Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Looking at the same interaction and seeing some...

Electronic data

  • 2018 - JID Wall et al.

    Rights statement: This article does not exactly replicate the final version published in the journal "Journal of Individual Differences". It is not a copy of the original published article and is not suitable for citation.

    Accepted author manuscript, 656 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Looking at the same interaction and seeing something different: The role of information, judgment perspective and behavioral coding on judgment 'accuracy'

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>2018
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Individual Differences
Volume39
Number of pages19
Pages (from-to)123-141
Publication statusPublished
Early online date11/05/18
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

The role of information context, judgment perspective and cue type on the “accuracy” of first impressions of another’s Big5 personality was studied in three phases of data collection (n = 173). Accurate judgments were defined as the level of agreement between a target person’s aggregated personality score (i.e., average of self and informant ratings of personality) and a personality judgement about the target, indexed using item correlations. Results for Phase 1 found that completing a different task with the same partner improved accuracy for conscientiousness. Phase 2 investigated the relationship between a person’s role (judgment perspective) within an interaction (interactants, observers) and showed that Observers were better at judging the less interpersonal traits of conscientiousness and openness relative to Interactants. Finally, Phase 3 examined the types of cues that people used when rating another’s personality. Although Observers and Interactants had access to the same interaction, analyses revealed that they employed different types of cues when judging others. Findings are discussed in terms of Funder’s Realistic Accuracy Model (1995, 1999) along with practical implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

Bibliographic note

This article does not exactly replicate the final version published in the journal "Journal of Individual Differences". It is not a copy of the original published article and is not suitable for citation."