The present article reviews current research on the application and extension of the lens model to interpersonal judgments. We first explain how the basic lens model can be used to describe the processes underlying the accuracy of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Then we outline how this model can be differentiated by assimilating it with research on intuitive and reflective personality judgments, implicit and explicit personality tests, and more or less controlled behavior. We continue by integrating the research on the lens model with research on judgmental errors and knowledge updating. Finally, we describe extensions of the lens model to other interpersonal phenomena at zero acquaintance, such as metaaccuracy and liking. Overall, this review shows that the lens model is a persuasive and flexible framework that can be used to understand interpersonal judgments.
AsendorpfJ. B.BanseR.MückeD. (2002). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380–393.
2.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2008). How extraverted is honey.bunny77@hotmail.de? Inferring personality from e-mail addresses. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1116–1122.
3.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 533–548.
4.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 132–145.
5.
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analyses of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238.
6.
BackM. D.StopferJ. M.VazireS.GaddisS.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB.GoslingS. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, 372–374.
7.
BorkenauP.LieblerA. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645–657.
8.
BrunswikE. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
CarlsonE.KennyD. A. (2011). Knowing how others see us. In VazireS.WilsonT. (Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (pp. 242–257). New York, NY: Guilford.
10.
EvansJ. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278.
11.
FunderD. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
FunderD. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177–182.
13.
HammondK. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
14.
HirschmüllerS.EgloffB.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2013). The dual lens model: A comprehensive framework for understanding self-other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 335–353.
15.
HoffrageU.HertwigR.GigerenzerG. (2000). Hindsight bias: A by-product of knowledge updating?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 566–581.
16.
KarelaiaN.HogarthR. M. (2008). Determinants of linear judgment: A meta-analysis of lens model studies. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 404–426.
17.
KüfnerA. C. P.BackM. D.NestlerS.EgloffB. (2010). Tell me a story and I will tell you who you are! Lens model analyses of personality and creative writing. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 427–435.
18.
KüfnerA. C. P.NestlerS.BackM. D. (2013). The two pathways to being an (un-) popular narcissist. Journal of Personality, 81, 184–195.
19.
NestlerS.BlankH.EgloffB. (2010). Hindsight ≠ Hindsight: Experimentally induced dissociations between hindsight components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1399–1413.
20.
NestlerS.EgloffB. (2009). Increased or reversed: The effect of surprise on hindsight bias depends on the hindsight component. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1539–1544.
21.
NestlerS.EgloffB.KüfnerA. C. P.BackM. D. (2012). An integrative lens model approach to bias and accuracy in human inferences: Hindsight effects and knowledge updating in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 698–717.
22.
PezzoM. V. (2011). Hindsight bias: A primer for motivational researchers. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 9, 665–678.
23.
TodorovA.DotschR.WigboldusD.SaidC. P. (2011). Data-driven methods for modeling social perception. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 775–791.
24.
ZebrowitzL. A.CollinsM. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 203–222.
