Knowledges in Psychology
Choose your interests from a vast range of topics
- Clinical Psychology
- Consumer Psychology
- Counseling Psychology
- Developmental Psychology
- Educational Psychology
- Environmental Psychology
- Experimental Psychology
- Family Psychology
- Forensic & Psychology of Law
- Health Psychology
- Industrial Organizational Psychology
- Neuropsychology/Psychobiology
- Physiological Psychology
- Psychometrics & Quantitative Psychology
- Rehabilitation Psychology
- Social Psychology
- Sport Psychology
- Other
Psychological Basis of Behavior
Psychological Basis of Behavior
shreya singh
personality
Personality development
Dharahas Korapati
Why you are lonely ?
Psychologists Say This Effect Makes People Become Biased And Feel Lonely Have you ever felt like you were the only one to experience a certain thought, problem or emotion? Feeling this way can be extremely isolating, leading to loneliness and a bias towards negativity. However, just because you feel different to everyone else, it doesn’t mean that you are. Psychologists have concrete psychological evidence on how similar our hopes, dreams, and fears really are, and how we can use this information to feel happier, healthier, and more motivated. An identical personality description can apply to many people. In 1948, a psychologist named Bertram Forer told his students that he was going to present them each with an individualized sketch of their personality. What the students didn’t know was that each sketch was exactly the same. The sketch consisted of twelve points, which included the following:1 1.You have a great need for other people to like and admire you. 2.You have a tendency to be critical of yourself. 3.You have a great deal of unused capacity, which you have not turned to your advantage. 4.While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. 5.Disciplined and self-controlled outside, you tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. Does this sound like you? If it does, you’re not alone. After presenting the personality sketch, Forer asked his students to rate it according to how well it applied to them. The average rating was 4.26 out of 5, with 5 being ‘excellent.’ This result demonstrates how similar we are to one another, with each student feeling that the twelve statements were uniquely applicable to them. While people may behave in ways that hide feelings like worry and insecurity, studies like this show that they affect everyone. By keeping this in mind, you’ll find it much easier to relate to others and form genuine connections. Most humans have very similar needs. In 1943, a psychologist named Abraham Maslow proposed a ‘hierarchy of needs,’ which represented a variety of human needs in the form of a pyramid.2 The idea of the pyramid is that in order to move to the next level, the needs of the level below must first be met. For example, before you’re able to fulfill the need for friendship, you must first fulfill basic needs like food and water. Helping others is important for everyone. While self-actualization was once considered the top of the pyramid, Maslow actually added another layer later in his life. This layer is labelled ‘self-transcendence,’ and refers to achieving altruistic goals, outside of the individual. This could involve charity work, helping others, or helping the environment. By remembering that we’re fundamentally very similar to other humans, it’s much easier to avoid feeling negative and lonely. Rather than focusing on the ways you feel different from others, try to direct your attention towards everything you have in common. You’ll feel happier, more motivated, and more connected to others.
Mohit Gedar
PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY I
PSYCHOMETRIC ASSESSMENT OF HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN WORKPLACE The term “psychometrics” refers to the measurement of psychological attributes according to some set of methodologies that aim to provide estimates of magnitude that are both reliable and valid. Prior to the 1980s, questionnaire measures of integrity and honesty tended to be somewhat esoteric and “private” documents that were used in place or, or in addition to a polygraph, and were marketed by specialist security companies and consultants. There was practically no published research evidence for their utility, except that put forward by the organisations and individuals who sold the tests. Most tests were based around a polygraph procedure, and some, as in the London House series, actually warned candidates that they may have to undergo a polygraph test if deception was suspected. All psychometric tests of honesty and integrity are self-report. An integrity test is a specific type of personality test designed to assess an applicant's tendency to be honest, trustworthy, and dependable. A lack of integrity is associated with such counterproductive behaviors as theft, violence, sabotage, disciplinary problems, and absenteeism. Integrity tests have been found to measure some of the same factors as standard personality tests, particularly conscientiousness, and perhaps some aspects of emotional stability and agreeableness. The Collins English Dictionary, 3rd edition (1991) defines an honest person as one “not given to lying, cheating, stealing etc., trustworthy; not false or misleading, genuine; and characterised by sincerity