Despite enthusiasm for using intensive longitudinal designs to measure day-to-day manifestations of personality underlying differences between people, the validity of personality state scales has yet to be established. In this study, we evaluated the psychometrics of 20-item and 10-item daily, Big Five personality state scales in three independent samples (N = 1,041). We used multilevel models to separately examine the validity of the scales for assessing personality variation at the between- and within-person levels. Results showed that a five-factor structure at both levels fits the data well, the scales had good convergent and discriminative associations with external variables, and personality states captured similar nomological nets as established global, self-report personality inventories. Limitations of the scales were identified (e.g., low reliability, low correlations with external criterion) that point to a need for more, systematic psychometric work. Our findings provide initial support for the use of personality state scales in intensive longitudinal designs to study between-person traits, within-person processes, and their interrelationship.
AnusicI.SchimmackU.PinkusR. T.LockwoodP. (2009). The nature and structure of correlations among big five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1142-1156. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017159
2.
AschwandenD.LuchettiM.AllemandM. (2019). Are open and neurotic behaviors related to cognitive behaviors in daily life of older adults?Journal of Personality, 87(3), 472-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12409
3.
BäckströmM. (2007). Higher-order factors in a five-factor personality inventory and its relation to social desirability. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(2), 63-70. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.2.63
4.
BäckströmM.BjörklundF.LarssonM. 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(3), 335-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
5.
BartaW. D.TennenH.LittM. D. (2012). Measurement reactivity in diary research. In MehlM. R.ConnerT. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 108-123). Guilford Press.
6.
BaumertA.SchmittM.PeruginiM.JohnsonW.BlumG.BorkenauP.CostantiniG.DenissenJ. J. A.FleesonW.GraftonB.JayawickremeE.KurziusE.MacLeodC.MillerL. C.ReadS. J.RobertsB.RobinsonM. D.WoodD.WrzusC.MõttusR. (2017). Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. European Journal of Personality, 31(5), 503-528. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2115
7.
BeckmannN.WoodR. E.MinbashianA. (2010). It depends how you look at it: On the relationship between neuroticism and conscientiousness at the within-and the between-person levels of analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), 593-601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.07.004
8.
BleidornW. (2009). Linking personality states, current social roles and major life goals. European Journal of Personality, 23(6), 509-530. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.731
9.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (1998). The Big Five as states: How useful is the five-factor model to describe intraindividual variations over time?Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2), 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2206
10.
CarverC. S. (2016). Impulse and constraint: Perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with theory in other areas, and potential for integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(4), 312-333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0904_2
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412-1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
13.
CohenS.KamarckT.MermelsteinR. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 386-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
14.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
15.
DeYoungC. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the big five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138-1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1138
DonnellanM. B.OswaldF. L.BairdB. M.LucasR. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP Scales: Tiny-Yet-Effective Measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
18.
EdershileE. A.WoodsW. C.SharpeB. M.CroweM. L.MillerJ. D.WrightA. G. C. (2019). A day in the life of narcissus: Measuring narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability in daily life. Psychological Assessment, 31(7), 913-924. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000717
19.
FleesonW. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011-1027. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011
FleesonW.GallagherP. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1097-1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016786
FleesonW.LawM. (2015). Trait enactments as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1090-1104. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039517
24.
GeldhofG. J.PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J. (2014). Reliability estimation in a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis framework. Psychological Methods, 19(1), 72-91. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032138
25.
GiacominM.JordanC. H. (2016). The wax and wane of narcissism: Grandiose narcissism as a process or state. Journal of personality, 84(2), 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12148
26.
GignacS.SzodoraiE. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102(November), 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
27.
GnambsT. (2013). The elusive general factor of personality: The acquaintance effect. European Journal of Personality, 27(5), 507-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1933
28.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
29.
HalvorsonM. A.PedersenS. L.FeilM. C.LenguaL. J.MolinaB.KingK. M. (2021). Impulsive states and impulsive traits: A Study of the multilevel structure and validity of a multifaceted measure of impulsive states. Assessment, 28(3), 796-812.
HarrisP. A.TaylorR.MinorB. L.ElliottV.FernandezM.O’NealL.McLeodcL.DelacquacG.DelacquaF.KirbyJ.DudaS. N. (2019). The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 95(July), Article 103208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
32.
HarrisP. A.TaylorR.ThielkeR.PayneJ.GonzalezN.CondeJ. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap): A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(2), 377-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
33.
HorstmannK. T.ZieglerM. (2020). Assessing personality states: What to consider when constructing personality state measures. European Journal of Personality, 34(6), 1037-1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2266
34.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
35.
IrwingP. (2013). The general factor of personality: Substance or artefact?Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.002
36.
John-HendersonN. A.MarslandA. L.KamarckT. W.MuldoonM. F.ManuckS. B. (2016). Childhood socioeconomic status and the occurrence of recent negative life events as predictors of circulating and stimulated levels of Interleukin-6. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(1), 91-101. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000262
37.
JonesA. B.BrownN. A.SerfassD. G.ShermanR. A. (2017). Personality and density distributions of behavior, emotions, and situations. Journal of Research in Personality, 69(August), 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.006
38.
ManuckS. B.PhillipsJ. E.GianarosP. J.FloryJ. D.MuldoonM. F. (2010). Subjective socioeconomic status and presence of the metabolic syndrome in midlife community volunteers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(1), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181c484dc
39.
MatzS. C.HarariG. M. (2020). Personality–place transactions: Mapping the relationships between big five personality traits, states, and daily places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000297
40.
McCabeK. O.FleesonW. (2016). Are traits useful? Explaining trait manifestations as tools in the pursuit of goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(2), 287-301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039490
41.
McCraeR. R.YamagataS.JangK. L.RiemannR.AndoJ.OnoY.AngleitnerA.SpinathF. M. (2008). Substance and artifact in the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 442-455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.442
42.
MetricWire Inc. (2019). MetricWire (Version 4.2.8). [Mobile application software]. https://metricwire.com/
43.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2017). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (Version 8). Muthén & Muthén.
44.
NoftleE. E.FleesonW. (2010). Age differences in big five behavior averages and variabilities across the adult life span: Moving beyond retrospective, global summary accounts of personality. Psychology and Aging, 25(1), 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018199
45.
PetterssonE.TurkheimerE.HornE. E.MenattiA. R. (2012). The general factor of personality and evaluation. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.839
46.
PincusA. L.AnsellE. B. (2013). Interpersonal theory of personality. In SulsJ.TennenH. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 141-159). Wiley.
47.
RauthmannJ. F.JonesA. B.ShermanR. A. (2016). Directionality of person–situation transactions: Are there spillovers among and between situation experiences and personality states?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 893-909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216647360
48.
RauthmannJ. F.HorstmannK. T.ShermanR. A. (2019). Do self-reported traits and aggregated states capture the same thing? A nomological perspective on trait-state homomorphy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 596-611. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618774772
49.
ReadS. J.SmithB. J.DroutmanV.MillerL. C. (2017). Virtual personalities: Using computational modeling to understand within-person variability. Journal of Research in Personality, 69(August), 237-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.005
50.
RevelleW.WiltJ. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.012
51.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331-363. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
52.
RingwaldW. R.WrightA. G. C. (2021). The affiliative role of empathy in everyday interpersonal interactions. European Journal of Personality, 35(2), 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2286
53.
RobertsB. W.KuncelN. R.ShinerR.CaspiA.GoldbergL. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313-345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x
54.
RobertsB. W.WaltonK. E.ViechtbauerW. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.1
RussellD. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20-40. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6601_2
57.
SadikajG.WrightA. G. C.DunkleyD.ZuroffD.MoskowitzD. S. (2021). Multilevel structural equation modeling for intensive longitudinal data: A practical guide for personality researchers. In RauthmannJ. F. (Ed.), Handbook of personality dynamics and processes (pp. 856-882). Elsevier.
58.
SchönbrodtF. D.PeruginiM. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize?Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609-612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
59.
ShermanR. A.RauthmannJ. F.BrownN. A.SerfassD. G.JonesA. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(5), 872-888. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000036
60.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096
61.
ThalmayerA.SaucierG.EigenhuisA. (2011). Comparative Validity of Brief to Medium-Length Big Five and Big Six Personality Questionnaires. Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 995-1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024165
62.
van der LindenD.DunkelC. S.PetridesK. V. (2016). The general factor of personality (GFP) as social effectiveness: Review of the literature. Personality and Individual Differences, 101(October), 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.020
63.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
64.
WoodD.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 861-879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.861
65.
WrightA. G. C.SimmsL. J. (2016). Stability and fluctuation of personality disorder features in daily life. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 125(5), 641-656. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000169
66.
WrightA. G. C.ZimmermannJ. (2019). Applied ambulatory assessment: Integrating idiographic and nomothetic principles of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1467-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000685
67.
ZygarC.HagemeyerB.PuschS.SchönbrodtF. D. (2018). From motive dispositions to states to outcomes: An intensive experience sampling study on communal motivational dynamics in couples. European Journal of Personality, 32(3), 306-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2145
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.
