begin) and six measures of conscientiousness (for example, how well the stu-
dent kept up with class readings). As Table 7.3 shows, correlation coefficientsobtained for high-consistency people and low-consistency people showed a
noticeably different pattern. Correlations between measures of friendliness av-
eraged .57 for the consistent (traited) participants, but only .27 for the incon-
sistent (untraited) ones. Similarly, correlations for the conscientiousness data
averaged .45 for the high-consistency participants and .09 for the low-
consistency people. The importance of separating traited and untraited parti-cipants when predicting behavior has been demonstrated with a wide variety
of trait measures (Baumeister, 1991; Baumeister & Tice, 1988; Britt, 1993;
Reise & Waller, 1993; Siem, 1998).
The Importance of 10% of the Variance
Another argument on the side of personality traits concerns the significanceof .30 to .40 correlation coefficients. Critics have attacked trait theory on theTABLE 7.3
Mean Correlations Between Trait Measures in High- and Low-Consistency
Participants
High-Consistency
ParticipantsLow-Consistency
Participants
Friendliness Measures
Self-report .57 .39Mother ’s report .59 .30
Father ’s report .60 .16
Peer ’s report .54 .37
Group discussion .52 .37Spontaneous friendliness .59 .01All friendliness variables .57 .27
Conscientiousness Measures
Self-report .41 .11Mother ’s report .56 .10
Father ’s report .49 .22
Peer ’s report .49 .16
Returning evaluations .40 .06
Course readings .32 −.12
All conscientiousness variables .45 .09
Source: From Bem, D. J., and Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search
for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review , 81, 506 –520.The Situation Versus Trait Controversy 169