- Email: [email protected]
Corrigendum to: “The general factor of personality: Questions and elaborations” [J. Res. Pers. 45 (2011) 44–49]
Journal of Research in Personality 45 (2011) 258
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to: ‘‘The general factor of personality: Questions and elaborations’’ [J. Res. Pers. 45 (2011) 44–49] John C. Loehlin a,⇑, Nicholas G. Martin b a b
University of Texas at Austin, USA Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia
The authors discovered an error in their manuscript. The correction is as follows: Table 4 should indicate that the Lie scale items marking the low end of the GFP for adolescents were reverse scored; thus the statements about the factor having ‘‘dubious credentials as a social desirability dimension’’ (p. 47) and having ‘‘socially undesirable responses marking both ends’’ (p. 48) should be ignored. The Table 4 GFP is, in fact, not inconsistent with a social desirability interpretation, although it remains different in content from the adult GFPs.
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.008
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 512 471 6572.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.C. Loehlin). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.010
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Corrigendum
Corrigendum to: ‘‘The general factor of personality: Questions and elaborations’’ [J. Res. Pers. 45 (2011) 44–49] John C. Loehlin a,⇑, Nicholas G. Martin b a b
University of Texas at Austin, USA Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia
The authors discovered an error in their manuscript. The correction is as follows: Table 4 should indicate that the Lie scale items marking the low end of the GFP for adolescents were reverse scored; thus the statements about the factor having ‘‘dubious credentials as a social desirability dimension’’ (p. 47) and having ‘‘socially undesirable responses marking both ends’’ (p. 48) should be ignored. The Table 4 GFP is, in fact, not inconsistent with a social desirability interpretation, although it remains different in content from the adult GFPs.
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.008
⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 512 471 6572.
E-mail address: [email protected] (J.C. Loehlin). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.010