Generalized Personality Interpretations Research Articles

Effects of "Favorability" and Type of Assessment Device Upon Acceptance of General Personality Interpretations

College students' acceptance of general personality interpretations was evaluated as a function of type of test and assessment device employed and interpretation favorability. Unlike previous studies, only interpretation favorability influenced acceptance. The effect of interpretation favorability upon acceptance, however, was shown to be due to the higher base-rate accuracy of favorable, relative to unfavorable, interpretations. It was concluded that the universal validity of general interpretations may supersede the effects of situational factors upon acceptance.

Students' acceptance of high and low generalized personality interpretations

Students' acceptance of high and low generalized personality interpretations

Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.

Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.

Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.

Student acceptance of generalized personality interpretations: A reexamination.

Acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receipt of diagnostic feedback supposedly based on psychological, graphological, and astrological assessment procedures.

There was no difference in the acceptance of a general personality interpretation supposedly based on psychological, graphological, or astrological assessment procedures. Ss told that their general personality interpretation was based on one of the three assessment procedures, however, accepted the interpretation to a greater degree than did Ss told the interpretation was "generally true of people." S faith in all assessment procedures and perceived diagnostician skill increased significantly from before to after receipt of the diagnostic feedback. Ss elicited a halo response after they had received the interpretation, such that they generated a highly consistent positive (or negative) view of the assessment procedures and diagnostician skills. Implications of results from this acceptance paradigm were discussed for diagnosticians and therapists.

Effects of "favorability," modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback.

Effects of "favorability," modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback.

Effects of "favorability", modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback.

Effects of "favorability", modality, and relevance on acceptance of general personality interpretations prior to and after receiving diagnostic feedback.

Face validity of test and acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.

After students in different groups took one of four "personality tests" that varied in face validity, they received a generalized personality interpretation. Even though the test lowest in face validity merely required the subject to circle digits, judged accuracy of the interpretation (a) was high for all tests (76-87% of the ratings in the various test groups were good or excellent) and (b) was independent of type of test upon which the interpretation was purportedly derived. From 46-60% of the subjects in the various groups "definitely liked" or "liked" the interpretation; likability was independent of face validity of the test. Judged accuracy and likability of the interpretation correlated positively and significantly. The willingness of individuals to accept generalized statements about themselves is a researchable problem area suggested by the present research.

The acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.

The acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.

Situational determinants of personal validation of general personality interpretations.

Summary Groups of Ss were matched with respect to their pre-experimental opinions regarding the value of psychological tests used by trained professionals to describe personality. Ss were then given either the Rorschach, TAT, FIRO-B, or Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale and were later given identical general personality interpretations supposedly based on the test results. An analysis of variance of Ss ratings of the accuracy of the personality interpretation indicated that neither the type of test S took nor whether the personality interpretation was presented as being derived “for you specifically” or “for people in general” had differential effects on Ss' acceptance of the interpretation; all groups rated the interpretation as being between “good” and “excellent.”

A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations.

A further look at student acceptance of general personality interpretations.

Student evaluation of generalized personality interpretations as a function of method of assessment

Student evaluation of generalized personality interpretations as a function of method of assessment

Student Acceptance of Generalized Personality Interpretations

Two groups of Ss were given personality tests and their interpretations, which were identical for each S. Ss were asked to rate the interpretations on a scale ranging from Excellent to Very Poor. They were also asked to make any additional comments which they felt appropriate. In the first group the tests and interpretations were given by a professional psychologist, whereas in the second they were given by students. In both the experiments a significant number of Ss rated the interpretation as good or excellent, but there was no difference in the ratings when given by a student or a psychologist. They also wrote comments containing praise for the examiner and indicated their complete acceptance of the interpretation. It is suggested that similar circumstances may occasionally exist in the actual counseling setting.