and candour”. Integrity is defined as “adherence to moral principles, honesty; the quality of being unimpaired”. Thus, the two terms convey virtually the same meaning. However, two other terms have come into usage more recently, “employee reliability” (Sackett and Harris, 1985; Hogan and Hogan, 1989), and “counter-productive behaviour” (Hollinger, 1986). These two terms reflect the broadening of the meaning of honesty and integrity from the relatively narrow conceptualization of theft, lying, and cheating that first defined the overt integrity tests of the early 1980s, through to a range of behaviours, attitudes, and dispositions that were considered “not conducive to efficient and effective work practices” or counter-productive to organizational “health”. It is in this widening of the definition that the use of personality tests came more to the fore in I/O practice. Overt Psychometric Integrity Tests The term “overt” refers to the fact that these tests ask direct questions about an individual’s honesty, criminal history, and attitudes toward drug abuse, theft by others, and general outlook on issues concerning integrity. The purpose of doing this is generally as part of a pre-employment screen of job applicants, such that those who do not meet the minimal test scores deemed suitable by a company are refused employment. Although many psychologists and test publishers recommend using the test scores as part of a “basket” of selection tools, in practice an “undesirable” score on an integrity test will serve as the sole discriminator as to hire/not hire. Covert Psychometric Integrity Tests The term “covert” refers to the use of tests whose relevance to honesty and integrity is not immediately clear. In fact, personality-oriented trait tests are used exclusively as the indirect measures. These tests aim to predict a broader range of counter-productive work behaviors, using weighted composite measures of personality trait scores. The need for integrity tests in organizations The importance of honesty in the workplace is fairly self-explanatory; honest employees are more accountable, reliable, and less likely to do damage to an organization by engaging in unethical or illegal behavior. Honesty and integrity are associated with a number of other characteristics, including rule adherence and trustworthiness. Employees who lack these qualities may be more prone to disciplinary problems or be more at risk to engage in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as theft, time-wasting, and fraud. Tests that assess honesty are especially useful for positions that require employees to work in a client’s home or handle cash, such as cashiers, retail store associates, home health care aides, field service technicians, and security guards. Integrity tests available online 1. WPP (Workplace productivity profile) 2. PRB (Personnel Reaction Bank) 3. EI (PDI Employment Inventory) 1. WPP (Workplace productivity profile) The Workplace Productivity Profile (WPP) is a personality assessment that is used to help predict whether an individual will be a conscientious, productive and reliable employee. It is used primarily for entry-level positions where rule adherence and trustworthiness are of primary importance. Like other integrity tests, the WPP can be used to predict overall performance as well as to screen out candidates judged to be more prone to possible disciplinary problems. The WPP measures four traits: Conscientiousness, Perseverance, Integrity/Honesty, and Attitudes towards Theft and Fraud. The first two traits (Conscientiousness and Perseverance) relate to a person's likely work habits. The latter two (Honesty and Attitudes towards Theft) relate to a person's integrity and perceived risk of engaging in counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) such as theft, time-wasting, and fraud. It is formed by Criteria Corporation, which is a leading provider of web-based pre-employment testing services, headquartered in Los Angeles, USA. The WPP is used to help predict the likelihood of a wide range of outcomes ranging from general reliability and rule-following to risk for counterproductive work behaviors such as theft or fraud. As such, while it can be used for many positions it is of particular utility for employers screening entry-level employees where attendance, trustworthiness, and work ethic are of great value. Because of its emphasis on trustworthiness and rule adherence, the WPP is particularly popular with employers screening for positions where employees will be handling cash or inventory, or working in a client's home or business. The WPP is used widely as a selection instrument for positions such as retail store associates, cashiers, home health care aides, production workers, field service technicians and security guards, as well as a wide range of other entry-level positions. The WPP consists of 50 self-report items and typically takes less than ten minutes to complete. An internal "faking" scale measures the extent to which a candidate is exaggerating strengths or minimizing weaknesses - and the scores of those applicants are automatically adjusted when appropriate. Intended Use and Legal Compliance The WPP can be used to help predict the likelihood of a wide range of outcomes including performance, general reliability and rule-following, and risk for counterproductive work behaviors such as theft or fraud. While it can be used for many positions it is of particular utility for employers screening entry- and mid-level employees where attendance, punctuality, work ethic and trustworthiness are valued, and is particularly popular for positions where employees will be handling cash or inventory, or working in a client's home or business. It is estimated that employee theft costs U.S. businesses between $15 and $25 billion per year, and as a result about 40% of U.S. employers use integrity tests as part of their employee screening process. The WPP, like other integrity tests, has been shown to have no adverse impact on protected minority groups. There are no federal prohibitions on the use of integrity tests; however, the state of Massachusetts prohibits the use of any written assessment of honesty for hiring purposes, so the WPP should not be used in MA. The state of Rhode Island prohibits using integrity tests as the primary basis of employment decisions; users in RI should consult their legal counsel before using the WPP. Score Reports Each individual is given a percentile ranking for each of the four traits, as well as an Overall Rating of High, Medium, or Low, based on a combined score derived from the four individual trait scores. An internal "Self-enhancing scale" is used to adjust scores up or down in the event that the test detects unusually positive or negative response styles. In extreme cases of self-enhancing, the test will also be flagged as a potentially invalid result. Score reports also contain brief text descriptions for each of the four traits, and provide information as to how a candidate's score in individual traits may affect job suitability. Standardization Sample Norms for the WPP were developed using a sample of 1,107 individuals. The sample was made up of adults aged 18 and older, including both incumbents and job applicants. These individuals were being assessed for employee selection and/or benchmarking purposes, and represented a sample of individuals from over 50 companies, in an extremely broad and diverse range of positions CASE STUDY for WPP A leading retailer based in the Southeastern U.S. wanted to reduce the impact of counter-productive work behaviors such as absenteeism, tardiness, theft, and time-wasting amongst its retail sales associates. The company administered the Workplace Productivity Profile (WPP) to a group of its existing sales associates. The employees' test scores were then compared to performance rankings for "Discipline" assigned by Store Managers. Managers based the Discipline scores on factors such as punctuality, attendance, trustworthiness, rule adherence, and work ethic. The employees' Discipline scores were then compared to their overall WPP scores (High, Medium, Low), and to the four individual trait scores on the WPP: Conscientiousness, Perseverance, Integrity/Honesty and Attitudes Towards Theft. Results: Overall WPP scores were positively correlated (.23) with the performance rankings in Discipline. Of the employees who received passing scores on the WPP (High or Medium overall rankings), 60% were rated as "Good" or "Excellent" in Discipline by their managers. Of those who received "Low" ratings on the WPP, only 33% received "Good" or "Excellent" Discipline ratings. Some of the individual trait scores were even stronger predictors of Discipline, as Conscientiousness scores and Integrity/Honesty scores were correlated .41 and .45, respectively with Discipline ratings, as detailed in the Chart below. Correlations between WPP Trait Scores and Managerial Rankings in "Discipline" Conscientiousness .41 Perseverance .18 Integrity/Honesty .45 Attitudes towards Theft .14 N=28 Based on the results of this local concurrent validity study, the company decided to incorporate the WPP into its employee selection process for sales associates at all retail locations. 2. Personnel Reaction Bank (PRB) by IPAT The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB) is an integrity assessment that is used to screen applicants for entry-level positions and predicts whether they will exhibit dependable and reliable workplace behavior. It is comprised of 84 multiple-choice items and can be completed in less than 15 minutes. It is designed for selection in positions where dependability, conscientiousness, diligence, and restraint are considered to be important qualities and counterproductive behaviors need to be minimized. The PRB measures Sense of Well-Being, Positive Background Indicators, Compliance with Rules and Routines, Conventional Occupational Preferences, Personal Reliability Index. The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB; Gough, 1971, Gough et al., 2004) consists of 84 items related to attitudes and self-perceptions, and is designed to assess the likelihood that a given individual will demonstrate reliability and dependability, as opposed to counter-productivity, in the workplace. Of the 84 items, 62 (41 personality-based items and 21 others dealing with occupational preferences,) are used for scoring the Personal Reliability Index (PRI), a global index on which lower scores indicate tendencies toward counterproductive workplace behaviors. Scores on the PRI are obtained by summing the raw scores from four subscales: Sense of Well-being (SWB; 16 items), on which high scores reflect a positive outlook on one's life circumstances; Pro-social Background (PSB; 13 items), on which high scores reflect a view of one's childhood and upbringing as happy and satisfying; Compliance with Social Norms (CSN; 12 items), reflecting, at the high end, a tendency to conform and comply with social norms and conventions; and Conventional Occupational Preferences (COP; 21), an index of occupational preferences on which higher scores reflect a preference toward conventional, low-risk jobs and lower scores indicate a preference for jobs that are unconventional or involve some element of risk or physical danger. Past research has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties for all PRB scales (Gough et al., 2004). Complete PRB scores were available for 768 participants (511 women). The Personnel Reaction Blank (PRB) is an important personality‐based instrument for assessing the integrity of individuals. Study conducted Tong, Yew Kwan and Arvey and Richard D. (2012) by investigated the cross‐cultural applicability of its three psychological factors (Sense of Well‐being, SWB; Pro-social Background, PSB; and Compliance with Social Norms, CSN) using American and Singaporean respondent groups. Based on this three‐factor structure, the PRB demonstrated acceptable cross‐group generalizability. Mean scores for SWB, PSB, and CSN showed differences between male and female respondents, although the factor correlation matrices were invariant across gender. The mean composite score (SWB + PSB + CSN) was also not significantly different across gender. With respect to integrity tests per se, Conscientiousness (r = .42), Agreeableness (r = .40), and to a lesser extent Emotional Stability (r = .33), are the strongest trait correlates of integrity tests including the PRB, with the combination of these factors predicting scores on these measures better than either factor alone. Hence, the PRB and measures of integrity appear to largely assess Conscientiousness and Agreeableness – dimensions which form a higher-order factor of “disinhibition” in the structural framework of personality (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005). An additional finding of Ones, Schmidt, and Viswesvaran (1994) as well as others (e.g., Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Marcus, Höft, & Riediger, 2006) is that the above-noted personality factors mediate the relationship between integrity tests and a range of external criteria including indices of counter-productivity. However, Ones and colleagues (1994) also noted that these factors did not entirely account for the association between integrity test scores and external criteria, suggesting that other types of data beyond an individual's self-reported current dispositional make-up are measured by personality-based integrity tests and can predict counter-productivity. 3. PDI Employment Inventory The PDI Employment Inventory (EI) is designed to identify applicants who will become productive hourly employees and who will stay on the job voluntarily at least three months. It measures personality characteristics that underlie the continuum of productive, unproductive, and counterproductive job behaviors. Among others, these characteristics include dependability, responsibility, and conscientiousness--dimensions of hourly job performance that affect success in many jobs. In its final form, the EI contains 97 items in three sections: 69 true-false opinion and attitude statements, 14 self-descriptive adjective triads, and 14 multiple-choice background questions. The true-false items and adjective triads are intended to solicit opinions, attitudes, and self-perceptions relevant to responsibility, reliability, stability, impulse control, and test-taking frankness. The multiple-choice EI questions ask for various experience and background information, as well as for situational judgments thought to predict overall performance in hourly jobs. Most of the EI is written at the sixth grade reading level, however a few of the adjectives are a bit more difficult. The EI works best in selecting employees for those jobs in which the dimensions of dependability, reliability, responsibility, conscientiousness, and trustworthiness are important, and in which other skills and abilities play a smaller role. Since the EI has been validated and proved effective over a broad range of jobs in a wide range of work settings, it should be useful even in those jobs not specifically in the research base. Numerous validation studies have shown that the EI successfully identifies productive, dependable workers in a variety of jobs and work settings. Personnel Decisions, Inc. (PDI) and researchers at various universities have conducted over 140 validity studies involving more than a third of a million people in a wide range of companies located throughout North America. Industries involved have run the gamut: retail, transportation, quick service restaurants, grocery, health care, manufacturing, gas stations, and airlines. Consistently, the studies have confirmed that job applicants who get higher EI scores are more likely to be reliable, conscientious, stable employees. Reliability- The most demanding and operationally meaningful measure of the EI's reliability is test-retest reliability. This process requires the repeated administrations of the EI to given groups of subjects under controlled