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.

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).

A multirater perspective on personality and performance: An empirical examination of the trait-reputation-identity model.

Organizational scientists have historically assessed personality via self-reports, but there is a growing recognition that personality ratings from observers offer superior prediction of job performance compared to targets' self-reports. Yet, the origin of these differences remains unclear: do observers show predictive validity advantages (a) because they have a clearer lens into how targets' thoughts, feelings, and desires translate to their behaviors (traits), (b) because they infer personality from how targets characteristically adapt their behaviors to situations (reputation), or (c) because they omit targets' unexpressed, internal aspects of personality (identity)? With a sample of 422 cadets at a highly selective military educational institute in South Korea, we applied (McAbee & Connelly, 2016) Trait-Reputation-Identity (TRI) Model to decompose consensus and discrepancy in multirater personality data. The variance associated with reputations (the unique personality insights held by observers) dominated the prediction for conscientiousness and agreeableness in predicting all criteria. Trait factors (reflecting the consensus between self- and observer-reports) were moderately related to ratings of job performance, citizenship, and grades for most theoretically aligned personality dimensions. Identity factors (targets' unique personality self-views) were generally unrelated to performance criteria, save for some modest positive relationships for conscientiousness (predicting work and academic performance) and agreeableness (predicting citizenship). These findings suggest that personality is an important determinant of success less by depicting "who employees are" (or "who they think they are") but more by describing "what employees do." We discuss the implications of these results for how multirater assessments can be built into organizational psychology research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Self-Other Agreement in Personality Reports: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Self- and Informant-Report Means.

Self-report questionnaires are the most commonly used personality assessment despite longstanding concerns that self-report responses may be distorted by self-protecting motives and response biases. In a large-scale meta-analysis ( N = 33,033; k = 152 samples), we compared the means of self- and informant reports of the same target's Big Five personality traits to examine the discrepancies in two rating sources and whether people see themselves more positively than they are seen by others. Inconsistent with a general self-enhancement effect, results showed that self-report means generally did not differ from informant-report means (average δ = -.038). Moderate mean differences were found only when we compared self-reports with stranger reports, suggesting that people are critical of unacquainted targets. We discuss implications of these findings for personality assessment and other fields in which self-enhancement motives are relevant.

A multi-rater framework for studying personality: The trait-reputation-identity model.

Personality and social psychology have historically been divided between personality researchers who study the impact of traits and social-cognitive researchers who study errors in trait judgments. However, a broader view of personality incorporates not only individual differences in underlying traits but also individual differences in the distinct ways a person's personality is construed by oneself and by others. Such unique insights are likely to appear in the idiosyncratic personality judgments that raters make and are likely to have etiologies and causal force independent of trait perceptions shared across raters. Drawing on the logic of the Johari window (Luft & Ingham, 1955), the Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry Model (Vazire, 2010), and Socioanalytic Theory (Hogan, 1996; Hogan & Blickle, 2013), we present a new model that separates personality variance into consensus about underlying traits (Trait), unique self-perceptions (Identity), and impressions conveyed to others that are distinct from self-perceptions (Reputation). We provide three demonstrations of how this Trait-Reputation-Identity (TRI) Model can be used to understand (a) consensus and discrepancies across rating sources, (b) personality's links with self-evaluation and self-presentation, and (c) gender differences in traits. We conclude by discussing how researchers can use the TRI Model to achieve a more sophisticated view of personality's impact on life outcomes, developmental trajectories, genetic origins, person-situation interactions, and stereotyped judgments. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Meta-Analytic Multitrait Multirater Separation of Substance and Style in Social Desirability Scales.

Though unlikely virtues scales have a long history in personality, clinical, and applied psychology for detecting socially desirable responding, using such social desirability (SD) scales has generally failed to improve the validity of personality measures. We examined whether this is because (a) response distortion itself has minimal impact on personality's validity, (b) SD scales are ineffective at assessing response distortion, or (c) SD scales are conflated with substantive trait variance. We compiled a meta-analytic multitrait multimethod matrix consisting of multirater personality traits, SD scales, and performance outcomes. We examined the influence of trait factors and self-report method factors on SD scales and performance. We found that self-report method variance (a) was negatively related to performance, (b) would suppress personality-performance relationships for self-report measures, and (c) was (partially) assessed by SD scales. However, relative to the effects of self-report method variance, SD scales are even more strongly influenced by Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Agreeableness. It is not the case that SD scales are insensitive to inflated responding but that their susceptibility to personality trait variance likely outweighs their benefits. We discuss the implications of these results for using SD scales in research and practice.

Opening up openness: a theoretical sort following critical incidents methodology and a meta-analytic investigation of the trait family measures.

Existing taxonomies of Openness's facet structure have produced widely divergent results, and there is limited comprehensive empirical evidence about how Openness-related scales on existing personality inventories align within the 5-factor framework. In Study 1, we used a critical incidents sorting methodology to identify 11 categories of Openness measures; in Study 2, we meta-analyzed the relationships of these categories with global markers of the Big Five traits (utilizing data from 106 samples with a total sample size of N = 35,886). Our results identified 4 true facets of Openness: aestheticism, openness to sensations, nontraditionalism, and introspection. Measures of these facets were unadulterated by variance from other Big Five traits. Many traits frequently conceptualized as facets of Openness (e.g., innovation/creativity, variety-seeking, and tolerance) emerged as trait compounds that, although related to Openness, are also dependent on other Big Five traits. We discuss how Openness should be conceptualized, measured, and studied in light of the empirically based, refined taxonomy emerging from this research.

Introducing the special section on openness to experience: review of openness taxonomies, measurement, and nomological net.

In this introduction to the Special Section on Openness to Experience, we review the historical background of the construct and its measurement. We also provide a meta-analytically based review of its broader nomological net. Specifically, we review relationships with other individual differences constructs, including personality traits, interests, and cognitive ability. We highlight the various roles that openness and intellect play in educational performance, occupational attitudes and behaviors, job performance, career success, and psychological health and well-being. In doing so, we emphasize the unique contributions of the articles published in this special section (Albrecht, Dilchert, Deller, & Paulus; Connelly, Ones, Davies, & Birkland; DeYoung, Quilty, Peterson, & Gray; Roets, Cornelis, & Van Hiel; Woo, Chernyshenko, Longley, Zhang, Chiu, & Stark; Woo, Chernyshenko, Stark, & Conz). Finally, we note fruitful venues for future research involving Openness constructs.

Mechanical versus clinical data combination in selection and admissions decisions: a meta-analysis.

In employee selection and academic admission decisions, holistic (clinical) data combination methods continue to be relied upon and preferred by practitioners in our field. This meta-analysis examined and compared the relative predictive power of mechanical methods versus holistic methods in predicting multiple work (advancement, supervisory ratings of performance, and training performance) and academic (grade point average) criteria. There was consistent and substantial loss of validity when data were combined holistically-even by experts who are knowledgeable about the jobs and organizations in question-across multiple criteria in work and academic settings. In predicting job performance, the difference between the validity of mechanical and holistic data combination methods translated into an improvement in prediction of more than 50%. Implications for evidence-based practice are discussed.

Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: a meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach.

Though most personality researchers now recognize that ratings of the Big Five are not orthogonal, the field has been divided about whether these trait intercorrelations are substantive (i.e., driven by higher order factors) or artifactual (i.e., driven by correlated measurement error). We used a meta-analytic multitrait-multirater study to estimate trait correlations after common method variance was controlled. Our results indicated that common method variance substantially inflates trait correlations, and, once controlled, correlations among the Big Five became relatively modest. We then evaluated whether two different theories of higher order factors could account for the pattern of Big Five trait correlations. Our results did not support Rushton and colleagues' (Rushton & Irwing, 2008; Rushton et al., 2009) proposed general factor of personality, but Digman's (1997) α and ß metatraits (relabeled by DeYoung, Peterson, and Higgins (2002) as Stability and Plasticity, respectively) produced viable fit. However, our models showed considerable overlap between Stability and Emotional Stability and between Plasticity and Extraversion, raising the question of whether these metatraits are redundant with their dominant Big Five traits. This pattern of findings was robust when we included only studies whose observers were intimately acquainted with targets. Our results underscore the importance of using a multirater approach to studying personality and the need to separate the causes and outcomes of higher order metatraits from those of the Big Five. We discussed the implications of these findings for the array of research fields in which personality is studied.

A narrower scope or a clearer lens for personality? Examining sources of observers' advantages over self-reports for predicting performance.

Emerging studies have shown that observers' ratings of personality predict performance behaviors better than do self-ratings. However, it is unclear whether these predictive advantages stem from (a) use of observers who have a frame of reference more closely aligned with the criterion ("narrower scope") or (b) observers having greater accuracy than targets themselves ("clearer lens"). In a primary study of 291 raters of 97 targets, we found predictive advantages even when observers were personal acquaintances who knew targets only outside of the work context. Integrating these findings with previous meta-analyses showed that colleagues' unique perspectives did not predict incrementally beyond commonly held trait perceptions across all raters (except for openness) and that self-raters who overestimate their agreeableness and conscientiousness perform worse on the job. Broadly, our results suggest that observers have clearer lenses for viewing targets' personality traits, and we discuss the theoretical implications of these findings for studying and measuring personality.

An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity.

The bulk of personality research has been built from self-report measures of personality. However, collecting personality ratings from other-raters, such as family, friends, and even strangers, is a dramatically underutilized method that allows better explanation and prediction of personality's role in many domains of psychology. Drawing hypotheses from D. C. Funder's (1995) realistic accuracy model about trait and information moderators of accuracy, we offer 3 meta-analyses to help researchers and applied psychologists understand and interpret both consistencies and unique insights afforded by other-ratings of personality. These meta-analyses integrate findings based on 44,178 target individuals rated across 263 independent samples. Each meta-analysis assessed the accuracy of observer ratings, as indexed by interrater consensus/reliability (Study 1), self-other correlations (Study 2), and predictions of behavior (Study 3). The results show that although increased frequency of interacting with targets does improve accuracy in rating personality, informants' interpersonal intimacy with the target is necessary for substantial increases in other-rating accuracy. Interpersonal intimacy improved accuracy especially for traits low in visibility (e.g., Emotional Stability) but only minimally for traits high in evaluativeness (e.g., Agreeableness). In addition, observer ratings were strong predictors of behaviors. When the criterion was academic achievement or job performance, other-ratings yielded predictive validities substantially greater than and incremental to self-ratings. These findings indicate that extraordinary value can gained by using other-reports to measure personality, and these findings provide guidelines toward enriching personality theory. Various subfields of psychology in which personality variables are systematically assessed and utilized in research and practice can benefit tremendously from use of others' ratings to measure personality variables.

High stakes testing in higher education and employment: appraising the evidence for validity and fairness.

The authors review criticisms commonly leveled against cognitively loaded tests used for employment and higher education admissions decisions, with a focus on large-scale databases and meta-analytic evidence. They conclude that (a) tests of developed abilities are generally valid for their intended uses in predicting a wide variety of aspects of short-term and long-term academic and job performance, (b) validity is not an artifact of socioeconomic status, (c) coaching is not a major determinant of test performance, (d) tests do not generally exhibit bias by underpredicting the performance of minority group members, and (e) test-taking motivational mechanisms are not major determinants of test performance in these high-stakes settings.

Personality assessment across selection and development contexts: insights into response distortion.

Insight into applicant intentional distortion on personality measures was obtained by comparing individual responses provided in an organizational context with high motivation to distort (selection) and those provided in an organizational context with low motivation to distort (development). An assessment firm database containing responses to the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) was searched for within-subject data. Seven hundred and thirteen individuals were identified as having completed the CPI twice: once for selection purposes and once for development purposes or twice for the same purpose. Scale-score analyses both within and across contexts revealed a limited degree of response distortion.