Search

Objective: We tested predictions about the structure and magnitude of method biases in single-source personality trait assessments. We expected a large number of distinct biases that would parallel the observed structure of traits, at both facet and item levels., Method: We analyzed multimethod ratings on the Estonian NEO Personality Inventory-3 in a sample of 3,214 adults. By subtracting informant ratings from self-reports, we eliminated true score variance and analyzed the size and structure of the residual method biases. We replicated analyses using data (N = 709) from the Czech Revised NEO Personality Inventory., Results: The magnitude of method biases was consistent with predictions by McCrae (2018, Psychological Assessment). Factor analyses at the facet level showed a clear replication of the normative Five-Factor Model structure in both samples. Item factor analyses within domains showed that facet-level method biases mimicked the facet structure of the instrument., Conclusions: Method biases apparently reflect implicit personality theory (IPT)-beliefs about how traits and trait indicators covary. We discuss the (collective) accuracy and possible origins of IPT. Because method biases limit the accuracy of single-source assessments, we recommend assessments that combine information from two or more informants., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

We examined properties of culture-level personality traits in ratings of targets (N=5,109) ages 12 to 17 in 24 cultures. Aggregate scores were generalizable across gender, age, and relationship groups and showed convergence with culture-level scores from previous studies of self-reports and observer ratings of adults, but they were unrelated to national character stereotypes. Trait profiles also showed cross-study agreement within most cultures, 8 of which had not previously been studied. Multidimensional scaling showed that Western and non-Western cultures clustered along a dimension related to Extraversion. A culture-level factor analysis replicated earlier findings of a broad Extraversion factor but generally resembled the factor structure found in individuals. Continued analysis of aggregate personality scores is warranted.

We examined patterns of trait similarity (assortative mating) in married couples in four cultures, using both self-reports and spouse ratings on versions of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. There was evidence of a subtle but pervasive perceived contrast bias in the spouse-rating data. However, there was strong agreement across methods of assessment and moderate agreement across cultures in the pattern of results. Most assortment effects were small, but correlations exceeding .40 were seen for a subset of traits, chiefly from the Openness and Agreeableness domains. Except in Russia, where more positive assortment was seen for younger couples, comparisons of younger and older cohorts showed little systematic difference. This suggested that mate selection, rather than convergence over time, accounted for similarity. Future research on personality similarity in dyads can utilize different designs but should assess personality at both domain and the facet levels.

Methodological arguments are usually invoked to explain variations in the structure of affect. Using self-rated affect from Italian samples (N=600), we show that individual difference variables related to affective differentiation can moderate the observed structure. Indices of circumplexity and congruence coefficients to the hypothesized target were used to quantify the observed structures. Results did not support the circumplex model as a universal structure. A circular structure with axes of activation and valence was approximated only among more affectively differentiated groups: students and respondents with high scores on Openness to Feelings and measures of negative emotionality. A different structure, with unipolar Positive Affect and Negative Affect factors, was observed among adults and respondents with low Openness to Feelings and negative emotionality. The observed structure of affect will depend in part on the nature of the sample studied.

Personality traits, studied for decades by Western personality psychologists, have recently been reconceptualized as endogenous basic tendencies that, within a cultural context, give rise to habits, attitudes, skills, beliefs, and other characteristic adaptations. This conceptualization provides a new framework for studying personality and culture at three levels. Transcultural research focuses on identifying human universals, such as trait structure and development; intracultural studies examine the unique expression of traits in specific cultures; and intercultural research characterizes cultures and their subgroups in terms of mean levels of personality traits and seeks associations between cultural variables and aggregate personality traits. As an example of the problems and possibilities of intercultural analyses, data on mean levels of Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales from college age and adult samples (N = 23,031) of men and women from 26 cultures are examined. Results showed that age and gender differences resembled those found in American samples; different subsamples from each culture showed similar levels of personality traits: intercultural factor analysis yielded a close approximation to the Five-Factor Model; and factor scores were meaningfully related to other culture-level variables. However, mean trait levels were not apparent to expert raters, casting doubt on the accuracy of national stereotypes. Trait psychology can serve as a useful complement to cultural perspectives on human nature and personality.

The phenotypic structure of personality traits has been well described, but it has not yet been explained causally. Behavior genetic covariance analyses can identify the underlying causes of phenotypic structure; previous behavior genetic research has suggested that the effects from both genetic and nonshared environmental influences mirror the phenotype. However, nonshared environmental effects are usually estimated as a residualterm that may also include systematic bias, such as that introduced by implicit personality theory. To reduce that bias, we supplemented data from Canadian and German twin studies with cross-observer correlations on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The hypothesized five-factor structure was found in both the phenotypic and genetic/familial covariances. When the residual covariance was decomposed into true nonshared environmental influences and method bias, only the latter showed the five-factor structure. True nonshared environmental influences are not structured as genetic influences are, although there was some suggestion that they do affect two personality dimensions, Conscientiousness and Love. These data reaffirm the value of behavior genetic analyses for research on the underlying causes of personality traits.

