A very brief measure of the Big-Five
personality domains q
Samuel D.Gosling,*Peter J.Rentfrow,and William B.Swann Jr.Department of Psychology,University of Texas,Seay Psychology Bldg.Rm.4.212,Austin,TX 78712,USA Abstract
When time is limited,rearchers may be faced with the choice of using an extremely brief measure of the Big-Five personality dimensions or using no measure at all.To meet the need for a very brief measure,5and 10-item inventories were developed and evaluated.Although somewhat inferior to standard multi-item instruments,the instruments reached adequate levels in terms of:(a)convergence with widely ud Big-Five measures in lf,obrver,and peer re-ports,(b)test–retest reliability,(c)patterns of predicted external correlates,and (d)conver-gence between lf and obrver ratings.On the basis of the tests,a 10-item measure of the Big-Five dimensions is offered for situations where very short measures are needed,person-ality is not the primary topic of interest,or rearchers can tolerate the somewhat diminished psychometric properties associated with very brief measures.
Ó2003Elvier Science (USA).All rights rerved.
1.Introduction
One obvious way to learn about an individual Õs standing on a personality trait is simply to enquire directly about that trait.For constructs,such as Extraversion,that are widely understood,it is more straightforward simply to ask a person how extra-verted he is than to ask him whether he enjoys the company of others,attends parties frequently,is talkative,outgoing,gregarious,and enthusiastic.That is,why not ask a
q
Preparation of this article was supported by a rearch grant from the University of Texas College of Liberal Arts and National Institutes of Mental Health Grant RO3MH64527-01A1.We thank Veronica Benet-Martinez,Matthias R.Mehl,and Richard W.Robins for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.*Corresponding author.Fax:1-512-471-5935.
E-mail address:gosling@psy.utexas.edu (S.D.Gosling).
0092-6566/$-e front matter Ó2003Elvier Science (USA).All rights rerved.
doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1Journal of Rearch in Personality 37(2003)
504–/locate/jrp JOURNAL OF
RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY
S.D.Gosling et al./Journal of Rearch in Personality37(2003)504–528505 person one direct question about a trait rather than many questions about the multi-ple,narrow components that compri the trait?
The widely accepted answer is that,all things being equal,long instruments tend to have better psychometric properties than short instruments.However,the costs associated with short instruments are not always as great as is feared(Burisch, 1984a,1984b,1997).More important,there are some instances when short instru-ments permit rearch that would not be possible using long instruments.
1.1.Why are short instruments needed?
In an ideal world,personality rearchers would have sufficient time and resources to exploit the sup
erior content validity and reliability of well-established multi-item instruments.Unfortunately,circumstances are often not ideal and rearchers may be faced with a stark choice of using an extremely brief instrument or using no in-strument at all.For example,one Internet-bad study ud a single-item measure to obtain ratings of lf-esteem from participants who would be unlikely to dwell at the website long enough to complete a multi-item questionnaire(Robins,Trzes-niewski,Tracy,Gosling,&Potter,2002).Studies that require participants to rate themlves and multiple others on veral occasions may also profit from the u of short scales.In one longitudinal study of interpersonal perceptions,participants were required to rate veral other group members on veral traits on veral occa-sions(Paulhus&Bruce,1992);multi-item scales would have burdened participants excessively so single-item measures were ud.Other uful applications for short in-struments include large-scale surveys,pre-screening packets,longitudinal studies, and experience-sampling studies(Robins,Hendin,&Trzesniewski,2001a).
