Personality and character tests.

May, M. A.; Hartshorne, H.; Welty, R. E.

doi:10.1037/h0071341

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This work went by various names-temperament and character also were used. By 1930, May and Hartshorne (1926;May, Hartshorne, & Welty, 1927, 1928, 1930, as cited in Viteles, 1932 had produced five reviews in the Psychological Bulletin in which they showed, for example, what is now called "reliability" or "conscientiousness" was a holistic personality construct they called "consistency." Consistent or integrated individuals, they proposed based on evidence, were predictable in their behavior while inconsistent individuals were not.…”

Section: In the Beginning-the 1920s And 1930smentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the study and practice of personality at work

Schneider

2007

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the dynamic evolution of personality research and practice in work organizations from the early 1900s through the present. The article reveals steady‐state equilibrium in the world of practice. In contrast, the world of research is shown to be punctuated by rapid changes in conceptual foci, levels of analysis, and methodological approaches, as well as whether or not personality at work is even considered important. Explanations are offered for these trends, including the ways theory and research in the larger world of the study of personality have been reflected in personality research in and on work organizations. The article concludes with some thoughts about revisiting various branches in this evolution and suggestions for the future of personality research and practice in work organizations. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: In the Beginning-the 1920s And 1930smentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the study and practice of personality at work

Schneider

2007

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the early days of applied psychology, researchers have been interested in personality and vocational interests, as well as the association between these two domains (cf. May, Hartshorne, & Welty, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930). Yet, as has often been the case in psychological research, the lack of comprehensive taxonomies long stalled systematic reviews of their interrelation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peaks and Valleys: Predicting interests in leadership and managerial positions from personality profiles

Dilchert

2007

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship between personality and leadership and managerial interests at different levels of the vocational interest taxonomy. Personality scale scores from four different inventories were used to predict vocational interests of 574 adults. Influencing/enterprising interests, leadership and supervisory interests, and job‐specific managerial interests (e.g., CEO, Media Executive, Human Resources Director) served as criterion measures. A multiple regression‐based pattern recognition procedure recently devised by Davison and Davenport was applied to identify configurations of personality scores relating to these interest criteria. The personality profile pattern predictive of influencing and leadership interests was stable across different managerial domains. Results indicate that personality profile patterns drive the predictive power of personality scores, and that they explain a larger proportion of the variance in influencing and leadership interests compared with individuals' absolute trait levels.

show abstract

“…May and Hugh Hartshorne published their bibliography, Personality and Character Tests, for the years 1920-1925, which included a section specifically devoted to the measurement of morality; this bibliography was updated yearly (cf. May, Hartshorne, & Welty, 1927). Young (1927) and Watson (1927) followed with similar lists.…”

Section: Development Of Morality Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Watson (1927), these tests showed little usefulness, because the conclusions were "uniformly disappointing" (p. 79). It was likewise reported that Fernald's (1912) test, which was included in Kohs's battery, did not serve its purpose (May, Hartshorne, & Welty, 1927); neither did the Presseys' (1919) cross-out section (Collins, 1925;Lowe & Shimberg, 1925). Overall, Collins noted that better educated students scored higher and, therefore, Kohs's battery measured intelligence more than anything else.…”

Section: Development Of Morality Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

History of American morality research, 1894–1932.

Wendorf¹

2001

History of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on moral development existed long before the work of Piaget and Kohlberg. Early psychological opinions, along with empirical testing of moral judgments at the turn of the century, showed themes of the development of moral ideas in children and adults. After the appearance of Binet's intelligence tests, and guided by educational goals, moral testing began to reach its height, only to fail in reaching its objectives. These research endeavors did, however, provide some understanding of the nature of morality, the motives behind moral judgments, and the development of morality by using a scientific method.Nearly all of the research on moral development within psychology during the last 40 years has, in some way, been associated with the theoretical constructions and testing procedures devised by Lawrence Kohlberg (1963a). However, Kohlberg's research, begun while he was still a graduate student, offered a somewhat limited review of the existing literature on the psychology of morality and moral development. Like Piaget (1932/1960) before him, Kohlberg (1963b) was largely critical of, insensitive toward, or perhaps even ignorant of the fair body of American research conducted between 1894 (the date of the earliest published empirical study of morality) and 1932 (the date of publication of Piaget's landmark book).This disregard given by Piaget and Kohlberg-and perhaps many researchers since-is unfortunate. A researcher unfamiliar with the history of morality research might erroneously conclude that Piaget's (1932Piaget's ( /1960) and Kohlberg's (1963a) topic of inquiry was truly an original addition to the field of psychology. In fact, the quantitative, empirical study of morality and moral development has a rich and long history within the traditions of American psychology.Perhaps almost from its beginning, the psychology of morality and moral development has been deeply interested in providing and devising tests of an individual's moral values and development. However, these tests have varied in form and content over the years and can be classified into three main periods in which they were popular: (a) the years prior to the publication of Piaget's seminal work (1932/1960); (b) a period including the Piagetian model, the psychodynamic approach, and behavioristic models; and (c) a mid-century period during Craig A. Wendorf has taught statistics and social psychology in the Department of Psychology at Wayne State University. His primary research interests include the application of multilevel theory and statistical models to the understanding of issues of justice and fairness.Special thanks are extended to Susan H. McFadden for her comments and encouraging words on earlier versions of this article.

show abstract

Personality and character tests.

Cited by 13 publications

References 13 publications

Evolution of the study and practice of personality at work

Evolution of the study and practice of personality at work

Peaks and Valleys: Predicting interests in leadership and managerial positions from personality profiles

History of American morality research, 1894–1932.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About