REPLICATIONS AND REFINEMENTS Under this heading appear summaries of studies which, in 500 words or less, provide useful data substantiating, not substantiating, or refining what we think we know; additional details concerning the results can be obtained b y communicating directly with the investigator or, when indicated, b y requesting supplementary material from Microfiche Publications.
The Joumd of Social Psychology, 1975, 97, 139-140
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCORES AND SELF-RATINGS* State University of New York at Plattsburgh
MATTHEWR. MERRENS Many contemporary approaches to personality assessment consist in part of the administration of a lengthy personality inventory having numerous truefalse items. The instruments typically measure many traits and are constructed so as to prevent the influence of response sets and distortions. As an alternative to this strategy, a simple, direct approach might be to present the trait or personality dimension to S and ask him to evaluate his status. Such an approach was suggested by Allport’: “If we want to know how people feel, what they experience and what they remember, what their emotions and motives are like, and the reasons for acting as they do, why not ask them?” The purpose of this study is to compare data obtained by Allport’s approach to scores from a personality inventory. The Ss in this investigation were 60 male and female college students. The S was given a booklet of rating scales, each one labelled and designed to assess the same personality variable measured on the Personality Research Form (Form A).2 Each rating scale contained I0 places and was anchored by descriptive comments at each end and at the midpoint. Subjects were asked to review the rating scale, the comments, and to tell us where they belonged on the dimension being evaluated. Upon completion of the rating scales (approximately four minutes), Ss were instructed to complete the Personality
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on June 13, 1974. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 Allport, G . W. The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1941. P. 37. 2 Jackson, D. N. Personality Research Form. Goshen, N.Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. 139
140
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Research Form (Form A) according to the standard directions (approximately 50 minutes). The above order was reversed for half the subjects, and both measures were group-administered at the same time. The product-moment correlation coefficients between rating scale and Personality Research Form scores on the same traits are as follows: Achievement, r = .34; Affiliation, r = .66; Aggression, r = .51; Autonomy, r = .36; Dominance, r = .46; Endurance, r = .52; Exhibition, r = S 7 ; Harm avoidance, r = 5 5 ; Impulsivity, r = .67; Nurturance, r = 3 9 ; Order, r = .70; Play, r = .47; Social recognition, r = .69; Understanding, r = -59. All the I S are significant at the .001 level except those for Achievement and Autonomy which are significant at the .01 level, two-tailed test. While it is apparent that the assessment techniques are not equivalent, all traits indicate a significant degree of correspondence. When one considers that the rating scale approach is economical, lacks deception, contains no unusual items, has high face validity, and involves minimal ethical questions, the amount of information yielded becomes even more remarkable. Since the ultimate test of any assessment instrument is its approximation to actual behavior, the next step is to oompare both of the above strategies to behavioral indices.
Department of Psychology State University College of Arts and Science Plattsbwgh, New York 12901
The Joumd of Social Psychology, 1975, 97, 139-140
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERSONALITY INVENTORY SCORES AND SELF-RATINGS* State University of New York at Plattsburgh
MATTHEWR. MERRENS Many contemporary approaches to personality assessment consist in part of the administration of a lengthy personality inventory having numerous truefalse items. The instruments typically measure many traits and are constructed so as to prevent the influence of response sets and distortions. As an alternative to this strategy, a simple, direct approach might be to present the trait or personality dimension to S and ask him to evaluate his status. Such an approach was suggested by Allport’: “If we want to know how people feel, what they experience and what they remember, what their emotions and motives are like, and the reasons for acting as they do, why not ask them?” The purpose of this study is to compare data obtained by Allport’s approach to scores from a personality inventory. The Ss in this investigation were 60 male and female college students. The S was given a booklet of rating scales, each one labelled and designed to assess the same personality variable measured on the Personality Research Form (Form A).2 Each rating scale contained I0 places and was anchored by descriptive comments at each end and at the midpoint. Subjects were asked to review the rating scale, the comments, and to tell us where they belonged on the dimension being evaluated. Upon completion of the rating scales (approximately four minutes), Ss were instructed to complete the Personality
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on June 13, 1974. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 1 Allport, G . W. The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1941. P. 37. 2 Jackson, D. N. Personality Research Form. Goshen, N.Y.: Research Psychologists Press, 1967. 139
140
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Research Form (Form A) according to the standard directions (approximately 50 minutes). The above order was reversed for half the subjects, and both measures were group-administered at the same time. The product-moment correlation coefficients between rating scale and Personality Research Form scores on the same traits are as follows: Achievement, r = .34; Affiliation, r = .66; Aggression, r = .51; Autonomy, r = .36; Dominance, r = .46; Endurance, r = .52; Exhibition, r = S 7 ; Harm avoidance, r = 5 5 ; Impulsivity, r = .67; Nurturance, r = 3 9 ; Order, r = .70; Play, r = .47; Social recognition, r = .69; Understanding, r = -59. All the I S are significant at the .001 level except those for Achievement and Autonomy which are significant at the .01 level, two-tailed test. While it is apparent that the assessment techniques are not equivalent, all traits indicate a significant degree of correspondence. When one considers that the rating scale approach is economical, lacks deception, contains no unusual items, has high face validity, and involves minimal ethical questions, the amount of information yielded becomes even more remarkable. Since the ultimate test of any assessment instrument is its approximation to actual behavior, the next step is to oompare both of the above strategies to behavioral indices.
Department of Psychology State University College of Arts and Science Plattsbwgh, New York 12901
