IS IT POSSIBLE TO ASSESS PERSONALITY TRAITS BY MEANS OF LÜSCHER TEST?
Keywords:
Lüscher Colour Test, method of color choices, construct validity, convergent validity, temporal stability, factor analysis.
Abstract
Despite 70-year history of 8-color version of the Lüscher Test there are surprisingly few empirical data so far confirming its reliability and validity. The current study aimed to fill this gap. Construct validity of popular scores of the test (ranks of color’s choices and some derivative indexes) was investigated by means of their comparison with supposedly relevant personality trait scores measured by some questionnaires. In five student’s and three military samples (Ntotal = 6643) we could not reveal any consistent evidence of a link between color preferences and the personality traits. Temporary stability of Lüscher Test scores was investigated in four samples by a total number of 1067 subjects. Stability estimates at different modes of the test administration are amounted to r = 0,319–0,473, that is quite insufficient for reliable assessment of personality traits. The results obtained are considered as evidence of uselessness of the Lüscher Test application in high stake context. Also our data call into question a validity of popular systems of interpretations of color preferences, at least in terms of personality traits.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Anastasi A., Urbina S. Psikhologicheskoe testirovanie [Psychological Testing]. 7th ed., St. Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2003, 688 p.
2. Berezin F.B., Miroshnikov M.P., Sokolova E.D. Metodika mnogostoronnego issledovaniya lichnosti [Technique of Multiphasic Personality Investigation]. Moscow: Folium Publ., 1994, 144 p. (in Russ.)
3. Validnost' metodik tsvetovoy psikhodiagnostiki [Validity of Color Psychodiagnostic Instruments]. Available at: http://www.forum.ht-line.ru/threads/validnost-metodik-cvetovojpsixodiagnostiki.1778/ (accessed: 19.08.2016). (in Russ.)
4. Karandashev V.N. Metodika Shvartsa dlya izucheniya tsennostey lichnosti: Kontseptsiya i metodicheskoe rukovodstvo [Schwartz Questionnaire for Personal Values Research: Conception and Manual]. St. Petersburg, Speech Publ., 2004, 72 p. (in Russ.)
5. Kleyberg J.A. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya deviantnogo povedeniya [Social Psychology of Deviant
Behavior]. Moscow, Sphere Publ., 2004, pp. 141–154. (in Russ.)
6. Luscher M. Tsvet vashego kharaktera [Color of Your Character]. Sarah D. Tayny pocherka [Secrets of Handwriting]. Moscow, Veche Publ., 1996, 400 p. (in Russ.)
7. Oryel V.E., Senin I.G. Lichnostnye oprosniki NEO-PI-R i NEO-FFI. Rukovodstvo po primeneniyu [Personality Inventories NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Manual]. Yaroslavl, SPC “Psychodiagnostica” Publ., 2004. (in Russ.)
8. Prohorov A.O. (Ed.) Praktikum po psikhologii sostoyaniy [Workshop on States Psychology].
St. Petersburg, Speech Publ., 2004, 480 p. (in Russ.)
9. Furr R.M., Bacharach V.R. Psikhometrika: Vvedenie [Psychometrics: Introduction]. Chelyabinsk, SUSU Publ., 2010, 445 p.
10. Sobchik L.N. Psikhologiya individual'nosti. Teoriya i praktika psikhodiagnostiki [Psychology of Individuality. Theory and Practice of Psychodiagnostics]. St. Petersburg: Speech Publ., 2003, 624 p.
(in Russ.)
11. Standart trebovaniy k psikhodiagnosticheskim metodikam [Standard of Requirements to Psychodiagnostic Techniques]. Available at: http://www.cc.psytest.ru (accessed 2.05.2011). (in Russ.)
