Acts and dispositions: A reconsideration of the Act Frequency Approach

The Act Frequency Approach (AFA) proposed by Buss and Craik was summarized and critically reviewed on the basis of a German replication study using six interpersonal traits each with 100 translated acts. The six traits studied were dominant, gregarious, agreeable, submissive, aloof, and quarrelsome. The internal structure of these categories was examined via multiple prototypicality ratings. It was demonstrated that many acts are highly prototypical for more than one category. The manifested categorical structure was tested by gathering retrospective act reports about performance and frequency of exhibiting each of these 600 acts using a sample of 213 adults. Aggregation of the acts according to their prototypicality key yielded reliable subscales. The validities obtained on the basis of the 25 highly prototypical acts were slightly higher compared with those of the 100 act set, as well as the sets with lower prototypicality. The validity gradient proposed by Buss and Craik was found using selected personality scales as well as global self-ratings and peer-ratings on some of the respective trait terms. In general, the results of the German study replicated the findings of Buss and Craik.     

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Personality: A Study of Twins Reared Together Using the Self- and Peer Report NEO-FFI Scales

ABSTRACT Previous behavior-genetic research on personality has been almost exclusively based on self-report questionnaire measures. The purpose of this research was to measure personality constructs via self- and peer reports on the items of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1989). The sample included 660 monozygotic and 200 same sex and 104 opposite sex dizygotic twin pairs. We collected self- and two independent peer reports for each of the twins. Our analysis of self-report data replicates earlier findings of a substantial genetic influence on the Big Five (h²= .42 to .56). We also found this influence for peer reports. Our results validate findings based solely on self-reports. However, estimates of genetic contributions to phenotypic variance were substantially higher when based on peer reports (h²= .51 to .81) or self- and peer reports (h²= .66 to .79) because these data allowed us to separate error variance from variance due to nonshared environmental in-fluences. Correlations between self- and peer reports reflected the same genetic influences to a much higher extent than identical environmental effects.