Linda Albright

Consensus in Personality Judgments at Zero Acquaintance

This research focused on the target effect on a perceivers judgments of personality when the perceiver and the target are unacquainted. The perceiver was given no opportunity to interact with the target, a condition we refer to as zero acquaintance. We reasoned that in order to make personality judgments, perceivers would use the information available to them (physical appearance). Consensus in personality judgments would result, then, from shared stereotypes about particular physical appearance characteristics. Results from three separate studies with 259 subjects supported this hypothesis. On two of the five dimensions (extraversion and conscientiousness) on which subjects rated each other, a significant proportion of variance was due to the stimulus target. Consensus on judgments of extraversion appears to have been largely mediated by judgments of physical attractiveness. Across the three studies there was also evidence that the consensus in judgments on these two dimensions had some validity, in that they correlated with self-judgments on those two dimensions.

Consensus in interpersonal perception : acquaintance and the big five

Consensus refers to the extent to which judges agree in their ratings of a common target. Consensus has been an important area of research in social and personality psychology. In this article, generalizability theory is used to develop a percentage of total variance measure of consensus. This measure is used to review the level of consensus across 32 studies by considering the role of acquaintance level and trait dimension. The review indicates that consensus correlations ranged from zero to about .3, with higher levels of consensus for ratings of Extraversion. The studies do not provide evidence that consensus increases with increasing acquaintance, a counterintuitive result that can be accounted for by a theoretical model (D.A. Kenny, 1991, in press). Problems in the interpretation of longitudinal research are reviewed.

Interpersonal Perception and Metaperception in Nonoverlapping Social Groups

Consensus, self-other agreement, and meta-accuracy were studied within and across nonoverlapping social groups. Thirty-one target persons were judged on the Big Five factors by 9 informants: 3 family members, 3 friends, and 3 coworkers. Although well acquainted within groups, informants were unacquainted between groups. A social relations analysis conducted within each social group showed reliable consensus on the Big Five personality factors. A model specified to estimate the consistency of a target persons effect on perceptions by others across social groups showed weaker agreement across groups. That is, targets were perceived consensually within groups, but these consensual perceptions differed between groups. The data suggest that personality and identity are context specific; however, there was some evidence of agreement in perceptions across groups.

Agreement in Personality Judgments within and between Nonoverlapping Social Groups in Collectivist Cultures

The social context hypothesis states that people behave differently in different social groups because group norms and context-specific interpersonal relationships uniquely affect behavior. Consequently, a person who is a member of different, nonoverlapping social groups (i. e., the members of different groups are unacquainted) should be judged consensually on personality traits within each group; however, between groups there should be less agreement in judgments. This research focused on cultural moderation of the social context effect in two collective cultures (China and Mexico) with different norms for interpersonal relationships. Among Chinese, there was greater consensus in trait judgments within groups than between groups, whereas in Mexico, agreement within and between groups was equivalent. Culturally based relationship norms that affect cross-context consistency of behavior and, in turn, the consistency of trait judgments across groups were described.

Componential Analysis of Interpersonal Perception Data

We examine the advantages and disadvantages of 2 types of analyses used in interpersonal perception studies: componential and noncomponential. Componential analysis of interpersonal perception data (Kenny, 1994) partitions a judgment into components and then estimates the variances of and the correlations between these components. A noncomponential analysis uses raw scores to analyze interpersonal perception data. Three different research areas are investigated: consensus of perceptions across social contexts, reciprocity of attraction, and individual differences in self-enhancement. Finally, we consider criticisms of componential analysis. We conclude that interpersonal perception data necessarily have components (e.g., perceiver, target, measure, and their interactions), and that the researcher needs to develop a model that best captures the researchers questions.

