Zero-acquaintance personality judgments

Last updated

A zero-acquaintance situation requires a perceiver to make a judgment about a target with whom the perceiver has had no prior social interaction. These judgments can be made using a variety of cues, including brief interactions with the target, video recordings of the target, photographs of the target, and observations of the target's personal environments, among others. In zero-acquaintance studies, the target's actual personality is determined through the target's self-rating and/or ratings from close acquaintance(s) of that target. Consensus in ratings is determined by how consistently perceivers rate the target's personality when compared to other raters. Accuracy in ratings is determined by how well perceivers' ratings of a target compare to that target's self-ratings on the same scale, or to that target's close acquaintances' ratings of the target. Zero-acquaintance judgments are regularly made in day-to-day life. Given that these judgments tend to remain stable, even as the length of interaction increases, they can influence important interpersonal outcomes.

Contents

Background

History

The study of zero-acquaintance personality judgments developed from Cleeton and Knight's (1924) [1] intent to demonstrate the futility of using physical criteria to predict unobservable individual traits. In order to accomplish this, Cleeton and Knight (1924) [1] recruited 30 target participants from national fraternities and sororities, so that a large group of close acquaintances from these organizations could rate eight traits (i.e. individual traits included sound judgment, intellectual capacity, frankness, willpower, ability to make friends, leadership, originality, and impulsiveness) of the target participants. Cleeton and Knight (1924) [1] then asked a group of strangers to rate these eight traits of each target participant after viewing the target participant from a distance for only a few minutes. After measuring several objective physical traits of the target participants, such as cranium size and eye width, Cleeton and Knight (1924) [1] found that these physical traits were unrelated to close acquaintances' ratings of unobservable individual traits. However, they found that strangers' rating of an unfamiliar individual's traits were reliable; strangers tended to rate a target's personality similarly. Although these ratings were inaccurate, it became apparent that raters must be using similar indicators to make judgements about individual traits.

Passini and Norman (1966) [2] found comparable evidence that strangers provide similar ratings of unobservable personality traits of a target participant with no prior acquaintanceship. In an introductory undergraduate psychology course, students with no previous interactions were placed into groups and asked to complete personality ratings for each member in the group. Given that the strangers tended to rate a target participant's personality similarly, Passini and Norman (1966) [2] posited that some common observable characteristics must be informing these judgements. In the same year, Taft (1966) [3] demonstrated that strangers can make judgments of personality more accurately than chance, but not as accurately as close acquaintances.

These findings went unnoticed for over twenty years, until Albright, Kenny, and Malloy (1988) [4] revived interest and formally coined the term zero-acquaintance personality judgments. These researchers established that certain physical appearance variables, including attractiveness, type of dress (both formal and neatness), and perceived age, informed strangers' zero-acquaintance personality judgments. Ratings between strangers were most similar to each other and to the target's self-rating for the traits "sociable" and "responsible". Ratings of target attractiveness informed judgements of sociability; formality and neatness of dress informed judgements of responsibility.

Consensus in ratings

Consensus in zero-acquaintance studies refers to the degree to which multiple perceivers of a target make similar judgments of that target's personality traits. [5] Even from a momentary interaction, multiple perceivers can come to the same conclusion about aspects of a person's personality. A few different explanations exist for this phenomenon. One such explanation is called similar meaning systems. [6] This explanation posits that consensus arises when raters agree on the meaning of the information they use to make personality judgments. Some aspect of the individual (such as facial expressions or posture) appears to have the same meaning to each perceiver. For example, a smile or an erect stance might be an indicator of extraversion (one of the five traits in the five-factor model of personality to all perceivers, therefore these raters will all provide similar extraversion ratings. This does not necessarily mean that the ratings are accurate, just that all perceivers rated the individual similarly.

Stereotypes also influence consensus across perceivers. If perceivers of a target individual hold the same stereotypes about the target and use them in making personality judgments, consensus will be higher. For example, one gender may be stereotypically considered less emotionally stable than the other (neuroticism). Assuming perceivers hold this stereotype, they will make similar emotional stability ratings when the target's gender is known. [5] Again, this does not assume that the stereotype is valid. In fact, some common stereotypes may prove to be invalid; use of such a stereotype by multiple perceivers will result in consistent, but inaccurate ratings (or high consensus and low accuracy).

