Blind at First Sight: The Role of Distinctively Accurate and Positive First Impressions in Romantic Interest

Abstract

Viewing other people with distinctive accuracy—the degree to which personality impressions correspond with targets’ unique characteristics—often predicts positive interpersonal experiences, including liking and relationship satisfaction. Does this hold in the context of first dates, or might distinctive accuracy have negative links with romantic interest in such evaluative settings? We examined this question using two speed-dating samples (Sample 1: N = 172, N = 2,407 dyads; Sample 2: N = 397, N = 1,849 dyads). Not surprisingly, positive impressions of potential dating partners were strongly associated with greater romantic interest. In contrast, distinctively accurate impressions were associated with significantly less romantic interest. This association was even stronger for potential partners whose personalities were less romantically appealing, specifically, those lower in extraversion. In sum, on a first date, distinctive accuracy tends to be paired with lower romantic interest. The potential implications of distinctive accuracy for romantic interest and of romantic interest for distinctive accuracy are discussed.

Keywords

distinctive accuracy positivity first impressions speed dating attraction extraversion open data open materials

Forming a positive impression of a first date’s personality should promote romantic interest, but is it also important to be distinctively accurate—to understand what makes a person different from the average person? That is, does romantic interest start by using only rose-colored glasses, or is a magnifying glass necessary, too? Positivity and accuracy in perceiving other people’s characteristics can be independent of one another (e.g., Gagné & Lydon, 2004), and both can benefit relationships among platonic new acquaintances (e.g., Human, Carlson, Geukes, Nestler, & Back, 2020) and romantic partners (e.g., Neff & Karney, 2005). First dates, however, present a unique social context, in which positive impressions are likely especially important in determining interest, making it unclear whether distinctive accuracy would matter and, if it does, whether it would help or hinder. Simultaneously, romantic interest could influence distinctive accuracy on first dates, but it is unclear whether greater interest would spark attention and greater distinctive accuracy or whether it could be a distraction, leading to rosy but less distinctively accurate impressions. In two large-scale speed-dating studies (Sample 1: N = 172, N = 2,407 dyads; Sample 2: N = 397, N = 1,849 dyads), we examined whether distinctive accuracy was linked to romantic interest on first dates.

Distinctive Accuracy Predicting Romantic Interest

Prior research in other contexts suggests that distinctive accuracy may be interpersonally beneficial. Specifically, among new classmates, greater distinctive accuracy has been linked to greater interaction (Human, Sandstrom, Biesanz, & Dunn, 2013) as well as greater liking over time (Human et al., 2020; Human et al., 2013). Additionally, wives’ specific accuracy was associated with a lower likelihood of divorce among newlyweds (Neff & Karney, 2005). Thus, viewing a first date’s personality with distinctive accuracy may similarly increase romantic interest. Perhaps greater distinctive accuracy promotes a subjective sense that the person is easy to understand (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004) and is more familiar (Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2011), which are both linked to greater attraction. Thus, if distinctively accurate first impressions promote immediate subjective knowing, they may foster romantic interest.

Conversely, accurately perceiving a first date’s unique characteristics could hinder romantic interest. Greater familiarity, particularly when indexed as more knowledge about a person (vs. time spent together), can decrease attraction, including in dating contexts (Norton, Frost, & Ariely, 2007). Access to greater information—which distinctive accuracy might afford—could give people more opportunities to find characteristics they do not like. Importantly, because dating activates a more evaluative mind-set (focusing more on ruling people out than in; Rosenbaum, 1986), this could even apply to neutral or positive characteristics. For example, although being organized is a relatively benign characteristic, it might be interpreted more negatively in this context, such as being “rigid.” Furthermore, because of high self-presentational demands, if targets behave in ways that diverge from first-date norms, this could enable more distinctively accurate impressions yet simultaneously reduce romantic interest. For example, although high self-disclosure may enhance distinctive accuracy, it may be off-putting on a first date, when sharing very personal information could undermine interest.

In contrast, lower distinctive accuracy may limit such negative interpretations because perceivers may withhold judgment when less certain. Furthermore, inaccuracy about other people’s unique characteristics might even promote interest, given the potential “pleasures of uncertainty” (Whitchurch, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2011, p. 172). Specifically, if lower distinctive accuracy results in greater uncertainty, perceivers may think more about difficult-to-read targets when judging their personalities, thus promoting romantic interest.

Romantic Interest Predicting Distinctive Accuracy

Romantic interest could also influence distinctive accuracy on first dates. According to the realistic-accuracy model (Funder, 1995), perceivers must detect and appropriately use targets’ cues. Romantic interest may enhance distinctive accuracy by increasing attention and motivation, which have been linked to forming more accurate first impressions (e.g., Biesanz & Human, 2010). Indeed, greater subjective attractiveness (Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010) and manipulated liking (Zimmermann, Schindler, Klaus, & Leising, 2018) are associated with greater distinctive accuracy. However, greater liking is also associated with lower distinctive accuracy (Wessels, Zimmermann, Biesanz, & Leising, 2020), potentially because liking may reduce deliberate processing (Zimmermann et al., 2018). This may be especially relevant on first dates, when greater romantic interest could enhance the motivation to view a date’s personality positively, reducing deliberation. Moreover, greater romantic interest may distract perceivers, increasing self-focus and decreasing attention to targets, thereby hindering distinctive accuracy.

The Moderating Role of Target Extraversion

The links between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest may partly depend on characteristics of targets, specifically, the desirability of their personalities. Indeed, one factor that may contribute to the negative link between familiarity and attraction is the appeal of a target’s qualities (Finkel et al., 2015). On first dates, a highly desirable personality trait is extraversion (Joel, Eastwick, & Finkel, 2017). In the presence of such a desirable quality, more information about a person may not necessarily be harmful, because it may be difficult to maintain a highly critical mind-set. Thus, extraverts may be romantically appealing whether or not they are perceived with distinctive accuracy. In contrast, for introverts, it may be beneficial to maintain some mystery. Therefore, distinctive accuracy may be more detrimental and inaccuracy more beneficial for people low in extraversion.

Extraversion could also play a moderating role if romantic interest influences distinctive accuracy, because extraversion is associated with being viewed more accurately (e.g., Colvin, 1993). If greater romantic interest aids distinctive accuracy, it could do so more strongly for extraverted targets, who may provide more or better information. Conversely, if romantic interest hurts distinctive accuracy because it hinders attention, interacting with people low in extraversion could be especially detrimental because more attention would be needed to detect relevant cues and achieve distinctive accuracy.

The Current Studies

Across two speed-dating studies (Sample 1: N = 172, N = 2,407 dyads; Sample 2: N = 397, N = 1,849 dyads), we examined whether distinctive accuracy was related to romantic interest, independently of positive personality impressions. Although we cannot speak to the direction of the associations, we sought to determine the valence of the link between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest in this high-stakes getting-acquainted context. Further, we examined whether the association between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest depended on targets’ personalities—specifically, their levels of extraversion.

Method

Overview

We examined the links between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest in two independent speed-dating studies conducted in two different laboratories. None of the analyses in the current studies was preregistered: Sample 1 was originally planned as a first exploratory study to test our research question, and Sample 2 was not originally designed to address this specific question.

Both samples had sufficient power to address the primary question of whether distinctive accuracy was associated with romantic interest. Specifically, using the fabs package for R (https://github.com/jbiesanz/fabs.git), we computed expected power on the basis of past work that found a medium concurrent effect size between liking and distinctive accuracy in first impressions (d = 0.46, n = 107; Human & Biesanz, 2011; for more discussion of expected power, see McShane & Böckenholt, 2016). Taking into account the uncertainty of this effect estimate, we determined the expected power to be .85 in Sample 1 and .95 in Sample 2.

Deidentified data and codebooks for both samples, along with the data-analysis scripts, are posted on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at https://osf.io/pm7v9/. We report all data exclusions, analyses conducted, and variables related to the present research questions. In addition, we provide data and code for a third archival data set, which we examined prior to the two samples presented here as part of the preliminary analyses (while Sample 1 data were being collected and before the lead authors were aware of Sample 2). Although this archival data set consisted of a smaller sample (N = 81), a smaller set of personality-impression items (n = 5), and a different distinctive-accuracy validation measure (consensus), it resulted in a very similar pattern of results (for details, see the Supplemental Material available online).

In both primary samples, participants had a series of brief dates with 4 to 18 opposite-sex participants with whom they were previously unacquainted, rated each other’s personalities, and reported their romantic interest. We defined distinctive accuracy using Funder’s (1995) realistic-accuracy approach as the extent to which a perceiver’s impression mapped onto a realistic indicator of what the target is like, in this case the target’s own self-report. We took a profile-agreement approach (see Back & Nestler, 2016), which allowed us to examine two contributing factors to overall agreement: distinctive accuracy and normative accuracy (Biesanz, 2010; Cronbach, 1955; Furr, 2008). Distinctive accuracy reflects the degree to which a personality impression corresponds with the target’s unique characteristics, or how they differ from the average profile (e.g., Harry is more creative than kind, whereas most people are more kind than creative). Of note, although distinctive accuracy refers to understanding what is unique about a person, it does not necessarily imply viewing a person negatively. This is because the substance of a personality judgment can be independent of the evaluation of that judgment (Leising, Scherbaum, Locke, & Zimmermann, 2015). For example, Sally might rate Joe as more kind than hostile, in part because Joe actually showed more behaviors indicative of kindness than hostility (distinctive substance) and in part because she likes him and describing a target as being kind but not hostile is a way of expressing that attitude (evaluation). Thus, in the present work, distinctive accuracy reflects the distinctive substance of an impression—the extent to which the impression is predicted by the specific target’s actual (self-reported) qualities.

Normative accuracy indicates the degree to which a personality impression aligns with how a person is similar to people in general (e.g., people are, on average, more kind than hostile). On average, viewing other people as similar to the normative profile can enhance accuracy because people will, on average, be similar to the normative profile. For this reason, normative accuracy has also been considered a contributor to the substance of a judgment because it is based on what most people are actually like (Wessels et al., 2020). Therefore, we also examined whether normative accuracy is associated with romantic interest. However, even if a person accurately perceives how a target is similar to the normative profile, it remains unclear whether this accuracy was achieved because the perceiver accurately judged the target’s normativity or because the perceiver simply applied normative information and the target happened to be normative. For this reason, in the current studies, we chose distinctive accuracy as our primary indicator of accuracy because it is highly unlikely that a perceiver would accurately detect what makes a target different from the average person by chance. Further, there is a strong link between the average personality profile and social desirability, termed the normative-desirability confound (for a review, see Wood & Furr, 2016), which can make it difficult to determine whether normative accuracy is driven more by substance or evaluation. To address this issue, we separated normative accuracy and social desirability by including a separate indicator of the positivity of impressions, in line with other recent work (Rogers & Biesanz, 2015; Wessels et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2018). In Sample 1, we assessed positivity by including the average social-desirability ratings of each personality item completed by a separate set of coders from the same population (N = 30). In Sample 2, we assessed positivity by including the average ideal-partner trait ratings completed by the participants in this study. In sum, we examined the extent to which forming distinctively accurate first impressions was associated with romantic interest, above and beyond the role of forming normatively accurate and positive first impressions, which can both be independent of distinctive accuracy (Gagné & Lydon, 2004; Human & Biesanz, 2011).

Participants

Participants were recruited from McGill University (Sample 1: N = 172, 54.07% female, N = 2,407 dyads; age: M = 21.39 years, SD = 2.56) and the University of Münster (Sample 2: N = 397, 50.38% female, N = 1,849 dyads; age: M = 22.83 years, SD = 2.60). In each sample, participants took part in a speed-dating event (Sample 1: 6 events, mean n = 28.67; Sample 2: 42 events, mean n = 9.43). Follow-up data were also collected in each sample 2 weeks (Sample 1) and 10 days (Sample 2) after the event. However, the sample sizes (Sample 1: n = 138; Sample 2: n = 92) and rates of postevent interactions (Sample 1: n = 79 dyads; Sample 2: n = 103 dyads) were too low for us to adequately examine longitudinal associations between distinctive accuracy and liking; we therefore focus on concurrent associations in the current article.

For both samples, participants were required to be interested in the opposite sex and single. For Sample 1, although there was no specific age restriction, participants were scheduled for events in which the age range did not exceed 6 years. Participants were compensated $20. The participant age range for Sample 2 was between 18 and 28 years, and the opportunity to meet a romantic partner was their compensation. Fifty-one dyads were excluded from analyses in Sample 1 because they were previously acquainted, and the ratings by 1 male participant of the majority of his dates (16 female participants) were excluded because of errors in recording partner IDs. In Sample 2, 27 dyads were excluded because they were previously acquainted, and 3 participants withdrew from the study and requested that their data be deleted.

An independent set of coders (30 undergraduate research assistants at McGill University) rated the degree of social desirability for each of the personality items used in Sample 1.

Procedure

Prior to attending the speed-dating event, participants from both samples completed a preevent questionnaire that included self-reported personality items and, in Sample 2, ideal-partner items. In both samples, additional measures were included in both the preevent and event questionnaires for separate research purposes (for additional procedure details for Samples 1 and 2, see https://osf.io/pm7v9/). All events involved participants meeting one on one with all opposite-sex participants for a 3-min, unstructured interaction. After each date, participants rated their partner’s personality, romantic interest, and physical attractiveness and indicated whether they would like to share their contact information. The events for Sample 1 were held at an on-campus bar, whereas participants in Sample 2 met in a private room in the researchers’ lab. Additionally, in Sample 1, the women remained seated while the men rotated seats with each interaction, and in Sample 2, a female participant was seated in the private room first and then joined by the male participant.

Materials

Personality ratings and accuracy validity measures

Sample 1

At the speed-dating event, self- and other-ratings of personality were assessed using the 10-item version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; Rammstedt & John, 2007). To assess intelligence, we included 2 additional items: “is bright” and “is intelligent.” These 12 items were all rated on a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Distinctive accuracy was defined as distinctive self–other agreement, the extent to which perceiver ratings corresponded with the target’s unique self-reported personality profile. Normative accuracy was defined as the extent to which perceiver impressions of a specific target corresponded to the mean self-report, on average, across all targets. Lastly, positivity reflected the correspondence between perceiver impressions of a specific target and the average socially desirable personality profile as rated by separate coders. For means and standard deviations for each personality item for each sample, see Table S2 in the Supplemental Material, and for how perceiver ratings on each item directly relate to perceiver romantic interest, see Table S3 in the Supplemental Material.

Sample 2

In the preevent questionnaire, participants provided self-ratings and ideal-partner ratings of personality on 26 items. Using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), participants rated the degree to which a certain characteristic described themselves and their ideal partner. Example items included “assertive” and “entertaining/humorous.” At the speed-dating event, participants were asked to use the same 26 items when rating their dates. As in Sample 1, distinctive accuracy was defined as self–other agreement, and for normative accuracy, we used the mean self-report as the normative profile indicator. However, in this sample, positivity reflected the extent to which perceiver impressions corresponded with the average ideal-partner personality profile as rated by participants.

Target extraversion

To assess target personality traits, we had participants in both samples complete self-ratings of personality in a preevent questionnaire that were generally distinct from the self-ratings used for the accuracy criteria. The 44-item version of the BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999) was used in Sample 1, and the 15-item version of the BFI Socio-Economic Panel (BFI-SOEP; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005) and 2 additional items of agreeableness selected from the 10-item version of the BFI (Rammstedt & John, 2007) were used in Sample 2. In both samples, participants responded using a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly/do not agree at all) to 7 (agree strongly/agree completely). We focused on extraversion (Sample 1: M = 4.43, SD = 1.07; Sample 2: M = 4.84, SD = 1.24) given its known links with romantic attraction (Joel et al., 2017), but we report the results for all Big Five traits in the Supplemental Material.

Primary outcome: romantic interest

Sample 1

After each date, using a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), participants rated how much they liked their dating partner, whether they were romantically interested, and the degree to which they found their date engaging. All three items were standardized and then combined to create a composite score of romantic interest. Cronbach’s alpha was computed across all unique perceiver–target pairs (α = .89; see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for the Romantic-Interest and Physical-Attractiveness Variables

Sample and item	M	SD
Romantic-interest indicator
Sample 1
Likeable	4.64	1.31
Romantic interest	3.19	1.51
Engaging	5.08	1.29
Sample 2
Romantically appealing	3.44	1.77
Good fit	3.12	1.57
Likable	5.06	1.29
Interesting	4.37	1.60
Would go on another date	3.28	2.05
Want to get to know better	3.69	1.98
Physical-attractiveness indicator
Sample 1
Physical attractiveness	4.45	1.47
Sample 2
Good-looking	4.19	1.56
Sexy	3.63	1.63
Attractive voice	4.46	1.44
Appealing clothes and hairstyle	4.37	1.53
Smells good	4.39	0.95
Age I would wish my partner to be	4.31	1.73
Appealing movements and body posture	4.27	1.33
Well-groomed appearance	5.26	1.17
Suitable height	4.78	1.53

Note: In both samples, all romantic-interest and physical-attractiveness variables were assessed with a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly or do not agree at all) to 7 (agree strongly, agree completely, or very).

Sample 2

Participants provided ratings on six items indicating romantic interest (e.g., “I think this person is romantically appealing”), all rated on a scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (agree completely; see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). As in Sample 1, these items were combined to create a romantic-interest composite item (α = .94).

Additional romantic-interest indicators

Participants also rated each other’s physical attractiveness, which we examined as both an additional outcome and a control variable, and on their willingness to share contact information, which we examined as a more behavioral outcome measure.

Physical attractiveness

In Sample 1, participants used a scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) to indicate whether they found their date physically attractive. In Sample 2, a composite score of physical attractiveness was created using participant ratings on nine items (α = .90). An example item included rating whether the date “is sexy” on a scale ranging from 1 (do not agree at all) to 7 (agree completely; see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).¹

Desire to contact

Participants indicated whether they wanted to share contact information with their date (Sample 1: 48%; Sample 2: 43%) as a more behavioral indicator of romantic interest.

