Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

APA PsycNET Click here for the PDF version of this document.

for

Institutions

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1991 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. April 1991 Vol. 60, No. 4, 596-606 For personal use only--not for distribution.

Shared Variance in the California Psychological Inventory and the California Q-Set
Kevin Lanning Oregon State University Harrison G. Gough Institute of Personality Assessment and Research University of California, Berkeley ABSTRACT On a composite sample of 940 individuals assessed at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research, a series of analyses examining the extent and nature of correspondence between (a) observer descriptions of personality using the California QSet and (b) scores on the standard scales of the self-report California Psychological Inventory was performed. The instruments converged in the domains of social competence (vs. interpersonal inadequacy), rectitude (vs. rebellion), intellectual openness, tender-mindedness (vs. tough-mindedness), and emotional expressiveness. Within the psychometric tradition in personality psychology, the question of what to measure is paramount. This is the question of content, and solutions to it vary in scope from single-trait programs ( Rotter, 1966 ; Snyder, 1974 ; Zuckerman, 1979 ) to comprehensive schemes ( Cattell, 1983 ; Eysenck, 1969 ; Guilford, 1975 ). The comprehensive solutions share two important properties. First, like their less ambitious cousins, they may form the basis for generative research programs. Second, by virtue of their breadth, they may be interpreted as models for describing and understanding personality. The comprehensive approaches may usefully be classified along a continuum ( Buss & Finn, 1987 ). At one end, this continuum is anchored by the purely descriptive approach, which accepts natural language as its guide to the terrain of personality (e.g., Allport & Odbert, 1936 ; Cattell, 1943 ; Goldberg, 1982 ; Norman, 1963 ). The other end of the continuum is marked by approaches that originate in psychological theory and expert judgment (e.g., Block, 1961 ; Murray, Barrett, Langer, et al., 1938 ). Midway along this continuum are approaches that share both descriptive and theory-driven features. The sociobiological approach is one example of this category (e.g., Buss, 1988 ); the folkconcept approach, which studies cross-culturally ubiquitous and socially implicative dispositional terms, is another ( Gough, 1987 ). The present article investigates the commensurateness of the expert-based and folkconcept approaches, as embodied in the California Q-Set (CQ Set; Block, 1961 ) and the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1987 ), respectively. A limitation of our study should be acknowledged at the outset: The potential convergence between these

two data sets will be attenuated by the differing perspectives of self (on the CPI) and observer (on the CQ Set). This inelegant confounding of instrument variance (CPI vs. CQ Set) with rater (self vs. observer) will be partially overcome by comparing our results with those of a previous study ( Funder & Colvin, 1988 ).

The CQ Set and the CPI


The CQ Set and the CPI differ in more than their theoretical origins. In this section, we briefly characterize the two instruments and anticipate likely empirical differences between them. In developing the CQ Set, Block (1961) sought to achieve a "comprehensive coverage of the personality domain as viewed by contemporary clinicians" (p. 52). An iterative process of item refinement, spanning several years and incorporating contributions from over 50 professionals, led to the final version of the CQ Set. Although the CQ Set aspires to be atheoretical, Block acknowledged a strong psychodynamic influence. This influence is evidenced in items descriptive of ego control ( tends toward overcontrol of needs and impulses ) and defensive style ( anxiety and tension find outlet in bodily symptoms ). The 100 items of the CQ Set are by no means restricted to psychodynamics but include statements descriptive of interpersonal behavior ( is a talkative individual ), temperament ( has a rapid personal tempo ), and cognitive skills ( appears to have a high degree of intellectual capacity ) as well as higher order concerns ( is unpredictable and changeable in behavior and attitudes ) and variables often considered to be outside of the sphere of personality ( is physically attractive. ) The CQ Set was designed to be used by professional observers, although a recent modification of the instrument for self-report administration has received widespread use ( Bem & Funder, 1978 ; Funder & Dobroth, 1987 ; Funder & Harris, 1986 ; McCrae, Costa, & Busch, 1986 ). The principal aim of the CPI is to "furnish measures of a sufficiently large number of folk notions about personality so that all, or nearly all, kinds of interpersonal behavior can be forecast" ( Gough, 1989 , p. 69). The CPI profile sheet reports a total of 23 scales. The first 20 of these are the folk scales, representing categories of interpersonal, intrapersonal, achievement-related, and stylistic variables. The remaining three scales were derived from the correlational structure of the test and are used to define a personological taxonomy. These three scales describe vectors of interpersonal orientation, normative preferences, and the respondent's sense of self-realization. Additional special-purpose scales, such as those measuring creative temperament and managerial potential, may also be scored on the CPI but were not used in this study. In summary, the CQ Set and the CPI differ in their theoretical origins, stated goals, rating format, manifest content, and data sources (observer vs. self ratings). The scope of these differences ensures that the shared variance in the instruments transcends method. Consequently, an examination of the extent and nature of the common variance in the instruments can shed light on the nomothetic core of personality.

