The Accuracy and Bias of Interpersonal Perceptions in Intergroup Interactions

Abstract

Group membership can have a profound impact on perceptions of group characteristics; yet how group membership influences the accuracy of personality impressions for specific individuals remains unclear. In small groups, participants (N = 519) formed impressions via naturalistic, dyadic interactions. We then investigated whether impressions of in-group members differed from out-group members based on participant’s ethnicity and acculturation (Euro-Canadian, Acculturated East Asian, or Semi-Acculturated East Asian). Impressions of in-group members were more distinctively accurate and individuated. Further, in-group members were viewed with greater distinctive assumed similarity in that perceivers used their own idiosyncratic traits more when forming impressions of in-group members. However, in-group members, despite being liked more, were viewed less socially desirable. Discussion focuses on cultural differences in impressions and implications for in-group favoritism, in-group self-anchoring, and the out-group homogeneity effect for North Americans and East Asians.

Keywords

social interaction intergroup processes impression formation interpersonal processes hierarchical linear modeling/multilevel modeling

The psychological processes associated with social identity and social categorization can have a profound impact on perceptions and impressions. People spontaneously categorize others as members of social groups and distinguish those who are in-group members from those who are not (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Further, group membership can affect the way people think, feel, and act toward others which can influence interpersonal perceptions (e.g., West, 2011). For instance, out-group members are more difficult to recognize and more frequently confused than in-group members (for a review, see Meissner & Brigham, 2001). As well, perceivers remember more information and greater detail about in-group members compared to out-group members (Park & Rothbart, 1982). Finally, perceivers more accurately detect anxiety in in-group members compared to out-group members (Gray, Mendes, & Denny-Brown, 2008).

Intergroup relations research on the differences between perceptions of out-group and in-group members further gives reason to suspect that group membership impacts first impressions of personality. In-group favoritism results in more positive attributes ascribed to in-groups as compared to out-groups (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Next, self-anchoring yields perceptions of in-groups that are more closely associated with self-perceptions than are perceptions of out-groups (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Wentura, 2001). Similarly, perceivers demonstrate greater projection to in-groups than out-groups (Clement & Krueger, 2002). Finally, out-groups are perceived as more homogenous, while in-groups are perceived as more heterogeneous, termed out-group homogeneity (e.g., Jones, Wood, & Quattrone, 1981). At the individual level, there is also a broad tendency to categorize out-group members but individuate in-group members (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Further, these phenomena do not necessarily exist in isolation but may interact with each other. For instance, perceived similarity moderates a perceiver’s tendency to stereotype or project self-views onto a group (Ames, 2004). Taken together, it appears that there are important differences between perceptions of in-groups and out-groups; however, there exists a notable gap in the literature.

Research on in-group favoritism, self-anchoring, and out-group homogeneity has generally focused on perceptions of attributes and characteristics of groups—and accuracy or bias of perceptions of groups—rather than on a single specific member of a group, with some exceptions (e.g., Richeson, Dovidio, Shelton, & Hebl, 2007; Rule, Garrett, & Ambady, 2010; Zebrowitz, Bronstad, & Lee, 2007). Importantly, relationships observed at the level of groups do not necessarily hold at the level of individuals (i.e., the ecological fallacy). Further, most intergroup relations research employs static, fictitious targets whose group membership is systematically varied instead of real individuals interacting in a naturalistic setting. This difference is particularly important, given that the application of stereotypes change as exposure to an out-group target increases (Kunda, Davies, Adams, & Spencer, 2002). Consequently, examining the impact of group membership on personality impressions for individuals in naturalistic settings remains as an important and relatively understudied area of research. As such, the goal of this article is to extend the research on in-group favoritism, self-anchoring, and out-group homogeneity by examining how these phenomena function within the context of first impressions of personality.

