Constructing Trait Measures for Self- and Observer Report

Strategies of personality inventory construction The empirical strategy (also known as the criterion keying approach) The example of femininity/masculinity The example of shyness The example of schizophrenia The factor-analytic strategy conscientious, dependable, reliable, careful agreeable, accommodating, considerate, kind The rational strategy

I am socially somewhat awkward. Personality Inventory Please read the following items and decide how well they describe your personality. Respond to each according to the following list of alternatives: a. very much unlike me b. somewhat unlike me c. somewhat like me d. very much like me I am socially somewhat awkward. I don’t find it hard to talk with strangers I feel tense when I’m with people I don’t know well. When conversing I worry about saying something dumb. I feel nervous when speaking to someone in authority. I am often uncomfortable at parties and other social functions. I feel inhibited in social situations. I have trouble looking someone right in the eye. I am more shy with members of the opposite sex.

Strategies of personality inventory construction The empirical strategy (also known as the criterion keying approach) The example of femininity/masculinity The example of shyness The example of schizophrenia The factor-analytic strategy conscientious, dependable, reliable, careful agreeable, accommodating, considerate, kind The rational strategy

Comparisons of the three strategies Studies by Jackson (1975), Ashton and Goldberg (1973), and Knudson and Golding (1974) found somewhat better validity evidence for rationally-constructed measures than for ones constructed using the empirical or the factor-analytic strategy. On the other hand, several other studies, including one by Burisch (1984), found essentially no difference, though the rational strategy is generally simpler and easier to implement than the other two approaches. Many researchers develop their initial item pool using the rational strategy and then apply the factor analysis strategy to the first waves of data to further refine the scale.

Some widely-used personality inventories The California Psychological Inventory (CPI): Gough (empirical approach) The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI): Hogan (job performance) The 16 Personality Factors Questionnaire (16PF): Cattell; Conn and Rieke The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): Eysenck (supertraits) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI): Myers and Briggs (Jungian types) The Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI): Cloninger et al. The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ): Tellegen The Jackson Personality Inventory (JPI): Jackson The Nonverbal Personality Questionnaire (NPQ): Paunonen et al. (drawings) The Big Five Inventory (BFI): John, Donahue, and Kentle The NEO Personality Inventory: Costa and McCrae (NEO-PI, NEO-FFI) The HEXACO Personality Inventory: Lee and Ashton (Big Five plus H) The International Personality Item Pool (IPIP): Goldberg

Self- and observer reports on personality measures Agreement between self- and observer reports Agreement averages about .50 (about .40 when the observers are neighbors or acquaintances and about .60 when the observers are spouses or close friends) These levels of agreement are fairly high However, are they good evidence for the reality of personality traits? The alternative interpretation is that traits are socially constructed and are not necessarily real

Yortuk and Georg Festrunk: Two wild and crazy guys http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-festrunk-brothers/n8662?snl=1

Why do self- and observer reports tend to agree? Funder, Kolar, and Blackman (1995) compared reports of college students’ personalities provided by (a) the students themselves, (b) a hometown friend, and (c) a college friend The ratings provided by the hometown friend and the college friend correlated about .30 on average Even more important, the same average correlation of .30 was found regardless of whether the hometown friend and the college friend had ever met and “compared notes” These data favor the interpretation that traits are real rather than simply socially constructed

The validity of self- and observer reports in predicting behavior Kolar, Funder, and Colvin (1996) compared the predictive validity (behavioral validity) of self-ratings with the predictive validity of ratings by one or two knowledgeable peers On average, self-ratings predicted trait-relevant behavior at slightly less than .30 On average, the ratings of a single knowledgeable peer predicted the target person’s trait-relevant behavior about .35 On average, the combined ratings of two knowledgeable peers predicted the target person’s trait-relevant behavior about .40

Are observer ratings always better predictors than self-ratings? No. If the trait is one that is largely “unobservable” by others, self-ratings are often better predictors of trait-relevant behaviors than observer ratings are The example of extraversion (observers can quickly size up someone’s level of extraversion, even at “zero acquaintance”) The example of anxiety (to the extent we hide our anxiety from others, our self-ratings of anxiety will be better predictors of anxiety-related behaviors than their observer ratings will be) The example of being a jerk

Examples of projective tests The Rorschach Inkblot test The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) The Human Figure Drawing Test

The Rorschach Inkblot Test Developed by Herman Rorschach born in 1884, died in 1922 at age 37 published his book Psychodiagnostik in 1921

The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) Developed by Henry Murray born 1883, died 1988 at age 95 developed the TAT in the 1930s

The Human Figure Drawing Test