Accounting for the evaluative factor in self-ratings provides a more accurate estimate of the relationship between personality traits and well-being

Social desirability may cause spurious relations in self-rating measures. The present study sought to disentangle socially desirable responding and content in the relation between measures of personality traits and well-being. Social desirability was operationalized as the evaluative factor (the tendency to react to evaluative content in questionnaire items). We collected self- and peer-ratings of personality and self-ratings of well-being from 219 participants. The evaluative factor in personality self-ratings significantly predicted well-being and explained more variance than all Big Five traits combined. The evaluative factor in personality peer-ratings had no unique relation to well-being. These findings suggest that previous estimates of the relationship between personality traits and well-being have generally been exaggerated. Different methods of accounting for social desirability are discussed.     

Is there really a single factor of personality? A multirater approach to the apex of personality

A GFP is controversially debated on regarding the hierarchical structure of personality. Apart from theoretical argumentations, support for the existence of such a factor calls on the intercorrelations repeatedly found between personality domains. The current study used a data set containing one self-rating and two peer-ratings in order to replicate recent methodological approaches in modeling the GFP but also to apply a specific multirater approach able to disentangle method biases and to correct for nested data structure. Results did show the emergence of a GFP when modeled only with peer- or self-ratings, but did not support the idea of a GFP when modeled with multirater nested data. Findings are discussed including an interpretation of the GFP as successful impression management.