Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures

McCrae, Robert R.; Costa, Paul T.; Martin, Thomas A.; Oryol, Valery E.; Rukavishnikov, Alexey A.; Senin, Ivan G.; Hřebı́čková, Martina; Urbánek, Tomáš

doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00056-4

Cited by 191 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

130

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, comparing the FFM trait scores based on selfreports and informant-ratings typically yields correlations somewhere between .40 and .60 (R. R. McCrae et al, 2004). Assuming that the degrees to which these correlations differ from unity reflect general method effects (e.g., McCrae, 2015), is based on the premise that the scales measure FFM traits in invariant ways in both rating types: different raters have access to different information about the traits being rated or have different rating biases, but the underlying constructs are defined the same way.…”

Section: Comparability Of Self-and Informant-ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

Mõttus¹,

Allik²,

Realo³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personality researchers often supplement or substitute self-reports with ratings from knowledgeable informants, at least implicitly assuming that the same constructs are measured regardless of the source of ratings. However, measurement invariance (MI) of personality constructs across these rating types has rarely been empirically tested. Here, this was done for the Five-Factor Model domains and their 30 facets (N = 3,253). Four domains and 26 facets showed the level of invariance (metric MI) required for comparing the relative standings of individuals across self-reports and informant-ratings, which is what researchers mostly do. However, 28 of the 35 scales failed to achieve the level of invariance (scalar MI) recommended when comparing mean scores. Self-informant pairs who contributed to higher MI also tended to display higher cross-rater agreement. In conclusion, self-reports and informant-ratings appear to measure reasonably similar constructs for most research purposes, but poor MI may contribute to imperfect cross-rater agreement.

show abstract

Section: Comparability Of Self-and Informant-ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

Mõttus¹,

Allik²,

Realo³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Big Five have emerged as perhaps the most reliable and universal way to measure individual differences in personality (John & Srivastava, 1999;McCrae & Costa, 2003), and considerable evidence has been amassed in support of the model's cross-cultural validity (e.g., McCrae & Allik, 2002;McCrae et al, 2004;McCrae & Terracciano, 2005;Schmitt, Allik, Mccrae, & Benet-Martinez, 2007). Traits of course are typically thought of as being stable across situations and over time, but self-reported Big Five traits have been used as a way to measure self-concept and its variation (e.g., Roberts, Robins, Caspi, & Trzesniewski, 2003;Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997).…”

Section: Ideal and Actual Self-conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

On being yourself in different cultures: ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States

Lynch

Guardia

Ryan

2009

The Journal of Positive Psychology

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study used multilevel modeling and measures of the Big Five to test Rogers' prediction that discrepancies between ideal and actual self-concept would be negatively associated with well-being, and to test the prediction drawn from self-determination theory that partners' autonomy support would be associated with smaller discrepancies. Discrepancies and well-being were found to be negatively associated in samples from the USA, Russia, and China, but participants' actual self-concept was closer to their ideal when with autonomy supportive partners. Although there was some moderation by country membership, associations were in the same direction for all countries. Discussion focuses on the cultural and clinical implications.

show abstract

“…Personality is made up of characteristics pattern of thought, feelings, and behaviors that make a person unique (Eysenck, 1967). The personality factors that will be used in this study are big five personality traitsbecause from the previous research it has confirmed that big five personality is consistent when used for different populations including the population of children, students and adults (Costa and McCrae, 2004;McCrae et al, 2004;and Aluja et al, 2005) can even be used for crosscultural ones (Felman, 2003). The dimensions of factors of personality consist of: Agreeableness can be categorized as an individual that have compassionate, likes to cooperate and does not like to be suspicious and do not like create hostility with other.…”

Section: Big Five Personality Traitmentioning

confidence: 72%

Exploring the Relationship Between Personality Factors and Workplace Deviant Behavior Among Pekanbaru City Civil Servants

Hastuti¹

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures

Cited by 191 publications

References 36 publications

Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

Do self-reports and informant-ratings measure the same personality constructs?

On being yourself in different cultures: ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support, and well-being in China, Russia, and the United States

Exploring the Relationship Between Personality Factors and Workplace Deviant Behavior Among Pekanbaru City Civil Servants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About