To what extent do people achieve accuracy in judging others’ situations? Based on interpersonal perception models, we propose that ex situ raters may attain accuracy by judging the psychological characteristics of a situation that in situ raters have experienced according to a normative and distinctive characteristics profile. Biesanz’ social accuracy model (SAM) provides a flexible crossed-effects random coefficient modeling framework that can be applied to situation perception data. By targeting characteristics profiles with the analytical unit of the ex situ rater-situation dyad, the extent of and variation in normative and distinctive accuracy of ex situ raters can be estimated and explained by personality correlates to quantify “the good ex situ rater.” We demonstrate an SAM approach to situational accuracy with real in situ and ex situ data (402 ex situ raters judged 10 situations on 8 characteristics) and sketch future research.
AllenN. B.BadcockP. B. T. (2003). The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood: Evolutionary, psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 887–913.
2.
ArgyleM.FurnhamA.GrahamJ. A. (1981). Social situations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
4.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.
5.
BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. 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.
6.
BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J.PaquinA. C.ChanM.ParisottoK. L.SarracinoJ.GillisR. L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 452–459.
7.
BlockJ.BlockJ. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some limited empiricism. In MagnussonD. (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 85–106). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
BrownN. A.RauthmannJ. F. (2016). Situation characteristics are age graded: Mean-level patterns of the situational eight DIAMONDS across the life span. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 667–679.
9.
CantorN.MischelW.SchwartzJ. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45–77.
10.
ChanM.RogersK. H.ParisottoK. L.BiesanzJ. C. (2011). Forming first impressions: The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 117–120.
11.
CronbachL. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed similarity.”Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177–193.
12.
de RaadB. (2004). Situations that matter to personality. In EliaszA.HampsonS. E.de RaadB. (Eds.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 179–204). Hove, England: Routledge.
13.
EdwardsJ. A.TempletonA. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 705–723.
14.
ForgasJ. P. (1976). The perception of social episodes: Categorical and dimensional representations in two different social milieus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 199–209.
15.
FunderD. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
16.
FunderD. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17.
FurrR M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316.
18.
FurrR. M. (2009). Profile analysis in person-situation integration. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 196–207.
GuillaumeE.BaranskiE.ToddE.BastianB.BroninI.IvanovaC.…FunderD. C. (2016). The world at 7: Comparing the experience of situations across 20 countries. Journal of Personality, 84, 493–509.
23.
HirshJ. B.InzlichtM. (2008). The devil you know: Neuroticism predicts neural response to uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19, 962–967.
24.
HoffmanL.RovineM. J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist: Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 101–117.
25.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C. (2011). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 349–364.
26.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. C. (2012). Accuracy and assumed similarity in first impressions of personality: Differing associations at different levels of analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 106–110.
27.
HumanL. J.BiesanzJ. 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.
28.
JuddC. M.WestfallJ.KennyD. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
29.
JussimL. (2005). Accuracy: Criticisms, controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 1–93.
30.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
KennyD. A.WestT. V.MalloyT. E.AlbrightL. (2006). Componential analysis of interpersonal perception data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 282–294.
32.
LangF. R. (2005). Erfassung des kognitiven Leistungspotenzials und der «Big Five» mit Computer-Assisted-Personal-Interviewing (CAPI): Zur Reliabilität und Validität zweier ultrakurzer Tests und des BFI-S. Research Notes. Retrieved fromhttp://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43950.de/rn9.pdf
33.
LorenzoG. L.BiesanzJ. C.HumanL. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782.
34.
MagnussonD. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
MillerG. F. (2007). Reconciling evolutionary psychology and ecological psychology: How to perceive fitness affordances. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 546–555.
36.
NystedtL. (1972a). A modified lens model: A study of the interaction between an individual and the ecology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 479–498.
37.
NystedtL. (1972b). Predictive accuracy and utilization of cues: Study of the interaction between an individual’s cognitive organization and ecological structure. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 171–180.
38.
NystedtL. (1981). A model for studying the interaction between the objective situation and a person’s construction of the situation. In MagnussonD. (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 375–391). New York, NY: Academic Press.
39.
RauthmannJ. F. (2012). You say the party is dull, I say it is lively: A componential approach to how situations are perceived to disentangle perceiver, situation, and perceiver x situation variance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 519–528.
40.
RauthmannJ. F. (2016). Motivational factors in the perception of psychological situation characteristics. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 92–108.
41.
RauthmannJ. F.Gallardo-PujolD.GuillaumeE. M.ToddE.NaveC. S.ShermanR. A.…FunderD. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677–718.
42.
RauthmannJ. F.JonesA. B.ShermanR. A. (2016). Directionality of person-situation transactions: Are there spill-overs among and between situation experiences and personality states?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 893–909.
43.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2016a). Situation change: Stability and change of situation variables between and within persons. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1938.
44.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2016b). Ultra-brief measures for the situational eight DIAMONDS domains. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 165–174.
45.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2016c). Measuring the Situational Eight DIAMONDS characteristics of situations: An optimization of the RSQ-8 to the S8*. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 155–164.
46.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A. (2017). Towards a research agenda for the study of psychological situations: A variance componential framework for situation perceptions. Manuscript in revision.
47.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A.FunderD. C. (2015a). Principles of situation research: Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. Target Article. European Journal of Personality, 29, 363–381.
48.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A.FunderD. C. (2015b). New horizons in research on psychological situations and environments. Rejoinder to Target Article: European Journal of Personality, 29, 382–432.
49.
RauthmannJ. F.ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2015c). Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 98–111.
50.
RobinsonM. D.OdeS.MoellerS. K.GoetzP. W. (2007). Neuroticism and affective priming: Evidence for a neuroticism-linked negative schema. Personality and Individuals Differences, 42, 1221–1231.
51.
SerfassD. G.ShermanR. A. (2013). Personality and the perceptions of situations from the Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 708–718.
52.
SerfassD. S.ShermanR. A. (2015). Situations in 140 characters: Assessing real-world situations on Twitter. PLoS One, 10, 1–19.
53.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. N.FunderD. C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330–343.
54.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2012). Properties of persons and situations related to overall and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 87–101.
55.
ShermanR. A.NaveC. S.FunderD. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 1–14.
56.
ShermanR. A.RauthmannJ. F.BrownN. A.SerfassD. S.JonesA. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872–888.
57.
van HeckG. L. (1984). The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In BonariusH.Van HeckG. L.SmidN. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and empirical developments (pp. 149–164). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
58.
van HeckG. L. (1989). Situation concepts: Definitions and classification. In HettemaP. J. (Ed.), Personality and environment: Assessment of human adaptation (pp. 53–69). Oxford, England: Wiley.
59.
WagermanS. A.FunderD. C. (2009). Situations. In CorrP. J.MatthewsG. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of personality psychology (pp. 27–42). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
60.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.
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.
