How response biases affect the factor structure of Big Five personality questionnaires
Several studies have shown that personality self-reports may be affected by response biases, and that this may have consequences on their factor structure, especially in samples with little education or in adolescents. The current study aims to understand the effect of social desirability and acquiescence on the factor structure of three questionnaires based on the Five Factor Model of personality: the Big Five Inventory, the Five Factor Personality Inventory and the Overall Personality Assessment Scale. The data was analysed using a new method that removes the effects of both social desirability and acquiescence from the inter-item correlation matrix used for factor analysis. These effects were assessed in a sample of 392 university students, which contained no individuals with low educational levels, children or adolescents. The results showed that, even in samples with no individuals with low educational levels, controlling for social desirability and acquiescence led to a simpler factor structure that is more congruent with the theoretical solution expected from the five factor model. It also seems that in the domain of inventories based upon the five factor model, this effect may be specially due to acquiescence.
Bäckström, M., Björklund, F., & Larsson, M. R. (2009). Five-factor inventories have a major general factor related to social desirability which can be reduced by framing items neutrally. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 335-344. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.013
Bell, K. M., & Naugle, A. E. (2007). Effects of social desirability on students’ self-reporting of partner abuse perpetration and victimization. Violence and Victims, 22, 243-256. doi: 10.1891/088667007780477348
Benet-Martínez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait method analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729-750. doi: 10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.529
Bentler, P. M. (1977). Factor simplicity index and transformations. Psychometrika, 59, 567-579. doi: 10.1007/BF02294054
Browne, M. (1972). Orthogonal rotation to a partially specified target. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 25, 115-120. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1972.tb00482.x
Browne, M. W. (1972). Oblique rotation to a partially specified target. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 25, 207-212. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1972.tb00492.x
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39(3), 214-227. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.39.3.214
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised Neo Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assesment Resources.
De Raad, B., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (1997).A psycholexical route to content coverage in personality assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 85–98. doi: 10.1027/1015-57184.108.40.206
Dijkstra, W., Smit, J. H., &Comijs, H. C. (2001). Using social desirabilityscales in research among the elderly. Quality & Quantity 35, 107-115. doi: 10.1023/A:1004816210439
Ferrando, P. J., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Chico, E. (2009).A general factor-analytic procedure for assessing response bias in questionnaire measures. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(2), 364-381. doi: 10.1080/10705510902751374
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: The search for universals in personality lexicons. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 141-165). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Hendriks, A. A. J., Hofstee, W. K. B., & De Raad, B. (1999). The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI). Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 307–325. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00245-1
Hendriks, A. J., Kuyper, H., Offringa, G. J., & Van der Werf, M. P. (2008). Assessing young adolescents' personality with the five-factor personality inventory. Assessment, 15(3), 304-316. doi: 10.1177/1073191107313761
Holden, R. R., &Passey, J. (2010). Socially desirable responding in personality assessment: Not necessarily faking and not necessarily substance. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 446-450. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.015
John, O. P., Naumann, L.P., & Soto, C. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (3rd edition, pp. 114-158). New York. Guilford.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2003). A factor simplicity index. Psychometrika, 68(1), 49-60. doi: 10.1007/BF02296652
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P.J. (2009). Acquiescent responding in partially balanced multidimensional scales. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 319-326. doi: 10.1348/000711007X265164
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2 A Comprehensive Program for Fitting Exploratory and Semiconfirmatory Factor Analysis and IRT Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 497-498. doi: 10.1177/0146621613487794
Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ten Berge, J. M. (2006). Tucker's congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 2(2), 57-64. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241.2.2.57
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Social desirability scales: More substance than style. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 51(6), 882-888. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.51.6.882
McCrae, R. R., Herbst, J. H., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2001). Effects of acquiescence on personality factors structures. In R. Riemann, F. M. Spinath, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality and temperament: Genetics, evolution, and structure (pp. 217–231). Berlin, Germany: Pabst Science Publishers.
Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education?. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1539-1550. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.010
Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013).Development and validation of the Psychological Maturity Assessment Scale (PSYMAS). European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 12-18. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000115
Paulhus, D. L., &Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R.W. Robins, R.C. Fraley, &R.F. Krueger (Eds.). Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (p.p. 224-239). New York. Guilford Press.
Rammstedt, B., Goldberg, L.R., & Borg, I. (2010). The measurementequivalence of Big-Five factor markers for persons with different levels of education. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 53-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.005
Rammstedt, B., & Farmer, R. F. (2013). The impact of acquiescence on the evaluation of personality structure. Psychological assessment, 25, 1137-1145. doi: 10.1037/a0033323
Rodríguez-Fornells, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Andrés-Pueyo, A. (2001).Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the Five Factor Personality Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(2), 145-153. doi:10.1027//1015-57220.127.116.11.
Ruiz, V. M., & Jiménez, J. A. (2004). Estructura de la personalidad: Ortogonalidad versus oblicuidad. Anales de Psicología, 20(1), 1-13.
Ten Berge, J. M. F. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 89–102. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3401_4
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The developmental psychometrics of Big Five self-reports: Acquiescence, factor structure, coherence, and differentiation from ages 10 to 20. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 718-737. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1688
Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences inpersonality traits from 10 to 65: Big five domains and facets in a largecross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,100, 330-348. doi: 10.1037/a0021717
Soubelet, A., & Salthouse, T. A. (2011). Influence of Social Desirability on Age Differences in Self-Reports of Mood and Personality. Journal of personality,79(4), 741-762. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00700.x
Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17) convergentvalidity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17, 222-232. doi: 10.1027//1015-5722.214.171.124
Ten Berge, J. M. (1999). A legitimate case of component analysis of ipsative measures, and partialling the mean as an alternative to ipsatization. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(1), 89-102. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3401_4
The MathWorksInc (2007). MATLAB - The Language of Technical Computing, Version 7.5. Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks, Inc.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington D.C.: Department of the Army.
Vigil-Colet, A., Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Morales-Vives, F. (in press). The effects of ageing on self-reported aggression measures are partly explained by response bias. Psicothema. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2015.32
Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., Camps, E., Tous, J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). Development and validation of the overall personality assessment scale (OPERAS). Psicothema, 25(1), 100-106. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2011.411
Vigil-Colet, A., Morales-Vives, F., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2013). How social desirability and acquiescence affect the age-personality relationship.Psicothema, 25(3), 342-348. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2012.297
Vigil-Colet, A., Ruiz-Pamies, M., Anguiano-Carrasco, C., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2012).The impact of social desirability on psychometric measures of aggression. Psicothema, 24, 310-315.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.