Assessing Multivariate Correspondence

In assessing multivariate correspondence, two major issues are of interest. The first concerns prediction of the components of each instrument from each other. The second is concerned with understanding the structure of the variance common to the two instruments. Although these two questions are mathematically related (e.g., Skinner, 1977 ), the techniques that have evolved to address them are sufficiently dissimilar to warrant considering each one separately. Reciprocal Predictability How well can the CPI scales, appropriately weighted, predict the items of the CQ Set? Similarly, how well can the items of the CQ Set predict the CPI scales? The answers to these two questions are unlikely to be equivalent. Simply by virtue of the number of scored components in the two instruments, it is probable that the 100 items of the CQ Set can do a better job of accounting for the CPI scales than vice versa. Factor analyses of the two instruments, which have typically found seven or more factors in the CQ Set ( Lorr, 1978 ; McCrae et al., 1986 ) and four in the CPI ( Gough, 1987 ), support this hypothesized asymmetry. In principle, the 100 CQ Set items should predict the 23 CPI scales better than the 23 CPI scales predict the 100 CQ Set items. Examinations of the reciprocal predictability of multimeasure instruments, such as the CPI and the CQ Set, have typically relied on canonical correlation analysis. For our purposes, this approach suffers from two limitations. First, it provides only symmetric measures of association, that is, correlations between linear composites (canonical variates) of the two sets of variables. Second, and more critically, the first n variates in a canonical analysis do not typically account for the maximum amount of variance in either of the variable sets being related ( Lambert, Wildt, & Durand, 1988 ). 1 An alternative procedure, known as redundancy analysis, avoids both of these shortcomings ( Lambert et al., 1988 ; van den Wollenberg, 1977 ). Redundancy analysis provides a sequential set of predictor variates (e.g., linear composites of CPI scales), each of which accounts for the maximum remaining variance in the criterion set (e.g., CQ Set items). Differences between redundancy analysis and canonical correlation analysis are likely to be most pronounced when the data sets include correlated measures and when only a subset of the predictor variates are to be interpreted. Both of these conditions hold true in the present study. Describing Common Variance One approach to understanding the shared variance in the two instruments is to investigate the content of the predictor and cross-loading variates in each of two sets of redundancy analysesthe one predicting the items of the CQ-Set from the CPI scales and the other predicting the CPI scales from the CQ-Set items. A disadvantage of this approach is that there is no guarantee that the two groups of variates will be similar in content, and such differences may render interpretation difficult. This will happen any time the relative saturation of the common dimensions differs in the two batteries. 2

An alternative technique is available that returns a single result describing the component structure of the matrix of correlations between two instruments. This technique is interbattery factor analysis ( Tucker, 1958 ), and we use it to directly investigate the shared variance in the two instruments.

Interpreting Multivariate Structure


When a large sample of individuals is rated using a set of trait terms sampled representatively from the lexicon, a five-dimensional model is adequate for describing relations among these terms (see John, Angleitner, & Ostendorf, 1988 , for a recent review). This holds true for ratings by observers ( Digman & Takemoto-Chock, 1981 ; Norman, 1963 ; Tupes & Christal, 1961 ) as well as for self-ratings ( Goldberg, 1989 ; McCrae & Costa, 1987 ). Although different labels have been used for the factors, the various solutions are considered sufficiently similar to constitute a single framework for understanding personality. The "Big Five" are now sufficiently well established so that one could argue that any contemporary investigation of personality factor structure would be incomplete without comparing the results to this five-factor model. The names recommended by Digman (1990) in his comprehensive analysis of the model were (a) Extraversion/Introversion (or Surgency), (b) Friendliness/Hostility (or Agreeableness), (c) Conscientiousness (or Will), (d) Neuroticism/Emotional Stability, and (e) Intellect (or Openness). Several studies have recently explored the utility of the five-factor model for describing the multivariate structure of various measures of personality. For the most part, these studies have found that the five factors, or a subset thereof, could be recovered in these instruments. For example, the factor structure of the Wiggins Interpersonal Adjective Scales ( McCrae & Costa, 1989 ) and the Eysenck inventories ( Costa & McCrae, 1985 ) lie within the Big Five factor space. Although these investigations have been salutary in their attempt to relate different methods and measures, they should not be interpreted to suggest that the Big Five factors are comprehensive. In some instruments, the five-factor model appears to be insufficient for describing multivariate structure. Costa and McCrae (1988) jointly factored the scales of their NEO Personality Inventory and the Personality Research Form (PRF-E; Jackson, 1984 ). A five-factor solution did correspond closely to the Big Five, but a seven-factor solution revealed one additional factor defined by Autonomy versus Succorance and Social Recognition, and a second marked by Abasement, Achievement, and Endurance. In an analysis of correlations among the Comrey Personality Scales (CPS; Comrey, 1970 ), the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1963 ), and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF; Cattell, Eber, & Tatsuoka, 1970 ), Noller, Law, and Comrey (1987) found support for the first four of the Big Five factors, but the fifth factor differed in that its major loadings were on gender, the 16 PF I (Tough-Minded) scale, and the CPS M (MasculinityFemininity) Scale. Several studies have revealed that more than five factors are required for describing the structure of the CQ Set. In an analysis of CQ Set self-ratings, McCrae et al. (1986)

