No Expectation, No Disappointment: How Does Meta-Accuracy Affect Hireability?

Renier, Laetitia; Kleinlogel, Emmanuelle P.; Toma, Claudia; Mast, Marianne Schmid; Murphy, Nora A.

doi:10.5465/ambpp.2018.13955abstract

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They also tend to over-estimate how easy it is for a listener to understand them when communicating ambiguous sentences (Keysar & Henly, 2002). Research has shown that such over-estimation can lead to negative outcomes, such that individuals who over-estimate the impression they convey to recruiters during a job interview are perceived as less hireable than those who under-estimate the impression they convey (Renier, Kleinlogel, Toma, Schmid Mast, & Murphy, 2018).…”

Section: Meta-perception and Its Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Think That I Made a Good Impression!”

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In an evaluative context, does the impression we think we convey to others matter, such that the more positive we think the impression conveyed is, the better we perform? Does this belief need to be accurate to perform better? We investigate the role of meta-perception and meta-accuracy in a public speaking context by asking participants to deliver a speech in front of an audience in virtual reality. Main results showed that participants’ meta-perception (i.e., how positive they think the audience perceives them) was positively associated to their performance above and beyond other-perception (i.e., how the audience actually perceives them). Results also revealed that performance increased as scores of meta-perception and other-perception increased together (i.e., meta-accuracy), up to a certain threshold.

show abstract

Section: Meta-perception and Its Accuracymentioning

confidence: 99%

“I Think That I Made a Good Impression!”

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This insight, called meta-accuracy , is defined as the correspondence between a person’s perceptions (e.g., Paul’s impression of Mia) and that person’s metaperceptions of these perceptions (e.g., Mia’s perception of Paul’s impression of Mia). Meta-accuracy is believed to be a critical interpersonal skill (Carlson & Elsaadawy, 2021), a central component of adjustment (Carlson, 2016a), and associated with a range of beneficial correlates (Brion et al, 2015; Carlson, 2016b; Carlson & Oltmanns, 2018; Renier et al, 2018). It is therefore important to understand and identify individual differences in being a good metaperceiver: To what degree do individuals differ in meta-accuracy, how do metaperceivers achieve being more accurate than others and who is especially good at it?…”

Section: Does the Good Metaperceiver Exist?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining individual differences in metaperceptive accuracy using the social meta-accuracy model.

Hater,

Elsaadawy,

Biesanz

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do individuals differ in understanding how others see them and who is particularly good at it? Answering these questions about the "good metaperceiver" is relevant given the beneficial outcomes of meta-accuracy. However, there likely is more than one type of the good metaperceiver: One who knows the specific impressions they make more than others do (dyadic meta-accuracy) and one who knows their reputation more than others do (generalized meta-accuracy). To identify and understand these good metaperceivers, we introduce the social meta-accuracy model (SMAM) as a statistical and conceptual framework and apply the SMAM to four samples of first impression interactions. As part of our demonstration, we also investigated the routes to and the correlates of both types of good metaperceivers. Results from SMAM show that, overall, people were able to detect the unique and general first impressions they made, but there was little evidence for individual differences in dyadic meta-accuracy in a first impression. In contrast, there were substantial individual differences in generalized meta-accuracy, and this ability was largely explained by being transparent (i.e., good metaperceivers were seen as they saw themselves). We also observed some evidence that good generalized metaperceivers in a first impression tend to be extraverted and popular. This work demonstrated that the SMAM is a useful tool for identifying and understanding both types of good metaperceivers and paves the way for future work on individual differences in meta-accuracy in other contexts.

show abstract

“…This insight, called meta-accuracy, is defined as the correspondence between a person's perceptions (e.g., Paul's impression of Mia) and that person's meta-perceptions of these perceptions (e.g., Mia's perception of Paul's impression of Mia). Meta-accuracy is believed to be a critical interpersonal skill (Carlson & Elsaadawy, 2019), a central component of adjustment (Carlson, 2016a), and associated with a range of beneficial correlates (Brion et al, 2015;Carlson, 2016b;Carlson & Oltmanns, 2018;Renier et al, 2018). It is therefore important to understand and identify individual differences in being a good meta-perceiver: To what degree do individuals differ in meta-accuracy, how do meta-perceivers achieve being more accurate than others and who is especially good at it?…”

Section: Using the Social Meta-accuracy Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hater_etal_The Social Meta-Accuracy Model_JPSP_preprint

Hater¹,

Elsaadawy²,

Biesanz³

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do individuals differ in understanding how others see them and who is particularly good at it? Answering these questions about the “good meta-perceiver” is relevant given the beneficial outcomes of meta-accuracy. However, there likely is more than one type of the good meta-perceiver: one who knows the specific impressions they make more than others do (dyadic meta-accuracy) and one who knows their reputation more than others do (generalized meta-accuracy). To identify and understand these good meta-perceivers, we introduce the Social Meta-Accuracy Model (SMAM) as a statistical and conceptual framework and apply the SMAM to four samples of first impression interactions. As part of our demonstration, we also investigated the routes to and the correlates of both types of good meta-perceivers. Results from SMAM show that, overall, people were able to detect the unique and general first impressions they made, but there was little evidence for individual differences in dyadic meta-accuracy in a first impression. In contrast, there were substantial individual differences in generalized meta-accuracy, and this ability was largely explained by being transparent (i.e., good meta-perceivers were seen as they saw themselves). We also observed some evidence that good generalized meta-perceivers in a first impression tend to be extraverted and popular. This work demonstrated that the SMAM is a useful tool for identifying and understanding both types of good meta-perceivers and paves the way for future work on individual differences in meta-accuracy in other contexts.

show abstract

No Expectation, No Disappointment: How Does Meta-Accuracy Affect Hireability?

Cited by 4 publications

References 26 publications

“I Think That I Made a Good Impression!”

“I Think That I Made a Good Impression!”

Examining individual differences in metaperceptive accuracy using the social meta-accuracy model.

Hater_etal_The Social Meta-Accuracy Model_JPSP_preprint

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About