Although single-item scales are usually psychometrically inferior to multiple-item scales,single-item measures do have some advantages.In developing a single-item measure of lf-esteem,Robins et al.(2001a)noted that single-item measures ‘‘...eliminate item redundancy and therefore reduce the fa
tigue,frustration,and boredom associated with answering highly similar questions repeatedly’’(p.152;also e Saucier,1994).Indeed,Burisch(1984b,1997)showed that short and simple de-pression scales can be just as valid as long and sophisticated scales.For example,lf and peer reports converged just as strongly for a truncated9-item depression scale (r¼:54)as for the full50-item scale(r¼:51).BurischÕsfindings suggest that the suppod psychometric superiority of longer scales does not always translate into practice.If the psychometric costs of using short scales are not as steep as might be expected,their relative efficiency make them a very attractive rearch tool.The widespread u of single-item measures is a testimony to their appeal.Single-item measures have been ud to asss such constructs as life-satisfaction(Campbell, Conver,&Rodgers,1976),subjective well-being(Diener,1984;Sandvik,Diener, &Seidlitz,1993),affect(Rusll,Weiss,&Mendelsohn,1989),cultural/ethnic iden-tity(Benet-Mart ınez,Leu,Lee,&Morris,2002),relationship intimacy(Aron,Aron, &Danny,1992),attachment style(Hazan&Shaver,1987),intelligence(Paulhus, Lysy,&Yik,1998),and lf-esteem(Robins,Tracy,Trzesniewski,Potter,&Gosling, 2001b).
506S.D.Gosling et al./Journal of Rearch in Personality37(2003)504–528
1.2.Previous Big-Five instruments
In this report,we evaluate new5and10-item measures of the Big-Five personality dimensions.The Big-Five framework enjoys considerable support and has become the most widely ud and extensively rearched model of personality(for reviews, e John&Srivastava,1999,and McCrae&Costa,1999),although it has not been accepted universally(Block,1995).
The Big-Five framework is a hierarchical model of personality traits withfive broad factors,which reprent personality at the broadest level of abstraction.Each bipolar ,Extraversion vs.Introversion)summarizes veral more specific ,Sociability),which,in turn,subsume a large number of even more spe-cific ,talkative,outgoing).The Big-Five framework suggests that most in-dividual differences in human personality can be classified intofive broad, empirically derived domains.
Several rating instruments have been developed to measure the Big-Five dimen-sions.The most comprehensive instrument is Costa and McCraeÕs(1992)240-item NEO Personality Inventory,Revid(NEO-PI-R),which permits measurement of the Big-Five domains and six specific facets within each dimension.Taking about 45min to complete,the NEO-PI-R is too lengthy for many rearch purpos and so a number of shorter instruments are commonly ud.Three well-established and widely ud instruments are the44-item Big-Five Inventory(BFI;e Benet-Mart ınez莲花座图片
&John,1998;John&Srivastava,1999),the60-item NEO Five-Factor In-ventory(NEO-FFI;Costa&McCrae,1992),and GoldbergÕs instrument comprid of100trait descriptive adjectives(TDA;Goldberg,1992).John and Srivastava (1999)have estimated that the BFI,NEO-FFI,and TDA take approximately5, 15,and15min to complete,respectively.Recognizing the need for an even briefer measure of the Big Five,Saucier(1994)developed a40-item instrument derived from GoldbergÕs(1992)100-item t.
1.3.Overview of prent rearch
In two studies,we evaluate new5and10-item measures of the Big Five in terms of convergence with an established Big-Five instrument(the BFI),test–retest reliability, and patterns of predicted external correlates.In Study1,two samples were assd using both the newfive-item instrument and the BFI.Convergent and discriminant validity was examined in a sample of1704undergraduate students who were assd using both instruments.To compare the pattern of external correlates of the5-item instrument with the pattern of external correlates of the BFI,we also administered a battery of other instruments.To asss the test–retest reliability of the5-item instru-ment and of the BFI,a subt of118participants were assd again two weeks after the initial asssment.To evaluate the performance of the measure when ud in obrver-report format,a cond subt of60participa
nts were rated by obrvers after a brief getting acquainted exerci.To examine the measure when ud in peer-report format,we also collected peer reports from a new sample of 83participants.
S.D.Gosling et al./Journal of Rearch in Personality37(2003)504–528507 In Study2,one sample was assd using both the10-item instrument and the BFI.Convergent and discriminant validity was examined in a sample of1813under-graduate students who were assd using both instruments.To compare the pat-tern of external correlates of the10-item instrument with tho of the BFI,a battery of other instruments was also administered.To evaluate the foci of the scales from the BFI and the10-item instrument,we also administered the NEO-PI-R to a subt of180participants.To asss the test–retest reliability of the10-item instru-ment,the same subt of participants were assd again,six weeks after the initial asssment.
