personality test assignment

How Was the Myers-Briggs Assessment Test Developed?

What is the myers-briggs personality test used for, myers-briggs personality test results overview, myers-briggs personality test - the sixteen personality types, validity of the mbti, where can i take the mbti, the myers-briggs assessment test (2024 guide).

Updated November 18, 2023

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a self-assessment questionnaire designed to help define personality types.

It was developed by Isabel Briggs-Myers and her mother Katherine Briggs during World War Two to help place women into employment while men were fighting. The test was based on Carl Jung's theory of personality types, to help women to find roles that were best suited to their strengths and weaknesses.

The Myers-Briggs model took Jung’s archetypal personality descriptions and expanded on them, creating a usable methodology that could reliably assess each test-taker and place them in one of 16 personality brackets.

Jung’s personality theory was based on the four major archetypes; the persona (how we present to the world), the shadow (our repressed ideas and weaknesses); the anima/animus (or masculine/feminine features); and the self (unified conscious and unconscious).

From these major archetypes, there are many 'lesser' archetypes based around a higher focus on one or another, such as the caregiver, the ruler, the rebel, the jester, the hero, and the lover – and Jung said these can be found universally in the collective unconscious.

The model assigns personality traits based on the answers to ‘either/or' questions and each of the sixteen possible results is designated with a 4-letter acronym.

The MBTI is used to assess personality and understand the way that seemingly random variations in behavior are actually quite orderly and consistent. It is not designed to be a screening test for employment or as a decision-making tool in considering an employee for promotion, but rather a tool for self-assessment.

The MBTI results help you to explore and understand your strengths and weaknesses, what your likes and dislikes are and your compatibility with other people. It can help you to understand how others view you and what career paths might be most suited to your talents.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator does not value one type above another; no traits are considered better or worse than others, but it can help you realize what your shortcomings may be so that you can work on self-improvement.

The test is based on four different scales of personality based on how view the world, how you make decisions and how you deal with the world. It also looks at whether you prefer your inner world or the outside world.

Extraversion/Introversion (E/I)

Extraverts tend to be focused outward, enjoying frequent social interaction and are generally energized when they spend time interacting with other people. They are usually action-oriented rather than thought-oriented.

Introverts are inward-turning, and although they may be considered anti-social, it is more that they prefer deep and meaningful social interactions. Introverts are generally recharged when they spend time alone and tend to be thought-oriented.

Although people will have both extroverted and introverted reactions to different situations, you will likely prefer type one over the other.

Sensing/Intuition (S/N)

This part of the assessment describes how you take information from the world.

Those who are considered 'Sensing' take information from their senses and try to mostly base their information on external factors, facts and hands-on experience.

For the Intuitive personality, imagination, abstract theories and possibilities color their experiences and they tend to look for patterns and thoughts in it instead.

Practice Mayers-Briggs Test with JobTestPrep

Thinking/Feeling (T/F)

How you make decisions based on the information that you are given depends on whether you mostly use logic or emotion.

People who use objective data and facts to make decisions can be considered Thinkers. They are often impersonal but consistent and logical.

Those who are more Feeling in their decision-making are more likely to consider the emotions of themselves and other people.

If you need to prepare for a number of different employment tests and want to outsmart the competition, choose a Premium Membership from JobTestPrep . You will get access to three PrepPacks of your choice, from a database that covers all the major test providers and employers and tailored profession packs.

Get a Premium Package Now

Judging/Perceiving (J/P)

This is about how you deal with the outside world. In this context, Judging does not mean ‘judgmental’.

If you prefer structure, firm decisions, routine and traditions you are likely to score higher for Judging.

People view high Judging scorers as being task-orientated and wanting to finish work before relaxing. Whereas those who are more flexible, open and adaptable are more Perceiving and tend to take longer to make decisions as they are always looking for more information about a situation. They may miss deadlines as they take a long time to finalize projects.

What Is the Myers-Briggs Personality Test Format?

In the official MBTI test, there is no time limit, and you have to answer 93 questions in the North American version and 88 in the European English version. These questions are described as 'forced-choice' – to answer, you must select one of two possibilities and cannot say “no preference”.

The answers are a mixture of word pairs and short statements that are related to each of the four scales; while they may not be literal opposites, they represent either side. If you really cannot choose, you can skip questions, although this will mean there are fewer data to derive your personality type from.

Once the test is complete, you will be presented with your type and some detailed information about what that actually means for you. One piece of this detailed information is called the Preference Clarity Index and indicates how clearly you fall to one side or another in the pairings.

Example Questions:

Choose the statement that best describes you:

a) I am the life of the party b) I prefer small gatherings

a) I think of the future b) I stay in the present

a) I dream of tangible things b) I dream of abstract things

Myers-Briggs Practice Test

Here are thumbnail sketches of the 16 personality types. For each, career options are suggested to best suit the personality's typical traits.

But keep in mind that these are not hard-coded in you – no particular personality type is always and completely the best or worst at any particular job or career. These are suggestions to make the most of the personality’s strengths.

• Prefers own company (I)
• Fact/detail-oriented (S)
• Decisions based on logic/reason (T)
• Structured/Prepared (J)

The ISTJ personality is hardworking and dependable, with excellent time management and an eye for detail. They are reliable and committed but can be stubborn and inflexible and not interested in feelings.

Great careers for the ISTJ personality revolve around accuracy, order, and facts, like engineering, finance, and technology.

• Decisions based on emotions/feelings (F)

ISFJs are natural caregivers as they are supportive and practical. Organized, methodical, dependable and reliable, they offer emotional intelligence and resourcefulness. They can take on too much responsibility, take things too personally and spend too much energy on other people to care for themselves.

Careers that offer structure and stability while allowing the ISFJ to be warm and caring are most appropriate, such as nursing, office management and bookkeeping.

• Pattern/possibility oriented (N)
• Decisions based on facts/data (T)

INTJs combine creativity with logical reasoning. They are intelligent and ambitious introverts, who come across as self-confident and independent. INTJs can struggle to connect with emotions and can be overly critical of others, overthinking and avoiding small talk.

Careers for the INTJ personality are ideal in science, technology and engineering; for example, in accounting, law and computer programming.

• Flexible/Adaptable (P)

The ISTP personality wants to know how something works and loves problem-solving. They are calm, efficient and pragmatic with great common sense and practicality. ISTP personalities may be considered insensitive because of their directness and distance from other’s emotions.

In terms of career options, roles that involve solving problems and hands-on engineering are good, like construction or an electrician.

• Flexible/adaptable (P)

Spontaneous and artistic, the ISFP is curious and fun-loving but also empathetic and loyal. They are naturally observant, picking up on details. They do not enjoy conflict and can be sensitive. They can get bored easily and act unpredictably.

Career choices that are more suitable for the ISFP include being an artist, chef or nurse – anything where they can be hands-on in a fast-paced environment and be organized while developing human connections.

The imaginative and idealistic INFP is spontaneous in action and looks for a compromise to minimize conflict. They are dedicated and work with integrity. Sometimes the INFP’s idealism can become impractical, and they can be too selfless when compromising, developing resentment inside because they cannot stand up for their own needs.

A career that offers moral purpose without unnecessary bureaucracy, such as an artist, professor or psychologist, suits the personality of the INFP.

Creative and inventive, the INTP is an enthusiastic and liberal worker. An analytical thinker, the INTP can develop unique views. They can come across as condescending and intolerant to those who do not hold their views and can also be absent-minded when it comes to the finer details.

Careers that focus on creativity while using that analytical focus, like engineering, computer programming and law, are suited for the INTP.

• Prefer the company of others (E)

Sociable and logical, the passionate ESTP personality does not like structure or routine. In contrast, they thrive on working hard and being adventurous. They tend to be practical, perceptive natural leaders. However, they can push boundaries too far and find it difficult to stay focused, often failing to plan in the thrill of doing.

Careers that offer a challenge and create a tangible result are good for ESTP personalities. They could be entrepreneurs, actors and even detectives.

• Decisions based on feelings/emotions (F)

ESFP personalities are sociable with lots of friends because they are emotionally observant. They have strong people skills but are also practical problem solvers with a creative outlook. Although they are motivated by new experiences, they are poor forward planners and can lack focus. They are not well-suited to conflict and are susceptible to criticism.

A career that is service-oriented like hospitality or sales is great for an ESFP, or a role like a party coordinator, fashion designer or educational experience facilitator.

ENFPs are excellent communicators, making them natural managers. They are outgoing and creative with a strong social conscience, but they can lack follow-through and discipline. They are keen for approval and can be oversensitive, reading too much into the behavior of others.

A career that combines challenge with a less rigid structure such as a brand manager, salesperson or designer is perfect.

• Decisions based on facts/details (T)

The ENTP personality is innovative and curious, questioning everything. Charismatic and confident, they are great at thinking beyond classical restrictions and improvising. On the other hand, they can be unreliable and chaotic, avoiding rules and norms.

A career that is intellectually stimulating and places value on power is good for the ENTP personality, like a stock trader, film producer or PR specialist.

• Structured/prepared (J)

ESTJ personalities tend to make decisions according to reason; they are not impulsive They are charismatic, straight-talking and highly responsible, demonstrating initiative to move situations forward.

Their straight-talking can seem forceful at times, and they are often stubborn and judgmental. They can sometimes find emotions difficult to process and demonstrate.

A traditional environment that involves management and the opportunity to be high-performing is suitable for the ESTJ personality. Roles like a judge or financial officer – or better, CEO or MD – offer the power and responsibility that the ESTJ enjoys.

Conscientious caregivers, the ESFJ personality is sociable and enthusiastic with excellent communication skills. They are practical and reliable, enjoying fulfilling duties with traditional values. They can become emotional and oversensitive, invested in social status, and may try and change the behavior of others around them ‘for their own good’.

Any career that involves organizing people or tasks, like nursing or childcare, or perhaps training others are good choices for the ESFJ personality.

Charismatic, engaging and genuine, the ENFJ personality is altruistic and intuitive. With a genuine desire to help, their finely-tuned people skills and emotional intelligence make them excellent listeners and natural leaders. But they can have low self-esteem and be sensitive to criticism, finding it difficult to say no.

Careers that offer a social environment and offer positive change like teaching, event management or being a PA is suitable for the typical ENFJ.

