Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Studies in the Mentality of Literates: 3. Conceptual Structure and Nonsense of Personality Testing

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, third in a series of studies of the relationships between the dominant type of the Word Meaning Structure (WMS) and various psychic processes, response patterns on personality questionnaires with Likert-type response format of individuals with different levels of education (including adult illiterates) in Brazil (N = 102) and in Estonia (N = 520) were assessed with person oriented methods of data analysis. We found that responses to two personality questionnaires (International Personality Item Pool Questionnaire, IPIP-Q60 and Estonian Collectivism Scale, ESTCOL) are inconsistent and do not correspond to theories that underlie construction and interpretation of such assessment tools. Two novel ways to assess inconsistent response patterns were developed. The Consistency Index (CI) characterizes between-item inconsistency and the Determinacy Index (DI) characterizes within-item inconsistency. The dominant type of the WMS and the level of education were related to both CI and DI. Higher level of between-item inconsistency characterizes everyday conceptual thinkers with lower levels of education and higher level of within-item inconsistency was observed among logical conceptual thinkers with higher levels of education. Systematic relationships between WMS and inconsistent patterns of responses indicate that responses on personality questionnaires cannot be interpreted in terms of personality characteristics. The results of our study also provide further support to the idea that dominant type of the WMS is a pervasive characteristic of the psyche and determines qualitatively possibilities and limits of the psychic processes. The results of this study are in agreement with the idea that WMS defines the “Great Divide.”

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A five-factor theory perspective. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 303–322). Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality. A psychological interpretation. Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(211), v–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arias, V. B., Garrido, L. E., Jenaro, C., Martinez-Molina, A., & Arias, B. (2020). A little garbage in, lots of garbage out: Assessing the impact of careless responding in personality survey data. Behavior Research Methods, 52, 2489–2505. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01401-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arro, G. (2013). Peeking into personality test answers: Inter- and intraindividual variety in item interpretations. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-012-9216-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions in personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batchelor, J. H., & Miao, C. (2016). Extreme response style: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 16(2), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 56(3), 571–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, L. R., & El-Khouri, B. M. (2002). SLEIPNER: A statistical package for pattern-oriented analyses. Version 2.1. Stockholm University, Department of Psychology.

  • Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the Five-Factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britt, T. W. (1993). Metatraits: Evidence relevant to the validity of the construct and its implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(3), 554–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1943a). The description of personality. I. Foundations of trait measurement. Psychological Review, 50(6), 559–594. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1943b). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38(4), 476–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell, R. B. (1945). The description of personality: Principles and findings in factor analysis. American Journal of Psychology, 58(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/1417576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M. T. (1931). De finibus bonorum et malorum. In H. Rackham (Ed.), Cicero. De finibus bonorum et malorum. William Heinemann.

  • Conijn, J. M., Emons, W. H. M., van Assen, M. A. L. M., Pedersen, S. S., & Sijtsma, K. (2013). Explanatory, multilevel person-fit analysis of response consistency on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 48(5), 692–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2013.815580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory. Manual. Form S and Form R. Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diriwachter, R., Valsiner, J., & Sauck, C. (2005). Microgenesis in making sense of oneself: Constructive recycling of personality inventory items. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(1), Art. 11. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-6.1.520

  • Emerson, G. J. (1979). The egalitarian paradox in public education. Canadian Journal of Education, 4(3), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency of the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44(3), 329–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. (1986). Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(3), 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galton, F. (1884). Measurement of Character. Fortnightly Review, 42(212), 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In C. D. Spielberg & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. I, pp. 203–234). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.59.6.1216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several Five-Factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tillburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldin, C. (1999). Egalitarianism and the returns to education during the Great Transformation of American Education. Journal of Political Economy, 107(S6), S65–S94. https://doi.org/10.1086/250104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goody, J. (1977). The domestication of the savage mind. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences. Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, R. R., Marjanovic, Z., & Troister, T. (2019). Indiscriminate responding can increase effect sizes for clinical phenomena in nonclinical populations: A cautionary note. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 37(4), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282918758809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J. L., Liu, M., & Bowling, N. A. (2015). Insufficient effort responding: Examining an insidious confound in survey data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 828–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy. In O. P. John, R. Robins, W., & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research. Third edition. (pp. 114–158). Guilford Press.

