Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The "Good Dyad" : examining the impact of personality and behavior on dyadic accuracy in first impressions Rogers, Katherine Helen 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_september_rogers_katherine.pdf [ 2.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166525.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166525-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166525-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166525-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166525-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166525-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166525-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166525-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166525.ris

Full Text

THE “GOOD DYAD”: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF PERSONALITY AND BEHAVIOR ON DYADIC ACCURACY IN FIRST IMPRESSIONS by  Katherine Helen Rogers  B.A, Wake Forest University, 2009 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2011  A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Psychology)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) AUGUST 2015  © Katherine Helen Rogers, 2015 ii  Abstract Much research on the accuracy of interpersonal perception has focused on either the good judge– the individual who accurately perceives others’ personality (e.g., Letzring, 2008), or the good target– the individual whose personality is accurately perceived by others (e.g., Human & Biesanz, 2013). Despite there being reliable variance attributable to the dyad (Biesanz, 2010) previous work has largely overlooked the importance of the dyad and little is known as to why some dyads result in more accurate and more positive impressions than do others. To more fully understand the process of impression formation, it is imperative to investigate the characteristics of the good dyad. As such, this dissertation examines the mechanisms associated with changes in dyadic accuracy in first impressions of personality. In order to understand the behaviors and characteristics associated with dyadic accuracy, 77 participants were videotaped engaging in a total of 437 unstructured 3-minute interactions with another previously unacquainted participant. Raters then coded participants’ behavior and personality, as well as general aspects of the interaction. This dissertation investigates dyadic characteristics and processes associated with dyadic accuracy, how behavior changes across interactions, and the role of changes in behavior in understanding dyadic accuracy. Using the social accuracy model (SAM; Biesanz, 2010), the good dyad is considered in terms of two components of accuracy: distinctive accuracy, understanding an individual’s own unique patterning of traits, and normative accuracy, viewing an individually positively and as similar to the average person. For distinctive accuracy, stable characteristics of the individuals in the dyad impacted the degree to which targets were viewed in line with their own unique traits. Further, between-person differences in behavior generally moderated the impact of within-person changes in behavior on distinctive accuracy. For normative accuracy, the quality of the interaction, interpersonal attraction, and engagement iii  impacted the positivity impressions. Additionally, changes in behavior mediated the impact of changes in dyadic characteristics (e.g., engagement) on normative accuracy. In sum, examining dyadic characteristics and processes, as well as behavior allows greater insight into the process of impression formation by looking beyond stable individual differences and considering variability across dyadic interactions.  iv  Preface I am the primary contributor and author of the work presented in this dissertation. I was responsible for study design, supervision of data collection, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. J. Biesanz provided intellectual contributions and feedback on previous drafts. The UBC Behavioral Research Ethics Board, under certificate numbers H06-03996 and H08-01840, approved the research presented in this dissertation. This research was supported by two Standard Research Grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council awarded to Dr. Jeremy C. Biesanz, as well as a Dissertation Research Grant from the Society for Multivariate Experimental Psychology and a Graduate Student Research Award from the University of British Columbia awarded to me.   v  Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii	  Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv	  Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v	  List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. x	  List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii	  Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii	  Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiv	  Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1	  1.1	   Defining Accuracy ......................................................................................................................... 2	  1.2	   Measuring Accuracy ...................................................................................................................... 3	  1.3	   The Good Judge ............................................................................................................................. 4	  1.4	   The Good Target ............................................................................................................................ 5	  1.5	   The Good Dyad .............................................................................................................................. 6	  1.6	   Variance in Dyadic Accuracy ....................................................................................................... 7	  1.6.1	   Target Behavior ........................................................................................................................ 9	  1.6.2	   Perceiver Perception ............................................................................................................... 12	  1.7	   Investigating Characteristics of the Good Dyad ....................................................................... 14	  1.7.1	   Good Target and Good Judge ................................................................................................. 14	  1.7.2	   Similarity ................................................................................................................................ 18	  1.7.3	   Interpersonal Attraction .......................................................................................................... 20	  1.7.4	   Engagement ............................................................................................................................ 21	  1.7.5	   Personality Traits .................................................................................................................... 23	  vi  1.7.6	   Behavioral Synchrony ............................................................................................................ 24	  1.8	   Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 26	  Chapter 2: Method ...................................................................................................................... 30	  2.1	   Dyadic Interactions ...................................................................................................................... 30	  2.1.1	   Participants ............................................................................................................................. 30	  2.1.2	   Filmed Interactions ................................................................................................................. 31	  2.2	   Measures ....................................................................................................................................... 31	  2.2.1	   Demographic Measures .......................................................................................................... 31	  2.2.2	   Personality Measure ............................................................................................................... 33	  2.2.3	   Informant Reports ................................................................................................................... 33	  2.2.4	   Self-Report Measures of Adjustment ..................................................................................... 33	  2.3	   Coding of Videotaped Interactions ............................................................................................ 34	  2.3.1	   Behavioral Synchrony ............................................................................................................ 34	  2.3.2	   Personality .............................................................................................................................. 36	  2.3.3	   Behavioral Change ................................................................................................................. 37	  2.3.4	   Dyadic Interaction Quality ..................................................................................................... 38	  2.4	   Assessment of Dyadic Characteristics ....................................................................................... 38	  2.4.1	   Similarity ................................................................................................................................ 38	  2.4.2	   Interpersonal Attraction .......................................................................................................... 39	  2.4.3	   Engagement ............................................................................................................................ 39	  2.4.4	   Behavioral Synchrony ............................................................................................................ 40	  Chapter 3: Analytic Approach .................................................................................................. 48	  3.1	   Accuracy of Impressions ............................................................................................................. 48	  3.1.1	   Dyadic Level Characteristics .................................................................................................. 49	  3.1.2	   Interpersonal Attraction and Engagement .............................................................................. 51	  vii  3.1.3	   Behaviors ................................................................................................................................ 53	  3.1.4	   Interaction between Perceiver and Target Traits .................................................................... 55	  3.2	   Characteristics of the Dyad ......................................................................................................... 55	  3.2.1	   Dyadic Level Characteristics and Behaviors .......................................................................... 55	  3.2.2	   Interpersonal Attraction, Engagement, and Behaviors ........................................................... 56	  3.3	   Mediational Analyses ................................................................................................................... 57	  Chapter 4: Results ....................................................................................................................... 66	  4.1	   H1) Accuracy in First Impressions ............................................................................................ 66	  4.1.1	   Reliable Variance ................................................................................................................... 66	  4.1.2	   The Good Judge and the Good Target .................................................................................... 67	  4.2	   H2) Dyadic Similarity and Accuracy ......................................................................................... 71	  4.2.1	   Objective Similarity ............................................................................................................... 71	  4.2.2	   Perceived Similarity ............................................................................................................... 75	  4.2.3	   Similarity and Behaviors ........................................................................................................ 76	  4.3	   H3) Interpersonal Attraction and Accuracy ............................................................................. 77	  4.3.1	   Perceptive Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 78	  4.3.2	   Expressive Accuracy .............................................................................................................. 79	  4.3.3	   Impact of Interpersonal Attraction on Behavior ..................................................................... 80	  4.4	   H4) Engagement and Accuracy .................................................................................................. 82	  4.4.1	   Perceptive Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 82	  4.4.2	   Expressive Accuracy .............................................................................................................. 83	  4.4.3	   Impact of Engagement on Behavior ....................................................................................... 83	  4.5	   H5) Quality Dyadic Interactions and Accuracy ........................................................................ 84	  4.6	   H6) Behavioral Synchrony and Accuracy ................................................................................. 85	  4.6.1	   Accuracy ................................................................................................................................. 85	  viii  4.6.2	   Behaviors ................................................................................................................................ 85	  4.7	   H7) Interaction of Perceiver and Target Traits and Accuracy ............................................... 86	  4.8	   H8) Behavior and Perceptive Accuracy ..................................................................................... 88	  4.8.1	   Distinctive Accuracy .............................................................................................................. 89	  4.8.2	   Normative Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 90	  4.8.3	   Mediational Models ................................................................................................................ 91	  4.9	   H9) Behavior and Expressive Accuracy .................................................................................... 95	  4.9.1	   Personality Video Raters ........................................................................................................ 97	  4.9.2	   Mediational Models ................................................................................................................ 99	  Chapter 5: Discussion ............................................................................................................... 160	  5.1	   H1) Accuracy in First Impressions .......................................................................................... 161	  5.2	   H2) Dyadic Similarity and Accuracy ....................................................................................... 164	  5.3	   H3) Interpersonal Attraction and Accuracy ........................................................................... 168	  5.4	   H4) Engagement and Accuracy ................................................................................................ 169	  5.5	   H5) Quality Dyadic Interactions and Accuracy ...................................................................... 170	  5.6	   H6) Behavioral Synchrony and Accuracy ............................................................................... 171	  5.7	   H7) Interaction of Perceiver and Target Personality Traits and Accuracy ......................... 171	  5.8	   H8) Behavior and Perceptive Accuracy ................................................................................... 173	  5.9	   H9) Behavior and Expressive Accuracy .................................................................................. 175	  5.10	   Implications .............................................................................................................................. 177	  5.10.1	   Realistic Accuracy Model .................................................................................................. 177	  5.10.2	   Understanding the Good Judge .......................................................................................... 178	  5.10.3	   Within-person Processes .................................................................................................... 178	  5.10.4	   Judging Personality and Behaviors .................................................................................... 179	  5.10.5	   Role in Relationship Development ..................................................................................... 180	  ix  5.10.6	   Applications of the Good Dyad .......................................................................................... 180	  5.11	   Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 182	  5.11.1	   Methodological ................................................................................................................... 182	  5.11.2	   Sample Demographics ........................................................................................................ 183	  5.12	   Generalizability and Future Directions ................................................................................. 183	  5.12.1	   Beyond First Impressions ................................................................................................... 184	  5.12.2	   Beyond Personality Traits .................................................................................................. 185	  5.12.3	   Status .................................................................................................................................. 185	  5.13	   Final Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 186	  References .................................................................................................................................. 188	    x  List of Tables Table 2.1 Overview of data sources and analyses ........................................................................ 41	  Table 2.2 Descriptive statistics and reliability for personality items coded by personality video raters ........................................................................................................................................ 42	  Table 2.3 Descriptive statistics and reliability for assessment of the target and interaction coded by personality video raters ...................................................................................................... 44	  Table 2.4 Reliability and descriptive statistics for the behavioral items ...................................... 45	  Table 2.5 Reliability and descriptive statistics for dyadic interaction quality items .................... 47	  Table 3.1 Overview for subscripts used in data analytic models .................................................. 61	  Table 4.1 Social accuracy model fixed and random effect estimates ......................................... 103	  Table 4.2 Impact of good judge and good target on perceiver and target behavior ................... 104	  Table 4.3 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by similarity .................................... 107	  Table 4.4 Impact of personality similarity on behavior .............................................................. 108	  Table 4.5 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by engagement and interpersonal attraction ............................................................................................................................... 110	  Table 4.6 Impact of viewing partner as physically attractive on behavior ................................. 111	  Table 4.7 Impact of liking partner on behavior .......................................................................... 113	  Table 4.8 Impact of perceiving partner as liking you on behavior ............................................. 115	  Table 4.9 Impact of viewing partner as engaging on behavior ................................................... 117	  Table 4.10 Correlations among dyadic quality interaction items ............................................... 119	  Table 4.11 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by dyadic interaction qualities ...... 120	  Table 4.12 Impact of behavioral synchrony on behavior ........................................................... 121	  xi  Table 4.13 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by interaction between perceiver and target personality traits .......................................................................................................... 123	  Table 4.14 Perceptive distinctive accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior ........................... 124	  Table 4.15 Perceptive normative accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior ........................... 127	  Table 4.16 Impact of physical attraction on perceptive normative accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior ................................................................................................................. 130	  Table 4.17 Impact of perception of partner liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior ................................................................................................................. 133	  Table 4.18 Impact of liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior ............................................................................................................................................... 136	  Table 4.19 Impact of engagement on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior ................................................................................................................................. 137	  Table 4.20 Expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by target behavior ................................ 139	  Table 4.21 Expressive normative accuracy moderated by target behavior ................................ 142	  Table 4.22 Expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by target behavior (video raters) .......... 145	  Table 4.23 Expressive normative accuracy moderated by target behavior (video raters) .......... 148	  Table 4.24 Impact of perceived partner liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior ...................................................................................................................... 151	  Table 4.25 Impact of liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior ... 152	  Table 4.26 Impact of perceived partner liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior ...................................................................................................................... 153	  Table 4.27 Impact of engagement on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior ............................................................................................................................................... 154	  xii  List of Figures Figure 1.1 Realistic Accuracy Model Expanded to Highlight Interaction of Good Target and Good Judge ............................................................................................................................. 29	  Figure 3.1 Social Accuracy Model (SAM) ................................................................................... 62	  Figure 3.2 SAM moderated by dyadic characteristics .................................................................. 63	  Figure 3.3 SAM moderated by engagement, interpersonal attraction, and behavior ................... 64	  Figure 3.4 Impact of dyadic characteristic on normative and distinctive accuracy mediated by behavior ................................................................................................................................... 65	  Figure 4.1 Impact of perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy on distinctive dyadic accuracy moderated by target expressive distinctive accuracy ............................................................ 155	  Figure 4.2 Impact of perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy on video raters dyadic accuracy moderated by target expressive distinctive accuracy ............................................................ 156	  Figure 4.3 Impact of within-person changes in “cheerfulness” on perceptive distinctive accuracy moderated by average levels of “cheerfulness” .................................................................... 157	  Figure 4.4 Impact of within-person changes in “interest in partner” on perceptive normative accuracy moderated by average level of “interest in partner” .............................................. 158	  Figure 4.5 Impact of within-person changes in "expressivity" on expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by average level of "expressivity" ....................................................................... 159	   xiii  Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Jeremy Biesanz for his encouragement and support throughout my graduate work. I am especially appreciative of our numerous thought-provoking discussions that helped me think research in new ways. I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Drs. Anita DeLongis and Toni Schmader, for their support and flexibility and especially for their thoughtful comments and insightful feedback.  Completing this dissertation would not have been possible without a wonderful team of Social Accuracy Lab research assistants. I would like to thank Ben Pierce and Tom Chao for their work creating the videos, as well as Marina Le, Jessica Stewart, Shi Yun Ho, Irene Kim, Jazon Torres, Kimberley Goh, Adrienne Nan, Vanessa Epp, Nicole Hocking, Phoebe Liu, Ravleen Khurana, and Felipe Triana for coding hundreds of videos and running hundreds of participants. Marina and Jessica deserve an extra thank you for ensuring everything ran smoothly. I would like to thank Patrick Dubios for sharing his R code, which was invaluable for creating the tables for this dissertation.  I am also thankful for the supportive friends and family who have kept me laughing and sane throughout the last six years and I am especially grateful to the amazing friends I have made during graduate school. In particular, I would like to thank Lauren Human, for being a wonderful role model, lab mate, and friend; Steve (who had the opportunity to hear about this study on our very first date and has listened to me talk about it ever since,) for his continual support and endless patience that has meant the world to me; John, who forever encouraged my questions, and the whole Whitmire Family, for their support over the years. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, who have always been my biggest cheerleaders and believed I could achieve anything I set my mind to, for their unwavering support and constant encouragement.  xiv  Dedication    For Granny 1  Chapter 1: Introduction People form impressions and make judgments of others’ personalities in an attempt to understand, explain and predict behavior (e.g., Funder, 1995, 1999). These impressions have important consequences for a myriad of facets of life including relationship development (Human, Sandstrom, Biesanz, & Dunn, 2013) and hiring decisions (Posthuma, Morgeson, & Campion, 2002). However, forming an accurate impression of another individual is a complex task that depends on both individuals in the interaction – the perceiver, who is forming the impression, and the target, who is having an impression formed of them. Of course, each individual is also simultaneously a perceiver and a target adding to the complexity of the task. There are stable individual differences associated with accurate impressions; some individuals tend to form more accurate impressions of others, on average (Letzring, 2008) and some individuals tend to be seen, on average, more accurately than others (Colvin, 1993a, 1993b; Human & Biesanz, 2011a; Human, Biesanz, Finseth, Pierce, & Le, 2014).  