Abstract
The present paper investigated whether academic psychologists show a tendency to rate the quality and appropriateness of scientific studies more favorably when results and conclusions are consistent with their own prior beliefs (i.e., confirmation bias). In an online experiment, 711 psychologists completed a questionnaire (e.g., about their belief in astrology) and evaluated research that was presented in form of a short abstract in which 40 different behaviors (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money) have been tried to be predicted. The research to be evaluated varied on three dimensions which were all manipulated between subjects: (1) the predictors of the 40 behaviors (either Big Five or astrological factors), (2) the methodological quality of the study (low, medium, high), and (3) the results and subsequent conclusion of the study (confirmation or disconfirmation of the hypotheses). Factor-analyzed scores of participants’ ratings on 8 scales, resulting in 2 factors termed quality and appropriateness, served as dependent measures. The main result of the study is a two-way interaction: Psychologists tended to evaluate results qualitatively higher when they conformed to their own prior expectations, as in this case, when astrological hypotheses were disconfirmed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Armstrong, J. S. (1996). Publication of research on controversial topics: the early acceptance procedure. International Journal of Forecasting, 12, 299–302.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Edwards, W. (1968). Conservatism in human information processing. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal representations of human judgment (pp. 17–52). New York: Wiley.
Epstein, W. M. (2004). Confirmational response bias and the quality of the editorial processes among American social work journals. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 450–458.
Goodstein, L. D., & Brazis, K. L. (1970). Psychology of scientist: XXX. Credibility of psychologists: an empirical study. Psychological Reports, 27, 835–838.
Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216–229.
Hart, W., Albarracín, D., Eagly, A. H., Brechan, I., Lindberg, M. J., & Merrill, L. (2009). Feeling validated versus being correct: a meta-analysis of selective exposure to information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 555–588.
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the suppression of innovation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1438–1441.
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28–55.
Krems, J. F., & Zierer, C. (1994). Sind Experten gegen kognitive Täuschungen gefeit? Zur Abhängigkeit des confirmation bias von Fachwissen. [Are experts immune to cognitive bias? The dependence of confirmation bias on specialist knowledge]. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 41, 98–115.
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.
Maccoun, R. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–87.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161–175.
Moss, S., & Butler, D. C. (1978). The scientific credibility of ESP. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46, 1063–1079.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
Oswald, M. E., & Grosjean, S. (2004). Confirmation bias. In R. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions. A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory (pp. 79–96). Hove: Psychology Press.
Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880–892.
Van Ophuysen, S. (2006). Comparison of diagnostic decisions between novices and experts: the example of school career recommendation. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und pädagogische Psychologie, 38, 154–161.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
List of Abstracts
Abstract 1: Astrology, Disconfirmation, High Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants and astrological facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared five major astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) with five unfamiliar facets of astrology (minor aspects, lunar nodes, Asteroids, Uranian planets, Arabic parts) that constitute the astrological horoscope on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the major factors and the unfamiliar facets (the number of unfamiliar facet predictors was limited to the number of the major predictors) predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 187 subjects (97 female and 90 male university students with a mean age of 20.8) completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavioral report form. As mentioned, this study compares the major astrological factors with unfamiliar facets of astrology in terms of their criterion predictability. For each subject a horoscope was calculated and 3 astrologers rated them separately for any astrological factor and facet in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results (excerpts): Because the interrater-reliability between the 3 astrologers was .83, the data of the three astrologers were collapsed together. In the first regression analyses all five major factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These five major predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in only 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended, R1 = .29; R0 = .00, % = 6.4, p < .05; and dieting behavior, R1 = .24; R0 = .11, % = 6.2, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
In the second regression analyses the five unfamiliar facets of the astrological horoscope were used to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. The five facets were able to account for significant amount of variance in just 1 of the 40 criterion variables. This behavior criterion was: Fraternity interest, R1 = .22, R0 = .04, % = 5.8, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
The five major astrological factors do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors, therefore, may be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior, but the few previous positive findings in this area are not supported in this study. There is also no reliable astrological based variation in behavior that can be traced back to the unfamiliar aspects of astrology. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 2: Astrology, Disconfirmation, Medium Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants and astrological facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared five major astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) with five unfamiliar facets of astrology (minor aspects, lunar nodes, Asteroids, Uranian planets, Arabic parts) that constitute the astrological horoscope on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the major factors and the unfamiliar facets (the number of unfamiliar facet predictors was limited to the number of the major predictors) predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 47 undergraduate university students completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavior report form. As mentioned, this study compares the major astrological factors with five unfamiliar facets of astrology in terms of their criterion predictability. An astrologer was asked to rate the expected association between the diverse unfamiliar astrological facets and the criteria, and then chose the highest rated facets as predictors of each criterion. For each subject a horoscope was calculated and an astrologer rated them separately for any astrological factor and facet in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results: In the first regression analyses all five major factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These five major predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance only in 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended, R = .29; p < .05; and dieting behavior, R = .24; p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