Personality disorders (PDs) are usually construed as psychiatric categories characterized by a unique configuration of traits and behaviors. To generate clinical hypotheses from normal personality trait scores, profile agreement statistics can be calculated using a prototypical personality profile for each PD. Multimethod data from 1,909 psychiatric patients in the People's Republic of China were used to examine the accuracy of such hypotheses in the Interpretive Report of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Profile agreement indices from both self-reports and spouse ratings were significantly related to PD symptom scores derived from questionnaires and clinical interviews. However, accuracy of diagnostic classification was only modest to moderate, probably because PDs are not discrete categorical entities. Together with other literature, these data suggest that the current categorical system should be replaced by a more comprehensive system of personality traits and personality-related problems.

Studies of personality and problem behaviors may begin with analyses of the problem and develop hypotheses about personality traits that might be relevant; or they may begin with models of personality and explore links to behavior. Because it is well validated and relatively comprehensive, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality lends itself to systematic exploratory studies that may sometimes lead to unanticipated findings. In this article, we review a program of research in a high-risk, disadvantaged population that illustrates the utility of the FFM in understanding health risk behavior. Previous analyses showed that behavior associated with the risk of HIV infection can be predicted from the personality dispositions of Neuroticism and (low) Conscientiousness.

In this commentary, I make some general observations about the study of personality and religion and some specific comments about individual articles from the perspective of contemporary personality psychology. Most of the authors represented here treat religion as a domain of human experience and behavior that can be understood in terms of familiar personality principles and processes. I therefore urge greater attention to the Five-Factor Model of personality traits, especially Openness to Experience, in understanding religious phenomena. Mainstream psychologists, including longitudinal researchers, behavior geneticists, and epidemiologists, should consider the inclusion of religious variables in their research designs.

Self-reports and spouse ratings of personality traits typically show less-than-perfect agreement, but powerful moderators of agreement have not yet been identified. In Study 1, 47 married couples completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory to describe themselves and their spouses. Extent of agreement was not consistently moderated by response sets; the age, intelligence, or education of the respondent; or the length or quality of the relationship. In Study 2 these couples were interviewed about reasons for substantial disagreements, and an audiotape was content-analyzed. Sixteen reasons were reliably coded, including idiosyncratic understanding of items, reference to different time frames or roles, and unavailability of covert experience to the spouse. Faking good, assumed similarity, and other variables prominent in the psychometric literature were relatively unimportant. Findings (1) suggest that attempts to improve the validity of self-reports and ratings may need to be refocused and (2) underscore the desirability of routinely obtaining multiple sources of information on personality.

Previous research has indicated that extraversion and neuroticism are substantially affected both by genotype and environment. This study assesses genetic and environmental influences on the other three components of the five-factor model of personality: Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. An abbreviated version of the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) was administered to 82 pairs of identical twins and 171 pairs of fraternal twins reared apart and 132 pairs of identical twins and 167 pairs of fraternal twins reared together. Estimates of genetic and environmental effects for Openness and Conscientiousness were similar to those found in other studies of personality: Genetic influence was substantial and there was little evidence of shared rearing environment. Results for Agreeableness were different: Genetic influence accounted for only 12% of the variance and shared rearing environment accounted for 21% of the variance. Few significant gender or age differences for genetic and environmental parameters were found in model-fitting analyses.

The five-factor model of personality is a hierarchical organization of personality traits in terms of five basic dimensions: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience. Research using both natural language adjectives and theoretically based personality questionnaires supports the comprehensiveness of the model and its applicability across observers and cultures. This article summarizes the history of the model and its supporting evidence; discusses conceptions of the nature of the factors; and outlines an agenda for theorizing about the origins and operation of the factors. We argue that the model should prove useful both for individual assessment and for the elucidation of a number of topics of interest to personality psychologists.

Perhaps because negative emotions are frequently expressed in physiological reactions, psychosomatic theories have often identified Neuroticism and its component traits (including anxiety, anger, and depression) as causal influences on the development of disease. These views are apparently supported by correlations between physical symptom reports and measures of Neuroticism in males. Data from 347 adult women in the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging replicate this finding for total physical complaints and for most body systems. However, analyses of mortality in the literature and in the present article show no influence of Neuroticism, suggesting that symptom reporting may be biased by Neuroticism-related styles of perceiving and reporting physiological experiences. Researchers in this area are urged to employ objective measures of medical status, and to be alert to possible biases of self-selection and selective perception in interpreting associations between Neuroticism and disease.

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.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Myers & McCaulley, 1985) was evaluated from the perspectives of Jung's theory of psychological types and the five-factor model of personality as measured by self-reports and peer ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985b). Data were provided by 267 men and 201 women ages 19 to 93. Consistent with earlier research and evaluations, there was no support for the view that the MBTI measures truly dichotomous preferences or qualitatively distinct types; instead, the instrument measures four relatively independent dimensions. The interpretation of the Judging-Perceiving index was also called into question. The data suggest that Jung's theory is either incorrect or inadequately operationalized by the MBTI and cannot provide a sound basis for interpreting it. However, correlational analyses showed that the four MBTI indices did measure aspects of four of the five major dimensions of normal personality. The five-factor model provides an alternative basis for interpreting MBTI findings within a broader, more commonly shared conceptual framework.