were the ones who reported the highest activity level and who were
rated by their peers as most energetic—not a particularly exciting resultfor the average reader, but a revelation for those psychologists whothought that self-reports were totally untrustworthy . Similarly , Small,Zeldin, and Savin-Williams (1983) recorded altruistic and dominant be -
haviors of small groups of teenagers at a summer camp and also asked
the campers to rate each other on these two dimensions. They found re -
markably high agreement between their behavior counts and the peer
ratings. Another version of this line of research (Epstein, 1977) hasdemonstrated that as the sample of behavior increases, the correspon -
dence between observations and self-reports increases to quite respect -
able levels. Research of this kind continues to support the validity of
self-report measures (Funder & Sneed, 1993), with an ever-increasingunderstanding of the reasons why self-reports and behavior ratings donot correspond perfectly (Moskowitz, 1988; Wright & Mischel, 1988).
Self-Reports and Observer Ratings
The direct observation of behavior in the laboratory or in natural set-tings is invaluable as a way of anchoring our scales to rigorous scientificmeasurements, but as a technique of personality assessment it is bothcumbersome and expensive. It would be virtually impossible to makesufficient observations on sufficient subjects over a sufficient number ofyears to approach the study of age and personality in this way .
Fortunately , there are alternatives. Self-report is the most widely
used method; here individuals are asked to describe themselves byanswering the items of a questionnaire or checking off adjectives thatapply to them. Individuals have spent a lifetime getting to know them -
selves, and they alone can draw on the subjective experience that tells
them whether they truly enjoy an activity or, deep down, harbor vaguedoubts or anxieties. Provided that respondents are honest with them -
selves and with the researchers, self-report is probably the best way to
measure personality .
That proviso, however, has always been disputed: Subjects may de -
ceive themselves, or they may simply lie. For researchers concerned
about these possibilities, there are three options honored by tradition:projective methods, which are supposed to allow the investigator to seebehind the individual’s facade; validity scales designed to detect fakingor lying and adjust self-reports accordingly; and ratings from knowl -40 PERSONALITY IN ADULTHOOD