Throughout the course of the semester we took various reports dealing with personality. Each report brought more and more insight to specific personality traits. However, when looking at reliability and validity, information gathered was either valid or invalid. These reports each played a significant part in coming closer into terms with my personality traits. Basing these reports off of myself helped me understand whether the reports were accurate or not. Tests such as the general self-efficacy and the personal reaction inventory test and the big five-personality test really characterized some of my traits. However tests such as the implicit association, the thematic appreciation test and the Spanish big five showed inconsistencies with
…show more content…
While, leading them to understand their overall self-efficacy. Using a set of questionnaires that are centered on an individual’s general self-motivation. The scale is rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree and uses S-data to gather results. For instance, this test plays an importance in evaluating success. As individuals who score high in self-efficacy are scored as being able to complete tasks, stay motivated and successfully complete responsibilities. However as with any test we find that this test has moderate to low reliability, as the individual’s results may be different depending on the circumstances of their day. However, the idea is that individuals keep their core values and beliefs. Leaving us to assume that assessment scores should be along the same lines as the previous test. We can also assume that personality should not be easily changeable among individuals. Unfortunately, we find that the general self-efficacy test has a low reliability, as individuals are not always accurate when tested again about self-judgments. Moreover, when taking this test I was ranged in the average self-efficacy. This information became plausible for me, as it was reliable with previous reports taken for instance, with the meaning in life test. I scored high on passion and perseverance, which correlated well with the general self-efficacy theory. This assessment …show more content…
The personal reaction inventory test is centered on the theory of self-monitoring. Mark Snyder focuses on the relationship and differentiations of the inner and outer self. For instance, one theory would express that an individual will modify behavior in order to adapt to the environment or situation. The other says that an individual will be consistent with there behavior no matter what environment they are in. Snyder theorized that each principle is precise and alters throughout persons. The two characters are either classified in the “high self- monitors” or the “low self-monitors”. High self-monitors deal with the notion that individuals fluctuate their inner and outer selves according to their situation. Low self-monitors are on the contrary as they do not fluctuate behavior, they stay constant in ever situation. This assessment is done by using S-data and by using true and false questionnaires. An individual who is characterized as talkative, expressive, verbally, fluent, and humorous would be categorized as high-self monitor. Whereas individuals who categorize themselves as independent, anxious, introspective would be categorized as being a low-self monitor. Now how does this interact with humanistic theory? As we discussed earlier humanism is all about human behavior and the constant quest individuals are on when it comes to achieving wants and basic needs.
We see how these two perspectives correlate
While, leading them to understand their overall self-efficacy. Using a set of questionnaires that are centered on an individual’s general self-motivation. The scale is rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree and uses S-data to gather results. For instance, this test plays an importance in evaluating success. As individuals who score high in self-efficacy are scored as being able to complete tasks, stay motivated and successfully complete responsibilities. However as with any test we find that this test has moderate to low reliability, as the individual’s results may be different depending on the circumstances of their day. However, the idea is that individuals keep their core values and beliefs. Leaving us to assume that assessment scores should be along the same lines as the previous test. We can also assume that personality should not be easily changeable among individuals. Unfortunately, we find that the general self-efficacy test has a low reliability, as individuals are not always accurate when tested again about self-judgments. Moreover, when taking this test I was ranged in the average self-efficacy. This information became plausible for me, as it was reliable with previous reports taken for instance, with the meaning in life test. I scored high on passion and perseverance, which correlated well with the general self-efficacy theory. This assessment …show more content…
The personal reaction inventory test is centered on the theory of self-monitoring. Mark Snyder focuses on the relationship and differentiations of the inner and outer self. For instance, one theory would express that an individual will modify behavior in order to adapt to the environment or situation. The other says that an individual will be consistent with there behavior no matter what environment they are in. Snyder theorized that each principle is precise and alters throughout persons. The two characters are either classified in the “high self- monitors” or the “low self-monitors”. High self-monitors deal with the notion that individuals fluctuate their inner and outer selves according to their situation. Low self-monitors are on the contrary as they do not fluctuate behavior, they stay constant in ever situation. This assessment is done by using S-data and by using true and false questionnaires. An individual who is characterized as talkative, expressive, verbally, fluent, and humorous would be categorized as high-self monitor. Whereas individuals who categorize themselves as independent, anxious, introspective would be categorized as being a low-self monitor. Now how does this interact with humanistic theory? As we discussed earlier humanism is all about human behavior and the constant quest individuals are on when it comes to achieving wants and basic needs.
We see how these two perspectives correlate