Abstract

This study explored the validity of person judgements by targets and their acquaintances (‘informants’) in longitudinally predicting a broad range of psychologically meaningful life experiences. Judgements were gathered from four sources (targets, N = 189; and three types of informants, N = 1352), and their relative predictive validity was compared for three types of judgement: direct predictions of future life experiences (e.g. number of new friendships), broad (Big Five) domains (e.g. extraversion), and narrower personality nuances (e.g. sociable). Approximately 1 year later, the targets’ actual life experiences were retrospectively assessed by the targets, and by informants nominated by the targets (TNI). Overall, we found evidence for predictive validity across predictor sources and types. Direct predictions by targets were by far the most valid, followed by TNI. Personality–based predictions by targets and TNI had substantial but lower validity. Domain–based predictions were less valid than nuance–based predictions. Overall, informants with lower ‘liking’ and ‘knowing’ towards targets made less valid predictions. Person–centred multilevel analyses showed both considerable validity of direct predictions (which increased with knowing) and positivity bias (which increased with liking). Taken together, given the relatively high methodological rigour of the study, these results provide an especially realistic picture of the rather moderate predictive power of person judgements regarding future life experiences and corroborate the common practice of obtaining such judgements from targets and their close acquaintances. © 2020 The Authors. European Journal of Personality published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Association of Personality Psychology

Highlights

  • This study explored the validity of person judgements by targets and their acquaintances (‘informants’) in longitudinally predicting a broad range of psychologically meaningful life experiences

  • We investigate to what extent such personality judgements enable valid predictions of actual future life experiences

  • Personality nuances rated by the targets had no predictive validity at the p < .01 level (AEX_t, Mdn R2 1⁄4 .025, p < .05; AEX_tni, Mdn R2 1⁄4 .024, p 1⁄4 .08), but the effects were of similar size as and did not significantly differ from those we found for target-nominated informants’ (TNI)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study explored the validity of person judgements by targets and their acquaintances (‘informants’) in longitudinally predicting a broad range of psychologically meaningful life experiences. Judgements were gathered from four sources (targets, N 1⁄4 189; and three types of informants, N 1⁄4 1352), and their relative predictive validity was compared for three types of judgement: direct predictions of future life experiences (e.g. number of new friendships), broad (Big Five) domains (e.g. extraversion), and narrower personality nuances (e.g. sociable). We investigate to what extent such personality judgements (both on the level of Big Five domains and on the level of personality ‘nuances’) enable valid predictions of actual future life experiences (e.g. number of new friendships). Given that the match in bandwidth is perfect in the latter case, the validity estimates obtained this way may function as a kind of benchmark

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.