Analytic approach

We examined the accuracy and positivity of first impressions in line with the social-accuracy-modeling procedures outlined by Biesanz (2010), using the lme4 multilevel-modeling package for R (Bates, Mächler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015). All data and R code needed to recreate analyses are provided on the OSF (https://osf.io/pm7v9/). In both samples, we examined a multilevel regression model in which, at Level 1, perceiver impressions on each item were predicted from (a) the distinctive-accuracy criterion for each item (target self-reports), (b) the normative-accuracy criterion for each item (mean target self-reports), and (c) the positivity criterion (social-desirability ratings in Sample 1 and ideal-partner ratings in Sample 2). Prior to conducting the analyses, we first subtracted the normative means from the distinctive-accuracy criterion to ensure that both the normative- and distinctive-accuracy predictors were orthogonal (see Biesanz, 2010). This centering approach also enabled the interpretation of normative accuracy as accuracy because it reflected the extent to which a perceiver’s impressions corresponded to the normative mean when the target’s self-report was held constant at that mean or matched the average personality profile (Biesanz, in press). Conversely, if we kept the raw target self-report as the distinctive-accuracy criterion, the normative-accuracy indicator would tell us the relationship between the normative profile and perceiver’s impressions with the target’s actual personality (and therefore normativeness) partialed out. In other words, it would tell us whether Harry was seen more or less normatively than he really is, thereby reflecting more of a bias than accuracy. Thus, by first centering the distinctive-accuracy criterion with the average personality profile, we could attribute any overlap between Harry’s personality and the average person to the normative profile, thereby indicating the extent to which Harry’s normativeness is accurately perceived.

To illustrate the model more concretely, if the average person is a 4.2 on creative and a 5.6 on kind, and Harry reports being a 5 on creative and a 4 on kind, and Joe reports being a 4 on creative and a 6 on kind, the distinctive criteria for Harry would be 0.8 for creative and −1.6 for kind, and for Joe, it would be −0.2 for creative and 0.4 for kind. For both Harry and Joe, the mean self-reports, 4.2 and 5.6, on creative and kind would be the normative validity criteria. Similarly, for both Harry and Joe, if the mean social-desirability or ideal-partner rating for creative was 5 and for kind it was 6.5, these would be included as additional predictors. All of these values—the distinctive, normative, and positivity criteria—would then be used as simultaneous predictors of Sally’s ratings of Harry and Joe on creative (5 and 3, respectively) and kind (3 and 6, respectively) to assess distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, and positivity, respectively. Before the analyses were conducted, all variables were also grand-mean centered.

In both models, intercepts and distinctive-accuracy, normative-accuracy, and positivity slopes were allowed to vary randomly by perceivers, targets, and dyads. Occasionally, a random intercept was dropped if the variance was so low that it created convergence issues. Additionally, we performed optimizer checks and included an appropriate optimizer (bound optimization by quadratic approximation, or BOBYQA) in all subsequent models to further reduce issues of convergence (Powell, 2009, pp. 26–46). All results reported below held with the inclusion of the optimizer.

The full model was as follows:

Y_{p t i} = β_{0 p t} + β_{1 p t} T {Self}_{t i} + β_{2 p t} {SMean}_{i} + β_{3 p t} {PosMean}_{i} + ε_{p t i}

β_{0 p t} = β_{00} + u_{0 p} + u_{0 t} + u_{0 p t}

β_{1 p t} = β_{10} + u_{1 p} + u_{1 t} + u_{1 p t}

β_{2 p t} = β_{20} + u_{2 p} + u_{2 t} + u_{2 p t}

β_{3 p t} = β_{30} + u_{3 p} + u_{3 t} + u_{3 p t}

Here, Y_pti is perceiver p’s rating of target t on item i. T Self_ti is target t’s personality validation measure (the target’s self-report) on item i after grand-mean centering within item (subtracting the normative profile). Therefore, β_1pt is the regression coefficient for the distinctive-accuracy slope: the association between target t’s distinctive self-report on item i predicting perceiver p’s rating of target t on the same item i. β_2pt is the regression coefficient for the normative-accuracy slope: the relationship between the mean target self-report for item i predicting perceiver p’s rating of the same item i. Finally, PosMean_i is either the average social-desirability rating (Sample 1) or the average ideal-partner rating (Sample 2) on item i across all perceivers. Thus, β_3pt is the regression coefficient for the positivity slope: the association between either the social-desirability rating or the ideal-partner rating on item i predicting perceiver p’s rating of target i on that item. The average levels of distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, and positivity are reflected by β₁₀, β₂₀, and β₃₀, respectively. The distinctive-accuracy random effects, for example, or reliable variation due to perceivers, targets, and dyads around mean distinctive-accuracy levels, are represented by u_1p, u_1t, and u_1pt, respectively.

To examine the role of romantic interest in each of these impression components, we included romantic interest as a predictor of each slope at Level 2 of the model. To illustrate for Sample 2,

β_{0 p t} = β_{00} + β_{01} P {RomanticInterest}_{p t} + u_{0 p} + u_{0 t} + u_{0 p t}

β_{1 p t} = β_{10} + β_{11} P {RomanticInterest}_{p t} + u_{1 p} + u_{1 t} + u_{1 p t}

β_{2 p t} = β_{20} + β_{21} P {RomanticInterest}_{p t} + u_{2 p} + u_{2 t} + u_{2 p t}

β_{3 p t} = β_{30} + β_{31} P {RomanticInterest}_{p t} + u_{3 p} + u_{3 t} + u_{3 p t}

Here, β₁₁ is the interaction between perceiver romantic interest and target self-reports predicting perceiver ratings, indicating whether romantic interest was higher or lower when perceiver ratings and the target’s distinctive personality profiles were more aligned (i.e., distinctive accuracy). Similarly, β₂₁ is the interaction between perceiver romantic interest and the mean target self-report predicting perceiver ratings, indicating whether romantic interest was higher or lower when perceiver ratings and the normative profile were more aligned (i.e., normative accuracy). Finally, β₃₁ is the interaction between perceiver romantic interest and either the mean social-desirability rating (Sample 1) or the mean ideal-partner rating (Sample 2) predicting perceiver ratings, indicating whether romantic interest was higher when perceiver ratings and either the socially desirable or ideal profile were more aligned (i.e., positivity).

We further extended the model to examine the role of target extraversion as a moderator of the associations between romantic interest and distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, or positivity in a parallel fashion. A positive three-way interaction among perceiver romantic interest, the distinctive-accuracy validation measure, and target extraversion predicting perceiver ratings would indicate that the association between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest is more positive when targets are higher in extraversion.

