Accuracy of Judgments of Personality Based on Textual Information on Major Life Domains

Transcription

1 Accuracy of Judgments of Personality Based on Textual Information on Major Life Domains Journal of ofpersonality 84:2, :, April VC 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: /jopy Peter Borkenau, Alice Mosch, Nancy Tandler, and Annegret Wolf Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg Abstract We studied the accuracy of personality impressions relying on textual information on important life domains. Specifically, how is accuracy moderated by the trait being judged, information being provided, judgeability of target persons, and perceptiveness of judges? A sample of 208 students was recruited in groups of four mutual acquaintances who described themselves and each other on a measure of the Five-Factor Model of personality. Moreover, they wrote essays on their hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, and plans for the future and provided self-reports on possible predictors of expressive accuracy.the essays were delivered to 130 strangers who reported their impressions of the personality of the targets and provided self-reports on possible predictors of perceptive accuracy. Accuracy was measured by correlating these impressions with the descriptions of the targets by their acquaintances. The judges used the available information efficiently. Overall, impressions of Openness to Experience were most accurate, but accuracy depended on the information being provided. Several predictors of expressive and perceptive accuracy were identified using Biesanz s (2010) social accuracy model. The results advance our understanding of factors contributing to and moderating the accuracy of personality impressions based on textual information. Numerous studies have investigated consensus and self-other agreement for personality impressions based on either thin slices of unacquainted persons behavior (e.g., Borkenau, Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004; Chan, Rogers, Parisotto, & Biesanz, 2011) or on visits to their offices and bedrooms (Gosling, Ko, Mannarelli, & Morris, 2002), personal Web sites (Marcus, Machilek, & Schütz, 2006; Vazire & Gosling, 2004), Facebook profiles (Back et al., 2010), or microblogs on Twitter (Qiu, Lin, Ramsay, & Yang, 2012). This research showed consensus and self-other agreement beyond chance levels even if the available information was very scarce, for example, if judges were presented portraits of strangers for 50 ms only (Borkenau, Brecke, Möttig, & Paelecke, 2009). Accuracy seems to be highest for Extraversion if judges see or hear the target, whereas it seems to be highest for Openness to Experience if the judges are exposed to identity claims and behavioral residues observable in offices and bedrooms (Gosling et al., 2002) or on personal Web sites (Marcus et al., 2006). Moreover, studies relying on Brunswik s (1955) lens and Funder s (1995) realistic accuracy model identified numerous cues mediating the accuracy of strangers personality impressions. For instance, cues mediating self-other agreement for Extraversion seem to be smiling and loudness of the voice, whereas a cue mediating agreement for Openness seems to be how fluently target persons read a text aloud (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Borkenau et al., 2004). But consider Bill and Mary meeting for the first time. Bill, wishing to obtain information on Mary s personality, will probably not intentionally infer Mary s Extraversion from the volume of her voice and her Openness from how fluently she reads a text. Rather, he will probably ask Mary about her hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, plans for the future, likes and dislikes, and so on. Even more, since the advent of computer-mediated communication, information on an interaction partner s voice and prosody may not even be available. Nowadays, people come into contact via , through online social networks, or in chat rooms instead of or before meeting them face-to-face. Thus, textual information becomes increasingly important. That is one reason to study personality impressions relying on purely textual information. We are indebted to Therese Kästner, Julia Hänsch, and Denise Neumann for collecting the ratings on the essay features. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Borkenau, Department of Psychology, Martin-Luther University, D Halle, Germany. p.borkenau@psych.uni-halle.de.

