first published 2012 - amazon web services · first published 2012 by psychology press 27 church...

First published 2012by Psychology Press27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2FA

Simultaneously published in the USA and Canadaby Routledge [or] Psychology Press711 Third Avenue, New York NY, 10017

Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

© 2012 Psychology Press

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication DataMcKenna, Eugene F.

Business psychology and organizational behaviour : an introductory text / Eugene McKenna. – 5th ed.p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-84872-034-3 (hb) – ISBN 978-1-84872-035-0 (soft cover) 1. Psychology, Industrial.

2. Organizational behavior. I. Title.HF5548.8.M384 2011158.7–dc22

2011014987

ISBN: 978-1-84872-034-3 (hbk)ISBN: 978-1-84872-035-0 (pbk)

Cover design by Andy WardTypeset in Hong Kong by Graphicraft Limited

[FSC logo dropped in by printer]Printed and bound in Great Britain by Ashford Colour Press Ltd. (TBC)

7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page iv

http://www.psypress.com/mckenna/


Acknowledgements viiPreface ix

PART 1 PERSPECTIVESAND ENQUIRY 1

1. Historical Influences and Research Methodology 3

PART II THE INDIVIDUAL29

2. Personality 313. Intelligence and Psychological

Testing 654. Motivation and Job Design 915. Perception 1376. Communication 1757. Learning and Memory 1958. Individual Decision Making and

Creativity 2339. Attitudes, Values, Job

Satisfaction, and Commitment 267

PART III THE GROUP 315

10. Groups 31711. Teambuilding 361

C O N T E N T S

12. Leadership and Management Style 387

13. Power, Politics, and Conflict 435

PART IV THEORGANIZATION 000

14. Organizational Structure and Design 000

15. Organizational Culture 00016. Organizational Change and

Development 00017. Stress 000

PART V OCCUPATIONALPSYCHOLOGY/HRPRACTICES 000

18. Selection and Appraisal 00019. Rewards and Training 000

Glossary 000References 000Author index 000Subject index 000

7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page v



7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page vi



The book owes its existence to a number of positive influences,including anonymous reviews. My

thanks to the editorial staff at PsychologyPress, and to those mentioned below whoeither reviewed the fourth edition, or thedraft manuscript of the new edition, andmade valuable comments and suggestionsthat were acted upon:

Jenny Armitstead, <affiliation tbc>, GeorgeErdos, University of Newcastle, SharonFeeney, Dublin Institute of Technology,Ireland, Tom Roodink, Erasmus University,Netherlands.

TPhoto creditsChapter 1 (page *) Getty Images. Chapter 5(page ***): Rovenko Design/Shutterstock.com.Chapter 9 (page ***) PavelSvoboda/Shutterstock.com. Chapter 11 (page ***) MichaelBlann/Getty Images. Chapter 12 (page ***)Sports Illustrated/Getty Images. Chapter 13(page ***) Douglas Menuez/Getty Images.Chapter 15 (page ***) Walter Hodges/Getty Images. Chapter 18 (page ***) NoelHendrickson/Getty Images.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page vii



7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page viii



P R E F A C E

A major objective was to produce anintroductory text that would intro-duce the basic concepts and principles

clearly with the emphasis on relevance andapplications, but at the same time would notover-popularize the subject. Therefore, everyeffort was made to write the book in a stylelikely to engage the interest of the student,drawing on numerous real-life examples andresearch studies relevant to the world of business. The book takes the reader throughindividual, group, and organizational/humanresource perspectives, while at the same timeoffering an appreciation of their historicaldevelopment and methodological issues. Thetext requires no previous study of psychologyor the behavioural sciences. Despite its suit-ability for use on degree, diploma, profes-sional, and short courses, it can profitably beused by reflective practitioners.

Learning outcomes, chapter summaries,review questions, pointers to additional read-ing, a comprehensive bibliography, and aglossary are features of the text. Although eachchapter is self-contained, the reader will findwithin individual chapters numerous cross-references. For lecturers who adopt the book,there are online teaching resources, includinga companion website, chapter-by-chapterPowerPoint lectures, a multiple-choice testbank, and a set of sample discussions basedon selected themes in each chapter.

Particular illustrations of practice and relevant research evidence are contained innumerous “panelled or boxed items” dispersed

Tthroughout the book; some of these could beused as mini-cases or vignettes. When import-ant terms are introduced in the text, they arehighlighted to indicate their inclusion in theGlossary section at the end of the book.

In this new edition the presentation styleand structuring has improved and the texthas been revised and updated with expandedand new material, including the following:affective events theory, cognitive evaluation theory and control theory in motivation;attribution theory in perception; story telling and social media in communication; investorpsychology in decision making; employeeengagement and positive psychology in attitudesand job satisfaction; corporate memories in culture; life cycle of growing organizations in change and development; technostress andenvironmental influences in stress; narcissismand hypomania in leadership: emergenttrends in selection; and recent debate in occu-pational psychology.

There has also been a substantial ratio-nalization of the text with a significant re-arrangement of material within and betweenchapters, including the removal of a lot of material on consumer behaviour, human factors in safety, and behavioural aspects ofaccounting, which were considered inessential,given the evolution of the book.

Finally, I hope I have realized my object-ive in writing this new edition, and hope thereader finds reading it a pleasant and reward-ing experience.

Eugene McKenna

7981848720343_1_pre.qxd 7/8/11 2:26 PM Page ix



CONTENTS

65 Learning outcomes

66 Introduction

66 Models of intelligence ~ Factorial approach · Information-processing models

72 Mediating influences: Heredity, age, gender

74 Psychological testing ~ Intelligence tests · Achievement and aptitude tests ·

Personality tests · Issues in Psychometrics

87 Chapter summary

87 Questions

88 Further reading

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 64



C H A P T E RI N T E L L I G E N C E A N D

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L T E S T I N G

3

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After studying this chapter you should be able to:

• Understand the meaning of intelligence.

• Recognize the different approaches to the construction of models of intelligence.

• Appreciate the significance of emotional intelligence.

• Analyse the ways in which intelligence is measured.

• Identify the influences likely to affect intelligence.

• Draw a distinction between intelligence tests and ability tests.

• Understand the significance of personality tests and issues with respect to their use.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 65



BUS INE S S P S Y CHOLOGY AND ORGAN I Z AT IONAL BEHAV IOUR66

INTRODUCTION

ne might well ask whether there is arelationship between intelligence andpersonality (examined in the previous

chapter). According to Phares and Chaplin(1998) intelligence in some ways epitomizes thetrait approach to personality. Although thereis no generally accepted view of intelligence,their definition seems appropriate: intelligenceis an ability to adapt to a variety of situationsboth old and new; an ability to learn, or thecapacity for education broadly conceived;and an ability to employ abstract concepts andto use a wide range of symbols and concepts.With respect to our ability to adapt to a vari-ety of situations mentioned above, an impli-cation is that we should take note of culturalinfluences. What is needed in one environmentmay be quite different from what is requiredin another environment (Eysenck, 2009).

A link has been established between highintelligence and individual work perform-ance, particularly when the task involved is relatively complex (Gottfredson, 1997), andbetween high intelligence and good healthand longevity, due to the person’s capabilityfor being better able to detect body symptomsand understand health issues (Gottfredson &Deary, 2004).

Therefore, it is not surprising to find anendorsement of the concept of intelligenceand a growing tendency to put employeesthrough intelligence and related tests. In thelight of these trends it seems appropriate toexplain the nature of intelligence, to identifyfactors that influence intelligence, to describethe measurement of intelligence using IQ andEQ tests, and to introduce complementaryactivities such as aptitude and achievement tests used in the employment setting. Also, inthe spirit of psychometrics, personality tests are examined alongside the other tests. Thischapter covers:

• models of intelligence;• mediating influences (such as heredity, age,

gender);

O

• psychological testing (intelligence tests,aptitude and achievement tests, and per-sonality tests); and

• issues in psychometrics.

MODELS OFINTELLIGENCE

The importance of intelligence is reflected inthe controversy over its measurement. In par-ticular, in the USA there have been repeatedattacks on the use of intelligence tests. In thissection we will examine the more traditionalmodels consisting of “g” and “s” factors, pri-mary abilities, the structure of the intellect, and the more recent information-processingmodels (including emotional intelligence).

Factorial approachSpearman (1904) proposed that people possessa general factor – called g – in different quan-tities, and a person could be described as generally intelligent or stupid. According toSpearman, the g factor contributes significantlyto performance on intelligence tests. He alsomentioned other factors – called s factors – andthese are specifically related to particular abil-ities. For example, an arithmetical test wouldbe aimed at a specific s factor. Overall, thetested intelligence of the individual wouldreflect the g plus the various s factors. It is inter-esting to note that when the g factor wascompared with the s factor, g was a better pre-dictor of job performance than s (Ree, Earles,& Teachout, 1994). A diagrammatical repre-sentation of Spearman’s model of intelligenceappears in Figure 3.1.

Subsequently, Thurstone took exception tothe emphasis placed on general intelligence(Thurstone, 1938). He felt that intelligencecould be segmented into a number of primaryabilities. The seven primary abilities revealedby intelligence tests are listed in Table 3.1. BothSpearman and Thurstone used a statisticaltechnique (factor analysis) to provide a better

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 66



I N TE L L IGENCE AND P S Y CHOLOG I CA L TE S T ING 67

picture of the types of abilities that deter-mine performance on intelligence tests, andGuilford (1967) proposed a model of intel-ligence, called the structure of the intellectmodel. It categorises intelligence on threedimensions:

• operations (what the person does);• contents (the information on which the

operations are performed);• products (the form in which information is

processed).

This model of intelligence is shown in Fig-ure 3.2. In the cube, each cell represents a separate ability – 120 in all (5 × 4 × 6 = 120). A drawback of the Guilford model is that it seems to be a taxonomy or classificationrather than an explanation of intellectualactivity (Phares & Chaplin, 1997).

Information-processing modelsUntil the 1960s, research on intelligence wasdominated by the factorial approach used by

NumericalVerbal

Specific skills

Verbal education(v:ed)

Spatial/mechanical(k) (m)

General intelligence(g)

Specific skills

MechanicalSpatial

Specific skills Specific skills

Figure 3.1 Spearman’shierarchical model ofintelligence.

TABLE 3.1 Thurstone’s primary mental abilities (Thurstone & Thurstone, 1963)

Ability Description

Verbal comprehension The ability to understand the meaning of words; vocabulary tests represent thisfactor.

Word fluency The ability to think of words rapidly, as in solving anagrams or thinking of wordsthat rhyme.

Number The ability to work with numbers and perform computations.

Space The ability to visualize space–form relationships, as in recognizing the samefigure presented in different orientations.

Memory The ability to recall verbal stimuli, such as word pairs or sentences.

Perceptual speed The ability to grasp visual details quickly and to see similarities and differencesbetween pictured objects.

Reasoning The ability to find a general rule on the basis of presented instances, as indetermining how a number series is constructed after being presented with onlya portion of that series.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 67




researchers such as Thurstone and Guilford,mentioned earlier. Subsequently, a newapproach emerged influenced by the devel-opment of cognitive psychology, with itsemphasis on information-processing models.The basic proposition in this approach is theattempt to understand intelligence in terms ofthe cognitive processes that operate when indi-viduals engage in intellectual activities, such as problem solving (Hunt, 1985). In specificterms, the information-processing approachposes a number of questions, such as:

• What mental processes come into play in thevarious ways intelligence is tested?

• How quickly and accurately are these mental processes operationalized?

• What types of mental representations of in-formation do the mental processes draw on?

Here the emphasis is on attempts to iden-tify the mental processes that underlie intel-ligent behaviour (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009).The information-processing approach isreflected in Sternberg’s (1985) work, where heproposed a triarchic theory of intelligenceinvolving the individual functioning intellec-tually in three ways:

• Componential. This refers to analyticalthinking – recognizing, defining, and repre-senting problems – and is associated withsuccess in taking tests. Analytical abilitiesare applied to relatively familiar problemsthat are largely academic.

• Experiential. This refers to creative think-ing, and characterizes the person who candissect experience into various elementsand then combine them in an insightfulway. Sternberg (2000) provides an illustra-tion of the importance of the experientialapproach, as follows:

Student A was brilliant academically,and did well on psychometric tests thatemphasize memory and analytical skills.She commenced her studies in psychologyas one of the top students, but ended thecourse as one of the bottom students.Why? Though A was brilliant academ-ically, she displayed only minimal creativeskills on a course that demanded suchskills. (Creative abilities are used to tacklerelatively novel problems.) In this case it wasnot that A was born creatively backward.Rather it seemed more likely that A had pre-viously been over-reinforced or rewarded forher analytical skills to such an extent that

Evaluation

Convergent production

Divergent production

Memory

Cognition

Units

Classes

Relations

Systems

Transformations

Implications

FS

MB

Figural

U

C

R

S

T

I

SymbolicSemanticBehavioural

Operation

Content

Product

C MD N

E

Figure 3.2 Guilford’s(1967) model of thestructure of the intellect.Reproduced by permissionof The McGraw-HillCompanies.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 68




there was no incentive to develop or discoverwhatever creative skills may have beenlatent in her.

• Contextual. This emphasis specifies thereal-world contextual functions of intel-ligence, and those possessing this attribute are likely to be “streetwise”, reflected in thebehaviour of people who can “play thegame” and manipulate the environment.One would expect this person to adapt toexisting environments as well as to shapethem into new and hopefully better ones.When adapting and shaping fails, they arecapable of selecting different environments.

Sternberg’s research shows that analytical(componential), creative (experiential), andpractical (contextual) abilities are largelyindependent: “When students’ abilities andachievements are assessed for not only mem-ory and analytical skills but also for creativeand practical abilities, the students formerlyconsidered as not very bright can succeed inschool at higher levels” (Sternberg, Grigorenko,Ferrar, & Clinken-Beard, 1999). In the finalanalysis what matters is not just knowledge,or the intellectual skills one applies to thisknowledge, but how the knowledge is used.

Sternberg is of the view that the per-formance of the individual is governed bythese three aspects of intelligence. He takes abroader view of intelligence than the more traditional approaches and his view encapsu-lates the following (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009):

(1) Ability to learn and profit from experience.(2) Ability to think or reason abstractly.(3) Ability to adapt to the vagaries of a

changing and uncertain world.(4) Ability to motivate oneself to complete

speedily the tasks one is expected toaccomplish.

As to vocational relevance, a group ofresearchers took Sternberg’s triarchic theory ofintelligence as a framework for use and thensplit the three intelligences discussed above into further subdivisions in the selection of

managers, as follows (Harvey, Novicevic, &Kiessling, 2002):

Analytical Practical Creative• cognitive • political • innovative• emotional • socio-cultural • intuitive

• organizational

Another broad view of intelligence is putforward by Gardner (1999). He maintainsthat there is no such thing as singular intel-ligence. Rather there are six distinct types ofintelligence independent of each other, eachoperating as a separate system in the brainaccording to its own rules. The six intelligencesare:

(1) Linguistic(2) Logical–mathematical(3) Spatial(4) Musical(5) Bodily–kinaesthetic(6) Personal

The first three types are familiar and are nor-mally measured by intelligence tests. The lastthree may appear unusual in the context of adiscussion of intelligence, but Gardner feels thatthey should be treated similarly to the firstthree.

Musical intelligence, involving the abilityto perceive pitch and rhythm, has been withus since the dawn of civilisation, and forms thebasis for the development of musical compet-ence. Bodily–kinaesthetic intelligence involvesthe control of one’s body motion, and the ability to manipulate and handle objects in askilful way. For example, the dancer exercisesprecise control over movement of the body, andthe skilled worker or neurosurgeon is able tomanipulate objects in a dextrous way.

The last of the six intelligences – personalintelligence – can be divided into two parts:interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence.The former is the ability to register andunderstand the needs and intentions of otherpeople and to develop sensitivity to theirmoods and temperament in order to be able

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 69




to predict how they will behave in new situ-ations. Intrapersonal intelligence, by contrast,is the ability to develop awareness of one’s own feelings and emotions, to discriminatebetween them, and to use this information as a guide to personal actions. This is the foundation stone for emotional intelligence, discussed later.

It is recognized that some people willdevelop certain intelligences to a greaterextent than others, but all normal peopleshould develop each intelligence to someextent. The intelligences interact with eachother, as well as building on one another, butthey still operate as semi-autonomous sys-tems. In Western society the first three typesof intelligence (linguistic; logical–mathematical;spatial) are given prominence, and of coursethey are open to measurement by standardintelligence tests. But evidence indicates that the other intelligences (musical; bodily–kinaesthetic; personal) were highly valued atearlier periods of human history, and are valued currently in some non-Western societies(Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009). Even in Westerncultures, children endowed with unusual non-traditional intelligences, such as bodily–kinaesthetic intelligence, can be groomed tobecome, for example, a first-rate footballer ora ballet dancer.

