Individual differences in dissimilation: Do some people make more distinctions among targets' personalities than others?

OBJECTIVE: People differ in how positively they tend to see others' traits, but people might also differ in how strongly they apply their perceptual styles. In two studies (Ns = 355, 303), the current research explores individual differences in how variable people's first impressions are across targets (i.e., within-person variability), how and why these differences emerge, and who varies more in their judgments of others. METHOD: Participants described themselves on personality measures and rated 30 (Study 1) or 90 (Study 2) targets on Big Five traits. RESULTS: Using the extended Social Relations Model (eSRM), results suggest that within-person variability in impressions is consistent across trait ratings. People lower in extraversion, narcissism and self-esteem tended to make distinctions across targets' Big Five traits that were more consistent with other perceivers (sensitivity). Furthermore, some people more than others tended to consistently make unique distinctions among targets (differentiation), and preliminary evidence suggests these people might be higher in social anxiety and lower in self-esteem and emotional stability. CONCLUSION: Overall then, a more complete account of person perception should consider individual differences in how variable people's impressions are of others.

Who makes a more consistent first impression? Examining the structure and correlates of dissensus.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: How do targets shape consensus in impression formation? Targets are known to play an outsized role in the accuracy of first impressions, but their influence on consensus has been difficult to study. With the help of the recently developed extended Social Relations Model, we explore the structure and correlates of individual differences in consensus (i.e., dissensus). METHOD: Across 3 studies, 187 photographs of targets were rated by 960 perceivers on personality and evaluative traits, as well as being coded for physical cues by trained coders. We explored the within-target consistency of consensus across traits, as well as its relationship to four categories of theoretically relevant correlates: expressiveness, normativity, positivity, and social categories. RESULTS: The tendency to make a consistent impression on others was broadly consistent across traits. High-consensus targets tended to be more expressive, had more normative physical cues, and were viewed more positively. CONCLUSIONS: At least in a first impression context, targets may play a unique role in predicting the consensus of personality judgments by providing perceivers with more information to work with, and making a negative impression on others may carry social costs.

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

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

How do people think about the impressions they make on others? The attitudes and substance of metaperceptions.

This research aims to further our understanding of the processes of metaperception formation and meta-accuracy by introducing the positivity-specificity model to metaperception, which can be used to disentangle two components of trait metaperceptions: metapositivity (attitudes) and trait-specificity (substance). In two North American samples (Sample 1, N = 547; Sample 2, N = 553), we used the positivity-specificity model to investigate five important aspects of metaperceptions, namely the extent to which (a) metaperceptions reflect metapositivity versus trait-specificity, (b) metapositivity reflects attitudes about the self, (c) the effects of metapositivity and trait-specificity vary across traits and acquaintances, (d) metapositivity helps or hurts meta-accuracy, and (e) metapositivity and trait-specificity are accurate independent of self-perceptions. Overall, participants' ideas about how they were seen included attitudes and substance, but the relative contribution of each depended on the trait being judged and on how well they knew an acquaintance. Participants' ideas about how positively they were seen were related to how positively they saw themselves to varying degrees depending on how much they knew and liked their acquaintances. Participants were also accurate about how positively they were seen and about how they were seen on a given trait, independent of positivity and, with close acquaintances, independent of self-perceptions. The current work demonstrates how the positivity-specificity model can be used to investigate how people think about and have insight into the impressions they make on others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Do you make a better or worse impression than you think?

Are people's metaperceptions, or their beliefs about how others perceive them, too positive, too negative, or spot on? Across six samples of new acquaintances (total N = 1,113) and/or well-known acquaintances (total N = 1,336), we indexed metabias (i.e., the mean-level difference between metaperceptions and impressions) on a broad range of attributes to test: (a) how biased people are on average, (b) whether bias is pervasive or limited to particular contexts (level of acquaintanceship) or attributes (e.g., liking judgments or traits), (c) whether bias is consistent across attributes, and (d) what explains bias. On average, participants demonstrated a negative metabias on most attributes for both new and well-known acquaintances, suggesting that people generally fail to appreciate how positively they are seen by others. However, there was variability around this average such that, whereas most participants were negatively biased (48%), many were accurate (34%), and some were positively biased (18%). Bias was also consistent across traits, suggesting that knowing people's metabias for one attribute offers some insight into their relative bias for other attributes. What explained metabias? Generally, people relied too much on their self-perceptions, which were more negative than the impressions they made, although bias for new acquaintances involved additional factors. That said, people understood that others saw them more positively than how they saw themselves, but they did not understand the extent of this positivity. These results offer a general framework for understanding metabias and add to the growing literature, demonstrating that people are not positively biased. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Who influences meta-accuracy? It takes two to know the impressions we make.

People's beliefs about how other people perceive their personality tend to be fairly accurate, but how does accuracy arise? The current research answers this question by testing three potential sources of meta-accuracy: the person forming the metaperception (i.e., the metaperceiver), the person forming a judgment about the metaperceiver (i.e., the perceiver), and the unique relationship between the two individuals (i.e., the dyad). In three studies, participants interacted with new acquaintances one-on-one in a platonic (N = 547) or dating setting (N = 378), or in a platonic group setting over time (Time 1, N = 242; Time 2, N = 191). Metaperceivers tended to have the most robust influence on meta-accuracy, but perceivers and especially dyads influenced accuracy as well. This suggests there are "good" metaperceivers, perceivers, and dyads of meta-accuracy and that a more complete understanding of meta-accuracy must consider both members of an interaction. As a first step in understanding how both individuals influence accuracy, we tested the role of self-perception, specifically if some metaperceivers, perceivers, or dyads fostered accuracy because metaperceivers happened to be seen as they saw themselves. Perceivers largely fostered accuracy by seeing metaperceivers as they saw themselves but metaperceivers and dyads mostly fostered accuracy by other means. Potential contextual effects are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).