to differ appropriately and systematically on the P score. In longitudinal studies, significant upward trends were found over six years and four testings. Recently, Rest has recommended a new measure of moral judgment, the N2 index, calculated on the basis of several complex formulas that use both ranking and rating data. The two indices are highly correlated in the .90s. Nonetheless, in a retrospective analysis of previous studies, the N2 index outperformed the P index by a substantial margin (Rest, Thoma, Narvaez, & Bebeau, 1997 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1356) ).

Over 600 articles have been published on the Defining Issues Test (McCrae, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1084) ). In general, the instrument is considered a useful alternative to Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Scale, particularly for research on group differences in moral reasoning. However, reviewers do note several cautions about the DIT (Westbrook & Bane, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1751) ). First, the test uses two moral dilemmas from the Vietnam War and is, therefore, somewhat dated. Many young examinees have little knowledge of (and perhaps no interest in) this topic and may find it difficult to identify with these questions. Another dilemma—the classic case of whether Heinz should steal a drug to save his wife’s life—is also of dubious value since it has been widely publicized and reprinted in college textbooks. A significant proportion of prospective examinees are no longer naive about this moral dilemma.

Richards and Davison (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1367) ) have pressed the point that the DIT is biased against conservatively religious individuals. Certainly, it is well established that conservative or fundamentalist religious people tend to score lower than average on the P score of the Defining Issues Test (Getz, 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib582) ; Richards, 1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1365) ). According to Richards and Davison (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1367) ), the reason for this is that stage 3 and stage 4 items (unintentionally) possess strong theological implications that cause fundamentalist individuals to endorse the items, thereby lowering their score on the test. Consider items that tap stage 4 reasoning, which is the “law and order” orientation that equates “moral” with doing one’s duty and maintaining the social order. Whereas nonreligious persons might support the laws of the land (and endorse stage 4 items) because they believe that legal authorities define what is right and moral, religious minorities such as Mormons believe that supporting the laws of the land is a theological and religious obligation that flows directly from articles of faith in their religion:

While Mormons place a high value on obeying the law and supporting legal authorities, this value is due to their theological belief that God has commanded them to do so, and not because they believe, as do true Stage 4 thinkers, that the laws of the land or legal authorities define what is right or moral. (Richards & Davison, 1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1367) , p. 470)

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 25/59

These researchers demonstrate empirically that certain DIT items measure a different construct for conservative religious persons than for the general population. As a consequence, the validity of the test in these groups is open to question.

Relatively few studies have investigated the relationship between level of moral development on the DIT and moral behavior. This is understandable, given that the purpose of the DIT is not directly to predict behavior but to evaluate moral development. Still, it is a reasonable assumption that individuals who receive higher P scores on the DIT should also refrain from moral transgressions such as cheating on tests. A study by Cummings, Maddux, Harlow, and Dyas (2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib380) ) investigated this particular relationship by asking 145 college students majoring in education to anonymously fill out both the DIT and the Assessment of Academic Misconduct (AAM). The AAM is a 41-item measure of misbehaviors such as copying test answers, downloading term papers, retrospectively changing test answers, and so forth. Although these individuals reported an average (but prolific!) level of academic misconduct for college students—fully three-fourths admitted to one or more transgressions—there was absolutely no relationship between scores on the DIT and scores the AAM. Certainly, more research is needed on the connection (or disconnection) between moral reasoning and moral action.

Another concern about the DIT is the dearth of norms pertinent to minority groups. Finally, Westbrook and Bane (1992 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1751) ) argue that the technical manual for the DIT lacks essential details needed to evaluate the adequacy of the test. In spite of the concerns listed here, the DIT is a widely respected test, particularly for research on moral reasoning. Thoma (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1632) ) provides a thorough review of research on the DIT.

1Even though the Moral Judgment Scale has been widely used for empirical research, Kohlberg (1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib906) , 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib907) ) suggests that its most valuable application is for the promotion of self-understanding and the development of moral reasoning in the individual respondent.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 26/59

9.7 THE ASSESSMENT OF SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS CONCEPTS Within the field of psychology, transcendent topics such as spiritual well-being or faith maturity never have received mainstream attention. Many years ago, Gordon Allport (1950 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib20) ) lamented that the subject of religion “seems to have gone into hiding” among intellectuals and academic researchers:

Whatever the reason may be, the persistence of religion in the modern world appears as an embarrassment to the scholars of today. Even psychologists, to whom presumably nothing of human concern is alien, are likely to retire into themselves when the subject is broached. (p. 1)

The situation is little improved in contemporary times. For example, except for a few specialty journals, spiritual and religious topics are virtually absent from the psychological literature.

Yet researchers have no right to retire from the field, given its significance to the average person. Consider these statistics on religious belief in the United States, stable since 1944 when national polls first came into use (Hoge, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib760) ):

Belief in God has remained constant at about 92 to 95 percent of the population. Belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ has been endorsed by 75 to 80 percent of adults. Belief in an afterlife has remained at about 75 percent of the population.

Comparable statistics are not available worldwide, but it seems likely that the percentage of believing individuals (whether Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, or other) is very high. Most people embrace a spiritual perspective in life, and surely this must have some bearing on their adjustment, behavior, and outlook.

Unfortunately, the field of psychology, including the specialty area of testing, largely has maintained an indifference to this important aspect of human experience. Worse yet, in many intellectual circles the endorsement of spiritual or religious sentiments is seen as evidence of psychopathology. Among others, Sigmund Freud endorsed a cynical view of religion in his aptly titled essay, The Future of an Illusion (1927/1961). Yet for many persons, a connection with the transcendent is essential to meaning in life. This is especially so in times of extreme duress, as when personal annihilation knocks at the front door. Consider the experience of Viktor Frankl (1963 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib535) ), a Nazi death camp survivor and founding figure of existential psychology. At one point during World War II he had to surrender his coat with a cherished manuscript in the pockets in exchange for the worn-out rags of an inmate sent to the gas chamber:

Instead of the many pages of my manuscript, I found in a pocket of the newly acquired coat a single page torn out of a Hebrew prayer book, which contained the main Jewish prayer, Shema Yisrael. How should I have interpreted such a “coincidence” other than as a challenge to live my thoughts instead of merely putting them on paper?

In the remainder of this topic, we take the view that spiritual and religious dimensions to life often serve constructive purposes and that assessment within these domains is worthy of additional study.

Challenges and Purposes of Religious and Spiritual Assessment

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 27/59

Other than personal or scholarly curiosity about religious and spiritual matters, what might be the motivation for religious and spiritual assessment? Further, what is spirituality, and how is it distinguished from religiousness? It appears evident that some people can be religious without being spiritual, ghost walking through religious traditions with no involvement of heart. But is it possible to be spiritual without being religious? Before we review specific assessment tools, it will prove helpful to examine the distinction between spirituality and religiousness, and to discuss the reasons for assessment in the first place.

According to the Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches (2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib42) ), total church membership has declined steadily for many years, even though some denominations have increased in popularity. Alongside this general decline in traditional forms of worship, spiritual practices have expanded in popularity, as witnessed by the proliferation of meditation, 12-step, Eastern, yoga, and other broadly spiritual practices. For example, mindfulness meditation, with roots in Buddhism, is more popular than ever (Williams & Penman, 2011). It is recommended for problems with anxiety, depression, pain, hyperactivity, sleep, parenting, stress, tinnitus, psoriasis, Parkinson’s disease—the list goes on and on. Those who practice mindfulness, for whatever initial purpose, often embrace it as a way of being in the world, a spiritual discipline.

But what is spirituality, and how is it distinguished from religiousness? Certainly the two share broad overlap in many cases, but each must possess unique qualities if assessment is to succeed. Kapuscinski and Masters (2010 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib860) ) review the vexing problem of definition and conclude that the terms continue to be used separately but with little agreement on meaning. Others think we are beginning to see a consensus in the field:

Despite definitional difficulties, there is agreement among researchers that individuals have the capacity to experience spirituality outside the context of religious institutions. Religion is frequently defined by institutional affiliation, whereas spirituality is not. Religion is also often considered more external or mediated by a group, whereas spirituality is more closely associated with personal experience and is less doctrinaire (Masters & Hooker, 2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1057) , p. 2).

Heedful that definitions and distinctions will remain fuzzy, we believe there is merit in developing measures of spirituality and religiousness as separate but overlapping constructs (Hill & Pargament, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib747) ).

In spite of challenges with definition, efforts to develop measures of spirituality and religiousness have flourished in recent years. For example, Hill and Hood (1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib746) ) compiled information on 125 measures of spirituality/religiosity. Dozens of new scales have been developed since the release of their compendium. The Search Institute, which serves educators, parents, youth groups, faith communities, and researchers in efforts to create a better world for children, lists 18 easily accessible measures of spirituality, the majority published in recent years (www.search-institute.org (http://www.search-institute.org) ). There is an abundance of available instruments.

The motivations for completing an assessment of spirituality or religiousness might include personal curiosity, but are there other purposes for these tools? Richards and Bergin (2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1366) ) make a strong case that clinicians need to include spiritual and religious assessment in psychotherapy. They list five reasons for a spiritual-religious assessment of clients, which include: understanding client world view and

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 28/59

improving the capacity of the therapist to empathize; establishing the impact of spiritual-religious views on the presenting problem; determining if the spiritual-religious views of the client can be used for growth or coping; identifying which spiritual interventions might be useful in therapy; and, recognizing any spiritual doubts that need to be addressed in therapy. These benefits of spiritual-religious assessment can be extended beyond the therapeutic alliance. Even individuals who are functioning within the normal spectrum of personality will benefit from feedback about their spiritual-religious health.

Historical Overview on Spiritual and Religious Assessment Interest in the psychology of religion can be traced to the early 1900s when William James (1902 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib824) ) composed his masterpiece, The Varieties of Religious Experience. In this book, James catalogued the manifold ways in which humans reveal their interest in transcendent matters. His overall conclusion was that religion is “an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill.”

