Arts, Faculty of
Psychology, Department of
DSpace
UBCV
Reynolds, Shawn Patrick
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Three datasets (N=90, 65, and 88) each provided three modes of assessment of the Big Five factors: Questionnaire, self-rating and peer-ratings. All participants completed the questionnaire before meeting in small discussion groups; afterward, participants rated one another and themselves. Kenny's Social Relations Model (SRM) was used (a) to partition target, rater and relationship components of the rating data, and (b) to correlate the three stable component scores with the questionnaire and self-rating measures. For each of the Big Five, such statistics provide measures of reliability and validity as well as indexing projection, reciprocity, and self-enhancement. It was hypothesized that (a) the three assessment modes would converge, (b) target variance would be stronger than in previous research, (c) self-ratings would be more positive than other-ratings, and (d) projection would be significant but reciprocity would not. In general, these hypotheses were confirmed.
2982206 bytes
application/pdf
ANALYSIS OF PERSONALITY RATINGS USING THE SOCIAL RELATIONS MODEL by SHAWN PATRICK REYNOLDS B. S., Texas C h r i s t i a n U n i v e r s i t y , 1989 M. A., U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a at Berkeley, 1990 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the requiï^^ standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 1994 © Shawn P a t r i c k Reynolds, 1994 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE.6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t Three datasets (N = 90, 65, and 88) each provided three modes of assessment of the B i g Five f a c t o r s : Questionnaire, s e l f - r a t i n g and p e e r - r a t i n g s . A l l p a r t i c i p a n t s completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e before meeting i n small d i s c u s s i o n groups; afterward, p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d one another and themselves. Kenny's S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model (SRM) was used (a) to p a r t i t i o n t a r g e t , r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p components of the r a t i n g data, and (b) to c o r r e l a t e the three s t a b l e component scores w i t h the questionnaire and s e l f - r a t i n g measures. For each of the B i g F i v e , such s t a t i s t i c s provide measures of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y as w e l l as indexing p r o j e c t i o n , r e c i p r o c i t y , and self-enhancement. I t was hypothesized that (a) the three assessment modes would converge, (b) ta r g e t v a r i a n c e would be stronger than i n previous research, (c) s e l f - r a t i n g s would be more p o s i t i v e than o t h e r - r a t i n g s , and (d) p r o j e c t i o n would be s i g n i f i c a n t but r e c i p r o c i t y would not. In gener a l , these hypotheses were confirmed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Ab s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Tables v Acknowledgement v i INTRODUCTION 1 Advent of B i g Five i n P e r s o n a l i t y Research 1 Modes of Assessment 2 The C o r r e l a t i o n a l Approach 4 A n a l y s i s of Variance Approach 4 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Standard Approaches 6 Rater and Target Interdependence 8 D e s c r i p t i o n of the S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model 9 Overview of the Present Studies 12 HYPOTHESES 14 1. P a r t i t i o n i n g Variance 14 2. R e c i p r o c i t y 17 3. P r o j e c t i o n 18 4. Self-enhancement 18 5. Convergence of the Three Assessment Modes 19 METHOD 20 P a r t i c i p a n t s 20 M a t e r i a l s 20 PROCEDURE 21 RESULTS 22 1. P a r t i t i o n i n g Variance 23 2. R e c i p r o c i t y 25 3. P r o j e c t i o n 26 4. Self-enhancement 27 5. Convergence of the Three Assessment Modes 27 DISCUSSION 27 1. P a r t i t i o n i n g Variance 28 2. R e c i p r o c i t y 30 3. P r o j e c t i o n 30 4. Self-enhancement 32 5. Convergence of the Three Assessment Modes 33 L i m i t a t i o n s and Future Research 35 Conclusions 37 Footnotes 39 References 47 Appendix 1 Numerical Example of Three Sources of Variance 54 Appendix 2 D i s t i n c t i o n Between Aboslute and R e l a t i v e Variance 55 Appendix 3 Summary of Related Studies 56 Appendix 4 Ra t i n g Forms f o r Peer- and S e l f - R a t i n g s 57 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 H y p o t h e t i c a l Layout of Rating Data f o r a Four-Person Group 41 Table 2 Proportions of Variance A t t r i b u t a b l e to Four Sources 42 Table 3 R e c i p r o c i t y E f f e c t s Separated by B i g Five Factor, Study and Wave 43 Table 4 P r o j e c t i o n E f f e c t s Separated by B i g Five Factor, Study and Wave 44 Table 5 Self-enhancement E f f e c t s Separated by B i g Five Factor, Study and Wave 45 Table 6 C o r r e l a t i o n s Among Three Modes of Measurement 46 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to s t a r t by thanking God, without Whose help none of t h i s would have been p o s s i b l e . I a l s o thank my committee members, without whose help I could not have obtained my degree. I a l s o thank my f a m i l y , who have supported me through my numerous journeys i n search of the Pe r f e c t Career. F i n a l l y , I want to thank my f r i e n d s . Many are not mentioned here; those I do mentioned are l i s t e d below i n no p a r t i c u l a r order: C a r r i e , M a r t i n , Arthur, David L., Kevin D., Kevin L., Kevin P., L i s a , Sarah, Josh, Meredith, Peter, David 0., David D., C h r i s K., Chr i s E., Greg, M i c h e l l e , Hsueh, Tracy, as w e l l as Pat, Fo r r e s t and Sheacy, who are both my f a m i l y and my f r i e n d s . I n t r o d u c t i o n Advent of B i g Five i n P e r s o n a l i t y Research One goal of p e r s o n a l i t y research has been to determine a minimal set of s t a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , or t r a i t s , that are exhaustive enough to capture the p e r s o n a l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l . The f i r s t systematic attempt to summarize these t r a i t s , as they appear i n the E n g l i s h language, was a 1936 study by A l l p o r t and Odbert. They assembled an exhaustive l i s t of about 18,000 terms which could " d i s t i n g u i s h the behavior of one human being from th a t of another." ( A l l p o r t & Odbert, 1936, p. 24). From t h i s l i s t , C a t t e l l (1943) proceeded to pare these t r a i t s i n t o a more manageable s e t . V i a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , he e v e n t u a l l y a r r i v e d at a l i s t of 16 c l u s t e r s . Apart from t h e i r use i n C a t t e l l ' s 16PF p e r s o n a l i t y s c a l e , however, few researchers have been s a t i s f i e d t hat p e r s o n a l i t y has 16 fundamental f a c t o r s . A more i n f l u e n t i a l l i n e began w i t h Tupes and C h r i s t a l ' s (1961) a n a l y s i s of a v a r i e t y of peer- and s e l f - r a t i n g s across a heterogeneous group of s u b j e c t s : They found f i v e f a c t o r s , which they l a b e l e d surgency, agreeableness, d e p e n d a b i l i t y , emotional s t a b i l i t y , and c u l t u r e . S i m i l a r f a c t o r s have been found by a number of independent researchers using d i f f e r e n t samples, and are now commonly r e f e r r e d to as the B i g Five (Goldberg, 1981). F o l l o w i n g the l e a d of Costa and McCrae (1989), I w i l l r e f e r to the f i v e f a c t o r s as: E x t r a v e r s i o n (E), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness to Experience (O). Given that the f i v e f a c t o r s were d e r i v e d by orthogonal f a c t o r analyses, they share l i t t l e v a r i a n c e : Hence, each f a c t o r can be s t u d i e d as a separate e n t i t y . Because of the robustness of the f i v e - f a c t o r s o l u t i o n and extent of t h e i r v a l i d a t i o n , the B i g Five are now used widely i n p e r s o n a l i t y research (Digman, 1990) and t h e i r usage i s growing r a p i d l y i n c l i n i c a l psychology (Costa & Widiger, 1994) and i n d u s t r i a l psychology ( B a r r i c k & Mount, 1992). For a comprehensive review of the B i g F i v e l i t e r a t u r e , r e f e r to John (1990) or Wiggins and T r a p n e l l (1994) . Modes of Assessment The B i g Fiv e dimensions of p e r s o n a l i t y have been measured w i t h a number of assessment techniques, or modes. Some researchers argue, f o r example, that s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s are the best s i n g l e source of data. Accordingly, one common approach i s to ask i n d i v i d u a l s t o r a t e themselves on f a c e - v a l i d g l o b a l s c a l e s ( B u r i s c h , 1984). I w i l l c a l l t h i s mode of assessment the s e l f -r a t i n g . Others have argued, however, that a lar g e set of homogeneous items ( f a c e - v a l i d or not) should be aggregated to y i e l d a s u p e r i o r measure. In t h i s case, a standardized p e r s o n a l i t y t e s t such as Costa and McCrae's (1989) F i v e - F a c t o r Inventory (FFI) c o n s t i t u t e s an appropriate measure. I w i l l r e f e r to t h i s mode of assessment as the que s t i o n n a i r e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , one could argue that a person's p e r s o n a l i t y i s best d e s c r i b e d by observers f a m i l i a r w i t h the pe r s o n - - a f t e r a l l , they are the ones who see the p e r s o n a l i t y ' i n a c t i o n ' . Hence r a t i n g s by peers, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f aggregated, could be considered more o b j e c t i v e . This mode w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the peer-r a t i n g . Round-Robin Data. These modes of assessment are not mutually e x c l u s i v e : Hence, a l l three were used i n the s t u d i e s t o be presented here. In a l l three s t u d i e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s f i r s t completed the quest i o n n a i r e and were then placed randomly i n t o groups. A f t e r meeting w i t h the group i n a d i s c u s s i o n format, the p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d themselves ( s e l f - r a t i n g s ) and other group members ( p e e r - r a t i n g s ) . Table 1 i l l u s t r a t e s how the three modes of assessment are s t r u c t u r e d f o r one d i s c u s s i o n group--that i s , four persons r a t i n g each other on one f a c t o r . I n s e r t Table 1 about here In t h i s t a b l e , each c e l l X ( i , j ) can be read as 'Person j ' s r a t i n g of Person i ' . The c e l l s along the diagonal (with i and j equal) represent s e l f - r a t i n g s , and o f f - d i a g o n a l c e l l s represent p e e r - r a t i n g s . The t a b l e marginals are a l s o important: D i f f e r e n c e s among the four means on the rightmost column r e f l e c t t a r g e t e f f e c t s , and d i f f e r e n c e s among the bottom row of means represent r a t e r e f f e c t s (see below). Along the f a r r i g h t s i d e , the ab b r e v i a t i o n s Q1-Q4 are used to denote the questionnaire score a v a i l a b l e f o r each t a r g e t . In sum, the type of data to be used i n the present s t u d i e s i s r a t h e r unusual. F i r s t , the p e e r - r a t i n g data f o l l o w the unique "round-robin" p a t t e r n : That i s , each person i s both a ta r g e t and a r a t e r of a l l other members"^. On the other hand, two a d d i t i o n a l modes of assessment (questionnaire, s e l f - r a t i n g ) are a l s o a v a i l a b l e on each t a r g e t . Hence the data arrangement resembles. i n some ways, t r a d i t i o n a l ANOVA data, and i n other ways, t r a d i t i o n a l c o r r e l a t i o n a l data. Let us consider how these data would be analyzed according to those two t r a d i t i o n a l approaches. The C o r r e l a t i o n a l Approach The c o r r e l a t i o n a l approach to p e r s o n a l i t y emphasizes the r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y measures. To the extent that s e v e r a l modes of assessing the same construct converge e m p i r i c a l l y , then the v a l i d i t y of the construct as w e l l as the v a l i d i t y of the measures are supported (Loevinger, 1957). Hence, i n the round-robin data i l l u s t r a t e d i n t a b l e 1, the t r a d i t i o n a l approach would emphasize the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the three modes of assessment across t a r g e t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the four q u e s t i o n n a i r e scores would be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the four s e l f -r a t i n g s and the four mean p e e r - r a t i n g s . Unfortunately, these c o r r e l a t i o n s would have df = 2. Even i f m u l t i p l e groups of t h i s s i z e are a v a i l a b l e , the degrees of freedom do not improve unless one makes a s e r i e s of independence assumptions (e.g., Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). A n a l y s i s of Variance Approach The idea of p a r t i t i o n i n g sources of r a t i n g data can be t r a c e d at l e a s t as f a r back as Cronbach (1955). He p a r t i t i o n e d s o c i a l p e rceptions i n t o three sources: Target, r a t e r , and t