conditions. The four-week interval test-retest Pearson correlations from the University student sample during the EI's development were approximately .60. These correlations underestimate the instrument's true reliability because score ranges among job applicants are 22 Employment Inventory Research considerably larger than those among college students. With a range restriction correction, true EI reliability is expected to be approximately .80 for the Performance scale and .70 for the Tenure scale. Validity - Independent university researchers have conducted meta-analytic studies of the EI to estimate the true, generalizable validity. They reviewed 92 EI studies of 28,674 employees and reported a .33 correlation with measures of job performance when the EI is used for hiring. From their review of 57 other EI studies of 114,534 employees, they calculated a .29 correlation with counterproductive job behavior. Because the standard deviations of these correlations were zero, they concluded that these are the true EI validities in any setting, job or situation. Comparisons of Extreme Groups The EI was given to members of extreme groups in two different studies of criminals. Scores of white collar criminals were compared with scores of white collar non-offenders, and juvenile delinquents' scores were compared to those of hourly job applicants. Together with four other tests, the EI was administered to 350 white collar offenders serving time in 19 federal prisons and to 330 successful employees with jobs similar to those formerly held by the felons (Collins and Schmidt, 1992). The crimes of the offenders included bank fraud, embezzlement, tax fraud, and racketeering committed while they were working in various organizations. Those in the employed group worked as loan officers, and as government and university supervisors and managers. The average age of members of each group was 49 years, and 29% of each had a graduate degree. EI test scores showed a strongly significant difference: The average score of the non-offenders was well-above-average at 59.67 with a standard deviation of 7.28, while the average score of the criminals was below- average at 46.83 with a standard deviation of 9.17. The EI also was given to 37 teenage boys residing in a secure facility for violent juvenile offenders. The group’s mean score on the Performance scale was 41.9, which is 1.4 standard deviations below the job applicant mean of 54.5. The substantially lower scores among both the adult and juvenile offenders provide some illumination of the low end of the EI construct space. CASE STUDY for EI The table below shows how often employees from a typical retail organization who passed an EI cutoff of 54 exhibited specific reliable and dependable behaviors, as rated by their supervisors, compared to those who failed the EI. These are the kinds of behaviors (selected from a pool of about 60, and measured in more than 77 validity studies) for which the most observable changes would be expected when the EI is used for selection. Employee Behavior Fail EI Pass EI _________________________________________________________________________________________ Keep working, even when other employees stand around talking. 40% 66% Check with supervisors, as policy requires, when in doubt about performing a task. 54% 80% Clean assigned areas, creating a more attractive work space. 54% 82% Forget to perform a routine task. 60% 36% Deliberately slow work pace and productivity. 40% 20% Let joking friends be a distraction and interruption to work. 18% 5% Return from breaks and meals within the allotted time. 21% 39% Take the initiative to find another task when finished with regular work. 37% 55% Use weak excuses to stay home from work. 26% 10% Follow rules much more consistently than other employees. 37% 66% Exhibit superior performance overall. 10% 19% Have perfect attendance. 20% 52% Need major and minor disciplinary actions. 84% 40% Be absent or tardy at least once during a three-month period. 80% 48% Table - Rating Form Behaviors of who passed EI compared to those who failed DIMENSIONS TO BE COVERED IN AN HONESTY/INTEGRITY TEST 1. CONSCIENTIOUSNESS- Using a broad-based measure of normal personality, a study by Murphy, K.R. & Lee, (1994), tested the hypothesis that the trait “conscientiousness” is the best single predictor of scores on two well-researched integrity tests. Data from 180 traditional and nontraditional college students provided clear support for this hypothesis, but also indicated that a number of traits other than conscientiousness were likely to be related to integrity test scores. Scores on all six of the primary scales, and 33 of the 45 homogeneous item clusters (HICs) of the Hogan Personality Inventory were related to scores on the PDI Employment Inventory and/or the Personnel Selection Inventory. Personality variables were better predictors of scores on the PDI Employment inventory, which is a veiled-purpose (also referred to as “personality based”) test, than of scores on the Personnel Selection Inventory, which measures honesty-related attitudes and includes items calling for direct admissions of misdeeds. 