Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Trait inferences occur routinely and rapidly during social interaction, sometimes based on scant or fleeting information. In this research, participants (perceivers) made inferences of targets’ big–five traits after briefly watching or listening to an unfamiliar target (a third party) performing various mundane activities (telling a scripted joke or answering questions about him/herself or reading aloud a paragraph of promotional material). Across three studies, when perceivers judged targets to be either low or high in one or more dimensions of the big–five traits, they tended to be correct, but they did not tend to be correct when they judged targets as average. Such inferences seemed to vary in effectiveness across different trait dimensions and depending on whether the target's behaviour was presented either in a video with audio, a silent video, or just in an audio track—perceivers generally were less often correct when they judged targets as average in each of the big–five traits across various information channels (videos with audio, silent videos, and audios). Study 3 replicated these findings in a different culture. We conclude with discussion of the scope and the adaptive value of this trait inferential ability. Copyright © 2017 European Association of Personality Psychology

Keywords

trait inferences big-five traits zero acquaintance thin slices of behaviour

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Albright

, Kenny

D. A.

, & Malloy

T. E.

(1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.55.3.387.

Ambady

, Bernieri

, & Richeson

(2000). Towards a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of behavior. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 201–272). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Back

M. D.

, & Nestler

(2016). Judging personality. In Hall

J. A.

, Schmidt Mast

, & West

T. V.

(Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Baron–Cohen

, & Wheelwright

(2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00.

Biesanz

J. C.

, & Human

L. J.

(2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy–motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589–594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364121.

Borkenau

, & Liebler

(1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.62.4.645.

Borkenau

, & Liebler

(1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self–ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.65.3.546.

Borkenau

, Mauer

, Riemann

, Spinath

, & Angleitner

(2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.86.4.599.

Borkenau

, & Ostendorf

(1998). The Big Five as states: How useful is the five–factor model to describe intraindividual variations over time? Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 202–221. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2206.

10.

Carney

D. R.

, Colvin

C. R.

, & Hall

J. A.

(2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.01.004.

11.

Clark

S. E.

(2012). Costs and benefits of eyewitness identification reform: Psychological science and public policy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612439584.

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Colvin

C. R.

(1993). “Judgable” people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022–3514.64.5.861.

14.

Connelly

B. S.

, & Ones

D. S.

(2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta–analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.

15.

Connolly

J. J.

, Kavanagh

E. J.

, & Viswesvaran

(2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A metaanalytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2389.2007.00371.x.

16.

Costa

P. T.

, & McCrae

R. R.

(2011). NEO™ inventories: NEO™ personality inventory–3 (NEO™–PI–3) manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

17.

Funder

D. C.

(1991). Global traits: A Neo–Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.1991.tb00093.x.

18.

Funder

D. C.

(2006). Towards a resolution of the personality triad: Persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.003.

19.

Funder

D. C.

(2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412445309.

20.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.69.4.656.

21.

Hirschüller

, Egloff

, Schmukle

S. C.

, Nestler

, & Back

M. D.

(2015). Accurate judgments of neuroticism at zero acquaintance: A question of relevance. Journal of Personality, 83, 221–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12097.

22.

Human

L. J.

, & Biesanz

J. C.

(2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 248–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313495593.

23.

John

O. P.

, & Robins

R. W.

(1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61, 521–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1993.tb00781.x.

24.

Kang

, Anthoney

, & Mitchell

(2017). Seven– to 11–year–olds’ ability to recognize natural facial expressions of basic emotions. Perception, https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006617709674.

25.

Kenny

D. A.

, Horner

, Kashy

D. A.

, & Chu

(1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.62.1.88.

26.

Lynn

S. K.

, & Barrett

L. F.

(2014). “Utilizing” signal detection theory. Psychological Science, 25, 1669–1673. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614541991.

27.

Macmillan

N. A.

, & Creelman

C. D.

(2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

28.