12. Sugonyaev K.V., Inozemtsev V.O. Novaya metodika dlya skrininga lits s priznakami nervnopsikhicheskoy neustoychivosti [New Technique for Screening Subjects with Signs of Psychological Instability]. Aktual'nye voprosy meditsinskogo obespecheniya, sovershenstvovaniya spetsializirovannoy meditsinskoy pomoshchi: Tez. dokl. nauch.-prakt. konf. [Actual Questions of Medical Support, Improvement of Specialized Medical Care], 2001, pp. 25–28. (in Russ.)
13. Sugonyaev K.V. O psikhometricheskom kachestve testovykh «brendov» [About Psychometric Quality of Test “Brands”]. Razvitie teorii i praktiki professional'nogo psikhologicheskogo otbora v Vooruzhennykh Silakh novogo oblika: Mat. nauch.-prakt. konf. [In: Development of theory and practice of military personnel selection in renewed Armed Forces]. Moscow, MAGS Publ., 2012, pp. 228–252. (in Russ.)
14. Sugonyaev K.V. Chto otrazhayut shkaly sotsial'noy zhelatel'nosti? [What do Scales of Social Desirability Reflect?]. Sovremennaya psikhodiagnostika Rossii. Preodoleniye krizisa [Modern Psychodiagnostics of Russia. Coping of Crisis]. Chelyabinsk, South Ural St. Univ. Publ., 2015, vol. 2, pp. 169– 73. (in Russ.)
15. Sugonyaev K.V. Shkaly atipichnosti otvetov kak instrument vyyavleniya nekooperativnogo testovogo povedeniya [Scales of Atypical Responding as a Tool of Non-cooperative Testing Behavior Detection]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Psychology, 2016, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 17–26.
DOI: 10.14529/psy160102. (in Russ.)
16. Shmelyov A.G. Prakticheskaya testologiya. Testirovanie v obrazovanii, prikladnoy psikhologii i upravlenii personalom [Practical Testology. Testing in Education, Applied Psychology and Personnel
Management]. Moscow, Mask Publ., 2013, 688 p. (in Russ.)
17. Bosco F.A., Aguinis H., Singh K., Field J.G., Pierce C.A. Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 431–449. DOI: 10.1037/a0038047.
18. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 81–105. DOI: 10.1037/h0046016.
19. Carlson K.D., Herdman A.O. Understanding the impact of convergent validity on research re-
sults. Organizational Research Methods, 2012, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 17–32. DOI: 10.1177/1094428110392383.
20. Cronbach L., Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 281–302. DOI: 10.1037/h0040957.
21. Cumming G. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 2014, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 7–29. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504966.
22. De Vries R.E., Zettler I., Hilbig B.E. Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 2014, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 286–299. DOI: 10.1177/1073191113504619.
23. Evers A., Muniz J., Bartram D. et al. Testing practices in the 21st century: Developments and European psychologists’ opinion. European Psychologist, 2012, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 300–319. DOI:
10.1027/1016-9040/a000102.
24. Gignac G.E., Szodorai E.T. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016, vol. 102, pp. 74–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069.
25. Hemphill J.F. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 2003, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 78–79. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.78.
26. Hirschfeld G., von Brachel R., Thielsch M. Selecting items for Big Five questionnaires: At what sample size do factor loadings stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2014, vol. 53, pp. 54– 63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.003.
27. Lilienfeld S.O., Lynn S.J., Lohr J.M. (Eds.) Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology: Initial thoughts, reflections, and considerations. In: Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2015, pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp572.
28. McCrae R.R., Kurtz J.E., Yamagata S., Terracciano A. Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2011, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 28–50. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310366253.
29. Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C., Schmidt F.L. Realizing the full potential of psychometric metaanalysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 2017, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 201–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.011.
30. Schmidt F.L. Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2010, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 233–242. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610369339.
31. Schönbrodt F.D., Perugini M. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2013, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 609–612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.
32. Sherman R.A., Funder D.C. Evaluating correlations in studies of personality and behavior: Beyond the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1053–1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.010.