Although many writers have offered psychological analyses of religion since the seminal writings of James, it was not until the 1960s that scales for the assessment of religious variables began to appear (Wulff, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1791) ). One of the first such measures was the Allport-Ross Religious Orientation scales, which proposed to assess two dimensions of religious expression, the intrinsic (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss166) and the extrinsic (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss110) (Allport & Ross, 1967 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib22) ). Intrinsically religious persons were thought to live their religion (e.g., to find meaning, direction, outlook), whereas extrinsically religious persons were believed to use their religion (e.g., to seek security, status, sociability). In his earlier writings on this topic, Allport referred to intrinsic religious expression as a genuine or mature religious orientation, whereas extrinsic religious expression was viewed as immature. Later he dropped the mature–immature designations because the labels seemed overly judgmental.

The impetus for development of these scales was Allport’s distressing observation of a positive relationship between religiosity (in certain forms) and authoritarian, bigoted, prejudicial attitudes. As a devoutly religious person, Allport was convinced that intrinsically oriented religious individuals rarely would harbor these attitudes. After all, an essential precept of almost every religious faith is an attitude of love toward one’s neighbors. In the Christian faith, this view is summed up in the famous dictum “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31). Yet the evidence was overwhelming to Allport that at least some religious individuals did reveal hatred, bigotry, and prejudice toward their neighbors. The usual targets of these malicious attitudes were racial minorities, Jews, and homosexual persons, among others. He reasoned that religious persons with intolerant attitudes possessed a predominantly extrinsic religious orientation; that is, their faith served external goals such as status in the community, belonging to an in- group, and the like. The investigation of this hypothesis (that extrinsically religious persons would be more authoritarian, bigoted, and prejudiced than intrinsically religious persons) required appropriate tools. For this purpose, Allport and colleagues developed the Religious Orientation scales.

Examples of the kinds of items on the 11-item Extrinsic scale and the 9-item Intrinsic scale are as follows:

The church is important as a place to develop good social relationships. (Extrinsic) Sometimes I find it necessary to compromise my religious beliefs for economic reasons. (Extrinsic) I try hard to carry my religion over into other aspects of my life. (Intrinsic)

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 29/59

My religion is important because it provides meaning to my life. (Intrinsic)

Although originally devised in a yes–no format, modern applications of these scales utilize a nine-point continuum from (1) strongly disagree to (9) strongly agree (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib109) ).

Research on the Religious Orientation scales has not provided strong support for Allport’s original hypothesis (Wulff, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1791) ). In fact, several studies have shown that persons scoring high on the Intrinsic scale actually reveal higher levels of authoritarianism, close-mindedness, and prejudice toward African Americans, gays, and lesbians. Hunsberger (1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib797) ) concludes that it is not religion per se that makes for prejudice, nor is it intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation. Instead, “it is the way in which religious beliefs are held that seems most directly associated with prejudice, and this is best explained by the tendency for fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism to be closely linked.” Specifically, he links prejudice against minorities with authoritarian religious traditions that promote an absolute truth, divide the world into “Good” and “Evil,” and shun complexity or doubt in their belief systems. These aspects of religious expression are not typically measured by paper-and-pencil tests.

Religion as Quest Increasingly, the conceptual basis for the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation has been questioned. Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib896) ) summarized the major theoretical and methodological criticisms of the scales as follows:

A lack of conceptual clarity in what the Intrinsic–Extrinsic scales are supposed to be measuring. Are these types of motivation (i.e., the motives associated with religious belief and practice), or personality variables (i.e., pervasive aspects of institutional behavior or involvement), or something else? A confusion over the relationship between the Intrinsic–Extrinsic scales. In particular, are these opposite ends of a single bipolar dimension, or do the scales measure separate dimensions (so that conceivably some persons could score high on both)?

Other problems cited include weaknesses in the factorial structure, reliability, and construct validity of the scales; excessive reliance on a “good religion” versus “bad religion” dichotomy; and the folly of defining and studying religiousness independent of belief content (Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib896) ).

In response to the limitations of the Religious Orientation scales, Batson and his associates (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib109) ) developed a measure of a third religious orientation known as Quest. These researchers consider Quest to be a more mature and flexible religious outlook than the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations. Actually, Allport recognized the elements inherent to this orientation but failed to incorporate them in his Intrinsic scale. Religion as Quest (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss276) is characterized by complexity, doubt, and tentativeness as ways of being religious. Examples of the kinds of items on the 12-item Quest scale are as follows:

My life experiences have led me to reconsider my religious convictions. I find religious doubts upsetting. (reverse scored)

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 30/59

As I grow and mature, I expect my religious beliefs to change. Questions are more important to my religious faith than answers.

Items are scored on the same nine-point continuum from (1) strongly disagree to (9) strongly agree. Results are reported as an average rating. Research with 424 undergraduates interested in religion indicates that Quest is, indeed, a dimension of religious experience independent from both Intrinsic and Extrinsic orientations. Whereas Intrinsic and Extrinsic scores correlated .72, Quest revealed negligible relationships with both scales (−.05 with Intrinsic and .16 with Extrinsic).

But exactly what does the Quest scale measure? The intention of its authors was that it assess “the degree to which an individual’s religion involves an open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential questions raised by the contradictions and tragedies of life” (Bateson et al., 1993, p. 169). The three components of the Quest orientation are (1) readiness to face existential questions without reducing their complexity, (2) self-criticism and perception of religious doubts as positive, and (3) openness to change. But critics have charged that the scale may not measure anything religious at all, that instead it may assess agnosticism, anti-orthodoxy, religious doubt, or religious conflict.

In response to these criticisms, Batson et al. (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib109) ) note the following:

Students at Princeton Theological Seminary scored significantly higher (p < .001) on the Quest scale (mean of 6.7) than undergraduates at the same institution (mean of 5.2). This finding supports the view that the scale is a valid measure of something religious. The 32 members of a charismatic Bible study group scored significantly higher (p < .001) on the Quest scale (mean of 5.5) than the 26 members of a traditional Bible study group (mean of 4.6). The charismatic group placed emphasis on religion as a shared search; most prayed with hands raised, and some members spoke in tongues.

Quest is its own dimension of religious expression, and substantial research on the meaning and correlates of this faith orientation has been completed. Batson et al. (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib109) ) summarize research with the Quest scale by noting that it appears to measure a religion of less faith but more works.

Quest arose as a response to the limitations of the Intrinsic and Extrinsic approach to the measurement of religious orientation. But this brief 12-item scale possesses its own limitations, chief among them its brevity and factorial simplicity. Several other instruments have been proposed to measure aspects of religious experience. We survey a few prominent and representative approaches in the following sections.

The Spiritual Well-Being Scale The concept of spiritual well-being can be traced to a paper by Moberg (1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1168) ) that proposed this form of well-being as an essential component of healthy aging. Spiritual well-being was conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct consisting of a vertical dimension and a horizontal dimension. The vertical dimension concerned well-being in relation to God or a higher power, whereas the horizontal dimension involved existential well-being, which is a sense of purpose in life without any specific religious reference. The challenge of developing a scale to measure these components of well- being was taken up by Ellison (1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib456) ) and Paloutzian and Ellison (1982 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1264) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 31/59

Their instrument was designated the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWB Scale). The SWB Scale consists of two subscales: Religious Well-Being (RWB), which assesses the vertical dimension of well-being in relation to God; and Existential Well-Being (EWB), which measures the horizontal dimension of well-being in relation to life purpose and life satisfaction. Each subscale consists of 10 items that are scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The items from the two subscales are combined on the SWB Scale, with odd-numbered items assessing religious well-being and even-numbered items assessing existential well-being. Some items are worded negatively; these are reverse scored so that a higher score always indicates greater well-being. Examples of SWB-like items include My relationship with God helps me through hard times and Life is inherently without meaning (Reverse scored).

The Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) Scale The Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) scale is a recent and promising measure of spiritual and religious variables (Piedmont, 2010 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1296) ). What makes the test unique is its predictive power above and beyond the Big Five personality factors. In other words, ASPIRES represents an extension of these well established components into a sixth dimension of personality (Piedmont, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1293) ). The scale also is robust across cultures and useful within nonreligious samples, including agnostics and atheists.

The 35-item ASPIRES scale measures two dimensions, spiritual transcendence and religious sentiments. Spiritual transcendence is further subdivided into three facets: prayer fulfillment, universality, and connectedness. Religious sentiments consists of two facets: religious involvements, and religious crisis. The overall structure of the ASPIRES scale, with descriptions of dimensions and facets, is shown in Table 9.6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec7#ch09tab6) . Items resemble I find a sense of peace in the quiet of my prayers, and I follow the precepts of an organized faith. Responses are provided on a 5-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree).

TABLE 9.6 Structure and Description of the ASPIRES Scale (Piedmont, 2010 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1296) )

Scale or Facet Name Measure of

Spiritual Transcendence Scale (STS)

The motivational capacity to create a broad sense of personal meaning for one’s life

Prayer Fulfillment (PF) Facet

The ability to create a personal space that enables one to feel a positive connection to some larger reality

Universality (UN) Facet

The belief in a larger meaning and purpose to life

Connectedness (CN) Facet

Feelings of belonging and responsibility to a larger human reality that cuts across generations and groups

Religious Sentiments Scale (RSS)

The extent to which an individual is involved in and committed to the precepts, teachings, and practices of a specific religious tradition

Religious Involvements (RI) Facet

How actively involved a person is in performing various religious rituals and activities

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 32/59

Scale or Facet Name Measure of

Religious Crisis (RC) Facet

Extent to which a person may be experiencing problems, difficulties, or conflicts with the God of their understanding

Source: Reprinted with permission from Brown, I. T., Chen, T., Gehlert, N. C., & Piedmont, R. L. (2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib226) , October 8). Age and gender effects on the Assessment of Spirituality and Religious Sentiments (ASPIRES) Scale: A cross-sectional analysis. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, online publication.

The ASPIRES scale demonstrates strong psychometric qualities. Alpha reliabilities for the facet scales range from .60 (CN) to .95 (PF) with a mean alpha of .82 (Piedmont, 2010 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1296) ). The normative sample consists of nearly 3,000 individuals, ages 17 to 94, from four geographic areas of the Midwestern and East Coast regions of the United States. The STS portion of the scale correlates with religious and spiritual variables and incrementally predicts (above and beyond the Big Five dimensions) relevant outcomes such as social support and prosocial behavior (Piedmont, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1293) , 2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1294) ). The test holds up well cross-culturally, revealing a robust factor structure in diverse religious groups and cultures (Nelson & Piedmont, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1224) ; Piedmont, Werdel, & Fernando, 2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1298) ). The STS component of ASPIRES yields incremental validity in the prediction of treatment outcome in spiritually based programs for alcohol and drug abuse (Piedmont, 2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1295) ). These findings further support the validity of ASPIRES and also uphold the contention that spirituality supplements the Big Five personality dimensions.

In later writings, Ellison described the SWB Scale as a measure of psychospiritual personality integration and resultant well-being (Ellison & Smith, 1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib457) ). According to this view, well-being consists of “the integral experience of a person who is functioning as God intended, in consonant relationship with Him, with others, and within one’s self” (p. 36). This is the biblical notion of shalom, which denotes being harmoniously at peace within and without. If this conceptualization is correct, healthy spirituality as measured by the SWB Scale should show positive relationships with independent measures of health and subjective well-being. Literally dozens of studies have investigated this broad-range hypothesis, with generally positive findings.

The one identified shortcoming of the SWB Scale is an apparent low ceiling, especially in religious samples. Ledbetter, Smith, Vosler-Hunter, and Fischer (1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib962) ) caution that the clinical usefulness of the scale is limited to low scores (since high-functioning religious persons tend to “top out” on the scale). They also offer suggestions for revision (e.g., rewording items in more extreme directions) toward the goal of increasing the ceiling level of the SWB Scale. Bufford, Paloutzian, and Ellison (1991 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib232) ) have published norms for the test but caution that in many religious samples the typical individual receives the maximum score. This would indicate that the scale is helpful in research but is not useful for distinguishing among individuals with high levels of spiritual well-being.

The Faith Maturity Scale

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 33/59

In 1987, six major Protestant denominations undertook a national four-year study of personal faith, denominational allegiance, and their determinants (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib142) ). Funded in part by the Lilly Endowment, this project spawned what is undoubtedly the most sophisticated measure of spiritual maturity ever conceived. The Faith Maturity Scale (FMS) arose as a practical tool to serve three research purposes:

Provide baseline data on the vitality of faith in mainstream Protestant congregations Identify the contributions of demographic, personal, and congregational variables to faith development Furnish a criterion variable for evaluating the impact of religious education in mainstream denominations

The development of the scale was a time-consuming and careful process that began with a working definition:

Faith maturity is the degree to which a person embodies the priorities, commitments, and perspectives characteristic of vibrant and life-transforming faith, as they have been understood in “mainline” Protestant traditions. (Benson, Donahue, & Erickson, 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib142) , p. 3)

Using open-ended questionnaires with a convenience sample of 410 mainline Protestant adults, the test developers next identified eight core dimensions of faith maturity. Three advisory panels provided ongoing counsel during this stage and the next phase of item writing. These interactions assured that the scale possessed face and content validity.

The resulting FMS is a 38-item test that embodies key indicators of faith maturity in eight core areas (Table 9.7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec7#ch09tab7) ). Items are answered on a seven-point scale from 1 = never true to 7 = always true. Based upon the areas assessed, the reader will notice that right belief is only one aspect of a mature faith. In large measure, faith maturity is defined by value and behavioral consequences. As the authors note, the Faith Maturity Scale “parts company with more traditional ways of defining and measuring personal religion.” Yet it does embody the kinds of behaviors and attitudes that derive from a dynamic, life-transforming faith. These behaviors and attitudes are consistent with the theology found in most religious traditions but are especially pertinent for the particular purpose of assessing faith maturity in the Protestant context.

TABLE 9.7 The Eight Core Dimensions and Sample Items from the Faith Maturity Scale

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 34/59

A. Trusts and believes (5 items)

Every day I see evidence that God is at work in the world B. Experiences the fruits of faith (5 items)

I feel weighed down by all my responsibilities (reverse scored) C. Integrates faith and life (5 items)

My faith influences how I think and act every day

D. Seeks spiritual growth (4 items) I take time to meditate or pray

E. Experiences and nurtures faith in community (4 items) I talk with others about my faith

F. Holds life-affirming values (6 items) I tend to be critical of other persons (reverse scored)

G. Advocates social change (4 items) I believe the churches of this nation should get involved in political issues

H. Acts and serves (5 items) I offer significant amounts of time to help others

Note: The sample items are similar to those on the Faith Maturity Scale.

Source: Based on Benson, P., Donahue, M., & Erickson, J. (1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib142) ). The Faith Maturity Scale: Conceptualization, measurement, and empirical validation. In M. L. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (vol. 5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

The FMS is scored as the mean of the 38 items, which yields a potential range of 1 to 7. The average score for 3,040 adults in five Protestant denominations was 4.63, which indicates that the instrument avoids the “ceiling effect” found on other scales such as the Spiritual Well-Being Scale, discussed previously. The estimated reliability of the scale is very robust across age, gender, occupation, and denomination, with typical coefficient alphas of .88 (Benson et al., 1993 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib142) ). Test–retest reliability was not reported.

The validity of the scale is supported by several lines of evidence, beginning with the careful approach to item selection, by which face validity and content validity were built-in. Construct validity was demonstrated in several ways. First, it was predicted and confirmed that groups presumed to differ in levels of faith maturity would obtain significantly different mean scores on the FMS. Indeed, pastors scored the highest (5.3), followed by church education coordinators (4.9), teachers (4.7), adults (4.6), and youth (4.1)—each group in respective order scoring significantly lower than the others. Second, pastors’ ratings of the faith maturity of 123 congregation members on a 1 to 10 scale correlated very substantially (r = .61) with the FMS scores of these persons, indicating a correspondence between independent expert ratings and self-report. The scale also revealed predictive utility. Specifically, FMS scale scores were strongly related to a variety of prosocial behaviors such as donating time to help those who are poor, hungry, or sick; promoting a greater role for women in the church; and endorsing the use of foreign policy to challenge apartheid.

TOPIC 9B Positive Psychological Assessment

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 35/59

9.8 Assessment of Creativity (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec8#ch09lev1sec8)

9.9 Measures of Emotional Intelligence (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec9#ch09lev1sec9)

9.10 Assessment of Optimism (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec10#ch09lev1sec10)

9.11 Assessment of Gratitude (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec11#ch09lev1sec11)

9.12 Sense of Humor: Self-Report Measures (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec12#ch09lev1sec12)

With few exceptions, clinical psychology since World War II has focused on what is wrong with people and how to alleviate or diminish a host of symptoms and syndromes. Research abounds on the assessment and treatment of anxiety, depression, serious mental illnesses, dementia, marital discord, drug abuse, mental retardation, and brain damage, to name a few areas of significant inquiry.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this extensive body of research on psychopathology. In fact, huge strides have been made in the understanding and treatment of many conditions that entail serious and crippling emotional pain or other forms of disability. Even so, this one-sided emphasis from the perspective of disease and repair has led to a relative void of positive perspectives. Consider the results of Table 9.8 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec7#ch09tab8) , which compiles the number of PsychINFO listings conjured up for a variety of terms, some pathological and some positive. The reader will notice that pathological concepts like Depression or Dementia are 50 to 100 times more likely to be the topic of inquiry than positive concepts like Resilience or Gratitude.

In recent years, a movement known as positive psychology has emerged to redress this imbalance. A simple definition of positive psychology (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss249) is the scientific and practical pursuit of optimal human functioning (Lopez & Snyder, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1004) ). One of the founders of the movement, Martin Seligman, provides a detailed perspective on the movement:

The field of positive psychology at the subjective level is about valued subjective experiences: well- being, contentment, and satisfaction (in the past); hope and optimism (for the future); and flow and happiness (in the present). At the individual level, it is about positive individual traits: the capacity for love and vocation, courage, interpersonal skill, aesthetic sensibility, perseverance, forgiveness, originality, future-mindedness, spirituality, high talent, and wisdom. (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1480) , p. 5)

TABLE 9.8 Number of PsychINFO Listings for a Sampling of Pathological and Positive Terms

 Pathological Term Number of Listings

Depression 130,033

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 36/59

Abuse 106,772

Anxiety 113,316

Schizophrenia  74,979

Brain damage  70,235

Addiction  51,969

Mental retardation  39,660

Dementia  29,860

Positive Term Number of Listings

Resilience   5,668

Optimism   4,784

Wisdom   4,712

Altruism   3,502

Genius   1,818

Courage   1,740

Forgiveness   1,667

Gratitude     751

Also included in positive psychology are civic virtues such as altruism, tolerance, and work ethic. In sum, positive psychology is a broad movement linked by the focus on life-affirming concepts. The goal is to bring balance to psychology by helping to build human strengths.

An important element of this movement is positive psychological assessment (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss248) , which can be defined as the measurement of specific human strengths such as those mentioned above. After all, if a psychological movement proposes to increase human strengths and virtues, it is also obligated to develop measurement approaches for purposes of research and assessment. In recent years, psychologists have paid increasing attention to positive forms of assessment, resulting in dozens of new instruments and approaches. In their path-breaking edited book on positive psychological assessment, Lopez and Snyder (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1004) ) compiled 24 chapters, each detailing several instruments. In other words, there are now hundreds of instruments available for positive psychological assessment. Some of the constructs measured with psychological tests include hope, emotional intelligence, optimism, romantic love, empathy, forgiveness, gratitude, and wisdom-related performance, to name just a few.

