ፈተናውን ጀምር
ምናሌ
ነጻውን ፈተና ይውሰዱ
ቋንቋ

16ቱ የስብዕና ዓይነቶች ወደ 64 ሊስፋፉ ይችላሉ?

አዎ። በትክክለኛው መንገድ ከተስፋፉም የባለ አራት ፊደል የዓይነት ፈተናዎችን ዋና ሳይንሳዊ ችግር ይፈታሉ።

1. አራቱ ፊደላት በእርግጥ የሚለኩት ምንድን ነው

ተመራማሪዎች ለተመሳሳይ ሰዎች MBTIንና የBig Five መጠይቅን ሲሰጡ፣ አራቱ የMBTI መለኪያዎች ከአራት የBig Five ባሕርያት ጋር ተዛመዱ፦ E/I ከተግባቢነት፣ S/N ደግሞ ከክፍትነት ጋር (ሁለቱም በጠንካራ ሁኔታ)፤ T/F ከተባባሪነት፣ J/P ደግሞ ከጥንቁቅነት ጋር (ሁለቱም በመጠኑ)። አምስተኛው የBig Five ባሕርይ፣ ኒውሮቲሲዝም (የስሜታዊ መረጋጋት ተቃራኒ)፣ በMBTI ውስጥ ምንም ተጓዳኝ አልነበረውም።[1] በሌላ አነጋገር፣ 16ቱ ዓይነቶች አራት እውነተኛ ባሕርያትን በጥቅሉ የሚከፋፍሉ ሲሆን አንድ አስፈላጊ ባሕርይም ይጎድላቸዋል።

2. የጎደሉት ሁለቱ ፊደላት

ስሜታዊ መረጋጋት (C/R) ሊለኩ ከሚችሉት ባሕርያት ውስጥ በጣም ተጽዕኖ ፈጣሪ ከሆኑት አንዱ ነው፦ ከስብዕና ባሕርያት መካከል ደኅንነትንና የሥራ እርካታን በጣም በጠንካራ ሁኔታ ይተነብያል፤ ከጭንቀትና ከድባቴ ጋርም በቅርበት ይያያዛል።[29][10][30]

ታማኝነት–ትሕትና (M/A) በብዙ ቋንቋዎች በተደረጉ የቃላት ጥናቶች የተገኘ ስድስተኛ ፋክተር ነው፤ ይህም የHEXACO ሞዴልን አስገኝቷል።[5] ሥነ ምግባራዊ ባሕርይን፣ ትብብርንና በሥራ ቦታ የሚታይ ተገቢ ያልሆነ ባሕርይን ከBig Five በላይ ይተነብያል።[13][14][6]

እያንዳንዱን ከስድስቱ ባሕርያት ከፍተኛና ዝቅተኛ ብለው ሲከፍሉ 2⁶ = 64 ዓይነቶች ያገኛሉ። ከእያንዳንዱ ፊደል ጀርባ የአሥርት ዓመታት ምርምር አለ።

3. የ“ዓይነቴ ተለወጠ” ችግርን መፍታት

በባለ አራት ፊደል ፈተናዎች ላይ የቆየ ትችት፣ ብዙ ሰዎች ፈተናውን ሲደግሙ የተለየ ዓይነት ማግኘታቸው ነው፦ ውጤቶች መሃል አካባቢ ስለሚሰበሰቡ ትንሽ መዋዠቅ ፊደሉን ይገለብጣል።[2] 64 Types ለእያንዳንዱ ባሕርይ ፐርሰንታይል ያሳያል፤ ከአማካይ በ10 ነጥቦች ውስጥ ያለውን ማንኛውንም ባሕርይ ድንበር ላይ ብሎ ይጠቁማል፤ ሊገኝ የሚችለውን አማራጭ ዓይነትም ያሳያል።

4. ጥያቄዎቹና የንጽጽር መመዘኛዎቹ

62ቱም ጥያቄዎች ከInternational Personality Item Pool (IPIP) የመጡ ናቸው፤ ይህ ለንግድ ጭምር ለማንኛውም ዓላማ ማንም ሊጠቀምበት የሚችል ለሕዝብ ክፍት የሆነ የዓረፍተ ነገሮች ስብስብ ነው፦ 50 የBig Five ፋክተር ጠቋሚዎች[3] እና ከIPIP-HEXACO የተወሰዱ 12 የታማኝነት–ትሕትና ዓረፍተ ነገሮች፣[4] ከአራቱ ንዑስ ገጽታዎቹ (ቅንነት፣ ፍትሐዊነት፣ ስግብግብነትን ማስወገድና ትሕትና) ከእያንዳንዳቸው ሦስት። እነዚህን 12 ዓረፍተ ነገሮች የመረጥነው በዓረፍተ ነገሩና በአጠቃላይ ውጤቱ መካከል ከፍተኛ ተዛምዶ ስላላቸው ነው።

