Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations

Andrey Polozov; Kristina Polozova; Arthur Akhmetzyanov

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations

Andrey Polozov, Kristina Polozova, Arthur Akhmetzyanov

Published in American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 8, Issue 5)

Received: 9 September 2019 Accepted: 12 October 2019 Published: 25 October 2019

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The purpose of the work is to compare some theories of personality structure according to the mutual correspondence of the choice of “identical” people in the same life situations.. Initially, a test of 47 questions was formed. It opposed each other 11 of the most common motives. The questions of such a test were answered by people assigned to a particular group: by type of personality, by type of character, Big Fife, by type of personality and character. A total of 420 people participated. It was assumed that a better theory would give a higher percentage of mutual correspondence of answers to questions for "identical" people. The largest percentage of the same answers was shown by people close in age with identical types of personality and character. For people over 33, the effect of the age factor on the relevance of responses is significantly reduced. The Big Five concept (TIPI) showed more modest results, apparently explained by the inadequate replacement of only two variants of emotional stability / instability with a more detailed format of 8 character types. The results are unstable due to significant changes in the responses to the motivational test during repeated testing. This suggests that 100% compliance with any personality model is unattainable due to the difficulties of self-identification of the tested. The results can lead to a change in the methodology for assessing personality structure models, the allocation of alternative abilities from the traditional Big Five to four, and the replacement of emotional stability with character types.

Published in	American Journal of Applied Psychology (Volume 8, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13
Page(s)	105-111
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2019. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Personality, Psychotype, Motives, Testing

References

[1]	Leonhard K. Accentuated personalities./Transl. from German/Preface. and ed. V. M. Bleicher.–2^nd ed. sr. - К.: High school. Head Publishing House, 1989. - 375 p.
[2]	Polozov A. A. Psychological portraits of the sports club staff// Sports psychologist, №3 (6), 2005.
[3]	Modules of the psychological structure in sports./A. A. Polozov, N. N. Polozova / M.: Publishing house "Soviet Sport", 2009.
[4]	Talanov V. L., Malkina-Pykh I. G. Handbook of practical psychologist/St. Petersburg: Owl, M.: EKSMO, 2002-928 p.
[5]	Freud S. Psychology of the unconscious.-M., 1989.
[6]	Hekhausen X. Motivation and activity. V. 1-2.-M.-1986.
[7]	Hjell L., Singler D. Theories of personality. 3^rd ed.-St. Petersburg. 607 p.
[8]	A. V. Petrovsky, Personality in Psychology from the Perspective of the Systems Approach/Questions of Psychology, 1981.
[9]	The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology/Edited by Philip J. Corr and Gerald Matthews/ Cambridge University Press. 2009. c. 849.
[10]	Polozov A. A., Shurmanov Ye. G. "Create your team in sports, in life, in business." M.: Soviet sports. 2013.-434 p. p.: Figure.
[11]	The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis/M Barrick, M Mount/Personnel psychology vol. 44, issue1, march 1991, pages 1-26
[12]	Personality Correlates of the Four-Factor Model of Cultural Intelligence/Soon Ang, Linn Van Dyne, Christine Koh/ Group & Organization Management. 2006, vol. 31.
[13]	Reinterpreting the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator From the Perspective of the Five‐Factor Model of Personality/Robert R. McCrae, Paul T. Costa Jr./Journal of personality Volume 57, Issue1 March 1989 Pages 17-40.
[14]	The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. /DeNeve, K. M., Cooper, H./Psychological Bulletin, 1998, 124 (2), 197-229.
[15]	Polozov A., Brekhova L. Methods of Testing a Large Number of Motives for Vocational Guidance. Education Journal. Vol. 8, No. 5, 2019, pp. 175-184. doi: 10.11648/j.edu.20190805.12.
[16]	Widiger T., Crego C. Basic personality model/Current Opinion in Psychology. Volume 21, June 2018, Pages 18-22 June 2018, Pages 18-22.
[17]	Aslinger, E. N., Manuck, S. B., Pilkonis, P. A., Simms, L. J., & Wright, A. G. C. (2018). Narcissist or narcissistic? Evaluation of the latent structure of narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127 (5), 496-502.
[18]	Costa, Paul T., McCrae, Robert R. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory./Psychological Assessment, Vol 4 (1), Mar 1992, 5-13.
[19]	S. Gosling, P. Rentfrow, W. SwannJr. Very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains/Journal of Research in Personality Volume 37, Issue 6, December 2003, Pages 504-528 December 2003, Pages 504-528.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Andrey Polozov, Kristina Polozova, Arthur Akhmetzyanov. (2019). Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(5), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Andrey Polozov; Kristina Polozova; Arthur Akhmetzyanov. Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2019, 8(5), 105-111. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Andrey Polozov, Kristina Polozova, Arthur Akhmetzyanov. Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. Am J Appl Psychol. 2019;8(5):105-111. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13,
  author = {Andrey Polozov and Kristina Polozova and Arthur Akhmetzyanov},
  title = {Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {8},
  number = {5},
  pages = {105-111},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20190805.13},
  abstract = {The purpose of the work is to compare some theories of personality structure according to the mutual correspondence of the choice of “identical” people in the same life situations.. Initially, a test of 47 questions was formed. It opposed each other 11 of the most common motives. The questions of such a test were answered by people assigned to a particular group: by type of personality, by type of character, Big Fife, by type of personality and character. A total of 420 people participated. It was assumed that a better theory would give a higher percentage of mutual correspondence of answers to questions for "identical" people. The largest percentage of the same answers was shown by people close in age with identical types of personality and character. For people over 33, the effect of the age factor on the relevance of responses is significantly reduced. The Big Five concept (TIPI) showed more modest results, apparently explained by the inadequate replacement of only two variants of emotional stability / instability with a more detailed format of 8 character types. The results are unstable due to significant changes in the responses to the motivational test during repeated testing. This suggests that 100% compliance with any personality model is unattainable due to the difficulties of self-identification of the tested. The results can lead to a change in the methodology for assessing personality structure models, the allocation of alternative abilities from the traditional Big Five to four, and the replacement of emotional stability with character types.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download

TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations
AU - Andrey Polozov
AU - Kristina Polozova
AU - Arthur Akhmetzyanov
Y1 - 2019/10/25
PY - 2019
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13
DO - 10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13
T2 - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JF - American Journal of Applied Psychology
JO - American Journal of Applied Psychology
SP - 105
EP - 111
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2328-5672
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13
AB - The purpose of the work is to compare some theories of personality structure according to the mutual correspondence of the choice of “identical” people in the same life situations.. Initially, a test of 47 questions was formed. It opposed each other 11 of the most common motives. The questions of such a test were answered by people assigned to a particular group: by type of personality, by type of character, Big Fife, by type of personality and character. A total of 420 people participated. It was assumed that a better theory would give a higher percentage of mutual correspondence of answers to questions for "identical" people. The largest percentage of the same answers was shown by people close in age with identical types of personality and character. For people over 33, the effect of the age factor on the relevance of responses is significantly reduced. The Big Five concept (TIPI) showed more modest results, apparently explained by the inadequate replacement of only two variants of emotional stability / instability with a more detailed format of 8 character types. The results are unstable due to significant changes in the responses to the motivational test during repeated testing. This suggests that 100% compliance with any personality model is unattainable due to the difficulties of self-identification of the tested. The results can lead to a change in the methodology for assessing personality structure models, the allocation of alternative abilities from the traditional Big Five to four, and the replacement of emotional stability with character types.
VL - 8
IS - 5
ER -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Andrey Polozov

Department of Physical Education, Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Kristina Polozova

Department of Physical Education, Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Arthur Akhmetzyanov

Department of Physical Education, State Pedagogical University, Surgut, Russia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Andrey Polozov, Kristina Polozova, Arthur Akhmetzyanov. (2019). Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(5), 105-111. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Andrey Polozov; Kristina Polozova; Arthur Akhmetzyanov. Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. Am. J. Appl. Psychol. 2019, 8(5), 105-111. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Andrey Polozov, Kristina Polozova, Arthur Akhmetzyanov. Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations. Am J Appl Psychol. 2019;8(5):105-111. doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13,
  author = {Andrey Polozov and Kristina Polozova and Arthur Akhmetzyanov},
  title = {Comparison of Personality Structure Models According to the Mutual Correspondence of the Choice of “Identical” People in the Same Life Situations},
  journal = {American Journal of Applied Psychology},
  volume = {8},
  number = {5},
  pages = {105-111},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajap.20190805.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajap.20190805.13},
  abstract = {The purpose of the work is to compare some theories of personality structure according to the mutual correspondence of the choice of “identical” people in the same life situations.. Initially, a test of 47 questions was formed. It opposed each other 11 of the most common motives. The questions of such a test were answered by people assigned to a particular group: by type of personality, by type of character, Big Fife, by type of personality and character. A total of 420 people participated. It was assumed that a better theory would give a higher percentage of mutual correspondence of answers to questions for "identical" people. The largest percentage of the same answers was shown by people close in age with identical types of personality and character. For people over 33, the effect of the age factor on the relevance of responses is significantly reduced. The Big Five concept (TIPI) showed more modest results, apparently explained by the inadequate replacement of only two variants of emotional stability / instability with a more detailed format of 8 character types. The results are unstable due to significant changes in the responses to the motivational test during repeated testing. This suggests that 100% compliance with any personality model is unattainable due to the difficulties of self-identification of the tested. The results can lead to a change in the methodology for assessing personality structure models, the allocation of alternative abilities from the traditional Big Five to four, and the replacement of emotional stability with character types.},
 year = {2019}
}

Copy | Download