Editing Personality test (section)

==Criticism and controversy==

===Personality versus social factors===
{{more citations needed|date=March 2015}}
In the 1960s and 1970s some psychologists dismissed the whole idea of personality, considering much behaviour to be context-specific.<ref name="Doll1953">{{cite book |last=Doll |first=Edgar Arnold |url=https://archive.org/details/measurementofsoc00doll |title=The measurement of social competence: a manual for the Vineland social maturity scale |publisher=Educational Test Bureau, Educational Publishers |year=1953 |doi=10.1037/11349-000 |url-access=registration}} archived at [https://archive.org/details/measurementofsoc1953doll]</ref> This idea was supported by the fact that personality often does not predict behaviour in specific contexts. However, more extensive research has shown that when behaviour is aggregated across contexts, that personality can be a mostly good predictor of behaviour. Almost all psychologists now acknowledge that both social and individual difference factors (i.e., personality) influence behaviour. The debate is currently more around the relative importance of each of these factors and how these factors interact.

===Respondent faking===
{{more citations needed|date=May 2014}}
One problem with self-report measures of personality is that respondents are often able to distort their responses.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Arendasy|first=M. |author2=Sommer, Herle |author3=Schutzhofer, Inwanschitz|title=Modeling effects of faking on an objective personality test.|journal=Journal of Individual Differences|year=2011|volume=32|issue=4|pages=210–218|doi=10.1027/1614-0001/a000053}}</ref> Intentional faking is when responses are distorted in order to gain a benefit. There are two main types of faking: faking-good presenting a better self image and faking-bad presenting a worse self image.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Martínez |first1=Alexandra |last2=Salgado |first2=Jesús F. |date=2021-09-29 |title=A Meta-Analysis of the Faking Resistance of Forced-Choice Personality Inventories |journal=Frontiers in Psychology |language=English |volume=12 |doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732241 |doi-access=free |pmid=34659043 |pmc=8511514 |issn=1664-1078}}</ref>

Several meta-analyses show that people are able to substantially change their scores on personality tests when such tests are taken under high-stakes conditions, such as part of a job selection procedure.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hu |first1=Jing |last2=Connelly |first2=Brian S. |date=December 2021 |title=Faking by actual applicants on personality tests: A meta-analysis of within-subjects studies |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijsa.12338 |journal=International Journal of Selection and Assessment |language=en |volume=29 |issue=3–4 |pages=412–426 |doi=10.1111/ijsa.12338 |s2cid=237756660 |issn=0965-075X|url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Sarah A. |last2=Double |first2=Kit S. |last3=Birney |first3=Damian P. |last4=MacCann |first4=Carolyn |date=2022-07-01 |title=How much can people fake on the dark triad? A meta-analysis and systematic review of instructed faking |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692200126X |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |language=en |volume=193 |pages=111622 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2022.111622 |s2cid=247722972 |issn=0191-8869|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Work in experimental settings<ref>(e.g., Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999; Martin, Bowen & Hunt, 2002)</ref> has also shown that when student samples have been asked to deliberately fake on a personality test, they clearly demonstrated that they are capable of doing so.
In 2007 over 5000 job applicants who completed the same personality test twice after a six month gap, found that their results showed no significant differences, potentially indicating that people may not significantly distort their responses.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hogan|first=Joyce|title=Personality Measurement, Faking, and Employment Selection|journal=The Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=92|issue=5|pages=1270–85|url=http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf|publisher=American Psychological Association|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605085027/http://filebox.vt.edu/r/rammu/Research%20Methods%20Articles/Hogan.pdf|archive-date=2013-06-05|pmid=17845085|year=2007|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1270}}</ref>

Several strategies have been adopted for reducing and detecting respondent faking. Researchers are looking at the timing of responses on electronically administered tests to assess faking. Brief simple syntax tends to show longer response times in faked responses than in comparison to truthful responses; longer, more complex, and negative phrasing does not show differences in timing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Monaro |first1=Merylin |last2=Mazza |first2=Cristina |last3=Colasanti |first3=Marco |last4=Ferracuti |first4=Stefano |last5=Orrù |first5=Graziella |last6=di Domenico |first6=Alberto |last7=Sartori |first7=Giuseppe |last8=Roma |first8=Paolo |date=2021-11-01 |title=Detecting faking-good response style in personality questionnaires with four choice alternatives |journal=Psychological Research |language=en |volume=85 |issue=8 |pages=3094–3107 |doi=10.1007/s00426-020-01473-3 |issn=1430-2772 |pmc=8476468 |pmid=33452928}}</ref> One strategy involves providing a warning on the test that methods exist for detecting faking and that detection will result in negative consequences for the respondent (e.g., not being considered for the job). Forced choice ([[ipsative]] testing) has three formats: PICK (selecting a best fitting statement), MOLE (selecting a most and least fitting statement), and RANK (a most to least alike ranking), the effectiveness of using forced choice to prevent faking is inconclusive. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Cao |first1=Mengyang |last2=Drasgow |first2=Fritz |date=November 2019 |title=Does forcing reduce faking? A meta-analytic review of forced-choice personality measures in high-stakes situations. |url=https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/apl0000414 |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |language=en |volume=104 |issue=11 |pages=1347–1368 |doi=10.1037/apl0000414 |pmid=31070382 |issn=1939-1854|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

More recently, [[Item Response Theory]] approaches have been adopted with some success in identifying item response profiles that flag fakers. While people can fake in practice they seldom do so to any significant level. To successfully fake means knowing what the ideal answer would be. Even with something as simple as assertiveness people who are unassertive and try to appear assertive often endorse the wrong items. This is because unassertive people confuse assertion with aggression, anger, oppositional behavior, etc.

===Psychological research===
Research on the importance of personality and intelligence in education shows evidence that when others provide the personality rating, rather than providing a self-rating, the outcome is nearly four times more accurate for predicting grades.<ref>{{Cite journal|title = Other-rated personality and academic performance: Evidence and implications|url = https://zenodo.org/record/1043498 |journal = Learning and Individual Differences|date = 2014-08-01|pages = 24–32|volume = 34|doi = 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.05.013|first = Arthur E.|last = Poropat}}</ref>

===Additional applications===
The [[Myers–Briggs Type Indicator|MBTI]] questionnaire is a popular tool for people to use as part of self-examination or to find a shorthand to describe how they relate to others in society. It is well known from its widespread adoption in hiring practices, but popular among individuals for its focus exclusively on positive traits and "types" with memorable names. Some users of the questionnaire self-identify by their personality type on social media and dating profiles.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2021-08-30|title=What personality are you? How the Myers-Briggs test took over the world|url=http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/aug/30/myers-briggs-test-history-personality-types|access-date=2021-12-17 |work=The Guardian|language=en}}</ref> Due to the publisher's strict copyright enforcement, many assessments come from free websites which provide modified tests based on the framework.<ref name=":1"/>

Unscientific personality type quizzes are also a common form of [[entertainment]]. In particular [[BuzzFeed|Buzzfeed]] became well known for publishing user-created quizzes, with personality-style tests often based on deciding which [[Popular culture|pop culture]] character or celebrity the user most resembles.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Zhang |first=Jenny G. |date=2019-01-29 |title=BuzzFeed's Unpaid 19-Year-Old Quiz Genius on Her Tricks, the Layoffs, and Jonah Peretti |url=https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/01/buzzfeed-unpaid-quiz-genius-rachel-mcmahon-layoffs-working-for-free.html |access-date=2021-12-17 |magazine=Slate Magazine |language=en}}</ref>

Personality test have also been used as a from of aptitude test in workplace or school environments. A test covering 15 personality types, including the "Big-5" personality traits, was used in a study to see if there is correlation between pilots personality scores and success in the aviation field. The results showed correlation between high scores in conscientiousness and self-confidence but low levels of neuroticism had higher passing scores on aviation tests. However, personality test are not a true science and cannot accurately predict the "ideal pilot."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Breuer |first1=Sonja |last2=Ortner |first2=Tuulia M. |last3=Gruber |first3=Freya M. |last4=Hofstetter |first4=Daniel |last5=Scherndl |first5=Thomas |date=2023-02-01 |title=Aviation and personality: Do measures of personality predict pilot training success? Updated meta-analyses |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0191886922004238 |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |volume=202 |pages=111918 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2022.111918 |issn=0191-8869|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Personality tests are also being adapted to be used on livestock. They are looking to see if the animals are bold, fearful or fearless, and how they interact with other livestock. These test are designed to predict a wide variety of things and how well they will do on the farm. For example, with chickens the test can predict whether they will vocalize their fear. These test can help farmers improve the well-being and productivity of their animals. <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Woodrum Setser |first=Megan M. |last2=Neave |first2=Heather W. |last3=Costa |first3=Joao H.C. |date=November 2023 |title=The history, implementation, and application of personality tests in livestock animals and their links to performance |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106081 |journal=Applied Animal Behaviour Science |volume=268 |pages=106081 |doi=10.1016/j.applanim.2023.106081 |issn=0168-1591}}</ref> 

===Dangers===
There is an issue of privacy to be of concern forcing applicants to reveal private thoughts and feelings through his or her responses that seem to become a condition for employment. Another danger is the illegal discrimination of certain groups under the guise of a personality test.<ref name="Stabile">{{cite journal |last=Stabile|first=Susan J.|title=The Use of Personality Tests as a Hiring Tool: Is the Benefit Worth the Cost? |journal=University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law |volume=4 |issue=2 |year=2002 |pages=279–313 |url=https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume4/issue2/Stabile4U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.279(2002).pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100214233150/https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume4/issue2/Stabile4U.Pa.J.Lab.&Emp.L.279(2002).pdf |archive-date=2010-02-14}}</ref>

In addition to the risks of personality test results being used outside of an appropriate context, they can give inaccurate results when conducted incorrectly. In particular, [[ipsative]] personality tests are often misused in recruitment and selection, where they are mistakenly treated as if they were [[Norm-referenced test|normative]] measures.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Blinkhorn | first1 = S. | last2 = Johnson | first2 = C. | last3 = Wood | first3 = R. | year = 1988 | title = Spuriouser and spuriouser:The use of ipsative personality tests | journal = Journal of Occupational Psychology | volume = 61 | issue = 2| pages = 153–162 | doi = 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1988.tb00279.x }}</ref>