After an analysis of Gardner’s multipleintelligences, it was concluded that “in spiteof its popularity there is surprisingly littledirect evidence to support it” (Eysenck,2009), but then Eysenck goes on to acknow-ledge some interesting connections. For ex-ample, he says that Gardner (1993) related hisconcept of intelligence to individuals who dis-played outstanding creativity, and establishedinteresting links, as follows:

Logical/mathematical = Albert EinsteinLinguistic = T S ElliotIntrapersonal = Sigmund FreudSpatial = Pablo Picasso

Many highly creative people, such as theabove, were brought up in families where

they experienced pressure to meet high stand-ards of achievement; they displayed potentialin childhood, and were single-minded in theirambition but neglected other aspects of theirlife, which created a negative impact on theirfamilies.

Emotional intelligenceFew constructs have captivated the attentionof theorists, researchers, and practitionerswith such intensity and suddenness as emo-tional intelligence (Petrides, Furnham, &Frederickson, 2004). In the past most intelli-gence tests were concerned with the individu-al’s ability to think and reason effectively. Butin the West in recent years there has been afair amount of activity aimed at the assessmentof the more social and interpersonal aspectsof intelligence, which are often associatedwith non-Western cultures. A manifestation ofthis development is the creation of the conceptof emotional intelligence (the ability to monitorone’s own and others’ emotions, to discrimin-ate among these emotions, and to use the in-formation acquired to guide one’s thinking).

This concept (called EQ, or alternativelyEI) was developed by Singer and Salovey(1994) and popularized by Goleman (1998).EQ derives its inspiration from the work ofGardner (1999) on multiple intelligence, whichwas discussed earlier, and has been eagerlyembraced by some practitioners in business in recent times. Emotional intelligence is con-cerned with an individual’s emotional andsocial skills and consists of the following fourdimensions:

(1) Emotional attunement or self-awareness,and people skills. The person is good atreading his or her own feelings, and hasthe capacity to empathize with others andtake into account other people’s feelings.

(2) Emotional management. This is reflectedin ensuring that the person’s emotions(e.g., anger, sadness) do not overwhelm himor her, and that they are appropriate tothe situation. It can be seen as an abilityto cheer oneself up, or stop a temper

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 70




tantrum in mid-course by, for example,going out for a walk.

(3) Self-motivation. This is connected withthe extent to which individuals are goodat delaying gratification. A conclusionfrom the research is that those capable of delaying gratification (i.e., waiting awhile to take a reward rather than takingit immediately) were more socially com-petent and self-reliant than individualswho settled for immediate rewards. Thoseintent on obtaining immediate rewardshad trouble subsequently postponinggratification, tended to be more argumen-tative, had low self-esteem, and copedbadly with stress.

(4) Self-management skills. This refers tohandling situations without being sub-sumed or overwhelmed by them.

It is said that those with high EQ makepersonal connections with much ease and are good at defusing explosive situations.Goleman (1998) sees potential in applyingEQ to organizational settings. He maintainsthat occupational competencies based on EQplay a greater part in first-rate performancethan does intellect or technical skill. He sug-gests that emotional intelligence is crucial in the determination of the effectiveness of leaders; he argues that in challenging jobsassociated with people with a high EQ, the possession of an extra dimension in the formof high EQ gives leaders a competitive edge.In the final analysis it seems sensible toacknowledge that superior performance isdependent upon both our emotional and ourthinking sides.

Dearlove (1999) reported that companieshave re-evaluated the leadership qualities theyneed and increasingly place emphasis on theemotional dimension. He quoted the views of the executive development manager atBritish Telecommunications, who stresses“the importance of understanding relation-ships. The company is seeking to developinterpersonal sensitivity and a mindset that isabout collaboration and understanding what

others have to contribute and seeing partner-ships as an opportunity to learn.” There is areappraisal of the type of leadership qualitiesthe company requires to meet its ambitions forglobal expansion through joint ventures andpartnerships: “As boundaries get fuzzier andfuzzier, leadership becomes more and morevital. The emphasis is now on relationship man-agement. The critical issue is interpersonalsensitivity. We are moving to a more holisticapproach.” The issue of leadership qualities andskills is also considered in Chapter 12.

From research into derailed leaders – therising stars who faded away (see Chapter 12)– at the Center for Creative Leadership in theUSA, it was concluded that these executivesfailed most often because of an interpersonalflaw (e.g., poor working relations, authoritar-ian) rather than a lack of technical ability(Gibbs, 1995). The Center mounts seminarsacross the USA for managers who want to “getclose” to their emotions, and these sessions areunlike the sensitivity training programmes ofold (see Chapter 15).

CriticismIn recent years much criticism has been lev-elled at the emotional intelligence construct.Zeidner, Mathews, and Roberts (2004) con-clude that business executives frequently viewEQ as more like emotional competencies and assuch is capable of being acquired and nurturedthrough the process of learning. Woodruffe(2000) does not seem to be overly impressedby EQ. He feels it is another name for com-petencies, and that the measures of emotionalintelligence are not the best method available.This could be better achieved through assess-ment centre exercises (see Chapter 18) or bymulti-rater feedback.

According to Petrides et al. (2004), the criti-cism levelled against the trait EQ is that it isindistinguishable from the major personalitydimensions. This is a view shared by Eysenck(2009) when he states that “emotional intel-ligence as assessed by the Emotional QuotientInventory mainly involves re-packaging well-established personality dimensions, and has

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 71




little significance to intelligence conventionallydefined”. In a similar vein Furnham (2008)views it as being much more of a social or personality variable than a cognitive variableconnected with information processing.According to Conte (2005), the measures ofEQ are diverse and researchers have not sub-jected them to as much rigorous study as theyhave with measures of personality and generalintelligence. Finally, criticism by Locke (2005)is scathing. He says the concept of emotionalintelligence is invalid because it is not a formof intelligence and because it is defined sobroadly and inclusively that it has no intelli-gible meaning.

MEDIATING INFLUENCES:HEREDITY, AGE, GENDER

We realize that people differ in intellectual abil-ity, and many would agree that some aspectsof intelligence are inherited. However, opin-ions differ as to the relative contributionsmade by our genetic inheritance (heredity)and environment (i.e., what happens to the indi-vidual during the course of development).

The environmental conditions likely todetermine how an individual’s intellectualpotential will develop include nutrition,health, quality of stimulation, emotional cli-mate of the home, and appropriate rewards foraccomplishments (Bayley, 1970). Inevitably, onefeels forced to take a pragmatic position onthis issue. For example, heredity and environ-ment interact. Heredity sets the scene in termsof specifying the possible limits of achievementsfor any person in a given situation, but the environment determines how near to theselimits of achievement any individual willmove in any given situation (Plowin, 2001).

The debate over genetic factors in intelli-gence raises the possibility of inherited racialdifferences in intelligence – in particular thequestion of whether black people are innatelyless intelligent than white people. BlackAmericans as a group score 10–15 points

lower on standard intelligence tests thanwhite Americans as a group. The controversyfocuses not on the difference in IQ but on theinterpretation of the difference. Some argue thatthe two groups differ in inherited ability(Jensen, 1977), whereas others maintain theblack–white differences in average IQ can be put down to environmental differencesbetween the two groups (Kamin, 1976).

But an opposing view to Kamin’s originatedfrom 50 experts. These experts “wrote to theWall Street Journal reacting to a controversialbook on intelligence, firmly stating that thereare indeed racial differences in the scores.They maintained that intelligence is of greatpractical and social importance, and thatgenetics plays a bigger role than does envir-onment in creating IQ differences amongindividuals” (Furnham, 2000). There is furthercomment on the nature versus nurture debatein Panel 3.1.

If intelligence was simply an innate qual-ity, then IQ would not be expected to alterthroughout the life of the person, apart fromminor changes due to the measuring instrumentused. However, there is strong evidence froma number of sources to suggest that IQ scoresfluctuate over time (Anastasi, 1997; Howe,1998). The environment can be powerful inshaping IQ. There has been a rapid increasein intelligence in many countries in the Westin recent decades (Flynn, 1994, 2007). This isreferred to as the “Flynn Effect”. A possibleexplanation for this effect could be attribut-able to a number of causes.

In recent decades our brains are exercisedand challenged in new ways and for many morehours. There is a trend towards ever greatercomplexity in the way we collectively think anduse information and our thought patterns aredifferent from those of our recent ancestors(Flintoff & Leake, 2009). For example, peoplehave spent more time in education, there is greater exposure to information throughthe contemporary communication medium,the growth of middle class families, and thegrowth of jobs requiring more cognitive complexity. However, here has been a challenge

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 72




to the Flynn effect by Sundet, Barlaug, andTorjussen (2004). In a study of trends in in-telligence among Norwegian conscripts overhalf a century, they concluded that there was nogeneral increase in IQ since the mid-1990s.

