The Self-Report Method

If you want to know what Waldo is like, why 20041, the effectiveness of introspection not just ask him? Such is the commonsense (Wilson, 2002), the degree of automaticity logic behind the self-report method of person(Mills & Hogan, 1978; Paulhus & Levitt, ality assessment. It remains the field's most 1986), and the meaning of nonresponding commonly used mode of assessment-by far (Tourangeau, 2004). (see Robins, Tracy, & Sherman, Chapter 37, The goal of this chapter is more limited: to this volume). Despite its popularity and demprovide a brief guide to nonexpert researchers onstrated utility, the self-report method has interested in using the self-report method to asbeen a frequent target of criticism from sess personality. We begin by delineating three the early days of psychological assessment categories of self-reports. We then review the (Allport, 1927) right up to the present advantages and the disadvantages of the self(Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2005). report method. Next, we examine the converThe psychological processes underlying an gence of self-reports with other methods of act of self-reporting are now understood to assessing personality. Finally, we provide a be exceedingly complex (e.g., Hogan & practical guide to choosing a self-report instruNicholson, 1988; Johnson, 2004; Schwarz, ment. 1999; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinksi, 2001). Examination of these processes requires burrowing deep into the affective and cognitive 'I).pes of Self-Reports substrates of personality. Among the challenging issues are the role of motives in selfVariants of the self-report method are numerperception (Robins & John, 1997), the apous and could be organized in a number of plicability of performative models (Johnson, ways. We restrict ourselves to cases in which re-