Judging What Others Enjoy: Desirability and Observability of Interests

Abstract

Interests guide major life decisions such as choosing a career path, yet little is known about the subjective characteristics of individual differences in interests. Prior research on personality traits has demonstrated that subjective trait perceptions influence the validity and reliability of personality assessments. The current work expands the study of these subjective characteristics to individual differences in interests. Desirability and observability were assessed among 13 constructs: person orientation, thing orientation, RIASEC career interests, and Big Five traits. Judgments of interest dimensions varied considerably, with socially-related interests rated more desirable than thing-related interests. Some career-related interests were low in observability, and thus may be susceptible to being overlooked or categorized inaccurately. The patterns observed in interest characteristics were comparable to patterns in career choice hit rates, occupational prestige, and self-other convergence. The findings advance knowledge of differences between interest dimensions and suggest that subjective perceptions should be considered in interest assessment.

Keywords

personality personality assessment individual differences interests career interests

Interests grant valuable insights into career motivations and decisions. Considerable research has examined the role of interests in career development, career choices, and performance in the workplace (Holland, 1997; Lent et al., 1994; Su et al., 2019; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011). Much less is known, however, about the subjective characteristics of interests. Among personality traits, subjective characteristics moderate the accuracy of personality assessments (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Funder, 1995; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010; Vazire, 2010). The same may be true for interest assessments, yet knowledge of interest characteristics is currently limited. A greater understanding of the subjective characteristics of interests may help improve career assessment and the predictive utility of interests.

Within personality, not all traits are created equal: almost everyone would prefer to be less neurotic, yet more organized. Few aspects of personality are perceived neutrally, as most people have positive or negative views of each trait. This is one meaningful way in which traits differ—some are judged to be more desirable than others. Traits also differ in how observable they are, depending on how easily they can be perceived by non-self others. Importantly, characteristics such as desirability and observability affect the accuracy of personality judgments (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010). These characteristics have been studied extensively in traits such as the Big Five, but they are largely unknown for many other individual differences. The purpose of the present study is to extend understanding of trait characteristics to interests.

Individual Differences in Interest

Interest motivates much of human behavior, particularly in academic and occupational contexts. Interest can be measured both as a temporary state of engagement and as an enduring disposition that constitutes part of an individual’s personality (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Stoll & Trautwein, 2017). At the dispositional level, interests drive people to seek situations and experiences that are compatible with the content they enjoy (Renninger et al., 2014). This niche-picking process guides educational and occupational decisions. Interests are a central component in many vocational choice theories. For instance, Social Cognitive Career Theory highlights the importance of interest in career goal-setting, decision-making, and performance (Lent et al., 1994, 2002). Similarly, Holland’s theory of career choice frames interests as a primary motivator of career selections (Holland, 1959, 1997). Despite the well-documented role of interest in occupational choices, the subjective characteristics of interest variables are largely unknown.

Two major interest dimensions are particularly influential in shaping career choices: interest in people (i.e., social environments) and interest in objects (i.e., physical environments; Graziano et al., 2012; Lippa, 1998; Prediger, 1982). People with strong interests in social environments are inclined to choose a career in areas like education or social science, whereas people with strong interests in objects tend to pursue paths such as engineering or computer science (Holland, 1997; Woodcock et al., 2013). These broad interest dimensions are central to two related models of interests: person orientation—thing orientation (Graziano et al., 2012) and the RIASEC model (Holland, 1997).

The RIASEC model describes vocational interests in six categories: Realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. The trait of person orientation is comparable to the social component of RIASEC, as both assess dispositional interest in people. The trait of thing orientation corresponds to the realistic component of RIASEC, as both assess dispositional interest in objects (Woodcock et al., 2013). The two models assess similar underlying constructs, yet differ in conceptual approach and structure. Holland’s RIASEC theory explicitly addresses career preferences, whereas person orientation and thing orientation are general personality traits that can be applied to understand career choices (McIntyre & Graziano, 2016; Stoll & Trautwein, 2017). The social and realistic components of RIASEC are theorized to form two ends of a bipolar people—things interest dimension (Prediger, 1982; see also Tay et al., 2011). However, person orientation and thing orientation are conceptually and empirically orthogonal, operating as separate aspects of personality (Graziano et al., 2011). To provide a more comprehensive view of interests, the present study examines the characteristics of both models.

Subjective Trait Characteristics

Some personality traits and interests can be judged more accurately than others. According to the Realistic Accuracy Model (Funder, 1995), traits that are visible and neutral in desirability are measured with the greatest accuracy. Substantial research supports these two characteristics, which are the focus of the present work: observability and desirability. Observable traits tend to be “external” and shape behaviors that are visible to others. People high on extraversion, for example, tend to be talkative and energetic in social settings. These behaviors are easy to observe and extraversion is consistently found to be the most observable Big Five trait (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993). In contrast, neuroticism is a less visible trait that relates to internal behaviors such as worrying and ruminating (Vazire, 2010). Overall, personality ratings show stronger convergence for traits that are more observable (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Kenny & West, 2010).

