Disc - Revision history

Flc: /* History */

2026-03-13T00:07:54Z

History

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:07, 13 March 2026
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The origin of the DiSC is rooted in the successive works of Walter Clark with the AVA in the 1950s, John Cleaver and team in the 1960s with Self Discription, and John Geier in the 1970s with the PPS (Personal Profile System). PPS was enhanced at the end of the 1990s and renamed PPS 2800 Series after its rights were acquired by Inscape Publishing, later sold to Wiley and Sons in 2012. The first reports come from the observations of Geier of 15 profiles.		The origin of the DiSC is rooted in the successive works of Walter Clark with the AVA in the 1950s, John Cleaver and team in the 1960s with Self Discription, and John Geier in the 1970s with the PPS (Personal Profile System). PPS was enhanced at the end of the 1990s and renamed PPS 2800 Series after its rights were acquired by Inscape Publishing, later sold to Wiley and Sons in 2012. The first reports come from the observations of Geier of 15 profiles.

	DISC is a popular system due ~~partially~~ to its simplicity, many versions, and widespread distribution by publishers worldwide. The first DISC version was not IP-protected, and many versions started to flourish early on.		Another line of DISC products emerged from the early years of Self Discription, under the name of PPA, published by Thomas International.

			DISC is a popular system due in part to its simplicity, the many versions, and its widespread distribution by publishers worldwide. The first DISC version was not IP-protected, and many versions started to flourish early on.

	The system luckily took advantage of early research from Louis Thurstone on factorial analysis in the 1930s, and others from Clark on dimensions that have proven to be “not so bad after all” after all these years. However, research has greatly progressed since then. The work from Moulton Marston is often cited by DISC publishers, but only came conveniently afterward.		The system luckily took advantage of early research from Louis Thurstone on factorial analysis in the 1930s, and others from Clark on dimensions that have proven to be “not so bad after all” after all these years. However, research has greatly progressed since then. The work from Moulton Marston is often cited by DISC publishers, but only came conveniently afterward.

Flc: /* OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions. */

2026-03-12T23:54:54Z

OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, 12 March 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:

	=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====		=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====
	As the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates, the four Disc dimensions ~~resemble those~~ of the ~~GRI. They are relatively orthogonal compared to~~ other ~~models~~. The factors were created long before the more advanced calculations associated with the FFM (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavioral factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. Various ~~Disc~~ publishers have regularly revisited the explanations associated with the four dimensions, although the way the measures are taken has not really changed.		As the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates, the four Disc dimensions may look orthogonal, but lack the understanding of the other poles associated with the four dimensions D, I, S, C. The factors were created long before the more advanced calculations associated with the FFM (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavioral factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. Various DISC publishers have regularly revisited the explanations associated with the four dimensions, although the way the measures are taken has not really changed.

	=====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation \| in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>=====		=====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation \| in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>=====

Flc: /* OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions. */

2026-03-12T23:50:13Z

OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:50, 12 March 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:

	=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====		=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====
	~~The dimensions lack orthogonality, as~~ the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM ~~model~~ (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal ~~behavior~~ factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.		As the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates, the four Disc dimensions resemble those of the GRI. They are relatively orthogonal compared to other models. The factors were created long before the more advanced calculations associated with the FFM (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavioral factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC. Various Disc publishers have regularly revisited the explanations associated with the four dimensions, although the way the measures are taken has not really changed.

	=====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation \| in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>=====		=====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation \| in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>=====

Flc: /* Representation Model */

2025-12-12T06:47:42Z

Representation Model

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:47, 12 December 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work settings, the DISC itself does not account for how measures relate to job demands, thereby precluding its use in recruitment. There is no method for measuring expectations within jobs, so there is no capability to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or to develop a tailored plan to adjust the fit. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated non-discrimination against protected employee classes, as required by the EEOC, thereby further precluding the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion.		Although the AVA from which the DISC originated was designed for work settings, the DISC itself does not account for how measures relate to job demands, thereby precluding its use in recruitment. There is no method for measuring expectations within jobs, so there is no capability to analyze the potential fit and necessary adjustments between the candidate and the position, or to develop a tailored plan to adjust the fit. Additionally, no studies have demonstrated non-discrimination against protected employee classes, as required by the EEOC, thereby further precluding the use of the DISC in recruitment and promotion.

	=====Representation Model=====		=====Representation Model<ref>The representation model is the most limiting characteristic for use at the leadership and organizational levels. The importance of [[Language and Signs \| language and signs is presented in this article here.]] The DISC representation needs to be analyzed [[Language and Signs#Typologies \| here in this chapter with other typologies.]]</ref>=====
	The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.		The three graphs calculated by PPS represent the same dimensions. The idea that one graph could represent adaptation or the “shadow” personality, as some called it, didn’t stand the test of time. Only the third graph remained in use. The graph was later dropped in favor of a circumplex representation.

Flc: /* Adaptation */

2025-12-12T06:32:43Z

Adaptation

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:32, 12 December 2025
Line 49:		Line 49:
	The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.		The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.

