Measures of personality and social psychological constructs

802 Pages·2015·9.94 MB·English

by  Gregory J Boyle

MEASURES OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS
MEASURES OF
PERSONALITY AND
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSTRUCTS
Edited by
G J. B
REGORY OYLE
UniversityofMelbourne,Parkville,Victoria,Australia
D H. S
ONALD AKLOFSKE
UniversityofWesternOntario,London,Ontario,Canada
G M
ERALD ATTHEWS
UniversityofCentralFlorida,Orlando,FL,USA
AMSTERDAM(cid:129)BOSTON(cid:129)HEIDELBERG(cid:129)LONDON
NEWYORK(cid:129)OXFORD(cid:129)PARIS(cid:129)SANDIEGO
SANFRANCISCO(cid:129)SINGAPORE(cid:129)SYDNEY(cid:129)TOKYO
AcademicPressisanimprintofElsevier
AcademicPressisanimprintofElsevier
32JamestownRoad,LondonNW17BY,UK
525BStreet,Suite1800,SanDiego,CA92101-4495,USA
225WymanStreet,Waltham,MA02451,USA
TheBoulevard,LangfordLane,Kidlington,OxfordOX51GB,UK
Copyrightr2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic
ormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,
withoutpermissioninwritingfromthepublisher.Detailsonhowtoseekpermission,further
informationaboutthePublisher’spermissionspoliciesandourarrangementswithorganizationssuch
astheCopyrightClearanceCenterandtheCopyrightLicensingAgency,canbefoundatourwebsite:
www.elsevier.com/permissions.
Thisbookandtheindividualcontributionscontainedinitareprotectedundercopyrightbythe
Publisher(otherthanasmaybenotedherein).
Notice
Noresponsibilityisassumedbythepublisherforanyinjuryand/ordamagetopersons
orpropertyasamatterofproductsliability,negligenceorotherwise,orfromanyuseoroperation
ofanymethods,products,instructionsorideascontainedinthematerialherein.Because
ofrapidadvancesinthemedicalsciences,inparticular,independentverificationofdiagnoses
anddrugdosagesshouldbemade
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress
ISBN:978-0-12-386915-9
ForinformationonallAcademicPresspublications
visitourwebsiteatelsevierdirect.com
TypesetbyMPSLimited,Chennai,India
www.adi-mps.com
PrintedandboundinUnitedStatesofAmerica
Preface
Along with scientific advancements in quantitative assessment in personality and social psychology has come
an explosion in both researchers’ interests in self-report/rating scales and objective performance test measures,
as well as the ever increasing number of scales/measures available. The need for a comprehensive collection of
up-to-date leading instruments is clearly evident. This book builds on the volume edited by John P. Robinson,
Phillip R. Shaver and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, in 1991. The editors of the previous book noted the proliferation
of scales/measures at that time. Subsequent work has generated new and improved versions of existing scales,
as well as entirely new areas of investigation. The task of providing a systematic review of social-personality
measures isno less daunting than it musthave been in 1991 (prior to theadvent of the internet).
We may echo also the statement by the previous editorial team that a book of this kind is a guide to the
researcher’s investigations, not an end-point of study. As Robinson et al. stated: ‘Whenever possible (cid:1) given
copyright restrictions and authors’ justifiable reservations (cid:1) we have included actual scale items and scoring
instructions.Nevertheless,thesematerialsandour briefcomments onthem arenosubstitutefor readingtheorig-
inal sources and subjecting the instruments to further item analyses and validation studies. This book is meant to
bea starting point,an idea generator, a guide (cid:1) notthe last stoponthe way to aperfect measure.’ (1991, p. xiii)
We are privileged to have worked with some of the world’s leading researchers in editing this volume, which
would not have been possible without the diligence, commitment, and patience of the contributors. Producing a
book of this magnitude has also illuminated for us the impressive scope and depth of research involving contem-
porary social-personality measurement. Modern notions of validity encompass the use of scales/measures for a
specified purpose, and we hope readers will apply their own expertise in using this book as a resource. At the
same time, the evidence for reliability, validity, and utility of specific scales/measures remains variable, and a
major focus of this work has been to provide the detailed psychometric information necessary for the researcher
or psychological practitioner to compare and contrast and to weigh up the various scales/measures available for
each construct covered. We have tried also to provide as much information as possible on locating the respective
instruments.