a r g e t by r a t e r i n t e r a c t i o n . This approach was l a t e r extended t o become g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y theory, "the idea that e v a l u a t i o n of a construct should i n v o l v e determining how g e n e r a l i z a b l e i t s measurement i s across f a c e t s " (Cronbach et a l . , 1972). This seminal work has continued to be of great i n t e r e s t to I/O researchers, who have a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n understanding the r a t i n g process and improving the accuracy of r a t i n g s (e.g., Borman, 1977). The p a r t i t i o n i n g approach has been of l e s s i n t e r e s t to p e r s o n a l i t y researchers u n t i l the recent work by Kenny and colleagues (e.g., Kenny, 1984) . Once p a r t i t i o n e d , the variance accounted f o r by each source can then be used as an i n d i c a t o r of i t s importance and s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s can be a p p l i e d to t e s t hypotheses about these sources. Target variance i s u s u a l l y of primary i n t e r e s t . Thus i n t a b l e 1, i t appears as d i f f e r e n c e s across values i n the Mean-Target column. I t represents the variance i n r a t i n g s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o consensual d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t a r g e t s (e.g., a b i l i t i e s or p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s ) . In one recent study, D i P i l a t o and West (1989) found t h a t , even at zero-acquaintance, 20% of the v a r i a n c e i n p e r s o n a l i t y r a t i n g s was due to t a r g e t v a r i a n c e . The second major source of variance i s r a t e r v a r i a n c e . This source i s manifested by d i f f e r e n c e s among the mean values given by the r a t e r s . Some r a t e r s may place every t a r g e t near the high end of a s c a l e , others may p r e f e r the low end, and s t i l l others, the middle range. Rater variance i s manifested i n t a b l e 1 as d i f f e r e n c e s among means on the Rater-Mean row. One recent study (Kenny, Horner, Kashy, & Chu, 1992) found s i g n i f i c a n t r a t e r e f f e c t s across each of the B i g F i v e : For example, some r a t e r s tended to see a l l other t a r g e t s as being agreeable, while other r a t e r s tended to see the t a r g e t s as g e n e r a l l y disagreeable. A t h i r d source of r a t i n g variance i s r e s i d u a l v a r i a n c e ; that i s , v a r i a n c e above and beyond the e f f e c t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to t a r g e t and r a t e r v a r i a n c e . In t a b l e 1, such variance r e s u l t s from anomalies, that i s , d e v i a t i o n s of observed r a t i n g s from the r a t i n g s expected from the row and column means f o r that i n d i v i d u a l . (See Appendix 1 f o r a numerical example of these three sources of variance.) In standard ANOVA, r e s i d u a l variance i s separated i n t o i n t e r a c t i o n v ariance and e r r o r . E r r o r variance i s , by-d e f i n i t i o n , u n p r e d i c t a b l e and i n c o n s i s t e n t ; i n c o n t r a s t , i n t e r a c t i o n v ariance shows up c o n s i s t e n t l y across r e p l i c a t i o n s . Thus, t o d i s t i n g u i s h between i n t e r a c t i o n and e r r o r v a r i a n c e , one has t o c o l l e c t r a t i n g s at s e v e r a l p o i n t s i n time or m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s at one time. In round-robin data, i n t e r a c t i o n s have a s p e c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . F o l l o w i n g Kenny and LaVoie (1984), I w i l l use the term r e l a t i o n s h i p variance, given that i t a r i s e s from unique r e l a t i o n s h i p s among p a r t i c i p a n t s . In p e r s o n a l i t y r a t i n g data, such as those to be presented here, a r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t c o n s t i t u t e s a s t a b l e , though anomalous, p e r c e p t i o n of a s p e c i f i c t a r g e t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y by a s p e c i f i c r a t e r . As w i t h ANOVA i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a n c e , r e l a t i o n s h i p variance must show up c o n s i s t e n t l y across r e p l i c a t i o n s . Thus, to d i s t i n g u i s h between r e l a t i o n s h i p and e r r o r v a r i a n c e , one has to c o l l e c t i d e n t i c a l r a t i n g s at s e v e r a l p o i n t s i n time or m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s at one time. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Standard Approaches 1. Although the c o r r e l a t i o n a l and ANOVA approaches t o p e r s o n a l i t y both have t h e i r advantages, they are r a r e l y used i n combination. T y p i c a l l y , the c o r r e l a t i o n a l approach addresses the convergence of var i o u s types of ta r g e t measures: Therefore, the emphasis i s on v a l i d i t y i s s u e s . In c o n t r a s t , ANOVA approaches i n v o l v e p a r t i t i o n i n g the sources of r a t i n g v a r i a n c e : A c c o r d i n g l y , the primary issues are source importance and r e l i a b i l i t y . A combined approach would be i d e a l . 2. Very few s t u d i e s use round-robin data. In f a c t , most r a t i n g s t u d i e s use r a t e r s who are independent of the t a r g e t s - -presumably, because independent r a t e r s are he l d to be more o b j e c t i v e than the people w i t h i n an i n t e r a c t i o n . A number of recent s t u d i e s (e.g., Campbell and Fehr, 1990), however, have questioned the assumed s u p e r i o r i t y of the outside observer: A r a t e r who i s not i n the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n may be unable to capture the nuances of the s i t u a t i o n . Furthermore, a s i t u a t i o n where each person i s both r a t e r and ratee i s a more r e a l i s t i c , everyday s c e n a r i o . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , round-robin data r a i s e a number of d i f f i c u l t a n a l y s i s problems. Because they do not s a t i s f y the usual s t a t i s t i c a l assumptions, round-robin data cannot be analyzed u s i n g conventional forms of a n a l y s i s such as ANOVA. The f i r s t problem a r i s e s from i n c l u d i n g the s e l f - r a t i n g i n the p e e r - r a t i n g mean f o r each t a r g e t : I n c l u d i n g i t r e q u i r e s accepting the assumption t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n (mean, standard d e v i a t i o n , k u r t o s i s , etc.) of the s e l f - r a t i n g s i s comparable to that of the p e e r - r a t i n g s . Even i n the u n l i k e l y event that such s t a t i s t i c a l requirements were met, many researchers would argue that the s e l f - r a t i n g should not be inc l u d e d because i t i s q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from p e e r - r a t i n g s . But, i f s e l f - r a t i n g s are omitted, then two other problems a r i s e . F i r s t , r e l i a n c e on the remaining p e e r - r a t i n g s introduces a systematic b i a s i n the p e e r - r a t i n g mean: For example, l e n i e n t r a t e r s do not get the b e n e f i t of t h e i r own r a t i n g and th e r e f o r e are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y under-rated. Second, standard ANOVA i s incapable of a n a l y z i n g the data. One c e l l i n each row (roughly 2 0% of the t o t a l number of c e l l s ) would be empty. This can be seen by r e f e r r i n g to t a b l e 1; each element along the diagonal (each s e l f - r a t i n g ) would be empty. Incomplete block designs are necessary t o analyze such data (see K i r k , 1968, pp. 427-440). These designs solve both problems by e s t i m a t i n g the mean of the missin g c e l l . Note that t h i s p o t e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e i n peer- vs. s e l f - r a t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s one of the hypotheses to be t e s t e d i n the present s t u d i e s ; i f r e j e c t e d , then the s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e c t i o n of incomplete block designs i s necessary to analyze the round-robin layout of data. Rater and Target Interdependence Even w i t h such c o r r e c t i o n , however, round-robin data are not a p p r o p r i a t e l y analyzed w i t h ANOVA because the assumption of independence among l e v e l s of the independent v a r i a b l e s i s not met. Consider the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r o j e c t i o n o p e r a t i n g i n the data: There may be an a s s o c i a t i o n between the k i n d of r a t i n g s a person gives and the k i n d of r a t i n g s that person r e c e i v e s . A number of s t u d i e s have found evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n i n p e r s o n a l i t y r a t i n g data (Campbell et a l . , 1964; Sherwood, 1980; Campbell, 1986). In a d d i t i o n , there may be a r e c i p r o c i t y i n r a t i n g s between p a i r s of persons i n a group: That i s , the r a t i n g s person A gives t o B may c o r r e l a t e w i t h the r a t i n g s B gives to A. For example. i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h s i m i l a r i n t e r e s t s may react p o s i t i v e l y t o one-another whereas l i b e r a l s and conservatives may a c t i v e l y d i s l i k e one another. The operation of r e c i p r o c i t y i n d i s c u s s i o n groups i s p r e d i c t a b l e from i n t e r p e r s o n a l theory (e.g., Wiggins, 1991; K i e s l e r , 1983) as w e l l as the law of s i m i l a r i t y and a t t r a c t i o n (Byrne, 1970). Both r e c i p r o c i t y and p r o j e c t i o n contravene the assumptions of independence r e q u i r e d f o r an ANOVA. A more s o p h i s t i c a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l model i s re q u i r e d . D e s c r i p t i o n of the S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model (SRM), developed by David Kenny (1984), provides a s t a t i s t i c a l model that can account f o r m u l t i p l e , simultaneous c o n t r i b u t o r s to va r i o u s kinds of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n data. Among i t s many a p p l i c a t i o n s , i t i s capable of handli n g the interdependencies a s s o c i a t e d w i t h round-robin peer-r a t i n g data. According to the model, a r a t i n g , X, can be p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o f i v e components: X ( i , j , k ) = M + a ( i ) + b ( j ) + c ( i , j ) + e ( i , j , k ) ; where i i s the targe t and j i s the r a t e r on i n d i c a t o r k, M = grand mean of a l l r a t i n g s , a ( i ) = mean r a t i n g which i r e c e i v e s , b ( j ) = mean r a t i n g which j g i v e s , c ( i , j ) = r a t i n g d e v i a t i o n due to j ' s unique p e r c e p t i o n of i , and e ( i , j , k ) = random e r r o r or i n s t a b i l i t y . To the extent that the var i o u s i n d i c a t o r s of a con s t r u c t i n t e r c o r r e l a t e , then that construct has s t a b l e v a r i a n c e . The SRM provides estimates of the s t a b l e p o r t i o n of a l l three e f f e c t s ( t a r g e t , r a t e r , and r e l a t i o n s h i p ) that are then c o r r e c t e d f o r a t t e n u a t i o n . By e s t i m a t i n g only the s t a b l e p o r t i o n of each e f f e c t , SRM provides more v a l i d estimates of a c o n s t r u c t . The r e s i d u a l e r r o r term i s then a v a i l a b l e f o r t e s t i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the other three terms. Kenny has a l s o developed a computer program (SOREMO) that provides a v a r i e t y of analyses based on the s t a b l e component of each e f f e c t . I f the user includes other data on each p a r t i c i p a n t , the program provides a l l the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s with these e x t e r n a l measures. Advantages f o r r a t i n g data. Although the SRM was designed f o r a broad range of a p p l i c a t i o n s , only i t s relevance to round-robin r a t i n g data w i l l be discussed here. The fundamental advantage of t h i s model i s i t s f a c i l i t y f o r c o r r e c t i n g the interdependencies found i n round-robin r a t i n g data. Hence the w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d phenomena of p r o j e c t i o n and r e c i p r o c i t y do not d i s t o r t the c a l c u l a t i o n s of r a t e r and targe t e f f e c t s . In f a c t , the SOREMO program goes f u r t h e r to provide indexes of p r o j e c t i o n and r e c i p r o c i t y . Instead of viewing these two phenomena as s t a t i s t i c a l annoyances, SOREMO estimates t h e i r importance and makes them a v a i l a b l e f o r c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h other measures. Another important feature of SRM i s i t s p r o v i s i o n f o r the s e l f - r a t i n g problem discussed e a r l i e r . R e c a l l that a systematic b i a s i s introduced by excluding the s e l f - r a t i n g from a t a r g e t ' s mean p e e r - r a t i n g but i n c l u d i n g i t r e q u i r e s the assumption that s e l f - and p e e r - r a t i n g s are e s s e n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t . SRM omits the s e l f - r a t i n g but estimates the missing c e l l by usi n g the column and row means f o r