Anza jaribio
Menyu
Fanya jaribio la bure
Lugha

Je, aina 16 za haiba zinaweza kupanuliwa hadi 64?

Ndiyo. Na upanuzi ukifanywa kwa njia sahihi, unatatua pia tatizo kuu la kisayansi la majaribio ya aina ya herufi nne.

1. Herufi nne zinapima nini hasa

Watafiti walipowapa watu wale wale MBTI na dodoso la Big Five, vipimo vinne vya MBTI vililingana na sifa nne za Big Five: E/I na uchangamfu wa kijamii na S/N na uwazi (zote kwa nguvu), T/F na upole na J/P na uwajibikaji (zote kwa wastani). Sifa ya tano ya Big Five, neuroticism (upande wa pili wa utulivu wa kihisia), haina kinachoilingana katika MBTI. [1] Kwa maneno mengine, aina 16 ni mgawanyo wa jumla wa sifa nne halisi, na zinakosa sifa moja muhimu.

2. Herufi mbili zilizokosekana

Utulivu wa kihisia (C/R) ni mojawapo ya sifa zinazopimika zenye athari kubwa zaidi: miongoni mwa sifa za haiba, ndio kitabiri chenye nguvu zaidi cha ustawi na kuridhika kazini, na unahusiana kwa nguvu na wasiwasi na sonona. [29][10][30]

Uaminifu–unyenyekevu (M/A) ni kipengele cha sita kilichojitokeza katika tafiti za kileksika katika lugha nyingi; kutokana nacho modeli ya HEXACO iliundwa. [5] Hutabiri tabia ya kimaadili, ushirikiano na tabia mbaya kazini zaidi ya Big Five. [13][14][6]

Ukigawa kila moja ya sifa sita katika juu na chini, unapata aina 2⁶ = 64. Nyuma ya kila herufi kuna miongo ya utafiti.

3. Tatizo la “aina yangu ilibadilika”

Ukosoaji wa kawaida wa majaribio ya herufi nne ni kwamba watu wengi hupata aina tofauti wanaporudia jaribio: alama hukusanyika katikati, na mabadiliko madogo hugeuza herufi. [2] 64 Types inaonyesha percentile kwa kila sifa, inaweka alama ya mpakani kwa kila sifa iliyo chini ya pointi 10 kutoka wastani, na inaonyesha aina mbadala ambayo huenda ikatokea.

4. Kauli na viwango vya ulinganisho

Maswali 62 yanatoka International Personality Item Pool (IPIP), mkusanyiko wa kauli za uwanja wa umma ambazo mtu yeyote anaweza kutumia kwa madhumuni yoyote, yakiwemo ya kibiashara: viashiria 50 vya Big Five [3] na kauli 12 za uaminifu–unyenyekevu kutoka IPIP-HEXACO [4], tatu kutoka kila kimoja cha vipengele vyake vinne (ukweli, haki, kuepuka tamaa ya mali na unyenyekevu). Tulichagua kauli hizo 12 kwa uwiano wa juu zaidi kati ya kauli na kipimo.

SifaKauliN ya ulinganishoUthabiti (α)Wastani (1–5)SD
Uchangamfu wa kijamii1019,7180.893.010.92
Uwazi / Akili1019,7180.793.910.63
Upole1019,7180.833.850.71
Uwajibikaji1019,7180.813.350.73
Utulivu wa kihisia1019,7180.872.900.86
Uaminifu–unyenyekevu1222,7820.823.390.70

Makundi ya ulinganisho: seti za data zilizo wazi za Open Psychometrics, kutoka kwa watu waliofanya jaribio mtandaoni kwa hiari (zilikusanywa karibu 2012; Big Five: N = 19,718; IPIP-HEXACO: N = 22,782). Viwango vya uaminifu–unyenyekevu vilikusanywa kwa kipimo cha alama 7 na kubadilishwa kwa mstari kuwa kipimo cha alama 5. Sampuli za mtandaoni za watu wa kujitolea zina vijana wengi zaidi (umri wa kati ≈ 22) na wanaozungumza Kiingereza. Tunapanga kukokotoa upya viwango vya ulinganisho kwa data ya watumiaji wa tovuti na kuchapisha matokeo.