  • Kalton, G., & Schuman, H. (1982). The effect of the question on survey responses: A review. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 145(1), 42–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klages, L. (1929). The science of character. George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, G. A., & Krauth, J. (1975). Configural frequency analysis as a statistical tool for defining types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447503500201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 4–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, M., Harbaugh, A. G., Harring, J. R., & Hancock, G. R. (2017). The effect of extreme response and non-extreme response styles on testing measuremement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(726), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundmann, L., & Villadsen, J. W. (2016). Qualitative variations in personality inventories: Subjective understandings of items in a personality inventory. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(2), 166–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2015.1134737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luria, A. R. (1974). Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel'nykh processov. Eksperimental'no-psikhologicheskoje issledovanije. Moscow: Nauka.

  • Luria, A. R. (1979). Jazyk i soznanije. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.

  • Marjanovic, Z., Holden, R., Struthers, W., Cribbie, R., & Greenglass, E. (2015). The inter-item standard deviation (ISD): An index that discriminates between sonscientious and random responders. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marjanovic, Z., & Holden, R. R. (2019). Differentiating conscientious from indiscriminate responders in existing NEO-Five Factor Inventory-3 data. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1984). Personality is transcontextual: A reply to Veroff. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10(2), 175–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167284102002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood. A Five-Factor Theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The Five-Factor Theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. Robins, W., & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality. (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). Guilford Press.

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2021). Understanding persons: From Stern’s personalistics to Five-Factor Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Sutin, A. R. (2018). A Five-Factor Theory perspective on causal analysis. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539–1550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2020). Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(2), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., McCrae, R. R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2014). Cross-rater agreement on common and specific variance of personality scales and items. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuzum, H., Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2019). Comparability of self- and other-rated personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 31(6), 741–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17(11), 776–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism. Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.1.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsoneault, T. B. (1998). A variable response inconsistency scale and a true response inconsistency scale for Jesness Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 10(1), 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Koido, K., Ceulemans, E., & Allik, J. (2002). Three components of individualism. European Journal of Personality, 16, 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roivainen, E. (2015). The Big Five factor marker adjectives are not especially popular words. Are they superior descriptors? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49, 590–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9311-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. J., & Valsiner, J. (2011). The un-making of a method: From rating scales to the study of psychological processes. Theory and Psychology, 21(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354309352913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeders, U., Schmidt, C., & Gnambs, T. (2021). Detecting careless responding in survey data using stochastic gradient boosting. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644211004708

  • Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294205014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosnowska, J., Hofmans, J., & Lievens, F. (2021). Assessing personality dynamics in personnel selection. In J. F. Rauthman (Ed.), The handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 1139–1157). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taras, V., Sarala, R., Muchinsky, P., Kemmelmeyer, M., Singelis, T. M., Avsec, A., ... Sinclair, H. C. (2014). Opposite ends of the same stick? Multi-method test of the dimensionality of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(2), 213-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113509132

  • Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment. Journal of Personality, 56(3), 621–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1929). Theory of attitude measurement. Psychological Review, 36(3), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, 41(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (1996a). How culture transforms mind: A process of internalization. Culture and Psychology, 2(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9600200305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (1996b). What characterizes language that can be internalized: A reply to Tomasello. Culture and Psychology, 2(3), 319–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X9600200307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2003). Relationships between personality structure, structure of word meaning, and cognitive ability: A study of cultural mechanisms of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A. (2017). Minu Ise areng: inimlapsest Inimeseks. (Development of My Self: From the human child to the Human.). Väike Vanker.

  • Toomela, A. (2020a). Culture, speech and My Self. Porcos ante Margaritas.

  • Toomela, A. (2020b). Studies in the mentality of literates: Searching for the cultural Great Divide at the individual level of analysis. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09503-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toomela, A., Barros-Filho, D., Bastos, A. C., Chaves, A. M., Ristum, M., Chaves, S., & Salomão, S. J. (2020a). Studies in the mentality of literates: 2. Conceptual structure, cognitive inhibition and verbal regulation of behavior. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(4), 880–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09517-4

  • Toomela, A., Barros-Filho, D., Bastos, A. C., Chaves, A. M., Ristum, M., Chaves Santos, S., & Salomão, S. J. (2020b). Studies in the mentality of literates: 1. Conceptual structure and aspects of visual perception. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54(2), 465–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-019-09511-5

  • Uher, J. (2013). Personality psychology: Lexical approaches, assessment methods, and trait concepts reveal only half of the story-why it is time for a paradigm shift. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9230-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Eye, A. (1990). Introduction to configural frequency analysis. The search for types and antitypes in cross-classifications. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Eye, A., Mair, P., & Mun, E.-Y. (2010). Advances in configural frequency analysis. Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Myshlenije i rech. Psikhologicheskije issledovanija. (Thinking and speech. Psychological investigations.). Gosudarstvennoje Social'no-ekonomicheskoje Izdatel'stvo.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1935). Razvitije zhiteiskikh i nauchnyks ponjatii v shkol'nom vozraste. (The development of everyday and scientific concepts in the school age. Originally presented as a lecture in 1933). In L. V. Zankov, Z. I. Shif, & D. B. El'konin (Eds.), L. S. Vygotsky. Umstvennoje razvitije detei v processe obuchenija. (Cognitive development of children in the process of learning in the context of teaching.) (pp. 96–115). Gosudarstvennoje Uchebno-Pedagogicheskoje Izdatel'stvo.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1983). Istorija razvitija vyshikh psikhicheskih funkcii. (Originally written in 1931). In A. M. Matjushkina (Ed.), L. S. Vygotsky. Sobranije sochinenii. Tom 3. Problemy razvitija psikhiki. (pp. 5–328). Pedagogika.

  • Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. (Originally written in 1930). In R. v. d. Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader. (pp. 99–174). Blackwell.

  • Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1930). Etjudy po istorii povedenija. Obezjana. Primitiv. Rebjonok. Gosudarstvennoje Izdatel'stvo.

  • Watson, D. (1992). Correcting for acquiescent response bias in the absence of a balanced scale: An application to class consciousness. Sociological Methods and Research, 21(1), 52–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Wang, Y. (2020). Validity of three IRT models for measuring and controlling extreme and midpoint response styles. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(271), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00271

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all participants who contributed their time and effort for this study. We thank Cristina Ceciarelli and Boipeba community for help in organizing the study. We thank Grete Arro, Johanna Hark, Tiit Kõnnussaar, Valeri Murnikov, and Valdar Tammik for research assistance.

Funding

Writing of this work was supported by the Tallinn University School of Natural Sciences and Health Grant Study of novel aspects of the state and development of speech function and by the Estonian Research Council Grant No IUT03-03 (Academic and personal development of an individual in the system of formal education) to Aaro Toomela.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Sciences and Health, Tallinn University, Narva Rd 29, 10120, Tallinn, Estonia

    Aaro Toomela, Soraya Jesus Salomão & Aleksander Pulver

  2. Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão, Brazil

    Delma Barros Filho

  3. Federal University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Ana Cecília S. Bastos, Antonio Marcos Chaves & Marilena Ristum

  4. State University of Bahia, Salvador, Brazil

    Sara Santos Chaves

Authors
  1. Aaro Toomela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Delma Barros Filho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Cecília S. Bastos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Marcos Chaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marilena Ristum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sara Santos Chaves
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Soraya Jesus Salomão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Aleksander Pulver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaro Toomela.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

No author of this paper has any conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Toomela, A., Filho, D.B., Bastos, A.C.S. et al. Studies in the Mentality of Literates: 3. Conceptual Structure and Nonsense of Personality Testing. Integr. psych. behav. 57, 117–150 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09706-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09706-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation