TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Ability, Temperament, and Interests:their joint predictive power for job choice
The International Society for the Study of IntelligenceAlbuquerque, New Mexico
William Revelle and David Condon
Northwestern UniversityEvanston, Illinois USA
Partially supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation:SMA-1419324
September 19, 2015http://personality-project.org/sapa.html
1 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Outline
Temperament, Abilities, and Interests: considering appetites andaptitudes
Method: Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment (SAPA)SAPA theoryDemographics
MeasuresInternational Cognitive Ability Resource: ICARTemperament and Interests
Temperament, Ability and Interests: Occupational ChoicePooled correlations 6= within group or between groupcorrelationsOccupational Choice as niche selection
Summary
2 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Personality, prediction, and life outcomes
1. Has long been known that to predict real world outcomes weneed more than just ability (Kelly & Fiske, 1950, 1951; Deary, 2008; Roberts, Kuncel,
Shiner, Caspi & Goldberg, 2007).
2. Jobs differ in their intellectual requirements (Gottfredson, 1997).
3. We would add that there are also temperamentalrequirements.
4. We will consider individual differences in Temperament,Ability, and Interests as they relate to niche selection inoccupational choice (Bouchard, 1997; Hayes, 1962; Johnson, 2010) .
3 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Measuring individual differences
1. A basic problem in the study of individual differences is thatthere are so many different constructs that interest us. Theseinclude constructs from at least four broad domains
• Temperament• Ability• Interests• Character
2. Each domain has many constructs• Dimensions of Temperament 2-3-5-6-15?• Structure of Ability (g - gf , gc , V-P-R)?• Hierarchical structure of interests people-things, RIASEC• Range of possible measures of character
3. In addition, showing the utility of TAIC measures requirescriterion variables, and should include demographics.
4. Our solution: Use basic sampling theory as discussed by Lord(1955) sampling items as well as people.
4 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
SAPA theory
Subjects are expensive, so are items
1. In a survey such as MTURK, we need to pay by the personand by the item.
2. Why give each person the same items? Sample items, as wesample people.
3. Synthetically combine data across subjects and across items.This will imply a missing data structure which is
• Missing Completely At Random (MCAR), or even moredescriptive:
• Massively Missing Completely at Random (MMCAR)
4. This is the essence of Synthetic Aperture PersonalityAssessment (SAPA).
5 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
SAPA theory
3 Methods of collecting 256 subject * items dataa) 8 x 32 complete
4621363452114345344364533121241421243623166421516154432261516513516613511551654636222244356233441114134336233221561215213561452225353121264561433433232246526411613351545664241146126412253535162463434215153624242541351343511611554654453123111162423325516334
b) 32 x 8 complete4632311425443314433154232631414541435614422361536242134435234443345141666341515444441342135143216636566312264546314661353264551466151251144114416244363633316236633254251153112661155546332453615224165463212356244146636366141445555223143644332146141633232365
c) 32 x 32 MCAR p=.25..3..2..6.....4.55.......44................4..6..45..3.4..6....16..3.......6.1.....6.2.......5.6....3522......5.3...3......5........3.2.2.......3..2......65..5......51....324.........23......5....552............25...54.5.......44.4.5....3..6...6........3......61.523.2....2...........3...5.............42.4..6.5......61.....3....3.6..1.4...1..5......5.1....54..........2.4.33..6......4.....52..6.....44.3...........2..44...1........1..42....5..1.....1..3.......2..3.521.......6..........3.142.........22......12..4...2..........3..162...4.....4..4..6..3.4...1....5.33.........5..........243..5....41......1....5..3..4...4.4..5..1.........4......4.......3..5.2.....64.4..4....1.1.2...6....4......55....2.......3..2..53.....2..2.3.3............1...2..43...3.13........5....2.........4..54...2.3..62....22.......332..1.....5......6.......5..3.4.....3....5.241..............63.1.......6...5..4..2...5..2.4..5..........52.4.....44...2.55.....2.....6.....6.....55.....5..........4....6341.4..2.........55......5.......45....3..32.
6 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
SAPA theory
Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment
1. Give each participant a random sample of pn items takenfrom a larger pool of n items.
2. Find covariances based upon “pairwise complete data”.3. Find scales based upon basic covariance algebra.
• Let the raw data be the matrix X with N observationsconverted to deviation scores.
