Empirical

Perceived Weirdness: A Multitrait-Multisource Study of

Self and Other Normality Evaluations

Jun-Yeob Kim 1, Daniel A. Newman 1,2, P. D. Harms 3, Dustin Wood 3

[1] Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. [2] School of Labor &
Employment Relations, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA. [3] Department of
Management, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.

Personality Science, 2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399, https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399

Received: 2021-09-08 • Accepted: 2022-10-10 • Published (VoR): 2023-03-08

Handling Editor: Marco Perugini, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy

Reviewing: Round 1 - Daniele Romano; Anonymous #1; Round 2 - Daniele Romano. No open reviews are available.

Corresponding Author: Jun-Yeob Kim, 603 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL, 61820. E-mail: junyeob3@illinois.edu

Supplementary Materials: Data, Materials [see Index of Supplementary Materials]

Abstract
Research in personality and organizational psychology has begun to investigate a novel evaluative
trait known as perceived normality, defined as an overall perception that one is normal (vs. strange
or weird). The current work evaluates a brief measure of this trait (i.e., a “weirdness scale”),
extending past work by assessing both self-reports and peer reports of these normality evaluations.
Results confirm the measurement equivalence of self- and peer-reports of perceived weirdness, and
discriminant validity of self- and peer-reports of perceived weirdness from Big Five traits. A
multitrait-multisource analysis further reveals that trait loadings are larger than self-report and
peer-report method loadings for the measure of perceived weirdness. Implications for
measurement of self-perceptions and social perceptions of weirdness/normality are discussed.

Keywords
perceived weirdness, normality evaluations, multitrait-multimethod, measurement equivalence, Big Five

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction, provided the original work is properly cited.
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 2

Relevance Statement
This paper investigates perceived weirdness from both self and peer perspectives.
Perceived weirdness is distinct from Big Five personality, and implications of the trait for
future research on norms, culture, and morality are discussed.

Key Insights
• Perceived weirdness is shown to be distinct from Big Five
• The weirdness scale captures the construct equivalently across self/peer reports.
• The measure reflects more trait variance than rating-source method variance.

“So one of our interview questions is, literally, on a scale of 1 to 10,

how weird are you?”
Tony Hsieh, Former CEO of Zappos.com (New York Times, 2010)

Normality evaluations refer to a distinct dimension of evaluative judgment that entails

the overall perception that one is normal (vs. strange or weird; Benet-Martínez & Waller,
2002; Wood et al., 2007). Although the concept has been studied in the clinical psycholo­
gy and health literatures (e.g., Genuis & Bronstein, 2017; Offer & Sabshin, 1966; Shoben,
1957; Vaillant, 2003), social, personality, and organizational psychologists have paid less
attention to the concept despite its fundamental importance in interpersonal perception
(see Wood et al., 2007). To fill this gap, Wood et al. (2007) investigated the nature of
normality evaluations by using evaluative lexical terms (i.e., adjectives commonly used
for describing people) including normality adjectives (e.g., normal, weird), and found
that normality adjectives form a separate factor called perceived normality or perceived
weirdness (although we use the terms perceived normality and perceived weirdness inter­
changeably, we prefer the perceived weirdness label, given the adjective weird exhibits
a much higher loading on the latent factor, compared to the adjective normal). Wood et
al. also discussed the relations of perceived weirdness with Big Five personality traits.
Although Wood and colleagues’ work has contributed key insights to the concept of
weirdness evaluations, it has not spurred much follow-up in terms of empirical research.
One possible reason might be that the measurement of perceived weirdness has not
been extensively validated. In particular, very little is known about the convergence
between self-perceived weirdness and peer perceptions of one’s weirdness. Using self-re­
ports of descriptive and normality-related adjectives, Wood et al. (2007) conducted two
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and found that weirdness/normality is a distinct
dimension. However, the five factors identified in their first CFA (i.e., decent/good, excit­
ing/extraordinary, awful/ridiculous, strange vs. normal, and snobbish/aggravating) were
considered apart from the Big Five framework (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness
to Experience, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness; Goldberg, 1992). Since Wood
and colleagues only used evaluative adjectives in their CFA, their analyses may have

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 3

missed the overlaps with other traits that describe individuals; thus, it is unclear to
what extent perceived weirdness relates nomologically to Big Five traits (including con­
vergent/discriminant validity). Furthermore, Wood et al.’s arguments (2007) were based
on self-assessments of normality evaluation (i.e., how individuals perceive or assess
themselves as weird/normal), and it as such remains unclear how self-reports of perceived
weirdness might differ from non-self-reported, peer perceptions of weirdness.
In the current study, we seek to offer several contributions related to the construct
validity of perceived weirdness, both as a self-reported and a peer-reported trait. First,
we provide an original confirmation of the factor structure among the six self-reported
personality traits (i.e., perceived weirdness and the Big Five personality traits; which
are measured using adjectival items, as described in the Method section). In so doing,
we are able to investigate the convergent and discriminant validity (i.e., convergent
validity between indicators of the same construct, and discriminant validity between
latent constructs; Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998) of perceived weirdness, and the nomological
validity of perceived weirdness with regard to the Big Five domains. Second, we extend
our analysis by confirming the factor structure among perceived weirdness and Big Five
traits beyond self-report methods, using peer-report methods. Third, we combine the
self-reported and peer-reported data into a single analysis, to establish that self-repor­
ted perceived weirdness and peer-reported perceived weirdness can be conceptualized
to represent two distinct constructs (e.g., distinguishing between personality identity
and personality reputation; Hogan, 1991). Fourth, we attempt to establish measurement
equivalence of normality evaluations across self- and peer-perceptions (Vandenberg &
Lance, 2000). Finally, we conduct a multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) confirmatory factor
analysis to test different models that consist of six trait factors (i.e., perceived weirdness
and Big Five personality traits) and two method factors (i.e., self-report and peer-report).
Overall, this work attempts to establish construct-valid measurement of the perceived
weirdness/normality trait, from self and peer perspectives.

Weirdness/Normality Evaluations
Normality has often been understood in terms of abnormality (i.e., not being normal),
because of the ease of defining abnormality (compared to defining normality; Wood
et al., 2007). Despite several researchers’ requests for a clear definition of normality
(e.g., Offer & Sabshin, 1966, 1991; Shoben, 1957; Vaillant, 2003), there had been little
research on normality evaluations until Wood et al.’s (2007) investigation. These authors
performed exploratory principal components analyses to examine whether normality
evaluations represent a distinct dimension of evaluative judgment, analyzing the 92 trait
adjectives from Saucier’s (1997) common trait adjectives that were identified as highly
evaluative, alongside both synonyms (e.g., average, normal, and ordinary) and antonyms
(e.g., weird, abnormal, exceptional, extraordinary, original) of the English words normal
and average. The exploratory results suggested that these adjectives separately loaded

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 4

onto two factors, which were ultimately labeled perceived normality (i.e., weird, strange,
normal, abnormal) and perceived uniqueness (e.g., extraordinary, remarkable, exceptional,
unique). Wood et al. (2007) then dropped perceived uniqueness from further analysis
to focus on perceived normality only, likely because of its nomological validity (self-re­
ported perceived normality/weirdness was a correlate of fitting in with peers, whereas
perceived uniqueness was not) and its discriminant validity (self-reported perceived
normality/weirdness showed adequate discriminant validity from Big Five traits, whereas
perceived uniqueness was strongly overlapping with Openness to Experience).
Focusing on perceived normality/weirdness, the authors concluded that being normal
captures positive aspects of being “standard or usual.” They claimed, “normality evalua­
tions reflect an individual’s own determination of whether his or her pattern of behavior
is socially acceptable or whether it is unacceptable and should be altered” (Wood et
al., 2007, p. 862), noting that norms or normative social forces have been understood
as among the reasons for individuals’ behavior and psychological development across
the lifespan (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Roberts et al., 2005). Based on this argument, Wood and
colleagues (2007) found that individuals who scored low on perceived normality (i.e.,
people who perceive themselves as more weird/less normal) felt a stronger need or
desire to improve their personality, whereas individuals with high normality evaluations
(i.e., who perceive themselves as less weird) tended to think they fit better with their
peers. Although Wood et al.’s findings contributed to the understanding of perceived
weirdness as a trait construct, we note that their arguments and findings are exclusively
based on self-perceptions of weirdness. Therefore, the current study seeks to investigate
both measurement equivalence and convergence between self-perceptions and peer-per­
ceptions of normality evaluations.

Weirdness/Normality Evaluations and Big Five Personality

To understand the relations between normality evaluations and Big Five personality
traits, Wood et al. (2007) drew upon diverse perspectives, echoing Offer and Sabshin
(1966, 1991). As such, Wood et al. proposed that normality evaluations would correlate
positively with Big Five personality traits that substantially relate to norm-adherence and
conventionality (i.e., Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and low Openness to experience:
Benet-Martínez & Waller, 2002; De Raad & Barelds, 2008; Simms, 2007), as well as
well-being or mental health (i.e., Emotional Stability [Neuroticism], Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, and Agreeableness: see Kotov et al., 2010). In the end, Wood et al. (2007) re­
ported the correlations between self-reported perceived weirdness (i.e., participants rated
their own perceived weirdness) and both self- and peer-reported Big Five personality
traits (i.e., peers rated the target’s personality), and found that self-perceived weirdness
was negatively related to Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability,
positively related to Openness to Experience, and unrelated to Extraversion (results
replicated across both self-reported and peer-reported Big Five traits).

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 5

Interestingly, past research does not appear to have investigated the factor structure
among weirdness evaluations and the Big Five personality traits analyzed together,
which is an important step for establishing the discriminant validity of perceived weird­
ness. We thus conducted a series of CFA (Steps 1 and 2) and an MTMM (Step 3) analyses
by using both self- and peer-reported data, to reveal the structure among those six
personality traits, to provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of weird­
ness/normality evaluations, and to partition variance in these measures into trait and
method components. These analyses also allow us to estimate the relationships between
perceived weirdness and Big Five traits, when both perceived weirdness and the Big Five
traits are measured using both self- and peer-report.

Measurement Equivalence
In addition to using CFA to establish convergent and discriminant validity in the meas­
urement of perceived weirdness, and to partitioning trait variance from method variance
in these personality measures, we also seek to assess measurement equivalence between
self- and peer-reports of these measures. Vandenberg and Lance (2000) summarized a
sequence of steps for establishing measurement equivalence, using structural equation
modeling (SEM). The first step, configural invariance, tests whether the groups have
the same general factor structure (pattern of factor loadings). This step requires specify­
ing the same factor structure within each condition (self- and peer-report) separately,
allowing all model parameters to differ across the two conditions (the model can be
evaluated by fit indices such as RMSEA, SRMR, TLI, and CFI). Next, metric invariance
should be tested, by constraining the previous model to have equal factor loadings
across conditions (self- and peer-report). Afterward, scalar invariance can be tested, by
constraining the intercepts for each indicator to be equal across conditions. Therefore,
nested models with equal factor structure, equal factor loadings, and equal intercepts
across conditions can be compared.

Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited from seven student organizations at a large Midwestern Uni­
versity (56% female, mean age = 19.54). We asked participants to rate their own traits (in­
cluding adjectives measuring Big Five personality and weirdness/normality evaluations).
Next, each participant was asked to rate three peers from their same organization, using
the same adjectives that were used for the self-ratings. We note that the peers were
selected randomly, within each organization. Each participant received $10 monetary
compensation. Overall, 370 participants provided self-ratings and 436 participants rated
their peers. Sample size was predetermined (archival dataset), but was notably larger

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 6

than N for similar past MTMM CFA analyses (Joseph & Newman, 2010). On average, 2.26
peers (SD = .95) rated each participant. Rather than using listwise deletion and dropping
partially incomplete cases, all data were included in the analyses using a FIML missing
data technique (Newman, 2014). This sample was used in prior studies, but which re­
ported on different combinations of the variables: Harms et al. (2007) used self-rated
Big Five, but no normality evaluations nor any peer-rated data; Wortman and Wood
(2011) only used self-rated data, and did not report peer-rated normality evaluations nor
relationships between normality evaluations and Big Five traits; and Kim et al. (2020)
only used peer-rated normality, but not self-rated normality nor Big Five traits. As such,
the correlations analyzed in the current paper did not appear in past studies.