Desirability is another key characteristic that influences trait judgments. For desirable traits, self-ratings may be less accurate due to self-presentation and impression management effects (Funder, 1995). Indeed, desirability seems to lower self-other agreement by biasing self-ratings (Vazire, 2010). Studies typically show that desirability reduces accuracy in trait ratings (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010). Generally, extraversion and agreeableness tend to be high on desirability, conscientiousness and openness are moderate to highly desirable, and neuroticism tends to be low in desirability (Bäckström & Björklund, 2013; John & Robins, 1993).

While extensive research has been conducted on subjective characteristics of personality traits, these characteristics are largely unknown for interests. Given that characteristics like observability and desirability influence accuracy in personality assessment, their impact on interest assessment is an important open question. Earlier work has posited that the personal meaning of career interests is distinct from their objective measurement (Savickas, 1995). Interest inventories may quantify interest levels but do not necessarily capture how individuals value, embrace, or suppress their interests during career exploration and decision-making. Similarly, attitudes and subjective norms are intricately linked with vocational interests and intentions (Silvia, 2001a). Career-related attitudes and norms are shaped by sociocultural factors such as parents, peers, and cultural messaging that communicate which work activities are desirable or appropriate (Huston, 1985; Tang et al., 2008; Oliveira et al., 2020; Silvia, 2001b; Weisgram et al., 2010). These factors explain, in part, why interests are not always predictive of career choices (Hanna & Rounds, 2020; Silvia, 2001a, 2001b). Further understanding of interest perceptions is needed to understand the potential impact of subjective factors on interest assessment.

Subjective evaluations of occupation types grant some insights into how perceptions of interests may vary. For instance, investigative and enterprising careers are judged high in prestige while realistic and conventional careers are low in prestige (Deng et al., 2007; Tracey & Rounds, 1996; Walker & Tracey, 2012). These studies entailed judgments of careers rather than interests, but interests are likely more desirable when they correspond to prestigious careers. Furthermore, people-oriented careers are perceived to be more creative, artistic, and communal, whereas thing-oriented careers are judged to be more scientific, technical, and agentic (Masnick et al., 2010; Yang & Barth, 2015). These differences in perceptions of career types suggest that similar differences may emerge in underlying career interests.

Research on subjective perceptions of interests is much more limited. One investigation directly examined judgments of interest items and found that perceived prestige, effort, skill, and competitiveness vary across career activities (Sodano & Tracey, 2008). Notably however, neither the People-Things dimension nor the Data-Ideas dimension was associated with any of these content ratings. In addition, interests do not appear to be influenced by socially desirable response patterns. Recently, Schermer (2019) found no relationships between social desirability and seven factors of career interest, including 34 interest sub-factors. (Social desirability was measured as an individual difference related to impression management—in the current study, desirability is measured as a property of interests). Given that people have differing perceptions of career types, it is unlikely that perceptions of interests do not differ. The current work draws on findings from personality assessment to investigate this gap.

Consequences of Subjective Characteristics

As described earlier, the characteristics of observability and desirability are particularly consequential in personality assessment. The same may hold true in interest assessment, but no work thus far has investigated these characteristics for interests. Interests that are low in observability would be difficult for parents, teachers, and mentors to detect. As a result, interest development and career exploration could be stunted, as unobserved interests are unlikely to be nurtured or engaged with interest-supporting opportunities. In addition, career awareness may be low for occupations that entail low-observable interests. Role models and parents are influential sources of career development (Etzel et al., 2019; Gibson, 2004; Hartung et al., 2005; Lent et al., 1994; Oliveira et al., 2020; Xu, 2021). If some interests are difficult to observe, individuals may not see their interests reflected in potential role models, parents, or other figures. Thus, the observability of interests could have important implications for interest development and career exploration opportunities.

Desirability is likely more consequential for interest assessment. Although earlier work has shown no relationship between social desirability and career interests (Schermer, 2019), individuals may be hesitant to express interests that are low in desirability. Conversely, interest in highly desirable activities may be exaggerated, particularly in high-stakes assessment contexts. Extensive research has examined the problem of faking in personality and interest assessment. Individuals may “fake good” to increase their chances of being hired or promoted (Garry, 1953; Goffin & Boyd, 2009; O’Neill et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2021). Among personality traits, self-reports are more biased for highly desirable or undesirable traits (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010; Vazire, 2010). The same is potentially true for interests, but there has been no systematic investigation of desirability in interests. By advancing knowledge in this area, the current work may highlight which interests are especially prone to faking and biased self-reports. In turn, this knowledge could contribute to the improved validity of interest assessments in career outcomes (Hanna & Rounds, 2020; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011).

The Present Study

Currently, little known research has measured the subjective characteristics of interests. Trait characteristics affect the accuracy of personality assessments and may have a similar impact on the assessment of career interests. Understanding which interest constructs may be susceptible to rating bias is critical for career assessment. To address this gap, the present study examines observability and desirability for person orientation, thing orientation, and RIASEC interests. Big Five traits were included as a basis of comparison, considering the extensive existing knowledge of observability and desirability in these traits. Big Five factors are only weakly related to most interest dimensions (for a meta-analysis, see Hurtado Rúa et al., 2019), making it difficult to generalize from personality characteristics to interests. Given the lack of prior research into subjective characteristics of interests, the central goal of this study was largely descriptive: How observable and desirable are interests, relative to other individual differences?

