MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794962426 · doi:10.1037/pspp0000202

Personality characteristics below facets: A replication and meta-analysis of cross-rater agreement, rank-order stability, heritability, and utility of personality nuances.

2018· review· en· W2794962426 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
René Mõttus, Jonah Sinick, Antonio Terracciano, Martina Hřebı́čková, Christian Kandler, Juko Ando, Erik Lykke Mortensen, Lucía Colodro‐Conde, Kerry L. Jang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality and Social Psychology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPersonality Traits and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute on AgingDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie ForskningsrådQIMR Berghofer Medical Research InstituteAkademie Věd České RepublikyGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityTraitVariance (accounting)Big Five personality traitsBivariate analysisSocial psychologyAlternative five model of personalityPersonality Assessment InventoryHeritabilityBig Five personality traits and cultureDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mõttus and colleagues (2017) reported evidence that the unique variance in specific personality characteristics captured by single descriptive items often displayed trait-like properties of cross-rater agreement, rank-order stability, and heritability. They suggested that the personality hierarchy should be extended below facets to incorporate these specific characteristics, called personality nuances. The present study attempted to replicate these findings, employing data from 6,287 individuals from 6 countries (Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Japan, and United States). The same personality measure-240-item Revised NEO Personality Inventory-and statistical procedures were used. The present findings closely replicated the original results. When the original and current results were meta-analyzed, the unique variance of nearly all items (i.e., items' scores residualized for all broader personality traits) showed statistically significant cross-rater agreement (median = .12) and rank-order stability over an average of 12 years (median = .24), and the unique variance of the majority of items had a significant heritable component (median = .14). These 3 item properties were intercorrelated, suggesting that items systematically differed in the degree of reflecting valid unique variance. Also, associations of items' unique variance with age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) replicated across samples and tracked with the original findings. Moreover, associations between item residuals and BMI obtained from one group of people allowed for a significant incremental prediction of BMI in an independent sample. Overall, these findings reinforce the hypotheses that nuances constitute the building blocks of the personality trait hierarchy, their properties are robust and they can be useful. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.017
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.315
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations155
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality and Social PsychologySame topicPersonality Traits and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207