Personality Studies among Adjectives description

Researches on personality traits are numerous and ongoing in a bid to establish the best suited way of classifying characteristics of personality. It is after obtaining a reliable structural model on the variation of human personality that researchers will be able to forge the way forward in coming up with an eventual personality theory (Michael et al., 2004). The theory will be essential in assessment of differences among human individuals at an improved level of efficiency and thoroughness. The major problem remains in identifying the personality dimensions that are major in obtaining a set of variables that will be representative across all individual personalities. Nonetheless, the lexical hypothesis comes in handy to offer a potential way of overcoming the problem of identifying crucial personality dimensions by offering varied adjectives that can be used to deduce personality traits in studies (Michael et al., 2004). A good example of the use of lexical hypothesis is personality studies among adjective description. 

Personality Studies among Adjectives description are studies that use lexical hypothesis that is largely employed in psychology of personality. The lexical hypothesis is guided by two assumptions. One assumption holds that the traits in and individual’s personality that are very essential in the life of the individual will always be reflected in the individual’s language. The other assumption is based on the first assumption in that the most crucial characteristics in an individual’s life are highly probable to be coined in a single word (Michael et al., 2004). Having its genesis in the later years of the nineteenth century, the application of lexical hypothesis commenced its flourishing in psychology particularly in Germany and England. The lexical hypothesis is a chief base of the great five traits of personality, the 16PF Questionnaire and the HEXACO model of personality structure that are widely applied in studying personality traits in varied semantic and ethnic settings. 

The first studies of the structure of personality were carried out by employing adjectives in the language of English. From these studies, the researchers were able to come up with the big five factor system. The big five factor system encompasses the personality dimensions particularly; extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, intellect imagination and emotional stability. Other studies involving investigations of personality structure from a lexical basis employing personality adjectives have also been done in different languages but the most notable was the Czech language studies. 

Despite the language used in these standard lexical studies, the outcomes point towards one direction in support of the big five model structures and the many aspects it stands for. However, these studies have not been clear enough as depicted in researches done in the Italian language and Hungarian language. Notably, these researches unveiled another factor, beyond the fifth factor and were more on honesty rather than imagination or intellect of the individuals studied. Nonetheless, a review done by Michael et al., 2004 has pointed out that more than seven languages contain a set common amongst them having six factors of personality. These languages include; Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Korean and Hungarian, each having a regular set of six personality factors. From these six personality dimensions, two are aligned with the traditional constructs of conscientiousness and extra-version .the next two dimensions are aligned with constructs of emotional stability and agreeableness, that were coined in such a way that terms of temper and anger aligned with the construct of low agreeableness in place of low emotional stability as outlined by the big five (Hunt, 1973). Additionally, schmaltziness together with terms of femininity was aligned with low emotional stability in place of high levels of agreeableness as depicted in the big five. The other factors shows close correspondence with the intellect-imagination but at times, it gets described in terms of unconventionality. The final factor, denoted as honesty-humility encompasses attributes of human character such as shyness, deceitfulness, pretense, sincerity and fairness. 

English personality lexicon 

There exists a puzzle in the English personality lexicon after the emergence of the almost identically similar set of six factors. Furthermore, the set of six factors appear in varied languages encompassing the branches of romance, Germanic and Slavic in the Indo-European kinfolk and also encompasses two languages that are not Indo-European (Revelle, 2011). This broad view therefore indicates possibility of being the best contender in peak nomenclature of human character variation. The major part of the puzzle lies in the lack of evidence of the use of this structure in the English studies of human character variations. 

The importance of studying extraversion and introversion is in that it tries to explain why some individuals express some characteristics more than others. For instance, the characteristic of being talkative is different among individuals where some show less of the trait than others. For a long time now, questions still get raise on the reasoning behind this set of behaviors (Michael et al., 2004). 

Generally, there is one major straightforward characteristic of extraversion that makes it essential in the study of psychology. This characteristic is that extraversion is one of the most crucial elements in understanding human personality traits. This therefore gives it an exceptional potential in explaining the variations and relationships between different character traits among individuals (Hunt, 1973). 

Methodology 

Participants 

The participants of the experiment were both the experimenters and subjects in the experiment. The experimenters were us, the class members and we looked for subject to experiment on. Students at the entire campus were the major target population. The sampling technique used for this study was the convenient random sampling. The individuals chosen for the study were conveniently picked out without any specific formula and on accepting, they were to fill the needed information for the study in the provided sheets of paper. There was indiscriminate choice on whom to administer the study to and whom not to. The area of study was the entire campus. The reason for choosing it was convenience and the high numbers of students available that were potential respondents for the study. The inclusion criterion was basically on attributes of the subjects that were essential for their selection to participate. In this study, it was based on all students at the campus who were willing to take part in the study. The exclusion criterion was on any attributes of the subjects that require their elimination as respondents. In this study, it was based on all students at the campus who were NOT willing to take part in the study. There was no coercion and the individual’s opinion was final. 

Materials 

The materials used were mainly the sheets of paper containing the description of personality traits and the spaces for filling in by the respondents. They were structured in the same manner for all groups and also all questions and categories of answers corresponded among all groups. 

In conducting the WARM category of the experiment; specific words were read out clearly and slowly to the respondents. We presented the words that the people in each group would hear. Speaking slowly and clearly was emphasized. We also encouraged the subjects to write the words down, as it would help them remember. The specific words were; Intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical, cautious. After the subjects heard the words, we asked them to write down a one paragraph description of the person, as they can imagine them to be. When they were finished, we asked them to choose which of the list of all two pairs of adjectives they believe best describes the person. The instructions on the choices of adjectives were; Please choose from each pair of adjectives the one that best fits the person, as you imagine them to be. The checklist was as below; 

Positive trait	Negative trait
1.Generous	Ungenerous
2. Wise	Shrewd
3. Happy	Unhappy
4. Good natured	Irritable
5.Humorous	Humorless.
6.Sociable	Unsociable
7.Popular	Unpopular
8.Reliable	Unreliable
9.Important	Unimportant
10.Humane	Ruthless
11.Good looking	Unattractive
12.Persistent	Unstable
13.Serious	Frivolous
14.Restrained	Talkative
15.Altruistic	Self -centered
16.Imaginative	Hard headed
17.Strong	Weak
18.Honest	Dishonest

In conducting the section on WARM category of the study, the same materials were used and applied accordingly. The only difference was the change in the trait of COLD to the trait WARM. 

Procedure 

The initial step was obtaining the material which was the paper that had the instructions. After everyone got it, we proceeded to look for subjects in campus. We could approach any student and request for their consent in participating in the experiment. We outlined that non-invasive procedures would be used. On accepting and consenting to engage in the experiment, we asked them for their kind volunteering to listen to the adjectives describing a person they had to imagine. This was done in the two sets of cold and warm definitions. The first set of WARM description encompassed specific words to describe the individual and was read out. They were specifically; Intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical, cautious . We also encouraged the subjects to write down the words as it would help them in remembering. From this point, we asked the subject to describe how they would imagine that person to be according to the set of words they listened to. They were to put the imagination of the person in a one paragraph brief description. 

Following this, the subjects were provided with a list of more adjectives contrasting in definition. The subject then read the list carefully, to find the adjective that was best suited for the person they had described. As they progressed, they were to circle whichever one adjective they thought fell among the personality they had already described of that imaginary person. 

The same procedure was repeated for the COLD group where the character traits outline were; Intelligent, skillful, industrious, cold, determined, practical, cautious. Notably, the words were said in such a manner as to conspicuously bring out the difference which was the change of warm trait to cold trait. 

Once we had at least 5-10 sheets of experiment filled out per student we evaluated the results in class. This evaluation was based on counting the entire positive and negatives adjectives received according to the subjects descriptions. We then compared and contrasted the written description paragraph as positive or negative regarding the description of that imaginary person they had identified according to the adjectives they heard the experimenter say. 

Design 

Cross sectional design was used whereby the reading of the words was done on one individual at a time. The administration of the experiment was on an individual subject per time. We looked for subjects in campus and on approaching them; we then asked them for their kind volunteering to listen to the adjectives describing a person they had to imagine in two sets of cold and warm definitions. On accepting and consenting, the subjects had to describe how they would imagine that person to be according to the set of words they listened to in a one paragraph brief description. All this was based on the subject’s imagination without external interferences. Once we had at least 5-10 sheets of experiment filled out per student we evaluated the results in class. This evaluation was based on counting the entire positive and negatives adjectives received according to the subjects descriptions. We then compared and contrasted the written description paragraph as positive or negative regarding the description of that imaginary person they had identified according to the adjectives they heard the experimenter say. 

Results 

From our experiment, we were able to obtain specific results as based on the responses of the subjects. . We tabulated the results in accordance with the numbers of similar responses. Notably, the tables were differentiated into positive adjectives of both warm and cold outcomes and negative adjectives of both warm and cold outcomes. Additionally, bar graphs were also generated to depict the graphical representation of the positive and negative outcomes as outlined below. 

Table 1. Adjectives of positive outcomes. 

POSITIVE ADJECTIVES	WARM	COLD
Generous	14	10
Wise	17	14
Happy	15	7
good-natured	15	8
Humorous	10	9
Sociable	17	10
popular	13	13
reliable	19	17
important	15	17
humane	16	8
good-looking	16	18
persistent	16	18
serious	13	18
restrained	9	12
altruistic	15	7
imaginative	8	6
strong	14	17
honest	14	14

Table 1. Adjectives of positive outcomes. 

The table shows the various distributions in responses of the subjects. 