rotated the first five factors to dimensions consistent with the Big Five or five-factor model. But an eight-factor solution was also examined; the three additional factors included Ambition, Psychological Mindedness, and Physical Attractiveness. 3 Lorr (1978) , in his analysis of observer CQ Set ratings, also found eight interpretable factors. Two of these dimensions closely matched Neuroticism and Extraversion, and three others could also be mapped onto the Big Five (see McCrae et al., 1986 ). As in the McCrae et al. study, the remaining factors included physical attractiveness and ambition (labeled Managerial vs. Self-Effacing by Lorr). These analyses suggest that the Big Five factors, or some equivalents, are necessary but not sufficient for describing the correlational structure of the CQ Set. Factor analyses of the CPI ( Gough, 1987 ) suggest that a four-dimensional solution is sufficient, with three themes resembling variates in the Big Five (Extraversion, Control, and Flexibility or Openness) and one dimension (Consensuality) standing apart. These studies underscore the importance of the Big Five factors for understanding multivariate structure. At the same time, because additional dimensions have often been found, it is possible that the shared variance in the CPI and the CQ Set may not lie fully within this factor space.

Method
Subjects Subjects included 547 men and 393 women who participated in a series of in-depth studies at the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research. Constituent samples included persons selected because of unusual talent or accomplishment, such as business managers (37 men), mathematicians (41 women), research scientists (45 men), and both creative architects from across the country (40 men) and from the comprehensive study of a single architectural firm (18 men and 4 women). Diverse samples of college students, both undergraduate and graduate, were also assessed; these included business students (66 men and 52 women), engineering students (66 men), law students (40 women), medical school applicants (70 men), student playwrights (5 men and 5 women), seniors at a liberal arts college (51 women), and University of California sophomores (99 men and 99 women). Additional samples included adults contacted by way of random search of telephone directories, who were assessed in the context of studies of family planning (41 men and 41 women), interpersonal dependency (35 men and 35 women), and environmental issues in Marin County, California (25 men and 25 women). Procedure Subjects were observed in groups of approximately 10 over a period of 13 days. During this time, they participated in a variety of structured exercises (e.g., interviews and leaderless discussions) and were also observed in informal social settings (meals and coffee breaks). Prior to the group assessments, subjects completed a number of self-report

questionnaires, including the CPI. After the group assessments, each subject was rated by from five to eight judges using the CQ Set. For each subject, the CQ Set arrays were averaged over judges. These average ratings were then normed to the fixed, bell-shaped distribution of CQ Set items stipulated by Block (1961) . These consensual Q-Sort ratings were used in all of the analyses reported below. To allow for internal validation, we split the total sample into two groups of dissimilar size. To maximize the robustness of the initial analysis, we included most subjects (80%, n = 753) in the derivation sample, on which the redundancy analyses were computed. The remaining subjects (20%, n = 187) constituted the cross-validational sample. To maximize prediction of the CQ Set, we used all 20 of the folk scales in our analyses, plus the three scales used in typological classification: V-1 (Internality), V-2 (NormFavoring), and V-3 (Realization).

Results
Prediction of the CQ Set Items From the CPI Scales (CPI -> CQ) In the prediction of the CQ Set items from the 23 CPI scales, the first four predictor variates accounted for 5.0%, 2.6%, 1.9%, and 1.6% of the CQ Set item variance, for a cumulative total of 11.2%. 4 These variates proved robust, accounting for 10.7% of the variance within the cross-validating sample. Subsequently extracted dimensions were progressively less important (see Figure 1 ) and more difficult to interpret in both data sets. We assessed the extent to which each CQ Set item was predictable from the CPI by taking the square root of the sum of its squared loadings on the four variates. These values are equivalent to multiple correlations and averaged .33, with a range from .16 ( compares self to others ) to .51 ( favors conservative values ), as shown in Table 1 . 5 Items depicting social conformity (CQ Set Items 7, 62, 63, and 65), cognitive functioning (CQ Set Items 9, 51, and 98), and dominance (CQ Set Items 14, 52, and 71) are best predicted by the four CPI variates. The least predictable CQ Set items include several statements tapping a direct (Items 33, 77, and 85) versus manipulative (Item 61) interactional style and, more prominently, ratings in the low-visibility domains of selfconcern (CQ Set Items 59, 60, and 89) and social reflectiveness (Items 32, 44, and 87). The prevalence of low-visibility items in the second half of Table 1 reflects the differential attenuation of the CQ Set items by interrater disagreement. In an attempt to control for this, we used a subsample of the present data (118 business students) to assess interrater agreement at the item level by computing intraclass correlations over subjects and between pairs of raters. 6 Multiple correlations disattenuated for this source of unreliability are shown in Table 2 . The least predictable CQ Set items in this new list include descriptors of agreeableness (Items 28, 29, and 49) and physical attractiveness (Item 81).