In the second regression analyses the five unfamiliar facets of the astrological horoscope were used, rated by the astrologer, to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. The five facets were able to account for significant amounts of variance in just 1 of the 40 criterion variables. This behavior criterion was: Fraternity interest, R = 22, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
The five major astrological factors do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors, therefore, may be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior, but the few previous positive findings in this area are not supported in this study. There is also no reliable astrological based variation in behavior that can be traced back to the unfamiliar aspects of astrology. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 3: Astrology, Disconfirmation, Low Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants to the prediction of behavior. The authors examined five coefficients of astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). The astrological personality factors predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 27 undergraduate university students completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavior report form. For each subject a Horoscope was calculated and an astrologer rated them separately for any astrological factor in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results: Correlations were computed with each coefficient of astrological factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. These astrological predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in only 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended with sun sign, r = .29; p < .05; and dieting behavior with major aspects, r = .24; p < .05.
The five major astrological factors do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors are no useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 4: Astrology, Confirmation, High Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants and astrological facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared five major astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) with five unfamiliar facets of astrology (minor aspects, lunar nodes, Asteroids, Uranian planets, Arabic parts) that constitute the astrological horoscope on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the major factors and the unfamiliar facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the unfamiliar astrological facets often included large portions not predicted by the major astrological factors. The unfamiliar facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the major factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to astrological assessment, one that goes beyond the interpretation of the major factors alone.
Method: A total of 187 subjects (97 female and 90 male university students with a mean age of 20.8) completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavioral report form. As mentioned, this study compares the major astrological factors with unfamiliar facets of astrology in terms of their criterion predictability. For each subject a horoscope was calculated and 3 astrologers rated them separately for any astrological factor and facet in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results (excerpts): Because the interrater-reliability between the 3 astrologers was .83, the data of the three astrologers were collapsed together. In the first regression analyses all five major factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These five major predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended, R1 = .41, R0 = .00, % = 18.4, p < .001; Dieting behavior, R1 = .38, R0 = .13, % = 14.1, p < .001; Fraternity interest, R1 = .31, R0 = .11, % = .10.5, p < .01; Participation in sports, R1 = .27, R0 = .09, % = 8.3, p < .05; Alcohol consumption, R1 = .27, R0 = .06, % = .7.9, p < .05; Willingness to share money, R1 = .25, R0 = .11, % = 7.4, p < .05; Playing musical instruments, R1 = .23, R0 = .00 p < .05. % = 7.1. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
In the second regression analyses the five unfamiliar facets of the astrological horoscope were used to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. The five facets were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 17 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Willingness to share money, R1 = .48, R0 = .16, % = 20.1, p < .001; Tobacco consumption, R1 = .46, R0 = .00, % = 19.8, p < .001; Religiosity rating, R1 = .42, R0 = .11, % = 17.6, p < .001; Alcohol consumption, R1 = .34, R0 = .03, % = 15.3, p < .001; Parties attended, R1 = .31, R0 = .00, % = 12,4, p < .01; Dating variety, R1 = .28, R0 = .09, % = 8.9, p < .05; Fraternity interest, R1 = .26, R0 = .04, % = 8.4, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
The five major astrological factors account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. But there is also reliable astrological based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the major factors. This additional variation is evident in the specific variance residing. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Abstract 5: Astrology, Confirmation, Medium Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants and astrological facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared five major astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) with five unfamiliar facets of astrology (minor aspects, lunar nodes, Asteroids, Uranian planets, Arabic parts) that constitute the astrological horoscope on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the major factors and the unfamiliar facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard, even when the number of unfamiliar facet predictors was limited to the number of the major predictors. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the unfamiliar astrological facets often included large portions not predicted by the major astrological factors. The unfamiliar facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the major astrological factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to astrological assessment, one that goes beyond the interpretation of the major factors alone.