For Big Five traits, ratings were expected to replicate previous findings (e.g., Bäckström & Björklund, 2013; John & Robins, 1993) such that neuroticism is low in desirability, whereas the remaining four traits are moderate to high in desirability. Similarly, observability ratings are expected to be consistent with previous findings, with extraversion showing particularly high observability and neuroticism being low in observability (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Vazire, 2010).

For interests in people, both person orientation and the social subscale of RIASEC were expected to be relatively high in observability and desirability. Both individual differences are positively correlated with extraversion, which is a highly observable trait (r = .38 for person orientation, Woodcock et al., 2013; r = .29 for social career interest; Mount et al., 2005). Person orientation was expected to be desirable due to its association with extraversion and preliminary evidence that people rate their ideal level of person orientation to be higher than their actual level (t (182) = 5.90, p < .001, d = .44; unpublished study (McIntyre et al., 2014). Social career interests were also expected to be high in desirability, as the items entail socially acceptable occupational tasks such as “teach a high school class” and “do volunteer work at a non-profit organization” (Rounds et al., 2010).

Thing-related interests were also expected to be high in observability and desirability. Thing orientation and realistic career interests are both measured using items that refer to visible, physical actions such as “take apart and reassemble a desktop computer” and “put out forest fires.” Regarding desirability, the behaviors used to measure these constructs have practical value and are socially acceptable tasks. Additionally, people rate their ideal level of thing orientation to be higher than their actual level (t (182) = 6.49, p < .001, d = .48; unpublished study (McIntyre et al., 2014).

An exploratory manipulation was included in the desirability judgments. When assessing desirability, judges may think of traits from a general social perspective (e.g., Do most people view this trait positively?) or from a personal perspective (e.g., Do you view this trait positively?). Given the emphasis on career interests, it is likely that people view some career activities as personally undesirable yet socially desirable. For instance, raising fish in a fish hatchery (an item from the realistic scale) is an undesirable task to some people, but they may recognize that others view this task positively. To account for this nuance, participants were randomly assigned to receive desirability instructions that emphasized either general social perceptions or personal perceptions. No differences were expected between these conditions, which are analyzed on an exploratory basis.

Method¹

Participants

Participants were recruited from an introductory psychology participant pool at a large Midwestern university. The a priori target sample size was 200, which was determined by referring to similar published studies. Previous investigations of trait desirability used 88 judges (Allik et al., 2010) and 100 judges (John & Robins, 1993). These sample size precedents were doubled to provide more robust, well-powered estimates. In total, 206 participants completed the current study.

The survey included four attention checks and most participants (81.6%) successfully passed all four checks. Participants who failed two or more attention checks were excluded from all analyses (n = 13; 6.3%). The resulting final sample was 193 participants, which is sufficient to detect effect sizes of d = .20 or larger in paired-samples tests with 80% statistical power and effect sizes of d = .26 or larger with 95% power.

Participants’ characteristics were comparable to the demographic composition of the university. The average age was 19.2 (range = 18–25, SD = 1.2) and a majority of the sample was male (60.6%). The ethnic makeup was 71.0% White/Caucasian, 10.4% Asian, 7.8% Middle Eastern/Indian, 5.2% Hispanic/Latino, 4.1% Black/African American, and 1.6% multi-racial or other. Participants had diverse academic backgrounds, with 93.8% majoring in a subject outside of psychology.

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed the study in person in a computer laboratory. They were asked to judge the observability and desirability of a range of traits and interests. Judges rated each item from the 13-item person and thing orientations scale (Graziano et al., 2012), the 60-item O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form (Rounds et al., 2010), and the 44-item Big Five scale (John & Srivastava, 1999). The person and thing orientations scale has shown good internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α’s ≥ .76), cross-cultural validity, and test-retest stability across 4-week and 4-year time periods (mean r’s = .78 and .51; Woodcock et al., 2013). The O*NET Interest Profiler Short Form has shown similarly high internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α = .81), stability over time, and convergent validity with other measures of RIASEC interests (Rounds et al., 2010). The 44-item version of the Big Five also demonstrates high internal consistency (mean Cronbach’s α = .83), convergence with other measures of five-factor trait models (John & Srivastava, 1999), and test-retest stability (mean r = .84 across 6–8 weeks; Rammstedt & John, 2007).

Participants received clear instructions to rate their perceptions of the items themselves rather than responding to the items as a self-report. The scales were presented in a randomized order. Participants were also randomly assigned to answer either observability or desirability questions first to prevent judgments of one characteristic from systematically influencing the other. The survey was counterbalanced such that all participants rated both observability and desirability for all three individual difference measures.

The procedures for observability ratings were adapted from John and Robins (1993). Judges received the following instructions: “Some traits refer to behaviors that can be easily observed by an outside observer. Other traits refer to behaviors that can be observed only by the person themselves. We would like you to rate how easy or difficult it would be for an outside person to observe each item.” Each item was rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (extremely difficult to observe) to 7 (extremely easy to observe).

The procedures for desirability ratings were adapted from Allik et al. (2010). Judges received the following instructions: “Descriptors of people often contain evaluative information. […] We would like you to rate whether each item would say something desirable or undesirable about a person.” Desirability was rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (extremely undesirable) to 7 (extremely desirable).

