Search

For decades, a recurring question in person perception research has been whether people's perceptions of others' personality traits are related to how they see themselves on these traits. Indeed, evidence for such "assumed similarity" effects has been found repeatedly, at least for certain characteristics. However, recent research suggests that these findings may be an artifact of individual differences in how positively or negatively perceivers see others in general, irrespective of trait-specific content. Overcoming the limitations of prior studies, the present work provides a critical test of trait-specificity versus global positivity as sources of assumed similarity in personality judgments. In two large studies (Ns = 2,287 and 3,563) with preregistered hypotheses and analyses, perceivers rated 10 targets (strangers) each on the honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience; HEXACO (Study 1) and Big Five (Study 2) dimensions to capture their perceptions of the "average other" (i.e., perceiver effects). We then computed "positivity-corrected" assumed similarity effects using trait-based and profile-based approaches. Although controlling for global positivity considerably reduced the strength of assumed similarity, perceiver effects were still positively related to self-reports. As predicted, these assumed similarity effects occurred foremostly for traits strongly linked to values. Specifically, in Study 1, positivity-corrected assumed similarity was observed only for honesty-humility and openness to experience, albeit meaningful effects merely occurred on one of the two self-report measures. In Study 2, traits' value-relatedness remained a unique moderator of assumed similarity after accounting for traits' positivity (i.e., social desirability). These findings demonstrate that assumed similarity is indeed, to some extent, trait-specific. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Pre-registration of materials, hypothesis, and analyses for a study of associations between strength of gender identification and perceptions of one’s own interpersonal problems and the interpersonal problems of members of one’s gender ingroup.

The goal of this project is to compare the relationships between social class and goals for interpersonal and intergroup interactions.

Prior research suggests that individuals who more strongly identify with an ingroup are more apt to describe themselves and a typical ingroup member similarly; but questions remain regarding how much those individual differences in self-group similarity might reflect “self-stereotyping” versus “social projection” processes (and if projection increases or decreases stereotype accuracy). To explore these issues, university students will indicate (a) the strength of their identification with their university and their communal motives towards fellow students, and (b) their personal values (i.e., Self-Ratings) and perceptions of the values of the typical student at their university (i.e., Other-Ratings).

Research suggests that a two-dimensional circumplex defined by the orthogonal dimensions of agency and communion can provide a common space for conceptualizing and comparing different types of interpersonal dispositions. To the degree that individual differences both in attachment styles and in leadership styles reflect individual differences in underlying dispositions towards agency and communion, there may be meaningful associations between attachment style and leadership style. To explore this possibility, the present study will assess if the attachment dimensions of “anxiety” and “avoidance” or the attachment styles labeled “secure”, “fearful”, “preoccupied” and “dismissing” are predictive of leadership styles associated with distinct regions of the interpersonal circumplex. Given that attachment is emerging as an important influence in many aspects of organizational behavior, it is important that we examine its association with leadership using a comprehensive measure of leadership behaviors that includes both positive and negative (e.g., “light” and “dark”) leadership styles. This may help us understand the dynamics that underlie the behavioral tendencies of leaders with different attachment styles.

Stage 1 Registered Report protocol that received in-principle acceptance at Collabra: Psychology

Research suggests that a two-dimensional circumplex defined by the orthogonal dimensions of agency and communion can provide a common space for conceptualizing and comparing different types of interpersonal dispositions. To the degree that individual differences in both attachment style (in the context of close relationships) and leadership style (in the context of supervisory relationships) reflect individual differences in underlying agentic and communal dispositions, there may be meaningful associations between attachment style and leadership style. To explore this possibility, the present study will assess if supervisors’ anxious and avoidant attachment styles in their close relationships are associated with those supervisors’ abilities to express in their supervisory interactions behaviors associated with each region of the interpersonal circumplex. Given that attachment is emerging as an important influence in many aspects of organizational behavior, it is important that we examine its association with leadership using a comprehensive measure of leadership behaviors that includes both positive and negative (e.g., “light” and “dark”) leadership styles. This may help us understand the dynamics that underlie the behavioral tendencies of leaders with different attachment styles.

Preregistration of materials, hypothesis, and analyses for a study of associations between workplace supervisors’ attachment style and interpersonal leadership style based on ratings provided by both supervisors and one or more of their supervisees. Specifically, we will assess (a) supervisors’ self-perceptions of their anxious and avoidant attachment styles outside the workplace (using the Experiences in Close Relationship scale; ECR), and (b) supervisees’ perceptions of their supervisor’s interpersonal behaviors (using 16 items from the Interpersonal Adjective Scales; IAS) and behavioral capacities (using 16 items from the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Efficacy; CSIE).

Supplemental Material, sj-doc-1-spp-10.1177_1948550613506718 for Establishing Commonality Versus Affirming Distinctiveness: Patterns of Personality Judgments in China and the United States by Kenneth D. Locke, Dianhan Zheng and Juliane Smith in Social Psychological and Personality Science

©American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/bul0000220 To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = 0.37 to 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.