A person’s performance on a test could also be influenced by temporary states: for example, the person is affected by illness, is demotivated for some reason, or is goingthrough an emotional upheaval. In addition,intelligence tests tend to measure differentthings at different ages. For example, testitems that require young children to stackblocks and identify parts of the body arequite different from items that are highly verbal, abstract, and mathematical, found intests for older children and adults.

The impact of age on test performance is important (Botwinick, 1984). A decline in

performance over time can be attributable toa number of factors. There may be a generaldeterioration of health, or growing deficienciesof hearing and eyesight. Also, as people growolder they may become more cautious and fearful of making mistakes, and this mayundermine their test performance. It is said that giving extra time to older people to dothe test, or allowing them more time to famil-iarize themselves with the test procedures,will often lead to higher scores (Phares &Chaplin, 1997). In the final analysis, it wouldbe wise to distinguish between those with adefective mental capacity because of an age-related infirmity and those who are not dis-advantaged in that way.

The question of gender also ought to beraised. This was suggested by Furnham (2000)when he stated that:

Panel 3.1 Nature versus nurtureIn 1980 researchers in Dunedin, New Zealand gave 1000 3-year olds a series of psychologicaltests. Caspi, Harrington, Milne, Amell, Theodore, and Moffitt (2003) reassessed these individuals,now aged 26. By and large the children who behaved badly in the original tests were still experi-encing problems as adults. For instance, the most irritable and emotionally unstable 3-year olds– classified as under-controlled – tended to be the least adjusted by the age of 26. They weretense, easily upset, antagonistic, and prone to antisocial behaviour. By contrast, the 3-year oldsrated as “confident” or “well-adjusted” appeared to be doing well as young adults.

This dramatic discovery demonstrated how little the main personality traits had changed. Fromthis one might conclude that crude genetic determinism (nature) may be highly influential.However, the emerging wisdom is that many bits of genetic material interact in complex wayswith a diversified environment to influence intelligence and behaviour. Ridley (2003) maintains thatnature and nurture always interact with each other, and that we need to think of our nature asemerging via nurture, rather than predetermined by a genetic blueprint. He cites evidence in sup-port of genes as a dominant force – for example, identical twins separated at birth and broughtup in different environments tend to show similar character traits – but equally children’s sensi-tivity to their environment (e.g., upbringing, school, extra-curricular pursuits) appears to vary depend-ing on the precise genetic make-up.

In a keynote address to the recent BPS Division of Occupational Psychology 2011 AnnualConference, Prof Time Judge, University of Notre Dame, emphasized the dominant influence ofgenetic inheritance over environmental factors and concluded that we should accept people morefor who they are and think a little less about changing them through interventions based on occu-pational psychology. Given the prominence of nature as an influential factor he feels that selectiontechniques should be developed to detect a better fit between the candidate and the organizaionalrole.

( Judge, 2011; Prowse, 2003)

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 73




despite most tests having been devised so asnot to show “sex differences”, and thereceived wisdom for many decades beingthat differences are small, trivial, and notworthy of explanation or research,nevertheless studies relying on self-perception by lay subjects show consistentdifferences. Males think they are moreintelligent than females, and that their malerelatives are more intelligent than theirfemale relatives. However, this believedsuperiority lies primarily in “spatial” andmathematical areas – only a part offundamental intelligence. For someresearchers this remains a shocking findingexplained only by sociological processes; forothers it represents a reasonable grasp ofreality.

Finally, attempts have been made todevise culture-fair tests. These tests attempt toneutralize the effects of forces that distinguishone culture or subculture from another. Inessence what is attempted is the removal of factors that reflect cultural background ratherthan innate ability. These could include languagehandicap (i.e., lack of total familiarity with thelanguage of the test) or speed of reaction. Inthe latter case, not all cultures or subculturessubscribe to the view that faster means better.Although sound in theory, culture-fair testinghas not worked very well (Phares & Chaplin,1997). Tests are being reviewed closely, par-ticularly in the USA, if it is felt that they areinappropriately used and act to the disadvan-tage of a particular racial or ethnic group.

PSYCHOLOGICALTESTING

Psychological testing is often referred to as psychometric testing. The term psychometricsis now used to refer to a broad range of

different types of assessments and measure-ments of intelligence, achievement/aptitude,and personality.

Intelligence testsTests are available to measure general intel-lectual ability. These tests are called “intelli-gence tests”. The first tests resemblingcontemporary intelligence tests were devised byBinet in France, who had been asked by theFrench government to create a test thatwould detect children who were too slowintellectually to benefit from a regular schoolcurriculum. Binet felt that intelligence shouldbe measured by tasks that required reasoningand problem-solving abilities, rather thanperceptual–motor skills. The test required thechild to execute simple commands, to namefamiliar objects, to think of rhymes, toexplain words, etc. It was both a verbal anda performance test.

Binet joined forces with Simon and pub-lished a scale, later revised, in 1905. Binet main-tained that a slow or dull child was merely anormal child who was backward in mentalgrowth. Therefore, the slow child would pro-duce a result on the test normally associatedwith a child younger than him or her. Abright child would perform at a level associ-ated with a child older than him or her. It fol-lowed that the bright child’s mental age (MA)was higher than his or her real or chronolog-ical age (CA); a slow child’s MA is below hisor her CA.

The selection of items to be included in thetest is of crucial importance. Normally onewould expect to find both novel and familiaritems. The choice of novel items is meant toensure that the uneducated child is not at adisadvantage. In Figure 3.3, an example of anovel item is given where the child is asked tochoose figures that are alike, on the assumptionthat the designs are unfamiliar to all children.

When familiar items are chosen for the test,there is the assumption that all those forwhom the test is designed have had the re-quisite previous knowledge to cope with the

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 74




items (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009). The followingrequest and statement provides an example ofan allegedly familiar item:

Circle F if the sentence is foolish; circle S if it is sensible.

S FMrs Smith has had no children and I understand the same was true of her mother.

It should be noted that recognition of the fallacy of this statement is valid as a test ofintellectual ability for the child who can readand understand all the words in the sentence.The possession of general knowledge andfamiliarity with the language of the test are ne-cessary to cope with many of the items on intel-ligence tests. It may be difficult to meet thisrequirement because of the variability in theeducational background and experience ofthe child. Where the child is tested on novelitems, a difficulty may also arise because thediscrimination required in a perceptual senseto solve the problem may be found morereadily in one culture rather than in another.Nevertheless, the items found in contemporaryintelligence tests have endured the rigour ofapplication in the practical world, but itshould be noted that the validity of intelligence

tests in predicting school performance isapplicable only to a particular culture.

Stanford-Binet Intelligence ScaleThis was developed in the United States outof the earlier work of Binet, is well known andwidely used, and has been revised on a num-ber of occasions. The index of intelligenceused is the intelligence quotient (IQ), and thisis expressed as a ratio of mental age (MA) tochronological age (CA) as follows:

IQ = × 100

Using 100 as a multiplier means that when MA = CA, then the IQ will have a value of100. If MA is less than CA, the IQ will be lessthan 100; if MA is greater than CA, the IQwill be more than 100.

An IQ between 90 and 110 is consideredto be normal, but above 130 it is consideredto be very superior. The person with an IQbelow 70 is judged to be retarded. As withmany differences between individuals, the dis-tribution of IQs in the population approximatesthe bell-shaped normal distribution curve.That is, most cases would fall into the mid-value of the curve, with just a few cases at theleft and right extreme positions on the curve.

The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale wasdesigned to ensure that all items contributedequally to the total IQ score. This means thatan individual might perform well on a test invit-ing the production of geometric forms, butbadly on a test of vocabulary. Although thetester might note the strengths and weak-nesses, they would cancel each other out inarriving at the IQ score. Under the 1986revised scale, standard age scores are substi-tuted for IQ scores, and it is now possible toobtain scores for different areas of the test. Inaccordance with the current view of intelligenceas an accumulation of different abilities, aseparate score can now be obtained for eachof the broad areas of intellectual ability set outin Table 3.2 (Thorndike, Hagen, & Satlet,1986).

MACA

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 3.3 Novel items used in intelligence tests.The following instructions accompany the test: markevery card to the right that matches the samplecard on the left; you can rotate the sample card butnot flip it over. Cards 2, 3, and 6 are correct in thefirst line; 1, 3, and 5 are correct in the second line.(From Thurstone & Thurstone, 1942.)

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 75




Wechsler intelligence scalesOne of the first intelligence tests to test separ-ate abilities, which has been widely used, was developed by Wechsler in 1939 (cited inWechsler, 1981). These scales were developedbecause it was felt that the Stanford-Binet testrelied heavily on language ability and did notcater for the needs of adults (Wechsler, 1981).

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale(WAIS) has two sections: a verbal scale and a performance scale. Each section generates separate scores, as well as an overall IQscore. A similar test with some modificationswas also developed for children. The items inthe WAIS refer to the meaning of words andcomprehension, speed of learning or writing,and the manipulation or arrangement ofblocks, pictures, or other materials.

It is claimed that both the Stanford-Binetand Wechsler scales satisfy the conditions for

a good test – that is, they show good reliabilityand validity. Also, both tests are fairly validpredictors of achievement, particularly atschool (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009).

Emotional intelligence questionnaireVarious ability-based measures of emotionalintelligence have been developed. ASE – adivision of NFER-Nelson – in Windsor, UK,produced an emotional intelligence question-naire developed by Victor Dulewicz andMalcolm Higgs. In this questionnaire there are69 items or statements, of which the items listedhere are extracts (reproduced by permission ofNFER-Nelson). The respondent would indicatethe extent of his or her agreement with thestatements.

• It is possible to control my own moods.• In dealing with problems and decisions I take

account of the needs of others.• I find it difficult to maintain performance

when faced with disappointment.• I am effective in building team commit-

ment to goals and objectives.

Another company, Hay McBer, which ispart of Hay Management Consultants, hasproduced a similar instrument – a multi-rater360-degree feedback instrument, called theEmotional Competence Inventory (ECI).Interested readers are referred to a brief art-icle by Watkin (1999), which highlights whatthe ECI measures, explains how it was devel-oped, and states how it can be applied to organizations.

There is also the Mayer-Salovey-CarusoEmotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) (Mayer,Salovey, & Caruso, 2002). The MSCEIT restson four main abilities that underlie emotionalintelligence, as follows:

• perceiving emotions in oneself and others;• using emotions to secure an advantage;• understanding emotions and making sense

out of them;• managing emotions so as to evaluate them

with respect to self and others.

TABLE 3.2 IQ test scoring segments

Category Subcategory

Verbal reasoning Vocabulary

Comprehension

Absurdities

Verbal relations

Quantitative reasoning Quantitative

Number series

Equation building

Abstract/visual reasoning Pattern analysis

Copying

Matrices

Paper-folding and cutting

Short-term memory Bead memory

Memory for sentences

Memory for digits

Memory for objects

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 76




After subjecting the MSCEIT to analysis, it was reported that employees with higherscores were rated as easier to deal with, moreinterpersonally sensitive, more tolerant ofstress, more sociable, and with greater poten-tial for leadership than those with lowerscores (Lopes, Bracket, Nezlek, Shutz, Sellin,& Salovey, 2004).

Finally, when reflecting on the tests dis-cussed here and the achievement and aptitudetests considered next in this chapter, oneshould bear in mind the general issues raisedlater about testing.

Achievement and aptitude testsThese are essentially tests of ability, but dif-fer in certain respects from the intelligence testsdiscussed earlier. Vernon (1956) drew a dis-tinction between intelligence and achievementas follows:

Intelligence refers to the more generalqualities of thinking – i.e. comprehension,level of concept development, reasoning, andgrasping relations – qualities which appearlargely to be acquired in the course ofnormal development without specific tuition.By contrast, achievement refers more toknowledge and skills which are directlytrained.

The use of ability tests to stream childrenin schools, to admit pupils and students toschools and colleges, and to select people forjobs can arouse passions and much debate.When they were first developed they wereapproved of as an objective and impartialmethod of identifying talent in the face of sub-jective elements in the form of various typesof favouritism (e.g., based on class, wealth, politics, and so on). However, they have theircritics who label them as narrow and restric-tive. In essence this means that they do notmeasure those characteristics that are themost important in determining how well a person will perform in an educational setting

or at work (e.g., motivation, social skills,qualities of leadership) and they discriminateagainst minorities (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2009). It should be noted that the factors that makepersonality tests useful (discussed below) areequally applicable to ability tests.

A distinction is made between achievementtests and aptitude tests (Nolen-Hoeksema,2009). An achievement test is designed tomeasure developed skills and tells us what theperson can do currently. An aptitude test isdesigned to forecast what a person can attainwith training. However, the distinctionbetween the two types of test is not neat,because the intention is to assess the currentstanding of those tested, whether the purposeof the test is to assess what has been learnedto date or to predict future performance.

Both types of test include similar kinds of questions. The real differentiating factorseems to be the purpose of the test. For ex-ample, on completion of a course in mechanicsa test of knowledge of mechanical principlesis given to the participants. This amounts toa test of achievement. But similar questionsmight be incorporated into a battery of testsfor those applying for pilot training, becauseknowledge of mechanical principles has beenfound to be a good predictor of success inflying. In this case, the test would be con-sidered a test of aptitude.

Although the significant factor differentiat-ing achievement and aptitude tests has beenidentified here as the purpose rather than thecontent of the test, the existence of relevantprior knowledge and experience is neverthe-less an important factor to note. An aptitudetest assumes little in terms of relevant priorknowledge and experience, whereas anachievement test assumes the person testedhas accumulated specific subject matter, themastery of which is measured by the test.

In practice, the possession of relevantprior knowledge or experience, though notrequired by the aptitude test, could neverthe-less influence the test results. This arisesbecause tests using verbal, numerical, or sym-bolic material are not totally unfamiliar, and

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 77




obviously previous education and experienceinevitably exerts an influence.

Aptitude tests at workExamples of the types of aptitude test foundin the occupational field are examined in thissection (Toplis, Dulewicz, & Fletcher, 2004).These tests could be used in the personnel selec-tion process, to be discussed later in Chapter 18.

Verbal abilityThere are a number of tests that measure lowerlevels of word meaning and comprehension.Some of these tests necessitate an element ofreasoning with words. Also, there are verbaltests involving more complex mental operationsof reasoning and critical evaluation and theseare available for assessing candidates of highability, such as graduates and managers.

Numerical abilityThere are lower level numerical tests requiringan understanding of, and skill at, arithmeticalcalculations. In these tests, candidates’ exist-ing accomplishments, as well as their aptitude,are being assessed. There are also numericaltests for candidates of high ability, such as grad-uates and potential managers, which are con-cerned with higher order numerical reasoningand with critical evaluation of quantitativeinformation.

Spatial abilityThere are tests for lower ability and higher abil-ity candidates requiring mental proficiency inidentifying, visualizing, comparing, or mani-pulating two- or three-dimensional shapes.

Diagrammatical abilityThese tests focus on abstract symbols anddiagrams ranging from superficial perceptualtasks to complex abstract logical processes.They do not include verbal or numerical items.

Manual dexterityEye–hand coordination features in tests that fallinto this category, and the emphasis is on perception and manipulation involving the

fingers and hands. Some tasks require speedwith little precision, whereas other tasks placethe primary emphasis on precision where speedis considered to be of lesser importance. Theabilities involved in manual dexterity tests are relevant to most manual jobs, and are notclosely related to the other ability and intelli-gence tests discussed in this chapter.

Mechanical abilityThese tests are distinct from the manual dex-terity tests described in the previous subsection.There is an element of intelligence and reason-ing ingrained in them, and they are designedto measure the capacity to succeed and learnin jobs that require mechanical ability.

Scholastic Aptitude TestThere are certain tests, such as the ScholasticAptitude Test (SAT) in the USA, that measureboth aptitude and achievement. The SAT isused to test applicants for admission to col-leges and it consists of a verbal section thatmeasures vocabulary skills and the ability tounderstand what is read, and a mathematicalsection that tests the ability to solve problemsrequiring arithmetical reasoning, algebra, andgeometry. The emphasis is on the ability toapply skills acquired to date in order to solveproblems. Questions based on knowledge ofparticular topics are not included. There isanother test known as GMAT, which is usedglobally. This test measures basic verbal,mathematical, and analytical writing skillsthat the individual has developed over time ineducation and work. It is claimed that it helpsselectors in business schools to assess theapplicant’s suitability for advanced study inbusiness and management. Therefore, it couldbe used as one predictor of academic per-formance on an MBA or other postgraduatemanagement course. Just like the SAT, ques-tions on specific knowledge are not asked.

Personality testsMost of the personality tests used are pencil-and-paper tests with multiple-choice elements.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 78




In practice, they are not tests in the sense thatcorrect and incorrect answers are possible tothe various questions. They are really ques-tionnaires in which the job applicant oremployee seeking advancement in the organ-ization is requested to state how he or she feelsabout certain issues, or how he or she wouldreact in certain specified situations.

Personality questionnairesThe first personality questionnaire used as a placement or selection tool operated as a screening device on soldiers in the FirstWorld War. It was used to identify soldiers whoit was felt were unable to face the challengeof combat, and it enabled the speedy testingof thousands of candidates. Handling so manypeople using interviews would be impractic-able. The personality questionnaire wascalled the “Personal Data Sheet”.

A personality questionnaire can have“Yes” or “No” answers, although some ques-tionnaires have an intermediate category suchas “Don’t know” or “Cannot say”. A typicalitem in a personality questionnaire mightread, “I feel comfortable with other people”,with the possible answers:

• Yes• Don’t know• No

Cattell’s 16 PF questionnaireA number of researchers have used the 16 PFquestionnaire with managers. The 16 PFinstrument comprises 187 questions pre-sented in a forced-choice format. For eachquestion, three possible answers are provided– “Agree”, “Uncertain”, and “Disagree”. Theinstructions discourage the excessive use of the“Uncertain” response. In this type of processthere is always a danger that respondentsmay distort their true position on variousissues by unwittingly giving an inaccurate ora socially acceptable response. However, thisdanger may be minimized in a supportive climate where questionnaires are completedanonymously.

The Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)This is a device used to measure the dimen-sions of personality, and lie scale items areincluded to screen out respondents makingsocially desirable responses.

The EPI has been used as a personalitymeasure in a number of occupational settings.For example, Eysenck (1967) conducted astudy of business groups and found that suc-cessful business people were stable introverts,but there was some variation across func-tions. Those working in finance, research anddevelopment, and internal consultancy were themost introverted, and those whose activities cut across more than one function were lessintroverted. In another study, this time inpilot training, Bartram (1995) concluded thatapplicants for pilot training are much moreemotionally stable and more extraverted thanthe general population.

A large amount of data from EPI person-ality questionnaires was analysed and as aresult there was an endorsement of Eysenck’sthree dimensions – extraversion, neuroticism,and psychoticism. An additional two dimen-sions, described as sensation-seeking andobsessionality, were identified (Kline, 1987). A person scoring high on sensation-seekingtends to get involved in activities likely to satisfy his or her need for sensation, such asrally driving or mountain climbing.

The person endowed with a significantlevel of obsessionality displays obsessive be-haviour exemplified by an almost unnaturaladherence to rules and regulations, oftenaccompanied by a strong preoccupation withtidiness, and sometimes stinginess. Anothermanifestation of obsessionality is authoritar-ianism, and should a manager possess thistrait there is a likelihood that he or she is capable of adopting an autocratic style ofmanagement.

Other questionnaire testsAn example of other tests used to measure personality is the Saville & Holdsworth Ltd(1984) Occupational Personality Questionnaire(OPQ) developed in the UK.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 79




TABLE 3.3 Traits in the Saville & Holdsworth Ltd (1984) Occupational Personality Questionnaire

Trait Characteristics

Relationships with people

Persuasive Enjoys selling, changes opinions of others, convincing with arguments, negotiates.

Controlling Takes charge, directs, manages, organizes, supervises others.

Independent Has strong views on things, difficult to manage, speaks up, argues, dislikes ties.

Outgoing Fun-loving, humorous, sociable, vibrant, talkative, jovial.

Affiliative Has many friends, enjoys being in groups, likes companionship, shares things withfriends.

Socially confident Puts people at ease, knows what to say, good with words.

Modest Reserved about achievements, avoids talking about self, accepts others, avoidstrappings of status.

Democratic Encourages others to contribute, consults, listens, and refers to others.

Caring Considerate to others, helps those in need, sympathetic, tolerant.

Thinking style

Practical Down-to-earth, likes repairing and mending things, better with the concrete.

Data rational Good with data, operates on facts, enjoys assessing and measuring.

Artistic Appreciates culture, shows artistic flair, sensitive to visual arts and music.

Behavioural Analyses thoughts and behaviour, psychologically minded, likes to understand people.

Traditional Preserves well-proven methods, prefers the orthodox, disciplined, conventional.

Change-oriented Enjoys doing new things, seeks variety, prefers novelty to routine, accepts changes.

Conceptual Theoretical, intellectually curious, enjoys the complex and abstract.

Innovative Generates ideas, shows ingenuity, thinks up solutions.

Forward planning Prepares well in advance, enjoys target setting, forecasts trends, plans projects.

Detail conscious Methodical, keeps things neat and tidy, precise, accurate.

Conscientious Sticks to deadlines, completes jobs, perseveres with routine, likes fixed schedules.

Feelings and emotions

Relaxed Calm, relaxed, cool under pressure, free from anxiety, can switch off.

Worrying Worries when things go wrong, keyed up before important events, anxious to do well.

Tough-minded Difficult to hurt or upset, can brush off insults, unaffected by unfair remarks.

Emotional control Restrained in showing emotions, keeps feelings back, avoids outbursts.

Optimistic Cheerful, happy, keeps spirits up despite setbacks.

Critical Good at probing the facts, sees the disadvantages, challenges assumptions.

Active Has energy, moves quickly, enjoys physical exercise, doesn’t sit still.

Competitive Plays to win, determined to beat others, poor loser.

Achieving Ambitious, sets sights high, career-centred, results-oriented.

Decisive Quick at conclusions, weighs things up rapidly, may be hasty, takes risks.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 80




The OPQ was developed from a model ofpersonality that was created initially from areview of existing questionnaires, theories ofpersonality, work-related information, feed-back from companies, and repertory griddata generated by employees in companies. It consists of some 11 questionnaires for usein selection, development, counselling, andteambuilding. The OPQ is based on 30 traitslisted in Table 3.3.

Some reservations have been expressedabout the OPQ, but equally there are sup-portive comments, as follows: “It has not yetbeen the subject of the peer review process nor the focus of independent research that is necessary for all scientific achievements”(Jackson & Rothstein, 1993).

Having analysed the concept 5.2 ques-tionnaire – one of a series of questionnairessubsumed under the label of OPQ – it was concluded, from the analysis conducted byBarrett, Kline, Paltiel, and Eysenck (1996)and the research of others, that the OPQ con-cept 5.2 is overlong and contains a proportionof redundant and quantifiably complex items.There is little evidence to support the exist-ence of 30 discrete measurement scales, andalthough it has strengths it could benefit else-where from further development.

However, supportive findings werereported by Robertson and Kinder (1993),who carried out a major meta-analysis look-ing at the criterion-related validity of OPQ personality measures. The results show thatOPQ fares well in relation to other predictorsof performance, such as assessment centres,cognitive ability tests, and work samples.These predictors or tests are examined inChapter 18.

In addition to personality questionnaires,there are other ways of making assessments ofpersonality. In daily life we are constantlymaking subjective assessments of the person-ality of others. In a formal sense we use theinterview as a method to assess personality.Other ways of assessing personality aredescribed elsewhere in this book: for example,projective tests and the repertory grid were

discussed in Chapter 2. There is also“graphology”, the study of how we loop ourLs and cross our Ts, and this is more popu-lar in Europe than in the USA (see Panel 3.2).

Issues in psychometricsThe remainder of this chapter will be devotedto examining psychometric tests from a num-ber of angles:

• features of tests• advantages of tests;• disadvantages of tests;• standing of psychometric testing;• ethical issues.

Features of testsPsychological tests generally possess a numberof features (Toplis et al., 2004). With the oddexception they tend to be objective, standard-ized measures with well-controlled and uniformprocedures governing the way the test is con-ducted and scored. Therefore, the test items,instructions, and time allowed (where a timelimit exists) should be the same for every candidate. Also, every candidate should beexposed to the same physical test conditions,such as adequate illumination, appropriatetemperature, a distraction-free environment,and adequate space.

Scoring, whether operated manually orcomputerized, must be objective to ensurethat the tester’s or scorer’s judgement does notlead to variations in the score. Therefore, thetester has a “key” that contains a value allo-cated to a given answer. The raw scoresderived from values placed on the responsesare only significant when they are comparedwith norms for the particular occupationalgroup in question. The norms are the rangeof scores obtained from a large representativesample of people for whom the test wasdesigned. The sample could, for example,consist of a group of sales representatives inthe UK, and the norms relate to the normalor average performance of this group, withdegrees of deviation above and below the

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 81




average. To ensure standardization andobjectivity, a normative score is read from anorms table. Also, this ensures that the sub-jective interpretation of the data by the testeris removed from the process.

A percentile score is taken from the conversion tables, and this represents the pro-portion of the reference group (the occupationalgroup with which the individual tested iscompared) that has a lower score than the person tested. For example, if a sales repre-sentative scored at the 75th percentile on a par-ticular dimension of a test using UK norms,then his or her score would be better than 75%of UK sales representatives. Only 25% of UKsales representatives would have a better score.

