Journal of Research in Personality

Transcription

1 Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: Posing personality: Is it possible to enact the Big Five traits in photographs? Sointu Leikas, Markku Verkasalo, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Finland article info abstract Article history: Available online 7 November 2012 Keywords: Person perception Self-presentation Impression management Posing Photographs Personality Big Five Person perception research has focused on the accuracy of observers receiving truthful target information; however, in real life people may often wish to manage the impression that they convey. We investigated whether people can pose personality in photographs. Sixty target participants posed each in 10 photographs in which they sought to express the high and low poles of the Big Five traits by means of physical appearances. Observers (N = 401) rated targets personality and likability from each photograph. The results showed that targets successfully posed as Extravert and, to lesser extent, as Introvert, Neurotic, Non-Conscientious, and Open, and that targets could not convey impressions of high and low Agreeableness. Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Over the last century, photography has evolved from a professional exercise into a commonplace activity accessible to everyone. Despite becoming a part of everyday life, photographs have simultaneously maintained their position as the recorder of many of the more exceptional moments or milestones of life. We have our wedding portraits, school yearbooks, family albums, driver s licenses, and passports, to name just a few. Most recently, the huge popularity of online social networks and online dating services has made it highly likely that one will encounter photographs of a potential romantic partner, friend, or an employee before meeting face to face with this person. Thus, photographs are today more important than ever, providing us with both a rich source of information about others, as well as a means to convey information about ourselves to others. But how accurate is information about others that is based on photographs? And, from another perspective, what kind of images do we wish to convey to others via photographs, and to what extent are we successful in creating such images? To our knowledge, no previous research has investigated the extent to which specific personality impressions can be deliberately created and conveyed by means of photographs. Previous research on impression management has mostly focused on behavior in real or mock job interviews and on the favorability of the impressions created (e.g. Gilmore & Ferris, 1989; Schlenker & Weigold, 1992; Stevens & Kristof, 1995). Such studies have provided important information about the ways people attempt to create a positive Corresponding author. Address: PO Box 9, Siltavuorenpenger 1 A, University of Helsinki, Finland. address: sointu.leikas@helsinki.fi (S. Leikas). impression in an interview setting, and about the success of such attempts (for a meta-analysis, see Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009). However, this research is silent on the question of how well people are able to control more specific aspects of their public image beyond general favorability. Research asking people to explicitly convey a certain kind of image (e.g. sociable) has, with the exception of faking studies using self-report questionnaire scores as dependent variables (Konstabel, Aavik, & Allik, 2006; Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, & Bezmenova, 2007), been practically nonexistent (for a recent exception regarding the enactment of emotions, see Hall, Gunnery, & Andrzejevski, 2011). Thus, it is somewhat unclear what people do in order to appear, say, sociable, or open-minded, and how well they are able to fulfill these types of impression management goals. Most relevant to the present research, it is unclear whether personality impressions based on photographs are susceptible to impression management attempts. Recent advances in personality perception research may shed some light on the above presented questions. This research has established that personality and behavioral outcomes can be somewhat accurately assessed on the basis of very little information of the target (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Borkenau, Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004; Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). Most pertinent to the present study, several personality traits and behavioral outcomes can be correctly judged even on the basis of a mere photograph of a target (e.g. Borkenau, Brecke, Möttig, & Paelaecke, 2009; Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009; Rule & Ambady, 2011; Vazire, Naumann, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2008). Furthermore, person perception studies have identified several appearance-related and behavioral cues that are correlated with both actual personality traits and with observer-ratings of the same traits (e.g. Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, /$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2 16 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) ; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Naumann et al., 2009). These results suggest that people s naïve theories regarding the links between personality and behavior, and also between personality and appearances, may be to some extent correct. If so, people could be expected to be able to utilize this knowledge in order to create and convey personality impressions on demand. On the other hand, the correlational results obtained in the above mentioned studies do not prove that observers are aware of the links between cues and personality the cues may be applied implicitly, without conscious deduction from, say, smiling to high Extraversion. Furthermore, even if observers are aware of such links, they are not necessarily able to use this knowledge to efficiently present themselves in the wanted manner. Questions related to accuracy, self-other agreement, and cue validity and utilization in person perception have been amply studied (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Borkenau et al., 2004; Letzring, Wells, & Funder, 2006; Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Naumann et al., 2009). Because of the interest in accuracy and visible manifestations of personality, most of this research has been conducted with stimulus material in which targets express themselves in natural and spontaneous ways. The focus of such research has thereby been on the perspective of the observer; e.g., under what conditions are observers accurate judges of personality, and what type of cues do they utilize as basis of their personality judgments? However, as noted above, in real life people may often have the explicit or implicit goal to convey a particular public image an image that may or may not correspond with their actual personalities. Therefore, an important next step in person perception research is to incorporate the perspective of the target; i.e., to study person perception in settings in which targets purposefully attempt to present themselves in certain ways. This is the goal of the present research. In the present study, we examine the enactment of the Big Five traits in photographs. Each of the Big Five traits can be conceived of as a bipolar continuum, and we ask our target participants to enact each of the 10 poles of the five traits. We have two research questions in this study. First, are targets successful in their attempts to enact the Big Five in photographs? Second, for which traits and to what extent are they successful? Targets are expected to be somewhat successful for all traits. Although previous person perception research has not decisively proven that people are aware of the links between appearances and personality, other research lines have shown that people are able to adapt their behavior smoothly and even automatically to environmental demands (e.g. Chartrand & Bargh, 1999). Such abilities could be expected to generalize to the enactment of personality traits. It is also expected that targets are more successful in enacting Extraversion than in enacting other traits. Several studies have shown that Extraversion is the easiest trait to judge (Borkenau et al., 2004; Carney et al., 2007; Connelly & Ones, 2010), the most visible trait (e.g. Borkenau et al., 2009), and the trait for which observers use the largest amount of valid cues (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Naumann et al., 2009). Thus, it is plausible that this trait is also easiest to enact. 2. Method 2.1. Target participants and procedure Target participants (N = 60) were recruited via invitations sent to University of Helsinki student mailing lists. Thirty women and 30 men who replied to the invitation were asked to complete an online personality questionnaire and to recruit two persons who knew them well to complete the same online questionnaire in an informant-report format. After completion of the questionnaires, these 60 target participants were invited to individual photograph sessions. Upon arrival to the photograph session, target participants were greeted by a male researcher (second author) who led them to a studio. Targets were asked to stand in front of a white backdrop that was identical for all targets and conditions. First, targets posed freely for a half-body photograph (cut from waist up). This condition is hereafter referred to as the Neutral condition. Targets were then instructed to enact, one at a time, all 10 poles of the Big Five traits. Similar half-body photographs were taken in each of the10 posing condition. Targets were not allowed to add, change or remove clothing, hairbands, or decorative items, to remove or add make-up, or to groom their hair between conditions. The instructions for each trait pole were of the form try to appear as a person whose personality is... followed by a two-adjective description of the trait pole. The adjectives were adapted from the Finnish version (Lönnqvist, Verkasalo, & Leikas, 2008) of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003). The adjectives were anxious, distressed for the Neurotic condition; stable, calm for the Stable condition; extraverted, enthusiastic for the Extravert condition; reserved, quiet for the Introvert condition; intellectually curious, daydreamer for the Open condition; conventional, does not like change for the low-openness condition; empathic, warm for the Agreeable condition; critical, quarrelsome for the Disagreeable condition; dependable, self-disciplined for the Conscientious condition; and unorganized, careless for the Non-Conscientious condition. Each instruction was visible to the targets throughout the corresponding posing condition. Targets did not receive any other advice for posing. The order of the posing conditions was as listed above (the order was the same for all targets). Targets were, on average, 27.0 years old (SD = 5.48, range 19 39), and all were Caucasian. As an incentive to participate, targets received one complementary film ticket (value 9 ) and portrait photographs. In addition, targets were given two film tickets to give as compensation to the two informants who had provided peer-ratings of personality Target personality Self- and peer-reports of personality for the personality criterion were gathered using the Short Five personality questionnaire (Konstabel, Lönnqvist, Walkowitz, Konstabel, & Verkasalo, 2012). This 60-item measure was designed to measure the five factors and 30 facets of the Five-Factor-Model (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Each facet is