The bulk of personality research has been built from self-report
measures of personality. However, collecting personality ratings
from other-raters, such as family, friends, and even strangers, is
a dramatically underutilized method that allows better explanation
and prediction of personality’s role in many domains of psychology.
Drawing hypotheses from D. C. Funder’s (1995) realistic accuracy
model about trait and information moderators of accuracy, we offer
3 meta-analyses to help researchers and applied psychologists
understand and interpret both consistencies and unique insights
afforded by other-ratings of personality. These meta-analyses
integrate findings based on 44,178 target individuals rated across
263 independent samples. Each meta-analysis assessed the accuracy
of observer ratings, as indexed by interrater consensus/reliability
(Study 1), self– other correlations (Study 2), and predictions of
behavior (Study 3). The results show that although increased
frequency of interacting with targets does improve accuracy in
rating personality, informants’ interpersonal intimacy with the
target is necessary for substantial increases in other-rating
accuracy. Interpersonal intimacy improved accuracy especially for
traits low in visibility (e.g., Emotional Stability) but only
minimally for traits high in evaluativeness (e.g., Agreeableness).
In addition, observer ratings were strong predictors of behaviors.
When the criterion was academic achievement or job performance,
other-ratings yielded predictive validities substantially greater
than and incremental to self-ratings. These findings indicate that
extraordinary value can gained by using other-reports to measure
personality, and these findings provide guidelines toward enriching
personality theory. Various subfields of psychology in which
personality variables are systematically assessed and utilized in
research and practice can benefit tremendously from use of others’
ratings to measure personality variables.
(a) using a search string in PsycINFO ; (b) hand searching through
a collection of over 200 psychological test manuals; (c) reviewing
research bibliographies of three personality inventories that have
other-report forms ; (d) reviewing the reference sections of
existing meta-analyses and summary articles on other-ratings of
personality ; (e) manually searching relevant existing
meta-analytic databases; (f) contacting researchers who have
frequently used other-ratings to request unpublished data; and (g)
reviewing the reference sections of articles located through
Strategies 1–6 for potential contributing data sources.
other-ratings are clearly linked to targets’ personality traits and
targets behave consistently enough for other-raters to rate their
personality accurately ; personality ratings from multiple raters
must be assessed to improve research reliability and validity ;
Highly visible traits and nonevaluative traits should be rated more
accurately by others ; interpersonal intimacy with the target
produced further gains in interrater and self– other accuracy ;
work colleagues’ ratings were strongly predictive of targets’ job
performance (considerably more strongly predictive than were
self-ratings)
traits appear to be readily expressed (high RA) to those intimately
acquainted with targets, but considerably less trait expression is
afforded to those less intimately acquainted with targets (even
when interactions with a target are frequent) ; other-raters are
considerably idiosyncratic in how they view the target (modest DU),
especially in rating traits low in visibility and high in
evaluativeness ; other-ratings assess traits more validly than do
self-ratings for predicting at least some important criteria (e.g.,
academic and job performance)
