This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ashton: Personality and Values Journal as Predictors of Individual ofDifferences Self© 2009 and Hogrefe Peer-Repor 2009; Vol. & Huber 30(3):122–129 ted Publishers Beh avior
Personality and Values as Predictors of Self- and Peer-Reported Behavior
Julie A. Pozzebon and Michael C. Ashton
Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
Abstract. We examined the validity of self-reported personality traits and values in predicting self- and peer reports of behavior. Selfand peer reports were obtained from 252 undergraduate students on the HEXACO Personality Inventory, the Schwartz Value Survey, and scales assessing value-expressive behaviors. Self-reports of personality and of values correlated moderately with self-reports of value-expressive behaviors. Correlations with peer reports of these behaviors were almost as large, thus, indicating that the validity of the personality and values variables did generalize across criterion rating sources. Both personality traits and values provided incremental validity beyond the other domain in predicting the behavior criteria, with the personality variables yielding slightly higher validity, on average. Keywords: personality, values, behavior prediction, peer report
Personality and values represent two important domains of human individual differences. Personality traits represent stable and cross-situationally consistent patterns of typical behavior, feeling, and thought. Values are also characterized by stability and cross-situational consistency, but refer to guiding principles regarding the goals that one views as worthy and legitimate. In spite of the conceptual distinctions between these two domains, several studies have shown substantial empirical overlap between personality traits and value types (e.g., Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Herringer, 1998; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, & Knafo, 2002), and some suggest hypotheses concerning the causal mechanisms that underlie these associations (see Roccas et al., 2002). However, in spite of these advances, there has been little research that directly compares the validity of personality traits and of values in the prediction of behavior.
Prediction of Behavior
Much research on personality and on values has focused on the validity of those domains in the prediction of behaviors and important outcome variables. Numerous studies have shown associations between personality traits and such criteria as academic performance (Rothstein, Paunonen, Rush, & King, 1994), job performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000), health behaviors (Hampson, Goldberg, Vogt, & Dubanoski, 2006), and diverse others (e.g., Paunonen, 2003). Likewise, several studies have shown associations between personal values and specific outcome variables such as proenvironmental behavior (Schultz &
Journal of Individual Differences 2009; Vol. 30(3):122–129 DOI 10.1027/1614-0001.30.3.122
Zelezny, 1998), political orientations (Helkama, Uutela, & Schwartz, 1991), reproductive health (Pandey & Singh, 2008), and attitudes toward smoking (Chang, 2005), as well as coping strategies, vocational choices, and conflict resolution styles (Bond, Leung, Au, Tong, & ChemongesNielson, 2004). Previous research has typically investigated the validity either of personality or of values in predicting behaviors and other criteria, but not of both domains simultaneously. Moreover, previous studies have tended to focus on single specific behaviors as criteria, and have sometimes relied only on self-reports. In the present research, we took a different approach in each of the above respects. First, we examined the validity of both personality traits and values in the same participant sample. Also, we assessed behaviors using a set of multi-item scales (Bardi & Schwartz, 2003) that were developed to represent behaviors expressive of each of the values types in Schwartz’s structure. (Although any given behavior might be only weakly associated with the value that it is believed to express, an aggregated set of several such behaviors would be more strongly related to that underlying value.) Finally, in assessing the validity of self-reported personality traits and values in predicting behaviors, we assessed behaviors using peer reports as well as self-reports. In this way, we could examine both the relative and the incremental validity of personality traits and of values in predicting reliable aggregated sets of behaviors. Also, given that the behaviors in question have some direct conceptual links to the various values, we might expect that these criteria should be better predicted by values. In addition, the use of peer reports of behavior would prevent any concerns that the validity of personality traits or of values would be an artifact of the use of a single rating source.
