The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and Hogan Developmental Survey (HDS) are among the most widely used and extensively well-validated personality inventories for organizational applications; however, they are rarely used in basic research. We describe the Hogan Personality Content Single-Items (HPCS) inventory, an inventory designed to measure the 74 content subscales of the HPI and HDS via a single-item each. We provide evidence of the reliability and validity of the HPCS, including item-level retest reliability estimates, both self-other agreement and other-other (or observer) agreement, convergent correlations with the corresponding scales from the full HPI/HDS instruments, and analyze how similarly the HPCS and full HPI/HDS instruments relate to other variables. We discuss situations where administering the HPCS may have certain advantages and disadvantages relative to the full HPI and HDS. We also discuss how the current findings contribute to an emerging picture of best practices for the development and use of inventories consisting of single-item scales.
AllenN. J.MeyerJ. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
2.
AltgassenE.OlaruG.WilhelmO. (2023). What if there were no personality factors? Comparing the predictability of behavioral act frequencies from a big-five and a maximal-dimensional item set. European Journal of Personality. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231163283
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV (Vol. 4).
4.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO–60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(4), 340–345.
5.
AshtonM. C.PaunonenS. V.LeeK. (2014). On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to Salgado, Moscoso, and Berges (2013). Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 24–28.
6.
BergkvistL.RossiterJ. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.
7.
BlockJ. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Charles C Thomas.
8.
BlockJ. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117(2), 187–215.
9.
BowlingN. A.GibsonA. M.DeSimoneJ. A. (2022). Stop with the questions already! Does data quality suffer for scales positioned near the end of a lengthy questionnaire?Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-021-09787-8
10.
BoyleG. J. (1991). Does item homogeneity indicate internal consistency or item redundancy in psychometric scales?Personality and Individual Differences, 12(3), 291–294.
11.
BurischM. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39(3), 214–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.214
12.
CattellR. B. (1952). The three basic factor-analytic research designs—Their interrelations and derivatives. Psychological Bulletin, 49(5), 499–520.
13.
CattellR. B.EberH. W.TatsuokaM. M. (1970). Handbook for the 16 Personality Factor Questionaire (16PF) in Clinical Educational Industrial and Research Psychology. IPAT.
14.
CattellR. B.TsujiokaB. (1964). The importance of factor-trueness and validity, versus homogeneity and orthogonality, in test scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 3–30.
15.
ChmielewskiM.WatsonD. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202.
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412.
18.
CohenJ. (1969). RC: A profile similarity coefficient invariant over variable reflection. Psychological Bulletin, 71(4), 281–284.
19.
CohenP.CohenJ.AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstances for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(3), 315–346.
20.
CondonD. M.MõttusR. (2021). A role for information theory in personality modeling, assessment, and judgment. In WoodD.ReadS. J.HarmsP. D.SlaughterA. (Eds.), Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 1–31). Elsevier.
21.
CondonD. M.WoodD.MöttusR.BoothT.CostantiniG.GreiffS.JohnsonW.LukaszweskiA.MurrayA.RevelleW. (2020). Bottom-up construction of a personality taxonomy. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(6), 923–934.
22.
ConnellyB. S.McAbeeS. T.OhI.-S.JungY.JungC.-W. (2022). A multirater perspective on personality and performance: An empirical examination of the trait–reputation–identity model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(8), 1352–1368. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000732
23.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
24.
CostaP. T.Jr.TerraccianoA.McCraeR. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.
25.
CredéM.TynanM. C.HarmsP. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492–511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102
26.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
27.
DavisD. E.WorthingtonE. L.Jr.HookJ. N. (2010). Humility: Review of measurement strategies and conceptualization as personality judgment. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(4), 243–252.
28.
DejonckheereE.DemeyerF.GeusensB.PiotM.TuerlinckxF.VerdonckS.MestdaghM. (2022). Assessing the reliability of single-item momentary affective measurements in experience sampling. Psychological Assessment, 34, 1138–1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001178
29.
DemeroutiE.MostertK.BakkerA. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209–222.
30.