It is worth noting that different personality traits show different levels of consensus. Of the traits in the Five Factor Model of personality, conscientiousness and extraversion tend to show higher levels of consensus, while agreeableness tends to demonstrate the least consensus. [6] These patterns of findings suggest that some traits are more easily judged from brief interactions and more likely to be agreed upon than others. For example, facial expressions, which often indicate levels of extraversion, are easily detected in brief meetings, pictures, or video clips; perceivers tend to agree on what traits these facial expressions convey. Therefore, consensus tends to be higher for extraversion. Consensus can also result from beliefs about the target's physical attractiveness and traits commonly associated with attractive individuals. For example, extraversion is often associated with physical attractiveness. Because perceivers tend to agree on targets' physical attractiveness, consensus for extraversion is generally high. [4]

Studies examining these differences in consensus across the Big Five traits have found that consensus ratings for extraversion tend to be around .27, compared to consensus of .03 for agreeableness. [6] These numbers indicate how similarly raters view the same target's personality, with higher numbers indicating greater consensus for a particular trait. For agreeableness (with a consensus score of .03), there was virtually no agreement across raters of the target's level of agreeableness. For extraversion, (.27), there was much more consensus about the target's level of extraversion.

Studies have also examined the differences in consensus for zero-acquaintance raters and raters who have been long acquainted with the target. For extraversion, consensus ratings seem to be similar (.27 for zero-acquaintance and .29 for long-term acquaintance). For all other traits, long-term acquaintance ratings tend to converge much more than for zero-acquaintance ratings. For example, ratings of agreeableness demonstrate consensus estimates of .27 when long-term acquaintances are the raters, compared to .03 when there are zero-acquaintance raters. [6] Those who are familiar with the target individual tend to agree about their personality traits much more than individuals who do not know the target, with the exception of extraversion. These study findings suggest that extraversion is a fairly observable trait for any person, whether they know the target or not, and people interpret social cues related to extraversion quite similarly.

Accuracy in ratings

To determine if the perceiver in a zero-acquaintance context has made an accurate judgment of a target's personality, perceiver ratings are compared to the target's own ratings of their personality. [5] The degree to which these two ratings converge is known as accuracy. Peer ratings (from people who have frequent contact with the individual being rated) can also be used to determine accuracy; if perceiver ratings of a target converge with peer ratings of the target, accuracy has been established. Accuracy is achieved when perceivers use what is known as "good information" about the target to make ratings. Information is "good" when it actually represents the trait being rated. For example, if a smile is actually reflective of extraversion, accuracy will be increased when perceivers use smiles to influence their extraversion ratings. This notion is known as the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM; [7] David C. Funder). When perceivers utilize good information in their ratings and ignore bad or irrelevant information, accuracy increases.

As mentioned above, both self-ratings and peer-ratings of a target can be used to calculate accuracy; in fact, several researchers suggest it is best to combine self-reports and peer reports when measuring accuracy (self-report inventory). This helps eliminate the flaws of each measure on its own and can increase confidence that the accuracy measure is itself accurate. This combined rating (usually an average of peer- and self-score) is then correlated with the zero-acquaintance perceiver ratings to determine accuracy, in what has been termed the "Gold Standard" in personality research; [5] [7] [8]

Like consensus, accuracy is greater for some traits than others. In fact, a similar pattern to consensus exists, with extraversion and conscientiousness ratings tending to be the most accurate and agreeableness and openness ratings the least accurate of the five-factor model of personality. This is likely due to the trait-relevant information available to perceivers in zero-acquaintance settings. For example, in photographs there is more information present that accurately reflects conscientiousness and extraversion (such as cleanliness and facial expressions), than that which reflects agreeableness or openness. [6]

Sociability-related traits have typically been found to be the easiest to judge when raters have little acquaintance with targets. Since extraversion largely measures social tendencies, it makes sense that the highest consensus and accuracy are found for this trait. [9] Extraversion ratings by peer raters who had little interaction with targets demonstrated validities of .35, compared to validities of .01 for agreeableness. [10] This stark difference in validity suggests that agreeableness is much harder to judge with accuracy when the rater is unfamiliar with the target. Conscientiousness has also demonstrated relatively high accuracy when the rater is unacquainted, with a validity of .29. The validity coefficient tells us how related the raters' judgments are to the target's own ratings of their personality. A validity coefficient of .35 (such as for extraversion) is fairly high, compared to a validity coefficient of .01, which indicates that there is absolutely no relationship between the two sets of ratings.

When raters are not very acquainted with the targets they are rating, it appears that the length of time they are actually able to observe the person doesn't have a strong influence on the accuracy of the behavioral judgments made. When raters have as little as 30 seconds to make a judgment about a target, they have the same level of accuracy as when they have four to five hours. This suggests that several cues about a person can be displayed in very short window of time. Across all ratings in all time windows, accuracy was .39, which is similar to the results of other zero-acquaintance studies. [11]

It is also important to note that while zero-acquaintance judgments can be accurate and particular traits are easy to judge, research generally shows that the greater acquaintance someone has with the target, the more accurate their ratings are. [9] [12] A classic study showed that the Big Five traits on average have higher validity for acquaintances (.40) than strangers (.29). This is a 38% increase in accuracy for acquaintances, compared to strangers. [13] A later study examined this same topic over an extended period of time in order to better test an "acquaintance effect" on ratings. When people were asked to rate targets at multiple points in time, their ratings became more accurate (more similar to the targets' self-ratings) over time, as they got to know the target better. At weeks 1, 4, and 7, accuracy in ratings across the Big Five traits increased from .21 to .26, to .30, respectively. [10] This demonstrates the phenomenon known as the acquaintance effect: over time, as people get to know someone better, they are better able to estimate that target's true personality.

Recent research

Recent research employing zero-acquaintance situations has largely focused on what traits are judged most consistently and accurately, and in what contexts. The most common contexts for zero-acquaintance judgments are those that allow for the observation of a target's physical appearance. Information about physical attributes is generally garnered in one of two ways: observation or photographs. Observation ratings typically come from video or sound recordings. For example, Borkenau and Liebler (1992) [14] asked perceivers to view either a silent video, audio video, or just audio of targets entering a room, sitting down, and reading a script. Perceivers provided the most accurate judgements for extraversion and agreeableness with both audio and visual cues; conscientiousness was most accurate with visual cues alone.

Interest in photographs has continued to increase in recent years, given the widespread use of these images on social media sites. For example, Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, and Gosling (2009) [15] found that perceivers can make more accurate judgments of targets when these targets appear in spontaneous or "strike a pose" photographs than in non-expressive full body photographs. Specifically, perceivers were only able to accurately judge extraversion, self-esteem, and religiosity using a non-expressive full body photograph. When the target struck a pose, however, the perceiver was able to judge extraversion, agreeableness, emotional stability, openness, likeability, self-esteem, loneliness, religiosity, and political orientation with some degree of accuracy. In a more recent study exploring the accuracy of personality judgments in selfie profile pictures, Qiu, Lu, Yang, Qu, and Zhu (2015) [16] found that perceivers only accurately predict openness from selfies; these ratings were formed through impressions of the target's emotional positivity.

Zero-acquaintance personality judgments can also be made through other artifacts, such as personal belongings or social media profiles. Gosling and colleagues (2002) [5] found that perceivers can more accurately rate targets' personality by observing their bedrooms than their offices. When observing the bedrooms, perceivers could accurately rate extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience. When observing the offices, however, perceivers could only accurately rate extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. The researchers also found which cues informed which rating of personality. For instance, neatness informed judgments of conscientiousness, whereas variety and quantity of books informed judgements of openness to experience. More recently, Back et al. (2010) [8] investigated how well perceivers could make judgements of targets by viewing their social media profiles, either on Facebook or StudiVZ. The researchers found that perceivers could accurately predict extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness of a target by simply perusing the social media profile.

Implications and unanswered questions

Personality judgments made in zero-acquaintance contexts are extremely common in day-to-day life. As can be seen from the studies referenced previously, personality impressions can be formed from extremely brief interactions, [9] physical appearance, [15] and personal environments. [5] As the world becomes increasingly virtual, these zero-acquaintance judgments are becoming even more popular, as people turn to online profiles to infer people's personalities for use in both professional and interpersonal contexts. These judgments can have important implications, as they can influence the decision to further engage with an individual, and how so. For example, when employees were presented with the job application and picture of a fictitious future manager, their zero-acquaintance judgments of personality predicted these employees' willingness to work under this hypothetical manager. [17]

Furthermore, research has indicated that these first personality impressions remain relatively stable over time, even as the extent of interaction with the target person increases over time. [18] In other words, the first impressions created in zero-acquaintance contexts are hard to change, and thus are predictive of further outcomes. For example, student impressions of an instructor on the first day of class were shown to be relatively consistent with impressions after the class had concluded, and thus these judgments predicted student course evaluations. [19] Additionally, interviewer first impressions of interviewees have been shown to influence the amount of information provided by the interviewer during the interview, as well as the communication style and rapport established. [18]

Despite research demonstrating the stability of these zero-acquaintance judgments, as well as their accuracy and consensus, many questions still remain. For example, researchers have just begun to examine how different forms of zero-acquaintance judgments compare to one another. In other words, it is likely that one trait may be better judged in a particular context (e.g. photographs) while a different trait may be more accurately judged via a different context (e.g. video recordings). More research is needed in order to determine exactly which traits are best judged in which contexts.

Additionally, it is possible that different zero-acquaintance contexts may provide conflicting information regarding the same trait. [20] If a perceiver encounters both sources of information, it is unknown which source would be emphasized in the perceiver's judgments. Additionally, the weight that any particular perceiver attributes to one source over another may be influenced by characteristics of that perceiver or of the situation, and future research is needed to investigate this possibility.

Finally, the role of culture and demographics in zero-acquaintance judgments has been identified as an area ripe for further studies. [20] Perceivers from different cultures may judge the same source of information in different ways. Additionally, some sources of information (e.g. writing samples) portray culture and demographics to a lesser extent than others (e.g. photographs), which may lead to important differences in the judgments made. While research has begun to delve into these questions, many remain unanswered.

See also

Related Research Articles

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

Conscientiousness is the personality trait of being careful or diligent. Conscientiousness implies a desire to do a task well, and to take obligations to others seriously. Conscientious people tend to be efficient and organized as opposed to easy-going and disorderly. They tend to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement; they display planned rather than spontaneous behavior; and they are generally dependable. Conscientiousness manifests in characteristic behaviors such as being neat, systematic, careful, thorough, and deliberate.

The Big Five personality traits is a suggested taxonomy, or grouping, for personality traits, developed from the 1980s onward in psychological trait theory.

Depressive realism is the hypothesis developed by Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson that depressed individuals make more realistic inferences than non-depressed individuals. Although depressed individuals are thought to have a negative cognitive bias that results in recurrent, negative automatic thoughts, maladaptive behaviors, and dysfunctional world beliefs, depressive realism argues not only that this negativity may reflect a more accurate appraisal of the world but also that non-depressed individuals' appraisals are positively biased.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Facial symmetry</span> One specific measure of bodily symmetry

Facial symmetry is one specific measure of bodily symmetry. Along with traits such as averageness and youthfulness it influences judgments of aesthetic traits of physical attractiveness and beauty. For instance, in mate selection, people have been shown to have a preference for symmetry.

Agreeableness is a personality trait that manifests as behavior that is perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, frank, and considerate. In contemporary personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.

Social perception is the study of how people form impressions of and make inferences about other people as sovereign personalities. Social perception refers to identifying and utilizing social cues to make judgments about social roles, rules, relationships, context, or the characteristics of others. This domain also includes social knowledge, which refers to one's knowledge of social roles, norms, and schemas surrounding social situations and interactions. People learn about others' feelings and emotions by picking up information they gather from physical appearance, verbal, and nonverbal communication. Facial expressions, tone of voice, hand gestures, and body position or movement are a few examples of ways people communicate without words. A real-world example of social perception is understanding that others disagree with what one said when one sees them roll their eyes. There are four main components of social perception: observation, attribution, integration, and confirmation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affective events theory</span> Psychological model

Affective events theory (AET) is an industrial and organizational psychology model developed by organizational psychologists Howard M. Weiss and Russell Cropanzano to explain how emotions and moods influence job performance and job satisfaction. The model explains the linkages between employees' internal influences and their reactions to incidents that occur in their work environment that affect their performance, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The theory proposes that affective work behaviors are explained by employee mood and emotions, while cognitive-based behaviors are the best predictors of job satisfaction. The theory proposes that positive-inducing as well as negative-inducing emotional incidents at work are distinguishable and have a significant psychological impact upon workers' job satisfaction. This results in lasting internal and external affective reactions exhibited through job performance, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment.