The ENTJ person is outgoing, logical and thrives under pressure through their strategic vision. They are objective, intellectual and decisive, offering strong leadership. However, they may seem to lack empathy and be intolerant and impatient of others, as well as stubborn and arrogant.

A role that allows them to lead, have a position of authority and offer strategic insight suits the ENTJ personality. Careers in politics, as a management consultant or in the armed forces are good options.

There have been some questions about the validity of the MBTI. Some critics point to the 1983 study by personality researchers McCarley and Carskadon, which demonstrated that 50% of test-takers got a different result five weeks after the original test – demonstrating that it might not be reliable.

Other commentators mention that there is limited validity in the real world – nothing tangible links the types to life outcomes. The black-and-white questions do not allow for the shades of grey that exist in the normal personality scale and do not appear to have any bearing on other personality facets like honesty and patience.

According to the Myers-Briggs Foundation, these are common misconceptions based on outdated information. The study regarding the low reliability of the test came out in 1983 and was based on an older model of the MBTI.

More recent research from 2009 (presented in the MBTI Form M Manual Supplement) by the Foundation shows an average test-retest reliability of 72% over more than a year, comparable or better than DISC or NEO personality tests.

Further, previous research by Carskadon (from 1977, before the 1983 low-reliability paper) also found test-retest reliability of 72–87%.

In the end, the MBTI is meant to be descriptive, not predictive. It does not diagnose clinical psychopathology. It consolidates all the preferences you give it into a simple-to-understand label. It does not consider your skills, what you are good at through training, only how you prefer to be. The best way to use it is as a tool of self-analysis, reflection and development. Some people find simply answering the questions prompts a fair amount of introspection they can use to better understand themselves.

The Myers-Briggs Foundation generally recommends you take it in conjunction with a certified professional ; however, they also offer an online version for quicker results that can later be discussed further with e.g. a counselor. The official online MBTI can be taken here for $49.95. This gets you lifetime access to retake as many times as you want as well as personalized courses and action guides.

Developed and administered by the Myers-Briggs Foundation, this is the official test and has the most reliable results.

Free versions of the test are available online, but they can only give you the basics and are at best an approximate result. They may be an indicator but are not the legitimate test and actual results may vary.

In a workplace situation, you may find that a certified MBTI consultant will administer the test and provide the results alongside some more detailed information about what each facet of your type means and what you can develop as part of your self-awareness. This can be very in-depth and is always unique to you because you can have a one-on-one conversation to get the answers you need.

If you would like detailed feedback about your MBTI results, several registered MBTI professionals are available so you can find one in your area through the Myers-Briggs Foundation website.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is a personality evaluation instrument that is best suited for use as a self-assessment tool. It can offer insight into your psychological preferences, helping you to explore and understand your strengths and weaknesses, how you communicate and possible career preferences.

The assessment itself is not used in the same way as other psychometric tests and should not be part of a pre-employment screen. But it can be useful in training and development for the workplace to help employees understand more about themselves and how they can be compatible with other people.

You might also be interested in these other Psychometric Success articles:

Or explore the Aptitude Tests / Test Types sections.

Personality Assessments: 10 Best Inventories, Tests, & Methods

Perhaps they respond differently to news or react differently to your feedback. They voice different opinions and values and, as such, behave differently.

If you respond with a resounding yes, we understand the challenges you face.

As more and more organizations diversify their talent, a new challenge emerges of how to get the best out of employees and teams of all personality configurations.

In this article, we embark on a whistle-stop tour of the science of personality, focusing on personality assessments to measure clients’ and employees’ character plus the benefits of doing so, before rounding off with practical tools for those who want to bolster their professional toolkits.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Strengths Exercises for free . These detailed, science-based exercises will help your clients or employees realize their unique potential and create a life that feels energizing and authentic.

This Article Contains

What are personality assessments in psychology, 4 methods and types of personality assessments, 7 evidence-based inventories, scales, and tests.

• Helpful Tools & Questions

Fascinating Books About Personality Assessments

Resources from positivepsychology.com, a take-home message.

Personality is a tricky concept to define in concrete terms, and this is reflected both in the number of personality theories that exist and the lack of consensus among personality psychologists.

However, for this article, we can think of personality as the totality of one’s behavioral patterns and subjective experiences (Kernberg, 2016).

All individuals have a constellation of traits and experiences that make them unique yet simultaneously suggest that there are some generalizable or distinct qualities inherent in all humans.

In psychology, we are interested in understanding how traits and qualities that people possess cluster together and the extent to which these vary across and within individuals.

Now, it’s all very well and good knowing that personality exists as a concept and that your employees and clients differ in their groupings of traits and subjective experiences, but how can you apply this information to your professional work with them?

This is where measuring and assessing personality comes into play. Like most psychological concepts, researchers want to show that theoretical knowledge can be useful for working life and brought to bear in the real world.

For example, knowing a client’s or employee’s personality can be key to setting them up for success at work and pursuing and achieving work-related goals. But we first need to identify or assess personality before we can help others to reap these benefits.

Personality assessments are used for several reasons.

First, they can provide professionals with an opportunity to identify their strengths and reaffirm their sense of self. It is no coincidence that research on strengths is so popular or that strengths have such a prominent place in the working world. People like to know who they are, and they want to capitalize on the qualities and traits they possess.

Second, personality assessments can provide professionals with a social advantage by helping them to understand how they are perceived by others such as colleagues, managers, and stakeholders — the looking glass self (Cooley, 1902).

In the sections below, we will explore different personality assessments and popular evidence-based scales.

1. Self-report assessments

Self-reports are one of the most widely used formats for psychometric testing. They are as they sound: reports or questionnaires that a client or employee completes themselves (and often scores themselves).

Self-report measures can come in many formats. The most common are Likert scales where individuals are asked to rate numerically (from 1 to 7 for example) the extent to which they feel that each question describes their thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

These types of assessments are popular because they are easy to distribute and complete, they are often cost effective, and they can provide helpful insights into behavior.

However, they also have downsides to be wary of, including an increase in unconscious biases such as the social desirability bias (i.e., the desire to answer “correctly”). They can also be prone to individuals not paying attention, not answering truthfully, or not fully understanding the questions asked.

Such issues can lead to an inaccurate assessment of personality. Self-reports can be completed in both personal and professional settings and can be particularly helpful in a coaching practice, for example.

However, if you are a professional working with clients in any capacity, it is advised to first try out any self-report measure before suggesting them to clients. In this way, you can gauge for yourself the usefulness and validity of the measure.

2. Behavioral observation

Another useful method of personality assessment is behavioral observation. This method entails someone observing and documenting a person’s behavior.

While this method is more resource heavy in terms of time and requires an observer (preferably one who is experienced and qualified in observing and coding the behavior), it can be useful as a complementary method employed alongside self-reports because it can provide an external corroboration of behavior.

Alternatively, behavioral observation can fail to corroborate self-report scores, raising the question of how reliably an individual has answered their self-report.

3. Interviews

Interviews are used widely from clinical settings to workplaces to determine an individual’s personality. Even a job interview is a test of behavioral patterns and experiences (i.e., personality).

During such interviews, the primary aim is to gather as much information as possible by using probing questions. Responses should be recorded, and there should be a standardized scoring system to determine the outcome of the interview (for example, whether the candidate is suitable for the role).

While interviews can elicit rich data about a client or employee, they are also subject to the unconscious biases of the interviewers and can be open to interpretation if there is no method for scoring or evaluating the interviewee.

4. Projective tests

These types of tests are unusual in that they present individuals with an abstract or vague object, task, or activity and require them to describe what they see. The idea here is that the unfiltered interpretation can provide insight into the person’s psychology and way of thinking.

A well-known example of a projective test is the Rorschach inkblot test. However, there are limitations to projective tests due to their interpretative nature and the lack of a consistent or quantifiable way of coding or scoring individuals’ responses.

Download 3 Free Strengths Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to discover and harness their unique strengths.

Download 3 Free Strengths Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

Personality assessments can be used in the workplace during recruitment to gauge whether someone would be a good fit for a job or organization and to help determine job performance, career progression, and development.

Below, we highlight a few commonly used inventories and tests for such career assessments.

1. The Hogan personality inventory (HPI)

The Hogan personality inventory (Hogan & Hogan, 2002) is a self-report personality assessment created by Robert Hogan and Joyce Hogan in the late 1970s.

It was originally based on the California Personality Inventory (Gough, 1975) and also draws upon the five-factor model of personality. The five-factor model of personality suggests there are five key dimensions of personality: openness to experience , conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (Digman, 1990).

The Hogan assessment comprises 206 items across seven different scales that measure and predict social behavior and social outcomes rather than traits or qualities , as do other popular personality measures.

These seven scales include:

• Sociability
• Interpersonal sensitivity
• Inquisitiveness
• Learning approach

The HPI’s primary use is within organizations to help with recruitment and the development of leaders . It is a robust scale with over 40 years of evidence to support it, and the scale itself takes roughly 15–20 minutes to complete (Hogan Assessments, n.d.).

2. DISC test

The DISC test of personality developed by Merenda and Clarke (1965) is a very popular personality self-assessment used primarily within the corporate world. It is based on the emotional and behavioral DISC theory (Marston, 1928), which measures individuals on four dimensions of behavior:

The self-report comprises 24 questions and takes roughly 10 minutes to complete. While the test is simpler and quicker to complete than other popular tests (e.g., the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), it has been subject to criticism regarding its psychometric properties.

3. Gallup – CliftonStrengths™ Assessment

Unlike the DISC test, the CliftonStrengths™ assessment , employed by Gallup and based on the work of Marcus Buckingham and Don Clifton (2001), is a questionnaire designed specifically to help individuals identify strengths in the workplace and learn how to use them.

The assessment is a self-report Likert scale comprising 177 questions and takes roughly 30 minutes to complete. Once scored, the assessment provides individuals with 34 strength themes organized into four key domains:

• Strategic thinking
• Influencing
• Relationship building

The scale has a solid theoretical and empirical grounding, making it a popular workplace assessment around the world.

4. NEO-PI-R

The NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 2008) is a highly popular self-report personality assessment based on Allport and Odbert’s (1936) trait theory of personality.

With good reliability, this scale has amassed a large evidence base, making it an appealing inventory for many. The NEO-PI-R assesses an individual’s strengths, talents, and weaknesses and is often used by employers to identify suitable candidates for job openings.