5. Ripoti ya Kina (vipengele 29)

Jaribio la kina la hiari linatumia IPIP-NEO-120 ya uwanja wa umma, inayopima vipengele 30 vya Big Five, kila kimoja kwa kauli nne (Johnson, 2014, Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 78–89). Tuliondoa kipengele cha “liberalism”, kwa sababu kauli zake zinauliza kama unampigia kura mgombea wa kiliberali au wa kihafidhina, swali la kisiasa lililoundwa kwa ajili ya Marekani. Percentile zinatokana na seti ya data iliyo wazi ya Johnson (majibu kamili 410,376), ambamo uthabiti wa vipengele ni kati ya α = 0.66 na 0.88. Vipengele hupimwa kwa usahihi mdogo kuliko sifa sita pana, na ripoti inalisema hilo.

Tovuti rasmi ya IPIP haina tafsiri ya Kiswahili ya IPIP-NEO iliyoorodheshwa, kwa hiyo tulitafsiri sisi wenyewe kauli 100 za jaribio la kina ambazo hazimo katika jaribio la bure, karibu iwezekanavyo na maana ya kauli ya Kiingereza. Kauli 16 zilizo pia katika jaribio la bure zina maneno yale yale ya Kiswahili kama huko.

Kumbuka: viwango vya ulinganisho vya Ripoti ya Kina vinatoka kwa watu waliojibu kwa Kiingereza, na kauli za Kiswahili hazina viwango vyake tofauti kwa wazungumzaji wa Kiswahili. Chukulia percentile kama makadirio. Ukokotoaji ni sawa na wa toleo la Kiingereza.

6. Kuhusu toleo la Kiswahili

Tovuti rasmi ya IPIP haina tafsiri ya Kiswahili iliyochapishwa ya kauli 62 za jaribio la bure, kwa hiyo tulizitafsiri zote sisi wenyewe. Tuliandika kila kauli kama sentensi kamili ya nafsi ya kwanza, kwa Kiswahili sanifu cha kila siku, karibu iwezekanavyo na maana ya kauli ya Kiingereza.

Kumbuka: viwango vya ulinganisho vinatoka kwa watu waliojibu kwa Kiingereza. Toleo la Kiswahili la maswali halina viwango vyake tofauti kwa wazungumzaji wa Kiswahili, tafsiri yetu bado haijathibitishwa katika utafiti tofauti, na tafsiri pamoja na tofauti za kitamaduni zinaweza kubadilisha majibu kidogo. Kwa hiyo chukulia percentile kama makadirio. Ukokotoaji ni sawa na wa toleo la Kiingereza.

7. Ukweli kuhusu mipaka

  • Kujijazia mwenyewe kunaonyesha jinsi unavyojiona. Si chombo cha kitabibu, utambuzi wa ugonjwa wala kipimo cha kuchagua wafanyakazi.
  • Sifa zinaendelea bila mipaka mikali. Aina ni muhtasari, na watu wawili wenye msimbo mmoja wanaweza kuwa na percentile tofauti sana.
  • Uhusiano kati ya sifa na matokeo ni halisi lakini wa wastani (kwa kawaida r ≈ 0.10–0.30). Unarudiwa vizuri katika tafiti, lakini mara nyingi kwa athari ndogo kuliko katika machapisho ya awali. [37][34][38]
  • Haiba hubadilika. Kadiri watu wanavyozeeka, kwa kawaida huwa na uwajibikaji zaidi, upole zaidi na utulivu zaidi wa kihisia, na sifa hubadilika pia kwa juhudi za makusudi au tiba ya kisaikolojia. [33][35][36]
  • Majina ya aina za herufi nne ni maelezo ya tovuti yenyewe kulingana na sifa. Hatutumii “cognitive functions”, ambazo hazina msaada wa kitafiti, na hatudai chochote kuzihusu.

Vyanzo vyote

  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.