High scores on this test might reflect an underlying trait of friendliness, but
they might also reflect the test takers ’desire to present themselves as nice peo-
ple. For this reason, test makers often compare scores on their new inventory
with scores on a social desirability measure. If the two are highly correlated,
test makers have no way to know which of the two traits their test is measur-
ing. However, if scores on your new friendliness inventory do not correlate
highly with social desirability scores, you would have more confidence that
high scorers are genuinely friendly people and not just those who want to beseen that way.
But presenting oneself in a favorable light is not the only response ten-
dency testers have to worry about. Some people are more likely than othersto agree with test questions. If you ask these people “Do you work a little
harder when given a difficult task? ”they probably will say “Yes.”If you ask
them a little later “Do you usually give up when you find a task difficult? ”
they will probably say “Yes”again. This acquiescence (oragreement )re-
sponse can translate into a problem on some self-report scales. If the score
for the trait is simply the number of “true”or“agree ”answers on a scale,
someone with a strong acquiescence tendency would score high on the scale
regardless of the content of the items. Moreover, people susceptible to an ac-
quiescence response tendency tend to differ from other test takers on several
personality dimensions (Knowles & Nathan, 1997). Thus, if not accounted
for, the tendency for some people to agree with test items could distort the
meaning of scores on the personality test. Just how seriously acquiescence re-
sponse tendencies distort test scores is still a matter of debate (Paulhus, 1991).
However, to be safe, many test makers word half the items in the opposite
manner. That is, sometimes “agree ”is indicative of the trait, and sometimes
“disagree ”is. In this case, any tendency to agree or disagree with statements
should not affect the final score.
STRENGTHS AND CRITICISMS OF THE TRAIT APPROACH
In many ways the trait approach to personality is different from the other ap-
proaches examined in this book. Trait theorists tend to be academic research-
ers instead of therapists. Their focus is on describing and predicting behavior
rather than on behavior change or development. In addition, trait researchers
rarely try to understand the behavior of just one person. These differences
give the trait approach some unique advantages, but they are also the source
of criticism.
Strengths
The empirical nature of the work by Allport, Murray, and other early traitpsychologists sets them apart from the founders of most personality theories.
Rather than relying on intuition and subjective judgment as did Freud and
many of the neo-Freudians, these trait theorists used objective measures to ex-
amine their constructs. Cattell specifically allowed the data to determine the
theory, which was then subject to further empirical validation. This approach
reduces some of the biases and subjectivity that plague other approaches.Strengths and Criticisms of the Trait Approach 179