Accuracy of Judgments of Personality Based on Textual Information on Major Life Domains

Abstract

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.

Contributions of Nonverbal Cues to the Accurate Judgment of Personality Traits

“…DeGroot & Gooty, 2009;Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985;Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009;Scherer et al, 1977), which also play an important role in nonverbal expression. Cues based on environmental aspects such as rooms (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002), music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006), or verbal descriptions (e.g., Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, & Wolf, 2016;Küfner, Back, Nestler, & Egloff, 2010), as well as social media cues (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008;Back, Stopfer et al, 2010) will be discussed in Ch. 14 by Wall and Campbell in this handbook.…”

Contributions of Nonverbal Cues to the Accurate Judgment of Personality Traits

“…In addition to these dynamic cues, there also exists a long research tradition of investigating static appearance based cues (e.g., body shape, choice of clothing, head size; DeGroot & Gooty, 2009;Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985;Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009;Scherer et al, 1977), which also play an important role in nonverbal expression. Cues based on environmental aspects such as rooms (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002), music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006), or verbal descriptions (e.g., Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, & Wolf, 2016;Küfner, Back, Nestler, & Egloff, 2010), as well as social media cues (e.g., Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008;Back, Stopfer et al, 2010) will be discussed in Ch. 14 by Wall and Campbell in this handbook.…”

Self‐Other Agreement and Metaperception Accuracy Across the Big Five: Examining the Roles of Depression and Self‐Esteem

“…The purpose of the present study was to examine the degree of self‐other agreement and meta‐accuracy for the Big Five personality dimensions, and to test whether depressive symptoms and low self‐esteem bias our views of others' personality or perceptions of how others view our personality after brief interactions. The present study joins a growing body of recent literature (e.g., Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, & Wolf, ; Carlson, ; Carlson, Wright, & Imam, ) examining the importance of psychological and interpersonal adjustment with regard to meta‐accuracy. However, studies that examine both self‐other agreement and meta‐accuracy in a single sample remain fairly uncommon.…”