The Correlates of Similarity Estimates Are Often Misleadingly Positive

Abstract

Research on similarity constructs (e.g., dyadic similarity, personality stability; judgment agreement and accuracy) frequently find them to be associated with positive outcomes. However, a methodological pitfall associated with common ‘overall similarity’ indices, which we term the normative-desirability confound (NDC), will regularly result in similarity constructs apparently having more positive effects than they do in reality. In essence, when an individual is estimated to be similar to another person by common indices, this will strongly indicate that the individual has desirable characteristics. Consequently, the correlates of overall similarity indices can often be interpreted as indicating the beneficial effects of having desirable characteristics, without needing to attribute any additional salutary effect to similarity. We show that this confound is present in overall similarity estimates for a wide range of constructs (e.g., personality traits, attitudes, emotions, behaviors, values), how it can be accounted for, and discuss larger implications for our understanding of similarity constructs.

Meta-accuracy and relationship quality: Weighing the costs and benefits of knowing what people really think about you.

“…First, meta-accuracy was operationalized as profile agreement, but there are many ways to conceptualize and measure meta-accuracy that might yield different results (Carlson & Kenny, 2012). The profile approach is a statistically powerful tool that avoids multiple comparisons across traits, but indices such as distinctive meta-accuracy are quite conservative and can be difficult to interpret (Wood & Furr, 2015). For example, if Meg makes and realizes she makes normative impressions, her distinctive meta-accuracy would appear to be zero (i.e., there is no distinctive information to agree upon).…”

“…In keeping with past work, a positive impression is operationalized as the average impression profile of the sample (i.e., the normative profile), which is highly socially desirable and yields nearly identical results when replaced with item social desirability ratings (Biesanz, 2010 Biesanz, 2010; Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009; Human et al, 2012; Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010; Wood & Furr, 2015). Please see the supplemental materials for results when the normative profile was replaced by the social desirability profile.…”

Do Psychologically Adjusted Individuals Know What Other People Really Think About Them? The Link Between Psychological Adjustment and Meta-Accuracy

“…In keeping with past work, the normative component is operationalized as the average profile of the sample, which is highly socially desirable and yields nearly identical results when replaced by a socially desirable profile (Biesanz, 2010;Wood & Furr, 2015). The distinctive component (distinctive impression) is the impression profile when the normative profile has been removed from the raw impression profile.…”

Initial Evidence that Individuals Form New Relationships with Partners that More Closely Match their Ideal Preferences

“…Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the association between stated ideal preferences of one partner and the self-evaluations of the other partner may reflect stereotype accuracy, meaning that the original participants may share a similar view of an ideal partner (e.g., rating "honesty" as important but "moody" as less important), and the new partners may perceive themselves in a similar manner (e.g., rating themselves relatively high on "honesty" and relatively low on "moody") [29]. If so, the unique preferences of one partner would not predict the unique self-evaluations of the other partner.…”