Accuracy of empathic judgments of acquaintances and strangers.

Taft, Ronald

doi:10.1037/h0023288

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Blackman and Funder (1998) have also shown that self-other agreement increases steadily as acquaintanceship with the target subject, via videotaped episodes, increases. Parallel results have also been found by other investigators (Cloyd 1977;Colvin and Funder 1991;Funder and Colvin 1988;Jackson, Neill and Bevan 1969;Norman and Goldberg 1966;Paulhus and Bruce 1992;Paunonen 1989;Taft 1966).…”

Section: Good Informationsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effective Interview Practices for Accurately Assessing Counterproductive Traits

Blackman

Funder

2002

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A first line of defense for an organization against counterproductive behavior in the workplace is the accurate detection during the interview process of a job candidate’s counterproductive traits. This article discusses aspects of the interview format and other considerations relevant to increasing the accuracy of the assessment of a job candidate’s personality. Recent research suggests that the unstructured interview may be of high value in comparison to the traditional structured interview format, when accurate personality prediction is the criterion (Blackman, in press–a; Ickes, Snyder and Garcia 1997). Interviewers can also become more sophisticated in evaluating the probable accuracy of their judgments by learning about four important moderators of accuracy: properties of the judge, of the target, of the trait being judged, and of the information upon which the judgment is based (Funder 1995).

show abstract

Section: Good Informationsupporting

confidence: 90%

Effective Interview Practices for Accurately Assessing Counterproductive Traits

Blackman

Funder

2002

Int J Selection Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent research has shown that acquaintances who have known their targets for about a year agree with each other and with targets' self-judgments better than do relative strangers who have viewed the targets only by means of a single 5-min videotaped behavioral episode (Funder & Colvin, 1988), a finding parallel to that obtained by other investigators (Cloyd, 1977;Funder & Colvin, 1988;Jackson, Neill, & Bevan, 1969;Norman & Goldberg, 1966;Paulhus& Bruce, 1992;Paunonen, 1989;Taft, 1966).…”

Section: Implications For Moderatorssupporting

confidence: 76%

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

Funder¹

1995

Psychological Review

1,214

1,448

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The "accuracy paradigm" for the study of personality judgment provides an important, new complement to the "error paradigm" that dominated this area of research for almost 2 decades. The present article introduces a specific approach within the accuracy paradigm called the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM). RAM begins with the assumption that personality traits are real attributes of individuals. This assumption entails the use of a broad array of criteria for the evaluation of personality judgment and leads to a model that describes accuracy as a function of the availability, detection, and utilization of relevant behavioral cues. RAM provides a common explanation for basic moderators of accuracy, sheds light on how these moderators interact, and outlines a research agenda that includes the reintegration of the study of error with the study of accuracy.Believe truth! Shun error!-these, we see, are two materially different laws; and by choosing between them we may end by coloring differently our whole intellectual life. (James, 1897(James, /1915

show abstract

“…subject's judgment and the stimulus person's view of himself, in which case complete agreement between these two is taken to equal perfect interpersonal perception (for actual examples see Bronfenbrenner, 1962;Taft, 1966). In the 'guess what he would write' task, a stimulus person is required to fill in a personality inventory, and it is the task of subjects after meeting him or seeing him on film or the like to fill in the same personality test as he thinks the stimulus person did (for examples see Smith, 1957;Cline, 1955).…”

Section: Robert Mchenrymentioning

confidence: 99%

New Methods of Assessing the Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception

McHENRY

1971

J Theory Soc Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Everyone is familiar with those studies conducted during the 1950swhich promised an answer to such tantalizing questions as, 'Who are better judges of people, men or women? Psychologists or laymen? Leaders or followers?' Everyone knows too that satisfactory answers were never given because the investigators ran into almost insuperable difficulties of measurement which were nearly all peculiar to the problem they were trying to solve. Several reviewers pointed out the snags at the time (Cronbach, 1958;Bronfenbrenner, 1958;Cline, 1964). Subjects in 'accuracy' experiments, they said, use scales differently from each other, apply their own stereotypes, assume others are similar to themselves, or employ peculiar response sets. According to these reviewers, the 'naive' experimenter confounds all these factors in his score of accuracy and the results are meaningless. But how does one avoid 'naivete'? No one came up with a practicable answer and virtually all progress in the area has been at a standstill ever since.This article hopes to demonstrate that although these criticisms by Cronbach and others may have been valid they ought not to have presented insuperable difficulties to investigators. The basis of this statement is simple. Cronbach and others, by placing emphasis on the means by which an experimenter must arrive at a 'pure' score of interpersonal accuracy, clouded an issue which is logically antecedent. How meaningful did these naively analysed test procedures make the laboratory task of judging others in the first place? I n general, these laboratory studies of the accuracy of interpersonal perception used to (and recent ones still do) set subjects one of two tasks. There is the 'guess the quantity of a trait' task and the 'guess what he would write' task. I n the 'guess the quantity of a trait' task, subjects are given a list of personality traits like extroversion, intelligence, neuroticism, etc., and they are required to state the quantities in which these are possessed by certain stimulus persons. Often a comparison is then made between J. Theory SOC. Behaviour I, 2 . Printed in Great Britain

show abstract

Accuracy of empathic judgments of acquaintances and strangers.

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Effective Interview Practices for Accurately Assessing Counterproductive Traits

Effective Interview Practices for Accurately Assessing Counterproductive Traits

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.

New Methods of Assessing the Accuracy of Interpersonal Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About