Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
What Elements of an Online Social Networking Profile Predict Target-Rater Agreement in Personality? David C. Evans Ph.D. P...
The Science of Interpersonal Perception <ul><li>We know a lot about  what  people think about others’ personality, but far...
Impression Accuracy on the Web <ul><li>Social media (networking sites, blogs, microblogs, photo sites, job sites) have bec...
Impression Accuracy on the Web <ul><li>The present study addressed the following questions (see Funder, 1999): </li></ul><...
In Situ  Method <ul><li>We launched  YouJustGetMe  on the Facebook platform.  </li></ul><ul><li>Users rated their own pers...
In Vitro  Method <ul><li>We created  YouJustGetMe.com  a fully functional social networking website.  </li></ul><ul><li>We...
C’mon, give something back. <ul><li>Big-5 domain scores  of both the self-ratings and the guesses were displayed so users ...
Analysis <ul><li>Do environments matter (Facebook vs. YouJustGetMe)?  Does sex of rater and sex of target matter? </li></u...
Do environments differ?  Does sex of rater and sex of target matter? <ul><li>People get each other.  Overall impression ac...
Which profile elements matter? Which don’t? When these clues were given on profiles, people were  more understood . beta p...
Disclosure mediates gender effect. <ul><li>Women and men completed similar number of profile elements,   p  = .2. </li></u...
Discussion – Which sources reveal which traits? Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Mean Tra...
<ul><li>How effectively are profile owners conveying their personality to visitors? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online impressio...
<ul><li>Why are certain profile elements better at conveying your personality? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Items that go deeper ...
<ul><li>Don’t some people lie about  themselves purposefully? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If profile owners are lying, they are ...
Select References <ul><li>Funder, D.C. 1999.  Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception.  Academic. ...
Auxiliary Slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

What Elements of an Online Profile Predict Target-Rater Agreement in Personality Impressions?

1,617

Published on

Study showing people really can read your personality from your online profile. Presented April 2008 at the Int'l Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM) in Seattle, Washington, USA.

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,617
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "What Elements of an Online Profile Predict Target-Rater Agreement in Personality Impressions?"

  1. 1. What Elements of an Online Social Networking Profile Predict Target-Rater Agreement in Personality? David C. Evans Ph.D. Psychster LLC Samuel D. Gosling Ph.D University of Texas at Austin Anthony Carroll Psychster LLC Psychster LLC - online psychological research & experiences
  2. 2. The Science of Interpersonal Perception <ul><li>We know a lot about what people think about others’ personality, but far less about whether they are right . </li></ul><ul><li>If you study what one live person thinks about a fake person you get: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Impressions . A’s thoughts about B. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stereotypes . Whether A thinks B is like B’s group. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consensus . Whether a bunch of As agree about B. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Projection . Whether A sees B in A’s own image. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Variables you can only get if you study two live people . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Self-Other Agreement or Impression Accuracy – Whether A sees B as B sees him or herself. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Similarity . Whether A's and B's self-ratings are alike. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accuracy , Meta-accuracy , Reciprocity , Assumed Projection </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. Impression Accuracy on the Web <ul><li>Social media (networking sites, blogs, microblogs, photo sites, job sites) have become a central environment for interpersonal perception worldwide. </li></ul><ul><li>Are people getting to know each other via these media? Are they at least seeing others as the others see themselves? Under what conditions? </li></ul>Flickr. Stabilo Boss.
  4. 4. Impression Accuracy on the Web <ul><li>The present study addressed the following questions (see Funder, 1999): </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How effectively are profile owners conveying their personality to visitors? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are some profile elements more informative than others? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are some people better at reading personality than others? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are some people more easily read? </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. In Situ Method <ul><li>We launched YouJustGetMe on the Facebook platform. </li></ul><ul><li>Users rated their own personalities on 21 items of the BFI-K (John, 2005) a Big-5 personality inventory. </li></ul><ul><li>Users formed impressions by answering the same 21 items about others via questionnaires imbedded in others’ profiles. </li></ul><ul><li>Upon adding the app, users also registered on YouJustGetMe.com. </li></ul><ul><li>4,484 impressions were collected on Facebook among participants who were 18 and older. </li></ul>
  6. 6. In Vitro Method <ul><li>We created YouJustGetMe.com a fully functional social networking website. </li></ul><ul><li>We only analyzed the impressions of randomly assigned targets who had profile photos. </li></ul><ul><li>819 impressions were collected on YouJustGetMe.com among participants who were 18 and older. </li></ul><ul><li>Since then 9,469 impressions have been made by 6,500 registered users . </li></ul>
  7. 7. C’mon, give something back. <ul><li>Big-5 domain scores of both the self-ratings and the guesses were displayed so users learned which traits they were right and wrong about. </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity and projection were also calculated and displayed. </li></ul><ul><li>The central DV of the study impression accuracy was calculated as the point-biserial Pearson r product-moment correlation between the self-ratings and the guesses. It was displayed to users. Fisher-z transformed rs gave the same results as the point-biserials. </li></ul>Docdave saw Rachel like this Rachel saw Rachel like this How accurate was Docdave?
  8. 8. Analysis <ul><li>Do environments matter (Facebook vs. YouJustGetMe)? Does sex of rater and sex of target matter? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Unit of analysis was the dyad. DV was the impression accuracy score (Pearson r). IVs included environment (Facebook vs. YouJustGetMe), rater sex, and target sex. Covaried out age. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Which profile elements (or “clues) were associated with higher or lower impression accuracy? (YouJustGetMe only.) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple regression. Unit of analysis was the dyad. Criterion (Y) was the impression accuracy score (Pearson r). Predictors (x) were 33 binary variables indicating simply whether a particular profile element was or was not answered by the target. Dummy codes tested facial photos (head and shoulders), non-human photos (tractors, cats, anime) and other photos (groups, distant shots). Controlled for rater & targets’ age, sex, similarity & projection. </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Do environments differ? Does sex of rater and sex of target matter? <ul><li>People get each other. Overall impression accuracy was significantly above zero ( r = .41, SD = .21), t (6862)= 147, p < .001). </li></ul><ul><li>People on Facebook get each other better ( r = .42) than randomly assigned strangers on YouJustGetMe ( r = .29), F (1,5293) = 170.4, p < .001. </li></ul><ul><li>Women are better guessers than men , but only when guessing random strangers on YouJustGetMe. F (1,5293) = 12.5, p < .001. </li></ul><ul><li>Women are easier to get, but only when guessed by random strangers on YouJustGetMe. F (1,5293) = 12.5, p < .001, </li></ul>.42 .43 .25 .33 .41 .44 .24 .34 guessing being guessed
  10. 10. Which profile elements matter? Which don’t? When these clues were given on profiles, people were more understood . beta p-value beta p-value a link to funny video 0.096 0.000 my spirituality 0.051 0.044 what makes me glad to be alive? 0.089 0.007 a great person 0.060 0.048 most embarrassing thing I ever did 0.074 0.018 I believe this: 0.040 0.080 proudest thing I ever did 0.057 0.063 When these clues were given on profiles, people were less understood . beta p-value beta p-value Profile picture was a non-person -0.128 0.003 An awful person -0.065 0.028 An awful website -0.079 0.003 A great book -0.066 0.037 These clues didn’t matter to personality impressions. beta p-value beta p-value Letters after my name 0.015 0.429 An awful book 0.040 0.115 My relationship status -0.028 0.411 Delicious food -0.034 0.441 My relationship saga -0.016 0.489 Terrible food 0.043 0.151 My political leanings 0.007 0.725 A great website -0.027 0.310 My political views -0.023 0.312 A great company 0.020 0.436 A link to my other profile 0.003 0.884 An awful company 0.028 0.340 A link to great art -0.005 0.845 Best time I ever had 0.017 0.563 My career path 0.034 0.268 Worst time I ever had -0.014 0.672 A great song 0.019 0.557 What have I been up to lately? -0.013 0.650 An awful song -0.004 0.866 What drives me crazy? -0.041 0.207 A great movie -0.033 0.437 Profile picture was a face/bust shot -0.016 0.595 An awful movie -0.039 0.156
