Fara gwajin
Menu
Ku yi gwajin kyauta
Harshe

Shin za a iya faɗaɗa nau’o’in hali 16 zuwa 64?

Ee. Kuma idan aka yi faɗaɗawar ta hanyar da ta dace, tana warware babbar matsalar kimiyya ta gwaje-gwajen nau’i masu haruffa huɗu.

1. Abin da haruffa huɗu suke auna da gaske

Lokacin da masu bincike suka ba mutane ɗaya MBTI da takardar tambayoyin Big Five, ma’aunai huɗu na MBTI sun yi daidai da sifofi huɗu na Big Five: E/I da son jama’a, S/N da buɗaɗɗen tunani (duka da ƙarfi), T/F da sauƙin kai, J/P da ƙwazo (duka a matsakaici). Sifa ta biyar ta Big Five, saurin damuwa (neuroticism, kishiyar natsuwar zuciya), ba ta da wani abu da ya yi daidai da ita a MBTI. [1] Ma’ana, nau’o’i 16 rabuwa ce mai faɗi ta sifofi huɗu na gaske, kuma suna rasa wata muhimmiyar sifa ɗaya.

2. Haruffa biyu da aka rasa

Natsuwar zuciya (C/R) tana daga cikin sifofin da ake iya aunawa masu tasiri mafi girma: daga cikin sifofin hali, ita ce mai hasashe mafi ƙarfi na walwala da gamsuwa da aiki, kuma tana da alaƙa mai ƙarfi da fargaba da baƙin ciki mai tsanani. [29][10][30]

Gaskiya da tawali’u (M/A) ɓangare na shida ne da ya bayyana a binciken kalmomin harsuna da yawa; daga gare shi aka samar da tsarin HEXACO. [5] Yana hasashen ɗabi’a ta gari, haɗin kai da halaye marasa kyau a wurin aiki fiye da Big Five. [13][14][6]

Idan aka raba kowace daga cikin sifofi shida zuwa sama da ƙasa, ana samun nau’o’i 2⁶ = 64. A bayan kowane harafi akwai shekaru da dama na bincike.

3. Matsalar “nau’ina ya canza”

Sukar da aka saba yi wa gwaje-gwajen haruffa huɗu ita ce mutane da yawa suna samun nau’i dabam idan suka sake gwajin: maki suna taruwa a tsakiya, kuma ƙananan sauye-sauye suna juya harafi. [2] 64 Types yana nuna percentile na kowace sifa, yana yi wa kowace sifa da take ƙasa da maki 10 daga matsakaici alamar kan iyaka, kuma yana nuna nau’in madadin da zai iya fitowa.

4. Kalamai da ma’aunan kwatanci

Tambayoyi 62 sun fito ne daga International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), tarin kalamai na jama’a da kowa zai iya amfani da su don kowace manufa, har da ta kasuwanci: alamomi 50 na Big Five [3] da kalamai 12 na gaskiya da tawali’u daga IPIP-HEXACO [4], uku daga kowanne cikin ɓangarorinsa huɗu (gaskiya, adalci, guje wa kwaɗayi da tawali’u). Mun zaɓi waɗannan kalamai 12 ne bisa alaƙa mafi girma tsakanin kalami da ma’auni.

SifaKalamaiN na kwatanciAmincin awo (α)Matsakaici (1–5)SD
Son jama’a1019,7180.893.010.92
Buɗaɗɗen tunani1019,7180.793.910.63
Sauƙin kai1019,7180.833.850.71
Ƙwazo1019,7180.813.350.73
Natsuwar zuciya1019,7180.872.900.86
Gaskiya da tawali’u1222,7820.823.390.70

Rukunonin kwatanci: buɗaɗɗun bayanai na Open Psychometrics, daga mutanen da suka yi gwajin ta intanet bisa radin kansu (an tattara su kusan 2012; Big Five: N = 19,718; IPIP-HEXACO: N = 22,782). An tattara ma’aunan gaskiya da tawali’u a kan ma’auni mai maki 7 kuma aka mayar da su a layi zuwa ma’auni mai maki 5. Samfurorin intanet na masu sa kai suna da matasa da masu jin Turanci fiye da kima (tsakiyar shekaru ≈ 22). Muna shirin sake lissafa ma’aunan kwatanci da bayanan masu amfani da shafin kuma mu wallafa sakamakon.

5. Rahoto Mai Zurfi (ɓangarori 29)

Gwaji mai zurfi na zaɓi yana amfani da IPIP-NEO-120 na jama’a, wanda yake auna ɓangarori 30 na Big Five, kowanne da kalamai huɗu (Johnson, 2014, Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89). Mun cire ɓangaren “liberalism”, saboda kalamansa suna tambaya ko kuna zaɓar ɗan takara mai sassaucin ra’ayi ko mai ra’ayin mazan jiya, tambayar siyasa da aka tsara don Amurka. Percentile sun fito ne daga buɗaɗɗun bayanan Johnson (cikakkun amsoshi 410,376), inda amincin awon ɓangarori yake tsakanin α = 0.66 da 0.88. Ana auna ɓangarori da ƙarancin daidaito fiye da sifofi shida masu faɗi, kuma rahoton ya faɗi haka.

Shafin IPIP na hukuma ba shi da fassarar Hausa ta IPIP-NEO a jerinsa, don haka mu da kanmu muka fassara kalamai 100 na gwaji mai zurfi waɗanda ba sa cikin gwajin kyauta, kusa da ma’anar kalamin Turanci gwargwadon iko. Kalamai 16 da suke cikin gwajin kyauta ma suna da kalaman Hausa iri ɗaya da na can.

Lura: ma’aunan kwatanci na Rahoto Mai Zurfi sun fito ne daga mutanen da suka amsa da Turanci, kuma kalaman Hausa ba su da nasu ma’aunan dabam ga masu jin Hausa. Ku ɗauki percentile a matsayin ƙiyasi. Lissafin daidai yake da na sigar Turanci.

6. Game da sigar Hausa

Shafin IPIP na hukuma ba shi da fassarar Hausa da aka wallafa ta kalamai 62 na gwajin kyauta, don haka mu da kanmu muka fassara dukkansu. Mun rubuta kowane kalami a matsayin cikakkiyar jumla ta mutum na farko, da daidaitacciyar Hausa ta yau da kullum, kusa da ma’anar kalamin Turanci gwargwadon iko.

Lura: ma’aunan kwatanci sun fito ne daga mutanen da suka amsa da Turanci. Sigar Hausa ta tambayoyin ba ta da nata ma’aunan dabam ga masu jin Hausa, ba a riga an tabbatar da fassararmu a wani bincike dabam ba, kuma fassara da bambance-bambancen al’ada za su iya sauya amsoshi kaɗan. Don haka ku ɗauki percentile a matsayin ƙiyasi. Lissafin daidai yake da na sigar Turanci.

7. Gaskiya game da iyakoki

  • Cike gwaji da kai yana nuna yadda kuke ganin kanku. Ba kayan aikin asibiti ba ne, ba gano cuta ba ne, kuma ba gwajin zaɓar ma’aikata ba ne.
  • Sifofi suna ci gaba ba tare da iyakoki masu kaifi ba. Nau’i taƙaitaccen bayani ne, kuma mutane biyu masu lamba ɗaya za su iya samun percentile masu bambanci sosai.
  • Alaƙar da ke tsakanin sifofi da sakamako gaskiya ce amma matsakaiciya ce (yawanci r ≈ 0.10–0.30). Ana maimaita ta da kyau a bincike, amma sau da yawa da tasiri ƙarami fiye da na wallafe-wallafen farko. [37][34][38]
  • Hali yana canzawa. Yayin da mutane suke ƙara shekaru, yawanci suna ƙara ƙwazo, sauƙin kai da natsuwar zuciya, kuma sifofi suna canzawa ma ta ƙoƙari na da gangan ko jinyar tunani. [33][35][36]
  • Sunayen nau’o’in haruffa huɗu bayani ne na shafin kansa bisa sifofi. Ba mu amfani da “cognitive functions”, waɗanda ba su da goyon bayan bincike, kuma ba mu da’awar komai game da su.

Dukkan majiyoyi

  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.