Desirability conditions: Participants were randomly assigned to one of two desirability conditions. In the general social perceptions condition, judges were instructed to rate the items in regard to others’ approval. In the personal perceptions condition, judges were instructed to rate the items in regard to “how much you approve of them.” The full wording for these prompts is provided in the supplemental material, which is available on the Open Science Framework at osf.io/cqbhr.

Results

Reliability

Internal consistency was moderate to high for all 13 measures on both observability and desirability (see Table 1). For observability, average Cronbach’s alpha was α = .83 (range = .72–.91). For desirability, average Cronbach’s alpha was α = .81 (range = .68–.91). Reliability was comparable for the two desirability rating conditions (mean α = .81 for general social perceptions and mean α = .82 for personal perceptions). Inter-scale and intra-scale correlations for observability and desirability are displayed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Scale Reliabilities and Trait Ratings.

Measure	Observability		Desirability
Measure	α	Mean (SD)	α	Mean (SD)
Person orientation	.75	4.78 (0.95)	.71	5.08 (0.78)
Thing orientation	.83	5.13 (1.21)	.82	4.60 (1.08)
RIASEC career interests
Realistic	.90	5.00 (1.14)	.87	4.38 (0.95)
Investigative	.90	4.16 (1.22)	.86	4.96 (0.95)
Artistic	.88	5.11 (1.10)	.91	4.88 (1.10)
Social	.87	5.18 (1.00)	.87	5.20 (0.94)
Enterprising	.87	4.77 (1.06)	.85	4.69 (0.91)
Conventional	.91	4.37 (1.28)	.91	3.97 (1.12)
Big Five traits
Extraversion	.74	5.75 (0.68)	.68	4.96 (0.61)
Agreeableness	.72	5.32 (0.72)	.79	6.01 (0.63)
Conscientiousness	.76	5.53 (0.70)	.75	5.98 (0.55)
Neuroticism	.75	4.98 (0.87)	.76	2.25 (0.63)
Openness	.86	4.42 (1.03)	.80	5.31 (0.66)

Note. Ratings are on 1-to-7 scales, N = 193 judges. α = Cronbach’s alpha.

Table 2.

Observability and Desirability Scale Correlations.

Measure	1. PO	2. TO	3. R	4. I	5. A	6. S	7. E	8. C	9. E	10. A	11. C	12. N	13. O
1. Person orientation	.35	.37	.22	.28	.34	.37	.28	.23	.29	.42	.37	.35	.36
2. Thing orientation	.26	.39	.66	.44	.57	.45	.54	.49	.25	.26	.27	.16	.08
3. Realistic	.25	.59	.18	.58	.64	.66	.69	.71	.22	.17	.21	.12	.01
4. Investigative	.29	.48	.56	.35	.62	.53	.69	.55	.09	.10	.14	.11	.15
5. Artistic	.42	.30	.38	.47	.25	.65	.68	.55	.35	.34	.33	.24	.19
6. Social	.53	.19	.50	.44	.55	.38	.71	.54	.25	.27	.27	.20	.07
7. Enterprising	.36	.36	.60	.57	.47	.57	.23	.64	.28	.26	.26	.18	.08
8. Conventional	.25	.43	.78	.49	.33	.50	.65	.18	.17	.15	.21	.17	.05
9. Extraversion	.10	−.04	−.11	−.07	−.02	.10	.14	−.06	.08	.69	.73	.59	.46
10. Agreeableness	.41	.04	.08	.18	.20	.46	.17	.05	.21	.27	.79	.72	.61
11. Conscientiousness	.18	.07	.04	.23	.05	.24	.19	.07	.19	.61	.22	.69	.60
12. Neuroticism	−.16	.02	.11	−.05	.03	−.12	.06	.14	−.30	−.59	−.60	−.09	.64
13. Openness	.34	.30	.13	.39	.49	.31	.25	.13	.16	.44	.40	−.33	.23

Note. Upper triangle represents inter-scale observability correlations. Lower triangle represents inter-scale desirability correlations. Coefficients along the diagonal (bolded) are intra-scale observability-desirability correlations. Coefficients r = .15 and larger are significant at p < .05; r = .19 and larger are significant at p < .01; r = .24 and larger are significant at p < .001.

Observability

Observability judgments were averaged across judges’ ratings by item and then computed for each scale separately. For reverse-scored items (e.g., “Tends to be lazy” for conscientiousness), the non-reversed ratings were used to compute observability. Only two of the 22,581 item ratings for observability were missing. For missing responses, the scale rating was computed as an average of the remaining items.

Average observability across the 13 individual differences was M = 4.96 (SD = 1.00). Table 1 displays observability ratings for each construct. All constructs were rated significantly above the midpoint of the scale (ps < .001), with the exception of investigative interests (one-sample t (192) = 1.87 p = .063). Extraversion was rated highest in observability, whereas investigative interests were rated lowest in observability.

For ease of comparison, construct ratings are presented graphically in Figure 1. As expected, both person orientation and the social subscale of RIASEC were judged as observable. However, the social subscale was higher in observability (M = 5.18) compared to person orientation (M = 4.78), d = .37 (t (192) = 5.10, p < .001). Thing orientation and the realistic subscale were also judged highly observable. These constructs were rated similarly in observability, d = .14 (t (192) = −1.88, p = .06).

