Skip to main content
Original Article

Agree or Disagree?

Influences on Consensus in Personality Judgments

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000165

Consensus obtained in personality judgments based on thin slices of behavior was examined by manipulating the shared meaning of the traits being judged, the accountability for the judgments, and the amount of target information. 160 judges rated a total of 60 teachers on the Big Five personality dimensions. Consensus was approached from a judge and from a target perspective. A shared meaning had a negative effect on consensus in Extraversion ratings. Accountability had a consistently negative effect across consensus perspectives. A positive effect for amount of target information was found for Neuroticism. Additionally, it was shown that, under different conditions, judgments were based more or less on shared stereotypes. Results suggest that the degree to which we agree on our judgments of others can easily be manipulated by external influences, thus involving significant practical implication for various contexts.

References

  • Ambady, N. , Bernieri, F. J. , Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of Social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna, (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201–271). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ambady, N. , Gray, H. (2002). On being sad and mistaken: Mood effects on the accuracy of thin slice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 947–961. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ambady, N. , Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ambady, N. , Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431–441. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Biesanz, J. C. , & Human, L. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589–594. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Blackman, M. C. , & Funder, D. C. (1998). The effect of information on consensus and accuracy in personality judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 164–181. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carney, D. R. , Colvin, C. R. , Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054–1072. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chaplin, W. F. , & Panter, A. T. (1993). Shared meaning and the convergence among observers’ personality descriptions. Journal of Personality, 61, 553–585. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Costa, P. T. , McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5–13. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Funder, D. C. , & Sneed, C. D. (1993). Behavioral manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 479–490. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gill, M. J. , Swann, W. B. Jr. (2004). On what it means to know someone: A matter of pragmatics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 405–418. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gordon, R. A. , & Stuecher, U. (1992). The effect of anonymity and increased accountability on the linguistic complexity of teaching evaluations. Journal of Psychology, 126, 639–649. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lerner, J. S. , & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ostendorf, F. , & Angleitner, A. (2001). NEO-PI-R: NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar – Revidierte Form [NEO-PI-R: NEO Personality Inventory – Revised form]. In W. Sarges, H. Wottawa, (Eds.), Handbuch wirtschaftspsychologischer Testverfahren (pp. 409–415). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rozelle, R. M. , & Baxter, J. C. (1981). Influence of role pressures on the perceiver: Judgments of videotaped interviews varying judge accountability and responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 437–41. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74–83. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wilson, T. D. , & LaFleur, S. J. (1995). Knowing what you’ll do: Effects of analyzing reasons on self-prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 21–35. First citation in articleCrossrefGoogle Scholar