EXAMINING MODERATORS OF META-ACCURACY AMONG PARTICIPANT

DYADS

By

NATHANIEL L. MARINO

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School-Camden

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of Master of Arts

Graduate Program in Psychology

Written under the direction of

Kristin August

And approved by

__________________________________

Kristin August

__________________________________

Charlotte Markey

__________________________________

Bill Whitlow

Camden, New Jersey

May 2018

ii

THESIS ABSTRACT

Examining Moderators of Meta-Accuracy among Participant Dyads

By NATHANIEL L. MARINO

Thesis Director:

Kristin August

The present study examined two proposed moderators of meta-accuracy: actors’

personality traits and actors’ perceptions of an interaction situation with partners. I

hypothesized actors’ personality traits would affect their levels of meta-accuracy

(Hypothesis 1) and that actors’ perceptions of the interaction situation with partners would

also affect their levels of meta-accuracy (Hypothesis 2). The study consisted of 59

participants recruited from Rutgers University–Camden. Participants completed the

HEXACO-60 personality questionnaire to measure their personality traits. Each participant

was paired with another participant they were previously unacquainted with and interacted

with them for five minutes. After the interaction, participants completed the HEXACO-60

two more times: the first measured how they thought their partner perceived them and the

second measured how they perceived their partner. Participants also completed the

DIAMONDS questionnaire to measure their perceptions of the interaction situation.

Actors’ levels of conscientiousness significantly moderated their meta-accuracy levels

across all personality traits, such that actors low in conscientiousness had stronger meta-

accuracy concerning personality traits in general than actors high in conscientiousness.

Actors’ perception of the interaction situation regarding negativity significantly moderated

iii

their meta-accuracy levels specifically for emotionality, such that actors who perceived the

interaction low in negativity had stronger meta-accuracy concerning emotionality. This

research extends previous research on meta-accuracy by identifying personality and

situational perceptions as moderators of meta-accuracy.

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Charlotte Markey, PhD, Kristin August, PhD, and Bill Whitlow, PhD

for participating in my thesis committee, and for their feedback during the development of

my thesis. Special thanks to Bill Whitlow for agreeing to be a last minute replacement on

my committee, and to Kristin August for guidance and feedback on my analyses and

results. I would also like to thank Breanna Ransome for comments and revisions on earlier

drafts of this paper.

1

INTRODUCTION

Social interactions play a strong role in how people understand and define

themselves and others (Heider, 1958). The ways individuals present themselves through

these interactions are influenced by many factors, such as their personality and the

situational characteristics of the social interaction. (Leary & Allen, 2011). One major

factor, according to Leary and Kowalski (1990), is individuals’ personal desired goals for

how they want to be perceived. For example, when Bob is interacting with a potential

romantic partner, he may want to be perceived as warm and caring. When interacting

with his new boss, Bob may want to be perceived as organized and motivated. Bob

desires to be perceived in these particular ways because Bob knows that making a good

impression could mean the difference between getting a date or a promotion, or neither.

Our relationships—personal and professional—with others are affected by the

impressions we make on them. In knowing how important impressions are to meet our

relationship goals, we desire to make particular impressions (depending on the individual

we are about to interact with), and behave in the ways we think necessary to make the

desired impression (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Baumeister, 1982).

Both during and after our social interactions, we evaluate the success of our

impressions and determine how we are being perceived (Carlson & Kenny, 2012). Not

only do we reflect and examine our own behavior, even more so, we reflect and examine

the behavior and reactions of the person we are interacting with (Carlson & Kenny,

2012). The most straightforward way to determine what others think of us is to ask them;

however, many of us are not comfortable being so forward, especially with new

acquaintances, and try to decipher others’ opinions of us instead. When we do this, we

2

are essentially trying to perceive what another person perceives of us (Carlson & Kenny,

2012). This raises an important question: How accurate are our perceptions of other’s

perceptions of us? An even more important question: How does the accuracy of our

perceptions of other’s perceptions of us affect our relationship with that person? If our

perceptions of what others think of us are not in line with what they actually think of us

(i.e., our perceptions are inaccurate), we may have trouble developing positive

relationships—perhaps any relationships (Carlson, 2016a). The degree to which our

perceptions of what others think of us are in agreement with others’ actual perceptions of

us is known as meta-accuracy (Carlson & Kenny, 2012; Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). Meta-

accuracy is an important factor in how people navigate social interactions and develop

relationships with others.

The purpose of my proposed study is to examine possible mediators and

moderators of meta-accuracy. More specifically, I will examine if individuals’

personality traits moderate their meta-accuracy levels. I will also consider whether the

characteristics of an interaction situation between two individuals moderate individuals’

meta-accuracy levels in any way. The goals of this study call for an examination of data

collected from participants who engage in one-on-one, in-person interactions with

another participant.

Self-Presentation

Meta-accuracy is a construct primarily examined in person perception research.

However, there are several implications of how meta-accuracy can affect an individual’s

self-presentation. A brief review of self-presentation is therefore efficacious to our

discussion of meta-accuracy.

3

Self-presentation—otherwise known as impression management—refers to the

process of individuals’ attempts to control how others perceive them (Leary & Kowalski,

1990). Individuals are aware that their impressions on others may affect their reputation

and relationship goals, and therefore may alter aspects of their personalities when

engaging in social interactions (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Recall Bob who wants to

make a desired impression on his date or his boss. Bob believes that a good impression

will lead to success (e.g., a second date, a promotion) and a bad impression will lead to

failure (e.g., no second date, no promotion). Bob, being concerned with his impressions,

can make sure that he presents himself in the way he believes will maximize his chances

of being perceived in the way he desires (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). When presenting

themselves to others with desired impressions in mind, individuals try to convey that

impression by communicating information about their personality traits, attitudes, moods,

or beliefs that they believe will best make that impression (Baumeister, 1982; Leary &

Kowalski, 1990). Individuals’ self-presentations vary depending on how motivated and

effective they feel to make the impression they desire, their personality, and the

situational characteristics of the social interaction (Leary & Allen, 2011; Weiss &

Feldman, 2006; Schlenker & Leary, 1982).

When individuals believe they have successfully made their desired impressions

on others, they may feel that their personal or professional goals for those interactions

have been met (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Successfully making a desired impression

gives an individual confidence in his or her social skills and contributes to enhanced

social functioning (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Two important factors that affect the

success of individuals’ self-presentations are their ability to perceive how they have been

4

perceived, and the accuracy of that perception. If Bob cannot adequately perceive how he

has been perceived, or if his perception is inaccurate compared with others’ actual

perception of him, then Bob will have little success making desired impressions. Since

unsuccessful self-presentations can undermine individuals’ confidence in their social

skills and degrade their social functioning, it is important to understand the relationship

between individuals’ perceptions of others’ perceptions and others’ actual perceptions

(Carlson, 2016a). That is to say, it’s important to understand individuals’ meta-accuracy

and to investigate the possible factors that may affect individuals’ meta-accuracy.

Person Perception

In order to have a fuller understanding of meta-accuracy, it is important to

understand the domain from which meta-accuracy research evolved—person perception

research. Person perception research focuses on understanding what kinds of information

individuals gather when interacting with others and how individuals interpret this

information (Burusic & Ribar, 2014). The processes involved with person perception are

foundational factors for how individuals make judgements and form impressions of other

people, particularly of people’s personality (Biesanz, 2010; Burusic & Ribar, 2014;

Funder, 1995; Kenny, 2004).

The accuracy of one’s perceptions of others is a major factor in the success of a

social interaction—for all parties involved (Carlson & Kenny, 2012). Focusing on the

accuracy of individuals’ perceptions of others is a recent development and focus in

person perception research. Since person perception research is primarily concerned with

how people form perceptions about other people’s personalities, early research on person

perception focused primarily on the cognitive strategies people used when making

5

judgements about others (Biesanz, 2010; Burusic & Ribar, 2014; Funder, 1995; Kenny,

2004; Asch, 1946; Heider, 1958). This focus was criticized initially because it failed to

differentiate person perception from object perception—i.e., our understanding and

evaluation of inanimate objects—both use similar cognitive strategies but are distinct

forms of perception. Additional criticism claimed that focusing on cognitive strategies

often removed person perception from its interpersonal context and neglected the

behaviors associated with these cognitive strategies (Swann, 1984). Later research still

assessed person perception with a cognitive approach, but shifted its focus from more

broad cognitive strategies to the specific cognitive errors and biases that cause inaccurate

human judgements (Jones, 1979; Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). Although the focus of

person perception research was now on the inaccuracy of personality judgements, it still

suffered from criticism of the cognitive approach. Contemporary person perception

research focuses on examining the underlying factors involved in the accuracy of

personality judgements, rather than focusing on the factors of inaccuracy. A notable

development in this line of research is the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM) of person

perception (Funder, 1995). RAM’s development was a milestone in the area of person

perception because it examines person perception in the interpersonal context and

emphasizes that observing behavior and not simply cognitive strategies, is essential to

making personality judgements (Funder, 1995). RAM stimulated growth in person

perception with new research focusing on understanding the accuracy of our personality

judgments.

Since how we perceive others and how they perceive us are central factors in the

success of our social interactions and person perception has such an impact on our social

6

functioning, it is important to continue its research (Hofstee, 1994). I am most interested

in meta-accuracy, an aspect of person perception that scales how accurate individuals’

perceptions are of other’s perceptions of them. Individuals’ perceptions of how others

perceive them plays a large role in how individuals navigate a social relationship after the

initial interaction has taken place. If Bob believes his date perceived him as warm and

confident, he may request a second date; however, if Bob is inaccurate and his date

actually perceived him as rude and uncourteous, then Bob’s request may be rejected. If

Bob’s meta-accuracy were higher, he could have possibly navigated the social

relationship better between him and his date and proceeded according to his date’s true

perception of him. Therefore, meta-accuracy is a crucial aspect of person perception that

merits investigation.

Meta-accuracy

Meta-accuracy research, like person perception research, primarily focuses on

personality judgements; in these research areas, individuals are commonly referred to as

targets to distinguish them from judges, or those they interact with—for the purposes of

the present study targets and judges will hereafter be referred to as actors and partners,

respectively. Within the meta-accuracy literature, the term meta-perception denotes

actors’ perceptions of partner’s perceptions—actors are typically referred to as meta-

perceivers but will not be referred to as such here. The following example demonstrates

that meta-accuracy is the degree of agreement between actors’ meta-perceptions and

partner’s perceptions. Bob—the actor—forms a meta-perception that Sally—the

partner—perceives him as extraverted. If Sally’s perception is that Bob is extraverted—

i.e., Bob’s meta-perception agrees with Sally’s perception—Bob has high meta-accuracy.

7

If Sally’s perception is that Bob is introverted—i.e., Bob’s meta-perception disagrees

with Sally’s perception—Bob has low meta-accuracy.

Current meta-accuracy literature identifies two distinct kinds of meta-accuracy:

generalized meta-accuracy (GMA) and dyadic meta-accuracy (DMA). GMA is the

degree to which individuals detect how others in general perceive them; DMA is the

degree to which individuals detect how particular others uniquely perceive them (Carlson

& Kenny, 2012). Early work to study meta-accuracy used a round-robin design: actors in

a group of four to six made meta-perceptions and personality judgements of every other

actor in the group (Kenny & DePaulo, 1993). These early meta-accuracy studies found

ample evidence among participants for GMA, but little to no evidence of DMA (Kenny

& DePaulo, 1993; Levesque, 1997; Malloy, Albright, Kenny, Agatstein, & Winquist,

1997). Regardless of these results, meta-accuracy researchers contended with the idea

that people could only perceive how they were generally perceived by others, and not

specifically in a case-by-case basis. Recent research has produced evidence that supports

DMA and further supports GMA among meta-perceivers.

Erika Carlson is at the forefront of meta-accuracy research and has conducted

several studies over the last decade that strongly support DMA. Carlson identifies two

approaches to assess DMA: the trait–centered approach and the person–centered

approach. The trait–centered approach assesses DMA as the degree to which a meta-

perceiver can accurately detect which partners in a group perceive them as high or low in

a given personality trait; the person–centered approach assesses DMA as the degree to

which a meta-perceiver can accurately detect which traits a particular partner perceives as

more characteristic of the meta-perceiver. When using the person–centered approach, in

8

both participant dyads and larger groups, strong evidence of DMA emerges (Carlson &

Furr, 2009). Other research has found that DMA is higher among actors when social

relationship with the partner is accounted for (Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010). Such

evidence for DMA has been found among meta-perceivers after a brief interaction with a

new acquaintance (Carlson & Furr, 2009).

Research has established that meta-accuracy is a real construct of person

perception and a fundamental factor in social functioning. A logical next step for meta-

accuracy research is to examine more discretely its various aspects, such as its predictors,

influences, and possible effects. There are many avenues of investigation for examining

meta-accuracy. Several studies of meta-accuracy suggest various moderators of actors’

meta-accuracy levels. These moderators include but are not limited to the type and

quality of relationship between actor and partner, meta-perceivers’ confidence in their

meta-perception, the degree to which meta-perceivers can distinguish between their self-

perceptions and other’s perceptions of them—Carlson and colleagues call this meta-

insight—and how psychologically adjusted the meta-perceiver is (Carlson et al., 2010;

Carlson, 2016a; Levesque, 1997; Carlson & Furr, 2012; Carlson et al., 2010; Carlson,

Vazire, & Furr, 2011; Carlson, 2016b). Carlson and Furr (2009) suggest another avenue

of research that examines the possible predictors of meta-accuracy and has yet to be

attempted. A final possible direction for effective research is to examine meta-accuracy

using various personality models. To date, meta-accuracy has only been examined using

Big Five models of personality (Malloy et al., 1997, Carlson et al., 2010; Kenny &

DePaulo, 1993; Carlson & Furr, 2009).

9

The Present Study

The present study utilized the Self-Presentation and Personality Judgment (SPPJ)

model proposed by Nave (in prep), depicted in Figure 1, as the theoretical framework for

this research. There are various other person perception models that could be used in the

study of meta-accuracy, such as the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM, the Social

Accuracy Model (SAM), the Social Relations Model (SRM), or the Personality, Error,

Residual, Stereotype, Opinion, Norm (PERSON) model (Funder, 1995; Biesanz, 2010;

Kenny, 1994; Kenny, 2004). The advantage of the SPPJ model is that it accounts for the

goals and motivations individuals have that may affect the course of the interaction. For

example, the RAM posits that a partner perceives an actor’s personality traits by

observing their behavior. The RAM fails to account for the fact that actors may change

Figure 1: Self-Presentation and Personality Judgment Model (Nave, in prep)

10

which may be their behavior in order to impress upon the partner the personality the actor

desires, different from the actor’s “true” personality. The advantage of the SPPJ model

over these other person perception models makes it an appropriate framework for

studying meta-accuracy.

There are several components to the SPPJ model, but only three were relevant to

this study: Self as is, Self’s perception of other’s perception, and Target as perceived—

the SPPJ model uses “self” and “target” in reference to the actor and partner,

respectively. Self as is represents an actor’s true personality traits. Self’s perception of

other’s perception represents an actor’s meta-perceptions. Target as perceived represents

a partner’s actual perceptions of an actor’s personality. Meta-accuracy depicted in this

model is the link between Self’s perception of other’s perception and Target as

perceived.

After reviewing the meta-accuracy literature, I proposed two research questions.

The first question: Do personality traits affect meta-accuracy levels? There is some

evidence showing what actors’ meta-accuracy affects—such as their relationship quality

with others (Carlson, 2016a)—but there is still much to be discovered as to what affects

actors’ meta-accuracy levels. Carlson and Furr (2009) found significant individual

differences in meta-accuracy levels for the personality traits agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and openness. Carlson and Furr postulated that this finding might

suggest that individual differences in actors’ personality traits may affect their meta-

accuracy levels—perhaps some individuals have a disposition to be better at perceiving

how others perceive them concerning certain personality traits, e.g., agreeableness,

conscientiousness, and openness—but this was not investigated further. The first aim of

11

this study was to examine if actors’ personality traits affect their meta-accuracy levels.

More specifically, I examined if actors’ personality traits moderate the relationship

between their meta-perceptions and partners’ perceptions of them—i.e., their meta-

accuracy. I hypothesized (Hypothesis 1) that actors’ personality traits will moderate their

meta-accuracy levels. To test Hypothesis 1, partners’ actual perceptions and actors’ meta-

perceptions were represented by the SPPJ model constructs of Target as perceived and

Self's perceptions of other's perception, were treated as the predictor and dependent

variables, respectively. Actors’ personality was represented by the construct Self as is and

was treated as the moderator variable.

The second question proposed: Do aspects of an interaction situation affect meta-

accuracy levels? A few meta-accuracy studies accounted for social context but focused

primarily on the type of relationships actors had with partners or on actors’ meta-

accuracy across groups (Malloy et al., 1997; Carlson & Furr, 2009; Carlson & Furr,

2009). None of these studies, particularly the ones that contained live interactions

between actors and partners, examined the characteristics of the interaction situation for

how those characteristics may or may not affect actors’ meta-accuracy levels. The second

aim of this study was to examine if actors’ perception of the interaction situation with

their partner affect their meta-accuracy levels. More specifically, I examined if actors’

perception of situational traits moderates the relationship between their meta-perceptions

and partners’ perceptions of them. Previous research has shown that characteristics of the

interaction situation affect the way individuals perceive and behave toward the other

person (Leary & Allen, 2011; Weiss & Feldman, 2009). If situational characteristics

affect actors’ perceptions of other people, it is reasonable to postulate that situational

12

characteristics may also affect actors’ perceptions of other people’s perceptions—i.e.,

actors’ meta-accuracy. I hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) that situational traits will moderate

actors’ meta-accuracy levels. To test Hypothesis 2, Target as perceived and Self's

perceptions of other's perception again served as the predictor and dependent variables,

respectively. A variable named Situational traits was used to represent actors’

perceptions of the traits associated with interaction situation and was treated as the

moderator variable.

13

METHODS

Research Design

For the present study, I used archival data collected by the Personality, Health,

and Behavior Lab at Rutgers University–Camden in the fall 2015 and spring 2016

semesters. The data was from self-report questionnaires completed by participants at

several sequential time points across two sessions and was examined using a within-

subjects design.

Participants

The sample was college students at Rutgers University–Camden. This study did

not aim to examine meta-accuracy in any way that is unique to Rutgers University–

Camden students, and thus is expected to be generalizable to adults. The number of

participants varied by the variables examined: Self as is (N = 110), Self’s perception of

other’s perception (N = 102), Situational traits (N = 102), Target as perceived (N = 62).

These disparities in participant numbers was due to participant dropouts at various points

in the study and errors in data collection. Through listwise deletion, participants missing

data from at least one of the variables examined were excluded from analyses, thereby

reducing the overall sample size to N = 59. Participant mean age was 23.90 (SD = 7.97),

and there were 15 males and 44 females. Participants were compensated $20 and entered

into a drawing for a 100$ VISA gift card.

Measures

The HEXACO-60 Item personality inventory was used to measure participant’s

personality traits throughout this study. The HEXACO-60 measures personality on six

dimensions: Honesty-Humility (H), Emotionality (E), Extraversion (X), Agreeableness

14

(A), Conscientiousness (C), and Openness to Experience (O). The HEXACO-60 Item

was chosen because it offers a more detailed inventory of personality than the Big Five

Inventory (Ashton & Lee, 2009). It also takes less time to complete than its original

version, the HEXACO-200 Item Personality Inventory, without compromising question

diversity. The HEXACO-60 is a reliable measure, with an internal consistency reliability

of α = .77 to .80. This reliability is slightly lower than the HEXACO-200 Item’s

reliability (α = .88 to .91), but this is attributed to the HEXACO-60 being a shorter

questionnaire (Ashton & Lee, 2009). The HEXACO-60 is positively correlated with the

NEO-FFI Personality Inventory—a well-established measurement of personality—which

is evidence of the HEXACO-60’s validity (Ashton & Lee, 2009). Each question of the

HEXACO-60 measures a personality trait on a 9-point Likert scale, 1 being very

uncharacteristic of the person and 9 being very characteristic of the person. Two versions

of the HEXACO-60 were used in this study: one version was meant for the participant to

rate their own personality, and the other version for the participant to rate their interaction

partner. The Self’s perception of other’s perception, Target as perceived, and Self as is

variables were measured along the six factors of the HEXACO-60, and an additional

factor referred to as “Profile,” which is the aggregate of the six HEXACO factors. The

HEXACO-60-Other was used to measure the Self’s perception of other’s perception

variable—i.e., actors’ perception of partners’ perception of them along the seven

factors—and Target as perceived variable—i.e., partners’ perception of actors along the

seven factors. The HEXACO-60-Self was also used to measure the Self as is variable—

i.e., actors’ perception of themselves along the seven factors. The HEXACO-60-Self and

15

Other versions of the HEXACO-60 can be seen in Appendix A and Appendix B,

respectively.

The DIAMONDS questionnaire (Rauthmann et al., 2014) was used to measure

actors’ perception of the Situational traits present during their interactions with partners.

The DIAMONDS measures situational characteristics on eight dimensions: Duty (D),

Intellect (I), Adversity (A), Mating (M), Positivity (O), Negativity (N), Deception (D),

and Sociality (S). The DIAMONDS questionnaire was chosen because is it the only

known taxonomy of situational characteristics formatted as a self-report questionnaire.

The DIAMONDS taxonomy is positively correlated with the Riverside Situational Q-sort

(RSQ)—a longstanding and established measurement used to code situational

characteristics—which is evidence of the DIAMONDS validity—the fact the

DIAMONDS is derived directly from items in the RSQ notwithstanding (Rauthmann et

al., 2014). The RSQ measure defines eight overarching characteristics, which can be

applied to almost any situation. Each facet of the DIAMONDS taxonomy is highly

correlated with each of these eight overarching characteristics. The DIAMONDS

measure has an internal consistency reliability of α = .57 to .74. These moderate

reliabilities may suggest at first glance that the DIAMONDS has low reliability, but these

reliabilities are quite high considering that each of the eight factors have only four scale

items (Rauthmann et al., 2014). Each question of the DIAMONDS questionnaire

measures a situational trait on a 9-point Likert scale, 1 being very uncharacteristic of the

situation and 9 being very characteristic of the situation. The DIAMONDS was used to

measure the Situational traits variable—i.e., actors’ perception of the interaction with

16

partners along the eight factors. The complete DIAMONDS questionnaire can be seen in

Appendix C.

