Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study.

Cheek, Julianne

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1254

Cited by 210 publications

(212 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time as findings consistent with the self-monitoring formulation have accumulated, there clearly have been some failures to confirm hypotheses derived from the self-monitoring construct (e.g., Arkin, Gabrenya, Appelman, & Cochran, 1979;Cheek, 1982;Santee & Maslach, 1982;Schneiderman, 1980;Wolfe, Lennox, & Hudiburg, 1983;Zanna et al, 1980;Zuckerman & Reis, 1978). Of course, given the known effects of sampling variability, occasional failures to confirm hypotheses in specific samples must be expected even when genuine effects exist in the general population.…”

Section: Self-monitoring: Validity Of the Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

Snyder¹,

Gangestad²

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

875

803

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive network of empirical relations has been identified in research on the psychological construct of self-monitoring. Nevertheless, in recent years some concerns have been expressed about the instrument used for the assessment of self-monitoring propensities, the Self-Monitoring Scale. Both the extent to which the measure taps an interpretable and meaningful causal variable and the extent to which the self-monitoring construct provides an appropriate theoretical understanding of this causal variable have been questioned. An examination of reanalyses of studies of self-monitoring, analyses of the internal structure of the Self-Monitoring Scale, and further relevant data suggest that the measure does tap a meaningful and interpretable causal variable with pervasive influences on social behavior, a variable reflected as a general self-monitoring factor. We discuss the evaluation and furthering of the interpretation of this latent causal variable, offer criteria for evaluating alternative measures of self-monitoring, and present a new, 18-item Self-Monitoring Scale.According to theoretical analyses of self-monitoring, people differ in the extent to which they can and do observe and control their expressive behavior and self-presentation (e.g., Snyder, 1979). Individuals high in self-monitoring are thought to regulate their expressive self-presentation for the sake of desired public appearances, and thus be highly responsive to social and interpersonal cues of situationally appropriate performances.Individuals low in self-monitoring are thought to lack either the ability or the motivation to so regulate their expressive self-presentations. Their expressive behaviors, instead, are thought to functionally reflect their own enduring and momentary inner states, including their attitudes, traits, and feelings.A number of hypotheses-concerning, among others, the determinants of specificity and consistency in social behavior, the origins of linkages between attitudes and action, the dynamics of social interaction, and the nature and consequences of conceptions of self-have followed from these basic initial propositions. Research involving a measure of self-monitoring propensities (the Self-Monitoring Scale; for information on its reliability and validity, see Snyder, 1974) has provided empirical support for these and many more hypotheses about the cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal consequences of self-monitoring (e.g

show abstract

Section: Self-monitoring: Validity Of the Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

Snyder¹,

Gangestad²

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

875

803

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This seemed necessary because of the impression of almost universal inaccuracy that some readers derived from research on error. In this phase, investigators reported studies showing how personality traits affect behavior and how laypersons can make judgments of such traits that manifest both interjudge agreement and predictive validity (e.g., Cheek, 1982;Funder, 1980aFunder, , 1980bFunder, , 1982Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980;Moskowitz & Schwarz, 1982). These two kinds of criteria-agreement and behavioral prediction-became the basis of accuracy research that followed over the next decade (Funder, 1987;Hinder & West, 1993a).…”

Section: The Development Of Research On Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Funder¹

1995

Psychological Review

1,198

1,448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "accuracy paradigm" for the study of personality judgment provides an important, new complement to the "error paradigm" that dominated this area of research for almost 2 decades. The present article introduces a specific approach within the accuracy paradigm called the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM). RAM begins with the assumption that personality traits are real attributes of individuals. This assumption entails the use of a broad array of criteria for the evaluation of personality judgment and leads to a model that describes accuracy as a function of the availability, detection, and utilization of relevant behavioral cues. RAM provides a common explanation for basic moderators of accuracy, sheds light on how these moderators interact, and outlines a research agenda that includes the reintegration of the study of error with the study of accuracy.Believe truth! Shun error!-these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life. (James, 1897(James, /1915

show abstract

“…An examination of criteria besides self-reports would add considerably to our knowledge concerning the accuracy of interpersonal perception, especially because self-report data are likely to be biased (Cheek, 1982;Kagan, 1988;Wiggins, 1973). Of particular value would be any evidence regarding the relationship between strangers' judgments of targets observed in a naturalistic situation and a criterion variable characterized by both pragmatic utility and ecological validity -one that is used in everyday decisions about people.…”

Section: Ecologically Valid Criterion Variablementioning

confidence: 99%

Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness.

Ambady

Rosenthal²

1993

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

839

527

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy of strangers' consensual judgments of personality based on "thin slices" of targets' nonverbal behavior were examined in relation to an ecologically valid criterion variable. In the 1st study, consensual judgments of college teachers' molar nonverbal behavior based on very brief (under 30 s) silent video clips significantly predicted global end-of-semester student evaluations of teachers. In the 2nd study, similar judgments predicted a principal's ratings of high school teachers. In the 3rd study, ratings of even thinner slices (6-s and 15-s clips) were strongly related to the criterion variables. Ratings of specific micrononverbal behaviors and ratings of teachers' physical attractiveness were not as strongly related to the criterion variable. These findings have important implications for the areas of personality judgment, impression formation, and nonverbal behavior.

show abstract

Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study.

Cited by 210 publications

References 65 publications

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

On the nature of self-monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity.

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About