and from one to four peers (friends and neighbors), using an observer
rating form of the NEO-PI (McCrae & Costa, 1989a). The first columnof Table 3 gives intraclass correlations between pairs of peers who ratedthe same target. All the correlations are statistically significant, showingthat ratings are not random impressions but instead are reflections ofcharacteristics on which independent observers can agree. The extent ofagreement is substantial for all five factors: The median value of .45means that almost half of the variance in rating scores is attributable tothe trait itself (Ozer, 1985), the other half being error—that is, mistakesand biases in perception, careless responding, legitimate differences ofopinion, different frames of reference, and so on (McCrae, Stone, Fagan,& Costa, 1998). The second column of Table 3 shows that peers agreewith spouses about as well as they agree among themselves. By averag -
ing together two or more ratings we obtain even more trustworthy in -
formation about the target, as the errors of one observer are canceled
out by opposing errors in another.
What about agreement between self-reports and ratings? Can we
“see oursels as ithers see us,” as Robert Burns wished? The last two col-umns of Table 3 suggest that we can, with substantial correlations ofself-reports with averaged peer ratings and with spouse ratings. Thehighest correlations are seen when self-reports are compared withspouse ratings. Perhaps husbands and wives know the targets more inti-mately than do friends or neighbors, or perhaps they show higher agree-ment because couples discuss their personalities with each other andshare their perceptions of themselves. In any case, this is one more42 PERSONALITY IN ADULTHOOD
TABLE 3. Correlations between Peer Ratings, Spouse Ratings,
and Self-Reports
Agreement between
NEO-PI factor Peer–peer Peer–spouse Peer–self Spouse–self
Neuroticism .36 .45 .37 .53
Extraversion .41 .26 .44 .53Openness .46 .37 .63 .59Agreeableness .45 .49 .57 .60Conscientiousness .45 .41 .49 .57
Note. All correlations are significant at p<.001; N’s = 144 to 719. Adapted from McCrae and Costa
(1989a).