2 2Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et 215 al. Computer-Mediated Communication Meanwhile, there are quite a number of studies on consensus and accuracy of personality impressions based on online social network (OSN) sites, mostly Facebook profiles (e.g., Stopfer, Egloff, Nestler, & Back, 2013). Tskhay and Rule (2014) even published a meta-analysis on perceptions of personality in text-based media (including and Twitter) and in OSNs. They found meta-analytic accuracy was highest for Extraversion. Moreover, accuracy tended to be higher in OSN studies than when judges had to rely on textual information only. That may reflect that OSN sites combine text with pictures and reactions to that information by others. Textual Information The significance of textual information for personality impressions increased with the advent of computer-mediated communication, but it had been important previously, for instance, when making new acquaintances or in clinical diagnoses and employment decisions. Here, the information is usually acquired in face-to-face interactions and is not exclusively textual. That also applies to judgments relying on audiotapes (e.g., Andersen, 1984) or videotapes (e.g., Beer & Brooks, 2011; Human, Biesanz, Finseth, Pierce, & Le, 2014) of interviews with persons unknown to the judges: Audiotapes include paraverbal cues like prosody and tone of voice that are diagnostic of personality (Mason, Sbarra, & Mehl, 2010), and videotapes include a host of additional cues, such as physical attractiveness, smiling, and clothing. Therefore, to study accuracy of inferences from purely textual information, one has to either let target persons pen all information or transcribe their vocal utterances before presenting them to judges. In the present study, target persons wrote essays whose transcripts were made available to strangers. The data analyses addressed several research issues delineated in Funder s (1995) realistic accuracy model and Biesanz s (2010) social accuracy model. The Realistic Accuracy Model and the Social Accuracy Model Funder (1995) highlights that four requirements must be met for judgments of personality to be accurate: Targets must (a) emit relevant cues, which must (b) be available to observers, who must (c) detect those cues and (d) utilize them appropriately. Moreover, he suggests four moderators of judgmental accuracy: (a) the trait being judged, (b) the information being provided, (c) the expressivity of the target person, and (d) the perceptiveness of the judge. Investigating these moderators requires varying dataanalytic approaches. Judgeable traits are best identified by correlating, separately for each trait, judgments with accuracy criteria across targets. By contrast, good judges and judgeable targets are best identified in person-wise analyses, by comparing perceived personality profiles of individual targets to a criterion profile, as such analyses yield separate accuracy statistics for each perceiver-target dyad. They raise the problem, however, that such profile correlations reflect two components: (a) that the trait means vary in similar ways across profiles (e.g., Conscientiousness exceeds Neuroticism in both self- and peer-reports) and (b) that the individual target s deviations from those means vary in similar ways. Furr (2008) refers to this as normative agreement and distinctive agreement, respectively. For identifying judgeable targets and good judges, Biesanz (2010) suggested a social accuracy model, predicting perceived personality profiles of individual targets, across traits, from (a) each target s criterion profile and (b) the normative profile of trait means. Strength of the first predictor indicates effects of the target s actual trait levels on the perceived trait levels, controlling for differences in trait means, and is referred to as distinctive accuracy. Strength of the second predictor indicates effects of different trait means on the target s perceived trait levels, controlling for that target s deviations from those means. This is referred to as normative accuracy. These coefficients are estimated separately for each perceiver-target dyad. If there are multiple targets per perceiver and perceivers per target, the coefficients can be aggregated: (a) across perceivers separately for each target, indicating that target s expressive accuracy (judgeability); and (b) across targets separately for each perceiver, indicating that perceiver s perceptive accuracy. The Present Study Groups of well-acquainted students provided self- and acquaintance reports on the Big Five personality domains, wrote essays on five domains of their life, and filled in personality scales possibly predicting expressive accuracy. The essays were transcribed and made available to judges, unacquainted with the targets, who rated either attributes of those essays (i.e., essay judges) or the authors personality (i.e., personality judges). Analyses focused on identifying judgeable traits, diagnostic information, judgeable targets, and perceptive personality judges. METHOD Participants Targets were 208 (65 males; M age = 22.43, SD = 2.25) mostly nonpsychology students recruited in 52 groups of four acquainted persons. Using a round-robin design, they described themselves and each other on the dimensions of the Five-Factor Model. Moreover, they wrote essays on their hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, and plans for the future and provided self-reports on instruments possibly predicting expressive accuracy. They were supervised by an experimenter and were paid 25 euros (approximately US$35) for participation.

