People, particularly males, who are cynical and demonstrate suspicion and mistrust of others, generally are "without joy, reserved, independent, nor very friendly, impersonal, and & #8230;prefer more solitary occupations and, in general, a lower degree f social stimulation."(1)
But with that being said, there are significant problems that still remain with this study and the methodology under which it was conducted. One of the problems lies with the assessment, the NEO-PI-R, and although it is considered to be the most effective means of gathering the type of information required for a study of this kind, it requires a person to read a series of questions, and then provide answers based on a personal assessment. However, with questions such as "I often get disgusted with people I have to deal with," or "I am known as hot-blooded and quick-tempered,"(1) it is difficult to maintain an identical definition of these terms among the different participants in the study. For instance, what one person considers to be the definition of "disgusted," or "quick tempered," may not be the same as another person. How each individual interprets the term and their personal definition can influence the response on the assessment and introduce a variance among the results.
Another major problem with the assessment is the very nature of the assessment: it is a personal assessment. This requires people to be completely honest not only with the researchers, but with themselves. Very few people can accept criticism of themselves, and they often search for rationalizations to explain their behavior. More importantly, most people tend to actually believe their own rationalizations. There is also the problem of a person not wanting to admit personal shortcomings to themselves, or to the researchers. Even though the study is confidential, and the researchers do not know what answers come from what participant, participants have a natural tendency to project...
In other words, people do not like to reveal their true nature but instead present the world with the image of what they would like to be seen as. In such cases, the results are not really what the researchers intended to receive but are the results that the participants want to present to the researchers. This can alter the very nature of the study and bring all the results into question.
In conclusion, the authors have intended to demonstrate the relationship between the trait of anger, two aspects of the trait of hostility, and the Big Five personality model. In doing so, they used a standard assessment, commonly believed to be the most effective assessment known to researchers, but the very nature of the assessment call into question the validity of such a test. Can people answer questions truthfully, or will there personal view of themselves cloud the results? This problem can, of course, be resolved through a change in the methodology. Instead of personal assessments, the participants should be observed in their daily lives by a group of professional researchers, who could then evaluate the behavior of the participants. In this way the definition of the terms involved in the assessment would be limited to the small group of researchers who could agree on certain factors of the definition when using the terms. Secondly, the evaluation itself would be done by an objective group who may not even know the name of the participant or anything about their personal history. This could ensure that the evaluation of the participant was completely objective and that all definition of terms would be identical. In such a way I believe that the study could generate more reliable and independent results.
Works Cited
1. Sans, J. Gracia-Vera, M.P. & Magan, I. Anger and hostility from the perspective of the Big Five personality model. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology.