Substantial evidence indicates that initial interpersonal perceptions are at least somewhat accurate across diverse domains (e.g., Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Biesanz, 2010; Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy, Mast, & Feinstein, 2008; Kenny, 1994). Yet, a number of factors influence the accuracy of personality impressions including perceiver motivation (Biesanz & Human, 2010), target’s desire to make a positive impression (Human, Biesanz, Parisotto, & Dunn, 2012), and perceiver’s perception of the target’s physical attractiveness (Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010). However, the role of group membership in the accuracy of initial impressions of personality remains unclear. Specifically, how do differences between in-group and out-group perceptions (i.e., in-group favoritism, self-anchoring, and out-group homogeneity) affect the accuracy and bias of personality impressions for specific individuals in a naturalistic setting? Notably, accuracy and bias are independent constructs and may be positively, negatively, or unrelated in any given domain (Funder & Colvin, 1997; Gagné & Lydon, 2004; Human & Biesanz, 2011b, 2012; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Kenny et al., 2007; West & Kenny, 2011).

The social accuracy model (SAM; Biesanz, 2007, 2010) is an analytical framework that allows for novel insight into the influence of group membership on interpersonal perception. SAM is a componential model of interpersonal perception that can estimate different components of accuracy across traits simultaneously for perceivers, targets, and dyads as well as examine moderators of those accuracy components. In contrast to the social relations model (SRM; Kenny, 1994), which examines the level of agreement in perceiving another person on a single trait, SAM shifts the focus to the levels of agreement in perceiving another person’s personality (for reviews, see Biesanz, 2010; Kenny, West, Malloy, & Albright, 2006, for SAM and SRM, respectively; see also Locke, Zheng, & Smith, 2014, for recent empirical article examining both models). Further, while SRM generally focuses on consensus, SAM focuses on accuracy as assessed by the agreement between perceiver impressions and a measure of target personality (e.g., self- and informant-reports). SAM is also readily extendable to allow for the examination of assumed similarity and can incorporate potential moderators of components of accuracy and assumed similarity all within the same analytical model.

Using SAM, three components of impressions will be examined: distinctive accuracy, social desirability, and distinctive assumed similarity. Distinctive accuracy refers to the extent to which a perceiver’s impression of another corresponds to that individual’s unique, differentiating characteristics (Biesanz, 2007, 2010; Cronbach, 1955; Furr, 2008). To view someone with distinctive accuracy is to understand how that person differs from what others generally tend to be like across a wide array of personality attributes. Social desirability refers to the extent to which the perceiver views the target as similar to the socially desirable personality profile. Higher levels of social desirability correspond to more positive impressions. Finally, the tendency to see one’s own distinctive and unique characteristics in others, termed distinctive assumed similarity (see Human & Biesanz, 2011b; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001), will be examined.

How would we expect group membership to influence social desirability, distinctive assumed similarity, and distinctive accuracy in first impressions of personality? People often show in-group favoritism in that the in-group is evaluated more positively than the out-group. Thus, in the context of intergroup interactions, in-group favoritism would predict enhanced liking for in-group members which, in turn, would lead to impressions that are more socially desirable and positive. However, positive evaluations of others are not related to distinctive accuracy (Human & Biesanz, 2011b) and in-group favoritism should not directly impact distinctive accuracy.

Self-anchoring is the tendency to base in-group judgments on the self (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Wentura, 2001)—to view the characteristics of the in-group as being more similar to oneself as compared to the out-group (see Robbins & Krueger, 2005, for a review). The effect of self-anchoring (or projection) has been generally assessed for group judgments. If self-anchoring in the context of individual intergroup impressions operates in a similar manner, distinctive assumed similarity should be higher for impressions made of in-group members compared to out-group members. However, the tendency to use one’s own distinctive personality as a base for impressions of in-group members more than out-group members should not impact the accuracy of impressions, as distinctive assumed similarity is essentially unrelated to distinctive accuracy (Human & Biesanz, 2012).

Finally, out-groups are perceived as less variable than in-groups and this difference is attributed to differential attention (Jones et al., 1981), and the tendency to individuate in-group members may occur due to increased motivation (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Experimental research has shown that perceivers with a goal to form impressions that are more accurate achieve more individuated impressions (e.g., Neuberg, 1989). In the context of accurate interpersonal perceptions of personality, Biesanz and Human (2010) demonstrated that the goal to form more accurate impressions resulted in increased distinctive accuracy, but paradoxically, decreased positivity and social desirability. If individuals pay more attention and are more motivated to form individuated impressions for individual in-group members, relative to out-group members, then their impressions should be more distinctively accurate but less socially desirable.

