Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:26:33.335Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are We more Consistent when Talking about Ourselves than when Behaving? Consistency Differences through a Questionnaire and an Objective Task

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Víctor J. Rubio ,
José Manuel Hernández ,
Javier Revuelta  and
José Santacreu
Víctor J. Rubio
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
José Manuel Hernández
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
Javier Revuelta
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
José Santacreu*
Affiliation:
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to José Santacreu. Departamento de Psicología Biológica y de la Salud. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Campus Cantoblanco. 28049 Madrid. (Spain). Phone: +34-914975179. Fax: +34-914975215. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper aimed to examine questionnaire response patterns and objective task-based test behavioral patterns in order to analyze the differences people show in consistency. It is hypothesized that people tend to be more consistent when talking about themselves (when describing themselves through verbal statements) that when they solve a task (when behaving). Consistency is computed using the π* statistic (Hernandez, Rubio, Revuelta, & Santacreu, 2006). According to this procedure, consistency is defined as the value and the dimensionality of the latent trait of an individual (θ) remaining invariant through out the test of. Participants who are consistent must show a constant θ and follow a given response pattern during the entire course of the test. A sample of 3,972 participants was used. Results reveal that 68% of participants showed a consistent response pattern when completing the questionnaire. When tackling the task-based test, the percentage was 66%. 45% of individuals showed a consistent pattern in both tests. Implications for personality and individual differences assessment are discussed.

El presente artículo pretende examinar las diferencias que muestran las personas en cuanto a su consistencia entre los patrones de respuesta a un cuestionario y los patrones de respuesta ante un test objetivo basado en tareas. Se hipotetiza que las personas tienden a ser más consistentes cuando hablan sobre ellos mismos (es decir, cuando se describen en base a declaraciones verbales, como es el caso de los cuestionarios) que cuando resuelven una tarea (cuando se comportan). La consistencia se calcula utilizando el estadístico π* (Hernandez, Rubio, Revuelta, & Santacreu, 2006). De acuerdo con este procedimiento, la consistencia se define como la invarianza del valor y la dimensionalidad del rasgo latente de un individuo (θ) a lo largo de un test. Los participantes que son consistentes mostrarán una θ constante y seguirán un patrón de respuesta dado a lo largo del curso completo del test. Para este estudio se utilizó una muestra de 3972 personas. Los resultados muestran que el 68% de los participantes mostraron un patrón de respuesta consistente cuando cumplimentaron el cuestionario. Sin embargo, cuando se enfrentaron al test objetivo basado en tareas, el porcentaje fue del 66%. El 45% de los participantes mostraron un patrón consistente en los dos tests. El artículo analiza las implicaciones para la evaluación de la personalidad y las diferencias individuales.