Self-enhancement is a type of motivation that works to make people feel good about themselves and to maintain self-esteem. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations of threat, failure or blows to one's self-esteem. Self-enhancement involves a preference for positive over negative self-views. It is one of the three self-evaluation motives along with self-assessment and self-verification . Self-evaluation motives drive the process of self-regulation, that is, how people control and direct their own actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negative affectivity</span> Personality variable

Negative affectivity (NA), or negative affect, is a personality variable that involves the experience of negative emotions and poor self-concept. Negative affectivity subsumes a variety of negative emotions, including anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness. Low negative affectivity is characterized by frequent states of calmness and serenity, along with states of confidence, activeness, and great enthusiasm.

Thin-slicing is a term used in psychology and philosophy to describe the ability to find patterns in events based only on "thin slices", or narrow windows, of experience. The term refers to the process of making very quick inferences about the state, characteristics or details of an individual or situation with minimal amounts of information. Research has found that brief judgments based on thin-slicing are similar to those judgments based on much more information. Judgments based on thin-slicing can be as accurate, or even more so, than judgments based on much more information.

Interpersonal perception is an area of research in social psychology which examines the beliefs that interacting people have about each other. This area differs from social cognition and person perception by being interpersonal rather than intrapersonal, and thus requiring the interaction of at least two actual people. There are three stages of the perception process including selection, organization, and interpretation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HEXACO model of personality structure</span> Six-dimensional model of human personality

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality, based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae and Goldberg. The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the Honesty-Humility dimension.

Personality judgment is the process by which people perceive each other's personalities through acquisition of certain information about others, or meeting others in person. The purpose of studying personality judgment is to understand past behavior exhibited by individuals and predict future behavior. Theories concerning personality judgment focus on the accuracy of personality judgments and the effects of personality judgments on various aspects of social interactions. Determining how people judge personality is important because personality judgments often influence individuals' behaviors.

The Big Five personality traits are Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. The Big Five Personality is a test that people can take to learn more about their personality in relation to the five personality traits. Cross-cultural psychology as a discipline examines the way that human behavior is different and/or similar across different cultures. One important and widely studied area in this subfield of psychology is personality, particularly the study of Big Five. The Big Five model of personality has become the most extensively studied model of personality and has broad support, starting in the United States and later in many different cultures. The Big Five model of personality started in the United States, and through the years has been translated into many different languages and has been used in many countries. Some researchers were attempting to determine the differences in how other cultures perceive this model. Some research shows that the Big Five holds up across cultures even with its origin in the English language. However, there is also some evidence which suggests that the Big Five traits may not be sufficient to completely explain personality in other cultures. In countries such as South America and East Asia, the results weren't as accurate because they weren't as open as some people in other countries are.

In psychology, a facet is a specific and unique aspect of a broader personality trait. Both the concept and the term "facet" were introduced by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae in the first edition of the NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) Manual. Facets were originally elaborated only for the neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion traits; Costa and McCrae introduced facet scales for the agreeableness and conscientiousness traits in the Revised NEO-PI. Each of the Big Five personality traits in the five factor model contains six facets, each of which is measured with a separate scale. The use of facets and facet scales has since expanded beyond the NEO PI-R, with alternative facet and domain structures derived from other models of personality. Examples include the HEXACO model of personality structure, psycholexical studies, circumplex models, the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), and the California Psychological Inventory.

Samuel D. Gosling is a personality and social psychologist with interests in social perception, cross-species, and trends in the history of psychology. His work in social perception examines how people form impressions on others through their behavior, appearance, and physical environment, while his work with cross-species examines how animals can lead to theories of personality and social psychology. For instance, he studied individual differences in personality and social behaviors, and how personality traits are portrayed and described in a number of different species including humans, hyenas, dogs, and cats. In general, Gosling's research pertains to evolutionary and ecological principles. He holds a PhD from the University of California at Berkeley, and is currently a professor within the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.

Intelligence and personality have traditionally been studied as separate entities in psychology, but more recent work has increasingly challenged this view. An increasing number of studies have recently explored the relationship between intelligence and personality, in particular the Big Five personality traits.