Summary

Overall, there are theoretical reasons to believe that cultural group membership affects the accuracy and bias of interpersonal perceptions of specific individuals. That is, distinctive accuracy and distinctive assumed similarity should be higher for perceptions of in-group members as compared to out-group members based on out-group homogeneity and self-anchoring, respectively. Social desirability should be higher for in-group members as a function of enhanced liking for the in-group due to in-group favoritism; however, due to increased motivation and attention, social desirability should be lower for in-group compared to out-group members. This study examined these hypotheses in a large sample of undergraduates at a culturally diverse university. In small groups, previously unacquainted participants interacted with every other individual, yielding 3,285 dyadic impressions, thus providing an ideal opportunity to examine the impact of cultural group membership on the accuracy and bias of interpersonal perceptions in a naturalistic setting.

Method

This study combines multiple different samples, subsets of which have been previously reported (Biesanz, 2010; Human & Biesanz, 2011a, 2011b, 2012; Lorenzo et al., 2010), that share the same core methodological procedure. In small groups, participants interacted individually with every other participant in their group for three minutes and were instructed to try to get to know their interaction partner. After each meeting, participants provided impressions of their interaction partner. Participants also completed self-report measures of personality and provided contact information for two friends (peer reports) and a parent or guardian who subsequently completed informant reports of personality.

Participants

A total of 519 undergraduates at the University of British Columbia (387 female, 132 male; mean age = 20.39 years, SD = 3.56) participated in 77 groups ranging in size from 3 to 12 (Mdn = 7) in exchange for course credit or $20.

Measures

Demographic measures

All participants reported ethnicity and also reported either their primary language at home or place of birth and age when moved to North America. Using this information, three research assistants coded participants (Intraclass correlation = .95) as Caucasian (n = 166; 32.0%) and East Asian (n = 242; 46.6%). These percentages correspond with ethnic self-identifications of incoming students at the University of British Columbia (Coutts, 2012) and represent a milieu where Caucasians are a minority and there is no ethnic majority. We focus on Caucasians (specifically Euro-Canadians) and East Asian participants, as they comprised ∼80% of the sample and other ethnicities did not have enough members to examine in-group effects. The next largest groups were Middle Eastern (n = 41), South East Asian (n = 25), and South Asian (n = 15). Following Ying, Lee, and Tsai (2000; see also Cheung, Chudek, & Heine, 2011; Minoura, 1992), East Asian participants were categorized based on acculturation level using age when moved to North America when available (n = 140) and if not, language primarily spoken with friends and family was used (n = 104). East Asians who moved to North America after the age of 11.5 or did not primarily speak English with friends and family were coded as Semi-Acculturated East Asians (n = 115). East Asians who had been in North America at or before the age of 11.5 or primarily spoke English with friends and family were coded as Acculturated East Asians (n = 127).

Personality and perceiver measures

Self- and other reports of personality were completed using a 21-item version of the Big Five Inventory, which assesses a diverse range of core personality traits (John & Srivastava, 1999; see footnote 4 in Human & Biesanz, 2011b, for specific items), and on 3 additional items assessing intelligence (is intelligent, is bright, and receives good grades). Ratings were made on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). After each dyadic interaction, perceivers indicated whether or not they previously knew the target (<1% of interactions, which were removed from the data set prior to analyses). A subset of perceivers (n = 180) also reported how much they liked the target.

Informant reports

The peers and parents nominated by participants were sent the same personality measure as completed by participants via either mail or e-mail. Informants were instructed to report on the personality of the participant who had nominated them. A total of 294 (72%) participants had at least one peer return the completed personality measure and 246 (60%) participants had a parent or guardian return the completed personality measure. Combined, 342 (84%) participants had at least one informant return the completed personality measure. Specifically, 150 (90%) of Euro-Canadians, 106 (83%) of Acculturated East Asians, and 86 (75%) of Semi-Acculturated East Asians had at least one informant return the completed personality measure. Following previous research (e.g., Biesanz et al., 2011) self-, peer-, and parental reports were combined to form a composite validity measure of target personality.

