We studied the accuracy of personality impressions relying on textual information on important life domains. Specifically, how is accuracy moderated by the trait being judged, information being provided, judgeability of target persons, and perceptiveness of judges? A sample of 208 students was recruited in groups of four mutual acquaintances who described themselves and each other on a measure of the Five‐Factor Model of personality. Moreover, they wrote essays on their hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, and plans for the future and provided self‐reports on possible predictors of expressive accuracy. The essays were delivered to 130 strangers who reported their impressions of the personality of the targets and provided self‐reports on possible predictors of perceptive accuracy. Accuracy was measured by correlating these impressions with the descriptions of the targets by their acquaintances. The judges used the available information efficiently. Overall, impressions of Openness to Experience were most accurate, but accuracy depended on the information being provided. Several predictors of expressive and perceptive accuracy were identified using Biesanz's (2010) social accuracy model. The results advance our understanding of factors contributing to and moderating the accuracy of personality impressions based on textual information.

Focusing on individual differences, we studied three influences on the accuracy of meta-perceptions of personality: (a) projection, that is, relying on one's self-perception; (b) normative meta-insight, that is, relying on the perception of the typical person by others; and (c) distinctive meta-insight, that is, relying on others' perception of one's unique personality attributes. Using a round-robin design, 52 groups of four acquainted students described themselves, three acquaintances, and their meta-perceptions on the Big-Five factors of personality, and provided self-reports of psychological adjustment. Projection, normative, and distinctive meta-insight contributed uniquely to meta-perception, yet qualified by systematic individual differences: Psychologically adjusted meta-perceivers projected more and relied on distinctive meta-insight less. Moreover, acquaintance raised projection. Thus, psychologically adjusted meta-perceivers were less aware of discrepancies between their self-perceptions and their actual perceptions by others, and the better people knew another person, the more strongly they expected that this other person perceived them like they perceived themselves.

The authors studied effects of self-reported personality disorder (PD) symptoms on interpersonal perception, particularly self-other agreement and favorableness. Using a round-robin design, 52 groups of four well-acquainted students described themselves and each other on a measure of the Five-Factor model of personality and were administered a self-report screening instrument for DSM-IV (Axis 2). Using the Social Accuracy Model, the peer reports were predicted, across items, from either (a) the target person's self-reports plus the self-report item means, or (b) the items' social desirability. This resulted in separate coefficients for each peer-target dyad, indicating either self-other agreement or favorableness. These coefficients were then predicted from the PD scores of the target and the peer, using multilevel modeling. Main findings were that persons scoring high on PD measures agreed less with their peers on their unique personality characteristics, and that such persons were described by, and described their peers, less favorably.

Previously no significant effects of distraction on standardized test performance by adults have been reported. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether self-ratings of distractibility predicted differences in test performance in two environmental settings, the student union during rush hours and an individual study room inside the library. On the basis of self-ratings, 72 subjects (36 males and 36 females) were selected from 815 college students to form distractible groups, low, medium and high. Only the highly distractible group performed significantly better in the library than in the union. When individual differences in distractibility are considered, test conditions may affect performance.