. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 May 1.

Published in final edited form as: Eur J Pers. 2010 May 1;24(3):207–221. doi: 10.1002/per.763

Table 4.

Hierarchical regressions predicting self-ratings by TW and MPW informant wordings

	Step 1: TIW		Step 2: MPIW

	R	R²	R	R²	ΔR²
EPDQ scale
Positive valence composite	.344	.118^**	.413	.170	.052^**
Distinction	.273	.075^**	.296	.088	.013^*
Intellect	.246	.061^**	.327	.107	.047^**
Attractiveness	.341	.116^**	.437	.191	.075^**
Self-worth	.286	.082^**	.320	.102	.020^**
Depravity	.271	.073^**	.315	.099	.026^**
Oddity	.284	.081^**	.322	.104	.023^**
M		.087		.123	.037
BFI scale
Neuroticism	.359	.129^**	.375	.141	.012^*
Extraversion	.617	.380^**	.631	.398	.017^**
Conscientiousness	.430	.185^**	.452	.204	.019^**
Agreeableness	.362	.131^**	.383	.146	.016^*
Openness	.335	.113^**	.388	.151	.038^**
M		.187		.208	.021

Note: N = 606 (303 dyads). TIW, traditional informant wording; MPIW, meta-perception of the target wording; EPDQ, Evaluative Person Descriptors Questionnaire; BFI, Big Five Inventory.

p < .05;

^**

p < .01 (Bonferroni-corrected).