A comprehensive review of positive psychological assessment would entail a textbook in its own right (if not several). The best we can do here is focus on a few key areas of assessment with a small number of tests that illustrate important or interesting approaches to positive psychological assessment. In particular, we will review issues involved in the assessment of creativity, emotional intelligence, optimism, hope, forgiveness, and gratitude.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 37/59

9.8 ASSESSMENT OF CREATIVITY The topic of creativity has fascinated and yet also vexed psychologists and educators for more than a century. Researchers are beginning to understand fundamental elements common to many forms of creativity, yet, a simple definition of creativity remains elusive, and its assessment continues to be problematic. It is no exaggeration to state that hundreds of tests of creativity have been published. Some of these instruments possess respectable psychometric qualities, but most are of questionable validity. Unlike other fields of assessment such as intelligence or personality—where a few instruments have risen to the top and dominate the field—in the field of creativity there are no acknowledged “gold standards” for assessment. In part, this is because of the criterion problem—the difficulty in defining creativity. Thus, we begin with a foundational question: What is creativity?

Psychologists have sought to understand creativity since at least the early 1900s. For example, John B. Watson, the famous American behaviorist, suggested simplistically that a poem or brilliant essay is the mere product of shifting words around until a new pattern is hit upon (Watson, 1928). Fortunately, Watson’s simplistic views were followed by a large number of more thoughtful formulations. We have quoted below a few perspectives on creativity from eminent researchers:

If a response is to be called original, it must be to some extent adaptive to reality (Barron, 1955 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib100) , p. 553). We may proceed to define the creative thinking process as the forming of associative elements into new combinations that either meet specified requirements or are in some way useful (Mednick, 1962 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1113) , p. 221). Creativity can be regarded as the quality of products or responses judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also be regarded as the process by which something so judged is produced (Amabile, 1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib26) , p. 31). Creativity involves bringing something into being that is original (new, unusual, novel, unexpected) and also valuable (useful, good, adaptive, appropriate) (Ochse, 1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1247) , p. 2). Creativity is the ability to produce work that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning task constraints) (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999, p. 3). Creativity is a specific capacity to not only solve problems but to solve them originally and adaptively (Feist & Barron, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib492) , p. 63). Creativity is the ability to come up with ideas or artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable (Boden, 2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib173) , p. 1).

These conceptual definitions emphasize novelty and usefulness of the creative product, but also suggest that creativity is a particular kind of process as well. On these elements, there is broad agreement in the field of creativity research. However, going from conceptual definitions to operational definitions has proved to be difficult, to say the least. Prentky (2001 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1322) ) notes that “what creativity is, and what it is not, hangs as the mythical albatross around the neck of scientific research on creativity” (p. 97).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 38/59

Relevant to assessment, one controversy overshadows the study of creativity. This is the question whether creativity is general or domain-specific in nature. Kaufman and Baer (2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib864) ) articulate the concern as follows:

Is there perhaps something we might label c, analogous to the g of intelligence, that transcends domains and enhances the creativity of a person in all fields of endeavor? And does it make sense to call someone “creative,” or should attributions of creativity always be qualified in some way (e.g., “a creative storyteller” or “a creative mathematician,” but not “a creative person”)? (p. 4).

In their lengthy review chapter, Kaufman and Baer (2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib864) ) acknowledge the complexity of the specific versus general debate, noting that the answer hinges on the definition of creativity and the assessment methods employed. But they also render a final conclusion that that the evidence for c (general creativity) is weak. We agree with their verdict that creativity appears to be domain-specific.

What, then, is the best way to partition the domains of creativity? One answer might be to claim that there are as many domains of creativity as there are fields of inquiry or expression, whether in science, art, economics, service, leadership, entrepreneurship, or whatever. But this anarchical response rings hollow. People who are creative in one field typically reveal talent in closely allied fields as well. Gifted writers usually can be good poets, if they choose, and vice versa. A creative scientist might excel at mechanical problem-solving as well. The number of domains must be somewhere between huge (nearly infinite), and small (a handful). But creativity is not a single general factor.

Several investigators have derived empirical classifications of creativity, with the number of domains typically in the range of 5 to 10 (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib274) ; Kaufman, Cole, & Baer, 2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib869) ; Ivcevic & Mayer, 2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib812) ). The study by Kaufman (2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib870) ) is representative, and we provide modest details here. His investigation was based on the common sense view that layperson perceptions of constructs like intelligence, wisdom, personality, or creativity, when analyzed collectively, embody some degree of practical wisdom (Sternberg, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1560) ). Participants were 2,318 college students asked to rate an initial collection of 94 items as follows:

Compared to people of approximately your age and life experience, how creative would you rate yourself for each of the following acts? For acts that you have not specifically done, estimate your creative potential based on your performance on similar tasks (Kaufman, 2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib870) , p. 300).

Students rated themselves on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (much less creative) to 5 (much more creative) on each item. The items were gleaned from several prior research projects. The 94 items coalesced into five factors (from factor analysis), which provided a basis for reducing the scale to 50 items organized into 5 domains of about 10 items each. The emergent domains were the following:

Self/Everyday: Successfully dealing with problems in self and others, teaching creatively. Items resemble Helping friends deal with difficult problems.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 39/59

Scholarly: Effectively analyzing problems and coming up with new and creative ideas. Items resemble Finding a new way to think about old problems. Performance: Successfully composing lyrics and singing a new song in public. Items resemble Making up lyrics and melody for an amusing song. Mechanical/Scientific: Efficiently solving a scientific or mechanical problem. Items resemble Designing and conducting a scientific experiment. Artistic: Productively drawing or painting a landscape or still life. Items resemble Crafting a sculpture or piece of pottery.

The new instrument, called the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS), demonstrated strong psychometric qualities, with internal consistency coefficients of .83 to .86 and test–retest reliabilities (132 participants retested after two weeks) of .78 to .86. In addition to finding a clear-cut five-factor structure for the test, additional evidence of validity was found in the domain scale correlations with Big Five personality dimensions, which were theoretical sensible, for example, Openness to Experience correlated significantly with all creativity domains except Mechanical/Scientific (Kaufman, 2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib870) ).

We turn now to a brief discussion of instruments for the assessment of creativity. Over the years, creativity has been studied in terms of cognitive processes, personal characteristics, and behavioral products (Batey & Furnham, 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib108) ). We will review these approaches in turn and examine the assessment methods that each has spawned.

Creativity as Process Several theorists and researchers have focused on underlying cognitive processes in their understanding of creativity. Of historical interest is Wertheimer’s (1945 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1749) ) suggestion that creativity arises when the thinker grasps the essential features of a problem and their relation to a final solution—the so-called “aha!” phenomenon. Wallas (1926 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1706) ) theorized that such insights often occur after a period of incubation wherein the unconscious mind rearranges the features of the puzzle even while the conscious mind takes “time off” from the problem.

Mednick (1962 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1113) ) proposed that creativity is the capacity to combine remote associations. According to this view, creativity is a matter of novel arrangements of unusual associations to a given stimulus. Consider the invention of the grain reaper by McCormick, based on the association between grain and hair (Weber, 1969). It occurred to the inventor that grain is like the hair on a person’s head. Since mechanical clippers are used to cut hair, something like hair clippers could be used to cut grain. We see in this example how a creative invention was developed from a remote association.

Based on his process-oriented view of creativity, Mednick (1962 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1113) ) developed the Remote Associates Test (RAT), a clever index of the remoteness of verbal associations. The RAT is a timed, 40-minute paper-and-pencil test with inter item reliability consistently above .90. (Mednick & Mednick, 1966 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1114) ). Some examples of the kinds of items encountered on the RAT:

rat–blue–cottage __________________

out–dog–cat __________________

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 40/59

wheel–electric–high __________________

surprise–line–birthday __________________

For each triplet, the examinee must find a fourth word that “fits” in the sense of having reasonable (but often remote) associations to the other three words. (The correct answers above are cheese, house, wire, and party.) Competent performance on this test would appear to require a capacity to examine several novel or remote associations at the same time and to search for the one association that is common to all three stimulus words.

Validity studies of the RAT have been mixed in outcome. Early studies were promising and indicated that high RAT-scorers tended to receive higher ratings for the creativity of their products (e.g., architectural designs, research projects, suggestions, and drawings) than low scorers (Mednick & Mednick, 1966 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1114) ). One early study showed that high RAT-scoring scientists tended to write more research proposals, to win more research grants, and to win bigger grants than lower scorers (Gordon & Charanian, 1964 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib620) ). However, later studies indicated complex patterns between RAT scores and other creativity indices. For example, Andrews (1975 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib54) ) found that RAT scores predicted the innovativeness of research for medical sociologists only for a small subsample of the respondents whose environment provided certain “prerequisites” for achieving payoff from creative ability. Specifically, among those researchers who were responsible for initiating new activities, who hired their own research assistants, who had stable employment and low interference from superiors, the correlation between RAT scores and innovativeness of research was a healthy +.55. But these researchers constituted less than a fourth of the sample; for the remainder of the subjects there was no relationship between the RAT and creativity. These complex and contradictory findings are typical of research on the assessment of creativity.

Ochse (1990 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1247) ) provides a thorough appraisal of RAT validity. He concludes that the test may predict scores on tests of verbal fluency, but fails to predict creativity in general. In other words, the RAT is not so much a general measure of creativity as a specialized measure of verbal intelligence. Recently, Bowden and Jung-Beeman (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib188) ) published extensive normative data for RAT-type items. Based on 289 university students, their normative data consists of percentage correct for 144 items under four time limits (2, 7, 15, and 30 seconds). They recommend using these normative data to investigate process factors such as incubation, the impact of hints, and techniques to facilitate problem solving.

Creativity as Personal Characteristics Guilford (1950) was one of the first researchers to define creativity in terms of the person when he asserted that “creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people.” His pronouncement helped inspire an expansion of research on the personal characteristics of creative persons. Much of this research has relied upon contrasts of peer nominated high- and low-creative persons in various professions (Barron, 1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib101) ; Martindale, 1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1054) ). In this methodology, colleagues within a field of study nominate other individuals who are high and low in creativity, and their consensus view is used to identify two select groups of individuals (high-creative, low-

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 41/59

creative). These groups are then contrasted on personality measures, including self-checked adjectives and standard personality inventories.