Macmillan

N. A.

(2002). Signal detection theory. In Pashler

(Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology (3rd ed.). In Wixted, J. (Ed.), Vol. 4: Methodology in experimental psychology ed., (pp. 43–90). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

29.

McAleer

, Todorov

, & Belin

(2014). How do you say “hello”? Personality impressions from brief novel voices. PloS One, 9, e90779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090779.

30.

McCrae

R. R.

, & Costa

P. T.

(2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO five–factor inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191–8869(03)00118–1.

31.

McCrae

R. R.

, & John

O. P.

(1992). An introduction to the five–factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–6494.1992.tb00970.x.

32.

McCrae

R. R.

, Terracciano

, & 79 members of the personality profiles of cultures project. (2005). Personality profiles of cultures: Aggregate personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.89.3.407.

33.

McLarney–Vesotski

A. R.

, Bernieri

, & Rempala

(2006). Personality perception: A developmental study. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 652–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.07.001.

34.

Naumann

L. P.

, Vazire

, Rentfrow

P. J.

, & Gosling

S. D.

(2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661–1671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346309.

35.

Norman

W. T.

, & Goldberg

L. R.

(1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024002.

36.

Oltmanns

T. F.

, Friedman

J. N.

, Fiedler

E. R.

, & Turkheimer

(2004). Perceptions of people with personality disorders based on thin slices of behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 216–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092–6566(03)00066–7.

37.

Peirce

J. W.

(2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017.

38.

Pillai

, Sheppard

, & Mitchell

(2012). Can people guess what happened to others from their reactions? PloS One, 7, e49859. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049859.

39.

Pillai

, Sheppard

, Ropar

, Marsh

, Pearson

, & Mitchell

(2014). Using other minds as a window onto the world: Guessing what happened from clues in behaviour. Journal of Autism and Development Disorders, 44, 2430–2439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803–014–2106–x.

40.

Schmitt

D. P.

, Allik

, McCrae

R. R.

, & Benet–Martínez

(2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self–description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross–Cultural Psychology, 38, 173–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297299.

41.

Stanislaw

, & Todorov

(1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704.

42.

Swets

J. A.

, Dawes

R. M.

, & Monahan

(2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 1, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529–1006.001.

43.

Thoresen

J. C.

, Vuong

Q. C.

, & Atkinson

A. P.

(2012). First impressions: Gait cues drive reliable trait judgments. Cognition, 124, 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.05.018.

44.

Todorov

, Pakrashi

, & Oosterhof

N. N.

(2009). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness after minimal time exposure. Social Cognition, 27, 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.813.

45.

Todorov

, & Uleman

J. S.

(2002). Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors’ faces: Evidence from a false recognition paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1051–1065. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.83.5.105.

46.

Todorov

, & Uleman

J. S.

(2003). The efficiency of binding spontaneous trait inferences to actors’ faces. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–1031(03)00059–3.

47.

Todorov

, & Uleman

J. S.

(2004). The person reference process in spontaneous trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.87.4.482.

48.

Uleman

J. S.

, & Saribay

S. A.

(2012). Initial impressions of others. In Deaux

, & Snyder

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 337–366). New York: Oxford University Press.

49.

Vazire

(2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908

50.

Wall

H. J.

, Taylor

P. J.

, Dixon

J. A.

, Conchie

S. M.

, & Ellis

D. A.

(2013). Rich contexts do not always enrich the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 1190–1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.010.

51.

Watson

(1989). Strangers’ ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self–reports. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 120–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.57.1.120.

52.

Willis

, & Todorov

(2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after 100 ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467–9280.2006.01750.x.

53.

Wood

, Gosling

S. D.

, & Potter

(2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well–being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022–3514.93.5.861.

54.

, Sheppard

, & Mitchell

(2016). Being Sherlock Holmes: Can we sense empathy from a brief sample of behavior? British Journal of Psychology, 107, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12157.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

2.87 MB

2.83 MB

0.03 MB

Judging Personality from A Brief Sample of Behaviour: Detecting Where Others Stand on Trait Continua †

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material