	=====Adaptation=====		=====Adaptation<ref>See more about adaptation of social behavior [[Adaptation \| in this article here]], and the connection with a flow state, efficacy, and engagement.</ref>=====
	The DISC model ~~doesn’t consider the~~ behaviors people feel ~~they need~~ to ~~act out in order~~ to adapt to their environment. ~~Consequently, the DISC~~ measurement combines natural and ~~adapted~~ behaviors into a single metric. In the DISC model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which ~~actually~~ only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they ~~answered~~ the survey.		The DISC model does not account for behaviors people feel compelled to display to adapt to their environment. Its measurement combines natural and adaptive behaviors into a single metric. In the DISC model, a person’s natural self is influenced by their perceived adaptation, which only reflects how they see themselves at the moment they complete the survey.

	How people ~~adapt~~ their behavior and how they are ~~engaged~~ are ~~crucial~~ information that ~~link the individual~~ to their environment and job demands, ~~and these are not accounted for by~~ the DISC model.		How people adjust their behavior and how engaged they are, are key pieces of information that connect individuals to their environment and job demands, yet the DISC model does not include these elements.

	=====Work relatedness=====		=====Work relatedness=====

Flc: /* OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions */

2025-12-12T06:21:09Z

OrthogonalitySee about what orthogonality means in this article, and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:21, 12 December 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:
	The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.		The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.

	=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions</ref> =====		=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions.</ref> =====
	The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.		The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.

Flc: /* Orthogonality */

2025-12-12T01:42:31Z

Orthogonality

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:42, 12 December 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:
	The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.		The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.

	=====Orthogonality=====		=====Orthogonality<ref>See about [[Orthogonality \| what orthogonality means in this article]], and its importance when evaluating and comparing personality dimensions</ref> =====
	The dimensions lack orthogonality as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.		The dimensions lack orthogonality, as the comparison with the adaptive profiles indicates. The factors were created long before more advanced calculations associated with the FFM model (Five Factor Model) and the discovery of universal behavior factors in the 1990s and 2000s. The behavior factors continued to gain more understanding afterward, which partially aligns with Thurstone and Clark's early findings on the four dimensions that came into the Self Discription and then the PPS that predate the DISC.

	=====Adaptation=====		=====Adaptation=====

Flc: /* IntensitySee here for more information about the importance of scales and intensity */

2025-12-12T01:39:08Z

IntensitySee here for more information about the importance of scales and intensity

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 12 December 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	=Comments=		=Comments=
	=====Intensity<ref>[[Scales and Intensity\|~~See here~~ for more information about the importance of scales and intensity]]</ref>=====		=====Intensity<ref>See this article here[[Scales and Intensity\| for more information about the importance of scales and intensity]] when measuring a personality dimension.</ref>=====
	The ipsative and forced-choice formats of the DISC preclude accurate assessment of the intensity of the factors, as in comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose between two options does not reveal how strongly they prefer salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both.		The ipsative and forced-choice formats of the DISC preclude accurate assessment of the intensity of the factors, as in comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose between two options does not reveal how strongly they prefer salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both.

Flc: /* Intensity */

2025-12-12T01:36:15Z

Intensity

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 12 December 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	=Comments=		=Comments=
	=====Intensity=====		=====Intensity<ref>[[Scales and Intensity\|See here for more information about the importance of scales and intensity]]</ref>=====
	The ipsative and forced-choice ~~format~~ of the DISC ~~prevents an~~ accurate assessment of the factors~~' intensity~~, ~~similar to~~ comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose ~~whether they prefer one over the other~~ does not reveal how strongly they ~~like or dislike~~ salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both ~~of them~~.		The ipsative and forced-choice formats of the DISC preclude accurate assessment of the intensity of the factors, as in comparing preferences between salty and sweet foods. Forcing a person to choose between two options does not reveal how strongly they prefer salty or sweet foods. It only measures which one they prefer, even if the person dislikes or loves both.

	The purpose of the original forced-choice technique, which involved selecting the most and the least, was to reduce social desirability ~~biases~~ and eliminate variability ~~caused by~~ participants’ response styles. However, choosing one dimension over three others means ~~the model cannot~~, by design, capture the intensity of each dimension or ~~how~~ the four dimensions ~~accurately relate to one another~~.		The purpose of the original forced-choice technique, which involved selecting the most and the least, was to reduce social desirability bias and eliminate variability attributable to participants’ response styles. However, choosing one dimension over three others means that, by design, the model cannot capture the intensity of each dimension or the accurate relationships among the four dimensions.

	The model only ~~measures~~ the preference of one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least and most preferred.		The model measures only the preference for one dimension over the other three. It might reveal the least preferred dimension, but with the same limitation. It cannot determine how the remaining two dimensions relate to the least- and most-preferred alternatives.

	=====Orthogonality=====		=====Orthogonality=====

Flc: /* Learning */

2025-12-11T19:38:28Z

Learning

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 11 December 2025
Line 68:		Line 68:

	=====Learning=====		=====Learning=====
	DISC ~~learning~~ typically focuses on the four dimensions measured and on the applications of these measures for personal and team development. Since the DISC scales cannot capture a person’s behavior intensity, adaptation, engagement, and other essential characteristics that connect a person to their environment and affect their motivation and relationships with others, the learning cannot realistically include an effective modus operandi for personal, leadership, and organizational development based on the results.		The learning of DISC typically focuses on the four dimensions measured and on the applications of these measures for personal and team development. Since the DISC scales cannot capture a person’s behavior intensity, adaptation, engagement, and other essential characteristics that connect a person to their environment and affect their motivation and relationships with others, the learning cannot realistically include an effective modus operandi for personal, leadership, and organizational development based on the results.

	=Notes=		=Notes=

	[[Category:Personality Assessment]]		[[Category:Personality Assessment]]