See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275528243

Harry Potter and the measures of personality: Extraverted Gryffindors,

agreeable Hufflepuffs, clever Ravenclaws, and manipulative Slytherins

Article  in  Personality and Individual Differences · September 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.016

CITATIONS READS

17 14,035

4 authors:

Laura Crysel Corey L Cook

Stetson University Pacific Lutheran University
17 PUBLICATIONS   765 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   203 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tatiana Orozco Gregory Webster

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs University of Florida
26 PUBLICATIONS   453 CITATIONS    97 PUBLICATIONS   5,396 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dark Personality and Sexual Behavior View project

Single Item Scales View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Corey L Cook on 14 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Harry Potter and the measures of personality: Extraverted Gryffindors,

agreeable Hufflepuffs, clever Ravenclaws, and manipulative Slytherins
Laura C. Crysel a,⇑, Corey L. Cook b, Tatiana Orozco Schember c, Gregory D. Webster d
a
Stetson University, United States
b
University of Washington Tacoma, United States
c
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, United States
d
University of Florida, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: People use fiction and storytelling to learn about themselves and their social world. Fans of J.K. Rowling’s
Received 30 March 2015 popular Harry Potter book series often identify with one of the four Hogwarts school communities or
Accepted 7 April 2015 ‘‘houses’’—Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin—that correspond to characters’ specific traits.
Fans use a feature on Rowling’s ‘‘Pottermore’’ website that tests their personality and sorts them into the
Hogwarts house that best fits them. But what does Pottermore’s sorting quiz measure? We asked fans
Keywords: from online Harry Potter groups into which Hogwarts house they had been sorted on Pottermore. Fans
Dark Triad
then completed personality measures, including the Big Five traits, need to belong, need for cognition,
Harry Potter
Psychopathy
and the Dark Triad traits—narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Planned contrasts found posi-
Narcissism tive associations between need for cognition and placement in Ravenclaw (known for wit and learning),
Machiavellianism and between the Dark Triad traits and placement in Slytherin (known for using any means to achieve
Need for cognition their ends). We expected—but did not find—that those in Gryffindor (known for bravery) would be higher
Need to belong in extraversion and openness, and that Hufflepuffs (known for loyalty) would be higher on need to
Big Five belong. Our findings suggest that fiction can reflect real underlying personality dimensions.
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction One way that humans describe themselves is through their

One trait that makes humans unique among animals is our
affinity for storytelling (Gottschall, 2012). Stories permeate mod-
ern social life in various forms, including novels, movies, and
songs—to name a few. Public figures use story narratives as a
powerful persuasion tool and attempt to censor works of fiction
for fear of its potential influence (Green & Brock, 2000). In fact, fic-
tion may be a primary source from which people develop beliefs
about their world (Appel & Richter, 2007; Gerrig & Prentice,
1991; Green & Brock, 2000; Mazzocco, Green, Sasota, & Jones,
2010; Prentice & Gerrig, 1999). Despite the prominence of fiction,
psychologists have largely overlooked the key role it may play in
understanding social psychological processes, such as individual
differences in personality traits. For example, fiction may function
to simulate and explain the personal and social world, and thus
convey how we see and understand it (Mar & Oatley, 2008).
Thus, fictional stories about how the world appears can influence
our perceptions of how the world ostensibly is.
group memberships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Humans may
even identify with and find belonging through fictional groups.
The narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis (Gabriel &
Young, 2011) states that people may experience group member-
ship psychologically through reading about groups in narratives.
To test this hypothesis, the authors asked participants to read pas-
sages from either Harry Potter or Twilight, and then used an identity
Implicit Association Task (Gabriel, Kawakami, Bartak, Kang, &
Mann, 2010; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002) to show that par-
ticipants identified more with the group (wizards or vampires)
about which they had read. Participants even reported sharing
traits of the respective groups more—for example, they reported
feeling more magical and ‘‘British’’ after reading about the wizards.
This experience of identifying with the group even increased par-
ticipants’ self-reported life satisfaction and mood. Clearly, what
we read can influence how we see ourselves.
1.1. Harry Potter and the Pottermore sorting quiz

⇑ Corresponding author. One book series that has captured the hearts and minds of its
E-mail address: lcrysel@stetson.edu (L.C. Crysel). readers is J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Beyond its ability to take

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.016
0191-8869/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L.C. Crysel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179
the reader to new and exciting places, this series may be valuable
through its ability to teach readers about their own personalities.
People can relate to and see themselves in archetypes, or recurring
characters who epitomize particular qualities (Faber & Mayer,
2009). Research suggests that fiction can also influence how people
see themselves. For example, participants’ Big Five personality trait
scores—extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroti-
cism, and openness—changed more after reading a piece of fiction
than after reading a documentary-style text (Djikic, Oatley,
Zoeterman, & Peterson, 2009). In another study, participants tem-
porarily absorbed traits displayed by film characters into their
own self-concepts (Sestir & Green, 2010). In the case of Harry
Potter, Rowling’s organization of students into school communities
or ‘‘houses’’ with particular traits may have influenced the self-
views of millions of readers and provided them with fictional com-
munities with which they identify. It seems feasible that readers
would identify more with those characters who share the traits
they actually possess.
In 2012, Rowling opened an official Harry Potter-themed web-
site called ‘‘Pottermore’’ (http://www.pottermore.com/en-us)
where fans can learn more about the books’ characters and their
fictional world. There are over nine million accounts on the
Pottermore site. Those users completed Rowling’s ‘‘Sorting Quiz,’’
which places people into one of four Hogwarts school houses—
Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin—based on their
respective values and traits. The sorting quiz was written by
Rowling herself. According to Rowling, Gryffindors are brave,
Hufflepuffs are loyal, Ravenclaws value wit and learning, and
Slytherins will use ‘‘any means to achieve their ends.’’ To an extent,
the results of the sorting quiz also affect the social networking
opportunities for fans on the site because participants are allowed
to interact with other participants in their own house.
1.2. The current study
It is unclear whether Rowling’s sorting quiz accurately mea-
sures any personality traits. To our knowledge, ours is the first
empirical test of whether group-based traits in a popular work of
fiction accurately reflect actual personality trait differences.
Fortunately, the Hogwarts house traits described in the Harry
Potter series and on Pottermore are reasonably similar to empiri-
cally established personality constructs such as the Big Five traits,
need for cognition, and the Dark Triad traits—narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. We compared people’s
house-placement results from Pottermore’s sorting quiz to their
scores on these established constructs. We made specific predic-
tions for members of each of the four houses:
1. Gryffindors are described by Rowling as being brave and daring.
Prior Big Five research suggests that courage correlates most
closely with extraversion and openness to experience (Muris,
Mayer, & Schubert, 2010; Walker & Hennig, 2004). We pre-
dicted that Gryffindors would score higher in these traits, rela-
tive to other houses.
2. Hufflepuffs are known for being just, hard-working, and loyal.
Agreeableness is correlated with people’s concept of ‘‘justness’’
in prior research (Walker & Hennig, 2004); moreover, Hufflepuff
characters are particularly nice. We predicted that they would
score higher in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and need to
belong—a measure of desire for social inclusion.
3. Ravenclaws are known for their wit and learning. We predicted
that they should score higher in need for cognition—individual
differences in people’s desire for careful thinking.
4. Slytherins are often villains in the Harry Potter series and will
use ‘‘any means to achieve their ends.’’ We predicted that they
would score higher in Machiavellianism, and may also score
175
higher in narcissism and psychopathy (together, the Dark
Triad).
If Rowling’s measure does identify group differences, then it
may be because readers are self-selecting into a group to which
they belong. If our predictions are supported, it may also mean that
people better identify with fictional characters who embody the
traits they desire. Moreover, if participants are identifying with
the house that truly suits them, then those who wanted certain
results should be more likely to report traits that they share with
that house.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 236 Harry Potter fans and Pottermore users,
recruited from Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, and through cooperation
with the Harry Potter Alliance/Portkey Fan Convention. The Harry
Potter Alliance (http://thehpalliance.org) organizes fans toward
civic engagement on issues of equality, literacy, and human rights.
All participants had already taken the ‘‘Pottermore’’ quiz. This was
key because getting to the quiz section of the website is time-con-
suming (it involves completing activities) and would have likely
created participant fatigue in our all-volunteer sample. We also
had neither the rights nor the means to reproduce the copyrighted
Pottermore items, so a convenience sample was the most realistic
option for our investigation. Many participants (44%) were not
included in analyses because they were either under 18 years
old, did not complete our survey, or both. This left 132 participants
(13 men, 113 women, 3 transgender, 3 unknown) aged 18–
45 years (M = 21.6, SD = 3.9).
2.2. Measures and procedure
Participants provided the results of their Pottermore quiz—to
which of the four houses they were assigned—and indicated the
house to which they wished to belong. They also reported their
satisfaction with the results (1 = strongly dissatisfied to 9 = strongly
satisfied). Participants completed personality measures in the fol-
lowing order: the Big-Five-based Ten-Item Personality Inventory
(TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), the Dark Triad Dirty
Dozen (DTDD; Jonason & Webster, 2010; Webster & Jonason,
2013), the Short-Form Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo, Petty,
& Kao, 1984), and the Need to Belong Scale (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell,
& Schreindorfer, 2013). We chose not to randomize scale order to
prioritize the scales about which we had the strongest hypotheses,
in case participant fatigue influenced results. All measures used
nine-point response scales (1 = strongly disagree to 9 = strongly
agree).
The TIPI is a 10-item measure of the Big Five personality traits—
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability
(vs. neuroticism), and openness to experience (Gosling et al., 2003).
Because the TIPI uses only two items (i.e., adjective pairs) per trait,
its Cronbach’s alphas (as) are typically low. Recall that a is a func-
tion of both the number of items and the mean inter-item correla-
tion (MIC), or as is the case here, the simple correlation between
the two trait items (e.g., ‘‘extraverted, enthusiastic’’ and ‘‘quiet,
reserved’’ [reverse-scored] for extraversion). We report both a
and MIC in Table 1.
The Need to Belong Scale (Leary et al., 2013) is a 10-item mea-
sure of people’s desire to form and maintain meaningful relation-
ships (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Participants indicated the
extent to which they agreed with items like ‘‘I do not like being
alone.’’
176 L.C. Crysel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for all traits.

Variable Descriptive statistics Zero-order correlations

Mean SD a MIC E A C ES O DT Narc. Mach. Psyc. NFC
Big Five
Extraversion 4.22 2.09 .73 .58
Agreeableness 5.94 1.61 .42 .27 .03
Conscientiousness 6.11 1.70 .62 .47 .11 .08
Emotional stability 5.19 1.74 .63 .46 .14 .05 .27*
Openness 7.07 1.38 .48 .32 .29* .09 .05 .27*
Dark Triad composite 4.24 1.26 .84 .31 .13 .46* .12 .03 .11
Narcissism 5.16 1.76 .83 .55 .25* .12 .02 .11 .10 .73*
Machiavellianism 4.11 1.67 .81 .52 .18* .36* .11 .04 .03 .86* .45*
Psychopathy 3.44 1.52 .73 .42 .16  .61* .16  .01 .13 .71* .16  .52*
Need for cognition 6.59 1.15 .91 .37 .01 .14 .27* .17* .36* .05 .06 .10 .03
Need to belong 5.55 1.57 .89 .46 .06 .33* .02 .33* .13 .13 .44* .07 .26* .22*

Note. Ns = 124–132. MIC = mean inter-item correlation.

 
p < .10.
*
p < .05.

Need for cognition refers to enjoyment and pursuit of cogni-
tively challenging activities; people high in need for cognition tend
to seek and reflect on information to understand their world
(Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996; Cacioppo et al., 1984).
The Short-Form Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984)
is an 18-item measure of need for cognition. Participants indicated
their agreement with statements like ‘‘I prefer my life to be filled
with puzzles that I must solve.’’
The DTDD (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Webster & Jonason, 2013)
is a 12-item measure of the three Dark Triad traits—narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—using four items per trait.
Narcissism is excessive self-love and belief in one’s superiority
(‘‘I tend to seek prestige or status’’). Though Machiavellianism
and psychopathy are both associated with low concern for moral-
ity, they are distinct constructs (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Vernon,
Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Machiavellianism is distinguish-
able from psychopathy in that it is more associated with manip-
ulativeness (‘‘I tend to manipulate others to get my way’’),
whereas psychopathy is more associated with insensitivity (‘‘I tend
to lack remorse’’).
For our four primary predictions we used sets of Helmert con-
trast codes, comparing the values for one house to the average of
the other three houses (e.g., Gryffindor compared to the average
of Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, and Slytherin). Helmert contrasts are
orthogonal with equal cell sizes—and nearly so with slightly
unequal ones (as is the case here)—resulting in no substantial infla-
tion of Type I error rates (see Judd, McClelland, & Ryan, 2009).
Moreover, Helmert contrasts are more appropriate for our
hypotheses than a traditional ANOVA because we are primarily
interested in comparing one focal group or house with all others.
Thus, for each comparison, we have one focal effect of interest—
one house versus the average of three others—and two non-focal
effects that account for error variance—differences among the
other three houses. These extra effects are necessary for the multi-
ple regression analysis to mirror a one-way ANOVA for four groups
(see Judd et al., 2009).
3.1. Assigned houses and personality traits

Gryffindors were only marginally higher than the average of all

3. Results
other houses in extraversion, t128 = 1.73, p = .09, d = 0.31
(Gryffindor: M = 4.91, SD = 2.08; Others: M = 4.08, SD = 2.08;
Descriptive statistics and correlations appear in Table 1. All vari-
Prediction 1; Fig. 1). Gryffindors were not different from the aver-
ables showed adequate internal consistency, especially given that a
age of other houses in openness, t128 = 0.50, p = .62, d = 0.09
is a function of both the number of items and the mean inter-item
(Gryffindor: M = 7.20, SD = 1.58; Others: M = 7.05, SD = 1.34;
correlation (MIC). Interestingly, but unsurprisingly, the two inter-
Prediction 1).
personal dimensions of the Big Five—extraversion and agreeable-
ness—correlated with the (also) interpersonal Dark Triad traits:
Extraversion correlated positively with narcissism and 9
Machiavellianism, and Agreeableness correlated negatively with
8
the Dark Triad composite, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.
Need for Cognition correlated positively with conscientiousness, 7

emotional stability, and openness to experience, and correlated 6

negatively with Need to Belong. Need to Belong correlated posi- 5
tively with agreeableness and narcissism, and correlated negatively
4
with emotional stability and psychopathy. This pattern of results
suggests a slight division between ‘‘thinkers’’ and ‘‘feelers.’’ 3
Enough participants reported being sorted into each house to 2
allow for adequate statistical comparisons: Gryffindor (n = 23),
1
Hufflepuff (n = 30), Ravenclaw (n = 50), and Slytherin (n = 29). Extraversion† O pe nn es s
Participants overall were satisfied with their sorting result
(M = 7.62, SD = 1.93), and this was significantly above the scale Gryffindor

midpoint of 5.0, t131 = 15.60, p < .05, d = 2.73. Those who matched All Others

the house they desired (n = 71, M = 8.51, SD = 1.16) reported higher Fig. 1. Gryffindors compared to the average of Hufflepuffs, Ravenclaws, and
satisfaction with the results than those who did not (n = 60, Slytherins on extraversion and openness to experience. Error bars represent 1 SD.
M = 6.57, SD = 2.15; t129 = 6.57, p < .05, d = 1.16).  
p < .10. ⁄p < .05.
 L.C. Crysel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179 177

9 Hufflepuffs mostly supported our expectations (Prediction 2;

8 Fig. 2). Hufflepuffs were more agreeable than the average of all
other houses, t128 = 2.25, p < .05, d = 0.40 (Hufflepuff: M = 6.53,
7
SD = 1.43; Others: M = 5.76, SD = 1.63). Hufflepuffs, however, were
6 not different from the average of the other houses on con-
5 scientiousness, t128 = 1.31, p = .19, d = 0.23 (Hufflepuff:
M = 5.70, SD = 1.56; Others: M = 6.24, SD = 1.73). Regarding Need
4
to Belong, Hufflepuffs scored marginally higher than the average
3
of the other houses, t128 = 1.94, p = .055, d = 0.34 (Hufflepuff:
2 M = 6.08, SD = 1.48; Others: M = 5.40, SD = 1.57).
1
Ravenclaws, as expected, were higher than the average of the
Agreeableness* Conscientiousness Need to Belong† other houses in Need for Cognition, t128 = 2.24, p < .05, d = 0.40
(Ravenclaw: M = 6.88, SD = 1.08; Others: M = 6.41, SD = 1.16;
Hufflepuff Prediction 3; Fig. 3).
All Others
Slytherins also supported our expectations (Prediction 4; Fig. 4).
Fig. 2. Hufflepuffs compared to the average of Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, and Slytherins were higher than the average of the other houses on
Slytherins on Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and need to belong. Error bars Dark Triad composite scores, t128 = 3.84, p < .05, d = 0.68
represent 1 SD.  p < .10. ⁄p < .05. (Slytherin: M = 4.98, SD = 1.34; Others: M = 4.03, SD = 1.16). We
also examined the three Dark Triad traits independently.
Slytherins were higher than the average of the other houses in nar-
9 cissism (t128 = 2.00, p < .05, d = 0.35; Slytherin: M = 5.78, SD = 1.72;
Others: M = 4.99, SD = 1.74), Machiavellianism (t128 = 3.64, p < .05,
8 d = 0.64; Slytherin: M = 5.04, SD = 1.91; Others: M = 3.85,
SD = 1.50), and psychopathy (t128 = 3.09, p < .05, d = 0.55;
7 Slytherin: M = 4.12, SD = 1.51; Others: M = 3.25, SD = 1.47).
In sum, the Pottermore Quiz tended to sort people into houses
6 with characteristics consistent with those expressed by Harry
Potter fan participants in a series of personality tests.
5
3.2. Desired houses and personality traits
4
A majority or plurality of the participants in each house also
3
wanted to be sorted into that house (i.e., 56.5% of Gryffindors
wanted Gryffindor, 43.3% of Hufflepuffs wanted Hufflepuff, 66.0%
2
of Ravenclaws wanted Ravenclaw, and 42.9% of Slytherins wanted
Slytherin). Similarly, a majority or plurality of participants who
1
wanted to be sorted into each house got the result they wanted
Need for Cognition*
(i.e., 46.4% of those wanting Gryffindors sorted into Gryffindor,
Ravenclaw 61.9% of Hufflepuffs into Hufflepuff, 53.2% of Ravenclaws into
Ravenclaw, and 60.0% Slytherins into Slytherin). These results sug-
All Others
gest that the sorting was more congruent with participants’ desire
Fig. 3. Ravenclaws compared to the average of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and than mere chance, which would have resulted in only 25% of those
Slytherins on need for cognition. Error bars represent 1 SD. ⁄p < .05. wanting to be in a given house ending up in that house. Of course,

1
Dark Triad Mean* Narcissism* Machiavellianism* Psychopathy*

Slytherin
All Others

Fig. 4. Slytherins compared to the average of Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs, and Ravenclaws on the Dark Triad mean, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. Error bars
represent 1 SD. ⁄p < .05.
178 L.C. Crysel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179
not all participants got what they wanted: Pottermore results and
desired results do not necessarily measure the same thing.
Those who wanted to be Gryffindors were higher than the aver-
age of all other houses in extraversion, t127 = 2.95, p < .05, d = 0.52
(Want Gryffindor: M = 5.41, SD = 1.98; Others: M = 3.93, SD = 2.00),
but not openness, t127 = 1.43, p = .16, d = 0.25 (Want Gryffindor:
M = 7.39, SD = 1.30; Others: M = 7.01, SD = 1.37).
Those who wanted to be Hufflepuffs were more agreeable than
the average of all other houses, t127 = 3.52, p < .05, d = 0.62 (Want
Hufflepuff: M = 6.95, SD = 1.40; Others: M = 5.75, SD = 1.59).
Those who wanted to be Hufflepuffs, however, were not different
from the average of the other houses on conscientiousness,
t127 = 1.15, p = .25, d = 0.21 (Want Hufflepuff: M = 5.62,
SD = 1.66; Others: M = 6.20, SD = 1.71) or need to belong,
t127 = 1.38, p = .17, d = 0.25 (Want Hufflepuff: M = 6.99, SD = 1.88;
Others: M = 5.47, SD = 1.51).
Those who wanted to be Ravenclaws were higher than the aver-
age of the other houses in Need for Cognition, t127 = 2.49, p < .05,
d = 0.44 (Want Ravenclaw: M = 6.86, SD = 1.08; Others: M = 6.36,
SD = 1.17).
Those who wanted to be Slytherins were higher than the aver-
age of the other houses in the Dark Triad, t127 = 6.01, p < .05,
d = 1.06 (Want Slytherin: M = 5.56, SD = 1.21; Others: M = 4.00,
SD = 1.12). We also examined the three Dark Triad traits indepen-
dently. Those who wanted to be Slytherins were higher than the
average of the other houses in narcissism (t127 = 3.73, p < .05,
d = 0.66; Want Slytherin: M = 6.45, SD = 1.73; Others: M = 4.93,
SD = 1.68), Machiavellianism (t127 = 6.13, p < .05, d = 1.09; Want
Slytherin: M = 5.91, SD = 1.30; Others: M = 3.80, SD = 1.52), and
psychopathy (t127 = 3.27, p < .05, d = 0.58; Want Slytherin:
M = 4.34, SD = 1.69; Others: M = 3.27, SD = 1.44).
Collectively, these findings suggest that participants who wish
to be included in their respective houses largely embodied the
same traits associated with those houses.
4. Discussion
People may use fiction to learn about themselves and the
groups to which they belong (Gabriel & Young, 2011; Mar &
Oatley, 2008). Millions of people are using Rowling’s ‘‘personality’’
sorting quiz to understand themselves. We proposed members of
the Pottermore website would seek group identification and
belonging with the fictional ‘‘house’’ that best fits their actual per-
sonality traits. To test this, we analyzed the group differences in
self-reported personality traits based on both the results of
Rowling’s House-sorting quiz and the results that people desired.
Although based on a work of fiction, the quiz reflects at least some
of the established traits examined by personality psychologists.
Specifically, Hufflepuff participants were higher in agreeableness,
Ravenclaw participants were higher in need for cognition, and
Slytherin participants were higher in all three Dark Triad traits.
The lack of differences for Gryffindors may be because we did
not assess individual differences in a key trait—bravery.
Notably, these differences replicated for the house participants
desired, such that participants may be reporting the personality
traits that match the sort of person they want to be. While the pat-
tern of results were almost identical for assigned house and
desired house, there were two exceptions. Those who desired
Gryffindor house were indeed higher in extraversion, but the same
effect was only marginal for assigned house. Similarly, those who
desired Hufflepuff house were not higher in need to belong, but
the same effect was marginal for assigned house.
The overlap between the house participants desired and the one
to which they were assigned (via sorting quiz) was higher than
chance. It is thus noteworthy that the findings for both the
assigned and desired house often reflected our predicted differ-
ences. Some participants reported traits like the groups to which
they wanted to belong, even when they did not match Rowling’s
sorting quiz. Meanwhile, when given feedback about their per-
sonalities by the website, participants used that to identify them-
selves through the group to which they were assigned. Generally
speaking, these findings support the narrative collective-assim-
ilation hypothesis (Gabriel & Young, 2011).
There are, of course, limitations to our study. We used a conve-
nience sample of Harry Potter fans who self-selected to be a part of
a community based on fictional work. These participants are there-
fore more likely to possess the quality of transportation—the ability
to lose oneself in a fictional world (Gerrig, 1993; Green & Brock,
2000). Nevertheless, because we were interested in testing the
satisfaction derived from belonging to a fictional community, our
sample did satisfy our goals. Although our data were derived from
Pottermore members, the results should extend to others who self-
identify with various fictional characters and communities. Future
studies could use naïve samples to further test the applicability of
the quiz to non-fans, as well as increasing the number of males in
the sample. It would also be beneficial if it were possible to repro-
duce the items or the selection algorithm; however, it remains the
intellectual property of J. K. Rowling.
Another potential concern is that, because our participants were
familiar with the Harry Potter series, the results of the sorting quiz
itself might influence how they responded to the questionnaires.
For example, people assigned to Ravenclaw may be more likely
to agree with the Need for Cognition items in an attempt to assert
their newfound group identity. This concern is partly accounted for
by the fact that the quiz results (assigned house), while overlap-
ping with what participants wanted (desired house), were not
the same (only 50% overlap). Also note that these scales and pre-
dictions were not explained to participants beforehand. The expla-
nation that participants are simply conforming to their assigned
identities cannot fully account for our findings. Future research
would benefit, however, from measuring whether reading about
the traits associated with specific Harry Potter characters influ-
ences how participants actually view themselves. On a related
note, it would have improved the generalizability of our results if
we had presented the personality inventories in randomized
orders. Instead, we chose to present the personality inventories
most important to our hypotheses first to assuage concerns over
another possible limitation—participant fatigue.
That Rowling’s sorting measure relates to multiple empirically
validated personality constructs is interesting, and calls to mind
notions of naïve psychology—people strive to observe, analyze,
and explain the behavior of others (Heider, 1958). Rowlings’ group-
ing of her characters into distinct houses appears to correspond to
established psychological constructs, even though Rowling lacks
any formal training in personality psychology (to the best of our
knowledge). In addition, participants sought identification with
those houses that reflected their self-perceived personality traits.
The present study suggests that people can or do learn something
about personality traits and fulfill identification needs through
reading popular fiction. It may be that assimilating with
Rowling’s groups even change the way people view themselves.
Thus, fans that feel transported by the Harry Potter book series
may be experiencing something more like reality than mere
fantasy.
Author note
Findings based on these data were presented at the 3rd biennial
conference of the Association for Research in Personality in
Charlotte, North Carolina in June 2013.
 L.C. Crysel et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 83 (2015) 174–179 179

References Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the
dark triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019265.
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase
Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2009). Data analysis: A model comparison
over time. Media Psychology, 10, 112–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.108/
approach (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
15213260701301194.
Leary, M. R., Kelly, K. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Schreindorfer, L. S. (2013). Construct
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
validity of the need to belong scale: Mapping the nomological network. Journal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117,
of Personality Assessment, 95(6), 610–624. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
497–529.
00223891.2013.819511.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. G. (1996). Dispositional
Mar, R. A., & Oatley, K. (2008). The function of fiction is the abstraction and
differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in
simulation of social experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(3),
need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. http://dx.doi.org/
173–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00073.x.
10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197.
Mazzocco, P. J., Green, M. C., Sasota, J. A., & Jones, N. W. (2010). The story is not for
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for
everyone: Transportability and narrative persuasion. Social Psychological and
cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. http://dx.doi.org/
Personality Science, 1, 361–368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550610376600.
10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13.
Muris, P., Mayer, B., & Schubert, T. (2010). ‘‘You might belong in Gryffindor’’:
Djikic, M., Oatley, K., Zoeterman, S., & Peterson, J. B. (2009). On being moved by art:
Children’s courage and its relationships to anxiety symptoms, Big Five
How reading fiction transforms the self. Creativity Research Journal, 21(1),
personality traits, and sex roles. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,
24–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633392.
41(2), 204–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10578-009-0161-x.
Faber, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Resonance to archetypes in media: There’s some
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female,
accounting for taste. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 307–322. http://
therefore math – me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59.
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.11.003.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44.
Gabriel, S., Kawakami, K., Bartak, C., Kang, S., & Mann, N. (2010). Negative self-
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
synchronization: Will I change to be like you when it is bad for me? Journal of
Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 857–871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
556–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.
a0019272.
Prentice, D. A., & Gerrig, R. J. (1999). Exploring the boundary between fiction and
Gabriel, S., & Young, A. F. (2011). Becoming a vampire without being bitten: The
reality. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology
narrative collective-assimilation hypothesis. Psychological Science, 22(8),
(pp. 529–546). New York, NY: Guilford.
990–994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611415541.
Sestir, M., & Green, M. C. (2010). You are who you watch: Identification and
Gerrig, R. J. (1993). Experiencing narrative worlds. New Haven, CT: Yale University
transportation effects on temporary self-concept. Social Influence, 5, 272–288.
Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2010.490672.
Gerrig, R. J., & Prentice, D. A. (1991). The representation of fictional information.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. (2008). A behavioral genetic
Psychological Science, 2, 336–340.
investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. R. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-
Differences, 44(2), 445–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.09.007.
Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Walker, L. J., & Hennig, K. H. (2004). Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Just, brave, and caring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4),
Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. New York,
629–647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.629.
NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Webster, G. D., & Jonason, P. K. (2013). Putting the ‘‘IRT’’ in ‘‘dirty’’: Item response
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness
theory analyses of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen—an efficient measure of
of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721.
narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701.
Differences, 54(2), 302–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.027.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hoboken, NJ US: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.. doi: 10.1037/10628-000.

View publication stats