2. AGREEABLENESS- Study by Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005), investigated the relations of the proposed sixth factor of personality, Honesty-Humility, with the dimensions of the classic English lexical Big Five and the closely related Five-Factor Model (FFM). Results showed that although Honesty-Humility was largely unrelated to markers of the Big Five factors, it was substantially correlated with the FFM Agreeableness domain. This relation was largely due to the Straightforwardness and Modesty facets of FFM Agreeableness, which were only weakly correlated with the Big Five version of Agreeableness. A realignment of FFM facets to produce separate Honesty-Humility and Agreeableness factors provided better prediction of personality variables that involve deceit without hostility, such as Social Adroitness and Self-Monitoring. Results indicate the importance of assessing Honesty-Humility as a separate factor. 3. OTHER DIMENSIONS – Michael Harris and Paul Sackett (1989) conducted a study and factor analyzed responses on 849 applications for positions as retail sales clerks. Four factors were obtained: 1) person’s temptations and thoughts about dishonest activities, such as being tempted to steal merchandise or money; 2) actual or expected dishonest activities by an individual, such as illegally taking company’s property; 3) person’s norms about what others do when it comes to dishonest activities, such as their expectations regarding how many people engage in criminal activity; 4) self- report questions related to the person’s impulsiveness and reliability. Another study by Michael Cunningham and Phillip Ash, (1989) found the following dimensions to be useful in integrity/honesty tests: 1) general tendency to oppose or avoid punishing and disciplining other people; 2) self indulgence and an unwillingness to punish either oneself or friends and family members in the event of misbehavior; 3) fantasies of dishonest behavior or speculation about performing dishonesty; 4) views as to the likelihood that others might behave dishonestly. Furthermore, evidence from factor analyses of other tests suggests that there is no one honesty factor. The tests overlap in the factors they measure. Most tests seem to tap at least some dimensions that are different from those in other tests. Accordingly, there could be some gain from using more than one honesty test, especially if separate scores are created for the various dimensions. Also, there may be reason to shop around for a test that contains dimensions that best fit the needs of a particular company. If the results of factor analyses are available for a test, that facilitates this process. REFERENCES Tong, Y. K., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Investigating the Cross‐cultural Applicability of the Personnel Reaction Blank Using American and Singaporean Respondent Groups. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(3), 376-382. Blonigen, D. M., Patrick, C. J., Gasperi, M., Steffen, B., Ones, D. S., Arvey, R. D., ... & do Nascimento, E. (2011). Delineating the construct network of the Personnel Reaction Blank: associations with externalizing tendencies and normal personality. Psychological assessment, 23(1), 18. Paajanen, G. E., Hansen, T. L., & McLellan, R. A. (1999). Employment Inventory Research. Minneapolis, MN: Personnel Decisions International. Miner, J. B., & Capps, M. H. (1996). How honesty testing works. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Aakanksha Sharma
J&J Crisis-Management through Positive Psychology
Studies J&J's Tylenol controversy from the perspective of employees and public also analysed the Positive Psychological factors in the action plan used for J&J's comeback.
Karthikeyan Surendiran
How helpful is Mugging up?
Something about the most practiced way of scoring marks these days which is always mixed with “Studying” by most of the people. Be it school going children or college going students everyone’s major motto these days is to score marks and, they mug up to do that. The fact that the amount of knowledge we gain out of it is something different. Mugging up is one of the most common & practiced ways which is in trend these days and which will most probably stay in the education fraternity always. But the question which one should ask themselves is that “how helpful is mugging up to us?” or the reason why we practice it is just for the sake of getting some marks under our belt. For almost all the cases the answer will be to score marks only. For everyone out there, this should be a thing worth giving a thought about. Studies are supposed to enhance our knowledge & thinking about a subject but, mugging up takes it away from the purpose. When you mug up a topic, say gravity. You don’t think about the topic in and out or you don’t give yourself a reason why do we take the acceleration with the negative sign when an object is thrown upwards. This is a very basic example and everyone would know this by default. But, if this is the case about every topic which one mugs up, it is going to be a major problem and an issue which one should do something for. Education is meant to be understood with ample amount of reasons to fulfil its purpose in our lives rather than just remembering things before the night of an exam and writing it up on the next day. Undoubtedly, marks have their own importance which cannot be left out. But, at the same time, this importance should not come in the way of gaining knowledge. So, everyone should study with the thought of gaining something from it other than marks.
