Running head: LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 1. Applications and Extensions of the Lens Model To

Transcription

1 Running head: LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 1 Applications and Extensions of the Lens Model To Understand Interpersonal Judgments at Zero Acquaintance Steffen Nestler and Mitja D. Back University of Münster Current Directions in Psychological Science, in press This is an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Contact Information of Corresponding Author: Steffen Nestler, University of Münster, Fliednerstr. 21, Münster, Germany. steffen.nestler@wwu.de, Tel.: +49 (2 51) , Fax: +49 (2 51) Word count (including abstract and main text): 2,498 words Number of References: 23

2 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 2 Abstract The present article reviews current research on the application and extension of the lens model to interpersonal judgments. We first explain how the basic lens model can be used to describe the processes underlying the accuracy of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Then we outline how this model can be differentiated by assimilating it with research on intuitive and reflective personality judgments, implicit and explicit personality tests and more or less controlled behavior. We continue by integrating the research on the lens model with research on judgmental errors and knowledge updating. Finally, we describe extensions of the lens model to other interpersonal phenomena at zero acquaintance such as meta-accuracy and liking. Altogether, this review shows that the lens model is a persuasive and flexible framework that can be used to understand interpersonal judgments. accuracy Keywords: lens model, personality judgments, interpersonal judgments, hindsight bias,

3 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 3 Applications and Extensions of the Lens Model To Understand Interpersonal Judgments at Zero Acquaintance When we meet others for the first time, we regularly form judgments about what they are like. When Tim, for example, comes across Susan for the first time, he may have an immediate impression of how extraverted she is. These interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance, without any prior interaction, affect the everyday social decisions and experiences of the person who infers the trait (the perceiver) and the person who is being judged (the target). If Susan appears extraverted to Tim, then he may ask her for a date. If Susan is deemed introverted, however, Tim may not ask her for a date, even if she might be a great partner for him. In fact, the influence of first impressions goes far beyond the assessment of romantic partnership and pertains to almost all social decisions. Interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance are thus highly consequential. It is therefore important to analyze the processes underlying them and to understand whether, when, and why they are more or less accurate. Here, we will present the basics and extensions of one model that can be used to tackle these questions, the lens model (Brunswik, 1956; see Todorov, Dotsch, Wigboldus, & Said, 2011; Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997, for other approaches). The lens model is a general framework to explain how individuals judge the unobservable characteristics of entities (e.g., the disease of a person). To infer these characteristics it is assumed that perceivers use a lens for indirect perception and inference: They focus on a subset of observable signals given in the environment (e.g., symptoms). The model has been applied to a number of phenomena (see Hammond, 1996), and we believe that it is also wellsuited to better understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. The Standard Lens: Explaining the Accuracy of Personality Judgments Interpersonal trait ascriptions at zero acquaintance can be surprisingly valid even if perceivers are exposed only to brief video clips (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992), Online Social Network profiles (Back, Stopfer, et al., 2010), or the addresses of the targets (Back,

4 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 4 Schmukle, & Egloff, 2008). But why? Imagine that Tim and Susan meet for the first time at a party and that Tim forms a judgment about Susan s extraversion (e.g., I think she is quite extraverted ) as well as of a couple of other guests (e.g., moderately extraverted, very introverted ). If it turns out that his judgments are indeed accurate (e.g., Susan is more extraverted than the others), how does he make this inference, and what explains the accuracy of it? According to the lens model (see Figure 1), perceivers use a set of perceivable attributes available in the given situation (i.e., cues) to judge the (not directly observable) personality traits of targets. Even if Tim does not directly interact with Susan, he could use the stylishness of her clothes, the amount of her body movement, or the loudness of her voice to infer her amount of extraversion in comparison to others. The strength with which a perceiver does in fact incorporate a cue into a trait judgment is called cue utilization. Tim, for example, might make strong use of a person s amount of body movement and loudness of voice, but less use of the stylishness of the person s clothing. The extent to which a cue is in fact related to the actual trait level is called cue validity. The stylishness of a person s clothing and the loudness the voice but not the amount of body movement might be related to higher levels of extraversion. Altogether, accuracy results when there are valid cues in a situation and when perceivers use these cues. The more perceivers rely on valid cues (e.g., using the loudness of voice and stylishness of dress) rather than invalid ones (e.g., the amount of body movement), the more accurate they will be, that is, the more they will be sensitive to validity differences between cues (sensitivity). Furthermore, for a perceiver to achieve accuracy across different targets, s/he needs to apply the cue knowledge consistently (consistency). Tim, for example, judges consistently, when he uses the same cues in the same manner to judge the extraversion of all other party guests.

5 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 5 Figure 1. An example of a lens model used to describe the processes underlying accurate personality judgments. Accuracy Cues Cue 1 (e.g., Stylish dress) Underlying Trait (e.g., Susan s real extraversion) Cue 2 (e.g., Expressive body movements) Perceiver Judgment (e.g., Tim s judgment of Susan s extraversion) Cue 3 (e.g., Loud voice) Cue Validity Cue Utilization Sensitivity An important feature of the lens model is that it not only provides a description of when and why individuals make accurate personality judgments, it also provides the means to compute the validity and utilization of each cue, and the sensitivity and consistency scores for each perceiver (see Karelaia & Hogarth, 2008, for details). This requires, first, that one assesses the actual trait level of the targets (the targets extraversion values). To this end, targets are often asked to self-rate their personalities. This type of accuracy is therefore often called self-other agreement (for limitations of this approach and alternative criteria, see Funder, 2012). Second, a number of perceivers are asked to judge the targets. Finally, a representative set of important cues in a given judgment context is either objectively measured (e.g., the symmetry of targets faces) or rated by trained observers (e.g., the stylishness of targets clothing, etc.).

6 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 6 Prior lens model research has shown why personality judgments are more accurate for some personality traits such as extraversion compared to other traits such as agreeableness: Whereas the former is related to easily observable cues (e.g., expressive gestures in the case of extraversion), there are typically fewer visible features for the latter, and perceivers are also less sensitive to the validity of these cues. However, the lens model can also be used to predict when traits such as agreeableness become detectable. In Küfner, Back, Nestler, and Egloff (2010), we examined personality judgments after reading short stories written by unacquainted targets. We found that perceivers were accurate for agreeableness, and this could be explained by the expression and utilization of valid cues, such as the prosocial words. Finally, the lens model can explain why certain perceivers are more accurate than others (good perceiver, Funder, 1999; 2012; because there are individual differences in valid cue usage and/or consistent cue knowledge application) and why certain targets can be judged more accurately (good target; because they express a larger number of valid cues). Differentiating the Lens: The Dual Lens Model The lens model consists of three distinct elements: the actual personality of the target/s (how they see themselves), behavioral cues (how personality is expressed in a given context), and the personality judgments of the perceivers (how others evaluate a target s personality). Interestingly, there is a duality for all three elements. Concerning the actual personality of a target, one can distinguish explicit and implicit aspects of the self-concept of personality. Individual differences in explicit self-views ( I am a person who likes to be around others ) are typically assessed via self-reports (e.g., Susan s answers on a personality questionaire). The implicit self, by contrast, refers to individual differences in rather automatic and associative mental representations of the self that are not necessarily accessible through explicit thought. They are typically assessed by indirect tests of personality (e.g., Susan s responses on an extraversion IAT) which have been found to be predictive of trait-relevant social behaviors (see Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002; Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2009), and hence can be

7 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 7 taken as valid indicators of a target's personality. Second, the cues that are expressed by targets and utilized by perceivers in making their personality judgments can appear to be deliberately generated, such as Susan s stylish dress, whereas others occur more spontaneously, such as her loud voice. Finally, concerning perceivers judgments, one can differentiate between deliberate and intuitive judgments. Whereas the former are related to a step-by-step process that involves the effortful and conscious consideration of information, intuitive judgments are thought to occur rapidly, with less or no conscious access to information processing, and requiring few or no cognitive resources. Research has supported these dualities (see e.g., Evans, 2008) calling for a differentiating integration within the lens model. We think that this dual lens model (see Figure 2) allows us to thoroughly represent the accuracy of personality judgments and to investigate a number of exciting research questions. For instance, one could examine whether Tim is able to tap into both Susan s implicit and the explicit self-concepts. Are the behavioral cues Susan expresses of a more controlled or automatic fashion, and are they associated with her explicit or implicit self? What kinds of cues are most effective in determining Tim s impression of her? And can Tim judge Susan s extraversion more accurately if he carefully reflects on his judgment versus when he makes it intuitively? If yes, how does the sensitivity and/or consistency of his cue usage change? In a first application of the dual lens model, we found that (a) extraversion judgments by unacquainted perceivers were associated with both targets explicit and implicit extraversion and (b) this was mediated via more controlled cues for the explicit self and via more automatic cues for the implicit self-concept. Furthermore, (c) judgments in a deliberate judgment mode were not superior to those in an intuitive mode, (d) perceivers with a generally more intuitive judgment style were more accurate, and (e) this could be explained by a more consistent usage of specific cues (Hirschmüller, Egloff, Nestler, & Back, in press).

8 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 8 Figure 2. An example of the dual lens model. Accuracy Sensitivity Cue Validity More Controlled Cues Cue Utilization Target Explicit Self- Concept (e.g., Susan s explicit self-view) Target s Implicit Self- Concept (e.g. Susan s implicit self-view) Cue 1 (e.g., Stylish dress) Cue 2 (e.g., Expressive body movements) Cue 3 (e.g., Loud and cheerful voice) Deliberate Perceiver Judgment (e.g., Tim s deliberate judgment) Intuitive Perceiver Judgment (e.g., Tim s intuitive judgment) Cue Validity More Automatic Cues Cue Utilization Sensitivity Accuracy

9 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 9 Integrating the Lens: The Lens Model and Hindsight Bias So far we have shown that the accuracy of personality judgments occurs when perceivers use observable features that are related to the trait in question. An important unresolved question remains, however: How do people acquire this cue knowledge? The answer to this question is important, as understanding the cue knowledge acquisition processes is a prerequisite for potentially enhancing the accuracy of personality judgments. Only if we know how Tim acquires more or less valid cue knowledge can we teach him to achieve more accurate judgments. We believe that the answer to this question can perhaps ironically be obtained by integrating accuracy research using the lens model with research on hindsight bias. Hindsight bias describes the tendency of individuals who learn the outcome of an event to believe that they had known the outcome all along (Nestler, Blank, & Egloff, 2010; Nestler & Egloff, 2009; Pezzo, 2011). It is typically investigated by asking individuals to make a foresight judgment (e.g., Tim is asked to judge Susan s extraversion: She is strongly extraverted ), providing them with the correct solution (e.g., Susan s true extraversion value: She is strongly introverted ), and requiring them to recollect their foresight judgment. The typical finding is that individuals tend to give a hindsight judgment that is shifted toward the correct solution (Tim: I thought she was somewhat introverted ). Whereas hindsight bias has typically been regarded as a judgmental error that inhibits learning, newer accounts conceptualize it as a side-effect of knowledge updating and therefore relate it to learning. Hoffrage, Hertwig, and Gigerenzer (2001), for instance, posit that outcome feedback changes the knowledge individuals use to infer their hindsight judgments: It is more in line with the reported outcome, and therefore hindsight judgments are nearer to it than foresight judgments had been. But how exactly has the knowledge changed? We believe that three cue-related processes might play a role. First, feedback may change how individuals perceive the cue values of the targets. When Tim learns that Susan is introverted, he may realize that Susan did not have a loud voice (as he originally thought), but a

10 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 10 rather quiet one. Second, individuals may learn the validity of cues. Tim might learn that a loud voice and stylish clothing, but not the amount of body movement, are valid cues for extraversion. Finally, individuals may learn to use their cue knowledge more consistently. Tim may learn, for example, that he can use his cue knowledge in the same manner across different targets. In a first integration of the accuracy and hindsight bias paradigms (Nestler, Egloff, Küfner, & Back, 2012), we asked perceivers to judge targets levels of the Big Five based on standardized pictures. Subsequently, they received feedback about the targets true values and had to recall their original judgments. A variety of observable facial cues were also measured. Results showed that the amount of the perceivers hindsight bias was correlated with more realistic cue perceptions and the utilization of more valid cues (i.e., a higher sensitivity). Although these results have to be experimentally corroborated, it is interesting to note that both processes are also related to more accurate judgments, allowing us to make an exciting prediction regarding the enhancement of people s interpersonal accuracy: When participants are given valid feedback and are motivated to relate this feedback to their earlier personality judgments (e.g., by asking them what they said initially), this might initiate cue-learning processes and may thereby enhance the accuracy of future judgments. Extending the Lens: From Accuracy to Other Interpersonal Phenomena Applications of the lens model in the interpersonal domain are not restricted to understanding accurate judgments of others personalities. Theoretically, the model applies to all cases in which characteristics of one person are not directly observable but nonetheless translate into perceptions by another person. One important perception that also occurs in realistic zero-acquaintance contexts is an individual s impression of how others perceive her\him. Susan, for example, may believe that Tim thinks that she is an extraverted person. The accuracy of such metaperceptions is determined by comparing them with the actual judgments of the perceivers (Tim s extraversion

11 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 11 judgment; Carlson & Kenny, 2012), and we believe that this meta-accuracy can partly be explained using the lens model. Specifically, we assume that metaperceptions are accurate to the extent that targets and perceivers use the same behavior when they judge how others view them (target) and what they are like (perceiver). Susan might realize that she wears stylish clothing and has a loud voice, and hence might assume that Tim will perceive her as extraverted. When Tim uses the same observable behaviors (i.e., cues) to infer his judgment, then meta-accuracy should result. Another important perception refers to the extent to which one is liked by others. How much Tim likes Susan, for example, strongly determines how keen he will be to get to know her. In our research, we use the lens model to explain why certain psychological traits are associated with liking. Specifically, a trait leads to liking if it expresses itself in behaviors (i.e., cues) that most people perceive and evaluate as likeable (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011). Narcissists, for example, show more self-assured and expressive behaviors than others, and individuals use these behaviors to derive their liking judgments (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2010; Küfner, Nestler, & Back, in press). Summary and Conclusion We aimed to briefly review current research on applications and extensions of the lens model to personality judgments at zero acquaintance. We showed that the model can be differentiated by assimilating results on the duality of perceivers judgments and targets traits and behavioral cues. In addition, it can be integrated with research on judgmental errors and knowledge updating, thereby potentially providing a means for enhancing people s judgmental accuracy. Finally, we outlined how the lens model can be used to understand other interpersonal phenomena at zero acquaintance, such as meta-accuracy and popularity. As this review has hopefully shown, the lens model is a persuasive and flexible tool that can also be used to understand an important and interesting psychological domain: interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance.

12 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 12 Author Note Thanks go to a number of student research assistants who helped with data collection for the research presented in this article, to the German Research Foundation for supporting our research (BA 3731/1-1, BA 3731/2-1, BA 3731/6-1, NE 1485/2-1), and to our collaborators, Boris Egloff, Albrecht C. P. Küfner, Sarah Hirschmüller, Stefan C. Schmukle, and Juliane M. Stopfer. Comments by Roos Hutteman and Stefanie Thomas on an earlier draft of this paper are also gratefully acknowledged. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steffen Nestler or Mitja D. Back, University of Münster, Fliednerstr. 21, Münster, Germany. steffen.nestler@wwu.de or mitja.back@wwu.de

13 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 13 References Asendorpf, J.B., Banse, R. & Mücke, D. (2002). Double dissociation between implicit and explicit personality self-concept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). How extraverted is Inferring personality from addresses. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C. & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 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 analyses of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25, Back, M. D., Stopfer, J. M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S. C., Egloff, B. & Gosling, S. D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science, 21, Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Carlson, E., & Kenny, D. A. (2011). Knowing how others see us. In S. Vazire & T. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (pp ). Guilford: New York.

14 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 14 Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Funder, D. C., (2012). Accurate personality judgments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, Hammond, K.R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainty, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hirschmüller, S., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (in press). The dual lens model: A comprehensive framework for understanding self-other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Hoffrage, U., Hertwig, R., & Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Hindsight bias: A by-product of knowledge updating? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, Küfner, A. C. P., Back, M. D., Nestler, S., & Egloff, B. (2010). Tell me a story and I will tell you who you are! Lens model analyses of personality and creative writing. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, Küfner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (in press). The two pathways to being an (un-) popular narcissist. Journal of Personality. Nestler, S., Blank, H., & Egloff, B. (2010). Hindsight Hindsight: Experimentally induced dissociations between hindsight components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, Nestler, S., & Egloff, B. (2009). Increased or reversed: The effect of surprise on hindsight bias depends on the hindsight component. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35,

15 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 15 Nestler, S., Egloff, B., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2012). An integrative lens model approach to bias and accuracy in human inferences: Hindsight effects and knowledge updating in personality judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, Pezzo, M. V. (2011). Hindsight Bias: A Primer for motivational researchers. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9, Todorov, A., Dotsch, R., Wigboldus, D., & Said, C. P. (2011). Data-driven methods for modeling social perception. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1,

16 LENS MODEL AND INTERPERSONAL JUDGMENTS 16 Recommended Readings Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, One of the first applications of the lens model that can be used to understand accurate personality judgments. A well-written classic! Funder, D. C., (2012). Accurate personality judgments. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, A very accessible and up-to-date summary of research on the accuracy of personality judgments. Hammond, K. R., & Stewart, T. R. (2001). The essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The work of Brunswik, accompanied by a commentary by Kenneth R. Hammond, one of the world-experts on the lens model and the father of Social Judgment Theory. One of the best ways to discover Brunswik.