In the Supplemental Material, we also directly compare the above full social-accuracy model (SAM) with a simplified model that excluded target self-reports and, therefore, distinctive accuracy to examine whether a simplified model in which distinctive accuracy is excluded and only positivity is modeled better fitted the data. Results from these comparisons supported the inclusion of target self-reports because, despite the reduction in model parsimony, model fit indices were better. This indicates that distinctive accuracy matters, and modeling it aids in the prediction of romantic interest. Code for these supplementary analyses is also provided on the OSF under “Comparing Model Fit.” In addition, we conducted a parallel set of analyses using the conceptually similar two-stage profile-correlation approach described by Wood and Furr (2016; see also Furr, 2008). In brief, these analyses led to a pattern of results that was very similar to those of the SAM, albeit slightly weaker in Sample 1. Code for these supplementary analyses is also provided on the OSF under “Two-Stage Profile Correlation Approach.” Below, the SAM results are reported; the SAM allowed for the assessment of each of the relevant components of impressions and their associations with both romantic interest and target characteristics within a single model. Thus, all of the data were retained within the analysis, which allowed for a more succinct and statistically powerful model. Furthermore, the multilevel nature of the SAM allowed us to model all relevant random effects, thereby preserving appropriate Type 1 error rates and allowing for broader generalizability (see Biesanz, in press; Judd, Westfall, & Kenny, 2012).

Note that there is not an established method for calculating effect-size estimates for the Level 1 effects (i.e., mean levels of distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, and positivity). Standardized effect sizes (ds) were, however, calculated for the key associations with all continuous romantic-interest indicators as the change in the distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, and positivity slope for a 2-standard-deviation change in the interest indicator divided by the random-effect-estimate standard deviation for that slope; this procedure was followed to make estimates comparable with Cohen’s d (see Gelman, 2008). Given the very large number of observations in Samples 1 and 2, we estimated confidence intervals (CIs) with the Wald method in the lme4 package. Additional exploratory analyses examining the role of gender and target romantic interest, as well as how personality ratings on each item were directly associated with romantic interest, are presented in the Supplemental Material.

Results

Preliminary analyses: the positivity of distinctive and normative profiles

First, we examined the correspondence between both the normative and distinctive self-report profiles and the socially desirable profile (Sample 1) or ideal-partner profile (Sample 2). These analyses were conducted to determine to what extent the normative and distinctive profiles reflected positive self-reporting. Our results were in line with those of past work: Normative self-report profiles were strongly positively correlated with the socially desirable and ideal-partner profiles (Sample 1: r = .90, z = 6.69, p < .001; Sample 2: r = .84, z = 7.54, p < .001), demonstrating that the average self-report was highly positive. Alternatively, distinctive profiles were not significantly correlated with the socially desirable or ideal-partner profiles (Sample 1: r = .003, z = 0.12, p = .901; Sample 2: r = −.002, z = −0.15, p = .878). This is in line with conceptualizations of distinctive profiles reflecting evaluatively neutral substance (Leising et al., 2015), rather than negative, socially undesirable information. However, even though not undesirable, the neutrality of distinctive profiles could be considered, on average, less positive than the highly socially desirable normative profile. Thus, examining normative accuracy without controlling for positivity would shed light on how being accurately perceived as similar to the normative, and therefore more positive, personality profile is related to romantic interest. Examining normative accuracy while partialing out positivity, as we did in our primary analyses, would shed light on whether being accurately perceived as similar to the normative personality profile, independent of positivity, is related to romantic interest. Finally, examining distinctive accuracy would shed light on how being accurately perceived as distinct from the normative personality profile, in predominantly neutral ways, is related to romantic interest.

Levels of distinctive accuracy, normative accuracy, and positivity

On average, after just 3 min of interacting, perceivers viewed targets with significant distinctive accuracy in both samples (Sample 1: b = 0.07, z = 5.29, p < .001; Sample 2: b = 0.07, z = 8.88, p < .001). Perceivers also viewed targets with significant normative accuracy in each sample (Sample 1: b = 0.20, z = 4.75, p < .001; Sample 2: b = 0.94, z = 23.86, p < .001). In Sample 1, using social desirability as our indicator of positivity, we found that perceivers viewed targets with significant positivity (b = 0.39, z = 11.74, p < .001). On the other hand, in Sample 2, perceivers viewed targets, on average, as being significantly dissimilar to their ideal partner’s personality profile (b = −0.53, z = −17.15, p < .001). Thus, when positivity was assessed with the socially desirable profile in Sample 1, we saw evidence for generally positive impressions, on average, across perceivers and targets, whereas when positivity was assessed with the potentially higher standard of a target meeting perceivers’ version of an ideal partner, we saw much lower levels.

Distinctively accurate personality impressions and perceiver romantic interest

Primary outcome: romantic interest

First, we assessed our principal question of whether distinctive accuracy is associated with romantic interest independently of forming normatively accurate and positive first impressions. Across both samples, greater distinctive accuracy was associated with significantly less perceiver romantic interest (Sample 1: d = −0.79; Sample 2: d = −0.96; see Table 2). Note that we also extracted perceiver and target mean-level distinctive-accuracy scores from the SAM (see Rogers & Biesanz, 2019) to obtain estimates of how distinctively accurately each perceiver viewed other people, on average, across all targets with whom they met and how distinctively accurately each target was viewed by other people, on average, across all perceivers with whom they met. Neither was significantly associated with romantic interest (for detailed results, see the Supplemental Material, and for code, see the OSF), suggesting that this is more of a dyad- than person-level association. That is, when a perceiver forms a more distinctively accurate impression of a specific target, the perceiver tends to be less romantically interested in that specific target. In contrast, it does not seem to be the case that perceivers who were more distinctively accurate about other people in general tended to be less interested in other people or that targets who were generally viewed more distinctively accurately tended to be less appealing.

Table 2.