© 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers
which assesses the broad dimensions of Honesty-Humility. Participants were asked to rate each value item as a guiding principle in their own life.. Religiosity Self-rated religiosity was assessed via a single item that simply asked participants to indicate their level of religiosity on an eight-point scale. Each participant in the study provided self-reports as well as peer reports of the other participant who attended as part of the same pair.g. Pozzebon & M.) Materials Schwartz Value Survey Behavior Scales The domain of values was measured using the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS. according to a scale with 1 Self-reported behaviors corresponding to the 10 values dimensions were measured using the Behavior Scales constructed by Bardi and Schwartz (2003). All HEXACO-PI items are administered using a 5-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). HEXACO Personality Inventory Personality self-reports were obtained using the HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI.and peer reports on behaviors selected on the basis of their relevance to values. that is. 2004). Power. Tradition. we expected that each domain would provide some incremental validity beyond the other. However. Extraversion. each of which consists of several items. Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self. and Openness to Experience.C. with none reaching . e. (Religiosity is specifically excluded from the HEXACO model of personality structure. Universalism.. 2002). We calculated participants’ scores on the 10 values types according to the method described by Bardi and Schwartz (2003) and by Schwartz (1992). In terms of the incremental validity that the domains of personality and values would add in the prediction of behavior. Lee & Ashton.75 (Stimulation) for the 10 values scales. each of which is listed as a single term followed by a short parenthetical description of that term.and peer-reported behavior.and Peer-Reported Behavior 123 Purpose of the Present Study We investigated the extent to which the domains of personality traits and of values could predict self. This instrument contains 57 value items. Schwartz. Stimulation. relatives.g. Emotionality. sample sizes range from 244 to 252 because of small amounts of missing data. in which there are 16 items for each of the six broad factor-level scales. Note that we included a religiosity variable in order to examine whether the validity of the SVS tradition scale would be attributable to the specifically religious content of this value scale and of its corresponding behavior scale. close friends. Therefore. Conscientiousness.A. Thus. Self-direction. Participants answered the questionnaires independently during supervised sessions and were not permitted to discuss or observe each other’s responses. 1992).J. our sample does not represent 252 independent observations. Schwartz. 30(3):122–129 © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers .1 In the analyses below. Benevolence. Journal of Individual Differences 2009.55 (Tradition) to . 252 participants (58. relative to the opportunity Because our participants were recruited as pairs of acquainted persons. Method Participants Participants were recruited from a university campus via posted advertisements indicating that pairs of well-acquainted persons (e. the problem of nonindependent observations has little impact on our interpretation of the results. but we wished to examine whether either domain would tend to produce substantially greater increases across a majority of the behaviors. This questionnaire was designed to assess the frequency of behaviors that may be viewed as expressions of personal values. the intraclass correlations for self-reports on all variables were generally small.7% women. which would likely not be captured by the HEXACO personality dimensions response options ranging from –1 (opposed to my principles) through 0 (not important) to 7 (of supreme importance). romantic partners) were wanted as volunteers for a study of personality and values. we included a self-rating of religiosity to assess this aspect of the values domain. We hypothesized that self-reports on both personality traits and values would show substantial levels of validity in predicting both self. which is not generally considered a personality dimension.e. 2003. The current study used the half-length version of the HEXACO-PI. e. Vol. Hedonism. a self-report measure of 10 motivational values: Achievement.20... Bardi & Schwartz. Note that several of the values items are directly or indirectly related to religiosity. whereby items are centered within subjects (i. We relied on a single item because of previous findings indicating that global ratings of religiosity tend to be very highly correlated with multi-item scales measuring religiosity (see Roccas et al. and Security. Schwartz (1992) reported internal-consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) ranging from . Conformity.6 years) were recruited. responses to the items were subtracted from each participant’s mean response (see. mean age 20. Participants were asked to rate the frequency of engaging in the behavior described by each item. Olver & Mooradian. In total. ipsatized) to control for overall elevation of responses. 1992).. 2003.40 and most below . and consists of 84 items that represent Schwartz’s 10 values.g. Agreeableness.