Measures
Instructions for the measures were adapted from Goldberg (1992). For self-report, we
asked, “How do you see yourself in general? Please use this list of common human
traits to describe yourself as accurately as possible. Describe yourself as you see yourself
generally or typically, and as you see yourself at the present time, not as you wish to
be in the future.” For peer-report, we asked, “How would you describe this person’s
personality? Describe this person as accurately as possible, as you see him or her at the
present time, not as they wish to be in the future. Describe this person as he or she is
generally or typically.”

Perceived Weirdness/Normality
Perceived weirdness1 was measured with a six-item scale as reported in Kim et al. (2020),
adapted from Wood et al. (2007). Using this ‘weirdness scale,’ we asked participants to
rate themselves, and they also received peer ratings, on perceived weirdness. Participants
read the sentences, “I see myself as…”, or “I see this person as…”, followed by the trait
adjectives: weird, normal, abnormal, odd, strange, and unusual (‘normal’ was reverse
coded2). Each adjective was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly
Agree; self: α = .84; peer: α = .87).

1) A helpful reviewer questioned how our weirdness measure might relate to measures of abnormal personality
dimensions. Unfortunately, we do not have any published measures of abnormal personality dimensions in our data,
so this question is left for future research.
2) A helpful reviewer noted that only one item in the perceived weirdness scale (i.e., the item normal) was reverse-
worded. Although reverse-worded items may reduce reliability and validity of a scale under certain conditions
(Schmitt & Stults, 1985; Woods, 2006), our current data showed that this item had acceptable factor loadings and
the reliability of perceived weirdness was acceptable (across self- and peer-reports). We also conducted the same
analyses including fretful. Although the reliability of peer-rated emotional stability dropped to .62, all other analyses
suggested the same results. Detailed results can be provided upon request.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 7

Big Five Personality

We measured the Big Five traits using adjectives from Goldberg (1992). For four Big Five
traits (i.e., Extraversion/Surgency, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness/In­
tellect) we used ten trait adjectives per Big Five domain, which Goldberg sampled to
include the first five adjectives from both the positive and negative poles of each trait
(Goldberg, 1992, pp. 34–35). For Emotional Stability/Neuroticism, however, Goldberg
reported several adjectives that either had low factor loadings or that cross-loaded onto
another factor in his self-report or peer-report data—we chose to avoid these items
and instead used the first seven items reported by Goldberg that had average loadings
above .4 on the intended factor and that did not load onto another factor above .3, as
reported in factor analyses in Goldberg’s original study. Furthermore, we found that the
adjective ‘fretful’ showed a negative item-total correlation in the current sample, and we
thus decided to exclude fretful from our analyses3. These six remaining adjectives were:
relaxed, unenvious, anxious, moody, envious, and jealous (all items are listed with the
factor analysis results below in Table 2).
Participants rated themselves and their peer(s) on the Big Five adjectives. Participants
read the sentences, “I see myself as…”, or “I see this person as…” and the Big Five
personality adjectives followed. Each adjective was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Reliabilities were: Extraversion (self: α = .87; peer: α = .90),
Agreeableness (self: α = .79; peer: α = .92), Conscientiousness (self: α = .82; peer: α = .87),
Emotional Stability (self: α = .72; peer: α = .70), and Openness to Experience (self: α = .78;
peer: α = .81).

Transparency, Openness, and Reproducibility

The current study is not pre-registered. The hypothesized models were all a priori and
confirmatory (there were no post hoc model modifications, other than to the Emotional
Stability measure–see Measures section above). R code and raw data for reproducing the
results are available online (see Supplementary Materials). As for additional analyses that
are not reported, we did attempt to estimate models with item-level indicators for the
Big Five, but those models did not converge; so we then used parcels (i.e., means across
items) as indicators, where items were assigned to parcels only once, using a random
number generator in R. There were no data exclusions, and no alternative measures of
the studied variables were analyzed.

3) We also conducted the same analyses including fretful. Although the reliability of peer-rated emotional stability
dropped to .62, all other analyses suggested the same results. Detailed results can be provided upon request.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 8

Analyses and Results

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations. Using the sample and
measures described above, we first conducted separate self-reported CFA and peer-repor­
ted CFA, then combined them for the analyses of self- and peer-reported CFA together,
followed by the assessment of measurement equivalence across sources (Weirdness-Big
Five CFA and measurement equivalence). Next, we conducted MTMM analyses by
specifying a single CFA model with trait and method factors (Widaman, 1985), then
partitioned trait and method variance in each trait-method unit.

Table 1
Correlations Among Self- and Peer-Reported Perceived Weirdness and Big Five Personality

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Self-report
1. Perceived Weirdness .84
2. Openness to Experience .11 .78
3. Agreeableness -.18 .32 .79
4. Conscientiousness -.24 .14 .33 .82
5. Extraversion -.15 .40 .23 .08 .87
6. Emotional Stability -.15 .12 .24 .12 .11 .72
Peer-report
7. Perceived Weirdness .24 .10 -.17 -.09 .01 .11 .87
8. Openness to Experience .01 .17 .08 .14 .18 -.07 -.32 .81
9. Agreeableness -.00 .00 .21 .06 .03 -.02 -.47 .59 .92
10. Conscientiousness -.13 .00 .09 .30 .03 .00 -.53 .57 .62 .87
11. Extraversion -.02 .15 .07 -.02 .51 .02 -.00 .35 .07 -.05 .90
12. Emotional Stability -.04 -.04 .14 .02 -.09 .06 -.37 .27 .58 .34 -.11 .70
Note. N = 339–436. Reliability in the diagonal; correlations |r| ≥ .11 are statistically significant (p < .05). We
note that the observed self-other correlations for Big Five traits reported in Table 1 generally ranged in
magnitude from .2 to .5, which is in line with past meta-analytic evidence for the magnitude of self-other Big
Five correlations among cohabitors (Connelly & Ones, 2010)—with a single exception. Our current self-other
correlation for Emotional Stability was remarkably small (r = .06). We thus urge due caution in interpreting the
generalizability of our results involving Emotional Stability.

Step 1: CFA of Self-Reported and Peer-Reported Data

Analysis
We first conducted CFA on perceived weirdness and the Big Five trait measures. Three a
priori CFA specifications were estimated: (a) Self-report CFA: using only the self-reported
data (oblique 6-factor model), (b) Peer-report CFA: using only the peer-reported data
(oblique 6-factor model), and (c) Self- and peer-report CFA: using the self- and peer-re­
ported combined data (oblique 12-factor model). Results of these analyses appear in

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 9

Table 24. The perceived weirdness measure was factor analyzed with items as indicators,
whereas each of the Big Five traits was analyzed by assembling its items into three
parcels. Parceling has the advantage of creating indicators that are more reliable, more
normally distributed, and more granular, while tremendously reducing the number of
parameters that must be estimated (Williams et al., 2009). Nonetheless, we do not parcel
the perceived weirdness items because we are still interested in item-level diagnostic
information on the weirdness measure. Items were assigned to parcels randomly using R
Studio (see parcels in Table 2).

Table 2
Step 1: CFA of Perceived Weirdness and Big Five Personality

Factor Loadings

Combined
Self-Report Peer-Report Self/Peer
Observed Variables (Oblique 6-factor) (Oblique 6-factor) (Oblique 12-factor)

Perceived Weirdness/Normality (Wood et al., 2007)

Weird .79 .78 .78/.78
Strange .79 .80 .79/.80
Odd .75 .78 .75/.78
Abnormal .69 .78 .69/.78
Normal -.42 -.50 -.42/-.50
Unusual .70 .72 .71/.72
Big Five Personality (Goldberg, 1992)
P1 (Extrav: Verbal, Shy, Quiet) .78 .89 .79/.88
P2 (Extrav: Extraverted, Reserved, .83 .85 .83/.85
Energetic)
P3 (Extrav: Assertive, Introverted, .86 .88 .87/.89
Talkative, Untalkative)
P4 (Agree: Unsympathetic, Harsh, .72 .89 .73/.89
Cooperative)
P5 (Agree: Distrustful, Cold, Warm) .71 .89 .70/.89

4) A helpful reviewer asked whether the distinction between normal vs. weird might be confounded with general
positive vs. negative evaluative meaning. In response to this concern, we conducted a supplemental analysis in
which we correlated peer ratings of perceived weirdness with peer ratings of liking (using one available item in
our dataset, “Rate the extent to which you like each member of the organization,” from 1 = strongly dislike to 7 =
strongly like). The correlation between peer-rated weirdness and liking was only r = -.16 (and the corresponding
correlation between self-rated weirdness and peer-rated liking was only r = -.03), suggesting that although weirdness
may contain some social desirability, it is far from redundant with the general factor of positive vs. negative
evaluation/liking.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 10

Factor Loadings

Combined
Self-Report Peer-Report Self/Peer
Observed Variables (Oblique 6-factor) (Oblique 6-factor) (Oblique 12-factor)
P6 (Agree: Kind, Sympathetic, Trustful, .77 .90 .77/.90
Unkind)
P7 (Cons: Disorganized, Careless, .84 .81 .84/.82
Unsystematic)
P8 (Cons: Inefficient, Organized, .85 .85 .86/.85
Thorough)
P9 (Cons: Neat, Practical, Systematic, .83 .91 .82/91
Undependable)
P10 (Open: Creative, Unintellectual, .81 .89 .81/.88
Unintelligent)
P11 (Open: Uncreative, Bright, .81 .84 .82/.85
Imaginative)
P12 (Open: Complex, Intellectual, .57 .54 .57/.54
Simple, Unimaginative)
P13 (Emot. Stab.: Anxious, Fretful, .90 .60 .87/.59
Envious)
P14 (Emot. Stab.: Moody, Relaxed) .46 .80 .49/.81
P15 (Emot. Stab.: Jealous, Unenvious) .62 .51 .64/.50
Fit Indices
2
χ (df) 407.66 (174) 639.69 (174) 1503.70 (753)
RMSEA/SRMR .060/.056 .078/.062 .046/.055
TLI/CFI .91/.93 .90/.92 .91/.92
Note. N = 367 ratees (self-report), N = 436 ratees (peer-report). Missing data treatment = Full Information
Maximum Likelihood (FIML). P = Parcel. For combined data, loadings before the slash (/) are self-report items
loaded onto self-report traits, after the slash (/) are peer-report items loaded onto peer-report traits.

Results
Results of Self-report, Peer-report, and Self-and-Peer-report CFA models showed similar
fit indices, factor loadings, and factor intercorrelations (see Table 2). All three CFA mod­
els produced model fit indices that we deemed acceptable. In addition, all standardized
factor loadings were larger than .41. The average factor correlation was ϕ = .24 for the
self-report data, ϕ = .39 for the peer-report data, and ϕ = .18 for the combined data (see
observed correlations in Table 1). Together, these results confirm the oblique solution
among perceived weirdness and the Big Five traits, and support perceived weirdness as a
distinct construct from the Big Five traits.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 11

Step 2. Measurement Equivalence

Analysis
We next attempted to establish measurement equivalence across the two measurement
sources (i.e., self- and peer-reports) following Vandenberg and Lance’s (2000) guidelines.
Three types of oblique 12-factor models were compared: (a) Model 1 (configural invari­
ance) establishes same pattern of factor loadings (whether an item loads vs. does not
load onto each factor) across self- and peer-reports, (b) Model 2 (metric invariance)
constrains factor loadings to be equal across self- and peer-reports, and (c) Model 3
(scalar invariance) constrains item intercepts to be equal across self- and peer-reports.
For Model 3, we specified three sequential models: Model 3a (partial scalar invariance,
constraining equal intercepts for perceived weirdness, but allowing unequal intercepts
for the Big Five indicators), Model 3a’ (partial scalar invariance, with equal intercepts
for Big Five indicators, but allowing unequal intercepts for perceived weirdness), and
Model 3b (scalar invariance, with equal intercepts for all indicators of both Big Five and
perceived weirdness). The sequence of models (Models 1–3) is nested, with each model
progressively imposing additional constraints. We compared model fit indices and used
sequential ΔCFI tests (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) to establish measurement equivalence.
For identification, we fixed one indicator loading to 1.0 for each latent factor.

Results
Table 3 shows the fit indices of Models 1–3. Regarding absolute model fit, we judge
Model 1 (configural invariance), Model 2 (metric invariance), and Model 3a (partial scalar
invariance for perceived weirdness) to exhibit adequate fit, while Model 3a’ (partial sca­
lar invariance for Big Five) and Model 3b (scalar invariance) exhibit sub-optimal absolute
fit. Namely, these results support metric equivalence/equal factor loadings between self-
and peer-report, for both perceived weirdness and the Big Five personality traits (Model
2), as well as partial scalar invariance/equal intercepts between self- and peer-report,
for perceived weirdness (Model 3a). Further, partial scalar invariance (equal intercepts
for the Big Five) does not appear to be supported for the Big Five (Model 3a’; ΔCFI =
.018; see Table 3) in the current work. In sum, this study provides initial evidence for
both metric and scalar equivalence of the perceived weirdness measure across self- and
peer-report.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 12

Table 3

Step 2: Measurement Equivalence Between Self- and Peer-Report (Oblique 12-Factor Model)

2
Measurement Equivalence Model χ df RMSEA TLI CFI SRMR ΔCFI

Model 1. Configural Invariance 1503.70 753 .046 .907 .919 .055 —

Model 2. Metric Invariance 1596.97 768 .048 .900 .911 .059 .008
(Equal Loadings)
Model 3a. 1636.05 773 .049 .896 .907 .060 .004
Partial Scalar Invariance
(Equal Intercepts for Weirdness,
Unequal intercepts for Big Five)
Model 3a’. 1773.67 778 .053 .881 .893 .062 .018
Partial Scalar Invariance
(Equal Intercepts for Big Five,
Unequal intercepts for Weirdness)
Model 3b. Scalar Invariance 1812.77 783 .053 .878 .889 .063 .022
(Equal Intercepts)
Note. N = 464 ratees. Missing data treatment = Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML). All Δ χ2 are
statistically significant (p < .05).

Step 3. Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis

Analysis
Next, we conducted an MTMM analysis in the CFA framework to assess discriminant
and convergent validity of the perceived weirdness measure (Widaman, 1985). In our
MTMM analyses, we specified six trait factors (for perceived weirdness and Big Five
personality traits), and two method factors (for both self-report [participants rated their
own personality traits] and peer-report [peers rated the targets’ personality traits]). In
particular, we specified that each trait-method latent factor from the 12-factor model
would double load, onto two corresponding second-order traits—a trait factor and a
method factor (see Figure 1). For example, the self-report extraversion factor was speci­
fied to double-load, once onto the extraversion trait factor, and once onto the self-report
method factor. To achieve model identification, we constrained the two trait loadings for
each trait to equality (e.g., extraversion [self] and extraversion [peer] loadings onto the
extraversion trait factor were set equal), and we also fixed the factor loadings to 1.0 for
agreeableness [self] onto the self-report method factor, and for agreeableness [peer] onto
the peer-report method factor.
We compared seven models (see Widaman, 1985) that are combinations of different
trait factor structures (i.e., no trait factor, correlated trait factors, or one general trait
factor) and method factor structures (i.e., no method factor, self- and peer- report meth­

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 13

od factors uncorrelated, or method factors correlated; see Table 4). Trait factors were
allowed to intercorrelate, but trait and method factors were constrained to be uncorrela­
ted. Convergent validity (i.e., extent to which the scales designed to assess the same
construct are strongly related) can be established via large trait loadings in the MTMM
model. For instance, if self- and peer-reports of perceived weirdness exhibit large aver­
age trait loadings onto the weirdness trait, this is consistent with convergent validity.
Discriminant validity (i.e., extent to which scales designed to assess different constructs
are not too strongly related) can be demonstrated by assessing the correlations among
latent traits in the MTMM model. For instance, if perceived weirdness and Big Five traits
are correlated notably less than unity, it suggests discriminant validity. We estimated a
subset of Widaman’s (1985), as implemented by Joseph and Newman (2010), models to
demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity.

Table 4
Step 3: MTMM Results for Perceived Weirdness and Big Five Personality

2
MTMM Model Trait Factors Method Factors χ df RMSEA TLI CFI SRMR

Model I Correlated None 2067.46 798 .059 .85 .86 .120

Model II Correlated Uncorrelated 1623.35 786 .048 .90 .91 .065
Model III Correlated Correlated 1618.40 785 .048 .90 .91 .064
Model IV None Uncorrelated 5994.37 819 .117 .41 .44 .133
Model V None Correlated 5988.86 818 .117 .41 .44 .130
Model VI 1 General trait None 6885.82 819 .126 .31 .35 .148
Model VII Correlated Correlated 2155.17 786 .061 .84 .85 .870
(Weird.-Consc. -1.0)
Note. N = 464 ratees. MTMM Models are estimated in hierarchical CFA models, with 12 first-order factors, and
trait and method higher-order factors specified to model relationships among the 12 first-order factors. Missing
data treatment = Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML). Model VII constrained the correlation between
perceived weirdness and conscientiousness to be 1.0. Best fitting model (Model III) is in italics.

Figure 1 depicts Model III. All indicators loaded onto their corresponding first-order
trait-method latent factors (i.e., 12 factors: normality plus Big Five × self- and peer-re­
port). Then, these 12 latent factors loaded onto both trait and method higher-order
factors. The left side of the figure represents trait factors: each trait-method latent factor
loaded on its corresponding trait factor (e.g., both self- and peer-reported perceived
weirdness loaded onto the perceived weirdness trait factor). On the right side of Figure
1 are the method factors (e.g., all self-report trait-method latent factors loaded onto the
Self-Report method factor; see Figure 1).

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 14

Figure 1

Step 3: MTMM Model III for Normality Evaluations and Big Five Personality

Note. Extra. = Extraversion; Agree. = Agreeableness; Cons. = Conscientiousness; Emot. Stab. = Emotional
Stability; Open. = Openness to Experience; Self = Self-Report; Peer = Peer-Report. All second-order trait factors
(factors on the left side) were correlated although not depicted. Factor loadings and correlations are listed in
Table 5a, 5b, and 5c. Indicators and their paths are omitted in this Figure for brevity.

Results
Results of MTMM analyses appear in Table 4. In terms of absolute model-data fit,
only Model II (correlated traits, uncorrelated methods) and Model III (correlated traits,
correlated methods) exhibited adequate fit, and they also exhibited nearly identical fit
indices. In terms of relative fit, these two models both fit notably better than alternative
models with no method factors (Model I: ΔCFI = .05; and Model VI: ΔCFI = .56), and
alternative models with no trait factors (Model IV: ΔCFI = .47; and Model V: ΔCFI = .47).

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 15

These relative fit comparisons confirm that the data are consistent with the existence of
both trait factors and method factors.
Next, because Model II (correlated traits, uncorrelated methods) and Model III (cor­
related traits, correlated methods) both showed adequate and nearly-equivalent fit, we
decided to base our interpretations on Model III, because the method correlation (ϕ
= -.37) was statistically significant. For Model III (i.e., six oblique trait factors for Big
Five personality traits and perceived weirdness, plus two correlated method factors for
self-report and peer-report) parameter estimates are shown in Table 5a, 5b, and 5c. As
seen in Table 5b, all twelve trait-method factors had substantial trait loadings (> .50) onto
their corresponding higher-order trait factors, with the single exception of self-reported
Emotional Stability, which loaded at .32 onto its higher-order trait factor. Next, as also
seen in Table 5b, the six trait-method factors that were self-reported all had loadings
onto their higher-order method factor (i.e., self-report method factor) below .50, with
the single exception of self-reported Openness, which loaded at .54 onto the self-report
method factor. The average % method variance in the self-report factors was 16%, and
the self-report perceived weirdness measure exhibited only 4% method variance (Table
5b). In contrast, the six trait-method factors that were peer-reported all had loadings onto
their higher-order method factor (peer-report method factor) above .50, with the single
exception of peer-reported Extraversion, which had zero loading onto the peer-report
method factor. The average % method variance in the peer-report factors was 36%,
and the peer-report perceived weirdness measure exhibited 27% method variance. To
summarize the Step 2 MTMM results: (a) the trait loadings were generally large, (b) the
self-report method loadings were generally smaller than their corresponding trait load­
ings, (c) the peer-report method loadings were generally similar in magnitude to their
corresponding trait loadings, and (d) for the perceived weirdness measure, trait loadings
were notably larger than method loadings. These results reconfirm the convergent and
discriminant validity of perceived weirdness.

Table 5a
Step 3: CFA Results for MTMM Model III – Item Level Factor Loadings

Weird. Extrav. Agree. Consc. Open. Emot. Stab.

Indicator (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer)

Weird .78/.78
Strange .79/.80
Odd .75/.78
Abnormal .69/.78
Normal -.42/-.51
Unusual .70/.72
Extrav. P1 .82/.87
Extrav. P2 .84/.84

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 16

Weird. Extrav. Agree. Consc. Open. Emot. Stab.

Indicator (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer) (Self/Peer)
Extrav. P3 .87/.89
Agree. P1 .74/.89
Agree. P2 .71/.89
Agree. P3 .75/.90
Consc. P1 .83/.82
Consc. P2 .86/.85
Consc. P3 .82/.91
Open. P10 .84/.88
Open. P11 .80/.84
Open. P12 .57/.54
Emot. Stab. P13 .84/.58
Emot. Stab. P14 .50/.80
Emot. Stab. P15 .67/.51
Note. N = 464 ratees. P = Parcel; self/peer = factor loadings before [after] slash represent loadings onto
corresponding lower-order self-report [peer-report] factors (e.g., .78 in the first column represents the loading
of the indicator ‘Weird’ onto the factor ‘Self-Report Weirdness’).

Table 5b

Step 3: CFA Results for MTMM Model III – Trait Level Factor Loadings

Emot. Method Method Var

a
Latent Factor Weird. Extrav. Agree. Consc. Open. Stab. Loadings %

Self
Weird. .52 .21 4
Extrav. .72 .45 19
Agree. .71 .47 20
Consc. .53 .25 6
Open. .51 .55 30
Emot. Stab. .32 .38 15
Peer
Weird. .62 .52 27
Extrav. .85 -.02 0
Agree. .55 .81 66
Consc. .74 .66 43
Open. .56 .70 49
Emot. Stab. .65 .63 33
Note. N = 464 ratees.
2
a λ × var Y
Method Var % metℎod var Y metℎod .