that r a t i n g (Kenny, Lord & Garg, 1983, p. 11). Previous work. The SRM has p r e v i o u s l y been used i n a v a r i e t y of a p p l i c a t i o n s , some i n B i g Five research, and some i n other areas of p e r s o n a l i t y . For example, one study ( M i l l e r , Berg, and Archer, 1983) used SRM to p a r t i t i o n variance a t t r i b u t a b l e to ta r g e t and par t n e r of l e v e l of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e among women i n a s o r o r i t y who were broken i n t o groups based on t h e i r intimacy l e v e l (high or low). The study found that among women who were high on intimacy, only 14% of the variance i n l e v e l of s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e was based on d i f f e r e n c e s of the d i s c l o s e r ( t a r g e t ) , but that among women low on intimacy, about 3 9% of the variance was a t t r i b u t a b l e to d i s c l o s e r d i f f e r e n c e s . This study a l s o r e v e a l e d a l a r g e amount of r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e : That i s , each woman tended c o n s i s t e n t l y to d i s c l o s e w i t h some women more than o t h e r s . The SRM has a l s o been used i n a number of B i g Five s t u d i e s . Thirty-two s t u d i e s were l i s t e d i n a review by Kenny et a l . ( i n press) i n which t a r g e t variance of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i s determined u s i n g the SRM (see Appendix 3). This review i n c l u d e s s t u d i e s of people at zero-acquaintance, short-term acquaintance, and long-term acquaintance. As w e l l , some st u d i e s were cross-s e c t i o n a l , while others were l o n g i t u d i n a l . The t a r g e t variance was highest i n the st u d i e s i n v o l v i n g long-term acquaintance, presumably because long-term acquaintance apparently gave r a t e r s more i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h which to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the t a r g e t s . In terms of the B i g F i v e , the highest amounts of ta r g e t v a r i a n c e were found i n E x t r a v e r s i o n , w i t h Conscientiousness the next highest. Of these s t u d i e s , one of the most re l e v a n t to the present research i s Park and Judd (1989). E i g h t y p a r t i c i p a n t s were pl a c e d i n t o groups of ten, and each day group members were in t e r v i e w e d f o r approximately three minutes a day i n f r o n t of the other group members. At the end of each day, members r a t e d each other on a t o t a l of 14 t r a i t s r e l a t e d to the B i g F i v e . A l l f a c t o r s except Neuroticism showed lower t a r g e t variance at day 1 than l a t e r days.^ Of these 32, however, only one p u b l i s h e d study i n v o l v e d m u l t i p l e waves across long periods of time and used m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s of each B i g Five f a c t o r at each wave (Kenny et a l . , 1992, study 3). A l l three c r i t e r i a are r e q u i r e d to evaluate r e l a t i o n s h i p v ariance as w e l l as change over time. (For a summary of a l l r e l e v a n t s t u d i e s , r e f e r to Appendix 3.) The authors measured B i g F i v e r a t i n g s on a l o n g i t u d i n a l b a s i s : Students met as strangers and became acquaintances over a four-month p e r i o d . The study found evidence f o r t a r g e t , r a t e r , and r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s at zero acquaintance and a f t e r a semester of i n t e r a c t i o n . We used t h i s study (hereafter r e f e r r e d to the Kenny study) as our p o i n t of departure because i t comes c l o s e s t to the i d e a l study of B i g F i v e r a t i n g s over time. Nonetheless, even that study has a number of l i m i t a t i o n s , noted below, that we hoped to c o r r e c t . Overview of the Present Studies Given the growing importance of the B i g Five f a c t o r s , i t seems important to evaluate the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e i n B i g Five r a t i n g s . Target variance, although w e l l -e s t a b l i s h e d i n the B i g Fi v e , should be even b e t t e r - c l a r i f i e d a f t e r i s o l a t i n g the s t a b l e component and p a r t i a l i n g out other two sources of v a r i a n c e . Therefore, c o r r e l a t i o n s of i s o l a t e d t a r g e t measures w i t h e x t e r n a l measures of same construct should improve. These o b j e c t i v e s are now p o s s i b l e given the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the SRM model and the SOREMO program. Three s i m i l a r datasets (N = 90, 65, and 88) have been provided by D. L. Paulhus. Each contained three modes of assessment of the B i g Five f a c t o r s : q u e s t i o n n a i r e , s e l f - r a t i n g and peer-r a t i n g s . Questionnaires were completed before the p a r t i c i p a n t s were randomly assigned to d i s c u s s i o n groups of 4-6 members. Group members r a t e d one another and themselves on B i g Fi v e r e l a t e d a d j e c t i v e s a f t e r meetings 1 and 7. A l l three resemble the Kenny study i n that p a r t i c i p a n t s rated themselves and others on the B i g Five on a l o n g i t u d i n a l b a s i s , a l l o w i n g changes to be assessed across time. As w e l l , s t u d i e s 2 and 3 used m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s , to allow the se p a r a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p variance from e r r o r variance, as w e l l as s t a b l e v a r i a n c e from unstable variance. My analyses of the present da t a s e t s , however, should improve and extend the Kenny et a l . study i n s e v e r a l ways: F i r s t , the methodology c o r r e c t e d a number of weaknesses i n the Kenny study: (1) p a r t i c i p a n t s were discouraged from i n t e r a c t i n g outside of the d i s c u s s i o n group meetings, (2) r a t e r s were encouraged to give more r e f i n e d r a t i n g s by d i s a l l o w i n g t i e d r a t i n g s , and (3) B i g Five i n d i c a t o r s were based on more up-to-date analyses, namely, McCrae and Costa (1989) r a t h e r than Norman (1963). I w i l l a l s o provide s e v e r a l new analyses not a v a i l a b l e i n the Kenny study. These were p o s s i b l e because we had inc l u d e d questionnaire scores and s e l f -r a t i n g s t o help evaluate the v a l i d i t y of the p e e r - r a t i n g s , Our data w i l l be analyzed according to SRM to assess the sources of var i a n c e i n p e e r - r a t i n g s . In p a r t i c u l a r , I w i l l determine t a r g e t , r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s on B i g Five r a t i n g s . In a d d i t i o n , SRM w i l l be used to evaluate the existence of v a r i o u s interdependency e f f e c t s ( i . e . , p r o j e c t i o n , r e c i p r o c i t y ) that v e r i f y the importance of using SRM i n s t e a d of standard a n a l y s i s techniques. C o r r e l a t i o n s among p e e r - r a t i n g s , s e l f - r a t i n g and ques t i o n n a i r e scores w i l l be determined to evaluate the convergence of the three modes. Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s whether convergence increa s e s from a 'near-zero acquaintance' p o i n t to a l a t e r p o i n t i n time when group members are well-acquainted. Hypotheses Given the goals and l i t e r a t u r e review above, I developed f i v e hypotheses. For each hypothesis, I a l s o formulated a corresponding hypothesis regarding changes i n the e f f e c t s over t ime. 1. P a r t i t i o n i n g Variance The hypotheses regarding variance p a r t i t i o n i n g focus on improvements over the Kenny study, r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r . In general the improved methodology should r e s u l t i n improved measurement of i n d i v i d u a l differences"^. a. Target Variance. R e c a l l that the Kenny study found s i g n i f i c a n t t a r g e t variance f o r E x t r a v e r s i o n at zero acquaintance, and f o r E x t r a v e r s i o n , Agreeableness, and Openness a f t e r f o u r months. Each construct (except f o r Extraversion) e x h i b i t e d an increase i n ta r g e t variance from wave 1 to wave 2. Given our improvements--particularly i n the number and s e l e c t i o n of construct i n d i c a t o r s - - I expect to achieve t a r g e t e f f e c t s at l e a s t as strong as those found i n the Kenny study. I a l s o expect t o r e p l i c a t e the Kenny f i n d i n g of an increase i n ta r g e t v a r i a n c e from wave 1 to 2. b. R e l a t i o n s h i p Variance. When Kenny et a l . (1992) p a r t i t i o n e d r e l a t i o n s h i p variance, they found s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t s at zero acquaintance f o r a l l f a c t o r s except Openness, and a f t e r four months, they found s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s f o r a l l f a c t o r s except Openness and Conscientiousness. We have no reason to expect a d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s . R e c a l l t h a t m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s are necessary to make the d i s t i n c t i o n between e r r o r variance and r e l a t i o n s h i p variance. Since study 1 does not have m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s , r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e i s not determinable: Hence t h i s hypothesis w i l l be t e s t e d by comparing s t u d i e s 2 and 3 w i t h the Kenny study. c. Rater Variance. Kenny et a l . (1992) found s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t s f o r r a t e r variance. At zero acquaintance, only Neuroticism showed s i g n i f i c a n t r a t e r variance, while at wave 2, each f a c t o r except Neuroticism increased to a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of r a t e r v a r i a n c e . This f i n d i n g seems e s p e c i a l l y c o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e , because at a f i r s t meeting, r a t e r s should have few cues on which to base t h e i r r a t i n g s , and thus r a t e r variance would predominate. As inf o r m a t i o n i n c r e a s e s , however, the r e l a t i v e r a t e r variance should d i m i n i s h and be replaced by t a r g e t and r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e . In e x p l a n a t i o n , Kenny and colleagues noted a p o s s i b l e i n s t r u c t i o n a l problem i n t h e i r study: At wave 2, "the message to d i f f e r e n t i a t e t a r g e t s and use the e n t i r e range of the s c a l e was not heeded ... and t h e r e f o r e , response set played a more s u b s t a n t i a l r o l e i n the r a t i n g s " (p. 93). A l s o , Kenny and colleagues allowed r a t e r s to use t i e s (Kenny, personal communication). This freedom would tend to increase r a t e r v a r i a n c e , because some r a t e r s would be r e l u c t a n t to d i s c r i m i n a t e across t h e i r peers: Hence the w i t h i n - r a t e r variance diminishes and between variance i n c r e a s e s . In our s t u d i e s , we d i d not allow r a t e r s to have any t i e s (see Method), f o r c i n g r a t e r s to make more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g d e c i s i o n s about the t a r g e t s . We would expect t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n to decrease the l e v e l of r a t e r variance. Together, these arguments suggest that we should f i n d smaller amounts of r a t e r variance (at both wave 1 and wave 2) than d i d Kenny and colleagues. d. D i f f e r e n c e s between the present s t u d i e s . The fundamental d i f f e r e n c e between st u d i e s 2 and 3 vs. study 1 i s that the l a t t e r does not i n c l u d e m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s . The most obvious i m p l i c a t i o n of t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s that i n study 1, r e l a t i o n s h i p v a r i a n c e cannot be separated form e r r o r variance. R e c a l l that m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s are necessary to d i s t i n g u i s h between anomalous r a t i n g s that are c o n s i s t e n t across the i n d i c a t o r s ( i . e . , r e l a t i o n s h i p variance) w i t h those which are not ( i . e . , e r r o r v a r i a n c e ) . Another consequence of having only one i n d i c a t o r i s the i n s e p a r a b i l i t y of s t a b l e variance from unstable v a r i a n c e . R e c a l l t h a t s t a b l e variance i s the p o r t i o n that overlaps across i n d i c a t o r s , whereas unstable variance a p p l i e s to only one i n d i c a t o r . In study 1, the SRM views a l l variance as s t a b l e , since there are no m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s . However, i n s t u d i e s 2 and 3, t a r g e t , r a t e r , and r e l a t i o n s h i p variance are broken i n t o s t a b l e and unstable components. Therefore I would expect to f i n d s maller t a r g e t e f f e c t s i n st u d i e s 2 and 3, because some of what i s considered t a r g e t variance i n study 1 i s probably unstable. However, I do not b e l i e v e that r a t e r e f f e c t s should be a f f e c t e d , because there i s no reason why a r a t e r would use a d i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s t y l e f o r d i f f e r e n t i n d i c a t o r s . 