internal-consistency reliabilities (again calculated using uncentered items) ranged from . For the SVS scales. and corrections for unreliability would overestimate the relations between the constructs of the SVS and of the Behavior Scales. whereas Openness to Experience correlated moderately with Self-direction (r = . Hedonism. but that may each share some strong conceptual similarity to an item of the corresponding Behavior Scale. and vice versa. personality predicted behavior rather well. the value of tradition did correlate strongly with Religiosity (r = . the SVS.36). Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self.80. Pozzebon & M. six HEXACO-PI scales were above .56. scores are based on items that have been centered within subjects (i. Security.50. These results are generally similar to those of Bardi and Schwartz (2003)..78 for Universalism (eight items) in self-reports. and Tradition showed self/peer convergent correlations exceeding .27. However. the religiosity item. the assumption of uncorrelated error variances does not hold.45) and Universalism (r = .and Peer-Reported Behavior Self-Reported Behavior Table 1 shows the correlations of self-reported personality and religiosity. behaviors) across sessions to reduce any order effects. but with rephrasing appropriate to a thirdperson perspective. As with the SVS. whereas the discriminant correlations were fairly small.2 For the Behavior Scales. Across the 10 Behavior Scales.and Peer-Reported Behavior to engage in such a behavior. ranging from . Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to determine the incremental predictive validity of the personality domain beyond the values domain.32 to . and the selfreport Behavior Scale. No other correlations between SVS and HEXACO-PI scales reached an absolute value of .C.5-hour session.e.76 (power). and from .e.40. Correlations of SVS with HEXACO-PI and Religiosity The SVS scales showed moderately large correlations with the HEXACO-PI variables. 30(3):122–129 . The response format follows a 5-point scale from 0 (never) to 4 (frequently).A. Therefore. Procedures Each participant completed the self-report versions of the HEXACO-PI.35 to .and peer reports on the Behavior Scales were moderately large. with the selfreported Behavior Scales.35.40 and with a mean We do not report correlations that have been corrected for the unreliability of the measures.42). as well as the peer-report versions of these questionnaires for their friend/relative/partner.. © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2009. Bardi and Schwartz (2003) reported that the internal consistency reliabilities for the 10 scales representing value-expressive behaviors ranged from . ranging from –. the reliabilities (calculated based on uncentered items) ranged from . with all but one of the multiple correlations reaching . The internal-consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of all 2 Correlations of Self-Reported Personality and Values with Self. Results Descriptive Statistics and Reliabilities Descriptive statistics for the HEXACO-PI scales. The use of disattenuated correlations is based on the assumption that the only source of the correlation between two scales is the “true-score” variance common to the items within each scale. particularly HonestyHumility and Openness to Experience: Honesty-Humility had substantial correlations with (low) power (r = –. The order of the questionnaires was counterbalanced both for target person (i. The peer-report forms of these instruments consisted of the same items as in the selfreport version. whereas the behavior scales of Power. However.. Peer-Report Instruments All of the above instruments were also administered to each participant in peer-report format. values. Vol.81 for Benevolence (10 items) in peer reports.52 for Stimulation (six items) to . The behavior scales of Stimulation. the SVS scales. Methods of Analysis The relations of self-reported personality and values with self. personality.40 for Security (five items) to .68 for Benevolence (five items). In this report we examine peer-report results only for the behavior scales. and Benevolence showed self/peer correlations below . and the Behavior Scales all indicated a wide distribution of responses throughout the range of possible scores.38) and with Universalism (r = . self vs. Self/Peer Report Correlations The correlations between self. ipsatized) to control for differences in overall elevation of responses.and peer-reported behaviors were computed using Pearson correlations. and of self-reported values.44 for stimulation to .53) and with Benevolence (r = . Participants received $15 for completing the 1.49 (security) to .124 J. peer) and for the order of the instruments (i.51).e. each SVS scale contains several items that may share little common variance.
37 . For the personality scales.20 –.02 . Security (Secur).05 .56. Vol.09 –.04 –.42 . Also.13 . and the mean across the 10 Behavior Scales increased to .30 –.08 –.08 .22 . Tradition (Trad).19 –.24 to .15 –.59 –.19 .05 –.12 .27 –.04 . the multiple correlation involving Tradition behaviors increased from .15 –. except that the prediction of peer-reported behavior was somewhat less strong.09 –.03 –.45 .21 .32 –.42 .03 . peer-reported behaviors that are conceptually aligned with the 10 values variables were moderately well predicted by personality and by values. the personality variables produced multiple correlations ranging from .11 .14 –.15 –.14 –.15 –.13 .14 .32 .41 .08 –.57 –. Thus.25 –.25 .29 to .04 .01 .24 –.18 .45 –.09 –.19 –.26 –.07 .48 .29 .01.29 –.09 . However.69 .26 . N = 244–252.62 .51 –.C.06 .58 .45 –.59 .39 –.04 –. with the peer-reported Behavior Scales.01 .05 .44 –.31 –.23 .09 .26 –. as observed for self-reported behavior. Thus. and of self-reported values.15 –.62.02 .10 .58 Stim Achiev Hedon Power Secur Confor Trad Benev Univ Note.59.22 –.12 .07 –. Journal of Individual Differences 2009.13 .50 .06 .14 .07 . Stimulation (Stim).and Peer-Reported Behavior 125 Table 1.14 .19 –. and Universalism (Univ).07 .03 .07 –.11 –.21 –. with a mean multiple correlation of .15 .12 . Conformity (Confor).05 .32 .43 –. tradition behavior was predicted much more strongly (R = .49 .26 .29 . When Religiosity was added to the regression equation. the multiple correlations across all 10 Behavior Scales ranged from .25). with a mean of .12 .09 –.03 .11 –.22 –. Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self. R indicates multiple correlation.16 –. p < .09 . the prediction of selfreported behaviors that are viewed as expressions of the 10 values variables was about equally strong for personality and for values.00 .51 across all 10 Behavior Scales.37.28 .42.03 –. When |r| ≥ .60 –.49.52 –.09 –. as would be expected given that the predictor and criterion variables were based on reports from different observers. when Religiosity was added to the regression equation.44 . results were generally similar to those observed © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers for self-reported behavior criteria: Across the 10 peer reported Behavior Scales.40 –.45 –.12 –.09 –.33 .13 –.48 –.53 .02 .07 . Benevolence (Benev).69 .11 –.08 –. Pozzebon & M.09 –.18 –.01 –.09 .21 .04 –.02 .45 .06 . of .17 –. These results were similar to those observed for the prediction of selfreported behavior.35 . Tradition was the only variable that had a low multiple correlation with the personality scales (R = .37 to .40 . the multiple correlations across the 10 Behavior Scales ranged from .22 . Peer-Reported Behavior Table 2 shows the correlations of self-reported personality and religiosity.53. with a mean of . Hedonism (Hedon).01 –.09 . the peer reports of behavior were predicted slightly more accurately by personality than by values.01 –. With regard to the prediction of self-reported behavior by the values scales.J.25 –.02 –.48 .27 .A. Behavior scale abbreviations are as follows: Self-direction (S-D).19 –.11 –.43 –.21 –.21 .05 .59 –.19 –.45.09 .25 .57 –.04 .13 .33 –.15 .04 .45.08 . and the mean multiple correlation across all 10 Behavior Scales increased to .12 .68 .22 .56 –.61 .04 –.23 –.48 . 30(3):122–129 .51 .62 –.31 .01 . with perhaps a slight advantage for personality.03 .03 . Turning to the prediction of peer-reported behavior by the values scales.04 –. Correlations of self-reported personality and values with self-reported behaviors Behavior scales S-D HEXACO-PI Honesty-humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience HEXACO-PI R Religiosity HEXACO-PI + Religiosity R SVS Self-direction Stimulation Achievement Hedonism Power Security Conformity Tradition Benevolence Universalism SVS R .10 .32 .56 .29 to .24 .13 .01 .17.37 –.09 –.03 .14 .08 .18 –.12 –.53 –.68).51 –.02 –.17 .16 .20 .16 –.18 .30 .19 –. Achievement (Achiev).