Mihir Tanwar
The Secret Formula to a Perfect Life
We’re taught to work and study hard since our childhood for a better tomorrow, but I feel that it’s the time for me at least, to stop and reflect how it works and if it’s the right way to live. People around the globe, most of them, think it’s worth their while to work hard today for wealthy years of retirement in distant future. But is the ability to have fun received in the age when one can’t barely walk by himself is worth it? These people usually end up losing joyful stuff to only realize that good times aren’t ever materialized. I suggest everyone, to aim for the “unrealistic” things like traveling the world which will set you apart from people thinking “realistically” and settling for mediocrity Plus, with most people aiming for the good stuff, the great stuff is available for a lot less fierce competition. Unlike people who spend living away from their dreams, taking safe roads of hard work with an illusion of joyful retirement. This has to stop because the perfect moment as per the people who are successful as well as happy to live your dreams is NOW. This fantasy-like life is nowadays more easily possible which only one thing that everyone needs; an automatic income: a source of money that can be managed effortlessly from anywhere on the planet with along an income that you can earn while sleeping. The best examples are people in Photography, writing, music, art business who can create their works anywhere and share using our super technology to anywhere with earning while the stuff is being sold everywhere even when they are in their sleep. Living a true life, from my experience is doing stuff that may seem unworthy but is Fun, because we only live once, having hard conversations which are Important because they’ll set you free and Disregarding conventions that others stick to because doing so will make you different. Which way of living are you gonna choose? What do you want me to write about? Tell me in the comments. Don’t forget to like, share & subscribe for more stuff like this.
Uday veer Singh
You need self control
you need self control to be on this position You don’t need extremely high IQ to be successful, you need self-control. Before we talk about the limitations of self control, we should first understand the benefits of controlling oneself. Throughout our lives, there will be countless list of bad habits that we’ll need to overcome. For some of us, it could be quitting junk food. For others, it could be avoiding procrastination when you’re trying to learn a new skill. Here’s what research has found. Researchers from University of Pennsylvania explored self-control in eighth-graders over the course of the school year. They gave students a task in which they had the option of receiving $1 immediately or waiting a week to receive $2. What they found was interesting. Students who decided to wait a week to receive $2 also had better attendance rates, test scores, and were more likely to attend better institutions. In other words, self control, was more important than IQ in academic success. Another study was done by Duke University with a group of 1,000 individuals. 1 These individuals were were tracked from birth to age 32 as part of a long-term health study. They found that those with high self-control had fewer criminal records, higher income, and overall had greater physical and mental health. Self-control is limited. Try stick to one goal at a time. What could explain this? The theory is that self control is indeed limited. Those that resisted the baked goods were in a form of ‘stress.’ And by resisting one form of a stress, they were much more likely to succumb to another craving. The bottom line is, instead of trying to simply increase self control, admit that it’s limited. Rather than trying to kick two bad habits at once, figure out what’s more important and tackle it one at a time.
Managing difficult people: Dictators and Snipers
When you work in a corporate, you have to work with different types of people as they come from diverse backgrounds. Hence they have different personalities. And you to deal with them. Two majot types of personalities that prove to be your hurdle are personality types "Tank" and "Snipers" Here is a study as to how to deal with them.
Udbhav Agrawal
Psychology GRE test practice book
The attatchment contains one actual full length GRE psychology test paper. It also contains some test-taking strategies and answering procedures which will help to garnish your problem solving capability. Useful for Psychology students.
Shagun Gupta
Do you know
Knowing Others Is Intelligence, Knowing Yourself Is True Wisdom Happily married people really know each other. A good mother knows her son. Astute teachers know their students. This knowledge is powerful. Insight into another human being provides the knower with a remarkable ability to meet needs, heal heartache, be emotionally supportive and above all, provide a prescripted and targeted kind of love. Often times, we find that we know the people we love better than we know ourselves. We are able to anticipate and fulfill their needs and desires without them even having to ask. However, when it comes to understanding and addressing our own needs we are lost. Getting to know you Getting to know yourself begins and ends with personal introspection. Understanding what makes you tick, what makes you happy or sad, discovering your fears and assessing how you truly feel about yourself is a journey requiring time, effort and courage. There are myriads of excellent self-assessment tools1 that can assist you in navigating the path of objectively assessing who you really are. The best thing you can do for others is to understand who you are and allow that to be the foundation for all of your interactions. Because the only thing you can do is interact with them based on who you are and not who they want you to be. You can teach them how to love and nurture the real you. The most positive thing you can do for yourself is to understand, accept and love who you truly are. Knowing yourself requires an honest, transparent and often times difficult dive into the depths of your soul. It is acceptance of all of your past experiences, acknowledgment of your weaknesses and then cherishing all of it. Get to know who you are—the good, the bad and the ugly.
Liqour Ban
Attitude change
Priyanka Krishnamurthy