Asymmetry in Judgments of Personality: Others Are Less Differentiated Than the Self
regarding this article should be addressed to Andrew Beer, Department of Psychology, University of South Carolina Upstate, 221 Smith, 800 University way, Spartanburg, SC 29303. E-mail: [email protected].
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by a Ballard Seashore Dissertation Year Fellowship from the University of Iowa Graduate college to Andrew Beer.
Abstract
ABSTRACT Previous evidence suggests that judges rely more heavily on implicit personality theories when they rate relatively unfamiliar others. One further implication of this evidence is that correlations among traits should be stronger in other ratings than in self-ratings, particularly when (a) judges lack trait relevant information and/or (b) motivational accuracy is low. We tested these predictions by comparing self- versus other ratings on the Big Five in two studies. Study 1 used previously published data to demonstrate clear self/peer differences in the average relations between Big Five dimensions (excluding Extraversion). Study 2 was based on self- versus other ratings in 12 samples. Overall, the intercorrelations among Big Five traits (excluding Extraversion) tended to be significantly stronger in peer ratings than in self-ratings. The most consistent effect involved the relation between Neuroticism and Agreeableness (overall r=−.43 and −.29 in the peer ratings and self-ratings, respectively). In addition, as expected, the degree of relation among traits varied depending upon the type of target being rated (i.e., spouse vs. dating partner vs. friend vs. stranger). Implications of these findings are discussed.
REFERENCES
- Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycholexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47 (1, Whole No. 211).
- Anderson, C. A., & Sedikides, C. (1991). Thinking about people: Contributions of a typological alternative to associationistic and dimensional models of person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 203–217.
- Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118.
- Beer, A., & Watson, D. (in press). Personality judgment at zero acquaintance: Agreement, assumed similarity, and implicit simplicity. Journal of Assessment.
- Biesanz, J. C., West, S. G., & Millevoi, A. (2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 119–135.
- Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1994). The factor structure of trait ratings depends on the extent of information available to the judges. European Review of Applied Psychology, 44, 3–7.
- Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
- Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Reply to Eysenck. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 861–865.
- DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151.
- Digman, J. M. (1963). Test of a multiple-factor model of child personality. Unpublished raw data.
- Digman, J. M. (1994). Child personality and temperament: Does the five-factor model embrace both domains? In C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, & R. P. Martin (Eds.), The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 323–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256.
- Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981). Factors in the natural language of personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation of six major studies. Unpublished raw data.
- Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.
- Fiske, D. W. (1949). Consistency in the factorial structures of personality ratings from different sources. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 329–344.
- Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
- 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, 149–158.
- Funder, D. C., Kolar, D. C., & Blackman, M. C. (1995). Agreement among judges of personality: Interpersonal relations, similarity, and acquaintanceship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 656–672.
-
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.
10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26 Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
- Graziano, W. G., & Ward, D. (1992). Probing the Big Five in adolescence: Personality and adjustment during a developmental transition. Journal of Personality, 60, 425–439.
- Hampson, S. E. (1997). Determinants of inconsistent personality descriptions: Trait and target effects. Journal of Personality, 65, 249–290.
- Hampson, S. E. (1998). When is an inconsistency not an inconsistency? Trait reconciliation in personality description and impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 102–117.
- John, O. P., Goldberg, L. R., & Angleitner, A. (1984). Better than the alphabet: Taxonomies of personality-descriptive terms in English, Dutch, and German. In H. Bonarius, G. Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments (pp. 83–100). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
- John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality ( 2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.
- Jones, A. C., & Gosling, S. D. (2005). Temperament and personality in dogs (Canis familiaris): A review and evaluation of past research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 95, 1–53.
- Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the Big Five. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 245–258.
- Kim, M. P., & Rosenberg, S. (1980). Comparison of two structural models of implicit personality theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 375–389.
- Krueger, J., Ham, J. J., & Linford, K. M. (1996). Perceptions of behavioral consistency: Are people aware of the actor-observer effect? Psychological Science, 7, 259–264.
- Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 421–436.
- Malle, B. F. (2006). The actor-observer asymmetry in attribution: A (surprising) meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 895–919.
- Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157.
-
R. R. McCrae, & J. Allik
(Eds). (2002). The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
10.1007/978-1-4615-0763-5 Google Scholar
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
- Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 574–583.
- Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681–691.
- Peabody, D. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception: A re-appraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 639–646.
- Peabody, D. (1990). The role of evaluation in impressions of persons. In I. Rock (Ed.), The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology (pp. 57–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Prentice, D. A. (1990). Familiarity and differences in self- and other-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 369–383.
- Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 235–297). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
- Sande, G. N., Goethals, G. R., & Radloff, C. E. (1988). Perceiving one's own traits and others': The multifaceted self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 13–20.
- Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg's unipolar big-five markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.
- Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 294–319.
- Watson, D. (1989). Strangers' ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 120–128.
- Watson, D., Hubbard, B., & Wiese, D. (2000). Self-other agreement in personality and affectivity: The role of acquaintanceship, trait visibility, and assumed similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 546–558.
- Watson, D., & Humrichouse, J. (2006). Personality development in emerging adulthood: Integrating evidence from self- and spouse ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 959–974.
- Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Casillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., & Berry, D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality, 72, 1029–1068.
- Weller, J. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Friend or foe? Differential use of the self-based heuristic as a function of relationship satisfaction. Manuscript in preparation.
- Wojciszke, B. (2005). Affective concomitants of information on morality and competence. European Psychologist, 10, 60–70.
- Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. (1998). On the dominance of moral categories in impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1245–1257.
- Yik, M. S., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced scale. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 75–95.