The false-uniqueness effect is an attributional type of cognitive bias in social psychology that describes how people tend to view their qualities, traits, and personal attributes as unique when in reality they are not. This bias is often measured by looking at the difference between estimates that people make about how many of their peers share a certain trait or behaviour and the actual number of peers who report these traits and behaviours.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Cleeton, G. U.; Knight, F. B. (1924). "Validity of character judgments based on external criteria". Journal of Applied Psychology. 8 (2): 215–231. doi:10.1037/h0072525.
  2. 1 2 Passini, F. T.; Norman, W. T. (1966). "A universal conception of personality structure?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (1): 44–9. doi:10.1037/h0023519. PMID   5965191.
  3. ↑ Taft, R. (1966). "Accuracy of empathetic judgments of acquaintances and strangers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 3 (5): 600–604. doi:10.1037/h0023288. PMID   5939612.
  4. 1 2 Albright, L.; Kenny, D. A.; Malloy, T. E. (1988). "Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (3): 387–95. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.387. PMID   3171912.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gosling, S. D.; Ko, S. J.; Mannarelli, T.; Morris, M. E. (2002). "A room with a cue: personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (3): 379–398. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.379. PMID   11902623.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Kenny, D. A.; Albright, L.; Malloy, T. E.; Kashy, D. A. (1994). "Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the Big Five". Psychological Bulletin. 116 (2): 245–258. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.2.245. PMID   7972592.
  7. 1 2 Funder, D. C. (1995). "On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach" (PDF). Psychological Review. 102 (4): 652–670. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.321.2328 . doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652. PMID   7480467.
  8. 1 2 Back, M. D.; Stopfer, J. M.; Vazire, S.; Gaddis, S.; Schmukle, S. C.; Egloff, B.; Gosling, S. D. (2010). "Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization" (PDF). Psychological Science. 21 (3): 372–374. doi:10.1177/0956797609360756. PMID   20424071. S2CID   425347.
  9. 1 2 3 Funder, D.C.; Colvin, C.R. (1988). "Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (1): 149–158. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.149. PMID   3418488.
  10. 1 2 Paulhus, D.; Bruce, M. (1992). "The Effect of acquaintanceship on the validity of personality impressions: A longitudinal study". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63 (5): 816–824. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.816.
  11. ↑ Ambady, N.; Rosenthal, R. (1992). "Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 111 (2): 256–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.256.
  12. ↑ Colvin, C. R.; Funder, D. C. (1991). "Predicting personality and behavior: A boundary on the acquaintanceship effect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (6): 884–894. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.6.884. PMID   1865326.
  13. ↑ Norman, W. T; Goldberg, L. R. (1966). "Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 4 (6): 681–691. doi:10.1037/h0024002.
  14. ↑ Borkenau, P.; Liebler, A. (1992). "Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 62 (4): 645–657. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.645.
  15. 1 2 Naumann, L. P.; Vazire, S.; Rentfrow, P. J.; Gosling, S. D. (2009). "Personality judgments based on physical appearance" (PDF). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 35 (12): 1661–1671. doi:10.1177/0146167209346309. PMID   19762717. S2CID   1645636.
  16. ↑ Qiu, L.; Lu, J.; Yang, S.; Qu, W.; Zhu, T. (2015). "What does your selfie say about you?". Computers in Human Behavior. 52: 443–449. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.032.
  17. ↑ Geys, B. (2014). "Better not look too nice? Employees' preferences toward (un)likeable managers". The Leadership Quarterly. 25 (5): 875–884. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.02.001. hdl: 11250/223164 .
  18. 1 2 Dougherty, T.W.; Turban, D.B.; Callender, J.C. (1994). "Confirming first impressions in the employment interview: A field study of interviewer behavior" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 79 (5): 659–665. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.659.
  19. ↑ Dudley, K. L. (2013). Impressions of college instructors: Stability and change in student ratings. (Order No. 3572934, University of New Hampshire). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Thesis). p. 151.
  20. 1 2 Tskhay, K.O.; Rule, N.O. (2014). "Perceptions of personality in text-based media and OSN: A meta-analysis". Journal of Research in Personality. 49 (1): 25–30. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2013.12.004.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.