Based on hundreds of studies, a fairly stable set of core characteristics of creative persons has emerged (Barron & Harrington, 1981 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib102) ; Dellas & Gaier, 1970 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib409) ). Interestingly, the distinguishing characteristics of creative individuals appear to be largely temperamental, although a certain minimum level of intelligence also is required. Harrington (1975 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib708) ) has captured a not altogether flattering portrait of the creative person in his Composite Creative Personality Scale, which consists of 42 self-checked adjectives (from a larger list) that empirically distinguish creative from noncreative persons. These adjectives include many positive terms such as active, curious, imaginative, inventive, original, resourceful, and sensitive, but also embrace negative terms such as argumentative, cynical, egotistical, impulsive, rebellious, and unconventional. These qualities fit well with the observation of Feist (1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib491) ):

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of creative people is their desire and preference to be somewhat removed from regular social-contact, to spend time alone working on their craft . . . to be autonomous and independent of the influence of a group. (p. 158)

In addition to the broad generalizations noted above, the particular link between personality characteristics and creative behavior also depends on the specific domain of investigation. For example, compared with their less creative counterparts, creative artists tend to be more spontaneous, creative writers tend to be more nonconforming, creative architects tend to be less flexible, and creative engineers tend to be better adjusted than other groups (Piirto, 1998 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1300) ). In attempting to predict creative behavior from personality characteristics, one creative personality type may not fit all creative occupations (Kerr & Gagliardi, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib880) ). Batey and Furnham (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib108) ) provide an excellent review of the complex literature on creativity and personality.

Recently, Sternberg (2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1566) ) has proposed that creative individuals are distinguished not so much by specific traits as by the heartfelt decision to be creative:

I believe that, although creative people differ in an astonishing number of ways, there is, in fact, one key attribute that they all possess. . . . This attribute is the decision to be creative. People who create decide that they will forge their own path and follow it, for better or for worse. The path is a difficult one because people who defy convention often are not rewarded. (p. 376)

This perspective suggests that creative individuals will be characterized by a stubborn dedication to their creative endeavors, even when rewards for their activities seem to be lacking.

The opinion that creativity resides within qualities of the person continues to be popular. From this perspective, self-report measures are the natural and preferred assessment method (Silvia, Wigert, Reiter-Palmon, & Kaufman, 2012 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1500) ). Table 9.9

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 42/59

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec8#ch09tab9) summarizes a few promising instruments.

Creativity as Product The most enduring definitions of creativity have used the product as the distinguishing sign of this capacity. According to this approach, creative persons create products (ideas, inventions, writings, artistic outputs, etc.) that meet certain criteria. For example, Jackson and Messick (1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib822) ) applied four criteria to creativity:

Novelty: Creative products are new, or at least represent a new application of the familiar. Appropriateness: The product must be appropriate to the context, not merely novel. Transcendence of constraints: A product transcends constraints when it goes beyond the traditional. Coalescence of meaning: The value of creative products may not be apparent at first, the full significance may only be appreciated with time.

The Jackson and Messick (1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib822) ) criteria have proved helpful in delineating the special characteristics of a creative outcome, but they do not constitute a psychological measure of creativity. For measures of creativity based on the product-oriented approach, we must examine the seminal studies of Joy Paul Guilford and the various tests inspired by his factor- analytic research.

TABLE 9.9 Self-Report Measures of Creativity

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 43/59

Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB) (Batey, 2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib107) )

Based on the implicit assumption that creativity is a general attribute, the BICB consists of 34-items rated yes/no by the respondent. Items consist of behaviorally anchored creative accomplishments “actively involved in” over the last 12 months. Results range from 0 to 34, yielding a single overall score without subscales. Higher scores indicate greater creativity. Domain coverage is broad. Items resemble written a poem, painted a picture, devised a recipe, coached a team, held an office. The scale possesses good internal consistency (α = .74) and correlates appropriately with other measures of creativity (Furnham, Batey, Anand, & Manfield, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib555) ).

Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib274) )

Innovative in its measurement approach, the CAQ assesses creativity in 10 domains: Visual Arts, Music, Dance, Architectural Design, Creative Writing, Humor, Inventions, and Scientific Discovery. Although an overall score can be obtained, the implicit assumption of the test is that creativity is domain specific. Hence, a high score in one domain is sufficient to demonstrate creativity. Each domain consists of eight items, numbered 0 through 7, representing increasing levels of creative achievement. Most items are binary, but higher numbered items in each domain require a numerical entry. For example, item 7 in Creative Writing might request the number of stories published in literary sources. The entry for this item (for example, “3”) is multiplied by the item number to obtain the score (7 × 3 = 21). This inventive scoring approach allows for the detection of persons with exceptional creativity in one or more domains.

Revised Creative Domain Questionnaire (CDQ-R) (Kaufman, Cole, & Baer, 2009 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib869) )

Simple but effective in its format, the CDQ-R consists of 21 items in four domains: Drama (e.g., acting, dancing, writing), Math/science (e.g., chemistry, logic, computers), Arts (e.g., crafts, design, painting), and interaction (e.g., leadership, selling, teaching). Respondents are asked to self-rate their creativity in each activity. Items are completed on a six-point scale (no midpoint) ranging from Not at all creative to Extremely creative. The four domain scores are averaged to obtain an overall creativity score. The scale possesses reasonable reliability, with internal consistencies of.71 to .76. for the domains and .82 for the overall scale. Unlike measures of creative accomplishments which are typically skewed, the four domain scores and the overall score reveal approximately normal distributions. Regarding validity, the CDQ-R domain scores reveal theoretically appropriate correlations with Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., Openness to Experience correlates with all four domains; Extraversion correlates with Drama but not Math/Science).

As the reader will recall from an earlier chapter, Guilford (1959 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib665) , 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib667) ) formulated a structure of intellect model that parceled intelligence into 150 factors aligned upon three dimensions: operations, constructs, and products. One of the operations that emerged from Guilford’s factor analyses was divergent thinking (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm01#bm01gloss94) :

Divergent thinking is defined as the kind that goes off in different directions. It makes possible changes of direction in problem solving and also leads to a diversity of answers, where more than one

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 44/59

answer may be acceptable. (Guilford, 1959 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib665) )

Divergent thinking is virtually the opposite of convergent thinking. Convergent thinking is the production of a single correct answer determined by facts and reason. Western civilization places such a heavy emphasis on convergent thinking that we are inclined to dismiss the value of divergent thinking, even to mock it as undisciplined and, therefore, unproductive. But divergent thinking is essential to creative discovery. Unconstrained, freewheeling thought is the hallmark of the creative person. Tests of divergent thinking are therefore considered excellent measures of creativity.

Guilford and his colleagues developed about a dozen experimental measures of divergent thinking (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1971 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib670) ), some of which were subsequently standardized and published as the Christensen-Guilford Fluency Tests. Subtests and items similar to his measures include:

Alternate Uses: List possible but unusual uses for a common object such as a brick (use it as a door stop, hammer, anchor, or wheel stop) Consequences: List possible consequences of a specific hypothetical event, for example, “What would happen if clouds had strings hanging down from them?” (macramé would make a comeback, people would be whisked away, air travel would be hazardous, farmers could winch the clouds down for watering, etc.) Ideational Fluency: Name things that belong in a given class such as “Long, thin items” (hair, pin, wire, needle, snake, string, spaghetti, pulled taffy)

Although Guilford’s tests never received wide usage and eventually faded into obscurity, his theories and contributions were highly influential in the field of creativity studies. In particular, Guilford’s influence is found in the work of E. Paul Torrance (1915–2003), who developed a group of tests still in use today.

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Kim, 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib889) ; Torrance, 1966 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1658) ) are based loosely on Guilford’s model, although Torrance was more concerned with the interest level of his measures than with their factorial purity. These tests purport to assess a global cognitive construct of creativity—a style of thinking believed to be essential to creative achievements. The TTCT subtests do not assess motivation, expertise, intelligence, or other capacities that could contribute to creative productivity. The test comes in two parallel forms, A and B, which are highly comparable. The comments below refer to both forms.

The TTCT consists of two parts: The TTCT-Verbal and the TTCT-Figural. Suitable for ages 6 through 18 and beyond, the TTCT-Verbal contains six subtests:

Asking Questions Guessing Causes Guessing Consequences Product Improvement Unusual Uses Just Suppose

The first three verbal subtests are based on the same stimulus card which shows a simple pen and ink drawing of one or two human-like figures engaged in ambiguous activity. A TTCT-like drawing is shown in

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 45/59

Figure 9.1 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec8#ch09fig1) . In the first activity, Asking Questions, the child is encouraged to ask questions about the picture. In the second activity, Guessing Causes, the child is told to guess the causes of the action in the picture. In the third activity, Guessing Consequences, the child is instructed to speculate about the immediate and long-term consequences. The time limit for each activity is five minutes.

In the fourth activity of the Verbal subtests, Product Improvement, the task is to suggest improvements to a toy that would make it more appealing to children. For example, the child might be shown a picture of a stuffed rabbit and asked to think of ways to change the toy so that others would have more fun playing with it. Unusual Uses, the fifth activity, is a familiar standby in creativity assessment, namely, thinking of unusual uses for a common object such as a brick. The final Verbal subtest is Just Suppose, which involves asking the examinee to list the problems and benefits that might arise from an improbable situation. For example, the child might be told “Just suppose that clouds had strings hanging down from them—what might be some problems or benefits of this situation?”

FIGURE 9.1 Example Stimulus Card Used for the First Three TTCT-Verbal Subtests

Note: A stimulus card similar to the above is used for the Asking Questions, Guessing Causes, and Guessing Consequences subtests.

The verbal subtests are scored according to three criteria:

Fluency—the raw number of relevant ideas; Originality—the inventiveness or creativity of the ideas; Flexibility—the flexibility of categories of ideas.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 46/59

Of course, the manual for the TTCT, which is periodically updated for normative data, provides significant guidance on scoring (Torrance, 1974 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1659) , 1998 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1660) ). The TTCT-Figural consists of three activities, which are suitable for ages 5 through 18 and beyond:

Picture Construction Picture Completion Repeated Figures

The time limit for each activity is 10 minutes. In the first activity, Picture Construction, the child draws a picture using a simple shape (jelly bean or pear) as a starting point. The stimulus shape must become an integral part of the constructed picture. In the second activity, Picture Completion, the examinee encounters 10 incomplete figures and is asked to complete a drawing from each and then to name each drawing. An example of a TTCT-like drawing (with completion and title) is shown in Figure 9.2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec8#ch09fig2) . In the last activity, Repeated Figures, the child is provided two or three pages of repeated figures (e.g., circles) and asked to use them in constructing pictures that are then named. For example, the child might draw a rectangle encompassing six circles and name it “swiss cheese.”

Scoring of the TTCT-Figural subtests is based on five norm-referenced measures and 13 criterion- referenced outcomes. The five norm-referenced measures include:

Fluency—the raw number of stimuli provided; Originality—the number of statistically infrequent drawings;

FIGURE 9.2 Example TTCT-Figural Picture Completion Drawing with Title

Note: This sample resembles one of the ten incomplete figures used on the Picture Completion subtest.

Abstractness of Titles—the abstraction level of the titles; Elaboration—the provision of details and elaboration; Resistance to Premature Closure—the degree of openness for incomplete figures.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 47/59

The 13 criterion-referenced measures include a variety of creative strengths expressed in the drawings such as emotional fluency, unusual visual perspective, humor, colorful imagery, and fantasy.

Although scoring of the TTCT is tedious and elaborate—especially for the Figural subtests—experienced testers produce interrater reliabilities in the .90s. Test–retest reliability coefficients are lower, in the range of .50 to .93 (Kim, 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib889) ). Reliability data certainly are strong enough to support the use of the test for group testing and research purposes (Trefflinger, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1664) ). However, making individual decisions (e.g., admission to special program for gifted children) solely on the basis of TTCT scores could be problematic.

The validity of the TTCT is a more complicated question, especially in light of the difficulty of defining the criterion—what is creativity? Yet, the instrument is reasonably predictive of later creative accomplishments, even in the long run. For example, in a sample of 80 participants, the correlation between a TTCT creativity index derived from assessment in elementary years and the quality of highest creative achievements in adulthood (40-year follow-up) was a healthy r = .43 (Cramond, Matthews- Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib367) ). In this study, the quality of creative achievements was rated blindly from autobiographical materials supplied by the research participants. The correlation, r = .43, was higher than the observed relationship between childhood IQ and adult creativity, r = .32. Creativity as measured by the TTCT appears to be more predictive of certain forms of achievement than intelligence.

Overall, with its 50 years of research and strong psychometric properties, the TTCT is one of the best instruments for creativity assessment. The test has been translated into 35 languages and has spawned more research than any other measure in the field. Among its many strong features, age- and grade-norms are available for more than 50,000 participants, kindergarten through high school. Applications of the test are mainly with school-aged children, although norms are provided for adults as well (Kim, 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib889) ).

Comment on Creativity Tests Tests of creativity have served a useful function in highlighting the diversity of skills that make up the whole of intellectual ability. As a consequence of research on creativity, educators and psychologists now realize that an exclusive emphasis on “correct” thinking (i.e., convergent problem solving) is too narrow a focus for education and assessment alike. However, the validity of creativity tests is still an open question. One problem is that definitions of creativity (e.g., Jackson & Messick, 1968 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib822) , above) do not lend themselves easily to psychometric measurement, that is, tests of creativity do not operationalize the construct of creativity very well (Chase, 1985 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib299) ). In part, the failure to operationalize creativity stems from the multifactorial nature of this puzzling ability. Consider this observation: whereas a general factor almost always can be extracted from intelligence and ability tests, it seems clear that there is no corresponding factor in the realm of creativity. For example, a creative painter is unlikely to be a creative musician or a creative research scientist. Creativity is almost always specific to the realm in which it is identified. This specificity poses a difficult obstacle to general measures of creativity.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 48/59

9.9 MEASURES OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE In the history of psychology, emotions and intelligence generally have been viewed as distinct capacities of the individual, each capable of influencing the other, but separate nonetheless. For example, Thomas Chalmers (1833) wrote an early chapter titled On the Connection between the Intellect and the Emotions. Chalmers was a Scottish church leader who catalogued the disruptive influence of emotions on clear thinking. In like manner, the American psychologist Henry H. Goddard (1919 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib599) ) proposed a separation of the emotions and intelligence. He argued that intelligence, properly exercised, can modify and influence emotions for the benefit of the individual.

The first person to hint at a possible union of emotional and intellectual factors was the eminent American psychologist E. L. Thorndike (1920 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1637) ). In a short essay published in Harper’s Magazine for a general audience, Thorndike spoke of three kinds of intelligence: abstract, mechanical, and social. The first two types are well known in assessment and have been validated repeatedly. However, the third kind of intelligence, social intelligence, has proved more elusive. Thorndike defined social intelligence as “the ability to understand and manage people.” An essential part of this ability is the accurate recognition of emotions in others. Unfortunately, early attempts to measure social intelligence proved fruitless (Thorndike & Stein, 1937 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1641) ). The concept gradually fell out of favor.

Recently, the idea that emotions and intellect might constitute a single cluster of intertwined abilities has reemerged in the concept of emotional intelligence, as proposed by Mayer, Salovey, and colleagues (Salovey & Mayer, 1989–90 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1430) ; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1070) ). The notion of emotional intelligence has been pursued by other researchers as well (discussed below); however, the Mayer-Salovey model boasts the strongest theoretical and empirical underpinnings, so we begin with their approach. Mayer et al. (2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1070) ) define emotional intelligence as follows:

Managing emotions so as to attain specific goals; Understanding emotions, emotional language, and the signals conveyed by emotions; Using emotions to facilitate thinking; and Perceiving emotions accurately in oneself and others. (p. 507)

These theorists propose that emotional intelligence is an instance of traditional intelligence, not something different from it. In other words, emotional intelligence (EI) is an important and overlooked subset of abilities that contribute to human efficiency and adaptation. Thus, just as prior researchers have documented verbal forms of intelligence (e.g., verbal comprehension) and perceptual forms of intelligence (e.g., perceptual reasoning) Mayer et al. (2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1070) ) propose that emotional intelligence is a third major subdivision that complements the traditional dichotomy of verbal and perceptual abilities.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 49/59

To understand how emotional intelligence differs from traditional forms of intelligence, imagine a situation in which you visit a close friend in the hospital. He has just emerged from emergency surgery after a serious head injury from a fall. He lies still in bed with his eyes closed. Standing around your friend are anxious family members and a stern-faced doctor. What would you do or say? Would you press forward to join the family members? Would you leave the room and return later? Would you hug or console others? Would you ask the doctor for an update? You will need to make these and many other choices in a matter of seconds. Adaptive functioning in this complex situation would require you to manage your own emotions (maybe you feel strong relief that you are not the one in the hospital bed), understand the subtle emotional signals conveyed by others (perhaps the glassy stare of the sister indicates that you are not welcome at this time), use your emotions to facilitate thinking (maybe your anguish is so strong that you think it wise to remain quiet), and perceive emotions accurately in others (perhaps everyone is quiet because your friend has just drifted off to sleep). Successful navigation of this difficult and painful situation would require high levels of emotional intelligence.

Because of the subtlety and complexity of the construct, the assessment of emotional intelligence has proved challenging. However, with innovative forms of testing such as embodied in the MSCEIT or Mayer- Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1072) ), progress is being made. This instrument consists of 141 items that yield a total emotional intelligence score as well as two Area scores, four Branch Scores, and eight Task scores. Table 9.10 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec9#ch09tab10) provides a brief description of the test, which is designed for adults age 17 and older. Normative data are based on a sample of more than 5,000 individuals.

The overall score on the MSCEIT is called the Emotional Intelligence (EI) score. This score is normed to a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15. The two Area scores (Experiential and Strategic) and the four Branch scores (Perceiving, Facilitating, Understanding, and Managing) likewise are normed to these traditional benchmarks. While scores are provided for the eight Tasks (see Table 9.10 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec9#ch09tab10) ), the test developers caution against overinterpretation of these elemental scores because of their lower reliability. The overall EI score demonstrates strong internal reliability, in the low .90s, whereas the reliability of the two Area scores is slightly lower and more variable, typically in the high .80s (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1072) ). Test–retest reliability of the overall score is respectable at .86 (Brackett & Mayer, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib195) ).

TABLE 9.10 Brief Description of the MSCEIT Tasks

EXPERIENTIAL AREA

Perceiving Branch

Faces: Identify from photographs of faces how each person feels on a 1 to 5 scale (e.g., 1 = no happiness, 5 = extreme happiness). Pictures: Indicate the extent to which images and photographs express various emotions on a 1 to 5 scale (e.g., 1 = not at all, 5 = very much).

Facilitating Branch

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 50/59

Sensations: Compare different emotions to different sensations such as light, color, and temperature on a 1 to 5 scale (e.g., 1 = not at all, 5 = very much). Facilitation: Specify how certain moods might assist in responding to social situations (e.g., 1 = not useful, 5 = useful).

STRATEGIC AREA

Understanding Branch

Blends: Indicate which emotion (from 5 choices) tends to occur in the presence of a described emotional situation. Changes: Indicate which emotion (from 5 choices) tends to be the transition state from a described emotional starting point.

Managing Branch

Emotion Management: Rate the effectiveness of alternative actions in achieving a specified emotional state on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = very ineffective, 5 = very effective). Emotional Relations: Evaluate the effectiveness of alternative actions in achieving a desired outcome involving other people on a 1 to 5 scale (1 = very ineffective, 5 = very effective).

