The accuracy of roommate ratings of behaviors versus beliefs

We evaluated the accuracy of peer ratings of roommates’ personality characteristics, against roommate self-ratings, as a function of rating domain observability. Instead of the usual ratings of broad personality traits, however, our domains represented peer ratings of narrow exemplars of personality traits. Specifically, we compared roommate ratings on (a) observable trait-related behaviors with (b) unobservable trait-related attitudes or beliefs. We observed greater self-peer agreement in rating behaviors, in general, than in rating beliefs. We also observed greater tendency of raters to adopt an assumed similarity heuristic when judging their roommates’ attitudes and beliefs than their behaviors. We discuss the contribution of these findings to understanding the determinants of accuracy in personality judgments and developing best practices for personality assessment.     

ACCURACY OF INTERVIEWER JUDGMENTS OF JOB APPLICANT PERSONALITY TRAITS

This study investigated whether interviewers can assess Big Five personality traits during a job interview. Four raters (self, interviewer, friend, and stranger) assessed the applicant's personality. Results from ratings for 73 applicants demonstrated that interviewer ratings of applicant personality correlate higher with self-ratings ( = .28) than do stranger ratings ( = .09) but less than ratings from close friends ( = .39). However, correlations between interviewer ratings and self-ratings were smaller for the two job-relevant personality traits, Conscientiousness ( = .16, n.s.) and Emotional Stability ( = .17, n.s.) than for the other three personality traits. Variance in ratings suggested the applicants managed their self-presentation on these two traits during the interview. Thus, although interviewers can and do assess personality during the interview, they are not able to assess those traits that would best predict later job success. Finally, the moderating effect of interview design (i.e., structure and content) was assessed. The results revealed that job-relevant interviews, situational interviews, and behavioral interviews did not affect an interviewer's ability to assess personality. Although there was a small (positive) effect for more structured interviews, this affect was modest. The results of this study suggest that future research should examine whether the interview can be designed to assess personality directly, and what the gains to predictive validity are by doing so.     

SELF-MONITORING AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND PERFORMANCE

This study examined the hypothesis that self-monitoring moderates the relationship between Big Five personality traits and interpersonal performance. The findings from a sample of 102 employed Executive MBA students reveal that when self-monitoring was high the relationships between 3 of the Big Five personality traits (Extraversion, Emotional Stability, and Openness to Experience) and supervisory ratings of interpersonal performance were attenuated. These effects were replicated using peer ratings of interpersonal performance for Extraversion and Emotional Stability but not for Openness to Experience. Further, as expected, self-monitoring did not moderate the relationships between personality traits and supervisory or peer ratings of task performance. Implications for future research in the area of personality and other motivational theories are discussed.     

The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model

Using a sample of 315 adult men and women, self-reports on Wiggins's revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales were jointly factored with self-reports, peer ratings, and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory to examine the relations between the two models. Results suggest that the interpersonal circumplex is defined by the two dimensions of Extraversion and Agreeableness, and that the circular ordering of variables is not an artifact of response biases or cognitive schemata. Circumplex and dimensional models appear to complement each other in describing the structure of personality, and both may be useful to social psychologists in understanding interpersonal behavior.     

IMPLICATIONS OF TRAIT-ACTIVATION THEORY FOR EVALUATING THE CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CENTER RATINGS

Assessment centers have often been criticized for lacking evidence supporting the construct validity of dimension ratings. This study examines whether the poor convergence of assessment center ratings is a result of correlating ratings from exercises that differ in the extent that behavior relevant to personality traits can be observed. Using data from a promotional assessment center for law enforcement officers ( n = 79), the convergence of assessment center ratings was evaluated within the context of the five factor model by comparing the average within-dimension correlation of ratings from exercises that allowed for more opportunity to observe trait-relevant behavior to the average of those involving exercises where there was less opportunity. For each personality trait, ratings from exercises judged by experts to be high in trait-activation potential displayed stronger convergence (mean r = .30) than did ratings from exercises that were low in activation potential for that trait (mean r = .15). Implications for evaluating the construct validity of assessment centers are discussed along with future directions for classifying exercises based on situational similarity.     

Peer ratings of depression,anxiety, and aggression in inpatient and elementary school children: Rating biases and influence of rater's self-reported depression,anxiety, and aggression

Using parallel self-, peer, and teacher rating scales, several rating biases in children's peer ratings of depression, anxiety, and aggression were examined. Participants were 66 inpatient and 133 elementary school children (N = 199, 109 boys, 90 girls; 61% white, 39% black) aged 8 to 12, and their teachers. Results showed significant halo bias in both the children's peer ratings and the teachers' ratings. Children's self-reports on each of the three traits were significantly related to their peer ratings of the same trait, while adjusting for socioeconomic status and the peers' teachers' ratings of the same trait. Children who rated themselves as high on each trait rated their peers significantly higher on the same trait than children who rated themselves as medium or low; and for depression and anxiety, those who rated themselves as medium rated their peers significantly higher on those traits than those who rated themselves as low. For both depression and aggression, children's self-reports on the trait were significantly related to their peer ratings of the same trait, but not significantly related to their peer ratings of different traits. Disagreements between children's and teachers' ratings of the peers on all three traits were significantly related to child self-reports on each trait, indicating a possible distortion in children's peer ratings due to self-report. The implications of the results for both peer and others' assessments are discussed, and further investigation of rating biases in other informants' assessments is encouraged.These data were collected as part of the author's doctoral dissertation submitted to Memphis State University. Appreciation is expressed to Stacey Donegan for assistance with the literature review for an earlier version of this paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, March 1993.     

On Being the Same in Different Places: Evaluating Frame‐of‐Reference Effects Across Two Social Contexts

Frame‐of‐reference (FOR) effects in personality assessment are demonstrated when self‐rated items oriented to specific contexts (e.g., workplace) show better predictive validity than noncontextualized items. Empirical support of FOR effects typically relies on job performance ratings or academic grades for criteria. The current study evaluates FOR effects using ratings of personality provided by informants from the home or school context. Items from the NEO Five‐Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) were contextualized to the home and school contexts to create NEO‐Home and NEO‐School versions. One hundred fifty‐eight college students completed the NEO‐Home and NEO‐School questionnaires, and 161 college students completed the standard, noncontextualized NEO‐FFI. All participants recruited one peer from college and at least one parent to complete standard rater versions of the NEO‐FFI. Contextualized self‐ratings did not show FOR effects. NEO‐Home self‐ratings did not correlate higher with parent ratings than with peer ratings, and NEO‐School self‐ratings did not correlate higher with peer ratings than with parent ratings. Standard NEO‐FFI self‐ratings generally showed higher self‐informant agreement with both types of informants than contextualized self‐ratings. The pattern of correlations suggests that validity is enhanced more by specific trait‐informant combinations than by the contextualization of items to social contexts.     

THE STRUCTURE OF PERSONALITY JUDGMENTS: COMMENTS ON KUUSINEN'S PAPER AND FURTHER EVIDENCE

Kuusinen (1969) compared the factor structures of individual subjects' ratings of their peers with the structure of peer ratings made by a group of subjects. He concluded that the group structure adequately represented the individual structures and that inter-individual differences were unimportant. This conclusion is challenged in the present paper. It is argued that the between-subject differences in Kuusinen's results were too pronounced to be dismissed as negligible. Data are also presented from a study in which subjects made personality ratings of stereotypic role figures. The factor structure underlying each subject's ratings was determined and compared with that of each other subject. The degree of congruence between the factor structures of pairs of subjects varied and in general only moderate convergence was observed. Implications of these individual differences for the concept of implicit personality theories were discussed.     

Recalled Parent-Child Relations and Adult Personality

Adult children's ratings of their parents' behaviors on the Parent-Child Relation Questionnaire II were correlated with self-reports and peer ratings of personality on the NEO Personality Inventory in a sample of 619 men and women aged 21 to 96. Individuals who reported that their parents were loving scored lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Individuals, especially men, who described their parents as casual rather than demanding were lower in extraversion and conscientiousness, but higher in openness. Parental attention (i.e., spoiling) was associated with extraversion and low agreeableness. Several of these correlations were replicated when peer ratings of personality were examined. However, all the associations were modest, and several alternative explanations suggest that the correlations may exaggerate the influence of these child-rearing practices on adult personality. Parental behaviors and attitudes seem to have less effect on broad dimensions of adult personality than traditionally supposed.     

Being liked is more than having a good personality: The role of matching

Is possession of desirable personality characteristics the only predictor that someone will be well-liked in a group of acquaintances, or does similarity to others in the group also matter? We tested participants (n = 844) who had been assigned to peer groups and had spent 6 weeks together. Participants assessed self and peer personalities. We found that after controlling for attributions of desirable and undesirable personality characteristics, individuals with similar personality patterns liked each other more than individuals with dissimilar patterns. Further analysis revealed similarity of basic demographic attributes (i.e., sex and race) predicted liking independent of personality similarity. Results provide a comprehensive analysis of relations between personality similarity and liking among acquaintances in a randomized, naturalistic design.     

Cultural differences in self- and other-evaluations and well-being: a study of European and Asian Canadians

Anusic, Schimmack, Pinkus, and Lockwood (2009) developed the halo-alpha-beta (HAB) model to separate halo variance from variance due to valid personality traits and other sources of measurement error in self-ratings of personality. The authors used a twin-HAB model of self-ratings and ratings of a partner (friend or dating partner) to test several hypotheses about culture, evaluative biases in self- and other-perceptions, and well-being. Participants were friends or dating partners who reported on their own and their partner's personality and well-being (N = 906 students). European Canadians had higher general evaluative biases (GEB) than Asian Canadians. There were no cultural differences in self-enhancement or other-enhancement. GEB significantly predicted self-ratings of life satisfaction, but not informant ratings of well-being. GEB fully mediated the effect of culture on self-ratings of life satisfaction. The results suggest that North American culture encourages positive biases in self- and other-perceptions. These biases also influence self-ratings of life satisfaction but have a much weaker effect on informant ratings of life satisfaction. The implications of these findings for cultural differences in well-being are discussed.     

AN EVALUATION OF THE VALIDITY OF THE PERSONALITY RESEARCH FORM WITH FILIPINO UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

The cross-cultural validity of a North American personality inventory, namely, the Personality Research Form (Jackson 1984) was examined using 394 university students in the Philippines who were able to speak and read English. Scale validities, with self and peer ratings as criteria, were generally significant but modest. Moderate scale and peer rating reliabilities probably contributed to these results. Elevated scores on a PRF scale designed to detect careless responding suggested failure to understand instructions or insufficient motivation may also account for the findings. Interestingly, recalculating validities for subsamples comprising ‘dependable’ and ‘undependable’ subjects yielded no substantial differences in overall validity. Implications for cross-cultural personality assessment are discussed.     

Who Are the People Reluctant to Participate in Research? Personality Correlates of Four Different Types of Nonresponse as Inferred from Self‐ and Observer Ratings

This article outlines a typology of nonresponse biases that may occur in research based on voluntary participation and presents empirical evidence on the relationships between nonresponse and personality traits. We describe four different types of nonresponse occurring at the recruitment stage, during data collection, and at the stage of recruitment for further research. Personality correlates of all types of nonresponse were investigated using data from an online survey e-mailed to owners of personal Web sites, and observer ratings on the targets' personality were obtained. After reviewing the target persons' Web sites, observers judged complete nonrespondents as less agreeable and less open to experience than respondents. Furthermore, higher extraversion, higher openness to experience, and higher narcissism differentiated volunteers for follow-up research from nonvolunteers in both self- and observer ratings. We found only weak evidence of personality correlates of careless and selective item nonresponse. Findings show that nonresponse biases may have significant implications for representativeness in surveys and personality test norms.     

Self-monitoring and the prediction of one's own and others' personality test scores

This study had two aims. Firstly, it examined the similarity between subjects' ratings of themselves and others and their scores on various personality tests. A group of 264 undergraduates in psychology completed Snyder's (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale and the Neuroticism and Extraversion Scales from the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975; 1986). Then, they estimated both their own score and that of a peer on those questionnaires. The results showed that subjects (i) were fairly good at estimating their own and others' extraversion and neuroticism scores, (ii) were less accurate at estimating self-monitoring scores, (iii) were better at predicting their own scores than those of others, and (iv) erroneously believed themselves to be significantly similar to the chosen peer. Secondly, individual differences in the accuracy of personality estimation were studied. According to Synder's (1974) self-monitoring construct, people high in self-monitoring would be especially adept at reading others' expressive behaviours; therefore, any differences in the accuracy of perceiving the personality of others might be associated with differences in self-monitoring. High self-monitors were more accurate than low self-monitors at estimating neuroticism scores for others. Another implication of the self-monitoring theory is that, taking high and low self-monitors as targets of others' estimations, there should be greater discrepancy between actual scores and peer estimations for high self-monitors. The results here supported this prediction, but only in self-monitoring estimation.     

FACTORIAL INVARIANCE OF PERSONALITY RATINGS

K uusinen , J. Factorial invariance of personality ratings. Scand. J. Psychol ., 1969, 10 , 33–44—Three studies employing the same set of 33 personality rating scales are described. (I) Five factor structures of the scales, derived from ratings of five groups of stimuli, were compared. (2) One subject rated different personality concepts three times at one week's intervals. (3) 12 individual factor structures were compared to the factor structure computed from peer ratings of a group of 39 subjects. Results: (a) the factor structure of the scales was largely independent of stimuli, (b) the structure for an individual was stable, (c) the group structure represented the individual's structure, ( d ) differences between group and the individual structure and between individuals were negligible.     

Peer Sociometric Status and Personality Development from Middle Childhood to Preadolescence

Sociometric status, the regard that other group members confer to an individual, is one of the most ubiquitous and behaviourally relevant attributes assigned to the person by the social environment. Despite this, its contribution to personality development has received little attention. The present three‐wave longitudinal study, spanning the age range 7–13 years (n = 1222), sought to fill this gap by examining the transactional pathways between peer sociometric status (measured by peer nominations) and Five‐Factor personality traits (measured by self‐ratings and parent and teacher ratings). Sociometric status prospectively predicted the development of extraversion. By contrast, agreeableness and neuroticism prospectively predicted the development of sociometric status. Furthermore, individual‐level stability in extraversion was associated with individual‐level stability in sociometric status. The results were robust across different sources of personality ratings. We argue that peer sociometric status in the school classroom is the type of environmental effect that has potential to explain personality development. Because of its stability, broadness, and possible impact across a variety of personality processes, sociometric status can both repetitiously and simultaneously influence the network of multiple inter‐correlated micro‐level personality processes, potentially leading to a new network equilibrium that manifests in changes at the level of the broad personality trait. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology     

The construct and criterion validity of emotional intelligence and its potential utility for management studies

In this study, the authors reviewed the definition of emotional intelligence (EI) and argued that El is conceptually distinct from personality. In Study 1, the authors showed that EI was related to yet distinct from personality dimensions and that it had incremental predictive power on life satisfaction. The authors examined the construct validity of self-reports and others' ratings of EI using two samples in Study 2. In a student sample, parents' ratings explained additional variance in the students' life satisfaction and feelings of powerlessness after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions. In the work sample, peer ratings were found to be significant predictors of job performance ratings provided by supervisors after controlling for the Big Five personality dimensions. Other implications for future research on EI are discussed.     

A FIELD STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF RATING PURPOSE ON THE QUALITY OF MULTISOURCE RATINGS

Using a field sample of peers and subordinates, the current study employed generalizability theory to estimate sources of systematic variability associated with both developmental and administrative ratings (variance due to items, raters, etc.) and then used these values to estimate the dependability (i.e., reliability) of the performance ratings under various conditions. Results indicated that the combined rater and rater-by-ratee interaction effect and the residual effect were substantially larger than the person effect (i.e., object of measurement) for both rater sources across both purpose conditions. For subordinates, the person effect accounted for a significantly greater percentage of total variance in developmental ratings than in administrative ratings; however, no differences were observed for peer ratings as a function of rating purpose. These results suggest that subordinate ratings are of significantly better quality when made for developmental than for administrative purposes, but the same is not true for peer ratings.