Data Analytic Procedure

To examine the impact of cultural group membership on the accuracy of initial impressions, the current research examines the social accuracy model (SAM) of interpersonal perception (Biesanz, 2010). The specific model analyzed is expressed as the following unstandardized regression equation:

\begin{aligned} Y_{i j k} \end{aligned} = β_{0 i j} + β_{1 i j} T a r g e t V a l i d i t y_{j k} + β_{2 i j} P e r c e i v e r_{i k} + β_{3 i j} D e s i r e_{k} + ϵ_{i j k},

where Y_ijk is perceiver i’s rating of target j on item k, TargetValidity_jk is the composite of self-, peer-, and parental reports for target j on item k, Perceiver_ik is perceiver i’s self-report on item k, and Desire_k is the average social desirability on item k. Item social desirability was completed by a separate group of participants (N = 486; Paulhus, 2009). Both TargetValidity_jk and Perceiver_ik are deviated from the average participant self-report for that item (i.e., centered within item). The regression coefficients β_1ij, β_2ij, and β_3ij represent distinctive accuracy, distinctive assumed similarity, and social desirability, respectively, and are each expressed as a function of fixed and random effects as follows:

\begin{matrix} β_{1 i j} = β_{10} + β_{11} I n - g r o u p_{(i j)} + u_{1 i} + u_{1 j}, \\ β_{2 i j} = β_{20} + β_{21} I n - g r o u p_{(i j)} + u_{2 i} + u_{2 j}, and \\ β_{3 i j} = β_{30} + β_{31} I n - g r o u p_{(i j)} + u_{3 i} + u_{3 j} \end{matrix}

In-group_(ij) is dummy-coded and is 1 when the perceiver and target are members of the same cultural group and 0 otherwise. To help clarify the results and link reported results to the analytical models, we subscript unstandardized multilevel model coefficients when reporting results (i.e., the estimate of β₁₀ is reported as b ₁₀). The primary coefficients of interest, illustrated in Figure 1, are interpreted as follows:

Figure 1.

The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception extended to include assumed similarity and target’s in-group status as a moderator of distinctive accuracy (b ₁₁), assumed similarity (b ₂₁), and social desirability (b ₃₁). In-group_(ij) is a dichotomous variable (0 = no, 1 = yes) indicating whether or not the perceiver and target are members of the same cultural group.

b ₁₀ is the average level of distinctive accuracy across all perceivers and targets when perceivers form an impression of an out-group member.

b ₁₁ is the change in distinctive accuracy when forming an impression of an in-group member compared to an out-group member (i.e., the interaction effect).

b ₂₀ is the average level of distinctive assumed similarity across all perceivers and targets when perceivers form an impression of an out-group member. This is the relationship between perceivers’ self-reports and their impressions of targets, controlling for the actual characteristics of the targets (Human & Biesanz, 2011b; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001).

b ₂₁ is the change in distinctive assumed similarity when forming an impression of an in-group member compared to an out-group member.

b ₃₀ is the average level of social desirability across all perceivers and targets when perceivers form an impression of an out-group member. This is the relationship between perceivers’ impressions of targets and the average social desirability.

b ₃₁ is the change in social desirability when forming an impression of an in-group member compared to an out-group member.

Each of these coefficients can vary randomly across perceivers and targets. When controlling for perceiver i’s liking for target j, Liking_ij (grand-mean centered) was added to Equation 2 and multiple imputation was used to account for missing values following the procedures outlined in Schafer (1997; see also Schafer & Graham, 2002) using the norm package in R. All models were estimated using R’s multilevel model lme4 package (R Development Core Team, 2009; Bates & Sarkar, 2007) under restricted maximum likelihood. We report standardized effect sizes, d, calculated as the change in standard deviations in the outcome variable (target random effect) between in-group and out-group interactions.

Results

Intergroup Liking

Since only a subset of participants indicated how much they liked their interaction partners, multiple imputations were used to account for missing values on liking. In line with in-group favoritism, perceivers, on average, liked in-group members more than out-group members, b = .07, d = .09, z = 7.24, p < .0001. However, this was qualified by an interaction with cultural group membership, χ²(2) = 79.71, p < .0001. Euro-Canadians evidenced greater liking for in-group members, b = .21, d = .29, z = 11.31, p < .000001. In contrast, though the strength of the effect was weaker, Acculturated and Semi-Acculturated East Asians demonstrated reduced liking for in-group members compared to out-group members, b = −.04, d = −.06, z = −2.08, p < .0001, and b = −.03, d = −.04, z = −1.34, ns, respectively. Further, Acculturated and Semi-Acculturated East Asians did not significantly differ from each other, z = .32, ns.

