anderson, 1968
TRANSCRIPT
Journal oj Personality and Social Psychology1968, Vol. 9, No. 3, 272-279
LIKABLENESS RATINGS OF 555 PERSONALITY-TRAIT WORDS1
NORMAN H. ANDERSON
University of California, San Diego
100 college students rated 55$ personality-trait words on Hkablcncss as per-sonality characteristics. The mean ratings and their variances are tabulated,together with auxiliary ratings on meaningfulness. Correlations of the norma-tive likablcness values with similar data from 3 other universities ranged from.96 to .99. Between-S variability was assessed and its relevance to experimentaldesign was discussed.
For the past several years, my students andI have been studying information integrationin simple tasks of judgment. We have oftenemployed a task introduced by Asch (1946)in which the subject forms an impression of aperson described by a set of personality-traitadjectives. The impression is then measuredby having the subject rate the likableness ofthe person, for instance, or by describing theperson in his own words.
Tn most of our research, we have used astandard list of personality traits rated forfavorableness by 100 subjects (Anderson,1964), and these normative ratings have beenused to help select adjectives for the experi-ments. This list has proved satisfactory inrepeated experiments (see Anderson, 1968).Since the personality-impression task is grow-ing in popularity, it was thought that the listwould be useful to others, and this reportmakes it generally available. Meaningfulnessratings, and some information on the reli-ability and generality of the ratings, are alsoincluded.
PROCEDUREThere were three main phases of the list construc-
tion: selecting words, getting ratings of likability,and getting ratings of meaningfulness. All subjectswere students in introductory psychology at theUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Word SelectionStep 1. As the first step in the list construction,
the writer went through the approximately 18,00011 wish to thank Stephen Hubert, Ann Jacobson,
Anita Lampel, Gwendolyn Alexander, and JaneWard for their help in this work. I also wish tothank John D. Edwards, and Charles F. Schmidt,and Milton E. Roscnbaum for making unpublisheddata available. This work was supported by Na-tional Science Foundation Grants G-12986, GB-14VO,and GB-3913. I shall appreciate hearing from usersof the list who have suggestions for improving it.
trait-names compiled by Allport and Odbert (1936).An effort was made to extract all entries that wereat all likely to be useful, and about 3500 selectionswere made in this way.
Step 2. These 3500 words were then screened toabout 2200 by the writer and an liSsistant. Words inthe following categories were eliminated: (a) ex-treme words, such as ferocious and majestic; (b)words denoting temporary stales such as aghast andhurt; (c) words pertaining to physical character-istics such as emaciated and hairy; (d) strongly sex-linked words such as beautiful and alluring; and (e)other words not considered suitable for the impres-sion-formation task, such as honey-tongued, anal, andfond.
Step 3. Many of the 2200 words retained at Step2 would be relatively unfamiliar to college students.To weed out unfamiliar words, the list was nextrated by 20 subjects who were instructed: (a) tomark the word with an X "Unless the word is quitemeaningful to you"; and (b) to mark the remainingwords 0, 1, 2, or 3 according to their appropriatenessfor describing college students. Considerable empha-sis was given to this last aspect of the instructions.The writer went over the instructions with the sub-jects who then rated a practice sheet of words. Somedifficulty was experienced in this rating procedureand considerable pilot work was required, apparentlybecause of a strong affinity in some subjects to ratealong a favorableness dimension. This difficulty alsoarose in the pilot work for the meaningfulness ratingsbelow.
Words with more than two Xs were first elimi-nated. An arbitrary cutoff was then chosen for thesum of the appropriateness ratings to yield the finalset of 555 words.
Likableness Ratings
The final list of S55 words was now rated by 100subjects on a 7-point scale. They were instructed touse the numbers 0-6 about equally often, with 0being defined as "least favorable or desirable" and 6as "most favorable or desirable." The intermediatenumbers were listed on the sheet, but not verballydefined.
