Informant reports: A cheap, fast, and easy method for personality assessment
Introduction
Assessing personality is a challenging task that cannot be accomplished thoroughly with a single method. Yet personality researchers frequently do just that, relying exclusively on self-reports. Indeed, an analysis of all studies published in the Journal of Research in Personality (JRP) in 2003 revealed that of the 45 studies in which personality was assessed, 44 of them (98%) used self-reports and for 31 of these (70%) this was the only measure collected. In contrast, only 24% of the JRP studies collected informant reports (i.e., ratings of the targets by well-acquainted others, such as friends, spouses, or co-workers). The purpose of this paper is to encourage researchers to increase the number of methods they routinely use by adding informant reports to their battery of research instruments.
In addition to collecting informant reports for the sake of multi-method assessment, many researchers have provided compelling arguments for exploiting this rich source of information (e.g., Costa and McCrae, 1988, Craik, 1986, Craik, 1996, Craik, 2000, Hofstee, 1994, Hogan, 1998, John and Robins, 1993, Kenny, 1994, Kolar et al., 1996, McCrae et al., 1998, Oltmanns et al., 1998, Paulhus and Morgan, 1997, Paulhus, 2005, Watson et al., 2000). In fact, informant reports are an ideal complement to self-reports because self-reports provide a view of personality from the inside (i.e., identity) whereas informant reports provide a view of personality from the outside (i.e., reputation; Hogan, 1998). Perhaps the most important feature of informant reports is that, unlike self-reports, they can be aggregated across observers to obtain a more reliable assessment of personality (Block, 1961, Hofstee, 1994).
In light of these obvious and compelling benefits, Why are informants not more widely used? Given that the benefits are evident, the reasons must lie in the costs, or in researchers’ preconceptions of the costs. What are the perceived costs of collecting informant reports? It is difficult to address this question empirically, but having spoken to numerous researchers about this issue, it seems that the reluctance to use informant reports is driven by four widely held preconceptions (Table 1). First, researchers seem to believe that collecting informant reports is time consuming. Second, many researchers cannot afford the monetary costs they assume would be associated with collecting informant reports. Third, researchers anticipate low cooperation on the part of informants. Fourth, researchers worry that because informants frequently complete their ratings outside of the laboratory (e.g., from home), the lack of control over the ratings will adversely affect the quality of the data, perhaps even leading to fake responses. In my experience, all four of these beliefs are unfounded. Informant methods are much easier and more successful than many researchers believe.
After learning how easy the procedure is and how willing informants are to cooperate, many initially skeptical colleagues have incorporated informant reports into their studies. Therefore, I suspect that if more researchers were convinced that their preconceptions are groundless, many of them would collect informant reports and personality research would be less one-dimensional. This would not only improve the validity of personality research, but also allow researchers to address new questions that cannot be examined with self-reports alone. In this paper I evaluate these preconceptions in light of new technological advances, describe the strategies I have learned for addressing them, and present results from three studies that implemented these strategies.
Section snippets
Preconception 1: Informant reports are time consuming
Perhaps the biggest reason for our field’s over-reliance on self-reports is that they are seen as far more convenient than any other method. A corollary of this belief is that any other method, including informant reports, would be a strain on either the researchers or the participants. However, recent technological advances have increased the practicality and efficiency of many methods of data collection, including informant reports.
Specifically, the proliferation of the Internet and e-mail
Three illustrative data sets
In this section I describe the procedure my collaborators and I have used for collecting informant reports. Study 1, described in Vazire and Gosling (2004), consisted of 80 adults and their informants across the US. Studies 2 (Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2004) and 3 (Vazire & Mehl, 2004) consisted of students recruited at the University of Texas at Austin and their informants. Although the procedures varied slightly across the three studies, I describe the general procedure here noting any
Conclusion
The perplexing pattern of over-reliance on self-reports in the field of personality research seems to be based, at least in part, on the outdated belief among researchers that other methods of assessing personality place a significant burden on the researcher or participants. Unfortunately, this belief has led many researchers to overlook informant reports, which provide rich, valid assessments of personality at minimal cost to the researcher. In their cost-benefit analyses of informant
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this article was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grants MH64527-01A1 and MH52391, and National Science Foundation Grant 0422924. I am grateful to Sam Gosling, Cindy Chung, Katie Larsen, Pranjal Mehta, and Erik Noftle for their helpful comments on this paper and to Sam Gosling, Matthias Mehl, Jamie Pennebaker, and Jason Rentfrow for making their data available.
References (32)
Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from Web-based personality inventories
Journal of Research in Personality
(2005)The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research
(1961)- et al.
Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(1988) Personality research methods: An historical perspective
Journal of Personality
(1986)The objectivity of persons and their lives: A noble dream for personality psychology?
Psychological Inquiry
(1996)Personality psychology: Methods of study
How to conduct behavioral research over the Internet: A beginner’s guide to HTML and CGI/Perl
(2004)- et al.
A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2002) - et al.
Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires
American Psychologist
(2004) Who should own the definition of personality?
European Journal of Personality
(1994)
Reinventing personality
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The Big Five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self
Journal of Personality
The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives
Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis
Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others
Journal of Personality
A five-factor theory of personality
Cited by (259)
I'm not the executive that I used to be: Understanding causes and consequences of personality change in the upper echelons
2023, Journal of Business ResearchNegative campaigning is “dark”—Not just disagreeable or dishonest: Results from German candidates' self-reports
2023, Personality and Individual DifferencesCEO dark personality: A critical review, bibliometric analysis, and research agenda
2023, Personality and Individual DifferencesPersonality traits of world leaders and differential policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
2022, Social Science and MedicineAge differences in personality traits and social desirability: A multi-rater multi-sample study
2022, Journal of Research in Personality