2. R e c i p r o c i t y Any r e l a t i o n between A's r a t i n g of B and B's r a t i n g of A represents a r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t . As Kenny (1989, p.23) notes, SOREMO c a l c u l a t e s the r e c i p r o c i t y as the c o r r e l a t i o n of a l l such r a t i n g p a i r s w i t h the ta r g e t and r a t e r e f f e c t s p a r t i a l l e d out. In a review (Kenny & LaVoie, 1984) of st u d i e s determining r e c i p r o c i t y of a t t r a c t i o n and l i k a b i l i t y , 11 of 15 c o r r e l a t i o n s between people acquainted over a long p e r i o d of time were greater than .3. In c o n t r a s t , none of 4 c o r r e l a t i o n s exceeded .3 i n st u d i e s i n v o l v i n g short-term acquaintance (people acquainted f o r l e s s than one hour). These r e s u l t s support a hypothesis that r e c i p r o c i t y e x i s t s and v a r i e s w i t h l e v e l of acquaintance. The Kenny study, however, found no evidence f o r r e c i p r o c i t y . Perhaps r e c i p r o c i t y i s minimized i n r a t i n g s of group i n t e r a c t i o n s : A f t e r a l l , i n group meetings, no two members can have a p r i v a t e interaction--presumably, e v e r y t h i n g that goes on i n the group i s a v a i l a b l e to a l l group members. Nor was there o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p r i o r i n t e r a c t i o n because p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n i t i a l l y unacquainted and were randomly assigned to groups. Based on the s i m i l a r i t y of the present study to the Kenny study, the best p r e d i c t i o n i s that we w i l l not f i n d r e c i p r o c i t y on any of the B i g Five f a c t o r s . 3. P r o j e c t i o n P r o j e c t i o n i s the tendency f o r high scorers to give high scores t o others. Given that we have three measures of t a r g e t v a r i a n c e (questionnaire score, s e l f - r a t i n g , and mean peer-r a t i n g ) , then we have three p o s s i b l e indexes of p r o j e c t i o n : Each index can be determined by c o r r e l a t i n g across persons the ta r g e t score w i t h the mean r a t i n g given. In an e a r l y paper, Kenny and colleagues mentioned the p o s s i b i l i t y of p r o j e c t i o n (Warner et a l . , 1979, p. 1751); Strangely, they never analyzed p r o j e c t i o n i n subsequent papers. E a r l i e r t r a i t r a t i n g s t u d i e s provide mixed support f o r the p r e d i c t i o n of p r o j e c t i o n . D. Campbell et a l . (1964) d i d not f i n d evidence f o r s i m i l a r i t y p r o j e c t i o n but found some evidence f o r a c o n t r a s t e f f e c t , presumably due to anchoring and adjustment. J . Campbell (1986) found s i m i l a r i t y and con t r a s t p r o j e c t i o n on c e r t a i n a b i l i t y t r a i t s , but only on under l i m i t e d c o n d i t i o n s . In a recent review paper, Sherwood (1980) a l s o suggested mixed evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n . Given t h i s l i m i t e d evidence, and the f a c t that p r o j e c t i o n has not yet been s t u d i e d on the B i g F i v e , we consider t h i s aspect to be e x p l o r a t o r y . 4. Self-enhancement I t i s w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d that people tend to r a t e themselves more p o s i t i v e l y than they r a t e others (e.g., Taylor & Brown, 1984). This e f f e c t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y strong f o r t r a i t s w i t h c l e a r p o s i t i v e and negative poles, and the amount of self-enhancement i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the t a r g e t ' s l e v e l of n a r c i s s i s m (Donahue, Robins, Roberts, & John, 1993; G a b r i e l , C a r t e l l i , & Ee, 1994). A c c o r d i n g l y , I p r e d i c t self-enhancement on a l l the B i g F i v e , but I have no reason to b e l i e v e that the e f f e c t s w i l l change over time. For each dimension, t h i s e f f e c t w i l l be t e s t e d w i t h a p a i r e d t - t e s t , comparing each person's s e l f - r a t i n g w i t h t h e i r corresponding p e e r - r a t i n g mean.'^ 5. Convergence of the three assessment modes C o r r e l a t i o n a l s t u d i e s t y p i c a l l y evaluate the v a l i d i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s by c o r r e l a t i n g two or more assessment modes across the same p a r t i c i p a n t s . Except when unacquainted peers are used, the c o r r e l a t i o n s between these modes of assessment tend to be i n the .20 to .50 range (see Costa & McCrae (1988), Berry (1990), Funder (1987), and Funder & C o l v i n (1988) f o r examples). In such s t u d i e s , a l l variance other than the systematic r e l a t i o n between t a r g e t measures i s unaccounted f o r and i s thus seen as e r r o r . On the p e e r - r a t i n g mode, f o r example, r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p variance simply add noise to the ta r g e t v a r i a n c e , thereby reducing c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h other measures of t a r g e t v a r i a n c e . As noted e a r l i e r , the SRM cleans up the t a r g e t v a r i a n c e by i s o l a t i n g i t from other variance sources. SOREMO a l s o d i s a t t e n u a t e s c o r r e l a t i o n s w i t h the p e e r - r a t i n g measures. For these reasons, I hypothesize that c o r r e l a t i o n s among modes i n the present s t u d i e s w i l l exceed those found i n standard s t u d i e s : They should be i n the .30 to .60 range f o r a l l B i g Five dimensions. Method P a r t i c i p a n t s Three s i m i l a r datasets (N = 90, 65, and 88) were provided by D.L. Paulhus f o r a n a l y s i s . In each study, the p a r t i c i p a n t s were t h i r d - y e a r Psychology students at a larg e western Canadian u n i v e r s i t y . As a c l a s s e x e r c i s e , they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n d i s c u s s i o n groups o r i e n t e d around course t o p i c s . On two occasions, they c o n f i d e n t i a l l y r a t e d the p e r s o n a l i t y of d i s c u s s i o n group members. The p a r t i c i p a n t s l a t e r used the r a t i n g s as the b a s i s of a term paper concerning how t h e i r impressions of t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n group members changed over time. A f t e r the course, p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked i f t h e i r r a t i n g s c o u l d be used as pa r t of a p e r s o n a l i t y study. None refused. M a t e r i a l s Questionnaire. In a l l three s t u d i e s , Costa & McCrae's (1989) F i v e Factor Inventory (FFI) was used as the que s t i o n n a i r e measure of the B i g Five f a c t o r s . I t i s a 60 item q u e s t i o n n a i r e (12 items f o r each of the B i g Five) that r e q u i r e s l e s s than 10 minutes to complete. Peer-Ratings. These are the a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s used t o r a t e other group members based on t h e i r behavior i n the d i s c u s s i o n group. The same set of r a t i n g s c a l e s were completed a f t e r meetings 1 and 7. Subjects were asked to w r i t e the i n i t i a l s of each group member on the s c a l e i t s e l f . I t was explained c l e a r l y that t i e r a t i n g s were not allowed: That i s , they could only w r i t e one i n i t i a l over any number on the s c a l e . This requirement was designed to counteract the usual tendency f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s to r a t e other p a r t i c i p a n t s as h i g h l y - p o s i t i v e and th e r e f o r e h i g h l y s i m i l a r ; r a t e r s would be forced to put more e f f o r t i n t o making d i s t i n c t i o n s across t a r g e t s . In study 1, there were a t o t a l of 5 scales--one i n d i c a t o r f o r each B i g Fi v e f a c t o r . Each was a u n i p o l a r s c a l e s ranging from not at a l l (1) to very much (10). To help c l a r i f y the co n s t r u c t , a l l (but one) a d j e c t i v e l a b e l s were fol l o w e d by two r e l a t e d a d j e c t i v e s . The exact l a b e l s were: A s s e r t i v e (vocal, dominant), p r o s o c i a l (cooperative, l i k a b l e ) , work o r i e n t e d ( d e l i b e r a t e , o rganized), insecure, and i n t e l l e c t u a l ( o r i g i n a l , c l e v e r ) . In s t u d i e s 2 and 3, p a r t i c i p a n t s r a t e d 15 b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s c a l e s , that i s , 3 i n d i c a t o r s per B i g Five f a c t o r (e.g. outgoing, peppy and s o c i a b l e f o r E x t r a v e r s i o n ) . The scales were s e l e c t e d from the set p u b l i s h e d by Costa and McCrae (1990), which were on a 1 t o 15 s c a l e . A r a t i n g form i s shown i n Appendix 4. Again, t i e s were not allowed. S e l f - R a t i n g s . P a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to inc l u d e themselves when r a t i n g group members on the above s c a l e s . This requirement y i e l d e d s e l f - r a t i n g scores on the same sc a l e s as f o r p e e r - r a t i n g s at waves 1 and 7 of the study. Procedure A f t e r the f i r s t c l a s s , p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked to complete the FFI q u e s t i o n n a i r e at home and r e t u r n i t at the next c l a s s meeting. The d i s c u s s i o n group assignments were then completed randomly, without regard to questionnaire scores. This assignment y i e l d e d groups of 4 to 6 p r e v i o u s l y unacquainted people. These groups met once a week f o r 7 weeks. In each meeting, they spent 20 minutes d i s c u s s i n g a course t o p i c assigned to them. A f t e r meetings 1 and 7, p a r t i c i p a n t s were provided w i t h a r a t i n g form t o complete at home and r e t u r n to the i n s t r u c t o r at the next c l a s s meeting. They were t o l d to s e a l the completed form i n the envelope provided to ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y . They d i d not know i n advance what t r a i t s they would be r a t i n g . As noted above, the r a t i n g form i n v o l v e d r a t i n g themselves as w e l l as other group members on a l i s t of t r a i t s . The r a t i n g s were returned c o n f i d e n t i a l l y to the r a t e r s near the end of the course to be used as the b a s i s f o r t h e i r term paper. They were t o l d not to share t h e i r r a t i n g s w i t h other group members. Results The bulk of the analyses were performed using Kenny's (1989) SOREMO program. Each dataset submitted to SOREMO c o n s i s t e d of s e v e r a l groups of round-robin r a t i n g s on one co n s t r u c t . SOREMO begins by p a r t i t i o n i n g variance i n a 2 X 3 a n a l y s i s , breaking i t i n t o s t a b l e and unstable components, across t a r g e t , r a t e r , and r e l a t i o n s h i p . Therefore, f o r each study, t h i s a n a l y s i s had to be performed a t o t a l of ten times--once f o r each of the B i g Five f a c t o r s at each of the two waves. Unf o r t u n a t e l y , SOREMO computes s i g n i f i c a n c e values onl y f o r i n d i v i d u a l i n d i c a t o r s (e.g., outgoing) not the co n s t r u c t s (e.g.. E x t r a v e r s i o n ) . Therefore, to t e s t the co n s t r u c t s , the summed i n d i c a t o r s f o r each construct had to be manually t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . Most of the s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s below are based on gro u p - l e v e l of a n a l y s i s . In study 1, f o r example, the df = 12 f o r most t e s t s because there are 13 groups of r a t e r s (see SOREMO manual, p.12). Minimal sex d i f f e r e n c e s were found i n a p r i o r a n a l y s i s (Paulhus & Bruce, 1992), and hence the data f o r men and women were pooled. Hypothesis 1: P a r t i t i o n i n g Variance Table 2 contains four sub-tables c o n s i s t i n g of the three present s t u d i e s and, f o r comparison purposes, the Kenny study. Each sub-table shows proportions of variance a t t r i b u t a b l e to va r i o u s sources: that i s , t a r g e t , r a t e r , and e r r o r e f f e c t s f o r study 1, and t a r g e t , r a t e r , r e l a t i o n s h i p , and e r r o r e f f e c t s f o r study 2 and study 3. The sub-tables are f u r t h e r broken down by B i g F i v e f a c t o r and wave (separated by s l a s h e s ) . I n s e r t Table 2 about here Each e n t r y was t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e by a t w o - t a i l e d t - t e s t comparing the amounts of variance to zero^. Although t h i s t a b l e i s broken down by B i g Five and wave, the hypotheses below focus on the mean r e s u l t s , which may be found i n the rightmost column. Hypothesis l a : Target Variance As w e l l , i n each of the three s t u d i e s , our mean t a r g e t v a r i a n c e s were stronger than those found i n the Kenny study: S p e c i f i c a l l y , s t u d i e s 1, 2 and 3 had 37%, 25.5%, and 21% of the var i a n c e accounted f o r by targe t e f f e c t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , compared to 12% i n the Kenny study. Hence, the hypothesis was s t r o n g l y supported. I t i s noteworthy that we found s i g n i f i c a n t t a r g e t e f f e c t s across a l l of the B i g Fi v e , u n l i k e Kenny et a l . Moreover, tar g e t e f f e c t s c o n s i s t e n t l y showed up at both wave 1 and wave 2 across a l l 3 of the present s t u d i e s . T h i r t e e n of 15 values were s i g n i f i c a n t at wave 1, and a l l 15 were s i g n i f i c a n t at wave 2. Hypothesis l b : R e l a t i o n s h i p Variance R e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s were a l s o c o n s i s t e n t l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the two s t u d i e s where i t was measured ( a l l 20 e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t ) . Our mean e f f e c t s were s l i g h t l y stronger than those found i n the Kenny study i n both of the present s t u d i e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , s t u d i e s 2 and 3 had 23% and 24% of the variance accounted f o r by r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y , compared to 19% i n the Kenny study. In short, our hypothesis that the r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s would be s i m i l a r to those i n the Kenny study was supported. Hypothesis I c ; Rater Variance I hypothesized that our r a t e r e f f e c t s would be smaller than those found i n the Kenny study. This hypothesis was m a r g i n a l l y supported, as the present r e s u l t s were only s l i g h t l y weaker than those found i n the Kenny study. I found 7%, 11%, and 16% of the vari a n c e to be accounted f o r by r a t e r e f f e c t s i n the three s t u d i e s , compared to 16% i n the Kenny study. Hypothesis I d : D i f f e r e n c e s among the present s t u d i e s In comparing s t u d i e s 2 and 3 wi t h study 1, s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n c e s can be noted. F i r s t , as p r e d i c t e d , study 1 has co n s i d e r a b l y higher t a r g e t variance than the other two (37% vs. 23%). As disc u s s e d i n the Hypotheses s e c t i o n , t h i s f i n d i n g i s probably due to the f a c t that study 1 d i d not use m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s ; as a r e s u l t , a l l t a r g e t variance found i n study 1 could be considered to be s t a b l e v a r i a n c e . The s t u d i e s which d i d use m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s had t a r g e t variance (as w e l l as r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p variance) s p l i t i n t o s t a b l e and unstable var i a n c e . As unstable v a r i a n c e was considered e r r o r , s t u d i e s 2 and 3 should n e c e s s a r i l y have lower l e v e l s of t a r g e t variance. Contrary to my p r e d i c t i o n s , an i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g was that r a t e r v a r i a n c e was much lower i n study 1 than i n s t u d i e s 2 and 3 (7% V. 13.5%). Although r a t e r variance was not s p l i t i n t o s t a b l e and unstable variance i n study 1, study 1 only used a 1 to 10 s c a l e , w h i l e s t u d i e s 2 and 3 used a 1 to 15 s c a l e , g i v i n g r a t e r s more room to d i s c r i m i n a t e , and a l s o more room f o r r a t e r d i f f e r e n c e s t o manifest themselves. Perhaps t h i s e x t r a room accounted f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s t y l e s . Hypothesis 2 : R e c i p r o c i t y R e c i p r o c i t y i s the tendency f o r the r a t i n g A gives to B to c o r r e l a t e w i t h the r a t i n g B gives to A. This tendency was measured i n the present s t u d i e s by c o r r e l a t i n g s t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s across a l l p a i r s of i n d i v i d u a l s who r a t e d each other. Table 3 shows the r e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t s f o r each B i g F i v e f a c t o r , study and wave (separated by s l a s h e s ) . I n s e r t Table 3 about here S i g n i f i c a n c e was computed v i a a t w o - t a i l e d t - t e s t of the covariance of each construct across a l l groups. The covariances are used because u n l i k e c o r r e l a t i o n s , covariances can be combined across groups. Only two of these 30 values (across the B i g Five f a c t o r s at the two waves i n the three studies) were s i g n i f i c a n t ; by chance alone, we would expect to have 1.5 out of 3 0 to be s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, the hypothesis of no r e c i p r o c i t y was supported. Hypothesis 3: P r o j e c t i o n P r o j e c t i o n i s the tendency f o r high scorers to give high scores t o others. Given that there are three kinds of t a r g e t measures a v a i l a b l e , then there are three ways of measuring p r o j e c t i o n . For each f a c t o r , study, and wave, I c o r r e l a t e d the mean r a t i n g each person gives w i t h a) the r a t i n g the person r e c e i v e s , b) the s e l f - r a t i n g , and c) the q u e s t i o n n a i r e score. These three sets of c o r r e l a t i o n s form the three sub-tables i n t a b l e 4. In s e r t t a b l e 4 about here In the f i r s t sub-table, c o n t a i n i n g the PEER vs. PEER c o r r e l a t i o n s , only one c o r r e l a t i o n of 3 0 was s i g n i f i c a n t ; hence, I conclude that no evidence was found f o r p r o j e c t i o n of t h i s type. In c o n t r a s t , there was more evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n on the of the PEER vs. SELF c o r r e l a t i o n s : 16 of 3 0 were s i g n i f i c a n t . F i n a l l y , the PEER vs. QUESTIONNAIRE sub-table shows evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n on the Agreeableness construct (5 of 6 s i g n i f i c a n t ) , but not on the other B i g Five f a c t o r s (only 2 of 24). Hypothesis 4: Self-enhancement Self-enhancement was measured by the d i f f e r e n c e between the mean p e e r - r a t i n g and the s e l f - r a t i n g s f o r each i n d i v i d u a l . Table 5 contains the d i f f e r e n c e scores f o r each f a c t o r , study, and wave (separated by s l a s h e s ) . I n s e r t Table 5 about here Each value was t e s t e d w i t h a p a i r e d t - t e s t of the average d i f f e r e n c e w i t h i n each group combined across groups (df 12, 11, 10 f o r s t u d i e s 1, 2, 3). I hypothesized self-enhancement across a l l of the B i g F i v e : This hypothesis were supported w i t h respect to E x t r a v e r s i o n (5 of 6 s i g n i f i c a n t ) and Openness (4 of 6), w i t h l e s s support f o r the other f a c t o r s . Hypothesis 5 : Convergence of the Three Assessment Modes Convergence i s i n d i c a t e d by the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the qu e s t i o n n a i r e score, p e e r - r a t i n g s , and s e l f - r a t i n g s . The three types of c o r r e l a t i o n s may be found i n the subtables of t a b l e 6. Each value i s a di s a t t e n u a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h t a r g e t and r a t e r e f f e c t s p a r t i a l e d out. Ins e r t Table 6 about here I hypothesized c o r r e l a t i o n s i n the .3 - .6 range: As hypothesized, I found mean c o r r e l a t i o n s of .47, .52, and .39 f o r S e l f vs. Questionnaire, S e l f vs. Peer, and Questionnaire vs. Peer, r e s p e c t i v e l y . D i s c u s s i o n Our goal was improve and extend the analyses of round-robin r a t i n g data f i r s t presented by Kenny and colleagues. Given that our success i n t h i s goal v a r i e d across hypotheses, the d i s c u s s i o n below i s organized by hypothesis. Hypothesis 1: P a r t i t i o n i n c r Variance One c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g was that our s t u d i e s y i e l d e d higher t a r g e t v a r i a n c e than the Kenny study--at both waves. In other words, our p a r t i c i p a n t s were b e t t e r able to d i s t i n g u i s h the people they were r a t i n g . Our improvement may r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r each of the waves, however. At wave 1, Kenny's p a r t i c i p a n t s were somewhat l e s s acquainted than ours: His had zero acquaintance^ whereas our p a r t i c i p a n t s had met f o r 2 0 minutes. As a r e s u l t , our st u d i e s could be expected to show higher t a r g e t variances i n the co n s t r u c t s where accuracy in c r e a s e s w i t h l e v e l of acquaintance; ( i . e . , each of the B i g Five except f o r Extraversion) (Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). At wave 2, Kenny's r a t e r s were s t i l l l e s s discriminating--why d i d n ' t they catch up a f t e r four months? Moreover, the r a t e r v a r i a n c e was extremely high at t h i s p o i n t . Perhaps i t was the f a c t t h a t we warned r a t e r s not to use t i e s . This i n s t r u c t i o n encourages r a t e r s to spread out t h e i r r a t i n g s r a t h e r than c l u s t e r them at some p r e f e r r e d l e v e l . Consider, f o r example, a group where some r a t e r s are l e n i e n t - - t h e y give a l l group members p e r f e c t r a t i n g s on Agreeableness--and other r a t e r s are h o s t i l e - -they g i v e a l l t a r g e t s i d e n t i c a l low r a t i n g s . For t h i s group, t a r g e t v a r i a n c e i s zero because no d i s t i n c t i o n s are made between t a r g e t s . Rater vari a n c e , however, would be larg e because r a t e r ' s p r e f e r r e d r a t i n g l e v e l i s the sol e determinant of the r a t i n g s given. Another e x p l a n a t i o n f o r our higher l e v e l s of t a r g e t variance l i e s i n our improved choice of i n d i c a t o r s f o r each of the B i g F i v e f a c t o r s . Note f i r s t that s t a b l e t a r g e t variance i s a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n of the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s of the i n d i c a t o r s (Kenny, 1994). I f the i n d i c a t o r s do not c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y , t a r g e t v a r i a n c e may emerge, but i t w i l l a l l be unstable t a r g e t v a r i a n c e -- s t a b l e t a r g e t variance only occurs when the r a t i n g s of the i n d i c a t o r s overlap. We chose i n d i c a t o r s they were known to be h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each other, whereas i n the Kenny study, the i n d i c a t o r s may share l e s s variance. For example, Kenny's two i n d i c a t o r s of the Openness construct ( r e f e r r e d to as I n t e l l e c t ) are I n t e l l i g e n c e and Imagination, two d e s c r i p t o r s which do not c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y , and i n f a c t have argued to be orthogonal ( T r a p n e l l , 1994) . Of course the choice of construct i n d i c a t o r s i s always a t r a d e - o f f : A s c a l e c o n s t r u c t o r would not want to have i n d i c a t o r s that c o r r e l a t e too s t r o n g l y ( i . e . peppy and f u l l of energy), because i t i s important to choose i n d i c a t o r s which span the p o s s i b l e meanings of the construct being r a t e d . D i f f e r e n c e s across B i g Five f a c t o r s . Across the B i g F i v e , E x t r a v e r s i o n e x h i b i t e d the most targ e t variance by f a r (average was 52% across the three s t u d i e s and both waves), and Neuroticism showed the lowest (average was 16%), w i t h the other three i n between (23.9% - 24.4%). This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t many previous s t u d i e s showing that E x t r a v e r s i o n i s the most e a s i l y and v a l i d l y r a t e d c o n s t r u c t . S i m i l a r l y , r a t i n g s t y l e was l e s s evident f o r E x t r a v e r s i o n than f o r the other c o n s t r u c t s (5% vs. 11% - 16.5%). (These means were found by averaging the r e s u l t s w i t h i n each B i g Five f a c t o r , acros both waves and the three s t u d i e s . ) Apparently s t y l e p lays l e s s of a r o l e when r a t e r s are able to make c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n s across t a r g e t s , although the converse i s not t r u e ; Neuroticism had an average of 11%. Perhaps there i s a c e i l i n g to the amount of e f f e c t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to r a t e r v a r i a n c e . Factor d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s were not evident : Agreeableness was had the highest amount of variance a t t r i b u t a b l e to r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s at 29%, f ollowed by N e u r o t i c i s m (26%), E x t r a v e r s i o n (23%), Conscientiousness (21.5%), and Openness (18.5%). Hypothesis 2: R e c i p r o c i t y In e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t s that are measured by c o r r e l a t i o n s (such as r e c i p r o c i t y and p r o j e c t i o n ) , one must be very cautious i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n s . Since the r e s u l t s shown are d i s a t t e n u a t e d , they may be much l a r g e r than the researcher would expect. The d i s a t t e n u a t i o n i s performed by d i v i d i n g a raw c o r r e l a t i o n by the square root of each r e l i a b i l i t y l e v e l ; I f the l a t t e r are q u i t e low, a small c o r r e l a t i o n may become much l a r g e r . To guard against m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the researcher should examine t - t e s t s of the covariances of each e f f e c t (which SOREMO does not do). Otherwise, a researcher may spend a great deal of mental energy i n e x p l a i n i n g an apparent e f f e c t which i n f a c t i s not r e a l . An example i s the .53 l e v e l of r e c i p r o c i t y found i n Agreeableness at wave 2 of study 2. This f i n d i n g at f i r