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 17

Table 5c

Step 3: CFA Results for MTMM Model III – Latent Factor Correlations

Latent Factor Weird. Extrav. Agree. Consc. Open. Emot. Stab. Self Peer
a
Weirdness (.22)
a
Extrav. -.07 (.52)
a
Agree. -.40 .13 (.30)
a
Consc. -.60 -.09 .38 (.34)
a
Open. -.15 .52 .57 .47 (.25)
a
Emot. Stab. -.36 -.28 .64 .12 .10 (.22)
a
Self — — — — — — (.19)
a
Peer — — — — — — -.37 (.44)
Note. N = 464 ratees.
a
Unstandardized factor standard deviations are in the diagonal.

Finally, we note that the latent correlation between perceived weirdness and conscien­
tiousness in Model III was -.60, which affects the discriminant validity inferences regard­
ing perceived weirdness. Thus, we tested a model that constrained the latent correlation
between weirdness and conscientiousness to -1.0 (Model VII; see Widaman, 1985). As
shown in Table 4, the model fit of Model VII is significantly worse than Model III and
therefore provides evidence for discriminant validity of perceived weirdness. To provide
an additional test of discriminant validity, we also implemented Fornell and Larcker’s
(1981) test, which requires that the latent correlation between two factors must be
smaller than the square root of the average indicator variance explained by each latent
factor (also see Joseph & Newman, 2010). The square root of average variance extracted
was .83 for perceived weirdness, and was .76 for Conscientiousness, which are both
larger than the latent correlation between weirdness and Conscientiousness of -.60. Thus,
discriminant validity is supported, according to both tests.

Discussion
The current research made several contributions to understanding the construct validity
of self- and peer-reported perceived weirdness. In Step 1, we first conducted CFA using
self- and peer-report data to confirm 12 oblique trait-method factors (i.e., 6 traits: Big
Five plus perceived weirdness × 2 methods: self- and peer-report). In Step 2, we establish­
ed measurement equivalence (both metric equivalence [equal factor loadings] and scalar
equivalence [equal item difficulties/intercepts]) between self- and peer-report measures
of perceived weirdness, suggesting that the perceived weirdness items assess the weird­
ness construct in a psychometrically equivalent manner across self- and peer-reports.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 18

Beyond Wood et al.’s (2007) work that emphasized self-reported weirdness evaluations,
our current results suggest the measurement validity of using peer-reported perceived
weirdness (capturing the same construct in the same manner: equal factor structures,
factor loadings, and factor intercepts). That is, self- and peer-reports of normality evalu­
ations are calibrated equivalently and can be inferred to have commensurate meaning
across measurement sources (Vandenberg & Lance, 2000). In Step 3, we used MTMM
analysis in the CFA framework to confirm the convergent and discriminant validity
of perceived weirdness (Widaman, 1985). We confirmed six distinct, oblique traits (i.e.,
perceived weirdness and the Big Five traits) and two correlated method factors (i.e., self-
report and peer-report methods). This supports the inferences that perceived weirdness
can be distinguished from the Big Five personality traits and measured with both self-
and peer-report.
As mentioned previously, the current research found that perceived weirdness is a
distinct dimension of personality from the Big Five traits. This finding enables future
research into the social and behavioral outcomes that might be uniquely predicted by
weirdness perceptions. For example, we speculate that weirdness could possibly associate
with one’s creativity (Shalley et al., 2004), business entrepreneurship, or adherence to
subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). Further, our establishment of measurement equivalence
highlights the enormous potential of investigating weirdness/normality evaluations from
other’s perceptions. As recommended by Kim et al. (2020), self- and peer-perceptions of
weirdness/normality could be investigated in future research as mechanisms for other
norm-violation phenomena, such as moral and ethical violations, or cultural effects
(Gelfand et al., 2017). Further, it would be worth investigating whether the current
study’s findings extend to different cultures. For example, the same behaviors or traits
might be perceived as weird in one country/culture but not in others. Beyond assessing
the universality of perceived weirdness/normality in other countries, future research
might also assess whether this personality trait appears in the lexical structure of
languages other than English (McCrae et al., 2002). Furthemore, a helpful reviewer
suggested that perceived weirdness/normality evaluations would potentially be related
to the Honesty-Humility trait of the HEXACO (Ashton & Lee, 2007), which taps into
adherence to moral norms.
In addition, a helpful reviewer asked us to attempt to specify whether weirdness
might be a meta-trait (like Digman’s, 1997, alpha and beta), an interstitial trait (like
altruism in the HEXACO model), or an independent trait (like Honesty in the HEXACO
model; Ashton & Lee, 2007). At present, we surmise that weirdness is likely either a
meta-trait or an independent/distinct trait, but is not likely an interstitial trait. With
respect to its status as a distinct trait, we note that weirdness exhibited adequate dis­
criminant validity from the Big Five, in both self- and peer-reported CFA results, as
well as MTMM results. It is also noteworthy that the MTMM results show weirdness
correlates most strongly with Agreeableness (φ = -.40), Conscientiousness (φ = -.60),

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 19

and Emotional Stability (φ = -.37), which are the three lower-order factors of Digman’s
higher-order alpha factor (cf. DeYoung et al., 2002, labeled this factor Stability, suggesting
it entailed stability in social relationships, motivated behavior, and mood). It is possible
that weirdness could be conceptualized as a trait akin to this higher-order factor, but
coded in the negative direction (i.e., weirdness is empirically related to Disagreeableness,
low Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism). Finally, we posit that weirdness is not an
interstitial trait. Inspection of post hoc modification indices for our self-rated CFA and
for our peer-rated CFA models both showed that: (a) weirdness items would not notably
improve model fit if they were allowed to cross-load onto Big Five factors, and (b) if
weirdness items were allowed to cross-load onto the Big Five, none of these items from
either self- or peer-CFA models would have exhibited standardized cross-loadings greater
than .16 in absolute value. In sum, weirdness does not appear to be an interstitial trait of
the Big Five, but it could be conceptualized as either a distinct trait or a meta-trait.
The current study also has several limitations. First, our participants are all college
students from a single university, suggesting additional work is needed on the gener­
alizability of current findings. Second, beyond adjective-based Big Five measurement
(Goldberg, 1992), it would be helpful to replicate findings with other Big Five measures
using statements and behaviors (e.g., Extraversion: “feel comfortable around people”;
Agreeableness: “sympathize with others’ feelings”; Goldberg et al., 2006). Third, addition­
al work should investigate the mechanisms of person perception that come into play
when comparing self- vs. other-perceptions of personality (Vazire & Carlson, 2011).