  11. 11. Disclosure mediates gender effect. <ul><li>Women and men completed similar number of profile elements, p = .2. </li></ul><ul><li>Women were significantly more likely to complete profile elements that predicted higher impression accuracy, p s < .002. </li></ul><ul><li>Controlling for choice of profile element eliminated target gender effect, p = .3. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Discussion – Which sources reveal which traits? Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Mean Trait Source .29 .22 .37 .24 .42 .29 .14 Web site Face book Bed room Office Top-10 Music Social beh. Short FTF Long term .45 <ul><li>Gosling, S.D., Gaddis, S., and Vazire, S. 2007. </li></ul><ul><li>Gosling, S.D., Ko, S.J., Mannarelli, T., and Morris, M.E. 2002. </li></ul><ul><li>Rentfrow, P.J. & Gosling, S.D. 2006. </li></ul><ul><li>Watson, D. 1989. </li></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>How effectively are profile owners conveying their personality to visitors? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online impression accuracy (whether visitors to Facebook and YouJustGetMe profiles saw the profile owners as they saw themselves) was significantly above chance. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>People are posting information on their profiles that is consistent with their self-view of their personality, and that information is in turn consistent with the personality impression formed by visitors. This is also true of the impressions formed of strangers, which are overall less accurate that impressions of people in your network, but still above chance levels. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are some judges better than others? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Women formed more accurate impressions of others than men, but only when they rated random strangers. On Facebook, were people rated others in their network, this gender difference disappeared. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are some targets more easily judged? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Impressions of women were more accurate than impressions of men, but again, only on when they were rated by random strangers. On Facebook, were people were rated by others in their network, impressions of women and men were not significantly different. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do certain profile elements hinder or assist the impression formation process? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Impression agreement was significantly higher when the profile owners made statements about their spirituality, beliefs, joys, embarrassing moments, proud moments, heroes, and when they gave links to funny videos. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Impression agreement was significantly lower when the profile owners posted pictures of non-persons, named an awful person or website, or surprisingly, named a great book. </li></ul></ul>Discussion - Specific
  14. 14. <ul><li>Why are certain profile elements better at conveying your personality? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Items that go deeper than traits and preferences to tap issues of values and identity seemed most revealing. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>I understand why women are better at guessing. Why are they easier to guess? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Female targets were significantly more likely than male targets to disclose answers on the profile elements that were better predictors of impression agreement such as relationship saga and proudest thing I ever did. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However, male targets were significantly more likely to disclose their political views, great art, awful person, awful movie, and awful website. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Why were effects of rater and target gender found for the YouJustGetMe profiles and not the Facebook profiles? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>This study cannot answer that conclusively, but we can speculate. The most likely reason is we analyzed Facebook impressions of people you chose but we only analyzed the YouJustGetMe impressions of people who you were randomly assigned to which would greatly diminish the likelihood that you knew them. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>But additionally, Facebook profiles have a greater amount of information. Perhaps impression agreement had reached a ceiling for the Facebook profiles. </li></ul></ul>Discussion - General
  15. 15. <ul><li>Don’t some people lie about themselves purposefully? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If profile owners are lying, they are lying to themselves on the self-ratings consistently with how they are lying when constructing their profiles. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore, the majority are not purposefully creating a qualitatively different personality profile. If they are lying, it is a minority, or on other individual differences, or by incremental degrees of positive self-presentation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We suspect that more often, profile owners are trying to manage the views they have of themselves with the impressions they make on a diverse array of peers, such that they converge in a beneficial way. </li></ul></ul>Discussion - General
  16. 16. Select References <ul><li>Funder, D.C. 1999. Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. Academic. </li></ul><ul><li>Green, R.K., Evans, D.C., & Gosling, S.D. 2008. Researching first impressions in the age of online profiles. Psi Chi, The National Honor Society in Psychology, 12, 3. </li></ul><ul><li>Gosling, S.D., Gaddis, S., and Vazire, S. 2007. Personality impressions based on Facebook profiles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (Boulder, Colorado, USA, March 26 - 28, 2007). </li></ul><ul><li>Gosling, S.D., Ko, S.J., Mannarelli, T., and Morris, M.E. 2002. A room with a cue: Personality judgments based on offices and bedrooms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 3 (2002), 379-398. </li></ul><ul><li>John, O.P. 2005. BFI-K (Form S) . Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research. </li></ul><ul><li>Kenny, D.A. 1994. Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press. </li></ul><ul><li>Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. 2006. Message in a Ballad: The role of music preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17 (2006), 236-242. </li></ul><ul><li>Vazire, S. and Gosling, S.D. 2004. e-Perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 1(2004), 123-132 </li></ul><ul><li>Watson, D. 1989. Strangers' ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence for a surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1 (July, 1989), 120-128. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Auxiliary Slides
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×