Out-Group Impressions

Perceiver impressions of out-group members, on average across perceivers and targets, evidenced substantial levels of distinctive accuracy, b ₁₀ = .11, z = 8.50, p < .00001. Thus, out-group members were viewed in line with their distinct and unique characteristics by perceivers. Further, perceivers used their own personality when forming impressions of out-group members, distinctive assumed similarity, b ₂₀ = .05, z = 4.72, p < .00001, and perceiver impressions of out-group members were socially desirable, b ₃₀ = .55, z = 37.24, p < .000001.

In-Group Impressions

Turning to how impressions of in-group members differed from impressions of out-group members, in-group members were seen with greater distinctive accuracy than out-group members (interaction b ₁₁ = .03, d = .17, z = 2.78, p < .01) and were seen as more similar to the perceiver’s self-perception (distinctive assumed similarity interaction b ₂₁ = .04, d = .30, z = 4.04, p < .0001). However, in-group members were seen with lower social desirability compared to out-group members, interaction b ₃₁ = −.02, d = −.10, z = −2.00, p < .05 (see Figure 2). The effects of in-group status did not differ as a function of cultural group membership, all χ²(2)’s < 5.33, ns. That is, cultural group did not significantly impact the degree to which impressions changed when viewing in-group versus out-group members. Further, when holding perceiver liking for the target constant, the same pattern of results emerged. Thus, the results are not solely due to differences in liking between in-group and out-group members.

Figure 2.

Average distinctive accuracy, distinctive assumed similarity, and social desirability for in-group and out-group impressions (n = 414). Plotted are the unstandardized regression coefficients for each dyadic interaction along with standard error bars.

Cultural Group and Impressions

Although there was not a significant interaction between cultural group and the degree to which impressions changed for in-group members, there were notable main effects. Specifically, on average, Semi-Acculturated East Asians viewed others with lower levels of distinctive accuracy and social desirability than Euro-Canadians, interaction b = −.05, d = −.26, z = −2.21, p = .02, and b = −.09, d = −.51, z = −2.74, p = .006, respectively. However, there was no significant difference in self-anchoring, as the distinctive assumed similarity interaction was negligible, b = .01, d = .05, z = .27, ns. That is, Semi-Acculturated East Asians tended to view others, on average, with less distinctive accuracy and social desirability than Euro-Canadians. Acculturated East Asians did not significantly differ from Euro-Canadians in their impressions of others on average, interaction |bs| < .03, |ds| < .19, |zs| <1.33, ns.

In sum, distinctive accuracy and social desirability varied as a function of cultural group membership; however, the effect of in-group interactions on the different components of impressions did not. Across all three cultural groups, interactions with in-group members resulted in impressions that were more distinctively accurate, had higher levels of distinctive assumed similarity, and were less socially desirable and less positive. Finally, these effects are not due to differences in liking.

Discussion

When considering Euro-Canadians, Acculturated East Asians and Semi-Acculturated East Asians, for both in-group and out-group targets, perceivers on average viewed others with distinctive accuracy, social desirability, and distinctive assumed similarity. That is, perceivers were able to distinguish individual targets and the broad personality characteristics within targets, form socially desirable and positive impressions, and at the same time perceive targets as similar to their own unique patterning of traits. Although the strength of these effects varied across the three cultural groups examined, the impact of intergroup status on interpersonal perceptions did not.

Impressions of in-group members were more distinctively accurate than out-group members in that they corresponded more closely with a broad composite of the target’s personality comprised of self-, peer-, and parental reports. This advantage in understanding in-group members has also been found in perceptions of emotional states in other ethnic groups (Gray et al., 2008). At the same time, perceptions of in-group members were more biased than perceptions of out-group members, as distinctive assumed similarity was higher for in-group members. In sum, perceptions of in-group members, based on cultural group membership, are more accurate as well as more biased than perceptions of out-group members.

Consider first distinctive assumed similarity. If self-anchoring holds at the individual level, perceivers would project more of their own unique personality traits onto in-group targets. Indeed, perceivers consistently viewed in-group members as more similar to their own distinctive personality than out-group members. Thus, the present findings replicate previous research on self-anchoring (Ames, 2004; Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Wentura, 2001) and extend it to the level of individuals.

The effect of group membership on social desirability had two divergent hypotheses. According to in-group favoritism (Hewstone et al., 2002), perceivers would view in-group members more positively and like them more compared to out-group members. While on average, perceivers did like in-group members more than out-group members, the effect was small and was qualified by group membership. Only Euro-Canadians demonstrated in-group favoritism and liked in-group members more than out-group members which, in turn, was associated with more socially desirable impressions. In contrast, Acculturated and Semi-Acculturated East Asians liked in-group members less than out-group members. Thus, we partially replicated group-level, in-group favoritism (Hewstone et al., 2002) at the individual level for Euro-Canadians while also finding support for in-group derogation (Ma-Kellams, Spencer-Rodgers, & Peng, 2011) at the individual level for East Asians, a finding discussed in more detail under cultural differences.

However, if perceivers are more motivated to perceive in-group members accurately and pay more attention to in-group members, then in-group members should be viewed more accurately but less socially desirable. Indeed, on average, in-group members were seen with greater distinctive accuracy and less social desirability than out-group members. This effect is consistent with theoretical models on the influence of an enhanced motivation to individuate and accurately perceive in-group members (Biesanz & Human, 2010).

Further, considering the distinctive assumed similarity and social desirability effects together, we found support for the impact of perceived similarity on impressions and extend the findings to naturalistic interactions. Specifically, Ames (2004) posits that impression formation is moderated by how similar a perceiver feels to a target group and increased similarity leads to increased projection (or self-anchoring). Indeed, individuals demonstrated increased self-anchoring for in-group members as distinctive assumed similarity was greater for in-group members.

Cultural Differences

While our focus was on impressions in an intergroup context, we observed substantial cultural differences. Specifically, Euro-Canadians displayed in-group favoritism, while Acculturated and Semi-Acculturated East Asians displayed in-group derogation. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating that East Asians do not exhibit in-group favoritism to the same degree as North Americans and in fact, East Asians may exhibit in-group derogation (e.g., Falk, Heine, & Takemura, 2013; Heine & Lehman, 1997; Ma-Kellams et al., 2011). We also expand upon previous research by including a comparison between ratings of in-group and out-group members, finding that Acculturated and Semi-Acculturated East Asians liked in-group members less than out-group members.

In-group derogation, as evidenced by decreased social desirability and liking, among East Asians may stem from the lack of self-enhancement within collectivistic cultures, as the main cultural goal of interdependence (vs. independence) is not well served by self-enhancing (Heine, 2003; Heine & Hamamura, 2007; Heine, Lehman, Markus, & Kityama, 1999; Heine & Renshaw, 2002). Thus, there is no motivation for self-enhancing and, further, no benefit for viewing one’s in-group overly positively. Thus, in-group derogation is an extension of self-criticism to the in-group (Heine & Lehman, 1997). Similarly, perceiver’s use of self-anchoring in impressions of in-group members may influence in-group derogation. Given that East Asians have less positive self-views than North Americans (Heine et al., 1999), self-anchoring would also lead to less positive views of in-group members. This is further supported by our results, as there were no cultural differences in projection as assessed by distinctive assumed similarity. Further, the general tendency to view others with decreased social desirability regardless of group membership is likely due to self-criticism that extends beyond just in-group perceptions for East Asians.

Replicating previous work (Heine & Renshaw, 2002; Suh, 2002), distinctive accuracy was lower for Semi-Acculturated East Asians than Euro-Canadians. Given that East Asians place a greater importance on relationships and roles than abstract internal attributes such as personality traits (Heine, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; however, see Ching et al., 2013), East Asians may be less motivated to form accurate personality impressions. In sum, to the extent that conceptualizations of the self differ across cultures, we may find cultural differences in the accuracy and positivity of impressions.

Conclusion

Intergroup impressions differ systematically from intragroup impressions for Euro-Canadians, Acculturated East Asians, and Semi-Acculturated East Asians. When interacting with in-group members, perceivers formed more distinctly accurate and individuated impressions, projected more of their own unique personality traits, but also formed less positive impressions. Importantly, even though Euro-Canadians demonstrated enhanced liking for in-group members, consistent with research examining perceptions at the group level, their impressions of in-group members were less socially desirable than those of out-group members. These results highlight the critical need to examine effects both at the group level and at the level of the individual. In summary, group membership significantly impacts the accuracy and positivity of first impressions of personality—impressions of in-group members are both more accurate and more biased compared to out-group members.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

We thank Carl F. Falk, Steven J. Heine, Lauren J. Human, Marina Le, Toni Schmader, and Jenessa R. Shapiro for their feedback on a previous draft.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grants 410-2008-2643 and 410-2011-1962 to Jeremy C. Biesanz.

References

Ambady

Rosenthal

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

Ames

D. R.

(2004). Strategies for social inference: A similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 573–585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.573

Bates

Sarkar

(2007). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.999999-3) [Computer Program]. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html

Biesanz

J. C.

(2007, October). Explorations in componential analyses of interpersonal perception data. Cattell Award address presented at the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology,Chapel Hill, NC.

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.

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

Biesanz

J. C.

Human

L. J.

Paquin

Chan

Parisotto

K. L.

Sarracino

Gillis

R. L.

(2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 452–459. doi:10.1177/1948550610397211

Brewer

M. B.

(1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In Wyer

R. S.

Srull

T. K.

(Eds.), Advances in social cognition (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cadinu

M. R.

Rothbart

(1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661–677. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.661

10.

Cheung

B. Y.

Chudek

Heine

S. J.

(2011). Evidence for a sensitive window for acculturation. Younger immigrants report acculturating at a faster rate. Psychological Science, 22, 147–152. doi:10.1177/0956797610394661

11.

Ching

C. M.

Church

Katigbak

M. S.

Locke

K. D.

de Jesús Vargas-Flores

Ibáñez-Reyes

Ortiz

F. A.

(2013). Cross-cultural generalizability of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM): Implications for trait and cultural psychology. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 894–907. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.012

12.

Clement

R. W.

Krueger

(2002). Social categorization moderates social projection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 219–231. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1503

13.

Coutts

(2012). Who are our students? Implications for teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://ctlt.ubc.ca/2012/08/15/who-are-our-students-implications-for-teaching-and-learning/

14.

Cronbach

L. J.

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

15.

Falk

C. F.

Heine

S. J.

Takemura

(2013). Cultural variation in the minimal group effect. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45, 265–281. doi:10.1177/0022022113492892

16.

Fiske

S. T.

Neuberg

S. L.

(1990). A continuum model of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

17.

Funder

D. C.

Colvin

C. R.

(1997). Congruence of others' and self-judgments of personality. In Hogan

(Ed.), Handbook of personality psychology. (pp. 617–647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

18.

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

19.

Gray

H. M.

Mendes

Denny-Brown

(2008). An in-group advantage in detecting intergroup anxiety. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1233–1237. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02230.x

20.

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

21.

Hall

J. A.

Andrzejewski

S. A.

Murphy

N. A.

Mast

M. S.

Feinstein

B. A.

(2008). Accuracy of judging others’ traits and states: Comparing mean levels across tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1476–1489. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.013. 27

22.

Heine

S. J.

(2001). Self as cultural product: An examination of East Asian and North American selves. Journal of Personality, 69, 881–906. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.696168

23.

Heine

S. J.

(2003). An exploration of cultural variation in self-enhancing and self-improving motivations. In Murphy-Berman

Berman

J. J.

(Eds.), Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on the self (pp. 118–145). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

24.

Heine

S. J.

Hamamura

(2007). In search of East Asian self-enhancement. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 1–24. doi:10.1177/1088868306294587

25.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

(1997). The cultural construction of self-enhancement: An examination of group-serving biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1268–1283. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1268

26.

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, 766–794. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766

27.

Heine

S. J.

Renshaw

(2002). Interjudge agreement, self-enhancement, and liking: Cross-cultural divergences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 578–587. doi:10.1177/0146167202288002

28.

