Bounty Ended with 100 reputation awarded by Jeromy Anglim
2 deleted 113 characters in body
source | link

In a previous post on the global personality factor, you provided examples to describe how self-report items indicating higher trait levels are phrased in more socially desirable terms, hence the positive bias.

I think it's important to distinguish between two (or three) kinds of biases here: one is related to the wording/content of the items (the positive bias your refer to) and the other stems from trait desirability, i.e. the extent to which individuals find a trait desirable for personal reasons (e.g. their own standing on the trait) and for socio-cultural reasons (e.g. the extent to which a trait is valued by society or his/her culture).

To use your own examples, one could perhaps mitigate the positive bias by including items that make the lower ends of each trait seem less undesirable (.e.g., "I enjoy being in my own company most of the time" for low extraversion) and the higher ends less desirable (e.g. "I like to dominate in social situations" for high extraversion), but you would still have the effects of the trait desirability biases. It's not to say that the task of improving the wording or content of the items to reflect less bias isn't important, and to what extent there is bias is itself arguable, but much of the bias you're describing could reflect the greater desiriability of higher relative to lower trait levels (on average).

Has the purported positive bias been documented or described in any articles? Perhaps that should be the main question at this point.

I'm only aware of approaches to dealing with the desirability biases mentioned. One is to obtain reports from multiple informants in addition to self-reports. Another is to use ipsative (i.e. forced-choice) measures of the Big Five (e.g., Hirsh & Peterson, 2008).

References

Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1323-1333.

Ludeke, S. G., Weisberg, Y. J., & Deyoung, C. G. (2013). Idiographically Desirable Responding: Individual Differences in Perceived Trait Desirability Predict Overclaiming. European Journal of Personality.

In a previous post on the global personality factor, you provided examples to describe how self-report items indicating higher trait levels are phrased in more socially desirable terms, hence the positive bias.

I think it's important to distinguish between two (or three) kinds of biases here: one is related to the wording/content of the items (the positive bias your refer to) and the other stems from trait desirability, i.e. the extent to which individuals find a trait desirable for personal reasons (e.g. their own standing on the trait) and for socio-cultural reasons (e.g. the extent to which a trait is valued by society or his/her culture).

To use your own examples, one could perhaps mitigate the positive bias by including items that make the lower ends of each trait seem less undesirable (.e.g., "I enjoy being in my own company most of the time" for low extraversion) and the higher ends less desirable (e.g. "I like to dominate in social situations" for high extraversion), but you would still have the effects of the trait desirability biases. It's not to say that the task of improving the wording or content of the items isn't important, and to what extent there is bias is itself arguable, but much of the bias you're describing could reflect the greater desiriability of higher relative to lower trait levels (on average).

Has the purported positive bias been documented or described in any articles? Perhaps that should be the main question at this point.

I'm only aware of approaches to dealing with the desirability biases mentioned. One is to obtain reports from multiple informants in addition to self-reports. Another is to use ipsative (i.e. forced-choice) measures of the Big Five (e.g., Hirsh & Peterson, 2008).

References

Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1323-1333.

Ludeke, S. G., Weisberg, Y. J., & Deyoung, C. G. (2013). Idiographically Desirable Responding: Individual Differences in Perceived Trait Desirability Predict Overclaiming. European Journal of Personality.

In a previous post on the global personality factor, you provided examples to describe how self-report items indicating higher trait levels are phrased in more socially desirable terms, hence the positive bias.

I think it's important to distinguish between two (or three) kinds of biases here: one is related to the wording/content of the items (the positive bias your refer to) and the other stems from trait desirability, i.e. the extent to which individuals find a trait desirable for personal reasons (e.g. their own standing on the trait) and for socio-cultural reasons (e.g. the extent to which a trait is valued by society or his/her culture).

To use your own examples, one could perhaps mitigate the positive bias by including items that make the lower ends of each trait seem less undesirable (.e.g., "I enjoy being in my own company most of the time" for low extraversion) and the higher ends less desirable (e.g. "I like to dominate in social situations" for high extraversion), but you would still have the effects of the trait desirability biases. It's not to say that the task of improving the wording or content of the items to reflect less bias isn't important, and to what extent there is bias is itself arguable.

Has the purported positive bias been documented or described in any articles? Perhaps that should be the main question at this point.

I'm only aware of approaches to dealing with the desirability biases mentioned. One is to obtain reports from multiple informants in addition to self-reports. Another is to use ipsative (i.e. forced-choice) measures of the Big Five (e.g., Hirsh & Peterson, 2008).

References

Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1323-1333.

Ludeke, S. G., Weisberg, Y. J., & Deyoung, C. G. (2013). Idiographically Desirable Responding: Individual Differences in Perceived Trait Desirability Predict Overclaiming. European Journal of Personality.

1
source | link

In a previous post on the global personality factor, you provided examples to describe how self-report items indicating higher trait levels are phrased in more socially desirable terms, hence the positive bias.

I think it's important to distinguish between two (or three) kinds of biases here: one is related to the wording/content of the items (the positive bias your refer to) and the other stems from trait desirability, i.e. the extent to which individuals find a trait desirable for personal reasons (e.g. their own standing on the trait) and for socio-cultural reasons (e.g. the extent to which a trait is valued by society or his/her culture).

To use your own examples, one could perhaps mitigate the positive bias by including items that make the lower ends of each trait seem less undesirable (.e.g., "I enjoy being in my own company most of the time" for low extraversion) and the higher ends less desirable (e.g. "I like to dominate in social situations" for high extraversion), but you would still have the effects of the trait desirability biases. It's not to say that the task of improving the wording or content of the items isn't important, and to what extent there is bias is itself arguable, but much of the bias you're describing could reflect the greater desiriability of higher relative to lower trait levels (on average).

Has the purported positive bias been documented or described in any articles? Perhaps that should be the main question at this point.

I'm only aware of approaches to dealing with the desirability biases mentioned. One is to obtain reports from multiple informants in addition to self-reports. Another is to use ipsative (i.e. forced-choice) measures of the Big Five (e.g., Hirsh & Peterson, 2008).

References

Hirsh, J. B., & Peterson, J. B. (2008). Predicting creativity and academic success with a “fake-proof” measure of the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1323-1333.

Ludeke, S. G., Weisberg, Y. J., & Deyoung, C. G. (2013). Idiographically Desirable Responding: Individual Differences in Perceived Trait Desirability Predict Overclaiming. European Journal of Personality.