Computer Assessment of Personality: A Demonstration of Gullibility

Standing, Lionel; Keays, Gregory

doi:10.2224/sbp.1986.14.2.197

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A common feature of introductory psychology courses is a classroom demonstration that is designed to show the falsity of some popular myth about behavior, for example the idea that people will recognize a totally spurious personality sketch of themselves as having been concocted by the experimenter (Forer, 1949;Standing & Keays, 1986). These everpopular demonstrations typically reveal high levels of misplaced credulity, and are assumed to have an educational impact.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Psychology Courses Reduce Belief in Psychological Myths?

Standing¹,

Huber²

2003

soc behav pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the degree to which psychology students accept popular psychology myths that are rejected by mainstream researchers (e.g., "people use only 10% of their brain's capacity"), and the effect of psychology courses on myth acceptance. Using a 20-item, true-false myth belief questionnaire, it examined the levels of gullibility among 94 undergraduates at different stages of their education, and related these to their educational and demographic backgrounds. High overall levels of myth acceptance (71%) were found, in line with earlier research. Myth acceptance decreased with the number of psychology courses that students had taken in university, but increased with the number that they had taken in junior college. Belief in myths was lower among students who were majoring in psychology, were older, had higher grades, and had advanced training in research methods, but it was not related to gender, geographical origin, or university year. It is concluded that university courses appear beneficial in encouraging methodological skepticism, whereas taking specialized psychology courses in junior college may hinder rather than promote critical thinking among undergraduates.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Psychology Courses Reduce Belief in Psychological Myths?

Standing¹,

Huber²

2003

soc behav pers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, researchers asked participants to indicate traits that described them from a list of 66, and 3 weeks later, were shown the list of their traits, the traits of another subject, a computerized profile of their traits, or a profile created from another subject’s traits. Results indicated that false trait lists and profiles were rated as accurate as true feedback (Standing & Keays, 1986). However, a recent study by De Fruyt and Wille (2013) found that participants were able to discriminate between real and false computerized feedback reports on the Personality for Professionals Inventory.…”

Section: Examinee Interpretation Of Computerized Assessment Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

The importance and acceptability of general and maladaptive personality trait computerized assessment feedback.

Lengel¹,

Mullins‐Sweatt²

2017

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personality traits are a useful component of clinical assessment, and have been associated with positive and negative life outcomes. Assessment of both general and maladaptive personality traits may be beneficial practice, as they may complement each other to comprehensively and accurately describe one's personality. Notably, personal preferences regarding assessment feedback have not been studied. The current study examined the acceptability of personality assessment feedback from the perspective of the examinee. Treatment-seeking participants from a university (n = 72) and Amazon.com MTurk (n = 101) completed measures of the 5-factor model and the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder, and were then provided feedback on their general and maladaptive personality traits. Individuals then provided feedback on which aspects they found most useful. Results demonstrated strong participant agreement that the personality trait feedback was accurate and relevant. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…Guastello (Endres, Guastello and Rieke 1992;Guastello and Rieke 1990;Guastello, Rieke, Guastello and Billings 1992;Prince and Guastello 1990) has discussed a number of methodological issues associated with attempts to measure the Barnum effect in relation to CBTI reports and presented a number of evaluations showing positive differences between genuine and bogus reports for tests like the 16PF. However, Standing and Keays (1986), who examined reports generated by the program Mind Prober, found that spurious reports were rated as highly for accuracy as the genuine descriptions.…”

Section: Users and Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Computer‐Based Test Interpretation (CBTI) in Occupational Assessment

Bartram

1995

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper explores a range of issues relating to the design and use of computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) systems. It describes a number of dimensions along which CBTI systems vary and considers both the positive and negative implications of these for test users, for their clients and for test candidates. A distinction is drawn between systems that generate finished reports and those that generate questions or guidance for the user. The question of how the validity of narrative reports can be assessed is considered. A study on the discriminative validity of reports generated by the PREVUE ICES CBTI system is reported which shows clear differences between judgements made about true and bogus reports. It is concluded that there are two main issues to consider when evaluating a CBTI system: first, the validity of the information generated by it and, second, the ways in which that information is likely to be used. ver the past decade, three main issues have emerged in the computer-based The use of CBTI has grown enormously since Fowler (1972) commented on the lack of Personality test CBTI systems constitute by far assessment (CBA) literature as being key substantial progress made in the field. concerns of practitioners: 0 (1) The equivalence of the same test presented in paper-and-pencil format and on computer. (2) The development and implementation of adaptive testing. (3) The use of computers to generate interpretive reports -especially of personality inventories.The present paper limits its focus to the third of these issues: computer-based test interpretation (CBTI). It is here that computers have had their greatest impact on assessment practice in occupational psychology. Issues of test equivalence, whilst technically important, are not controversial, and adaptive testing has yet to make an impact on the day-to-day work of more than a handful of assessment practitioners. The present author has provided a number of reviews of CBA (Bartram 1987, 1993a, 1994Bartram and Bayliss 1984) from an occupational psychology viewpoint which have gone beyond consideration of these three issues and explored some exciting possibilities for assessment opened up by new technology (other recent wide-ranging reviews include that by Jager (1991) and a useful bibliography of recent research is presented by Argentero (1989, (in Italian)). However, novel forms of computer testing have also had little impact on most practitioners, and are still largely confined to specialist military use (e.g. Burke and Van Raay 1993).

show abstract

Computer Assessment of Personality: A Demonstration of Gullibility

Cited by 6 publications

References 15 publications

Do Psychology Courses Reduce Belief in Psychological Myths?

Do Psychology Courses Reduce Belief in Psychological Myths?

The importance and acceptability of general and maladaptive personality trait computerized assessment feedback.

The Role of Computer‐Based Test Interpretation (CBTI) in Occupational Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About