33. Strauss M.E., Smith G.T. Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2009, vol. 5, pp. 1–25. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639.
34. Uziel L. Impression management (“lie”) scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self-control, not other-deception. Journal of Personality, 2014, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 200–212. DOI:
10.1111/jopy.12045.
2. Berezin F.B., Miroshnikov M.P., Sokolova E.D. Metodika mnogostoronnego issledovaniya lichnosti [Technique of Multiphasic Personality Investigation]. Moscow: Folium Publ., 1994, 144 p. (in Russ.)
3. Validnost' metodik tsvetovoy psikhodiagnostiki [Validity of Color Psychodiagnostic Instruments]. Available at: http://www.forum.ht-line.ru/threads/validnost-metodik-cvetovojpsixodiagnostiki.1778/ (accessed: 19.08.2016). (in Russ.)
4. Karandashev V.N. Metodika Shvartsa dlya izucheniya tsennostey lichnosti: Kontseptsiya i metodicheskoe rukovodstvo [Schwartz Questionnaire for Personal Values Research: Conception and Manual]. St. Petersburg, Speech Publ., 2004, 72 p. (in Russ.)
5. Kleyberg J.A. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya deviantnogo povedeniya [Social Psychology of Deviant
Behavior]. Moscow, Sphere Publ., 2004, pp. 141–154. (in Russ.)
6. Luscher M. Tsvet vashego kharaktera [Color of Your Character]. Sarah D. Tayny pocherka [Secrets of Handwriting]. Moscow, Veche Publ., 1996, 400 p. (in Russ.)
7. Oryel V.E., Senin I.G. Lichnostnye oprosniki NEO-PI-R i NEO-FFI. Rukovodstvo po primeneniyu [Personality Inventories NEO-PI-R and NEO-FFI. Manual]. Yaroslavl, SPC “Psychodiagnostica” Publ., 2004. (in Russ.)
8. Prohorov A.O. (Ed.) Praktikum po psikhologii sostoyaniy [Workshop on States Psychology].
St. Petersburg, Speech Publ., 2004, 480 p. (in Russ.)
9. Furr R.M., Bacharach V.R. Psikhometrika: Vvedenie [Psychometrics: Introduction]. Chelyabinsk, SUSU Publ., 2010, 445 p.
10. Sobchik L.N. Psikhologiya individual'nosti. Teoriya i praktika psikhodiagnostiki [Psychology of Individuality. Theory and Practice of Psychodiagnostics]. St. Petersburg: Speech Publ., 2003, 624 p.
(in Russ.)
11. Standart trebovaniy k psikhodiagnosticheskim metodikam [Standard of Requirements to Psychodiagnostic Techniques]. Available at: http://www.cc.psytest.ru (accessed 2.05.2011). (in Russ.)
12. Sugonyaev K.V., Inozemtsev V.O. Novaya metodika dlya skrininga lits s priznakami nervnopsikhicheskoy neustoychivosti [New Technique for Screening Subjects with Signs of Psychological Instability]. Aktual'nye voprosy meditsinskogo obespecheniya, sovershenstvovaniya spetsializirovannoy meditsinskoy pomoshchi: Tez. dokl. nauch.-prakt. konf. [Actual Questions of Medical Support, Improvement of Specialized Medical Care], 2001, pp. 25–28. (in Russ.)
13. Sugonyaev K.V. O psikhometricheskom kachestve testovykh «brendov» [About Psychometric Quality of Test “Brands”]. Razvitie teorii i praktiki professional'nogo psikhologicheskogo otbora v Vooruzhennykh Silakh novogo oblika: Mat. nauch.-prakt. konf. [In: Development of theory and practice of military personnel selection in renewed Armed Forces]. Moscow, MAGS Publ., 2012, pp. 228–252. (in Russ.)
14. Sugonyaev K.V. Chto otrazhayut shkaly sotsial'noy zhelatel'nosti? [What do Scales of Social Desirability Reflect?]. Sovremennaya psikhodiagnostika Rossii. Preodoleniye krizisa [Modern Psychodiagnostics of Russia. Coping of Crisis]. Chelyabinsk, South Ural St. Univ. Publ., 2015, vol. 2, pp. 169– 73. (in Russ.)
15. Sugonyaev K.V. Shkaly atipichnosti otvetov kak instrument vyyavleniya nekooperativnogo testovogo povedeniya [Scales of Atypical Responding as a Tool of Non-cooperative Testing Behavior Detection]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Psychology, 2016, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 17–26.
DOI: 10.14529/psy160102. (in Russ.)
16. Shmelyov A.G. Prakticheskaya testologiya. Testirovanie v obrazovanii, prikladnoy psikhologii i upravlenii personalom [Practical Testology. Testing in Education, Applied Psychology and Personnel
Management]. Moscow, Mask Publ., 2013, 688 p. (in Russ.)
17. Bosco F.A., Aguinis H., Singh K., Field J.G., Pierce C.A. Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2015, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 431–449. DOI: 10.1037/a0038047.
18. Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitraitmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 81–105. DOI: 10.1037/h0046016.
19. Carlson K.D., Herdman A.O. Understanding the impact of convergent validity on research re-
sults. Organizational Research Methods, 2012, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 17–32. DOI: 10.1177/1094428110392383.
20. Cronbach L., Meehl P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 281–302. DOI: 10.1037/h0040957.
21. Cumming G. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 2014, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 7–29. DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504966.
22. De Vries R.E., Zettler I., Hilbig B.E. Rethinking trait conceptions of social desirability scales: Impression management as an expression of honesty-humility. Assessment, 2014, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 286–299. DOI: 10.1177/1073191113504619.
23. Evers A., Muniz J., Bartram D. et al. Testing practices in the 21st century: Developments and European psychologists’ opinion. European Psychologist, 2012, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 300–319. DOI:
10.1027/1016-9040/a000102.
24. Gignac G.E., Szodorai E.T. Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016, vol. 102, pp. 74–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069.
25. Hemphill J.F. Interpreting the magnitude of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 2003, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 78–79. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.78.
26. Hirschfeld G., von Brachel R., Thielsch M. Selecting items for Big Five questionnaires: At what sample size do factor loadings stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2014, vol. 53, pp. 54– 63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.08.003.
27. Lilienfeld S.O., Lynn S.J., Lohr J.M. (Eds.) Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology: Initial thoughts, reflections, and considerations. In: Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2015, pp. 1–16. DOI: 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp572.
28. McCrae R.R., Kurtz J.E., Yamagata S., Terracciano A. Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2011, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 28–50. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310366253.
29. Ones D.S., Viswesvaran C., Schmidt F.L. Realizing the full potential of psychometric metaanalysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 2017, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 201–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.011.
30. Schmidt F.L. Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2010, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 233–242. DOI: 10.1177/1745691610369339.
31. Schönbrodt F.D., Perugini M. At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 2013, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 609–612. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.
32. Sherman R.A., Funder D.C. Evaluating correlations in studies of personality and behavior: Beyond the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1053–1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.010.
33. Strauss M.E., Smith G.T. Construct validity: Advances in theory and methodology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 2009, vol. 5, pp. 1–25. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153639.
34. Uziel L. Impression management (“lie”) scales are associated with interpersonally oriented self-control, not other-deception. Journal of Personality, 2014, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 200–212. DOI:
10.1111/jopy.12045.
References on translit
Published
2019-07-15
How to Cite
Sugonyaev, K. (2019). IS IT POSSIBLE TO ASSESS PERSONALITY TRAITS BY MEANS OF LÜSCHER TEST?. Psychology. Psychophysiology, 12(2), 41-59. https://doi.org/10.14529/jpps190204
Issue
Section
Psychodiagnostics
Copyright (c) 2019 Psychology. Psychophysiology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