DenissenJ. J.GeenenR.SelfhoutM.Van AkenM. A. (2008). Single-item Big Five ratings in a social network design. European Journal of Personality, 22(1), 37–54.
31.
DeSimoneJ. A.HarmsP.DeSimoneA. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171–181.
32.
DeVellisR. F.ThorpeC. T. (2021). Scale development: Theory and applications (5th ed.). SAGE.
33.
de VriesR. E.RealoA.AllikJ. (2016). Using personality item characteristics to predict single-item internal reliability, retest reliability, and self–other agreement. European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 618–636.
34.
EidM.LarsenR. J.JudgeT. A.KlingerR. L. (2008). Job satisfaction: Subjective well-being at work. In EidM.LarsenR. J. (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 393–413). Guilford Press.
35.
FeingoldA. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429–456.
36.
FisherG. G.MatthewsR. A.GibbonsA. M. (2016). Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 21(1), 3–23.
37.
FoxS.SpectorP. E. (1999). A model of work frustration-aggression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 915–931.
38.
FunderD. C. (2016). Taking situations seriously: The situation construal model and the Riverside Situational Q-Sort. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(3), 203–208.
39.
FunderD. C.ColvinC. R. (1997). Congruence of others’ and self-judgments of personality. In HoganR.JohnsonJ. A.BriggsS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617–647). Academic Press.
40.
FunderD. C.DobrothK. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(2), 409–418.
41.
FurrR. M.WagermanS. A.FunderD. C. (2010). Personality as manifest in behavior: Direct behavioral observation using the Revised Riverside Behavioral Q-Sort (RBQ-3.0). In AgnewC. R.CarlstonD. E.GrazianoW. G.KellyJ. R. (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 186–204). Oxford University Press.
42.
GoldbergL. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality. In SpielbergerC. D.ButcherJ. N. (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203–234). Erlbaum
43.
GoldbergL. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–34.
44.
GoldbergL. R.JohnsonJ. A.EberH. W.HoganR.AshtonM. C.CloningerC. R.GoughH. G. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.
45.
GonzalezO.MacKinnonD. P.MunizF. B. (2021). Extrinsic convergent validity evidence to prevent jingle and jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(1), 3–19.
46.
GoodmanS. A.SvyantekD. J. (1999). Person-organization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter?Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 254–275.
47.
GoughH. G. (1960). The Adjective Check List as a personality assessment research technique. Psychological Reports, 6(1), 107–122.
48.
GrazianoW. G.Jensen-CampbellL. A.SteeleR. G.HairE. C. (1998). Unknown words in self-reported personality: Lethargic and provincial in Texas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(8), 893–905.
HarmsP.ShermanR. A. (2021). What falls outside of the Big Five? Darkness, derailers, and beyond. In WoodD.ReadS. J.HarmsP.SlaughterA. (Eds.), Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 33–68). Academic Press.
52.
HenryS.ThielmannI.BoothT.MõttusR. (2022). Test-retest reliability of the HEXACO-100—And the value of multiple measurements for assessing reliability. PLOS ONE, 17(1), e0262465. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262465
53.
HinkinT. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 104–121.
54.
HoganR. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In PageM. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Personality—Current theory and research (pp. 55–89). University of Nebraska Press.
55.
HoganR. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In DunnetteM. D.HoughL. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 873–919). Consulting Psychologists Press.
56.
HoganR. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the Five-Factor Model. In WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 163–179). Guilford Press.
57.
HoganR.BlickleG. (2018). Socioanalytic theory: Basic concepts, supporting evidence and practical implications. In Zeigler-HillV.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual differences: The science of personality and individual differences (pp. 110–129). SAGE.
58.
HoganR.HoganJ. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9(1–2), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00162
HoganR.HoganJ. (2009). Hogan development survey manual. Hogan Assessment Systems.
61.
HoganR.HoganJ.RobertsB. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.51.5.469
62.
HoganR.NicholsonR. (1988). The meaning of personality test scores. American Psychologist, 43(8), 621–626.