Cross-Situational Consistency and Perceptual Accuracy in Leadership

The trait approach to leadership has long been abandoned. The prevailing belief, based primarily on two early reviews of the research examining the personality differences between leaders and nonleaders (by Mann and Stogdill) and on the interpretation of certain rotation design studies of leadership, is that contingency theories of leadership best explain the phenomenon. However, some current research has been more favorable to the trait approach. The present research examined cross-situational stability in leadership by having leaders (people who held current formal leadership positions) interact with nonleaders on four tasks that required social organization and coordination. As predicted, stability in leadership across the four tasks and some evidence for consistency across groups were found, as was a high level of consensus and accuracy in perceptions of leadership.

Experimental Validity Brunswik, Campbell, Cronbach, and Enduring Issues

Donald Campbell and Lee Cronbach had a long history of mutual respect for and fundamental disagreement with each others ideas about experimental validity. Issues that Campbell labeled as external validity, Cronbach labeled internal validity. Issues that Campbell labeled internal validity, Cronbach suggested are trivial. Nevertheless, these methodological pioneers share much common ground, in part because of their alliance with Egon Brunswik. As science moved from a deterministic to a probabilistic paradigm, all 3 endeavored to protect behavioral science from validity-threatening practices that could result from naive use of the Fisherian approach to scientific investigation. This review shows that issues concerning the prioritization of types of validity still need to be resolved and that most social scientists do not understand internal validity. Several empirical practices for enhancing validity are suggested. Behavioral scientists believe that establishing a causal relationship requires designing studies that can withstand the argument that the observed effect was caused by something other than the causal factor under consideration. This strategy is commonly called maximizing internal validity (an erroneous label from Donald Campbells perspective, as discussed subsequently). Internal validity is achieved through random assignment of units to experimental conditions and controlled variation of treatment. In the ideal case, these procedures create a methodological inoculation against the list of potential threats to the legitimacy of conclusions that can be drawn from the observations of the study. In other words, investigators who use the experimental method can make public claims regarding the causal effect of the stimulus.

Effects of communication, information overlap, and behavioral consistency on consensus in social perception.

Three experiments (N = 69, 162, and 201, respectively) were conducted to test the mathematically derived predictions of the Weighted Average Model (D. A. Kenny, 1991) of consensus in interpersonal perception. Study 1 estimated the effect of perceiver communication. Study 2 estimated the effects of communication and stimulus overlap, and Study 3 estimated the effects of communication, overlap, and target consistency on consensus. The strongest consensus was found when perceivers communicated about highly overlapping information about targets who were cross-situationally consistent. Conversely, the lowest level of consensus was observed when perceivers did not communicate and had nonoverlapping information about targets who were cross-situationally inconsistent. Both stimulus variables (overlap and consistency) and an interpersonal variable (communication) affected consensus as predicted by the Weighted Average Model.

Social Perception and Stereotyping: An Interpersonal and Intercultural Approach

Social perception and stereotyping have been important issues in social and cross-cultural psychology for most of the 20th century. After briefly reviewing its history, the current article discusses social perception and stereotyping from the interpersonal and the cross-cultural perspective. Specifically, these issues are presented along a dimension ranging from intraindividual, to intragroup, to intergroup perception. First, the discussion of interpersonal perception emphasizes social perception in a face-to-face context. Though this section may appear to be technical and complicated to some readers, this level of detail is necessary to elaborate a most basic version of the componential approach to interpersonal perception. Second, the section on social stereotypes discusses social identity theory and the ingroup and outgroup homogeneity effects. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion of lingering concerns in research on social perception and stereotypes.

Descriptive and Prescriptive Beliefs About Justice: A Sino-U.S. Comparison

The present article focuses on the distinction between descriptive (i.e., what will happen) and prescriptive (i.e., what should happen) beliefs in justice and shows that person valence and belief type had an interactive effect on outcome valence. Specifically, the 2 (Chinese and American culture) x 2 (Good and Bad person) x 2 (Will as descriptive and Should as prescriptive belief) study revealed that both Chinese and Americans believe that good people should receive better outcomes than they will; but Chinese believe that bad people should receive worse outcomes than they will, whereas Americans believe that bad people should receive better outcomes than they will. This may suggest that, in comparison with Chinese, Americans are more tolerant of or lenient toward immoral behavior and are prescriptively less committed to moral justice.