and Jones in their discussion of Measures of Dark Personalities . The majority of scales are directed towards the
overlapping constellation of traits often called the ‘Dark Triad’: Machiavellianism, narcissism and subclinical psy-
chopathy. Additional dark traits with aversive interpersonal qualities may also be assessed (cf. Livesley, 2010;
Widiger, 2012 ). Finally, in considering Measures of Perfectionism , Flett and Hewitt address an apparently virtuous
trait that may carry some adaptive costs. The authors point out the complexity of the construct and the need for
explicit conceptualizations to bring meaning to it. The scales/measures reviewed assess trait, cognitive, and self-
presentational components of perfectionism.
The final section on Sociocultural Interaction and Conflict addresses one of the focal concerns of social psy-
chology, relationships between different groups, and the socially-defined attitudes that may variously encourage
harmonious group interactions or stoke adversarial relations. In reviewing Measures of Cross-Cultural Values,
Personality, and Beliefs , Chiu, Chia, and Wan point out the importance of consensual culturally-defined views in
solving complex social coordination problems. Their chapter reviews measures that are representative of the
extensive efforts of cross-cultural psychologists to capture cultural differences in human psychology. In survey-
ingMeasures of Intergroup Contact: Predictors, Mediators, Moderators, and Outcomes , Lolliot, Fell, and Schmid et al.
emphasize the practical and policy importance of contact for improving intergroup attitudes. Scales reviewed
pertain to direct and extended intergroup contact, to mediating and moderating mechanisms, and to outcomes
such as outgroup attitudes. The dark side of intergroup contact is prejudice. Fiske and North cover Measures of
Stereotyping and Prejudice: Barometers of Bias . Contemporary scales for intergroup bias go beyond traditional con-
cerns with authoritarianism and overt racism to also address more subtle biases associated with social domi-
nance, racism, sexism and ageism. In their chapter on Measures of Attitudes towards Sexual Orientation:
Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Internalized Stigma , Ryan and Blascovich are concerned with bias towards Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) individuals. Measures are directed both towards bias shown by heterosexual persons,
and the attitudes of LGB individuals towards their own sexual orientation. In reviewing Measures of Personality
across Cultures , Valchev and van de Vijver consider the cross-cultural application of general personality invento-
ries (i.e., monoculturally-devised measures that were not intended to capture inter-cultural aspects of personal-
ity). The format of this chapter differs a little from the others, as the focus of the research reviewed is not the
monocultural reliability and validity of individuals’ scores on the measures, but rather, the extent to which mea-
sures show quantitative structural equivalence or similarity of dimensional structure across different cultures.
In closing, the following chapters written be leading experts have been structured to follow a template that
reflects current views on test validity, reliability and utility. We have also followed the general outline used in
the previous volume ( Robinson et al., 1991 ), although expanding upon it, as the information is germane to evalu-
ating the psychometric properties of the social-personality measures reviewed in the current volume. We asked
authors to focus on the most often used and cited scales/measures with a particular emphasis on those published
in recent years. Each scale is identified and described, the sample on which it was developed is summarized, reli-
ability and validity data presented, and a final comment from the chapter authors precedes presentation of the
scale, in full or in part, where permission has been obtained to do so. In some instances, permission to reproduce
the full or even part of the scale was not obtained but the references to it will guide the reader to its location.
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing (3rd ed.). Washington D.C.: AERA.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The HEXACO model of personality structure. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. 2. Personality measurement and testing (pp. 239-260) . Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Bachman, J. G., & O’Malley, P. M. (1984). Yea-saying, nay-saying, and going to extremes: Black-White differences in response styles. Public
Opinion Quarterly ,48, 491/C0509.
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin ,117, 187/C0229.
Block, J. (2001). Millennial contrarianism: The five factor approach to personality description 5 years later. Journal of Research in Personality ,35,
98/C0107.
Borteyrou, X., Bruchon-Schweitzer, M., & Spielberger, C. D. (2008). The French adaptation of the STAXI-2, C.D. Spielberger’s State-trait anger
expression inventory. L’Encephale ,34, 249/C0255.
Boyle, G. J. (1989). Breadth-depth or state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state trait curiosity and state anxiety scales. Personality and
Individual Differences ,10, 175/C0183.
Boyle, G. J. (1985). Self-report measures of depression: Some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology ,24,4 5/C059.
Boyle, G. J. (1987). Review of the (1985) ‘Standards for educational and psychological testing: AERA, APA and NCME.’ Australian Journal of
Psychology ,39, 235/C0237.12 1. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION AND EVALUATION OF SCALES AND MEASURES
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT