The Effect of Information Quantity on Distinctive Accuracy and Normativity of Personality Trait Judgments

Abstract

Information quantity is an important moderator of personality judgment accuracy. Some evidence suggests that the amount of available information is positively related to accuracy. The current study utilized the social accuracy model to investigate the effects of differences in thin slices of information quantity on the distinctive accuracy and normativity of personality trait judgments. It was hypothesized that distinctive accuracy and normativity would increase as information quantity increased. Participants were 431 individuals who participated in an online study that varied the length of stimulus target observations (30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, and 5 minutes), after which judges rated targets using other–report measures of the Big Five personality traits. For all traits combined, significant levels of accuracy were found for all observation lengths, but distinctive accuracy and normativity did not increase as video length increased. Findings varied for individual traits. For distinctive accuracy, there was a linear increase with information quantity for Extraversion and a non–linear relationship for Conscientiousness, while there was a linear decrease for Openness. For normativity, there was a linear increase with information quantity for Agreeableness and a non–linear relationship for Conscientiousness. There are important differences in how observation length affects distinctive accuracy and normativity for different personality traits. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

personality judgment accuracy information quantity social accuracy model distinctive accuracy normativity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allik

, Borkenau

, Hrebícková

, Kuppens

, & Realo

(2015). How are personality trait and profile agreement related? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–11 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00785.

Ambady

, & Rosenthal

(1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.111.2.256.

Beer

(in press). Information as a moderator of accuracy in personality judgment. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Beer

, & Watson

(2010). The effects of information and exposure on self–other agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 38–45 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.10.002.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885 https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.519262.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2018). Interpersonal perception models. In Zeigler–Hill

, & Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences Volume I: The Science of Personality and Individual Differences. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451163.n24.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2019). The social accuracy model. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Chapter in preparation.

Biesanz

J. C.

, & Human

L. J.

(2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy–motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589–594 https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364121.

Biesanz

J. C.

, & West

S. G.

(2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self–other profile agreement and profile consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 425–437 https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–3514.79.3.425.

10.

Biesanz

J. C.

, West

S. G.

, & Millevoi

(2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self–other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 119–135 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.92.1.119.

11.

Blackman

M. C.

, & Funder

D. C.

(1998). The effect of information on consensus and accuracy in personality judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 164–181 https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1997.1347.

12.

Block

, & Kremen

A. M.

(1996). IQ and ego–resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 349–361 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.70.2.349.

13.

Borkenau

, Brecke

, Möttig

, & Paelecke

(2009). Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50–ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 703–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.03.007.

14.

Borkenau

, & Liebler

(1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.62.4.645.

15.

Borkenau

, Mauer

, Riemann

, Spinath

F. M.

, & Angleitner

(2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.4.599.

16.

Brown

J. A.

, & Bernieri

(2017). Trait perception accuracy and acquaintance within groups: Tracking accuracy development. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 716–728 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695557.

17.

Carney

D. R.

, Colvin

C. R.

, & Hall

J. A.

(2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004.

18.

Clifford

, & Jerit

(2014). Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 120–131 https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.5.

19.

Colman

D. E.

(in press). Characteristics of the judge that are related to accuracy of personality trait judgments. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Colman

D. E.

, Letzring

T. D.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2017). Seeing and feeling your way to accurate personality judgments: The moderating role of perceiver empathic tendencies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 806–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617691097.

21.

Colvin

C. R.

(1993). “Judgable” people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 861–873 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.64.5.861.

22.

Colvin

C. R.

, & Funder

D. C.

(1991). Predicting personality and behavior: A boundary on the acquaintanceship effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 884–894 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.60.6.884.

23.

Connelly

B. S.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta–analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.

24.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity”. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957.

25.

Crump

M. J.

, McDonnell

J. V.

, & Gureckis

T. M.

(2013). Evaluating Amazon's Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS ONE, 8, e57410 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.

26.

Davis

M. H.

(1980). Individual differences in empathy: A multidimensional approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3480.

27.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.44.1.113.

28.

Diener

, Emmons

R. A.

, Larsen

R. J.

, & Griffin

(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

29.

Faul

, Erdfelder

, Lang

, & Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

30.

Funder

D. C.

(1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.102.4.652.

31.

Funder

D. C.

(1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

32.

Funder

D. C.

, & Colvin

C. R.

(1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149–158 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.55.1.149.

33.

Funder

D. C.

, & Dobroth

K. M.

(1987). Differences between traits: Properties associated with interjudge agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 409–418 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.52.2.409.

34.

Furr

R. M.

(2008). Framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.2008.00521.x.

35.

Goldberg

L. R.

(1999). A broad–bandwidth, public–domain, personality inventory measuring the lower–level facets of several five–factor models. In Mervielde

, Deary

, De Fruyt

, & Ostendorf

(Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe, Vol. 7 (pp. 7–28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

36.

Gosling

S. D.

, Ko

S. J.

, Mannarelli

, & Morris

M. E.

(2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 379–398. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–3514.82.3.379.

37.

Hall

J. A.

, Back

M. D.

, Nestler

, Frauendorfer

, Schmid Mast

, & Ruben

M. A.

(2018). How do different ways of measuring individual difference in zero–acquaintance personality judgment accuracy correlate with each other? Journal of Personality, 86, 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12307.

38.

Hauser

D. J.

, & Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–015–0578–z.

39.

