Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A general factor (g_p) at the apex of personality has been suggested to account for the correlations between the Big Five. Although the g_p has received ample support from monomethod studies, results from studies incorporating different methods have remained rather ambiguous; some have identified a g_p across different informants, whereas others have not. It was hypothesized that these divergent findings are a result of varying lengths of acquaintance between raters. To this end, the current study presents a multitrait multi–informant meta–analysis (total N = 11 941) that found weak support for a g_p as a substantive trait of personality. Evidence for a g_p was susceptible to the length of acquaintance between informants. Although a g_p could be identified for short–term acquaintances, it remained elusive at long–term acquaintance. Thus, the g_p in other ratings more likely reflects normative ratings of an average individual rather than ratings of the specific target person. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

Big Five general factor length of acquaintance meta-analysis multitrait multimethod

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alessandri

, & Vecchione

(2012). The higher–order factors of the Big Five as predictors of job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 779–784. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.05.037

Anusic

, Schimmack

, Pinkus

R. T.

, & Lockwood

(2009). The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo–alpha–beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1142–1156. DOI: 10.1037/a0017159

Asthon

M. C.

, Lee

, Goldberg

L. R.

, & de Vries

R. E.

(2009). Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91. DOI: 10.1177/1088868309338467

Back

M. D.

, Schmukle

S. C.

, & Egloff

(2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self–concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548. DOI: 10.1037/a0016229

Backström

(2007). Higher–order factors in a five–factor personality inventory and its relation to social desirability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 63–70. DOI: 10.1027/1015–5759.23.2.63

Bäckström

, Björklund

, & Larsson

M. R.

(2009). Five–factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013

Beer

, & Watson

(2008a). Personality judgment at zero acquaintance: Agreement, assumed similarity, and implicit simplicity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 250–260. DOI: 10.1080/00223890701884970

Beer

, & Watson

(2008b). Asymmetry in judgments of personality: Others are less differentiated than the self. Journal of Personality, 76, 535–560. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00495.x

Bernieri

F. J.

, Zuckerman

, Koestner

, & Rosenthal

(1994). Measuring person perception accuracy: Another look at self–other agreement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 367–378. DOI: 10.1177/0146167294204004

10.

Biesanz

J. C.

, West

S. G.

, & Millevoi

(2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self–other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 119–135. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.92.1.119

11.

Block

(2010). The five–factor framing of personality and beyond: Some ruminations. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 2–25. DOI: 10.1080/10478401003596626

12.

Block

J. H.

, & Block

(1980). The role of ego–control and ego–resiliency in the organization of behavior. In Collins

W. A.

(Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Campbell

D. T.

, & Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethods matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. DOI: 10.1037/h0046016

14.

Carney

D. A.

, Colvin

C. R.

, & Hall

J. A.

(2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004

15.

Carroll

J. B.

(2002). The five–factor personality model: How complete and satisfactory is it? In Braun

H. I.

, Jackson

D. N.

, & Wiley

D. E.

(Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 97–126). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

16.

Chang

, Connelly

B. S.

, & Geeza

A. A.

(2012). Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta–analytic multitrait–multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408–426. DOI: 10.1037/a0025559

17.

Chen

, Bollen

K. A.

, Paxton

, Curran

P. J.

, & Kirby

J. B.

(2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29, 468–508. DOI: 10.1177/0049124101029004003

18.

Cheung

S. F.

, & Chan

D. K.–S.

(2004). Dependent effect sizes in meta–analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 780–91. DOI: 10.1037/0021–9010.89.5.780

19.

Cheung

M. W. L.

, & Chan

(2005). Meta–analytic structural equation modeling: a two–stage approach. Psychological Methods, 10, 40–64. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.1.40

20.

Connelly

B. S.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta–analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. DOI: 10.1037/a0021212

21.

Connolly

J. J.

, Kavanagh

E. J.

, & Viswesvaran

(2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta–analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468–2389.2007.00371.x

22.

Costa

P. T.

, & McCrae

R. R.

(1992). NEO PI–R: Professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.