It uses the big five factors of personality (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and also includes an additional six subcategories within the big five, providing a detailed breakdown of each personality dimension.

The scale itself comprises 240 questions that describe different behaviors and takes roughly 30–40 minutes to complete. Interestingly, this inventory can be administered as a self-report or, alternatively, as an observational report, making it a favored assessment among professionals.

5. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ)

The EPQ is a personality assessment developed by personality psychologists Hans Eysenck and Sybil Eysenck (1975).

The scale results from successive revisions and improvements of earlier scales: the Maudsley Personality Inventory (Eysenck 1959) and Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964).

The aim of the EPQ is to measure the three dimensions of personality as espoused by Eysenck’s psychoticism–extraversion–neuroticism theory of personality The scale itself uses a Likert format and was revised and shortened in 1992 to include 48 items (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1992).

This is a generally useful scale; however, some researchers have found that there are reliability issues with the psychoticism subscale, likely because this was a later addition to the scale.

6. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

The MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) is one of the most widely used personality inventories in the world and uses a true/false format of questioning.

It was initially designed to assess mental health problems in clinical settings during the 1940s and uses 10 clinical subscales to assess different psychological conditions.

The inventory was revised in the 1980s, resulting in the MMPI-2, which comprised 567 questions, and again in 2020, resulting in the MMPI-3, which comprises a streamlined 338 questions.

While the revised MMPI-3 takes a lengthy 35–50 minutes to complete, it remains popular to this day, particularly in clinical settings, and enables the accurate capture of aspects of psychopathy and mental health disturbance. The test has good reliability but must be administered by a professional.

7. 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF)

The 16PF (Cattell et al., 1970) is another rating scale inventory used primarily in clinical settings to identify psychiatric disorders by measuring “normal” personality traits.

Cattell identified 16 primary personality traits, with five secondary or global traits underneath that map onto the big five factors of personality.

These include such traits as warmth, reasoning, and emotional stability, to name a few. The most recent version of the questionnaire (the fifth edition) comprises 185 multiple-choice questions that ask about routine behaviors on a 10-point scale and takes roughly 35–50 minutes to complete.

The scale is easy to administer and well validated but must be administered by a professional.

Helpful Tools & Questions

We share two informative videos on this topic and then move on to a short collection of questions that can be used for career development.

1. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

Many of us have heard of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), and for good reason. It is one of the most popular and widely used personality assessments out there.

A mother and daughter team developed the MBTI in the 1940s during the Second World War. The MBTI comprises 93 questions that aim to measure an individual on four different dimensions of personality:

• Introversion/extraversion
• Sensing/ intuition
• Thinking/feeling
• Judging/perceiving

The test provides individuals with a type of personality out of a possible 16 combinations. Whilst this test is a favorite in workplaces, there are serious criticisms leveled at how the scale was developed and the lack of rigorous evidence to support its use.

For more information on the MBTI, you might enjoy the below videos:

We recommend that if you employ MBTI, be mindful of its scientific deficiencies and support your personality testing further by completing an additional validated scale.

10 Career development questions

• Tell me about what inspires you. What gets you out of bed in the morning?
• Tell me about your vision for your career/life.
• What aspects of your role do you love? What aspects do you struggle with?
• Tell me about a time where you used your strengths to achieve a positive outcome.
• Are there any healthy habits you want to build into your work life?
• Describe your perfect working day. What would it look like?
• Tell me about your fears.
• What do you value most about your job?
• What goals are you currently working toward?
• How would your work colleagues describe you?

If you are interested in learning more about personality and personality assessments, the following three books are an excellent place to start.

These books were chosen because they give an excellent overview of what personality is and how it can be measured. They also illuminate some issues with personality assessments. They provide a good grounding for any professional looking to implement personality assessments in the workplace.

1. Mindset: Changing the Way You Think to Fulfil Your Potential – Carol Dweck

Enter Dr. Carol Dweck and several decades of psychological research she has conducted on motivation and personality.

The main thesis of the book is to explore the idea that people can have either a fixed or growth mindset (i.e., beliefs we hold about ourselves and the world around us). Adopting a growth mindset can be a critical determinant of outcomes such as performance and academic success.

Find the book on Amazon .

2. The Personality Brokers: The Strange History of Myers-Briggs and the Birth of Personality Testing – Merve Emre

If you are interested in the dark side of psychology assessments, this is the book for you.

This book explores how the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator was developed and discusses the questionable validity of the scale despite its widespread popularity in the corporate world.

While many assessments can be helpful for self-reflecting on your own behavior, The Personality Brokers delve into the murky side of how psychological concepts can be used for monetary gains, even when evidence is lacking or disputed.

3. Psychological Types – Carl Jung

This is an excellent book from one of history’s most influential psychologists: Carl Jung.

The book focuses most on extraversion and introversion as the two key types of personality and also discusses the limitations of categorizing individuals into “types” of personality.

For those interested in the science of personality and who prefer a slightly heavier, academic read, this book is for you.

Interested in supplementing your professional life by exploring personality types? Here at PositivePsychology.com, we have several highly useful resources.

Maximizing Strengths Masterclass©

While strengths finding is a distinct and popular topic within positive psychology, we can draw parallels between strengths research and some conceptualizations of personality.

The Maximizing Strengths Masterclass© is designed to help clients reach their potential by looking at their strengths and what energizes them and helping them delve into their authentic selves. As a six-module coaching package, it includes 19 videos, a practitioner handbook, slide presentations, and much more.

Recommended Reading

For more information on personality psychology and personality assessments, check out the following related articles.

• Big Five Personality Traits: The OCEAN Model Explained
• Personality Psychology Explained: 7 Theories and Assessments
• Personality & Character Traits: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
• Personal Strengths Defined (+ List of 92 Personal Strengths)

17 Career exercises

Designed to help people use their personality and strengths at work, this collection of 17 work and career coaching exercises is grounded in scientific evidence. The exercises help individuals and clients identify areas for career growth and development. Some of these exercises include:

• Achievement Story Chart your successes at work, take time to reflect on your achievements, and identify how to use your strengths for growth.
• Job Analysis Through a Strengths Lens Identify your strengths and opportunities to use them when encountering challenges at work.
• Job Satisfaction Wheel Complete the job satisfaction wheel, which measures your current levels of happiness at work across seven different dimensions.
• What Work Means to You Identify how meaningful your work is to you by assessing your motivational orientation toward work (i.e., whether it is something you are called to and that aligns with your sense of self).

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others develop their strengths, this collection contains 17 strength-finding tools for practitioners. Use them to help others better understand and harness their strengths in life-enhancing ways.

17 Exercises To Discover & Unlock Strengths

Use these 17 Strength-Finding Exercises [PDF] to help others discover and leverage their unique strengths in life, promoting enhanced performance and flourishing.

Created by Experts. 100% Science-based.

When managing people, it is always helpful to have insight into why they behave the way they do. The same applies to assisting someone on their career path. Having an understanding of the qualities that influence behavioral responses can improve relationships, parenting, how people work, and even goal setting.

But there are some caveats to be mindful of:

• When using self-reports, take the scores with a pinch of salt, particularly as we all operate with unconscious biases that can skew results.
• Remain open minded about our personality traits; if we are resigned to the idea that they are inherited at birth, fixed, and unchanging, we are unlikely to gain any real discernment into our own evolving identity.
• Labels can oftentimes be limiting. Trying to condense the myriad aspects of an individual into a neat “personality” category could backfire.

In the right hands, validated personality assessments are valuable tools for guiding clients on the right career path, ensuring a good job fit and building strong teams.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Strengths Exercises for free .

• Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs , 47 (1), i–171.
• Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. O. (2001). Now, discover your strengths . Simon and Schuster.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire . Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order . Transaction.
• Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) . In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 179–198). SAGE.
• Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology , 41 (1), 417–440.
• Eysenck, H. J. (1959). Manual of the Maudsley Personality Inventory . University of London Press.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory . University of London Press.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire . Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
• Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1992). Manual for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–Revised . Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
• Gough, H. G. (1975). Manual: The California Psychological Inventory (Rev. ed.). Consulting Psychologist Press.
• Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Rev. ed., 2nd printing). University of Minnesota Press.
• Hogan Assessments. (n.d.). About. Retrieved May 8, 2023, from https://www.hoganassessments.com/about/.
• Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2002). The Hogan personality inventory. In B. de Raad & M. Perugini (Eds.), Big five assessment (pp. 329–346). Hogrefe & Huber.
• Kernberg, O. F. (2016). What is personality? Journal of Personality Disorders , 30 (2), 145–156.
• Marston, W. M. (1928). Emotions of normal people . Kegan Paul Trench Trubner and Company.
• Merenda, P. F., & Clarke, W. V. (1965). Self description and personality measurement. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21 , 52–56.
• Myers, I. B., & McCaulley, M. H. (1985). Manual: A guide to the development and use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator . Palo Alto Consulting Psychologists Press.

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

I learned so much. This article gave me more food for thought.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Jungian Psychology: Unraveling the Unconscious Mind

Alongside Sigmund Freud, the Swiss psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961) is one of the most important innovators in the field of modern depth [...]

12 Jungian Archetypes: The Foundation of Personality

In the vast tapestry of human existence, woven with the threads of individual experiences and collective consciousness, lies a profound understanding of the human psyche. [...]

What Are the Hogan Assessments? How to Interpret the Results

A company’s performance is built on effective individuals and highly integrated teams. Working and performing well together and employee satisfaction and wellbeing are crucial to [...]

Read other articles by their category

• Body & Brain (49)
• Coaching & Application (58)
• Compassion (25)
• Counseling (51)
• Emotional Intelligence (23)
• Gratitude (18)
• Grief & Bereavement (21)
• Happiness & SWB (40)
• Meaning & Values (26)
• Meditation (20)
• Mindfulness (44)
• Motivation & Goals (45)
• Optimism & Mindset (34)
• Positive CBT (30)
• Positive Communication (21)
• Positive Education (47)
• Positive Emotions (32)
• Positive Leadership (19)
• Positive Parenting (16)
• Positive Psychology (34)
• Positive Workplace (37)
• Productivity (18)
• Relationships (44)
• Resilience & Coping (38)
• Self Awareness (21)
• Self Esteem (38)
• Strengths & Virtues (32)
• Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
• Theory & Books (46)
• Therapy Exercises (37)
• Types of Therapy (64)

11.9 Personality Assessment

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Discuss the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
• Recognize and describe common projective tests used in personality assessment

Roberto, Mikhail, and Nat are college friends and all want to be police officers. Roberto is quiet and shy, lacks self-confidence, and usually follows others. He is a kind person, but lacks motivation. Mikhail is loud and boisterous, a leader. He works hard, but is impulsive and drinks too much on the weekends. Nat is thoughtful and well liked. They are trustworthy, but very methodical and therefore have difficulty making quick decisions. Of these three, who would make the best police officer? What qualities and personality factors make someone a good police officer? What makes someone a bad or dangerous police officer?

A police officer’s job is very high in stress, and law enforcement agencies want to make sure they hire the right people. Personality testing is often used for this purpose—to screen applicants for employment and job training. Personality tests are also used in criminal cases and custody battles, and to assess psychological disorders. This section explores the best known among the many different types of personality tests.

Self-Report Inventories

Self-report inventories are a kind of objective test used to assess personality. They typically use multiple-choice items or numbered scales, which represent a range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). They are often called Likert scales after their developer, Rensis Likert (1932) ( Figure 11.16 ). Self-report inventories are generally easy to administer and cost effective. There is also an increased likelihood of test takers being inclined to answer in ways that are intentionally or unintentionally more socially desirable, exaggerated, biased, or misleading. For example, someone applying for a job will likely try to present themselves in a positive light, perhaps as an even better candidate than they actually are.

One of the most widely used personality inventories is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) , first published in 1943, with 504 true/false questions, and updated to the MMPI-2 in 1989, with 567 questions. The original MMPI was based on a small, limited sample, composed mostly of Minnesota farmers and psychiatric patients; the revised inventory was based on a more representative, national sample to allow for better standardization. The MMPI-2 takes 1–2 hours to complete. Responses are scored to produce a clinical profile composed of 10 scales: hypochondriasis, depression, hysteria, psychopathic deviance (social deviance), masculinity versus femininity, paranoia, psychasthenia (obsessive/compulsive qualities), schizophrenia, hypomania, and social introversion. There is also a scale to ascertain risk factors for alcohol abuse. In 2008, the test was again revised, using more advanced methods, to the MMPI-2-RF. This version takes about one-half the time to complete and has only 338 questions ( Figure 11.17 ). Despite the new test’s advantages, the MMPI-2 is more established and is still more widely used. Typically, the tests are administered by computer. Although the MMPI was originally developed to assist in the clinical diagnosis of psychological disorders, it is now also used for occupational screening, such as in law enforcement, and in college, career, and marital counseling (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008).

In addition to clinical scales, the tests also have validity and reliability scales. (Recall the concepts of reliability and validity from your study of psychological research.) One of the validity scales, the Lie Scale (or “L” Scale), consists of 15 items and is used to ascertain whether the respondent is “faking good” (underreporting psychological problems to appear healthier). For example, if someone responds “yes” to a number of unrealistically positive items such as “I have never told a lie,” they may be trying to “fake good” or appear better than they actually are.

Reliability scales test an instrument’s consistency over time, assuring that if you take the MMPI-2-RF today and then again 5 years later, your two scores will be similar. Beutler, Nussbaum, and Meredith (1988) gave the MMPI to newly recruited police officers and then to the same police officers 2 years later. After 2 years on the job, police officers’ responses indicated an increased vulnerability to alcoholism, somatic symptoms (vague, unexplained physical complaints), and anxiety. When the test was given an additional 2 years later (4 years after starting on the job), the results suggested high risk for alcohol-related difficulties.

Projective Tests

Another method for assessment of personality is projective testing . This kind of test relies on one of the defense mechanisms proposed by Freud—projection—as a way to assess unconscious processes. During this type of testing, a series of ambiguous cards is shown to the person being tested, who then is encouraged to project their feelings, impulses, and desires onto the cards—by telling a story, interpreting an image, or completing a sentence. Many projective tests have undergone standardization procedures (for example, Exner, 2002) and can be used to assess whether someone has unusual thoughts or a high level of anxiety, or is likely to become volatile. Some examples of projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), the Contemporized-Themes Concerning Blacks test, the TEMAS (Tell-Me-A-Story), and the Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (RISB). Projective tests are less subject to intentional distortion; it is hard to fake “good" because it is not obvious what a "good” answer is. Projective tests are more time consuming for the evaluator than self-report inventories. If an evaluator scores the Rorschach using the Exner scoring system, the test is considered a valid and reliable measure. However, the validity of the other projective tests is questionable, and the results are often not usable for court cases (Goldstein, n.d.).

The Rorschach Inkblot Test was developed in 1921 by a Swiss psychologist named Hermann Rorschach (pronounced “ROAR-shock”). It is a series of symmetrical inkblot cards that are presented to a client by a psychologist. Upon presentation of each card, the psychologist asks the client, “What might this be?” What the test-taker sees reveals unconscious feelings and struggles (Piotrowski, 1987; Weiner, 2003). The Rorschach has been standardized using the Exner system and is effective in measuring depression, psychosis, and anxiety.

A second projective test is the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) , created in the 1930s by Henry Murray, an American psychologist, and a psychoanalyst named Christiana Morgan. A person taking the TAT is shown 8–12 ambiguous pictures and is asked to tell a story about each picture ( Figure 11.18 ). The stories give insight into their social world, revealing hopes, fears, interests, and goals. The storytelling format helps to lower a person’s resistance divulging unconscious personal details (Cramer, 2004). The TAT has been used in clinical settings to evaluate psychological difficulties. Standardization of test administration is virtually nonexistent among clinicians, and the test tends to be modest to low on validity and reliability (Aronow, Weiss, & Rezinkoff, 2001; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000). Despite these shortcomings, the TAT has been one of the most widely used projective tests.

A third projective test is the Rotter Incomplete Sentence Blank (RISB) developed by Julian Rotter in 1950 (recall his theory of locus of control, covered earlier in this chapter). There are three forms of this test for use with different age groups: the school form, the college form, and the adult form. The tests include 40 incomplete sentences that people are asked to complete as quickly as possible ( Figure 11.19 ). The average time for completing the test is approximately 20 minutes, as responses are only 1–2 words in length. This test is similar to a word association test, and like other types of projective tests, it is presumed that responses will reveal desires, fears, and struggles. The RISB is used in screening college students for adjustment problems and in career counseling (Holaday, Smith, & Sherry, 2010; Rotter & Rafferty 1950).

For many decades, these traditional projective tests have been used in cross-cultural personality assessments. However, it was found that test bias limited their usefulness (Hoy-Watkins & Jenkins-Moore, 2008). It is difficult to assess the personalities and lifestyles of members of widely divergent ethnic/cultural groups using personality instruments based on data from a single culture or race (Hoy-Watkins & Jenkins-Moore, 2008). For example, when the TAT was used with African-American test takers, the result was often shorter story length and low levels of cultural identification (Duzant, 2005). Therefore, it was vital to develop other personality assessments that explored factors such as race, language, and level of acculturation (Hoy-Watkins & Jenkins-Moore, 2008). To address this need, Robert Williams developed the first culturally specific projective test designed to reflect the everyday life experiences of African Americans (Hoy-Watkins & Jenkins-Moore, 2008). The updated version of the instrument is the Contemporized-Themes Concerning Blacks Test (C-TCB) (Williams, 1972). The C-TCB contains 20 color images that show scenes of African-American lifestyles. When the C-TCB was compared with the TAT for African Americans, it was found that use of the C-TCB led to increased story length, higher degrees of positive feelings, and stronger identification with the C-TCB (Hoy, 1997; Hoy-Watkins & Jenkins-Moore, 2008).

The TEMAS Multicultural Thematic Apperception Test is another tool designed to be culturally relevant to minority groups, especially Hispanic youths. TEMAS—standing for “Tell Me a Story” but also a play on the Spanish word temas (themes)—uses images and storytelling cues that relate to minority culture (Constantino, 1982).

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Psychology 2e
• Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/11-9-personality-assessment

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Resources: Course Assignments

Assignment: Personality

Assessing personality.

STEP 1 : Take at least two of the personality tests mentioned in this module (or other legitimate tests):

• Big Five personality test:  http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/
• Kiersey Temperament Sorter http://www.keirsey.com/sorter/register.aspx . This test is very similar to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.
• Another Myers-Briggs type test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp
• Cattell’s 16PF questionnaire:  http://personality-testing.info/tests/16PF.php
• Basic version of the color personality test: http://www.colorcode.com/choose_personality_test/

STEP 2 : Analyze your results. Discuss the results with at least one other person who knows you (preferably someone who knows you well) and decide if you believe the results accurately describe who you are. Write a short essay (150-250 words) describing the tests and analyzing both their validity and reliability.

CC licensed content, Original

• Assessing Personality Assignment. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution

General Psychology Copyright © by OpenStax and Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Browse Content

Personality Assessment

University of Notre Dame

This module provides a basic overview to the assessment of personality. It discusses objective personality tests (based on both self-report and informant ratings), projective and implicit tests, and behavioral/performance measures. It describes the basic features of each method, as well as reviewing the strengths, weaknesses, and overall validity of each approach.

• Measurement
• Objective tests
• Personality
• Projective tests
• Learning Objectives
• Appreciate the diversity of methods that are used to measure personality characteristics.
• Understand the logic, strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
• Gain a better sense of the overall validity and range of applications of personality tests.

Introduction

Personality is the field within psychology that studies the thoughts, feelings, behaviors, goals, and interests of normal individuals. It therefore covers a very wide range of important psychological characteristics. Moreover, different theoretical models have generated very different strategies for measuring these characteristics. For example, humanistically oriented models argue that people have clear, well-defined goals and are actively striving to achieve them ( McGregor, McAdams, & Little, 2006 ). It, therefore, makes sense to ask them directly about themselves and their goals. In contrast, psychodynamically oriented theories propose that people lack insight into their feelings and motives, such that their behavior is influenced by processes that operate outside of their awareness (e.g., McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006). Given that people are unaware of these processes, it does not make sense to ask directly about them. One, therefore, needs to adopt an entirely different approach to identify these nonconscious factors. Not surprisingly, researchers have adopted a wide range of approaches to measure important personality characteristics. The most widely used strategies will be summarized in the following sections.

Objective Tests

Objective tests ( Loevinger, 1957 ; Meyer & Kurtz, 2006 ) represent the most familiar and widely used approach to assessing personality. Objective tests involve administering a standard set of items, each of which is answered using a limited set of response options (e.g., true or false; strongly disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, strongly agree). Responses to these items then are scored in a standardized, predetermined way. For example, self-ratings on items assessing talkativeness, assertiveness, sociability, adventurousness, and energy can be summed up to create an overall score on the personality trait of extraversion.

It must be emphasized that the term “objective” refers to the method that is used to score a person’s responses, rather than to the responses themselves. As noted by Meyer and Kurtz ( 2006 , p. 233), “What is objective about such a procedure is that the psychologist administering the test does not need to rely on judgment to classify or interpret the test-taker’s response; the intended response is clearly indicated and scored according to a pre-existing key.” In fact, as we will see, a person’s test responses may be highly subjective and can be influenced by a number of different rating biases.

Basic Types of Objective Tests

Self-report measures.

Objective personality tests can be further subdivided into two basic types. The first type—which easily is the most widely used in modern personality research—asks people to describe themselves. This approach offers two key advantages. First, self-raters have access to an unparalleled wealth of information: After all, who knows more about you than you yourself? In particular, self-raters have direct access to their own thoughts, feelings, and motives, which may not be readily available to others ( Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011 ; Watson, Hubbard, & Weise, 2000 ). Second, asking people to describe themselves is the simplest, easiest, and most cost-effective approach to assessing personality. Countless studies, for instance, have involved administering self-report measures to college students, who are provided some relatively simple incentive (e.g., extra course credit) to participate.

The items included in self-report measures may consist of single words (e.g., assertive ), short phrases (e.g., am full of energy ), or complete sentences (e.g., I like to spend time with others ). Table 1 presents a sample self-report measure assessing the general traits comprising the influential five-factor model (FFM) of personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness ( John & Srivastava, 1999 ; McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005 ). The sentences shown in Table 1 are modified versions of items included in the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) ( Goldberg et al., 2006 ), which is a rich source of personality-related content in the public domain (for more information about IPIP, go to: http://ipip.ori.org/).

Self-report personality tests show impressive validity in relation to a wide range of important outcomes. For example, self-ratings of conscientiousness are significant predictors of both overall academic performance (e.g., cumulative grade point average; Poropat, 2009 ) and job performance ( Oh, Wang, and Mount, 2011 ). Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg ( 2007 ) reported that self-rated personality predicted occupational attainment, divorce, and mortality. Similarly, Friedman, Kern, and Reynolds ( 2010 ) showed that personality ratings collected early in life were related to happiness/well-being, physical health, and mortality risk assessed several decades later. Finally, self-reported personality has important and pervasive links to psychopathology. Most notably, self-ratings of neuroticism are associated with a wide array of clinical syndromes, including anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, substance use disorders, somatoform disorders, eating disorders, personality and conduct disorders, and schizophrenia/schizotypy ( Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010 ; Mineka, Watson, & Clark, 1998 ).

At the same time, however, it is clear that this method is limited in a number of ways. First, raters may be motivated to present themselves in an overly favorable, socially desirable way ( Paunonen & LeBel, 2012 ). This is a particular concern in “ high-stakes testing ,” that is, situations in which test scores are used to make important decisions about individuals (e.g., when applying for a job). Second, personality ratings reflect a self-enhancement bias ( Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ); in other words, people are motivated to ignore (or at least downplay) some of their less desirable characteristics and to focus instead on their more positive attributes. Third, self-ratings are subject to the reference group effect ( Heine, Buchtel, & Norenzayan, 2008 ); that is, we base our self-perceptions, in part, on how we compare to others in our sociocultural reference group. For instance, if you tend to work harder than most of your friends, you will see yourself as someone who is relatively conscientious, even if you are not particularly conscientious in any absolute sense.

Informant ratings

Another approach is to ask someone who knows a person well to describe his or her personality characteristics. In the case of children or adolescents, the informant is most likely to be a parent or teacher. In studies of older participants, informants may be friends, roommates, dating partners, spouses, children, or bosses ( Oh et al., 2011 ; Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ; Watson et al., 2000 ).

Generally speaking, informant ratings are similar in format to self-ratings. As was the case with self-report, items may consist of single words, short phrases, or complete sentences. Indeed, many popular instruments include parallel self- and informant-rating versions, and it often is relatively easy to convert a self-report measure so that it can be used to obtain informant ratings. Table 2 illustrates how the self-report instrument shown in Table 1 can be converted to obtain spouse-ratings (in this case, having a husband describe the personality characteristics of his wife).

Informant ratings are particularly valuable when self-ratings are impossible to collect (e.g., when studying young children or cognitively impaired adults) or when their validity is suspect (e.g., as noted earlier, people may not be entirely honest in high-stakes testing situations). They also may be combined with self-ratings of the same characteristics to produce more reliable and valid measures of these attributes ( McCrae, 1994 ).

Informant ratings offer several advantages in comparison to other approaches to assessing personality. A well-acquainted informant presumably has had the opportunity to observe large samples of behavior in the person he or she is rating. Moreover, these judgments presumably are not subject to the types of defensiveness that potentially can distort self-ratings ( Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). Indeed, informants typically have strong incentives for being accurate in their judgments. As Funder and Dobroth ( 1987 , p. 409), put it, “Evaluations of the people in our social environment are central to our decisions about who to befriend and avoid, trust and distrust, hire and fire, and so on.”

Informant personality ratings have demonstrated a level of validity in relation to important life outcomes that is comparable to that discussed earlier for self-ratings. Indeed, they outperform self-ratings in certain circumstances, particularly when the assessed traits are highly evaluative in nature (e.g., intelligence, charm, creativity; see Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). For example, Oh et al. ( 2011 ) found that informant ratings were more strongly related to job performance than were self-ratings. Similarly, Oltmanns and Turkheimer ( 2009 ) summarized evidence indicating that informant ratings of Air Force cadets predicted early, involuntary discharge from the military better than self-ratings.

Nevertheless, informant ratings also are subject to certain problems and limitations. One general issue is the level of relevant information that is available to the rater ( Funder, 2012 ). For instance, even under the best of circumstances, informants lack full access to the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the person they are rating. This problem is magnified when the informant does not know the person particularly well and/or only sees him or her in a limited range of situations ( Funder, 2012 ; Beer & Watson, 2010 ).

Informant ratings also are subject to some of the same response biases noted earlier for self-ratings. For instance, they are not immune to the reference group effect. Indeed, it is well-established that parent ratings often are subject to a sibling contrast effect , such that parents exaggerate the true magnitude of differences between their children ( Pinto, Rijsdijk, Frazier-Wood, Asherson, & Kuntsi, 2012 ). Furthermore, in many studies, individuals are allowed to nominate (or even recruit) the informants who will rate them. Because of this, it most often is the case that informants (who, as noted earlier, may be friends, relatives, or romantic partners) like the people they are rating. This, in turn, means that informants may produce overly favorable personality ratings. Indeed, their ratings actually can be more favorable than the corresponding self-ratings ( Watson & Humrichouse, 2006 ). This tendency for informants to produce unrealistically positive ratings has been termed the letter of recommendation effect ( Leising, Erbs, & Fritz, 2010 ) and the honeymoon effect when applied to newlyweds ( Watson & Humrichouse, 2006 ).

Other Ways of Classifying Objective Tests

Comprehensiveness.

In addition to the source of the scores, there are at least two other important dimensions on which personality tests differ. The first such dimension concerns the extent to which an instrument seeks to assess personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. At one extreme, many widely used measures are designed to assess a single core attribute. Examples of these types of measures include the Toronto Alexithymia Scale ( Bagby, Parker, & Taylor, 1994 ), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ( Rosenberg, 1965 ), and the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire ( Gamez, Chmielewski, Kotov, Ruggero, & Watson, 2011 ). At the other extreme, a number of omnibus inventories contain a large number of specific scales and purport to measure personality in a reasonably comprehensive manner. These instruments include the California Psychological Inventory ( Gough, 1987 ), the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI-R) ( Lee & Ashton, 2006 ), the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire ( Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002 ), the NEO Personality Inventory-3 (NEO-PI-3) ( McCrae et al., 2005 ), the Personality Research Form ( Jackson, 1984 ), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire ( Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1980 ).

Breadth of the target characteristics

Second, personality characteristics can be classified at different levels of breadth or generality. For example, many models emphasize broad, “big” traits such as neuroticism and extraversion. These general dimensions can be divided up into several distinct yet empirically correlated component traits. For example, the broad dimension of extraversion contains such specific component traits as dominance (extraverts are assertive, persuasive, and exhibitionistic), sociability (extraverts seek out and enjoy the company of others), positive emotionality (extraverts are active, energetic, cheerful, and enthusiastic), and adventurousness (extraverts enjoy intense, exciting experiences).

Some popular personality instruments are designed to assess only the broad, general traits. For example, similar to the sample instrument displayed in Table 1, the Big Five Inventory ( John & Srivastava, 1999 ) contains brief scales assessing the broad traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In contrast, many instruments—including several of the omnibus inventories mentioned earlier—were designed primarily to assess a large number of more specific characteristics. Finally, some inventories—including the HEXACO-PI-R and the NEO-PI-3—were explicitly designed to provide coverage of both general and specific trait characteristics. For instance, the NEO-PI-3 contains six specific facet scales (e.g., Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Positive Emotions, Excitement Seeking) that then can be combined to assess the broad trait of extraversion.

Projective and Implicit Tests

Projective tests.

As noted earlier, some approaches to personality assessment are based on the belief that important thoughts, feelings, and motives operate outside of conscious awareness. Projective tests represent influential early examples of this approach. Projective tests originally were based on the projective hypothesis ( Frank, 1939 ; Lilienfeld, Wood, & Garb, 2000 ): If a person is asked to describe or interpret ambiguous stimuli—that is, things that can be understood in a number of different ways—their responses will be influenced by nonconscious needs, feelings, and experiences (note, however, that the theoretical rationale underlying these measures has evolved over time) (see, for example, Spangler, 1992 ). Two prominent examples of projective tests are the Rorschach Inkblot Test ( Rorschach, 1921 ) and the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) ( Morgan & Murray, 1935 ). The former asks respondents to interpret symmetrical blots of ink, whereas the latter asks them to generate stories about a series of pictures.

For instance, one TAT picture depicts an elderly woman with her back turned to a young man; the latter looks downward with a somewhat perplexed expression. Another picture displays a man clutched from behind by three mysterious hands. What stories could you generate in response to these pictures?

In comparison to objective tests, projective tests tend to be somewhat cumbersome and labor intensive to administer. The biggest challenge, however, has been to develop a reliable and valid scheme to score the extensive set of responses generated by each respondent. The most widely used Rorschach scoring scheme is the Comprehensive System developed by Exner ( 2003 ). The most influential TAT scoring system was developed by McClelland, Atkinson and colleagues between 1947 and 1953 ( McClelland et al., 1989 ; see also Winter, 1998 ), which can be used to assess motives such as the need for achievement.

The validity of the Rorschach has been a matter of considerable controversy ( Lilienfeld et al., 2000 ; Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, & Bombel, 2012 ; Society for Personality Assessment, 2005 ). Most reviews acknowledge that Rorschach scores do show some ability to predict important outcomes. Its critics, however, argue that it fails to provide important incremental information beyond other, more easily acquired information, such as that obtained from standard self-report measures ( Lilienfeld et al., 2000 ).

Validity evidence is more impressive for the TAT. In particular, reviews have concluded that TAT-based measures of the need for achievement (a) show significant validity to predict important criteria and (b) provide important information beyond that obtained from objective measures of this motive ( McClelland et al., 1989 ; Spangler, 1992 ). Furthermore, given the relatively weak associations between objective and projective measures of motives, McClelland et al. ( 1989 ) argue that they tap somewhat different processes, with the latter assessing implicit motives ( Schultheiss, 2008 ).

Implicit Tests

In recent years, researchers have begun to use implicit measures of personality ( Back, Schmuckle, & Egloff, 2009 ; Vazire & Carlson, 2011 ). These tests are based on the assumption that people form automatic or implicit associations between certain concepts based on their previous experience and behavior. If two concepts (e.g., me and assertive ) are strongly associated with each other, then they should be sorted together more quickly and easily than two concepts (e.g., me and shy ) that are less strongly associated. Although validity evidence for these measures still is relatively sparse, the results to date are encouraging: Back et al. ( 2009 ), for example, showed that implicit measures of the FFM personality traits predicted behavior even after controlling for scores on objective measures of these same characteristics.

Behavioral and Performance Measures

A final approach is to infer important personality characteristics from direct samples of behavior. For example, Funder and Colvin ( 1988 ) brought opposite-sex pairs of participants into the laboratory and had them engage in a five-minute “getting acquainted” conversation; raters watched videotapes of these interactions and then scored the participants on various personality characteristics. Mehl, Gosling, and Pennebaker ( 2006 ) used the electronically activated recorder (EAR) to obtain samples of ambient sounds in participants’ natural environments over a period of two days; EAR-based scores then were related to self- and observer-rated measures of personality. For instance, more frequent talking over this two-day period was significantly related to both self- and observer-ratings of extraversion. As a final example, Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, and Morris ( 2002 ) sent observers into college students’ bedrooms and then had them rate the students’ personality characteristics on the Big Five traits. The averaged observer ratings correlated significantly with participants’ self-ratings on all five traits. Follow-up analyses indicated that conscientious students had neater rooms, whereas those who were high in openness to experience had a wider variety of books and magazines.

Behavioral measures offer several advantages over other approaches to assessing personality. First, because behavior is sampled directly, this approach is not subject to the types of response biases (e.g., self-enhancement bias, reference group effect) that can distort scores on objective tests. Second, as is illustrated by the Mehl et al. ( 2006 ) and Gosling et al. ( 2002 ) studies, this approach allows people to be studied in their daily lives and in their natural environments, thereby avoiding the artificiality of other methods ( Mehl et al., 2006 ). Finally, this is the only approach that actually assesses what people do, as opposed to what they think or feel (see Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007 ).

At the same time, however, this approach also has some disadvantages. This assessment strategy clearly is much more cumbersome and labor intensive than using objective tests, particularly self-report. Moreover, similar to projective tests, behavioral measures generate a rich set of data that then need to be scored in a reliable and valid way. Finally, even the most ambitious study only obtains relatively small samples of behavior that may provide a somewhat distorted view of a person’s true characteristics. For example, your behavior during a “getting acquainted” conversation on a single given day inevitably will reflect a number of transient influences (e.g., level of stress, quality of sleep the previous night) that are idiosyncratic to that day.

No single method of assessing personality is perfect or infallible; each of the major methods has both strengths and limitations. By using a diversity of approaches, researchers can overcome the limitations of any single method and develop a more complete and integrative view of personality.

• Discussion Questions
• Under what conditions would you expect self-ratings to be most similar to informant ratings? When would you expect these two sets of ratings to be most different from each other?
• The findings of Gosling, et al. (2002) demonstrate that we can obtain important clues about students’ personalities from their dorm rooms. What other aspects of people’s lives might give us important information about their personalities?
• Suppose that you were planning to conduct a study examining the personality trait of honesty. What method or methods might you use to measure it?
• Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 , 533–548.
• Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D. A., Taylor, G. J. (1994). The Twenty-Item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38 , 23–32.
• Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2 , 396–403.
• Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2010). The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44 , 38–45.
• Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W, & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1980). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
• Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Frank, L. K. (1939). Projective methods for the study of personality. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 8 , 389–413.
• Friedman, H. S., Kern, K. L., & Reynolds, C. A. (2010). Personality and health, subjective well-being, and longevity. Journal of Personality, 78 , 179–215.
• Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21 , 177–182.
• Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 , 149–158.
• Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 , 409–418.
• Gamez, W., Chmielewski, M., Kotov, R., Ruggero, C., & Watson, D. (2011). Development of a measure of experiential avoidance: The Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 23 , 692–713.
• Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 84–96.
• Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82 , 379–388.
• Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory [Administrator’s guide]. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19 , 309–313.
• Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press.
• John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
• 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 , 768–821.
• Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO Personality Inventory: Two new facet scales and an observer report form. Psychological Assessment, 18 , 182–191.
• Leising, D., Erbs, J., & Fritz, U. (2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 , 668–682.
• Lilienfeld, S. O., Wood, J. M., & Garb, H. N. (2000). The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1 , 27–66.
• Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3 , 635–694.
• McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review, 96 , 690–702.
• McCrae, R. R. (1994). The counterpoint of personality assessment: Self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 1 , 159–172.
• McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Martin, T. A. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84 , 261–270.
• McGregor, I., McAdams, D. P., & Little, B. R. (2006). Personal projects, life stories, and happiness: On being true to traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 40 , 551–572.
• Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 , 862–877.
• Meyer, G. J., & Kurtz, J. E. (2006). Advancing personality assessment terminology: Time to retire “objective” and “projective” as personality test descriptors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87 , 223–225.
• Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2012). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic Reviews and meta-analyses of the Comprehensive System. Psychological Bulletin . (Advance online publication.) doi:10.1037/a0029406
• Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 , 377–412.
• Morgan, C. D., & Murray, H. A. (1935). A method for investigating fantasies. The Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry, 34 , 389–406.
• Oh, I.-S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 , 762–773.
• Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person perception and personality pathology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18 , 32–36.
• Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14 , 150–163.
• Paunonen, S. V., & LeBel, E. P. (2012). Socially desirable responding and its elusive effects on the validity of personality assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 , 158–175.
• Pinto, R., Rijsdijk, F., Frazier-Wood, A. C., Asherson, P., & Kuntsi, J. (2012). Bigger families fare better: A novel method to estimate rater contrast effects in parental ratings on ADHD symptoms. Behavior Genetics, 42 , 875–885.
• Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135 , 322–338.
• 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 , 313–345.
• Rorschach, H. (1942) (Original work published 1921). Psychodiagnostik [Psychodiagnostics] . Bern, Switzerland: Bircher.
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Schultheiss, O. C. (2008). Implicit motives. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 603–633). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
• Society for Personality Assessment. (2005). The status of the Rorschach in clinical and forensic practice: An official statement by the Board of Trustees of the Society for Personality Assessment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85 , 219–237.
• Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 140–154.
• Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 , 104–108.
• Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self- and spouse-ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91 , 959–974.
• Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 , 546–558.
• Winter, D. G. (1998). Toward a science of personality psychology: David McClelland’s development of empirically derived TAT measures. History of Psychology, 1 , 130–153.

• Creative Commons License

How to cite this Noba module using APA Style

Forgot your password?

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment is a tool that helps people increase their self-awareness, understand and appreciate differences in others, and apply personality insights to improve their personal and professional effectiveness.

Use the MBTI® assessment for:

• Personal growth
• Communication
• Team development
• Leadership development
• Stress management

How it works

The four myers-briggs preference pairs, case studies, sample reports.

Learn from experts sharing insights into the latest research and trends, MBTI applications, and more.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources

Personality Types

• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Personality Impacts Our Daily Lives

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Verywell / Emily Roberts

Personality Characteristics

How personality develops, impact of personality, personality disorders.

Personality describes the unique patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish a person from others. A product of both biology and environment, it remains fairly consistent throughout life.

Examples of personality can be found in how we describe other people's traits. For instance, "She is generous, caring, and a bit of a perfectionist," or "They are loyal and protective of their friends."

The word "personality" stems from the Latin word persona , which refers to a theatrical mask worn by performers to play roles or disguise their identities.

Although there are many definitions of personality, most focus on the pattern of behaviors and characteristics that can help predict and explain a person's behavior.

Explanations for personality can focus on a variety of influences, ranging from genetic effects to the role of the environment and experience in shaping an individual's personality.

What exactly makes up a personality? Traits and patterns of thought and emotion play important roles, and so do these fundamental characteristics of personality:

• Consistency : There is generally a recognizable order and regularity to behaviors. Essentially, people act in the same way or in similar ways in a variety of situations.
• Both psychological and physiological : Personality is a psychological construct, but research suggests that it is also influenced by biological processes and needs.
• Affects behaviors and actions : Personality not only influences how we move and respond in our environment, but it also causes us to act in certain ways.
• Multiple expressions : Personality is displayed in more than just behavior. It can also be seen in our thoughts, feelings, close relationships, and other social interactions.

There are a number of theories about personality , and different schools of thought in psychology influence many of these theories. Some theories describe how personalities are expressed, and others focus more on how personality develops.

Type theories suggest that there are a limited number of personality types that are related to biological influences.