measured by both a positively and negatively keyed item (adding up to twelve items per personality factor), and each item is responded to on a scale from 3 (The description is completely wrong) to 3 (The description is completely right). Sample items include: I am often nervous, fearful, and anxious, and I worry that something might go wrong for the Anxiety facet of Emotional Stability, and I do not like to associate with people much; I am considered a rather cold and distant person (reversed) for the Warmth facet of Extraversion. The internal consistency of target personality ratings was assessed with Cronbach s alphas. The alpha reliabilities of the selfratings were.84,.91,.76,.76, and.87, for Extraversion (E), Emotional Stability (ES), Openness (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C), respectively. After averaging the two sets of peer-ratings, the alpha reliabilities of the peer-ratings were.83,.91,.86,.81, and.90, for E, ES, O, A, and C, respectively. Pearson s correlation coefficients between self-ratings and averaged peerratings were r =.74,.61,.50,.47,.55, for E, ES, O, A, and C, respectively. Self-ratings and averaged peer-ratings were averaged to form criteria scores of targets personality characteristics. For comparison purposes, targets also rated their Big Five personality traits with the same five single items that were used to ob-

3 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) tain observer-ratings (see below). Correlations between these single-item scores and the criterion scores were.69,.74,.43,.57, and.69 for E, ES, O, A, and C, respectively Observer participants and procedure Observer participants (N = 401; 343 women) were students from other Finnish universities (the Universities of Eastern Finland, Jyväskylä, Tampere, and Turku) than that which the targets were enrolled at (the University of Helsinki). Observers were, on average, years old (SD = 7.42; range: 18 58). They were recruited from courses on psychology research methods. Students on these courses were asked to participate in an online study on social perception and were provided with the internet address of the study. In that address, a link was provided from which observers had access to the photograph rating task. Each observer rated 11 photographs, each depicting a different target and a different posing condition. Each photograph (and, thus, each target in each pose) was evaluated by 6 8 observers (M = 6.68). Observers viewed the photographs one at a time, and rated each target with bipolar single items measuring the Big Five traits. The Big Five single items were constructed using the above presented two-adjective descriptions that were given as instructions to the targets. In essence, for each trait, the descriptions of the two poles were merged into one single bipolar item. The five bipolar items, each rated on a seven-point scales anchored at both ends with the two-adjective descriptions, thus constituted an abbreviation of the 10 unipolar items of the Finnish language version of the Ten Item Personality Inventory (Gosling et al., 2003; Lönnqvist et al., 2008). We used bipolar items because we wanted to separately evaluate success in enacting the two poles of each trait. Furthermore, in order to control for demand and acquiescence effects, the items were so keyed that higher scores meant higher desirability for two out of five traits (Emotional Stability and Agreeableness), and lower desirability for three out of five traits (Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness; i.e., higher scores on these scales meant lower Extraversion, Openness, and Conscientiousness). Ratings on the last three were reverse-scored prior to analyses in all analyses, high scores reflect the more desirable pole of the trait. In addition to the Big Five, observers evaluated the likability of the targets with a single item how much do you think you would like this person ; the observers rated this item on a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (little) to 7(very much). All rating scales appeared simultaneously below the photograph. Observers rated the target on all six scales and scrolled down on the screen to move to the next photograph. The single rater ICCs (1,1) were.42,.24,.38,.00,.55, and.27, and the average raters ICCs (1, 6.68) were.84,.75,.86,.18,.92, and.81 for ratings of Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Openness, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Likability, respectively. Note that there was practically no consensus for ratings of Agreeableness; we return to this issue in Discussion Attractiveness ratings As physical attractiveness is related to actual Extraversion and Agreeableness (Meier, Robinson, Carter, & Hinsz, 2010), and to observer-ratings of several personality traits (e.g. Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972) we measured and controlled for the effects of attractiveness. Ratings of targets attractiveness were based on their free pose photographs. The photographs were presented, one target at a time, in an online questionnaire, along with the question how attractive do you find this person and a sevenpoint scale ranging from 1 (not at all attractive) to 5(highly attractive). In order to ensure that judges would be unfamiliar with targets, judges were recruited amongst the authors overseas acquaintances. A total of 13 judges rated the attractiveness of each of the 60 targets. The mean of the attractiveness ratings was 2.93 (SD = 0.89). Interjudge reliability was high; the single rater ICC (2, 1) and average rater ICC (2, 13) were.39 and.89, respectively (Cronbach s a =.89). 