A great range of person perception phenomena may be conceptualized in terms of how much perceivers know about the targets, how much they like the targets and how these factors relate to the extent to which target descriptions reflect actual target characteristics and/or evaluative bias. We present a comprehensive empirical analysis of this interplay in two studies, the second (targets: N = 189, informants: N = 1352) being a pre-registered replication of the first (targets: N = 73, informants: N = 549). Using multilevel profile analyses, we investigated how liking and knowing are differentially associated with judgments' normative accuracy (i.e., reflecting actual characteristics of the average target), distinctive accuracy (i.e., reflecting actual characteristics of specific targets), and positivity bias. Statistical effects were largely consistent across two independent validation measures (self-ratings vs. peer-ratings of personality), and across the two studies. Despite being positively correlated with one another, liking and knowing had opposing effects on person judgments: Knowing targets better was associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy, and with lower positivity bias. In contrast, liking targets more was associated with lower distinctive and normative accuracy, but with greater positivity bias. The findings suggest that person judgments tend to reflect actual target characteristics as well as evaluative bias, and that the relative extents to which they do are predictable from what the perceivers say about their relationships with the targets (i.e., knowing and liking). Directions for future research are discussed.

Person judgments reflect perceiver effects: differences in how perceivers judge the average person. The factorial structure of such effects is still discussed. We present a large-scale, preregistered replication study using over 1 million person judgments (different groups of 200 perceivers judged 200 targets in one of 20 situations, using 30 personality items). Results unanimously favored a model comprising three systematic components: acquiescence (endorsing all items more than other perceivers), positivity (endorsing positive over negative items), and trait specificity (endorsing items reflecting a specific trait more). The latter two factors each accounted for approximately a quarter of the variance in perceiver effects, and acquiescence accounted for less than 10%. Positivity was more influential for evaluative items and was strongly associated with how likable perceivers found their targets to be ( r = .55). With considerable statistical power and generalizability, our findings significantly improve the knowledge base regarding the structure of perceiver effects.

The assumption that personality makes a difference in people's everyday lives is probably the main reason why investigating personality seems worthwhile at all. Although the number of empirical studies addressing the everyday consequences of personality is considerable, an overarching conceptual framework is missing. We present such a framework, using a version of the SORKC model from cognitive-behavioral therapy. Our version of the model incorporates a full account of how personality may influence the ways in which people perceive and respond to situations, which may ultimately have important consequences for them and others. However, not everything that formally qualifies as a consequence of personality is equally relevant. In choosing criterion variables for their own research, researchers interested in personality consequences seem to have strongly relied on implicit assumptions regarding a “good life.” We review a sample of recent studies from the personality literature, using our own conceptualization of important personality consequences to assess the current state of the field, and deduce recommendations for future research.

Gallrein, Carlson, Holstein and Leising (2013) tested a novel form of so called "blind spots" as conceived in the social reality paradigm that contrasts selfand metaperception with one's reputation (i.e., the consensual impression one makes). They found that people are not always aware of the unique views that others have of them, providing evidence for distinctive blind spots in self-perception. The current research replicates this finding and the original effect size using a larger set of personality ratings (Study 1), a more diverse set of informants (Study 1) and two different cultures (Study 1 vs. Study 2). This replication suggests that the blind spot phenomenon is robust across item sets, participant samples, and language communities.

This study explored the validity of person judgements by targets and their acquaintances ('informants') in longitudinally predicting a broad range of psychologically meaningful life experiences. Judgements were gathered from four sources (targets, N = 189; and three types of informants, N = 1352), and their relative predictive validity was compared for three types of judgement: direct predictions of future life experiences (e.g. number of new friendships), broad (Big Five) domains (e.g. extraversion), and narrower personality nuances (e.g. sociable). Approximately 1 year later, the targets' actual life experiences were retrospectively assessed by the targets, and by informants nominated by the targets (TNI). Overall, we found evidence for predictive validity across predictor sources and types. Direct predictions by targets were by far the most valid, followed by TNI. Personality-based predictions by targets and TNI had substantial but lower validity. Domain-based predictions were less valid than nuance-based predictions. Overall, informants with lower 'liking' and 'knowing' towards targets made less valid predictions. Person-centred multilevel analyses showed both considerable validity of direct predictions (which increased with knowing) and positivity bias (which increased with liking). Taken together, given the relatively high methodological rigour of the study, these results provide an especially realistic picture of the rather moderate predictive power of person judgements regarding future life experiences and corroborate the common practice of obtaining such judgements from targets and their close acquaintances.