Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior.

Many people assume that they know themselves better than anyone else knows them. Recent research on inaccuracies in self-perception, however, suggests that self-knowledge may be more limited than people typically assume. In this article, the authors examine the possibility that people may know a person as well as (or better than) that person knows himself or herself. In Study 1, the authors document the strength of laypeople's beliefs that the self is the best expert. In Study 2, the authors provide a direct test of self- and other-accuracy using an objective and representative behavioral criterion. To do this, the authors compared self- and other-ratings of daily behavior to real-life measures of act frequencies assessed unobtrusively over 4 days. Our results show that close others are as accurate as the self in predicting daily behavior. Furthermore, accuracy varies across behaviors for both the self and for others, and the two perspectives often independently predict behavior. These findings suggest that there is no single perspective from which a person is known best and that both the self and others possess unique insight into how a person typically behaves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires.

The rapid growth of the Internet provides a wealth of new research opportunities for psychologists. Internet data collection methods, with a focus on self-report questionnaires from self-selected samples, are evaluated and compared with traditional paper-and-pencil methods. Six preconceptions about Internet samples and data quality are evaluated by comparing a new large Internet sample (N = 361,703) with a set of 510 published traditional samples. Internet samples are shown to be relatively diverse with respect to gender, socioeconomic status, geographic region, and age. Moreover, Internet findings generalize across presentation formats, are not adversely affected by nonserious or repeat responders, and are consistent with findings from traditional methods. It is concluded that Internet methods can contribute to many areas of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

You probably think this paper's about you: Narcissists' perceptions of their personality and reputation.

Do narcissists have insight into the negative aspects of their personality and reputation? Using both clinical and subclinical measures of narcissism, the authors examined others' perceptions, self-perceptions, and meta-perceptions of narcissists across a wide range of traits for a new acquaintance and close other (Study 1), longitudinally with a group of new acquaintances (Study 2), and among coworkers (Study 3). Results bring 3 surprising conclusions about narcissists: (a) they understand that others see them less positively than they see themselves (i.e., their meta-perceptions are less biased than are their self-perceptions), (b) they have some insight into the fact that they make positive first impressions that deteriorate over time, and (c) they have insight into their narcissistic personality (e.g., they describe themselves as arrogant). These findings shed light on some of the psychological mechanisms underlying narcissism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Bridging psychology and biology with animal research.

Comments on the article by S. M. Kosslyn et al (see record 2002-12932-001), which advocated combining group-based research and individual differences research to illuminate the links between psychology and biology. The authors agree that the study of individual differences is vital for uncovering processes that have hitherto remained obscured by relying too heavily on group-level approaches, and commend their multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to this important topic. However, they believe that Kosslyn et al should have given more attention to one of the most promising avenues for pursuing their multilevel approach--comparative research. The authors suggest that, although Kosslyn et al did refer to animal studies, they did not sufficiently emphasize the potential contribution of animal research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

e-Perceptions: Personality Impressions Based on Personal Websites.

This research examined the accuracy of personality impressions based on personal websites, a rapidly growing medium for self-expression, where identity claims are predominant. Eighty-nine websites were viewed by 11 observers, who rated the website authors' personalities. The ratings were compared with an accuracy criterion (self- and informant reports) and with the authors' ideal-self ratings. The websites elicited high levels of observer consensus and accuracy, and observers' impressions were somewhat enhanced for Extraversion and Agreeableness. The accuracy correlations were comparable in magnitude to those found in other contexts of interpersonal perception and generally stronger than those found in zero-acquaintance contexts. These findings suggest that identity claims are used to convey valid information about personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you.

In 3 studies, we document various properties of perceiver effects—or how an individual generally tends to describe other people in a population. First, we document that perceiver effects have consistent relationships with dispositional characteristics of the perceiver, ranging from self-reported personality traits and academic performance to well-being and measures of personality disorders, to how liked the person is by peers. Second, we document that the covariation in perceiver effects among trait dimensions can be adequately captured by a single factor consisting of how positively others are seen across a wide range of traits (e.g., how nice, interesting, trustworthy, happy, and stable others are generally seen). Third, we estimate the 1-year stability of perceiver effects and show that individual differences in the typical perception of others have a level of stability comparable to that of personality traits. The results provide compelling evidence that how individuals generally perceive others is a stable individual difference that reveals much about the perceiver's own personality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model.

This article tests a new model for predicting which aspects of personality are best judged by the self and which are best judged by others. Previous research suggests an asymmetry in the accuracy of personality judgments: Some aspects of personality are known better to the self than others and vice versa. According to the self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model presented here, the self should be more accurate than others for traits low in observability (e.g., neuroticism), whereas others should be more accurate than the self for traits high in evaluativeness (e.g., intellect). In the present study, 165 participants provided self-ratings and were rated by 4 friends and up to 4 strangers in a round-robin design. Participants then completed a battery of behavioral tests from which criterion measures were derived. Consistent with SOKA model predictions, the self was the best judge of neuroticism-related traits, friends were the best judges of intellect-related traits, and people of all perspectives were equally good at judging extraversion-related traits. The theoretical and practical value of articulating this asymmetry is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them?

Although people can accurately guess how others see them, many studies have suggested that this may only be because people generally assume that others see them as they see themselves. These findings raise the question: In their everyday lives, do people understand the distinction between how they see their own personality and how others see their personality? We examined whether people make this distinction, or whether people possess what we call meta-insight. In 3 studies, we assessed meta-insight for a broad range of traits (e.g., Big Five, intelligent, funny) across several naturalistic social contexts (e.g., first impression, friends). Our findings suggest that people can make valid distinctions between how they see themselves and how others see them. Thus, people seem to have some genuine insight into their reputation and do not achieve meta-accuracy only by capitalizing on the fact that others see them similarly to how they see themselves. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)