States refer to our momentary thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Average states (aggregates across multiple time points) are discussed as a more accurate and objective measure of personality compared to global self-reports since they do not only rely on people's general beliefs about themselves. Specifically, Finnigan and Vazire (2018) argued that, if average states better capture what a person is actually like, this should be reflected in their unique association with informant-reports of personality, and tested this idea based on two experience-sampling studies. Their results showed, however, that average self-reported states did not predict global informant-reported personality above and beyond global self-reports. In this research, we aimed at replicating and extending these results. We used data of five studies (total N = 806) that involved global self- and informant-reports and employed a variety of different experience-sampling methods (time-based with different sampling schedules, event-based). Across all studies, the original results (i.e., no incremental effects of average self-reported states) were replicated. Furthermore, as an extension to the original study, we found that average other-reported states (provided by peers, results based on one study) did indeed predict global informant-reports above and beyond global self-reports. These findings highlight the importance of differentiating between method effects (global reports vs. average states) from source of information effects (self vs. other). We discuss these results, focusing on the suitability of using informant-reports as a criterion variable and conceptual differences between assessment methods. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

平均状态的增量有效性：Finnigan 和 Vazire (2018) 的复制和扩展。

状态是指我们瞬间的想法、感受和行为。与全球自我报告相比，平均状态（跨多个时间点的聚合）被讨论为更准确和客观的人格衡量标准，因为它们不仅依赖于人们对自己的普遍看法。具体来说，Finnigan 和 Vazire（2018 年）认为，如果平均状态能更好地捕捉到一个人的实际情况，这应该反映在他们与线人个性报告的独特关联中，并基于两项经验抽样研究测试了这一想法。然而，他们的结果表明，平均自我报告的状态并不能预测全球线人报告的人格超越全球自我报告。在这项研究中，我们旨在复制和扩展这些结果。我们使用了五项研究的数据（总共 N = 806），这些研究涉及全球自我报告和线人报告，并采用了各种不同的经验抽样方法（基于时间和不同抽样时间表、基于事件）。在所有研究中，原始结果（即平均自我报告状态没有增量效应）被复制。此外，作为对原始研究的扩展，我们发现平均其他报告状态（由同行提供，基于一项研究的结果）确实预测全球线人报告超出全球自我报告。这些发现强调了区分方法效应（全局报告与平均状态）与信息源效应（自我与其他）的重要性。我们讨论这些结果，重点关注使用线人报告作为标准变量的适用性以及评估方法之间的概念差异。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。