An interesting issue with tests of emotional intelligence like the MSCEIT is how to determine the correct answers. After all, the questions involve subtle emotional concepts, for which the “correct” responses are not necessarily obvious. Consider the following question, which resembles some found on the MSCEIT:

What emotion(s) might prove helpful to feel when talking with a police officer who has just stopped you for speeding?

Deference not helpful . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . very helpful

Mild anxiety not helpful . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . very helpful

Surprise not helpful . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . very helpful

Irritation not helpful . . . 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . . very helpful

The authors of the MSCEIT propose two different scoring methods: consensus scoring and expert scoring. In consensus scoring, the majority choices of the normative sample are used to identify the correct options. For example, in the example above if 67% of the general population circled the number “1” for “irritation” (i.e., it is not helpful), this answer would be coded as the correct alternative. Respondents would receive lower scores to the extent they deviated from this alternative. This method is also called general scoring because the reference point is the general, normative sample.

The second approach, expert scoring, relies on the judgment of experts in the field of emotion to determine the correct options. In particular, the authors used 21 experts attending a conference of the International Society for Research on Emotion. Scoring for this approach relies on the consensus of these experts. Fortunately, the two scoring approaches (general and expert) reveal a very high agreement, on the order of .96 to .98 (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1072) ).

The rationale for consensus scoring—whether based on the general population or experts—is that emotions and their expression possess an evolutionary and social basis. Emotions constitute a “signal system” that conveys important information to those around us. For example, the emotion of sadness signals loss and wanting to be comforted; the emotion of anger indicates the individual feels threatened

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 51/59

and could respond forcefully; the emotion of happiness conveys an interest in joining others. Individuals who do not “read” emotions in a consensual manner likely will experience difficulty in a broad range of social situations.

The validity of the MSCEIT has been investigated from numerous perspectives, including factorial, discriminant, and predictive validity. Some results indicate that the instrument measures a unitary skill that can be subdivided into the four branches described above (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1075) ). Further, EI as measured by the MSCEIT reveals generally low correlations with verbal intelligence, general intelligence, and major dimensions of personality, that is, the construct provides something that goes beyond established measures (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2004 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1073) ). EI is potentially useful because of its inverse relationship with deviant behaviors such as bullying, substance abuse, and violence. These relationships—high EI scores corresponding to low deviance—hold true even after the statistical control of intelligence and personality variables (Rubin, 1999 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1416) ; Trinidad & Johnson, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1666) ).

In spite of the supportive literature provided by proponents of EI measures, other reviewers maintain a cautious stance about the MSCEIT and similar tests. For example, in a comprehensive review of the psychometrics of emotional intelligence, Zeidner, Roberts, and Matthews (2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1802) , p. 71) concluded that there has been “irrational enthusiasm surrounding the practical utility of emotional intelligence.” They note that evidence regarding the role of EI in occupational success is weak, based largely on anecdotal reports and popular sources like Daniel Goleman’s (1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib615) ) book, Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ.

Even the developers of the MSCEIT acknowledge the potential for misuse of their instrument. Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, and Sitarenios (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1075) , p. 104) state flatly that “the applied use of EI testing must proceed with great caution.” The growing trend to use these instruments in selection of employees is, therefore, disquieting. As Conte (2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib347) , p. 438) notes, managers and organizational leaders “should be wary of making this leap unless more rigorous discriminant, predictive, and incremental validity evidence for EI measures is shown.”

In addition to the MSCEIT, a few other measures of emotional intelligence have gained recognition. One of these is the Emotional Competence Inventory (Sala, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1429) ), based on Goleman’s (1995 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib615) ) conception of emotional intelligence. The Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI) contains 110 items organized into four clusters: (1) Self-Awareness, (2) Social Awareness, (3) Self-Management, and (4) Social Skills. One appealing feature of this instrument is the 360-degree feedback that it yields. In this method, self-ratings, peer ratings, and supervisor ratings are reported separately for comparison and contrast. The ECI is used mainly in large corporate settings for formative evaluation of employees. The publishers have maintained tight proprietary control over the test, which has limited independent research on its psychometric qualities.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 52/59

Another widely used test is the Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib94) ), which is traditionally known by the acronym EQ-i. This 133-item self-report instrument yields an overall EQ score as well as five composite scores: (1) intrapersonal, (2) interpersonal, (3) adaptability, (4) general mood, and (5) stress management. Reviewers of the EQ-i have noted that the theory behind the test is unclear (Matthews, Zeidner, & Roberts, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1066) ). Further, the test appears to overlap substantially with major personality constructs. For example, a correlation of r = −.77 with the anxiety scale from Cattell’s 16PF is reported (Newsome et al., 2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1232) ). The EQ-i appears to demonstrate strong reliability, with test–retest reliability of .85 after one month (Bar-On, 1997 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib93) ). What remains unclear is whether the test measures emotional intelligence as a construct, as it is understood by others (Conte, 2005 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib347) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 53/59

9.10 ASSESSMENT OF OPTIMISM Optimism is another fruitful area for psychometric research and assessment. Typically this construct is viewed as one end of a bipolar continuum, optimism–pessimism. The difference between the two ends of the spectrum is captured in the familiar adage about the glass of water that is half-full to the optimist and half-empty to the pessimist. Whether this bipolar depiction is an accurate portrayal of the underlying construct(s) is a topic we take up below. Nonetheless, it is certainly the starting point for many theorists and for the perceptions of the lay public as well. Carver and Scheier capture why this area of assessment is important: “Optimists are people who expect good things to happen to them; pessimists are people who expect bad things to happen to them. Does this difference among people matter? It certainly does. Optimists and pessimists differ in several ways that have a big impact on their lives. They differ in how they approach problems and challenges they encounter, and they differ in the manner and the success with which they cope with life’s difficulties” (2003, p. 75). In short, optimism and pessimism have to do with people’s expectations for the future. Optimists expect a better future than pessimists and generally have more confidence in their ability to manage challenges when they arise. Generally, optimists fare better than pessimists in terms of personal adjustment and even physical health, although the differences for health are not substantial (Peterson, 2000 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1287) ). How these individual differences arise in personal development is an important and intriguing question that we do not pursue here. Instead we focus on assessment issues, namely, how is optimism measured?

The most widely used instrument is the revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1462) ). This is an intriguingly simple scale that consists of six scored items and four “filler” items (10 items total). Respondents indicate their extent of agreement with the items on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 or “strongly disagree” to 5 or “strongly agree.” Items similar to those found on the LOT-R include:

I have a positive outlook and expect the best in life I don’t expect good things to happen to me (reverse scored) I enjoy my family life a great deal (filler)

Of course, negatively worded items are reverse scored. Responses on the six scored items are then summed to yield a total from 6 (highly pessimistic) to 30 (highly optimistic). Even though “pessimist” and “optimist” are categories in popular language, the LOT-R instead provides a score on a continuum, without strict cut-offs. In large samples of respondents, the score distribution tends to be skewed toward the optimistic side, but not excessively so (Carver & Scheier, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib277) ).

Although the theoretical basis for the LOT-R postulates an optimism-pessimism continuum, psychometric analyses by Herzberg, Glaesmer, and Hoyer (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib740) ) with huge samples of adults (N = 46,133) reveal that the optimism and pessimism items on the test measure two independent constructs rather than a single, bipolar trait. This is a counterintuitive finding which suggests that optimism and pessimism are partly independent. Conceivably, an individual could earn high scores on both (or low scores on both), although these outcomes probably are rare. In practice, many researchers now report three scores from the LOT-R: an optimism score based on the positively worded items, a pessimism score based on the negatively worded items, and a total score that combines the two.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 54/59

An additional finding of the Herzberg et al. study (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib740) ) is that the reliability of the instrument is low (Cronbach alphas of .71 for the Optimism items and .68 for the Pessimism items). Thus, the test is recommended for group research only; it is not suitable for clinical practice with individuals.

A substantial literature points to the general conclusion that LOT-R optimists fare much better than pessimists on a wide variety of outcome measures (Snyder & Lopez, 2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1517) ). For example, in a sample of 275 Japanese college students, LOT-R total scores correlated r = .39 with social support, and r = −.26 with interpersonal conflict (Sumi, 2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1598) ). In a sample of 504 Australian high school students, LOT-R scores correlated r = .55 with self-esteem and r = −.38 with psychological distress (Creed, Patton, & Bartrum, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib370) ). In other words, for both studies LOT-R total scores modestly predicted good social adjustment.

Steptoe, Wright, Kunz-Ebrecht, and Iliffe (2006 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1555) ) investigated the relationship between LOT-R scores and numerous health behaviors in 128 community-dwelling seniors 65 to 80 years old. Dispositional optimism as measured by the LOT-R total score was associated with many healthful behaviors, including moderate alcohol consumption, not smoking, brisk walking, and vigorous physical activities (women only). Self-rated health and physical health status both were associated with optimism, although the direction of influence would be difficult to determine from this cross-sectional study. The full scale was more consistently associated with these positive relationships than either the optimism or pessimism subscales of the test. Carver and Scheier (2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib276) ) review additional external correlates of optimism as measured by the LOT-R.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 55/59

9.11 ASSESSMENT OF GRATITUDE As Emmons, McCullough, and Tsang (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib460) ) observe, gratitude is difficult to define. In part, this is because the concept can be viewed as an attitude, an emotion, a disposition, or a personality trait. A simple definition is that gratitude is a response of thankfulness and joy when receiving a gift. But delving further, difficulties arise. What constitutes a gift? What are the possible sources of a gift? Some gifts are obvious and not debatable, as when neighbors deliver a precooked meal to someone who is grieving a loss. Almost everyone would experience gratitude in this situation. But what about viewing a sunrise, taking a hot shower, or seeing a baby smile in the supermarket? Should we experience gratitude for these opportunities as well? In other words, does gratitude require a personal benefactor, or can it be expanded to the countless ways in which life pleasantly surprises the mindful person?