s t glance would i n d i c a t e some huge l e v e l of increase i n the l e v e l of r e c i p r o c i t y i n Agreeableness across time. In f a c t , however, the .53 value i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, and hence cannot be c o n f i d e n t l y described as an e f f e c t . Hypothesis 3: P r o j e c t i o n Except f o r Agreeableness, two of our indexes of p r o j e c t i o n y i e l d e d very l i m i t e d evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n . However, the t h i r d i n d e x - - c o r r e l a t i n g s e l f - r a t i n g s w i t h peer-ratings--seemed to show evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n . I t h i n k a b e t t e r e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s r e s u l t l i e s i n the f a c t that t h i s was the only index where two r a t i n g s made by the same i n d i v i d u a l were c o r r e l a t e d . I t i s w e l l known, however, that there are i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s t y l e s : That i s , some r a t e r s use the e n t i r e s c a l e whereas others s t i c k to a narrow range. For the l a t t e r , the s e l f - r a t i n g would n e c e s s a r i l y be c l o s e to the average of the p e e r - r a t i n g s , and hence the s e l f - r a t i n g s would c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y w i t h the peer-r a t i n g s across r a t e r s . In short, p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o j e c t i o n i s confounded w i t h response s t y l e . Given t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the peer vs. s e l f index of p r o j e c t i o n , and the n u l l f i n d i n g s f o r the two other indexes, the evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n on four of the B i g Five f a c t o r s was minimal. As noted above, the exception was Agreeableness. The evidence was weakest f o r the peer-peer index of p r o j e c t i o n - - t h a t i s , when r a t i n g s given were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h r a t i n g s r a t i n g s r e c e i v e d by the same r a t e r ; Evidence f o r p r o j e c t i o n was strongest when the p e e r - r a t i n g s given were c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the que s t i o n n a i r e score. A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s f i n d i n g i s that the questionnaire (FFI) i s a r e l i a b l e , w e l l - v a l i d a t e d instrument, whereas the peer-r a t i n g s are p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y weaker. P o s s i b l y , the FFI was simply b e t t e r able to p i c k up d i f f e r e n c e s across subjects i n Agreeableness than the p e e r - r a t i n g s c a l e . The emergence of p r o j e c t i o n only i n Agreeableness and no other c o n s t r u c t s i s not t e r r i b l y s u r p r i s i n g . I t i s well-known that i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r i n the s o - c a l l e d 'Pollyanna e f f e c t ' ( M a t l i n & Stang, 1978); that i s l i k a b l e i n d i v i d u a l s tend to consider others to be l i k a b l e as w e l l , based on t h e i r p r i o r experiences (most of which would probably be p o s i t i v e ) . At the other end of the spectrum, c y n i c a l , h o s t i l e i n d i v i d u a l s may see others as g e n e r a l l y disagreeable, based on t h e i r p r i o r experiences (many of them n e g a t i v e ) . (This e f f e c t may conversely be c a l l e d a sourpuss e f f e c t . ) This l i n e of reasoning does not seem to ho l d f o r the other c o n s t r u c t s ( i . e . , a con s c i e n t i o u s person w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y see others as c o n s c i e n t i o u s ) . Note that any confimation of p r o j e c t i o n i n our data supports the u t i l i t y of the SRM a n a l y s i s approach. That i s , p r o j e c t i o n contravenes the assumption of the independence of r a t i n g s r e q u i r e d f o r a n a l y s i s by standard ANOVA. In short, ANOVA i s incapable of a n a l y z i n g round r o b i n r a t i n g data--at l e a s t f o r Agreeableness. Hypothesis 4: Self-enhancement The mixed f i n d i n g s i n the self-enhancement area are i n t r i g u i n g . Enhancement was strongest f o r E x t r a v e r s i o n and Openness, l i m i t e d f o r Agreeableness, and absent f o r Conscientiousness and Neuroticism. An expl a n a t i o n may l i e i n the nature of the task being completed--discussing an academic t o p i c w i t h other group members. In t h i s task, the most valued p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s of the B i g Five are E x t r a v e r s i o n (members must p a r t i c i p a t e to have t h e i r ideas heard) and Openness (members' c o n t r i b u t i o n s must be i n t e l l i g e n t ) . Perhaps other c o n s t r u c t s of the B i g Five would e x h i b i t self-enhancement more s t r o n g l y i f the task was a l t e r e d For example, a task where group members t r y t o b e f r i e n d each other could show self-enhancement i n Agreeableness. Again, as w i t h p r o j e c t i o n , the c o n f i r m a t i o n of s e l f -enhancement supports the u t i l i t y of using the SRM a n a l y s i s over standard ANOVA procedures. As noted i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n , s e l f -r a t i n g s should not be combined w i t h p e e r - r a t i n g s i f they have d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s ; Omitting them, however, introduces other s t a t i s t i c a l problems. SRM res o l v e s the problem by o m i t t i n g the s e l f - r a t i n g from the mean p e e r - r a t i n g but a d j u s t i n g each peer-mean to compensate f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t i n g s t y l e . Hypothesis 5 : Convercrence of the Three Assessment Modes In g e n e r a l , the present s t u d i e s provide strong evidence f o r the v a l i d i t y of the B i g Five f a c t o r s by demonstrating a convergence of three d i s t i n c t modes of measurement. There were some i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s across s t u d i e s and f a c t o r , however. Studies 2 and 3 vs. study 1. O v e r a l l , the convergence of the modes was s i m i l a r i n st u d i e s 1, 2 and 3. One c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e i n the c o r r e l a t i o n l e v e l s between study 1 and s t u d i e s 2 and 3 was seen when the questionnaire score was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the s e l f -r a t i n g (average c o r r e l a t i o n s were .27 i n study 1 vs. .58 i n st u d i e s 2 and 3). This d i f f e r e n c e was somewhat sma l l e r between the q u e s t i o n n a i r e score and the p e e r - r a t i n g s (.32 i n study 1 vs. .43 i n s t u d i e s 2 and 3), and non-existent between p e e r - r a t i n g s and s e l f - r a t i n g s (.53 i n study 1 vs. .52 i n s t u d i e s 2 and 3). An ex p l a n a t i o n f o r these d i f f e r e n c e s across the s t u d i e s may l i e i n the d i f f e r i n g r e l i a b i l i t i e s of the s c a l e s . The p e e r - r a t i n g s should be the most r e l i a b l e ( c o n s i s t i n g of the mean of 3 i n d i c a t o r s across 3-5 r a t e r s ) , f o l l o w e d by the s e l f - r a t i n g ( c o n s i s t i n g of the mean of 3 i n d i c a t o r s ) , and then the q u e s t i o n n a i r e score. As such, the most g l a r i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between the usage or non-usage of m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s shows up most s t r o n g l y when c o r r e l a t i n g questionnaire score w i t h s e l f -r a t i n g , and then s e c o n d a r i l y when c o r r e l a t i n g p e e r - r a t i n g w i t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e score. D i f f e r e n c e s across s c a l e s . These c o r r e l a t i o n s of the s c a l e s a l s o showed small d i f f e r e n c e s ; the average c o r r e l a t i o n between p e e r - r a t i n g and s e l f - r a t i n g was .52, between qu e s t i o n n a i r e and s e l f - r a t i n g was .48, and between questionnaire and p e e r - r a t i n g was .40. I t h i n k these d i f f e r e n c e s occurred because of the s i m i l a r i t i e s of the instruments; the p e e r - r a t i n g s and s e l f -r a t i n g s were done on the same instrument, which would increase the corresponding c o r r e l a t i o n s . As w e l l , the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and s e l f - r a t i n g score were both done by the same i n d i v i d u a l s , which would a l s o increase the c o r r e l a t i o n s . The two most d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s are the p e e r - r a t i n g and questionnaire score, and these were the s c a l e s which c o r r e l a t e d the lowest. D i f f e r e n c e s across time. No d i f f e r e n c e s across time were observed; the average c o r r e l a t i o n at wave 1 was .46, and the average c o r r e l a t i o n at wave 2 was .47. This l a c k of d i f f e r e n c e i n d i c a t e s that l e v e l of acquaintance does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y improve v a l i d i t y of the measures. However, i f the a n a l y s i s i s r e s t r i c t e d to the Questionnaire-Peer Rating c o r r e l a t i o n s , the most standard index of f a c t o r v a l i d i t y , then improvement wi t h acquaintanceship i s more apparent. That i s , e x c l u d i n g E x t r a v e r s i o n , the mean c o r r e l a t i o n i s higher f o r wave 2 (.45) than wave 1 (.35). This f i n d i n g r e p l i c a t e s Paulhus and Bruce (1992) . D i f f e r e n c e s across B i g F i v e . S l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s i n v a l i d i t y across the B i g Five were observed, w i t h E x t r a v e r s i o n the highest at .55, and the others between .41 and .47. The f i n d i n g i s p a r t l y e x p l a i n e d the f a c t that E x t r a v e r s i o n showed the highest t a r g e t v a r i a n c e , and so people were b e t t e r to r a t e others (as w e l l as themselves) more a c c u r a t e l y on E x t r a v e r s i o n than the other c o n s t r u c t s . Nonetheless, many previous s t u d i e s have demonstrated that E x t r a v e r s i o n has the highest v a l i d i t y of the B i g F i v e f a c t o r s (e.g., Watson, 1989; Paulhus & Bruce, 1992). L i m i t a t i o n s and Future Research Group vs. Dyadic I n t e r a c t i o n s . Our r e s u l t s apply to round-r o b i n r a t i n g s based on group i n t e r a c t i o n s but do not n e c e s s a r i l y extend t o r a t i n g s based on p a i r - w i s e i n t e r a c t i o n s . For instance, i f people met i n p a i r s (as they d i d i n Kenny's study 2), then r a t e r v a r i a n c e would not only i n c l u d e r a t i n g s s t y l e , but would a l s o i n c l u d e e l i c i t a t i o n : That i s , some people would c o n s i s t e n t l y e l i c i t more e x t r a v e r t e d (agreeable, etc.) behavior than others. As w e l l , r e c i p r o c i t y could show up more i n a dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n , because i n p a i r s the nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t than i t i s i n groups. For instance, two people i n a p a i r may h i t i t o f f , and so each would r a t e the other as agreeable, w h i l e these people would not n e c e s s a r i l y be r a t e d as agreeable by others. Each r a t i n g i n the p a i r would be based on unique i n f o r m a t i o n . Zero-Acquaintance. As noted e a r l i e r , c e r t a i n r e s u l t s i n the present s t u d i e s (20-min acquaintance) d i f f e r e d c o n s i d e r a b l y from those found by Kenny at zero-acquaintance. I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o create a zero- and short-term acquaintance w i t h i n the same s u b j e c t s , to determine the true nature of the d i f f e r e n c e s between these l e v e l s of acquaintance. R a t i n g Scales. Another question l i e s i n the importance of the type of r a t i n g s c a l e used, and the q u a n t i t y of i n d i c a t o r s used. The present study found d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s between study 1 (which used a 1-10 s c a l e w i t h one i n d i c a t o r ) and s t u d i e s 2 and 3 (which used a 1-15 s c a l e w i t h three i n d i c a t o r s ) . Perhaps these d i f f e r e n c e s were due to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s c a l e s ; perhaps they were a l s o due to f a c t that study 1 used o n l y one i n d i c a t o r , w h i l e the others used three i n d i c a t o r s . Separating these e f f e c t s r e q u i r e s c o n t r o l l i n g f o r one d i f f e r e n c e and manipulating the other. Type of Task. Since self-enhancement showed most s t r o n g l y on the f a c t o r s represented by the tasks r e q u i r e d of the s u b j e c t s , perhaps changing the tasks could change which f a c t o r s e x h i b i t the most self-enhancement. Self-enhancement may be based on the f a c t o r s most s a l i e n t i n each subject's mind as he or she completes the r a t i n g form. Given that temporal e f f e c t s were found i n s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t ; areas, changing the time of acquaintance at long-term as w e l l as short-term would be i n t e r e s t i n g . I t would seem as though the e f f e c t s would reach an asymptotic l e v e l at some p o i n t ; i s that p o i n t a f t e r seven weeks or seventy? A study of t h i s k i n d would probably a l s o use people acquainted f o r personal reasons r a t h e r than f o r the f u r t h e r i n g of p s y c h o l o g i c a l research, but c o n t r a s t i n g how well-acquainted people r a t e each other w i t h how not-so-well-acquainted people ra t e each other would be i n t e r e s t i n g . Many other a p p l i c a t i o n s of the S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model as i t was used i n the present study have not yet been researched. For i n s t a n c e , i t could be used to determine how classmates perceive each other and themselves on any a t t r i b u t e s of i n t e r e s t , such as l i k a b i l i t y and p o p u l a r i t y . As w e l l , i t could be used f o r co-workers' r a t i n g s of each other's e f f e c t i v e n e s s or a b i l i t y to get along w i t h i n the work s e t t i n g . • The f i n d i n g s i n the current study a l s o i n d i c a t e that perhaps some of what i s g e n e r a l l y termed ' e r r o r ' i n most p e r s o n a l i t y s t u d i e s i s i n f a c t a t t r i b u t a b l e to r a t e r or r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s , and can i n f a c t be p a r t i a l l e d out to give a cleaner measure of the t r u e r e l a t i o n between the v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t . E l i m i n a t i n g sources of e r r o r i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n s t u d i e s where meaningful e f f e c t s can occur wi t h c o r r e l a t i o n s as low as .2 or .3. Conclusions I had two goals i n mind i n e x p l o i t i n g the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s model and the SOREMO computer program i n a n a l y z i n g three sets of r a t i n g data. One was to show that improvements i n the methology of our three datasets over the Kenny study would t r a n s l a t e i n t o a more powerful demonstration of the u t i l i t y of using round-robin r a t i n g s of the B i g Five p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s . The f i r s t goal was c l e a r l y a t t a i n e d i n that the measurement of t a r g e t v a r i a n c e was s u b s t a n t i a l l y improved over the Kenny study. Nonetheless, r a t e r and r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s a l s o played an important r o l e i n the B i g Five r a t i n g s . My second major goal was to measure c e r t a i n e f f e c t s that had here t o f o r e not been analyzed using SOREMO. This goal was a l s o c l e a r l y accomplished. For the f i r s t time, p r o j e c t i o n was demonstrated on B i g Five r a t i n g s , i f only f o r the Agreeableness f a c t o r . Evidence f o r construct v a l i d i t y of the B i g Five f a c t o r s was provided by demonstrating strong i n t e r - c o r r e l a t i o n s among modes of measurement. F i n a l l y , f o r the f i r s t time, evidence was found f o r the not i o n of self-enhancement on the B i g Five f a c t o r s of E x t r a v e r s i o n and Openness. Footnotes 1. The term "round-robin" a p p l i e s only to the p e e r - r a t i n g data. The other two modes of assessment are considered to be e x t e r n a l measures of ta r g e t v a r i a n c e . 2. The p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e i n cluded a n a l y s i s of only two of the f i v e f a c t o r s , but Kenny et a l . ( i n press) re-analyzed the data across a l l f i v e f a c t o r s . 3. I t i s important t o note that SOREMO p a r t i t i o n s variance i n two ways--absolute and r e l a t i v e (proportional) v a r i a n c e . Refer to Appendix 2 f o r a more thorough d i s c u s s i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e between these two. Unless e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d , r e l a t i v e v a r i a n c e w i l l be discussed f o r the remainder of t h i s paper. 4. Note that i f self-enhancement e x i s t s , i t lends evidence to the idea that s e l f - r a t i n g s are c a t e g o r i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from peer-r a t i n g s , and as such should not be combined f o r the sake of a n a l y s i s . 5. Not i c e t h a t there appears to be some i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n the s i g n i f i c a n c e values; f o r instance, the 15% under C f o r Rater i n study 1, wave 1 i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , while the 7% under N i n study 1, wave 1 i s . The reason f o r the i n c o n s i s t e n c y i s that s i g n i f i c a n c e i s determined across groups; the group i s the u n i t of measure. Hence, a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n may not be s i g n i f i c a n t i f there i s a great deal of v a r i a t i o n i n the p r o p o r t i o n of variance across groups, while a sma l l e r p r o p o r t i o n may be s i g n i f i c a n t i f i t does not vary much and c o n s i s t e n t across groups. R e c a l l t h a t i n zero-acquaintance s t u d i e s , p a r t i c i p a n t s i n a group are introduced, then are asked to r a t e one-another. While they do the r a t i n g s , however, they remain i n the same room, i n v i s u a l contact. Table 1. H y p o t h e t i c a l Layout of Rating Data f o r a Four-Person Group R a t e r ( j ) 1 2 3 4 Target Quest. Means Score T a r g e t ( i ) 1 X ( l , l ) X(l,2) X(l,3) X(l,4) M(i = l ) Ql 2 X(2,l) X(2,2) X(2,3) X(2,4) M(i=2) Q2 3 X(3,l) X(3,2) X(3,3) X(3,4) M{i=3) Q3 4 X(4,l) X(4,2) X{4,3) X(4,4) M(i=4) Q4 Rater Means M(j=l) M(j=2) M{j=3) M(j=4) O v e r a l l Mean Study 1 (wave 1/wave 2) E A C N 0 Mean Target 73**/67** 35**/27** 37**/39** 03 /20* 4E ;**/29* 37 Rater 07* /03 08 /02 15 /05 03 /18* 10* /OO 07 E r r o r 20 /31 58 /71 48 /56 94 /63* 4E i /71 56 Study 2 (wave 1/wave 2) E A C N 0 Mean Target 47**/49** 11* /24** 10 /20** 25*/23** 23* /23 ** 25 Rater 01 /04 17* /lO* 18**/18 15**/04 12 /13 * 11 R'ship 23**/23** 19**/28** 22**/28** 26**/20** 21**/21 ** 23 E r r o r 29 /23 54 /39 50 /34 35 /54 44 /43 40 Study 3 (wave l/wave 2) E A C N 0 Mean Target 29**/46** 19**/30** 13* /24** 08**/20** 07**/l8 ** 21 Rater 05 /08 19**/15* 23**/20** 12**/13** 24**/l7 ** 16 R'ship 28 * * / l 7 * * 33**/36** 21**/15** 34**/23** 16* /16 * 24 E r r o r 38 /29 29 /19 44 /41 46 /44 54 /49 39 Kenny et a l . Study 3 (wave 1/wave 2) ^ 'E,, • , . . . A C N 0 Mean Target 40*/37* 01 /13* 09 / I l 00 /06 02 /07* 12 Rater 06 /18* 06 /28* 00 /35* 17*/14 05 /30* 16 R'ship 2 7 * / l l * 20*/l9* 24*/07 22*/46* 05 /08 19 E r r o r 28 /33 73 /40 67 /47 61 /34 88 /56 53 * = p < .05; ** = p < .01. (The Kenny et a l . study only reported s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l . ) Table 3. R e c i p r o c i t y e f f e c t s separated by B i g Five f a c t o r , study, and wave E A Study 1 17/06 -18/-05 Study 2 03/07 01/ 53 Study 3 37/10 -20/-15 * = p < .05 C N 0 -15/ 05 -08 / 05 01/01 -13/-15 -32*/ 04 08/01 10/ 02 -12 /-09 40/76* Note. Each value i n the t a b l e i s a (disattenuated) c o r r e l a t i o n of the s t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s across a l l p a i r s of r a t e r s . Decimal p o i n t s have been removed to save space. Table 4. P r o j e c t i o n e f f e c t s separated by B i g Five f a c t o r , study, and wave (wave l/wave 2) Peer-Ratings Given vs. Peer-Ratings Received E A C N O Study 1 03/-03 47/-35 51/-38 -100/13 04/ 00 Study 2 44/ 08 05/ 21** 04/ 17 14/47 42/-08 Study 3 13/ 38 44/ 32 -28/-13 53/14 -11/-53 Peer-Ratings Given vs. S e l f - R a t i n g s E A C N O Study 1 27 /24 87* /18 58* /20 60 /69 45*/00 Study 2 05 /36 74* /92* 76**/52* 60**/77 79*/56 Study 3 97*/58* 98**/85** 26 /47* 68* /74* 46 /48 Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 * = p < Peer-Ratings Given vs. Questionnaire Score E A C N O 26/-30 82* /-OO 35 / 23 -91*/06 23/ 00 00/ 27 48**/ 74* 45*/-01 19 /27 29/ 29 34/ 26 48* / 44* 40 / 14 28 /02 06/-02 05; ** = p < .01 _ Note. Each entry i n the t a b l e i s a di s a t t e n u a t e d c o r r e l a t i o n . Only the s t a b l e p o r t i o n of s e l f - and p e e r - r a t i n g s i s used. Decimal p o i n t s have been removed to save space. Table 5: Self-enhancement e f f e c t s separated B i g F i v e f a c t o r , study and wave (wave 1/wave 2) E A C N O Mean Study 1 .44* /.OO .23 /-.07 .28/-.03 .15/.00 .01 /-.12 .09 2 .53**/.68** .11 / .09 -.26/-.16 .25/.32 .78**/ .66* .30 3 .80**/.91** .73*/ .71* .15/-.10 .37/.08 .94**/l.02** .56 * = p < .05; * * = p < .01. Note. These values i n d i c a t e the average amount by which each person's r a t i n g of himself or h e r s e l f exceeded the average r a t i n g g i ven t o that person by others. P o s i t i v e values i n d i c a t e that i n d i v i d u a l s r a t e d themselves higher on the construct than others r a t e d them. A l s o note that i n study 1, only one i n d i c a t o r was used. Table 6. C o r r e l a t i o n s among three modes of measurement (wave l/wave 2) S e l f - r a t i n g vs. Questionnaire score E A C N 0 Mean Study 1 32/26 21/31 26/38 24/04 43/27 27 2 75/65 69/71 76/60 66/72 48/42 64 3 59/25 55/49 57/63 45/53 59/45 51 S e l f - r a t i n g vs. Peer - r a t i n g E A C N 0 Mean Study 1 74/86 34/71 54/53 -11/31 63/70 53 2 78/71 57/43 -15/53 57/48 78/70 54 3 72/67 70/47 39/50 100/39 16/08 50 Questionnaire score vs. : Pe e r - r a t i n g E C N 0 Mean Study 1 38/34 24/54 23/38 12/11 31/58 32 2 52/55 29/26 31/50 22/33 51/39 39 • • 3 50/37 58/37 37/34 56/74 21/70 47 Note. Decimals have been removed to save space. References A l b r i g h t , L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus i n p e r s o n a l i t y judgments at zero acquaintance. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 55, 387-395 . A l l p o r t , G. W., Sc Odbert, H. S. (1936). T r a i t names: A p s y c h o - l e x i c a l study. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 47, (No. 211) . Backman, C. W., & Secord, P. F. (1959). The e f f e c t of perceiv e d l i k i n g on i n t e r p e r s o n a l a t t r a c t i o n . Human R e l a t i o n s , 12, 379-384 . B a r r i c k , M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The B i g Five p e r s o n a l i t y dimensions and job performance: A meta-a n a l y s i s . Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Bem, D. J . , & A l l e n , A. (1974). On p r e d i c t i n g some of the people some of the time: The search f o r cross-s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n behavior. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 81, 506-520. Berry, D. S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence f o r the k e r n e l of t r u t h hypothesis. S o c i a l C o g n i t i o n , 8, 343-361. Borman, W. C. (1977). Consistency of r a t i n g accuracy and r a t i n g e r r o r s i n the judgment of human performance. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 238-252. B u r i s c h , M. (1984). Approaches to p e r s o n a l i t y inventory c o n s t r u c t i o n : A comparison of m e r i t s . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 39. 214-227. Byrne, D. (1971) . The a t t r a c t i o n paradicrm. New York: Academic Press. Campbell, D. T., M i l l e r , N., Lubetsky, J . , & O'Connell, E.J. (1964) . V a r i e t i e s of p r o j e c t i o n i n f a c t o r a t t r i b u t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Monographs, 78, 1-33. Campbell, J . D. (1986). S i m i l a r i t y and uniqueness: The e f f e c t s of a t t r i b u t e type, relevance, and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n self-esteem and depression. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 52, 281-294. Campbell, J . D., & Fehr, B. (1990). Self-esteem and perceptioas of conveyed impressions: Is negative a f f e c t i v i t y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h g r e a t e r realism? Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 60, 122-133. C a t t e l l , R. B. (1943). The d e s c r i p t i o n of p e r s o n a l i t y : B a s i c f a c t o r s r e s o l v e d i n t o c l u s t e r s . Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 38, 476-506. Costa, P. T. J r . & McCrae, R. R. (1988). P e r s o n a l i t y i n adulthood: A 6-year l o n g i t u d i n a l study of s e l f - r e p o r t s and spouse r a t i n g s on the NEO P e r s o n a l i t y Inventory. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 54., 853-863 . Costa, P. T. J r . , & McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Assessment Resources. Costa, P. T. J r . , & Widiger, T. A. (1994). P e r s o n a l i t y d i s o r d e r s and the f i v e - f a c t o r model of p e r s o n a l i t y . Washington, D. C.: American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . Cronbach, L. J . (1955). Processes a f f e c t i n g scores on "understanding of others" and "assumed s i m i l a r i t y . " P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 56, 81-105. Cronbach, L. J . , Gleser, G. C , Nanda, H., & Rajaratnam, N. (1972). The d e p e n d a b i l i t y of b e h a v i o r a l measurements: Theory of g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y f o r scores and p r o f i l e s . New York: John Wiley and Sons. Digman, J . M. (1990). P e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e : Emergence of the f i v e - f a c t o r model. Annual Review of Psychology. 41. 