The subjects were told to think of a person asbeing described by each word and to rate the wordaccording to how much they would like the person.It was emphasized that each subject should rate
272
LlKABLENESS RATINGS OF 555 PERSONALITY-TRAIT WORDS 273
TABLE 1
RATINGS OT LIKABLENESB, MEANINGFULNESS, AND LIKABLENESS VARIANCES TOR SSS COMMONPERSONALITY TRAITS ARRANGED IN ORDER OF DECREASING LIKABLENESS
Word no
i*2*3*4*5*6*7*8*9
10*1112*1314*IS16*1718*19*2021*222324*252627*28*29*30*3132*3334353637383940*41*42*434445*4647*48495051*5253*545556*575859*606162*6364
Word
sincerehonestunderstandingloyaltruthfultrustworthyintelligentdependableopen-mindedthoughtfulwiseconsiderategood-naturedreliablematurewarmearnestkindfriendlykind-heartedhappycleaninterestingunselfishgood-humoredhonorablehumorousresponsiblecheerfultrustfulwarm-heartedbroad-mindedgentlewell-spokeneducatedreasonablecompanionablelikabletrustingcleverpleasantcourteousquick-wittedtactfulhelpfulappreciativeimaginativeoutstandingself -disciplinedbrilliantenthusiasticlevel-headedpoliteoriginalsmartforgivingsharp-wittedwell-readambitiousbrightrespectfulefficientgood-temperedgrateful
L
573555549547545539537536530529528527527527522522521520519514514514511510507507505505504504504503503501500500499497497496495494494494492492492492491490489489489488488486486486484483483482482482
J2
.30
.47
.52
.60
.61
.62
.62
.66
.56
.47
.61
.76
.82
.66
.66
.60
.73
.69
.72
.87
.77
.99
.64
.68
.73
.85
.86
.76
.831.07
.62
.801.00.78.73.73.88.78
1.20.56.86.94.78.84.74.78.96
1.00.75.96.72.68
1.11.75.65
1.031.01.67
1.14.67
1.17.94
1.021.00
M
370384368366384370368386354376354372358374344356336368380354370350352370366344372370372378360364368332360362314368378370372366356354374364364334366366382346382338362370368366378362360374358346
Word no
656667*6869*70717273*74*75767778*79*80818283*848586878889*909192*93*94*95*9697*98*99*
100*101*102103*104105*106107108109110*111112113114115116117*118119*120121122123124125126*127128
Word
conscientiousresourcefulalertgoodwittyclear-headedkindlyadmirablepatienttalentedperceptivespiritedsportsmanlikewell-manneredcooperativeethicalintellectualversatilecapablecourageousconstructiveproductiveprogressiveindividualisticobservantingeniouslivelyneatpunctuallogicalpromptaccuratesensiblecreativeself-relianttolerantamusingclean-cutgeneroussympatheticenergetichigh-spiritedself -controlledtenderactiveindependentrespectableinventivewholesomecongenialcordialexperiencedattentiveculturedfrankpurposefuldecentdiligentrealisteagerpoisedcompetentrealisticamiable
L
481481480480480479479478478478477477477477476476476474471471468468468467467466466466466465465464464462462461460460459459457457456456455455455453453452452451450450450450449449449448448447447446
s*
.82
.74
.65
.99
.81
.691.06.78.70.84.84.64
1.111.05.85
1.15.91.66.63.85.46.81.78
1.50.81.75.75.93
1.26.76
1.16.98.84
1.15.96.91.89
1.49.89
1.05.81.73.69
1.30.65
1.321.10.86
1.14.82.96.76.84.80
1.10.86
1.00.82.94.80.78.82.90
1.02
M
360356370330370340362344376368366342352374380336358358370366340362302360374334360382382370380336368366368372376338370360384350350344356374354356320340330356372336378340318348362368342374362348
274 NORMAN H. ANDERSON
TABLE 1—Continued
Word 110.
