Consensual validation of personality traits: Additional evidence and individual differences.

Woodruffe, Charles

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1240

Cited by 23 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Otherwise, such correlations tend to be on the order of .30 to .60 (see, e.g., Cheek, 1982;also Andersen, 1984;Edwards &Klockars, 1981;Funder, 1980;Funder & Dobroth, in press;Goldberg, Norman, & Schwartz, 1980;Hase & Goldberg, 1967;McCrae, 1982;Monson, Tanke, & Lund, 1980;Paunonen & Jackson, 1985;Woodruffe, 1985). Moreover, at least four different studies have independently verified the additional fact that such correlations are higher when the person in question describes him-or herself as consistent on the trait being evaluated, versus as variable on that dimension (Bern & Allen, 1974;J.…”

Section: Correlations Between Self-judgments and Others' Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment.

Funder¹

1987

Psychological Bulletin

800

461

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

research on "error" in social judgment has largely supplanted research that addresses accuracy issues more directly. Moreover, this research attracts a great deal of attention because of what many take to be its dismal implications for the accuracy of human social reasoning. These implications are illusory, however, because an error is not the same thing as a "mistake." An error is a judgment of an experimental stimulus that departs from a model of the judgment process. If this model is normative, then the error can be said to represent an incorrect judgment. A mistake, by contrast, is an incorrect judgment of a real-world stimulus and therefore more difficult to determine. Although errors can be highly informative about the process of judgment in general, they are not necessarily relevant to the content or accuracy of particular judgments, because errors in a laboratory may not be mistakes with respect to a broader, more realistic frame of reference and the processes that produce such errors might lead to correct decisions and adaptive outcomes in real life. Several examples are described in this article. Accuracy issues cannot be addressed by research that concentrates on demonstrating error in relation to artificial stimuli, but only by research that uses external, realistic criteria for accuracy. These criteria might include the degree to which judgments agree with each other and yield valid predictions of behavior. The accuracy of human social judgment is a topic of obvious interest and importance. It is only natural to wonder to what degree the judgments we make of the personalities of ourselves and others might be right or wrong, and to desire to improve our accuracy. Nonpsychologists are often surprised and disappointed, therefore, when they begin to take psychology courses and discover that the field has largely foresworn interest in the accuracy issue. The discipline's early, direct interest in accuracy (e.g., Estes, 1938; Taft, 1955; Vernon, 1933) was all but completely stifled some years ago by the publication of a series of methodological critiques by Cronbach (1955), Hastorf and Bender (1952), and others. As a result, according to one authoritative textbook: The accuracy issue has all but faded from view in recent years, at least for personality judgments. There is not much present interest in questions about whether people are accurate... . There is, in short, almost no concern with normative questions of accuracy. On the other hand, in recent years there has been a renewed interest in how, why, and in what circumstances people are inaccurate. (Schneider, Hastorf, & Ellsworth, 1979, p. 224; see also Cook, 1984)' Specifically, the psychology of social judgment has been dominated in recent years by a flood of research on the subject of "error." Studies of error appear in the literature at a prodigious rate, are disproportionately likely to be cited (Christensen-Sza

show abstract

Section: Correlations Between Self-judgments and Others' Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment.

Funder¹

1987

Psychological Bulletin

800

461

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Included in this category are ratings by peers and other knowledgeable informants, such as clinicians and teachers, who are in a position to provide valid information about the person under investigation. As Block himself as well as subsequent authors (for example, Deluty, 1985;Koretzky et al, 1978;McCrae, 1982;Woodruffe, 1984Woodruffe, , 1985 were able to show, studies relying on R-data provide convincing evidence for the stability and consistency of personality traits and their corresponding behaviours in a variety of personality domains.…”

Section: The Dispositional View Of Traitsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Specific samples of informed raters have to be selected for each individual, which makes the peer-rating strategy rather time-consuming and costintensive. This point is illustrated by Woodruffe's (1985) study where ten raters were employed for each subject. As a result, 660 raters were needed to participate in the study on top of the sixty-six original subjects.…”

Section: The Peer-rating Strategy: Beyond Self-reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broadening the range of informed raters still further, Woodruffe (1985) succeeded in obtaining peer-ratings from ten different persons for each of his sixty-six subjects. Each rater evaluated the person in question on the same personality scales (fourteen factors of Cattell's 16-PF) on which self-evaluations had previously been obtained.…”

Section: The Peer-rating Strategy: Beyond Self-reportsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Personality and social psychology: towards a synthesis

1993

Choice Reviews Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is certainly a possibility; what are needed are designs that would allow researchers to compare conflicting predictions from these two theories to see which better accounts for the facts. sual validation (Woodruffe, 1985). But alternative interpretations are possible.…”

Section: Higher Order Factorsmentioning

confidence: 97%