Differences between traits: properties associated with interjudge agreement.

The present study concerns the relation between properties of personality traits and the agreement with which they are applied to real individuals. Subjects rated the 100 personality items of the California Q-Set on nine subjective dimensions, six of which loaded highly on a first principal component. This factor was interpreted as reflecting each trait's "easy visibility" to an outside observer. Actual interjudge agreement in applying each trait to real individuals was assessed in two ways: Self-other agreement was assessed in two independent samples, and interpeer agreement was assessed in three samples. Impressive and stable agreement was found for most Q items. The traits that were applied to individuals with the greatest interjudge agreement were the same ones that seemed most easily visible and tended to be positively relevant to extraversion and negatively relevant to neuroticism (identified through a factor analysis by McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986). The results suggest that traits defining extraversion are revealed relatively directly in social behavior and, therefore, are easy to judge, that traits defining neuroticism are less visible and, so, are judged less accurately, and that lay perceivers of personality are generally sensitive to this difference between traits.

[1]  M. Appelbaum,et al.  Psychometric methods. , 1989, Annual review of psychology.

[2]  D. Funder,et al.  Errors and mistakes: evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. , 1987, Psychological bulletin.

[3]  D. Funder,et al.  On the several facets of personality assessment: The case of social acuity. , 1986, Journal of personality.

[4]  Paul T. Costa,et al.  Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q‐Set and the five‐factor model , 1986 .

[5]  S. Epstein,et al.  Perception of cross-situational consistency. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  D. Moskowitz.  Comparison of self-reports, reports by knowledgeable informants, and behavioral observation data , 1986 .

[7]  M. Rothbart,et al.  On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts. , 1986 .

[8]  D. Jackson,et al.  Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes , 1985 .

[9]  C. Woodruffe.  Consensual validation of personality traits: Additional evidence and individual differences. , 1985 .

[10]  Daniel J. Ozer,et al.  Correlation and the coefficient of determination , 1985 .

[11]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  W. Mischel.  Convergences and challenges in the search for consistency. , 1984 .

[13]  S. Andersen.  Self-knowledge and social inference: II. The diagnosticity of cognitive/affective and behavioral data. , 1984 .

[14]  Ralph L. Rosnow,et al.  Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis , 1984 .

[15]  L. Beach,et al.  The citation bias: Fad and fashion in the judgment and decision literature. , 1984 .

[16]  D. Funder.  The "consistency" controversy and the accuracy of personality judgments. , 1983, Journal of personality.

[17]  D. Funder,et al.  On the nature and accuracy of attributions that change over time , 1983 .

[18]  D. Funder,et al.  Behavior as a function of the situation. , 1983 .

[19]  J. Cheek.  Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. , 1982 .

[20]  David C. Funder,et al.  On the Accuracy of Dispositional Versus Situational Attributions , 1982 .

[21]  Robert R. McCrae,et al.  Consensual validation of personality traits: Evidence from self-reports and ratings. , 1982 .

[22]  D. Funder.  On assessing social psychological theories through the study of individual differences: Template matching and forced compliance. , 1982 .

[23]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference and Judgment: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full? , 1982 .

[24]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  A Simple, General Purpose Display of Magnitude of Experimental Effect , 1982 .

[25]  D. Moskowitz,et al.  Validity comparison of behavior counts and ratings by knowledgeable informants. , 1982 .

[26]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[27]  D. Funder.  On seeing ourselves as others see us: Self–other agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. , 1980 .

[28]  D. Funder.  The “trait” of ascribing traits: Individual differences in the tendency to trait ascription☆ , 1980 .

[29]  W. T. Norman,et al.  The Comparative Validity of Questionnaire Data (16PF Scales) and Objective Test Data (O-A Battery) in Predicting Five Peer-Rating Criteria , 1980 .

[30]  E. Tanke,et al.  Determinants of Social Perception in a Naturalistic Setting. , 1980 .

[31]  Douglas T. Kenrick,et al.  Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. , 1980 .

[32]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Review of personality and social psychology , 1980 .

[33]  Edward E. Jones,et al.  Person perception 2nd ed. , 1979 .

[34]  David C. Funder,et al.  Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. , 1978 .

[35]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. , 1978 .

[36]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Knowing with Certainty: The Appropriateness of Extreme Confidence. , 1977 .

[37]  G. Maruyama,et al.  The "likeableness" of 555 personality trait words: Ten years later , 1976 .

[38]  Daryl J. Bem,et al.  ON PREDICTING SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME: THE SEARCH FOR CROSS-SITUATIONAL CONSISTENCIES IN BEHAVIOR , 1974 .

[39]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the psychology of prediction , 1973 .

[40]  Language and the Individual. , 1971 .

[41]  N. Anderson.  Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  W. T. Norman,et al.  2800 PERSONALITY TRAIT DESCRIPTORS--NORMATIVE OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS FOR A UNIVERSITY POPULATION. , 1967 .

[43]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  Comparative validity of different strategies of constructing personality inventory scales. , 1967, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  S. Oskamp.  OVERCONFIDENCE IN CASE-STUDY JUDGMENTS. , 1965, Journal of consulting psychology.

[45]  W. T. Norman,et al.  Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: replicated factors structure in peer nomination personality ratings. , 1963, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[46]  Jack Block,et al.  The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research , 1964 .

[47]  L. R. Goldberg,et al.  The effectiveness of clinicians' judgments; the diagnosis of organic brain damage from the Bender-Gestalt test. , 1959, Journal of consulting psychology.

[48]  L. Cronbach.  Processes affecting scores on understanding of others and assumed similarity. , 1955, Psychological bulletin.

[49]  A. H. Hastorf,et al.  A caution respecting the measurement of empathic ability. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[50]  S. G. Estes.  Judging personality from expressive behavior. , 1938 .

[51]  G. Āllport.  Personality: A Psychological Interpretation , 1938 .

[52]  H. Hollingworth.  Personality a psychological interpretation. , 1938 .

[53]  H. Murray,et al.  An Experiment in Judging Personalities , 1937 .

[54]  D. Katz,et al.  Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. , 1933 .

[55]  R. Tryon,et al.  The interpretation of the correlation coefficient. , 1929 .

[56]  S. L. Parker,et al.  An Interpretation of the Correlation Coefficient , 1925 .