| Title |
„Jūsų NEO išvada“: validus ar Barnumo efektu grįstas grįžtamojo ryšio suteikimo būdas? / |
| Another Title |
"Your NEO Summary": is it a valid way of providing feedback, or is its accuracy due to the Barnum effect? |
| Authors |
Poškus, Mykolas Simas ; Liniauskaitė, Audronė ; Kairys, Antanas ; Žukauskienė, Rita |
| DOI |
10.15388/Psichol.2014.49.3694 |
| Full Text |
|
| Is Part of |
Psichologija.. Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. 2014, t. 49, p. 44-59.. ISSN 1392-0359. eISSN 2345-0061 |
| Keywords [eng] |
personality feedback ; Barnum effect ; “Your NEO Summary" |
| Abstract [eng] |
Therefore, it is important to determine whether an instrument that accurately provides a feedback to people in the USA can also provide an accurate and meaningful feedback to Lithuanians. The aim of this study was to determine whether “Your NEO Summary” and its component statements are valid. To realize this aim, three studies were carried out. In the first study, we tested whether a real summary sheet is perceived as more accurate than an inverted one. In the first study, 269 university students filled in the NEO-FFI questionnaire and were promised a feedback; they were informed that the aim of the study was to determine the validity of the feedback; 176 students (44 males, 132 females) came back to receive the feedback. Some of the participants got their real summary and some got an inverted one. The inversion was made so that the statement in the summary was as far from the truth as possible, so for a person whose personality T scores of a given trait were less than or equal to 50, we checked the statement in the summary sheet which indicated a highly expressed trait. If a person’s T score was above 50, we checked the statement indicating a low trait expression. After reading their personality feedback, participants were asked to turn over their sheets and answer the question printed on the back: they were asked to evaluate the accuracy of their feedback on a scale of 1 to 6, 1 being entirely inaccurate and 6 being entirely accurate. We found that the group that received the real (M = 5.04) “Your NEO Summary” perceived it as more accurate than did the group that received an inverted one (M = 4.31), and the effect was moderate (U = 2051.5, Z = –4.284, p < 0.001, r = 0.32).... |
| Published |
Vilnius : Vilniaus universiteto leidykla |
| Type |
Journal article |
| Language |
Lithuanian |
| Publication date |
2014 |
| CC license |
|
