When I was completing the survey I was not surprised by the questions. The questions are supposed to indirectly classify you based on a numerical rating of the traits: extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism, agreeableness and openness. Your actions and predictable behavior dictate your responses, such as how organized you are would influence your conscientiousness. Similar questions were also given on the research studies I have participated in before. I have not read the Trait Theory of the assigned reading yet, but will before the test. Therefore when I was answering the questions I was not skewed one way or the other. However, I felt I knew how to load the questions to change my score, but chose not to because it would be remove the usefulness of the survey entirely. I could feel there was a right way and wrong way to answer, when it says how much do you care about people, or do you insult people, you know there is a right way and an honest way to answer them and they might not always line up. I felt mildly judged throughout the experience.
I feel the results accurately reflect my personality. I am very neat and organized so I scored high for conscientiousness. I am more of an extrovert than a introvert, which the results prove that. I am not completely outgoing, I still do not mind being alone. I know I argue with people and am skeptical of their motives so I scored low and agreeableness. My openness score was higher than I thought it would be, but it is not far off from what I originally thought. I do not experience a surplus of negative emotions so that score was rightfully low. When I first saw the numbers I felt relatively objectified due to my personality being rated only on numbers. Everyone believes numbers can not do their entire personality justice. If I could change one thing about my personality, it would be to increase my agreeableness. I think my results look good. In my opinion the optimal personality based on percentiles would be 70 for extraversion, 80 on conscientiousness, 30 on neuroticism, 70 on Agreeableness and 70 on openness. Extreme results, either high or low, may cause people to act more polar toward you. I wish I was more trusting of people and less competitive. Being a competitive person, it sometimes makes me root for people to fail, which is not a characteristic I would like to possess. Being more positive could benefit me it appears, even though I am not grumpy I am relatively cynical.
The personality index approach has a few good advantages. Almost all cultures understand it. The best advantage is that this approach, using the five traits, classifies my personality dimensionally instead of just saying I am an introvert and net very open. This gives a more individualistic reading, which is more accurate and useful. This also gives the researcher more room for statistical analysis versus a categorical system. The observers and the person being evaluated generally agree with the rankings as well. I agreed with the scores and other people, including my family and friends would agree with the results. People close to me do comment on conscientious characteristics, but do point out the fact that I can be argumentative sometimes.
I do have problems with the personality index approach. One is my personality varies on the situation. This is known as trait-situation interaction. When I am around my friends at a party I am a extrovert, but if I am talking to a group of strangers I have no desire to be the center of attention and just listen and observe. The more I know someone, the more honest I will be toward them, which may lower the agreeableness score. If I am tired or have many responsibilities on my mind, I am not conscientious at all. I feel like you can have a personality, but not act according to it. You can be skeptical of someone who you think manipulates others, not because you do it, but because you know the reasons why someone would do that. Changing your personality for different situations changes the environment around you and can be a useful tool for some people. The personality index is a great indicator of how you emotionally respond to things.
Next short paper
The Mozart Effect has been debated and the results have been difficult to duplicate, however the proposed effects are worth the challenges for a new study. The Mozart Effect has been used on infants in the hopes of increasing intelligence, but does it? College students showed that it increased short-term spatial ability, though generally unconfirmed. Increased alertness could also be a contributing factor to increased short term spatial ability, either with classical music (Mozart), enjoyable music, or completing an exciting activity. By playing classical music 10 minutes prior to an administered IQ and spatial ability test, college students will show an increase in test scores relating to the specific subject of spatial ability due to increased alertness.
This experiment will have five groups of test takers, all test takers will be ages 18-22 in a college university selected randomly; having another five groups younger would be desirable but ultimately not practical due to age and ethical restrictions. Each group will initially take a test that has half of the questions relating to spatial ability, such as geometry, manipulating maps, etc. and the other half be a standard IQ test. All questions will be mixed up randomly. This test will serve as a baseline score for the effects of the independent variable to be measured against. After taking the test and receiving a short break, the students will be administered the independent variable. Group one will listen to 10 minutes of classical Mozart, group two will listen to 10 minutes of their personal favorite songs, and group three will complete an exciting activity to increase alertness by watching Raiders of the Lost Arc. Of course all movie tastes are different, but critics generally regard this movie as exciting. Group four will just sit for 10 minutes before starting the next test (control group). Group five will listen to 10 minutes of relaxing instrumental music (music with little to no increase in alertness). After each of the groups been exposed to the independent variable, they will take a similar, equally challenging and representative test as before. The second test is the dependent variable. This is an experimental method. The two tests are the measurable variables, which are operationalized through their composite score. There are two parts to each test, the spatial ability (subject specific) and the IQ portion (overall intelligence), so they will be separated to display the effect each independent variable had on it. The second test should display a change, thus it is the dependent variable. All five groups will not be informed of the distinction between the spatial ability questions and the IQ questions, the expected results of the experiment the effects of alertness.
Group one and the classical music is our main focus for the Mozart effect, spatial ability scores are expected to increase and the change in the IQ test is currently unknown. The group that listens to their favorite music will stimulate short-term mental arousal which is indicative of the Mozart effect, this may give insight to whether music genre or mental stimulating is the main cause. Group three will all be given the same experimental variable to stimulate mental arousal so duplicating the experiment may be done. Everyone in Group two will not listen to the same music. Group four is the control. Group five has music stimulation, but it is believed that it will not raise the test takers level of alertness. Even though each group will be comparing their results to their first test, they will also be compared in the change of score in group four. A confounding variable is students may get fatigued after the first test and do poorly on the second test, and that will be apparent in group four, and that decrease in score can be factored into the other three groups, possibly raising their score. Other influencing variables are everyone's different state of alertness, which can be normalized by groups two and three. This is will not eliminate this variable, but it will reduce it. This experiment must be repeated with different groups and the results have to be replicated.
All the data from the groups will be tested using a t-test and if the P value is below .05, then the result is unlikely due to chance and it is statistically significant. An increase in the score of spatial ability for group one after the music is played will prove the hypothesis as long as it is a greater increase than in group four, the control. If I was literate, I could write an instruction manual to suck dick cheese through a straw. If group one did not show an increase in scores than the hypothesis is proven false. Other positive or negative results might influence the study and findings as well. If groups two and three scored similarly well on second tests we might attribute the Mozart effect to increasing alertness. If group five showed increased scores and not groups two and three, then alertness is not a factor for increased scores. Any positive result would be a good result, whether it be increasing scores of the spatial ability, overall intelligence, or both. The experiment is strictly short term. If these results are positive, caring students might listen to Mozart before Geometry and tests relating to spatial ability, or generally any test due to then misinterpreting the findings from the study, like the Georgian Governor. Mozart sales may increase and finding ways to become more alert will be used and possibly abused. Future studies may include long term testing with subjects listening to classical music under a strict regiment and measuring test taking ability over time with multiple subjects or just spatial ability. The age group may be expanded if the original study was successful. The Mozart effect could possibly be tested on other animals to measure their cognitive ability. There could be many impacts of the study felt in the community.
