Personality scale response latencies as self-schema indicators: The inverted-U effect revisited

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 611-618

  Akrami, Nazar ^a   Hedlund, Lars Erik ^a   Ekehammar, Bo ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Big five; Inverted U effect; Personality; Response latency

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147160706     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.12.005     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Amelang M., Eisenhut K., and Rindermann H. Responding to adjective check list items: a reaction time analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 12 (1991) 523-533
2. Amelang M., Rindermann H., and Pirron P. Beantwortungs-Zeiten von Fragen zu momentanen und überdauernden Eigenschaften. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie 37 (1990) 541-564
3. Bergman H. NEO-PI-R: Manual - svensk version [NEO-PI-R: Manual - Swedish version] (2003), Psykologiförlaget, Stockholm
4. Britt T., and Shepperd J.A. Trait strength and the underestimation of validity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 3 (1999) 108-122
5. Casey M.M., and Tryon W.W. Validating a double-press method for computer administration of personality inventory items. Psychological Assessment 13 (2001) 521-530
6. Costa Jr. P.T., and McCrae R.R. The NEO personality inventory manual (1985), Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL
7. Costa Jr. P.T., and McCrae R.R. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual (1992), Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa, FL
8. Ekehammar B., and Akrami N. The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable- and a person-centred approach. European Journal of Personality 17 (2003) 449-464
9. Fekken G.C., and Holden R.R. Response latency evidence for viewing personality dimensions as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personality 26 (1992) 103-120
10. Fekken G.C., and Holden R.R. The construct validity of differential response latencies in structured personality tests. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 26 (1994) 104-120
11. Hedlund, L. -E., Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2006). Personality and prejudice: Considering the role of self-schema. Unpublished manuscript, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
12. Holden R.R., and Fekken G.C. Can personality test item response latencies have construct validity? Issues of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences 15 (1993) 243-248
13. Holden R.R., Fekken G.C., and Cotton D.H.G. Assessing psychopathology using structured test-item response latencies. Psychological Assessment 4 (1991) 170-173
14. Kuiper N.A. Convergent evidence for the self as a prototype: the "inverted-U RT effect" for self and other judgements. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7 (1981) 438-443
15. Markus H. Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977) 63-78
16. Mueller J.H., Thompson W.B., and Dugan K. Trait distinctiveness and accessibility in the self-schema. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 12 (1986) 81-89
17. Neubauer A.C., and Malle B.F. Questionnaire response latencies: implications for personality assessment and self-schema theory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 13 (1997) 109-117
18. Popham S.M., and Holden R.R. Assessing MMPI constructs through the measurement of response latencies. Journal of Personality Assessment 54 (1990) 469-478
19. Siem F.M. The use of response latencies to enhance self-report personality measures. Military Psychology 8 (1996) 15-27
20. Siem F.M. Metatraits and self-schemata: same or different?. Journal of Personality 66 (1998) 783-803