ባሕርይዓረፍተ ነገሮችየንጽጽር Nአስተማማኝነት (α)አማካይ (1–5)SD
ተግባቢነት1019,7180.893.010.92
ክፍትነት / ምሁራዊነት1019,7180.793.910.63
ተባባሪነት1019,7180.833.850.71
ጥንቁቅነት1019,7180.813.350.73
ስሜታዊ መረጋጋት1019,7180.872.900.86
ታማኝነት–ትሕትና1222,7820.823.390.70

የንጽጽር ቡድኖች፦ የOpen Psychometrics ክፍት የመረጃ ስብስቦች፣ ፈተናውን በኢንተርኔት በፈቃደኝነት ከወሰዱ ሰዎች (የተሰበሰቡት 2012 አካባቢ፤ Big Five፦ N = 19,718፤ IPIP-HEXACO፦ N = 22,782)። የታማኝነት–ትሕትና መመዘኛዎች የተሰበሰቡት ባለ 7 ነጥብ መለኪያ ላይ ሲሆን በቀጥታ መስመራዊ ስሌት ወደ ባለ 5 ነጥብ መለኪያ ተቀይረዋል። የኢንተርኔት የፈቃደኛ ናሙናዎች ወጣቶችን (የመካከለኛ ዕድሜ ≈ 22) እና እንግሊዝኛ ተናጋሪዎችን ያበዛሉ። መመዘኛዎቹን በድረ-ገጹ ተጠቃሚዎች መረጃ እንደገና አስልተን ውጤቱን ለማሳተም አቅደናል።

5. ጥልቅ ሪፖርቱ (29 ንዑስ ባሕርያት)

አማራጩ ጥልቅ ፈተና ለሕዝብ ክፍት የሆነውን IPIP-NEO-120 ይጠቀማል፤ ይህም 30 የBig Five ንዑስ ባሕርያትን እያንዳንዱን በአራት ዓረፍተ ነገሮች ይለካል (Johnson, 2014, Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89)። የ“liberalism” ንዑስ ባሕርይን አስቀርተናል፤ ምክንያቱም ዓረፍተ ነገሮቹ ለሊበራል ወይም ለወግ አጥባቂ ዕጩ ድምፅ እንደሚሰጡ ይጠይቃሉ፤ ይህም ለአሜሪካ የተዘጋጀ የፖለቲካ ጥያቄ ነው። ፐርሰንታይሎቹ የተገኙት ከJohnson ክፍት የመረጃ ስብስብ (410,376 ሙሉ መልሶች) ሲሆን በውስጡ የንዑስ ባሕርያት አስተማማኝነት ከα = 0.66 እስከ 0.88 ነው። ንዑስ ባሕርያት ከስድስቱ ሰፋፊ ባሕርያት ያነሰ ትክክለኛነት ይለካሉ፤ ሪፖርቱም ይህን ይገልጻል።

ይፋዊው የIPIP ድረ-ገጽ የIPIP-NEO የአማርኛ ትርጉም አልዘረዘረም፤ ስለዚህ በነጻው ፈተና ውስጥ የሌሉትን 100 የጥልቅ ፈተና ዓረፍተ ነገሮች፣ ከእንግሊዝኛው ዓረፍተ ነገር ትርጉም በተቻለ መጠን ሳንርቅ፣ እኛው ራሳችን ተርጉመናቸዋል። በነጻው ፈተና ውስጥም ያሉት 16 ዓረፍተ ነገሮች እዚያ ያሉትን ተመሳሳይ የአማርኛ ቃላት ይጠቀማሉ።

ማሳሰቢያ፦ የጥልቅ ሪፖርቱ የንጽጽር መመዘኛዎች በእንግሊዝኛ ከመለሱ ሰዎች የመጡ ናቸው፤ የአማርኛዎቹ ዓረፍተ ነገሮችም በአማርኛ ተናጋሪዎች ላይ የተለየ መመዘኛ የላቸውም። ፐርሰንታይሎቹን እንደ ግምት ይውሰዷቸው። የውጤት አሰላሉ ከእንግሊዝኛው ቅጂ ጋር አንድ ነው።

6. ስለ አማርኛው ቅጂ

ይፋዊው የIPIP ድረ-ገጽ የነጻው ፈተና 62 ዓረፍተ ነገሮች የታተመ የአማርኛ ትርጉም የለውም፤ ስለዚህ ሁሉንም እኛው ራሳችን ተርጉመናቸዋል። እያንዳንዱን ዓረፍተ ነገር ከእንግሊዝኛው ትርጉም በተቻለ መጠን ሳንርቅ፣ በዕለት ተዕለት የጽሑፍ አማርኛ፣ በመጀመሪያ መደብ ሙሉ ዓረፍተ ነገር አድርገን ጽፈነዋል።

ማሳሰቢያ፦ የንጽጽር መመዘኛዎቹ በእንግሊዝኛ ከመለሱ ሰዎች የመጡ ናቸው። የጥያቄዎቹ የአማርኛ ቅጂ በአማርኛ ተናጋሪዎች ላይ የተለየ መመዘኛ የለውም፤ ትርጉማችንም እስካሁን በተለየ ጥናት አልተረጋገጠም፤ ትርጉምና የባሕል ልዩነቶችም መልሶችን በትንሹ ሊቀይሩ ይችላሉ። ስለዚህ ፐርሰንታይሎቹን እንደ ግምት ይውሰዷቸው። የውጤት አሰላሉ ከእንግሊዝኛው ቅጂ ጋር አንድ ነው።

