Cited by 184Personality Traits and PsychologyPsychological Testing and AssessmentSocial and Intergroup Psychology

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

Wood, Dustin, Harms, Peter, Vazire, Simine·2010·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0019390

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The informants' self-reports used as statistical controls help keep several potential informant-report confounds in check, including self-projection and differences in informants' general scale use.

    “These controls help to keep several potential informant-report confounds in check, including self-projection (i.e., informants projecting their own attributes onto their acquaintance; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010) and differences in informants' general scale use (e.g., acquiescence tendency, extreme scoring; Paulhus & Vazire, 2007).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S.
Affiliations
  • Wake Forest University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2010
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
174-190
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2103102047
Cited by
184
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
13.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
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
perceiver effects, projective techniques, person perception, dispositional characteristics, personality traits, personality disorders, well-being, peer liking, trait covariation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Personal Satisfaction, Personality, Projection, Self Concept, Social Adjustment, Social Perception, Young Adult

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