2.Study1
The aim of Study1was to examine a new5-item instrument designed to asss the Big-Five personality dimensions.We ud four tests to evaluate the instrument,each time comparing the5-item instrument to the BFI.First,to asss convergent and dis-criminant validity,we obtained lf-ratings,obrver ratings,and peer ratings using the5-item instrument and the BFI.
Second,to asss test–retest reliability,a sub-sample of participants took the re-vid5-item instrument and the BFI a cond time,two weeks after thefirst test ad-ministration.Test–retest correlations are particularly valuable for single-item measures becau internal-consistency indices of reliability cannot be computed.
Third,to examine patterns of external correlates,we also obtained lf-ratings on veral other measures.The construct validity of an instrument can be defined in terms of a nomological network(Cronbach&Meehl,1955);that is,the degree to which a construct shows theoretically predicted patterns of correlations with other related and unrelated constructs.Our goal here was not to validate the Big-Five con-structs but to evaluate the degree to which a very brief measure of the Big-Five con-structs asss the same constructs as tho assd by a longer,established measure.Therefore,the predicted nomological network for the5-item instrument was provided by the pattern of correlations shown by the standard BFI to a broad range of constructs.
Fourth,to evaluate the convergence between lf and obrver reports,a sub-sam-ple of participants were rated by obrvers after a brief getting acquainted exerci. (The data were also ud to examine convergent and discriminant correlations in obrver reports.)
陈安之简介
2.1.Method
2.1.1.Instruments
One approach to constructing short tests is to lect the best performing items from longer tests on the basis of psychometric criteria,such as item-total correla-tions.For example,to create an abbreviated t of Big-Five markers from Gold-bergÕs100-item t,Saucier(1994)relied on psychometric criteria,lecting tho items that showed high factor purity and would form reliable scales.The strategy
坦克动荡2下载
508S.D.Gosling et al./Journal of Rearch in Personality37(2003)504–528
adopted here was different.Instead of psychometric criteria,we focud on optimiz-ing the content validity of our short measure—we aimed to enhance the bandwidth of the items by including in each item veral descriptors lected to capture the breadth of the Big-Five dimensions.Thus,we ud a strategy akin to the one ud by Hazan and Shaver(1987)who created paragraph-long items that clearly de-scribed the heart and breadth of the attachment-style constructs they were asssing. To create items,John and Srivastava(1999)have recommended adding elaborative, clarifying,or contextual information to one or two prototypical adjectives.John and Srivastava(1999)note that augmented items retain the advantages of brevity and simplicity associated with single adjectives,while avoiding some of their pitfalls,such as ambiguous or multiple meanings.
Thus,we connsually lected descriptors to reprent each of the domains. Where possible,we culled descriptors from existing Big-Five instruments,drawing most heavily on GoldbergÕs(1992)list of unipolar and bipolar Big-Five markers,ad-jectives from the BFI,and John and SrivastavaÕs(1999)Adjective Checklist Big-Five markers.1Selection was bad on the followingfive guidelines.First,we strove for breadth of coverage,using the facets of the Big Five to guide our lections.Sec-ond,we identified items reprenting both poles of each dimension.Third,where possible we lected items that were not evaluatively extreme.Fourth,for the sake of clarity,we avoided using items that were simply negations.Fifth,we attempted to minimize redundancy among the descriptors.We developed a standard format, in which each item was defined by two central descriptors and clarified by six other descriptors,that together covered the breadth of each domain and included items from the high and low poles.The resultingfive items were:Extraverted,enthusiastic (that is,sociable,asrtive,talkative,active,NOT rerved,or shy);Agreeable,kind (that is,trusting,generous,sympathetic,cooperative,NOT aggressive,or cold);De-pendable,organized(that is,hard working,responsible,lf-disciplined,thorough, NOT careless,or impulsive);Emotionally stable,calm(that is,relaxed,lf-confi-dent,NOT anxious,moody,easily upt,or easily stresd);Open to experience, imaginative(that is,curious,reflective,creative,deep,open-minded,NOT conven-tional).Each of thefive items was rated on a7-point scale ranging from1(disagree strongly)to7(agree strongly).