However, while there are stable characteristics that promote accuracy, there is also an important dyadic component. That is, an individual perceives another person with particularly high accuracy – more accurately than the individual tends to view others and more accurately than the person tends to be seen. Indeed, idiosyncratic liking (Human & Biesanz, 2011a) and perceived physical attractiveness (Lorenzo, Biesanz, & Human, 2010) are associated with greater dyadic accuracy. Further, people are cognizant as to when they form more or less accurate impressions of specific others (Biesanz et al., 2011). Thus, this dissertation examines the variance in dyadic accuracy in first impressions of personality by examining what behaviors change across interactions, why these changes in behavior occur, and how these changes are associated with changes in dyadic accuracy. 2  1.1 Defining Accuracy In order to examine the dyadic accuracy of personality impressions, it is necessary to determine what it means to be accurate. Within-personality psychology, defining accuracy presents a unique challenge and as a result, it has been operationalized in a number of different ways. Most commonly, accuracy is defined as “self-other agreement” where the perceiver’s impression is compared to the target’s own self-report, as the self is likely to know their own personality best (Funder & Colvin, 1997). However, self-reports are imperfect: people may lack self-knowledge (John & Robins, 1993; Vazire, 2010), be biased or simply be inaccurate (Dunning, Heath, & Suls, 2004; Paulhus, 1984). The difficulty with defining a criterion variable has spurred several different schools of thought regarding what it means to be accurate. The pragmatic approach determines whether a judgment is accurate based on its utility (Swann, 1984; Zebrowitz & Collins, 1997). That is, a judgment is accurate to the extent that it is useful to the perceiver and allows the perceiver to make the correct decision or act in an appropriate manner. For example, Jack thinks his roommate Mary is a neat freak and will be angry with him if he leaves dishes in the sink for a week and thus, Jack washes his dishes every night. Jack’s impression of Mary’s cleanliness may not relate to Mary’s true underlying trait, but Jack’s impression allows him to successfully interact with Mary by avoiding her annoyance regarding dirty dishes. Thus, Jack’s impression is pragmatically accurate as it allows him to correctly navigate his interactions with Mary. While pragmatic accuracy can certainly be useful, it, too, has limitations and ignores the idea that people may often form impressions of others for reasons beyond making correct decisions about behavior.  Another method to define accuracy is in terms of consensus, which effectively sidesteps the issues with self-reports. In the constructivist approach, social consensus is considered the 3  best indicator of truth (Kruglanski, 1989). Thus, a judgment is accurate to the extent that most other individuals agree with it. Returning to the previous example, Mary is considered a neat freak if all of her roommates agree she is a neat freak. However, consensus does not indicate accuracy, as it is possible for judges to agree, but be wrong (Blackman & Funder, 1998; Kenny & Albright, 1987). In this case, perhaps in comparison to the general population, Mary is not particularly clean, but her roommates are particularly messy. Finally, realistic accuracy states that a judgment is accurate to the extent that it relates well to realistic criteria for an individual’s personality (Funder, 1995, 1999). Realistic criteria can include self-report measures, close informant reports (Colvin, 1993a, 1993b), behavioral measures (Vazire & Mehl, 2008) and/or ratings by expert judges (e.g., John & Robins, 1994). The combination of these different types of measures, each with their own limitations, results in a more realistic understanding of the individual’s personality, which can then be used as a criterion for accurate impressions. Within this perspective, the realistic accuracy model (RAM; Funder, 1995, 1999) describes the necessary steps for the formation of an accurate judgment of personality. Specifically, RAM highlights the importance of both individuals in an interaction, as a target must make relevant cues available to the perceiver who must then detect these cues and utilize them appropriately to form an accurate impression. Notably, each of these steps must occur successfully for the formation of an accurate impression. 1.2 Measuring Accuracy There are two main approaches to measuring accuracy: variable centered or person centered. In a variable centered approach, researchers are focused on a single trait at a time (e.g., Fletcher & Kerr, 2010). For example, a variable centered approach would consider the agreement between a perceiver’s impression and a validation measure on a single trait across targets, such 4  as agreeableness. This allows for a clearer picture of what traits are more accurately perceived, but lacks the inferential power offered by the person centered approach (Biesanz 2010).    In the person-centered approach, the agreement is across a number of traits or items, such as agreeableness, gregariousness, and anxiety. This approach allows for the extraction of two components of accuracy: distinctive and normative (Biesanz, 2010; Furr, 2008), which correspond to Cronbach’s (1955) differential and stereotype accuracy, respectively. Distinctive accuracy refers to accurately identifying a target’s unique ordering of traits, as well as distinguishing targets across traits (Biesanz, 2010; Biesanz & Human, 2010). Normative accuracy refers to perceiving a target as similar to the average person’s personality. Additionally, since the average person’s personality is socially desirable, normative impressions are also quite positive (Edwards, 1957; Wood, Gosling, & Potter, 2007; Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009; Rogers & Biesanz, 2015). Thus, by utilizing a person-centered approach we are able to examine the extent to which impressions correspond to the target’s own unique profile of traits, as well as the degree to which impressions are positive and similar to the average person’s personality.    1.3 The Good Judge  There is a long history of attempting to identify the good judge, the individual who generally views others accurately (e.g., Adams, 1927; Taft 1955), but results have been mixed (Davis & Kraus, 1997). Early on, Adams (1927) described the good judge of personality to be akin to Sherlock Holmes – cold, aloof, temperamental, and egotistic. Recent research has found that good judges are generally interpersonally oriented, warm, socially skilled and psychologically well-adjusted (Vogt & Colvin, 2003; Davis & Kraus, 1997; Letzring, 2008; Human & Biesanz, 2011b; Letzring, 2014; Hall, Goh, Schmid Mast, & Hagedorn, 2015). However, there is other research indicating that the good judge may be unsociable (Ambady, 5  Hallahan, & Rosenthal, 1995) and have no relationship with agreeableness (Christiansen, Wolcott-Burnam, Janovics, Burns, & Quirk, 2005). The search for the good judge is further complicated by possible gender differences in the key characteristics. Specifically, when comparing males and females across the same group of characteristics, males who are good judges have positive self-views, are interpersonally experienced and unconcerned about what others think, while females who are good judges are intelligent and open (Kolar, 1996). The inconsistencies in research on the good judge may be due to the relatively small amount of variability in the good judge (Kenny, 1994; Biesanz, 2010; Human & Biesanz, 2013). Specifically, people generally view others, on average, with some degree of accuracy and while there are significant individual differences in this ability, they are small. This may be because accurately viewing others is a necessary skill for social survival (Haselton & Funder, 2006). Additionally, previous research on the good judge has only been able to examine potential moderators (e.g., Davis & Kraus, 1997) and it may be this approach that has led to the inconsistent findings. More recent techniques, such as the social accuracy model (SAM; Biesanz, 2010), allow for direct measures of individual differences in this domain, which may yield more a consistent picture of the good judge in the future. Overall, research needs to go beyond judgmental ability to understand the variance in the accuracy of first impressions.  1.4 The Good Target  Unlike the ability to perceive others accurately, there are large individual differences associated with the ability to be perceived accurately (Biesanz, 2010; Human & Biesanz, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). That is, some individuals, on average, are viewed inaccurately while other individuals, on average, are viewed accurately. The good target is defined as open and knowable (Colvin, 1993b) and is an individual whose self-expression allows others to accurately perceive 6  them (Colvin, 1993a). Specifically, individuals who are psychologically well-adjusted are seen more accurately (Colvin, 1993a, 1993b; Human & Biesanz, 2011a, 2013). One reason that well-adjusted individuals are good targets is because they tend to behave more in line with their true personalities when interacting with others (Human, Biesanz, Finseth, Pierce and Le, 2014). Social status and socialization may also impact how accurately an individual is perceived (Human & Biesanz, 2013). Specifically, feminine individuals, individuals raised in an expressive family environment, and socially skilled individuals are likely to be perceived more accurately. In sum, the target plays an important role in the accuracy of first impressions. 1.5 The Good Dyad Previous research attempted to understand the role of dyadic variance in an individual’s behavior; however, the results were unclear as to its importance (Kenny, Mohr, & Levesque, 2001). This uncertainty is likely due to methodological issues, such as small sample size and low number of interactions. More recent research indicates that dyadic variance is an important component in interactions. First, the amount of reliable variance attributable to the dyad is at least similar to and at times greater than the reliable variance attributable to either the perceiver or target, respectively, in accuracy of first impressions (Biesanz, 2010) and in liking (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011). Similarly, dyads were often more or less accurate in judging nonverbal communication than expected by the individual skill of the target or perceiver (Elfenbein, Foo, Boldry, & Tan, 2006). That is, the specific dyadic interaction uniquely contributed to the accuracy of nonverbal judgments, above and beyond what would be expected by each individual’s general accuracy in judging nonverbal communication. Thus, while it is important to examine perceiver and target effects, it does not allow for a full understanding of interpersonal interactions.  7  Research has noted some correlates of dyadic accuracy in first impressions. For example, idiosyncratic impressions of physical attractiveness are associated with greater levels of accuracy (Lorenzo et al., 2010). That is, if a perceiver views a target as more attractive than other individuals tend to view the target, the perceiver will form a more accurate impression of the target. Here, the level of perceived physical attraction is dependent on both the perceiver and the target, and as such is unique to that dyad. Similarly, dyadic liking (Human & Biesanz, 2011a) and attention (Human et al., 2014) are associated with greater accuracy in first impressions. Further, people seem to have some awareness of dyadic accuracy, as they know when they form a more or less accurate impression of another person (Biesanz et al., 2011).  Beyond first impressions, research on social roles has found that impressions and behavior differ based on the context individuals find themselves in (Clifton, 2014; Heller, Watson, Komar, Min, & Perunovic, 2007; Wood, Gosling, & Potter, 2007; Wood & Roberts, 2006). That is, an individual is likely to behave differently with a friend than a parent or boss. Individuals are also aware of the impressions different people hold of them (Carlson, Vazire, & Furr, 2011). Again, not only can different people see the same person differently, there is an awareness of the dyadic variance in impressions. Thus, while previous research has allowed glimpses into the processes impacting dyadic accuracy, a full and systematic examination of what contributes to dyadic variance in accuracy remains an important and understudied area. 1.6 Variance in Dyadic Accuracy While much research has focused on the stable characteristics of the target or perceiver that promote accurate impressions, it is also theoretically plausible that some dyads will be particularly accurate. In RAM (Funder, 1995, 1999) this dyadic component of the interaction is captured by the “Judge x Target” interaction which is termed “relationship”. That is, a judge may 8  form a more accurate impression of a specific target than they tend to form of others and a target may be viewed more accurately than the target tends to be seen. This could occur because the judge has particularly good knowledge and understanding on the traits that are most central to the target (i.e., the target’s cardinal traits; Allport, 1961). Similarly, a judge may evoke specific cues from a target that may not occur for another judge. In this way, the judge influences the availability and relevance of the target’s cues. Social cognitive models also explicitly model the dyadic nature of impression formation (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). That is, a perceiver may alter the way in which they process information based on the perceived characteristics of the target or situation. Abby may be especially motivated to view Mary accurately, while Jack is not motivated in the same manner. Abby’s motivation in turn leads her to process the information about Mary differently from how Jack processes it.  Indeed, interpersonal interactions are incredibly complex with numerous factors able to impact impressions and their accuracy. Individuals enter into interactions with their own stable characteristics, such as personality and ethnicity, which will impact their behavior and perceptions in the interaction. Similarly, an individual’s stable characteristics will impact their partner’s behavior and perceptions during the interaction; this is commonly referred to as a “partner effect” (e.g., Kenny, 1996). Of course, interpersonal interactions are not static, but instead consist of a constant back and forth where each individual impacts and responds to the other. For example, mutual influence may also occur during a dyadic interaction, such that one individual influences the behavior of the other, whose change in behavior then impacts the original individual’s behavior (e.g., Kenny, 1996). Thus, in terms of RAM (Funder, 1995, 1999) dyadic accuracy could vary because changes in target behavior lead to an increase in the 9  availability of relevant cues or perceivers change in their ability to detect and utilize the cues or any combination of the four steps. While much research on has focused on stable characteristics or the average accuracy, the variability in impressions especially that which can be explained by the dyad is an important component. 1.6.1 Target Behavior One explanation for dyadic variance in the accuracy of first impressions is that individuals are not behaving the same with all people. How an individual behaves during an interaction is particularly important as it impacts the impression their partner forms of them (Eaton & Funder, 2003; Funder & Sneed, 1993; Human et al., 2014). The importance of an individual’s behavior in an interaction is further supported by research demonstrating that when individuals are instructed to change their behavior they are viewed more in line with the instructed behaviors than their typical behaviors (e.g., Albright, Forest, & Reiseter, 2001; Lippa, 1976). For example, introverts randomly assigned to behave as extraverts were viewed as more extraverted than extraverts assigned to behave as introverts. An individual’s behavior also impacts how much attention they obtain from another person, which in turn, impacts the other individual’s perceptions. For example, individuals pay more attention to others who reciprocate romantic interests (Koranyi & Rothermund, 2012) and behave in a friendly manner (Human et al., 2012). In turn, increased attention is associated with more accurate perceptions (Human et al., 2012; Lorenzo et al., 2010). Thus, to the extent that individuals behave differently in interactions with different individuals, perceivers will form different impressions of them.  An individual’s stable characteristics, such as personality, will impact their behavior in a given interaction (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2009; Borkenau, Mauer, Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2004; Cuperman & Ickes, 2009; Mehl, Gosling, & Pennebaker, 2006; Funder & 10  Sneed, 1993). Extraverted individuals exhibit greater social skills during interactions while behaving less reserved (Eaton & Funder, 2003). Narcissism is also related to everyday behaviors, such as arguing and use of sexual words (Holtzman, Vazire, & Mehl, 2010) and individuals higher in trait dominance are more likely to express their opinions and values (Anderson & Berdahl, 2002). However, there are differences in the degree to which an individual’s stable characteristics impact their behavior. This personality-behavior congruence means some individuals generally behave more in line with their stable characteristics across situations (Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2012). Specifically, well-adjusted individuals tend to behave more in line with their personality traits than individuals who are less adjusted (Human et al., 2014).  Additionally, an individual’s behavior fluctuates around an average level (Baird, Le, & Lucas, 2006; Fleeson, 2001, 2007; Noftle & Fleeson, 2010; Wilson & Vazire, 2014) and there are individual differences in the extent to which people fluctuate. For example, high-self monitors are more likely to demonstrate fluctuations in behavior (Snyder, 1983). Research focusing on interpersonal behaviors has also found variability in how much people differ in their interpersonal behavior or “spin” (e.g., Moskowitz & Zuroff, 2004). However, less work has investigated the within-person variation in behavior during initial interpersonal encounters. In sum, an individual’s stable characteristics, such as personality, will impact their behavior in a specific interaction, but importantly, there is also variability associated with these behaviors. The perceiver can influence a target’s behavior. That is, an individual’s behavior may change based on the individual with whom they are interacting. This effect is captured in RAM in the Judge x Target interaction whereby a perceiver can evoke certain behaviors from a target that lead to the expression of different personality cues (Funder, 1995; 1999). That is, an individual who is generally rude, hostile and disagreeable will likely elicit different behavioral 11  responses than an individual who is generally polite, pleasant and agreeable. This dyadic component of social interactions is also included in the personality and social relationships model (PERSOC; Back et al., 2011). PERSOC highlights the importance of each individuals’ stable personality on their own perceptions and behaviors and importantly here, on the perceptions and behaviors of their interaction partner. In PERSOC these interactions are described as dispositional expression processes and social interaction processes. Thus, unique impressions may be formed because an interaction partner evoked different behaviors and perceptions from an individual. Indeed, individuals interacting with an extraverted individual engage in more eye contact and express more agreement, less condescension, and fewer dominant behaviors (Eaton & Funder, 2003) and individuals interacting with an agreeable individual smile and nod more and also increase verbal acknowledgements (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Additionally, individuals who are agreeable and sociable evoke pleasure in others and likability (Saucier, 2010; Wortman & Wood, 2011); individuals speak louder when interacting with an opposite sex individual compared to a same-sex individual (Markel, Prebor, & Brandt, 1972), and they pay more attention to high status individuals (Fiske, 1993). While the perceiver may evoke certain behaviors in a target, a single perceiver will not necessarily evoke the same response from every target.  The social cognitive perspective of personality (Mischel, 1973, 2004) highlights this process by examining individual differences in social information processing. This view results in “if…then…” statements whereby if an individual is in a particular situation then they will behave in a certain manner (Mischel, 1999; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Accordingly, two targets may experience the same situation or perceiver behavior but encode and assess it differently, 12  leading to different responses. Indeed, an aggressive individual is much more likely to perceive an ambiguous action or comment as hostile compared to others (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Two targets may also interpret the situation and actions of the perceiver similarly, but the actions may activate different beliefs or expectancies, which lead to different responses. For example, an extraverted individual interacting with an introverted individual speaks for shorter durations and has fewer turns speaking than when they interact with another extraverted individual; disagreeable individuals interacting with other disagreeable individuals self-disclose less than when they interact with agreeable individuals (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). In sum, to the extent that a perceiver’s characteristics or behaviors leads the target to make available more relevant cues, a more accurate impression will be formed.  1.6.2 Perceiver Perception Given that there are important stable characteristics that impact how an individual perceives the world and other individuals, it is also possible that people form different impressions because they detect and interpret cues differently. These general tendencies in viewing other individuals are termed “perceiver effects” (e.g., Kenny, 1994). One commonly studied perceiver effect is assumed similarity whereby an individual tends to view others as similar to the self and this is especially true for agreeableness (e.g., Beer & Watson, 2008; Kenny, 1994). There are also individual differences in the tendency to view others as similar to the self and well-adjusted individuals tend to view others with greater assumed similarity than less adjusted individuals (Human & Biesanz, 2011b).  Beyond assumed similarity, personality traits and other dispositional characteristics (i.e., gender, depression, narcissism and intellectual ability) are also associated with viewing other’s personality traits in specific manners (Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010). Specifically, individuals 13  who are more emotionally stable tend to view others as agreeable. Stable characteristics can also impact how positively a perceiver views others. Specifically, women (Chan, Rogers, Parisotto, & Biesanz, 2011; Winquist, Mohr, & Kenny, 1998) and well-adjusted individuals (Human & Biesanz, 2011b; Rogers, 2011) tend to view others more positively. Further, as previously noted, some individuals are generally more accurate in their perceptions of others (e.g., Ickes 1997). Therefore, an individual’s stable characteristics impact their perceptions of others in terms of traits, positivity, and accuracy. A target will influence a perceiver’s perception. Indeed, how an individual’s stable characteristics will impact the partner’s perceptions is the path traditionally examined in research on the accuracy of impressions and individual’s perceptions of others are related to the other individual’s personality (e.g., Funder & West, 1993; Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy, Mast, & Feinstein, 2008). Also, some individuals have characteristics that make them easier to judge (e.g., Biesanz & West, 2000; Colvin, 1993b). For example, well-adjusted individuals (Human & Biesanz, 2011a) and attractive individuals (Lorenzo et al., 2010) are perceived more in line with their personality.  However, the Judge x Target interaction (Funder, 1993; 1999) can also impact perceiver’s ability to detect and utilize cues from the target. Individuals pay more attention to others they find physically attractive (e.g., Langlois et al., 2000; Maner et al., 2003; Lorenzo et al., 2010) and individuals they envy (Hill, DelPriore, & Vaughan, 2011), but perceivers will not necessarily find the same individuals attractive or envy-worthy. This idiosyncratic allotment of attention would be associated with increased accuracy, as perceivers should detect more cues. A perceiver may also have particularly good knowledge and understanding of the traits that are most central to the target. That is, a perceiver has expertise on a target’s cardinal traits – those 14  traits that are most central and defining in an individual (Allport, 1961). For example, if Abby is especially knowledgeable about the cues for kindness and able to utilize these cues appropriately and Mary’s cardinal trait is kindness, Abby could form a more accurate impression of Mary than others. Thus, Abby would have greater ability to detect and utilize the cues from Mary. To the extent that a target’s characteristics or behaviors lead the perceiver to detect or utilize more cues, a more accurate impression will be formed. 1.7 Investigating Characteristics of the Good Dyad  Dyadic variance is an important component in the accuracy of first impressions. There is also evidence that a perceiver and target may have unique effects on each other that lead to the formation of more accurate impressions. However, the specific characteristics and mechanisms driving the changes dyadic accuracy remain unclear.  1.7.1 Good Target and Good Judge The good dyad may simply be a dyad that includes a good target and a good judge. That is, a judgeable target’s ability and willingness to express their true selves combined with a perceiver who is able to pay attention and utilize the cues leads to particularly accurate impressions. Indeed, good targets tend to behave more in line with their true selves and this self-consistency leads to the expression of cues that are more relevant compared to other targets (Human et al., 2014). A good judge, who generally pays attention to his or her partner, is able to detect better quality information to use when forming their impression. Thus, good quality information combined with the attention and ability to understand it, leads to a more accurate impression.  However, the combination of the good judge and good target may also be multiplicative and lead to more accurate impressions that would be expected by the individual main effects of 15  each individual. Considering RAM (Funder, 1995; 1999), the target is primarily responsible for making relevant cues available and the perceiver is primarily responsible for detecting and utilizing these cues. RAM is a multiplicative model – if any of the stages fails, an accurate impression will not occur. That is, if a target does make any relevant cues available, then accuracy will be essentially zero. Similarly, if a perceiver does not detect any cues or has no understanding of what the cues mean, accuracy will be essentially zero. We can consider the target’s expression of relevant cues to be path a and the perceiver’s perception and use of cues to be path b (see Figure 1.1). With this in mind, there are two primary ways that a multiplicative or interaction effect could occur –path b depends on or is influenced by path a or path a depends on or is influenced by path b. Notably, either effect is possible and it is possible that both occur. Here the interaction between a good target and a good judge is qualitatively different from their usual interactions. Indeed, paths a and b, may not simply covary, they may also be synergistic. There are a number of reasons why and ways to consider how the good target and good judge may be a uniquely accurate and good dyad.  Considering path a as influencing path b, a target may impact a judge’s ability to detect or utilize cues. Indeed, by being more engaging, self-presentation increases the amount of attention an individual receivers from a perceiver (Human et al., 2011). Thus, path a influences path b by increasing attention. Further, for example, imagine that you have just watched Friends and are forming an impression of David Schwimmer based on his role as Ross Geller. In this case, your ability to detect and utilize cues should be inconsequential because you have not witnessed any relevant cues to Mr. Schwimmer’s personality. Given that you have not witnessed any relevant cues, path a would be essentially zero; thus, path b would also be zero and the good 16  judge would not matter. That is, the judge’s ability to detect or utilize cues does not matter because there is nothing useful to detect or utilize.  Considering a less extreme example, a target who is sullen and unresponsive would provide very little information about their personality, aside being sullen and unresponsive, in which case the ability of the judge is to detect and utilize the information is not important. For example, this unresponsive individual is unlikely to give any cues about their punctuality or creativity, thus there is little to no information for the judge to detect or utilize. However, if the target is authentic and expressive, path b may become important. Here, there is enough useful information that individual differences in the ability to detect information and utilize it could be important. Further, to the extent that individuals who are expressive and authentic are also more socially skilled and have smoother interactions, they may reduce the cognitive load of the perceiver, allowing them to fully apply their powers of detection and utilization. Thus, path a may impact path b by increasing an individual’s ability to detect or utilize cues. If a target is not willing or able to provide relevant cues, the judge’s ability to detect and utilize these cues is of little consequence, as it is not possible to form an accurate impression without accurate information. However, for a highly expressive target who makes numerous relevant cues available, interacting with a good judge is quite important, as the good judge has the skills necessary to detect and properly utilize the relevant cues. That is, when the target provides a good judge with the right raw materials, a good judge is able to form a particularly accurate portrait of the target. These same raw materials in the hands of a lesser judge will lead to a passable, albeit inferior, product. In sum, a good target allows a good judge to shine.  Considering path b as influencing path a, a good judge may also enhance the availability and relevancy of the target’s cues. For example, a perceiver who is attentive during an 17  interaction may make a target feel more comfortable or engaged in the interaction and in turn, the target expresses more relevant cues. Indeed, increased attention from a partner is associated with increased self-disclosure (Meltzer & Russo, 1970). Thus, by increasing attention (path b), the amount of useful information (path a) increases. However, an individual who tends to be particularly authentic and expressive may not increase the amount of information in path a as much as someone who tends to be less authentic or expressive because the authentic individual has already maxed out on the amount of possible information. Similarly, an individual who is able to use the information throughout the interaction to ask more probing questions, may also improve the amount or quality of information made available in path a. Thus, by being attentive and utilizing information better throughout the interaction (path b) is able to influence the amount of relevant cues expressed (path a). Indeed, previous research has supported the notion that the good judge is the individual who is able to create an environment where the target feels more comfortable expressing themselves (Letzring, 2008). Given that a good target does not provide more information than others, but provides information that is better quality and more relevant (Human et al., 2014), it is possible a good judge is able to create an environment where a good target can express a greater quantity of information. Thus, a good judge’s ability to extract more information from a target coupled with a good target’s tendency to provide relevant cues, work together such that the quantity of quality information increases. Here, a good judge is able to increase the amount of raw materials they have to work with and since a good target provides high quality material, a particularly accurate portrait of the target is formed. Without a good target, a good judge may still increase the amount of raw materials at their disposal, but the quality is diminished resulting 18  again in an inferior picture. In sum, a good judge combined with a good target leads to a greater quantity of quality information that can be used when forming impressions.  In sum, the combination of the good target and the good judge may lead to particularly accurate impressions because the good target may increase the good judge’s ability to detect or utilize cues or the good judge may increase the good targets expression of relevant cues. 1.7.2 Similarity  The degree of similarity between the target and perceiver is one characteristic that likely impacts dyadic accuracy. Indeed, face-to-face interactions between members of the same ethnic group were associated with greater accuracy than interactions between individuals of differing ethnic groups (Rogers & Biesanz, 2014a). Similarly, females who watched video clips of targets were more accurate when they viewed targets of the same gender and ethnicity as themselves (Letzring, 2010; see however Chan et al., 2010). Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that similarity between the target and perceiver increases accuracy.  The degree of similarity between the perceiver and target may impact the target’s behavior such that overall cue relevance and availability increases with greater similarity. Interactions between individuals of different races or ethnicities may result in fewer relevant cues emitted because individuals are more uncomfortable (Stephan & Stephan, 1985), more concerned with the impression their interaction partner is forming (Krueger, 1996) and feel more pressure to behave in a specific manner (Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008). Thus, instead of behaving in line with their personality, the individual’s behavior is due more to the individual with whom they are interacting, which should decrease relevant cues. Further, individuals who interacted with others who were similar to them in terms of attitudes and values showed increased behavioral mimicry (Yabar, Johnston, Miles, & Peace, 2006; Bourgeois & Hess, 19  2008). Mimicry positively influences interpersonal interactions by increasing liking, rapport, and general smoothness of the interaction (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Lakin & Chartrand, 2003). In turn, these should increase how comfortable and relaxed the target feels during the interaction, leading to an increase in the number of cues made available to the perceiver (Letzring, 2008).  The perceiver’s ability and motivation to detect and utilize the cues should also increase with greater similarity. Perceivers who interact with targets of a different race or ethnicity may lack the cognitive resources to fully pay attention to the target as intergroup interactions are more cognitively depleting than intragroup interactions (Richeson, Trawalter, & Shelton, 2005; Richeson & Shelton, 2007; Richeson et al., 2003). Individuals want to gain more information about targets who are more similar to them (Liviatan, Trope, & Liberman, 2008). Feeling similar to another person also increases liking (e.g., Byrne, 1997) and this is true across a variety of domains such as personality traits (Carli, Ganley, & Pierce-Otay, 1991), hobbies (Lydon, Jamieson, & Zanna, 1988), attitudes (Bond, Byrne, & Diamond, 1968), clothing preferences and subcultural scene (Back et al., 2011). In turn, liking is associated with greater attention (Human et al., 2012).  The detected cues may also be utilized differently based on similarity, as information is processed differently when perceiving a target more similar to the self (Liviatan et al., 2008). Specifically, individuals who have similar backgrounds, experiences, and interests are more likely to have a shared meaning system (Kenny, 1991). That is, a perceiver and target who are more similar to each other are likely to have more similar trait construals than less similar others. Similarly, research on consensus between judges has found that judges who have a shared meaning system attain higher levels of consensus than judges who have less similar meaning systems (Chaplin & Panter, 1993; Kenny, 1991; Story, 2003).  20  In sum, the degree of perceiver-target similarity should impact dyadic accuracy such that greater similarity is associated with greater dyadic accuracy. interactions in which the individuals are more similar to each other should be smoother, more comfortable and have more rapport. Specifically the individuals should display behaviors associated with increased comfort, attention, and liking. 1.7.3 Interpersonal Attraction Interpersonal attraction, such as physical attraction and liking, between the target and perceiver should impact dyadic accuracy. While there are stable individual differences in interpersonal appeal (e.g., some people are generally more likeable than others) there are also important idiosyncratic differences (e.g., a perceiver likes this target more than people tend to like this target). Indeed, greater perceiver liking is associated with more accurate and more positive first impressions (Human & Biesanz, 2011a). Similarly, perceivers’ idiosyncratic impressions of a target’s attractiveness are also associated with more accurate and more positive first impressions (Lorenzo et al., 2010). In sum, liking and physical attractiveness impact the accuracy of impressions, but their role in dyadic accuracy has not been fully explored.  Interpersonal attraction should also impact the target’s behavior such that overall cue relevance and availability is increased. Targets engaged in greater and more intimate self-disclosure when they liked their partner (Collins & Miller, 1994), expected their partner to like them (Curtis & Miller, 1986) or found their partner physically attractive (Brundage, Derlega, & Cash, 1976). This may be due to a desire to form a relationship with their interaction partner (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010) reward them with information (Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969) or obtain a goal such as increasing how much their interaction partner likes them (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Sprecher, Treger, & Wondra, 2013). Further, perceivers who like targets will 21  pay more attention to them (Human et al., 2012) and in turn, increased attention is associated with increased self-disclosure (Meltzer & Russo, 1970).  Greater interpersonal attraction should also increase the perceiver’s ability and motivation to detect and utilize cues from the target. People pay more attention to physically attractive individuals (Langlois et al., 2000; Maner et al., 2003) and are motivated to obtain more information about individuals they like (Liviaton et al., 2008). The increase in attention may occur because individuals are more motivated to connect with interpersonally attractive individuals (Lemay et al., 2010; Pickett, Gardner, & Knowles, 2004) and a greater desire to know and understand them (De La Ronde & Swann, 1998). Targets may also obtain more attention from perceivers who they like or find attractive by behaving in a friendly, sociable and warm manner (Andersen & Bem, 1981; Synder et al., 1977; Curtis & Miller, 1986). In turn, these behaviors are associated with greater perceiver attention (Human et al., 2012). While more direct evidence is necessary, idiosyncratic interpersonal attraction should increase dyadic accuracy. Of course, these variables are not static but may change during the course of the interaction and multiple variables may be impacting the interaction simultaneously.  In sum, the interpersonal attraction should impact dyadic accuracy such that greater attraction is associated with greater dyadic accuracy. Greater interpersonal attraction should be associated with behaviors such as increased attention, increased quantity and quality of information, increased sociability and increased appearance of liking.  1.7.4 Engagement The degree to which individuals are engaged in the interaction should impact dyadic accuracy. Targets who were rated as more engaging during an interaction were viewed more accurately and more positively (Human et al., 2012). As with interpersonal attraction, while an 22  individual may tend to be more or less engaging, an individual’s level of engagement is also likely to differ based on the person with whom they are interacting. For example, the ethnicity of both individuals impacts the amount of engagement behaviors displayed during an interaction (Kraus & Keltner, 2009). Further, in the context of families, there is significant dyadic variation in engagement and also reciprocity effects (Ackerman, Kashy, Donnellan, & Conger, 2011). The level of engagement of the target and the perceiver should impact the number of relevant cues made available to the perceiver. Specifically, engagement has been linked to behaviors such as talkativeness, expressivity, and appearing comfortable (Human et al., 2012; Simpson, Gangestad, & Biek, 1993) which should all increase the quality and quantity of information emitted by the target. An engaged perceiver is likely to look at their partner more and give more nonverbal acknowledgements (Kraus & Keltner, 2009), which indicates greater attention and interest in the individual. In turn, increased attention is associated with greater self-disclosure (Meltzer & Russo, 1970).  Engagement should also impact the perceiver’s ability to detect and utilize the cues. Given the relationship between engagement and attention (e.g., Aronoff, Stollak, & Woike, 1994), engaged perceivers should detect more cues emitted by the target. Similarly, engaged targets also capture the attention of a perceiver (Human et al., 2012). This may occur because the behaviors associated with engagement express an interest in the interaction partner and desire to affiliate (Gonzaga, Keltner, Londahl, & Smith, 2001). Thus, engagement should increase the relevant cues made available by the target and also increase the perceiver’s ability to detect these cues. In sum, engagement should impact dyadic accuracy such that greater engagement is associated with greater dyadic accuracy. Engaged individuals should pay more attention to their 23  partner and have more attention paid to them, be more expressive and interesting, and increase the quantity and quality of information. Further, the dyads themselves should be more engaging and interesting. 1.7.5 Personality Traits While overall personality similarity is likely to increase dyadic accuracy, the specific trait levels of each individual may also impact dyadic accuracy. As previously noted, research has examined how, on average, specific traits impact the behavior of interaction partners and interaction quality (Eaton & Funder, 2003; Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). Some research has examined the interaction between the perceiver and target’s personality traits, but this does not include an examination of cross traits or the impact on accuracy. For example, two disagreeable individuals report lower rapport than pairings where one or both individuals are agreeable (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). While research has examined how the personality composition of work teams impacts group effectiveness (Halfhill, Sundstrom, Lahner, Calderone, & Nielsen, 2005) and how individual personalities interact in romantic relationships (e.g., Solomon & Jackson, 2014), less work has examined the impact in first impressions. Thus, it remains plausible that the extent to which the personality traits of two individuals mesh or clash could impact dyadic accuracy. A target’s personality trait level may interact with a perceiver’s personality trait level such that the target changes how many relevant cues are made available. Indeed, two disagreeable individuals self-disclose less than pairings where one or both individuals are agreeable (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). It is also possible that cross trait interactions impact a target’s behavior. For instance, a highly neurotic individual who is very nervous and anxious may have particularly poor interactions with a particularly disagreeable person who constantly 24  finds fault in others and is argumentative. The neurotic target may become upset or uncomfortable and not makes as many cues available to the disagreeable perceiver, while a neurotic target may feel particularly safe in a warm space created by an agreeable perceiver. Indeed, individuals who interacted with an agreeable person were more engaged, more comfortable, and enjoyed the interaction more (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009) which may have particularly strong effect for an individual who would normally feel otherwise. Similarly, a perceiver’s personality trait level may interact with a target’s personality trait level such that the perceiver’s ability to detect and utilize cues is changed. An introverted individual tends to be reserved, not expressive or enthusiastic (Funder & Sneed, 1993), behaviors which do not elicit attention from a perceiver (Human et al., 2012). However, an introvert paired with a conscientious person who tends to pay more attention to their interaction partner (Funder & Sneed, 1993) may lead to greater dyadic accuracy because the introverted individual is given more attention than usual and the ability to detect cues is increased. In sum, it is plausible that certain personality traits of the individuals in the interaction may work together in a manner that impacts dyadic accuracy.  1.7.6 Behavioral Synchrony Behavioral synchrony, the timing and rhythm of behaviors between individuals, is considered a foundation for successful interpersonal interactions (Marsh, Richardson, & Schmidt, 2009). Indeed, behavioral synchrony is related to many aspects of positive social interactions, such as increased rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996), liking and affiliation (Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011; Hove & Risen, 2009), feelings of similarity (Valdesolo, Ouyang, & DeSteno, 2010) and cooperation (Wiltermuth & Heath, 2009). While research on behavioral synchrony has shown positive influence on interpersonal interactions, 25  outside of more positive impressions, the impact on personality impressions has not been examined.  Behavioral synchrony may increase the relevant cues the target makes available to the perceiver. Given the relationship between behavioral synchrony and rapport (e.g., Bernieri, 1988), targets experiencing more behavioral synchrony should make more cues available to perceivers because they are more comfortable in the interaction (Letzring, 2008). Additionally, behavioral synchrony leads to greater feelings of similarity (Valdesolo et al., 2010) and liking (Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011; Hove & Risen, 2009) which as previously discussed should also increase the cues provided by a target.  Behavioral synchrony should also impact the perceiver’s ability to detect and utilize cues from the target. A perceiver whose behavior is coordinated with their partner may pay more attention to the target individual. Participants who experienced synchronized actions, demonstrated greater recall of their partner’s appearance and utterances (Macrae, Duffy, Miles, & Lawrence, 2008). Similarly, participants who previously experienced behavioral synchrony demonstrated greater perceptual sensitivity and ability to detect their partner’s bodily movements (Valdesolo et al., 2010). Thus, perceivers who experience more behavioral synchrony will likely detect more cues given the increased attention.  In sum, behavioral synchrony should be positively related to accuracy. When behavioral synchrony is higher, the individuals should pay more attention to each other, feel more comfortable, and experience greater liking. These behaviors should increase the availability of relevant cues and also the perceiver’s detection of the cues.  26  1.8 Summary  In sum, this dissertation examines dyadic accuracy in first impressions of personality by examining stable characteristics, behaviors and interpersonal processes associated with the individuals in the interactions. Specifically, this dissertation investigates: a) how dyadic characteristics and processes impact accuracy, b) how behavior changes across interactions, c) why these behaviors change, and d) how changes in behavior are associated with changes in accuracy. Accuracy will include distinctive and normative accuracy and we will consider dyadic accuracy, as well as changes in perceptive accuracy (i.e., perceiver accuracy) and changes in expressive accuracy (i.e., target accuracy). More specifically, in the subsequent chapters we examine the following hypotheses: H1) On average, across interactions participants will display significant distinctive and normative accuracy. Significant amounts of variance in these effects will be due to the target, perceiver and dyad, respectively (e.g., Biesanz, 2010). That is, perceivers will differ in how accurately they tend to view targets, targets will differ on how accurately they tend to be viewed and dyads will differ in their degree of accuracy. Finally, the combination of a good target and a good perceiver will be associated with increased dyadic accuracy.  H2) The degree of similarity between individuals will impact dyadic accuracy. Specifically, in line with previous research (Rogers & Biesanz, 2014a) greater perceived and actual ethnic similarity will be associated with greater distinctive accuracy, but lower normative accuracy. This may be due to individuals’ greater motivation to understand a person to whom they are more similar (Biesanz & Human, 2010). Further, perceived and actual similarity as indexed by gender, 27  personality and well-being will be associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy. This may be due to increased attention (Human et al., 2014) and comfort (Letzring, 2008). H3) In line with previous research (Lorenzo et al., 2010), increased interpersonal attraction, such as physical attraction and liking, will be associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy.   H4) In line with previous research (Human et al., 2012) greater engagement will be associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy. This may be due to greater perceiver attention (Human et al., 2012) and greater information quality and quantity from the target.  H5) Given that engagement and comfort impact accuracy on the individual level (Human et al., 2012; Letzring, 2008), dyads that are judged to have interactions that are more engaging and comfortable will result in impressions which are more distinctly and normatively accurate.  H6) Dyads with greater behavioral synchrony will result in impressions which are more distinctly and normatively accurate. This is in line with previous research demonstrating that behavioral synchrony is related to rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Gillis, Davis, & Grahe, 1996; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1987), which includes mutual attentiveness and positivity. H7) The interaction between the stable personality traits of the perceiver and target will impact distinctive and normative accuracy. While these analyses were largely exploratory, we expected that perceivers whose stable traits allow the target to feel more comfortable or liked (e.g., agreeableness, extraversion) during the interaction 28  may give targets who tend to give more accurate cues (e.g., extraverted) an extra boost in accuracy.   H8) General behavioral tendencies and, importantly, changes in behavior will be associated with changes in perceptive distinctive and normative accuracy. While these analyses are largely exploratory, we expect to find that increases in behaviors associated with being engaged and attentive during the interaction will be associated with greater accuracy, as these behaviors should increase the perceiver’s ability to detect cues. Further, displaying warmth and social skill will be associated with greater accuracy as these may allow the target to express more cues. These findings are in line with previous research examining the between-person characteristics of the good judge (e.g., Letzring, 2008). These behaviors will also mediate the relationship between dyadic characteristics and accuracy.  H9) Similarly, general behavioral tendencies and, importantly, changes in behavior will be associated with changes in expressive distinctive and normative accuracy. These analyses are also largely exploratory, but we expect to find that behaviors associated with being interesting and attention grabbing will be associated with increases in accuracy, as these behaviors should increase the number of cues the perceiver can detect (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 2010). Additionally, behaviors associated with expressing more relevant cues and making more cues available will also be associated with greater accuracy, as the quality and quantity of information would be improved (e.g., Human et al., 2014). These behaviors will also mediate the relationship between dyad characteristics and accuracy.  29   Figure 1.1 Realistic Accuracy Model Expanded to Highlight Interaction of Good Target and Good Judge Notes. Realistic Accuracy Model (RAM; Funder, 1995, 1999). Path a encompasses the target making relevant cues available while path b encompasses the perceiver detecting and utilizing these cues. Notably, path a may influence path b, path b may influence path a, or both.   30  Chapter 2: Method To examine dyadic accuracy in first impressions, participants interacted in dyads and then rated each other. A subset of these interactions were taped and then coded by research assistants and other raters for personality, behavior, interaction quality, and behavioral synchrony. The combination of face-to-face dyadic interactions and coding allows for the examination of the characteristics and processes associated with the good dyad. 2.1 Dyadic Interactions Previously unacquainted individuals came to the lab in small groups to participate in a round-robin design and interacted individually with every other participant for three minutes. Participants were told to “just introduce yourself and try to get to know each other”. After each interaction, participants separated and provided their impressions of their interaction partner’s personality. This was repeated until every participant had met with every other participant. Participants also completed self-reports on the same personality measures and provided contact information for two peers and a parent or guardian to serve as close informants. Close informants reported on the participant using the same personality measures as used in the self- and other-reports.  2.1.1 Participants Over the course of 18 months, 354 (266 female, Mage = 21.75 years, SD = 4.89 years) undergraduates at the University of British Columbia (UBC) participated in 51 groups of 4 – 12 (Median = 7). Participants received partial course credit or an honorarium of $20. Finally, within each group two individuals were chosen at random to have all of their interactions filmed (n = 98). 31  2.1.2 Filmed Interactions A total of 547 interactions were filmed. In order to obtain the most reliable estimates and minimize rater and coder fatigue, always-taped participants in groups that included at least six participants were included in the set of interactions to be coded. Thus, 11 groups and 22 always-taped participants were not included. Additionally, of the taped interactions that occurred in the 40 groups with at least 6 participants, another 41 interactions were removed either due to technical difficulties in the recording (e.g., poor sound quality; n = 16), participants previously knew each other (n = 16) or participants did not meet study criteria (e.g., language spoken was not English; n = 9). After removing the problematic interactions, the final set for coding include 77 different always-taped participants (58 female, Mage = 21.33 years, SD = 4.02 years) interacting with 2-10 other participants (Median = 6). Since a total of 30 dyads included two always-taped participants, there were a total of 437 distinct clips retained for coding, but when coding for personality and behavior those 30 clips were watched twice, once for each always-taped participant, making the a total of 467 clips coded.  2.2 Measures 2.2.1 Demographic Measures  Participants completed basic demographic questions including gender, age, ethnicity, major, socioeconomic status, religious beliefs, and political orientation. Major was coded using nine categories based on the frequency of responses and trying to be as specific as possible. The coding resulted in the following categories which include five faculties and schools: Applied Sciences (4.3%), Arts not including psychology (15%), Kinesiology (3.1%), Land and Food Systems (3.7%), and Science (16.5%); as well as two majors: Psychology (28.1%) and Commerce (9.2%). Finally, two other categories included participants without a declared major 32  (4.6%) and other (15.6%) which included majors not captured by the previous faculties. To understand better participant’s ethnicity and cultural background, they also indicated how long they had lived in North America. To assess socioeconomic status, a subset of participants (n = 263; n = 64 always-taped participants) indicated the highest degree completed by their mother and father. The highest degree was translated into total years in education in line with the MacArthur Sociodemographic Questionnaire (MacArthur Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health) and Canadian schooling standards. The participant’s socioeconomic status (SES) was then determined using whichever value was higher between the mother and father. Specifically, middle school/junior high school was coded as 8 years (.80%); high school was coded as 12 years (15.2%); college, trade school, and college diploma were coded as 14 years (14.4%); university and bachelor’s degree was coded as 16 years (37.3%); graduate degrees such as master’s and MBA were coded as 18 years (20.5%); law degree was coded as 19 (1.5%), medical doctor and dentist were coded as 20 years (2.7%); PhD, PhD/MD, and PhD/JD were coded as 22 years (7.6%).  We also assessed a number of attitudes and beliefs including, religious belief and political views. Religious beliefs were assessed with a single open-ended item, “What is your religion?” Religious beliefs were then coded into one of nine categories: Atheist/none (52.2%), Agnostic (1.7%), Christian (26.1%), Buddhist (6.1%), Muslim (4.1%), Hindu (3.8%), Jewish (1.2%), Sikh (2.9%), or Other (2.0%). Political views were assessed with a single question, “How would you describe your political beliefs?” on a 1 (Conservative) to 7 (Liberal) scale. 33  2.2.2 Personality Measure  Participants completed self-reports of personality using 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999). Three additional items were included to assess intelligence, “Is intelligent”, “Is bright”, and “Receives good grades”. Other-reports of personality were completed using an abbreviated 24-item version of the BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999) and including the intelligence items. All items were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly).    2.2.3 Informant Reports Informants nominated by participants completed the same personality measures as the participants in the study. A total of 229 (65%) participants had a parent or guardian return the completed personality measure and 256 (72%) participants had at least one peer return the completed personality measure. Combined, 292 (82%) participants had at least one informant report. For the 77 always-taped participants, 56 (73%) participants had a parent or guardian return the completed personality measure and 55 (71%) participants had at least one peer return the completed personality measure. Combined, 64 (83%) always-taped participants had at least one informant return the completed personality measure. Informant reports will be included with the target self-reports for the validity measure.  2.2.4 Self-Report Measures of Adjustment Participants completed a number of measures of adjustment aimed to capture both personal and interpersonal adjustment. Rosenberg’s (1965) Self-Esteem scale (M = 5.08, SD = .99, α = .88), the Satisfaction with Life Scale (M = 4.63, SD = 1.18, α = .84; SWLS; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) and the Positive Relations with Others subscale of the Psychological Well-Being scale (M = 5.20, SD = .88, α = .91; PWB; Ryff, 1989) were all 34  measured on the same 1 to 7 rating scale as above, where higher scores indicate greater adjustment. Participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (M = .89, SD = .53, α = .85; CESD; Radloff, 1977) on a scale ranging from 0 (none) to 3 (all of the time), with scores summed such that higher scores indicate higher levels of depression.  Further, and as expected given the randomized selection, non-taped participants did not significantly differ in adjustment compared to the 77 always-taped participants in adjustment: Self-Esteem scale (not taped: M = 5.07, SD = .97; taped: M = 5.09, SD = 1.05; d = -0.02 with CI.95[-.27, .24]), SWLS (not taped: M = 4.63, SD = 1.19; taped: M = 4.63, SD = 1.16; d = -0.003 with CI.95[-.26, .25]), PWB (not taped: M = 5.17, SD = .86; taped: M = 5.28, SD = .95; d = -0.12 with CI.95[-.37, .13]) and CESD (not taped: M = .91, SD = .53; taped: M = .83, SD = .54; d = .14 with CI.95[-.12, .39]). 2.3 Coding of Videotaped Interactions  The filmed dyadic interactions were coded in four different manners focused on: (a) behavioral synchrony, (b) personality, (c) behavior, and (d) dyadic qualities (for an overview of data sources, see Table 2.1). 2.3.1 Behavioral Synchrony To code for behavioral synchrony, we used a planned missing design where coders (N = 173) in 19 groups of 6-12 (Median = 9) completed a two-hour session and received partial course credit. A total of 18 sets of clips were created such that coders watched a single set of 21-25 interactions (Median = 24). Coders watched each interaction for a specific always-taped participant before moving to the next always-taped participant. These interactions were muted and after each clip, coders rated the dyad’s behavioral synchrony (Bernieri, Reznick, & Rosenthal, 1988). Specifically, the questionnaire scores the three aspects of behavioral 35  synchrony (simultaneous movement, tempo similarity, and coordination and smoothness) on a 7-point semantic differential scale (Bernieri et al., 1988). Since each clip had between 6 and 12 coders, reliability was calculated using both the minimum and maximum number of coders. Coordination and smoothness was the most reliable item (ICC = .59 to .74) while simultaneous movement and tempo similarity had somewhat lower reliabilities (ICC = .48 to .65; ICC = .46 to .63, respectively). The average of the three items demonstrated moderate reliability (ICC = .59 to .74) and this composite will be used in subsequent analyses. Given that this was a relatively difficult and uninteresting task for participants to complete, we were concerned with possible order effects and rater fatigue. To assess this possibility, a subset of interactions (n = 116) was randomly selected to be watched in reverse order by a separate group of participants (N = 54) in 5 groups of 7-19 (Median = 9). Participants received partial course credit or an honorarium of $20. Reliability was calculated based on the minimum and maximum number of coders in each session using the number of coders in the original coding. Comparing the reliability of the average behavioral synchrony, videos coded in the first half of the order effects sessions demonstrated moderate reliability, (ICC = .49 to .66) and this was comparable to the reliability of the same videos when coded during the second half of the original coding sessions (ICC = .43 to .60). There is also similar reliability when comparing the videos when coded second half of the order effects sessions (ICC = .56 to .72) to the same videos when coded during the first half of the original sessions (ICC = .63 to .77). Thus, order effects and rater fatigue do not appear to have diminished the reliability of coding for behavioral synchrony. 36  2.3.2 Personality The second method of coding focused on obtaining a more reliable measure of the always-taped individual’s personality during a given interaction. To code for personality, raters (N = 1,096) in 79 groups of 6-19 (Median = 15) completed either a one- or two-hour session of coding. Raters (n = 265) in the two-hour sessions watched 10-13 interactions (Median = 12) in 19 groups of 9-18 (Median = 14) and received partial course credit. Raters (n = 811) in the one-hour sessions watched 3-5 interactions (Median = 5) in 60 groups of 6-19 (Median = 15) and received partial course credit or an honorarium of $10. Thus, 8-31 raters (Median = 15) coded each interaction. Given that we are primarily interested in first impressions, the ratings completed by individuals who indicated they knew the always-taped participant were removed (.74%). After watching each interaction, raters completed measures assessing the always-taped participant’s personality, behaviors, and qualities of the interaction. This questionnaire mirrored the self-report that participants in the filmed interactions completed and the questionnaire used by interaction partners. In order for impressions formed in this study to be as similar as possible to those formed by the always-taped participant’s interaction partner, raters watched a given target no more than once. Reliability was assessed for each of the items and calculated using the median number of coders (15). Examining first only the 47 BFI items (John & Srivastava, 1999), reliability ranged from moderate to strong (ICCs = .43 to .94; average ICC = .71; see Table 2.2). Looking at the remaining 30 items, the reliability was similar to the personality items (ICCs = .24 to .92, average ICC = .69; see Table 2.3). Thus, raters’ impressions tended to agree with one another, although it did vary and for “is bashful” it was particularly low.    37  A subset of interactions (n = 104) were randomly selected to be watched in reverse order by a separate group of participants (N = 359) in 24 groups of 6-20 (Median = 16) to check for order effects and rater fatigue. Participants received partial course credit or an honorarium of $20Raters watched between 3-5 interactions (Median = 4). Reliability was calculated for each item based on the median number of coders in the original coding. The reliability across the 78 items for videos coded in the first half of the order effects session was comparable to the reliability of the same videos coded during the second half of the original coding sessions (average ICC = .69 and .71, respectively). Similarly, the reliability was comparable for videos coded in the second half of the order effects session and the same videos coded in the first half of the original coding sessions (average ICC = .74 and .68, respectively). Thus, order effects and rater fatigue do not appear to have diminished the reliability of coding for of the always-taped participant’s personality and characteristics. 2.3.3 Behavioral Change In order to examine the specific behaviors associated with dyadic accuracy, eight research assistants (RAs; 7 female, 1 male) coded the always-taped participant in each interaction using a subset of questions from the Riverside Behavioral Q-Sort (RBQ; Funder, Furr, & Colvin, 2000) and the California Adult Q-sort (CAQ; Block, 1978) modified to a 7-point likert-type scale. These items aim to capture behavior at the macro level (e.g., “acts irritated” and “appears straightforward and forthright”). Specifically, the RAs watched an interaction and then rated the interaction before watching the next interaction. This process was repeated until all of the interactions are watched. Finally, the RAs watched a single always-taped participant throughout all of his or her interactions before moving to a different always-taped participant, which allowed the RAs to also rate how the individual’s behavior changed across different 38  dyadic interactions. On average, there was moderate reliability (average ICC = .64) however the items ranged from ICC = .30 to .91 (see Table 2.4).  2.3.4 Dyadic Interaction Quality In order to examine the quality of the interaction at the dyadic level, seven RAs (five of whom also previously rated behaviors) rated each filmed interaction as a whole on eight items. These items aimed to capture the degree to which the interaction was stimulating (e.g., “was engaging”) and relaxed (e.g., “was strained”), and degree to which the interaction partners appeared to hit if off (e.g., “had rapport”). Two RAs who had not previously watched any taped interactions coded every interaction while the other five who were included as behavioral change raters watched a subset (n = 175), thus four different individuals coded each interaction. The eight items each demonstrated moderate reliability (ICCs = .36 - .70; see Table 2.5). The composite of the seven most highly correlated items demonstrated moderate reliability, ICC = .54. 2.4 Assessment of Dyadic Characteristics 2.4.1 Similarity Similarity was examined as both objective and perceived similarity of the individuals in the dyadic interaction. Objective similarity between the participants in round-robin was assessed using the self-reports of the individuals in the round-robin. Specifically, using measures previously described, we examined the similarity of their personalities, psychological adjustment, ethnicity, religion, political views, and socioeconomic status.  To assess perceived similarity, participants in the round-robins completed two items capture perceived ethnic similarity: “Is from the same cultural or ethnic group as me” and “Has a similar accent or way of speaking as me”. These items were completed using the same 7-point 39  likert scale as the personality items. To capture perceived general similarity, the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS; Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992) was modified such that the circles move farther apart. However, the item was reverse scored such that higher numbers indicate greater similarity, as the circles were closer together. By including measures of both perceived and objective similarity, we are able to examine if how an individual perceives the person differentially affects accuracy compared to how an outside individual might perceive the relationship. Also, within the objective similarity we are able to examine whether certain types of similarity (e.g., personality or ethnicity) affect accuracy and behaviors differently and examine the impact of total similarity across all areas measured. 2.4.2 Interpersonal Attraction  Interpersonal attraction was examined using the round-robin participants’ perceptions of their interaction partners on three different items. Specifically, the round-robin participants completed multiple items tapping into liking and physical attraction. Specifically, after each interaction they completed the following items: “Is very likeable”, and “Is physically attractive”. Participants also indicated how much they felt their interaction partner liked them; “I think this person liked me”. In order to assess more objectively the interpersonal attraction between the round-robin participants, video personality raters and RA behavioral coders also completed items regarding how much the individuals appeared to like each other, which mirror those completed by the participants. 2.4.3 Engagement  Engagement was assessed using the round-robin participants’ perceptions of their interaction partners. To capture engagement, participants in the round-robin indicated the extent to which their interaction partner “Is engaging and interesting”. The RA behavioral coders also 40  completed items assessing how engaged the always-taped individual was during their interaction: “Seems detached from the interaction”, “Seems interested in what the partner has to say”, “Shows a lack of interest in talking with partner”, “This individual was engaged in the conversation”, “Was engaging”, and “Was interesting”. Finally, the RA dyadic coders completed items assessing how engaging the dyadic interaction was as a whole: “was engaging” and “was interesting”. In sum, engagement was captured at the individual and dyadic level. 2.4.4 Behavioral Synchrony  As previously mentioned, a fifth group of raters were used to code for the degree of behavioral synchrony in an interaction. The dyadic coders also completed an item assessing the degree to which the dyad “hit it off” (i.e., “had rapport”).    41  Table 2.1 Overview of data sources and analyses  Sample Size  Sample Raters Per. Tar. Dyad Purpose Round-Robin  354 354 2110   Informants  629          Video Raters       Behavioral Synchrony Coders     coded behavioral synchrony   Original  173  77 437   Order Effects 54  77 116        Personality Raters     rated personality of always-taped participant, mirrored round-robin assessments   Original 1,096  77 467   Order Effects 358  77 106        Behavioral Change Raters* 8  77 467 coded behaviors of always-taped participant        Dyadic Interaction Quality Raters* 7  77 437 rated aspects of dyadic interaction       Total Unique Participants 354     Total Unique Raters 1691     Raters + Participants + Informants 2674     Notes. Per. = perceivers, Tar. = targets. *indicates that research assistants were the coders, otherwise all individuals were UBC undergraduates. Of the 15 RA coders, 5 individuals coded both behaviors and dyadic interaction quality.    42  Table 2.2 Descriptive statistics and reliability for personality items coded by personality video raters BFI Items ICC M SD 1. Is full of energy. 0.94 4.27 1.60 2. Is intelligent. 0.76 4.84 1.20 3. Generates a lot of enthusiasm. 0.93 4.17 1.65 4. Remains calm in tense situations. 0.62 4.57 1.27 5. Tends to be quiet. 0.94 3.96 1.72 6. Makes plans and follows through with them. 0.70 4.53 1.14 7. Has an assertive personality. 0.83 3.86 1.47 8. Is sometimes shy, inhibited. 0.92 4.26 1.63 9. Is outgoing, sociable. 0.93 4.49 1.52 10. Tends to find fault with others. 0.57 3.31 1.26 11. Does a thorough job. 0.66 4.53 1.08 12. Is depressed, blue. 0.75 2.74 1.27 13. Is original, comes up with new ideas. 0.72 4.10 1.21 14. Is helpful and unselfish with others. 0.62 4.63 1.10 15. Can be somewhat careless. 0.72 3.82 1.25 16. Is relaxed, handles stress well. 0.65 4.45 1.22 17. Receives very good grades. 0.80 4.68 1.17 18. Starts quarrels with others. 0.58 2.83 1.24 19. Is a reliable worker. 0.69 4.73 1.07 20. Can be tense. 0.61 3.98 1.34 21. Is reserved. 0.90 4.10 1.55 22. Is ingenious, a deep thinker. 0.65 4.05 1.20 23. Has a forgiving nature. 0.56 4.59 1.07 24. Is bright. 0.66 4.81 1.16 25. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset 0.56 4.62 1.18 26. Is inventive 0.59 4.04 1.09 27. Is talkative 0.94 4.39 1.64 28. Can be cold and aloof 0.73 3.35 1.42 29. Perseveres until the task is finished 0.62 4.51 1.10 30. Can be moody 0.57 3.80 1.26 31. Values artistic, aesthetic experience 0.76 4.22 1.22 32. Is curious about many different things 0.76 4.57 1.29 33. Is considerate and kind to almost everyone 0.70 4.93 1.13 34. Does things efficiently 0.67 4.55 1.05 35. Tends to be lazy 0.69 3.42 1.19 36. Prefers work that is routine 0.67 4.19 1.17 37. Tends to be disorganized 0.74 3.56 1.22 38. Is sometimes rude to others 0.64 3.10 1.35 39. Worries a lot 0.68 3.72 1.29 40. Gets nervous easily 0.82 3.83 1.43 41. Likes to reflect, play with ideas 0.54 4.12 1.12 42. Has few artistic interests 0.43 3.91 1.15 43  BFI Items ICC M SD 43. Likes to cooperate with others 0.69 4.84 1.14 44. Is easily distracted 0.73 3.65 1.31 45. Is sophisticated in art, music, or literature 0.75 3.92 1.20 46. Has an active imagination 0.75 4.18 1.19 47. Is generally trusting 0.61 4.72 1.10 Average 0.71   Note: aitem measured on a 1-8 scale, bitem measured on a 0, 1 scale; all other items were measured on a 1-7 scale with a range of 6. Impressions formed by 1,096 video raters.   44  Table 2.3 Descriptive statistics and reliability for assessment of the target and interaction coded by personality video raters Items ICC M SD Is mature. 0.74 4.86 1.26 Is reasonable. 0.60 5.10 1.07 Is hypocritical. 0.45 3.04 1.29 Is short-sighted. 0.55 3.23 1.33 Is aggressive and unrestrained. 0.51 2.33 1.20 Is bashful and unassuming. 0.24 3.11 1.45 Is opportunistic and crafty. 0.47 3.67 1.30 Is sarcastic and demanding. 0.61 2.64 1.31 Is interesting. 0.80 4.20 1.42 Is very likeable. 0.80 4.57 1.34 Is engaging. 0.88 4.31 1.55 Is physically attractive. 0.85 3.89 1.50 Is a leader. 0.84 3.66 1.47 Has high status. 0.69 3.85 1.17 Is respected and admired by others. 0.69 4.32 1.17 Is from the same cultural or ethnic group as me. 0.44 2.95 2.12 Has a similar accent or way of speaking as me. 0.76 3.25 1.98 I think this person liked their interaction partner. 0.83 4.47 1.46 How well do you think your impressions would agree with someone who knows this person very well? 0.47 4.31 1.34 This person shared unique, personal information during their conversation. 0.82 3.92 1.63 Their conversation was pretty typical of an average getting-acquainted conversation. 0.69 5.19 1.33 This person was engaged in their conversation. 0.87 4.90 1.48 I found my mind wandering when listening to this person. 0.73 3.86 1.69 This person led their interaction. 0.92 4.04 1.77 This person held my attention. 0.85 4.06 1.61 I had difficulty understanding the main speaker in the video clip. 0.85 2.41 1.60 What are the individual’s political beliefs? 0.76 4.12 1.20 Please circle the picture or letter below which best depicts you in relation to the person you just viewed?a 0.66 4.24 1.64 Would you want to be friends with this person on Facebook?b 0.55 0.44 0.50 How much do you like this person overall? 0.75 4.45 1.24 Average 0.69   Note: aitem measured on a 1-8 scale, bitem measured on a 0, 1 scale; all other items were measured on a 1-7 scale with a range of 6. Impressions formed by 1,096 video raters.    45  Table 2.4 Reliability and descriptive statistics for the behavioral items  Items ICC M SD 1.  Acts irritateda 0.31 1.75 0.62 2.  Acts playful 0.67 3.24 1.48 3.  Appears to be relaxed and comfortable 0.79 5.09 1.15 4.  Behaves in a cheerful manner 0.78 5.08 1.11 5.  Behaves in a fearful or timid manner 0.60 2.27 1.16 6.  Behaves in a genuine and natural manner 0.74 5.17 1.01 7.  Behaves in a very confident and self-assured manner 0.62 4.33 1.49 8.  Compares self to others 0.53 2.31 1.08 9.  Displays ambition 0.70 3.57 1.54 10.  Exhibits a high degree of intelligence 0.44 4.21 1.45 11.  Exhibits condescending behaviora 0.33 1.92 0.77 12.  Exhibits social skills 0.77 5.41 0.88 13.  Expresses agreement frequently 0.44 4.68 1.38 14.  Expresses insecurity or sensitivity 0.46 2.24 1.05 15.  Expresses sympathy toward partner 0.40 3.19 1.60 16.  Expresses warmth to anyone 0.38 3.41 1.75 17.  Has an open, welcoming posture 0.54 4.96 1.23 18.  Is expressive in face, voice or gestures 0.70 4.99 1.26 19.  Is physically animated; moves around a great deal 0.68 3.67 1.49 20.  Is reserved and unexpressive 0.71 2.34 1.16 21.  Is talkative (as observed in this situation) 0.81 4.74 1.30 22.  Is trying hard to make a good impressiona 0.30 3.31 1.38 23.  Laughs frequently (nervously or genuinely) 0.84 4.06 1.52 24.  Makes or approaches physical contact with partner 0.91 2.26 1.45 25.  Says or does something interesting 0.66 4.55 1.49 26.  Seeks advice from partner 0.76 1.92 0.94 27.  Seeks reassurance from partnera 0.43 1.89 0.83 28.  Seems detached from the interactiona 0.60 2.02 0.95 29.  Shows a wide range of interests (e.g., talks about many topics) 0.63 4.30 1.41 30.  Shows high enthusiasm and high energy level 0.87 4.31 1.36 31.  Shows physical signs of tension or anxiety (e.g., fidgets nervously) 0.58 2.79 1.52 32.  Smiles frequently 0.81 5.20 1.09 33.  Speaks fluently and expresses ideas well 0.77 5.29 1.03 34.  Speaks in a loud voice 0.72 4.01 1.50 35.  Speaks quickly 0.65 3.45 1.33 36.  Tries to control the interaction (disregard whether or not attempts at control succeed or not) 0.47 3.55 1.49 37.  Volunteered a large amount of information about self 0.77 4.69 1.38 38.  This individual had charisma or charm 0.77 4.47 1.35 39.  Projected own thoughts and motivations onto interaction partner 0.35 2.62 1.53 40.  Was defensive during the conversationa 0.34 1.93 0.70 41.  Was perceptive to interpersonal cues 0.65 5.19 0.88 42.  Appears straightforward and forthright 0.51 5.18 1.17 46  Items ICC M SD 43.  Is overly rigid and closed off during the interaction 0.68 2.17 1.00 44.  Says negative things about selfa 0.56 2.01 0.93 45.  Concentrates on/works hard at answering the questions 0.52 4.54 1.43 46.  Dominates the interaction 0.77 3.55 1.48 47.  Engages in constant eye contact with partner 0.70 5.43 0.91 48.  Exhibits an awkward interpersonal style 0.76 2.60 1.39 49.  Interviews his or her partner (e.g., asks a series of questions) 0.67 4.68 1.44 50.  Keeps partner at a distance, avoids development of any sort of interpersonal relationship 0.67 2.26 1.07 51.  Seems interested in what the partner has to saya 0.76 5.44 0.87 52.  Seems likeable (to other person present) 0.77 5.16 1.02 53.  Seems to genuinely enjoy the interaction 0.81 5.08 1.14 54.  Seems to like partner (e.g., would like to be friends) 0.73 5.02 1.11 55.  Shows a lack of interest in talking with partner 0.62 2.18 1.00 56.  This individual discussed their thoughts and feelings 0.70 5.19 1.12 57.  This individual discussed their actions and behaviors 0.74 5.26 1.01 58.  Others would likely behave, think, and feel similarly to this individual 0.51 5.04 0.99 59.  Others would likely mention such behaviors, thoughts, and feelings 0.30 4.96 1.05 60.  This individual provided unique, distinctive information about him 0.71 4.87 1.32 61.  This individual was very candid and/or intimate in answering the questions 0.72 4.72 1.35 62.  This individual provided a very accurate and complete impression of who they are. 0.78 4.24 1.36 63.  This individual provided a lot of detail in their answers. 0.74 4.46 1.51 64.  This individual appeared to be very thoughtful when answering the questions. 0.55 4.42 1.47 65.  This individual appeared to put a lot of effort into answering the questions 0.58 4.28 1.49 66.  This individual provided high quality information 0.73 4.70 1.37 67.  This individual provided a high quantity of information 0.79 4.60 1.41 68.  Paid attention to their interaction partner 0.61 5.81 0.58 69.  This individual was engaged in the conversation 0.78 5.51 0.91 70.  This individual appeared to try to put the other person at ease 0.51 3.34 1.46 71.  The individuals were similar to each other 0.78 3.39 1.40 72.  Overall, this interaction was very awkward and strained 0.84 2.81 1.46 73.  Held my attention through most of the clip 0.59 5.34 1.01 74.  Was engaging 0.72 4.61 1.40 75.  Was interesting 0.76 4.51 1.41 76.  I found my mind wandering watching this individual 0.54 2.34 1.13 77.  Appears cold 0.53 2.04 0.95 Average 0.64   Note. Items coded by seven research assistants.   47  Table 2.5 Reliability and descriptive statistics for dyadic interaction quality items Item ICC SD M 1. was engaging .50 1.22 4.80 2. was comfortable .66 1.21 4.67 3. was interesting .60 1.20 4.76 4. was expressive .61 1.16 4.82 5. felt authentic .48 1.06 4.75 6. had rapport  .58 1.12 4.57 7. increased rapport .35 0.79 4.53 8. was strained .71 1.28 3.11 Note. Item stem: “This interaction…” Each item was rated by four research assistants.     48  Chapter 3: Analytic Approach  3.1 Accuracy of Impressions  The accuracy of impressions was assessed using the social accuracy model of interpersonal perception (SAM; Biesanz, 2010). SAM is a crossed-random effects multilevel regression model that estimates perceiver, target and dyadic effects of the different components of accuracy across traits simultaneously (see Figure 3.1). The basic SAM equation is: 𝑌™? = 𝛽? ™ + 𝛽? ™ 𝑇𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑦™ + 𝛽? ™ 𝑇𝑉𝑎𝑙𝚤𝑑𝚤𝑡𝑦? + 𝜀™?  (1) Equation 1 models perceiver i's ratings of target j on personality item k (Yijk) as a function of the validation measure for that target j on item k (TValidityjk) as well as average validation measure on item k across targets (𝑇𝑉𝑎𝑙𝚤𝑑𝚤𝑡𝑦?). 𝑇𝑉𝑎𝑙𝚤𝑑𝚤𝑡𝑦? represents the average person’s personality and is grand mean centered. The validation measure (TValidityjk) is a composite of self-, peer-, and parental-reports of personality and is mean deviated from the average personality (𝑇𝑉𝑎𝑙𝚤𝑑𝚤𝑡𝑦?).  The regression coefficients β1ij and β2ij, are decomposed into fixed effects and perceiver and target random main effects as well as dyadic random effects for distinctive and normative accuracy, respectively. Specifically, they are expressed as a function of fixed and random effects as follows: β0ij = β00 + u0i + u0j + u0(ij) β1ij = β10 + u1i + u1j + u1(ij)        (2a) β2ij = β20 + u2i + u2j + u2(ij)  Where u1i represents perceiver i's distinctive accuracy effect across targets, u1j represents target j’s distinctive accuracy effect across perceivers, and u1(ij) represents the unique dyadic distinctive 49  accuracy of perceiver i's impression of target j after accounting for perceiver i and target j’s main effects.  Further, this model was used to assess the impressions formed by perceivers in the round-robin interactions and separately for the impressions formed by the personality raters who watched the video clips. While the impressions formed during the round-robin interactions and the video perceptions should be similar, both methods offer certain benefits. The round-robin interactions are more similar to a naturalistic impression that could be formed during a first date or interview. In this way, we are able to explore how each individual influences the other’s behavior and impression. Since the impressions formed during the video perceptions have many raters who formed impressions of an individual in a single interaction, we are able to obtain a more reliable measure of the individual’s personality for that interaction. This allows us to explore more cleanly the target’s role in dyadic accuracy, as perceiver effects are essentially washed out. Importantly, individuals who observe interactions either by watching video clips or by observing a face-to-face interaction are able to form impressions that are distinctly accurate, but the impressions are lower in normative accuracy (Rogers & Biesanz, 2014b).  3.1.1 Dyadic Level Characteristics  To investigate how characteristics of the dyad (personality similarity, dyadic interaction quality, and behavioral synchrony) impact dyadic accuracy (see Figure 3.2), Equation 2a was expanded to include moderators as follows:    β0ij = β00 + β01DyadCharg + u0i + u0j + u0g  β1ij = β10 + β11DyadCharg+ u1i + u1j + u1g  (2b) β2ij = β20 + β21DyadCharg+ u2i + u2j + u2g 50  Here, DyadCharg represents the dyad g’s mean level of the dyad characteristic grand mean centered across all dyads and interactions. We use g to denote dyad when the variable is the same regardless of which member of the dyad is the perceiver or target, that is, when the dyad members are treated as indistinguishable (see Table 3.1). Thus, we are able to examine how dyadic characteristics affect distinctive (β11) and normative accuracy (β21). This was repeated separately for each dyadic characteristic and for both video and round-robin perceivers. Thus we are able to examine how dyadic characteristics impact accuracy and also any differential impact for round-robin perceivers and video raters. For example, behavioral synchrony may have a different impact on dyadic accuracy in the round-robin than it does when impressions are formed via video perceptions. To examine the effect of similarity between participants in terms of socioeconomic status (SES), political orientation, and adjustment on accuracy, we calculated difference scores and the average score for each dyad. Thus, Equation 2a is expanded as follows using SES as an example: β0ij = β00+β01SESAvgg+β02SESDiffg+β03SESAvgg×SESDiffg+u0i+u0j+u0g  β1ij = β10+β11SESAvgg+β12SESDiffg+β13SESAvgg×SESDiffg+u1i+u1j+u1g (2c) β2ij = β20+β21SESAvgg+β22SESDiffg+β23SESAvgg×SESDiffg+u2i+u2j+u2g  SESDiffg is the difference in socioeconomic status between the dyad members and SESAvgg is the average socioeconomic status of the members of the dyad. Thus, we are able to examine how the similarity of participant’s SES and their average SES the impact distinctive (β11) and normative accuracy (β21). Further, we can examine if the impact of SES similarity on distinctive and normative accuracy changes based on average levels of SES.  51  To examine the effect of similarity between participants in terms of ethnicity, major, religion, and gender on accuracy, we expanded Equation 2a as follows for each of the similarity variables: β0ij = β00 + β01Matchg + u0i + u0j + u0g   β1ij = β10 + β11Matchg+ u1i + u1j + u1g (2d) β2ij = β20 + β21Matchg+ u2i + u2j + u2g Matchg is dummy-coded and is 1 when the members of the dyad have the same ethnicity, major, religion, or gender. Thus, we are able to examine the impact of having the same ethnicity, major, religion, or gender on distinctive (β11) and normative accuracy (β21). Notably, the impact of each similarity variable on accuracy is examined separately. 3.1.2 Interpersonal Attraction and Engagement To investigate how within-person changes in characteristics of the dyad (interpersonal attraction and engagement) impact dyadic accuracy (Figure 3.3), Equation 2a, using target engagement as an example, was expanded to include moderators as follows:    β0ij = β00 +β01Engagej● +β02Engageij+β03Engage j●×Engageij+u0i+u0j+u0(ij)  β1ij = β10+β11Engagej● +β12Engageij +β13Engagej●×Engageij+u1i+u1j+u1(ij)  (2e) β2ij = β20 +β21Engagej● +β22Engageij+β23Engagej●×Engageij+u2i+u2j +u2(ij) Here, Engagej● represents target j’s mean level of the dyadic characteristic across all of their interactions and is grand mean centered. Engageij represents target j’s dyadic characteristic, centered within target, and is the degree to which the dyad characteristic differed in this particular interaction from target j’s average dyad characteristic, such as how much more or less engaged target j was with perceiver i compared to how engaged target j is on average. The dyadic impact is captured by the within-person centering as it measures the degree to which 52  target j changed in the particular interaction with perceiver i. The interaction between the target’s average engagement and the target’s change in engagement allows us to examine if the impact of changes in engagement on accuracy differs based on the target’s average level. Thus, we will be able to examine how the dyadic characteristics impact expressive distinctive (β11, β12) and normative accuracy (β21, β22).  Additionally, these models were run based on the target’s interpersonal attraction and engagement as well as the perceiver’s interpersonal attraction and engagement. This allows us to examine how interpersonal attraction and engagement impact how an individual is viewed (target) and how interpersonal attraction and engagement impact how an individual views others (perceiver). Specifically, the models based on the perceiver’s interpersonal attraction and engagement are as follows: β0ij = β00 +β01Engagei● +β02Engageij+β03Engagei●×Engageij+u0i+u0j+u0(ij)  β1ij = β10+β11Engagei● +β12Engageij +β13Engagei●×Engageij+u1i+u1j+u1(ij)  (2f) β2ij = β20 +β21Engagei● +β22Engageij+β23Engagei●×Engageij+u2i+u2j +u2(ij) Here, Engagei● represents perceiver i’s mean level of the dyadic characteristic across all of their interactions and grand mean centered. Engageij represents perceiver i’s dyadic characteristic, centered within perceiver, and is the degree to which the dyad characteristic differed in this particular interaction from perceiver i’s average dyad characteristic, such as how much more or less engaged perceiver i was with target j compared to how engaged perceiver i is on average. The dyadic impact is captured by the within-person centering as it measures the degree to which perceiver i changed in the particular interaction with target j. The interaction between the perceiver’s average engagement and the perceiver’s change in engagement allows us to examine if the impact of changes in engagement on accuracy differs based on the perceiver’s average 53  level. Thus, we will be able to examine how the dyadic characteristics affect perceptive distinctive (β11, β12) and normative accuracy (β21, β22).  3.1.3 Behaviors The analyses to investigate how changes in behavior impact dyadic accuracy parallel those used for how within-person changes in dyadic characteristics impact dyadic accuracy (see Figure 3.3). However, these analyses are restricted to include only interactions that included an always-taped participant. Specifically, Equation 2a is expanded as: β0ij = β00 + β01Behj● + β02Behij + β03Behj●×Behij + u0i + u0j + u0(ij)  β1ij = β10 + β11Behj● + β12Behij + β13Behj●×Behij + u1i + u1j + u1(ij) (2g) β2ij = β20 + β21Behj● + β22Behij + β23Behj●×Behij + u2i + u2j + u2(ij) Here, Behj● represents always-taped participant j’s mean level of behavior grand mean centered across all always-taped participant and interactions, estimated as the empirical Bayesian estimate to adjust for measurement error. Behij represents always-taped participant j’s behavior, centered within participant, and is the degree to which always-taped participant j’s behavior differed from his or her average behavior in the particular interaction. The interaction between the always-taped participant’s average behavior and the always-taped participant’s change in behavior allows us to examine if the impact of changes in behavior on accuracy changes based on the always-taped participant’s average level. The dyadic impact is captured by the within-person centering as it measures the degree to which always-taped participant j’s behavior changed in that interaction. Thus, we are able to examine how changes in behavior from always-taped participant j’s mean level impact distinctive (β12) and normative accuracy (β22). These analyses were completed separately for each behavior and also for both video and round-robin perceivers. 54  This allows us to examine whether behaviors have the same impact on impressions when an individual is part of the interaction compared to passively watching an interaction.  Further, these models were run twice, once where the always-taped participant served as the target and once where the always-taped participant served as the perceiver. This allows us to examine how behaviors impact how an individual is viewed (target) and how behaviors impact how an individual views others (perceiver), respectively. Thus, the equations to examine the impact of behavior on perceptive accuracy are as follows: β0ij = β00 + β01Behi● + β02Behij + β03Behi●×Behij + u0i + u0j + u0(ij)  β1ij = β10 + β11Behi● + β12Behij + β13Behi●×Behij + u1i + u1j + u1(ij) (2h) β2ij = β20 + β21Behi● + β22Behij + β23Behi●×Behij + u2i + u2j + u2(ij) Here, Behi● represents always-taped participant i’s mean level of behavior grand mean centered across all always-taped participant and interactions, estimated as the empirical Bayesian estimate to adjust for measurement error. Behij represents always-taped participant i’s behavior, centered within participant, and is the degree to which always-taped participant i’s behavior differed from his or her average behavior in the particular interaction. The interaction between the always-taped participant’s average behavior and the always-taped participant’s change in behavior allows us to examine if the impact of changes in behavior on accuracy changes based on the always-taped participant’s average level. The dyadic impact is captured by the within-person centering as it measures the degree to which always-taped participant i’s behavior changed in that interaction. Thus, we are able to examine how changes in behavior from always-taped participant i’s mean level impact perceptive distinctive (β12) and normative accuracy (β22).  55  3.1.4 Interaction between Perceiver and Target Traits  We investigated whether specific perceiver and target traits work well together (mesh) to improve accuracy or do not work well together (clash) to decrease accuracy. To investigate how the personality of the perceiver and target interact and “mesh” to impact accuracy, Equation 2a was expanded to include perceiver and target personality traits as moderators as follows:  β0ij = β00 + β01PTraiti + β02TTraitj + β03PTraiti×TTraitj + u0i + u0j + u0(ij)  β1ij = β10 + β11PTraiti + β12TTraitj + β13PTraiti×TTraitj + u1i + u1j + u1(ij)                          (2i) β2ij = β20 + β21PTraiti + β22TTraitj + β23PTraiti×TTraitj + u2i + u2j + u2(ij) Here, PTraitj and TTraitj represents perceiver i’s and target j’s standing on the given personality trait, respectively. The variables of interest here are the interactions between PTraitj and TTraitj (β13 and β23), as this captures the extent to which the personality traits of the perceiver and target mesh or clash to influence distinctive and normative accuracy, respectively. This model was run separately for each pairing of the perceiver and target BFI traits (e.g., perceiver extraversion was paired with target extraversion, target agreeableness, target openness, and target neuroticism).  3.2 Characteristics of the Dyad  We investigated potential reasons for the always-taped participant’s behavior during a specific interaction by examining the impact of various dyadic characteristics on the behavior variables as coded by the research assistants. The following analyses are restricted to interactions that included an always-taped participant. 3.2.1 Dyadic Level Characteristics and Behaviors  To examine the impact of the dyadic characteristics (i.e., personality similarity and behavioral synchrony) on the behavior variables as coded by the research assistants we used the following equations: 56  Behig = β0i + β1iDyadCharg + εig  β0i = β00 + u0i  (4) β1i = β10 + u1i  Here, i represents the always-taped participant and g is the interaction identifier which is unique to every interaction. Thus, Behig represents always-taped participant i’s behavior in interaction g as coded by the research assistants and is examined as a function of the dyad characteristic for the specific interaction (DyadCharg). DyadCharg is grand mean centered using empirical Bayes estimation. This is similar to a growth curve model, thus β00 is the grand mean of the behavior when the dyad characteristic is equal to 0 (and at the grand mean) and β10 is the fixed effect of primary interest, indexing the degree to which behavior changes on average across interactions as a function of the dyad characteristic. These analyses were completed separately for every behavior-dyad characteristic pair. 3.2.2 Interpersonal Attraction, Engagement, and Behaviors  We further investigated potential reasons for an individual’s behavior during a specific interaction by expanding Equation 4 to examine the impact of the within-person changes in dyadic characteristics (interpersonal attraction and engagement) on the behavior variables. Using engagement as an example the equation is:  Behij = β0i + β1iEngageij + β2iEngagei•+β3iEngageij×Engagei•+ εij  β0i = β00 + u0i + u0j + u0(ij)  (4d)  β1i = β10 + u1i + u1j + u1(ij)   β2i = β20 + u2i + u2j + u2(ij)   β3i = β30 + u3i + u3j + u3(ij)   57  Here, i represents the always-taped participant and j is the interaction partner. Behij is always-taped participant i's behavior with interaction partner j and is within-person-centered. Engageij represents always-taped participant i’s engagement with interaction partner j, centered within participant, and is the degree to which always-taped participant i’s engagement differed from his or her average engagement. Engagei• represents always-taped participant i's average level of engagement across all interactions. By including the interaction between Engagei• and Engageij we are able to assess the degree to which the relationship between behavior and changes in behavior is moderated by the individual’s average level of engagement. These analyses were done separately for each measure of interpersonal attraction and engagement.   3.3 Mediational Analyses Finally, in order to examine the role of behavior on the impact of different characteristics of the dyad (e.g., interpersonal attraction, engagement), we examined how behaviors mediate the impact of characteristics of the dyad on the accuracy of impressions. These analyses are restricted to dyadic interactions that included an always-taped participant. For each meditational model, the paths are defined as follows (see Figure 3.4):  path a  the relationship between characteristic of dyad and behavior   path b  the relationship between the behavior and impressions  path c  the relationship between characteristic of dyad and impressions To examine how behaviors mediate the relationship between accuracy and interpersonal attraction and engagement, using engagement and the always-taped participant as target as an example, Equation 5a was expanded as follows: β0ij=β00+β01Engj•+β02Engij+β03Engj•×Engij+β04Behj•+β05Behij+β06Behj•×Behij+u0i+u0j+u0(ij) β1ij=β10+β11Engj•+β12Engij+β13Engj•×Engij+β14Behj•+β15Behij+β16Behj•×Behij+u1i+u1j+u1(ij)  (5) 58  β2ij=β20+β21Engj•+β22Engij+β23Engj•×Engij+β24Behj•+β25Behij+β26Behj•×Behij+u2i+u2j+u2(ij) Using Empirical Bayes estimation Engj• and Behi•, represent target j’s mean level of the characteristic and behavior, respectively, across all of their interactions and are grand mean centered, and Behij is centered within the always-taped participant. While we estimate mediation of between-person effects, we are primarily focused on within-person changes and how these effects are moderated by between-person effects. As such, the key variables of interest are interpreted as follows, using engagement as an example: b12 the change in distinctive accuracy for a one unit increase in the target’s engagement centered within-person (i.e., the within-person effect of engagement on distinctive accuracy) controlling for the target’s average engagement across interactions, average behavior and change in behavior (path c’w) b13 the degree to which the impact of changes in the target’s engagement on distinctive accuracy differs by the target’s average level of engagement, controlling for the target’s average behavior and change in behavior (moderation of path c’w) b15 the change in distinctive accuracy for a one unit increase in the target’s behavior centered within-person (i.e., the within-person effect of behavior on distinctive accuracy) controlling for the target’s average engagement, change in engagement and average behavior across interactions (path bw) b16 the degree to which the impact of changes in the target’s behavior on distinctive accuracy differs by the target’s average level of the behavior, controlling for the target’s average engagement and change in engagement (moderation of path bw) 59  b22 the change in normative accuracy for a one unit increase in the target’s engagement centered within-person (i.e., the within-person effect of engagement on distinctive accuracy) controlling for the target’s average engagement across interactions, average behavior and change in behavior (path c’w) b23 the degree to which the impact of changes in the target’s engagement on normative accuracy differs by the target’s average level of engagement, controlling for the target’s average behavior and change in behavior (moderation of path c’w) b25 the change in normative accuracy for a one unit increase in the target’s behavior centered within-person (i.e., the within-person effect of behavior on distinctive accuracy) controlling for the target’s average engagement, change in engagement and average behavior across interactions (path bw) b26 the degree to which the impact of changes in the target’s behavior on normative accuracy differs by the target’s average level of the behavior, controlling for the target’s average engagement and change in engagement (moderation of path bw) Since the impact of behavior and interpersonal attraction and engagement could differ for expressive and perceptive accuracy, the model was run separately treating the always-taped participant as the target and perceiver, respectively. The only difference when examining perceptive accuracy is that the behavior items are based on the perceiver’s behavior (i.e., Behj• becomes Behi•). Thus, b15 for example, is interpreted as: the change in distinctive accuracy for a one unit increase in the perceiver’s behavior, centered within-person (i.e., the within-person effect of behavior on distinctive accuracy) controlling for the perceiver’s average engagement, change in engagement, and average behavior across interactions (path bw). 60  The impact of interpersonal attraction and engagement on behavior (path aw) is examined using the following equations:  Behij = β0ij +β1jEngj• + β2jEngij + β3jEngj•×Engij + εij  β0j = β00 + u0i + u0j + u0(ij)   (4)  β1j = β10 + u1i + u1j + u1(ij)   β2j = β20 + u2i + u2j + u2(ij)   β3j = β30 + u3i + u3j + u3(ij)  Where Behij is always-taped participant j's behavior with interaction partner i and is within-person centered. Engj• is grand mean centered, is always-taped participant j’s average level of engagement across interactions and Engij is within-person centered and is always-taped participant j’s level of engagement with partner i. Thus, we are able to examine the relationship between interpersonal engagement and attraction and changes in behavior. Importantly, path aw is the same regardless of whether the always-taped participant is treated as the perceiver or the target.   61  Table 3.1 Overview for subscripts used in data analytic models Subscript Represents N i Perceiver 354 j Target 354 k Item 47 (ij) Perceiver-Target Dyad 2110 g  Unique dyadic interaction 1055    Restricted to only always-taped  i Always-taped participant as perceiver 77 i● Always-taped participant average across interactions  j Always-taped participant as target 77 j● Always-taped participant average across interactions  Note: In the analysis restricted to dyads that include an always-taped participant, the always-taped participant is treated as either the perceiver (i) or the target (j) depending on whether we are examining the impact on perceptive accuracy or expressive accuracy, respectively.   62   Figure 3.1 Social Accuracy Model (SAM)   63   Figure 3.2 SAM moderated by dyadic characteristics Note. This model was run separately for behavioral synchrony, interaction quality (8 items), and each measure of personality similarity. 64    Figure 3.3 SAM moderated by engagement, interpersonal attraction, and behavior Note. This model was run separately for engagement, interpersonal attraction (once for each of the 3 items), and behavior (one for each of the 77 items).  65   Figure 3.4 Impact of dyadic characteristic on normative and distinctive accuracy mediated by behavior Notes. Paths aw, c’w, are moderated by the individual’s average level on the dyadic characteristic (between-person differences) and path bw is moderated by the individual’s average level on the behavior (between-person differences). While we also estimate the between-person effects we focus only on their moderation of the within-person effects. 66  Chapter 4: Results We now examine the characteristics and processes associated with dyadic accuracy by considering each of the nine hypotheses outlined in chapter 1. That is, we consider the characteristics and processes associated with dyadic accuracy, how and why behavior changes across dyadic interactions, and how changes in behavior are associated with dyadic accuracy. 4.1 H1) Accuracy in First Impressions As expected, on average, across all perceivers, targets and dyads, impressions corresponded with the target validity composite, b = .16, z = 12.30, p < .001 and impressions corresponded with the average self-reported personality, b = .93, z = 37.45, p < .001 (see Table 4.1). That is, on average, impressions were both distinctly and normatively accurate, respectively. Comparing filmed interactions to not filmed interactions, there was no significant difference in distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -.89, p = .37, nor in normative accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = .33, p = .74. Thus, the filmed interactions, which were coded for subsequent analyses, did not significantly differ from those interactions that were not taped in terms of impression accuracy. Further, using the average impression of the always-taped participant in each interaction, the personality video rater impressions corresponded with the always-taped participant’s target validity composite, b = .11, z = 3.95, p < .001 and the average self-reported personality, b = .59, z = 18.33, p < .001 (see Table 4.1).  4.1.1 Reliable Variance In order to determine whether the dyad significantly contributes to the variance in first impressions, we examined the random effects from the full dataset. Replicating previous work, there were significant individual differences in perceptive distinctive accuracy, τ = .04, χ2(3) = 42.17, p < .001 and perceptive normative accuracy, τ = .39, χ2(3) = 860.61, p < .001. That is, 67  perceivers varied in the degree to which they tended to view targets in line with the target’s own unique personality and the degree to which they tended to view targets as similar to the average person. There were also significant individual differences in expressive distinctive accuracy, τ = .21, χ2(3) = 444.74, p < .001 and expressive normative accuracy, τ = .21, χ2(3) = 218.37, p < .001. That is, targets varied in the degree to which they were viewed in line with their own personality and the degree to which they were viewed as similar to the average person. Importantly, there were also significant differences between dyads in distinctive accuracy, τ = .12, χ2(3) = 128.70, p < .001 and normative accuracy, τ = .17, χ2(3) = 63.00, p < .001. Examining the percent of reliable variance explained by each component, we see that for distinctive accuracy, the perceiver explained 12% of variance, the target explained 56% of variance and the dyad explained 32% of variance. For normative accuracy, the perceiver explained 50% of variance, the target explained 28% of variance and the dyad explained 22% of variance. Thus, as expected, the target, perceiver and dyad all contribute to the variability in distinctive and normative accuracy.  4.1.2 The Good Judge and the Good Target In order to examine the combination of the good judge and the good target, we used the perceiver and target random effects from the multilevel model, respectively, as predictors of the dyadic random effects. Thus, each individual in the round-robin has an average good judge and good target coefficient across their interactions. By examining these effects in a regression equation we are able to investigate the possibility that there is a multiplicative effect of the good judge and good target, instead of just an additive effect as the multilevel model only allows for the additive effect. As such, the following analyses are regressions using the random effects from multilevel modeling.   68  As expected, on average, across perceivers, targets and dyads, at the mean of good target and good perceiver, impressions corresponded with the target validity composite, b = .16, t(2113) = 29.09, p < .001. Further, as perceiver perceptive accuracy increases, so does dyadic accuracy, b = 1.25, t(2113) = 9.12, p < .001. We see a similar effect for target expressive accuracy, b = 1.39, t(2113) = 44.30, p < .001. Thus, as expected if a dyad includes a good perceiver or a good target, distinctive accuracy will increase. Importantly, there is an interaction between perceiver perceptive accuracy and target expressive accuracy, interaction b = 7.38, t(2113) = 9.71, p < .001. Thus, there is a very strong multiplicative effect for dyadic distinctive accuracy. We explored this interaction by examining target expressive accuracy at high levels (1 SD above the mean) and low levels (1 SD below the mean). At low levels of target expressive accuracy, perceiver perceptive accuracy does not impact dyadic accuracy, b = -.07, t(2113) = -.37, ns. However, at high levels of target expressive accuracy, increases in perceiver perceptive accuracy is associated with greater dyadic accuracy, b = 2.58, t(2113) = 13.23, p < .001 (see Figure 4.1). Thus, when the dyad includes a good target then being a good judge will matter, but when the dyad includes a poor target, the judge’s ability does not matter.    Turning to normative accuracy, as expected, on average, across all perceivers, targets and dyads, at the mean of good target and good judge, impressions corresponded with the average self-reported personality, b = .92, t(2113) = 138.22, p < .001. Further, as perceiver perceptive normative accuracy increases, so does dyadic normative accuracy, b = 1.09, t(2113) = 59.04, p < .001. We see a similar effect for target expressive normative accuracy, b = 1.45, t(2113) = 36.80, p < .001. Thus, as expected if a dyad includes a perceiver who tends to view others normatively or a target who tends to be viewed normatively, normative accuracy will increase. However, 69  there is no evidence of a multiplicative effect, interaction b = .02, t(2113) = .15, p = .88. Thus, increases in dyadic normative accuracy can be due to the perceiver or the target, but it does not depend on having both. In sum, there is a multiplicative effect for distinctive accuracy, but not normative accuracy. 4.1.2.1 Personality Video Raters In order to understand better the process and mechanisms associated with the interaction of the good target and good judge on accuracy, we examined the effects using the impressions from the video raters. Specifically, we used the random effects coefficients for the good judge and good target from the round-robin to predict dyadic accuracy by the video raters. Here, dyadic accuracy was determined using the average of the video rater impressions for every always-taped participant in each interaction.  On average, across perceivers, targets and dyads, at the average level of good judge and good target, video rater impressions corresponded with the target validity composite, b = .11, t(463) = 10.37, p < .001. Examining distinctive accuracy, there was no main effect of perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy, b = .02, t(463) = .09, p = .93. However, there is a main effect of target expressive distinctive accuracy, b = 1.03, t(463) = 19.27, p < .001. This main effect is qualified by a significant interaction between perceiver perceptive accuracy and target expressive accuracy, interaction b = -3.20, t(463) = -2.46, p = .01. We explored this interaction by examining target expressive accuracy at high levels (1 SD above the mean) and low levels (1 SD below the mean). At low levels of target expressive accuracy, an increase in perceiver perceptive accuracy is associated with an increase in dyadic accuracy, b = .66, t(463) = 1.79, p = .07. However, at high levels of target expressive accuracy, perceiver perceptive accuracy is associated with decreased dyadic accuracy, b = -.61, t(463) = -70  1.65, p = .10 (see Figure 4.2). That is, when poor targets interacted with good judges they were viewed more accurately by the video raters, but when good targets interacted with good judges there were viewed less accurately by the video raters. Turning to normative accuracy, on average, across perceivers, targets and dyads, at the average of good target and good judge, video rater impressions were positive and corresponded with the average person’s personality, b = .58, t(463) = 38.51, p < .001. There again was no main effect of perceiver perceptive normative accuracy on video rater dyadic normative accuracy, b = -.02, t(463) = -.52, p = .60. However, there was a main effect of target expressive normative accuracy, b = 1.10, t(463) = 10.91, p < 001. There was no interaction between perceiver perceptive accuracy and target expressive accuracy, b = -.47, t(463) = -1.62, p = .11. In sum, examining dyadic accuracy as determined by the average video perceiver rating, highlights the unique interaction that exists for distinctive accuracy with the good judge and good target.  4.1.2.2 Behavior Finally, we explored behavior change based on the interaction of the good judge and the good target. Specifically, we examined behavioral changes in the target and separately, in the perceiver. These analyses are restricted to interactions that included an always-taped individual as those are the only interactions where behavior was assessed. Given our previous findings, we focus on distinctive dyadic accuracy. Importantly, since we are examining 77 behaviors, we would expect to find 3-4 significant effects based on chance alone and we focus primarily on patterns across the data.  We examine first the impact of the good judge, good target and the interaction of the two on changes in target behavior. The main effects of good judge and good target, respectively, on target behavior are no more than would be expected by chance. Similarly, the interaction 71  between the good judge and the good target was only associated with one behavior which is less than would be expected by chance (Table 4.2). Thus, changes in the target’s behavior do not appear to be related to the degree to which they are a good target, the degree to which their interaction partner is a good judge, or the interaction of these two characteristics. Turning to the impact of the good judge, good target, and the interaction of the two on changes in perceiver behavior, ten behaviors were associated with main effects of the target’s expressive accuracy. On average, when a perceiver interacted with an individual who was a good target, the perceiver was more guarded (e.g., straightforward (negatively)), less confident (e.g., fearful, timid), and put less effort into the interaction (e.g., put other person at ease (negatively)) (see Table 4.2). Five behaviors were also associated with the interaction between the good judge and good target, however of those behaviors three were marginal and only two were significant, thus we will not interpret these findings any further.  In sum, the combination of the good target and the good judge is associated with changes in dyadic accuracy. Specifically, the good judge’s ability to accurately understand others is important when interacting with a good target. Finally, there is some evidence that the impact of the good target and good judge on dyadic accuracy is related to changes in behavior, but this does not fully explain the process through which the good target and good judge result in particularly accurate impressions. 4.2 H2) Dyadic Similarity and Accuracy  4.2.1 Objective Similarity  To examine the similarity between the personality profiles of the interaction partners in the round-robin dyadic interactions, profile correlations were calculated across all 47 BFI personality items (John & Srivastava, 1999) using the multicon package in R (Sherman, 2014). 72  Considering first personality similarity based on target self-reports, dyads that were more similar in terms of overall, self-reported personality resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .07, z = 2.20, p = .03 and marginally more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .08, z = 1.86, p = .06 (see Table 4.3). That is, when individuals in a dyad reported having more similar personality profiles, the impressions they formed were more in line with their partner’s own unique traits and were also more positive, though the latter did not reach significance.  Given that the measure of overall similarity confounds similarity based on the unique traits of the individuals (distinctive) and similarity based on the average person’s personality (normative), the impact of distinctive personality similarity on impressions was also examined. Dyads in which participants had more distinctly similar self-reported personalities, resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .07, z = 2.60, p = .01. However, there was no significant effect on normative accuracy, interaction b = .04, z = 1.09, p = .28. Thus, when individuals in a dyad reported having more distinctly similar personality profiles, the impressions they formed were more in line with their partner’s own unique traits, but they did not form more positive impressions. Turning to personality similarity based on informant reports, personality similarity did not impact the distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .06, z = 1.51, p = .13 or normative accuracy of impressions, interaction b = .06, z = .97, p = .33 (see Table 4.3). A similar pattern of results emerged when examining distinctive similarity between informant reports. That is, distinctive personality similarity did not impact the distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -.29, p = .77 or normative accuracy of impressions, interaction b = -.05, z = .97, p = .30. Thus, when 73  individuals in a dyad had more similar personality profiles as determined by informant reports, there was no impact on distinctive or normative accuracy.  We also assessed how dyadic similarity in adjustment impacts the accuracy of impressions. Dyads that were less similar in terms of adjustment1 resulted in marginally less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.01, z = -1.88, p = .06, but there was no impact on the normativity of impressions, interaction b = .02, z = 1.47, p = .14. However, dyads that had on average higher levels of adjustment resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .04, z = 3.40, p < .001 and more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .11, z = 4.43, p < .001. Thus, dyads that were more similar in terms of adjustment resulted in somewhat more distinctly accurate impressions and dyads that were generally more well-adjusted resulted in both more distinctly and normatively accurate impressions. Dyadic similarity in terms of socioeconomic status (SES), did not influence the distinctive accuracy of impressions, interaction b = -.001, z = -.35, p = .73 or normative accuracy of impressions, interaction b = .003, z = .57, p = .57. Similarly, the overall average level of SES of the members in the dyad, did not impact the distinctive accuracy of impressions, interaction b = .002, z = .48, p = .63 or normative accuracy of impressions, interaction b = .01, z = .91, p = .36. Thus, having a similar SES does not impact the distinctive accuracy or the normativity of impressions.                                                  1The three-way interaction between the target validity measure, average level of moderator and similarity of moderator was nonsignificant for adjustment, SES, or political orientation, and thus was not included in the model. Similarly, the interaction between the average personality profile, average level of the moderator and similarity of the moderator was nonsignificant for adjustment, SES, and political orientation, and not included in the model.  74  Turning to political orientation, dyads that were less similar in terms of political orientation did not result in less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .002, z = .29, p = .77 nor less normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .003, z = .28, p = .52. The average political orientation of the dyad did not impact distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.0001, z = -.01, p = .99. However, dyads that were on average more liberal resulted in more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .09, z = 3.84, p < .001. In sum, having more similar political views to another individual did not impact the distinctive or normative accuracy of impressions, but when the dyad was more liberal on average, impressions were more normatively accurate and positive. In line with previous research (Chan et al., 2011), dyads in which the individuals were of the same gender did not result in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.001, z = -.11, p = .91, nor more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = -.0004, z = -.08, p = .98. Cultural and ethnic similarity did not impact the distinctive, interaction b = .03, z = 1.60, p = .11 or normative accuracy of impressions, interaction b = -.01, z = -.45, p = .65. Similarly, dyads in which the individuals shared the same religious belief (33% of interactions), did not result in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.02, z = -1.43, p = .15, nor more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = -.02, z = -.90, p = .37. However, turning to similarity of majors, dyads that shared the same major (12% of interactions) resulted in marginally less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.04, z = -1.92, p = .055 and marginally more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .05, z = 1.70, p = .09. In sum, aside from self-reported personality, objective dyadic similarity did not strongly impact the distinctive or normative accuracy of impressions. 75  4.2.2 Perceived Similarity To assess ethnic and cultural perceived similarity, we created a composite of two items (“Is from the same cultural or ethnic group as me” and “Has a similar accent or way of speaking as me”.). Examining the impact of perceived similarly on perceptive accuracy, perceivers who felt more similar to their interaction partner did not form more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .005, z = 1.30, p = .19. However, perceivers did form more normatively accurate impressions when they felt their partner was from a similar cultural or ethnic group, interaction b = .02, z = 2.95, p < .01. Thus, perceiving your partner as being from a similar cultural or ethnic group is associated with forming more normatively accurate and positive impressions. Turning to expressive accuracy, targets who felt their partner was from a similar cultural or ethnic group were not viewed more distinctly accurately, interaction b = .005, z = 1.30, p = .19. Nor were they viewed more normatively accurately when they felt more similar, interaction b = -.0003, z = -.05, p = .96. Thus, perceiving your partner as being from a similar cultural or ethnic group is not associated with being viewed more in line with your own unique traits nor with being viewed more normatively and positively.  To assess perceived general similarity, we used a modified version of the Inclusion of Self in Other Scale (Aron et al., 1992). That is, instead of circles that increased in overlap, the circles moved farther apart however we reverse coded the values such that higher values indicate greater similarity. When perceivers felt more similar to their interaction partners, they formed impressions that were marginally more distinctly accurate, interaction b = .01, z = 1.69, p = .09 and more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .13, z = 17.25, p < .001. Thus, 76  feeling more similar to your partner is associated with forming more distinctly accurate and normatively accurate impressions. When targets felt more similar to their interaction partners, they were not viewed more distinctly accurately, interaction b = .004, z = .69, p = .49. However, targets who felt more similar to their interaction partners were viewed more normatively accurately, interaction b = .02, z = 2.85, p < .001. Thus, feeling more similar to your partner is associated with being viewed more normatively accurately and positively, but not more distinctly accurately. In sum, perceived similarity is associated with more normative and positive impressions, but not more distinctly accurate impressions (see Table 4.3).  4.2.3 Similarity and Behaviors Overall personality similarity, as determined by the round-robin participant’s self-reports, did not impact the always-taped participant’s behavior. Across the 77 behaviors, only one behavior was significantly impacted by overall similarity and two behaviors were marginal (see Table 4.4). Since the total number of significant results is fewer than would be expected by chance, we will not interpret these findings further. Distinctive personality similarity also did not impact the always-taped participant’s behavior. Across the 77 behaviors, only one behavior was significantly impacted by distinctive similarity and two behaviors were marginal. Again, the total number of significant results is fewer than would be expected by chance and we will not interpret these findings any further.  Turning to personality similarity as determined by informant reports, overall similarity did not impact the always-taped participant’s behavior. Across the 77 behaviors, only two behaviors were significantly impacted by similarity and one behavior was marginal (see Table 4.3). Again, the total number of significant results is fewer than would be expected by chance 77  and we will not interpret these findings any further. Finally, distinctive similarity determined by informant reports significantly impacted five behaviors and another seven behaviors were marginal. Specifically, when an individual was similar to their interaction partner, they were less engaging and interesting, and seemed less interested and engaged in the interaction, interaction bs ≥ |.10|, zs ≥ |1.71|, ps ≤ .09. However, considering the number of null findings across the four types of similarity and the relatively low number of findings here, we are cautious in our interpretation of these effects. Finally, personality similarity as determined by informant reports did not impact the accuracy of impressions.   4.3 H3) Interpersonal Attraction and Accuracy  To examine potential reasons why accuracy may differ across dyads, we examined the impact of interpersonal attraction on distinctive and normative accuracy. Specifically, interpersonal attraction was assessed with three different items: liking, physical attraction, and perceptions of partner liking (i.e., “I think this person likes me.”). For each item, we assessed the within-person changes, average (between-person) relationship, and the interaction between the two. This allows us to examine whether within-person changes in liking impact accuracy and if the impact is the same regardless of how much an individual tends to like others. We examine the impact of interpersonal attraction on both perceptive accuracy and expressive accuracy. For example, if an individual likes another person, will they view them more accurately? Similarly for expressive accuracy, if an individual likes another person will they be viewed more accurately? Thus we are able to examine how an individual’s level of interpersonal attraction impacts how they view another person and also how they are viewed. 78  4.3.1 Perceptive Accuracy  Perceivers who, on average, tended to like their interaction partners formed more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .05, z = 4.57, p < .001. Similarly, perceivers who, on average, tended to view their interaction partners as more physically attractive formed impressions that were marginally more distinctly accurate, interaction b = .01, z = 1.75, p = .08. However, perceivers who, on average, tended to think their interaction partners liked them, did not form more distinctly accurate impressions interaction b = .01, z = .99, ns. Similarly, within-person increases in interpersonal attraction did not influence distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.41|, ps ≥ .16 (see Table 4.5).  Turning to normative accuracy, perceivers who, on average, were more interpersonally attracted to their interaction partners formed more normatively accurate impressions, interaction bs ≥ .17, zs ≥ 6.40, ps ≤ .001 (see Table 4.5). Similarly, examining the within-person changes, when perceivers were more interpersonally attracted to their interaction partners than they tended to be with others, they formed more normatively accurate impressions, interaction bs ≥ .10, zs ≥ 10.24, ps ≤ .001. However, there was a significant three-way interaction with normative accuracy for liking, such that the impact of within-person changes in liking on normative accuracy varied based on how much the perceiver tended to like their partner, interaction b = .03, z = 2.48, p = .01.  To understand the three-way interaction of within-person changes in liking, between-person differences in liking and normative accuracy, we examined the impact of within-person changes in liking on normative accuracy at high levels of average liking (1 SD above the mean) and low levels of average liking (1 SD below the mean). The increase in normative accuracy when within-person liking increased was greater for perceivers who tended to like others 79  (interaction b = .16, z = 9.93, p < .001) compared to perceivers who tended to like others less (interaction b = .11, z = 8.14, p < .001). Thus, while within-person increases in liking are associated with normatively accurate and positive impressions, the relationship is stronger for individuals who tend to like others. In sum, perceivers who are generally more interpersonally attracted to their partners form somewhat more distinctively accurate impressions and more normatively accurate and positive impressions. However, within-person changes in interpersonal attraction did not impact distinctive accuracy, but are associated with more normatively accurate and positive impressions. 4.3.2 Expressive Accuracy  Turning to the impact of interpersonal attraction on expressive distinctive accuracy, targets who tended to believe their interaction partners liked them (between-person) were viewed with marginally greater distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .03, z = 1.85, p = .06. Similarly, when a target reported liking a perceiver more than they tended to like others (within-person change), the target was viewed with greater distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .02, z = 2.25, p = .02. However, the between-person differences in liking one’s interaction partners or finding them attractive did not impact distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ .01, zs ≤ .40, ns. Finally, within-person changes in physical attraction and perceptions of partner liking did not impact expressive distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.003| zs ≤ |.41|, ns (see Table 4.5). Turning to expressive normative accuracy, targets who, on average, were interpersonally attracted to their interaction partners were viewed with greater normative accuracy, interaction bs ≥ .04, zs ≥ 2.10, ps < .04 (see Table 4.5). There was no impact of between-person differences in liking on expressive normative accuracy, interaction b = .02, z = .64, ns. Within-person increases in interpersonal attraction were also associated with being viewed more normatively, interaction 80  bs ≥ .03, zs ≥ 2.13, ps < .03. However, there was no impact of within-person changes in physical attraction on expressive normative accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = .01, ns. In sum, only within-person increases in perception of partner liking impacted how distinctly accurately targets were seen, but greater interpersonal attraction was associated with being viewed more normatively accurately and positively.  4.3.3 Impact of Interpersonal Attraction on Behavior To examine the impact of interpersonal attraction (i.e., physical attraction, liking, and perception of partner liking) on behaviors, we examined average levels of interpersonal attraction and changes in interpersonal attraction, as well as whether or not the impact of change in interpersonal attraction varied by average level of interpersonal attraction. An individual’s average level of physical attraction towards others did not impact their behavior in a specific interaction. However, when a person’s physical attraction in a specific interaction differed from their average level of physical attraction, their behavior changed (see Table 4.6). Across the 77 behaviors, 43 behaviors were associated with within-person changes in finding one’s partner physically attractive, interaction bs ≥ |.02|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05. Specifically, when an individual reported more physical attraction than they normally do, they were more engaged and enjoyed the interaction more (e.g., paid attention to partner; interested in partner; likes partner), and expressive and warm (e.g., animated; smiles; cheerful).  These main effects are qualified by significant interactions for 23 behaviors, 19 of which were negative, interaction bs ≥ |.02|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05. To understand these interactions, we examined the impact of within-person changes in physical attraction on behavior at high levels of average physical attraction (1 SD above the mean) and low levels of average physical attraction (1 SD below the mean). For individuals who tend to find others physically attractive, within-81  person increases in physical attraction do not impact behaviors. However, for individuals who generally do not find others physically attractive, within-person increases in physical attraction are associated with changes in behaviors, interaction bs ≥ |.04|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05 (see Table 4.6). Turning to the impact of liking one’s interaction partner on behaviors, we did not include the interaction between within- and between-person differences in liking because the total number of significant interactions was fewer than would be expected by chance (see Table 4.7). Further, between-person differences in how much an individual liked their interaction partner did not impact their behavior in a specific interaction. However, within-person changes in liking an interaction partner was associated with changes in 22 behaviors. Specifically, when individuals reported liking their interaction partners more, they expressed more positive affect (e.g., cheerful; smiles; laughs), appear to be more engaged in and enjoying their interaction and interaction partner (e.g., engaged; interested in partner) more.  How much an individual felt their interaction partner liked them, on average, did not impact their behavior in a specific interaction. However, when a person’s perception of partner liking differed from their average perception of partner liking, their behavior changed (see Table 4.8). That is, within-person changes in perception of partner liking was associated with changes in behavior in a specific interaction. Across the 77 behaviors, 45 behaviors significantly changed, interaction bs ≥ |.04|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05. When an individual believed their interaction partner liked them more than the individual tended to believe others liked them (within-person changes), they appeared to enjoy the interaction and their interaction partner more (e.g., enjoys interaction; likes partner), displayed more positive affect (e.g., cheerful; laughs), and were more expressive and engaging (e.g., expressive; interesting).  