JasoB. A.KrausN. I.HellerA. S. (2022). Identification of careless responding in ecological momentary assessment research: From posthoc analyses to real-time data monitoring. Psychological Methods, 27(6), 958–981. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000312
65.
JohnO. P. (2021). History, measurement, and conceptual elaboration of the Big-Five trait taxonomy: The paradigm matures. In JohnO. P.RobinsR. W. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (4th ed., pp. 35–82). Guilford Press.
66.
JohnO. P.SotoC. J. (2007). The importance of being valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation. In RobinsR. W.FraleyR. C.KruegerR. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461–494). Guilford Press.
67.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
68.
JonasonP. K.WebsterG. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
69.
JonesD. N.PaulhusD. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3) a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21(1), 28–41.
70.
KaufmanB. E. (2022). The academic-practitioner gap: Past time to bring in the practitioner perspective. Human Resource Management Review, 32(2), 100895.
71.
KimH.Di DomenicoS. I.ConnellyB. S. (2019). Self–other agreement in personality reports: A meta-analytic comparison of self-and informant-report means. Psychological Science, 30(1), 129–138.
72.
KonrathS.MeierB. P.BushmanB. J. (2014). Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale (SINS). PLOS ONE, 9(8), e103469.
73.
KonrathS.MeierB. P.BushmanB. J. (2018). Development and validation of the single item trait empathy scale (SITES). Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 111–122.
74.
KuncelN. R.KochevarR. J.OnesD. S. (2014). A meta-analysis of letters of recommendation in college and graduate admissions: Reasons for hope. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 22(1), 101–107.
75.
KwanV. S. Y.JohnO. P.KennyD. A.BondM. H.RobinsR. W. (2004). Reconceptualizing individual differences in self-enhancement bias: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Review, 111(1), 94–110.
76.
LawsonK. M.RobinsR. W. (2021). Sibling constructs: What are they, why do they matter, and how should you handle them?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(4), 344–366.
77.
LeeK.AllenN. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142.
78.
LordF. M.NovickM. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
79.
LowmanG. H.WoodD.ArmstrongB.HarmsP.WatsonD. (2018). Estimating the reliability of emotion measures over very short intervals: The utility of within-session retest correlations. Emotion, 18(6), 896–901.
80.
MatthewsR. A.PineaultL.HongY.-H. (2022). Normalizing the use of single-item measures: Validation of the single-item compendium for organizational psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(4), 639–673.
81.
McCraeR. R. (2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 105–109.
82.
McCraeR. R. (2015). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specificity in the trait hierarchy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 97–112.
83.
McCraeR. R.CostaP.Jr.MartinT. (2005). The NEO-PI-3: A more readable revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 84(3), 261–270.
84.
McCraeR. R.KurtzJ. E.YamagataS.TerraccianoA. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 28–50.
85.
McCraeR. R.MõttusR. (2019). What personality scales measure: A new psychometrics and its implications for theory and assessment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 415–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419849559
86.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
87.
MillerJ. D.HyattC. S.Maples-KellerJ. L.CarterN. T.LynamD. R. (2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a difference?Journal of Personality, 85(4), 439–453.
88.
MõttusR. (2016). Towards more rigorous personality trait-outcome research. European Journal of Personality, 30, 292–303.
89.
MõttusR.KandlerC.BleidornW.RiemannR.McCraeR. R. (2017). Personality traits below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(3), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000100
90.
MõttusR.SinickJ.TerraccianoA.HřebíčkováM.KandlerC.AndoJ.MortensenE. L.Colodro-CondeL.JangK. L. (2019). Personality characteristics below facets: A replication and meta-analysis of cross-rater agreement, rank-order stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), e35–e50. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000202
91.
NewmanD. A.HarrisonD. A. (2008). Been there, bottled that: Are state and behavioral work engagement new and useful construct “wines”?Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 31–35.
92.
NewmanD. A.JosephD. L.HulinC. L. (2010). Job attitudes and employee engagement: Considering the attitude “A-factor.” In AlbrechtS. L. (Ed.), The handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43–61). Edward Elgar Publishing.
93.