Associations Between Accurate Impressions and Indicators of Perceiver Romantic Interest

Romantic-interest indicator	Perceiver distinctive accuracy						Perceiver normative accuracy
	Sample 1			Sample 2			Sample 1			Sample 2
	b	SE	d	b	SE	d	b	SE	d	b	SE	d
Romantic interest	−0.02*	0.007	−0.79[−1.53, −0.05]	−0.02**	0.006	−0.96[−1.59, −0.34]	−0.01	0.030	−0.09[−0.40, 0.22]	−0.53***	0.028	−2.22[−2.45, −1.99]
Physical attractiveness	−0.008	0.007	−0.42[−1.07, 0.23]	−0.02*	0.007	−0.83[−1.60, −0.07]	−0.03	0.025	−0.14[−0.39, 0.12]	−0.66***	0.035	−2.75[−3.04, −2.47]
Desire for contact	−0.03*	0.012	−0.66[−1.26, −0.07]	−0.05***	0.012	−1.18[−1.81, −0.56]	−0.10*	0.048	−0.26[−0.51, −0.01]	−0.62***	0.050	−1.31[−1.52, −1.11]

Note: Standardized effect sizes (ds) were calculated as the change in the respective slope for a 2-standard-deviation change in the continuous interest measures divided by the random-effect-estimate standard deviation for that slope; this procedure was followed to make estimates comparable with Cohen’s ds (see Gelman, 2008) and past research (e.g., Human, Sandstrom, Biesanz, & Dunn, 2013). Values in brackets are 95% confidence intervals.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Target extraversion as a moderator

On average, forming distinctively accurate impressions was negatively associated with romantic interest, but does this depend on how appealing the target’s personality was, specifically, the target’s degree of extraversion? First, we found evidence that extraversion was considered appealing in the current studies; target extraversion was associated with significantly greater perceiver interest in each sample (Sample 1: b = 0.10, z = 3.12, p = .002; Sample 2: b = 0.19, z = 7.15, p < .001). Further, in both samples, we found a significant, positive three-way interaction among extraversion, distinctive accuracy, and romantic interest (Sample 1: b = 0.05, z = 7.60, p < .001; Sample 2: b = 0.02, z = 4.10, p < .001). Specifically, when targets were low in extraversion (1 SD below the mean), the negative association between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest was even stronger (Sample 1: b = −0.07, d = −3.57, 95% CI = [−4.59, −2.56], z = −6.92, p < .001; Sample 2: b = −0.04, d = −1.98, 95% CI = [−2.82, −1.13], z = −4.58, p < .001; see Fig. 1). In contrast, when targets were high in extraversion (1 SD above the mean), the association was no longer significant (Sample 2: b = 0.01, d = 0.50, 95% CI = [−0.41, 1.41], z = 1.08, p = .282) or became significantly positive (Sample 1: b = 0.03, d = 1.73, 95% CI = [0.70, 2.76], z = 3.30, p < .001). Thus, low extraversion appears to amplify the negative association between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest, whereas high extraversion may dampen and, sometimes, reverse it.

Fig. 1.

Results of simple-slope analyses depicting the associations between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest at different levels of target extraversion, separately for each sample. Asterisks indicate significant slopes (*p < .05, ***p < .001).

Additional romantic-interest indicators

Physical attractiveness

Viewing a target’s personality with distinctive accuracy was negatively associated with perceived physical attractiveness in both samples, although only significantly in Sample 2 (Sample 1: d = −0.42; Sample 2: d = −0.83; see Table 2). When we controlled for perceived physical attractiveness, the association between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest was no longer significant in Sample 1 (b = −0.01, z = −1.49, p = .138) but remained significant in Sample 2 (b = −0.02, z = −2.22, p = .027). Moreover, perceived physical attractiveness did not significantly moderate the associations between distinctive accuracy and romantic interest in either sample (both ps > .344).

Desire for contact

In both samples, viewing a target’s personality with more distinctive accuracy was associated with being significantly less willing to share contact information (Sample 1: d = −0.66; Sample 2: d = −1.18; see Table 2).

Normatively accurate personality impressions and perceiver romantic interest

Primary outcome: romantic interest

Was increased romantic interest more positively associated with being accurately perceived for how normative one is? In both samples, we found that forming normatively accurate impressions was associated with less romantic interest, although significantly only in Sample 2 (Sample 1: d = −0.09; Sample 2: d = −2.22; see Table 2). This is consistent with prior work that has found normative accuracy to be associated with lower liking when separating it from positivity (Wessels et al., 2020; Zimmermann et al., 2018). Of note, when social desirability was not included within the Sample 1 model, we found that normative accuracy was significantly positively associated with greater romantic interest (b = 0.48, z = 31.82, p < .001). However, in Sample 2, the negative effect emerged even when ideal-partner ratings were not included within the model, indicating that this effect was not driven by controlling for positivity. This may instead be because other methodological differences between samples may have resulted in a normative profile that was less attractive, despite the strong correlation with the ideal-partner profile (for further discussion, see pp. 5–7 in the Supplemental Material).

Target extraversion as a moderator

In general, the association between normatively accurate impressions and romantic interest was not moderated by target personality traits (for the full results, see the Supplemental Material).

Additional romantic-interest indicators

Physical attractiveness

Forming normatively accurate impressions was negatively associated with rating targets as more physically attractive in both samples, although significantly only in Sample 2 (Sample 1: d = −0.14; Sample 2: d = −2.75). However, perceived physical attractiveness did not account for the association between normatively accurate impressions and romantic interest in Sample 2 (ps < .001). Physical attractiveness did not significantly moderate the association between normatively accurate impressions and romantic interest in Sample 1 (p = .712). In Sample 2, however, there was a significant positive three-way interaction among normative accuracy, romantic interest, and physical attractiveness (b = 0.08, z = 2.44, p = .015); the negative association between normative accuracy and romantic interest was slightly stronger for targets low in physical attractiveness (b = −0.41, z = −7.28, p < .001) than targets high in physical attractiveness (b = −0.25, z = −5.16, p < .001).

Desire for contact

In both samples, normative accuracy was significantly associated with a decreased desire to share contact information (Sample 1: d = −0.26; Sample 2: d = −1.31).

Positive personality impressions and perceiver romantic interest

Primary outcome: romantic interest

As expected, across both samples, we found that forming more positive impressions, whether indexed as being more in line with a socially desirable profile (Sample 1) or the ideal-partner profile (Sample 2), was strongly associated with significantly greater romantic interest (Sample 1: d = 1.89; Sample 2: d = 2.88; see Table 3). Thus, forming a more positive first impression was robustly related to greater romantic interest.

Table 3.

Associations Between Positive Impressions and Indicators of Perceiver Romantic Interest

Romantic-interest indicator	Perceiver positivity
	Social desirability (Sample 1)			Ideal-partner ratings (Sample 2)
	b	SE	d	b	SE	d
Romantic interest	0.28***	0.017	1.89[1.67, 2.11]	0.51***	0.024	2.88[2.61, 3.16]
Physical attractiveness	0.15***	0.015	0.98[0.78, 1.17]	0.56***	0.030	3.18[2.84, 3.52]
Desire for contact	0.27***	0.028	0.90[0.71, 1.09]	0.58***	0.045	1.65[1.40, 1.90]

***

p < .001.