Inlinewithongoingadvancesinscientifictechnologyandthecontemporarytrendtowardstheuseofobjective
measures in psychological research, our book also discusses the reliability, validity, and utility of behavioral,
psychophysiological, chemical, and neuroscientific methods for measuring specific social-personality constructs
such as empathy or forgiveness. We are optimistic that their use, in the coming decades, in conjunction with the
more traditional self-report and rating scales/measures, will enable significant advances in both personality and
social psychology. We are especially excited about the prospects for using a combination of measures in applied
research, in line with the growing cultural acceptance of evidence-based approaches to a range of social-
personalityissues.
We thank the editorial team at Elsevier, especially Nikki Levy and Barbara Makinster, for their unstinting sup-
portof this project,and guidingus through the maze of obtaining permissions for scales.
Gregory J. Boyle
Donald H. Saklofske
Gerald Matthews
xi
List of Contributors
Saad Al Shohaib King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Edward Helmes James Cook University, Townsville,
SaudiArabia Queensland,Australia
Faten Al Zaben King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Paul L. Hewitt University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Arabia BritishColumbia,Canada
AntonAluja UniversityofLleida,Lleida,Catalonia,Spain MilesHewstone UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK
Bob Bermond University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Kimberly J. Hills University of South Carolina, Columbia,
Netherlands SC,USA
Jim Blascovich University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, Ronald R. Holden Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario,
USA Canada
Gregory J. Boyle University of Melbourne, Parkville, E. Scott Huebner University of South Carolina, Columbia,
Victoria,Australia;andAustralianInstituteofPsychology, SC,USA
Brisbane,Queensland,Australia CarrollE.Izard UniversityofDelaware,Newark,DE,USA
FredB.Bryant LoyolaUniversityChicago,Chicago,IL,USA Simon A. Jackson University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW,
John B. Campbell Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, Australia
PA,USA Eranda Jayawickreme Wake Forest University, Winston-
Raymond C.K. Chan Chinese Academy of Sciences, Salem,NC,USA
Beijing,China DanielN.Jones UniversityofTexas,ElPaso,TX,USA
Sherwin I. Chia Nanyang Technological University, Katrina P.Jongman-Sereno DukeUniversity,Durham,NC,
Singapore USA
Chi-yue Chiu Nanyang Technological University, Elise K. Kalokerinos University of Queensland, St Lucia,
Singapore&ChineseAcademyofSocialSciences,China Queensland,Australia
OliverChrist Philipps-UniversityMarburg,Germany Doaa Ahmed Khalifa King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah,
AndrewDay DeakinUniversity,Geelong,Victoria,Australia SaudiArabia
KateJ.Diebels DukeUniversity,Durham,NC,USA Sabina Kleitman University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW,
Australia
M. Brent Donnellan Michigan State University, East
Lansing,MI,USA Harold G. Koenig Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;
KingAbdulazizUniversity,Jeddah,SaudiArabia
BenjaminFell UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK
Caroline Lavelock Virginia Commonwealth University,
Ephrem Fernandez University of Texas, San Antonio, TX,
Richmond,VA,USA
USA
MarkR.Leary DukeUniversity,Durham,NC,USA
Velichko H. Fetvadjiev Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands; and University of Pretoria, Pretoria, SimonLolliot UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK
SouthAfrica Winnifred R. Louis University of Queensland, St Lucia,
SusanT.Fiske PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ,USA Queensland,Australia
GordonL.Flett YorkUniversity,Toronto,Ontario,Canada Gerald Matthews University of Central Florida, Orlando,