Figure 1.

Mean observability and desirability ratings for person and thing orientations, RIASEC interests, and the Big Five. N = 193 responses. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around the means.

Desirability

Desirability judgments were averaged across judges’ ratings by item and then computed for each scale separately. Reverse-scored items were properly reversed prior to computing desirability scores. Only nine of the 22,581 item ratings for observability were missing. For missing responses, the scale rating was computed as an average of the remaining items.

Average desirability across the 13 constructs was M = 4.79 (SD = 0.84). Table 1 displays desirability ratings for each construct. The least desirable trait was neuroticism, which was the only construct rated below the midpoint of the scale (M = 2.25, d = 2.80, one-sample t (192) = −38.89, p < .001). Conventional interests were neutral in desirability (M = 3.97) and did not differ from the scale midpoint, d = .02 (one-sample t (192) = −0.33, p = .742). Agreeableness was rated highest in desirability.

Consistent with expectations, both person orientation and the social subscale were high in desirability. These constructs were rated similarly desirable, d = .14 (t (192) = −1.94, p = .054). Both measures of thing-related interest were lower in desirability than person-related interests, though ratings were still above the scale midpoint. Thing orientation was significantly more desirable (M = 4.60) than the realistic subscale (M = 4.38), d = .23 (t (192) = 3.25, p = .001).

Exploratory Analyses

Desirability conditions: Some participants were asked to rate the items in reference to their personal perceptions, whereas others were asked to rate the items based on general social perceptions. Exploratory analyses were conducted to assess whether perceptions of desirability differed between conditions. In general, differences between the conditions were small, with an average mean difference of 0.11 on a 7-point scale (range = 0.01–0.32). Condition ratings for each subscale are provided in the supplemental material.

Independent samples t-tests were conducted to determine whether desirability ratings differed between the personal and social conditions. This analysis was only significant for the social subscale of RIASEC, d = .34 (t (191) = −2.35, p = .02). Participants in the personal condition rated social career interests as slightly more desirable than participants in the social condition. After Bonferroni adjustment for the number of comparisons, this result does not meet criteria for statistical significance (adjusted α = .004). Ratings of desirability did not differ by condition for the 12 remaining constructs, ds < .20 (ps > .17).

Gender: Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to examine whether men and women perceived the traits differently, collapsing across desirability conditions. Relative to men, women rated person orientation moderately more observable, d = .47 (t (191) = 3.19, p < .002). Women also rated social career interests more observable, d = .33 (t (191) = 2.23, p < .03). In addition, women judged person orientation moderately more desirable than men did, d = .46 (t (191) = 3.09, p = .002). Marginal gender differences were indicated for neuroticism (p = .07; more desirable to women) and thing orientation (p = .06; less desirable to women). Considering the large number of exploratory comparisons, these results should be interpreted with caution. After Bonferroni adjustment for the number of comparisons, most gender differences are not statistically significant (adjusted α = .002). A table displaying the mean differences in men’s and women’s ratings is included in the supplemental material.

Self-ratings: Self-report ratings of two interest dimensions were available from a participant pool pre-screen survey. The pre-screen was administered approximately 3 months before the current study and included the person orientation and thing orientation scale, but no measures of RIASEC interests or the Big Five. Pre-screen matches were available for n = 142 participants (73.6% of the sample; participants could skip the pre-screen or opt out from having their data matched).

Participants higher on self-reported person orientation judged this trait to be moderately more desirable (r (140) = .36, p < .001) and slightly more observable (r (140) = .18, p = .033). Person-oriented participants also rated the social subscale of RIASEC moderately more desirable (r (140) = .38, p < .001), but no higher in observability (r (140) = .09, p = .28).

Participants higher on self-reported thing orientation judged this trait to be moderately more desirable (r (140) = .36, p < .001), but no higher in observability (r (140) = .04, p = .65). Thing-oriented participants also rated the realistic subscale of RIASEC slightly more desirable (r (140) = .22, p = .008), but no higher in observability (r (140) = −.12, p = .17).

Discussion

This study provides novel insights into subjective perceptions of interests. Observability and desirability are known to affect the accuracy and validity of personality judgments (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010). Understanding how these characteristics relate to interests can illuminate how these constructs are judged in the self and others. As expected, most interest traits were viewed as desirable, with interests in people judged more favorably than interests in objects. Observability showed less variability across the interest constructs, yet social career interests were rated significantly more observable than person orientation. Taken together, these findings reveal notable differences in the characteristics of interest dimensions. The conclusions that may be drawn from this work, however, are constrained by the limitations of the study. While it is valuable to examine interests among college students, who are at a critical juncture of choosing their academic and occupational paths, the findings may not generalize beyond this particular group.

In addition to providing novel descriptive ratings of individual differences in interests, this work replicates existing research on characteristics of the Big Five. Consistent with previous findings, extraversion was rated as a highly visible trait, whereas neuroticism and openness were judged to be the least observable (e.g., Connelly & Ones, 2010; Vazire, 2010). Desirability ratings were also consistent with previous work (e.g., Bäckström & Björklund, 2013; Connelly & Ones, 2010; Vazire, 2010) as most Big Five traits were perceived positively, with the exception of neuroticism. The results of the present study show strong convergence with the existing literature, providing suggestive support for the validity of the novel interest ratings.

Perceptions of trait characteristics were generally consistent across groups. Twelve of the thirteen individual differences were rated similarly, regardless of whether participants were asked to consider their personal perceptions or general social perceptions. Some differences emerged between men’s and women’s ratings of the traits. Notably, significant gender differences in ratings surfaced only for interests in people, which show consistent gender differences in self-reports (Graziano et al., 2012; Lippa, 1998). This pattern suggests that participants may have rated the items in self-favoring ways, expressing more positive perceptions of individual differences that they possess themselves. Overall, gender differences were smaller in subjective trait perceptions than in typical self-report ratings.

The current study did not include self-ratings of interests, which limits the ability to examine this potential source of bias. Judges’ perceptions of how desirable and observable interests are may be shaped by their own interests or career choices. A person who works in a conventional career, for instance, is likely to view conventional interests as more desirable than someone who did not choose a conventional career. In previous work on personality, self-ratings for desirable traits appear to be more biased than self-ratings for neutral traits, as people tend to view themselves in self-favoring ways (John & Robins, 1993; Vazire, 2010). In the current study, recent self-ratings were available only for person orientation and thing orientation. The exploratory evidence from these self-ratings suggests a relationship between self-reported interests and perceptions of interests themselves. Self-ratings for both person orientation and thing orientation were moderately correlated with desirability. However, self-ratings showed little to no relationship with observability.

Together with the finding that women judged person orientation to be more desirable than men did, it is likely that self-ratings affect perceptions of interests. In interest assessment, this may be an under-considered source of rating bias. Respondents may exaggerate their interest in desirable activities or careers while downplaying their interest in undesirable activities or careers. As personality research suggests, other-ratings tend to be more valid and predictive than self-ratings for highly evaluative characteristics (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Funder, 1995; Luan et al., 2019; Vazire, 2010). If the same is true of interests, ratings by parents, peers, co-workers, or mentors may grant less biased insights into an individual’s interests (e.g., Holtrop et al., 2018; Nauta, 2012). Other-ratings may be particularly useful during interest development, when contextual influences such as perceived desirability shape the formation and expression of interests, as well as their connection with career choices (Lent et al., 1994, 2002). Further research is called for to understand how self-reported interests affect perceptions of desirability, observability, and other interest characteristics, which in turn may impact the validity of interest assessments.

In the same manner as personality traits, not all interests are “created equal.” Interests in people are judged more favorably than interest in objects and observability varies depending on the type of interest measure. These differences are meaningful from both an assessment perspective and an applied perspective. Among RIASEC interests, agreement between self-ratings and other-ratings is higher for realistic interests than for social interests (Nauta, 2012). Similarly, Holtrop et al. (2018) found stronger self-other convergence for mechanical interests than for social facilitating interests. The present work suggests that desirability may be a key moderator of this difference in convergence.

The pattern of desirability across interest domains is similar to ratings of career prestige. Social, investigative, and artistic interests were highest in desirability in the current study. The same three career types have been rated high in prestige (Deng et al., 2007; Walker & Tracey, 2012). Similarly, realistic and conventional interests were lowest in desirability, just as realistic and conventional careers are lowest in prestige. In contrast, previous work found no relationship between prestige and the People-Things dimension (Sodano & Tracey, 2008), whereas the current results show that social career interest and person orientation are more desirable than realistic interest and thing orientation. The precise relationship between career prestige and interest desirability remains an open question. Given these patterns, it is likely that interest desirability is positively related to—though not redundant with—prestige in corresponding careers.

Interest desirability may also bear on how effectively individuals are matched with a compatible career. The “hit rate” for an interest inventory describes whether the assessment accurately predicts an individual’s career choice (Hanna & Rounds, 2020). Predictions are highest for investigative, artistic, and social careers, but low (below 25%) for enterprising, realistic, and conventional careers (Hanna & Rounds, 2020). This pattern is highly similar to the desirability ratings in the current study—hit rates are highest for careers in the most desirable interest categories and lowest among the least desirable interest categories. One speculation is that people may be reluctant to express interests that are low in desirability. Of course, these career categories differ in other important ways, such as prestige, salary level, and the amount of training required (Deng et al., 2007; Ghetta et al., 2018; McClain & Reardon, 2015). Nonetheless, individuals may be more or less willing to express interests depending on their desirability, which could have downstream consequences for the predictive validity of interest assessments.

The six RIASEC subscales varied considerably in observability. Social, artistic, and realistic interests were perceived to be highly observable and involve public, interactive behaviors (e.g., “Take care of children at a day-care center”) or working with tangible objects (e.g., “Paint sets for plays”). Investigative interests were lowest in observability among all 13 individual differences. This is likely because they involve abstract, non-visible tasks such as “develop a better way to predict the weather.” Previous work has found that laypeople do not recognize investigative work environments as a distinct category (Amit & Sagiv, 2009). The current work suggests that low observability is the key reason for this discrepancy. Conventional interests, which are weakest in self-other agreement (Nauta, 2012), were also relatively low in observability. Among laypeople, conventional careers are poorly distinguished from enterprising careers (Amit & Sagiv, 2009), again suggesting that low-visibility interests lead to overlooked career environments. The findings of the current study identify potential moderators of self-other convergence and awareness of career interests that may explain patterns in prior research. Further work is needed to understand whether the subjective characteristics of career-related interests influence self-other agreement and perceptions of work environments.

