Similarity and assumed similarity in personality reports of well-acquainted persons.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors obtained self- and observer reports of personality from pairs of well-acquainted college students. Consistent with previous findings, results of Study 1 showed strong cross-source agreement for all 6 HEXACO personality factors (rs approximately .55). In addition, the authors found modest levels of similarity (r approximately .25) between dyad members' self-reports on each of 2 dimensions, Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience. For these same 2 factors, dyad members' self-reports were correlated with their observer reports of the other dyad member (r approximately .40), thus indicating moderately high assumed similarity. In Study 2, Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience were the 2 personality factors most strongly associated with the 2 major dimensions of personal values, which also showed substantial assumed similarity. In Study 3, assumed similarity was considerably stronger for close friends than for nonfriend acquaintances. Results suggest that assumed similarity for Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience reflects a tendency to overestimate one's similarity to persons with whom one has a close relationship, but only on those personality characteristics whose relevance to values gives them central importance to one's identity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".