One theory suggests there are four types of personality. They are:

• Type A : Perfectionist, impatient, competitive, work-obsessed, achievement-oriented, aggressive, stressed
• Type B : Low stress, even- tempered , flexible, creative, adaptable to change, patient, tendency to procrastinate
• Type C : Highly conscientious, perfectionist, struggles to reveal emotions (positive and negative)
• Type D : Worrying, sad, irritable, pessimistic, negative self-talk, avoidance of social situations, lack of self-confidence, fear of rejection, appears gloomy, hopeless

There are other popular theories of personality types such as the Myers-Briggs theory. The Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator identifies a personality based on where someone is on four continuums: introversion-extraversion, sensing-intuition, thinking-feeling, and judging-perceiving.

After taking a Myers-Briggs personality test, you are assigned one of 16 personality types. Examples of these personality types are:

• ISTJ : Introverted, sensing, thinking, and judging. People with this personality type are logical and organized; they also tend to be judgmental.
• INFP : Introverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceiving. They tend to be idealists and sensitive to their feelings.
• ESTJ : Extroverted, sensing, thinking, and judging. They tend to be assertive and concerned with following the rules.
• ENFJ : Extroverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging. They are known as "givers" for being warm and loyal; they may also be overprotective.

Personality Tests

In addition to the MBTI, some of the most well-known personality inventories are:

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• HEXACO Personality Inventory
• Caddell's 16PF Personality Questionnaire
• Enneagram Typology

Personality Traits

Trait theories tend to view personality as the result of internal characteristics that are genetically based and include:

• Agreeable : Cares about others, feels empathy, enjoys helping others
• Conscientiousness : High levels of thoughtfulness, good impulse control, goal-directed behaviors
• Eager-to-please : Accommodating, passive, and  conforming
• Extraversion : Excitability, sociability, talkativeness, assertiveness, and high amounts of emotional expressiveness
• Introversion : Quiet, reserved
• Neuroticism : Experiences stress and dramatic shifts in mood, feels anxious, worries about different things, gets upset easily, struggles to bounce back after stressful events
• Openness : Very creative , open to trying new things, focuses on tackling new challenges

Try Our Free Personality Test

Our fast and free personality test can help give you an idea of your dominant personality traits and how they may influence your behaviors.

Psychodynamic Theories

Psychodynamic theories of personality are heavily influenced by the work of Sigmund Freud and emphasize the influence of the unconscious  mind on personality. Psychodynamic theories include Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual stage theory and Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development .

Behavioral Theories

Behavioral theories suggest that personality is a result of interaction between the individual and the environment. Behavioral theorists study observable and measurable behaviors, often ignoring the role of internal thoughts and feelings. Behavioral theorists include B.F. Skinner and John B. Watson .

Humanist theories emphasize the importance of free will and individual experience in developing ​a personality. Humanist theorists include Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow .

Research on personality can yield fascinating insights into how personality develops and changes over the course of a lifetime. This research can also have important practical applications in the real world.

For example, people can use a personality assessment (also called a personality test or personality quiz) to learn more about themselves and their unique strengths, weaknesses, and preferences. Some assessments might look at how people rank on specific traits, such as whether they are high in extroversion , conscientiousness, or openness.

Other assessments might measure how specific aspects of personality change over time. Some assessments give people insight into how their personality affects many areas of their lives, including career, relationships, personal growth, and more.

Understanding your personality type can help you determine what career you might enjoy, how well you might perform in certain job roles, or how effective a form of psychotherapy could be for you.

Personality type can also have an impact on your health, including how often you visit the doctor and how you cope with stress. Researchers have found that certain personality characteristics may be linked to illness and health behaviors.

While personality determines what you think and how you behave, personality disorders are marked by thoughts and behavior that are disruptive and distressing in everyday life. Someone with a personality disorder may have trouble recognizing their condition because their symptoms are ingrained in their personality.

Personality disorders include paranoid personality disorder , schizoid personality disorder , antisocial personality disorder , borderline personality disorder (BPD), and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

While the symptoms of personality disorders vary based on the condition, some common signs include:

• Aggressive behavior
• Delusional thinking
• Distrust of others
• Flat emotions (no emotional range)
• Lack of interest in relationships
• Violating others' boundaries

Some people with BPD experience suicidal thoughts or behavior as well.

If you are having suicidal thoughts, contact the  National Suicide Prevention Lifeline  at  988  for support and assistance from a trained counselor. If you or a loved one are in immediate danger, call 911. 

For more mental health resources, see our  National Helpline Database .

If you are concerned that elements of your personality are contributing to stress, anxiety, confusion, or depression, it's important to talk to a doctor or mental health professional. They can help you understand any underlying conditions you may have.

It is often challenging to live with a personality disorder, but there are treatment options such as therapy and medication that can help.

Understanding the psychology of personality is much more than simply an academic exercise. The findings from personality research can have important applications in the world of medicine, health, business, economics, technology, among others. By building a better understanding of how personality works, we can look for new ways to improve both personal and public health.

The Myers & Briggs Foundation.  MBTI basics .

Bornstein RF. Personality assessment in the diagnostic manuals: On mindfulness, multiple methods, and test score discontinuities .  J Pers Assess . 2015;97(5):446-455. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1027346

Srivastava K, Das RC. Personality and health: Road to well-being .  Ind Psychiatry J . 2015;24(1):1–4. doi:10.4103/0972-6748.160905

Mayo Clinic. Personality disorders .

Carducci BJ. The Psychology of Personality: Viewpoints, Research, and Applications . Wiley Blackwell. 

John OP, Robins RW, Pervin LA. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research . Guilford Press.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Faculty Resources

Assignments.

The assignments in this course are openly licensed, and are available as-is, or can be modified to suit your students’ needs. Selected answer keys are available to faculty who adopt Waymaker, OHM, or Candela courses with paid support from Lumen Learning. This approach helps us protect the academic integrity of these materials by ensuring they are shared only with authorized and institution-affiliated faculty and staff.

If you import this course into your learning management system (Blackboard, Canvas, etc.), the assignments will automatically be loaded into the assignment tool, where they may be adjusted, or edited there. Assignments also come with rubrics and pre-assigned point values that may easily be edited or removed.

The assignments for Introductory Psychology are ideas and suggestions to use as you see appropriate. Some are larger assignments spanning several weeks, while others are smaller, less-time consuming tasks. You can view them below or throughout the course.

You can view them below or throughout the course.

Discussion Grading Rubric

The discussions in the course vary in their requirements and design, but this rubric below may be used and modified to facilitate grading.

• Assignments with Solutions. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Pencil Cup. Authored by : IconfactoryTeam. Provided by : Noun Project. Located at : https://thenounproject.com/term/pencil-cup/628840/ . License : CC BY: Attribution

USING A PERSONALITY TEST IN THE CLASSROOM

It’s the end of the first week of school. The back-to-school jitters have worn off, the class expectations are clear, and the get-to-know-you activities are coming to a close. This can only mean one thing: Teaching content is near! But even after all of your games and icebreakers, you don’t know all of your students’ names and you definitely don’t know all of their strengths, goals, quirks, passions, and dreams! It’s almost time to teach your first ~real lesson~ but you feel like something is missing. You want to get to know your students on a deeper level and build some real class community before you dive into your content.

Can you relate? If so, I get it. This was precisely how I felt my first few years of teaching…before I found my favorite way to start the school year strong and really get to know my students.

THE SOLUTION: A PERSONALITY TEST

The solution: A Personality Test. No, not one of those ridiculous “What does your favorite pizza topping say about your personality? ones you can find on Buzzfeed. (I’m a pepperoni gal, so I’m caring and fun?? if you’re wondering.) Instead, I’m talking about a research-based personality test designed to help you understand yourself and how you fit in (or stand out) to the world around you.

Facilitating a personality test in the classroom is the perfect way to get to know your students as the complex, unique, and incredible human beings that they are. It’s also a great opportunity for students to become more self-aware as they reflect on who they are and who they want to be. You’ll find that the students’ reflections give you better “data” that any standardized test ever could. By the end of the process, your students will feel validated, understood, and celebrated, and your class will feel more like a community.

If you’re ready to get started, I recommend taking a few tests yourself (after reading the rest of this blog post, of course)! Specifically, I love using the online 16 Personalities test , but I’ve used others, like Personality Perfect. I have used the former in a high school setting, and the latter in middle school, because it’s short and simple. Please be aware that if you facilitate the 16 Personalities version, the results include a section on “Romantic Relationships,” so you’ll want students to skip that.

A QUICK NOTE ON USING A PERSONALITY TEST IN THE CLASSROOM:

I do not use personality tests to label, categorize, or define my students. Rather, I use the personality test to facilitate introspection. In other words, I use it to help students understand themselves and each other. I make all of this very clear before we begin the activity. I remind them that there are no right or wrong answers and no superior personality types. And I warn them that the results might be freakishly accurate, or they might be a little off. Either way, my goal is to help them think about who they are as human beings. And since that introspective process can be a little intimidating, we are just using the personality test as a springboard to help us do it!

With the right purpose, using a personality test in the classroom can be powerful, rewarding, and productive, especially at the beginning of the year. Thoughtfully-designed reflection activities, well-structured discussions, and purposefully-planned lessons will make all the difference. If you’re looking for a print- and digital-ready personality test reflection resource, you can find mine HERE. For more tips, ideas, and my top 10 reasons for using a personality test in the classroom, read on:

1. PROMOTE INTROSPECTION

A personality test provides the perfect opportunity for students to engage in self-reflection, a skill that’s especially important for adolescents who often forget to set aside time to think about themselves on a deeper level. To take advantage of this, I give my students a reflection activity to complete after they take the test. The reflection prompts them to consider their strengths and how they will nurture them and their weaknesses that they aim to improve. It also asks them to analyze the way their personality affects their approach to school, collaboration, and more. After students complete their individual reflections, I facilitate small-group and whole-group discussions so students can identify with their like-minded peers and learn more about how to work with those different from them. More on how I facilitate a personality test in the classroom in #9!