• Then the item variance covariance matrix is C = XX ′N−1
• and scale scores, S are found by S = K ′X .• K is a keying matrix, with K ij = 1 if itemi is to be scored in
the positive direction for scale j, 0 if it is not to be scored, and-1 if it is to be scored in the negative direction.
• In this case, the covariance between scales, C s , is
C s = K ′X (K ′X )′N−1 = K ′XX ′KN−1 = K ′CK . (1)
4. That is, we can find the correlations/covariances betweenscales from the item covariances, not the raw items.
7 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Demographics
Our data
Time Frame Data collected at personality-project.org andsapa-project.org from August 18, 2010 toSeptember 10, 2015
Subjects N = 191,893 (71,438 males, 120,454 females)
Materials 947 items (696 temperament, 60 ability, 212interests, 39 demographic)
Scales used 15 Temperament, 4 Ability, 6 Interests
N in workforce N =74,708
Occupations 973 separate occupations, following a Paretodistribution with ≈ 80% represented by the top 20%of occupations
N ≥ 75 195 occupations for 55,902 participants
8 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Demographics
Median Age is 22. 63% Female
Age by males and females
count
Age
Age by males and femalesAge
020
4060
80
10000 5000 0 5000 100009 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Demographics
81,200 students, 74,708 in the labor force
Gender and Occupationcount
Gender and Occupation
40000
20000
0
20000
40000
Student not work seeking w. Homemkr Employed Retired10 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Demographics
Of employed: 43% have ≥ a college education, 39% are in college
Gender and Educationcount
Gender and Education
20000
10000
0
10000
20000
< 12 High Sch in Coll < 16 BA/BS in Grad Grad/Pro11 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
abiliy:ICAR
The International Cognitive Ability Resource
1. An international collaboration to develop open sourcecognitive ability items.
2. ICAR:Ability::IPIP:Personality3. http://www.icar-project.com/
4. News letter at http://www.icar-project.com/ICAR_News_Issue_One.pdf
5. Key organizersGermany Phillip Doebler (Munster and Ulm) and Heinz
Holling (Munster)U.K. Luning Sun and John Rust (Cambridge)
U.S.A William Revelle and David Condon(Northwestern)
6. Everyone is welcome to join7. Supported by Open Research Area (ORA) for the Social
Sciences which includes participation from national fundingagencies (Germany:DFG), (UK:ESRC), (US:NSF) 12 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
abiliy:ICAR
ICAR: Proof of concept
1. Condon & Revelle (2014) examined the first 60 publiclyavailable items.
2. We are using them here to examine how ability relates todimensions of temperament and of interest.
3. Domains measured and item sources• Temperament items taken from International Personality Item
Pool (IPIP) (Goldberg, 1999) (ipip.ori.org) andsupplemented with other items.
• Ability items have been validated (Condon & Revelle, 2014) aspart of the International Cognitive Ability Resource Project(ICAR-project.org). (ICAR:Ability::IPIP:Temperament)
• Interest items taken from Oregon Vocational Interest Survey(ORVIS) (Pozzebon, Visser, Ashton, Lee & Goldberg, 2010)
13 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
abiliy:ICAR
Structure of sample ICAR 16 items shows a clear 4 factorhierarchical solution ωh = .87
Omega Hierarchical for ICAR Sample Test
LN.07
LN.34
LN.33
LN.58
R3D.03
R3D.08
R3D.04
R3D.06
MR.45
MR.46
MR.55
MR.47
VR.17
VR.04
VR.16
VR.19
LetterNum
0.80.70.60.5
3D Rotate
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
Matrices 0.70.70.50.4
Verbal R0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
g
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
14 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
abiliy:ICAR
Structure of ICAR 60 items shows a messier 4 factor hierarchicalsolution ωh = .76
Hierarchical structure of ICAR60 items
VR.18VR.39VR.14VR.17LN.01VR.42VR.19VR.09VR.04VR.16LN.03VR.26VR.36LN.34R3D.07R3D.02R3D.17R3D.24R3D.18R3D.14R3D.19R3D.13R3D.12R3D.11R3D.01R3D.03R3D.21R3D.04R3D.08R3D.15R3D.10R3D.23R3D.09R3D.16R3D.05R3D.22R3D.06R3D.20MR.48MR.46MR.45MR.56MR.53MR.55MR.44MR.47MR.43LN.05LN.33MR.50LN.06LN.07MR.54LN.58LN.35VR.23VR.13VR.31VR.32VR.11
Verbal R
10.90.80.60.60.50.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.3
0.40.30.3-0.3
3D Rotate
0.80.70.70.70.70.70.70.70.70.70.60.60.60.60.60.60.60.60.50.50.50.50.40.4Matrices
0.30.3
0.3
0.60.60.60.60.60.60.60.50.50.50.50.40.40.40.40.40.30.3LetterNum
0.30.30.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
g
0.8
0.6
1
0.4
15 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Temperament and Interests
Multiple solutions to the dimensionality of temperament
1. Eysenck “Giant 3” (Eysenck, 1994)
2. The “Big 5” (Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1990)
3. Condon (2014, 2015) examined 696 non-overlapping itemsfrom IPIP:100, IPIP:NEO, IPIP:MSQ, BFAS, EPQ, etc.(Goldberg, 1999; DeYoung, Quilty & Peterson, 2007; Eysenck, Eysenck & Barrett, 1985)
Found meaningful 3, 5, and 15 factor solutions.