积极的财政政策Participants also completed the44-item BFI(John&Srivastava,1999).The BFI shows high convergent validity with other lf-report scales and with peer ratings of
1In a pilot study,we ud single-item scales bad on the labels commonly ud to refer to the Big Five dimensions:‘‘Extraverted,’’‘‘Agreeable,warm,’’‘‘Conscientious,’’‘‘Emotionally stable,’’and‘‘Open to new experiences.’’The majorfinding to emerge from this study was that‘‘conscientious’’was hard for lay judges to interpret;convergent correlations between ratings on the‘‘conscientious’’item and the BFI conscientiousness scale were only.22for lf reports and.36for peer reports(compared to.81and.76,.64 and.72,.65and.70,and.55and.51,respectively,for Extraversion,Agreeableness,Emotional Stability and Openness).However,when judges who were familiar with the Big Five ud the item,the convergent correlations ro dramatically—the convergent correlation between peer ratings by experts on the ‘‘conscientious’’item and the BFI conscientiousness was.81.The lesson to emerge from the pilot data was that the Big Five definitions are not conveyed to laypersons by the common Big Five labels,and that care should be taken to lect items familiar to laypersons.救救孩子吧
S.D.Gosling et al./Journal of Rearch in Personality37(2003)504–528509 the Big Five.The BFI items were rated on a5-point scale ranging from1(disagree strongly)to5(agree strongly).
村官面试To permit us to examine a broad array of external correlates of the new Five Item Personality Inventory(FIPI)and the BFI,participants also completed a battery of other measures:the Brief Loquaciousness and Interpersonal Responsiveness Test (BLIRT;Swann&Rentfrow,2001),the Social Dominance Orientation question-naire(SDO;Pratto,Sidanius,Stallworth,&Malle,1994),the Ronberg Self-Esteem Scale(RSES;Ronberg,1965),the Beck Depression Inventory(BDI;Beck,1972), the Math Identification Questionnaire(MIQ;Brown&Jophs,1999),the Short Test of Music Preferences(STOMP;Rentfrow&Gosling,2003),and single-item measures of political values,physical attractiveness,wealth,athletic ability,and intelligence.共公
佳护士
2.1.2.Recruitment and participants
We examined the FIPI in two samples(A1and B)of participants,as well as two sub-samples(Samples A2and A3)drawn from sample A1.Sample A1was com-prid of1704University of Texas at Austin undergraduates who volunteered in ex-change for partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology cour requirement. Participants completed the battery of instruments described above.To reduce the carryover from the FIPI to the BFI,we parated them with veral other instru-ments.Of tho who indicated,1058(62.6%)were women,633(37.4%)were men, 205(13.5%)were Asian,205(13.5%)were Hispanic,988(65%)were White,and 122(8%)were of other ethnicities.
Two weeks later,a sub-sample of118of the participants(sample A2)were tested again.In exchange for partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology cour re-quirement,participants completed a cond battery of questionnaires,including the FIPI and the BFI.Of tho who indicated,94(81.7%)were women and 21(18.3%)were men,25(21.9%)were Asian,11(9.6%)were Hispanic,64(56.2%) were White,and14(12.3%)were of other ethnicities.
Between2and9weeks later,another sub-sample of60participants(sample A3) returned to the lab in previously unacquainted same x pairs.2In exchange for par-tial fulfillment of an introductory psychology cour requirement,each pair of par-ticipants took part in a zero-acquaintance type exerci in which they had15min to introduce themlves and learn a little about one another.After just15-min,each participant rated the other participant using peer-report versions of the FIPI and the BFI.Of tho who indicated,27(45.8%)were women and32(54.2%)were men,7(11.9%)were Asian,8(13.6%)were Hispanic,32(54.2%)were White,and 12(20.3%)were of other ethnicities.
Sample B was comprid of83University of Texas undergraduates who volun-teered in exchange for partial fulfillment of an introductory psychology cour re-quirement.Participants completed a cond battery of questionnaires,including peer-report versions of the FIPI and the BFI,which they ud to describe‘‘a person 2Data for one participant were excluded becau lf-ratings were not provided.