Target extraversion as a moderator

As with normative accuracy, in general, the association between positive impressions and romantic interest was not moderated by target personality traits (for the full results, see the Supplemental Material).

Additional romantic-interest indicators

Physical attractiveness

In both samples, forming positive impressions was significantly associated with rating targets as more physically attractive (Sample 1: d = 0.98; Sample 2: d = 3.18). Moreover, perceived physical attractiveness did not account for the association between positive impressions and romantic interest in either sample (both ps < .001). In Sample 2, a significant negative three-way interaction among positive impressions, romantic interest, and physical attractiveness was observed (b = −0.10, z = −3.34, p < .001). The association between positive impressions and romantic interest remained significantly positive for targets low in physical attractiveness; yet for targets high in physical attractiveness, the association became slightly weaker (b = 0.32, z = 7.31, p < .001). Thus, being viewed in line with the perceiver’s ideal-partner personality profile may especially benefit romantic interest for targets who are perceived as less physically attractive.

Desire for contact

In both samples, viewing a target’s personality more positively was associated with being more willing to share contact information with that target (Sample 1: d = 0.90; Sample 2: d = 1.65).

Discussion

What role do personality impressions play in initial romantic interest? Not surprisingly, viewing a first date’s personality positively was strongly associated with greater romantic interest. Independently of positivity, did accurately perceiving a date’s unique personality traits relate to romantic interest? Across two speed-dating studies, we found that greater distinctive accuracy was associated with lower romantic interest. Furthermore, this negative association was especially strong for targets lower in extraversion. Conversely, for targets higher in extraversion, greater distinctive accuracy was either not significantly related to romantic interest (Sample 2) or positively related (Sample 1). Forming distinctively accurate impressions may therefore hurt more than help romantic interest, especially when one’s date is less extraverted, a less desirable trait in this context. Alternatively, romantic interest may hinder distinctive accuracy, especially for harder-to-read dates, such as introverts.

Why might distinctive accuracy reduce romantic interest? Given that distinctive profiles were, on average, less positive than the normative profile, it may not seem surprising that accurately perceiving such information would reduce interest. However, it is more surprising when considering that distinctive profiles were neutral, not undesirable. Although the information perceived may not naturally promote interest, it should not necessarily reduce interest either. It is also surprising given that in other contexts, such as platonic getting-acquainted interactions (Human et al., 2020; Human et al., 2013), and in romantic relationships (Neff & Karney, 2005), forming distinctively accurate impressions has interpersonal benefits. This suggests that there may be something about the context of first dates that makes distinctive accuracy more detrimental, rather than distinctive accuracy itself. For example, the higher stakes may make perceivers more critical, in turn leading perceivers to view targets’ characteristics—even neutral or positive ones—as less appealing than they typically would, decreasing romantic interest.

Alternatively, target behaviors that could promote distinctive accuracy, such as self-disclosure, may simultaneously reduce interest if they are inconsistent with first-date norms. Furthermore, the uncertainty that goes along with inaccuracy could actually be interpreted as interpersonal attraction, enhancing romantic interest (Whitchurch et al., 2011). All of these possibilities are consistent with the moderating role of extraversion—distinctive accuracy may be less harmful if paired with an appealing characteristic that may offset perceivers’ highly critical mind-sets or targets’ self-presentational failures. Conversely, remaining “mysterious” may be especially beneficial for people with less appealing characteristics. Examining mechanisms linking distinctive accuracy and romantic interest at the dyadic level is a critical direction for future research.

Conversely, greater romantic interest may decrease distinctive accuracy by reducing attention and motivation on a first date. Although attraction can enhance attention to targets (see Langlois et al., 2000), thereby increasing accuracy (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 2010), in this context, greater interest may increase self-focus and hinder attention. Similarly, romantic interest may motivate perceivers to see a person positively rather than distinctively, which may hinder attention. Extraversion is a plausible moderator of this association because it promotes being viewed accurately (e.g., Colvin, 1993). Thus, romantic interest may be especially detrimental to distinctive accuracy when one interacts with introverted targets because less attention would make it especially difficult to accurately perceive their unique characteristics if they are not providing many valid cues. Experimental and longitudinal research should examine the possibly bidirectional causal links between distinctive accuracy and interest.

As expected, forming positive impressions was strongly associated with greater romantic interest. This supports findings that positively biased impressions benefit established romantic relationships (e.g., Murray, 1999) and platonic new acquaintances (Human et al., 2020; Human et al., 2013); however, this is one of the first studies to document the compelling benefits of positive bias in perceptions of personality in the context of romantic first impressions (see also Wurst, Humberg, & Back, 2018). Nevertheless, despite the strong association between positive impressions and romantic interest, distinctive accuracy also mattered, being strongly related to interest and improving model fit (see the Supplemental Material).

Normative accuracy was linked to lower romantic interest in both samples, although significantly only in Sample 2. However, when the positive profile was not partialed out in Sample 1, normative accuracy was significantly positively associated with romantic interest. This did not occur in Sample 2; however, the normative profile appeared to be less attractive in this sample (see the Supplemental Material). Thus, being accurately perceived for how one is similar to the average person may be beneficial, but only if that average profile is highly socially desirable. These results therefore indicate that forming positive, rather than accurate, impressions is beneficial on first dates.

In sum, on a first date, romantic interest appears to be closely linked to lower distinctive accuracy. If romantic interest decreases distinctive accuracy, then caution may be warranted when romantic interest is high because this may lead to less distinctively accurate personality impressions and poorer decision making about whom to pursue a relationship with. Alternatively, if distinctive accuracy decreases romantic interest, the implications are less clear. Although distinctive accuracy may help perceivers rule out incompatible matches, it could also result in making overly critical judgments and being too quick to pass on potential partners. This perspective may be especially important to the current dating culture because a first date may not be given a second chance when other options are easily accessible through online dating. Accordingly, if progressing beyond a first date is the goal, perceivers may wish to bring their rose-colored glasses and leave their magnifying glass behind.

