Differential associations of knowing and liking with accuracy and positivity bias in person perception.

Abstract

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.

Who Knows Best What the Next Year Will Hold for You? The Validity of Direct and Personality–based Predictions of Future Life Experiences across Different Perceivers

“…Some evidence for this was uncovered in previous studies (e.g. Wessels, Zimmermann, Biesanz, & Leising, 2020). Such an effect seems possible for various reasons: for example, perceivers who like their targets may be aware of their targets' more negative characteristics but simply not report them out of loyalty.…”

“…The present study uses unique longitudinal data on psychologically meaningful life experiences, which have not been published before. They are part of a larger dataset with Wave 2 personality ratings previously utilized as part of Study 2 in Wessels et al (2020). Before consenting to participate, participants were fully informed about purpose and procedures of the study.…”

Correlations between person-descriptive items are predictable from the product of their mid-point-centered social desirability values

“…The core finding from previous research motivating the present study is that the "social desirability" value of person-descriptive terms (Edwards, 1953(Edwards, , 1957 closely mirrors the extent to which the use of those terms reflects the perceivers' self-reported attitudes toward their targets (Leising et al, 2014(Leising et al, , 2016Wessels et al, 2020). For example, the profile correlation between a perceiver's descriptions of a target on several items and the social desirability values of those items correlates almost perfectly with how much the perceiver says he or she likes the target (r ¼ .92; Leising et al, 2015).…”

“…Edwards (1953Edwards ( , 1957 showed that the items on which perceivers describe targets in personality research may be very reliably judged in terms of their "social desirability", that is, the extent to which using them to describe a person casts a more positive, neutral, or negative light on that person. Later research showed that such ratings also align very closely with the extent to which the actual usage of an item may be predicted from the attitude that the perceiver reports having toward the target (Leising et al, 2013;Wessels et al, 2020).…”

Perceiving personality through the grapevine: A network approach to reputations.

“…First, we dropped the Study 1 analyses from the manuscript entirely because the results did not significantly differ NETWORK APPROACH TO REPUTATIONS from those from the replication analyses in Study 2, making them less precise but otherwise redundant with integrated analyses on the combined Study 1 and Study 2 data (which were part of Study 2's preregistration). Second, we incorporated the extended SAM analyses (Biesanz, 2010;Wessels et al, 2020). The extended SAM affords greater power and parsimonious tests of consensus, accuracy, and positivity bias that are integrated across items and personality domains.…”