A memory-systems approach to the classification of personality tests: comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006)
- PMID: 17764396
- DOI: 10.1080/00223890701357431
A memory-systems approach to the classification of personality tests: comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006)
Abstract
In response to Meyer and Kurtz's (2006) recommended discontinuation of the terms "objective" and "projective" as descriptors of personality tests, a new classification system for personality measures is sketched out that is based on memory research. Adopting a widely used model of the organization of human memory systems (e.g., Squire, Knowlton, & Musen, 1993), a distinction between declarative and nondeclarative personality tests is proposed based on whether tests assess facets of personality represented in consciously accessible memory systems or in nonconscious memory systems whose operation is reflected in performance. The declarative/nondeclarative classification can be further refined by specifying separable memory systems within each domain of memory (e.g., episodic, semantic, priming, skill learning). It is proposed that such a new classification would be conceptually meaningful, because it links personality tests to highly refined accounts of human cognition, and heuristically fruitful, because it provides new insights into the properties and limits of existing tests and helps identify hitherto largely untapped sources for the assessment of personality.
Comment on
-
Advancing personality assessment terminology: time to retire "objective" and "projective" as personality test descriptors.J Pers Assess. 2006 Dec;87(3):223-5. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01. J Pers Assess. 2006. PMID: 17134328 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Toward a process-based framework for classifying personality tests: comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006).J Pers Assess. 2007 Oct;89(2):202-7. doi: 10.1080/00223890701518776. J Pers Assess. 2007. PMID: 17764397 Review.
-
Advancing personality assessment terminology: time to retire "objective" and "projective" as personality test descriptors.J Pers Assess. 2006 Dec;87(3):223-5. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8703_01. J Pers Assess. 2006. PMID: 17134328 No abstract available.
-
Beyond "objective" and "projective": a logical system for classifying psychological tests: comment on Meyer and Kurtz (2006).J Pers Assess. 2008 Jul;90(4):402-5. doi: 10.1080/00223890802108246. J Pers Assess. 2008. PMID: 18584450
-
Amnesia and the declarative/nondeclarative distinction: a recurrent network model of classification, recognition, and repetition priming.J Cogn Neurosci. 2001 Jul 1;13(5):648-69. doi: 10.1162/089892901750363217. J Cogn Neurosci. 2001. PMID: 11506662
-
A process dissociation approach to objective-projective test score interrelationships.J Pers Assess. 2002 Feb;78(1):47-68. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_04. J Pers Assess. 2002. PMID: 11936212 Review.
Cited by
-
Commentary: Discrepancies Between Explicit Feelings of Power and Implicit Power Motives Are Related to Anxiety in Women With Anorexia Nervosa.Front Psychol. 2021 May 25;12:670436. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670436. eCollection 2021. Front Psychol. 2021. PMID: 34113298 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Meta-analytic evidence of low convergence between implicit and explicit measures of the needs for achievement, affiliation, and power.Front Psychol. 2014 Aug 8;5:826. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00826. eCollection 2014. Front Psychol. 2014. PMID: 25152741 Free PMC article.
-
Clarity of task difficulty moderates the impact of the explicit achievement motive on physical effort in hand grip tasks.PLoS One. 2021 Jun 4;16(6):e0252713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252713. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34086786 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical