There is no unbiased method for measuring true standing on trait dimensions

Evidence

And then there is the issue of how we are to accurately measure where the sampled individuals truly are located on the attribute dimension. How do we measure someone’s true standing on trait dimensions such as “intelligent,” “friendly,” or “unmotivated.” Do we use their own self-report? Do we interview their friends and neighbors? Do we ask experts to observe them and judge them? Do we give them tests or personality inventories? Although in different situations all of these might be reasonable choices, they also all undoubtedly have associated biases (see Allport, 1954/1979, pp. 89–94). The bottom line is that there is no perfect way to know where individuals (and groups) actually stand on relevant attribute dimensions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

And then there is the issue of how we are to accurately measure where the sampled individuals truly are located on the attribute dimension. How do we measure someone’s true standing on trait dimensions such as “intelligent,” “friendly,” or “unmotivated.” Do we use their own self-report? Do we interview their friends and neighbors? Do we ask experts to observe them and judge them? Do we give them tests or personality inventories? Although in different situations all of these might be reasonable choices, they also all undoubtedly have associated biases (see Allport, 1954/1979, pp. 89–94). The bottom line is that there is no perfect way to know where individuals (and groups) actually stand on relevant attribute dimensions. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 868 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

And then there is the issue of how we are to accurately measure where the sampled individuals truly are located on the attribute dimension. How do we measure someone’s true standing on trait dimensions such as “intelligent,” “friendly,” or “unmotivated.” Do we use their own self-report? Do we interview their friends and neighbors? Do we ask experts to observe them and judge them? Do we give them tests or personality inventories? Although in different situations all of these might be reasonable choices, they also all undoubtedly have associated biases (see Allport, 1954/1979, pp. 89–94). The bottom line is that there is no perfect way to know where individuals (and groups) actually stand on relevant attribute dimensions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: No measurement method reveals a person’s true standing on trait dimensions — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868; No measurement strategy yields unbiased truth about individuals’ standing on trait dimensions — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868; There is no unbiased way to measure a trait’s true value — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 868 (+8 more)

Broader Connections

• No measurement method reveals a person’s true standing on trait dimensions #corroborates (1.00) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868
• No measurement strategy yields unbiased truth about individuals’ standing on trait dimensions #corroborates (1.00) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 868
• There is no unbiased way to measure a trait’s true value #corroborates (1.00) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 868
• Balanced scales make agreement rates independent of trait strength in the sample #complicates (0.75) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 802