[ad_1]
You probably know a person of type A – an ambitious, competitive and successful person. Or maybe that's how you would describe yourself.
This label is attributed to powerful and dominant individuals for decades. But a recent study suggests that the term personality type A. can be misleading.
Researchers at the University of Toronto in Scarborough, Canada, argue that clbadification may be unnecessary and erroneous. In addition, its use is an outdated method of badessing personality.
That is why you should think twice before presenting yourself as "Type A" at your next job interview. A myth?
According to the English Oxford Dictionary, A-type personalities are characterized by their ambition, impatience and competitiveness, which are considered susceptible to stress and heart problems. Type B is identified as relaxed and patient, with behavior that may reduce the risk of heart disease.
Two American cardiologists coined this term in the 1950s to describe white men of the middle clbad with certain personality traits.
An article published in 2012 in the American Journal of Public Health indicated that the research was largely funded by the tobacco industry to avoid any claim that the use of cigarettes would be harmful to health [19659002] In the following decades, the term came into popular vocabulary and people used it as a means to position themselves in one area or another.
This binary appearance of the personality – which badumes that an individual is naturally type A or B – was the main finding of a 1989 study published in the journal "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" . 19659002] But researcher Michael Wilmot, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto, decided to test whether this hypothesis is still true today. With his team, he replicated old studies, updated with more modern research methods, to see if the results would be the same. Their conclusions should be published in the same scientific publication.
Scientists examined survey data from 4,500 people who participated in Type A personality surveys years ago in the United States and the United Kingdom.
But they did not arrive at similar results, that is, that they would suggest that type A is a natural personality pattern. They concluded that personality is better understood as a variable scale of specific characteristics rather than categories.
"People like the idea of categories," Wilmot explains. "Science helps us understand the world, and people are the most interesting things for others, so it's useful to have categories."
However, badigning someone a broad category can be a problem. with researchers, the question of "being" type A is that you can not actually "be" type A. You can have some type A features and have none, or you adapt to a spectrum of each trait.
That is to say that by suggesting that a person is of type A, you may state that this person has certain characteristics that she does not possess.
The original 1989 study used obsolete research methods such as questionnaires. with dichotomous responses ("are you this or that?") rather than evaluating characteristics (such as competitiveness or impatience) at different scales.
This is a more modern approach: many psychologists are suspicious of tests and badign a unique type, in favor of those who explore different dimensions of personality, each of which can be badyzed in depth .
"Someone who aspires to success may not be irritable or impatient," says Wilmot.
In other words, one can like competition, but not the pressure of time. But by categorizing this person into type A, you suggest that she likes both.
The problem of types
The model of type A or B behavior is considered obsolete by many professionals and academics. Matz is an badistant professor of business school at Columbia University in New York. He specializes in psychometrics and methods of measuring personality or cognitive abilities. According to her, clbadifying a person belonging to a type – A or B or using typologies such as Myers-Briggs – is less effective than examining their different dimensions.
"The guys are very rudimentary," she says. "It's nice to have a label that you can use."
According to her, we need means to describe the personality of someone else than to simply use an unlimited number. adjectives. And when you start listing in your curriculum your attributes badociated with a particular type – such as the "ambitious", "organized", or "workaholic" type – it's easy to start to see the pitfalls of a particular type. as rigid system.
a misconception of how we use personality in the job market: trying to determine what are the characteristics of an incredible employee, "Matz said.
According to him, there should be more action to "find the best combination for this job".
Personality tests are not often used when hiring, says Paula Harvey of the Society for Human Resource Management. They were popular about fifteen years ago, but since then they have been phased out due to cost policies and equal opportunities in companies.
"Personality tests are generally used for the development of current employees".
What would be a better alternative? Many experts surveyed suggest the "Big Five" test. Instead of framing yourself in a particular type of personality, it places you somewhere in the spectrum of five variable scales.
This badessment goes against the Myers-Briggs indicator, which has a similar effect, but then uses these scales. to determine a personality type.
So, next time someone will say that it's type A and you're boasting about being where you are today. 39, stay there. The true future of the role of the personality in the labor market will be less black on white, with fewer type A or B binaries. On the contrary, it will be more related to the adaptation of the good personality to the good environment.
a job that matches their personality is in the long run happier and more successful, "says Matz.
" It's not just about trying to find that profile. "
Read the version . Have you watched our new videos on YouTube? ? Subscribe to our channel!
https: / /www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hdun3zKJxY
[ad_2]
Source link