POSITIVE ADJECTIVES	WARM	COLD
Generous	14	10
wise	17	14
happy	15	7
good-natured	15	8
humorous	10	9
sociable	17	10
popular	13	13
reliable	19	17
important	15	17
humane	16	8
good-looking	16	18
persistent	16	18
serious	13	18
restrained	9	12
altruistic	15	7
imaginative	8	6
strong	14	17
honest	14	14

 

Figure 1. Adjectives of positive outcomes. 

Adjectives of positive outcomes, where the difference is clearly displayed between the cold and warm groups. 

Table 2. Adjectives of negative outcomes. 

NEGATIVE ADJECTIVES	WARM	COLD
ungenerous	2	6
shrewd	0	4
unhappy	3	11
irritable	2	10
humorless	9	9
unsociable	1	8
unpopular	5	6
unreliable	0	1
unimportant	15	1
ruthless	1	10
unattractive	1	0
unstable	0	0
frivolous	4	0
talkative	8	5
self-centered	4	13
hard-headed	9	12
weak	1	0
dishonest	1	4

Table 2. Adjectives of negative outcomes. 

Figure 2. Adjectives of negative outcomes. 

Fig2. Outcomes of Negative adjectives 

Discussion 

This experiment set out to determine the various aspects of an individual’s personal traits that could be affected by inclusion or exclusion of a single adjective. The characteristics that were listed in WARM group were; Intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical, cautious. On the other hand, the traits highlighted by the COLD group were; Intelligent , skillful, industrious, cold, determined, practical, cautious. It is notable that the major distinguishing factor was the cold versus warm trait between the two groups. From these characteristics, the subjects identified varied adjectives to describe the person. As seen in the results, most of the subjects had varying views. In considering the positive adjectives, the highest numbers were in the WARM rather than in the COLD groups involved in the experiment. On the other hand, the highest numbers in the negative adjectives were depicted in the COLD rather than the WARM aspects of the experiment. From these results, it is evident that the characteristics of and individual can be altered by addition or subtraction of a single adjective. 

In explaining why there was huge variations in the character traits of the individual just because of changing one adjective, the human impression of characteristics of and individual need to be considered. In the human mind, it is easy to deduce whether a person is negative or positive depending on the aspects presented (Revelle, 2011). From this study, it has been noted that a huge and detailed description of and individual can be achieved using incredibly little amounts of information. After gaining knowledge about the personality traits of and individual, opinions are formed either positively or negatively. As a result, the anticipation on meeting a pre-describe individual may be positive or negative. The reason for this is that one character trait in and individual can be used to bring out their positive or negative aspects as seen in the experiment. According to Michael et al., 2004 it is in human nature to look at and individual and form an impression of the character of the person without any information given beforehand. However, it remains hard to conclusively state the principles behind the formation of these impressions in the human mind. He continues to point out that at first glance, it is impossible to come up with many character traits of an individual. Instead, human beings come up with an overall impression of the character of the person encountered. He noted that when a single trait changes, the overall picture of the individual also changes. 

From the experiment, the varied views about whether the individual was positive or negative depended on the altered description between the two groups. Moreover, it is notable that the changes resulting from this alteration of the description of a person were not universal since different adjectives were used to describe the same person differently. Based on the experiment, the altered character was cold and warm where one group used the warm character while the other uses the cold character trait. From evidence, it is proven that a description of someone being warm causes a person to view the described person in other aspects such as sociability, generosity, happiness and wisdom, to mention just a few (Revelle, 2011). However, being of warm character has no association with traits such as honesty, reliability and attractiveness. Therefore, the impression formed about and individual is all about the interaction of one trait with other traits in the individual. 

Conclusion 

From various studies done in the past, it is evident that the importance of studying extraversion and introversion is in that it tries to explain why some individuals express some characteristics more than others. For instance, the characteristic of being talkative is different among individuals where some show less of the trait than others. For a long time now, questions still get raise on the reasoning behind this set of behaviors. The experiment sought to determine the variations of changing one adjective in the description of personality traits in an individual. According to the findings, we were able to establish the effects of changing one trait in describing the character of a human being. Notably, the experiment observed the impact on the general impression of an individual from the change of the trait of being cold with the trait of being warm and holding the rest of the traits constant. It was noted that a huge discrepancy occurred in the way the individual was perceived with this change. Additionally, some positive traits showed no relation to other positive traits. For instance, being warm was not associated with being reliable. Therefore, further research is needed in this area of study in trying to unravel the mystery behind change of the impression got of an individual. 

References  

Hunt E., Frost, N., & Lunneborg, C. (1973). Individual differences in cognition: A new approach to intelligence. Psychology of learning and motivation, 7, 87-122. 

Michael C, Kibeom L and Lewis G. A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English-Personality Descriptive Adjectives. (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) 87(2004): 707–721. 

Revelle, W., & Wilt, J., (2011). Individual differences and differential psychology. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences , 1-38.