The present work explores how accuracy and bias in person perception change with the level of liking that the perceiver holds toward the target person. Specifically, we studied whether dislike affects (a) the social desirability of judgments (positivity bias), (b) the extent to which the target is described like an average person (normative accuracy), and (c) the extent to which the judgment reflects the given target’s characteristics in particular (distinctive accuracy). Eighty-four participants watched four target persons on video, after receiving bogus feedback on how positively or negatively those targets had supposedly evaluated them. The participants reciprocated negative bogus evaluations showing a marked decrease in reported liking for the respective target. Most important, dislike was consistently associated with lower positivity bias, greater normative accuracy, and lower distinctive accuracy across two validation measures (i.e., self-reports and informant reports of target persons).
BackM. D.SchmukleS. C.EgloffB. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, 225–238.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
3.
BiesanzJ. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 853–885.
4.
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.
5.
BorkenauP.LeisingD. (2016). A more complete picture of personality: What analyses of trait profiles have told us about person judgment—So far. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 228–232.
6.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (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.
7.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550–558.
8.
EdwardsA. L. (1953). The relationship between the judged desirability of a trait and the probability that the trait will be endorsed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 90–93.
9.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York, NY: Academic Press.
10.
FunderD. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.
11.
FurrR. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267–1316.
12.
GallreinA.-M. B.WeßelsN. M.CarlsonE. N.LeisingD. (2016). I still cannot see it—A replication of blind spots in self-perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 1–7.
13.
GoldbergL. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34.
14.
GouldnerA. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161.
15.
HofsteeW. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality?European Journal of Personality, 8, 149–162.
16.
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.
17.
HumanL. J.SandstromG. M.BiesanzJ. C.DunnE. W. (2013). Accurate first impressions leave a lasting impression: The long-term effects of distinctive self-other agreement on relationship development. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 395–402.
18.
JacobsI.SchollW. (2005). Interpersonale Adjektivliste (IAL): Die empirische Umsetzung theoretischer Circumplex-Eigenschaften für die Messung interpersonaler Stile [Interpersonal adjective list (IAL): An empirical realization of theoretical circumplex concepts for the assessment of interpersonal style]. Diagnostica, 51, 145–155.
19.
KennyD. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
KrauseS.BackM. D.EgloffB.SchmukleS. C. (2014). Implicit interpersonal attraction in small groups: Automatically activated evaluations predict actual behavior toward social partners. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5, 671–679.
21.
LeisingD.ErbsJ.FritzU. (2010). The letter of recommendation effect in informant ratings of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 668–682.
22.
LeisingD.GallreinA.-M. B.DufnerM. (2014). Judging the behavior of people we know: Objective assessment, confirmation of preexisting views, or both?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 153–163.
23.
LeisingD.LockeK. D.KurziusE.ZimmermannJ. (2016). Quantifying the association of self-enhancement bias with self-ratings of personality and life satisfaction. Assessment, 23, 588–602.
24.
LeisingD.ScherbaumS.LockeK. D.ZimmermannJ. (2015). A model of “substance” and “evaluation” in person judgments. Journal of Research in Personality, 57, 61–71.
25.
LevineT. R. (2014). Truth-Default Theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 378–392.
26.
MacKinnonD. P.FairchildA. J.FritzM. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
27.
Ma-KellamsC.LernerJ. S. (2016). Trust your gut or think carefully? Examining whether an intuitive, versus a systematic, mode of thought produces greater empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 674–685.
28.
MontoyaR. M.InskoC. A. (2008). Toward a more complete understanding of the reciprocity of liking effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 477–498.
29.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.R-project.org/
30.
RogersK. H.BiesanzJ. C. (2015). Knowing versus liking: Separating normative knowledge from social desirability in first impressions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1105–1116.
31.
VazireS. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 281–300.
32.
WestT. V.KennyD. A. (2011). The truth and bias model of judgment. Psychological Review, 118, 357–378.
33.
WigginsJ. S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy of trait-descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395–412.
34.
WoodD.FurrR. M. (2016). The correlates of similarity estimates are often misleadingly positive: The nature and scope of the problem, and some solutions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 79–99.
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.
