piece of evidence that both ratings and self-reports are useful ways to
measure personality , with at least as much truth as error.
Similar results and conclusions have been reported by many other
researchers in recent years, as Table 4 shows. This research, conductedon a variety of samples ranging from American college students to Pol -
ish twins, firmly establishes the utility of both self-reports and ratings as
methods of assessing personality . Table 4 also illustrates some otherpoints. First, studies using scales or factors show higher agreement thanthose using single adjectives or items, because scales are more reliablethan the individual items that compose them. Second, studies that aver -
age multiple raters tend to show higher correlations than those that rely
on a single rater: In assessing personality , two (or more) heads are gen -
erally better than one.Measuring Personality 43
TABLE 4. Some Studies on Agreement between Self-Reports
and Peer Ratings
Study N Participants Raters Measure Average r
Amelang & Borkenau
(1982)321 Young adults 3 Adjective
factors.58
Kammann, Smith, Martin,
& McQueen (1984)60 Students 2 Adjectives .30
S. V. Paunonen (cited in
Jackson, 1984)90 Students 1 PRF scales .52
Marsh, Barnes, & Hocevar
(1985)151 Students 1 Self-concept
scales.58
John (1988) 50 Individuals 4 Adjectives .31
Funder & Colvin (1988) 157 Students 2 CQSaitems .27
Costa, McCrae, &
Dembroski (1989)100 College men 4 NEO-PI
domains.51
Costa & McCrae (1992a) 142 Adults 2 NEO-PI
domains.43
Funder, Kolar, & Blackman
(1995)136 Students 1 NEO-PI
domains.36
Riemann, Angleitner, &
Strelau (1997)964 German adults 2 NEO-FFI
scales.55
Zawadzki, Strelau,
Szczepaniak, &Sliwinska (1997)548 Polish adults 2 NEO-FFI
scales .51
aCalifornia Q-Set (discussed in a later section of this chapter).