Method: A total of 47 undergraduate university students completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavior report form. As mentioned, this study compares the major astrological factors with five more unfamiliar facets of astrology in terms of their criterion predictability. An astrologer was asked to rate the expected association between the diverse unfamiliar astrological facets and the criteria, and then chose the highest rated facets as our predictors of each criterion. For each subject a horoscope was calculated and an astrologer rated them separately for any astrological factor and facet in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results: In our first regression analyses all five major factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These five major predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended, R = .41, p < .001; Dieting behavior, R = .38, p < .001; Fraternity interest, R = .31, p < .01; Participation in sports, R = .27, p < .05; Alcohol consumption, R = .27, p < .05; Willingness to share money, R = .25, p < .05; Playing musical instruments, R = .23, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
In the second regression analyses the five unfamiliar facets of the astrological horoscope were used, rated by the astrologer, to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. The five facets were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 17 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Willingness to share money, R = .48, p < .001; Tobacco consumption, R = .46, p < .001; Religiosity rating, R = .42, p < .001; Alcohol consumption, R = .34, p < .001; Parties attended, R = .31, p < .01; Dating variety, R = .28, p < .05; Fraternity interest, R = .26, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
The five major astrological factors account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. But there is also reliable astrological based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the major factors. That additional variation is evident in the specific variance residing. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Abstract 6: Astrology, Confirmation, Low Quality
The purpose of this is to evaluate the relative contributions of astrological determinants to the prediction of behavior. The authors examined five coefficients of astrological factors (sun sign, Ascendent, Medium Coeli, planets and major aspects) on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). The astrological personality factors predicted substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 27 undergraduate university students completed a questionnaire indicating their birth date, time and location of birth and a behavior report form. For each subject a Horoscope was conducted and an astrologer rated them separately for any astrological factor in the 40 behavior criteria.
Results: Correlations were computed with each coefficient of the astrological factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. These astrological predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended with sun sign, r = .41, p < .01; Dieting behavior with major aspects, r = .38, p < .01; Fraternity interest with Ascendent, r = .31, p < .01; Participation in sports with planets, r = .27, p < .05; Alcohol consumption with sun sign, r = .27, p<.05; Willingness to share money with major aspects, r = .25, p < .05; Playing musical instruments with sun sign, r = .23, p < .05.
The five major astrological factors account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Astrological interpretations of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Abstract 7: Big Five, Disconfirmation, High Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared the Big Five factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the broad factors and the narrow facets (the number of the narrow facet predictors was limited to the number of the broad factors) predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 187 subjects (97 female and 90 male university students with a mean age of 20.8) completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavioral report form. As mentioned, this study compares the Big Five Personality factors with five facets of those factors in terms of their criterion predictability. Judges were asked to rate the expected association between the diverse personality traits or facets and the criteria, and then the authors chose the five highest rated facets as predictors of each criterion.