The measurement of vocational interests has received considerable attention, yet the nature of interests is not fully understood. Vocational interests are valuable indicators of person-environment fit, job performance, and employee turnover (Su & Nye, 2017; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011). Interests and their expression are shaped by a multitude of factors, including sociocultural contexts and cognitive appraisals (Silvia, 2001a; Su et al., 2019). This work examined two characteristics of interest that could be consequential for assessment. The insights into observability and desirability help explain why hit rates vary across interest domains (Hanna & Rounds, 2020), why investigative careers are “missing” (Amit & Sagiv, 2009), and why self-other agreement differs across interest domains (Nauta, 2012; Holtrop et al., 2018). However, interests likely vary in other important ways that remain unstudied. This research is an early step toward more comprehensive understanding of the ways in which interests differ.

Individual differences in interests play a central role in academic and occupational choices (Holland, 1997; Stoll & Trautwein, 2017). These choices are often guided by career counselors and academic advisors, who rely heavily on self-reported interests. The present work demonstrates that interests vary in observability and desirability, which likely impacts the accuracy and utility of interest assessments. These subjective characteristics moderate agreement in personality (Connelly & Ones, 2010; John & Robins, 1993; Kenny & West, 2010) and should be taken into account when assessing interests. Future work will directly investigate self-other agreement in interests to determine whether desirability and observability play a comparable role in judgments of person- and object-related interests.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Institute for Child Development and Family Relations and the Faculty Center for Excellence at CSUSB for supporting the publication of this paper with funded writing time.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Miranda M. McIntyre

Note

References

Allik

Realo

Mõttus

Esko

Pullat

Metspalu

(2010). Variance determines self-observer agreement on the big five personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 421–426.

Amit

Sagiv

(2009). Where have the investigative occupations gone? Perceptions and misperceptions of occupations. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(2), 214–231.

Bäckström

Björklund

(2013). Social desirability in personality inventories: Symptoms, diagnosis and prescribed cure. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 152–159.

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.

Deng

C.-P.

Armstrong

P. I.

Rounds

(2007). The fit of Holland’s RIASEC model to US occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(1), 1–22.

Etzel

J. M.

Lüdtke

Wagner

Nagy

(2019). Similarity of vocational interest profiles within families: A person‐centered approach for examining associations between circumplex profiles. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 593-606.

Funder

D. C.

(1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102(4), 652–670.

Garry

(1953). Individual differences in ability to fake vocational interests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37(1), 33–37.

Ghetta

Hirschi

Herrmann

Rossier

(2018). A psychological description of the Swiss labor market from 1991 to 2014. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 77(2), 83–94.

10.

Gibson

D. E.

(2004). Role models in career development: New directions for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 134–156.

11.

Goffin

R. D.

Boyd

A. C.

(2009). Faking and personality assessment in personnel selection: Advancing models of faking. Canadian Psychology, 50(3), 151–160.

12.

Graziano

W. G.

Habashi

M. M.

Woodcock

(2011). Exploring and measuring differences in person–thing orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(1), 28–33.

13.

Graziano

W. G.

Habashi

M. M.

Evangelou

Ngambeki

(2012). Orientations and motivations: Are you a “people person,” a “thing person,” or both? Motivation and Emotion, 36(4), 465–477.

14.

Hanna

Rounds

(2020). How accurate are interest inventories? A quantitative review of career choice hit rates. Psychological Bulletin, 146(9), 765–796.

15.

Hartung

P. J.

Porfeli

E. J.

Vondracek

F. W.

(2005). Child vocational development: A review and reconsideration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66(3), 385–419.

16.

Hidi

Renninger

K. A.

(2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.

17.

Holland

J. L.

(1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35–45.

18.

Holland

J. L

(1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.

19.

Holtrop

Born

M. P.

De Vries

R. E.

(2018). Perceptions of vocational interest: Self-and other-reports in student–parent dyads. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 258–274.

20.

Hurtado Rúa

S. M.

Stead

G. B.

Poklar

A. E.

(2019). Five-factor personality traits and RIASEC interest types: A multivariate meta-analysis. Journal of Career Assessment, 27(3), 527–543.

21.

Huston

A. C.

(1985). The development of sex typing: Themes from recent research. Developmental Review, 5(1), 1–17.

22.

John

O. P.

Robins

R. W.

(1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521–551.

23.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford.

24.

Kenny

D. A.

West

T. V.

(2010). Similarity and agreement in self-and other perception: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 196–213.

25.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45(1), 79–122.

26.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2002). Social cognitive career theory. In Brown

Associate (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 255–311). Jossey-Bass.

27.

Lippa

(1998). Gender-related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people–things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 996–1009.

28.

Luan

Poorthuis

A. M. G.

Hutteman

Denissen

J. J. A.

Asendorpf

J. B.

van Aken

M. A. G.

(2019). Unique predictive power of other‐rated personality: An 18‐year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 87(3), 532-545.

