Abstract
Consensus obtained in personality judgments based on thin slices of behavior was examined by manipulating the shared meaning of the traits being judged, the accountability for the judgments, and the amount of target information. 160 judges rated a total of 60 teachers on the Big Five personality dimensions. Consensus was approached from a judge and from a target perspective. A shared meaning had a negative effect on consensus in Extraversion ratings. Accountability had a consistently negative effect across consensus perspectives. A positive effect for amount of target information was found for Neuroticism. Additionally, it was shown that, under different conditions, judgments were based more or less on shared stereotypes. Results suggest that the degree to which we agree on our judgments of others can easily be manipulated by external influences, thus involving significant practical implication for various contexts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
