Predicting one’s own and others’ 16 PF scores

This study examined the relationship between subjects’ actual test derived scores and their estimates of what those scores would be. Sixty subjects completed the 16 PF (form D) and then estimated the scores on each dimension for themselves and another person they knew well. The results showed significant positive correlations on 9 of the 16 dimensions for themselves. The dimensions they were best at estimating were Desurgency-Surgency, Untroubled adequacy-guilt proneness and Threctia-Parmia. Only two correlations (both negative) reached significance concerning their ability to predict another known person’s scores. Whereas subjects believed they were like the other person they nominated (13 of the 16 correlations were significantly positive), in actual fact their test derived scores showed only two significant findings, one positive and the other negative. Results are discussed in terms of lay theories of personality and their relationship to personality assessment.     

Integrity Tests and the Five‐Factor Model of Personality: A Review and Empirical Test of Two Alternative Positions

The psychological meaning of integrity test scores has been explored predominantly in relation to the five‐factor model of personality (FFM). Two alternative positions on this topic can be identified in the literature which state, respectively, that integrity tests measure (a) a higher‐order factor of personality covering three FFM dimensions or (b) a linear composite of numerous facets from various domains within the FFM. An empirical test of these alternative positions, using structural equation modeling, revealed that the value of both views depended on the type of integrity test examined. With a personality‐based integrity test, position (a) had to be refuted, whereas position (b) was strongly supported. There was also more supportive evidence for position (b) with an overt test, but the difference was far less pronounced than for the personality‐based measure. Possible consequences for theories on the role of personality in personnel selection are discussed.     

Similarity between partners in real and perceived personality traits as measured by the Myers-Briggs type indicator

From 90 couples, 90 male and 90 female subjects, two sets of scores on the four personality dimensions measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) were obtained by letting each person answer each item twice, first in the ordinary way and then as he or she believed the partner would answer the item. Correlations between partners' self-reported scores were all close to zero, whereas the correlations between the partner-reported scores and the self-reported scores were high for both males and females and for all the four dimensions measured by the MBTI, thus indicating that partners were not similar in personality traits, but they had a realistic perception of each other. The results support the hypothesis that mating is random in terms of personality traits.     

Can people accurately estimate their own personality test scores?

This study examined the relationship between subjects' actual test derived scores and their estimates of what those scores would be. Fifty-six subjects completed three questionnaires (Morningness-Eveningness Questionnaire; FIRO-B; Myers—Briggs Type Indicator MBTI), and then estimated the scores on each dimension (15 in all) for themselves and another person that they knew well. The results showed significant positive correlations on 10 of the 15 dimensions for themselves. The dimensions that they were best at estimating were Morningness-Eveningness; Extraversion, and Thinking on the MBTI; and Wanted and Expressed Inclusion on the FIRO-B. Eight correlations reached significance concerning their ability to predict another known person's scores but were lower than for their own estimate-actual score correlations. Whereas subjects believed that they were like the other person they nominated (12 of the 15 correlations were significantly positive), in actual fact their test derived scores showed only five significant findings, two positive and the others negative. The results are discussed in terms of lay theories of personality and their relationship to personality assessment.     

质疑星座决定人格特质的实证研究

星象学的基本假设是一个人出生时的星运位置可以决定其人格特质和重大际遇。本研究以16PF为工具,测查了165名大一学生,并按被试的出生日期和时辰确定了其星座。总的来说,结果不支持星座决定人格倾向的理论。     

The association between implicit theories of personality and the attributional process

The influence of implicit theories of personality (entity vs. incremental theorists; see Dweck, Chiu and Hong, 1995) on the stages of the Sequential Operations Model of attribution (Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull, 1988) was investigated. Two hundred eighty Norwegian participants were given a Norwegian translation of the implicit personality theories measure. Participants then read two essays, one advocating the pro-life position and the other advocating the pro-choice position on the abortion issue. The essay positions were ostensibly assigned rather than freely chosen by the author. After each essay, participants were asked to rate the essay position and the true attitude of the author. Entity and incremental theorists showed no differences in their ratings of the essay position; however, entity theorists made significantly stronger correspondent inferences about the author's attitude than did incremental theorists. These results support the contention that entity theorists engage in less attributional correction than incremental theorists.     

Ordinary Explanations and Career Theories

The author highlights the relatively unexplored relationship between ordinary language explanations of career behavior and formal theories of career development. As in Gergen and Gergen's (1982) framework, several ordinary explanations of career behavior are classified along two dimensions—the extent to which explanations are founded in the person or the situation and the extent to which they account for predictability and control or chance and change. The value of the framework for both theory development and practice is outlined. The use of ordinary explanations addresses a number of issues faced by counselors as they move between their clients' explanations and formal career and counseling theories.     

Person theories: their temporal stability and relation to intertrait inferences

This article tests whether individual differences in inferring one trait from another (intertrait inferences) can be linked to lay beliefs about the malleability of personality (person theories). It finds that holding the belief that personality is malleable (incremental theory) rather than fixed (entity theory) at the time of inferences is associated with less extreme inferences involving semantically related (but not unrelated) traits. Although person theories have been assumed to be stable over time, existing short-term test-retest coefficients do not capture their instability over a longer period. These results can illuminate interrater discrepancies in assessments of personality pathology and job performance, enrich understanding of such phenomena as stereotyping and impression formation, refine the interpretation of past research involving person theories, and inform research planning.     

Accuracy of person perception: do people know what kinds of impressions they convey?

Do people know what kinds of impressions they convey to other people during particular social interactions? In a study designed to answer this question, subjects interacted individually with three partners on each of four different tasks. After each interaction, participants reported their impressions of the other person's likability and competence. They also postdicted the impressions they believed they conveyed to the other person along the same dimensions. Accuracy was computed as recommended by Cronbach (1955) and by Kenny's (1981) Social Relations Model. Subjects could tell to a significant degree how the impressions they conveyed to their partners changed over time (time accuracy) and how they changed over time in different ways with different partners (differential accuracy). They could also tell how their competence was differentially perceived by different partners (dyadic accuracy). However, they were not very accurate at discerning which partners perceived them as most competent or most likable across all interactions (person accuracy). Subjects believed that they conveyed similar impressions of themselves to all of their partners, although actually partners evidenced little agreement with each other in their impressions of a given subject. The implications of these findings for symbolic-interactionist theories of the development of the self and impression-management perspectives on social behavior are described.     

Traits and trade-offs are insufficient for evolutionary personality psychology

Comments on the article by D. Nettle, who has clearly shown that evolutionary psychologists need to focus more attention on individual differences, not just species-typical universals. Such differences are not mere "noise," and evolutionary theory will gain by understanding how they are produced and maintained. However, by focusing on personality traits and the five-factor personality model, Nettle left unaddressed many of the most important aspects of human personality. An evolutionary psychology of personality must ultimately explain not just trait differences but also differences in personal goals, values, motives, identities, and life narratives--essential elements of human individuality and functionality. K. M. Sheldon et al suggest four reasons why traits and the five-factor personality model do not provide an optimal approach for explaining the evolution of personality: (a) As constructs, traits provide little purchase for explaining the causes of behavior; (b) trait concepts do not acknowledge or explain people's variations around their own baselines, variations that are likely crucial for adaptation; (c) traits do not explain or even describe true human uniqueness, i.e. the ways in which a person is different from everybody else; and (d) traits do not explain personality from the inside, by considering what people are trying to do in their lives. In raising these issues Sheldon et al are suggesting that the important question for evolutionary personality study is not why people fall at different points on a continuum regarding traits x, y, and z, but rather why each person is inevitably unique while still sharing the same evolved psychology.     

Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction and control: implications for motivated person perception

Beginning with the assumption that implicit theories of personality are crucial tools for understanding social behavior, the authors tested the hypothesis that perceivers would process person information that violated their predominant theory in a biased manner. Using an attentional probe paradigm (Experiment 1) and a recognition memory paradigm (Experiment 2), the authors presented entity theorists (who believe that human attributes are fixed) and incremental theorists (who believe that human attributes are malleable) with stereotype-relevant information about a target person that supported or violated their respective theory. Both groups of participants showed evidence of motivated, selective processing only with respect to theory-violating information. In Experiment 3, the authors found that after exposure to theory-violating information, participants felt greater anxiety and worked harder to reestablish their sense of prediction and control mastery. The authors discuss the epistemic functions of implicit theories of personality and the impact of violated assumptions.     

Do voices carry valid information about a speaker’s personality?

Research on links between peoples’ personality traits and their voices has primarily focused on other peoples’ personality judgments about a target person based on a target person’s vocal characteristics, particularly voice pitch. However, it remains unclear whether individual differences in voices are linked to actual individual differences in personality traits, and thus whether vocal characteristics are indeed valid cues to personality. Here, we investigate how the personality traits of the Five Factor Model of Personality, sociosexuality, and dominance are related to measured fundamental frequency (voice pitch) and formant frequencies (formant position). For this purpose, we conducted a secondary data analysis of a large sample (2217 participants) from eleven different, independent datasets with a Bayesian approach. Results suggest substantial negative relationships between voice pitch and self-reported sociosexuality, dominance and extraversion in men and women. Thus, personality might at least partly be expressed in people’s voice pitch. Evidence for an association between formant frequencies and self-reported personality traits is not compelling but remains uncertain. We discuss potential underlying biological mechanisms of our effects and suggest a number of implications for future research.     

