Blissfully Blind or Painfully Aware? Exploring the Beliefs People With Interpersonal Problems Have About Their Reputation

Carlson, Erika N.; Wright, Aidan G.C.; Imam, Hira

doi:10.1111/jopy.12284

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

(84 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The purpose of the present study was to examine the degree of self‐other agreement and meta‐accuracy for the Big Five personality dimensions, and to test whether depressive symptoms and low self‐esteem bias our views of others' personality or perceptions of how others view our personality after brief interactions. The present study joins a growing body of recent literature (e.g., Borkenau, Mosch, Tandler, & Wolf, ; Carlson, ; Carlson, Wright, & Imam, ) examining the importance of psychological and interpersonal adjustment with regard to meta‐accuracy. However, studies that examine both self‐other agreement and meta‐accuracy in a single sample remain fairly uncommon.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Self‐Other Agreement and Metaperception Accuracy Across the Big Five: Examining the Roles of Depression and Self‐Esteem

Moritz

Roberts

2017

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Self‐Other Agreement and Metaperception Accuracy Across the Big Five: Examining the Roles of Depression and Self‐Esteem

Moritz

Roberts

2017

Journal of Personality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That said, while normativity can reflect genuine insight into being seen in a normative or desirable way, it also tends to artificially inflate meta-accuracy for statistical rather than conceptual reasons. Given that normativity reflects an unknown combination of statistical artifact, positivity, and genuine insight into making a normative impression, researchers conservatively consider it as bias and control for it when indexing meta-accuracy (Carlson, 2016a, 2016b; Carlson et al, 2010, 2017; Elsaadawy et al, 2021; Mosch & Borkenau, 2016; Tissera, 2023).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Metanormativity. One of the first decompositions researchers make when using SAM is distinctive and normative components (Biesanz, 2010), and as such, this has become standard practice for meta-accuracy as well (Carlson, 2016a(Carlson, , 2016bCarlson et al, 2017;Elsaadawy et al, 2021;Gallrein et al, 2013). Conceptually, people might use information about what the typical person is like to form a metaperception, or normativity (Carlson & Kenny, 2012).…”

Section: Estimation Of Fixed and Random Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining individual differences in metaperceptive accuracy using the social meta-accuracy model.

Hater,

Elsaadawy,

Biesanz

et al. 2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do individuals differ in understanding how others see them and who is particularly good at it? Answering these questions about the "good metaperceiver" is relevant given the beneficial outcomes of meta-accuracy. However, there likely is more than one type of the good metaperceiver: One who knows the specific impressions they make more than others do (dyadic meta-accuracy) and one who knows their reputation more than others do (generalized meta-accuracy). To identify and understand these good metaperceivers, we introduce the social meta-accuracy model (SMAM) as a statistical and conceptual framework and apply the SMAM to four samples of first impression interactions. As part of our demonstration, we also investigated the routes to and the correlates of both types of good metaperceivers. Results from SMAM show that, overall, people were able to detect the unique and general first impressions they made, but there was little evidence for individual differences in dyadic meta-accuracy in a first impression. In contrast, there were substantial individual differences in generalized meta-accuracy, and this ability was largely explained by being transparent (i.e., good metaperceivers were seen as they saw themselves). We also observed some evidence that good generalized metaperceivers in a first impression tend to be extraverted and popular. This work demonstrated that the SMAM is a useful tool for identifying and understanding both types of good metaperceivers and paves the way for future work on individual differences in meta-accuracy in other contexts.

show abstract

“…That is, more positive and accurate metaperceptions have both been associated with important social experiences both in first impressions contexts (Carlson, 2016b; Tissera et al, 2021) and within established relationships (Carlson & Oltmanns, 2018; Ohtsubo et al, 2009; Tissera & Lydon, 2022). Beyond the social implications, positive and accurate metaperceptions are also associated with greater personal well-being (Carlson, 2016a; Carlson et al, 2011, 2017; Moritz & Roberts, 2018; Mosch & Borkenau, 2016; Tissera et al, 2021). Taken together, there is converging evidence in the literature that holding both positive and accurate metaperceptions are generally adaptive.…”

Section: How Do We Index Meta-accuracy and Meta-positivity?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…& Oltmanns, 2018;Ohtsubo et al, 2009;Tissera & Lydon, 2022). Beyond the social implications, positive and accurate metaperceptions are also associated with greater personal well-being(Carlson, 2016a;Carlson et al, 2011Carlson et al, , 2017Moritz & Roberts, 2018;Mosch …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“Zooming” in on positive and accurate metaperceptions in first impressions: Examining the links with social anxiety and liking in online video interactions.

Tissera¹,

Mignault²,

Human³

2023

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many of us rely on online communication methods, such as videoconferencing, to connect with each other. However, less is known about how interpersonal processes unfold in this novel context. For example, do people believe others view them positively, displaying meta-positivity, and realize others' unique impression of them, displaying distinctive meta-accuracy, and do these processes have implications for liking in social interactions? And, do the same characteristics that predict lower meta-positivity and distinctive metaaccuracy in-person, such as being more socially anxious, predict similar difficulties in video interactions? We examined these questions in an online first impressions context using a videoconferencing platform, Zoom (N = 555; N Dyads = 3,068), and compared them against an in-person sample (N = 305; N Dyads = 1,683). People believed others saw them positively and understood others' unique impressions of them, displaying similar degrees of meta-positivity and distinctive meta-accuracy in video interactions as in inperson interactions. In both contexts, meta-positivity was related to liking others more, whereas distinctive meta-accuracy was related to being liked more by others. Further, social anxiety seemed to impair metapositivity, which in turn contributed to why they liked others less in both contexts. In contrast to in-person interactions, social anxiety did not impair distinctive meta-accuracy in video interactions. Therefore, distinctive meta-accuracy did not account for the links between social anxiety and being liked in the video interaction context. Overall, metaperception processes generally operated very similarly online as in-person, though there were some noteworthy exceptions, in turn potentially bearing important implications for those with higher social anxiety.

show abstract

Blissfully Blind or Painfully Aware? Exploring the Beliefs People With Interpersonal Problems Have About Their Reputation

Abstract: Metaperceptions were linked to interpersonal problems, and these expectations might partially explain some maladaptive patterns of behavior.

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Self‐Other Agreement and Metaperception Accuracy Across the Big Five: Examining the Roles of Depression and Self‐Esteem

Self‐Other Agreement and Metaperception Accuracy Across the Big Five: Examining the Roles of Depression and Self‐Esteem

Examining individual differences in metaperceptive accuracy using the social meta-accuracy model.

“Zooming” in on positive and accurate metaperceptions in first impressions: Examining the links with social anxiety and liking in online video interactions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About