3. Results Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations of the observer-ratings, and Table 2 shows the intercorrelations between target personality, target attractiveness, and observer-ratings based on the neutral (free pose) photograph. As shown in Table 2, some accuracy, as indexed by a significant correlation between personality criteria scores and observer-ratings based on the neutral photograph, was found for all traits except for Conscientiousness. To examine targets success in expressing the Big Five trait poles, first, a series of regressions was conducted with the SPSS Mixed Models procedure using REML estimation. Observer-rated trait scores were, each in turn, regressed on the 11-level (5 traits 2 poles + Neutral) posing condition variable, entered as a fixed effect. Observations were nested within targets and the intercept was included, allowing the ratings to represent the distinctive evaluation of a given target apart from normative ratings across targets (i.e., the mean rating across targets was controlled for). Condition was a significant predictor of observer-ratings for all traits (Fs , all ps <.001) except Agreeableness (F = 0.65, p =.77). Turning to our main research questions, we first examined, one trait at a time, how successful targets were in enacting the two trait poles (e.g., were targets rated as more extraverted in the Extravert condition than in the Introvert condition?). Mean-level differences between the high and low pole conditions were statistically significant (p <.05 or lower) and in the expected direction for all traits except Agreeableness. That is, targets were evaluated as more extraverted in the Extravert than in the Introvert condition (Ms vs. 3.03, Cohen s d = 2.32); as more emotionally stable when posing as Stable than when posing as Neurotic (Ms vs. 3.48, d = 0.91); as more open in the Open than in the low-openness condition (Ms vs. 4.03, d = 1.14), and as more conscientious in the Conscientious than in the Non-Conscientious condition (Ms vs. 4.22, d = 0.75). However, targets were seen as equally agreeable in the Agreeable and Disagreeable conditions (Ms vs. 4.21, respectively, ns., d = 0.05). 1 We also examined whether targets were rated by observers as closer to the enacted trait pole in the posing conditions than in the Neutral condition. The results showed that targets were rated as more extraverted in the Extravert condition (d = 1.02), and less extraverted in the Introvert condition (d = 1.00) than in the Neutral condition. Targets were seen as less emotionally stable in the Neurotic than in the Neutral condition (d = 0.97), but observer-ratings of Emotional Stability did not differ between the Stable and Neutral conditions. Targets were rated as higher on Openness in the Open 1 We re-conducted the above described Mixed Models analyses controlling for several possibly confounding variables. While controlling for the corresponding personality criterion score, target attractiveness, and observer-rated likability, the results remained identical (all condition effects p <.001). The actual personality trait score also significantly predicted observer-ratings of this trait for Extraversion (b =.18), Emotional Stability (b =.11), and Openness (b =.13). Target attractiveness (based on independent ratings of the Neutral condition photo) predicted observerrated Extraversion (F = 16.40, p <.001, b =.28), Emotional Stability (F = 28.90, p <.001, b =.28), and Openness (F = 4.45, p <.05, b =.16). Further, attractiveness predicted observer-rated Likability (F = 25.79, p <.001, b =.31). We also checked whether target sex or sex condition interaction affected the results. Target sex had a main effect on observer-rated Emotional Stability (F = 7.85, p <.01) and Openness (F = 5.62, p <.05). Men were rated higher on both traits (Emotional Stability: Ms = 4.43 vs. 4.08; Openness: Ms = 4.43 vs. 4.22). No interactions between sex and condition were detected. All main effects of condition remained significant (p <.001) when controlling for target sex and the sex condition interaction.

4 18 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) Table 1 Observer-Ratings by Posing Condition. Trait E ES O A C LIKE Condition Neutral 4.08 (1.07) 4.68 (0.95) 4.45 (0.84) 4.46 (0.89) 4.73 (0.88) 4.32 (0.83) Extravert 5.50 (1.23) 5.03 (0.71) 4.79 (0.61) 4.27 (1.06) 4.50 (0.92) 4.79 (0.58) Introvert 3.03 (0.86) 3.66 (0.87) 4.08 (0.93) 4.43 (0.87) 4.62 (0.83) 3.83 (0.66) Stable 3.81 (1.07) 4.53 (0.82) 4.41 (0.91) 4.47 (0.80) 4.77 (0.84) 4.17 (0.72) Neurotic 3.14 (0.99) 3.48 (0.99) 4.11 (0.85) 4.28 (0.93) 4.45 (0.93) 3.64 (0.68) Open 4.13 (1.03) 4.59 (0.82) 5.04 (0.86) 4.41 (0.91) 4.71 (0.82) 4.40 (0.70) Low-Openness 3.49 (1.01) 3.96 (0.91) 4.03 (0.85) 4.36 (0.84) 4.86 (0.94) 3.93 (0.77) Agreeable 4.34 (1.24) 4.73 (0.69) 4.69 (0.75) 4.28 (0.96) 4.74 (0.82) 4.47 (0.76) Disagreeable 3.75 (1.13) 3.72 (0.85) 3.87 (0.74) 4.21 (1.05) 4.65 (0.86) 3.57 (0.77) Conscientious 3.83 (1.23) 4.31 (0.86) 4.13 (0.89) 4.20 (0.90) 4.92 (0.88) 3.99 (0.77) Non-Consc (1.50) 4.49 (1.09) 4.71 (0.93) 4.35 (0.95) 4.22 (0.93) 4.32 (0.83) Note: All ratings were made on a scale from 1 to 7. Neutral = condition in which the targets posed freely. Non-Consc. = Non-Conscientious. E = Extraversion. ES = Emotional Stability. O = Openness. A = Agreeableness. C = Conscientiousness. LIKE = Likability. Table 2 Intercorrelations between target personality criteria scores, attractiveness, and observer-rated personality and likability in the Neutral condition E criterion 1 2. ES criterion.51 *** 1 3. O criterion.37 ** A criterion ** C criterion *** ** 1 6. E observer.31 * ES observer.29 *.32 * *** 1 8. O observer ** **.48 *** 1 9. A observer * C observer * LIKE observer ***.76 ***.42 ** ** Attractiveness.36 ** ***.57 ***.28 * *.55 *** Note: Observer-ratings are from the Neutral condition; i.e., the condition in which targets posed freely. Accuracy correlations (i.e., correlations between a personality criterion and the corresponding observer-rating) are boldfaced. E = Extraversion. ES = Emotional Stability. O = Openness. A = Agreeableness. C = Conscientiousness. LIKE = likability. Observer = observer-rating. * p <.05. ** p <.01. *** p <.001. than in the Neutral condition (d = 0.62), and lower on Openness in the low-openness than in the Neutral condition (d = 0.45). Finally, targets were rated as less Conscientious in the Non-Conscientious condition than in the Neutral condition (d = 0.62), but not more Conscientious in the Conscientious condition than in the Neutral condition. Observer-ratings of Agreeableness did not differ between the Neutral condition and the corresponding posing conditions. The above results showed that targets were generally successful in enacting both poles of the Big Five traits, with the exception of Agreeableness. When instructed to express one pole of a trait, targets were actually seen as closer to this pole than to the opposite pole. This was true for all posing conditions except the ones in which targets were instructed to portray high or low Agreeableness (in both of these conditions, the targets were rated as similarly agreeable). Furthermore, in six out of the 10 posing conditions, targets were seen as closer to the enacted pole than in the Neutral condition. But how distinct were the impressions that targets conveyed? For all of the Big Five traits, one pole is more socially desirable than the other. It is thus possible that targets were only able to convey an indistinctive pleasant or positive impression when instructed to enact the desirable pole of any trait, and an indistinctive unpleasant impression when enacting the undesirable pole. To evaluate whether targets could express the trait poles distinctively, we asked three further questions. First, were targets, when expressing a specific pole of a trait, rated as closer to this pole than in any other posing condition? For example, were targets rated as more emotionally stable in the Stable condition than in any other condition? To answer this question, we returned to the results of the above described analyses, but this time compared, one trait at time, trait ratings obtained in the condition that corresponded to the trait with trait ratings in the remaining eight posing conditions (e.g., Extraversion ratings in the Extravert condition were compared with the Extraversion ratings in the Stable, Neurotic, Open, Low-Openness, Agreeable, Disagreeable, Conscientious, and Non-Conscientious conditions). On an absolute level, in six out of the 10 conditions, ratings of the corresponding trait were closer to the enacted pole than in any other posing condition. However, only in the Extravert condition were targets rated as statistically significantly (p <.05) closer to the enacted pole (i.e., as higher in Extraversion) than in any other condition. Regarding the other conditions, targets were rather successful in the Introvert condition (ratings of trait Extraversion were lower in this condition than in seven of the other conditions), Neurotic condition (ratings of trait Emotional Stability were lower in this condition than in seven of the other conditions), Open condition (ratings of Openness were higher in this condition than in six of the other conditions), and Non-Conscientious (ratings of Conscientiousness were lower in this condition than in seven of the other conditions) conditions. The second question that we asked in order to evaluate whether targets could express the trait poles distinctively was whether the instructions to portray the high vs. low poles of a given trait

5 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) affected the corresponding trait rating more than they affected ratings of other traits. For instance, was the difference in trait ratings between the Open and low-openness conditions larger for Openness ratings than for ratings of the other traits? To examine this, we computed, for all five traits, effect sizes (Cohen s ds) between the mean ratings obtained when enacting the high and low poles of each of the five traits. Comparing ds showed that between the Extravert and Introvert conditions, ratings of Extraversion (d = 2.31) differed more than ratings of other traits, although ratings of Emotional Stability (d = 1.29), and Openness (d = 0.84) also differed strongly, unlike the ratings of Agreeableness (d = 0.13) and Conscientiousness (d = 0.12). Between the Stable vs. Neurotic conditions, ratings of Emotional Stability (d = 0.91) differed more than ratings of other traits (ds = 0.58, 0.30, 0.19, 0.36 for differences in ratings of Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, respectively). Between the Open vs. Low-Openness conditions, ratings of Openness (d = 1.14) differed more than the ratings of other traits (ds 0.55, 0.04, 0.65, and 0.16 for ratings of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability, and Conscientiousness, respectively). Between the Agreeable and Disagreeable conditions, ratings of Emotional Stability (d = 1.08) and Openness (d = 0.85) differed most strongly, followed by ratings of Extraversion (d = 0.47). The differences in ratings of Conscientiousness (d = 0.11) and Agreeableness (d = 0.05) were very small. Finally, between Conscientious vs. Non-Conscientious conditions, ratings of Conscientiousness (d = 0.75), Extraversion (d = 0.60), and Openness (d = 0.61) differed more than ratings of Emotional Stability (d = 0.18) or Agreeableness (d = 0.10). In sum, with the exception of Agreeableness, the high vs. low pole condition effect always affected the corresponding trait most strongly, although this effect was most pronounced for Extraversion, and not very pronounced for Conscientiousness. The third question we asked in order to investigate how distinctively targets could create specific impressions was whether the targets were rated as closer to the trait pole that they were instructed to express than could have be expected based on their self-rated personality. For instance, were the