NichollsJ. G.LichtB. G.PearlR. A. (1982). Some dangers of using personality questionnaires to study personality. Psychological Bulletin, 92(3), 572–580.
94.
OltmannsJ. R.WidigerT. A. (2018). Maladaptive variants of adaptive traits and bloated specific factors. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 177–185.
95.
PaceV. L.BrannickM. T. (2010). How similar are personality scales of the “same” construct? A meta-analytic investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(7), 669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.014
96.
PadillaA.HoganR.KaiserR. B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(3), 176–194.
97.
PaulhusD. L.BuckelsE. E.TrapnellP. D.JonesD. N. (2021). Screening for dark personalities: The Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(3), 208.
98.
RammstedtB.FarmerR. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1137–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033323
RevelleW.CondonD. M. (2019). Reliability from α to ω: A tutorial. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1395–1411.
101.
RevelleW.DworakE. M.CondonD. M. (2020). Exploring the persome: The power of the item in understanding personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109905.
102.
RevelleW.ZinbargR. E. (2009). Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z
103.
RobertsB. W.WoodD. (2006). Personality development in the context of the Neo-Socioanalytic model of personality. In MroczekD. K.LittleT. D. (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 11–39). Erlbaum.
104.
RobinsR. W.HendinH. M.TrzesniewskiK. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 151–161.
105.
RoccaR.YarkoniT. (2021). Putting psychology to the test: Rethinking model evaluation through benchmarking and prediction. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(3), 25152459211026864.
106.
SaucierG.GoldbergL. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Personality, 69(6), 847–880.
107.
SaucierG.IurinoK.ThalmayerA. G. (2020). Comparing predictive validity in a community sample: High-dimensionality and traditional domain-and-facet structures of personality variation. European Journal of Personality, 34, 1120–1137.
108.
SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B.SalanovaM. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716.
109.
ShedlerJ.WestenD. (2007). The Shedler–Westen assessment procedure (SWAP): Making personality diagnosis clinically meaningful. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89(1), 41–55.
110.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 330–343.
111.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017a). 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
112.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017b). Short and extra-short forms of the Big Five Inventory–2: The BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS. Journal of Research in Personality, 68, 69–81.
113.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (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(4), 718–737.
ThurstoneL. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 33(4), 529–554.
116.
van KnippenbergD.SitkinS. B. (2013). A critical assessment of charismatic—Transformational leadership research: Back to the drawing board?The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 1–60.
117.
VazireS. (2006). Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment. Journal of Research in Personality, 5(40), 472–481.
118.
WanousJ. P.HudyM. J. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4(4), 361–375.
119.
WanousJ. P.ReichersA. E.HudyM. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
120.
WatsonD. (2004). Stability versus change, dependability versus error: Issues in the assessment of personality over time. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(4), 319–350.
121.
WatsonD.HubbardB.WieseD. (2000). Self–other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 546–558.
122.
WoodD. (2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 317–335.
123.
WoodD.FurrR. M. (2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315581119
124.
WoodD.HarmsP.LowmanG. H.DeSimoneJ. A. (2017). Response speed and response consistency as mutually validating indicators of data quality in online samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 454–464.
125.
WoodD.HarmsP. D. (2016). On the TRAPs that make it dangerous to study personality with personality questionnaires. European Journal of Personality, 30, 327–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2060
126.
WoodD.LowmanG. H.ArmstrongB. F.III.HarmsP. D. (2023). Using retest-adjusted correlations as indicators of the semantic similarity of items. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(2), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000441
127.
WoodD.NyeC. D.SaucierG. (2010). Identification and measurement of a more comprehensive set of person-descriptive trait markers from the English lexicon. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 258–272.
128.
WoodD.QiuL.LuJ.LinH.TovW. (2018). Adjusting bilingual ratings by retest reliability Improves estimation of translation quality. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 49(9), 1325–1339.
129.
WoodsS. A.HampsonS. E. (2005). Measuring the Big Five with single items using a bipolar response scale. European Journal of Personality: Published for the European Association of Personality Psychology, 19(5), 373–390.
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.
