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

IF 6.4 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Journal of personality and social psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-18 DOI:10.1037/pspp0000479
Leonie Hater, Norhan Elsaadawy, Jeremy C Biesanz, Simon M Breil, Lauren J Human, Lisa M Niemeyer, Hasagani Tissera, Mitja D Back, Erika N Carlson
{"title":"Examining individual differences in metaperceptive accuracy using the social meta-accuracy model.","authors":"Leonie Hater, Norhan Elsaadawy, Jeremy C Biesanz, Simon M Breil, Lauren J Human, Lisa M Niemeyer, Hasagani Tissera, Mitja D Back, Erika N Carlson","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 (<i>dyadic meta-accuracy</i>) and one who knows their reputation more than others do <i>(generalized meta-accuracy</i>). 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1119-1135"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality and social psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000479","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

使用社会元准确性模型检验元知觉准确性的个体差异。
在理解别人对自己的看法方面,个人之间有多大程度的差异?考虑到元准确性的有益结果,回答这些关于“好的元感知者”的问题是相关的。然而,优秀的元感知者可能不止一种:一种比其他人更了解自己留下的具体印象(二元元准确性),另一种比其他人更了解自己的声誉(广义元准确性)。为了识别和理解这些优秀的元感知者,我们引入了社会元准确性模型(SMAM)作为一个统计和概念框架,并将SMAM应用于四个第一印象互动样本。作为我们演示的一部分,我们还研究了两种良好的元感知器的路径和相关关系。SMAM的结果表明,总的来说,人们能够察觉到他们所留下的独特和一般的第一印象,但几乎没有证据表明第一印象的二元元准确性存在个体差异。相比之下,广义元准确性存在显著的个体差异,这种能力在很大程度上可以通过透明来解释(即,优秀的元感知者被视为他们看待自己的方式)。我们还观察到一些证据表明,良好的广义元知觉者在第一印象中往往是外向和受欢迎的。这项工作表明,SMAM是识别和理解这两种类型的优秀元感知者的有用工具,并为未来研究其他背景下元准确性的个体差异铺平了道路。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
3.90%
发文量
250
期刊介绍: Journal of personality and social psychology publishes original papers in all areas of personality and social psychology and emphasizes empirical reports, but may include specialized theoretical, methodological, and review papers.Journal of personality and social psychology is divided into three independently edited sections. Attitudes and Social Cognition addresses all aspects of psychology (e.g., attitudes, cognition, emotion, motivation) that take place in significant micro- and macrolevel social contexts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信