Procedure

This study consisted of two sessions, each session occurring at a different

scheduled date. Participants were randomly assigned a partner with whom they interacted

in the second session. Each measurement was administered electronically via Qualtrics

data collection software. In session 1, participants’ consent was obtained, and participants

were randomly assigned a partner (with whom they were unacquainted) for session 2.

Participants were then given the HEXACO-60 to measure their base level personality

(Self as is) and to provide demographic information. In session 2, participants interacted

for five minutes with their randomly assigned partner in a "getting-to-know-you" type of

situation. After the interaction, participants were given the HEXACO-60 two more times.

The first time, they were asked to complete it based on how they thought their partner

perceived their personality (Self’s perception of other’s perception; meta-perception).

The second time, they were asked to complete it based on their perception of their

partner's true personality (Target as perceived). After completing the HEXACO

questionnaires, participants were given the DIAMONDS questionnaire and instructed to

fill it out based on how they perceived the interaction situation.

Data Analysis

One of the ways meta-accuracy has typically been measured is by bivariate

correlation (Carlson & Furr, 2009; Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010; Carlson, Vazire, &

Furr, 2011; Carlson, 2016a; Carlson, 2016b). The degree to which actors’ meta-

perceptions are correlated with partners’ actual perceptions represents the degree of meta-

17

accuracy among actors. In the present study, the seven personality factors measured (i.e.,

H, E, X, A, C, O, Profile) on Target as perceived was analyzed with each congruent

factor on Self’s perception of other’s perception (e.g., H with H, E with E, etc.). A

correlation between non-congruent personality factors is superfluous in regards to meta-

accuracy—e.g., how extraverted a partner perceives an actor should not have any

influence on that actors’ perception of how agreeable the partner perceives them (Carlson

& Furr, 2009; Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010). The degree to which the variables Self's

perceptions of other's perception and Target as perceived are significantly, positively

correlated represents actors’ degree of meta-accuracy.

After a correlational analysis was conducted between Self's perceptions of other's

perception and Target as perceived, a set of linear multiple regression analyses examined

Self as is as a moderator of the relationship between Target as perceived and Self’s

perception of other’s perception, which were the predictor and dependent variables,

respectively. It is important to note that the Target as perceived variable’s treatment as

the predictor variable and the Self’s perception of other’s perception variable’s treatment

as the dependent variable was due to actors’ forming meta-perceptions based on their

observations of partners’ actual perceptions of them (Carlson & Furr, 2009; Carlson &

Kenny, 2012). Conceptually speaking, actors’ meta-perceptions are dependent on

partners’ actual perceptions of them. Therefore, actors’ meta-perceptions should be

predicted by partners’ actual perceptions of them—assuming, of course, actors’ meta-

accuracy has already been established; it would be meaningless to suggest that partners’

perceptions predict actors’ meta-perceptions if the two are not significantly correlated

(Kenny & DePaulo, 1993; Malloy et al., 1997). Since the three variables involved in this

18

particular analysis were measured along seven personality factors, several regression

analyses were conducted for all combinations between each pair of congruent personality

factors on Target as perceived and Self's perceptions of other's perception, and the seven

personality factors measured on Self as is. Overall, 49 regression analyses were

conducted—seven for each of the seven pairs of congruent personality factors. All

regression analyses were analyzed using SPSS version 22 software, utilizing the

PROCESS macro for moderation and mediation models, which automatically mean-

centers inputted variables (Hayes, 2012). The regression models were constructed as

follows: the predictor variable was a particular personality factor of Target as perceived,

the moderator was a particular personality factor of Self as is, the interaction term was

predictor variable x moderator, and the dependent variable was the Self's perceptions of

other's perception congruent personality factor of Target as perceived. Any significant

interaction effects indicated moderation occurred, and these effects were examined

further using a simple slopes analysis—via PROCESS (Hayes, 2012)—to determine

more discretely how the potential moderator influences the relationship between Target

as perceived and Self’s perception of other’s perception at two levels (i.e., -/+1 SD) of

the interaction (Aiken & West, 1991).

A second linear regression analysis examined Situational traits as a moderator on

the relationship between Target as perceived and Self's perceptions of other's perception,

which were the predictor and dependent variables, respectively. Again, several regression

analyses were conducted for all combinations between each pair of congruent personality

factors on Target as perceived and Self's perceptions of other's perception, and the eight

situational factors (i.e., D, I, A, M, O, N, D, S) measured on Situational traits. Overall, 56

19

regression analyses were conducted—eight for each of the seven pairs of congruent

personality factors. SPSS version 22 software, utilizing the PROCESS macro was used

again for these analyses (Hayes, 2012). The regression models were constructed in the

same manner as the aforementioned personality regression models, except for the

Situational traits variable in place of the Self as is variable as the moderator. As with the

personality trait regressions described previously, any significant interaction effects

indicated moderation occurred. These effects were examined further using a simple

slopes analysis—via PROCESS (Hayes, 2012)—to determine more discretely how the

potential moderator influences the relationship between Target as perceived and Self’s

perception of other’s perception at two levels (i.e., -/+1 SD) of the interaction (Aiken &

West, 1991).

20

RESULTS

Correlations

Overall, Target as perceived was significantly correlated with Self's perceptions

of other's perception. Specifically, each pair of congruent personality factors for the two

variables were significantly, positively correlated, as summarized in Table 1.

Specifically, partners' actual perceptions of actors' personalities across all factors were

significantly related to actors' perceptions of how partners perceived them. All

correlations were significant at the .01 level, and had moderate to large effect sizes, r(59)

= .36 - .63). There were significant correlations between non-congruent personality factor

pairs, but, to reiterate, such correlations are conceptually superfluous.

Personality Traits Regressions

The results of the regression analyses examining the interaction between Target

as perceived and Self as is as a predictor of Self's perceptions of other's perception are

presented in Table 2. Statistically significant main effects were found for Target as

perceived in all regressions involving honesty/humility, emotionality, extraversion, and

profile congruent factor pairs (p < .01). Specifically, partners' actual perceptions of actors

significantly predicted actors' meta-perceptions concerning honesty/humility,

emotionality, extraversion, and personality traits overall (see Table 2). Out of the 21

regressions involving agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience

congruent factor pairs, 16 main effects for Target as perceived were significant (p < .05),

four were marginally significant (p < .10), and one was non-significant (p = .160).

Specifically, partners' actual perceptions of actors significantly predicted actors' meta-

perceptions in the 16 regressions concerning agreeableness, conscientiousness, and

21

openness to experience (Table 2). The four marginally significant main effects and one

non-significant effect is likely due to small sample size (N = 59) in conjunction with the

moderator variable (i.e., Self as is), accounting for more of the variance in those

particular regressions.

Across all regressions, two significant main effects for Self as is were found for

the effect of openness to experience on Self’s perception of other’s perception involving

emotionality (p = .003), and for conscientiousness involving conscientiousness (p =

.039). Specifically, actors' personality trait of openness to experience significantly

predicted actors' meta-perceptions concerning emotionality, and the trait of

conscientiousness significantly predicted actors' meta-perceptions concerning

conscientiousness. The higher actors are in openness, the less they perceived that partners

perceived them as emotional, and the higher actors are in conscientiousness the more they

perceived partners perceived them as conscientious (Table 2). One marginally significant

main effect emerged for Self as is for the effect of openness to experience involving

openness to experience (p = .052). The higher actors are in openness, the more they

perceived that partners perceived them as open (Table 2). This marginally significant

effect is, again, likely due to small sample size.

A single statistically significant interaction effect emerged for the interaction of

Self as is involving conscientiousness and Target as perceived involving the profile factor

(p = .006). The interaction of partners' perception of actors involving the profile factor

and actors' personality trait of conscientiousness significantly predicted actors' meta-

perceptions concerning the profile factor (Table 2). Simple slopes were examined at -/+1

SD of Self as is involving conscientiousness and Target as perceived involving the

22

profile factor, which revealed that the relationship between Target as perceived and Self’s

perception of other’s perception both involving the profile factor was significantly

moderated by Self as is involving conscientiousness. More specifically, the higher

partners perceived actors low in conscientiousness across all personality traits, the higher

actors perceived partners perceived them across all personality traits (b = .366, SE = .172,

p = .038). The higher partners perceived actors high in conscientiousness across all

personality traits, the higher actors perceived partners perceived them across all

personality traits, but this effect was weaker compared to actors low in conscientiousness

(b = 1.128, SE = .182, p = .000) (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Interaction effect of Target as perceived involving the profile factor and Self as is

involving conscientiousness on Self’s perception of other’s perception involving the profile factor

23

Situational Traits Regressions

The results of the regression analyses examining the interaction between Target

as perceived and Situational traits as a predictor of Self's perceptions of other's

perception are presented in Table 3. The main effects of Target as perceived resemble the

ones found in the personality regressions described previously. Statistically significant

main effects were found for Target as perceived in all regressions involving emotionality,

extraversion, openness to experience and profile congruent factor pairs (p < .05).

Specifically, partners' actual perceptions of actors significantly predicted actors' meta-

perceptions concerning emotionality, extraversion, openness to experience, and

personality traits overall (see Table 3). Out of the 24 regressions involving

honesty/humility, agreeableness, and conscientiousness congruent factor pairs, 16 main

effects for Target as perceived were significant (p < .05), seven were marginally

significant (p < .10), and one was non-significant (p = .426). Specifically, partners' actual

perceptions of actors significantly predicted actors' meta-perceptions in the 16

regressions concerning honesty/humility, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Table 3).

The seven marginally significant main effects and one non-significant effect are, again,

likely due to small sample size (N = 59) in conjunction with the moderator variable (i.e.,

Situational traits) accounting for more of the variance in those particular regressions.

Across all regressions, four significant main effects for Situational traits were

found for the effect of negativity involving honesty/humility, agreeableness, and the

profile factor (p = .022; p = .015; p = .045), and duty involving conscientiousness (p

=.050). More specifically, for each of these main effects, actors' perceptions of the

interaction with partners concerning these Situational traits significantly predicted actors’

24

meta-perceptions involving the respective personality traits. The less actors perceived

their interaction with partners as negative, the more actors perceived partners perceived

them as honest/humble, agreeable, and across all personality traits in general; the more

actors perceived their interaction with partners as dutiful, the more they perceived

partners perceived them as conscientious (Table 3).

A single statistically significant interaction effect emerged for the interaction of

Situational traits involving negativity and Target as perceived involving emotionality (p

= .006) (Table 3). Specifically, the interaction of partners' perception of actors involving

the emotionality and actors' perception of the situation concerning negativity significantly

predicted actors' meta-perceptions concerning emotionality. Simple slopes were

examined at -/+1 SD of Situational traits involving negativity and Target as perceived

involving emotionality, which revealed that the relationship between Target as perceived

and Self’s perception of other’s perception both involving emotionality was significantly

moderated by Situational traits involving negativity. More specifically, for actors who

perceived the interaction with partners low on negativity, the higher partners perceived

these actors in emotionality, the higher actors perceived partners perceived them in

emotionality (b = .852, SE = .126, p = .000). However, this effect was not significant for

actors who perceived the interaction high in negativity (b = .071, SE = .218, p = .745)

(see Figure 3).

25

Figure 3: Interaction effect of Target as perceived involving emotionality and Situational traits

involving negativity on Self’s perception of other’s perception involving emotionality

26

DISCUSSION

Meta-accuracy

Significant, positive correlations between partners’ actual perceptions of actors

and actors’ meta-perceptions provide evidence for high meta-accuracy among

participants in this study. Correlations between congruent personality factor pairs indicate

that for every personality trait, as well as the profile factor, actors accurately perceived

how partners perceived them—e.g., if partners perceived actors high on extraversion,

actors accurately perceived that partners perceived them as such. These findings are

consistent with prior meta-accuracy research which found similar evidence for meta-

accuracy by way of correlation (Carlson & Furr, 2009; Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010;

Carlson, Vazire, & Furr, 2011; Carlson, 2016a; Carlson, 2016b).

Effect of Personality Traits on Meta-accuracy

Conceptually, if actors show evidence of meta-accuracy, then actors' meta-

perceptions should be predicted by partners’ actual perceptions of them. The significant

main effects found for partners’ actual perceptions of actors is consistent with this meta-

accuracy schema. These main effects also provide further evidence for meta-accuracy

among participants. Given the correlational evidence for meta-accuracy found in this

study, these effects would be expected.

The main effects found for actors' personality trait of openness to experience

suggests that this trait affects actors’ meta-perceptions concerning the personality traits of

emotionality and openness to experience. The main effect found for conscientiousness

suggests that this trait affects actors’ meta-perceptions concerning conscientiousness. One

explanation for these findings is that actors think that partners are perceiving them similar

27

to how actors perceive themselves. Actors' perceptions of their own personality are

shown to be highly related to their meta-perceptions, suggesting that the formation of

meta-perceptions may be based in part on self-perceptions (Carlson & Kenny, 2012). The

caveat of this explanation is that it can only account for congruent pairs of personality

factors. That is to say, actors who perceive themselves as high in a particular personality

trait may think that partners also perceive them as high in that particular trait—e.g.,

actors who perceive themselves high in extraversion will likely perceive partners also

perceive them as high in extraversion. When forming a meta-perception concerning

another trait, actors will refer to their self-perception of that trait—actors’ self-perception

of being high in extraversion will not affect their perceptions of partners’ perceptions

concerning agreeableness. Therefore, the theory of actors using self-perceptions as a

basis for their meta-perceptions can only account for the main effects of actors' openness

to experience involving their meta-perceptions of openness, and conscientiousness

involving meta-perceptions of conscientiousness. Perhaps the effect of actors' openness

on their meta-perception concerning emotionality may be explained by the social

desirability of emotionality, and the association between openness and optimism.

Personality traits carry different weights in terms of their social desirability—i.e., how

valued a particular trait is in a given social context (John & Robins, 1993). Some

personality traits are more desirable in certain social contexts than others, such as

conscientiousness, which is more valued in professional/business-like settings, and

extraversion, which is more valued in social gatherings. Typically, being high in

emotionality is socially undesirable in small, interpersonal settings; therefore, being

perceived low in emotionality may be socially desirable for many people. There is some

28

evidence of an association between openness to experience and optimism, such that those

higher in openness tend to be more optimistic (Zoellner, Rabe, Karl, & Maercker, 2008).

Actors high in openness to experience, with social desirability in mind, may have been

more optimistic in their perceptions of partners' perceptions of them, thinking that their

partners perceived them lower in emotionality.

It is important to note that none of the main effects found for actors' personality

traits interacted with partners’ perceptions of actors to affect actors’ meta-perceptions.

Although certain personality traits may be involved in the formation of actors’ meta-

perceptions, their involvement is not so-much-so that it affects the accuracy of actors'

meta-perceptions. The effects of certain personality traits on meta-perceptions may partly

explain the formation of actors' meta-perceptions involving those specific personality

traits, but they do not account for actors’ meta-accuracy involving those traits.

The significant interaction effect between partners' perceptions of actors’

personality in general across all traits (i.e., the profile factor) and actors' personality trait

of conscientiousness suggests that conscientiousness affects the relationship between

partners' perceptions of actors and actors' meta-perception. That is to say, actors’ levels of

conscientiousness moderated their meta-accuracy, which was consistent with my first

hypothesis. After discretely examining this interaction effect, it became clear that actors

low in conscientiousness tended to have stronger meta-accuracy compared to actors’ high

in conscientiousness. When partners perceived actors low in general across all personality

traits, high-conscientious actors were more meta-accurate than low-conscientiousness

actors; however, when partners perceived actors high in general across all personality

traits, high-conscientious actors were less meta-accurate compared to low-conscientious

29

actors. These findings may be explained by the nature of conscientiousness. The

characteristics of conscientiousness include being highly organized, goal-oriented,

mindful of details, and self-aware (McCrae & Costa, 2008). Perhaps the mindfulness and

self-awareness aspects of conscientiousness help actors to perceive and more accurately

interpret indicators of partners’ perceptions—e.g., facial expressions and behavioral cues.

Potential drawbacks of conscientiousness may be overthinking and overanalyzing

information. Perhaps the reason high-conscientious actors have overall weaker meta-

accuracy than low-conscientious actors is because high-conscientious actors are

overanalyzing the indicators of partners’ perceptions, which may lead them to form

slightly inaccurate meta-perceptions. Low-conscientious actors, in comparison, may be

discretely perceiving indicators of partners’ perceptions but are not second-guessing their

perceptions, which are likely to be accurate to begin with.

The moderating effect of conscientiousness on actors’ meta-accuracy was

consistent with my first hypothesis, but only partially supports it. An unclear assumption

in my hypothesis was that all, if not at least several, personality traits would moderate

actors’ meta-accuracy. Finding a single personality trait that affects actors’ meta-

accuracy was supporting evidence for my hypothesis, but I cannot conclude that “all” or

“some” personality traits affect meta-accuracy. I can conclude that only

conscientiousness affects meta-accuracy based upon the evidence gathered in this study.

Effect of Situational traits on Meta-accuracy

Regarding the Situational traits analyses, the main effects of partners' actual

perceptions of actors resemble the main effects found in the personality traits analyses,

and therefore reflect and further support participants’ meta-accuracy.

30

The main effects found for the situational trait (Situational traits) of negativity

suggest that this trait affect actors’ meta-perceptions involving honesty/humility,

agreeableness, and the profile factor. The main effect found for duty suggests that this

trait affects actors' meta-perceptions involving conscientiousness. Perhaps, since actors

did not perceive their interaction as negative, they perceived that partners viewed them

more favorably. Social desirability may be involved here again, such that, in small

interpersonal settings, being an honest/humble and agreeable person is socially desirable

(John & Robins, 1993). Actors may have wanted to be perceived as socially desirable,

and since actors perceived that their interaction with partners did not involve much

conflict or dissension (i.e., negativity), they may have thought that there was no reason

for partners to perceive them unfavorably. This explanation may account for the effects

of negativity on honesty/humility and agreeableness in particular, and across all

personality traits in general. The effect of duty on conscientiousness may be due to the

association between the task-oriented aspect of duty and the goal-oriented aspect of

conscientiousness (Rauthmann et al., 2014; McCrae & Costa, 2008). Perhaps, for actors

who thought that their interaction with partners involved a series of tasks they needed to

complete (e.g., asking a series of questions about them, providing detailed answers to

questions asked, etc.), partners perceived actors as being task/goal-oriented, or simply as

conscientious.

It is important to note that none of the Situational traits interacted with partners’

perceptions of actors to affect actors’ meta-perceptions. That is to say, although certain

Situational traits may be involved in the formation of actors’ meta-perceptions, their

involvement is not so much so that it affects the accuracy of actors’ meta-perceptions.

31

The effects of certain situational traits on meta-perceptions may partly explain the

formation of actors’ meta-perceptions involving those specific personality traits, but they

do not account for actors’ meta-accuracy involving those traits.

The significant interaction effect between partners' perceptions of actors’

personality involving emotionality and actors' perception of their interaction with

partners involving negativity suggests that negativity affects the relationship between

partners' perceptions of actors and actors' meta-perception. Actors’ levels of perceived

negativity moderated their meta-accuracy, which was consistent with my second

hypothesis. After discretely examining this interaction effect, actors who perceived the

interaction low in negativity tended to have stronger meta-accuracy, while perceiving the

interaction high on negativity had no effect on meta-accuracy. The effect of negativity on

meta-perceptions involving emotionality may be explained by the characteristic

negativity and emotionality have in common, namely anxiety, which is a primary aspect

of each trait individually. Measuring the level of negativity in a situation is in part

measuring actors’ perception if the situation aroused feelings of anxiety for themselves or

partners (Rauthmann et al., 2014). Similarly, measuring actors’ meta-perceptions

concerning emotionality is in part measuring actors’ perception of partners perceiving

them as feeling anxious and or behaving anxiously (Ashton & Lee, 2009). If negativity

and emotionality are interpreted in terms of anxiety, then actors who thought the

interaction with partners did not arouse feelings of anxiety may have thought they did not

display any indicators that they were anxious. It may be that if actors perceived that their

interaction with partners did not involve any anxiety (i.e., negativity), then actors may not

have even considered if they displayed indicators of being anxious (i.e., emotional), and

32

therefore such thoughts did not affect the formation, and subsequent accuracy, of their

perceptions about how partners perceived them concerning emotionality.

The moderating effect of negativity on actors’ meta-accuracy was consistent with

my second hypothesis, but only partially supports it. Similar to my first hypothesis, an

unclear assumption in my second hypothesis was that all, if not at least several,

situational traits would moderate actors’ meta-accuracy. Finding a single situational trait

that affects actors’ meta-accuracy is supporting evidence for my hypothesis, but I cannot

conclude that “all” or “some” situational traits affect meta-accuracy. I can conclude that

only negativity affects meta-accuracy based upon the evidence gathered in this study.

Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was the small sample of participants (N = 59).

As discussed in the methods section, several of the variables had data for at least 100

participants, but, due to one of the variables having a sample size of only 59 participants,

the sample size for all variables was reduced to 59. Past studies on meta-accuracy, and on

personality more broadly, have tended to use a sample size of at least 80, because a

sample of this size provides the statistical power needed to detect significant results

involving personality (Carlson & Furr, 2009; Burusic & Ribar, 2014; Funder, 1995).

Perhaps the reason several of the effects found only approached significance is the small

number of participants. It is possible that the effects found would not differ, given a

larger sample. Nevertheless, replicating the study with a larger sample would provide

further and stronger evidence for the results of this study.

A second limitation of this study was that evidence found supporting meta-

accuracy reflected actors’ GMA more than their DMA. One of the key characteristics of

33

the research on DMA is that actors interacted with at least two or more partners.

Interacting with at least two partners allows participants to assess how partner-1 views

them on a particular trait compared with partner-2. Since this study only had actors

interact with one partner, DMA can only be supported to the extent that actors accurately

perceived how their partner perceived them on each personality trait compared to each

other trait (i.e., person-centered, rather than trait-centered DMA). Carlson and Kenny

(2012) suggest that actors who are not able to make comparisons between people's

perceptions of them—perhaps because they have interacted with only one person—will

tend to perceive that partners have perceived them as they are generally perceived. As it

turns out, partners without other people to compare actors to will also perceive actors

how they tend to perceive most people. The evidence gathered for meta-accuracy in this

study, therefore, is supportive more of actors' GMA than DMA. Replicating this study

with actors interacting with two or more partners would address this gap in the evidence

for meta-accuracy gathered in this study.

Future Directions

The present study furthered meta-accuracy research by specifically investigating

two possible moderators of meta-accuracy, namely actors’ personality traits and actors’

perceptions of an interaction situation with partners. One possibility not addressed in this

study is the joint effect of actors’ personality and situational perceptions on their meta-

accuracy. The effects found for personality traits and situational traits suggest that the

two play a role in actors’ formation of meta-perceptions. Perhaps, if analyzed together,

both personality and situational perceptions will not only be involved in the formation of

actors' meta-perceptions, but the accuracy of those perceptions, as well.

34

Another direction future meta-accuracy research can take is to examine

specifically the indicators actors perceive and reflect on when forming meta-perceptions

of partners. I have suggested that partners may display indicators of their perceptions of

actors which actors are then perceiving and reflecting on to form their meta-perceptions

of partners. There has been little-to-no research that has investigated these perception

"indicators"—perhaps facial expressions or behavioral cues—that are involved in the

meta-accuracy process between actors and partners. Isolating and examining these

indicators involved in meta-accuracy will further our understanding of exactly how

people form accurate or inaccurate perceptions of how others perceive them.

35

APPENDICIES

A. HEXACO-60 “Self”

© Kibeom Lee, Ph.D., & Michael C. Ashton, Ph.D.

HEXACO-PI-R (SELF REPORT FORM)

DIRECTIONS

On the following pages you will find a series of statements about you.

Please read each statement and decide how much you agree or disagree

with that statement. Then write your response in the space next to the

statement using the following scale:

5 = strongly agree

4 = agree

3 = neutral (neither agree nor disagree)

2 = disagree

1 = strongly disagree

Please answer every statement, even if you are not completely sure of

your response.

Please provide the following information about yourself.

Sex (circle): Female Male

Age: _______ years

36

1 I would be quite bored by a visit to an art gallery.

2 I plan ahead and organize things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.

3 I rarely hold a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged me.

4 I feel reasonably satisfied with myself overall.

5 I would feel afraid if I had to travel in bad weather conditions.

6 I wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if I thought it

would succeed. 7 I'm interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries.

8 I often push myself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.

9 People sometimes tell me that I am too critical of others.

1

0

I rarely express my opinions in group meetings.

1

1

I sometimes can't help worrying about little things.

1

2

If I knew that I could never get caught, I would be willing to steal a million

dollars. 1

3

I would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a novel, a song, or a painting.

1

4

When working on something, I don't pay much attention to small details.

1

5

People sometimes tell me that I'm too stubborn.

1

6

I prefer jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve working

alone. 1

7

When I suffer from a painful experience, I need someone to make me feel

comfortable. 1

8

Having a lot of money is not especially important to me.

1

9

I think that paying attention to radical ideas is a waste of time.

2

0

I make decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on careful

thought. 2

1

People think of me as someone who has a quick temper.

2

2

On most days, I feel cheerful and optimistic.

2

3

I feel like crying when I see other people crying.

2

4

I think that I am entitled to more respect than the average person is.

2

5

If I had the opportunity, I would like to attend a classical music concert.

2

6

When working, I sometimes have difficulties due to being disorganized.

2

7

My attitude toward people who have treated me badly is “forgive and forget”.

2

8

I feel that I am an unpopular person.

2

9

When it comes to physical danger, I am very fearful.

3

0

If I want something from someone, I will laugh at that person's worst jokes.

3

1

I’ve never really enjoyed looking through an encyclopedia.

3

2

I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.

37

3

3

I tend to be lenient in judging other people.

3

4

In social situations, I’m usually the one who makes the first move.

3

5

I worry a lot less than most people do.

3

6

I would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large.

3

7

People have often told me that I have a good imagination.

3

8

I always try to be accurate in my work, even at the expense of time.

3

9

I am usually quite flexible in my opinions when people disagree with me.

4

0

The first thing that I always do in a new place is to make friends.

4

1

I can handle difficult situations without needing emotional support from anyone

else. 4

2

I would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.

4

3

I like people who have unconventional views.

4

4

I make a lot of mistakes because I don’t think before I act.

4

5

Most people tend to get angry more quickly than I do.

4

6

Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than I generally am.

4

7

I feel strong emotions when someone close to me is going away for a long time.

4

8

I want people to know that I am an important person of high status.

4

9

I don’t think of myself as the artistic or creative type.

5

0

People often call me a perfectionist.

5

1

Even when people make a lot of mistakes, I rarely say anything negative.

5

2

I sometimes feel that I am a worthless person.

5

3

Even in an emergency I wouldn’t feel like panicking.

5

4

I wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for me.

5

5

I find it boring to discuss philosophy.

5

6

I prefer to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.

5

7

When people tell me that I’m wrong, my first reaction is to argue with them.

5

8

When I’m in a group of people, I’m often the one who speaks on behalf of the

group. 5

9

I remain unemotional even in situations where most people get very sentimental.

6

0

I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if I were sure I could get away with it.

38

B. HEXACO-60 “Other”

© Kibeom Lee, Ph.D., & Michael C. Ashton, Ph.D.

HEXACO-PI-R (OBSERVER REPORT FORM)

DIRECTIONS

On the following pages you will find a series of statements about the

person that you are rating now. Please read each statement and decide

how much you agree or disagree with that statement. Then write your

response in the space next to the statement using the following scale:

5 = strongly agree

4 = agree

3 = neutral (neither agree nor disagree)

2 = disagree

1 = strongly disagree

Please answer every statement, even if you are not completely sure of

your response.

Please provide the following information about the person that you will

be rating.

Number of years that you have been acquainted with this person:

______ years

Sex of the person that you will be rating (circle): Female Male

Age of the person that you will be rating: ______ years

39

1 He/she would be quite bored by a visit to an art gallery.

2 He/she plans ahead and organizes things, to avoid scrambling at the last minute.

3 He/she rarely holds a grudge, even against people who have badly wronged

him/her. 4 He/she feels reasonably satisfied with himself/herself overall.

5 He/she would feel afraid if he/she had to travel in bad weather conditions.

6 He/she wouldn't use flattery to get a raise or promotion at work, even if he/she

thought it would succeed.

7 He/she is interested in learning about the history and politics of other countries.

8 He/she often pushes himself/herself very hard when trying to achieve a goal.

9 People sometimes say that he/she is too critical of others.

10 He/she rarely expresses his/her opinions in group meetings.

11 He/she worries about little things.

12 If he/she knew that he/she could never get caught, he/she would be willing to

steal a million dollars. 13 He/she would enjoy creating a work of art, such as a novel, a song, or a painting.

14 When working on something, he/she doesn't pay much attention to small details.

15 People sometimes think that he/she is too stubborn.

16 He/she prefers jobs that involve active social interaction to those that involve

working alone. 17 When he/she suffers from a painful experience, he/she needs someone to make

him/her feel comfortable. 18 Having a lot of money is not especially important to him/her.

19 He/she thinks that paying attention to radical ideas is a waste of time.

20 He/she makes decisions based on the feeling of the moment rather than on

careful thought. 21 People think of him/her as someone who has a quick temper.

22 On most days, he/she feels cheerful and optimistic.

23 He/she feels like crying when he/she sees other people crying.

24 He/she thinks that he/she is entitled to more respect than the average person is.

25 If he/she had the opportunity, he/she would like to attend a classical music

concert. 26 When working, he/she sometimes has difficulties due to being disorganized.

27 His/her attitude toward people who have treated him/her badly is “forgive and

forget”. 28 He/she feels that he/she is an unpopular person.

29 When it comes to physical danger, he/she is very fearful.

30 If he/she wants something from someone, he/she will laugh at that person’s

worst jokes. 31 He/she has never really enjoyed looking through an encyclopedia.

40

32 He/she does only the minimum amount of work needed to get by.

33 He/she tends to be lenient in judging other people.

34 In social situations, he/she is usually the one who makes the first move.

35 He/she worries a lot less than most people do.

36 He/she would never accept a bribe, even if it were very large.

37 He/she has a good imagination.

38 He/she always tries to be accurate in his/her work, even at the expense of time.

39 He/she is usually quite flexible in his/her opinions when people disagree with

him/her. 40 The first thing that he/she always does in a new place is to make friends.

41 He/she can handle difficult situations without needing emotional support from

anyone else. 42 He/she would get a lot of pleasure from owning expensive luxury goods.

43 He/she likes people who have unconventional views.

44 He/she makes a lot of mistakes because he/she doesn’t think before he/she acts.

45 Most people tend to get angry more quickly than he/she does.

46 Most people are more upbeat and dynamic than he/she generally is.

47 He/she feels strong emotions when someone close to him/her is going away for a

long time. 48 He/she wants people to know that he/she is an important person of high status.

49 I don’t think of him/her as the artistic or creative type.

50 People often call him/her a perfectionist.

51 Even when people make a lot of mistakes, he/she rarely says anything negative.

52 He/she sometimes feels that he/she is a worthless person.

53 Even in an emergency he/she wouldn’t feel like panicking.

54 He/she wouldn’t pretend to like someone just to get that person to do favors for

him/her. 55 He/she finds it boring to discuss philosophy.

56 He/she prefers to do whatever comes to mind, rather than stick to a plan.

57 When people tell him/her that he/she is wrong, his/her first reaction is to argue

with them. 58 When he/she is in a group of people, he/she is often the one who speaks on

behalf of the group. 59 He/she remains unemotional even in situations where most people get very

sentimental. 60 He/she’d be tempted to use counterfeit money, if he/she were sure he/she could

get away with it.

41

C. DIAMONDS

Item

s

RS

Q-B

8

RS

Q-B

8-3

R

SQ

-B8

-2

RS

Q-B

8-4

Du

ty

003

A jo

b n

eeds to

be d

one.

X

X

X

X

006

Bein

g co

unted

on to

do so

meth

ing.

X

X

X

011

Min

or d

etails are imp

ortan

t. X

X

025

Task

-orien

ted th

ink

ing is called

for.

X

Intellect

053

Situ

ation in

cludes in

tellectual o

r cognitiv

e stimuli.

X

X

X

X

013

Situ

ation affo

rds an

op

portu

nity

to d

emo

nstrate in

tellectual cap

acity.

X

X

X

041

Situ

ation affo

rds an

op

portu

nity

to ex

press u

nusu

al ideas o

r poin

ts of v

iew.

X

X

012

Situ

ation ev

ok

es valu

es concern

ing lifesty

les or p

olitics.

X

Ad

versity

016

Bein

g criticized

. X

X

X

X

023

Bein

g b

lamed

for so

meth

ing.

X

X

X

015

Bein

g u

nd

er threat.

X

X

017

Bein

g d

om

inated

or b

ossed

around.

X

Ma

ting

074

Poten

tial sexual o

r rom

antic p

artners are p

resent.

X

X

X

X

070

Situ

ation in

cludes stim

uli th

at could

be co

nstru

ed sex

ually

. X

X

X

031

Physical attractiv

eness is relev

ant.

X

X

a07

3

Mem

bers o

f the o

pp

osite sex

are presen

t. X

pO

sitivity

001

Situ

ation is en

joyab

le. X

X

X

X

018

Situ

ation is p

layfu

l. X

X

X

057

Situ

ation is h

um

oro

us.

X

X

076

Situ

ation is sim

ple an

d clear-cu

t. X

Neg

ativity

066

Situ

ation is an

xiety

-ind

ucin

g.

X

X

X

X

048

Situ

ation co

uld

entail stress o

r traum

a. X

X

X

033

Situ

ation w

ould

mak

e som

e peo

ple ten

se and u

pset.

X

X

030

Situ

ation en

tails frustratio

n.

X

Decep

tion

037

It is possib

le to d

eceive so

meo

ne.

X

X

X

X

036

A p

erson o

r activity

could

be u

nd

ermin

ed o

r sabotag

ed.

X

X

X

039

Situ

ation m

ay cau

se feelings o

f hostility

. X

X

038

So

meo

ne in

this situ

ation m

ight b

e deceitfu

l. X

Socia

lity

056

Social in

teraction is p

ossib

le. X

X

X

X

051

Clo

se perso

nal relatio

nsh

ips are p

resent o

r could

dev

elop

. X

X

X

063

Beh

avio

r of o

thers p

resents a w

ide ran

ge o

f interp

ersonal cu

es. X

X

022

A reassu

ring o

ther p

erson is p

resent.

X

42

D. TABLES

H .36** H

E .50** E

X .49** X

A .40** A

C .40** C

O .48** O

Profile .63** Profile

**p < .01

Self's

perception of

other's

perception

Target as

perceived

Table 1

43

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

TA

P.2

90

(.138)*

2.0

98

.013 - .5

68

.556

(.114)*

**

4.8

62

.327 - .7

86

SA

I.0

98

(.107)

.916

-.117 - .3

14

.007

(.105)

.068

-.204 - .2

18

TA

P x

SA

I.2

15

(.164)

1.3

13

-.113 - .5

43

.014

(.207)

.069

-.401 - .4

30

TA

P.3

35

(.157)*

2.1

31

.020 - .6

49

.537

(.123)*

**

4.3

80

.291 - .7

82

SA

I-.1

61

(.114)

-1.4

04

-.390 - .0

69

.081

(.098)

.826

-.115 - .2

76

TA

P x

SA

I.3

48

(.218)

1.5

93

-.090 - .7

85

.100

(.186)

.539

-.273 - .4

73

TA

P.3

76

(.142)*

2.6

45

.091 - .6

61

.490

(.115)*

**

4.2

58

.259 - .7

20

SA

I.1

03

(.125)

.825

-.147 - .3

54

-.15

0(.1

15)

-1.3

02

-.381 - .0

81

TA

P x

SA

I-.0

50

(.288)

-.174

-.626 - 5

.26

.396

(.269)

1.4

70

-.144 - .9

36

TA

P.3

96

(.141)*

*2.7

99

.112 - .6

79

.516

(.139)*

**

3.7

24

.238 - .7

94

SA

I.0

80

(.107)

.746

-.135 - .2

94

-.07

3(.0

92)

-.791

-.258 - .1

12

TA

P x

SA

I-.0

18

(.232)

-.076

-.483 - .4

48

-.09

3(.1

67)

-.559

-.427 - .2

41

TA

P.4

48

(.123)*

**

3.6

53

.202 - .6

93

.554

(.117)*

**

4.7

23

.319 - .7

89

SA

I-.0

09

(.135)

-.070

-.281 - .2

62

-.08

7(.1

03)

-.840

-.294 - .1

20

TA

P x

SA

I-.4

12

(.321)

-1.2

85

-1.0

55 - .2

31

.257

(.208)

1.2

34

-.160 - .6

74

TA

P.3

89

(.156)*

2.4

97

.077 - .7

02

.515

(.111)*

**

4.6

55

.294 - .7

37

SA

I.0

24

(.113)

.209

-.202 - .2

49

-.24

8(.0

79)*

*-3

.125

2.8

70 - 3

.10

0

TA

P x

SA

I-.1

15

(.282)

-.409

-.680 - .4

49

.006

(.166)

.036

-.326 - .3

38

TA

P.3

46

(.166)*

2.0

79

.013 - .6

79

.524

(.117)*

**

4.4

86

.290 - .7

58

SA

I.1

81

(.250)

.725

-.320 - .6

82

-.34

1(.2

06)

-1.6

54

-.754 - .0

72

TA

P x

SA

I.0

45

(.499)

.090

-.95

5 - 1

.04

6.2

06

(.415)

.497

-.62

5 - 1

.037

Pre

dic

tors

b

H

.153*

E

.186***

.347***

.294***

.266***

.309***

.264***

.252***

O

.135

†

Pro

file

.137*

X

.142

†

A

.140*

C

.157**

.280***

Tab

le 2

Honesty

/Hum

ilitya

Em

otio

nality

a

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; SA

I = S

elf a

s is; H

,E,X

,A,C

,O,P

rofile

= S

elf a

s is pers

on

ality

facto

r

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

44

b(S

E)

t 95%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 95%

CI

R2

TA

P.4

59

(.135)*

**

3.4

12

.189 - .7

29

.364

(-.201)

†1.8

14

-.038 - .7

66

SA

I.0

50

(.114)

.434

-.180 - .2

79

.079

(.093)

.853

-.107 - .2

66

TA

P x

SA

I-.0

35

(.195)

-.177

-.426 - .3

57

-.040

(.435)

-.092

-.911 - .8

31

TA

P.4

59

(.162)*

*2.8

44

.136 - .7

83

.373

(.161)*

2.3

13

.050 - .6

96

SA

I.0

21

(.132)

.162

-.243 - .2

86

-.184

(.099)

-1.8

58

-.382 - .0

14

TA

P x

SA

I-.0

71

(.222)

-.321

-.516 - .3

74

.120

(.203)

.591

-.287 - .5

28

TA

P.4

26

(.146)*

*2.9

21

.134 - .7

19

.401

(.130)*

*3.0

80

.140 - .6

62

SA

I.1

71

(.163)

1.0

53

-.155 - .4

97

.106

(.140)

.755

-.175 - .3

87

TA

P x

SA

I.0

32

(.358)

.090

-.686 - .7

50

-.294

(.306)

-.961

-.906 - .3

19

TA

P.4

91

(.135)*

**

3.6

49

.221 - .7

61

.335

(.235)

1.4

25

-.136 - .8

05

SA

I.0

33

(.143)

.228

-.254 - .3

19

.188

(.126)

1.4

91

-.065 - .4

42

TA

P x

SA

I.1

45

(.256)

.567

-.368 - .6

59

-.009

(.268)

-.034

-.546 - .5

28

TA

P.4

98

(.126)*

**

3.9

40

.245 - .7

51

.415

(.134)*

*3.1

07

.147 - .6

83

SA

I.0

49

(.125)

.396

-.201 - .3

00

.137

(.104)

1.3

09

-.073 - .3

46

TA

P x

SA

I-.2

98

(.316)

-.943

-.931 - .3

35

-.360

(.235)

-1.5

35

-.830 - .1

10

TA

P.4

47

(.138)*

*3.2

50

.171 - .7

22

.390

(.150)*

2.5

97

.089 - .6

91

SA

I.1

29

(.099)

1.3

07

-.069 - .3

26

.175

(.092)

†1.8

96

-.010 - .3

61

TA

P x

SA

I.0

39

(.219)

.179

-.400 - .4

79

-.190

(.247)

-.770

-.686 - .3

05

TA

P.4

45

(.142)*

*3.1

39

.161 - .7

29

.340

(.153)*

2.2

19

.033 - .6

47

SA

I.3

68

(.245)

1.5

05

-.122 - .8

59

.379

(.257)

1.4

77

-.136 - .8

94

TA

P x

SA

I-.1

63

(.603)

-.271

-1.3

71 - 1

.044

-.167

(.678)

-.246

-1.5

25 - 1

.192

Extra

versio

na

Table

2 c

ontin

ued

H

Pro

file

.273**

A

.251**

C

.269***

O

.263*

Agre

eable

ness

a

.177*

.229*

..240**

E

..241***

X

.269**

Pre

dic

tors

b

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; SA

I = S

elf a

s is; H

,E,X

,A,C

,O,P

rofile

= S

elf a

s is pers

on

ality

facto

r

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

.246**

.245***

.220**

.255*

.228***

45

b(S

E)

t 95%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 95%

CI

R2

TA

P.3

63

(.215)

†1.6

84

-.069 - .7

94

.565

(.208)*

*2.7

12

.147 - .9

82

SA

I.0

05

(.088)

.057

-.172 - .1

82

-.070

(.112)

-.621

-.295 - .1

55

TA

P x

SA

I.0

45

(.440)

.103

-.836 - .9

27

-.330

(.355)

-.931

-1.0

42 - .3

81

TA

P.3

95

(.164)*

2.4

07

.066 - .7

23

.552

(.220)*

2.5

11

.111 - .9

92

SA

I-.0

38

(.096)

-.399

-.230 - .1

53

-.193

(.111)

-1.7

34

-.416 - .0

30

TA

P x

SA

I-.3

12

(.267)

-1.1

67

-.848 - .2

24

.123

(.304)

.406

-.486 - .7

32

TA

P.3

84

(.168)*

2.2

91

.048 - .7

20

.551

(.251)*

2.1

92

.047 - 1

.055

SA

I.0

92

(.120)

.768

-.148 - .3

33

.213

(.147)

1.4

51

-.081 - .5

08

TA

P x

SA

I-.3

42

(.331)

-1.0

34

-1.0

06 - .3

21

.136

(.542)

.251

-.951 - 1

.223

TA

P.3

69

(.207)

†1.7

79

-.047 - .7

84

.584

(.205)*

*2.8

46

.173 - .9

95

SA

I.0

94

(.137)

.688

-.180 - .3

68

.004

(.110)

.033

-.216 - .2

24

TA

P x

SA

I.2

42

(.524)

.463

-.807 - 1

.292

-.202

(.335)

-.604

-.873 - .4

69

TA

P.4

12

(.117)*

**

3.5

07

.176 - .6

47

.603

(.217)*

*2.7

79

.168 - 1

.038

SA

I.2

35

(.111)*

2.1

14

.012 - .4

58

.014

(.130)

.109

-.246 - .2

74

TA

P x

SA

I-.1

40

(.219)

-.642

-.579 - .2

98

-.147

(.405)

-.363

-.960 - .6

65

TA

P.3

86

(.158)*

2.4

47

.070 - .7

03

.470

(.270)

†1.7

43

-.070 - 1

.010

SA

I.0

88

(.139)

.635

-.190 - .3

66

.296

(.149)

†1.9

86

-.003 - .5

96

TA

P x

SA

I-.2

93

(.233)

-1.2

57

-.761 - .1

74

.249

(.422)

.591

-.596 - 1

.095

TA

P.4

19

(.143)*

*2.9

29

.132 - .7

05

.574

(.250)*

2.2

98

.074 - 1

.075

SA

I.2

79

(.273)

1.0

22

-.268 - .8

25

.168

(.270)

.621

-.373 - .7

09

TA

P x

SA

I-.3

58

(.465)

-.770

-1.2

91 - .5

74

.063

(.841)

.075

-1.6

22 - 1

.749

.164

C

.250***

.232

†

.217*

E

.191

X

.218

A

.204

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

Pre

dic

tors

b

H

Consc

ientio

usn

ess

aO

penness to

Experie

nce

a

Table

2 c

ontin

ued

O

Pro

file

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; SA

I = S

elf a

s is; H

,E,X

,A,C

,O,P

rofile

= S

elf a

s is pers

on

ality

facto

r

.235

.239*

.231

†

.379***

.275*

.283**

.281*

46

b(S

E)

t 95%

CI

R2

TA

P.7

23

(.114)*

**

6.3

67

.496 - .9

51

SA

I.0

08

(.045)

.169

-.082 - .0

97

TA

P x

SA

I-.3

03

(.250)

-1.2

14

-.803 - .1

97

TA

P.6

58

(.139)*

**

4.7

20

.379 - .9

38

SA

I-.0

84

(.056)

-1.5

09

-.196 - .0

28

TA

P x

SA

I.1

39

(.253)

.550

-.367 - .6

45

TA

P.6

37

(.136)*

**

4.6

97

.365 - .9

08

SA

I.0

75

(.067)

1.1

21

-.059 - .2

09

TA

P x

SA

I-.2

05

(.299)

-.687

-.803 - .3

93

TA

P.6

49

(.130)*

**

5.0

05

.389 - .9

08

SA

I.0

54

(.065)

.827

-.076 - .1

83

TA

P x

SA

I-.2

86

(.251)

-1.1

40

-.789 - .2

17

TA

P.7

47

(.118)*

**

6.3

57

.512 - .9

83

SA

I.0

25

(.054)

.459

-.083 - .1

33

TA

P x

SA

I-.6

58

(.228)*

*-2

.881

-1.1

16 - -.2

00

TA

P.6

30

(.179)*

**

3.5

13

.271 - .9

90

SA

I.0

81

(.070)

1.1

54

-.059 - .2

20

TA

P x

SA

I-.0

54

(.268)

-.202

-.590 - .4

82

TA

P.6

69

(.128)*

**

5.2

38

.413 - .9

25

SA

I.0

98

(.136)

.715

-.176 - .3

71

TA

P x

SA

I-.6

04

(.528)

-1.1

44

-1.6

63 - .4

54

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; SA

I = S

elf a

s is; H

,E,X

,A,C

,O,P

rofile

= S

elf a

s is pers

on

ality

facto

r

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

O

Pro

file

X

.432***

A

.448***

C

.475***

Pre

dic

tors

b

H

..427***

E

Table

2 c

ontin

uedP

rofile

a

..428***

.451***

..432***

47

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

TA

P.4

14

(.14

8)*

*2.8

07

.11

9 - .7

09

.594

(.12

4)*

**

4.7

82

.34

6 - .8

43

ST

.000

(.03

7)

.008

-.07

3 - .0

74

-.00

9(.0

30)

-.30

8-.0

69 - .0

50

TA

P x

ST

-.01

5(.0

66)

-.22

2-.1

47 - .1

17

.023

(.07

5)

.307

-.12

7 - .1

73

TA

P.3

82

(.14

5)*

2.6

42

.09

3 - .6

72

.592

(.11

8)*

**

5.0

15

.35

6 - .8

28

ST

.016

(.05

3)

.299

-.09

0 - .1

21

-.00

6(.0

43)

-.15

1-.0

92 - .0

79

TA

P x

ST

.050

(.11

4)

.434

-.17

9 - .2

78

.000

(.08

1)

.002

-.16

2 - .1

62

TA

P.3

03

(.16

6)

†1.8

26

-.02

91

- .635

.578

(.13

5)*

**

4.2

83

.30

8 - .8

48

ST

-.10

5(.0

59)

†-1

.791

-.22

2 - .0

12

.014

(.04

3)

.330

-.07

2 - .1

00

TA

P x

ST

-.19

4(.1

42)

-1.3

67

-.47

8 - .0

90

-.05

1(.1

25)

-.40

5-.3

01 - .2

00

TA

P.3

84

(.14

8)*

2.6

04

.08

9 - .6

80

.548

(.14

0)*

**

3.9

19

.26

8 - .8

27

ST

-.07

1(.0

39)

†-1

.823

-.14

9 - .0

07

-.02

8(.0

40)

-.69

1-.1

07 - .0

52

TA

P x

ST

-.01

8(.0

85)

-.21

1-.1

89 - .1

53

-.10

7(.1

06)

-1.0

12

-.31

8 - .1

05

TA

P.3

95

(.13

1)*

*3.0

15

.13

3 - .6

56

.599

(.10

9)*

**

5.4

87

.38

1 - .8

18

ST

-.00

1(.0

50)

-.02

5-.1

01 - .0

98

-.04

9(.0

40)

-1.2

40

-.12

8 - .0

30

TA

P x

ST

-.10

0(.0

65)

-1.5

31

-.23

1 - .0

31

-.04

3(.0

71)

-.61

2-.1

85 - .0

98

TA

P.3

26

(.12

7)*

2.5

81

.07

3 - .5

79

.462

(.11

3)*

**

4.0

77

.23

5 - .6

89

ST

-.08

3(.0

35)*

-2.3

61

-.15

4 - -.0

13

.011

(.04

3)

.261

-.07

4 - .0

96

TA

P x

ST

-.06

9(.0

56)

-1.2

26

-.18

1 - .0

44

-.22

0(.0

78)*

*-2

.831

-.37

6 - -.0

65

TA

P.3

04

(.15

6)

†1.9

51

-.00

8 - .6

16

.596

(.11

5)*

**

5.2

09

.36

7 - .8

25

ST

-.04

4(.0

36)

-1.2

48

-.11

6 - .0

27

-.03

9(.0

34)

-1.1

55

-.10

7 - .0

29

TA

P x

ST

-.08

6(.0

68)

-1.2

64

-.22

2 - .0

50

-.11

3(.0

75)

-1.5

14

-.26

2 - .0

36

TA

P.4

06

(.14

2)*

*2.8

72

.12

3 - .6

90

.577

(.10

7)*

**

5.3

75

.36

2 - .7

92

ST

.007

(.05

5)

.125

-.10

3 - .1

17

-.00

4(.0

45)

-.08

2-.0

94 - .0

87

TA

P x

ST

.021

(.13

0)

.163

-.23

9 - .2

81

.120

(.09

4)

1.1

58

-.07

9 - .2

97

Tab

le 3

Ho

nesty

/Hum

ilitya

Em

otio

nality

a

Pre

dic

tors

b

D

.142*

.275***

A

.188**

.278***

I

.145*

.273***

O

.157***

.294***

M

.207***

.307***

D

.176***

.307***

N

.236***

.360***

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; ST

= S

itua

tion

al tra

its; D

,I,A,M

,O,N

,D,S

= S

itua

tion

al tra

itsfa

cto

rs

S

.142*

.286***

48

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

TA

P.4

45

(.13

6)*

*3.2

78

.17

3 - .7

17

.405

(.17

4)*

2.3

22

.05

6 - .7

53

ST

.005

(.03

2)

.161

-.05

8 - .0

68

.013

(.03

3)

.384

-.05

4 - .0

79

TA

P x

ST

-.03

3(.0

56)

-.58

4-.1

44 - .0

79

.022

(.10

4)

.212

-.18

6 - .2

30

TA

P.3

86

(.12

8)*

*3.0

26

.13

1 - .6

41

.470

(.17

1)*

*2.7

42

.12

7 - .8

13

ST

.114

(.04

0)*

*2.8

22

.03

3 - .1

94

.025

(.04

6)

.538

-.06

7 - .1

16

TA

P x

ST

-.13

5(.0

78)

-1.7

33

-.29

0 - .0

21

.114

(.14

8)

.768

-.18

3 - .4

10

TA

P.4

87

(.12

9)*

**

3.7

71

.22

9 - .7

46

.369

(.19

4)

†1.9

06

-.01

9 - .7

57

ST

.005

(.03

1)

.148

-.05

7 - .0

66

-.02

3(.0

43)

-.52

8-.1

09 - .0

63

TA

P x

ST

.079

(.06

8)

1.1

66

-.05

7 - .2

15

.005

(.17

1)

.030

-.33

8 - .3

48

TA

P.4

01

(.13

3)*

*3.0

16

.13

5 - .6

68

.393

(.19

3)*

2.0

34

.00

6 - .7

80

ST

-.01

9(.0

30)

-.62

5-.0

78 - .0

41

.004

(.02

9)

.120

-.05

4 - .0

61

TA

P x

ST

-.05

5(.0

80)

-.68

5-.2

15 - .1

05

.011

(.10

7)

.105

-.20

3 - .2

25

TA

P.4

45

(.12

8)*

**

3.4

83

.18

9 - .7

00

.413

(.16

5)*

2.5

10

.08

4 - .7

43

ST

.059

(.04

0)

1.4

85

-.02

0 - .1

38

.024

(.04

0)

.608

-.05

6 - .1

04

TA

P x

ST

-.00

5(.0

75)

-.06

3-.1

55 - .1

46

.065

(.15

6)

.418

-.24

8 - .3

78

TA

P.3

91

(.16

1)*

2.4

27

.06

7 - .7

14

.314

(.18

1)

†1.7

35

-.04

8 - .6

76

ST

-.01

8(.0

43)

-.42

3-.1

03 - .0

67

-.06

0(.0

24)*

-2.5

08

-.10

8 - -.0

12

TA

P x

ST

-.10

9(.0

84)

-1.2

92

-.27

7 - .0

60

-.01

7(.0

66)

-.25

4-.1

50 - .1

16

TA

P.4

57

(.13

6)*

**

3.3

56

.18

5 - .7

30

.378

(.18

7)*

2.0

23

.00

4 - .7

51

ST

.037

(.03

8)

.983

-.03

9 - .1

14

-.01

0(.0

33)

-.31

5-.0

77 - .0

56

TA

P x

ST

-.06

7(.0

75)

-.89

9-.2

17 - .0

83

-.08

2(.1

35)

-.60

7-.3

52 - .1

88

TA

P.4

44

(.13

5)*

*3.2

77

.17

3 - .7

15

.419

(.16

2)*

2.5

90

.09

5 - .7

42

ST

.074

(.04

0)

†1.8

64

-.00

6 - .1

54

.023

(.04

1)

.547

-.06

0 - .1

05

TA

P x

ST

-.02

7(.1

05)

-.26

1-.2

36 - .1

82

.147

(.24

7)

.597

-.34

7 - .6

42

Tab

le 3

co

ntin

ued

Extra

versio

na

Agre

eab

leness

a

.181*

Pre

dic

tors

b

D

.239**

A

.242**

I

.355***

.180

.216*

O

.257**

M

.243**

.190*

.174

D

.258**

N

.268***

.199*

.233**

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; ST

= S

itua

tion

al tra

its; D

,I,A,M

,O,N

,D,S

= S

itua

tion

al tra

itsfa

cto

rs

S

.264***

.209*

49

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

TA

P.3

80

(.20

1)

†1.8

88

-.02

3 - .7

83

.545

(.22

1)*

2.4

70

.10

3 - .9

87

ST

.073

(.03

6)*

2.0

04

.00

0 - .1

45

.025

(.03

2)

.785

-.03

9 - .0

89

TA

P x

ST

-.00

4(.1

09)

-.03

7-.2

22 - .2

14

-.08

1(.1

01)

-.79

4-.2

84 - .1

23

TA

P.3

65

(.18

2)*

2.0

02

.00

0 - .7

30

.532

(.22

6)*

2.3

59

.08

0 - .9

83

ST

.031

(.04

6)

.673

-.06

1 - .1

22

.086

(.05

0)

†1.7

29

-.01

4 - .1

86

TA

P x

ST

-.05

3(.1

48)

-.35

4-.3

49 - .2

44

-.00

6(.2

22)

-.02

8-.4

51 - .4

39

TA

P.1

82

(.22

7)

.802

-.27

2 - .6

35

.684

(.17

5)*

**

3.9

05

.33

3 - 1

.03

4

ST

-.13

6(.0

68)*

-2.0

10

-.27

2 - -.0

01

-.05

6(.0

44)

-1.2

68

-.14

5 - .0

33

TA

P x

ST

-.21

5(.2

44)

-.87

8-.7

03 - .2

74

.314

(.15

8)

†1.9

89

-.00

2 - .6

31

TA

P.3

78

(.19

1)

†1.9

83

-.00

4 - .7

60

.600

(.19

9)*

*3.0

11

.20

1 - .9

99

ST

-.00

9(.0

48)

-.18

3-.1

04 - .0

87

-.00

6(.0

37)

-.16

6-.0

81 - .0

68

TA

P x

ST

.001

(.11

5)

.012

-.22

8 - .2

31

.092

(.09

2)

1.0

08

-.09

1 - .2

76

TA

P.3

69

(.18

6)

†1.9

79

-.00

4 - .7

42

.552

(.17

6)*

*3.1

31

.19

9 - .9

06

ST

.027

(.04

9)

.544

-.07

2 - .1

25

.081

(.04

9)

1.6

60

-.01

7 - .1

78

TA

P x

ST

-.02

7(.1

37)

-.19

8-.3

02 - .2

47

.178

(.13

3)

1.3

42

-.08

8 - .4

44

TA

P.3

66

(.16

1)*

2.2

76

.04

4 - .6

88

.602

(.20

6)*

*2.9

18

.18

9 - 1

.01

5

ST

-.06

5(.0

36)

†-1

.838

-.13

6 - .0

06

-.00

5(.0

37)

-.13

3-.0

78 - .0

69

TA

P x

ST

-.06

5(.0

94)

-.68

5-.2

53 - .1

24

.096

(.10

4)

.926

-.11

2 - .3

04

TA

P.3

79

(.18

6)*

2.0

40

.00

7 - .7

51

.594

(.20

2)*

*2.9

45

.19

0 - .9

98

ST

.011

(.03

7)

.298

-.06

3 - .0

86

.052

(.03

7)

1.4

06

-.02

2 - .1

26

TA

P x

ST

.020

(.13

7)

.144

-.25

5 - .2

95

.003

(.13

2)

.020

-.26

1 - .2

67

TA

P.3

25

(.14

5)*

2.2

49

.03

6 - .6

14

.596

(.21

3)*

*2.7

97

.16

9 - 1

.02

2

ST

.128

(.05

0)*

2.5

32

.02

7 - .2

29

.046

(.04

9)

.947

-.05

1 - .1

44

TA

P x

ST

.214

(.15

2)

1.4

02

-.09

1 - .5

19

.142

(.22

5)

.630

-.30

9 - .5

92

Tab

le 3

co

ntin

ued

Co

nsc

ientio

usn

ess

aO

penness to

Exp

erie

nce

a

D

.260*

.267*

Pre

dic

tors

b

A

.263**

.306***

I

.181

.284*

O

.173

.354***

M

.166

.257*

D

.167

.264**

N

.239*

.251*

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; ST

= S

itua

tion

al tra

its; D

,I,A,M

,O,N

,D,S

= S

itua

tion

al tra

itsfa

cto

rs

S

.287***

.261***

50

b(S

E)

t 9

5%

CI

R2

TA

P.6

25

(.19

5)*

*3.2

12

.23

5 - 1

.01

4

ST

.015

(.01

3)

1.1

53

-.01

1 - .0

41

TA

P x

ST

.026

(.11

4)

.228

-.20

2 - .2

55

TA

P.6

11

(.17

0)*

**

3.5

88

.27

0 - .9

51

ST

.034

(.02

3)

1.4

90

-.01

2 - .0

81

TA

P x

ST

.021

(.14

8)

.142

-.27

6 - .3

18

TA

P.7

13

(.15

6)*

**

4.5

61

.40

0 - 1

.02

7

ST

-.00

6(.0

23)

-.24

4-.0

51 - .0

40

TA

P x

ST

.146

(.11

6)

1.2

51

-.08

7 - .3

79

TA

P.6

97

(.12

0)*

**

5.8

14

.45

7 - .9

37

ST

-.01

4(.0

15)

-.94

4-.0

44 - .0

16

TA

P x

ST

.083

(.06

1)

1.3

48

-.04

0 - .2

06

TA

P.7

58

(.12

50

***

6.0

42

.50

7 - 1

.00

9

ST

.056

(.02

1)

1.2

25

-.01

6 - .0

68

TA

P x

ST

.124

(.10

3)

1.2

05

-.08

2 - .3

29

TA

P.6

02

(.14

80

***

4.0

71

.30

6 - .8

98

ST

-.02

7(.0

13)*

-2.0

50

-.05

3 - -.0

01

TA

P x

ST

-.01

2(.0

54)

-.22

8-.1

20 - .0

96

TA

P.6

51

(.17

0)*

**

3.8

39

.31

1 - .9

90

ST

.010

(.01

8)

.519

-.02

7 - .0

46

TA

P x

ST

-.06

0(.1

12)

-.54

0-.2

85 - .1

64

TA

P.6

24

(.16

4)*

**

3.8

09

.29

6 - .9

52

ST

.037

(.02

0)

†1.8

57

-.00

3 - .0

76

TA

P x

ST

.142

(.20

5)

.690

-.26

9 - .5

52

Tab

le 3

co

ntin

ued

D

.411***

Pro

filea

Pre

dic

tors

b

A

.417***

I

.427**

O

.446***

M

.426***

D

.413***

N

.423***

No

tes

: Dep

en

den

t varia

ble

= S

elf's p

erc

ep

tion

of o

ther's p

erc

ep

tion

; Data

are

un

sta

nd

ard

ized

reg

ressio

n c

oeffic

ien

ts (N

= 5

9)

aMo

del p

ers

on

ality

facto

r pair

bTA

P =

Ta

rget a

s perc

eiv

ed

; ST

= S

itua

tion

al tra

its; D

,I,A,M

,O,N

,D,S

= S

itua

tion

al tra

itsfa

cto

rs

†p <

.10, *

p <

.05, *

*p

< .0

1, *

**

p <

.001

S

.434***

51

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 41(3), 258-290.

Baumeister, R.F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological

Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing

individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853-885.

Burusic, J., & Ribar, M. (2014). The moderating role of self-presentation tactics

judgments of personality traits and self-presentation, 73(4), 235–242.

http://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000142

Carlson, E. N. (2016a). Meta-accuracy and relationship quality: Weighing the costs and

benefitsof knowing what people really think about you. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000107

Carlson, E. N. (2016b). Do psychologically adjusted individuals know what other people

reallythink about them: The link between psychological adjustment and meta-

accuracy. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 717-725.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550616646424

Carlson, E. N., & Furr, R. M. (2012). Resolution of meta-accuracy: Should people trust

their beliefs about how others see them. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 00(0), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550612461653

Carlson, E. N., & Furr, R. M. (2009). Evidence of differential meta-accuracy: People

understand the different impressions they make. Psychological Science, 20(8),

1033-1039.

Carlson, E. N., Furr, R. M., & Vazire, S. (2010). Do we know the first impressions we

make: Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first

impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 94-98.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550609356028

Carlson, E. N., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Meta-accuracy: Do we know how others see us.

In S. Vazire & T. D. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of self-knowledge (242-257). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

52

Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Meta-insight: Do people really know

how others see them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 831-

846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024297

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgement: A realistic approach.

Psychological Review, 102(4), 652-670.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved

from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition of personality? European

Journal of Personality, 8, 149–162.

John, O. P. & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality

traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique

perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521-551.

Jones, E. E. (1979). The rocky road from acts to dispositions. American psychologist,

34(2), 107-117.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological

review, 80(4), 237-251.

Kenny, D. A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1993). Do people know how others view them: An

empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 145-161.

Leary, M., & Allen, A. (2011). Personality and persona: Personality processes in self-

presentation. Journal of Personality, 1191-1218.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review

and two-component model, 107(1), 34–47.

Levesque, M. J. (1997). Meta-accuracy among acquainted individuals: A social relations

analysis of interpersonal perception and meta-perception. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 72(1), 66-74.

Malloy, T. E., Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., Agatstein, F., & Winquist, L. (1997).

Interpersonal perception and meta-perception in nonoverlapping social groups.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 390-398.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In Oliver, O.

53

P., Robins, R. W., & Lawrence, A. P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory

and Research (158-182). New York, NY: Guilford.

Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman,

R. A., Ziegler, M., … Funder, D. C. (2014) The situational eight DIAMONDS: A

taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 107(4), 677-718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037250

Schlenker, B.R., & Leary, M.R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A

conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.

Shechtman, Z., & Kenny, D. A. (1994). Meta-perception accuracy: An Israeli study.

Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15(4), 451-465.

Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: a matter of pragmatics.

Psychological Review, 91(4), 457-477.

Zoellner, T., Rabe, S., Karl, A., & Maercker, A. (2008). Posttraumatic growth in accident

survivors: Openness and optimism as predictors of its constructive or illusory

sides. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64(3), 245-253.

54