Journal of Personality and Social Psychology © 2009 American Psychological Association

2009, Vol. 97, No. 3, 533–548 0022-3514/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0016229

Predicting Actual Behavior From the Explicit and Implicit

Self-Concept of Personality

Mitja D. Back Stefan C. Schmukle

Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz Westfälische Wilhelms University, Münster

Boris Egloff
Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz

The authors present a behavioral process model of personality that specifies explicit and implicit aspects
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

of the self-concept of personality as predictors of actual behavior. An extensive behavioral study (N ⫽

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

130) including a variety of relevant social situations was conducted. This approach allowed reliable
measurement of more than 50 behavioral indicators. A priori assignment of indicators to the Big Five
dimensions was conducted on the basis of theory and expert ratings. In line with the authors’ model, 3
main findings were revealed: First, direct measures (questionnaires) of personality predicted actual
behavior for all Big Five dimensions. Second, indirect measures (implicit association tests) of neuroti-
cism and extraversion also predicted actual behavior. Third, the predictive validity of these indirect
measures was incremental. The authors were additionally able to show that controlling for valence did
not affect any of these results. Implications and future prospects for the study of personality and actual
behavior are discussed.

Keywords: actual behavior, personality, impulsive and reflective processes, implicit and explicit mea-
sures, indirect and direct measurement

“Sayin’ it and doin’ it are two different things.”
—Bobby Byrd, The Legendary Henry Stone Presents Bobby Byrd
Back From the Dead
Predicting behavior is an ultimate goal of psychology. Person-
ality psychology contributes to this mission by describing and
explaining interindividual differences in people’s behavior. In
pursuing this aim, however, research has almost exclusively relied
on introspective self-reports of behavior (Baumeister, Vohs, &
Funder, 2007; Funder, 2001). The influence of personality on
directly observable behavior— on what people actually do— has
only rarely been subjected to investigation (see e.g., Borkenau,
Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004; Eaton & Funder,
2003; Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006, for recent exceptions).
In the present study, we aimed to systematically examine the
determinants of actually observable behavior. In doing so, we
applied an extensive and theory-based behavioral approach.
Mitja D. Back and Boris Egloff, Department of Psychology, Johannes
Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany; Stefan C. Schmukle, Department
of Psychology, Westfälische Wilhelms University, Münster, Germany.
This research was supported by German Research Foundation Grants
EG 143/2-1 and EG 143/2-3. We would like to thank Sarah Dudenhöffer,
Sascha Haun, Sarah Hirschmüller, Eleanor Horn, Eva Kampmann, Juliane
Stopfer, and Julia Tetzner for their help with data collection. We also thank
Steffen Nestler and Marcus Roth for comments on an earlier version of the
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mitja D.
Back, Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Department of Psychology,
Personality Psychology and Psychological Assessment, 55099 Mainz, Ger-
many. E-mail: back@uni-mainz.de
Activation of Actual Behavior:
The Reflective–Impulsive Model
In understanding how personality may influence actual behav-
ior, it is necessary to consider the processes that determine social
behavior in general. Over the course of the past few years, an
impressive amount of research evidence has shown that individu-
als process information about themselves and their environment in
not only an explicit (i.e., controlled or conscious) but also an
implicit (i.e., automatic or unconscious) mode (Bargh & Char-
trand, 1999; Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006; Epstein, 1994; Fazio,
1990; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002; Wilson,
Lindsley, & Schooler, 2000).
Accordingly, a recently developed prominent dual process mod-
el—the reflective–impulsive model (RIM; Strack & Deutsch,
2004)— explains social behavior as a joint function of two distinct
albeit related kinds of processes. First, social behavior may be
understood as reasoned action: Aspects of a situation are con-
sciously perceived and categorized, knowledge about the value and
potential consequences of different behavioral options is weighted
and integrated, and a decision is made that activates corresponding
behavioral schemata (reflective processes). Second, perceptual in-
put directly triggers the activation of schematic elements in an
associative network, and spread of activation automatically leads
to the activation of behavioral schemata (impulsive processes).
Impulsive processes, moreover, are influenced by two broad mo-
tivational orientations: approach and avoidance tendencies. These
tendencies interact with the automatic perception of situational
aspects and generally gear behavioral activation toward approach
or avoidance behavior (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). According to

533
 534 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF
these concepts, social behavior is executed whenever activation of
a behavioral schema exceeds a certain threshold. This activation
may be triggered by reflective and impulsive processes: Behav-
ioral schemata thus form a common pathway to actual social
behavior.
A Behavioral Process Model of Personality
What significance does this have with respect to the role of
personality in determining actual behavior? How are stable indi-
vidual differences related to reflective and impulsive precursors of
behavior? Figure 1 shows a personality-oriented adaptation of the
RIM, the behavioral process model of personality (BPMP). Ac-
cording to this model, actual social behavior is the result of both
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
impulsive and controlled processes, as described in the RIM
(Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Personality may be understood as the
result of the typical functioning (across time and multiple situa-
tions) of both kinds of processes. On the one hand, the typical
operation of reflective processes— how people typically perceive
and categorize situations, which behavioral options they prefer,
and how they deliberately realize these preferences— condense
into propositional representations of the self (e.g., “I am a person
who likes to have fun with others”). Measures of these aspects of
the self in turn predict how behavior (e.g., telling a joke) in a given
situation (e.g., arriving at a party) is voluntarily controlled. Indi-
vidual differences in propositional representations of the self may
be termed the explicit self-concept of personality. This is generally
measured with direct measures of personality (e.g., a personality
questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion).1
On the other hand, the typical functioning of impulsive processes—
how situational cues are automatically processed and what kinds of
actions are automatically performed—should lead to chronic as-
sociative links between associative network elements. Associative
representations of the self (e.g., “me”–“cheerful”) can result from
repeated activation of the self, as a concept in an associative
network, together with a pattern of impulsive behavioral activation
that is characterized by perceptual features of the situation (e.g.,
many others), an impulsive motivational tendency (e.g., approach-
ing), and a resulting spontaneous behavior (e.g., smiling) that in
turn activates the trait concept (e.g., cheerful). The more often an
individual executes such a course of action, the stronger her/his
association between the self and the respective trait concept will
be. Measures of associative representations of the self thus predict
the automatic execution of behavior in a given situation. Individual
differences in associative representations of the self may be re-
ferred to as the implicit self-concept of personality (Asendorpf,
Banse, & Mücke, 2002). This can be measured with indirect tests
of personality, for example, an implicit association test (IAT) for
the measurement of extraversion. Understanding and predicting
actual behavior therefore requires consideration of both the ex-
plicit and the implicit self-concept of personality.
Explicit Self-Concept of Personality and the
Prediction of Behavior
The most straightforward way to gain information about an
individual’s personality is to simply ask him/her what kind of
person s/he is. Consequently, self-reports are typically used to
measure personality. At a superordinate level, the structure of this
explicit self-concept of personality can be adequately described in
terms of a few broad personality dimensions (Saucier & Goldberg,
2001). The most common personality taxonomy is the five-factor
model (McCrae & John, 1992), which assumes that five broad and
robust factors, often referred to as the Big Five, account for a
considerable amount of covariation between self-reported person-
ality traits (see Ashton et al., 2004; Saucier, 2003; Saucier, Geor-
giades, Tsaousis, & Goldberg, 2005, for alternative models). These
Big Five factors of personality are commonly known as Neuroti-
cism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava, 1999;
McCrae & John, 1992).
In terms of the BPMP, self-reported measures of the Big Five
can be conceptualized as reflecting differences in propositional
representations of the self that result from the typical functioning
of reflective processes (consciously perceiving and categorizing
the situation, considering alternative options, deciding what to do,
initiating an action) in situations that provoke meaningful differ-
ences in how people act. With respect to the Big Five, these
situations could, for instance, be described as stressful situations in
which people differentially behave anxiously or do not (neuroti-
cism); situations that allow wide latitude for being expressive or
not and for seeking contact or not (extraversion); situations that are
unusual or that offer wide latitude for either displaying innovative
or knowledgeable responses or not displaying them (openness);
situations in which the interests or concerns of others may be at
least as salient as one’s own and there is wide latitude for either
amplifying or minimizing interpersonal conflict (agreeableness);
and finally situations in which there is wide latitude for either
exercising effortful self-regulation or not doing so (conscientious-
ness).2
Research has shown that self-reported personality differences
have meaningful consequences for individual, interpersonal, and
social–institutional life outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006).
Personality as measured by self-reports also expresses itself in
people’s natural and virtual environments (Back, Schmukle, &
Egloff, 2008; Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002; Vazire &
Gosling, 2004). Moreover, explicit personality characteristics cor-
relate with self-reported daily behaviors (Grucza & Goldberg,
2007; Hong, Paunonen, & Slade, 2008; Paunonen, 2003). Extra-
version, for example, predicts a self-reported estimation of the
average number of parties attended per month (Paunonen, 2003).
In contrast, surprisingly little is known about the influence of
explicit personality differences on actually observable behavior
(Baumeister et al., 2007; Funder, 2001). In fact, in many cases, the
1
In line with suggestions made by Anastasi (1968) and De Houwer
(2006), we use the terms direct and indirect when referring to measurement
procedures (e.g., a questionnaire for the measurement of extraversion and
an implicit association test for the measurement of extraversion). In con-
trast, we use the terms explicit and implicit when referring to outcomes of
these measures (e.g., explicit and implicit extraversion scores) and the
underlying constructs (e.g., the explicit self-concept of extraversion and the
implicit self-concept of extraversion).
2
The description of features of situations that typically provoke Big
Five–related behaviors does not imply that situations generally need to be
classified in terms of the Big Five structure (for detailed analyses concern-
ing basic domains of situation variables see Saucier, Bel-Bahar, & Fernan-
dez, 2007; ten Berge & De Raad, 1999; Yang, Read, & Miller, 2006).
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY 535
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. The behavioral process model of personality, a personality-oriented adaptation of the reflective–
impulsive model (Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Terms inside the dashed rectangle refer to characteristics of the
actual situation (state), and terms outside the dashed rectangle to stable characteristics of the person (trait).
Multiple dashed rectangles indicate multiple situations. IAT ⫽ implicit association test.

difference between observed and self-reported behavior is not even
considered. Research on the predictive validity of self-reported
personality is often conducted in line with a “just ask them”
maxim: The behavioral criterion (e.g., for neuroticism) is mea-
sured by asking the person how s/he behaves (e.g., “How often do
you act nervously when confronted with a stressful situation?”).
Such an approach is problematic for at least two reasons. First,
self-reported behavior (asking people what they do) and actual
behavior (observing what people do) are neither conceptually nor
empirically identical (e.g., Todd, Penke, Fasolo, & Lenton, 2007;
West & Brown, 1975). People’s reported behavior differs from
their actual behavior due to introspective limits and response
tendencies (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).
For instance, people do not know exactly how they feel or behave
in a stressful situation. Moreover, they differ in the extent to which
they want to be seen as vulnerable and accordingly adjust their
self-reports of behavior. While the self-concept of one’s own
behavior is most certainly an interesting issue for investigation, it
cannot be equated with behavior itself (Gosling, John, Craik, &
Robins, 1998; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). Second, when exclusively
counting on self-reports in investigations of personality– behavior
relations, there is often considerable item overlap between predic-
tor and criterion, as a result of which empirical findings become
rather trivial. For instance, questionnaires for the measurement of
neuroticism may also contain an item asking about nervous reac-
tions in stressful situations. In this case, both the personality and
the behavior item would probably correlate almost perfectly—
clearly an exaggeration of how much actual nervous behavior is
predicted by self-reported neuroticism.
To fully understand how personality influences behavior, one
must therefore observe the actual behavior of participants. In
recent years, a number of important personality-oriented behav-
ioral approaches have been developed and adopted. For example,
Funder, Furr, and Colvin (2000) developed the Riverside Behav-
ioral Q-Sort (RBQ), a detailed scheme for the coding of social
behaviors in one-to-one social interactions. Borkenau and col-
leagues (2004) created a variety of social situations designed to
provoke personality-related behaviors, and Pennebaker and col-
leagues developed a technique for measuring linguistic aspects of
behavior, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Penne-
baker, Chung, Ireland, Gonzales, & Booth, 2007; Pennebaker,
Francis, & Booth, 2001). Using these and similar behavioral ap-
proaches, studies on the accuracy of personality judgments, on
nonverbal communication, and on word use have successfully
demonstrated that the direct measurement of some personality
traits correlates with actually observed behaviors (e.g., Berry &
Hansen, 2000; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Creed & Funder, 1997;
DePaulo & Friedman, 1998; Eaton & Funder, 2003; Fast &
Funder, 2008; Levesque & Kenny, 1993; Mehl et al., 2006; Pen-
nebaker & King, 1999; Riggio & Riggio, 2002).
On the basis of these results and the conceptual descriptions of
the Big Five (John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992), a
 536 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF
number of behavioral correlates of self-reported personality can be
expected. Neuroticism should, for instance, predict nonverbal and
verbal uncertainty, especially in stressful situations. There has
been some evidence to suggest that facets of self-reported neurot-
icism do indeed correlate with more restricted, awkward, negative,
and nervous social behavior (Asendorpf, 1988; Creed & Funder,
1997; Pennebaker & King, 1999; Pilkonis, 1977; Riggio & Riggio,
2002). Extraversion would be expected to manifest itself in situ-
ations that allow wide latitude for being expressive (or not) and for
seeking contact (or not). Prior studies have revealed that self-
reported extraverts have a more powerful voice (Scherer, 1978)
and behave in a more expressive and sociable way (Borkenau &
Liebler, 1992; Eaton & Funder, 2003; Levesque & Kenny, 1993;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Mehl et al., 2006; Riggio & Riggio, 2002). Openness should be
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
reflected in intellectual competence, creative and original ideas,
and a willingness to encounter unusual situations. However, little
is known about the actual influence of openness on behavior. Open
individuals seem, for example, to know more about current events
(e.g., Beier & Ackermann, 2001). In a groundbreaking behavioral
study on interpersonal perception, Borkenau and colleagues (2004)
were able to demonstrate that openness to experience is most
easily observed in situations requiring creative and unusual behav-
ior. For agreeable individuals, helping others and not being ag-
gressive should be typical. Accordingly, some studies have shown
that self-reported agreeable individuals behave in a more attentive
and friendly manner (Berry & Hansen, 2000; Borkenau & Liebler,
1992; Mehl et al., 2006). Finally, conscientious persons would be
expected to behave in a self-organized way and to abide by
common arrangements. Some behavioral studies have found that
conscientiousness fosters punctual and more formal behavior
(Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2006; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992).
In sum, for each of the five dimensions, there is some evidence
that the explicit self-concept of personality predicts actual and
socially relevant behavior. Nonetheless, given the theoretical im-
portance of personality in the study of behavior, this body of
evidence remains surprisingly small. Moreover, the few behavioral
studies conducted have investigated only specific personality
traits, have used single or few behavioral criteria, and have failed
to specify a priori what kinds of behavior should theoretically be
predicted by what kinds of personality traits. More research on the
behavioral consequences of self-reported personality is evidently
needed (Baumeister et al., 2007; Funder, 2001). Specifically, more
systematic studies—including a multitude of trait-relevant situa-
tions and behavioral indicators that, moreover, are theoretically
related to the Big Five dimensions and sufficiently aggregated over
observers, time, or situations—are desirable (Funder, 1999; Ken-
rick & Funder, 1988).
Implicit Self-Concept of Personality and the
Prediction of Behavior
Actual behavior is triggered by both reflective processes, which
are influenced by individual differences in propositional represen-
tations of the self (the explicit self-concept of personality), and
impulsive processes, which are subject to the influence of various
associative representations of the self (the implicit self-concept of
personality). For a more complete understanding of how and why
people’s social behavior differs, self-reported personality must
thus be complemented by indirect tests of personality that measure
implicit aspects of the self.
Among the first attempts to assess the implicit self-concept of
personality were projective measures such as the Thematic Apper-
ception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943). Over the last few decades,
renewed attention to implicit measures has also led to the devel-
opment of a wide range of new procedures for the indirect mea-
surement of personality (Banse & Greenwald, 2007; Bosson,
Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000; De Houwer, 2006; Nosek, Green-
wald, & Banaji, 2007). One of the most prominent indirect mea-
sures is the implicit association test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, &
Schwartz, 1998). The IAT measures the strength of associations
between concepts by comparing response times in two combined
discrimination tasks. Participants are required to sort stimuli rep-
resenting four concepts by using only two responses, each assigned
to two of the four concepts. The underlying assumption of the IAT
is that if two concepts are highly associated, the sorting task will
be easier (i.e., faster) when the two associated concepts share the
same response key than when they share different response keys.
The IAT can be applied to assess aspects of the implicit self-
concept of personality by combining the categorization of items
into the categories me and others with the classification of items
into two opposing personality trait categories.3 For example, the
IAT has been used to measure the implicit self-concept of extra-
version (Mierke & Klauer, 2003; Schmukle & Egloff, 2005). Here,
categorization into the categories me and others was combined
with a classification of items into extraversion and introversion
categories. By measuring the relative ease of categorizing me and
extraversion items versus others and introversion items, as com-
pared with me and introversion items versus others and extraver-
sion items, the IAT effect thus represents an indicator of the
implicit self-concept of extraversion.
In contrast to other implicit measures of personality (Bosson et
al., 2000; Schmukle, 2005), personality IATs routinely demon-
strate good reliability (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2005; Egloff,
Schwerdtfeger, & Schmukle, 2005; Nosek et al., 2007), which is a
prerequisite for measuring individual differences. Moreover,
Schmukle, Back, and Egloff (2008) recently successfully applied
the IAT for the indirect measurement of the Big Five (see also
Grumm & Von Collani, 2007; Steffens & Schulze-König, 2006).
As is also the case for direct measures of personality, however,
the key issue when it comes to evaluating the utility of indirect
personality measures is predictive validity. An indirect measure of
personality valuably complements direct personality measures
(i.e., questionnaires), given that it predicts relevant behavior even
when self-reported personality is controlled for. Consequently, in
indirectly measuring personality, “the focus should be placed on
whether implicit measures predict relevant behaviour over and
above explicit measures” (Perugini & Banse, 2007, p. 260).
The predictive validity of indirect tests of personality has most
clearly been demonstrated in the context of shyness and anxious-
ness. A shyness IAT predicted global ratings of shyness in con-
versation with an unfamiliar opposite-gender confederate of
above-average physical attractiveness, as well as for more specific
3
This procedure applies to personality IATs. In contrast, attitude IATs
combine the categorization of items into the categories good and bad with
the classification of items into two opposing attitude object categories.
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY 537

indicators of shyness, including gaze aversion (Asendorpf et al.,
2002). IATs indirectly measuring anxiousness predicted global
ratings of anxiousness in stressful speech situations (Egloff &
Schmukle, 2002; Schnabel, Banse, & Asendorpf, 2006), more
specific indicators of nervousness such as dysfluency of speech
(Egloff & Schmukle, 2002), and performance decrements follow-
ing failure (Egloff & Schmukle, 2002). Moreover, these IATs also
showed incremental validity, that is, they predicted actual behavior
above and beyond explicit measures of personality (e.g., Asen-
dorpf et al., 2002; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002; Schnabel et al.,
2006).
Banse and Fischer (2002) found some evidence for the predic-
tive validity of an aggressiveness IAT in the context of sports: The
IAT predicted the number of matches with penalties in a group of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Overview of the Present Study
The present study, the Mainz Observation of Behavior Study,
investigated the predictive validity of explicit and implicit mea-
sures of personality. Applying an extensive behavioral approach,
we aimed to determine how well explicit and implicit aspects of
the self-concept of personality predict people’s actual behavior.
We defined behavioral aspects of the Big Five on the basis of a
systematic investigation of theoretical and empirical approaches to
personality and social behavior and subsequently assigned a mul-
titude of concrete actual behaviors to each of the five dimensions.
For the observation of these behaviors, we compiled a diverse set
of relevant social situations (see Table 1), including speaking
situations, interpersonal interactions, creativity tasks, helping sit-

semiprofessional ice hockey players. In examining global ratings
of angry and aggressive behavior upon being unjustly accused,
Steffens and Schulze-König (2006) found a significant correlation
with an agreeableness IAT, whereas Schnabel and colleagues
(2006) failed to find a correlation with an angriness IAT. More-
over, Steffens and Schulze-König reported a correlation between a
conscientiousness IAT and one indicator of conscientious behavior
(the number of errors made during a self-paced concentration test).
While compelling evidence for the predictive validity of attitude
IATs exists (see Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, in
press, for a recent meta-analysis), it remains unclear exactly what
kinds of personality IATs routinely predict actual behavior. We
aimed to systematically investigate, on the basis of a behavioral
process model, the predictive validity of various IATs designed to
measure the implicit self-concept of personality. Most importantly,
we aimed to establish what kinds of personality IATs incremen-
tally predict actual behavior above and beyond direct measures of
personality.
uations, performance tasks, body-oriented tasks, and unstructured
situations. This resulted in more than 1 hr’s worth of videotaped
behavior for each participant. Several trained expert raters objec-
tively derived or rated predefined behavioral criteria. By aggre-
gating across expert raters, more than 50 reliable behavioral cri-
teria were assessed (see Table 2). A meaningful behavioral
criterion was subsequently adopted for each of the Big Five
dimensions by aggregating across a multitude of actually observed
behaviors that were theoretically related to the respective dimen-
sion.
These behavioral aggregates were then used to test the predic-
tive validity of our direct and indirect measures of personality. To
allow for a direct and fair comparison of the predictive validity of
both kinds of measures, we applied the same descriptive person-
ality adjectives in both a Big Five questionnaire and a Big Five
IAT. In line with our behavioral process model of personality, we
formulated three hypotheses. First, explicit measures of personal-
ity would predict the corresponding behavioral aggregates. Sec-

Table 1
Experimental Situations

Situation Description Average duration

Reception The experimenter welcomed the participant and noted time of arrival. 1 min
Small talk The experimenter opened with standardized small talk: “What is your name?” “What are you 2 min
studying?” “What’s it like?” The experimenter additionally asked whether the participant’s
cell phone was switched off.
Big Five IATs See text. 30 min
Photographs Pictures of the participants were taken in a standardized standing position. 2 min
Self-introduction Participants were seated in front of the camera and requested to introduce themselves: “Please 4 min
tell us about yourself, about your hobbies, what you are interested in, and so on.”
Vision of the future “Please describe what your life and the world in general will be like in 15 years.” 3 min
Concentration test Administration of a standardized concentration test (FAIR; Moosbrugger & Oehlschläger, 1996). 7 min
Brick pantomime “Please think about multiple uses of a brick and present your ideas—one by one—in pantomime 3 min
form.”
Short story Participants were instructed to write a short story in which the words air crash, firework, 7 min
chambermaid, middle ages, and supermarket were included.
Knowledge test The knowledge test consisted of 19 general knowledge questions in a multiple choice format 10 min
and 7 open-ended questions pertaining to more current topics.
Waiting situation Participants were left alone because the experimenter “had to see to something outside.” 2 min
Helping situation Just as the participant was about to leave, the experimenter asked if s/he could “help with the 5 min
preparation of another experiment.” The experimenter handed the participant some materials
(e.g., paper, pencils) and asked her/him to distribute them among five tables in another room.
The number of materials distributed to each table was recorded.
Sending back a questionnaire Participants were given a questionnaire along with instructions to fill it out and send it back in 1 week
exactly 1 week. The time of arrival of the questionnaire was recorded.

Note. FAIR ⫽ Frankfurt Attention Inventory.

 538 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF

Table 2
Behavioral Criteria for Each of the Big Five Personality Dimensions

Items Typical behavioral aspects Behavioral criteria ␣ Mexp1 Mexp2

Neuroticism
Anxious, nervous, fearful, Nonverbal nervousness, verbal uncertainty, Global behavior SI (rating) .83 5.00 0.81
uncertain, afraid, calm, negative self-view mentioned Global behavior vision of the future (rating) .89 5.00 0.81
relaxed, restful, at Global transcript SI (rating) .86 5.00 0.66
ease, balanced Gaze aversion SI (counting) .98 4.38 1.38
Tense body posture SI (rating) .74 4.38 0.75
Tense leg posture SI (rating) .88 4.25 0.72
Silence during SI (counting) .96 3.25 2.19
Reassuring whether cell phone is switched off
(yes/no) obj. 2.63 1.59
Reassuring questions in helping situation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(counting) obj. 3.50 2.09

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dysfluency of speech SI (filler words, LIWC;

Pennebaker et al., 2007, 2001) obj. 4.50 1.19
Negations SI (LIWC) obj. 3.75 0.88
Words related to anxiety and depression SI
(LIWC) obj. 4.50 0.66

Extraversion
Sociable, talkative, active, Expressive nonverbal and verbal behavior; Global behavior SI (rating) .83 4.88 1.09
impulsive, outgoing, impulsive behavior; social contact Global behavior vision of the future (rating) .89 4.88 1.06
shy, reticent, passive, sought; showy appearance Global transcript SI (rating) .88 5.00 0.88
deliberate, reserved Expressivity of facial expression SI (rating) .73 4.88 0.91
Loudness of voice SI (rating) .90 4.63 1.06
Number of words SI (LIWC) obj. 3.88 1.50
False alarms in concentration test (counting) obj. 1.75 1.44
Own questions during small talk (counting) .86 3.38 1.88
Second-person pronouns SI (LIWC) obj. 4.00 1.38
Other references SI (LIWC) obj. 3.88 1.31
Stylish dress (rating) .76 4.25 1.31
Flashy dress (rating) .66 4.75 1.47

Openness
Imaginative, civilized, Intellectual competence; creative and Global short story (rating) .67 4.75 0.78
well-educated, original ideas; openness to unusual Global transcript SI (rating) .89 4.75 0.72
interested, gifted, situations General knowledge (test) .70 4.50 0.75
unimaginative, Actual knowledge (test) .62 4.63 0.91
primitive, uneducated, Verbal eloquence SI (rating) .76 4.00 1.38
indifferent, limited Original and unusual brick categories (counting) .96 4.88 0.88
Number of words in short story (LIWC) obj. 4.13 1.25
Open answers in small-talk situation (rating) .90 4.25 2.00