4. The Condon 3/5/15 form a heterarchical and non hierarchicalstructure (i.e., lower levels are not cleanly nested in higherlevels.)
16 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Temperament and Interests
The best items from the 15 scale solution
Table: Sample items from the Short Personality Inventory 15 factorsolution
Each scale has 8-10 itemsSPI Item ItemFear Panic easily. Begin to panic when there is danger.Volatility Get irritated easily. Lose my temper.Outlook Dislike myself. Feel a sense of worthlessness or hopelessness.Compassion Sympathize with others feelings. Am sensitive to the needs of others.Trust Trust others Trust what people say.Easygoing Let things proceed at their own pace. Take things as they come.Industrious Start tasks right away. Get chores done right away.Mach Use others for my own ends. Cheat to get ahead.Impulsivity Act without thinking. Do things without thinking of the consequences.Sociability Am mostly quiet when with other people. Tend to keep in the background on social occasions.Boldness Love dangerous situations. Take risks.Serious Seldom joke around. Am not easily amused.Conventional Don’t like the idea of change. Prefer to stick with things that I know.Intellectual Am quick to understand things. Catch on to things quickly.Open Enjoy thinking about things. Love to reflect on things.
17 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Temperament and Interests
6 factors of interests
1. 6 factors from the O*NET interest profiler scales (60 items; Rounds,
Su, Lewis & Rivkin, 2010)
2. 8 factor Oregon Vocational Interest Scales (92 items; Pozzebon et al., 2010)
3. Oregon Avocational Interest Scales (199 items; Goldberg, 2010)
4. Formed into 6 scales fitting a “RIASEC” structure (60 items)
Realistic “Like to work with tools and machinery.”Investigative “Would like to do laboratory tests to identify
diseases.”Artistic “Would like to write short stories or novels.”
Social “Would like to help conduct a group therapysession.”
Enterprising “Would like to be the chief executive of a largecompany.”
Clerical “ Would like to keep inventory records”
18 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Pooled correlations 6= within group or between group correlations
TAI for groups is not the same as TAI for individuals
1. How do occupational groups differ on TAI?• The mean scores for groups allow us to compare the groups• But it is the structure of these group means that are
particularly interesting
2. Overall correlation is a function of within group correlationsand between group correlations.
3. Correlations of aggregate scores rxybg (between groups) 6=aggregate of correlations rxywg (within groups)
4. The overall correlation rxy is a function of the within and thebetween correlationsrxy = etaxwg ∗ etaywg ∗ rxywg + etaxbg ∗ etaybg ∗ rxybg
5. These multi level correlations sometimes lead to what isknown as the Yule-Simpson paradox (Kievit, Frankenhuis, Waldorp &
Borsboom, 2013; Simpson, 1951; Yule, 1903)
• These are independent and useful information.
19 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Temperament, Ability, and Interests – within and between groups
1. Examined the factor structure of the TAI scales at the normal,between subjects (across groups) level.
• This produces the normal factor structure of temperament, ofability and of interests
• Can show these correlations as a “heatmap”
2. But when analyzing the structure of the mean scores for eachof 196 occupational groups (minimum size of 75 members),the structure is drastically different.
• Several dimensions of temperament and interests are nownegatively correlated with ability, others are orthogonal
• Can also show these correlations as a “heatmap”
20 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Subject Level data of 5 personality scales, 6 interests, 4 ability
TAI for employed
ClericalEnterSocialArti
InvestRealVerb3DRotMatrix
LetNumOpIntExt
ConsAgreeNeur
gender
gender
Neur
Agree
Cons
Ext
OpInt
LetNum
Matrix
3DRot
Verb
Real
Invest
Arti
Social
Enter
Clerical
0.02 -0.01 -0.08 0.15 -0.06 -0.09 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.32 0.28 0.06 0.13 0.42 1
-0.24 -0.12 -0.15 0.07 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.3 0.18 0.18 0.09 1 0.42
0.34 0.03 0.33 0.07 0.14 0.11 -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 -0.09 -0.07 0.09 0.21 1 0.09 0.13
-0.13 0.04 0.06 -0.11 0.01 0.36 0.18 0.17 0.2 0.23 0.29 0.27 1 0.21 0.18 0.06
-0.26 -0.04 -0.11 -0.02 -0.09 0.2 0.21 0.23 0.29 0.28 0.43 1 0.27 0.09 0.18 0.28
-0.56 -0.08 -0.17 -0.07 -0.08 0.04 0.2 0.23 0.27 0.19 1 0.43 0.29 -0.07 0.3 0.32
-0.19 -0.01 -0.09 -0.19 -0.17 0.22 0.9 0.83 0.72 1 0.19 0.28 0.23 -0.09 0.04 0.05
-0.3 -0.05 -0.14 -0.24 -0.18 0.22 0.72 0.71 1 0.72 0.27 0.29 0.2 -0.12 0.03 0.08
-0.19 -0.04 -0.09 -0.15 -0.14 0.15 0.85 1 0.71 0.83 0.23 0.23 0.17 -0.04 0.03 0.06
-0.17 -0.03 -0.06 -0.13 -0.12 0.15 1 0.85 0.72 0.9 0.2 0.21 0.18 -0.05 0.06 0.09
-0.16 -0.16 0.17 0.06 0.12 1 0.15 0.15 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.2 0.36 0.11 0.07 -0.09
0.11 -0.2 0.27 0.12 1 0.12 -0.12 -0.14 -0.18 -0.17 -0.08 -0.09 0.01 0.14 0.14 -0.06
0.18 -0.22 0.26 1 0.12 0.06 -0.13 -0.15 -0.24 -0.19 -0.07 -0.02 -0.11 0.07 0.07 0.15
0.39 -0.03 1 0.26 0.27 0.17 -0.06 -0.09 -0.14 -0.09 -0.17 -0.11 0.06 0.33 -0.15 -0.08
0.27 1 -0.03 -0.22 -0.2 -0.16 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.01 -0.08 -0.04 0.04 0.03 -0.12 -0.01
1 0.27 0.39 0.18 0.11 -0.16 -0.17 -0.19 -0.3 -0.19 -0.56 -0.26 -0.13 0.34 -0.24 0.02
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
21 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Group Level data of 15 personality scales, 6 interests, 4 ability
TAI between groups
ClericalEnterSocialArti
InvestRealVerb3DRotMatrix
LetNumOpIntExt
ConsAgreeNeur
gender
gender
Neur
Agree
Cons
Ext
OpInt
LetNum
Matrix
3DRot
Verb
Real
Invest
Arti
Social
Enter
Clerical
-0.09 -0.07 -0.13 0.2 -0.01 -0.02 0.02 0.03 -0.01 -0.02 0.17 0.01 -0.05 -0.12 0.35 1
-0.22 -0.21 -0.29 -0.04 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.2 -0.03 0.1 -0.14 1 0.35
0.5 0.15 0.56 0.11 0.25 -0.11 -0.3 -0.27 -0.32 -0.26 -0.38 -0.15 -0.11 1 -0.14 -0.12
-0.04 0.19 -0.08 -0.42 -0.13 0.43 0.24 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.1 -0.02 1 -0.11 0.1 -0.05
-0.26 -0.21 -0.22 -0.03 -0.29 0.07 0.33 0.39 0.35 0.28 0.3 1 -0.02 -0.15 -0.03 0.01
-0.75 -0.38 -0.59 -0.24 -0.34 0.2 0.35 0.36 0.42 0.28 1 0.3 0.1 -0.38 0.2 0.17
-0.38 -0.07 -0.42 -0.54 -0.41 0.57 0.92 0.88 0.84 1 0.28 0.28 0.28 -0.26 0.04 -0.02
-0.48 -0.25 -0.49 -0.5 -0.49 0.6 0.89 0.89 1 0.84 0.42 0.35 0.29 -0.32 0.08 -0.01
-0.41 -0.19 -0.41 -0.45 -0.39 0.51 0.93 1 0.89 0.88 0.36 0.39 0.25 -0.27 0.09 0.03
-0.44 -0.16 -0.46 -0.48 -0.42 0.51 1 0.93 0.89 0.92 0.35 0.33 0.24 -0.3 0.09 0.02
-0.19 -0.13 -0.13 -0.41 -0.14 1 0.51 0.51 0.6 0.57 0.2 0.07 0.43 -0.11 0.12 -0.02
0.31 -0.09 0.38 0.25 1 -0.14 -0.42 -0.39 -0.49 -0.41 -0.34 -0.29 -0.13 0.25 0.12 -0.01
0.29 -0.21 0.41 1 0.25 -0.41 -0.48 -0.45 -0.5 -0.54 -0.24 -0.03 -0.42 0.11 -0.04 0.2
0.75 0.29 1 0.41 0.38 -0.13 -0.46 -0.41 -0.49 -0.42 -0.59 -0.22 -0.08 0.56 -0.29 -0.13
0.52 1 0.29 -0.21 -0.09 -0.13 -0.16 -0.19 -0.25 -0.07 -0.38 -0.21 0.19 0.15 -0.21 -0.07
1 0.52 0.75 0.29 0.31 -0.19 -0.44 -0.41 -0.48 -0.38 -0.75 -0.26 -0.04 0.5 -0.22 -0.09
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
22 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Niche selection
1. Occupations differ systematically in intellectual Abilityrequired
2. But they also differ in Interests and Temperament required.
3. A simple two factor solution shows that high ability can tradeoff for low Industry or Conscientiousness and that Boldness(low Anxiety) and Realistic interests differs from high Anxietyand Social interests.
4. We can examine the extent to which this second dimension adifference of gender using factor extension.
23 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Biplot of a two factor solution to the group level data
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-3-2
-10
12
3Biplot of TAI scores at group level
MR1
MR2
Fear
Volatility
Enthus
Compassion
Trust
Easygoing
Industry
Mach
Impulsivity
Sociability
Bold
Serious
Habit
Int
Open LetNumMatrix3DRot
Verb
Real
Invest
Arti
Social
EnterClerical
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
24 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Add gender to the extended factor solution of the group data
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-3-2
-10
12
3Biplot of TAI scores at group level
MR1
MR2
Fear
Volatility
Enthus
Compassion
Trust
Easygoing
Industry
Mach
Impulsivity
Sociability
Bold
Serious
Habit
Int
Open LetNumMatrix3DRot
Verb
Real
Invest
Arti
Social
EnterClerical
gender
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
25 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Occupational Choice as niche selection
Biplot of a two factor solution to the group level data
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-3-2
-10
12
3Biplot of TAI scores at group level
MR1
MR2 Actor
Art Director
Coach and/or Scout
Copy Writer
Editor
Graphic Designer
Musician and/or Singer
Photographer
Producer and/or DirectorPublic Relations Specialist
Writer
Other - ArtistOther - Designer
Other - Entertainer and/or PerformerOther - Media Related Worker
Janitor and/or Cleaner (except Maid and/or Housekeeping Cleaner)
Landscaping and/or Groundskeeping Worker
Maid and/or Housekeeping Cleaner
AccountantAuditor
Budget AnalystBusiness Operations Specialist
Credit Analyst
Financial Analyst
Human Resources and/or Training
Loan Officer
Management Analyst
Personal Financial AdvisorOther - Financial Specialist
Other - Business Worker
Clergy
Counselor - Educational, Vocational, and SchoolCounselor - Mental Health
Probation Officer and/or Correctional Treatment Specialist
Social and Human Service Assistant
Social Worker - Child, Family and/or SchoolSocial Worker - Mental Health and/or Substance Abuse
Other - Community and/or Social Service Specialist
Other - Counselor
Other - Religious WorkerOther - Social Worker
Business Intelligence Analyst
Computer and Information Scientist
Computer Programmer
Computer Security Specialist
Computer Software Engineer
Computer Specialist
Computer Support Specialist
Computer Systems Engineers/Architect
Database AdministratorInformation Technology Project Manager
Network and Computer Systems Administrator
Software Quality Assurance Engineer and/or TesterWeb Developer
Other - Computer Science Worker
Carpenter
Construction Laborer
ElectricianSupervisor/Manager of Construction and/or Extraction Workers
Other - Construction and Related Work
Adult Literacy, Remedial Education, and/or GED Teacher and/or Instructor
Elementary School Teacher (except Special Education)
Graduate Teaching Assistant
Instructional CoordinatorInstructional Designer and/or Technologist