Conclusions
Our research provided evidence of the measurement equivalence (between self- and
peer-rating) of perceived weirdness, convergent validity between self- and peer-ratings
of weirdness, and discriminant validity of these evaluations from the Big Five traits.
Peer-reported weirdness evaluations capture a similar construct to self-report evalua­
tions of weirdness. Research on peer perceptions of weirdness could potentially supply
helpful information about various psychological phenomena related to norm violation
(e.g., gender norms, cultural norms, moral norms); however little research has investi­
gated this construct. We hope that our validity evidence for self- and peer-reports of
perceived weirdness spurs future work on this fundamental evaluative construct.

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 20

Funding: The authors have no funding to report.

Acknowledgments: The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Author Contributions: Jun-Yeob Kim—Idea, conceptualization | Design planning | Research implementation

(software, hardware, etc.) | Data management (storage, curation, processing, etc.) | Visualization (data presentation,
figures, etc.) | Data analysis | Validation, reproduction, checking | Writing | Feedback, revisions. Daniel A. Newman—
Idea, conceptualization | Design planning | Data analysis | Validation, reproduction, checking | Writing | Feedback,
revisions. P. D. Harms—Resource provision (materials, participants, etc.) | Data collection | Data management (storage,
curation, processing, etc.) | Feedback, revisions. Dustin Wood—Resource provision (materials, participants, etc.) | Data
collection | Data management (storage, curation, processing, etc.).

Data Availability: For this article, data is freely available (Kim et al., 2021a).

Supplementary Materials
Data and R codes to reproduce the results are provided as Supplementary Materials (for access see
Index of Supplementary Materials below).

Index of Supplementary Materials

Kim, J., Newman, D., Harms, P., & Wood, D. (2021a). Supplementary materials to "Perceived
weirdness: A multitrait-multisource study of self and other normality evaluations" [Dataset,
codebook]. PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5085
Kim, J., Newman, D., Harms, P., & Wood, D. (2021b). Supplementary materials to "Perceived
weirdness: A multitrait-multisource study of self and other normality evaluations" [Scripts].
PsychOpen GOLD. https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5086

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO
model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100104

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 21

Benet-Martínez, V., & Waller, N. G. (2002). From adorable to worthless: Implicit and self-report
structure of highly evaluative personality descriptors. European Journal of Personality, 16(1), 1–
41. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.431
Bryant, A. (2010, January 9). On a scale of 1 to 10, how weird are you? The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/business/10corner.html
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration
of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212
DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict
conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533–552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutch personality traits based on a
comprehensive and unrestricted list of descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
94(2), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.347
Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(6), 1246–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1246
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gelfand, M. J., Harrington, J. R., & Jackson, J. C. (2017). The strength of social norms across human
groups. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 800–809.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708631
Genuis, S. K., & Bronstein, J. (2017). Looking for “normal”: Sense making in the context of health
disruption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(3), 750–761.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23715
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological
Assessment, 4(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H.
G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality
measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84–96.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
Harms, P. D., Roberts, B. W., & Wood, D. (2007). Who shall lead? An integrative personality
approach to the study of the antecedents of status in informal social organizations. Journal of
Research in Personality, 41(3), 689–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.08.001

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Self and Other Perceived Weirdness 22

Hogan, R. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough

(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 873–919). Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Discriminant validity of self-reported emotional
intelligence: A multitrait-multisource study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4),
672–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355700
Kim, J.-Y., Hsu, N., Newman, D. A., Harms, P. D., & Wood, D. (2020). Leadership perceptions,
gender, and dominant personality: The role of normality evaluations. Journal of Research in
Personality, 87, Article 103984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103984
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety,
depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768–
821. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020327
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde,
I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and
cross-cultural analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1456–1468.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1456
Newman, D. A. (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods,
17(4), 372–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590
Offer, D., & Sabshin, M. (1991). Normatology: The next step. In D. Offer & M. Sabshin (Eds.), The
diversity of normal behavior (pp. 405–419). Basic Books.
Offer, D., & Sabshin, M. (1966). Normality: Theoretical and clinical concepts of mental health. Basic
Books.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Smith, J. L. (2005). Evaluating five factor theory and social investment
perspectives on personality trait development. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(1), 166–184.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.08.002
Saucier, G. (1997). Effects of variable selection on the factor structure of person descriptors. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1296–1312.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1296
Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: The result of careless
respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 367–373.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900405
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6),
933–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
Shoben, E. J. (1957). Toward a concept of the normal personality. The American Psychologist, 12(4),
183–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045253
Simms, L. J. (2007). The Big Seven model of personality and its relevance to personality pathology.
Journal of Personality, 75(1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00433.x
Vaillant, G. E. (2003). Mental health. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1373–1384.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1373

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399
Kim, Newman, Harms, & Wood 23

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2011). Others sometimes know us better than we know ourselves.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 104–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402478
Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-
multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(1), 1–26.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900101
Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). 12 structural equation modeling in
management research: A guide for improved analysis. The Academy of Management Annals,
3(1), 543–604. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520903065683
Woods, C. M. (2006). Careless responding to reverse-worded items: Implications for confirmatory
factor analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(3), 186–191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-005-9004-7
Wood, D., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality
traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 861–879.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.861
Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in
Personality, 45(6), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.006

Personality Science (PS) is an PsychOpen GOLD is a publishing

official journal of the European service by Leibniz Institute for
Association of Personality Psychology (ZPID), Germany.
Psychology (EAPP).

Personality Science
2023, Vol. 4, Article e7399
https://doi.org/10.5964/ps.7399