FL,USA
Mar´ıaTeresaFrı´as UniversityofCalifornia,Davis,CA,USA
Mario Mikulincer Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya,
Katharine H. Greenaway University of Queensland, St
Herzliya,Israel
Lucia,Queensland,Australia
David. L. Neumann Griffith University, Gold Coast,
Emily J. Hanson Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem,
Queensland,Australia
NC,USA
RachelNew UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK
Patrick R. Harrison LoyolaUniversityChicago,Chicago,IL,
USA MichaelS.North PrincetonUniversity,Princeton,NJ,USA
Claudia Harzer University of South Carolina, Columbia, Paul Oosterveld Leiden University, Leiden, The
SC,USA Netherlands
xiii
xiv
LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS
Stacey L. Parker University of Queensland, St Lucia, Kali H. Trzesniewski University of California, Davis, CA,
Queensland,Australia USA
Delroy L. Paulhus University of British Columbia, Jo-AnnTsang BaylorUniversity,Waco,TX,USA
Vancouver,BC,Canada
Ashley K. Vesely University of Western Ontario, London,
K.V.Petrides UniversityCollegeLondon,London,UK Ontario,Canada
Sandra Prince-Embury Resiliency Institute of Allenhurst
Fons J.R. van de Vijver Tilburg University, Tilburg, The
LLC,WestAllenhurst,NJ,USA
Netherlands; North-West University, Potchefstroom,
Richard W. Robins University of California, Davis, CA, South Africa; and University of Queensland, St Lucia,
USA Queensland,Australia
William S. Ryan University of California, Santa Barbara,
AlbertoVoci UniversityofPadova,Padova,Italy
CA,USA
Harrie C.M. Vorst University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,
Mark S. Rye Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY,
TheNetherlands
USA
RalfWo¨lfer UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK
Donald H. Saklofske University of Western Ontario,
London,Ontario,Canada Wendy W.N. Wan Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou,
KatharinaSchmid UniversityofOxford,Oxford,UK China;andTunghaiUniversity,Taichung,Taiwan
Phillip R. Shaver University of California, Davis, CA, YiWang ChineseAcademyofSciences,Beijing,China
USA
Marco Weber University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC,
AlexanderB.Siegling UniversityCollegeLondon,London,
USA
UK
H. Rae Westbury Griffith University, Gold Coast,
JoanneR.Smith UniversityofExeter,Exeter,UK
Queensland,Australia
Lazar Stankov Australian Catholic University, Strathfield,
Charlotte vanOyen Witvliet Hope College, Holland, MI,
NSW,Australia
USA
Hermann Swart Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Everett L. Worthington Jr. Virginia Commonwealth
SouthAfrica University,Richmond,VA,USA
Deborah J. Terry University of Queensland, St Lucia, MatthiasZiegler HumboldtUniversity,Berlin,Germany
Queensland,Australia
Marvin Zuckerman University of Delaware, Newark, DE,
LorenToussaint LutherCollege,Decorah,IA,USA USA
C H A P T E R
1
Criteria for Selection and Evaluation
of Scales and Measures
1 2 3
Gregory J. Boyle , Donald H. Saklofske and Gerald Matthews
1University of Melbourne,Parkville, Victoria, Australia; 2University ofWestern Ontario,London,Ontario,Canada;
3University ofCentral Florida, Orlando,FL, USA
Theeverincreasingknowledgeofhumanbehavioremanatingfrompsychologicalresearchandallieddisciplines
ismatchedbytheneedforreliableandvalidmeasurestoassesstheconstructsusedinboththeresearchlaboratory
andappliedsettings.Measuresofpersonalityandsocialpsychologicalfactorshavebeenamajorcontributionfrom
psychologysincetheearlypartofthelastcenturyandcontinuetoproliferatetothisday.Thereisnolackofinterest
in the assessment of the wide range of personal characteristics, both familiar and novel, but rather a demand for
moreandbettermeasures.Theever-increasingarrayofspecificscales/measuresavailabletoresearchersandprac-
titionersalikeisasignofthestrengthofpsychology’scontributionstoourknowledgeofhumanbehavior.
Concurrent with our descriptions and models of human psychology have been advances in the methods
underlying scale construction and validation. In contrast to how ‘tests’ of 100 years ago were constructed,
standardized, and evaluated, there has been a steady evolution in both the foundations and methods of psycho-
logical measurement and in the rigor demanded by both researchers and practitioners over time. Psychologists
and all others impacted by the study and applications of psychology expect the precision, exactness, and
accuracy in the measures used to assess what are often theory driven constructs (latent traits) such as extraver-
sion, anxiety/neuroticism, self-concept, narcissism, empathy, and perfectionism. Like subatomic particles and
gravity in physics we cannot directly see such hypothetical constructs as intelligence or empathy, but we can
infer their ‘existence’ because of observed individual differences in behavior. Thus, we can create quantitative
models to describe these latent traits and, in the process, also develop measures that reflect their theoretical and
operational definitions.
Therapidgrowthofpsychologicaltestswasreadilyobservedfromtheearlypartofthe20thcenturyonward(see
Gregory, 2014). By the third decade, the Mental Measurements Yearbook founded by O.K. Buros in 1938 (now
19thMMY;seeCarlson,Geisinger,&Jonson2014),alongwiththeTestsinPrintseries,bothpublishedbytheBuros
Institute for Mental Measurements (now the Buros Center for Testing), was created to bothcatalogue and provide
criticalreviewsbyexpertsontheeverincreasingnumberofassessmentinstruments.Largetestpublishinghouses,
focusing on the development and marketing of psychological tests appeared early in the last century such as
Houghton Mifflin (now Riverside Publishing), and The Psychological Corporation (now Pearson) founded by
J. McKean Cattell in 1921. A growing journal literature on assessment including both the foundations and profes-
sional psychology applications, but especially new measures, began to appear. Studies of assessment now appear
in peer-reviewed journals such as Assessment; Applied Psychological Measurement; Educational and Psychological
Measurement;EuropeanJournalofPsychologicalAssessment;InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment;International
Journal of Testing; Journal of Personality Assessment; Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment; Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment; Journal of Testingand Evaluation; Practical Assessment Research andEvaluation; Psychological
Assessment,aswellasahostofpersonality,organizational,clinicalandschoolpsychologyjournals.
MeasuresofPersonalityandSocialPsychologicalConstructs.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00001-2 3 ©2015ElsevierInc.Allrightsreserved.
4
1. CRITERIAFORSELECTIONANDEVALUATIONOFSCALESANDMEASURES
Handbooks on psychological assessment have proliferated and we can expect to see new volumes published
regularly such as the recent three volume APA Handbook of Testing and Assessment in Psychology (Geisinger et al.,
2013), and the Oxford Handbook of Child Psychological Assessment (Saklofske et al., 2013). Other major resources
include the 11-volume Test Critiques series (Keyser & Sweetland, 1984(cid:1)1994; Keyser, 2005), the APA PsycTESTS
online database (focusing mainly on unpublished tests, not commercially available), as well as the current edi-
tors’ 4-volume SAGE Psychological Assessment series (Boyle, Saklofske, & Matthews, 2012), all of which have
become increasingly important to researchers and practitioners alike (also see Boyle & Saklofske, 2004; Boyle,
Matthews, & Saklofske,2008).
Another important tool for finding relevant measures of focal constructs is the Health and Psychosocial
Instruments (HaPI) database, produced by Behavioral Measurement Database Services (BMDS; Pittsburgh, PA,
USA (cid:1) availableonline from Ovid Technologies).
‘The HaPI database can be used to find alternative versions of existing instruments (e.g., original vs. short forms; state vs. trait
forms;adultvs.child versions),availabletranslations ofinstruments,andmultiplescoringframeworks foragiveninstrument ...The
flexibility of combinatory searching (e.g., optimism ‘and’ trait ‘and’ English ‘and’ children) offers far greater power and efficiency in
findingmeasurementtoolsthantheprintedsourcescanprovide.Butthesourcescoveraplethoraoftestsrangingacrossadiversityof
fieldsincludingeducationandpsychology.’(Bryant,Pers.Comm.,2012)
Professional Associations such as the American Education Research Association and the American Psychological
Association, as well as the Association for Psychological Science have assessment ‘right up front’ in their publica-
tions and conferences and ongoing continuing education offerings, as well as working diligently to ensure
‘best practices’ and ethical guidelines for use of psychological tests. The Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing (AERA, APA, NCME, 1999) are regularly updated in light of new knowledge (cf. Boyle, 1987). This effort
has been further supported by the International Test Commission (ITC); the first sentence on the ITC webpage
states that it is an
‘association of national psychological associations, test commissions, publishers and other organizations committed to promoting
effectivetestingandassessmentpoliciesandtotheproperdevelopment,evaluationandusesofeducationalandpsychologicalinstru-
ments.’(ITCDirectory,2001,atwww.intestcom.org)
Most professional and regulatory psychology associations see assessment for purposes of diagnosis and pre-
scription planning as being central to the work of psychological practitioners, as expressed through their publica-
tions, guidelines and codes of ethical conduct.
However, there is a downside to this proliferation of scales and information that is both cumulative and forth-
coming on a continuous basis. It has become more difficult for researchers to determine and locate the best vali-
dated scales for a given construct as they can be scattered through a multitude of journals and books, and also in
commercial presentations by publishers. Not all journals are necessarily available to those who might be inter-
ested in a particular measure or even traceable using internet searches. The internet is a mixed blessing here;
ease of search is offset by the intrusions of poor-quality measures into the scientific as well as popular literature.
Aswell,some scaleshave namesor titles that do not directly relate to theconstruct being assessed andcan there-
fore bemissedin a typical online search.
AIMS AND ORIGINS OF THIS VOLUME
The aim of the present volume is to assist researchers and practitioners navigate these ‘choppy waters’ and
locate valid scales/measures suitable for their specific goals from the plethora of instruments currently available.
Thus, rather than simply serving as a catalogue of available scales and assessment instruments, or providing
reviews of all currently available measures that would fall within the personality and social psychology frame-
works, we have focused this volume predominantly on reviewing the most often used contemporary measures
by expertsin each of theareas selected for inclusion.
The origins of this volume go back over 50 years to a collection of social attitude measures compiled by the
Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan (see Robinson & Shaver, 1969). The original work was sub-
stantially updated and configured as an edited volume by Robinson, Shaver and Wrightsman in 1991. Its scope
was increased to cover personality as well as attitude measures. The current editors share the goals of previous
I. INTRODUCTION:COREISSUESINASSESSMENT
5
AIMSANDORIGINSOFTHISVOLUME
editors in seeking to provide systematic reviews of high quality instruments. Measures of Personality and Social
Psychological Attitudes was enormously successful in providing a concise compendium of a broad range of scales
and measures that were extremely useful for social-personality research and assessment. However, it is now
more than two decades since this volume was published, so it is time to produce a completely revised and
updated resource for researchers and practitioners alike. In addition, the landscape of assessment in personality
and social psychology is very different from that in 1991, and we briefly introduce this volume with an overview
of some of the key developments that have impacted assessment methods since that time. The original title has
been broadened to encompass, Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Constructs, thereby allowing inclu-
sion of a considerably wider range of key topics, in a major expansion from 12 chapters in the 1991 version, to no
fewer than 26 substantive chapters in the present volume. An examination of the most often cited areas of
research and professional need, and more frequently used measures in the current social-personality literature
furtherguided our selectionof thechapterscovered in this book.
Wefirstprovideanaccountoftheevaluativecriteriawhichguidedthereviewsofeachofthescales/measures,
followed by a brief overview of thecontents for eachof the chapters that follow.
Systematic Frameworks for Personality Assessment
While major personality models and theories and accompanying personality inventories such as Cattell’s Sixteen
PersonalityQuestionnaire(16PF),theEysenckPersonalityQuestionnaire(EPQ-R),andtheComreyPersonalityScales(CPS)
dominated the psychological literature throughout much of the last century (see Cattell & Meade, 2008; Comrey,
2008;Eysenck&Barrett,2013;Eysenck&Eysenck,1985),converginglinesofevidencefrompsychometrics,behavior
genetics, longitudinal studies and cross-cultural research have contributed to the current popularity of various ver-
sionsoftheFiveFactorModelorFFM(e.g.,McAdams&Pals,2006;McCrae&Costa,2008;Poropat,2009).Atthesame
time,therehavebeensignificantchallengestotheFFM,includingalternatesystems(e.g.,Ashton&Lee,2008;Block,
1995,2001;Boyle,2008;Cattell,1995;Eysenck,1991,1992).AsPiekkola(2011)pointedout:
‘Accordingtothisapproachtherearefiveunderlyingstructuralfactorscommontoallpeopleandindependentofculturalinfluences(cid:1)
anasocial, ahistorical, biologicallybasedconception. Examinationof the theoryfinds ittobedealingwithtraits of temperament rather
than personality and judges it insufficient on that basis. Rather than conceiving of personality as fixed and universal, it is argued that
personalityisanadaptationworkedoutintheculturalandhistoricalcontextoftheindividuallife.’Piekkola(2011,p.2)
Moreover, broad factors necessarily fail to capture much of the normal personality trait variance, let alone the
abnormal trait variance (Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988). Indeed, use of multiple lower-order or ‘primary’ personality
scales has been shown to improve predictive validity (Paunonen & Ashton, 2001). The present volume aims to
highlight measures of a range of social-personality constructs that are more narrowly defined than those of the
FFM and other broad factors.
Social-personality research and assessment requires multivariate models, whether these are drawn from com-
plex theoretical models describing direct and indirect (mediational or moderating) influences, empirical evidence,
case studies, or the clinician’s experience and capacity to create heuristic descriptions to guide intervention and
preventive actions. As the measures reviewed in the current volume demonstrate, social-personality measures
have become increasingly integrated within mainstream disciplines of psychology including psychophysiology,
cognitive neuroscience, and cross-cultural psychology (Boyle, Matthews, & Saklofske, 2008a,b; Matthews et al.,
2009; Saklofske &Zeidner,1995), although some doubtshave been expressed over the extent to whichintegration
is possible (Cervone, 2008). One source for optimism comes from evidence that core concepts in personality and
social psychology may sometimes ‘interact’ in various ways that present a larger and more complete picture of
cause, pathway, and effect models. Renewed attention to advancing theory, and the development of new statisti-
cal techniques for analyzing large data sets (e.g., multilevel confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation
modeling; Rowe, 2003) have led to a slow but steady advance (Roberts et al., 2007), whether those processes are
neurologically based or traced to social-cognitive influences. In turn, theoretical progress raises the bar for con-
struct validation in scale development. The onus is on researchers to establish a case for interpreting psychomet-
ric scores in terms of process-based theory.
Theoretical insight and empirical evidence is accompanied by practical application. For example, occupational
psychology has moved on from its historical roots towards a more measured appreciation of the benefits and
limitations of systematic personality assessment. A series of meta-analyses of social-personality measures as
predictors of various occupational outcomes has played an important role in this process (e.g., Swider &
Zimmerman, 2010).
I. INTRODUCTION:COREISSUESINASSESSMENT
6
1. CRITERIAFORSELECTIONANDEVALUATIONOFSCALESANDMEASURES
Across various fields of application there is an increasing demand for personality and social psychological
scales/measuresthatarevalidandreliable, aswellasbeingdefensibleinmoregeneralsocial,economicandlegal
terms.Atthesametime,practitionersarealsoawareofthewell-knownlimitationsoftheself-reportquestionnaires
that are most commonly used, including their vulnerability to conscious and unconscious motivational response
distortion (see Helmes et al., Chapter 2), and their neglect of implicit traits and attitudes that require assessment
via behavioral measures. Good practice in social-personality scale development and use can mitigate some of
these limitations, but advances in standardized objective test measures (cf. Schuerger, 2008) as well as structured
observationandinterview(cf.Rogersetal.,2010),willlikelyfeaturestronglyinanyfutureeditionofthisvolume.
Key Themes in Personality and Social Psychological Assessment
The time when a single volume could hope to include coverage of all important constructs in personality and
social psychology is long past. Instead, the editors of this volume have aimed to highlight constructs that are
influential in theory and practice, and for which there have been substantial advances in measurement since
1991. Some of these constructs (e.g., anger/hostility, sensation-seeking, self-esteem) are well established but
development of measures is ongoing. Others (e.g., measures of alexithymia, emotional intelligence, dark person-
alities) are of more recent vintage and define newer areas of inquiry (cf. Matthews et al., 2004). Our selection of
constructs was guided by five themes that are prominent in the current social-personality literature (some con-
structs attach to multiple themes):
(cid:129) Emotional dispositions. Many researchers habituallythink of stable emotional tendencies in terms ofnegative
affectivity (overlapping with neuroticism) and positive affectivity (overlapping with extraversion)
(cf. Saklofske et al., 2012).While the importance of such trait constructs isundeniable, researchers often
requiremore fine-grained assessments ofemotionality and mood states,in relation toconstructs suchas anger
and hostility,and hope andoptimism. By contrast, there are alsopracticalneeds for the more broad-based
constructof life satisfaction, a source of interesteven tonational governments. Whethernarrowly or broadly
defined, emotional dispositions also overlap with cognitive constructssuchas self-esteem and confidence.
(cid:129) Emotion regulation. Emotionreflects notonly emotionaldispositions but styles of emotion-regulation,because
emotions are actively constructedandmanaged. Regulation implies both thecapacityto be aware of the
emotions of self and others, andcapacities for modifyingand managing emotion. Thus, measures ofempathy
and ofalexithymia identify individual differences in awareness, and scales for resilience and for coping
discriminateemotion management capabilities. Sensation-seeking may alsobe conceptualized as astyleof
emotion managementin that experiencingthrills and excitement isa key personal goal. The construct oftrait
emotional intelligence represents an over-arching factorof this kind aroundwhichspecific dimensions for
awareness and management may cohere.
(cid:129) Interpersonal styles. Convergence with personality trait perspectives allows socialpsychology to address
stableinterpersonaldispositions, althoughthe relative importance of dispositional and situational factors
remains a topic for debate. Individual differences in interpersonal stylemay berooted inthe attachment
patterns established early inlife. Like emotional dispositions, interpersonallydefined constructs alsobring
together cognitive and affectivedimensions. Peoplediffer cognitively in relation to concerns with public image
and social evaluation. The ways in which peopleinterpret themselves as social beings also influences (cid:1)and is
influenced by (cid:1)socialemotions such as forgiveness. Indeed, socialpsychologists emphasize the interpersonal
roots of seeminglypersonal qualities including self-esteem andemotional intelligence.
(cid:129) Vices and virtues. In thenatural science tradition, personality psychologists have been wary ofvalue-laden
constructs. However, values have always been central to studies of social attitudes. In recent years,values
have attracted moreattention in personality as wellas social psychological research, as shown most directly
in studies of values and moral personality. Measures of religiosity and the transcendentalare alsorelevant in this
context.Valuesare notalways benign. Researchers havealsobeen interested in traits that are closer to vice
than virtue,described as dark personalities or the darktriad of narcissism, Machiavellianism andpsychopathy.
Some seeminglybeneficial traits suchas perfectionism mayalso representa misapplicationof values such as
striving for excellence.
(cid:129) Sociocultural interaction andconflict. In aglobalized andculturally fluidworld,many peopleare
challenged by the need to get alongwith others whose interpersonal style and values are different from
their own. Relationships betweenpeopleaffiliated with different socialgroupsare aperennial concern
of social psychology, but the last 20 years have seen majordevelopmentsin inter-cultural assessment.
I. INTRODUCTION:COREISSUESINASSESSMENT