Qualitative analysis of laic personality description on the basis of facial morphology

This study examines spontanneous, laic personality ratings of face in comparison to following questionnaires: 16 PF, EPQ-R, NEO-PI-R. We've focused on how people spontaneously rate personality from face in relation to traits which are examined by said questionnaires. We tried to discover which traits are part of questionnaires but not included qualiative ratings and vice versa which traits can be found in laic descriptions but not in questionnaires. We used data from previous studies which provided us with two independent data, self-reports and ratings of facial photographs. Ratings were sorted out and compared to questionnaires. Most of the traits from qualiative data were also included in NEO-PI-R, specifically 90,4% of traits from self-reports and 82,90% of peer reports. 16 PF covered 88% and 77,81% of traits, EPQ-R 86% and 75,94% respectively. The least covered factor overall was Self-Reliance (16 PF) which included only 0,4% of all traits from self-reports. We have not found any factor which would be completely neglected in qualiatitve descriptions. Atractivity and physical traits were one of the main traits among those left unclassified. As with atractivity itself there was wide range of traits that we are unsure of how much personality relevant they actually are. Among unclassified traits..

The Formation of Elites at a Local Level: The Situation in the City of Chomutov

Liberal Arts and Humanities - Social Sciences ModuleStudium humanitní vzdělanosti - Společenskovědní modulFaculty of HumanitiesFakulta humanitních studi

Qualitative analysis of laic personality description on the basis of facial morphology

This study examines spontanneous, laic personality ratings of face in comparison to following questionnaires: 16 PF, EPQ-R, NEO-PI-R. We've focused on how people spontaneously rate personality from face in relation to traits which are examined by said questionnaires. We tried to discover which traits are part of questionnaires but not included qualiative ratings and vice versa which traits can be found in laic descriptions but not in questionnaires. We used data from previous studies which provided us with two independent data, self-reports and ratings of facial photographs. Ratings were sorted out and compared to questionnaires. Most of the traits from qualiative data were also included in NEO-PI-R, specifically 90,4% of traits from self-reports and 82,90% of peer reports. 16 PF covered 88% and 77,81% of traits, EPQ-R 86% and 75,94% respectively. The least covered factor overall was Self-Reliance (16 PF) which included only 0,4% of all traits from self-reports. We have not found any factor which would be completely neglected in qualiatitve descriptions. Atractivity and physical traits were one of the main traits among those left unclassified. As with atractivity itself there was wide range of traits that we are unsure of how much personality relevant they actually are. Among unclassified traits..