Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship.

Funder, David C.; Kolar, David C.; Blackman, Melinda C.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.656

Cited by 296 publications

(303 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

264

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The method estimated seven factors in the Air Force sample and eight factors in the college sample as the most appropriate number for extraction. In addition, seven was the maximum number of factors for which the relationship between salient loadings had a clear, common theme after simple structure rotation in either sample, an important criterion in determining the appropriate number of factors for extraction (Gorsuch, 1983). Moreover, it was only at the level of seven factors that the factors could be interpreted in a similar manner in both samples (with rotation of two to eight factors assessed).…”

Section: Factor Analysis Of Pd Features: Simple Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Factorial structure of pathological personality as evaluated by peers.

Thomas¹,

Turkheimer²,

Oltmanns³

2003

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored how individuals apply features of personality disorders (PDs) to peers. Members of groups nominated peers who exhibited symptoms for each of the 10 PDs in the DSM-IV. Data were gathered in 2 samples: 1st-year college students (n ϭ 1,440) and Air Force recruits (n ϭ 2,075). The peer method reliably identified group members exhibiting specific PD features. Factor analyses identified a clearly interpretable structure relevant to the pathological personality constructs being assessed. The structure replicated well across samples and showed expected relationships to broader models of normal personality. However, cross-method correlations of factor scores were only moderate, suggesting that peer reports are reliably different from self-reports regarding the presence of pathological personality traits.

show abstract

Section: Factor Analysis Of Pd Features: Simple Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Factorial structure of pathological personality as evaluated by peers.

Thomas¹,

Turkheimer²,

Oltmanns³

2003

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It seems reasonable to assume that knowing one's target better, judging visible as opposed to hidden traits, and judging neutral as opposed to evaluatively loaded traits would all improve accuracy. Each of these circumstances does increase agreement (Funder & Colvin, 1988, in press;Funder & Dobroth, 1987;Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995;John & Robins, 1994a). So the use of interjudge agreement as one criterion for accuracy is far from unreasonable.…”

Section: Criteria For Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Funder¹

1995

Psychological Review

Self Cite

1,214

1,448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "accuracy paradigm" for the study of personality judgment provides an important, new complement to the "error paradigm" that dominated this area of research for almost 2 decades. The present article introduces a specific approach within the accuracy paradigm called the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM). RAM begins with the assumption that personality traits are real attributes of individuals. This assumption entails the use of a broad array of criteria for the evaluation of personality judgment and leads to a model that describes accuracy as a function of the availability, detection, and utilization of relevant behavioral cues. RAM provides a common explanation for basic moderators of accuracy, sheds light on how these moderators interact, and outlines a research agenda that includes the reintegration of the study of error with the study of accuracy.Believe truth! Shun error!-these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life. (James, 1897(James, /1915

show abstract

“…Funder, 1989). But the success of trait psychology in predicting real life outcomes (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and the convergence of personality scores across observers (Funder, Kolar, & Blackman, 1995) and separated twins (Tellegen et al, 1988) provide ample evidence that they do.…”

Section: Fft and Personality Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Five-Factor Theory Perspective

Allïk

McCrae

2002

The Five-Factor Model of Personality Across Cultures

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Five-Factor Theory (FFT) is a conceptualization of the personality system that identifies traits as abstract Basic Tendencies rooted in biology. In this chapter, FFT is examined in relation to recent findings in cross-cultural psychology reported in this volume. FFT correctly predicts the universality of personality structure, maturation, and gender differentiation. FFT suggests that differences in the mean levels of traits across cultures may be due to differences in the distribution of trait-related alleles, and that cultural differences may be the effect, rather than the cause, of trait level differences. Reports of substantial cohort and acculturation effects pose challenges to FFT and provide special opportunities for future research.

show abstract

Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship.

Cited by 296 publications

References 54 publications

Factorial structure of pathological personality as evaluated by peers.

Factorial structure of pathological personality as evaluated by peers.

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

A Five-Factor Theory Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About