Hollander

E. P.

(1956). The friendship factor in peer nominations. Personnel Psychology, 9, 435–447 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.1956.tb01078.x.

40.

Hox

J. J.

(2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications ( Marcoulides

G. A.

Ed. 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203852279.

41.

Human

L. J.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2011). Target adjustment and self–other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self–knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 202–216 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023782.

42.

Human

L. J.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 248–272 https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313495593.

43.

Human

L. J.

, Jackson

J. J.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2008, February). How do impressions change over time? Length of exposure and changes in differential and stereotype accuracy. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Albuquerque, NM.

44.

IPIP NEO–PI domains. (n.d.). International personality item pool: A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences (<http://ipip.ori.org/>). Internet Web Site.

45.

John

O. P.

, Hampson

S. E.

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(1991). The basic level in personality–trait hierarchies: Studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.60.3.348.

46.

John

O. P.

, Naumann

L. P.

, & Soto

C. J.

(2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In John

O. P.

, Robins

R. W.

, & Pervin

L. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

47.

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, 521–551 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1993.tb00781.x.

48.

Kenny

D. A.

(1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98, 155–163 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–295X.98.2.155.

49.

Kenny

D. A.

(2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_3.

50.

Kenny

D. A.

, Albright

, Malloy

T. E.

, & Kashy

D. A.

(1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the Big Five. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 245–258 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033–2909.116.2.245.

51.

Klonsky

E. D.

, Oltmanns

T. F.

, & Turkheimer

(2002). Informant reports of personality disorder: Relation to self–reports and future research directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 300–311 https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/9.3.300.

52.

Kolar

D. W.

(1996). Individual differences in the ability to accurately judge the personality characteristics of others. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA.

53.

Krzyzaniak

S. L.

, & Letzring

T. D.

(in press). Characteristics of traits that are related to accuracy of personality judgments. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

54.

Kurtz

J. E.

, & Sherker

J. L.

(2003). Relationship quality, trait similarity, and self–other agreement on personality ratings in college roommates. Journal of Personality, 71, 21–48 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467–6494.t01–1–00005.

55.

Leising

, Erbs

, & Fritz

(2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 668–682 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018771.

56.

Letzring

T. D.

(2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observer accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 914–932 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.003.

57.

Letzring

T. D.

(2015). Observer judgmental accuracy of personality: Benefits related to being a good (normative) judge. Journal of Research in Personality, 54, 51–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.001.

58.

Letzring

T. D.

, & Colman

D. E.

(2018). The Idaho Test of Accurate Person Perception (ITAPP): Preliminary results from the creation of a standardized measure of individual differences in the accuracy of perceiving others. Manuscript under revision.

59.

Letzring

T. D.

, & Funder

D. C.

(2018). Interpersonal accuracy in trait judgments. In Zeigler–Hill

& Shackelford

T. K.

(eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality and individual difference (volume 3: Applications of personality and individual differences). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526451248.n11

60.

Letzring

T. D.

, & Funder

D. C.

(in press). The realistic accuracy model. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

61.

Letzring

T. D.

, & Human

L. J.

(2014). An examination of information quality as a moderator of accurate personality judgment. Journal of Personality, 82, 440–451 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12075.

62.

Letzring

T. D.

, Wells

S. M.

, & Funder

D. C.

(2006). Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 111–123 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.91.1.111.

63.

Lyubomirsky

, & Lepper

H. S.

(1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46, 137–155 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041.

64.

Marshall

M. A.

, & Brown

J. D.

(2006). Trait aggressiveness and situational provocation: A test of the Traits as Social Sensitivities (TASS) model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1100–1113 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206288488.

65.

Mignault

, & Human

L. J.

(in press). The good targets of personality judgments. In Letzring

T. D.

, & Spain

J. S.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

66.

Naumann

L. P.

, Vazire

, Rentfrow

P. J.

, & Gosling

S. D.

(2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661–1671 https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346309.

67.

Park

, Kraus

, & Ryan

C. S.

(1997). Longitudinal changes in consensus as a function of acquaintance and agreement in liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 604–616 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.72.3.604.

68.

Paulhus

D. L.

, & Reynolds

(1995). Enhancing target variance in personality impressions: Highlighting the person in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1233–1242 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.69.6.1233.

69.

Rogers

K. H.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2014). The accuracy and bias of interpersonal perceptions in intergroup interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 918–926 https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614537307.

70.

Rogers

K. H.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2015). Knowing versus liking: Separating normative knowledge from social desirability in first impressions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1105–1116 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039587.

71.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

, & Perugini

(2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.

72.

Simmons

, Nelson

, & Simonsohn

(2012). A 21 word solution. The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 4–7 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588.

73.

Simons

D. J.

, Shouda

, & Lindsay

S. D.

(2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): a proposed addition to all emperical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630.

74.

Snyder

, & Ickes

(1985). Personality and social behavior. In Lindzey

, & Aronson

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Vol. II (3rd ed., pp. 883–947). New York, NY: Random House.

75.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908.

76.

Vogt

D. S.

, & Colvin

C. R.

(2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 267–295.

77.

Watson

, Clark

L. A.

, & Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.54.6.1063.

78.

Wiggins

J. S.

, Trapnell

, & Phillips

(1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS–R). Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 517–530 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2304_8.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.64 MB

0.13 MB

0.18 MB

0.36 MB

0.01 MB