Hewstone

Rubin

Willis

(2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109

29.

Human

L. J.

Biesanz

J. C.

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

30.

Human

L. J.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2011b). Through the looking glass clearly: The role of adjustment in accuracy and assumed similarity in first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 349–364. doi:10.1037/a0021850

31.

Human

L. J.

Biesanz

J. C.

(2012). Accuracy and assumed similarity in first impressions of personality: Differing associations at different levels of analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 106–110. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.10.002

32.

Human

L. J.

Biesanz

J. C.

Parisotto

K. L.

Dunn

E. W.

(2012). Your best self reveals your true self: Trying to make a good impression results in more accurate impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 23–30. doi:10.1177/1948550611407689

33.

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 (2nd ed., pp. 102–38). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

34.

Jones

E. E.

Wood

G. C.

Quattrone

G. A.

(1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523–528. doi:10.1177/014616728173024

35.

Kenny

D. A.

(1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.

36.

Kenny

D. A.

Acitelli

L. K.

(2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439–448. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439

37.

Kenny

D. A.

West

T. V.

Cillessen

A. H.

Coie

J. D.

Dodge

K. A.

Hubbard

J. A.

Schwartz

(2007). Accuracy in judgments of aggressiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1225–1236. doi:10.1177/0146167207303026

38.

Kenny

D. A.

West

T. V.

Malloy

T. E.

Albright

(2006). Componential analysis of interpersonal perception data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 282–294. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_1

39.

Kunda

Davies

P. G.

Adams

B. D.

Spencer

S. J.

(2002). The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipation, and resurrection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 283–299. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.283

40.

Locke

K. D.

Zheng

Smith

(2014). Establishing commonality versus affirming distinctiveness: Patterns of personality judgments in China and the United States. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 389–397. doi:10.1177/1948550613506718

41.

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

42.

Ma-Kellams

Spencer-Rodgers

Peng

(2011). I am against us? Unpacking cultural differences in ingroup favoritism via dialecticism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 15–27. doi:10.1177/0146167210388193

43.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

44.

Meissner

C. A.

Brigham

J. C.

(2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in face memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 1–35. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.1.3

45.

Minoura

(1992). A sensitive period for the incorporation of a cultural meaning system: A study of Japanese children growing up in the United States. Ethos, 20, 304–339. doi:10.1525/eth.1992.20.3.02a00030

46.

Neuberg

S. L.

(1989). The goal of forming accurate impressions during social interactions: Attenuating the impact of negative expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 374–386. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.374

47.

Otten

Wentura

(2001). Self-anchoring and ingroup favoritism: An individual profiles analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 525–532. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1479

48.

Park

Rothbart

(1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1051

49.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2009). Social desirability of personality measures. Unpublished raw data.

50.

R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2009). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 2.8.1) [Computer software].Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://cran.rproject.org/bin/macosx/old/R-2.8.1.dmg

51.

Richeson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Shelton

J. N.

Hebl

(2007). Implications of ingroup-outgroup membership for interpersonal perception: Faces and emotion. In Hess

Philippot

(Eds.), Group dynamics and emotional expression (pp. 7–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

52.

Robbins

J. M.

Krueger

J. I.

(2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3

53.

Rule

N. O.

Garrett

J. V.

Ambady

(2010). Places and faces: Geographic environment influences the ingroup memory advantage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 343–355. doi:10.1037/a0018589

54.

Schafer

J. L.

(1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London, England: Chapman & Hall.

55.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147

56.

Suh

E. M.

(2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1378–1391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1378

57.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

58.

West

T. V.

(2011). Interpersonal perception in cross-group interactions: Challenges and potential solutions. European Review of Social Psychology, 22, 364–601. doi:10.1080/10463283.2011.641328

59.

West

T. V.

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378. doi:10.1037/a0022936

60.

Ying

Lee

P. A.

Tsai

J. L.

(2000). Cultural orientation and racial discrimination: Predictors of coherence in Chinese American young adults. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 427–442. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(200007)28:4<427::AID-JCOP5>3.0.CO;2-F

61.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Bronstad

P. M.

Lee

H. K.

(2007). The contribution of face familiarity to ingroup favoritism and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25, 306–338. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.2.306