targets seen as more extraverted in the Extravert condition than they actually were according to their self-ratings? To answer to this question, we compared single-item self-ratings on a given trait with observerrating of the same trait in the conditions in which targets were posing the two ends of that trait. (e.g., targets self-rated extraversion was compared with observer-ratings of extraversion in the Extravert and Introvert conditions). Single-items were used instead of the personality criterion scores as the latter were obtained with a different personality measure and mean levels were hence not comparable with the observer-ratings. Repeated-measures ANOVAs showed that in the Extravert condition, targets were seen as higher in Extraversion than could have been expected based on their self-reports (F = 63.10, p <.001, Ms vs. 3.33). In the Introvert condition, observer-ratings did not differ from self-ratings (F = 1.51, p =.22, Ms = 3.03 vs. 3.33). In the Stable condition, observer-ratings did not differ from self-ratings (F = 0.31, p =.58, Ms = 4.53 vs. 4.42). In the Neurotic condition, targets were seen as lower in Emotional Stability than their self-reports suggested (F = 14.62, p <.001, Ms vs. 4.42). In the Open condition, targets were seen as less open than their self-ratings suggested (F = 9.18, p <.01, Ms = 5.04 vs. 5.62; this may have been due to the fact that the single-item self-ratings of Openness were, on average, very high), and the same was true of the low-openness condition (F = 68.23, p <.001, Ms = 4.03 vs. 5.62). In both the Agreeable condition and Disagreeable conditions, targets were seen as less agreeable than their self-ratings suggested (F = 4.78, p <.05, Ms = 4.28 vs and F = 4.47, p <.05, Ms = 4.21 vs. 4.75, respectively). Finally, observer-ratings of conscientiousness did not differ from target self-ratings in the Conscientious condition (F = 0.11, p = 0.75, Ms = 4.92 vs. 4.85). However, in the non-conscientious condition, targets were seen as lower in Conscientiousness than they reported being (F = 7.01, p <.05, Ms = 4.22 vs. 4.85). Thus, in the Extravert, Neurotic, low-openness, Disagreeable, and Non-Conscientious conditions, targets were seen as closer to the corresponding trait pole than their single-item self-ratings suggested. To sum up the analyses regarding how distinctively the trait poles could be portrayed, targets were clearly able to convey a distinct expression of high Extraversion. Targets were also able to create somewhat distinct impressions of Introversion, Neuroticism, high Openness, and low Conscientiousness. However, distinctively expressing low Openness, high Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability, proved difficult. Finally, according to all criteria, targets were unable to convey impressions of being either Agreeable or Disagreeable. Observers tended to confound ratings of Extraversion, Emotional Stability, Openness, and Likability, whereas ratings of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were distinct from these and from each other. 4. Discussion Physical appearance plays an important role in first impressions, and first impressions have far-reaching consequences for later judgments of a person. Thus, the extent to which people are able to control and adjust the impressions they convey via their physical appearance is of both applied and theoretical significance. The present study examined the extent to which such control is possible in the context of photographs. With everyone a Google search away, first impressions of potentially important others are increasingly likely to be based on photographs. The results suggested that it is possible to control the impressions of personality in photographs. However, success in such impression management depends on the particular trait in question, and also on the particular pole of the trait. The results unambiguously suggest that people are very capable of creating a distinct impression of high Extraversion in a photograph regardless of their actual standing on this trait. Participants were also moderately successful at expressing low Extraversion, low Conscientiousness, low Emotional Stability, and high Openness through physical appearances. Expressing high Emotional Stability, low Openness, and high Conscientiousness distinctively was difficult, although targets were, in the corresponding conditions, seen as closer to these trait poles than to the opposite trait poles. Finally, creating impressions of high or low Agreeableness through appearances proved an unachievable task Posing personality: some poles of some traits are easier to pose than others That high Extraversion emerged as the clearly easiest trait pole to enact is consistent with previous, more observer-focused, person perception research that has repeatedly shown that Extraversion is the most visible trait (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Connelly & Ones, 2010), the easiest to judge (Beer & Watson, 2008; Carney et al., 2007), and that it can be correctly evaluated on the basis of a mere photograph (Borkenau et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2009). Our results complement previous literature by showing that Extraversion (at least its high pole) is also the easiest trait for the target to enact, on demand, via physical appearance. This may be because physical cues related to high Extraversion are highly visible, and could thus be very familiar and recognizable to most people. To a lesser extent, the above considerations also apply to high Openness that was, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, quite successfully enacted in the present study. Naumann et al. (2009) showed

