The judgment of personality: An overview of current empirical research findings

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the current state of knowledge in personality judgment research. We discuss accuracy and bias in personality judgments, including types of inter-rater agreement and elements of criteria used to determine levels of agreement and accuracy. We then address 1) the words and phrases that people use to describe one another and themselves, 2) research investigating judgments of targets by perceivers per trait, and 3) research investigating judgments of targets by perceivers on profiles or sets of traits. We also provide 4) an outlook regarding important research questions that remain unanswered in this field.

Testing perceivers’ accuracy and accuracy awareness when forming personality impressions from faces

“…Overall, the state of the evidence on the accuracy of personality impressions from faces is mixed with many inconsistent findings. The majority of published studies found above-chance accuracy for extraversion impressions (Naumann et al, 2009;Penton-Voak et al, 2006), which is in line with previous work on personality judgments in more information-rich environments, such as brief face-to-face interactions (Kenny & West, 2008;Letzring et al, 2021). However, some studies did not find evidence for accuracy in spite of similar methods and sample sizes (Ames et al, 2010;Shevlin et al, 2003).…”

“…In some studies, perceivers evaluated targets with the same personality questionnaire that was also used by targets (Naumann et al, 2009;Nestler et al, 2012). In others, perceivers' judgments were assessed with simpler rating scales, such as a single 2 Research on the accuracy of personality judgments sometimes distinguishes between different types of accuracy (Back & Nestler, 2016;Biesanz, 2010;Hall et al, 2018;Letzring, 2008;Letzring et al, 2021). Accuracy can be examined at the inter-target or intra-target level.…”

“…Perhaps the only strong conclusion that can be drawn based on existing studies is that the accuracy of facial impressions is unclear due to the many inconsistent findings in the literature. Extraversion judgments usually show the highest levels of accuracy in personality rating tasks (Kenny & West, 2008;Letzring et al, 2021). Some studies also found significant levels of accuracy for extraversion impressions based on face images.…”

Ten steps toward a better personality science – a rejoinder to the comments

“…Fifth, listing the individual propositions constituting the consensus point by point in a very fine-grained manner (and even numbering them) is highly recommendable (e.g., Letzring et al, 2021), because it makes it easier to call out the particular elements of a consensus that one deems questionable. Sixth, any consensus should always be regarded as preliminary and versioning should probably be the norm.…”

“…One of us (IT) has repeatedly argued that a six-factor structure is more valid (e.g., Thielmann et al, 2021). One of us (DL) is not even convinced that the source of item-covariation in the relevant studies lies in the targets (Letzring et al, 2021; see also Borkenau, 1990). So, our call for greater openness to explicit consensus-formation clearly is not a covert appeal to finally give in and accept the Big Five as law of the land.…”