Individual differences in target judgability by close others and strangers

Abstract

Individuals make judgments of others' personality characteristics every day. While some judgments are fairly inconsequential, such as whether the stranger on the sidewalk was unfriendly, others are very far-reaching, such as whether one's partner would be a committed spouse. Individuals rely on such judgments to guide behavior and inform real-life, daily decisions. To the extent that judgments are accurate, individuals can make informed decisions, resulting in positive outcomes. Individual differences in target judgability, or differences in the accuracy with which targets' personality traits are judged, is a crucial yet understudied facilitator of accurate personality judgments (Human & Biesanz, 2013). While some targets are known and understood well by their close others, other targets remain unpredictable and puzzling to their close others even after lengthy relationships. Gordon Allport, the founder of modern trait psychology, introduced the study of judgability to the field, saying "There are 'open' personalities about whom all judges agree exceptionally well; there are 'enigmatic' personalities about whom they agree hardly at all. Who are these people?" (Allport, 1937, p. 443). More than 80 years later, there is still not a clear answer to this famous question. The current research addresses this gap in the literature by (a) replicating initial judgability research by examining individual differences in target judgability and personality, behavioral, and psychological adjustment correlates associated with judgability, and (b) extending initial judgability research by exploring if judgability, initially defined as occurring in the context of close relationships, extends to strangers (Colvin, 1993a). Three hypotheses were derived based on previous judgability research and relevant literature. First, it was hypothesized that judgability would positively relate to target emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Second, it was hypothesized that judgability would positively relate to target psychological adjustment. Third, measures of close other judgability (COJ) and stranger judgability (SJ) were hypothesized to correlate positively. Across two studies, I evaluated these hypotheses by (a) collecting ratings of target personality by targets, close others, and strangers; (b) computing both COJ and SJ scores for each target by computing profile correlations between targets' self-ratings and ratings of target personality by up to three close others per target and 40 strangers per target; (c) exploring relations between COJ and SJ with ratings of personality, social behavior, and psychological adjustment gathered from independent sources; and (d) examining the relationship between COJ and SJ. Results of Study 1 replicated previous judgability research (Colvin, 1993a, 1993b), revealing evidence that (a) targets differ in the extent to which they are judgable by close others, and (b) close other judgability is related to target emotional stability, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and psychological adjustment. Results of Study 2 suggested that (a) targets display individual differences in judgability when evaluated by strangers; (b) stranger judgability is minimally related to target personality, (c) not related to target psychological adjustment, and (d) related to targets' expressive, talkative, engaged, and social behavior. While COJ and SJ are positively related (r = .39), the magnitude of the correlation is not as strong as would be expected between two measures that reflect the same construct. Cumulatively, findings suggest that COJ and SJ reflect separate constructs that display some overlap. Research and theory suggest the possibility that COJ is associated with psychological adjustment, while SJ is associated with the expressiveness of self-relevant information (Funder, 1995). Future research directions are suggested. --Author's abstract