7. ስለ ገደቦች በግልጽ

  • ራስን መግለጽ ራስዎን እንዴት እንደሚያዩ ያሳያል። የሕክምና መሣሪያ፣ የበሽታ ምርመራ ወይም የሠራተኛ መምረጫ ፈተና አይደለም።
  • ባሕርያት ስለታም ድንበር የሌላቸው ቀጣይ ናቸው። ዓይነቶች ማጠቃለያዎች ናቸው፤ አንድ ዓይነት ኮድ ያላቸው ሁለት ሰዎችም በጣም የተለያዩ ፐርሰንታይሎች ሊኖራቸው ይችላል።
  • በባሕርያትና በውጤቶች መካከል ያሉ ትስስሮች እውነተኛ ቢሆኑም መጠነኛ ናቸው (በተለምዶ r ≈ 0.10–0.30)። በድጋሚ ጥናቶች በሚገባ ይገኛሉ፤ ብዙውን ጊዜ ግን ከመጀመሪያዎቹ ህትመቶች ያነሰ ውጤት ይታያል።[37][34][38]
  • ስብዕና ይለወጣል። ሰዎች ዕድሜያቸው ሲጨምር በአብዛኛው ይበልጥ ጥንቁቅ፣ ይበልጥ ተባባሪና በስሜት ይበልጥ የተረጋጉ ይሆናሉ፤ ባሕርያት ሆን ተብሎ በሚደረግ ጥረት ወይም በሥነ ልቦና ሕክምናም ይለወጣሉ።[33][35][36]
  • የባለ አራት ፊደል ዓይነቶች ስሞች በባሕርያት ላይ ተመሥርተው በዚሁ ድረ-ገጽ የተጻፉ መግለጫዎች ናቸው። በምርምር ያልተደገፉትን “cognitive functions” አንጠቀምም፤ ስለ እነሱም ምንም አንልም።

ሁሉም ምንጮች

  1. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 57(1), 17–40.
  2. Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(3), 210–221.
  3. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42.
  4. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The IPIP–HEXACO scales: An alternative, public-domain measure of the personality constructs in the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(8), 1515–1526.
  5. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166.
  6. Zettler, I., Thielmann, I., Hilbig, B. E., & Moshagen, M. (2020). The nomological net of the HEXACO model of personality: A large-scale meta-analytic investigation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 723–760.
  7. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(7), 1571–1582.
  8. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.
  9. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.
  10. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.
  11. Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(2), 390–407.
  12. Larson, L. M., Rottinghaus, P. J., & Borgen, F. H. (2002). Meta-analyses of Big Six interests and Big Five personality factors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(2), 217–239.
  13. Pletzer, J. L., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J. K., & de Vries, R. E. (2019). A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369–383.
  14. Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(1), 30–90.
  15. Zhao, H., & Seibert, S. E. (2006). The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 259–271.
  16. Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24(6), 1024–1030.
  17. Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.
  18. Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338.
  19. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.
  20. Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 124–127.
  21. Dyrenforth, P. S., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2010). Predicting relationship and life satisfaction from personality in nationally representative samples from three countries: The relative importance of actor, partner, and similarity effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 690–702.
  22. Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, method, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3–34.
  23. Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behaviour across 10 world regions: Differential personality associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship infidelity. European Journal of Personality, 18(4), 301–319.
  24. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362.
  25. Selfhout, M., Burk, W., Branje, S., Denissen, J., van Aken, M., & Meeus, W. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78(2), 509–538.
  26. Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2016). On friendship development and the Big Five personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(11), 647–667.
  27. Lucas, R. E., & Fujita, F. (2000). Factors influencing the relation between extraversion and pleasant affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 1039–1056.
  28. Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as "good" as being extraverted? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1409–1422.
  29. Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161.
  30. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking "big" personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768–821.
  31. Kern, M. L., & Friedman, H. S. (2008). Do conscientious individuals live longer? A quantitative review. Health Psychology, 27(5), 505–512.
  32. Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887–919.
  33. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1–25.
  34. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.
  35. Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141.
  36. Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(3), 490–507.
  37. Soto, C. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The Life Outcomes of Personality Replication Project. Psychological Science, 30(5), 711–727.
  38. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.
  39. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The Big Five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621–652.
  40. Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.
  41. Wilmot, M. P., & Ones, D. S. (2019). A century of research on conscientiousness at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(46), 23004–23010.
  42. Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). The long reach of one’s spouse: Spouses’ personality influences occupational success. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2189–2198.
  43. Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 27–40.
  44. Asendorpf, J. B., & Wilpers, S. (1998). Personality effects on social relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1531–1544.
  45. Connor-Smith, J. K., & Flachsbart, C. (2007). Relations between personality and coping: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 1080–1107.
  46. Stieger, M., Flückiger, C., Rüegger, D., Kowatsch, T., Roberts, B. W., & Allemand, M. (2021). Changing personality traits with the help of a digital personality change intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(8), e2017548118.
  47. Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.