23.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1955). Process affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193. DOI: 10.1037/h0044919

24.

Danay

, & Ziegler

(2011). Is there really a single factor of personality? A multirater approach to the apex of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 560–567. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.07.003

25.

DeYoung

C. G.

(2006). Higher–order factors of the Big Five in a multi–informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1138

26.

DeYoung

, Hasher

, Djikic

, Criger

, & Peterson

J. B.

(2007). Morning people are stable people: Circadian rhythm and the higher–order factors of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 267–276. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.11.030

27.

DeYoung

C. G.

, Peterson

J. B.

, & Higgins

D. M.

(2002). Higher–order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533–552. DOI: 10.1016/S0191–8869(01)00171–4

28.

DeYoung

C. G.

, Peterson

J. B.

, & Higgins

D. M.

(2005). Sources of openness/intellect: Cognitive and neuropsychological correlates of the fifth factor of personality. Journal or Personality, 73, 825–858. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2005.00330.x

29.

Digman

J. M.

(1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five–factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221

30.

Digman

J. M.

(1997). Higher–order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.73.6.1246

31.

Edwards

L. K.

, & Edwards

A. L.

(1991). A principal–components analysis of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory factor scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 766–772. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.60.5.766

32.

Erdle

, Irwing

, Rushton

J. P.

, & Park

(2010). The general factor of personality and its relation to self–esteem in 628,640 Internet respondents. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 343–346. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.09.004

33.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1947). Dimensions of personality. London: Routledge & Kegan–Paul.

34.

Fletcher

G. J. O.

, & Kerr

P. S. G.

(2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 627–658. DOI: 10.1037/a0019792

35.

Furr

R. M.

(2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00521.x

36.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In Wheeler

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 141–165). Beverly Hills: Sage.

37.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad–bandwidth, public–domain, personality inventory measuring the lower–level facets of several five–factor models. In Mervielde

, Deary

I. J.

, De Fruyt

, & Ostendorf

(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.

38.

Hafdahl

A. R.

, Panter

A. T.

, Gramzow

R. H.

, Sedikides

, & Insko

C. A.

(2000). Free–response self–discrepancies across, among, and within FFM personality dimensions. Journal of Personality, 68, 111–151. DOI: 10.1111/1467–6494.00093

39.

Hildebrandt

, Sommer

, Herzmann

, & Wilhelm

(2010). Structural invariance and age–related performance differences in face cognition. Psychology and Aging, 25, 794–810. DOI: 10.1037/a0019774

40.

Hirsh

J. B.

, DeYoung

C. G.

, & Peterson

J. B.

(2009). Metatraits of the Big Five differentially predict engagement and restraint of behavior. Journal of Personality, 77, 1085–1102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467–6494.2009.00575.x

41.

Hopwood

C. J.

, Wright

A. G. C.

, & Donnellan

B. M.

(2011). Evaluating the evidence for the general factor of personality across multiple inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 468–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.002

42.

Hunter

J. E.

, & Schmidt

F. L.

(2004). Methods of meta–analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

43.

Jang

K. L.

, Livesley

W. J.

, Ando

, Yamagata

, Suzuki

, Angleitner

, … Spinath

(2006). Behavioral genetics of the higher–order factors of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 261–272. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.033

44.

John

O. P.

, Naumann

L. P.

, & Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

, Robins

R. W.

, & Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–158). New York: Guilford Press.

45.

Kurtz

J. E.

, & Sherker

J. L.

(2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self–other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21–48. DOI: 10.1111/1467–6494.t01–1–00005

46.

, & Bagger

(2006). Using the BIDR to distinguish the effects of impression management and self–deception on the criterion validity of personality measures: A meta–analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 131–141. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468–2389.2006.00339.x

47.

Loehlin

J. C.

(2011). Correlation between general factors for personality and cognitive skills in the National Merit twin sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 504–507. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.011

48.