Agreeableness
Trusting, well-meaning, Helpfulness; friendly and trustful Global behavior in helping situation (rating) .85 4.75 1.19
friendly, helpful, good- nonverbal and verbal behavior; Global transcript SI (rating) .80 4.88 0.53
natured, obstinate, compliant behavior; nonaggressiveness; Quality of help (counting) obj. 2.88 1.13
quarrelsome, hostile, social and selfless orientation mentioned Friendly voice in helping situation (rating) .93 4.63 0.69
hard-hearted, resentful Friendly voice in small talk (rating) .73 4.63 0.75
Attentive body posture in small talk (rating) .63 3.75 1.78
Checking out room in waiting situation (rating) .90 3.88 2.03
Aggressive–destructive brick categories
(counting) .98 4.25 1.31
Number of swear words SI (LIWC) obj. 4.00 1.53
Relative frequency of other- versus self-words
SI (LIWC) obj. 3.13 1.31
Words related to social processes SI (LIWC) obj. 3.63 1.34
Words related to family SI (LIWC) obj. 3.38 1.09
(table continues)
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY
Table 2 (continued)
Items Typical behavioral aspects
Conscientiousness
Meticulous, reliable, neat, Common arrangements adhered to;
fussy, thorough, linguistic correctness; erroneous
careless, unreliable, behavior avoided; formal dress and
chaotic, frivolous, appearance
erratic
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Note. Items and behavioral criteria that indicate a low value on the respective personality dimension appear in italics. Mexp1 ⫽ mean of the expert ratings
for the respective personality dimension (possible range: 0 –5); Mexp2 ⫽ mean of the expert ratings for all other personality dimensions (possible range:
0 –5); SI ⫽ self-introduction; obj. ⫽ objective behavioral criteria; LIWC ⫽ Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count.
ond, implicit measures would also predict actual behavior. Third,
because explicit and implicit measures of personality are thought
to reflect the typical functioning of different kinds of processes
that activate behavior via a common pathway, implicit predictive
validities would prove incremental when controlling for explicit
measures.
Additionally, we aimed to establish whether the potential
effects of direct and indirect measures on behavior are specif-
ically related to the self-concept of personality as opposed to
self-esteem. Since a positive–negative valence polarity is in-
herent to most self-concept IATs, it has been recommended that
self-concept IATs should “show construct validity for their
specific semantic content as distinct from a general positive or
negative evaluation” (Schnabel, Asendorpf, & Greenwald,
2008, p. 521). For this reason, we aimed to test whether pre-
dictive validities of the Big Five IAT are influenced by con-
trolling for valence.
Method
Participants
Participants were 130 students (77 women, 53 men) of the
Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, recruited
mainly from introductory psychology courses and through flyers in
several university buildings. They participated in exchange for
research participation credit or monetary compensation (20 €).
Their average age was 22.43 years (SD ⫽ 3.98).
Procedure
After consenting to participate, participants were given a
questionnaire for the measurement of self-reported personality,
which they completed at home. A few days later, they partici-
pated in a behavioral study lasting about 70 – 80 min that
included the indirect personality measures. The order and
length of the experimental situations of this session are de-
scribed in Table 1. These situations were designed to provoke a
variety of socially relevant behaviors and behavioral outcomes
(see Behavioral criteria below) that are theoretically assignable
539
Behavioral criteria ␣ Mexp1 Mexp2
Global transcript SI (rating) .89 4.88 0.50
Minutes too late in attending experiment
(counting) obj. 5.00 1.47
Lateness in sending back questionnaire
(counting) obj. 4.88 0.59
Number of errors in short story (counting) .89 4.50 0.38
Understandability in small talk (rating) .79 3.75 1.50
Number of errors in concentration test
(counting) obj. 4.38 0.38
Slouching body posture SI (rating) .93 3.88 1.25
Formal dress (rating) .79 4.38 0.66
to the Big Five dimensions of personality. Participants’ behav-
ior was videotaped throughout the course of the experiment.
Measures
Personality IAT. The personality IAT—which consisted of
five subtests, each designed to measure one of the Big Five
personality dimensions—was administered on a personal com-
puter with the Inquisit program (Draine, 2001). In the follow-
ing, we present the extraversion subtest as an example of the
procedure adopted in conducting the IAT subtests. In this
subtest, stimuli from the categories me (me, my, own, I, self)
and others (they, your, them, you, others) as well as items from
the categories extraversion (sociable, talkative, active, impul-
sive, outgoing) and introversion (shy, reticent, passive, delib-
erate, reserved) were presented. The IAT extraversion subtest
comprises five blocks. In the first block, comprising 20 trials
(each item was presented twice), participants practiced discrim-
inating items belonging to the category me from those belong-
ing to the category others (target discrimination). In Block 2,
the same procedure was conducted with respect to attribute
discrimination; participants were required to sort items into
extraversion and introversion categories. In Block 4, the
switched key assignment was practiced (20 trials). The critical
Blocks 3 and 5 each consisted of 60 trials. In these trials,
participants categorized items into two combined categories,
each including the attribute and the target concept assigned to
the same key.
Participants were informed that they would be required to
make a series of category judgments. In each trial, a stimulus
word was displayed in the center of a computer screen. Cate-
gory labels were displayed on the left- and right-hand sides of
the window. Participants used the letter A on the left-hand side
of the keyboard and the number 5 from the numeric keypad on
the right-hand side for their responses. They were further in-
structed: “Please try to be as accurate though also as quick as
possible. If your selection is incorrect, you will see a red X. To
continue to the next judgment, you must make the correct
selection.” Participants were told to keep their index fingers on
the A and 5 keys throughout the experiment in order to facilitate
 540 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF
a fast response. Intertrial intervals were set to 150 ms. The
computer recorded elapsed time between the start of each
stimulus presentation and the correct response. Mean latencies
and error rates were displayed after each block.
IAT data were treated with an improved scoring algorithm
(so-called D1 measure) as described by Greenwald, Nosek, and
Banaji (2003): (a) trials with latencies greater than 10,000 ms were
eliminated; (b) error trials were included in the analysis by using
the latency between stimulus presentation and correct response
(built-in error penalty); (c) the mean latency for the critical trials of
the me ⫹ extraversion block was subtracted from the mean latency
for the critical trials of the me ⫹ introversion block; (d) the IAT
effect was computed by dividing this difference by the individual-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
respondent reaction time standard deviation. Thus, the higher the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
IAT effect, the more extraverted the estimated implicit self-
concept of a given participant.
A total of five such subtests were presented. Since it was
necessary to practice discriminating only the items me and
others in the first IAT subtest administered, the personality IAT
consisted of a total of 21 blocks (5 blocks for the first subtest,
4 blocks for each of the following four subtests). The IAT
subtests differed with respect to the attributes that were to be
discriminated. In addition to the above-described discrimination
of extraversion versus introversion, we employed anxiety ver-
sus calmness; agreeableness versus disagreeableness; conscien-
tiousness versus carelessness; and openness versus narrow-
mindedness. In selecting these category labels, we refrained
from using technical terms of academic psychology, such as
neuroticism or emotional stability, in order to ensure compre-
hensibility for all participants. Stimuli selection was based on
prototypical items for each category chosen from a list of 823
adjectives assigned to the Big Five personality dimensions
(Ostendorf, 1994). Whenever feasible, we avoided the use of
negated adjectives common to many adjective lists (Goldberg,
1992; Ostendorf, 1994) in order to rule out alternative response
strategies, which may be facilitated by such adjectives when
completing the IAT (e.g., sorting all stimuli that begin with
“un-” into one category). All stimuli used in the Big Five IAT
can be found in column 1 of Table 2. The presentation sequence
of the five IAT subtests, as well as the order of critical blocks,
was counterbalanced across participants. For the purpose of
maintaining variation in experimental demands and minimizing
the utilization of response strategies, we set breaks between
IAT subtests. During these breaks, participants were presented
with TAT and Rorschach pictures and instructed to write down
their ideas concerning the situation (TAT: breaks 1 and 3) and
the inkblot (Rorschach: breaks 2 and 4) displayed. Participants
wrote for 5 min per situation (TAT) and 3 min per inkblot
(Rorschach). Their written ideas were not subjected to analysis.
Self-reported personality. Participants explicitly rated the 50
IAT attribute stimuli (see column 1 of Table 2) on a scale ranging
from 0 (not at all) to 5 (very much). They were instructed to
“please indicate the extent to which the following attributes apply
to you.” Scores for each of the five personality dimensions (ex-
traversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and
openness) were computed as the mean rating for the five stimuli
describing the positive pole of the respective dimension and the
five reverse-scored stimuli describing the negative pole (e.g., the
mean of the five extraversion and the five reverse-scored introver-
sion ratings).
Valence measures. To control for the potential influence of
valence, we included two pure measures of valence: an indirect
and a direct measure. A self-esteem IAT was performed as an
indirect measure of valence directly after completion of the Big
Five IATs. In this IAT, categorization of items into the cate-
gories me (me, my, own, I, self) and others (they, your, them,
you, others) was combined with categorization of stimuli into
the categories like (nice, likeable, pleasant, good, positive) and
dislike (annoying, dislikeable, repulsive, bad, negative). In-
structions, procedure, and computation of the IAT effect were
analogous to those for the personality IATs. The same like and
dislike items were included in the personality questionnaire and
were rated on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (very
much). Again, participants were instructed to “please indicate
the extent to which the following attributes apply to you.” A
direct measure of valence was computed as the mean rating for
the five positive stimuli ratings and the five reverse-scored
negative stimuli.
Behavioral criteria. For each of the five personality dimen-
sions, a number of behavioral criteria were defined a priori. In
predefining criteria, we referred to conceptual descriptions of
the Big Five dimensions (Goldberg, 1990; John & Srivastava,
1999; McCrae & John, 1992) as well as to prior research on
behavioral personality correlates (e.g., Asendorpf et al., 2002;
Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Borkenau et al., 2004; Funder et al.,
2000; Mehl et al., 2006). In Table 2, each of the Big Five
dimensions (column 1) is presented together with theoretically
defined behavioral aspects (column 2) and the behavioral cri-
teria actually adopted (column 3). A number of behavioral
criteria were objectively measured by counting behavioral oc-
currences (e.g., lateness of attendance) or by applying the
German adaptation (Wolf et al., 2008) of the Linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker et al., 2007, 2001; e.g.,
number of negations in the self-introduction). Other criteria
were counted (e.g., number of errors in the short story) or rated
(e.g., expressivity of facial expression) by two observers in
order to ensure sufficient reliability. As can be seen in column
4 of Table 2, these behavioral criteria proved reasonably reli-
able, with a mean coefficient alpha of .83.
In order to empirically validate whether theoretical assign-
ment of behavioral criteria to one of the Big Five dimensions
was warranted, we had eight independent experts rate each of
the 52 behavioral criteria with regard to their degree of belong-
ing to each of the Big Five dimensions. Ratings were performed
on a scale ranging from 0 (not prototypical at all for this
dimension) to 5 (very prototypical for this dimension). As Table
2 shows, behavioral criteria were seen as prototypical for the
dimension to which they had been assigned (column 5) and less
prototypical for the remaining dimensions (column 6). More-
over, expert ratings were highly consensual, with alpha coeffi-
cients ranging from .91 for extraversion to .96 for agreeable-
ness. Finally, we aggregated across behavioral criteria in order
to obtain a single behavioral validation criterion for each Big
Five dimension. To obtain reliability indexes for these criteria,
we created two parallel behavioral aggregate measures for each
personality dimension and computed reliabilities, which were
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY 541

.71 (neuroticism), .88 (extraversion), .73 (openness), .62 Table 4

(agreeableness), and .50 (conscientiousness).4 Intercorrelations of Explicit and Implicit Personality Measures

Dimension 1 2 3 4 5
Results
ⴱⴱ
1. Neuroticism .25 ⫺.01 ⫺.03 ⫺.04 ⫺.21ⴱ
Descriptive Statistics 2. Extraversion ⫺.15† .31ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .08 ⫺.03
3. Openness ⫺.13 .31ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .30ⴱⴱ .22ⴱ
Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of the personality 4. Agreeableness ⫺.34ⴱⴱⴱ .14 .18ⴱ ⫺.02 .12
predictors can be found in Table 3. Internal consistencies proved 5. Conscientiousness ⫺.10 ⫺.09 .08 .24ⴱⴱ .01
satisfactory for all measures, with a mean coefficient alpha of .81
for explicit measures and .76 for implicit measures. Intercorrela- Note. Intercorrelations between implicit measures are shown above the
tions between personality measures were comparatively low, with diagonal, and intercorrelations between explicit measures are shown below
it. Explicit⫺implicit correlations (italicized) are shown on the diagonal.
a mean absolute intercorrelation of .18 for explicit measures and †
p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
.13 for implicit measures (see Table 4).5 Explicit–implicit corre-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

lations (explicit–implicit consistencies) were present for only neu- plicit personality. In addition, implicit agreeableness proved to be
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

roticism and extraversion (see diagonal of Table 4).
Main Analyses
To examine the predictive validity of personality measures, we
computed correlations between each measure and the correspond-
ing theoretically derived behavioral validation criterion. Predictive
validities of explicit measures are presented in column 1 of
Table 5. All correlations were highly significant and considerably
higher than r ⫽ .30. An individual’s explicit self-concept of
personality thus predicts his/her actual behavior. This applied to all
Big Five dimensions. We subsequently correlated implicit person-
ality measures and behavioral aggregates (see Table 5, column 2).
While no significant correlations were found for openness, agree-
ableness, or conscientiousness, implicit neuroticism and implicit
extraversion predicted actual behavior. Absolute discriminant va-
lidities averaged .11 for explicit and .09 for implicit measures,
ranging from .01 to .26 for explicit measures and from .00 to .19
for implicit measures. Only two discriminant validity coefficients
exceeded .20. Discriminant validities were thus considerably lower
than convergent validities (see Appendix).
Next, we analyzed whether implicit personality measures
showed incremental predictive validity. To this end, we computed
partial correlations between implicit personality and actual behav-
ior for each of the five dimensions, in each case controlling for the
corresponding explicit personality measure. As can be seen in
column 3 of Table 5, implicit neuroticism and implicit extraversion
significantly predicted actual behavior when controlling for ex-
a marginally significant predictor of agreeable behavior when
controlling for explicit agreeableness.
Supplementary Analyses: A Question of Valence?
As outlined above, the predictive validity of self-concept IATs
may potentially be influenced by a valence confound (e.g., Banse
& Greenwald, 2007; Schnabel et al., 2008). Specifically, valence
may have masked or produced the validity coefficients found for
our Big Five IATs. Internal consistencies of both valence measures
were satisfactory, with ␣ ⫽ .81 for explicit valence (M ⫽ 3.74,
SD ⫽ 0.55) and ␣ ⫽ .74 for implicit valence (M ⫽ 0.38, SD ⫽
0.28). Explicit and implicit valence measures were uncorrelated
(r ⫽ –.01, ns). To check for the potentially confounding influence
of valence, we first computed correlations between valence and
personality (see Table 6). As can be seen in column 2, there were
small correlations between implicit personality and the effect of
the self-evaluation IAT (mean r ⫽ .20). The valence confound
was, however, more pronounced for explicit personality (mean r ⫽
.40; see column 1). Second, we computed partial correlations to
determine whether validity coefficients were changed by control-
ling for valence. As shown in Table 7, predictive validities of both
direct and indirect measures of personality were not affected by
controlling for valence.
Discussion
In the present study, we investigated the predictive validity of
both direct and indirect measures of personality. Using a system-

Table 3 4
In light of the broadness of the personality constructs and the limited
Descriptive Statistics of Explicit and Implicit Personality
number of multiply determined, single behavioral indicators, we regarded
Predictors these numbers as satisfactory. Additionally, we would like to point out that
when analyzing behavioral measures of personality, it is necessary to
Explicit Implicit
consider the individual specificity of behavioral responses (see Asendorpf,
Dimension M SD ␣ M SD ␣ 1988, for a detailed discussion). Many behavioral indicators of a trait (e.g.,
extraversion) that can be identified at the group level (e.g., gesturing,
Neuroticism 2.22 0.75 .84 ⫺0.31 0.28 .70 speaking in a loud voice) are not interchangeable at the individual level.
Extraversion 3.24 0.79 .87 0.02 0.38 .85 Some extraverts speak loudly but do not gesture, while others primarily
Openness 3.88 0.47 .73 0.32 0.30 .77 react with gestures. This unavoidably leads to low internal consistency of
Agreeableness 3.76 0.54 .75 0.40 0.29 .71 the behavioral aggregate. In a study on the behavioral assessment of
Conscientiousness 3.05 0.79 .85 0.28 0.26 .75 shyness, Asendorpf (1988) was, however, able to show that an aggregate
of behavioral measures with low intercorrelations can nevertheless be a
Note. Descriptives for explicit personality predictors are based on ques-
tionnaire data with a possible range from 0 to 5. Descriptives for implicit valid indicator of personality.
5
personality predictors are based on IAT data, which were treated with the Throughout the article, mean correlations were computed with Fisher’s
D1 measure. r-to-z formula.
 542 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF

Table 5 Table 7
Predicting Behavioral Aggregates From Explicit and Implicit Predicting Behavioral Aggregates From Explicit and Implicit
Personality Measures Personality Measures While Controlling for Valence

Implicit (controlled Implicit (controlled

Dimension Explicit Implicit for explicit) Dimension Explicit Implicit for explicit)

Neuroticism .36ⴱⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ Neuroticism .26ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ

Extraversion .38ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱ Extraversion .35ⴱⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ
Openness .31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.14 ⫺.14 Openness .32ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.10
Agreeableness .35ⴱⴱⴱ .13 .15† Agreeableness .29ⴱⴱ .13 .14
Conscientiousness .30ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.08 ⫺.09 Conscientiousness .27ⴱⴱ ⫺.08 ⫺.08
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
†
p ⬍ .10. p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001. p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

atic and extensive behavioral approach, we found the following

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

tive validities well exceeded the upper limit of the so-called

pattern of results. First, we were able to confirm the predictive
importance of self-reported personality, as measured by a Big Five
questionnaire: The explicit self-concept of personality is capable
of predicting actual behavior for all Big Five dimensions. Second,
it was shown that implicit personality also predicts actual behavior.
This was true for neuroticism and extraversion and not for open-
ness or conscientiousness. There was only a slight tendency for
implicit agreeableness to predict actual behavior. Third, reflecting
the hypothesized independent influence on actual behavior, the
predictive validity of implicit measures of personality remained
stable when controlling for explicit measures. The prediction of
actual behavior can thus be enhanced by including implicit mea-
sures of personality. We additionally demonstrated that valence
does not seem to pose a threat for the predictive validities reported.
Results are in line with our proposed model and underline the
relevance of direct and indirect personality measures in the pre-
diction of actual behavior.
The Predictive Validity of Direct Measures of Personality
In the present study, we extended prior research on the behav-
ioral correlates of directly measured personality by employing one
large design to validate all Big Five dimensions. In sum, we were
able to show that a variety of social behaviors are theoretically
definable and directly observable for each of the Big Five dimen-
sions. By aggregating over these single behavioral criteria, we
found clear evidence for the predictive validity of the explicit
self-concept of personality: Explicit measures of neuroticism, ex-
traversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness each
predicted corresponding behavioral aggregates. Moreover, predic-
Table 6
Correlations Between Personality Measures and Valence
Dimension and Explicit valence Implicit valence
absolute mean confound
Dimension
Neuroticism ⫺.45ⴱⴱⴱ
Extraversion .31ⴱⴱ
Openness .38ⴱⴱⴱ
Agreeableness .50ⴱⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness .35ⴱⴱⴱ
Absolute mean .40
ⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. p ⬍ .001.
personality coefficient, a term introduced by Mischel (1968) “to
describe the correlation between .20 and .30 which is found
persistently when virtually any personality dimension inferred
from a questionnaire is related to almost any conceivable criterion
involving responses sampled in a different medium—that is, not by
another questionnaire” (p. 78). This neatly confirms that if “behavior
is appropriately aggregated over occasions and/or situations, the .30
personality barrier will routinely be breached” (Epstein, 1983, p. 180).
Our findings support and substantially extend prior research on the
predictive validity of direct measures of personality: In a nutshell,
self-reports of personality do indeed contribute to predictions of
what people actually do.
The Predictive Validity of Indirect Measures of
Personality
Why then do we need indirect measures of personality when direct
measures are capable of predicting social behavior? It is necessary to
bear in mind that the explicit personality– behavior relations observed
in our study are, although significant, far from being perfect. While
direct measures of personality are necessary, they are presumably not
sufficient to accurately predict actual behavior. As outlined in the
BPMP, indirect measures of personality are thought to tap into other,
more associatively structured aspects of the self (the implicit self-
concept of personality) that trigger social behavior in concert with
propositional representations of the self (the explicit self-concept of
personality) via a common pathway (behavioral schemata). We could
show that, in accordance with our model, indirect measures of per-
sonality may valuably complement direct measures of personality:
Implicit neuroticism and implicit extraversion indeed predicted actual
behavior. Moreover, this influence of the implicit self-concept of
personality proved to be independent from the influence of the explicit
self-concept of personality.
This is in line with prior studies that have revealed incremental
predictive validity of indirect measures of anxiety (Egloff &
confound Schmukle, 2002; Schnabel et al., 2006) and shyness (Asendorpf et al.,
2002). For two aspects of personality, neuroticism and extraversion, it
⫺.21ⴱ is now well documented that indirect measures constitute an impor-
.20ⴱ tant addition in predicting actual behavior. This finding nicely paral-
.30ⴱⴱ lels research on the relation between personality and basic affective
.19ⴱ and motivational tendencies. Neuroticism and extraversion have both
.10
.20
been closely linked to basic affective dimensions and approach–
avoidance tendencies (Elliot & Trash, 2002; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya,
& Tellegen, 1999), which foster the automatic execution of behavior
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY
(Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Behaving in a nervous and strained manner
(neuroticism), as well as behaving expressively and cheerfully (ex-
traversion), seems to be strongly influenced by impulsive processes,
specifically by the interplay of approach and avoidance tendencies,
the automatic perception of situational cues, and the automatic acti-
vation of respective behavioral schemata. This can lead to chronic
associative representations of the self, as outlined in the BPMP.
Consequently, IATs measuring these associations (e.g., an extraver-
sion IAT) predict actual behavior (e.g., extraverted behavior) above
and beyond explicit measures.
Regarding agreeableness, the situation is less clear. We found some
evidence that implicit agreeableness might improve the prediction of
agreeable behavior when controlling for explicit agreeableness. How-
ever, this incremental predictive validity was smaller than that found
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for neuroticism and extraversion and only marginally significant.
There are at least two reasons that might explain both the weaker
predictive validity found in our study and the discrepant findings of
prior studies (Banse & Fischer, 2002; Schnabel et al., 2006; Steffens
& Schulze-König, 2006). First, while some behavioral aspects of
agreeableness are likely subject to the influence of impulsive pro-
cesses (e.g., aggressive behavior), this is less likely to be true of other
aspects (e.g., modest behavior). As a consequence, associative repre-
sentations of the self-concept of agreeableness are less strongly af-
fected by a recurrent course of automatic behavior activation. Second,
social situations that provoke differences in agreeable behavior (situ-
ations in which the concerns of others are more salient than one’s own
concerns) might be less effective in activating one’s self-concept than
would situations associated with neurotic and extraverted behavior.
This in turn may result in a less pronounced development of differ-
ences in self-trait associations during the automatic activation of
agreeable behavior. Future studies using different indirect measures of
agreeableness might improve our understanding of implicit agreeable-
ness.
When it came to predicting actual behavior, implicit measures of
openness and conscientiousness, in contrast to those of neuroticism
and extraversion, did not appear to be informative. A correlation
between indirectly measured conscientiousness and a single indi-
cator of conscientious behavior (number of errors made during a
self-paced concentration test) was found in a previous study (Ste-
ffens & Schulze-König, 2006). Although a multitude of behavioral
indicators were used, the present study was not able to replicate
this finding. While one can easily subject any trait to indirect
measurement with an IAT by simply choosing two opposing trait
categories and some appropriate items, our study showed that these
measures cannot always be assumed to be predictive of actual
behavior.
What might be the reason for the lack of predictive value of
indirectly measured openness and conscientiousness? According to
the BPMP, associative representations of the self are relevant for the
prediction of behavior only when they are developed on the basis of
a recurrent course of impulsive behavioral activation, including auto-
matic approach or avoidance tendencies. We propose that the typical
activation of conscientious and open behavior implies less impulsive
and automatic processes than does the typical activation of neurotic
and extraverted behavior. As a consequence, indirect measures of
conscientiousness and openness are less predictive of actual behavior.
In fact, when looking at the conceptual descriptions of openness and
conscientiousness as well as at the behaviors related to these traits,
one finds that impulsive processes seem to be less pronounced and
543
reflective processes seem to be more pronounced than for neuroticism
and extraversion. Open persons are often described as deliberately
considering novel and diverse ideas as well as acting accordingly.
Conscientiousness is characterized by a careful consideration and
observation of one’s own present behaviors and the planning of future
actions. On the other hand, one can argue that there is a certain degree
of impulsivity in creative and imaginative acting (high openness) as
well as in unreliable and disorganized behaviors (low conscientious-
ness). We would, however, consider these behaviors as not
being mainly driven by automatic motivational tendencies, as
described in the BPMP. Individual differences in creative and
imaginative acting might not be due to automatic approach or
avoidance tendencies (e.g., impulsively approaching a creative
solution). Instead, they might result from mentally impulsive,
automatic processes (innovative rearrangement of existing
schemata) that are then applied in a controlled fashion when the
situation demands it. Disorganized behaviors might not involve
approach or avoidance tendencies either (e.g., automatically
avoiding an organized desk). In contrast, they might best be
explained by the absence of effortful and controlled processes.6
Future research might benefit from paying attention to this
interesting pattern of results. Our results do not definitely exclude
the possibility that using other indirect measures of openness and
conscientiousness (particularly those highlighting the potentially
impulsive aspects of these traits) might help to predict actual
behavior. Building on the present study, such research will not
only help to better predict that elusive dependent variable called
actual behavior but might lead us toward a better understanding of
6
To test our categorization of neuroticism and extraversion as being
more impulsive than are openness and conscientiousness, we additionally
obtained expert ratings of the Big Five trait adjectives used in this study.
Eight trained observers rated each of the 50 trait adjectives on a
reflectivity–impulsivity scale ranging from 1 (completely reflective) to 6
(completely impulsive). In order to estimate the consensuality of impulsiv-
ity ratings, we calculated both the reliability of single ratings using the
intraclass correlation ICC(2, 1) and the corresponding reliability of ratings
averaged across observers ICC(2, k; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Experts
substantially agreed in their impulsivity ratings, ICC(2, 1) ⫽ .52, p ⬍ .001,
ICC(2, k) ⫽ .90, p ⬍ .001. More importantly, the Big Five dimension to
which the adjectives belonged had a significant effect on impulsivity
ratings, F(4, 49) ⫽ 5.76, p ⬍ .001. Contrast tests revealed that trait
adjectives belonging to neuroticism (M ⫽ 4.45, SD ⫽ 1.01) and extraver-
sion (M ⫽ 4.19, SD ⫽ 0.94) were judged to be significantly more
impulsive than were those belonging to openness (M ⫽ 2.59, SD ⫽ 0.72)
and conscientiousness (M ⫽ 3.06, SD ⫽ 1.59), t(45) ⫽ 4.62, p ⬍ .001. The
mean impulsivity score for agreeableness was in between (M ⫽ 3.38, SD ⫽
0.51). A second set of trained observers rated— on a scale ranging from 0
(not at all) to 5 (very much)—all 52 behavioral criteria with respect to the
extent to which they are subject to impulsive behavioral activation. Again,
experts substantially agreed in their impulsivity ratings, ICC(2, 1) ⫽ .50,
p ⬍ .001, ICC(2, k) ⫽ .89, p ⬍ .001. The Big Five dimension to which the
behavioral criteria belonged also had a significant effect on impulsivity
ratings, F(4, 51) ⫽ 11.81, p ⬍ .001. Contrast tests revealed that behaviors
belonging to neuroticism (M ⫽ 3.23, SD ⫽ 0.80) and extraversion (M ⫽
3.42, SD ⫽ 0.94) were judged to be significantly more impulsive than were
those belonging to openness (M ⫽ 1.86, SD ⫽ 1.14) and conscientiousness
(M ⫽ 0.95, SD ⫽ 0.57), t(47) ⫽ 6.50, p ⬍ .001. The mean impulsivity
score for agreeableness was again in between (M ⫽ 2.28, SD ⫽ 1.01).
 544 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF
and a refined framework of personality and social behavior in
general.
Not a Question of Valence
In the present study, we indirectly measured personality with
five independent IATs, each designed to measure one of the Big
Five dimensions. This approach has previously been questioned in
light of the potentially confounding role of valence (e.g., Banse &
Greenwald, 2007; Schnabel et al., 2008). It has been argued that,
due to the positive–negative valence polarity of each of the single
personality IATs (e.g., agreeable vs. disagreeable), results reflect
nothing other than multiple measures of implicit self-esteem. Ac-
cordingly, Banse and Greenwald (2007) recommend that “this
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
approach might wisely be rejected.” At the very least, such a
valence confound “may represent a threat to the validity of IAT
measures” (Schnabel et al., 2006, p. 388), masking or artificially
producing significant validity coefficients for personality IATs,
depending on the sign of the correlation between valence and the
behavioral indicators under consideration.
If these objections indeed hold—that is, if our Big Five IAT
predominantly reflects valence—then certain empirical conse-
quences should be observable. First, personality IATs should
strongly correlate with a self-esteem IAT that purely measures
self-valence associations. Second, controlling for valence should
substantially change the validity coefficients of the personality
IATs. In the present study, we were able to show that (a) corre-
lations with valence were rather modest for implicit measures and
stronger for explicit measures, and even more importantly, (b)
controlling for valence did not change validity coefficients in any
way for either explicit or implicit measures of personality. In sum,
explicit and implicit personality measures are not just multiple
measures of self-esteem, and their predictive validities are not
explained by valence.
Expanding the BPMP: Other-Perception (Reputation) and
Self-Perception
In describing the BPMP, we focused on the reflective and
impulsive processes that lead from situational cues to actual social
behavior. We further showed how the explicit and implicit self-
concepts of personality can be understood as resulting from the
typical functioning of these processes. In the following, we discuss
two important aspects of personality that were not explicitly ad-
dressed in our model but that might be incorporated in a refined
and expanded behavioral process model of personality: other-
perception (reputation) and self-perception.
How others see us (reputation) certainly contains relevant in-
formation with respect to what we are like. Importantly, other
people have even more direct access to a person’s actual behavior
than does the individual him- or herself (Funder, 1999; Hofstee,
1994). As a consequence, other-reports can predict behavior above
and beyond self-reports of personality (e.g., Kolar, Funder, &
Colvin, 1996; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). As we were able to show,
indirect tests of personality constitute a further valuable source of
information. Future studies should examine relations between all
three kinds of personality measures— other-reports, direct tests of
personality, and indirect tests of personality—as well as their joint
contribution to the prediction of behavior. As a case in point, it
would be extremely interesting to further examine how much of
the information captured by other-perceptions is also reflected in
the implicit self-concept of personality. We would expect the
variance of other-perception to be at least partly explained by the
implicit self-concept of personality. Most importantly, however,
the use of all three important sources of information might lead to
even better predictions concerning how people actually behave.
Such studies would also contribute to a deeper theoretical un-
derstanding of personality and actual social behavior, and in doing
so expand the BPMP. Other-perceptions interact with the explicit
and implicit self-concepts of the target in two important ways (cf.,
Swann, 1987; Swann & Bosson, 2008). On the one hand, the
impressions which perceivers form are influenced by the explicit
and implicit self-concepts of the target person, given that these
impressions are based on the observable cues (actual behavior)
produced by the target’s explicit and implicit self (Brunswik, 1956;
Funder, 1999). On the other hand, reputation might influence the
explicit and implicit self. What others think about a target person
influences their behavior toward that person (via impulsive and
reflective processes). This behavior of others constitutes important
situational as well as self-related cues for the target person. These
cues are subsequently processed as described in the BPMP and
ultimately influence the target’s explicit and implicit self-concepts.
The role of self-perception can be viewed in a similar way.
According to self-perception theory (Bem, 1967, 1972), people
infer what they are like by observing what they do. This important
personality process fits neatly into the BPMP. Self-perception
processes emerge when a person’s own actual behavior serves as
a situational cue that is perceived by the acting person him- or
herself. With respect to the BPMP (see Figure 1), this would be
represented by adding a feedback loop from actual behavior to
perception. Interestingly, self-perception can accordingly be con-
ceptualized in a reflective and an impulsive, automatic way, lead-
ing to calibration of the explicit or implicit self-concept of per-
sonality. These dual-process feedback mechanisms can potentially
be used to increase self-knowledge: By increasing the salience of
people’s automatic behavior, controlled self-perception might lead
to a more accurate explicit self-concept of personality as well as
greater consistency between explicit and implicit self-concepts
(Egloff, Weck, & Schmukle, 2008).
Future Prospects for the Prediction of Actual Behavior
We presented a behavioral process model that clearly specified
why and how the self-concept of personality should prove relevant
when it comes to predicting what people actually do. The present
study further contributed a meaningful amount of empirical data
underscoring the fact that personality really does matter. More-
over, it provided clear evidence that using direct and indirect
measures of personality as well as a multitude of theoretically
derived and aggregated behavioral indicators substantially in-
creases the accuracy of predictions with respect to actual behavior.
In the following, we describe a number of future prospects for
research on personality and actual behavior and further show how
the BPMP can fruitfully be utilized for a better understanding and
prediction of what people actually do.
First, it might be of particular interest to compare the predictive
validity of different direct and indirect measures of personality.
With regard to predicting self-reported behaviors, a number of
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY
different personality questionnaires have already been compared
(e.g., Grucza & Goldberg, 2007). A comparison of the predictive
validities of different personality inventories with regard to actual
behavior may also prove worthwhile. In conducting such a com-
parison, researchers may find it useful to determine how different
characteristics of personality scales, such as for example the num-
ber of items or the abstractness of scales (factors vs. facets), relate
to their predictive validities. Moreover, traits that are not ade-
quately represented in the five-factor model, such as honesty,
could also be included (Ashton et al., 2004; Saucier et al., 2005).
Similarly, a comparison of indirect tests of personality might
include shorter variants of the IAT (Sriram & Greenwald, in press)
and different approaches to measuring multiple constructs with the
IAT (Greenwald, 2005), as well as other alternative indirect mea-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sures (see Banse & Greenwald, 2007; Bosson et al., 2000; De
Houwer, 2006; Nosek et al., 2007, for recent overviews). In
choosing individual differences for indirect measurement, one
should not restrict the selection to those aspects that are well
established in the direct measurement of personality. It may well
be interesting to examine those aspects of the implicit self-concept
of personality that theoretically relate to actual behavior on ac-
count of the impulsive dynamics of their development, as outlined
in the BPMP.
The goal of the present study was to analyze the predictive
validity of personality at the level of broad behavioral aggregates,
each of which comprised several behavioral indicators measured in
meaningful social situations. In real-life settings, these behavioral
indicators are almost always the result of both impulsive and
reflective processes. Other research settings might, however, allow
more controlled behavioral indicators to be disentangled from
more spontaneous indicators. Such studies might allow an analysis
of whether self-reports predict more controlled behaviors whereas
indirect tests predict more spontaneous behaviors (double dissoci-
ation; Asendorpf et al., 2002; Egloff & Schmukle, 2002). This
approach could then be compared with that of other models of
predictive validity (Perugini, 2005). Of further interest is a con-
sideration of potential moderators of the predictive validity of
explicit and implicit self-concepts of personality. Impulsivity (vs.
controlledness) as a trait, for instance, might influence how well
actual behavior is predicted by direct or indirect measures of
personality (cf. Hofmann, Gschwendner, Friese, Wiers, & Schmitt,
2008; Hofmann, Gschwendner, & Schmitt, 2005).
In addition, the BPMP may be useful in developing new direct
and indirect measures that are more closely related to behavioral
activation. According to our model, both the explicit and the
implicit self-concept of personality mainly reflect condensed past
behavioral activation (which predicts future behavior). Classical
direct and indirect tests of personality, as it were, measure by-
products of typical behavior. An attempt may also be made to
measure more proximate individual differences in the processes
that are involved in reflective and impulsive behavioral activation
(see Figure 1). With regard to reflective processes, it may be
possible, for example, to directly measure how people differ in
their typical conscious perceptions and categorizations of different
situational cues or their typical processes of thinking, deciding,
and intending given specified situations (Endler, Hunt, & Rosen-
stein, 1962; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Similarly, typical impulsive
processes might be measured by means of indirect procedures.
These could, for example, reflect how people differ in their auto-
545
matic perceptions and evaluations of specified situational cues,
their automatic approach or avoidance tendencies, the ease of
activation of different concepts, and so forth.
For both the comparison of existing direct and indirect measures
of personality and the development and evaluation of new mea-
sures, actual behavior is in our view the most convincing criterion.
Most importantly, therefore, we encourage researchers to conduct
systematic and realistic behavioral studies with a variety of rele-
vant social situations that allow measurement of multiple behav-
ioral indicators. In light of the extraordinary personal, financial,
and time resources that are necessary for thorough behavioral
studies, one might ask: Is it worth the effort? In our eyes, there is
simply no alternative if we hope to learn more about individual
differences in what people actually do. As the considerations in
this article might suggest, we are certain that research on person-
ality and actual behavior is to become even more exciting as we
come closer to understanding what people actually do and why
they differ in their behavior.
References
Anastasi, A. (1968). Psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York: Macmil-
lan.
Asendorpf, J. B. (1988). Individual response profiles in the behavioral
assessment of personality. European Journal of Personality, 2, 155–167.
Asendorpf, J. B., Banse, R., & Mücke, D. (2002). Double dissociation
between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380 –393.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas,
L., et al. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjec-
tives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356 –366.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2005). Measuring task-
switching ability in the implicit association test. Experimental Psychol-
ogy, 52, 167–179.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2006). Who is late and who
is early? Big Five personality factors and punctuality in attending
psychological experiments. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,
841– 848.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). How extraverted is
honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail add-
resses. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1116 –1122.
Banse, R., & Fischer, I. (2002, July). Implicit and explicit aggressiveness
and the prediction of aggressive behaviour. Paper presented at the 11th
Conference on Personality of the European Association of Personality
Psychology, Jena, Germany.
Banse, R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2007). Personality and implicit social
cognition research: Past, present and future. European Journal of Per-
sonality, 21, 371–382.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of
being. American Psychologist, 54, 462– 479.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the
science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to
actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396 – 403.
Beier, M. E., & Ackermann, P. L. (2001). Current-events knowledge in
adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability determi-
nants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615– 628.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cogni-
tive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200.
Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 1– 62). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Berry, D. S., & Hansen, J. S. (2000). Personality, nonverbal behavior, and
 546 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF
interaction quality in female dyads. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26, 278 –292.
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at
zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62,
645– 657.
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A.
(2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599 – 614.
Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking the
perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant
revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631– 643.
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experi-
ments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Creed, A. T., & Funder, D. C. (1997). Social anxiety: From the inside and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
outside. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 19 –33.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
De Houwer, J. (2006). What are implicit measures and why are we using
them? In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), The handbook of implicit
cognition and addiction (pp. 11–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In
D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social
psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3– 40). New York: McGraw–Hill.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious
thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 95–109.
Draine, S. C. (2001). Inquisit: Version 1.32. Seattle, WA: Millisecond
Software.
Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2003). The creation and consequences of the
social world: An interactional analysis of extraversion. European Jour-
nal of Personality, 17, 375–395.
Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2002). Predictive validity of an implicit
association test for assessing anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 1441–1455.
Egloff, B., Schwerdtfeger, A., & Schmukle, S. C. (2005). Temporal sta-
bility of the Implicit Association Test–anxiety. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 84, 82– 88.
Egloff, B., Weck, F., & Schmukle, S. C. (2008). Thinking about anxiety
moderates the relationship between implicit and explicit anxiety mea-
sures. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 771–778.
Elliot, A. J., & Trash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in
personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804 – 818.
Endler, N. S., Hunt, J. M., & Rosenstein, A. J. (1962). An S-R inventory
of anxiousness. Psychological Monographs, 76(17), 1–33.
Epstein, S. (1983). The stability of confusion: A reply to Mischel and
Peake. Psychological Review, 90, 179 –184.
Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic
unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709 –724.
Fast, L. A., & Funder, D. C. (2008). Personality as manifest in word use:
Correlations with self-report, acquaintance report, and behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 334 –346.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior:
The MODE model as an integrative network. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–109). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person
perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
197–221.
Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The Riverside
Behavioral Q-Sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal
of Personality, 68, 451– 489.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
59, 1216 –1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26 – 42.
Gosling, S. D., John, O. P., Craik, K. H., & Robins, R. W. (1998). Do
people know how they behave? Self-reported act frequencies compared
with on-line codings by observers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 1337–1349.
Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room
with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379 –398.
Greenwald, A. G. (2005). The Multifactor Trait IAT. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Washington.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition:
Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102,
4 –27.
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, B. A.,
& Mellot, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes,
self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464 –1480.
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding
and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (in press).
Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of
predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Grucza, R. A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The comparative validity of 11
modern personality inventories: Predictions of behavioral acts, infor-
mant reports, and clinical indicators. Journal of Personality Assessment,
89, 167–187.
Grumm, M., & Von Collani, G. (2007). Measuring Big-Five personality
dimensions with the implicit association test: Implicit personality traits
or self-esteem? Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 2205–2217.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Friese, M., Wiers, R. W., & Schmitt, M.
(2008). Working memory capacity and self-regulatory behavior: Toward
an individual differences perspective on behavior determination by
automatic versus controlled processes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 962–977.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., & Schmitt, M. (2005). On implicit-
explicit consistency: The moderating role of individual differences in
awareness and adjustment. European Journal of Personality, 19, 25– 49.
Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality?
European Journal of Personality, 8, 149 –162.
Hong, R. Y., Paunonen, S. V., & Slade, H. P. (2008). Big Five personality
factors and the prediction of behavior: A multitrait-multimethod ap-
proach. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 160 –166.
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.
Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy:
Lessons from the person-situation debate. American Psychologist, 43,
23–34.
Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. (1996). Comparing the accuracy
of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal
of Personality, 64, 311–337.
Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predic-
tions at zero acquaintance: A social relations analysis. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 65, 1178 –1187.
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor
model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215.
Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its
natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in
daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 862– 877.
 PREDICTING ACTUAL BEHAVIOR FROM PERSONALITY
Mierke, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). Method-specific variance in the
implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 1180 –1192.
Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and the
invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246 –268.
Moosbrugger, H., & Oehlschläger, J. (1996). Frankfurter Aufmerk-
samkeits-Inventar: FAIR [Frankfurt Attention Inventory: FAIR]. Bern,
Switzerland: Huber.
Murray, H. A. (1943). Thematic Apperception Test: Manual. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The implicit
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
association test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. In J. A.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Bargh (Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of
higher mental processes (pp. 265–292). New York: Psychology Press.
Ostendorf, F. (1994). Zur Taxonomie deutscher Dispositionsbegriffe [A
taxonomy of German dispositional terms]. In W. Hager & M. Hassel-
horn (Eds.), Handbuch deutschsprachiger Wortnormen (pp. 382– 441).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of
consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401– 421.
Paunonen, S. V. (2003). Big Five factors of personality and replicated
predictions of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84, 411– 422.
Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J.
(2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007.
Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry
and Word Count: LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use
as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 77, 1296 –1312.
Perugini, M. (2005). Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 29 – 45.
Perugini, M., & Banse, R. (2007). Personality, implicit self-concept and
automaticity. European Journal of Personality, 21, 257–261.
Pilkonis, P. A. (1977). The behavioral consequences of shyness. Journal of
Personality, 45, 596 – 611.
Riggio, H. R., & Riggio, R. E. (2002). Emotional expressiveness, extra-
version, and neuroticisms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Be-
havior, 26, 195–218.
Saucier, G. (2003). Factor structure of English-language personality type-
nouns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 695–708.
Saucier, G., Bel-Bahar, T., & Fernandez, C. (2007). What modifies the
expression of personality tendencies? Defining basic domains of situa-
tion variables. Journal of Personality, 75, 479 –504.
Saucier, G., Georgiades, S., Tsaousis, I., & Goldberg, L. R. (2005). The
factor structure of Greek personality adjectives. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 88, 856 – 875.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2001). Lexical studies of indigenous
personality factors: Premises, products, and prospects. Journal of Per-
sonality, 69, 847– 879.
Scherer, K. R. (1978). Personality inference from voice quality: The loud voice
of extraversion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 467– 487.
Schmukle, S. C. (2005). Unreliability of the Dot Probe Task. European
Journal of Personality, 19, 595– 605.
(Appendix follows)
547
Schmukle, S. C., Back, M. D., & Egloff, B. (2008). Validity of the
five-factor model for the implicit self-concept of personality. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 24, 263–272.
Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2005). A latent state-trait analysis of
implicit and explicit personality measures. European Journal of Psycho-
logical Assessment, 21, 100 –107.
Schnabel, K., Asendorpf, J. B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2008). Using implicit
association tests for the assessment of implicit personality self-concept.
In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of
personality theory and testing (pp. 508 –528). London: Sage.
Schnabel, K., Banse, R., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2006). Assessment of implicit
personality self-concept using the implicit association test (IAT): Con-
current assessment of anxiousness and angriness. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 45, 373–396.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420 – 428.
Sriram, N., & Greenwald, A. G. (in press). The brief implicit association
test. Experimental Psychology.
Steffens, M. C., & Schulze-König, S. (2006). Predicting spontaneous
Big-Five behavior with implicit association tests. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 22, 13–20.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of
social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220 –247.
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038 –1051.
Swann, W. B., Jr., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Identity negotiation: A theory
of self and social interaction. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.
Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 448 –
471). New York: Guilford Press.
ten Berge, M. A., & De Raad, B. (1999). Taxonomies of situations from a
trait psychological perspective: A review. European Journal of Person-
ality, 13, 337–360.
Todd, P. M., Penke, L., Fasolo, B., & Lenton, A. P. (2007). Different cognitive
processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 104, 15011–15016.
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). e-perceptions: Personality impressions
based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 87, 123–132.
Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy
and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1202–1216.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general
activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary consider-
ations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 820 – 838.
West, S. G., & Brown, T. J. (1975). Physical attractiveness, the severity of
emergency and helping: A field experiment and interpersonal simula-
tion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 531–538.
Wilson, T. D., Lindsley, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual
attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.
Wolf, M., Horn, A. B., Mehl, M. R., Haug, S., Pennebaker, J. W., & Kordy,
H. (2008). Computergestützte quantitative Textanalyse: Äquivalenz und
Robustheit der deutschen Version des Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count [Computer-aided quantitative text analysis: Equivalence and re-
liability of the German adaptation of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word
Count]. Diagnostica, 54, 85–98.
Yang, Y., Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (2006). A taxonomy of situations
from Chinese idioms. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 750 –778.
 548 BACK, SCHMUKLE, AND EGLOFF

Appendix

Predicting Behavioral Aggregates From Explicit and Implicit Personality Measures: Convergent
and Discriminant Predictive Validities
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Behavioral
aggregate Explicit Implicit Explicit Implicit Explicit Implicit Explicit Implicit Explicit Implicit
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ ⴱ ⴱ
Neuroticism .36 .35 –.26 –.19 –.06 .03 –.21 .10 –.01 –.03
Extraversion –.01 –.16† .38ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .17† .00 .14 –.07 –.04 –.09
Openness .03 –.12 .18ⴱ .18ⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ –.14 .05 –.19ⴱ –.17† –.16†
Agreeableness –.11 –.03 .13 –.01 .20ⴱ –.04 .35ⴱⴱⴱ .13 .16† –.15†
Conscientiousness –.01 .00 .01 –.11 .15 –.03 .09 .15 .30ⴱⴱⴱ –.08
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. Convergent validities are shown in bold.

p ⬍ .10. ⴱ p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Received July 30, 2008

Revision received January 26, 2009
Accepted February 19, 2009 䡲