Regardless of how it is conceptualized, gratitude is universally recognized as a personal virtue because it promotes social cohesion and provides an inner buffer against the toil and pain of everyday life. In general, people with a grateful disposition experience greater well-being than those without this asset (Emmons et al., 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib460) ). The German-French theologian and physician Albert Schweitzer (1969), who founded a hospital in west central Africa and received the Nobel Peace Prize for his philosophy of “Reverence for Life,” referred to gratitude as the “secret of life” (p. 36). Truly, that is a strong statement! In general, gratitude has received less attention as a topic of measurement than it deserves. But recent efforts are beginning to redress this deficiency.

One such effort is the Gratitude Questionnaire-Six Item Form (GQ-6) developed by McCullough, Emmons, and Tsang, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1087) . The GQ-6 is a simple self-report measure of the disposition to experience gratitude (Figure 9.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/ch09lev1sec11#ch09fig3) ). The test consists of the six best items from a longer list of statements that articulate gratitude and appreciation.

The reader will notice that the GQ-6 is based on a Likert-type format with seven alternatives ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strong agree). Two items are stated in the reverse (and therefore reverse scored) as a way of inhibiting response bias. The development and choice of specific test items was based on a thorough analysis of the many facets of the grateful disposition (McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1087) ). The authors determined that gratitude reflects intensity (feeling more intensely grateful), frequency (feeling grateful many times a day), span (grateful for many things), and density (grateful to many individuals). Initially, they proposed 39 items to measure these qualities. The GQ-6 is composed of the six best items, as determined by factor-analytic procedures performed with test results from two samples: 238 undergraduates and 1,228 adult volunteers surveyed via the Internet. Reliability of the instrument is good, with coefficient alphas between .82 and .87. Validity of the GQ-6 is based on numerous theory- confirming relationships with other measures. For example, self-ratings on the GQ-6 correlated modestly with external observers’ perceptions of gratitude in the participants. Additional studies indicated that the GQ-6 is positively related to optimism, hope, spirituality, religiousness, forgiveness, empathy, and prosocial behavior. The scale is negatively related to depression, anxiety, materialism, and envy (McCullough et al., 2002 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1087) ).

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 56/59

FIGURE 9.3 The Gratitude Questionnaire-Six Item Form (GQ-6)

Source: Reprinted with permission of Michael McCullough and Robert Emmons. Copyright 2002, all rights reserved.

While the GQ-6 conceives of gratitude as a single dimension, other researchers have proposed a multidimensional model. For example, the Gratitude, Resentment, and Appreciation Test (GRAT, Watkins, Woodward, Stone, & Kolts, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1720) ) proposes three dimensions to gratitude:

Appreciation of others, expressed as gratitude toward other people. Simple appreciation, expressed as gratitude toward non-social sources. Sense of abundance, expressed as the absence of general resentment.

The 42 items of the GRAT are rated on a 1 to 5 scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). The test possesses excellent reliability for the three subscales and the total score (Thomas & Watkins, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1633) ), and reveals theory-consistent relationships with external criteria such as spirituality and the absence of materialism (Diessner & Lewis, 2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib416) ).

Even though the authors of the GRAT hypothesized a multidimensional model in the development of their test, subsequent research indicates that gratitude might actually be a unitary trait. Wood, Maltby, Stewart, and Joseph (2007 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1785) ) conducted a factor analysis of the three GRAT subscales and nine other indices of gratitude (including the GQ-6), and found a clear one-factor solution. The 12 measures were highly intercorrelated, indicating a single latent construct which the researchers called gratitude/appreciation. Gratitude is an essential element of human experience that deserves ongoing psychometric inquiry.

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 57/59

9.12 SENSE OF HUMOR: SELF-REPORT MEASURES Humor is a broad construct that has many meanings. Humor can refer to the characteristics of the material (a funny joke or cartoon) or the responses of the individual (a chuckle or belly laugh). Humor can be constructive when it brings people together, or destructive when it is at someone’s expense. In contemporary Western society, having a sense of humor is generally viewed as a virtue. It is thought that individuals with a “good” sense of humor will more easily befriend others and also will be able to weather the adversities of life with greater balance.

But how do we conceptualize the loose notion of “sense of humor?” Is this an enduring personality trait, an ability to make others laugh, a temperamental feature of good cheer, a world view that life is fundamentally absurd, or something else? Martin (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1048) , p. 315) argues that: “One of the challenges of research on humor in the context of positive psychology is to identify which aspects or components of the humor construct are most relevant to mental health and successful adaptation.” His answer is to conceptualize humor as a way of coping with stress and enhancing relationships. With this approach, Martin has developed three instruments used widely in humor research: The Coping Humor Scale, the Situational Humor Response Questionnaire, and the Humor Styles Questionnaire.

The Coping Humor Scale was designed to assess the extent to which individuals report using humor to cope with stress (Martin & Lefcourt, 1983 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1050) ). The CHS consists of 7 items similar to “When things are tense I look for something funny to say” or “I think humor is a useful way of coping with problems.” These items are rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). There is no neutral point on the scale, which forces the respondent to take a position.

The CHS has good test–retest reliability, with r = .80 over a 12-week period, but only fair internal consistency, with coefficient alphas of .60 to .70 (Martin, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1049) ). Regarding validity, Martin (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1048) , p. 317) summarizes a number of robust external correlates of the test. CHS total scores correlate strongly with the following constructs:

Peer ratings of using humor to cope with stress Peer ratings of not taking one’s self too seriously Researcher ratings of funniness of monologues produced under stress Researcher ratings of using laughter and humor before dental surgery

The CHS is a respected instrument in humor research. Nonetheless, it has faded in use because later instruments (discussed below) provide broader measures of sense of humor.

The Situational Humor Response Questionnaire provides a measure of the degree to which the respondent is easily amused and laughs in a wide range of situations (Martin, 1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1049) ; Martin & Lefcourt, 1984 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1051) ). The SHRQ consists of 21 items, the first 18 of which describe ordinary life situations such as “You were at a party and the host accidentally spilled a drink on you.” Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (“I would not

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 58/59

have been particularly amused”) to 5 (“I would have laughed heartily”). The last three items refer to laughing and being amused in general.

As summarized by Martin (1996 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1049) ), the SHRQ reveals adequate psychometric qualities, including test-retest correlations of around .70 and Cronbach alphas in the vicinity of .70 to .85. An interesting validity criterion used in several studies is the correlation of test scores with observed frequency of laughter, with rs ranging from .30 to .60. As noted by Martin (2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1048) ), frequency of laughter is a good validity criterion, but it is not perfect. After all, there is laughter without humor and humor without laughter. Fortunately, the validity evidence for this instrument includes a wide base of diverse studies, such as correlations with rated funniness of monologues produced by participants, and correlations with other humor scales. Another concern about the test is that the humor situations were designed with college students in mind and may not generalize to other groups. The humor situations date to the 1980s and earlier; some are no longer funny. After all, what is deemed funny shifts over time, is specific to cultures, and is sometimes idiosyncratic. For example, some viewers find the video clips featured on the television show America’s Funniest Home Videos to be hilarious, whereas others regard this weekly offering with bewilderment or even downright scorn.

Recently, Martin and colleagues have developed a new humor instrument that represents the culmination of decades of research. The Humor Styles Questionnaire (HSQ, Martin, Puhlik-Doris, Larsen, Gray, & Weir, 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1048) ) assesses four dimensions that convey individual differences in uses of humor:

Affiliative: Use of humor to entertain others and facilitate relationships. Self-enhancing: Use of humor to cope with stress and uphold a positive outlook during difficult times. Aggressive: Use of mocking, manipulative, put-down, or disparaging humor. Self-defeating: Use of humor for undue self-disparagement, ingratiation, or defensive reply.

The HSQ includes 32 self-descriptive statements (8 for each subscale) that depict specific uses of humor. For example, items on the Affiliative scale might resemble: “I like to tell silly jokes based on word play.” Items on the Aggressive scale might resemble: “I like to poke fun at people when they make mistakes.”

The first two styles, Affiliative and Self-enhancing, embody constructive and healthy uses of humor. The last two styles, Aggressive and Self-defeating, involve unhealthy uses of humor that distance the individual from others. For each item, respondents indicate agreement or disagreement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The HSQ reveals excellent psychometric properties, with strong internal consistencies of the subscales (around .80), and good test–retest reliabilities (.80 to .85). Validity is based on convergent and discriminant correlations of the subscales with appropriate external criteria including well-being, hostility, intimacy, coping, satisfaction with relationships, and major personality variables (Martin et al., 2003 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1048) ).

How do individual differences in humor styles arise? A recent behavioral genetics analysis comparing HSQ scores of identical and fraternal twins found fascinating differences in developmental influences among the four humor styles (Vernon, Martin, Schermer, & Mackie, 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1696) ). In this study of 300 pairs of identical twins and 156 pairs of fraternal twins, the positive forms of humor (Affiliative and Self-enhancing) were found to display significant genetic influences whereas the negative forms of humor

8/18/2019 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Gregory.8055.17.1?sections=ch09,ch09lev1sec1,ch09lev1sec2,ch09lev1sec3,ch09lev1sec4,ch09lev1sec5,ch09lev… 59/59

(Aggressive and Self-defeating) arose in greater measure from common environmental influences. The authors offer the following conclusion:

These results may have implications for potential therapeutic interventions designed to modify individuals’ sense of humor. Because traits that are mainly influenced by environmental factors may be more malleable than those that are mainly influenced by genetic factors, our findings suggest that it may be easier to help people reduce their levels of aggressive and self-defeating humor styles than to increase their use of affiliative and self-enhancing humor. This is clearly a topic for further experimental study. (Vernon et al., 2008 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Gregory.8055.17.1/sections/bm02#bm02bib1696) , pp. 1123– 1124)

The lesson here for psychological testing is that the development of good measures such as the HSQ often generates far-reaching consequences.