Kindergarten Teacher (except Special Education)Librarian
Library Technician
Middle School Teacher (except Special and Vocational Education)
Postsecondary Teacher - Business
Postsecondary Teacher - Education
Postsecondary Teacher - English Language and/or Literature
Postsecondary Teacher - Psychology
Preschool Teacher (except Special Education)
Secondary School Teacher (except Special and Vocational Education)
Special Education Teacher - Preschool, Kindergarten, and Elementary School
Special Education Teacher - Secondary School
Teacher Assistant
Tutor
Other - Education, Training, or Library WorkerOther - Teacher and/or Instructor
Architect
Civil Engineer
Electrical EngineersMechanical Engineer
Other - Engineer
BaristaBartender
Chef and/or Head Cook
Cook - Fast Food
Cook - Institutional and Cafeteria
Cook - Other
Cook - Restaurant
Cook - Short Order
Dishwasher
Food Preparation Worker
Food Server
Food Service Attendant/Helper
Host/HostessSupervisor/Manager of Food Preparation and Serving Workers
Waiter/Waitress
Other - Food Preparation Worker
Acute Care Nurse
Dental Assistant
Emergency Medical Technician and/or Paramedic
Family and General Practitioner
Home Health Aide
Licensed Practical Nurse and/or Licensed Vocational Nurse
Massage Therapist
Medical and Clinical Laboratory Technician and/or Technologist
Medical Assistant
Medical Records and Health Information Technicians
Nurse Practitioner
Nursing Aid, Orderly and/or Attendant
Pharmacist
Pharmacy Technician
Physical Therapist
Psychiatrist
Radiologic Technologist and/or Technician
Registered Nurse
Surgical TechnologistOther - Health Technologist and/or TechnicianOther - Healthcare Support Worker
Other - Therapist
Automotive Mechanic and/or Service Technician
Electrical and Electronics Installer and/or RepairerOther - Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Worker
Law Clerk
Lawyer
Paralegal and/or Legal Assistant
Other - Legal Worker
Other - Legal Support WorkerBiologists
Psychologist - ClinicalPsychologist - Counseling
Psychologist - Other
Social Science Research Assistant
Other - Social Scientist
Administrative Services Manager
Chief Executive Officer
Computer and Information Systems ManagerFinancial Manager
Food Service Manager
General and Operations Manager
Human Resources Manager
Marketing Manager
Sales ManagerTraining and Development Manager
Other - Manager
Supervisor/Manager of Production Workers
Other - Production Worker
Air Crew Member
InfantrySupervisor/Manager of All Other Tactical Operations Specialists
Other - Military Enlisted Special and Tactical Operations Crew Member and/or Specialist
Other - Military Officer Special and Tactical Operations Leader/Manager
Billing Clerk
Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks
Customer Service Representative
Data Entry KeyerExecutive Secretary and/or Administrative Assistant
Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerk
Human Resources AssistantInsurance Claims and/or Policy Processing Clerk
Medical Secretary
Office Clerk, General
Receptionist and/or Information ClerkSecretary
Supervisor/Manager of Office and Administrative Support Workers
Other - Office and Administrative Support Worker
Child Care Worker
Hairdresser, Hairstylist, and/or Cosmetologist
Nanny
Personal and Home Care Aide
Other - Personal Care and Service Worker
Correctional Offices and/or Jailer
Security Guard
Other - Protective Service Worker
Advertising Sales AgentCashierCounter and/or Rental ClerkFinancial Services Sales Agent
Insurance Sales Agent
Real Estate Sales AgentRetail Salesperson
Sales Representative - Services
Sales Representative - Wholesale and ManufacturingSupervisor/Manager of Retail Sales Workers
