Cited by 290Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The nature and structure of correlations among Big Five ratings: The halo-alpha-beta model.

Anusic, Ivana, Schimmack, Ulrich, Pinkus, Rebecca T., Lockwood, Penelope·2009·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

In light of consistently observed correlations among Big Five ratings, the authors developed and tested a model that combined E. L. Thorndike's (1920) general evaluative bias (halo) model and J. M. Digman's (1997) higher order personality factors (alpha and beta) model. With 4 multitrait-multimethod analyses, Study 1 revealed moderate convergent validity for alpha and beta across raters, whereas halo was mainly a unique factor for each rater. In Study 2, the authors showed that the halo factor was highly correlated with a validated measure of evaluative biases in self-ratings. Study 3 showed that halo is more strongly correlated with self-ratings of self-esteem than self-ratings of the Big Five, which suggests that halo is not a mere rating bias but actually reflects overly positive self-evaluations. Finally, Study 4 demonstrated that the halo bias in Big Five ratings is stable over short retest intervals. Taken together, the results suggest that the halo-alpha-beta model integrates the main findings in structural analyses of Big Five correlations. Accordingly, halo bias in self-ratings is a reliable and stable bias in individuals' perceptions of their own attributes. Implications of the present findings for the assessment of Big Five personality traits in monomethod studies are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0017159

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anusic, I., Schimmack, U., Pinkus, R. T., & Lockwood, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • State University of New York (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2009
Volume
97
Issue
6
Pages
1142-1156
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2028826002
Cited by
290
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 25
FWCI
19.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Big Five personality traits, halo effect, evaluative bias, higher-order personality factors, self-ratings, self-esteem, convergent validity, test-retest stability, multitrait-multimethod analysis, personality assessment
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Models, Psychological, Personality, Personality Assessment, Psychological Theory, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self-Assessment, Self Concept, Students, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review