29.

Masnick

A. M.

Valenti

S. S.

Cox

B. D.

Osman

C. J.

(2010). A multidimensional scaling analysis of students’ attitudes about science careers. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 653–667.

30.

McClain

M.-C.

Reardon

R. C.

(2015). The US Workforce from 1960 to 2010: A RIASEC view. The Professional Counselor, 5(1), 1–14.

31.

McIntyre

M. M.

Branch

S. E.

Woodcock

Graziano

W. G.

(2014). Person and thing orientations and self-selection of research studies . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

32.

McIntyre

M. M.

Graziano

W. G.

(2016). Seeing people, seeing things: Individual differences in selective attention. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1258–1271.

33.

Mount

M. K.

Barrick

M. R.

Scullen

S. M.

Rounds

(2005). Higher‐order dimensions of the big five personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447–478.

34.

Nauta

M. M.

(2012). Are RIASEC interests traits? Evidence based on self-other agreement. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(4), 426–439.

35.

O’Neill

T. A.

Lee

N. M.

Radan

Law

S. J.

Lewis

R. J.

Carswell

J. J.

(2013). The impact of “non-targeted traits” on personality test faking, hiring, and workplace deviance. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(2), 162–168.

36.

Oliveira

Í. M.

Porfeli

E. J.

Céu Taveira

Lee

(2020). Children’s career expectations and parents’ jobs: Intergenerational (dis) continuities. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(1), 63–77.

37.

Prediger

D. J.

(1982). Dimensions underlying Holland’s hexagon: Missing link between interests and occupations? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 21(3), 259–287.

38.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212.

39.

Renninger

K. A.

Hidi

Krapp

Renninger

(2014). The role of interest in learning and development. Psychology Press.

40.

Rounds

Lewis

Rivkin

(2010). O*NET^® interest profiler Short form psychometric characteristics. National Center for O*NET Development.

41.

Savickas

M. L.

(1995). Examining the personal meaning of inventoried interests during career counseling. Journal of Career Assessment, 3(2), 188–201.

42.

Schermer

J. A.

(2019). The Jackson career explorer: Correlates with self-monitoring and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 122(4), 1516–1528.

43.

Silvia

P. J.

(2001a). Expressed and measured vocational interests: Distinctions and definitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 382–393.

44.

Silvia

P. J.

(2001b). Interest and interests: The psychology of constructive capriciousness. Review of General Psychology, 5(3), 270–290.

45.

Sodano

S. M.

Tracey

T. J. G.

(2008). Prestige in interest activity assessment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(2), 310–317.

46.

Stoll

Trautwein

(2017). Vocational interests as personality traits. In Specht

(Ed.), Personality development across the Lifespan (pp. 401–417). Elsevier Academic Press.

47.

Nye

C. D.

(2017). Interests and person-environment fit: A new perspective on workforce readiness and success. In Burrus

Mattern

K. D.

Naemi

B. D.

Roberts

R. D.

(Eds.), Building better students: Preparation for the workforce (pp. 177–206). Oxford University Press.

48.

Stoll

Rounds

(2019). The nature of interests: Toward a unifying theory of trait-state interest dynamics. In Nye

C. D.

James

(Eds.), Vocational interests in the workplace (pp. 11–38). Routledge.

49.

Sun

Zhang

Cao

Drasgow

(2021). Faking detection improved: Adopting a likert item response process tree model. Organizational Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281211002904.

50.

Tang

Pan

Newmeyer

M. D.

(2008). Factors influencing high school students’ career aspirations. Professional School Counseling, 11(5), 285–295.

51.

Tay

Rounds

(2011). People–things and data–ideas: Bipolar dimensions? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 424–440.

52.

Tracey

T. J. G.

Rounds

(1996). The spherical representation of vocational interests. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(1), 3–41.

53.

Van Iddekinge

C. H.

Roth

P. L.

Putka

D. J.

Lanivich

S. E.

(2011). Are you interested? A meta-analysis of relations between vocational interests and employee performance and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1167–1194.

54.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 281–300.

55.

Walker

T. L.

Tracey

T. J. G.

(2012). Perceptions of occupational prestige: Differences between African American and white college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 76–81.

56.

Weisgram

E. S.

Bigler

R. S.

Liben

L. S.

(2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81(3), 778–796.

57.

Woodcock

Graziano

W. G.

Branch

S. E.

Habashi

M. M.

Ngambeki

Evangelou

(2013). Person and thing orientation: Psychological correlates and predictive utility. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(1), 117–125.

58.

(2021). Childhood environmental adversity and career decision-making difficulty: A life history theory perspective. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(2), 221–238.

59.

Yang

Barth

J. M.

(2015). Gender differences in STEM undergraduates’ vocational interests: People–thing orientation and goal affordances. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 91, 65-75.

Judging What Others Enjoy: Desirability and Observability of Interests

Abstract

Keywords

Individual Differences in Interest

Subjective Trait Characteristics

Consequences of Subjective Characteristics

The Present Study

Method 1

Participants

Materials and Procedure

Results

Reliability

Observability

Desirability

Exploratory Analyses

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Note

References

Method¹