The manual supporting the test shouldcontain scientific data to show the “quality”

of the test and what it is supposed to do. In this context two factors are crucial – reliability and validity. A test is reliable if itgives the same profile on a repeated basis inthe same conditions. In other words, the meas-ure must be consistent. A test is valid if it measures what it is supposed to be measuring.A more detailed explanation of these con-cepts appears in Chapters 9 and 18 in con-nection with attitude measurement andselection methods.

It should be noted that training thoseresponsible for the administration and inter-pretation of tests is very important, as isrestricted access – for example, preventingcandidates getting hold of tests before selec-tion, and therefore reducing the chances of testsbeing misused. Proponents of personality

Panel 3.2 GraphologyParallel to the scientific assessment of personality is the growth in non-scientific methods such asgraphology (handwriting analysis). In the words of two exponents of handwriting analysis, “hand-writing holds the key to one of life’s most fascinating and tantalising mysteries – the true per-sonality of another human being” (Greene & Lewis, 1988). According to Lowe (2007) handwritingis a reflection of the inner personality; it shows a person’s ego strength, how good they feel aboutthemselves, and their intellectual, communication, and working styles.

Adopting an allegedly “scientific” approach to graphology, called graphonomy, a profile of anemployee was produced from an inspection of a person’s handwriting. The person profiled wasa 27-year-old man occupying a managerial position in the buying department of a London depart-ment store. Married with one young daughter, he was promoted from the position of sales clerkhaving spent 10 years with the same firm, wielding considerable authority in his job and carryingsignificant responsibilities. He was said to be an attractive, outward-going person with many friends,and scored strongly on traits such as assertiveness, ambitiousness, and extraversion (Greene &Lewis, 1988).

From interpreting the signature of John McCain, a candidate in the US presidential electionof 2008, Lowe – cited above – is reported in the Gulf News (19 May 2008) as saying that McCain’svariable writing style revealed a proud, idealistic, and impulsive man on a short fuse. The signa-ture of another candidate, now President Obama, revealed similar traits. Hilary Clinton’s legible,balanced signature showed a woman of great intelligence, and its simplicity portrayed a “what yousee is what you get personality”.

The results of a study of personnel selection techniques used for managers in the mid-1980sshowed that 2.6% of the top 1000 UK companies always used graphology in the assessment ofmanagers (Robertson & Makin, 1986). However, drawing inferences about the personal qualitiesof the person from an analysis of his or her handwriting is challenged as on unreliable form ofassessment (Klimoski & Rafael, 1983). (There is further discussion of graphology, including criti-cism, in the context of selection methods in Chapter 18.)

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 82




tests are keen to emphasize their usefulness. It is claimed that, when compared with otherselection devices such as interviews and refer-ences, personality tests have a number ofattractive features.

In a cross-cultural context some types of tests may have greater significance thanothers. For example, tests of cognitive abil-ities should be important for many jobsthroughout the world, and evidence indicatesthat they are less prone to cultural effects(Salgado, Anderson, Moscoso, Bertua, deFruyt, & Rolland (2003). It is claimed thatsome non-verbal tests of cognitive ability,rather than verbal tests of cognitive ability, do not discriminate against respondents fromdifferent cultural and linguistic backgrounds(Higgins, Peterson, Lee, & Pihl, 2007).

However, it is suggested that personalitytests may be more susceptible to culturalinfluences. Feltham, Lewis, Anderson, andHughes (1998) maintain that personality testsmake few allowances for cultural differencesbetween countries. By way of example, theyrefer to a question on a standard test focus-ing on a need to achieve. Swedes may notrespond in the expected way to such a ques-tion because they would like to bury anydesire to achieve beneath a socially consciousexterior. A project that Feltham et al. wereengaged in was to try to get rid of culturalincompatibility in an existing test offered bya consultancy company.

In the next two subsections there are useful comments relating to both the advan-tages and disadvantages of tests of personal-ity and ability (Furnham, 2008; Toplis et al.,2004).

Advantages of tests• Tests provide quantitative data on tempera-

ment and ability that make it possible tocompare individuals on the same criteria,which is appealing when compared with“interviews” and “references”. In inter-views it is possible to find different ques-tions being asked of different interviewees,and in references often the language used is

not the most illuminating in conveying thenature of personal characteristics.

• Tests are scientific instruments based ontheoretical foundations, and they are reliable,valid, and allow us to distinguish between sub-jects in terms of good, bad, and indifferent.

• Tests are comprehensive, embracing thebasic features of personality and ability thatform the foundation of varied behaviouralpatterns.

• Tests are fair because they prevent corrup-tion, favouritism, and bias being perpetu-ated because of a candidate’s membershipof an influential network or club.

• Users of tests not conversant with person-ality theory are provided with usefulbehavioural concepts for distinguishingbetween individuals.

• The outcome of testing provides power-ful insights to challenge one’s beliefs andbehaviour.

• Data generated by tests can be filed and re-examined at a future date to establish howeffective this information was in predictingsuccess in the job.

Disadvantages of testsHaving recognized a number of the strengthsof personality and ability tests, we are nowgoing to look at some of the weaknesses. Theanswers provided by respondents to questionson the personality questionnaire could be distorted for a number of reasons, and testscould likewise have some weaknesses, such asthe following:

• Subjects may not have sufficient self-awareness to give a response that reflectstheir true feelings.

• Subjects may not be feeling well and mayperform in an unexpected way.

• The questions may be misread for a multi-tude of reasons (e.g., lack of an adequateeducational background).

• Subjects deliberately sabotage the process bygiving random, meaningless responses.

• Tests are invalid – they do not measure thatwhich they say they are measuring and the

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 83




scores produced do not predict behaviourover time.

• Tests fail to measure certain critical factors,such as the existence of “trustworthiness”and the likelihood of “absenteeism” inorganizations.

• Tests are unfair and biased towards particu-lar racial and gender groups. For example,in connection with gender, it is said thatmales tend to secure more favourableprofiles, which act to their advantage whenit comes to obtaining jobs.

• Sometimes the necessary skill to interpret theresults of the test and produce accurateprofiles is absent due to deficiencies on thepart of those charged with this responsibil-ity. This could arise as a result of lack ofskill, insight, and experience.

• There is a lack of good “norms” to whichthe raw scores can be related. Therefore,there is a tendency to use norms moreappropriate to a different culture (see theexplanation of norms in the next subsection).

• As tests become more established, subjectscould acquire them in advance and derivebenefit from addressing the questions. Insuch cases the results may reflect priorpreparation rather than the true ability ofthe candidate.

• Freedom of information legislation mightcreate a situation where those tested couldhave access to the results and challenge the scores and the interpretation placed onthem.

• Subjects may deliberately set out to createa false impression. Unlike tests of intelligenceand aptitude (discussed above), which arealmost impossible to fake because the can-didate comes up with either the right or the wrong answer, tests of personality areopen to faking.

Issue of fakingThe last point needs elaboration. If a personapplying for a job takes a personality test, themotivation to secure the job may lead that person to generate responses that he or shethinks will make them an attractive candidate

in the eyes of the employing organization. Itwas found that personality profiles obtainedfrom job applicants tended to be considerablyinflated when compared to those obtainedfrom non-job applicant samples (Birkeland,Manson, Kisamore, Brannick, & Smith, 2006).It seems that where a personality test is takenfor the purposes of vocational guidance, people are motivated to give relatively truth-ful answers to the questions because it is intheir interest to discover all they can aboutthemselves in order to make sound vocationalchoices. However, one cannot rule out fakingto create a good impression even in these cir-cumstances (McCormick & Tiffin, 1974).

The tester can use forced-choice tech-niques specifically designed to minimize fak-ing. With a forced-choice item the respondentmust choose between answers that appearequally acceptable (or unacceptable) but differ in validity for a specific criterion. Thefollowing is an example of a test item from a personality test (the Gordon PersonalProfile) using the forced-choice technique.The respondent is asked to examine a set ofdescriptions of personal characteristics andselect one description that is most like, and onedescription that is least like, him or her. Thedescriptions are: (1) a good mixer socially; (2) lacking in self-confidence; (3) thorough inany work undertaken; (4) tends to be some-what emotional.

It should be noted, however, that theforced-choice technique reduces but does noteliminate faking, especially by the applicant fora specific job (Anastasi, 1997). Other measuresto neutralize faking are disguising the test sothat it appears to be something quite differ-ent from what it really is, and introducing “lie scales”. The latter is a set of questionsdesigned to detect distortion by the personbeing tested. One approach is to introduce anumber of statements depicting ultra-perfectqualities that, bar a few, the normal personcould not conceivably possess. If the respon-dent scores too highly on these items, then thetester can challenge the credibility of all theother responses and disregard the test score.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 84




Another approach is to repeat individual testitems, sometimes slightly disguised, and thensee whether the respondent gives the sameanswers to both sets of questions.