417-440. D i P i l a t o , M., & West, S. G. (1989). The a p p l i c a t i o n of the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s model to person perce p t i o n : Changes over time and t a s k - f a c t o r match. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n . A r i z o n a State U n i v e r s i t y . Donahue, E. M., Robins, R. W., Roberts, B. W., & John. O. P. (1993). The d i v i d e d s e l f : Concurrent and l o n g i t u d i n a l e f f e c t s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l adjustment and s o c i a l r o l e s on s e l f - c o n c e p t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 64. 834-846. Funder, D. C. (1987). E r r o r s and mistakes: E v a l u a t i n g the accuracy of s o c i a l judgment. Psychology B u l l e t i n . 101. 75-90. Funder, D. C. & C o l v i n , C. R. (1988). Friends and st r a n g e r s : Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of p e r s o n a l i t y judgment. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 55, 149-158. G a b r i e l , M. T., C r i t e l l i , J . W., & Ee, J . S. (1994). N a r c i s s i s t i c i l l u s i o n s i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e and a t t r a c t i v e n e s s . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y . 62, 143-155. Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s : The search f o r u n i v e r s a l s i n p e r s o n a l i t y l e x i c o n s . In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of p e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l psycholocry (Vol. 2, pp. 141-165) . Bev e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage. John, O. P. (1990). The "Big F i v e " f a c t o r taxonomy: Dimensions of p e r s o n a l i t y i n the n a t u r a l language and i n q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . In L.A. P e r v i n (Ed.), Handbook of p e r s o n a l i t y : Theory and research (pp. 66-100). NY: G u i l f o r d Press. K e l l e y , H. H. A t t r i b u t i o n theory i n s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n (Vol. 15). L i n c o l n , Nebraska: U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska Press, 1967. Kenny, D. A. (1984). SOREMO: A F o r t r a n computer program f o r round r o b i n data s t r u c t u r e s . Unpublished paper. U n i v e r s i t y of Connecticut. Kenny, D. A., & A l b r i g h t , L. (1987). Accuracy i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n : A s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s a n a l y s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 102, 390-402. Kenny, D. A., A l b r i g h t , L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. ( i n p r e s s ) . Consensus i n I n t e r p e r s o n a l Perception: Acquaintance and the B i g F i v e . Kenny, D. A., Horner, C , Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: R e p l i c a t i o n , b e h a v i o r a l cues, and s t a b i l i t y . Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 62, 88-97. Kenny, D. A. & LaVoie, L. (1984). The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 141-182). New York: Academic Press. Kenny, D. A., Lord, R. G., & Garg, S. (1983). A S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model of Peer Ratings. Unpublished paper. K i e s l e r , D. J . (1983). The 1982 i n t e r p e r s o n a l c i r c l e : A taxonomy f o r complementarity i n human t r a n s a c t i o n s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 90. 185-214. K i r k , R. E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures f o r the b e h a v i o r a l sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Loevinger, (1957). Objective t e s t s as instruments of p s y c h o l o g i c a l theory. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review (Monograph supplement No. 9), 3, 635-694. Malloy, T. E., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s Model: An i n t e g r a t i v e method f o r p e r s o n a l i t y research. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 86. 199-225. M a t l i n , M. W., & Stang, D. J . (1978). The Polyanna P r i n c i p l e : S e l e c t i v i t y i n language, memory, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. M i l l e r , L. C , Berg, J . M. , & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: I n d i v i d u a l s who e l i c i t i n t i m a t e s e l f -d i s c l o s u r e . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology. 44. 1234-1244. Norman, W. T. (1963) . Toward an adequate taxonomy of p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s : R e p l i c a t e d f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n peer nomination p e r s o n a l i t y r a t i n g s . Journal of Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 66, 574-583. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1989). Agreement on i n i t i a l impressions: D i f f e r e n c e s due to p e r c e i v e r s , t r a i t dimensions, and ta r g e t behaviors. Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psycholocry, 56, 493-505. Paulhus, D. L., & Bruce, M. N. (1992). The e f f e c t of acquaintanceship on the v a l i d i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y impressions: A l o n g i t u d i n a l study. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 56, 493-505. Paunonen, S. V. (1989). Consensus i n p e r s o n a l i t y judgments: Moderating e f f e c t s of t a r g e t - r a t e r acquaintanceship and behavior o b s e r v a b i l i t y . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 56, 823-833. Sherwood, G.G. (1980). S e l f - s e r v i n g biases i n person perception A re-examinâtion of p r o j e c t i o n as a mechanism of defense. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 90, 445-459. Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). P e r s o n a l i t y and s o c i a l behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology (Vol. I I , 3rd. ed). New York: Random House. Taylor , S. E., & Brown, J . D. (1988). I l l u s i o n and w e l l -being: A s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on mental h e a l t h . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, • . 52, 72-80. T r a p n e l l , P. D. ( i n p r e s s ) . Openness versus i n t e l l e c t : A l e x i c a l l e f t - t u r n . European Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y . Tupes, E. C. & C h r i s t a l , R. E. (1961). Recurrent p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s based on t r a i t r a t i n g s . USAF ASD Tech n i c a l Report (No. 61-67). Warner, R. M., Kenny, D. A., & Stoto, M. (1979). Anew round r o b i n a n a l y s i s of variance f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n data. J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 37, 1742-1757. Watson, D. (1989). Strangers' r a t i n g s of the f i v e robust p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s : Evidence of a s u r p r i s i n g convergence w i t h s e l f - r e p o r t . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 57, 120-128. Wiggins, J . S., & T r a p n e l l , P. D. ( i n p r e s s ) . A dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on the f i v e - f a c t o r model of p e r s o n a l i t y . In J . S. Wiggins (Ed.), The f i v e f a c t o r model of p e r s o n a l i t y : T h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . New York: G u i l f o r d . Wiggins, J . S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates f o r the understanding and measurement of i n t e r p e r s o n a l behavior. In W. M. Grove & D. C i c c h e t t i (Eds.), T hinking c l e a r l y about psychology (Vol.2: P e r s o n a l i t y and psychopathology). Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota Press. APPENDIXES Appendix 1. Numerical Example of Three Sources of Variance The '!' symbol denotes t a r g e t variance i n the r a t i n g s , as Subject 1 r e c e i v e s higher r a t i n g s than each of the other group members. The '@' symbol s i g n i f i e s r a t e r variance, i n that Subject 3 tends to g i v e lower r a t i n g s than each of the other group members. The '#' i s an example of e r r o r variance, as Subject I's r a t i n g of Subject 3 i s not c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the other r a t i n g s i n the row and column. Sample Data f o r a 5-Person Group. Rater 1 2 3 4 5 Target Mean Target 1 - 12 8 12 12 11 2 8 - 4 8 8 7 3 > ; 12 8 - 8 8 B 4 8 8 4 - 8 7 5 8 8 4 8 - 7 Rater Mean 9 9 5 9 9 8.2 Appendix 2. D i s t i n c t i o n Between Absolute and R e l a t i v e Variance These l e v e l s of variance can be assessed i n two d i f f e r e n t ways. SOREMO r e f e r s to these ways as absolute and r e l a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n i n g of varia n c e . Absolute variance i s the t o t a l amount of v a r i a n c e i n r a t i n g s due to each of the four e f f e c t s ; f o r ins t a n c e , i f the r a t i n g s are d i s t r i b u t e d w i t h a variance of 10, the absolute amount of variance i n these four e f f e c t s would add up t o 10. In the p r i o r example, at the f i r s t assessment, we may see t a r g e t and r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s account f o r about 1/2 po i n t of v a r i a n c e each, r a t e r e f f e c t s accounting f o r about 3 p o i n t s , and e r r o r accounting f o r the other 6 p o i n t s . At the seventh meeting, t a r g e t e f f e c t s may account f o r about 3 p o i n t s , r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r about 2 p o i n t s , r a t e r f o r about 3 p o i n t s , and the r e s t ( l e t ' s say about 2 points) would be e r r o r . I am assuming here that the t o t a l amount of variance w i l l remain constant, which w i l l happen i f what was e r r o r variance at the f i r s t meeting becomes t a r g e t and r e l a t i o n s h i p e f f e c t s at the seventh meeting. I t may w e l l be that e r r o r variance w i l l remain constant and the other e f f e c t s w i l l not, l e a d i n g to an o v e r a l l i n c r e a s e i n var i a n c e . I t i s f o r t h i s reason that SOREMO a l s o creates a r e l a t i v e apportionment of variance. R e l a t i v e variance i s simply the p r o p o r t i o n of t o t a l variance accounted f o r by each e f f e c t . Thus, i f t o t a l v ariance does increase i n the p r i o r example, the r e l a t i v e r a t e r variance would a c t u a l l y decrease across time, although the absolute e f f e c t would remain the same. Appendix 3. Summary of Related Studies Author(s) Published? Our study (1994) wave # waves p e r i o d 7 wks. 2 Kenny, Horner, Kashy & Chu (1992) 4 mos. (Study 3) B i g 5? M u l t i p l e I n d i c a t o r s ? Yes Yes Yes Yes JPSP A l b r i g h t (1990] Unpublished 1 year Park & Judd (1989) 4 days Yes Yes* No Some Data JPSP A l b r i g h t , Kenny & Ma l l o y (1988) 4 mos. 3 Yes No JPSP Mall o y (1987] Unpublished 4 mos. Yes Yes Data I n c l u s i o n c r i t e r i a : - In Kenny's Consensus paper (His c r i t e r i a : - Each judge had to ra t e m u l t i p l e t a r g e t s and each t a r g e t had to be judged by m u l t i p l e r a t e r s - The p r o p o r t i o n of targ e t variance had to e i t h e r have been computed and reported, or was computable by Kenny (who had access to the raw data i n most st u d i e s ) ) - L o n g i t u d i n a l across more than one day - Contained at l e a s t an estimate of r e l a t i v e variances f o r each of the B i g 5 (Park & Judd used 14 t r a i t s , mapped onto the B i g 5 post hoc) Kenny's paper found: - 23 round-robin s t u d i e s - 7 r - r , l o n g i t u d i n a l . B i g 5 s t u d i e s - 4 r - r , l o n g i t u d i n a l across more than one week & B i g 5 s t u d i e s - 2 r - r , long. acr. > 1 week. B i g 5, and m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s - 2 r - r , long. acr. > 1 week. B i g 5, and published - 1 r - r , long. acr. > 1 week. B i g 5, m u l t i p l e i n d i c a t o r s , p u b l i s h e d Appendix 4. Rating Forms f o r Peer- and S e l f - R a t i n g s Put each person's i n i t i a l s above the appropriate s c a l e number. Make sure to i n c l u d e a l l persons on each s c a l e . Remember, no t i e s . outgoing shy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 peppy u n e n t h u s i a s t i c 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 s o c i a b l e unsociable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 k i n d r u t h l e s s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 unmanipulative manipulative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 sympathetic cold-hearted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 organized d i s o r g a n i z e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t i d y sloppy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 thorough c a r e l e s s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 calm nervous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 r e l a x e d worrying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 contented d e s p a i r i n g 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 p h i l o s o p h i c a l u n r e f l e c t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 o r i g i n a l unimaginative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 cu r i o u s u n i n q u i s i t i v e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Psychology
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Analysis of personality ratings using the social relations model
Text