Supplemental Material

Human_OpenPracticesDisclosure_rev – Supplemental material for Blind at First Sight: The Role of Distinctively Accurate and Positive First Impressions in Romantic Interest

Supplemental material, Human_OpenPracticesDisclosure_rev for Blind at First Sight: The Role of Distinctively Accurate and Positive First Impressions in Romantic Interest by Lauren Gazzard Kerr, Hasagani Tissera, M. Joy McClure, John E. Lydon, Mitja D. Back and Lauren J. Human in Psychological Science

Supplemental Material

Human_Supplemental_Material_rev – Supplemental material for Blind at First Sight: The Role of Distinctively Accurate and Positive First Impressions in Romantic Interest

Supplemental material, Human_Supplemental_Material_rev for Blind at First Sight: The Role of Distinctively Accurate and Positive First Impressions in Romantic Interest by Lauren Gazzard Kerr, Hasagani Tissera, M. Joy McClure, John E. Lydon, Mitja D. Back and Lauren J. Human in Psychological Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Michael Kerr for assistance with programming; Stefanie Wurst for help in designing, implementing, and documenting Sample 2; and Jeremy Biesanz and Daniel Leising for consultation.

Transparency

Action Editor: Brent W. Roberts

Editor: D. Stephen Lindsay

Author Contributions

L. G. Kerr, H. Tissera, and L. J. Human designed and implemented the Sample 1 procedures, with consultation and the use of the archival data set from M. J. McClure and J. E. Lydon. M. D. Back designed and implemented the Sample 2 procedures. L. G. Kerr and L. J. Human developed the research question, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. All of the authors provided critical revisions and approved the final manuscript for submission.

ORCID iDs

Hasagani Tissera

Lauren J. Human

Supplemental Material

Additional supporting information can be found at

Notes

References

Back

M. D.

Nestler

(2016). Accuracy of judging personality. In Hall

J. A.

Schmid Mast

West

T. V.

(Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 98–124). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

Walker

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01

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. doi:10.1080/00273171.2010.519262

Biesanz

J. C.

(in press). 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.

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. doi:10.1177/0956797610364121

Colvin

C. R.

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

Cronbach

L. J.

(1955). Process affecting scores on “understanding others” and “assumed similarity.” Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193. doi:10.1037/h0044919

Finkel

E. J.

Norton

M. I.

Reis

H. T.

Ariely

Caprariello

P. A.

Eastwick

P. W.

. . . Maniaci

M. R.

(2015). When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 3–19. doi:10.1177/1745691614561682

Funder

D. C.

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

10.

Furr

R. M.

(2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00521

11.

Gagné

F. M.

Lydon

J. E.

(2004). Bias and accuracy in close relationships: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 322–338. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_1

12.

Gelman

(2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 2865–2873. doi:10.1002/sim.3107

13.

Gerlitz

J.-Y.

Schupp

(2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP [The measurement of the Big Five personality traits in SOEP] (DIW Research Notes, 4). Retrieved from https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43490.de/rn4.pdf

14.

Human

L. J.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2011). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 349–364. doi:10.1037/a0021850

15.

Human

L. J.

Carlson

E. N.

Geukes

Nestler

Back

M. D.

(2020). Do accurate personality impressions benefit early relationship development? The bidirectional associations between accuracy and liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 199–212. doi:10.1037/pspp0000214

16.

Human

L. J.

Sandstrom

G. M.

Biesanz

J. C.

Dunn

E. W.

(2013). Accurate first impressions leave a lasting impression: The long-term effects of accuracy on relationship development. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 395–402. doi:10.1177/1948550612463735

17.

Joel

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2017). Is romantic desire predictable? Machine learning applied to initial romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 28, 1478–1489. doi:10.1177/0956797617714580

18.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

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

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Judd

C. M.

Westfall

Kenny

D. A.

(2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69. doi:10.1037/a0028347

20.

Langlois

J. H.

Kalakanis

Rubenstein

A. J.

Larson

Hallam

Smoot

(2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390

21.

Leising

Scherbaum

Locke

K. D.

Zimmermann

(2015). A model of “substance” and “evaluation” in person judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 61–71. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2015.04.002

22.

Lorenzo

G. L.

Biesanz

J. C.

Human

L. J.

(2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782. doi:10.1177/0956797610388048

23.

McShane

B. B.

Böckenholt

(2016). Planning sample sizes when effect sizes are uncertain: The power-calibrated effect size approach. Psychological Methods, 21, 47–60. doi:10.1037/met0000036

24.

Murray

S. L.

(1999). The quest for conviction: Motivated cognition in romantic relationships. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 23–34. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1001_3

25.

Neff

L. A.

Karney

B. R.

(2005). To know you is to love you: The implications of global adoration and specific accuracy for marital relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 480–497. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.480

26.

Norton

M. I.

Frost

J. H.

Ariely

(2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 97–105. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97

27.

Powell

M. J.

(2009). The BOBYQA algorithm for bound constrained optimization without derivatives (Cambridge Report 2009/06). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge.

28.

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, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

29.

Reber

Schwarz

Winkielman

(2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364–382. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3

30.

Reis

H. T.

Maniaci

M. R.

Caprariello

P. A.

Eastwick

P. W.

Finkel

E. J.

(2011). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 557–570. doi:10.1037/a0022885

31.

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. doi:10.1037/a0039587

32.

Rogers

K. H.

Biesanz

J. C

. (2019). Reassessing the good judge of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 186–200. doi:10.1037/pspp0000197

33.

Rosenbaum

M. E.

(1986). The repulsion hypothesis: On the nondevelopment of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1156–1166. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1156

34.

Wessels

N. M.

Zimmermann

Biesanz

J. C.

Leising

(2020). Differential associations of knowing and liking with accuracy and positivity bias in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118, 149–171. doi:10.1037/pspp0000218

35.

Whitchurch

E. R.

Wilson

T. D.

Gilbert

D. T.

(2011). “He loves me, he loves me not . . .”: Uncertainty can increase romantic attraction. Psychological Science, 22, 172–175. doi:10.1177/0956797610393745

36.

Wood

Furr

R. M.

(2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 79–99. doi:10.1177/1088868315581119

37.

Wurst

S. N.

Humberg

Back

M. D.

(2018). Rose-colored glasses in initial romantic encounters? Examining positive partner illusions and their interpersonal consequences in the very early stages of romantic acquaintance. OSF Preprints. doi:10.31219/osf.io/48sh2

38.

Zimmermann

Schindler

Klaus

Leising

(2018). The effect of dislike on accuracy and bias in person perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 80–88. doi:10.1177/1948550617703167

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

0.58 MB

0.05 MB