3 216 Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et al. 3 Thirty independent essay judges (four males; M age = 23.30, SD = 2.65), six per life domain, rated 13 attributes of the essays by all 208 targets on the same life domain. Furthermore, 130 judges unacquainted with the targets (63 males; M age = 23.53, SD = 3.42; 121 students but none studying psychology) described the targets personality. Of these, 29 had access to one essay by each of the 208 targets, six had access to all essays by all targets, and 95 had access to all essays by 10 targets randomly chosen from the 208. Judges were assigned to conditions randomly, and monetary compensation varied according to workload. Of the 29 judges having access to one essay per target, six read the essays on either targets hobbies, friends, family, or plans for the future, and five read the essays on the targets academic studies. These personality judges also completed several instruments possibly predicting perceptive accuracy, and they guessed how accurately the Big Five personality domains can be inferred from information on each of the five life domains under study. Measures Minimum Redundancy Scales. The Big Five personality factors were measured using 30 bipolar German-language adjective scales, a subset (MRS-30) of Ostendorf s (1990) Minimum Redundancy Scales. The MRS-30 measures each personality domain with six items, three of them reverse scored. The response scales ranged from 1 (e.g., very quiet) to 6 (e.g., very talkative). Essays. The instructions for the essays were as follows: On the following pages, please describe five domains of your life! Specifically, we are interested in your hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, and plans for the future.... There are several lines to report about each of these domains that you should fill with relevant information. Please write whole sentences and utilize the available space completely! One of the five life domains was then specified, followed by examples of relevant content and 10 empty lines. For instance, leisure, athletic, and creative activities were mentioned as relevant for the essay on hobbies. All participants had to address the five life domains in the same order: hobbies, friends, family, academic studies, and plans for the future. The average length of the essays was M = 74.9 (SD = 20.2) words, ranging from M = 60.9 (SD = 22.0) words in the essays on hobbies to M = 81.5 (SD = 31.3) words in the essays on one s family. Possible Predictors of Expressive and Perceptive Accuracy. The following self-report instruments (number of items per scale in parentheses) were administered to all targets: First, the scales Emotional Expressivity (17) and Recognizing and Understanding One s Own Emotions (15) of the Emotionaler Kompetenzfragebogen [Emotional Competency Questionnaire; ECQ] by Rindermann (2009) its response options run from 1 to 5. Second, the Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness (BIPM) by Nyklíček and Denollet (2009) in a German translation by the present authors, comprising the two seven-item scales Insight (e.g., I am often not aware of my feelings, reverse scored) and Interest (e.g., My negative feelings can teach me a lot about myself ) its response options run from 0 to 4. Third, the Skalen zur Erfassung der emotionalen Selbst- und Fremdaufmerksamkeit sowie der Klarheit über Gefühle [Scales Assessing the Attention to and Clarity of Feelings; SAACF] by Lischetzke, Eid, Wittig, and Trierweiler (2001) this instrument comprises the four scales Emotional Self-Awareness (6), Emotional Awareness for Others (6), Clarity of Own Feelings (6), and Clarity of Others Feelings (6). Its response options run from 1 to 4. Fourth, the Multidimensionale Selbstwertskala [Multi- Dimensional Self-Esteem Scale; MSES] by Schütz and Sellin (2006), comprising subscales measuring Emotional Self- Esteem (7), Social Self-Esteem (10), Achievement-Related Self-Esteem (5), Physical Attractiveness Self-Esteem (5), and Athleticism Self-Esteem (5) its response options run from 1 to 7. Fifth, a German adaptation by Graf (2004) of Snyder s (1974) Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) with the facets Acceptance of Roles (12), Attention Focused on Others (8), and Extraversion (5) was completed. Finally, the screening questionnaire for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II (SCID-II) in a German adaptation by Wittchen, Zaudig, and Fydrich (1997) the SCID-II measures the following personality disorders: avoidant (7), dependent (8), obsessive-compulsive (9), negativistic (8), depressive (8), paranoid (8), schizotypal (11), schizoid (6), histrionic (7), narcissistic (16), borderline (14), and antisocial (15). The 130 stranger judges of personality were administered a somewhat different selection of instruments, reflecting that their perceptive more than their expressive accuracy was of interest. They filled in the ECQ scale Recognizing Others Emotions (17), the BIPM, the SAACF, and the SCID-II, but not the MSES and the SMS. Instead, we administered the Test zur Erfassung der Emotionalen Intelligenz [Test of Emotional Intelligence; TEMINT] by Schmidt-Atzert and Bühner (2002). The TEMINT consists of 12 vignettes describing real persons having emotional experiences (e.g., having failed at an important exam). The testee s task is rating the strength of several emotions of that person. These ratings are compared to the depicted person s self-reported emotions, with discrepancies being indicators of the testee s (lack of) emotional intelligence. To let high TEMINT scores indicate high emotional intelligence, these scores were multiplied by 1 and standardized (M = 0, s = 1). Lay Theories. Lay theories were assessed by asking the 130 personality judges how well the Big Five traits might be inferred from information on the five life domains under study.

4 4Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et 217 al. A sample item was How well can one infer somebody s extraversion from information on that person s hobbies exclusively? The response options ranged from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very well). Ratings of Essay Features. Thirteen essay attributes (listed in Table 5) were assessed on 6-point rating scales independently of the life domain that the essay addressed. Procedure The targets first described the personality of their three acquaintances, then wrote their five essays, and finally completed the various self-report instruments. There were no time limits. The handwritten essays were transcribed into electronic files to provide optimal legibility and prevent judges from inferring the authors gender and personality from their handwriting. The personality judges filled in the measures in this order: (a) the TEMINT, (b) the items assessing their lay theories, and (c) the self-report instruments. Then they described the targets personality on the MRS-30. To this end, they were mailed electronic transcripts of the essays (their selection depending on the assigned condition) and a code enabling them to provide their ratings online, using the