Serious consideration has been given to the issue of faking by subjects completingpersonality questionnaires or tests used inpersonnel selection. In one study the results,which were in line with previous findings,indicated that the questionnaires used were allhighly susceptible to faking. Through recog-nizing certain caveats, the researcher found thatsubjects were able to fake in a selective wayby projecting desirable profiles compatiblewith their perception of the occupation inquestion (Furnham, 1990).

Hirsh and Peterson (2008) have recentlycome forward with an alternative strategyinvolving the use of personality question-naires that are more resistant to biased self-reporting in the first place. It is claimed to bea fake-proof measure of the Big Five person-ality traits. This questionnaire contains anumber of comparisons between two or moredesirable personality descriptions (e.g. areyou a hard worker or a creative thinker?). Thistype of forced-choice between two or moredesirable options limits the respondentsopportunities to enhance his or her esteem, asa respondent cannot inflate scores in one areawithout simultaneously deflating scores inanother area.

Standing of psychometric testingNearly four decades ago Ghiselli (1973) con-cluded that personality tests have some modest value when used to assist with the personnel selection process. More recentlyMurphy and Dziewecznski (2005) maintainedthat the validity of measures of broad per-sonality traits is still low, that personalitytests used in organizations are still poorlychosen, that links between personality andjobs are poorly understood, and that person-ality measures are unlikely to achieve thedegree of acceptance associated with cognitivetests. However, Hirsh (2009) is complimentaryabout the standing of one particular model of

personality, when he maintains that relatingpersonality to job performance has benefitedgreatly from the use of the Big five measure.

In the UK Blinkhorn and Johnson (1990)casts doubts on the use of personality tests forrecruitment and promotion purposes. Theylooked at the three most widely used andrespected tests (including the 16 PF and theOPQ) and concluded that there is little evidenceof enduring relationships between personalitytest scores and measures of successful perform-ance at work.

Jackson and Rothstein (1993), in an ana-lysis of the use of personality tests for person-nel selection, take issue with Blinkhorn andJohnson on their conclusions. They maintainthat “the criticisms do not accurately or fairlycharacterize all personality measurement inpersonnel selection research”. Despite theirreservations, however, Blinkhorn and Johnsondo acknowledge that personality testing maybe invaluable for counselling purposes, or inother situations where self-perception is asimportant as the truth.

Later Blinkhorn (1997) expressed pro-found reservations about the usefulness ofpsychometric tests when he stated that “testtheory has contributed little to our under-standing of ability, aptitude and temperamentor improved reliable measurement of per-sonal characteristics over the past fifty years”.A similar view was expressed by Barrett (1998)– that all the measurement made within occu-pational psychology is of ambiguous status, andthat occupational selection and psychometrictesting are unlikely to progress much furtherin terms of greater understanding and predic-tion unless they adopt an approach to inves-tigative psychology that is in accord with theprinciples and axioms of scientific measure-ment. Duncan (1999), a practitioner, chal-lenges Barrett’s view about the ambiguousscientific status of measurement in psychome-tric testing, and puts forward views defendingthe scientific basis of psychometrics.

There has also been criticism from aprominent US academic who has conductedresearch into intelligence, referred to earlier.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 85




Sternberg, writing in the AmericanPsychologist, states that tests have not keptabreast of developments in psychology; infact, they are rooted in knowledge that has been around for a long time. Conventional abil-ity tests measure only a narrow range, andresults differ with race and sex, which couldleave employers open to ethical and legalproblems. Sternberg (quoted in Rogers, 1998)refers to the psychometric industry as

an oligopoly of a small number ofcompanies, that have their respective turfsset out for them, and should be subjected tomore economic competition and morepressure to change. Clients should insist ontests that better reflect what we know today,not 100 years ago.

There are further thoughts on psychomet-rics in Panel 3.3.

Ethical issuesIt is worth reflecting on some important ethical considerations in the use of tests forselection purposes (Porteous, 1997):

• Tests should never be used withoutjustification. One should ensure that thetest has relevance to the job, and that theindividual’s score on the test can be com-pared with at least some aspects of perform-ance on the job.

• Tests should be administered by users withqualifications approved by The BritishPsychological Society (BPS).

• Tests should not be stored in places witheasy general access; instead they should besecurely filed.

• The test results of individuals who fail tosecure the job on offer should be destroyedor retained without identifying the candi-date’s name.

• Applicants should receive sympatheticfeedback on their test performance, particu-larly when they were not selected for the job. People are probably more sensitive tonot securing the job because they “failed thetest” (particularly an intelligence test) thanwould be the case with an unsuccessfuloutcome at a selection interview.

• Use should be made of valid and up-to-datetests because the changing requirements of jobs call for a different set of abilities,

Panel 3.3 Debate in psychometric testingOne of the major objectives of classical psychometric assessment (personality/cognitive ability tests)used in selection has been to predict performance. Reservations have been expressed about theefficacy of this approach (Hirsh, 2009; Lewis et al., 2009). Hirsh calls for an acknowledgement ofwhat he describes as situational moderators, in effect the behavioural context in which perform-ance takes place. For example, the existence of clearly structured roles, close supervision, andformalized communication systems may help to reduce what would otherwise be differences inperformance between more or less “conscientious” employees, thereby reducing the importanceof this personality trait. By contrast, situations involving sudden unexpected crises or requiringimmediate emergency action may enhance differences in performance between more and less “emo-tionally stable” individuals, thereby increasing the extent to which this personality trait predictsperformance.

According to Lewis et al., the psychometric measures used over a very long period of timeare not robust enough to accommodate the evidence gained from our perceptions. If managersand others are sceptical, it is because of the low levels of demonstrated validity. We need to bringback content validity! Because of deficiencies in the classical approach, there is a need for a paradigmshift both in what we measure (IQ, personality) and how we complete the measurement.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 86




or because there are changes in the qual-ity of candidates offering themselves forselection.

• Conditions should be created in which allcandidates have a reasonable expectation ofperforming at their best by providing suit-able conditions for the administration of the

test and by giving a clear statement ofwhat is in store for candidates. Also, givecandidates the opportunity to gain practiceby tackling sample test questions prior to the actual test. However, one shouldavoid a situation where coaching for testsis commonplace.

QUESTIONS

(1) Discuss the difference between personality and intelligence.(2) Outline the “models of intelligence” and identify a particular model that appeals to you,

giving reasons for your choice.(3) Assess the significance of emotional intelligence in the contemporary world of work.(4) Describe the ways in which intelligence is measured, and comment on the controversy

over its measurement.(5) Discuss the relative importance of genetic inheritance and a person’s environment as

factors influencing intelligence.(6) Distinguish between achievement tests and aptitude tests, and comment on their use-

fulness in a business organization.(7) Identify a major personality test and assess its usefulness in an employment setting.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

• After defining intelligence, models of intelligence were introduced.• The early models, using a factorial approach, dominated the scene until the 1960s.

Subsequently, the information-processing model, influenced by developments in cognitivepsychology, became influential.

• The tendency now is to take a broader view of intelligence than is found in the more traditional approaches, and one manifestation of this trend is the acknowledgement ofthe importance of emotional intelligence.

• Also, the part played by heredity and environment in influencing intelligence was recog-nized as a subject of heated debate, and the effects of age and gender were briefly examined.

• The issue of the measurement of intelligence, using intelligence tests, was noted as beingcontroversial.

• Closely related to intelligence tests are aptitude and achievement tests, which are reallytests of ability. A distinction was made between aptitude and achievement tests, and ex-amples of aptitude tests in the occupational field were given.

• Other tests such as personality tests in wide use were analysed, in particular the EPI andOPQ, and other ways of assessing personality, including graphology, were acknowledged.In future tests based on the “Big Five” factor theory, discussed in Chapter 2, are likelyto be prominent.

• Issues connected with the use of psychometrics were explored.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 87




FURTHER READING

• Kline, P. (2000). The new psychometrics. Science, psychology, and measurement.London: Routledge.

• Sternberg, R. J. (2000). In search of the zipperumpa-zoo (Broadbent Lecture onIntelligence). The Psychologist, 13, 250–255.

• Toplis, J., Dulewicz, V., & Fletcher, C. (2004). Psychological testing: A manager’s guide(4th ed.). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

• Zeidner, M., Roberts, R. D., & Mathews, G. (2008). The science of emotional intellig-ence. Current consensus and controversies. European Psychologist, 13, 64–78.

7981848720343_4_003.qxd 7/8/11 2:27 PM Page 88



first published 2012 - amazon web services · first published 2012 by psychology press 27 church...

Documents