6 20 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) that targets scoring high on Openness often look away from the camera in photographs, and that looking away also predicts observer-ratings of Openness. Thus, it is possible that people are either consciously or intuitively aware of some physical indicators of high Openness, and use these indicators to enact and judge Openness, either automatically or in a controlled manner. It should be acknowledged, though, that targets reported very high Openness levels, and observer-ratings of Openness in the Open condition did not differ from targets self-ratings. Thus, it seems possible that the targets success in posing as Open may be at least partly due to targets actually high Openness levels nevertheless, targets were rated as higher in Openness in the Open condition than in the Neutral condition Is it impossible to enact Agreeableness? Targets were rated as equally high in Agreeableness in all conditions, including the Disagreeable condition. Furthermore, observer-ratings of Agreeableness showed practically zero consensus, suggesting that each observer made Agreeableness judgments idiosyncratically. Why? Targets did look different across posing conditions, as evidenced by targets success in posing some of the traits. Despite this, the profile of the Agreeableness ratings remained flat over all posing conditions, did not resemble any of the other trait profiles, and observer consensus was low for these ratings. We could think of two possible explanations to this somewhat peculiar result. First, it seems possible targets misunderstood the instructions to enact Agreeableness. Observer-ratings of Agreeableness and Likability were unrelated across conditions (average r across posing conditions was.09), and this seems to support this methodological explanation of the Agreeableness results. However, ratings of Likability and Agreeableness were uncorrelated also for the Neutral condition photograph (r =.01, ns.) observers simply did not combine Likability and Agreeableness. The second possible explanation for the Agreeableness profile is that observers were unable or unwilling to judge Agreeableness on the basis of the cues available in photographs. At first glance, this idea may appear at odds with results according to which people are eager to judge others Agreeableness, even on the basis of as little information as Facebook profile photographs (Ames & Bianchi, 2008). However, photographs used in such social media profiles may be much more informative regarding personality than the portrait-style photographs used in the present study. Facebook profile photographs (Ames & Bianchi, 2008) may contain a wide variety of personality cues apart from physical appearance, such as the background of the photograph, framing and cropping (e.g. close-up vs. full-body photo), the location the photograph is taken (e.g. outdoors vs. indoors), props, and the size of the target in the photograph. By contrast, our targets all posed in waist-up photographs in front of a standardized background. It may be that observers felt that they cannot evaluate strangers Agreeableness on the basis of so little information. The low consensus of Agreeableness ratings suggests that observers did not base their ratings of Agreeableness on target characteristics. This is consistent with previous research that has shown that social projection (a particular type of perceiver effect in person perception; Kenny, 1994) is stronger for Agreeableness than for other traits (Beer & Watson, 2008; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010). This means that observers tend to use their own levels of Agreeableness level as proxies for targets Agreeableness. Such projection could also explain the present results: if observers projected their own level of Agreeableness into their ratings of target Agreeableness, low consensus would be expected. In sum, the results regarding Agreeableness suggest that although people are highly interested in others Agreeableness (Ames & Bianchi, 2008), they may be cautious in making strong inferences of Agreeableness when information is very sparse. From an applied perspective, this can be regarded as fortunate, because it suggests that it is difficult to convey a false image of high Agreeableness, at least by means of physical appearances. However, it should be noted that the photographs utilized in the present study had a standardized form; it may be easier to fake Agreeableness in photographs for which one can freely choose content and form. How this could be done is an interesting question for future research Limitations The results presented here are the first to examine the purposeful creation of personality impressions by means of photographs, and were based on a single study with only 60 targets. Thus, our above offered interpretations of the results must be viewed as preliminary. Furthermore, targets were not allowed to change clothing, hairdo, or make-up between conditions. However, these types of cues are indicative of personality. For instance, neatness of dress is a valid and utilized physical cue for Conscientiousness (Naumann et al., 2009), and in real-life settings people will probably try to dress neat when attempting to appear high in Conscientiousness (e.g., in a job interview). Thus, allowing for a change of clothes between conditions would have provided a more realistic impression creation setting (however, this would have happened at the cost of introducing more ambiguity regarding unknown and unobserved changes between conditions). Target participants received somewhat limited instructions for the posing (i.e., only two adjectives per posing condition). This was due to time constraints; a comprehensive discussion of the meaning and nature of personality traits would have prolonged the photography sessions considerably. However, it is possible that different targets understood the short instructions in different ways, leading to different goals within a posing condition. In future research, it would be desirable to instruct participants more extensively regarding the impressions that they are asked to create. As a further limitation, the order of conditions in which the participants were photographed was kept constant. This may have affected the enactment of the trait poles expressed in the last (high Conscientiousness, low Conscientiousness) or first (Emotional Stability, Neuroticism) conditions, through fatigue or initial nervousness, respectively Conclusions and future directions People often wish to adjust and control the image that they convey to others, but this tendency has received relatively little attention in the literature. Given the hugely increased possibilities for connecting with others online, the present findings according to which people are, in portrait photographs, able to fake some of their personality characteristics (e.g., high Extraversion, high Openness), but not others (e.g., high Agreeableness) are important. A relevant future research topic is how people create personality impressions in photographs. That is, what physical cues do targets display in order to pose different traits? Furthermore, is the enactment of traits automatic or controlled? For instance, are the targets aware of using particular cues? In a more applied vein, it would be informative to investigate posing in photographs that the targets are allowed to construct more freely. For instance, target participants could independently take the photographs using similar instructions as those given in the present study. Such research setting would give a more comprehensive account of the ways in which to convey personality impressions via photographs, as well as a more realistic estimate of how successfully people can use photographs to manage or manipulate the image that they create of themselves in social networking sites. Another interesting

7 S. Leikas et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 47 (2013) topic would be the study of impression creation during behavioral episodes. For instance, is it possible for a person low in Openness to convey and image of high Openness in a dyadic discussion? Finally, a potentially interesting avenue of research concerns individual differences in both the ability to create specific personality impressions and the ability to see through such attempts. In our view, the above described research lines would substantially complement the person perception literature by bringing in the target s perspective. Acknowledgments Sointu Leikas, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, and Markku Verkasalo, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland. This research was supported by the Academy of Finland (Grant Number ). References Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behaviors as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, Ames, D. R., & Bianchi, E. C. (2008). The agreeableness asymmetry in first impressions: Perceiver s impulse to (mis)judge agreeableness and how it is moderated by power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (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, Barrick, M. R., Shaffer, J. A., & DeGrassi, S. W. (2009). What you see may not be what you get: Relationships among self-presentation tactics and ratings of interview and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2008). The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C., & Paelaecke, M. (2009). Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 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, Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perceptionbehavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Metaanalytic integration of observers accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, Gilmore, D. C., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). The effects of applicant impression management tactics on interviewer judgments. Journal of Management, 15, Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. Jr., (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, Hall, J. A., Gunnery, S. D., & Andrzejevski, S. A. (2011). Nonverbal emotion displays, communication modality, and the judgment of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception. New York: Guilford. Konstabel, K., Aavik, T., & Allik, J. (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, Konstabel, K., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Walkowitz, G., Konstabel, K., & Verkasalo, M. (2012). The Short Five (S5): Measuring personality traits using comprehensive single items. European Journal of Personality, 26, Letzring, T. D., Wells, S. M., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Information quantity and quality affect the realistic accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, Lönnqvist, J. E., Verkasalo, M., & Bezmenova, I. (2007). Agentic and communal bias in socially desirable responding. European Journal of Personality, 21, Lönnqvist, J.-E., Verkasalo, M., & Leikas, S. (2008). Viiden suuren persoonallisuusfaktorin 10, 60, ja300 osion julkiset mittarit [10, 60, and 300 item public domain measures of the Big Five]. Psykologia, 5, Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Carter, M. S., & Hinsz, V. B. (2010). Are sociable people more beautiful? A zero-acquaintance analysis of agreeableness, extraversion, and attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2011). Judgments of power from college yearbook photos and later career success. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1992). Interpersonal processes involving impression regulation and management. Annual Review of Psychology, 43, Stevens, C. K., & Kristof, A. L. (1995). Making the right impression: A field study of applicant impression management during job interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, Vazire, S., Naumann, L. P., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,