Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T08:41:18.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Considerations in Personality Measurement

Replicability, Transparency, and Predictive Validity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Matthew E. K. Hall ,
Gary E. Hollibaugh Jr. ,
Jonathan D. Klingler  and
Adam J. Ramey
Adam J. Ramey
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In another article in this issue, Black et al. discuss their preferred approach to estimating Supreme Court justices’ Big Five personality traits from written text and provide several critiques of the approach of Hall et al. In this rejoinder, we show that Black et al.’s critiques are substantially without merit, their preferred approach suffers from many of the same drawbacks that they project onto our approach, their specific method of implementing their preferred approach runs afoul of many contemporary social scientific norms, our use of concurrences to estimate personality traits is far more justifiable than they suggest (especially in contrast to their use of lower court opinions), and their substantive critiques reflect a potential misunderstanding of the nature of conscientiousness. Nonetheless, we also acknowledge their broader point regarding the state-of-the-art textual analysis methodology vis-à-vis the estimation of personality traits, and we provide some constructive suggestions for the path forward.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , Fall 2021 , pp. 397 - 405
Copyright
© 2021 Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was reviewed by the editor, Tom S. Clark. Contact the corresponding author, Matthew E. K. Hall, at matt.hall@nd.edu.

References

Black, Ryan C., and Ryan J. Owens. 2009. “Agenda Setting in the Supreme Court: The Collision of Policy and Jurisprudence.” Journal of Politics 71 (3): 1062–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, Ryan C., Ryan J. Owens, Justin Wedeking, and Patrick C. Wohlfarth. 2020. The Conscientious Justice: How Supreme Court Justices’ Personalities Influence the Law, the High Court, and the Constitution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Black, Ryan C. 2021. “On Estimating Personality Traits of US Supreme Court Justices.” Journal of Law and Courts 9 (2): 371–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coltheart, Max. 1981. “The MRC Psycholinguistic Database.” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 33 (4): 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeYoung, Colin G., Lena C. Quilty, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2007. “Between Facets and Domains: Ten Aspects of the Big Five.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (5): 880–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K. 2018. What Justices Want: Goals and Personality on the U.S. Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Matthew E. K., Gary E. Hollibaugh Jr., Jonathan D. Klingler, and Adam J. Ramey. 2021. “Attributes beyond Attitudes: Personality Traits on the US Supreme Court.” Journal of Law and Courts 9 (2): 345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Timothy R. 2016. The Supreme Court Decision Making Process. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. Lee Epstein and Stefanie Lindquist. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mairesse, François, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2008. Trainable Generation of Big-Five Personality Styles through Data-Driven Parameter Estimation. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 165–73.Google Scholar
Mairesse, François, Marilyn A. Walker, Matthias R. Mehl, and Roger K. Moore. 2007. “Using Linguistic Cues for the Automatic Recognition of Personality in Conversation and Text.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 30 (1): 457–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., Martha E. Francis, and Roger J. Booth. 2001. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, James W., and Laura A. King. 1999. “Linguistic Styles: Language Use as an Individual Difference.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1296–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennington, Jeffrey, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Doha, Qatar, 1532–43.Google Scholar
Ramey, Adam J., Jonathan D. Klingler, and Gary E. Hollibaugh Jr. 2017. More than a Feeling: Personality, Polarization, and the Transformation of the U.S. Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramey, Adam J. 2019a. “Measuring Elite Personality Using Speech.” Political Science Research and Methods 7 (1): 163–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramey, Adam J. 2019b. “More than Words: Extracting Latent Psychological Traits and Preferences from Written Text.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tett, Robert P., Daniel V. Simonet, Benjamin Walser, and Cameron Brown. 2013. “Trait Activation Theory: Applications, Developments, and Implications for Person-Workplace Fit.” In Handbook of Personality at Work, ed. Neil D. Christiansen and Robert P. Tett, 77–100. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar