RUNNING HEAD: RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 1 The Accuracy of Rapid Evaluation of Big Five Personality Traits Melissa Poole, Nick Bliznoff, and Jackie Martin Hanover College
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 2 Abstract Previous research has shown that people believe they can accurately judge personality by image alone. Participant ratings and self-ratings for extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness tend to have higher correlation than ratings of neuroticism, and agreeableness. Further research showed that longer exposure increases confidence in judgments, but not accuracy. This study hypothesized that accuracy would be greatest for extroversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness, and that exposure time will have no effect on accuracy. The study found a significant correlation between short exposure and long exposure for extroversion R(10) =.827, p =.003, agreeableness R(10) =.660, p =.038, and neuroticism R(10) =.808, p =.005, indicating that there is consistency in judgment despite length of exposure. No significant correlation was found between participant ratings and self-ratings. Future research in this area could focus on judgments made when different expressions are shown, as well as judgments made over a larger span of exposure times.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 3 Intro We all worry about the first impressions we make on others and implications of those opinions. Our preoccupation with judgments has us buying the latest fashions, cosmetics, weight-loss products and other self-help materials to create a positive image for the judgment of our personalities. Whether it be preparing for a job interview, meeting a new friend, or just walking down the street we find ourselves getting ready for inevitable criticism; however, we fail to put emphasis on the question of how accurate these judgments are compared to actual personalities. In a study done by Hassin and Trope in 2000, 75% of undergraduate students believed that they could accurately judge personality based on a facial image alone (Hassin & Trope, 2000). Our perception of the accuracy of our judgments is strong, even with very limited evidence (Willis & Todorov, 2006). In the absence of real information about a person, we judge personality based on physical features such as eye size or type of smile, based on certain representative heuristics we have for those characteristics. (Berry & Brownlow,1989; Kahneman, 2003). Not only do we believe that our perceptions are accurate, but it is an automatic response to viewing an image or person (Hassin & Trope, 2000; Todorov et al., 2005). When we make an initial assessment of a person, the conclusions made can predict long term judgments of certain personality characteristics (Todorov et al., 2005). This suggests that first impressions are pivotal in how we view others not only in the few moments following the judgment, but also in future interactions with that same person. We are prone to feel very confident in those judgments (Buchert, Laws, Apperson, & Bregman, 2008); however, the judgments we make are not all created equal. For some
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 4 personality traits we are more accurate than for others. For example, a meta-analysis done in 2007 showed that observer ratings and self-ratings for extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness tend to have higher correlation than ratings of neuroticism and agreeableness (Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007). Though it may seem reasonable to assume to that longer exposure time would cause us to make more accurate judgments, this does not appear to be the case. A study done by Willis and Todorov (2006) showed that longer exposure time does not appear to have a significant impact on the accuracy of personality judgments. Instead, longer exposure simply translates to greater confidence in judgments (Willis & Todorov, 2006). Therefore, we believe that accuracy should not vary significantly dependent on length of exposure. We hypothesize that ratings for extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness will be more accurate than ratings for agreeableness and neuroticism, but we further hypothesize that length of exposure will have no significant effect on the correlation between participant ratings and self ratings. We plan to examine these hypotheses by comparing the ratings participants give of personality characteristics of facial images with the self-ratings of those respective men and women. Method Participants A total of 21 students from a small Midwestern college participated in this experiment. Participants range in age from 18-22. There were 16 females and 5 males. Participants were offered extra credit in introductory psychology classes, when applicable.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 5 Materials Materials for this experiment include 10 facial images with corresponding selfratings, 2 versions of a Powerpoint, and one questionnaire. The facial images were gathered by the researchers from non-students of the college where the experiment was conducted. Each of the images were self-taken, and feature one person with a neutral expression in their choice of environment. There were three male images and seven female. These images were compiled into a powerpoint, which began with a slide showing a description of each of the big five traits. The powerpoint was designed to show 5 images for 2 minutes and the other 5 images for 2 seconds. In the first version of the powerpoint, all odd numbered images were shown for 2 seconds, and in the other version odd numbered images were shown for 2 minutes. Both powerpoints showed images in the same order. Between images, a slide lasting 25 seconds instructed participants to write their responses. For each image, the questionnaire asked for a 1-7 Likert scale rating of each Big Five personality trait, giving 50 total participant ratings.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 6 Fig. 1. Example photo from the Powerpoints: Image was shown for either 2 seconds or 2 minutes, depending on powerpoint version. Image 1 Openness: Conscientiousness: Extroversion: Agreeableness: Neuroticism: Fig. 2. Example question from the survey given to participants. This question was repeated 10 times, with a header for each image to give participants clarity of which section to answer. Procedure Participants were brought into a computer lab and asked to sit at a computer of their choice. Half of the computers were set to show one version of the powerpoint, and the other half of the computers were set to show the second version of the powerpoint. Prior to beginning the experiment, participants were asked to sign an informed consent form, and fill out a basic demographic survey. Participants were given simple instructions to pay attention to the images for the entire time that they were on screen, and to respond to the questionnaire when the powerpoint instructed. When participants completed the survey, they were given debriefing forms and dismissed. Results Results were found by first figuring the average participant rating for each trait
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 7 within each condition, e.g. average openness rating within the short condition. These average ratings were then correlated against corresponding self-ratings, and the long and short condition were correlated against each other. There was a significant positive correlation between the short and long conditions for extroversion R(10) =.827, p =.003, agreeableness R(10) =.660, p =.038, and neuroticism R(10) =.808, p =.005. These correlations indicate that people were rating consistently across time conditions for those traits. However, no correlations were significant between either time condition and self-ratings, which indicates that, while consistent, judgments were not accurate. Fig. 3. A table of correlations between conditions by traits. Significance is denoted with a *.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 8 Fig. 4. Scatter plot of agreeableness in long condition vs. short condition. The plot shows a significant correlation between conditions. Discussion With this study we believed that people would be able to more accurately judge extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness. People would be less accurate in rating agreeableness and neuroticism. We also hypothesized that the length of exposure to a stimulus would have no significant effect on the correlation between the participants ratings and self-rating. After analyzing the data, however, no significance in accuracy was found for any trait. What this means is that we could find no validation that certain traits were easier to judge by a face alone. The ratings did not accurately reflect what individuals in the images rated themselves. Berry and Brownlow s (1989) study on the physical structures
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 9 explains that certain facial features may offset the accuracy of results. For instance, a male that has a baby face would be judged higher on agreeableness and openness due to their facial features being more innocent in appearance. To be specific, having larger eyes and a less angular jaw makes the male look less aggressive in comparison to a more strong-jawed counterpart. This may tie in to the subjective aspect of attractiveness. The more attractive the participant believes an individual is, the higher they will rate favorable traits (Feingold, 1992). The idea behind this is that attractiveness is held in high regard and a confident appearance causes a higher opinion of that individual. We attempted to have a substantial variety of faces offered to the participants but levels of attraction were not gathered in the study. While the participants views of the stimuli would be skewed by their perception of attractiveness of the stimuli, selfratings would not have this effect (Feingold, 1992). This would create inconsistency between self-ratings and participant ratings. Research done by Gosling, Mannarelli, and Morris (2002) found a difference in judging personality based on environmental cues. The study had participants observe these environments that people were comfortable in and form impressions of the person based on their environment. The study found some accuracy in judgments formed by looking at environment alone. With our study we told the individuals that offered their photographs that they should keep a neutral expression; however, we did not tell them to take the photos in a certain environment. We got feedback from participants poststudy stating that they noticed certain aspects of the person s environment (ie: two of the individuals were roommates and took their photographs in the same position in the room). Therefore, any consistencies in participant s ratings could have been taken from
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 10 cues involving the background of the presented images, especially in the two minute condition. The applications of these results seem somewhat obvious. This study allows us to know that first impressions made on appearance aren't trustworthy indicators of personality traits. This can encourage us to work toward consciously focusing on actions and the development of a more personal relationship with a person, rather than appearance, to base our judgments of personality. However, as discussed earlier, impressions are, for the most part, made automatically. In job interviews, these first impressions are used to determine if a person is a good fit for a job in which specific personality traits are best suited. Men and women who score high for extroversion tend to excel in jobs that require a high level of personal interaction (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Knowing this could cause an employer who is interviewing for an interaction based job to believe that a first impression of high extroversion means an applicant would be best fit for the position; however, this may not be the best course of action. As our study shows, first impressions cannot be trusted as absolute truth. Instead, an employer who understands these results would know to look more at past qualifications and opinions of previous employers than relying heavily on the first impression they acquired at the interview. There are some flaws in the design of this experiment. Specifically, around image 8 in the sequence of slides there was a noticeable change in ratings which we believe may have been due to fatigue. Having participants look at some images for two minutes may have been excessive, especially when we take into consideration that previous research was down to the millisecond.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 11 Due to our results, a possible direction for further research would focus on if certain traits are more difficult to judge than others and the reasoning behind this phenomenon. What would it say about human interaction if one trait was easier to seek out accurately? How would judgment accuracy differ between images with the subject being neutral versus expressive? With this new added influence of facial expressiveness would participants rate personality traits more accurately? Finally, previous research has looked at different exposure times, which initially spurred interest in the study. Examining a greater variety of times may be beneficial and show potential in understand the differences of perception in facial cues regarding personality traits.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 12 References Barrick, M. R. & Mount, M. The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis, Personnel Psychology 44 (1991):1 26. Berry, D., & Brownlow, S. (1989). Were the physiognomists right? Personality correlates of facial babyishness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(2), 266-279. Buchert, S., Laws, E., Apperson, J., & Bregman, N. (2008). First impressions and professor reputation: influence on student evaluations of instruction. Social Psychology of Education, 11(4), 397-408. doi:10.1007/s11218-008-9055-1. Connolly, J., Kavanagh, E., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent reality between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment. 15(1), 110-117. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371. Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 429-456. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429. Gosling, S., Ko, S., Mannarelli, T., & Morris, M. (2002). A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 379-398. Hassin, R., & Trope, Y. (2000). Facing faces: Studies on the cognitive aspects of physiognomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 837-852. Kahneman, D., (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697-720. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.9.697.
RAPID EVALUATION OF BIG FIVE 13 Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A., Goren, A., Hall, C. (2005). Inferecnces of competence from faces predict election outcomes. 308(5728), 1623-1626. doi: 10.1126/science.1110589. Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After a 100- Ms Exposure to a Face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592-598.