Even though disattenuated for observer disagreement, the correlations shown in Table 2 remain limited by both (a) differences in the content of the instruments and (b) differences in the perspectives of self and observer ratings. Unfortunately, it is impossible to unconfound these in the available data. Nonetheless, by comparison of the present results with prior studies, further insight can be gained into differences in the structure of the two instruments. The most relevant of these prior studies is Funder and Colvin (1988) , which included the report of Pearson correlations describing selfobsrever agreement for the 100 CQ Set items. Because the Funder and Colvin ratings are based on the average ratings of two peers, whereas the present correlations are based on panels of five or more professional raters, the magnitudes of the correlations in the two studies are not directly comparable. However, it is possible to compare rankings of the predictabilities of the CQ Set items in the two studies. In Table 3 we list the CQ Set items that show the greatest discrepancies between our ranking and that reported by Funder and Colvin. The first group includes items ranked higher in selfpeer agreement than in predictability from the CPI. Most of the items are related to interpersonal attraction, including measures of agreeableness (Items 28 and 29), cheerfulness (Item 84), physical attractiveness (Item 81), perceived sense of humor (Item 18), and apparent interest in the opposite sex (Item 80). Recent discussions of the merits of direct self-ratings (e.g., Burisch, 1984 ) have tended to judge these as superior to the self-descriptive items of the kind found in the CPI. The findings reported in the second half of Table 3 contradict this position, indicating a domain in which the indirect approach of an inventory leads to a closer correspondence with observer ratings than that achieved by direct self-ratings. The majority of these items describe ego defenses and coping methods (e.g., tends to project and handles anxiety by repression ), facets of personality in which a respondent's insight may well be poor. Prediction of the CPI Scales From the CQ Set Items (CQ -> CPI) Recognizing the potential for asymmetry in relations between the two instruments, we undertook a second redundancy analysis in which we predicted the CPI scales from the CQ Set. 7 As is shown in Figure 2 , the first four variates derived from the CQ Set items accounted for 12.3%, 6.9%, 4.0%, and 1.9% (total = 25.1%) of the variance in the CPI scales in the derivation sample. Corresponding cross-validated values were 7.2%, 4.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3%, totaling 15.4%. The shrinkage on cross-validation was conspicuously greater than in the first (CPI -> CQ Set) redundancy analysis; this shrinkage, which occurred despite the large number of subjects in the derivation sample (753), is attributable to both the large number of variables in the CQ Set and the relative instability of the individual CQ Set items. Multiple correlations for predicting the CPI scales from the four redundancy variates averaged .50 and ranged from .27 to .64. The magnitudes of these multiple correlations appeared related to the content areas of the CPI, with the largest coefficient for the FemininityMasculinity scale, then for scales in the CPI interpersonal sector, followed

by scales associated with attitudes toward social norms. The smallest values were obtained for the CPI scales related to flexibility and, in particular, for the three validity scales. When these multiple correlations were disattenuated for unreliability in the CPI, they averaged .59, with a range from .32 to .81. 8 The pattern of differential predictability among the CPI scales remains essentially the same with the disattenuated coefficients, as is shown in Table 4 . Characterizing Shared Variance: Interbattery Factor Analysis We examined the nature of the shared variance in the CPI and CQ Set with an interbattery factor analysis ( Tucker, 1958 ). 9 To provide the most robust description of factor content, we used the entire sample of 940 subjects for this analysis. A scree plot did not reveal a clear solution for the number of factors. Tucker's (1958) approximate test suggested that 10 factors were statistically significant, but this was clearly inflated because of the large sample size. Only the first four or five factors were interpretable; indeed, all 23 CPI scales and 98 of the 100 CQ Set items had their highest loadings on one of the first five factors in this analysis. 10 The CPI scales and CQ Set items that define these factors are shown in Table 5 . The first factor, accounting for most of the shared variance in the instruments (60.7%), appears closely related to the Big Five factor of surgency or extraversion. Closer examination suggested that a somewhat narrower interpretation could be made: The patterns of CPI and CQ Set loadings reveal that the dimension is more closely related to dominance and social skill than to sociability and social interest. On the CPI side, this factor is defined by scales such as Self-Acceptance and Dominance. Defining CQ Set items include both measures of social skill (Items 4, 15, 52, 92, and 98) and task persistence (Items 30, 52, 55, and 71). We labeled this factor Social Competence (vs. Interpersonal Inadequacy). The second factor is marked by positive loadings on the CPI measures of normative orientation, specifically Socialization, Achievement-Conformity, Self-Control, and the V2 or Norm-Favoring scale. Relevant CQ Set items were similar, including measures of ethical concerns (Items 2, 7, 41, and 70), rebelliousness (Items 62 and 65), and ego control (Items 25 and 53). In both data sets, this dimension encompasses pronormative dispositions and an appreciation of order; we labeled this dimension Rectitude (vs. Rebellion). The third factor was marked by the CPI Flexibility and Achievement-Independence scales and, in the CQ Set, by items describing intellectual values (Items 8, 39, 51, and 90) and openness to experience (Items 66 and 90; Reflected Items 7 and 63); we labeled this dimension Intellectual Openness. The two remaining factors were both marked by the FemininityMasculinity scale in the CPI. In the fourth factor, CQ items describing communion and emotional warmth versus

agency and skepticism had strong weights, suggesting the label Tender-versus ToughMindedness. CQ Set items loading on the fifth factor strongly suggested a theme of Emotional Expressiveness.

Discussion
It is self-evident that scales of the CPI and items of the CQ Set will be imperfectly correlated. One of the most important reasons for this is measurement error: Although the level of agreement attained by the panel of raters for an average CQ Set item is substantial ( r = .55), it nonetheless places an important limit on the potential convergence with other measures. The CPI scales are also far from perfectly reliable, with an average reliability of .73 ( Gough, 1987 ). A second reason for expecting limited correspondence between the CPI and the CQ Set is that they are based on differing data sources. The CPI scale scores are based on selfreports, whereas the CQ Set items in our analysis were rated by observers. Clearly, selfratings and observer ratings may diverge without either being inaccurate, for these differ both in perspective and in temporal context. Given these and other differences between the instruments, we find the empirical convergence between them to be noteworthy. Cross-validated multiple correlations for the CQ Set items, as predicted from four CPI-based redundancy variates, averaged .33; those for the CPI scales, as predicted from the CQ Set, averaged .39. The difference between these correlations indicates an asymmetry in the relationship between the instruments, albeit one that is substantially more modest than that which we anticipated at the outset of the study. This asymmetrical relation may be summarized in a single diagram containing two overlapping circles of different sizes. The circles have the property that the ratio of the area of intersection to the size of the circle describing each instrument is equal to the variance in that measure, which is predictable from the other measure. Within each circle, the average amount of unpredictable (error) variance for each of its constituent measures is shaded (see Figure 3 ). Shared Variance in the CPI and CQ Set The Big Five or five-factor model provides a useful framework for understanding the shared variance in the instruments, and, in particular, for comparing our results with those of prior studies. In our interbattery factor analysis, the first dimension to emerge describes feelings of interpersonal inadequacy and social anxiety and so may be interpreted as a fusion of Neuroticism with low Extraversion. Although rotation might have separated these two components, we do not feel that their combination in our data is an artifact but instead reflects on the subjects and methods used in the Institute of Personality Assessment and Research assessments. That is, the assessed samples are nonpsychiatric in origin, and the participants were observed, for the most part, in group settings. In these samples and settings, social skills and interpersonal inadequacy become highly visible; also, severe

clinical pathology should seldom be seen. Consequently, to the extent that the dimension of Neuroticism is important in our data, it is likely to appear as Social Anxiety and therefore to be fused with low Extraversion. This lends support to Gray's (1981) claim for the primacy of Anxiety in the Neuroticism-Extraversion plane, at least in the characterization of nonclinical samples. Our second factor, labeled Rectitude, is indexed by the Socialization scale and CQ Set items such as tends to be rebellious and nonconforming, characteristically pushes and tries to stretch limits, and tends toward overcontrol of needs and impulses. This is clearly similar in meaning to the Big Five Conscientiousness factor. Similarity, however, does not signify identity, and although Conscientiousness provides a useful referent for understanding this factor, it would be limiting to describe it in terms of the Big Five alone. Conscientiousness is best understood as a higher order factor ( Guilford, 1975 ), as a broad-bandwidth, narrow-fidelity measure ( Cronbach & Gleser, 1965 ), or as a superordinate category ( Hampson, John, & Goldberg, 1986 ). Because of its breadth, it cannot capture all of the specific implications known to exist for the CPI Socialization scale or for the ego control theme in the CQ Set. These latter constructs have proved to be rich in empirical and theoretical meaning ( Block & Block, 1980 ; Gough, 1966 ); furthermore, the behavioral implications of low Socialization scale scores and ego undercontrol are far from synonymous ( Block & Gjerde, 1986 ; Laufer, Johnson, & Hogan, 1981 ). Our third factor, which we described as Intellectual Openness, resembles both the Openness to Experience ( McCrae & Costa, 1985 ) and Intellect ( Digman & Inouye, 1986 ; Peabody & Goldberg, 1989 ) interpretations of the smallest of the Big Five factors. Neither of the two remaining factors could be easily related to the Big Five. Both of these were marked by the CPI Femininity/Masculinity scale. Our fourth factor was labeled Tender versus Tough-Mindedness, and it appears to be very similar to the factor marked by gender, 16PF Tough-Mindedness, and CPS Masculinity-Femininity in the Noller et al. (1987) study. Taken together, these two studies suggest that this dimension may lie outside of the Big Five factor space, as it is ordinarily conceived. The fifth factor in our analysis was labeled Emotional Expressiveness. Although existing measures of this construct are empirically related to Extraversion ( Friedman, Prince, Riggio, & DiMatteo, 1980 ; Riggio, 1986 ), the pattern of loadings of CQ Set items on this dimension does not support this interpretation. This factor was relatively unimportant in characterizing the shared variance in the instruments. Consequently, it is unclear whether this dimension lies within the Big Five factor space. Self and Observer Agreement Because the CPI is a self-report instrument and our CQ Set data are observer ratings, it is appropriate to evaluate our findings in comparison with prior studies of selfobserver agreement. In studies of the CQ Set, Funder and his colleagues have found that convergence between self and observer ratings is greatest in the Extraversion domain and

lowest in the Neuroticism domain ( Funder, 1980 ; Funder & Colvin, 1988 ; Funder & Dobroth, 1987 ). Descriptions related to Conscientiousness also show strong agreement between self and observer (see, e.g., Chaplin & Goldberg, 1984 ; Koestner, Bernieri, & Zuckerman, 1989 ; Lanning, 1988 ; Paunonen & Jackson, 1985 ). These results are consistent with the more general finding that convergence between self and peer ratings is greatest for observable or public traits ( Amelang & Borkenau, 1986 ; Cheek, 1982 ; Funder & Colvin, 1988 ; Funder & Dobroth, 1987 ; Kenrick & Funder, 1988 ; Kenrick & Stringfield, 1980 ). In many respects, our results are fully compatible with these earlier studies. In the Extraversion domain, strong convergence was found between the instruments, indicating a correspondence between a positive social impact on the CQ Set raters and the scales for social skills and interests on the CPI. More specifically, the CPI scales that were found to be most predictable from the CQ Set were those in the public domains of Extraversion (Dominance) and Conscientiousness (Responsibility). CQ Set items in these domains, particularly Conscientiousness ( favors conservative values ), were also highly predictable, but substantial linkage to CPI scales was also found for CQ Set items with more "private" content: In the intellect domain, highly predictable items included is verbally fluent ( R = .44) and appears to have a high degree of intellectual capacity ( R = .42). A number of items in the Neuroticism domain were also quite predictable, including is self-defeating ( R = .42), is vulnerable to real or fancied threat; generally fearful ( R = .39), and has a brittle ego defense system ( R = .36). If one controls for observability by disattenuating for rater disagreement (see Table 2 ), CQ Set items pertaining to Neuroticism are even more strongly linked to the CPI. This convergence is particularly striking when it is compared with simple selfobserver agreement on direct ratings of the CQ Set items (see Table 3 ). These findings indicate that although direct self-ratings within the Neuroticism domain do not converge with observer ratings, self-report inventories can predict consensual observer ratings of Neuroticism quite well. Unique Variance in the CPI and CQ Set Data Sets Because of the confounding of rater (self vs. observer) with instrument (CPI vs. CQ Set), the unique variance in the data sets appears equivocal in meaning. That is, an absence of predictability may be attributable to differences in the instruments, differences in rater perspective, or both of these. In the CQ Set data, we attempted to unconfound these possibilities by comparing our results with those of a prior study. Our initial analysis of the CQ Set data suggested that the core of the unique variance was in the domains of self-concern and social reflectiveness. Rater disagreement on these low-visibility items severely attenuated correlations with these measures. When disattenuated correlations are examined, the unique variance in the CQ Set shifts toward the domains of agreeableness and physical attractiveness. Comparison of these results with those of Funder and Colvin (1988) revealed a further shift in this direction. The core

of the unique CQ Set variance appears to lie in the domains of physical attractiveness and agreeableness, both components of interpersonal attraction. In the CPI data, the three validity scales form the core of the unique variance. The relative lack of predictability of these measures might be taken to imply that scores on the validity scales have little implication for the way one is seen by observers. However, such an implication would be misleading, for scores on these scales abundantly predict nontest behavior in addition to their implications for protocol validity ( Gough, 1987 ). Moreover, profile validity is itself implicative; for instance, male high school students who respond randomly to the CPI are less likely to attend college than are those who respond nonrandomly ( Lanning, 1989 ). Summary and Implications Redundancy analyses and interbattery factor analysis have been used to interpret relations between the CPI and the CQ Set. We found that self-ratings on the CPI and observer ratings on the CQ Set are substantially related, that this relationship is moderately asymmetrical, and that the content of the shared variance in these instruments lies in the domains of Social Competence, Rectitude, Intellectual Openness, Tender-Mindedness, and Emotional Expressiveness. Areas of unique variance included physical attractiveness and agreeableness in the CQ data and the validity measures in the CPI data. Our data further suggest that indirect self-ratings, such as those made on personality inventories, may outperform direct self-ratings in the prediction of observer ratings of neuroticism. In spite of the apparent fruitfulness of our analyses, a restatement of the attractions and limitations of our techniques is in order. The most obvious attraction of factor analysis and related approaches to multivariate structure is that these can lead to a parsimonious set of elements for understanding personality. A second attraction of these approaches, perhaps still more important, is that they can provide a language that has the potential to transcend the often solipsistic borders of individual research laboratories. However, the mathematical elegance of multivariate approaches can blind the unwary investigator to questions of greater substance. Correlations do not indicate necessary relations at the level of the individual person ( Lamiell, 1982 ). Consequently, a normative correlational structure does not provide a model of intrapsychic functioning ( Guilford, 1975 ). If personality psychology is to be concerned with the person rated as well as the act of rating, the temptation to reduce our conception of the field to a limited factor space should be tempered.

References
Allport, G. W. & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47, (1, whole no. 211). Amelang, M. & Borkenau, P. (1986). The trait concept: Current theoretical considerations, empirical facts, and implications for personality inventory construction.

(In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaires: Current issues in theory and measurement (pp. 734). New York: Springer.) Bem, D. J. & Funder, D. C. (1978). Predicting more of the people more of the time: Assessing the personality of situations. Psychological Review, 85, 485-501. Block, J. (1961). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas. (Reprinted 1978 by Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA) Block, J. H. & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior.(In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect, and social relations: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. 13 (pp. 1107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.) Block, J. & Gjerde, P. F. (1986). Distinguishing between antisocial behavior and undercontrol.(In D. Olweus, J. Block, & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.), Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior (pp. 177206). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.) Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214-227. Buss, A. H. (1988). Personality: Evolutionary heritage and human distinctiveness. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum) Buss, A. H. & Finn, S. E. (1987). Classification of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 432-444. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506. Cattell, R. B. (1983). Structured personality-learning theory: A wholistic multivariate approach. (New York: Praeger) Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W. & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). The handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. (Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing) Chaplin, W. F. & Goldberg, L. R. (1984). A failure to replicate the Bem and Allen study of individual differences in cross-situational consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1074-1090. Cheek, J. M. (1982). Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1254-1269. Comrey, A. L. (1970). Manual for the Comrey Personality Scales. (San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service) Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. (Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources) Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray's needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258-265. Cronbach, L. J. & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.).(Urbana: University of Illinois Press) Cudeck, R. (1982). Methods for estimating between-battery factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 17, 47-68. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Digman, J. M. & Inouye, J. (1986). Further specification of the five robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116-123.

Digman, J. M. & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149-170. Eysenck, H. J. (1969). Personality structure and measurement. (San Diego, CA: Knapp) Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1963). The Eysenck Personality Inventory. (San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service) Friedman, H. S., Prince, L. M., Riggio, R. E. & DiMatteo, M. R. (1980). Understanding and assessing nonverbal expressiveness: The Affective Communication Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 333-351. Funder, D. C. (1980). On seeing ourselves as others see us: Selfother agreement and discrepancy in personality ratings. Journal of Personality, 48, 473-493. Funder, D. C. & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149-158. Funder, D. C. & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409-418. Funder, D. C. & Harris, M. J. (1986). On the several facets of personality assessment: The case of social acuity. Journal of Personality, 54, 528-550. Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From ace to zombie: Some explorations in the language of personality.(In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 203234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.) Goldberg, L. R. (1989). An alternative "description of personality": The Big Five factor structure. (Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene) Gough, H. G. (1966). Appraisal of social maturity by means of the CPI. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71, 189-195. Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator's guide. (Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press) Gough, H. G. (1989). The California Psychological Inventory.(In C. S. Newmark (Ed.), Major psychological assessment instruments (Vol. 2, pp. 6798). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.) Gray, J. A. (1981). A critique of Eysenck's theory of individual differences.(In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality (pp. 246276). New York: Springer-Verlag.) Guilford, J. P. (1975). Factors and factors of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 802814. Hampson, S. E., John, O. P. & Goldberg, L. R. (1986). Category breadth and hierarchical structure in personality: Studies of asymmetries in judgments of trait implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 37-54. Jackson, D. N. (1984). Personality Research Form manual (3rd ed.).(Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press) John, O. P., Angleitner, A. & Ostendorf, F. (1988). The lexical approach to personality: A historical review of trait taxonomic research. European Journal of Personality, 2, 171203. Kenrick, D. T. & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from the personsituation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23-34. Kenrick, D. T. & Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. Psychological Review, 87, 88-104.

Koestner, R., Bernieri, F. & Zuckerman, M. (1989). Trait-specific versus person-specific moderators of cross-situational consistency. Journal of Personality, 57, 1-16. Lambert, Z. V., Wildt, A. R. & Durand, R. M. (1988). Redundancy analysis: An alternative to canonical correlation and multivariate multiple regression in exploring interset associations. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 282-289. Lamiell, J. T. (1982). The case for an idiothetic psychology of personality: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 11, 1-64. Lanning, K. (1988). Individual differences in scalability: An alternative conception of consistency for personality theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 142-148. Lanning, K. (1989). The detection of invalid response patterns on the California Psychological Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 45-56. Laufer, W. S., Johnson, J. A. & Hogan, R. (1981). Ego control and criminal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 179-184. Lorr, M. (1978). The structure of the California Q-set. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 13, 387-393. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1985). Openness to experience.(In R. Hogan & W. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality (Vol. 1, pp. 145172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.) McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 8190. McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins' circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 586-595. McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating comprehensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-set and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430-446. Murray, H. A., Barrett, W. G. & Langer, W. C. (1938). Explorations in personality. (New York: Oxford University Press) Noller, P., Law, H. & Comrey, A. L. (1987). Cattell, Comrey and Eysenck personality factors compared: More evidence for the five robust factors? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 775-782. Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 574-583. Paunonen, S. & Jackson, D. N. (1985). Idiographic measurement strategies for personality and prediction: Some unredeemed promissory notes. Psychological Review, 92, 486-511. Peabody, D. & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567. Riggio, R. E. (1986). Assessment of basic social skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 649-660. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80, (whole no. 609). SAS Institute, Inc. (1987). SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 6 edition. (Cary, NC: Author)

Skinner, H. A. (1977). Exploring relationships among multiple data sets. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12, 199-220. Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537. Stewart, D. & Love, W. (1968). A general canonical correlation index. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 160-163. Tucker, L. R. (1958). An inter-battery method of factor analysis. Psychometrika, 23, 111136. Tupes, E. C. & Christal, R. E. (1961). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings (Tech. Rep. No. ASD-TR-61-97).(Lackland Air Force Base, Texas: United States Air Force, Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical Systems Division, Personnel Laboratory) van den Wollenberg, A. L. (1977). Redundancy analysis: An alternative for canonical analysis. Psychometrika, 42, 207-219. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum) 1 As Lambert et al. noted (1988, p. 282) , redundancy analysis is not to be confused with the simple use of the redundancy index ( Stewart & Love, 1968 ) to assess the importance of canonical variates in computer routines such as SAS Proc Cancorr ( SAS Institute, Inc., 1987 ). The computation of a redundancy index in a canonical correlation analysis does provide asymmetric measures of association between variable sets but does not describe the maximum amount of variance accountable in either of the variable sets being related ( Lambert et al., 1988 ). 2 For example, in a redundancy analysis that predicts the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) from the CPI, an anxiety factor is likely to emerge first, as this is the most prevalent factor in the MMPI and as this factor is also measured in the CPI (the Well-Being scale). But anxiety is less prevalent in the CPI than are other factors that govern interpersonal behavior; consequently, in predicting the CPI from the MMPI, one would expect factors such as Socialization and Extraversion to be preeminent, with likely corresponding MMPI predictors of Psychopathic Deviate and Social Introversion, respectively. 3 McCrae et al. (1986) did not label the first of these factors but did characterize it as including "elements of Extraversion (rapid tempo), Conscientiousness (productive), and low Agreeableness (power oriented)" (p. 442). They did not consider this to be a replication of Lorr's (1978) Managerial versus Self-Effacing factor.

4 Two additional analyses examined the consequences of item overlap in the CPI scales. When item overlap is reduced by dropping the three structural scales (V-1, V-2, and V3), CQ Set predictability from four redundancy variates drops to 10.9%. When item overlap is eliminated by dropping the offending items from the CPI scales, CQ Set predictability drops to 9.9%. 5 We also assessed CQ Set item predictability by using multivariate multiple regression, in which each of the 100 CQ Set items was predicted by four optimally weighted CPI scales. For the majority of CQ Set items (71), superior prediction was obtained with the redundancy variates; furthermore, in no case was the multiple correlation obtained by the regression approach greater than that obtained by the redundancy analyses by more than . 03. 6 These values ranged from .01 ( evaluates the motivation of others ) to .47 ( is a talkative individual ) and averaged .19. Adjusted for five judges using the Spearman-Brown formula, corresponding minimum, maximum, and average values are .03, .82, and .55, respectively. It should be stressed that these are estimates of item reliability. The corresponding reliability estimate for the array of 100 CQ Set items is substantially higher (.80). As these reliability coefficients are lower bound estimates, disattenuated values based on them may overcorrect for rater unreliability. 7 Redundancy analysis requires inversion of the R xx (predictor) matrix. Because the CQ Set is scored using a forced distribution, its correlation matrix is singular; consequently, only 99 of the CQ Set items can be used in predicting the CPI. Inspection of the correlation matrix of CQ Set items revealed that the two CQ Set items that were empirically most similar were Items 5 ( behaves in a giving way toward others ) and 17 ( behaves in a sympathetic or considerate manner ); these correlated .72. Each of these was dropped from the R xx matrix in two separate analyses. Results from these two analyses were virtually identical. 8

Gough (1987) provided several lower bound estimates of reliability for each CPI scale, including testretest, internal consistency, and parallel forms measures. To avoid overcorrecting for underestimates of reliability, we acted conservatively, using the highest reliability estimate for each scale. 9 Tucker's (1958) approach is essentially a component analysis of the square R CPICQ R CQ>CPI matrix. We used this method rather than a maximum likelihood approach ( Cudeck, 1982 ) because the former did not require inverting the matrix of correlations among the CQ Set items (see Footnote 7 ). 10 The highest loadings for the remaining two items were small and only marginally less than loadings on one of the first five factors. Item 44 ( evaluates the motivation of others ) loaded .111 on Factor 7 and .107 on Factor 3. Item 56 ( responds to humor ) loaded .154 on Factor 8 and .146 on Factor 5. An earlier version of this article was presented at the first convention of the American Psychological Society, Alexandria, Virginia, June 12, 1989. This research was supported by a grant from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation to Kevin Lanning. Our thanks to Zarrel Lambert for assistance in programming the initial redundancy analyses, to David Funder for the ratings of California Q-Set observability, to Jeff McCrae for interpretive materials on the factor structure of the California Q-Set, and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Correspondence may be addressed to Kevin Lanning, Department of Psychology, Oregon State University, Moreland Hall 102, Corvallis, Oregon, 97331-5303. Electronic mail may be sent to Lanningk @ccmail.orst.edu (Internet)
Received: Revised: Accepted: July 13, 1990 October July 2, 5, 1989 1990

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Figure 1. Redundancy analysis: prediction of the California Q-Set (CQ Set) from the California Psychological Inventory.

Figure 2. Redundancy analysis: prediction of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) from the California Q-Set.

Figure 3. Overlap in the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) and the California QSet (CQ Set). Shaded areas represent average error variance in constituent measures. Difference in circle sizes reflects asymmetry in predictability.