Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance.

Abstract

This research focused on the target effect on a perceiver's judgments of personality when the perceiver and the target are unacquainted. The perceiver was given no opportunity to interact with the target, a condition we refer to as zero acquaintance. We reasoned that in order to make personality judgments, perceivers would use the information available to them (physical appearance). Consensus in personality judgments would result, then, from shared stereotypes about particular physical appearance characteristics. Results from three separate studies with 259 subjects supported this hypothesis. On two of the five dimensions (extraversion and conscientiousness) on which subjects rated each other, a significant proportion of variance was due to the stimulus target. Consensus on judgments of extraversion appears to have been largely mediated by judgments of physical attractiveness. Across the three studies there was also evidence that the consensus in judgments on these two dimensions had some validity, in that they correlated with self-judgments on those two dimensions. If individuals were asked to make judgments about the personality characteristics of individuals with whom they were unacquainted, how much consensus would there be? That is, to what extent would perceivers agree as to where each target stands on a given trait? With no behavioral information on which to make judgments, intuitively we might speculate that consensus should be near zero. If, however, perceivers have access to the physical characteristics of the strangers they are judging, consensus may result from the use of shared stereotypes regarding the personality concomitants of these cues. Although there are studies that have measured consensus between acquainted individuals (

The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

“…The evidence indicates that attitude formation is better described as a set of automatic processes than as a process of deliberation and reflection about the traits of a person. People form first impressions at first sight (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988), and the impressions that they form from observing a "thin slice" of behavior (as little as 5 seconds) are almost identical to the impressions they form from much longer and more leisurely observation and deliberation (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). These first impressions alter subsequent evaluations, creating a halo effect (Thorndike, 1920), in which positive evaluations of non-moral traits such as attractiveness lead to beliefs that a person possesses corresponding moral traits such as kindness and good character (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972).…”

Reading Others' Emotions: The Role of Intuitive Judgments in Predicting Marital Satisfaction, Quality, and Stability.

“…They defined high-intensity negativity as contempt, defensiveness, and belligerence whereas anger was classified as low-intensity negativity. (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988;Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992Paunonen, 1991;Rosenthal, Blanck, & Vannicelli, 1984). …”

First impressions: Gait cues drive reliable trait judgements

“…This is known as consensus at zero acquaintance (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). Most studies using a zero-acquaintance paradigm give observers access to static information that may have an impact on perceived personality; for instance, a neat attire and being well groomed have an impact on perceived conscientiousness and extraversion (Albright, et al, 1988).…”

“…This is known as consensus at zero acquaintance (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). Most studies using a zero-acquaintance paradigm give observers access to static information that may have an impact on perceived personality; for instance, a neat attire and being well groomed have an impact on perceived conscientiousness and extraversion (Albright, et al, 1988). However, some studies have reported consensus at zero acquaintance based on point-light stimuli (Brownlow, Dixon, Egbert, & Radcliffe, 1997;Heberlein, Adolphs, Tranel, & Damasio, 2004;Montepare & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1988).…”