platform SoSci Survey (Leiner, 2012). The essay judges also provided their ratings using SoSci Survey. RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and internal consistencies of the targets self-reports are listed in Table 1. For most scales, the reliabilities were acceptable or good, but some SCID-II scales and facets of the SMS were unreliable. Therefore, we used composite self-monitoring and personality disorder scores in the subsequent analyses. Consensus Throughout this study, we used Fisher s z-transformation when averaging correlations. Consensus among personality judges was estimated using intraclass correlations ICC (2, 1) and ICC (2, 6) that appear in Table 2 separately for personality domain and essay content. Consensus was highest if judges were informed about the targets academic studies, and lowest if they were informed about the targets friends. But the effects of essay content depended on the trait being judged: Openness was inferred most consensually from the essays on hobbies, Conscientiousness from the essays on academic studies, and Agreeableness from the essays on the target s family. Consensus for the essay attributes was of similar size: On average, agreement between single judges was.33, and the reliability of the averaged ratings by six judges was.72, ranging from.60 (influences others) to.87 (reports negative emotions). Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Internal Consistencies of the Targets Self-Reports Measure M SD α MRS-30 Neuroticism MRS-30 Extraversion MRS-30 Openness to Experience MRS-30 Agreeableness MRS-30 Conscientiousness ECQ Emotional Expressivity ECQ Recognizing and Understanding One s Own Emotions BIPM Insight BIPM Interest SAACF Emotional Self-Attention SAACF Emotional Attention for Others SAACF Clarity of One s Own Feelings SAACF Clarity of Others Feelings MSES Emotional Self-Esteem MSES Social Self-Esteem MSES Achievement-Related Self-Esteem MSES Physical Attractiveness Self-Esteem MSES Athleticism Self-Esteem MSES Total Score SMS Acceptance of Roles SMS Attention Focused on Others SMS Extraversion Self-Monitoring Composite Score SCID-II Avoidant PD SCID-II Dependent PD SCID-II Obsessive-Compulsive PD SCID-II Negativistic PD SCID-II Depressive PD SCID-II Paranoid PD SCID-II Schizotypal PD SCID-II Schizoid PD SCID-II Histrionic PD SCID-II Narcissistic PD SCID-II Borderline PD SCID-II Antisocial PD Any PD (SCID-II Composite score) Note. N = 208. MRS-30 = Minimum Redundancy Scales with 30 Items; ECQ = Emotional Competency Questionnaire; BIPM = Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness; SAACF = Scales Assessing the Attention to and the Clarity of Feelings; MSES = Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale; SMS = Self-Monitoring Scale; SCID- II = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II; PD = personality disorder. Accuracy of Personality Judgments by Strangers Trait and Information Effects. Studying the accuracy of perceptions of personality requires an appropriate validity criterion. In the present study, three possible criteria were available: (a) the targets self-reports, (b) descriptions by acquaintances, and (c) composites of self-reports and acquaintance reports. Using self-reports as the accuracy criterion was dubious because targets may have presented themselves inaccurately but consistently on the questionnaire and in their essays. For example, targets may have exaggerated their Con-

5 218 Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et al. 5 Table 2 Consensus for Personality Ratings Between Strangers Who Have Read the Same Essays Available Essay Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Hobbies.21/.61.38/.79.50/.86.36/.77.39/.80 Friends.13/.48.34/.76.09/.36.27/.69.11/.43 Family.30/.72.40/.80.25/.66.46/.83.18/.56 Academic studies a.34/.72.44/.80.40/.77.39/.76.56/.87 Plans for the future.29/.71.22/.63.23/.64.34/.76.27/.69 All essays.25/.67.33/.75.43/.82.48/.85.49/.85 Note. N = 208. Random effects model. Coefficients before/behind the slash indicate the consensus between single judges/the reliability of the averaged ratings by six judges. a Five personality judges read the essays on the targets academic studies. Table 3 Accuracy of Stranger Ratings of Personality Separately for Trait Domains and Essay Conditions Available Essay Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Hobbies.10/.15.14/.18.38/.49.09/.14.12/.17 Friends.08/.14.19/.29.09/.20.11/.18.03/.05 Family.04/.06.08/.12.13/.22.12/.17.04/.08 Academic studies a.17/.25.12/.16.25/.35.08/.11.24/.30 Plans for the future.14/.24.07/.12.17/.29.14/.21.13/.21 All essays.23/.34.19/.29.35/.47.21/.26.26/.34 Note. N = 208.Target age and gender were controlled. Coefficients before/behind the slash are correlations of the average rating by three acquaintances with judgments by a single stranger/correlations of the average rating by three acquaintances with the average judgment by six strangers. a Five judges provided ratings in this condition. Table 4 Mean Ratings of How Well Personality Traits of Strangers Can Be Inferred From Information on Five Life Domains Life Domain Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to Experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness Row Mean Hobbies 2.65 (1.31) 4.73 (1.06) 4.36 (1.29) 3.45 (1.33) 3.31 (1.18) 3.70 Friends 3.25 (1.36) 4.70 (1.10) 3.55 (1.35) 4.52 (1.09) 2.96 (1.38) 3.82 Family 3.84 (1.44) 3.33 (1.39) 3.53 (1.49) 3.21 (1.43) 3.14 (1.47) 3.42 Academic studies 2.25 (1.20) 2.81 (1.39) 4.69 (1.09) 2.60 (1.32) 4.25 (1.34) 3.33 Plans for the future 3.25 (1.35) 3.95 (1.26) 4.28 (1.16) 3.02 (1.34) 3.92 (1.39) 3.90 Column mean Note. N = 130. Standard deviations are in parentheses. scientiousness on the MRS-30 and when reporting about their academic studies. To prevent such self-presentation artifacts, the mean of the reports by the three acquaintances was used as the accuracy criterion. In Table 3, two accuracy coefficients appear in each cell. The first is the average partial correlation, controlling for target age and gender, of the ratings by individual strangers with the accuracy criterion. The second is the partial correlation of the averaged rating by six strangers with the accuracy criterion. Age and gender were controlled because when judges were asked to guess each target s gender, they guessed it correctly in most cases. Therefore, zero-order correlations of personality ratings by strangers with the accuracy criterion were inflated by gender stereotypes as far as there was a kernel of truth in these stereotypes (Kenny, 1994). Across all cells in Table 3, the mean partial correlation of the accuracy criterion with the ratings by single strangers, and with the averaged ratings by six strangers, was.15 and.22, respectively. Judges having access to the essays on all five life domains were usually more accurate than those having read the essays on one life domain only. But there were exceptions: Judges inferred the targets Openness from their essays on hobbies, and the targets Extraversion from their essays on friends, as accurately as from the complete information. Generally, Openness to Experience was the trait being judged most accurately. Lay Theories. The personality judges mean ratings of how well the Big Five personality traits can be inferred from information on the five life domains appear in Table 4. A 5 5 analysis of variance with the within-subject factors trait and information showed a significant main effect for traits, F(4, 508) = 72.73, p <.001, partial η 2 =.36, a significant main effect for information, F(4, 508) = 10.99, p <.001, partial η 2 =.08, and a significant Trait Information interaction, F(16, 2032) = 55.24, p <.001, partial η 2 =.30. On average, the

6 6Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et 219 al. judges expected that Openness would be most accurately and that Neuroticism would be least accurately inferred. However, that was not independent of the information being presumed. For instance, information on academic studies was perceived as most diagnostic of Openness and Conscientiousness, whereas information on friends was perceived as most diagnostic of Extraversion and Agreeableness. To check the consistency of the judges lay theories with the accuracy of their personality ratings, we correlated, across the 25 corresponding cells, the mean ratings reported in Table 4 with the accuracy coefficients reported in Table 3. These correlations were r =.47 with the accuracy of ratings by single strangers, and r =.49 with the accuracy of averaged ratings by six strangers. Thus, the lay theories were quite consistent with the pattern of accuracy coefficients. Mediating Cues. To identify essay features mediating the accuracy of personality descriptions by strangers, the ratings of these features (averaged across all 30 essay judges) were correlated with (a) the accuracy criterion and (b) the averaged personality ratings by those six strangers who read all essays by all targets. The first set of correlations indicates cue validity and the second cue utilization. The findings appear in Table 5. The multiple correlations in the bottom row indicate how well the personality ratings were predicted from an optimally weighted average of the 13 measured essay features. They show that these essay features predicted the personality ratings by strangers more precisely than the accuracy criteria: Cue utilization was stronger than cue validity. To quantify the match between cue validity and cue utilization, vector correlations were calculated across the rows of Table 5 (except for the last row reporting the multiple correlations). The vector correlations between corresponding columns were.93 (Neuroticism),.34 (Extraversion),.68 (Openness to Experience),.87 (Agreeableness), and.88 (Conscientiousness). Thus, except for Extraversion, the personality judges used the measured cues appropriately. Good Targets and Good Judges. Hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) was used to identify good targets and good judges, using a cross-classified random effects model. At Level 1, the rating of a particular target by a particular stranger on a particular trait was predicted, across the MRS-30 scales, from (a) the sample mean of all ratings by acquaintances for that trait and (b) the individual target s trait level according to the average rating by the three acquaintances in his or her group. The regression coefficients for these two predictor variables indicate normative and distinctive accuracy, respectively (Biesanz, 2010). Separately for each MRS-30 scale, we grand centered the ratings of individual targets by their three acquaintances, implying that they were not correlated with the sample means for the traits. In a first analysis without any Level 2 predictors, we predicted the ratings by the six judges who read all essays by all targets, maintaining the original keying of the MRS-30 items. Thus, there were three items indicating high Agreeableness, three items indicating low Agreeableness, and so on. Separate regression coefficients were estimated for each stranger-target dyad, using HLM7 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2010). The average coefficient (i.e., fixed effect) indicating normative accuracy was γ 10 =.76, SE = 0.12, t = 6.43, p <.001, and the average coefficient indicating distinctive accuracy was γ 20 =.18, SE = 0.03, t = 7.39, p <.001. Moreover, the standard deviation of the individual regression coefficients across the 208 targets was estimated to assess between-target differences in expressive accuracy, and the standard deviation of the indi- Table 5 Correlations of Perceived Essay Attributes With the Accuracy Criterion (Left) and With the Stranger Ratings of Personality (Right) Personality Ratings by Acquaintances Perceived Attributes of Essays Personality Ratings by Strangers N E O A C N E O A C * Record length.12.19**.15*.22** *.20**.13.14* Elaborate language **.19**.22**.05.19**.14* Use of exaggerations.04.40**.23** *.03 Extent of inconsistencies.30** **.29**.01.20**.15*.11.17* Irony and sarcasm **.32** Extent of details.00.31**.25**.27**.26** * Informative on personality.09.29**.23**.18* * Facts reported (not wishes).21** *.23** **.02 Negative emotions reported.61**.25**.06.40**.28** Positive emotions reported.21**.51**.32**.42**.27** Criticism of others.37**.17*.05.49**.22**.25** Self-criticism.51** **.36** * Influences others.36**.06.29**.17*.05.34*.37**.34*.30.33* Multiple correlation.73**.62**.49**.73**.62** Note. N = 208. Target age and gender were controlled. Stranger ratings were by judges who read all five essays. N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness to Experience; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness. *p <.05. **p <.01.

7 220 Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et al. 7 Table 6 Target Attributes Predicting Expressive Accuracy and Perceiver Attributes Predicting Perceptive Accuracy Distinctive expressive accuracy Distinctive perceptive accuracy Normative expressive accuracy Normative perceptive accuracy Level-2 predictor β t-ratio p β t-ratio p β t-ratio p β t-ratio p Gender < ECQ Recognizing and Understanding One s Own Emotions ECQ Emotional Expressivity ECQ Recognizing Others Emotions BIPM Insight BIPM Interest SAACF Emotional Self-Awareness SAACF Clarity of Own Feelings SAACF Emotional Awareness for Others SAACF Clarity of Others Feelings MSES Emotional Self-Esteem <.001 MSES Social Self-Esteem MSES Achievement-Related Self-Esteem <.001 MSES Physical Attractiveness Self-Esteem MSES Athleticism Self-Esteem MSES total score Self-Monitoring Scale total score SCID-II total score < TEMINT Note. N = 208 targets; N = 6 judges. Significant coefficients are in boldface. ECQ = Emotional Competency Questionnaire; BIPM = Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness; SAACF = Scales Assessing the Attention to and the Clarity of Feelings; MSES = Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale; SCID-II = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II;TEMINT = Test of Emotional Intelligence. vidual regression coefficients across the six judges was estimated to assess between-judge differences in perceptive accuracy. For normative accuracy, the standard deviation across targets was SD = 0.32, χ 2 = 3,790, p <.001, and the standard deviation across judges was SD = 0.28, χ 2 = 3,827, p <.001, that is, quite similar. For distinctive accuracy, however, the standard deviation across targets, SD = 0.20, χ 2 = 1,314, p <.001, was four times larger than the standard deviation across judges, SD = 0.05, χ 2 = 92, p <.001. Thus, differences between judges in their distinctive perceptive accuracy were small. Next, we analyzed effects of target attributes and of perceiver attributes on expressive and perceptive accuracy, respectively. Separate analyses were run for different Level 2 predictors, but variables measured in both targets and judges were included in the same analysis. For instance, target gender and perceiver gender were included in the same analysis to study effects of gender on expressive and perceptive accuracy. The findings appear in Table 6. Significant effects were obtained for gender (coded.5 for women and.5 for men): Women showed higher normative expressive accuracy but lower distinctive expressive accuracy, implying that the stranger ratings of female targets were more consistent with the normative profile of variable means, but less consistent with the profile of the individual targets deviations from those means. Moreover, female perceivers showed higher distinctive perceptive accuracy: They perceived individual differences in the targets personality more accurately than men. The other Level 2 predictors were standardized (M = 0, s = 1). Thus, the β coefficients (except those for gender) in Table 6 reflect changes in expressive or perceptive accuracy associated with a one-standard-deviation increase in the Level 2 predictor. There were significant Level 2 predictors of both distinctive and normative expressive accuracy, but neither of distinctive nor of normative perceptive accuracy. Achievement-related self-esteem, athleticism self-esteem, and self-monitoring predicted high distinctive expressive accuracy, whereas emotional expressivity, insight, clarity of own feelings, emotional self-esteem, achievement-related self-esteem, general self-esteem, and low personality disorder scores predicted high normative expressive accuracy. That we identified predictors of expressive but except for gender not perceptive accuracy might reflect asymmetries in statistical power, as the analyses reported thus far relied on judgments by six personality judges only. Therefore, we repeated these analyses, this time relying on the stranger ratings of 10 targets by 95 judges who read all essays written by those 10 targets. For the normative criterion profile, we kept relying on the acquaintance reports on all 208 targets, as a normative profile based on 10 targets only would not have been dependable. In an analysis without any Level 2 predictors, the mean of the normative accuracy coefficients was γ 10 =.59, SE = 0.09,

8 8Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et 221 al. Table 7 Target Attributes Predicting Expressive Accuracy and Perceiver Attributes Predicting Perceptive Accuracy Distinctive Distinctive Normative Normative expressive accuracy perceptive accuracy expressive accuracy perceptive accuracy Level 2 predictor β t-ratio p β t-ratio p β t-ratio p β t-ratio p Gender ECQ Recognizing and Understanding One s Own Emotions ECQ Emotional Expressivity ECQ Recognizing Others Emotions BIPM Insight BIPM Interest SAACF Emotional Self-Awareness SAACF Clarity of Own Feelings SAACF Emotional Awareness for Others SAACF Clarity of Others Feelings MSES Emotional Self-Esteem SES Social Self-Esteem MSES Achievement-Related Self-Esteem MSES Physical Attractiveness Self-Esteem MSES Athleticism Self-Esteem MSES Self-Esteem total score Self-Monitoring Scale total score SCID-II total score TEMINT Note. N = 10 targets; N = 95 judges. Significant coefficients are in boldface. ECQ = Emotional Competency Questionnaire; BIPM = Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness; SAACF = Scales Assessing the Attention to and the Clarity of Feelings; MSES = Multidimensional Self-Esteem Scale; SCID-II = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II;TEMINT = Test of Emotional Intelligence. t = 6.54, p <.001, and the mean of the distinctive accuracy coefficients was γ 20 =.21, SE = 0.11, t = 1.86, p =.06. Again, the standard deviations of the normative accuracy coefficients were quite similar across judges, SD = 0.23, χ 2 = 1,512, p <.001, and across targets, SD = 0.28, χ 2 = 1,807, p <.001, whereas the standard deviations of the distinctive accuracy coefficients were much smaller across judges, SD = 0.10, χ 2 = 305, p <.001, than across targets, SD = 0.35, χ 2 = 2,515, p <.001. Thus, the finding of small variance between judges in their distinctive perceptive accuracy was confirmed in an independent and larger sample of judges. Next, perceptive and expressive accuracy were predicted from the same Level 2 predictors as in the preceding analyses, with the findings appearing in Table 7. Employing fewer targets (10 instead of 208) but more judges (95 instead of 6) resulted in fewer significant findings for expressive accuracy, but in more significant findings for perceptive accuracy. Specifically, judges scoring high on Recognizing Others Emotions and on Emotional Awareness of Others showed higher distinctive perceptive accuracy. DISCUSSION Altogether, personality ratings by strangers relying only on textual information were approximately as accurate as personality descriptions based on strangers physical appearance or thin slices of their behavior (Borkenau et al., 2004; Connelly & Ones, 2010). Information Quantity The present study shows an acquaintanceship effect: Stranger ratings of personality were usually more accurate if based on five life domains than if based on only one life domain. In the latter case, some accuracy coefficients were quite low. For instance, the accuracy coefficient for ratings of Neuroticism relying on essays on the target s family was only.05. But more information did not always yield more accurate personality impressions: For example, judges inferred Openness from the targets hobbies as accurately as from the complete information. This suggests that additional information increased the chances to obtain more diagnostic information. But if judges had received the most diagnostic information already, the additional information did not raise their accuracy any further. Information Quality The differences in the diagnosticity of the five kinds of essays were systematic. On average, information on hobbies and on academic studies resulted in more accurate personality impressions than did information on one s family and friends. But this effect was qualified by interactions between the information being provided and the trait being judged: Information on hobbies resulted in particularly accurate ratings of Openness to Experience, whereas information on friends resulted in particularly accurate ratings of Extraversion. That pattern is reasonable and seems to be consistent with lay theories.

9 222 Personality and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et al. 9 Altogether, Openness to Experience was the trait being perceived most accurately. At first glance, this is inconsistent with meta-analytic findings showing that the accuracy of personality descriptions by strangers is highest for Extraversion. Thus, Connelly and Ones (2010) obtained averaged correlations of descriptions by a single stranger with the targets self-reports of.08 (Emotional Stability),.22 (Extraversion),.12 (Openness),.09 (Agreeableness), and.13 (Conscientiousness). In Tskhay and Rule s (2014) meta-analysis focusing on text-based media and online social networks, meta-analytic accuracies of.08 (Neuroticism),.35 (Extraversion),.16 (Openness to Experience),.16 (Agreeableness), and.15 (Conscientiousness) were obtained. Compared to these benchmarks, accuracy in the present study was lower for Extraversion and higher for Openness to Experience. Note that the present study is not the only one showing higher accuracy for Openness than for Extraversion (Gosling, 2008). Gosling et al. (2002), who studied the accuracy of personality impressions based on visits to strangers offices and bedrooms, reported accuracy correlations of.24 and.22 for Extraversion, but of.46 and.65 for Openness to Experience. Likewise, studying personality impressions based on personal Web sites, Vazire and Gosling (2004) obtained accuracy correlations of.26 for Extraversion and.46 for Openness. It seems that pictures of, and short personal encounters with, strangers provide cues that are particularly informative of Extraversion, whereas identity claims and behavioral residues, including verbal reports on major life domains, provide cues that are particularly informative of Openness to Experience. Cue Validity and Cue Utilization The cue validity and cue utilization correlations (Table 5) suggest that the personality judges used the available cues in consistent and reasonable ways. For example, they inferred Neuroticism and Extraversion from reports on negative and positive emotions, and they inferred low Agreeableness from criticizing others. Moreover, the vector correlations ranging from.68 to.93 for all traits except Extraversion show that the judges inferences from the cues matched their actual validities quite well. Thus, the judges used the measured cues efficiently. That the accuracy of most personality judgments was nevertheless modest reflected that the available cues were not particularly valid. It might be, of course, that there were valid unmeasured cues not appropriately utilized by the judges. But it is unlikely that there were unmeasured valid cues being utilized appropriately because, in that case, the average judgmental accuracy should have exceeded.20. Expressive Accuracy We discuss target judgeability relying on the findings reported in Table 6 for the entire sample of 208 targets. First, there were gender effects: Higher normative expressive accuracy was found for women, but higher distinctive expressive accuracy was found for men. Thus, the strangers perceptions of female targets were more consistent with the normative profile of variable means. As the normative profile tends to be a socially desirable profile (Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009; Edwards, 1953), this suggests that the essays written by women conveyed a more desirable impression of their personality than did the essays written by men. By contrast, the impressions of male targets were more accurate distinctively; that is, they reflected the personality differences between men more accurately than did the strangers impressions of women. It seems that the male targets wrote essays more revealing of their distinctive personality profiles. Finding higher distinctive expressive accuracy for men is in line with evidence that acquaintance-reported personality differences between men are larger than those between women (Borkenau, McCrae, & Terracciano, 2013). In addition to being female, normative expressive accuracy was associated with emotional expressivity, awareness of one s feelings, high self-esteem, and lack of personality disorders, confirming that the normative personality profile is characteristic of well-adjusted people (Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009; Colvin, 1993). Moreover, high self-esteem was associated with high distinctive expressive accuracy, which may reflect welladjusted individuals behaving in line with their distinctive personality attributes (Human et al., 2014). The present study shows that they also seem to describe their life in ways revealing of their distinctive personality. That high self-monitoring predicted high distinctive expressive accuracy occurred less than expected, as persons low in self-monitoring are usually assumed to express it as they feel it (Snyder, 1974, p. 527), implying that high self-monitoring should be associated with reduced expressive accuracy. Maybe this finding reflects problems with what the Self-Monitoring Scale really measures. Perceptive Accuracy In discussing issues of perceptive accuracy, we rely on Table 7. Normative perceptive accuracy was higher in women than in men, confirming findings by Chan et al. (2011). There are two reasonable explanations for this finding. First, women may know better than men how human personality is in general. Second, women may describe other persons more leniently. In the present study, the validity criterion was a profile of acquaintance reports, and persons tend to be favorably described by their acquaintances (Leising, Erbs, & Fritz, 2010). More normative personality descriptions by strangers tended to be more favorable, accordingly. The other significant predictor of normative perceptive accuracy was the BIPM Interest scale, which mostly measures interest in one s feelings, particularly one s negative feelings. Such interest seems to benefit interpersonal perceptiveness and to result in a better knowledge of the generalized other.

10 Personality 10 and Textual Information Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, et 223 al. Concerning distinctive perceptive accuracy, we confirmed Biesanz s (2010) finding that individual differences in distinctive perceptive accuracy are small. Nevertheless, we identified attributes that distinguish better from worse judges of targets distinctive personality profiles: Judges scoring high on the ECQ scale Recognizing Others Emotions and the SAACF scale Emotional Awareness for Others described the distinctive personality profiles of strangers more accurately. That is quite reasonable, as sensitivity to the feelings of others may well result in, and may actually be a part of, interpersonal perceptiveness. LIMITATIONS The prime limitation of the present study is the unsettled generalizability of its findings. The information made available to the judges was quite restricted, which may affect predictors of perceptive accuracy. For example, if personality is described by peers or colleagues instead of strangers, the quantity of available information is much larger, and individual differences in the efficient use of this vast information may become more important. Correspondingly, expressive accuracy and its predictors may be different in settings where the target persons are more motivated to convey accurate impressions of their personality. Written essays are the outcome of effortful and controlled processes, and their diagnosticity probably varies with the targets motivation to disclose private information. This motivation might be higher, for instance, in clinical settings. These are highly interesting research issues that have to be left to future studies. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this article was supported by Grant Bo774/17-1 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). References Andersen, S. M. (1984). Self-knowledge and social inference: II. The diagnosticity of cognitive/ affective and behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B., et al. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, Beer, A., & Brooks, C. (2011). Information quality in personality judgment: The value of personal disclosure. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, Biesanz, J. S. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C., & Paelecke, M. (2009). Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes as cues and manifestations of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63, 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, Borkenau, P., McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2013). Do men vary more than women in personality? A study in 51 cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, Borkenau, P., & Zaltauskas, K. (2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality profiles. European Journal of Personality, 23, Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Forming first impressions: The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, Colvin, C. R. (1993). Judgable people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, Edwards, A. 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, Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, Furr, R. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, Gosling, S. (2008). Snoop: What your stuff says about you. New York: Basic Books. Gosling, S. D., Ko, S. J., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. E. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, Graf, A. (2004). Eine deutschsprachige Version der Self-Monitoring- Skala [A self-monitoring scale in German]. Zeitschrift für Arbeitsund Organisationspsychologie, 48, Human, L. J., Biesanz, J. C., Finseth, S. M., Pierce, B., & Le, M. (2014). To thine own self be true: Psychological adjustment promotes judgeability via personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106,