Supervisors/Manager of Non-Retail Sales Workers
Telemarketer
Other - Sales RepresentativeOther - Sales Worker
Driver/Sales Worker
Laborer - Freight, Stock, and/or Material Moving
Other - Material Moving Worker
Other - Transportation Workers
Fear
Volatility
Enthus
Compassion
Trust
Easygoing
Industry
Mach
Impulsivity
Sociability
Bold
Serious
Habit
Int
Open LetNumMatrix3DRot
Verb
Real
Invest
Arti
Social
EnterClerical
gender
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
26 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Summary and Conclusions
1. Ability, temperament and interests all provide usefulinformation about human personality.
2. Intellectual and Personality development is the process ofexperiencing and choosing niches.
3. When we describe the intellectual requirements of aprofession, we should not ignore that appropriate interests andtemperaments guide occupational choice.
4. We need to consider appetites along with aptitudes.
5. For more information and for these slides go tohttp://personality-project.org/sapa.html
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Bouchard, T. (1997). Experience producing drive theory: howgenes drive experience and shape personality. Acta Paediatrica,86(S422), 60–64.
Condon, D. M. (2014). An organizational framework for thepsychological individual differences: Integrating the affective,cognitive, and conative domains. PhD thesis, NorthwesternUniversity.
Condon, D. M. (2015). The many little items of “big five”measures: Hierarchy, heterarchy, and predictive utility inpersonality structure. Long Beach, California. Society ofPersonality and Social Psychology.
Condon, D. M. & Revelle, W. (2014). The International CognitiveAbility Resource: Development and initial validation of apublic-domain measure. Intelligence, 43, 52–64.
Deary, I. (2008). Why do intelligent people live longer? Nature,456(7219), 175–176.
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Betweenfacets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880–896.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of thefive-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). The big five or the giant three: Criteria fora paradigm. In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P.Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament andpersonality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 37–51). Hillsdale,N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revisedversion of the psychoticism scale. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 6(1), 21 – 29.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description ofpersonality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain,personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of severalfive-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, &F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, volume 7(pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Personality, demographics and selfreported acts: the development of avocational interest scalesfrom estimates of the mount time spent in interest relatedactivities. In C. Agnew, D. Carlston, W. Graziano, & J. Kelly(Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on the behavior insocial psychological theory and research (pp. 205–226). NewYork, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity ofeveryday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79 – 132.
Hayes, K. (1962). Genes, drives, and intellect. PsychologicalReports (Monograph Supplement 2), 10, 299–342.
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Johnson, W. (2010). Extending and testing tom bouchard’sexperience producing drive theory. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 49(4), 296 – 301. Collected works from theFestschrift for Tom Bouchard, June 2009: A tribute to a vibrantscientific career.
Kelly, E. L. & Fiske, D. W. (1950). The prediction of success inthe VA training program in clinical psychology. AmericanPsychologist, 5(8), 395 – 406.
Kelly, E. L. & Fiske, D. W. (1951). The prediction of performancein clinical psychology. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University ofMichigan Press.
Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D.(2013). Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: a practicalguide. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(513), 1–14.
Lord, F. M. (1955). Estimating test reliability. Educational andPsychological Measurement, 15, 325–336.
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Pozzebon, J. A., Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., &Goldberg, L. R. (2010). Psychometric characteristics of apublic-domain self-report measure of vocational interests: Theoregon vocational interest scales. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 92(2), 168–174.
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg,L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparativevalidity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitiveability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.
Rounds, J., Su, R., Lewis, P., & Rivkin, D. (2010). O* NET R©interest profiler short form psychometric characteristics:Summary.
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction incontingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society.Series B (Methodological), 13(2), 238–241.
27 / 27
TAI SAPA Measures TAI and niche selection Summary References
Yule, G. U. (1903). Notes on the theory of association ofattributes in statistics. Biometrika, 2(2), 121–134.
27 / 27