CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,342Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 173 of the 173 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach

Funder, David C.·1995·Psychological Review
DOI 10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The "accuracy paradigm" for the study of personality judgment provides an important, new complement to the "error paradigm" that dominated this area of research for almost 2 decades. The present article introduces a specific approach within the accuracy paradigm called the Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM). RAM begins with the assumption that personality traits are real attributes of individuals. This assumption entails the use of a broad array of criteria for the evaluation of personality judgment and leads to a model that describes accuracy as a function of the availability, detection, and utilization of relevant behavioral cues. RAM provides a common explanation for basic moderators of accuracy, sheds light on how these moderators interact, and outlines a research agenda that includes the reintegration of the study of error with the study of accuracy.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652

Cites

173 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Baumeister, R. E., & Tice, D. M. (1988). Metatraits. Journal of Personality, 30, 571–597.
  2. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  3. Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (in press). Congruence of self and others' judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  4. Funder, D. C., & West, S. G. (1993b). Viewpoints on personality: Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment [Special issue]. Journal of Personality, 61, 457–476.
  5. Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., DiGeronimo, K., & Beik, M. ( 1992). Differential accuracy across traits: Examination of a functional hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 688–698.
  6. Hastie, R., & Rasinski, K. A. (1988). The concept of accuracy in social judgment. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 193–208). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Ickes, W. (1993). Empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality, 61, 587– 610.
  8. Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (in press). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on the accuracy of self-perception. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  9. Rorer, L. G. (1991). Some myths of science in psychology. In D. Cicchetti & W. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (pp. 61–87). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  10. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–214). New York: Academic Press.
  11. Schneider, D. J., Hastorf, A. H., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1979). Person perception (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  12. Westbrook, M. (1974). Judgment of emotion: Attention vs. accuracy. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, 383–389.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1,342

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Funder, D. C.
Affiliations
University of California, Riverside (US)
Corresponding author
Funder, David C.
ORCID
Funder, David C.
Venue
Psychological Review
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
652-670
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
DOI
10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652
OpenAlex
W2067129080
Cited by
1,342
References
173
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 125 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 52 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 75 · 2012: 45
FWCI
30.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH42427, R01MH042427, R01-MH42427)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
personality judgment, personality traits, behavioral cues, judgment accuracy
MeSH terms
Humans, Judgment, Personality, Personality Assessment

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