Results (excerpts): In the first regression analyses all five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in only 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended, R1 = .29; R0 = .00, % = 6.4, p < .05; and dieting behavior, R1 = .24; R0 = .11, % = 6.2, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
In the second regression analyses we the five facets of the NEO-PI-R factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. The judges’ five NEO-PI-R facet scales were able to account for significant amounts of variance in just 1 of the 40 criterion variables. This behavior criterion was: Fraternity interest, R1 = .22, R0 = .04, % = 5.8, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
The Big Five factors of Personality do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors may be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior, but previous findings in this area are not supported in this study. There is also no reliable personality based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the Big Five. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 8: Big Five, Disconfirmation, Medium Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared the Big Five factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the broad factors and the narrow facets (the number of the narrow facet predictors was limited to the number of the broad factors) predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 47 undergraduate university students completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavior report form.
As mentioned, this study compares the Big Five Personality factors with five facets of those factors in terms of their criterion predictability. The authors rated the expected association between the diverse personality traits or facets and the criteria, and then chose the highest rated facets as the predictors of each criterion.
Results: In the first regression analyses all five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in only 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended, R = .29; p < .05; and dieting behavior, R = .24; p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
In the second regression analyses the five facets of the NEO-PI-R factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. The five NEO-PI-R facet scales were able to account for significant amounts of variance in just 1 of the 40 criterion variables. This behavior criterion was: Fraternity interest, R = .22, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
The Big Five factors of Personality do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors may be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior, but previous findings in this area are not supported in this study. There is also no reliable personality based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the Big Five. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 9: Big Five, Disconfirmation, Low Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors to the prediction of behavior. The authors examined the Big Five Factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). The Big Five personality factors predicted no substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 27 undergraduate university students completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavior report form.
Results: Correlations were computed with any of the five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in only 2 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were: Parties attended with extraversion, r = .29; p < .05; and Dieting behavior with neuroticism, r = .24; p < .05.
The Big Five factors of Personality do not account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors may be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior, but previous findings in this area are not supported in this study. Additional research in this area does not appear to be fruitful.
Abstract 10: Big Five, Confirmation, High Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared the Big Five factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the broad factors and the narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard, even when the number of facet predictors was limited to the number of factor predictors. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the personality facets often included large portions not predicted by the personality factors. The narrow facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the broad factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to personality assessment, one that goes beyond the measurement of the Big Five factors alone.
Method: A total of 187 subjects (97 female and 90 male university students with a mean age of 20.8) completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavioral report form. As mentioned, this study compares the Big Five Personality factors with five facets of those factors in terms of their criterion predictability. Judges were asked to rate the expected association between the diverse personality traits or facets and the criteria, and then the authors chose the five highest rated facets as predictors of each criterion.
Results (excerpts): In the first regression analyses all five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended, R1 = .41, R0 = .00, % = 18.4, p < .001; Dieting behavior, R1 = .38, R0 = .13, % = 14.1, p < .001; Fraternity interest, R1 = .31, R0=.11, % = .10.5, p < .01; Participation in sports, R1 = .27, R0 = .09, % = 8.3, p < .05; Alcohol consumption, R1 = .27, R0 = .06, % = .7.9, p < .05; Willingness to share money, R1 = .25, R0 = .11, % = 7.4, p < .05; Playing musical instruments, R1 = .23, R0 = .00 p < .05. % = 7.1. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
In the second regression analyses the five facets of the NEO-PI-R factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. The judges’ five NEO-PI-R facet scales were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 17 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Willingness to share money, R1 = .48, R0 = .16, % = 20.1, p < .001; Tobacco consumption, R1 = .46, R0 = .00, % = 19.8, p < .001; Religiosity rating, R1 = .42, R0 = .11, % = 17.6, p < .001; Alcohol consumption, R1 = .34, R0 = .03, % = 15.3, p < .001; Parties attended, R1 = .31, R0 = .00, % = 12,4, p < .01; Dating variety, R1 = .28, R0 = .09, % = 8.9, p < .05; Fraternity interest, R1 = .26, R0 = .04, % = 8.4, p < .05. (R1 = multiple correlation of sex and the predictors with criterion; R0 = multiple correlation of sex alone with the criterion; % = percentage of increase in criterion variance accounted for by R1 over R0.)
The Big Five factors of Personality account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. But there is also reliable personality based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the Big Five. This additional variation is evident in the specific variance residing. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Abstract 11: Big Five, Confirmation, Medium Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors and personality facets to the prediction of behavior. The authors compared the Big Five factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) with the facets or traits of personality that constitute those factors on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). Both the broad factors and the narrow facets predicted substantial numbers of criteria, but the latter did noticeably better in that regard, even when the number of facet predictors was limited to the number of factor predictors. Moreover, the criterion variance accounted for by the personality facets often included large portions not predicted by the personality factors. The narrow facets, therefore, were able to substantially increase the maximum prediction achieved by the broad factors. The results of this study are interpreted as supporting a more detailed approach to personality assessment, one that goes beyond the measurement of the Big Five factors alone.
Method: A total of 47 undergraduate university students completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavioral report form.
As mentioned, this study compares the Big Five Personality factors with five facets of those factors in terms of their criterion predictability. The authors rated the expected association between the diverse personality traits or facets and the criteria, and then chose the five highest rated facets as the predictors of each criterion.
Results: In the first regression analyses all five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended, R = .41, p < .001; Dieting behavior, R = .38, p < .001; Fraternity interest, R = .31, p < .01; Participation in sports, R = .27, p < .05; Alcohol consumption, R = .27, p < .05; Willingness to share money, R = .25, p < .05; Playing musical instruments, R = .23, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
In the second regression analyses the five facets of the NEO-PI-R factors to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria were used. The five NEO-PI-R facet scales were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 17 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Willingness to share money, R = .48, p < .001; Tobacco consumption, R = .46, p < .001; Religiosity rating, R = .42, p < .001; Alcohol consumption, R = .34, p < .001; Parties attended, R = .31, p < .01; Dating variety, R = .28, p < .05; Fraternity interest, R = .26, p < .05. (R = multiple correlation of the predictors with criterion.)
The Big Five factors of Personality account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. But there is also reliable personality based variation in behavior that is not accounted for by the Big Five. This additional variation is evident in the specific variance residing. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Abstract 12: Big Five, Confirmation, Low Quality
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relative contributions of personality factors to the prediction of behavior. The authors examined the Big Five Factors of personality (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience) on their ability to predict 40 behavior criteria (e.g., alcohol consumption, willingness to share money). The Big Five personality factors predicted substantial numbers of criteria.
Method: A total of 27 undergraduate university students completed a set of self-report measures of personality (NEO-PI-R) and a behavioral report form.
Results: Correlations were computed with any of the five NEO-PI-R factor scales to predict each of the 40 behavior criteria. These Big Five factor predictors were able to account for significant amounts of variance in 15 of the 40 criterion variables. These behavior criteria were for example: Parties attended with extraversion, r = .41, p < .01; Dieting behavior with neuroticism, r = .38, p < .01; Fraternity interest with extraversion, r = .31, p < .01; Participation in sports with openness to experience, r = .27, p < .05; Alcohol consumption with extraversion, r = .27, p < .05; Willingness to share money with agreeableness, r = .25, p < .05; Playing musical instruments with conscientiousness, r = .23, p < .05.
The Big Five factors of Personality account for a substantial amount of variation in human behavior. Measures of these factors, therefore, can be useful tools for predicting and understanding behavior. Additional research in this area appears to be fruitful.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hergovich, A., Schott, R. & Burger, C. Biased Evaluation of Abstracts Depending on Topic and Conclusion: Further Evidence of a Confirmation Bias Within Scientific Psychology. Curr Psychol 29, 188–209 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-010-9087-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-010-9087-5