2. STRENGTHEN STUDENTS’ SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL SKILLS

Because a personality test prompts students to examine their emotions, traits, tendencies, relationships, and identity, reflecting on the results is a great exercise in social-emotional learning. This kind of learning is more important now than ever, as students return to school with increased social and emotional needs in the wake of the pandemic. According to the American Journal for Academic Health , social-emotional skills are linked to “key young adult outcomes across multiple domains of education, employment, criminal activity, substance use, and mental health.” While a personality test reflection is not a substitute for an SEL program, it’s a great opportunity to help students become more self-aware, a key component to social-emotional well-being.

3. ENCOURAGE GROWTH MINDSET AND GOAL-SETTING

While you can facilitate a personality test lesson year-round, I find that they work well at the beginning of the year because they help students embrace a growth mindset and set better goals for the rest of the year. The personality test results do a great job of offering practical advice for improving on personality-specific weaknesses and capitalizing on one’s strengths. With a new sense of self-awareness, students will be more encouraged to set achievable but challenging goals for themselves. I often follow-up my personality test reflection activity with goal-setting (or include goals in my back-to-school learning stations ).

4. VALIDATE STUDENTS’ EMOTIONS & CELEBRATE THEIR UNIQUE PERSONALITIES

When the personality test gets it right (and it usually does), the results can be incredibly validating. All of the personality tests I’ve seen (but especially 16 Personalities) do a great job embracing one’s strengths and offering practical solutions for areas of growth. The results often let students know it’s okay to be who they are. It reminds them that it’s okay to be sensitive, introverted, independent, strong-willed, etc. and it shows them how their traits can be used as strengths. Oftentimes students realize that what they previously thought of as flaws can actually be considered strengths in certain areas or situations…which brings me to my next point.

5. HELP STUDENTS REALIZE THEIR POTENTIAL

The cool part about administering the personality test to students who are still learning and growing is that it can help them realize their full potential. The results may point to “hidden” or developing personality traits that students don’t even know they have. While I noticed this while teaching high school, I saw it even more with my 7th graders. I heard my fair share of students say things like, “The test said I’m a leader, but I don’t think I am” or “What?! I am NOT creative.”

Here’s the thing. The student who claimed she isn’t a leader? I can see that she is one of those quiet, natural leaders who leads by example…perhaps a future captain of her soccer team, always ready to exemplify good sportsmanship. The student who argued he isn’t creative? He totally is — just not in the traditional “artsy” view of creativity. Instead, he’s an innovator, a problem-solver, a creative thinker.

When I hear these exclamations, I try to help students see what they can’t see in themselves. All it takes is one person to help a student see themselves in a new light…like my 4th grade English teacher who told me I would write a book one day. (Guess who’s writing a book for Keeping the Wonder? )

6. GET TO KNOW YOUR STUDENTS ON A DEEPER LEVEL

I love facilitating get-to-know-you activities and fun icebreakers (like these virtual ones ), but I also love to know more than what my students’ favorite colors, foods, and sports are. I want to know what they love, how they think, what energizes them, how they view the world, what they are passionate about, etc. In other words, I want to get to know them as the complex, incredible human beings they are. The problem is that most icebreakers (while fun and valuable in their own right) don’t go beyond the typical surface-level questions. Those icebreakers have their place, but a personality test can take things further so that you can really begin to understand your students.

7. BUILD CLASS COMMUNITY

In addition to building individual relationships with students, the personality test activity helps me cultivate classroom community from the start. Students not only learn about themselves, but they learn about how they fit into something bigger than themselves.

Because students are analyzing their personalities, it requires everyone to be a little bit vulnerable. While the personality test results do a great job of celebrating each individual’s strengths, they also highlight potential weaknesses, too. Admitting our weaknesses takes strength, vulnerability, and openness. But this kind of courage leads to growth, bonding, and community. I find that when I model this vulnerability and share my weaknesses with my students, they are more likely to open up. Before I have them take the test, I like to take time to share my results, what I learned, and how my personality impacts my teaching.

8. INFORM YOUR INSTRUCTION WITH QUALITATIVE DATA

Understanding who my students are as complex human beings gives me more meaningful data than any traditional assessment could. That’s why I love using a personality test at the beginning of the year. It helps me plan my instruction and tailor my lessons to my students.  Here are some questions I can often answer better after facilitating a personality test in the classroom:

• What motivates my students? How can I find a way to reach all of the learners in my room?
• Which students/classes are more extroverted? More introverted? How can I use this information to tailor my instruction to the students in the room? Are students in Period 1 more introverted? Is 8th period full of extroverts? Can I adjust my instruction accordingly?
• How will my students approach group work? How can I use this knowledge to structure small-group work and other collaborative activities?

9. SPARK POWERFUL CLASS DISCUSSIONS

While the test itself is a valuable tool, what’s even more valuable are the rich class discussions that come after it. Once students take the test, they immediately want to talk about their results, compare them to their peers, and share out what they’ve learned. So I always promise them ample discussion time after they finish the independent reflection. This year, here’s how I framed that class discussion:

• First, students added their results and one important thing they learned to a class Padlet. The Padlet was organized with columns corresponding to the 4 personality groups (according to 16 Personalities). This provided a great visual representation of our class personality types and served as a springboard for our discussion.
• Then, I gave students 1-2 minutes to turn and talk to the people around them about what they learned.
• After that, I asked the class a few questions about what they learned and what was surprising to them. We talked about how we could apply our newfound insight. I also posed somewhat of a trick question to get students thinking and discussing! Should we work with people whose personality types are similar to ours, or people whose types are different? This generated a great discussion, and my students concluded (as I hoped) that we should do both. We might gravitate toward those who are similar and work with them on occasion, but we will challenge ourselves and learn even more when we combine our strengths with those who are different.

10. PRACTICE ESSENTIAL LITERACY SKILLS

Whether you teach English or another subject, taking & reflecting on a personality test requires students to exercise essential literacy skills. First, students have to read questions & think critically to answer them. Then, they have to read & comprehend the results, while taking note of what is most relevant to them. After that, they have to summarize the results, connect them to their personalities, and cite relevant evidence from the results. Then, students have to reflect on what they have learned and how it will impact them. And finally, students have to flex their speaking and listening skills during a class discussion. As you can see, the entire process covers multiple skills and standards, so it’s a great way to sneak in some content during the first few days of school.

I hope this post inspires you to try using a personality test in the classroom. Please let me know if you have any questions about using personality tests by leaving a comment below. If you’d like to check out my digital- and print-ready personality test reflection, you can find that HERE.

If you’re looking for other engaging, student-centered back-to-school ideas, then check out this post about flexible lessons that work for virtual or in-person learning. You also might be interested in this post with ideas and examples of what to include in a digital “Investigate the Teacher” activity.

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

You may also enjoy:

How to use the “what do you …, 10 activities for teaching the hunger games, 10 activities for any dystopian novel, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Check out my most popular posts!

August 5, 2018: why i don’t review the syllabus on the first day …, december 16, 2018: 10 ideas for planning engaging novel units, december 11, 2017: comfort in the classroom with flexible seating, july 21, 2018: teaching american literature: my units & favorite lessons.

DISC personality test

By the 123test team with validation study available . Updated on April 19, 2024.

DISC personality test reviews

This free DISC personality test lets you assess your DISC type and profile quickly. Find out how the DISC factors, Dominance, Influence, Steadiness and Compliance explain your behavior towards others and everyday things you do.

This DISC assessment is designed to test personality by calculating your personal DISC profile based on your everyday typical behavior. Simply fill out the inventory like you would with other online personality tests. It's quick and without any obligations. The DISC test is, together with a MBTI test , career test and Big Five personality test , one of the most well known personality tests.

In the detailed report you will find a graph depicting your DISC type and a concise textual characterization of your personality profile. Additionally you can even upgrade to an extended report if you like.

DISC assessment instruction

This assessment contains 28 groups of four statements. Answer honestly and spontaneously. It should take you only 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

• Study all the descriptions in each group of four
• Study the remaining three choices in the same group

For each group of four descriptions you should have one most like you and only one least like you .

Sometimes it may be difficult to decide which description to select. Remember there are no right or wrong answers in this DISC personality test, so just make the best decision you can.

You've already filled out part of this test. You can continue where you left off or click the button below if you’d rather start over.

It is currently not possible to start or submit a test. Please check your internet connection and try again in a few minutes by reloading the page.

An unexpected error occurred. We are sorry for the inconvenience. Please try to reload the page.

An error occurred when submitting your test data. Please check your internet connection and try again in a few minutes.

Frequently asked questions

What is disc.

The DISC Personality Test is a behavioral assessment tool designed to help individuals gain insight into their natural behavior preferences and tendencies. It's based on the DISC theory developed by psychologist William Marston, which categorizes behavior into four primary personality traits: Dominance (D), Influence (I), Steadiness (S), and Compliance (C).

What is a DISC assessment?

A DISC assessment is a self-assessment tool or questionnaire designed to evaluate an individual's behavioral tendencies and personality traits. It typically includes a series of questions or statements that respondents answer based on their preferences and reactions to various scenarios. The assessment results are used to create a DISC profile.

What is a DISC profile?

A DISC profile is a personalized report or summary that is generated after taking the DISC personality test. It outlines an individual's specific personality traits, indicating their dominant traits and any secondary characteristics. These profiles provide valuable insights into a person's communication style, work preferences, and behavior in various situations.

What DISC personality types are there?

The DISC model identifies four primary personality types, each associated with its own set of characteristics:

• Dominance (D): Individuals with dominant traits tend to be assertive, decisive, and results-oriented. They are often seen as confident and competitive.
• Influence (I): People with influential traits are typically sociable, outgoing, and enthusiastic. They excel in interpersonal relationships and communication.
• Steadiness (S): Steadiness traits are associated with a calm, patient, and cooperative nature. Individuals with these traits value stability and are excellent team players.
• Compliance (C): Those with Compliance traits are detail-oriented, systematic, and methodical. They focus on precision and quality in their work.

Most people have a combination of these traits, with one or two being more dominant in their personality.

Can I take a free DISC personality test?

Many websites offer free or limited versions of the DISC personality test. These free tests can provide a basic understanding of your personality type. However, for more comprehensive and accurate results, it's often recommended to invest in a professional DISC assessment. Paid assessments usually come with more in-depth analysis and personalized feedback. Remember that DISC assessments are a valuable tool for self-awareness and personal development, and they can also be useful in team building and organizational development.

Discover your personality type

Take the test! »

Organizations and  Business Users

For educators, what is personality type, more personality type resources, for business users: hrpersonality.com, reset password, create account.