The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability.
Abstract
Conducted a peer rating study (N = 111) to determine the effects of (a) level of acquaintanceship between rater and target and (b) degree of public observability of rated personality traits on peers' perceptions of target personality characteristics. As hypothesized, I found the agreement between peer ratings and target self-ratings to vary linearly and directly with acquaintanceship. In addition, acquaintanceship interacted with observability such that the public visibility of the behavior domain being judged was an important determinant of agreement for low to moderately acquainted peer dyads but not for highly acquainted dyads. Contrary to expectations, however, trait observability did not show a main effect with regard to self-peer agreement. The basis of the study is described with reference to the lens model of inferential behavior, and implications of the results are discussed with reference to past and future attempts at evaluating consensus and accuracy in person perception. Person perception is a topic that persists as an area of research interest in psychology. This interest is maintained, in all likelihood, by an appreciation for the fact that observers' subjective evaluations of others play a large part in everyday social encounters. Observer judgments are also considered worthy of empirical study because they are often integral components of more formal interpersonal encounters, such as employment interviews and clinical psychodiagnostic assessments. It is, therefore, not surprising that much of the past research on person perception has dealt explicitly with the issue of accuracy. As a lay person, it is gratifying to think that one can be knowledgeable
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
On the psychology of prediction.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0034747 · Cited by 6,202
Cited by
The trouble with overconfidence.
Moore, D. A., & Healy, P. J. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.115.2.502 · Cited by 2,358
On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach
Funder, D. C. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652 · Cited by 1,342
Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model.
Vazire, S. (2010) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017908 · Cited by 1,080
Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence
Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599 · Cited by 519
Self‐knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves?
Vazire, S., & Carlson, E. N. (2010) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00280.x · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Paunonen, S. V.
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1989-05
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 823-833
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2113543140
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.823
- The paper
- Paunonen, S. V. (1989). Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.823
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.