Confidence in own and others' knowledge

A person's confidence judgement of a statement reflects his/her degree of belief in the correctness of that statement. Deficient ability to assess the correctness of statements (or beliefs) can have serious consequences in many situations. This study compares the realism (calibration) of subjects' confidence ratings in two situations ( n = 64). The first situation was when the subjects confidence rated their own answers to general knowledge questions. The second was when the subjects gave confidence ratings of another person's answers to general knowledge questions. The results show that subjects were more poorly calibrated and were more overconfident in the second situation, i.e. when they gave confidence ratings of answers given by another person, compared with when they rated their own answers. The data further indicates that the results can not be explained in terms of the amount of cognitive processes invested when making the confidence judgements. For example, the subjects rated the other person's answers to questions they had answered themselves, and to questions they had not seen before. No differences in confidence or in calibration and other measures of judgmental realism were found between these two categories of questions. Nor did instructions to imagine the thought process of the other person improve any of these measures. The subjects disagreed with the other person's answer on 23% of all occasions. Significantly poorer calibration was shown where subjects disagreed with the other person than where they agreed. Contents of a social nature attended to by the subjects may have affected the results. The results, when related to previous research in the area, give rise to the question of how the social situation can be arranged to achieve the best calibration.     

The personality of familiar and significant people: the lay perceiver as a social-cognitive theorist

When are perceivers guided more by implicit social-cognitive theories of personality and when more by trait theories? As perceivers become more familiar with a person they infer relatively more psychological mediating variables (e.g., construals, goals) that underlie the person's behavior and relatively fewer broad, uncontextualized traits such as aggressive or friendly (Study 1). The effects of familiarity are moderated by the importance of the target to perceivers (Study 2). Specifically, perceivers make relatively more inferences using mediating variables and fewer inferences with traits as the target becomes more familiar, if and only if the target plays an important role in their lives. The findings indicate that psychological mediating variables play a significant role in lay perceptions of people and specify conditions in which perceiver's function like implicit social-cognitive theorists, namely, when the perceived is familiar and important to the perceiver.     

Philosophy as a missing link between values and behavior

Despite the persistence of social scientists, evaluating the relationship between values and behavior has not yielded clear results. Here, a model is proposed to conceptualize and measure a person's operating philosophy. This assesses a different level of the value structure within personality from separate values or clusters of values; it is the evaluative structure within which a person's values exist. Building on major philosophies, such as utilitarianism or humanism, the model assumes that a person has a predominant Pragmatic, Intellectual, or Human Operating Philosophy. In a sample of 801 subjects, each of these operating philosophies had significant associations with a variety of the expected behaviors evident in work and graduate school, such as initiative and empathy, as well as learning styles, skills, and flexibility. Interpretation of the results is offered as a way to understand the relationship between people's values or beliefs and their behavior and approach to learning.     

Toward an action-theoretical model of personality

An action-theoretical model of personality is presented, in which missing links between action-theory and personality constructs are established. Background is the facts, (a) that current psychological theories of action are limited to situation- and action-specific person variables, and (b) that in personality theory systematic relations between such variables and personality constructs are missing. The action-theoretical model of personality is based on a differentiated expectancy-value theory, whose situation-specific constructs (various aspects of valences and expectancies) are logically connected with personality constructs of generalized self-referential cognitions. The following action-theoretical personality variables are proposed to be central for the study of person-situation interactions: (a) self-concept of own competence, (b) control orientations, (c) trust, (d) conceptualization level, and (e) value orientations. The model implies rules for the operationalization of its constructs and for prediction of behaviour. The structure of the action-theoretical personality variables and their relations to other theories of personality are described.     

Integrating dispositions, signatures, and the interpersonal domain

A person's behavior across situations can be characterized in terms of a mean level (disposition), a dispersion within the person around that mean level, and a stable organization to the pattern of dispersion (signature). The authors' goals were to examine the structure and stability of behavior, both at the level of behavioral dispositions and at the level of behavioral signatures. Participants completed event-contingent records of their social interactions over a 20-day period. Participants recorded their own social behavior (dominant, agreeable, submissive, quarrelsome) in 4 situations defined by the perceived social behavior of their primary interaction partners (agreeable-dominant, agreeable-submissive, quarrelsome- submissive, quarrelsome-dominant). Findings suggest that (a) once the normative influences of situations on behavior are removed, the remaining behavioral variation reflects both consistent cross-situational differences between individuals (dispositions) and consistent situational differences within individuals (signatures); (b) both dispositions and signatures display a 2-dimensional structure in adherence to the interpersonal circle; and (c) both dispositions and signatures constitute stable aspects of personality functioning.