Keywords

personalityconsistencyprediction of behaviourself-reportsobjective task-based personality testspersonalidadconsistenciapredicción de la conductaautoinformestestobjetivos basados en tareas
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , May 2011 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguado, D., Rubio, V. J., Hontangas, P., & Hernández, J. M. (2005). Propiedades psicométricas de un test adaptativo informatizado para la medición del ajuste emocional ]Psychometric properties of a computer-adaptive-test for assessing emocional adjustment]. Psicothema, 17, 484–491. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.39Google Scholar
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big-Five personality dimensions: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 56, 571–598. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1988.tb00903.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). Predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 506–520. doi:10.1037/h0037130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self-other profile agreement and profile consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 425–437. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.79.3.425CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R., Statistical theories of mental test scores. (pp. 397–472) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. P. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In Yates, J. F., (Ed.). Risk-taking behavior (pp. 87–132). New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Borgogni, L. (1993). BFQ: Big five questionnaire. manuale. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.Google Scholar
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. Anaylisis of covariaces structures. In Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Borgatta, E. G. (Eds.). Social measurement. current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1Google Scholar
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1993). When do individual differences matter? A paradoxical theory of personality coherence. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 247–271. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0404_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cattel, R. B., & Kline, P. (1977). The scientific analysis of personality and motivation. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., & Warburton, E. W. (1967). Objetive personality and motivation tests. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Social-Cognitive Theories and the Coherence of Personality. In Cervone, D., & Shoda, Y. (Eds.). The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of consistency, variability and organization (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Chaplin, W. F. (1991). The next generation of moderator research in personality psychology. Journal of Personality, 59, 143–178. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1991.tb00772.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conley, J. J. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency: A review and model of longitudinal findings on adult individual differences in intelligence, personality, and serf-opinion. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 11–26. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(84)90133-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cucina, J. M., & Vasilopoulus, N. L. (2005). Nonlinear personality-performance relationships and the spurious moderating effects of traitedness. Journal of Personality, 73, 227–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00309.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drasgow, F., Levine, M., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropriateness measurement with politomous item response models and standardized indexes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S. (1985). The person-situation debate in historical and current perspective. In Roskam, E. E. (Ed.). Measurement and personality assessment (pp. 315–321). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1225–1243. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00111-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrando, P. J. (2004). Person reliability in personality measurement. An item response theory analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 126–140. doi:10.1177/0146621603260917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funder, D. C. (1983). The consistency controversy and the accuracy of personality judgement. Journal of Personality, 5, 346–359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00337.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A. G (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication and revision of personal history. American Psychologist, 35, 603–618. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R. J. (1992). Behavior change: Models, methods, and a review of the evidence. In Dunnette, M. D., & Hough, L. M. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed), (Vol. 3, pp. 821–895). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Hernández, J. M., Lozano, J. H., Shih, P. C., & Santacreu, J. (2009). Validez convergente de dos pruebas objetivas de personalidad que evalúan minuciosidad ]Convergent validity between objective assessment tests of interactive style Thoroughness]. Psicothema, 21, 133–140.Google Scholar
Hernández, J. M., Rubio, V. J., Revuelta, J., & Santacreu, J. (2006). A procedure for estimating intra-subject consistency of behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 417–434. doi:10.1177/0013164405275667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, J. M., Sánchez-Balmisa, C., Madrid, B., & Santacreu, J. (2003). La evaluación objetiva de la minuciosidad: Diseño de una prueba conductual ]The objective assessment of thoroughness: The design of a behavioral test]. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 29, 457–479.Google Scholar
Hofmann, W., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Advances and challenges in the indirect measurement of individual differences at age 10 of the Implicit Association Test. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 207–209. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J. (1971). The application of psychophysiological methods to the study of psychotherapy and behaviour modification. In Bergin, A. E., & Garfield, S. L. (Eds.). Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 75–125). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lanning, K. (1988). Individual differences in scalability: An alternative conception of consistency for personality theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 142–148. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, M. M., & Kehrer, C. A. (1993). Borderline personality disorder. In Barlow, D. H. (Ed.), Clinical handbook of psychological disorders (2nd ed.) (pp. 396–441). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observation and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, K. C., Pasupathi, M., & Pals, J. L. (2007). Selves creating stories creating selves: A process model of self-development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 262–278. doi:10.1177/1088868307301034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (1968) Personality and assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mischel, W. (2004). Toward and integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1–22. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 229–258. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.229CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozer, D. (1986). Consistency in personality. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001a). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.81.3.524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001b). Big Five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78–90. doi:10.1006/jrpe.2000.2309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., Haddock, G., Forsterling, F., & Keinonen, M. (2003). Broad versus narrow personality measures and the prediction of behavior across cultures. European Journal of Personality, 17, 413–433. doi:10.1002/per.496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and predictions: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Psychological Review, 92, 486–511. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawlik, K. (1985). Cross-situational consistency behavior: models, theories, and in-field tests of the consistency issue. In Roskam, E. E. (Ed.). Measurement amd personality assessment. (pp. 307–314) Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Pervin, L. A. (1996). The science of personality. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.I.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories. Psychological Review, 96, 341–357. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, V. J., Aguado, D., Hontangas, P., & Hernández, J. M. (2007). Psychometric properties of an emotional adjustment measure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 39–46. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudas, T., Clogg, C. C., & Lindsay, B. G. (1994). A new index of fit based on mixture methods for the analysis of contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, series B, 56, 623–639.Google Scholar
Rudolph, A., Schröeder-Abe, M., Schütz, A., Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2008). Through a glass, less darkly? Reassessing convergent and divergent validity in measures of implicit self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 273–281. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rusthon, J. P., Jackson, D. N., & Paunonen, S. V. (1981). Personality: Nomothetic or idiographic? A response to Kenrick & Stringfield. Psychological Review, 88, 582–589. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.6.582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology. 82, 30–43. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santacreu, J., Rubio, V. J., & Hernández, J. M. (2006). The objective assessment of personality: Cattell's T-data revisited and more. Psychology Science, 48, 53–68.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semin, G. R., & Krahe, B. (1988). Explaining perceived cross-situational consistency: Intuitive psychometrics or semantic mediation. European Journal of Personality, 2, 239–252. doi:10.1002/per.2410020402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (2000). Reconciling contextualism with the core assumptions of personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, 14, 407–428. doi:10.1002/1099-0984(200009/10)14:5<407::AID-PER391>3.0.CO;2-33.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, N. S. T., & Howarth, E. (1973). Cross-media independence of questionnaire and objective test personality factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 8, 23–40. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr0801_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., Rothstein, M., & Reddon, J. R. (1994). Meta-analysis of Personality-Job performance relatons: A reply to Ones, Mount, Barrick and Hunter (1994). Personnel Psychology, 47, 1157–1172. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1994.tb02415.xGoogle Scholar
Wagerman, A. S., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Acquaintance reports of personality and academic achievement: A case for conscientiousness. Journal of Research in Personality 41, 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, B. (1990). Attributions in applied personality theory. In Pervin, L. A. (Ed.). Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 465–485). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
West, S. G., & Graziano, W. G. (1989). Long-term stability and change in personality: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 57, 175–193. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1989.tb00479.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Traits, status, situations, and uncertainty. Journal of Psychopathology and Assessment, 1, 43–54. doi:10.1007/BF01322417Google Scholar