129130131132133134135*136137138139140141142143144145146*147148149*150*151152153*154155156157*158159160161*162163*164165166167168169*170*171*172173174175176*177178179*180181182*183184185186*187188189*190191192193*194195
Word
optimisticvigorou!5entertainingadventurousvivaciouscomposedrelaxedromanticproficientrationalskillfulenterprisinggraciousableniceagreeableskilledcuriousmoderncharmingsociablemodestdecisivehumbletidypopularuprightliterarypracticallight-heartedwell-bredrefinedself-confidentcool-headedstudiousventuresomediscreetinformalthoroughexuberantinquisitiveeasygoingoutgoingself-sufficientcasualconsistentmoralself-assureduntiringhopefulcalmstrong-mindedpositiveconfidentartisticprecisescientificorderlysocialdirectcarefulcandidcomicalobligingself-criticalfashionablereligious
L
443443442441440439439439438438438437437436436434433432432430429428427427427426426425425424423422421420418417416416416414413412412412411411411411410406406404403401400400400399398396390389389389389387387
i2
1.30.81.63.90.91.87.99
1.19.70
1.37.80.76
1.04.68
1.28.95.83
1.13.93.98.85
1.251.031.51.82.98
1.041.46
.73
.991.131.16.81.97
1.00.85
1.291.00.94.97
1.471.201.461.301.111.011.67
.72
.98
.92
.841.271.281.041.581.051.05.84
1.051.07.84
1.431.091.531.551.281.93
M
376354362350330340378348322364364322350354354354362372302348360374360354382362296318370324332330376338386320310344340320380366364358348352332364350328366336342378348358340360338338364316360334360344352
Word no.
196197198199*200201202*203204205*206*207208209*210*211212*213214215216217*2182 I 9220*221222223*224225226*227*228229230231232*233234*235236237*238239*240241242243244245246*247248*249250251*252*253*254255256*257258*259260261262
Word
soft-hearteddignifiedphilosophicalidealisticsoft-spokendisciplinedseriousdefiniteconvincingpersuasiveobedientquicksophisticatedthriftysentimentalobjectivenonconformingrighteousmathematicalmeditativefearlesssystematicsubtlenormaldaringmiddleclassluckyproudsensitivemoralistictalkativeexcitedmoderatesatiricalprudentreservedpersistentmeticulousunconventionaldeliberatepainstakingboldsuavecautiousinnocentinoffensiveshrewdmethodicalnonchalantself-contentedperfectionisticforwardexcitableoutspokenpridefulquietimpulsiveaggressivechangeableconservativeshyhesitantunpredictablesolemnbluntself-righteousaverage
L
387386386384380379379375374374373373372372371370369369367366366366365362360360358358358357352351351351348348347346346345345336335334332332328325324324322318317313313311307304297295291290290289287287284
s2
1.691.051.781.351.031.24.89.76.76.921.671.33.95.751.101.811.332.241.011.521.121.121.001.211.03.991.301.662.002.131.32.86.901.181.711.001,661.38.921.401.441.221.40.771.27.912.471.541.232.041.691.121.151.771.99.911.581.431.08.92.89.761.26.851.632.46.90
M
348358326350354346366328346378380326332372360352370312326324358360320324358328348368354310390364312324320356382348344344334366322364342330346336356324380346366362350376380372356352376358378338352310320
LlKABLENESS RATINGS OF 555 PERSONALITY-TRAIT WORDS
TABLE 1—Continued
275
Word no.
