Individual differences in scalability: An alternative conception of consistency for personality theory and measurement.

Abstract

A scalability approach to the assessment of individual differences in consistency is proposed. For a given trait, a person is scalable to the extent that his or her behavior parallels the evocativeness or difficulty level of situations or test items. Scalability can be assessed on a wide variety of data sets; measures of scalability are not formally entailed by traditional summary measures. In an empirical investigation, several measures of scalability are found to be reliable and to contribute uniquely, although modestly, to prediction. In light of both theoretical and empirical considerations, continued investigation of the scalability method is warranted; measures of scalability may fill a unique role in basic personality research.In the 1937 classic, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Gordon Allport denned trait as "a generalized and focalized neuropsychic system (peculiar to the individual), with the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide consistent [italics added] (equivalent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior" (p. 295).Traits give rise to consistent behavior; consistency is a necessary (although not necessarily sufficient) empirical indicator of a trait. The development of a sound method for assessing individual differences in consistency is the first step toward reconciling Allport's (1937) psychology of the individual with contemporary personality assessment. Consistency Versus RigidityIn recent years, a number of methods for the measurement of consistency have been proposed (e.g.,

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

“…Bern and Allen's (1974) basic ideas have evolved over the years in the hands of other investigators, yielding Baumeister and Tice's (1988) notion of "metatraits" (the trait of having a trait), as well as Lanning's (1988) notion of "scalability." The idea of metatraits seeks to distinguish between people who are and are not consistent in their behavior along a given trait dimension (see also Tellegen, 1988).…”

Moderators of self–other agreement: Reconsidering temporal stability in personality.

“…These moderators have shown promise in predicting the magnitude of selfother agreement in some studies (Chaplin, 1991;Mischel & Peake, 1982), but other studies have failed to replicate the findings (Chaplin & Goldberg, 1984;Hofstee & Smid, 1986), and still other studies have yielded inconsistent results across moderators (Chaplin, 1991;Lanning, 1988).…”

The Next Generation of Moderator Research in Personality Psychology

“…A new generation of moderator studies has appeared on the scene (Baumeister & Tice, 1988;Chaplin & Locklear, 1989;Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1989;Lanning, 1988aLanning, , 1988bZuckerman, Bernieri, Koestner, & Rosenthal, 1989;Zuckerman et al, 1988). Although clearly inspired by earlier efforts, those who have done these new studies have generally responded constructively to many of the criticisms of past moderator research.…”

“…Out of an explicit concern for the arbitrary and confounded nature of subgroups analysis, the recent moderator variable studies (e.g., Chaplin & Locklear, 1989;Koestner et al, 1989;Lanning, 1988a;Zuckerman et al, 1988) have generally used moderated regression analysis, but there have been some exceptions. Zuckerman et al (1988) reverted to a subgroups analysis when they combined the moderator variables they studied into higher order (i.e., three-and four-way) interactions, and Zuckerman et al (1989) rely completely on the comparison of subgroups.…”

“…Although the power in the present study is low, 112 subjects is not generally considered to be a small sample. In their classic study, Bem and Allen (1974) used 64 subjects; Baumeister and Tice (1988) used 33 subjects in Study 1 and 45 subjects in Study 2; Paunonen and Jackson (1985) used 90 subjects; and Lanning (1988a) was able to recruit 204 subjects, 132 of whom were used in the peer-rating analysis and 197 of whom were used in the daily activity analysis. Finally, 5.…”