Even after substantial convergence between two other types of agreement estimates has been established, it remains to be explained why certain factors (for example). B the duration of cohabitation. B) may influence the agreement of characteristics, but not the profile agreement (Bernieri et al., 1994). No doubt Michael Furr was one of the first to point out that, despite the usefulness of both approaches, they are based on exactly the same data (Furr, 2009, p. 203). He may have erred in saying that the link between traits-based and personnel-centred approaches could not be clearly established on a correlation metric (Furr, 2009, p. 203). As we show in Appendix A of The Supplemental Material, the correlation between characteristic and profile correlations becomes evident when Pearson correlations are expressed as products of default values. If the correlation between the profile (rP) and the characteristic (rT) is expressed by the product of the default values, it is clear that these two formulas have a common concept – the product of self-assessed values and other values assessed.
This means that there is a direct link between these two forms of agreement that makes them interdependent. Even if there is no strict one-on-one relationship, there must be a positive link between these two forms of correlation. Schlegel RJ, Hick`s YES. Reflections on the scientific exploration of the meaning of life. J Constr Psychol. 2017;30(1):26-31. Beyond the few different points, the relationship is almost perfectly linear, suggesting that when random noise is suppressed, profile correlations can be predicted fairly accurately by average differences in the ranking on predicted personality characteristics. The correlation between data points is 0.96 (p < 0.0001). If the person (X) and the informant (Y) report enough similar grades on all, or at least many, personality characteristics, the two profiles are similar. The effects of aggregation show that most of the inexplicable variance is actually accidental, as it is interrupted by aggregation.
Six works of art by Wassily Kandisky and six works by Paul Klee were presented successively to participants in mixed pairs as stimuli to paint.