263264*265266*267268269*270*271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288*289290*291292*293294295296*297*298299*300301302303304305*306*307308309310311312313314315316*317318319*320321322*323324325326327328329*
Word
discriminatingemotionalunluckybashfulself -concernedauthoritativelonesomerestlesschoosyself-possesssednaiveopportunisttheatricalunsophisticatedimpressionableordinarystrictskepticalextravagantforcefulcunninginexperiencedunmethodicaldaredevilwordydaydreamerconventionalmaterialisticself-satisfiedrebelliouseccentricopinionatedsternlonelydependentunsystematicself-consciousundecidedresignedclownishanxiousconformingcriticalconformistradicaldissatisfiedold-fashionedmeekfrivolousdiscontentedtroubledirreligiousovercautioussilenttoughungracefulargumentativewithdrawinguninquisitiveforgetfulinhibitedunskilledcraftypassiveimmodestunpopulartimid
L
283283280279279274274274272272270270269267266266266264263263262262262261261260260260260258257257257256254253249249248247246246243241241239239238237237235234229228228228227227225224224224223223222222222
S"
3.481.23.52.65
1.641.811.06
.761.622.531.062.471.591.23.91.77
1.301.52.88
1.652.18.66.86
1.231.05.95.95
1.662.001.401.581.981.101.021.97.92.92.86
1.221.73.90
1.261.461.151.801.651.391.371.551.00.71
1.74.55.83
1.74.87
1.25.78.94.83.87.71
1.98.97
1.61.80.78
M
350376360380334334366362334284360342326332346332348348360358344344310344350368322370346370336356356364360344366342320348338362378372340356340346314358360308360368336350354342358386342360342348340362380
Word no.
330331332*333*334335336337338339*340341*342*343344345*346347*348349350351352353*354355*356*357358*359*360361362363364365*366367*368369*370*371372*373*374*375376377*378379380381382383384385386*387388*389390391392*393394395396
Word
spendthrifttemperamentalgullibleindecisivesillysubmissiveunstudiouspreoccupiedtensefearfulunromanticabsent-mindedimpracticalwithdrawnunadvcnturoussarcasticsadunemotionalworryinghigh-strungunoriginalunpoisedcompulsiveworrierdemandingunhappyindifferentunculturedclumsyinsecureunentertainingimitativemelancholymediocreobstinateunhealthyheadstrongnervousnonconfidentstubbornunimaginativedown-heartedunobservantinconsistentunpunctualunindustriousdisturbedsuperstitiousfrustratedillogicalrashunenthusiasticinaccurateuoninquisitiveunagreeablejumpypossessivepurposelessmoodyunenterprisingunintellectualunwiseoversensitiveinefficientrecklesspompousuncongenial
L
221221219219219219218216215214214213213213212210209209209208207206205205203203202201199198198198198197197197196196196196195194194193192191189189188186186186185184184183183183182180180180179178178177175
,52
.731.10.88.90
1.53.90
1.061.12.90.69
1.331.001.12.80.93
1.30.93
1.50.71
1.57.81.76
1.201.00.94.98
1.311.00.92.75.65
1.171.131.10.94
1.421.17.83.87
1.311.06.97.90.91.96.81.97
1.33.93.97.59
1.05.59.90
1.08.73
1.621.901.36.81
1.17.79.77.68
1.421.43.69
M
354360366376350336338358356370334382364356356370358366366334350332320376362376372342376370338330342336348364336380344380368288366372366354312376350354342356318358340344378344370320332358364358362326304
276 NORMAN H. ANDERSON
TABLE 1—Continued
Word no
397*398399*400401402*403404405*406*407408*409410*411*412413414415*416417*418419*420421422*423424425*426*427428429430431432*433434*435*436437*438439440441442443*444445446*447448449*450451452*453454455456457458459*460461*462463
Word
untidy "*l < »*••unaccomod atingnoisysqueamishcynicalangrylistlessuninspiringunintelligentdomineeringscoldingdepressedunobligingpessimisticunattentiveboisteroussuspiciousinattentiveoverconfidentsmugunsociableunproductivewastefulfickleneglectfulshort-temperedhot-headedunsocialenviousovercriticalschemingslyweakfoolhardyimmaturedominatingshowysloppyunsympatheticuncompromisinghot-temperedneuroticunsportingfinickyresentfulunrulyfault-findingmessymisfituninterestingscornfulantisocialirritablestingytactlesscarelessfoolishtroublesomeungraciousnegligentwishy-washyprofanegloomyhelplessdisagreeabletouchyirrational]