07 –.09 .03 .10 –. p < .14 .16 .56 .40 .41 .31 .40 .02 .04 .27 .49 R2 .40 .12 –.06 .13 .15 .23 .13 –.07 .27 –.33 . 30(3):122–129 © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers .07 .09 –.10 .03 .07 .06 .24 –.12* .54 . R indicates multiple correlation. When |r| ≥ .06 .74 .43 .38 .18 .29 –.08* .64 .05 –.14 . Stimulation (Stim).13 .22 .04 –.12 .12 .53 –.32 .13 .35 .20 –.02 .18 .34 .02 .09 –.01 .31 . Hedonism (Hedon).04 .09 –.12 –.27* .14 –.37 .12 .07 –.126 J.14 –.11 –.07 –.51 .48 .51 .62 .05 .09 .04 –.35 .13 –.23 .13 .25 –.30 .18 .13 –.47 .59 .26 –.10 .10 .23 .29 .43 –.24 .62 .23 –.13 .19 –.19 .58 .45 .41 Stim Achiev Hedon Power Secur Confor Trad Benev Univ Note.30 .10 .48 –.01. Behavior scale abbreviations are as follows: Self-direction (S-D).23 .21 .38 .07 .16 –.21 –. then personality Values R .16 .05 –.03 .20 .68 .02 .42 .05 .08 .41 –.49 .24 .14 –. entered at the same stage as personality.61 .36 –.16 .15* .12 .09 . then values Behavior scale Self-direction Stimulation Achievement Hedonism Power Security Conformity Tradition Traditiona Benevolence Universalism Mean Personality R .19 .58 .06 .40 –.01 . and Universalism (Univ).54 .57 –.13 –.05 .43 –.10 .20 –.38 .11 –.06 .10* .10 Values first.20 .02 .27 Values ΔR .18 .24 .41 .63 .23 .14 . Correlations of self-reported personality and values with peer-reported behaviors Behavior scales S-D HEXACO-PI Honesty-humility Emotionality Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Openness to experience HEXACO-PI R Religiosity HEXACO-PI + Religiosity R Values Self-direction Stimulation Achievement Hedonism Power Security Conformity Tradition Benevolence Universalism SVS R .04 . Conformity (Confor). Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self.21 –.03 .24 –.14* .35 –.05 –.06* .59 . the second line (with superscript) shows results based on the inclusion of Religiosity as an additional predictor of Tradition.06* .12 .04 . Achievement (Achiev).11 –.49 –.02 .15 .52 .06 .14 .21 –.10 .24 .40 .49 –.15 .19 –.09* .55 .42 –. Incremental validity of self-reported personality and values in predicting self-reported behaviors Personality first.51 R2 .05 .04 .38 .55 .26 .26 .03 . Table 3.12 .04 –. Journal of Individual Differences 2009.26 .34 –.00 .10 –.08* .18 .13 Final result Personality and values R .11* .61 .15 .06 .05 .15 .04 .37 –.20* .08 .41 .05 .02 –.07 –.33* .47 .31 –.05 –.37 . aFor Tradition and Mean.35 .29 .36 –.03 .37 –.27 .57 .07 .49 .44 . Security (Secur).27 . Pozzebon & M.05 –.02 –.45 .09 –.16 .07 .32 –.61 R2 .18 . Tradition (Trad).02 .08 .02 .C.14 –. Vol.21 .64 .03 –.04 .22 .39 Meana Note.16 –.16 .19 –.11 .14 –.and Peer-Reported Behavior Table 2.04 .46 .05 –.A.05 –.69 .11 –.05 .14 .03 .17.29 .33 .02 .09 .16 –.25 –.24 Personality ΔR .52 .34 .20 .29 .20 .05 .12 ΔR 2 .48 –.18 .01.10 ΔR2 .48 –. Benevolence (Benev).04 .03 .10 –.17 .44 .27 –.05 .01 –.49 .30 .11 .13* .01 .31 .09 .17* .55 .11 .05 .11 .33 .72 .17 –.01 –.02 .30 .31 .59 .14 –.29 .09 –.17* . N = 244.14* .25 –.18 .17 . N = 244–252.42 .37 .02 .01 –.30 .38 .66 .41 .56 . *p < .
19 . Note that the analyses for Tradition were performed twice.18* .48 .55 . and yielded a mean increase in R2 of .13 across all 10 self-report behavior scales.10 or above) beyond the personality scales in predicting Tradition behaviors.06 .61 .03 .26 a Note.40 .07 Values first.24 .43 . the second line (with superscript) shows results based on the inclusion of Religiosity as an additional predictor of Tradition.A.05* .08* .23 .41 R2 .18 Values ΔR .and Peer-Reported Behavior Incremental Validity of Values Beyond Personality in Predicting Self-Reported Behavior The left columns of Table 3 show the incremental validity of all 10 self-report value scales beyond the validity of all six self-report HEXACO scales in predicting the 10 selfreport behavior scales. producing a mean increase in R2 of .59 .50 .10 .03. Journal of Individual Differences 2009.19 . and yielded a mean increase in R2 of . in the second analysis.04* .03 . The personality scales added a significant amount of incremental validity (R2 change of . decreased from . religiosity was added to the six personality scales in the second step of the equation (see Table 3).07 .38 .17* .10 or above) in predicting every behavior scale except Tradition.49 R2 . Incremental validity of self-reported personality and values in predicting peer-reported behaviors Personality first.24 Meana .34 .11 . in the second analysis.37 .15 for all 10 self-report behavior scales.45 .05 .08 ΔR2 .28 .09* .08 . the left columns of Table 4 show the incremental validity of all 10 self-report value scales beyond the validity of all six self-report HEXACO scales.10 Final result Personality and values R . when religiosity was included along with the personality scales in the first step.12 .J.43 . when the six personality scales and religiosity were added in the second step of the equation. religiosity was added to the six personality scales in the first step of the equation (see Table 3).49 .24 . 30(3):122–129 Incremental Validity of Values Beyond Personality in Predicting Peer-Reported Behavior Next.03 .12 ΔR2 .45 .15* .36 .17 .02 .22 .06 .12* . Vol.47 . then personality Values R .17 to .06* .16 .26 .14 Personality ΔR . Incremental Validity of Personality Beyond Values in Predicting Self-Reported Behavior The middle columns in Table 3 show the incremental validity of all six HEXACO scales.10 or above) beyond the personality scales in predicting Conformity.17* .51 .40 . beyond the validity of all 10 values scales.14 .14 . Tradition.07 . Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self. The R2 change for Tradition behaviors.03* . then values Behavior scale Self-direction Stimulation Achievement Hedonism Power Security Conformity Tradition Traditiona Benevolence Universalism Mean Personality R . in predicting the 10 behavior scales in self-reports.33 to .05* .07 across all 10 peer-report behavior scales.30 . a substantial increment in validity (with an R2 change of .15 .11 . Note that the analyses for Tradition were again performed twice.07* .41 . The R2 change for prediction of Tradition behaviors. N = 244. increased from .37 .08 . entered at the same stage as personality.56 .32 . The values scales produced a substantial increment in validity (with an R2 change of .12 .06 . Multiple Correlations of Self-Reported Personality and Values with Self.42 .30 .22 .08 .08 .37 .C.24 .49 .35 .16 .07* .25 .20 .06 for all 10 peer report behavior scales. decreased from .33 .12 .16 .01.50 .41 . and yielded a mean increase in R2 of .09* .16 .03 .44 .08 .19 .29 . and Universalism behaviors.13 .06 .32 . Pozzebon & M.13 .17 with a mean increase in R2 of .08 for all 10 self-report behavior scales.55 .46 .27 . Note again that the analyses for Tradition were performed twice. religiosity was added to the six personality scales in the first step of the equation (see Table 4).53 .37 R2 .06* .43 . *p < .03* . and Universalism.20* . For Tradition and Mean.10 across all 10 selfreport behavior scales. in predicting the 10 peer report behavior scales.06* .28 .03 .and Peer-Reported Behavior 127 Table 4. in the second analysis.17 .47 . Benevolence. The values scales produced © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers . Benevolence. when the personality scales and religiosity were added in the first step of the equation.05 .19 .09 .20 .20 .02 to . producing a mean increment of .22 .12 .07* . The R2 change for prediction of Tradition behaviors.09.17 .05 .22 .
whereas the values variables accounted for more variability in the Tradition behavior scale. in effect. In light of this situation. to determine whether the validity of personality and values would generalize across rating sources. For example. This indicates that the associations of personality and of values with behavior is not simply an artifact resulting from the use of a common observer. several of which show strong conceptual and empirical links with those personality dimensions. and Hedonism are all values associated with personal reward.05 to . the validity of self-reported personality and values in predicting peer-reported behavior was still reasonably high. Discussion The major purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the validity of self-reported personality and values in predicting both self. Vol. Stimulation. selfreports of personality and of values both provided an appreciable increment in validity beyond that provided by the other domain alone. especially in predicting peerreported behavior. whereas Tradition includes values aimed at cooperative effort or improving relations with groups of people. This result is noteworthy given that the behavior groups were developed to match the 10 values types of Schwartz’s model. on the other hand. and yielded a mean increase in R2 of . However. and Power. increased from . whereas values may be able to capture the collectively-oriented behaviors better because many values pertain directly to the relationships between persons and society. in the case of the six HEXACO dimensions considered in this study. Across both self. Regression analyses showed that some behavior scales were better predicted by personality traits and others by values. A possiJournal of Individual Differences 2009. The R2 change for prediction of Tradition behaviors. Note again that the analyses for Tradition were performed twice.and peer-reported behavior. As would be expected. both performed about equally well in predicting behavior. However. For example. The Behavior Scales (Bardi & Schwartz. Hedonism. which. we would expect that behaviors selected as likely expressions of Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience would be predicted well by values.10 or above) in predicting the behavior scales of Self-direction.C. Self-direction. Examination of the mean multiple correlations yielded by personality and by values in predicting behavior suggests that the amounts of variance accounted for by personality and by values were broadly similar.and peer-reported behaviors.17. that is. Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self. given the weaker conceptual and empirical overlap of the values scales with those dimensions. producing a mean increment of . Stimulation. Future research might examine how well values would predict behaviors selected as indicators of a given set of personality dimensions. Stimulation. and behavior. and Power behavior scales. in the second analysis. the personality variables accounted for more variability in the Self-direction. but with perhaps a small advantage for the personality scales.10 across all 10 peer-report behavior scales. beyond the validity of all 10 values scales. self-reports on the personality and values scales showed slightly lower validity in predicting peer-reported behavior than in predicting self-reported behavior.128 J. religiosity was added to the six personality scales in the second step of the equation (see Table 4). Summary In predicting self-reports and peer reports of behavior. but further research will be needed to evaluate it properly. Personality may be able to capture the individually-oriented behaviors better because personality directly involves enduring patterns of behavior. Hedonism. the middle columns in Table 4 show the incremental validity of all six HEXACO scales. and that the combination of the two domains provided a more accurate prediction of behavior than did either alone. The hypothesis that individualistic behaviors would be more strongly related to personality and that collective behaviors would be more strongly related to values is an interesting possibility. The personality scales added a substantial amount of incremental validity (R2 change of . and whether personality performs better at predicting behavioral outcomes that are individualistic in nature. Future investigations could examine whether values perform better at predicting behavioral outcomes relevant to one’s association or identification with specific groups such as one’s family or religion. there is a real correspondence between personality or values. on the one hand. when religiosity was included along with the six personality scales in the second step. Pozzebon & M. the socially active behaviors that express extraversion or the anxious behaviors that express Emotionality might be rather weakly associated with the values domain. gave the values an advantage over personality in the sense that the conceptual relations with the behavior criteria were more direct for the values variables than for the personality variables.and Peer-Reported Behavior Incremental Validity of Personality Beyond Values in Predicting Peer-Reported Behavior Next. 2003) were used as the dependent variables to assess the predictive validity of personality traits and of values. the predictive validity of the personality variables was impressive. When all of the personality scales were compared with all of the value scales.A. instead. behaviors selected as likely expressions of other personality dimensions might not be well predicted by values. 30(3):122–129 ble explanation for this pattern of results could involve the individual versus the collective nature of the behavior. in predicting the 10 behavior scales in peer reports. © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers .11 for all 10 peer-report behavior scales. For example.
. S. S. Journal of Health Communication. T.R.A..H. 109–125. & Knafo. Sagiv. S. & Donovan. Pandey. (2000). In G. S. M. (2004). Personal values. C. (2002)..C. S.M. Paunonen. & Zelezny. The social psychology of political and economic cognition (pp.. 18.H. Ashton: Personality and Values as Predictors of Self. Helkama.H. A. 516–530. Vogt. G. K.. 84.V. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. & Schwartz. & Ashton. J. S. P..H.. Values and personality. References Bardi. K. 30(3):122–129 . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.J. 411–424.pozzebon@brocku.. & Singh.M. (2004). Uutela.. K. Hampson.. 621–634. Value systems and political cognition. European Journal of Personality. The Big Five personality factors and personal values.. (1994). (2008). A. 85.. S.M. Leung. S. 34. Z. 1–65. Personality traits and personal values: A conceptual and empirical integration. J. 25. 29. Lee.ca © 2009 Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Journal of Individual Differences 2009. Chang. New York: Academic Press. L. & Schwartz. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology.H.A. (2003). 29.J. M. Big Five factors of personality and replicated predictions of behavior. Hurtz. G. & King. (2006). (2005).A. K. 83. 35. Rothstein. A.W. (2003).H. L. (1998).. 10. Personality and Individual Differences. Goldberg.C. & Chemonges-Nielson.P. 953–954. S. Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school.. Schwartz. L. Rush.. 177–191. M. Pozzebon Department of Psychology Brock University St. (1998).). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. advertising. Personality and job performance: The Big Five revisited. & Dubanoski. European Journal of Personality. Journal of Applied Psychology.V. 789–801. J. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (1992). Catharines. 39.. 309–316.. Paunonen. J. L. Olver. Roccas. Bilsky. T. Psychological Reports.C. (2003). & Schwartz. Vol.and Peer-Reported Behavior 129 Acknowledgments We thank Kibeom Lee for helpful comments on an earlier draft. Women empowerment and personal values as predictors of reproductive health. W. Au. 28.. Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviors. Breakwell (Ed. (1994). Schultz. Herringer... M. Schwartz. L2S 3A1 Canada E-mail julie. 869–879. 329–358. ON. S. A.G. Journal of Educational Psychology. Bond. 86. 57–64. 163–181. Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology.C.. Julie A. & Mooradian.G. 7–31).. Health Psychology. 25. 1207–1220. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 8. Relating values and personality traits. (1991). and smoking motivation in Taiwanese adolescents. Forty years on: Teachers’ assessments of children’s personality traits predict self-reported health behaviors and outcomes at midlife. Tong. Values and proenvironmental behavior: A five country survey. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. 540–558.E. Pozzebon & M.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.