Loehlin

J. C.

, & Horn

J. M.

(2012). How general is the “General Factor of Personality”? Evidence from the Texas Adoption Project. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 655–663. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.07.004

49.

Markon

K. E.

, Krueger

R. F.

, & Watson

(2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.88.1.139

50.

Marsh

H. W.

, Lüdtke

, Muthén

B. O.

, Asparouhov

, Morin

A. J. S.

, & Trautwein

(2010). A new look at the Big–Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. DOI: 10.1037/a0019227

51.

McCrae

R. R.

, Costa

P. T.

Jr. , Martin

T. A.

, Oryol

V. E.

, Rukavishnikov

A. A.

, Senin

I. G.

, … Urbánek

(2004). Consensual validation of personality traits across cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 179–201. DOI: 10.1016/S0092–6566(03)00056–4

52.

McCrae

R. R.

, Kurtz

J. E.

, Yamagata

, & Terracciano

(2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 28–50. DOI: 10.1177/1088868310366253

53.

McCrae

R. R.

, Yamagata

, Jang

K. L.

, Riemann

, Ando

, Ono

, … Spinath

F. M.

(2008). Substance and artifact in the higher–order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 442–455. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.95.2.442

54.

McDonald

R. P.

(1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

55.

Mount

M. K.

, & Barrick

M. R.

(1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resource management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200.

56.

Mount

M. K.

, Barrick

M. R.

, Scullen

S. M.

, & Rounds

(2005). Higher–order dimensions of the Big Five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58, 447–478. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.2005.00468.x

57.

Mowen

J. C.

, Park

, & Zablah

(2007). Toward a theory of motivation and personality with application to word–of–mouth communications. Journal of Business Research, 60, 590–596. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.06.007

58.

Musek

(2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five–factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213–1233. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003

59.

Muthén

L. K.

, & Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2011). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

60.

I. S.

, Wang

, & Mount

M. K.

(2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five–factor model of personality traits: A meta–analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773. DOI: 10.1037/a0021832

61.

Paulhus

D. L.

, & Bruce

M. N.

(1992). The effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 816–824. DOI: 10.1037//0022–3514.63.5.816

62.

Paulhus

D. L.

, Bruce

M. N.

, & Trapnell

P. D.

(1995). Effects of self–presentation strategies on personality profiles and their structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 100–108. DOI: 10.1177/0146167295212001

63.

Penton–Voak

I. S.

, Pound

, Little

A. C.

, & Perrett

D. I.

(2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 607–640. DOI: 10.1521/soco.2006.24.5.607

64.

Podsakoff

P. M.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, Lee

J.–Y.

, & Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. DOI: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.5.879

65.

Reise

S. P.

(2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. DOI: 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555

66.

Revelle

(1979). Hierarchical cluster–analysis and the internal structure of tests. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 57–74. DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr1401_4

67.

Riemann

, & Kandler

(2010). Construct validation using multitrait–multimethod–twin data: The case of a general factor of personality. European Journal of Personality, 24, 258–277. DOI: 10.1002/per.760

68.

Robins

R. W.

, John

O. P.

, & Caspi

(1994). Major dimensions of personality in early adolescence: The Big Five and beyond. In Halverson

C. F.

, Kohnstamm

G. A.

, & Martin

R. P.

(Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 267–291). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

69.

Rushton

J. P.

, & Irwing

(2008). A General Factor of Personality (GFP) from two meta–analyses of the Big Five. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 679–683. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.015

70.

Rushton

J. P.

, & Irwing

(2009). A general factor of personality in 16 sets of the Big Five, the Guilford–Zimmerman Temperament Survey, California Psychological Inventory, and Temperament and Character Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 558–564. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.009

71.

Rushton

J. P.

, & Irwing

(2011). The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In Chamorro–Premuzic

, von Stumm

, & Furnham

(Eds.), The Wiley–Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 132–161). London: Blackwell.

72.

Rushton

J. P.

, Bons

T. A.

, Ando

, Hur

Y.–M.

, Irwing

, Vernon

P. A.

, Barbaranelli

, et al. (2009). A general factor of personality from multitrait–multimethod data and cross–national twins. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 12, 356–365. DOI: 10.1375/twin.12.4.356

73.

Salgado

S. F.

(2003). Predicting job performance using FFM and non–FFM personality measures. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 323–346. DOI: 10.1348/096317903769647201

74.

Schermelleh–Engel

, Moosbrugger

, & Müller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Test of significance and descriptive goodness–of–fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research – Online, 8, 23–74.

75.

Schimmack

(2010). What multi–method data tell us about construct validity. European Journal of Personality, 24, 241–257. DOI: 10.1002/per.771

76.

Schmid

Jr. , & Leiman

J. M.

(1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 83–90. DOI: 10.1007/BF02289209

77.

Schmidt

F. L.

, Oh

I. S.

, & Hayes

T. L.

(2009). Fixed–versus random–effects models in meta–analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. DOI: 10.1348/000711007X255327

78.

Schmit

M. J.

, & Ryan

A. M.

(1993). The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 966–974. DOI: 10.1037/0021–9010.78.6.966

79.

Schneider

, Schimmack

, Petrican

, & Walker

(2010). Acquaintanceship length as a moderator of self–informant agreement in life satisfaction ratings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 146–150. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.11.004

80.

Simms

L. J.

, Zelazny

, Yam

W. H.

, & Gros

D. F.

(2010). Self–informant agreement for personality and evaluative person descriptors: Comparing methods for creating informant measures. Journal of Personality, 24, 207–221. DOI: 10.1002/per.763

81.

Şimşek

Ö. F.

, Koydemir

, & Schütz

(2012). A multigroup multitrait–multimethod study in two countries supports the validity of a two–factor higher order model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 442–449. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.04.005

82.

Soto

C. J.

, John

O. P.

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self–reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718–737. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.94.4.718

83.

Starzyk

K. B.

, Holden

R. R.

, Fabrigar

L. R.

, & MacDonald

T. K.

(2006). The personal acquaintance measure: A tool for appraising one's acquaintance with any person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 833–847. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.90.5.833

84.

Van der Linden

, Scholte

R. H. J.

, Cillessen

A. H. N.

, te Nijenhuis

, & Segers

(2010). Classroom ratings of likeability and popularity are related to the Big Five and the general factor of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 669–672. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.08.007

85.

Van der Linden

, te Nijenhuis

, & Bakker

A. B.

(2010). The general factor of personality: A meta–analysis of Big Five intercorrelations and a criterion–related validity study. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 315–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.03.003

86.

Van der Linden

, te Nijenhuis

, Cremers

, & Van de Ven

(2011). General factors of personality in six datasets and a criterion–related validity study at the Netherlands Armed Forces. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19, 157–169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468–2389.2011.00543.x

87.

Vazire

, & Carlson

E. N.

(2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 104–108. DOI: 10.1177/0963721411402478

88.

Vazire

, & Mehl

M. R.

(2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self–ratings and other–ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216. DOI: 10.1037/a0013314

89.

Viechtbauer

(2005). Bias and efficiency of meta–analytic variance estimators in the random–effects model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30, 261–293. DOI: 10.3102/10769986030003261

90.

Viechtbauer

, & Cheung

(2010). Outlier and influencer diagnostics for meta–analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 110–125. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.11

91.

Viswesvaran

, & Ones

D. S.

(1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta–analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885. DOI: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.1995.tb01784.x

92.

Watson

, Hubbard

, & Wiese

(2000). Self–other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546–558. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.78.3.546

93.

Wood

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well–being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 861–879. DOI: 10.1037/0022–3514.93.5.861

94.

Zinbarg

R. E.

, Revelle

, Yovel

, & Li

(2005). Cronbach's α, Revelle's β, and McDonald's ω_H: Their relations with each other and two alternative conceptualizations of reliability. Psychometrika, 70, 123–133. DOI: 10.1007/s11336–003–0974–7

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.08 MB

0.00 MB

The Elusive General Factor of Personality: The Acquaintance Effect

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material