L
175174173172171169169169168167166166165164164163163162162161161160160159159159158158157157156156155154154153153153153153152152152150150150148147147146145144143143142140140140140139139137136136134134130
s'
.92
.68
.88
.971.26.90.72.64
1.071.52.67
1.01.86
1.06.74
1.10.88
1.1388.68
1.13.65.67
1.13.5985
1091.16.77.85
1.501.581.021.00
881 28.92.96
1.321.261061.34.80.68.90889678
1.28.78.88
1.2485.69.85.91.83.73.71.68
1.171.65.84
1.12.67.83.70
M
386312378316334374332336364382346370322376364352362356376304354346366330356376362332364374348346338330352372354376366358366300334316352324358370322372350358378368356374348364344360328312376358372362354
Word no
464465*466*467468469*470*471472473*474475*476477478*479480481482483*4844854-86*487488489490*491*492493494495*496497498499*500*501502*503*504*505*506507*508509*510511*512513514*515516517*518519520*521522*523*524525J526527528529530
Word
tiresomedisobedientcomplaininglifelessvainlazyunappreciativemaladjustedaimlessboastfuldullgossipyunappealinghypochondriacirritatingpettyshallowdeceptivegrouchyegotisticalmeddlesomeuncivilcoldunsportsmanlikebossyunpleasingcowardlydiscourteousincompetentchildishsuperficialungratefulself -conceitedhard-heartedunfairirresponsibleprejudicedbraggingjealousunpleasantunreliableimpolitecrudenoseyhumorlessquarrelsomeabusivedistrustfulintolerantunforgivingboringunethicalunreasonableself -centeredsnobbishunkindlyill-manneredill-temperedunfriendlyhostiledislikableultra-criticaloffensivebelligerentunderhandedannoyingdisrespectful
L
1301281271271271261261231221221211191191181181181181171171161161161131131121121101101101091091091081071071061061041041041041031021021011011009998989797979696969595929190908886868483
s1
.701.23.74.68.99.88.84
1.071.16.74.81.96
1.04.88.67.73
1.001.01.61
1.25.62.96.94.72.89.71.82.80.68.81.95.71
1.141.001.001.171.33.72.77.81.93.72
1.29.67.82.72.83
1.24.97.71.76.90.86
1.13.87.64.76.62.80.77.78.98.83.79
1.19.66.79
M
340378374354350380372314342380352376332356372336332358366372344300360356370342374370364360330370304328364372376370372372386374360378362370330378362368374342370380356358374362386372340348362332330358360
LlKABLENESS RATINGS OF SSS PERSONALITY-TRAIT WORDS
TABLE 1—Continued
277
Word no.
531*532*533*534535536537538*539*540*541542543*
Word
loud-mouthedselfishnarrow-mindedvulgarheartlessinsolentthoughtlessrudeconceitedgreedyspitefulinsultinginsincere
L
83828079787877767472726966
j2
.87
.65
.581.10
.92
.88
.76
.79
.84
.61
.61
.86
.65
M
376384374354350322366376378374338370364
Word no.
544*545*546547548*549*550*551*552*553*554*555*
Word
unkinduntrustworthydeceitfuldishonorablemaliciousobnoxiousuntruthfuldishonestcruelmeanphonyliar
L
666562525248434140372726
0
.71
.63
.96
.47
.49
.60
.43
.51
.54
.48
.30
.36
M
378376360342346376380386376356360392
* Starred sublist of 200 high meaningful words; see text.
according to his own personal opinion. There werefive pages of words, and 8 minutes were allotted eachpage. Subjects were run one, two, or three at a time.Half of the subjects were of either sex, and the twoexperimenters were balanced over sex of subject.
Meaningfulness RatingsThe list of SSS words was also rated on meaning-
fulness by 50 subjects, half of each sex. The scaleranged from 0 ("I have almost no idea of the mean-ing of this word") to 4 ("I have a very clear anddefinite understanding of the meaning of this word").The intermediate steps were also verbally categor-ized in an attempt to get a reasonably large spreadof ratings.
The subjects were instructed to rate the words onhow well they knew their meanings as descriptionsof people, and encouraged to spread their ratings"over the whole scale as much as you reasonablycan." Subjects were run one or two at a time. Thesame word booklets and timing were used as for thelikablcness ratings.
RESULTS
The main data are given in Table 1 onpages 273-277. The SSS words are num-bered and listed in order of decreasing likable-ness. With each word are three data entries.
The first entry for each word is its likable-ness value, listed in the column headed "L."The L value is the sum of the ratings of the100 subjects so that the mean may be ob-tained by inserting a decimal point. On thewhole, the between-sex differences were smalland the data were pooled for simplicity. Thenonsigniflcance of the Sex main effect and theSex X Word interaction in the reliabilityanalysis below also support the pooling. Sex-linked words were, of course, deliberatelyomitted from the list.
The frequency distribution of the L valuesis given in Figure 1. It is notable for the dipat the center of the scale, that is, around Lof 3. This implies a relative scarcity of neutralwords, a limiting fact of some importance inplanning certain experiments. A second inter-esting feature of Figure 1 is that favorableand unfavorable words are about equallynumerous, with a slight preponderance on thenegative side.
The second entry of Table 1, in the columnheaded s2, is the variance of the likablenessratings. As indicated below, the major com-ponent of these variances is between-subjectsdifferences which far outweigh the unreliabil-ity of the individual responses. However, mostof the 11 words with the largest variance ap-pear to be words that can be interpreted intwo distinct ways. Two examples are discrimi-nating (s2 = 3.48) and sensitive (s2 = 2.00).
The last entry of Table 1 is the mean rat-
2 3 4 5
MEAN WORD RATING
FIG. 1. Frequency histogram of likablcness values ofSSS personality-trait words.
278 NORMAN H. ANDERSON
ing of meaningfulness. These were made on a0-4 scale, though the decimal point is omittedin the table. Nearly two-thirds arc 3.SO orgreater, which reflects the previous screen-ings. There is a tendency for the words in thecenter of the range to have lower M valuesthan either very favorable or very unfavor-able words. Somewhat curiously, the twohighest words are liar and talkative with Msof 3.92 and 3.90, respectively.
Four subranges of Table 1 have been founduseful in experimental work (e.g., Anderson,196Sa). For convenient reference, they arelisted here. Each subrange has 32 words withlimits as follows. H: 5.00 (reasonable) to 5.45(truthful); M1 : 3.45 (painstaking) to 3.74(persuasive); M~: 2.22 (unpopular) to 2.54(dependent); L: .72 (spiteful) to 1.00(abusive).
Finally, the 200 starred words of Table 1were chosen as a smaller list of higher qual-ity that may be more appropriate in manyexperiments. This starred sublist was selectedto have high values of M, and to reproduceapproximately the frequency distribution ofthe full table.
To construct the starred sublist, the 16words with the highest and lowest values of Lwere first selected, these extreme words beinguseful for anchor sets. The remaining range ofL was then split into 10 subranges, and wordswere chosen from each subrange in approxi-mate proportion to the total frequency. Themain criterion was a cutoff on M, a valuethat was necessarily somewhat lower in themiddle subranges. Some words with higher s*were also eliminated. In addition, a smallnumber of words were included or excludedfor other reasons. For example, the cutoff onM in the highest subrange was 3.70 but warmat 3.56 was retained for historical reasons.Again, imaginative at 3.64 was included toprovide an opposite to unimaginative.
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Three sets of data are available on the reli-ability of the likableness values. At OhioState University, J. D. Edwards obtainedratings from 80 male and 80 female studentsin introductory psychology for 554 of thepresent words on a 7-point, favorable-un-
favorable scale. Edwards found a correlationof .98 between his median ratings and thepresent mean likableness values.
At the University of Iowa, C. F. Schmidtand M. E. Rosenbaum obtained ratings inconnection with other work by 76 femalesand 53 males for 140 of the present words onthe same 7-point scale used here. The rank-order correlation between the Iowa male andfemale mean ratings was .98. The separaterank-order correlations between the Iowa maleand female ratings and the present ratingswere .96 and .97, respectively.
The final set of data was obtained primarilyto assess within-subject rather than between-subject variability. Twenty test words werechosen by stratified sampling, and 10 malesand 10 females at the University of California,San Diego, rated each test word four times,twice in each of two sessions, 7 days apart.Ratings were marks on a 2-inch line labelledLike and Dislike at its ends. This motor re-sponse was chosen to minimize memory ef-fects between repeated ratings. Responseswere read to the nearest .1 inch.
The ratings form a four-way design inwhich Words, Sessions, Runs within Session,and Sex of subject were considered as fixedfactors. The analysis of variance may not bereported in detail but only two systematicsources were significant: Words, and Runs,with Fs of 63.31 and 7.87, respectively. Thelatter F reflects a drop in overall mean ratingfrom 9.56 in the first run to 9.31 in the secondrun of a session. This very small effect has nopractical importance, but its statistical sig-nificance does testify to the high intraindi-vidual reliability. Evidently, therefore, themajor component of s2 in Table 1 is between-subjects differences, an inference supportedby the observation that the mean square forWords X Subjects was about 10 times thefour-way interaction.
Finally, the mean ratings from this reli-ability analysis were correlated with the en-tries in Table 1. The product-moment r was.992.
USES AND LIMITATIONS
The various uses of a standard list withnormative ratings need no special emphasis,but the limitations should not go without
LlKABLENESS RATINGS OF SSS PERSONALITY-TRAIT WORDS 279
remark. For instance, it should be kept inmind that the normative ratings relate to anexperimental context in which college stu-dents form impressions of "generalized others."In other contexts, the values of the wordswould be different. There are other limitationsof a similar nature that are more or less evi-dent and require no discussion.
There is, however, one limitation that isimportant for experimental design. This arisesfrom the considerable individual differencesin the valuations of the words. The high in-teruniversity correlations reflect very highagreement in cultural norms, and this indi-cates that the list should be generally usefulwith college populations. However, these cor-relations are computed between the averageratings and hence say little about the in-dividual variations within the culture. Thisproblem is inherent in normative data, ofcourse.
In certain experiments, this individual vari-ability can seriously affect precision unlessavoided by appropriate experimental design.Repeated measurements designs are oftenuseful, and there is some evidence (Anderson,196Sb) to indicate that memory and carry-over effects may not ordinarily be a seriousproblem. Single-subject designs and analyses(Anderson, 1962) give even more precision,and these can often be improved by havingeach subject preselect groups of adjectivesfrom small subranges of the list that areabout equal for him. These and other prob-
lems of method are considered in the pub-lished work cited elsewhere (Anderson, 1968).
These limitations aside, the list has provedto be extremely useful. Related work has beendone with other semantic stimuli, but none ofthem has the importance and convenienceof the personality-trait words. Experimentalanalysis in this area is increasing in scope andvalue, and it is hoped that this report willfacilitate further work.
REFERENCES
ALLPORT, G. W., & ODBERT, H. S. Trait-names: apsycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs,1936, 47(1, Whole No. 211).
ANDERSON, N. H. Application of an additive modelto impression formation. Science, 1962, 138, 817-818.
ANDERSON, N. H. Likableness ratings of SSS per-sonality-trait adjectives. Unpublished mimeo, Uni-versity of California, Los Angeles, 1964.
ANDERSON, N. H. Averaging versus adding as astimulus-combination rule in impression formation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 196S, 70,394-400. (a)
ANDERSON, N. H. Primacy effects in personality im-pression formation using a generalized order effectparadigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 1965, 2, 1-9. (b)
ANDERSON, N. H. A simple model for informationintegration. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J.McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, &P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitiveconsistency: A source book. Chicago: Rand Mc-Nally, 1968.
ASCII, S. E. Forming impressions of personality.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946,41, 258-290.
(Received November 29, 1967)