82  However, these main effects are qualified by significant interactions for 16 behaviors, 13 of which were positive, interaction bs ≥ |.07|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05. To understand these interactions, we examined the impact of within-person changes in belief that one’s interaction’s partner likes oneself on behavior at high levels of average belief that others like them (1 SD above the mean) and low levels of average belief that others like them (1 SD below the mean). For individuals who do not tend to believe that others like them, within-person increases in perception of partner liking do not impact behaviors. However, for individuals who generally believe other people like them, within-person increases in perception of liking are associated with changes in behaviors, interaction bs ≥ |.12|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05 (see Table 4.8). 4.4 H4) Engagement and Accuracy 4.4.1 Perceptive Accuracy  Considering first how engaging perceivers found their interaction partners, perceivers who tended to view their interaction partners, on average, as engaging, formed more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .03, z = 2.89, p = .004 and also more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .30, z = 11.26, p < .001. Within-person changes in perception of partner’s level of engagement did not impact distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.002, z = -.30, p = .76, but there was a positive impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = .19, z = 23.40, p < .001. For normative accuracy there is also a significant three-way interaction, such that the impact of within-person changes in perceptions of partner engagement on perceptive normative accuracy varied by the perceiver’s average rating of interaction partner’s engagement, interaction b = .05, z = 4.80, p < .001 (see Table 4.5).  To understand the three-way interaction of within-person perceptions of engaging,  between-person perceptions of engaging, and the average person’s personality, we examined the 83  impact of changes in perceptions of partner’s engagement on normative accuracy at high levels of average engaging (1 SD above the mean) and low levels of average engaging (1 SD below the mean). The increase in normative accuracy when within-person perceptions of partner engagement was greater for perceivers who tended to find others engaging (interaction b = .22, z = 18.23, p < .001) compared to perceivers who tended to find others less engaging (interaction b = .16, z = 18.99, p < .001). Thus, while within-person increases in engagement are associated with normatively accurate and positive impressions, the relationship is stronger for individuals who tend to view others as highly engaging. 4.4.2 Expressive Accuracy  First, there was no between-person effect for perceiving one’s partner as engaging on expressive distinctive accuracy or expressive normative accuracy, interaction b = .02, z = .97, ns and interaction b = .02, z = 1.02, ns (see Table 4.5). Considering within-person changes in viewing one’s partner as engaging, there was no impact on expressive distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .003, z = .54, ns. However, within-person changes in perceiving one’s partner as engaging was associated with being viewed more normatively accurately and positively, interaction b = .03, z = 2.77, p = .006. In sum, individuals who find a particular individual more engaging than they normally view others are viewed more normatively accurately and positively, but there is no impact on distinctive accuracy. 4.4.3 Impact of Engagement on Behavior To examine the impact of viewing one’s partner as engaging on behaviors, we examined average levels of perceived engagement and changes in engagement, as well as whether or not the impact of change in engagement varied by average level of engagement. However, the number of significant interactions between within- and between-person effects of perceiving 84  partner as engaging was no more than chance; thus, those results are not included here. An individual’s average level of engagement did not impact their behavior in a specific interaction (see Table 4.9). However, changes in perceiving one’s partner as engaging did influence the individual’s behavior in a specific interaction. Specifically, within-person changes in perceiving one’s partner as engaging impacted 53 behaviors, interaction bs ≥ |.02|, zs ≥ |1.96|, ps ≤ .05. When an individual found their partner more engaging, they appeared to like their interaction partner more and be more engaged in the interaction (e.g., interested in partner; paid attention to partner; eye contact), more comfortable and less anxious (e.g., relaxed; awkward), and more warm and expressive (e.g., smiles; animated).    4.5 H5) Quality Dyadic Interactions and Accuracy  The dyads were also rated by seven research assistants on seven items aimed to capture how engaging and comfortable the interaction was as a whole. These characteristics were strongly and significantly intercorrelated, rs(435) ≥ |.39|, ps ≤ .001 (see Table 4.10). Examining single items, dyads which were rated as more engaging, resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .04, z = 2.13, p = .03. Further, dyads that were more comfortable and authentic, had greater rapport and increased in rapport, and less strained resulted in marginally more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction bs ≥ .02, zs ≥ 1.65, ps < .10 (see Table 4.11). As expected, across all seven items, dyads that were more engaging and comfortable resulted in more normatively accurate impressions, interaction bs ≥ .11, zs ≥ 3.60, ps < .001. Finally, these effects are similar when considering a composite of the six most strongly correlated items. Thus, dyads who had interactions that were “good”, those that were engaging and comfortable, resulted in impressions that were more in line with the target’s own distinctive personality and more positive. 85  4.6 H6) Behavioral Synchrony and Accuracy  On average, the dyadic interactions were judged as somewhat synchronous, (M = 4.37). Importantly, dyads significantly varied in their level of synchrony, τ = .49, χ2(1) = 352.17, p < .001. Thus, given that dyads did vary in their level of behavioral synchrony, did this variability influence the accuracy of impressions?  4.6.1 Accuracy On average across targets, perceivers, and dyads, at the average level of behavioral synchrony, perceivers formed distinctly accurate impressions, b = .15, z = 8.66, p < .001 and normatively accurate impressions, b = .94, z = 29.75, p < .001. Looking first at the interaction between distinctive accuracy and behavioral synchrony, dyads which displayed more behavioral synchrony than the average dyad did not result in more distinctly accurate impressions, b = .01, z = .74, p = .46. However, dyadic interactions which displayed more behavioral synchrony than the average interaction resulted in more normatively accurate impressions, b = .08, z = 3.35, p = .0008. Thus, moving in synch with an interaction partner is related to forming more positive impressions, but is not related to forming impressions that are more in line with the target’s distinctive personality. 4.6.2 Behaviors We further examined what behaviors were associated with greater behavioral synchrony. Specifically, we examined the impact of behavioral synchrony on within-person changes in behavior for the always-taped participant (see Table 4.12). As expected, greater behavioral synchrony was associated with increased attention and engagement (e.g., paid attention to partner; eye contact; was engaging), liking (e.g., likes partner; likeable to partner), greater quantity of information and better quality (e.g., candid, intimate answers; large amount of 86  information), and more comfortable and smoother interactions (e.g., relaxed; put other person at ease; awkward, strained interaction (negatively)). Thus, in line with previous research (e.g., Bernieri, 1988; Valdesolo & Desteno, 2011) behavioral synchrony is associated with changes in behavior, which lead to better interactions.  4.7 H7) Interaction of Perceiver and Target Traits and Accuracy Using the trait composites from the BFI (John & Srivastava, 1999), we examined how the specific traits of the perceiver and target may impact accuracy. That is, do specific traits “mesh” and improve accuracy or “clash” and decrease accuracy? Considering first perceiver agreeableness, perceiver agreeableness interacted with target traits marginally for distinctive accuracy, χ2(5) = 9.25, p = .10, but not for normative accuracy, χ2(5) = 3.11, p = .68. Perceiver agreeableness did not interact with any individual target traits to impact distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.22|, ps ≥ .22 nor normative accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.02|, zs ≤ |1.39|, ps ≥ .16 (see Table 4.13).  Turning to perceiver extraversion, perceiver extraversion did not interact with target traits for distinctive accuracy, χ2(5) = 7.80, p = .17, as well as for normative accuracy, χ2(5) = 5.21, p = .31. The interaction between perceiver extraversion and target extraversion was associated with increased distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = 2.59, p < .01. However, there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = .68, p = .50. The interaction between perceiver extraversion and target conscientiousness was associated with marginally more normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = .02, z = 1.68, p = .09. However, there was no impact on distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.001, z = -.15, p = .88. Finally, perceiver extraversion did not interact with any other target traits to impact distinctive accuracy, 87  interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.01|, ps ≥ .31 or normative accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |.71|, ps ≥ .48 (see Table 4.13).  Perceiver conscientiousness interacted with target traits significantly for distinctive accuracy, χ2(5) = 17.29, p = .004, but not for normative accuracy, χ2(5) = 6.34, p = .27. The interaction between perceiver conscientiousness and target agreeableness was associated with decreased normative accuracy, interaction b = -.03, z = 2.45, p < .05. However, there was no impact on distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .001, z = .18, p = .86. The interaction between perceiver conscientiousness and target conscientiousness was associated with increased distinctive accuracy, interaction b = .02, z = 2.80, p < .01, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -.81, p = .42. A similar pattern emerged for perceiver conscientiousness and target openness, as perceivers formed more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .02, z = 2.22, p < .05, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = -.001, z = -.13, p = .90. Finally, there was no impact on distinctive accuracy when considering perceiver conscientious and target extraversion or neuroticism, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.11|, ps ≥ .27 or normative accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.38|, ps ≥ .17 (see Table 4.13).  Perceiver neuroticism interacted with target traits significantly for distinctive accuracy, χ2(5) = 14.14, p = .01, but not for normative accuracy, χ2(5) = 4.53, p = .48. The combination of perceiver neuroticism and target extraversion resulted in less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.01, z = -2.57, p = .01, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -.61, p = .54. Similarly, the combination of perceiver neuroticism paired with target conscientiousness, resulted in less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = -.02, z = -2.78, p < .01, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -88  .70, p = .48. However, the combination of perceiver neuroticism paired with target neuroticism, resulted in marginally more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .01, z = 1.82, p = .07, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = 1.57, p = .12. The combination of perceiver neuroticism with target openness or agreeableness did not impact distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.08|, ps ≥ .28 or normative accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |.52|, ps ≥ .60 (see Table 4.13).  Finally, perceiver openness interacted with target traits significantly for distinctive accuracy, χ2(5) = 11.27, p = .046, but not for normative accuracy, χ2(5) = 4.96, p = .42. The combination of perceiver openness and target extraversion resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .02, z = 2.37, p = .02, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = .01, z = 1.48, p = .14. Similarly, the combination of perceiver openness and target conscientiousness resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction b = .02, z = 2.28, p = .02, but there was no impact on normative accuracy, interaction b = .004, z = .38, p = .70. The combination of perceiver openness and target neuroticism, resulted in less normatively accurate impressions, interaction b = -.02, z = -2.17, p = .03, but there was no impact on distinctive accuracy, interaction b = -.01, z = -1.13, p = .26. Finally, the combination of perceiver openness and target agreeableness or openness did not impact distinctive accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |1.47|, ps ≥ .14 or normative accuracy, interaction bs ≤ |.01|, zs ≤ |.99|, ps ≥ .32 (see Table 4.13). In sum, as expected, there are certain personality traits that appear to mesh or clash in a manner that affects the distinctive and normative accuracy of impressions. 4.8 H8) Behavior and Perceptive Accuracy  To examine how behaviors affect accuracy, we assessed the impact of 77 different behaviors on perceptive distinctive and normative accuracy. For each, we assessed the impact of 89  within-person changes in behaviors, between-person differences in behaviors, and the interaction of within- and between-person effects on impressions. Given that we assessed 77 different behaviors for distinctive and normative accuracy, respectively, we would expect to find 3-4 significant relationships for each type of accuracy based on chance alone (Sherman & Funder, 2009). Additionally, given the number of behaviors assessed, we focus on overall patterns of behavior. We first examine how behavior influences perceptive accuracy; that is, how did the perceiver’s behavior impact the accuracy of their impression? 4.8.1 Distinctive Accuracy Considering first distinctive accuracy, across the 77 behaviors, there were no main effects of average behavior on perceptive distinctive accuracy. That is, how perceivers tended to behave across interactions did not influence the distinctive accuracy of their impressions. However, within-person changes in behaviors were associated with changes in perceptive distinctive accuracy. Specifically, when perceivers appeared more comfortable and genuine than they were on average they formed less distinctly accurate impressions, interaction bs ≤ -.09, zs ≤ -1.71, ps ≤ .09 (see Table 4.14). When perceivers were more timid, tense and rigid, discussed a greater range of interests and discussed more of their actions and behaviors they formed more distinctly accurate impressions, interaction bs ≥ .06, zs ≥ 1.94, ps ≤ .052 (see Table 4.14). Thus, it appears that when an individual is more relaxed than they usually are, they form less accurate impressions.  However, the previous interactions are qualified by significant three-way interactions. Specifically, of the 77 behaviors, 28 had marginal or significant three-way interactions and 27 of those interactions were negative (see Table 4.14). To understand these three-way interactions, we examined the relationship between accuracy and behavior change at different levels of the 90  average behavior (high, 1 SD above the mean; low, 1 SD below the mean). Examining the patterns across these shows that when individuals are high on behaviors associated with social skills and warmth (e.g., comfortable; likeable to partner; interested) and they increased in the behavior they formed less distinctly accurate impressions (for an example see Figure 4.3). However, individuals low in behaviors associated with engagement, effort, and energy (e.g., tries hard; enthusiastic; tense; gives thoughtful answers) and they increased in the behavior they formed more distinctly accurate impressions. Thus, for individuals who are generally comfortable in social interactions and warm, increasing in these behaviors is actually associated with less distinctly accurate impressions, while individuals who are typically disengaged during social interactions can form impressions that are more distinctly accurate when they are engaged. 4.8.2 Normative Accuracy Turning to normative accuracy, and examining first the between-person effects of behavior, 40 general tendencies in behaviors were associated with changes in normative accuracy. Specifically, in line with previous research (Human & Biesanz, 2011a; Letzring, 2014), perceivers who were, in general, socially skilled and comfortable (e.g., socially skilled; not awkward), warm (e.g., cheerful; likeable), and engaged in the interaction (e.g., animated; interested in partner) tended to form more normatively accurate and positive impressions (see Table 4.15). Further, increases in similar behaviors were also associated with more normatively accurate impressions. For example, if an individual appeared more comfortable than they were normally, their impression was more normative and positive. However, these main effects are qualified by three-way interactions. Of the 77 behaviors, 21 had marginal or significant three-way interactions and 20 of those interactions were positive (see Table 4.15). To understand these three-way interactions, we 91  examined the relationship between accuracy and behavior change at different levels of the average behavior (high, 1 SD above the mean; low, 1 SD below the mean). Individuals who tended to be more socially skilled and comfortable, warm, and engaged in the interaction and increased in the behavior during the specific interaction formed even more normatively accurate impressions (for an example see Figure 4.4). That is, while individuals generally increased in normative accuracy when they were more socially skilled and comfortable, warm, and engaged in the interaction, individuals who were on average high in these behaviors the increase in normative accuracy and positive was even greater. In sum, how an individual behaves during an interaction, considering both how they tend to behave and their changes in behavior has an important impact on the impressions they form of others. 4.8.3 Mediational Models To understand why behaviors might change across interactions and the process through which interpersonal attraction and engagement impacts perceptive accuracy we ran a series of mediational models (see Figure 3.4). Specifically, we ran models for each behavior when the following criteria were met: the specific interpersonal attraction item or engagement significantly influenced behavior (path aw; see Table 4.6 -Table 4.9), the specific interpersonal attraction item or engagement significantly impacted accuracy (path cw; see Table 4.5), and the specific interpersonal attraction item or engagement significant impacted the behavior (see Table 4.14 - Table 4.15). However, models that failed to converge are not included here. Finally, since interpersonal attraction and engagement did not impact perceptive distinctive accuracy, we focus on perceptive normative accuracy. 92  4.8.3.1 Interpersonal Attraction  Examining the impact of physical attraction on perceptive normative accuracy mediated through behaviors, 25 models were consistent with mediation (see Table 4.16). Specifically, within-person increases in viewing one’s partner as physically attractive was associated with increased positive affect, being engaged and interesting, liking one’s interaction partner and enjoying the interaction, and providing honest, quality information, which is turn is associated with increased normative accuracy. Further, a subset of models were consistent with moderated mediation.  For models where the impact of within-person changes in physical attraction on behavior is moderated by average physical attraction (path aw), for individuals who tended not to find others physically attractive (1 SD below the mean), within-person increases in physical attraction were associated with increases in behavior. However, for individuals who tended to be physically attracted to others (1 SD above the mean), within-person changes in physical attraction did not impact behavior. For models where the impact of within-person changes in behavior on normative accuracy is moderated by average behavior (path bw), for individuals who tended to be low on the behaviors (1 SD below the mean), increases in behavior did not impact normative accuracy. However, for individuals who tended to be high on the behaviors (1 SD above the mean), increases in behavior were associated with more normative and positive impressions. Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes of physical attraction on normative accuracy remains significant, interaction b = .10, z = 4.45, p < .001.  In sum, the impact of within-person changes in finding one’s partner physically attractive on normative accuracy is mediated by behavior, but the specific changes are dependent on the 93  individual’s average level of physical attraction and behavior. Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in physical attraction on normative accuracy remains significant. Examining the impact of perceived partner liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated through behaviors, 13 models were consistent with mediation (see Table 4.17). Specifically, within-person increases in perception of partner’s liking were associated with expressing more positive affect (e.g., cheerful), being interested in and enjoying the interaction and interaction partner (e.g., likes partner; enjoys interaction), and being engaging and interesting (e.g., was interesting). In turn, these changes in behavior were associated with increased normative accuracy. Further, four models were consistent with moderated mediation, such that the impact of within-person changes in behavior on normative accuracy differed by the individual’s average level of the behavior. Individuals who tended to be interested in and enjoy their interactions partners (1 SD above the mean), viewed their interaction partners with greater normative accuracy, but for individuals who were low on the behaviors (1 SD below the mean), there was no impact on normative accuracy. Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in perception of partner liking on perceptive normative accuracy remains significant (path c’w), interaction b = .13, z = 5.00, p < .001. In sum, there is some evidence that the impact of increases in perception of partner liking on forming a normative and positive impression are mediated by changes in the individual’s behavior and importantly these paths depend on the target’s average behavior.  Examining the impact of within-person changes in liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated through behaviors, 12 of the possible 21 within-person mediational models were consistent with mediation. Specifically, the impact of within-person changes in liking on normative accuracy were mediated by within-person changes in enjoying and being interested in 94  the interaction, and being engaging and interesting (see Table 4.18). However, a subset of these mediational models (i.e., behaviors indicating individuals were interested in and enjoying the interaction) were consistent with moderated mediation, that is, there is evidence of conditional indirect effect. For example, the impact of within-person increases in being interested in their interaction partner on normative accuracy is stronger for individuals who tend to be interested in their interaction partners (1 SD above the mean) compared to individuals who tend not to be interested in their interaction partners (1 SD below the mean). Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in liking on normative accuracy remains significant, interaction b = .23, z = 11.05, p < .001.  4.8.3.2 Engagement Examining the impact of perceptions of how engaging your partner is on perceptive normative accuracy mediated through behaviors, there were five models consistent with mediation (see Table 4.19). Specifically, when people perceive their partners as more engaging than they normally do, they are less dominant in the interaction and in turn, decreases in these behaviors are associated with more normatively accurate and positive impressions. Further, within-person changes in perceiving one’s partner as engaging were associated with increases in being relaxed, interested in partner and liking one’s partner, increases in these behaviors are then associated with increases in normative accuracy. However, for these behaviors there is evidence of moderated mediation, that is the impact of within-person changes in behavior on normative accuracy are moderated by the individual’s average level of the behavior. For example, for individuals who tend to be highly interested in their partners (1 SD above the mean), within-person increases in being interested are associated with increased normative accuracy. However, individuals who tend not be interested in their partners (1 SD below the mean), increases in 95  being interested in one’s partner are not associated with changes in normative accuracy. Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in perceptions of partner’s engagement on normative accuracy (c’w), remain significant, interaction b = .22, z = 12.58, p < .001. In sum, there is some evidence that the impact of within-person changes on normative accuracy is mediated by changes in behavior, but considering the overall low number of findings, we are cautious in our interpretation. 4.9 H9) Behavior and Expressive Accuracy  We now turn to the impact of behavior on expressive accuracy, that is how did a target’s behavior affect how accurately they were viewed? To examine how behaviors affect accuracy, we assessed the impact of 77 different behaviors on expressive distinctive and normative accuracy. For each, we assessed the impact of within-person changes in behaviors, between-person differences in behaviors, and the interaction of within- and between-person effects on impressions. Given that we assessed 77 different behaviors for distinctive and normative accuracy, respectively, we would expect to find 3-4 significant relationships for each type of accuracy based on chance alone (Sherman & Funder, 2009). Thus, given the number of behaviors assessed, we focus on overall patterns of behavior. We also examined the impact of behaviors on the accuracy of impressions formed by the personality video raters using the average impression the always-taped participant in a given interaction. Thus, the video impressions should be much more reliable than the impressions formed in the round-robins and allow greater insight into the impact of behaviors on expressive accuracy.  While the original model included three-way interactions for within- and between-person behavior and distinctive and normative accuracy, respectively, the results presented here are from models that did not include the three-way interaction with normative accuracy. After 96  running the initial models, only four interactions were marginal and one significant. Given the number of models run, these findings are no more than what is expected by chance; as such, we trimmed the models and discuss here those results. For distinctive accuracy, across the 77 behaviors, there were no main effects of average target behavior on accuracy. That is, how targets tended to behave across interactions did not influence the degree to which they were viewed in line with their own unique traits. Similarly, changes in behavior were not associated with changes in expressive distinctive accuracy, as the number of significant interactions was no more than expected by change (see Table 4.20).  However, of the 77 behaviors, 17 had marginal or significant three-way interactions all of which were positive (see Table 4.20). To understand these three-way interactions, we examined the relationship between accuracy and behavior change at different levels of the average behavior (high, 1 SD above the mean; low, 1 SD below the mean). For individuals who tended to be expressive, friendly, and engaging (e.g., animated; warm; interesting), when they increased in these behaviors they were viewed even more distinctly accurately (for an example see Figure 4.5). However, for individuals who were generally low on these behaviors, increases in these behaviors did not improve how distinctly accurately they were viewed. For normative accuracy, examining the relationship between the average behavior and normative accuracy across the 77 behaviors, 45 behaviors were associated with changes in normative accuracy (see Table 4.23). In line with previous research (Human et al., 2014), individuals who tended to be engaging, socially skilled, and likeable (e.g., interesting; charming; tries to put partner at ease) were viewed more normatively accurately and positively, interaction bs ≥ .07, zs ≥ 1.70, ps ≤ .09. Finally, individuals who tended to be uncomfortable and have 97  strained interactions (e.g., tense; awkward) were viewed less positively and normatively accurately, interaction bs ≥ |.12|, zs ≥ |1.71|, ps ≤ .09. Examining how changes in behavior related to normative accuracy, there were 37 marginal or significant effects. Similar to the average levels of behavior, individuals who increased in how engaging, socially skilled, likeable, and honest (e.g., interesting; charming; tries to put partner at ease; genuine) they were, were viewed more normatively accurately and positively, interaction bs ≥ .08, zs ≥ 1.67, ps ≤ .09 (see Table 4.21). In sum, individuals who tend to be socially skilled, expressive, and engaging tend to be viewed positively and similarly, when an individual increases in those behaviors they will also be viewed more positively. 4.9.1 Personality Video Raters We are also able to investigate whether the same target behaviors that impact expressive accuracy in a face-to-face interaction impact expressive accuracy in video ratings. Specifically, we averaged across the video perceptions impressions for each target’s interaction. By using the average of these impressions we are able to get a more reliable estimate how behavior impacts expressive accuracy. For distinctive accuracy, across the 77 behaviors, there were no main effects of average target behavior (between-person effects) or changes in target behavior (within-person effects) on distinctive accuracy. Specifically, fewer than five behaviors were significant or marginal for each and that is no more than would be expected by chance. That is, how targets tended to behave across interactions and changes in behavior did not influence the degree to which they were viewed in line with their own unique traits by the video raters (see Table 4.22). However, there were a number of significant three-way interactions such that the impact of within-person 98  changes in target behavior on expressive distinctive accuracy differed by the target’s average behavior.  Of the 77 behaviors, 18 had marginal or significant three-way interactions, all of which were positive (see Table 4.22). To understand these three-way interactions, we examined the relationship between accuracy and behavior change at different levels of the average behavior (high, 1 SD above the mean; low, 1 SD below the mean). For individuals who tended to be expressive, friendly, and engaging (e.g., animated; warm; interesting), when they increased in these behaviors they were viewed even more distinctly accurately. However, for individuals who were generally low on these behaviors, within-person increases in these behaviors did not improve how distinctly accurately they were viewed. Turning to normative accuracy, examining the relationship between the target’s average behavior and expressive normative accuracy across the 77 behaviors, 70 behaviors were associated with changes in normative accuracy (see Table 4.23). Individuals who tended to be engaging, socially skilled, and likeable (e.g., interesting; charming; tries to put partner at ease) were viewed more normatively accurately and positively, interaction bs ≥ .13, zs ≥ 1.70, ps ≤ .09. Finally, individuals who tended to be uncomfortable and have strained interactions (e.g., tense; awkward) were viewed less positively and normatively accurately, interaction bs ≤ -.22, zs ≤ -3.31, ps ≤ .001 (see Table 4.23).  Examining how within-person changes in behavior related to normative accuracy, there were 68 marginal or significant effects. Similar to the average levels of behavior, individuals who were more engaging, socially skilled, likeable, and honest (e.g., interesting; charming; tries to put partner at ease; genuine), were viewed more normatively accurately and positively, interaction bs ≥ .06, zs ≥ 1.95, ps ≤ .05. Finally, when individuals were more awkward, distant, 99  and defensive (e.g., rigid; anxious; detached), they were viewed less normatively accurately, interaction bs ≤ -.06, zs ≤ -.1.65, ps ≤ .10.  A subset of behaviors had significant interactions concerning the within- and between-person effects of behavior on expressive normative accuracy. Specifically, the effects of within-person changes on normative accuracy were moderated by between-person differences for seven behaviors. To understand these three-way interactions, we examined the relationship between accuracy and behavior change at different levels of the average behavior (high, 1 SD above the mean; low, 1 SD below the mean). However, there was not a consistent pattern across the behaviors. For example, for being expressive, talking fluently and discussing behaviors, while individuals high and low on the behaviors in general were viewed more normatively for within-person increases, individuals who were generally high on the behaviors had a greater increase in normativity. On the other hand, when individuals who tended to be speak loudly and try hard, had within-person increases, there was no impact on the normativity of impressions, but for individuals who were generally low, a within-person increase was associated with being viewed more normatively. However, given that no clear pattern emerged across the behaviors, we are cautious in our interpretation of these findings. 4.9.2 Mediational Models Following a similar process as with perceptive accuracy, we ran a series of mediational models to examine why behaviors might change across interactions and the process through which interpersonal attraction and engagement impacts expressive accuracy (see Figure 3.4). Specifically, we ran models for each behavior when the following criteria were met: the specific interpersonal attraction item or engagement significantly influenced behavior (path a; see Table 4.6 - Table 4.9), the specific behavior was associated with changes in expressive accuracy (see 100  Table 4.20 Table 4.21), the specific interpersonal attraction item or engagement significantly impacted expressive accuracy (path c; see Table 4.5). However, models that failed to converge are not included here. 4.9.2.1 Interpersonal Attraction Since expressive distinctive accuracy was only impacted by within-person changes in perception of partner liking, that is the only meditational model we examine for distinctive accuracy. Similarly, we examine the impact of perception of partner liking and liking on expressive normative accuracy as mediated by target behavior because physical attraction did not impact expressive normative accuracy.  Considering first the impact of within-person changes in perception of partner liking, nine models were consistent with mediation (Table 4.24). Specifically, considering path aw, within-person increases in perception of partner liking were associated with increases in positive affect and expressivity (e.g., enthusiasm; expressive), being interpersonally warm (e.g., warm; expresses sympathy), being interested, interesting, and liking one’s partner (e.g., engaged in interaction; likes partner; engaging). In turn, these within-person increases in behavior were associated with being viewed more distinctly accurately (path bw). However, the impact of within-person changes in behavior on distinctive accuracy were moderated by the target’s average level of that behavior. Individuals who were high on these behaviors (1 SD above the mean) were viewed more distinctly accurately, but for individuals who were low on the behaviors (1 SD below the mean) there was no impact on distinctive accuracy. For example, when an individual who tends to be highly expressive (between-person effect), increases in expressivity (within-person effect) are associated with being viewed more normatively accurate. 101  Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in perception of partner liking (path c’w) is no longer significant, interaction b = .01, z = .64, p = .52. Turning to the impact of within-person changes in liking on expressive normative accuracy, 10 of 11 models were consistent with mediation (see Table 4.25). Specifically, considering path aw, within-person increases in liking were associated with increases in positive affect (e.g., enthusiasm; smiles), liking the partner and interaction (e.g., likes partner; enjoys interaction), and being engaging (e.g., was interesting; held my attention). In turn, these within-person increases in behavior were associated with being viewed more normatively and positively (path bw). Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in liking (path c’w) is no longer significant, interaction b = .04, z = 1.63, p = .103. Turning to the perception of partner liking on expressive normative accuracy as mediated by target behavior, 14 models were consistent with mediation (see Table 4.26). Specifically, considering path aw, within-person increases in perception of partner liking was associated with increases in expressivity and positive affect (e.g., expressive; smiles), being engaged and engaging (e.g., paid attention to partner; was interesting), liking the interaction and partner, and being likeable (e.g., enjoys interaction; likeable to partner). In turn, these behaviors were associated with being viewed more normatively and positively (path bw). Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in perception of partner liking on expressive normative accuracy (path c’w) is no longer significant, interaction b = -.01, z = -.45, p = .65. In sum, the impact of within-person changes in interpersonal attraction on expressive normative accuracy was mediated by behaviors associated with positive affect, liking, engagement, and enjoyment of the interaction.  102  4.9.2.2 Engagement Since expressive distinctive accuracy was not impacted by the target’s view of partner’s engagement, we focus on the impact of within-person changes in target’s view of partner’s engagement on expressive normative accuracy mediated by the target’s behavior. Out of 25 models, 16 were consistent with mediation (see Table 4.27). Specifically, considering path aw, within-person increases in perceiving partner as engaging were associated with increases in expressivity and positive affect (e.g., expressive; enthusiasm), being engaged and engaging (e.g., engaged in conversation; was interesting), liking the interaction and partner, and being likeable (e.g., likes partner; likeable to partner). In turn, within-person increases in these behaviors were associated with being viewed more normatively and positively (path bw). Finally, the direct effect of within-person changes in partner as engaging on expressive normative accuracy (path c’w) is no longer significant, interaction b = .01, z = .59, p = .56.   103   Table 4.1 Social accuracy model fixed and random effect estimates   Round-Robin  Video Raters Parameter b (SE)  b (SE) Fixed Effects     Intercept 4.37 (.015)***     4.15 (.017)***  Distinctive Accuracy 0.16 (.013)***    0.11 (.029)***  Normative Accuracy 0.93 (.025)***    0.59 (.032)*** Random Effects (SD)         Perceiver (Perceptive Accuracy)      Distinctive Accuracy 0.043***     -   Normative Accuracy 0.386***     -      Target (Expressive Accuracy)      Distinctive Accuracy 0.208***    0.241***   Normative Accuracy 0.214***    0.262***      Dyadic Variability      Distinctive Accuracy 0.121***    0.020***   Normative Accuracy 0.171***    0.136*** Residual SD 1.135    0.696 Notes. Round-Robin model includes 354 perceivers, 354 targets and 2110 dyadic impressions; Video Rater model includes the average impressions across 1,096 perceiver, 77 targets, and 467 dyadic impressions.  †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   104  Table 4.2 Impact of good judge and good target on perceiver and target behavior  Perceiver Behavior  Target Behavior Items Good Judge b Good Target b G. J. x G.T. b   Good Judge b Good Target b G. J. x G.T. b  1. irritated 0.01 0.01 -0.06  0.02 0.01 -0.04 2. playful 0.02 -0.06 0.04  -0.01 0.01 -0.02 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.02 -0.06 0.08†  -0.06 0.01 0.02 4. cheerful 0.02 -0.03 0.04  -0.03 0.00 0.02 5. fearful, timid -0.02 0.08† -0.05  0.04 0.01 -0.05 6. genuine, natural 0.03 -0.08 0.05  -0.07 0.00 0.01 7. confident 0.01 -0.12* 0.10*  -0.04 0.00 0.04 8. compares self 0.01 0.01 -0.01  0.04 0.00 0.07 9. ambition 0.04 0.00 -0.07  0.00 0.00 0.02 10. intelligence 0.03 -0.01 -0.03  0.03 0.00 0.06 11. condescending -0.01 0.03 -0.02  -0.01 -0.02 0.06 12. social skills 0.02 -0.09 0.05  -0.11† 0.00 -0.01 13. expresses agreement 0.02 -0.01 0.00  0.00 0.01 -0.01 14. insecure 0.00 0.05 -0.06  0.05 0.01 -0.03 15. sympathy 0.04 -0.05 -0.03  0.02 0.00 0.03 16. warm 0.02 -0.04 0.06  -0.05 0.01 -0.01 17. open, welcoming 0.04 -0.12* 0.01  0.00 0.02 0.02 18. expressive 0.04 -0.07 0.04  -0.09 0.00 0.04 19. animated 0.02 -0.07 0.06  -0.01 0.01 0.07 20. reserved -0.02 0.03 -0.03  0.07 0.00 0.06 21. talkative 0.02 -0.05 0.08†  -0.09† 0.00 -0.02 22. trying hard 0.01 -0.01 0.04  -0.10 0.01 -0.05 23. laughs 0.02 0.02 0.01  0.00 0.00 -0.01 24. physical contact 0.02 -0.02 -0.02  0.02 0.02 0.01 25. says interesting 0.04 -0.04 0.02  -0.07 0.03 -0.06 26. seeks advice 0.02 -0.04 0.01  0.03 0.04 -0.05 27. seeks reassurance 0.01 0.03 -0.04  -0.02 0.02 -0.04 28. detached -0.04 0.02 0.01  0.07 -0.02 0.06 29. range of interests 0.03 0.01 0.02  -0.09† 0.02 -0.03 30. enthusiasm 0.03 -0.07 0.03  -0.07 0.00 0.04 31. tension, anxiety -0.02 0.06 -0.02  0.05 -0.01 -0.02 32. smiles 0.02 -0.06 0.05  -0.01 0.00 0.00 33. speaks fluently 0.03 -0.05 -0.02  -0.01 0.00 0.04 34. loud voice 0.00 -0.07 0.05  -0.05 -0.01 0.08* 35. speaks quickly 0.02 -0.04 -0.04  -0.02 0.00 -0.02 36. controls interaction 0.00 -0.07 0.08†  -0.03 0.00 -0.04 37. large amount of information 0.03 -0.02 0.03  -0.05 0.01 0.01 38. charisma 0.02 -0.04 0.03  -0.09† 0.01 -0.03 39. projected thoughts 0.02 -0.10† 0.05  -0.09 -0.02 0.00 40. defensive -0.01 0.06 0.00  -0.06 0.00 -0.07 105   Perceiver Behavior  Target Behavior Items Good Judge b Good Target b G. J. x G.T. b   Good Judge b Good Target b G. J. x G.T. b  41. perceptive 0.03 -0.12* 0.00  -0.07 -0.01 0.03 42. straightforward 0.03 -0.12* 0.03  -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 43. rigid, closed off -0.03 0.06 -0.03  0.04 0.01 0.00 44. negative about self 0.03 0.03 -0.05  0.07 0.00 0.05 45. works hard at answersa 0.03 0.00 0.02  -0.04 0.01 0.00 46. dominates 0.02 -0.05 0.05  -0.04 0.01 0.00 47. eye contact 0.02 -0.08† 0.03  -0.05 0.00 -0.01 48. awkward -0.01 0.07 -0.08*  0.04 0.00 0.02 49. interviews 0.01 -0.04 0.01  0.04 -0.02 -0.04 50. distant -0.04 0.01 -0.02  0.08 -0.02 0.03 51. interested in partner 0.04 -0.10 0.04  -0.02 0.01 -0.06 52. likeable to partner 0.03 -0.10 0.06  -0.03 0.00 -0.03 53. enjoys interaction 0.04 -0.08 0.05  -0.04 0.02 -0.01 54. likes partnera --- --- ---  -0.04 0.04 -0.02 55. lack interest in partner -0.05 0.04 -0.01  0.01 -0.03 0.03 56. discussed thoughts 0.07 -0.05 -0.04  -0.05 0.03 0.00 57. discussed behaviors 0.04 0.02 0.00  -0.02 0.03 -0.02 58. others behave similar 0.01 -0.01 0.04  -0.07 -0.01 0.00 59. others discuss similar 0.01 -0.06 0.00  0.01 -0.03 0.06 60. unique, information 0.05 -0.01 0.00  -0.03 0.01 0.02 61. candid answers 0.05 -0.10† 0.03  -0.09 0.01 0.02 62. accurate impression 0.05 -0.06 0.04  -0.06 0.01 -0.02 63. detailed answers 0.03 -0.05 0.06  -0.05 0.01 0.00 64. thoughtful answers 0.04 -0.08 0.05  -0.05 0.01 0.00 65. effort into answers 0.04 -0.06 0.01  -0.03 0.02 0.01 66. quality information 0.04 0.01 0.01  -0.04 0.01 -0.01 67. quantity information 0.03 -0.05 0.05  -0.09† 0.01 -0.01 68. attention to partner 0.04 -0.06 -0.05  -0.03 -0.01 0.01 69. engaged in conversation 0.04 -0.07 0.00  -0.07 0.01 -0.03 70. put person at ease 0.04 -0.19** 0.02  -0.04 -0.01 0.04 71. individuals similar 0.04 -0.11* 0.02  -0.08 0.01 0.04 72. awkward interactiona -0.04 0.05 -0.04  0.04 -0.02 0.02 73. held my attention 0.04 -0.05 0.06  -0.02 0.02 0.00 74. was engaging 0.03 -0.03 0.04  -0.08 0.02 -0.03 75. was interesting 0.04 -0.05 0.04  -0.08 0.02 -0.03 76. mind wandered  -0.04 0.01 -0.02  0.03 -0.01 0.00 77. appears cold -0.02 0.04 -0.03  0.06 0.00 0.01 Notes. Good Judge and Good Target were standardized and behavior was standardized within-person. G. J. x G.T. = Interaction of Good Judge and Good Target. For full items see Table 2.4. aindicates model for target behavior was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using 106  restricted maximum likelihood. ---indicates model failed to converge using maximum likelihood †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   107  Table 4.3 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by similarity  Distinctive Accuracy Normative Accuracy  b (SE) b (SE) Average Fixed Effect  0.16 (.013)***  0.93 (.024)*** Similarity Moderators    Socioeconomic Status (SES)     Difference  -0.001 (.003)  0.003 (.005)   Average  0.002 (.005)  0.01 (.010)  Adjustment     Difference  -0.01 (.008)†  0.02 (.013)   Average   0.04 (.011)***  0.11 (.025)***  Political Orientation     Difference  0.002 (.008)  0.003 (.012)   Average  -0.0001 (.012)  0.09 (.025)***  Major  -0.04 (.020)†  0.05 (.029)†  Gender  -0.001 (.014)  -0.0004 (.022)  Religion  -0.02 (.014)  -0.02 (.022)  Cultural & Ethnic Similarity  0.03 (.020)  -0.01 (.029)  Perceived Ethnic Similarity (perceptive)  0.005 (.004)  0.02 (.006)**  Perceived Ethnic Similarity (expressive)  0.005 (.004)  -0.0003 (.006)  Perceived Similarity (perceptive)  -0.01 (.004)†  0.13 (.008)***  Perceived Similarity (expressive)  -0.004 (.006) -0.02 (.008)**  Personality Similarity     Self-Report       Overall  0.07 (.030)*  0.08 (.045)†    Distinctive  0.07 (.027)**  0.04 (.038)  Informant Report      Overall  0.06 (.038)  0.06 (.062)    Distinctive  -0.01 (.034)  -0.05 (.047) Notes. SES included 263 perceivers and targets for 771 dyads; Religion included 345 perceivers and targets for 1031 dyads; Cultural & Ethnic Similarity included 218 perceiver and targets for 830 dyads; Personality Similarity (informant report) included 292 perceivers and targets for 745 dyads. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   108  Table 4.4 Impact of personality similarity on behavior  Self Report  Informant Report Items Overall Similarity Distinctive Similarity  Overall Similarity Distinctive Similarity  1. irritated 0.01 0.03  -0.01a 0.01 2. playful 0.06 0.05  -0.06 -0.24* 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.02 -0.08  -0.08a -0.14 4. cheerful 0.05 0.02  -0.05 -0.11 5. fearful, timid -0.04 0.01  0.10 0.10 6. genuine, natural 0.05 0.00  -0.05 -0.11 7. confident, self-assured 0.01 0.00  -0.07 -0.07 8. compares self -0.05 -0.01  0.06 -0.15 9. ambition -0.04 -0.08  0.05 -0.01 10. intelligence -0.01 0.01  0.05 0.05 11. condescending 0.04 0.05  0.00 -0.01 12. social skills 0.05 0.03  -0.02 -0.06 13. expresses agreement -0.04 -0.07  -0.02 -0.11 14. insecure, sensitive 0.03 0.05  0.05 0.05 15. sympathy -0.08 -0.05  0.08 0.18 16. warm 0.09 0.06  -0.12a -0.10 17. open, welcoming 0.07 0.03  -0.06 -0.05 18. expressive 0.10 0.08  -0.07 -0.13a 19. animated -0.03 0.00  -0.01 -0.08 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.13† -0.16*  0.08 0.11 21. talkative 0.17 0.18  -0.09 -0.23† 22. trying hard 0.12† 0.09  0.04 -0.16*a 23. laughs -0.02 0.01  0.02 -0.26† 24. physical contact -0.29* -0.24†  -0.01 0.17 25. says interesting 0.03 0.04  -0.11 -0.30* 26. seeks advice 0.08 0.07  -0.25† -0.05 27. seeks reassurance 0.05 0.04  -0.05 -0.01 28. detached -0.07 -0.05  0.03 0.06 29. range of interests 0.06 0.11a  0.01 -0.11 30. enthusiasm 0.11 0.06  -0.07 -0.16 31. tension, anxiety 0.01 0.09  0.11 0.12 32. smiles 0.01 -0.01  -0.03a -0.13 33. speaks fluently 0.05 0.03  -0.02 -0.04 34. loud voice 0.06 0.06a  0.05 0.06a 35. speaks quickly 0.02 0.02  -0.07 -0.10† 36. controls interaction -0.01 0.07  -0.06 0.00a 37. large amount of information 0.10 0.14  0.00 -0.16 38. charisma, charm 0.08 0.11  -0.06 -0.13 39. projected thoughts 0.05 0.05  -0.03 0.00 40. defensive 0.04 0.08†a  -0.01a -0.04 41. perceptive 0.00 -0.04  -0.14* -0.14† 109   Self Report  Informant Report Items Overall Similarity Distinctive Similarity  Overall Similarity Distinctive Similarity  42. straightforward, forthright -0.01 -0.04  -0.04 -0.13 43. rigid, closed off -0.08 -0.04  0.10 0.13 44. negative about self 0.00 -0.03  -0.06 -0.12 45. works hard at answers 0.03a 0.05  -0.02 -0.03 46. dominates 0.00 0.15  -0.10 0.04 47. eye contact 0.00 -0.09  -0.09 -0.09 48. awkward -0.04 -0.02  0.11 0.04 49. interviews  0.01 0.06  -0.14 0.06 50. distant -0.07a -0.02  0.02 0.09 51. interested in partner 0.08 -0.01  -0.05a -0.04 52. likeable to partner 0.06 -0.02  -0.05 -0.05 53. enjoys interaction 0.14 0.01  -0.02 -0.11 54. likes partner 0.18 0.02  0.00 -0.12 55. lack of interest in partner -0.16† -0.10  0.11 0.07 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.03 0.03  0.09 -0.10 57. discussed actions, behaviors 0.10 0.12  -0.01 -0.18 58. others behave similarly 0.03 0.02a  -0.05 -0.13† 59. others discuss similarly 0.02 -0.02  0.00 -0.03 60. unique, distinctive information 0.03 0.07a  0.07 -0.12 61. candid, intimate answers 0.10 0.09  -0.08 -0.09 62. accurate, complete impression 0.12 0.11  -0.07 -0.23 63. detailed answers 0.06 0.15  -0.07         --- 64. thoughtful answers 0.02 0.05  -0.03 -0.08 65. effort into answers 0.08 0.08  0.00 -0.06 66. high quality information 0.04 0.06  -0.07 -0.27† 67. high quantity information 0.10 0.17  0.00a -0.16 68. paid attention to partner 0.00 -0.04  -0.07 -0.10 69. engaged in conversation 0.06 -0.02  -0.05 -0.12 70. put other person at ease 0.10 0.08  -0.07 0.07 71. individuals were similar 0.06 0.02  0.23 -0.19 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.17 0.01  0.07 0.10 73. held my attention 0.09 0.06  -0.02 -0.14† 74. was engaging 0.08 0.04  -0.04 -0.26* 75. was interesting 0.08 0.02  -0.05 -0.33* 76. mind wandered  -0.08 -0.07  -0.03 0.09 77. appears cold 0.02 0.00  0.13* 0.06 Notes. aindicates model was fit with maximum likelihood, all other models fit with restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   110  Table 4.5 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by engagement and interpersonal attraction   Moderation  b W/N b B/N b W/N x B/N b Distinctive Accuracy Average Fixed Effect 0.16***    Normative Accuracy Average Fixed Effect 0.93***         Perceiver Perceptive Accuracy      Distinctive Accuracy        Engaging   -0.002  0.03**  0.01    Physically attractive   0.01  0.01†  0.01    Liking   0.001  0.05***  -0.0003    Partner likes you   -0.003  0.01  -0.01  Normative Accuracy        Engaging   0.19*** 0.30***  0.05***    Physically attractive   0.10***  0.24***  -0.002    Liking   0.23***  0.43***  0.01    Partner likes you   0.13***  0.17***  0.03*      Target Expressive Accuracy      Distinctive Accuracy        Engaging   0.003  0.02  0.004    Physically attractive   0.003  0.01  0.01    Liking   -0.002  -0.003  -0.002    Partner likes you   0.02*  0.03†  -0.01 Normative Accuracy         Engaging   0.03**  0.02  0.01    Physically attractive   0.01  0.04*  -0.0002    Liking   0.03*  0.02  0.01    Partner likes you   0.05***  0.04*  -0.01      Target Expressive Accuracy (Video Raters)      Distinctive Accuracy        Engaging   -.01  0.02  0.02    Physically attractive   -.01  0.02  -0.01    Liking   -.02  -0.001  0.01    Partner likes you   .01  0.05  0.002 Normative Accuracy        Engaging   0.001  -0.04  0.02    Physically attractive   0.04  0.04  -0.01    Liking   0.03  -0.04   0.05    Partner likes you   -0.02  0.05  0.09† Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 111  Table 4.6 Impact of viewing partner as physically attractive on behavior  Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 1. irritated -0.04*** -0.02* 0.00 0.02* 2. playful 0.10** 0.08** 0.06 -0.03 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.06† 0.02 -0.02 -0.04 4. cheerful 0.14*** 0.07*** 0.01 -0.08** 5. fearful, timid 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 6. genuine, natural 0.08** 0.03 -0.02 -0.06** 7. confident, self-assured 0.02 0.00 -0.03 -0.03 8. compares self 0.03 0.02 0.01 -0.01 9. ambition 0.14† 0.08 0.02 -0.07 10. intelligence 0.06† 0.03 -0.01 -0.04 11. condescending 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.01 12. social skills 0.05* 0.01 -0.03 -0.04* 13. expresses agreement 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 14. insecure, sensitive -0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 15. sympathy 0.08* 0.06* 0.04 -0.02 16. warm 0.07* 0.04* 0.02 -0.03 17. open, welcoming 0.07* 0.02 -0.02 -0.05* 18. expressive 0.07** 0.05* 0.02 -0.03 19. animated 0.06* 0.06** 0.05 -0.01 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.09** -0.03 0.03 0.07** 21. talkative 0.12** 0.06* 0.01 -0.07 22. trying hard 0.12*** 0.05** -0.02 -0.08*** 23. laughs 0.16* 0.07 -0.02 -0.11* 24. physical contact 0.03 -0.04 -0.11† -0.09 25. says interesting 0.12** 0.10*** 0.08† -0.02 26. seeks advice -0.04 -0.08** -0.13** -0.05 27. seeks reassurance 0.00 -0.02 -0.04† -0.02 28. detached -0.10*** -0.06** -0.02 0.05 29. range of interests 0.09* 0.06 0.03 -0.04 30. enthusiasm 0.17*** 0.10*** 0.04 -0.07* 31. tension, anxiety -0.06† -0.03 0.00 0.04 32. smiles 0.15*** 0.10*** 0.05 -0.06* 33. speaks fluently 0.04† 0.03 0.01 -0.01 34. loud voice 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.02 35. speaks quickly 0.03 0.03* 0.03 0.00 36. controls interaction -0.03 -0.07** -0.12*** -0.05 37. large amount of information 0.13* 0.10** 0.06 -0.04 38. charisma, charm 0.07* 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 39. projected thoughts 0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 40. defensive -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 41. perceptive 0.04 0.00 -0.03 -0.04* 112  Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 42. straightforward, forthright 0.06* 0.01 -0.04 -0.05* 43. rigid, closed off -0.07* -0.04* -0.02 0.03 44. negative about self -0.02 -0.01 0.01 0.02 45. works hard at answers 0.09** 0.04 0.00 -0.06* 46. dominates 0.02 -0.04 -0.09† -0.07 47. eye contact 0.05† 0.03 0.02 -0.02 48. awkward -0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 49. interviews -0.02 -0.06 -0.10* -0.04 50. distanta -0.13*** -0.08*** -0.03 0.06* 51. interested in partner 0.12*** 0.06** 0.00 -0.07* 52. likeable to partner 0.09* 0.07** 0.05 -0.03 53. enjoys interaction 0.20*** 0.12*** 0.04 -0.09* 54. likes partner 0.20*** 0.13*** 0.07 -0.08* 55. lack of interest in partner -0.13*** -0.08*** -0.04 0.05 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.13*** 0.08** 0.03 -0.06 57. discussed actions, behaviors 0.10** 0.09** 0.07† -0.02 58. others behave similarly 0.04† 0.02 0.00 -0.02 59. others discuss similarly 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 60. unique information 0.11* 0.09** 0.06 -0.03 61. candid, intimate answers 0.14*** 0.06* -0.02 -0.09* 62. accurate impression 0.17*** 0.11*** 0.06 -0.07 63. detailed answers 0.10* 0.07* 0.04 -0.04 64. thoughtful answers 0.11** 0.05* -0.01 -0.07* 65. effort into answers 0.12** 0.05* -0.01 -0.08* 66. high quality information 0.12** 0.07* 0.02 -0.06 67. high quantity information 0.14** 0.08* 0.02 -0.07 68. paid attention to partner 0.05** 0.03* 0.00 -0.03 69. engaged in conversation 0.15*** 0.07** -0.01 -0.09** 70. put other person at ease 0.06† 0.01 -0.04 -0.06 71. individuals were similar 0.17** 0.14** 0.10 -0.04 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.17** -0.10* -0.04 0.07 73. held my attention 0.09*** 0.06** 0.02 -0.04 74. was engaging 0.16*** 0.09** 0.02 -0.08* 75. was interesting 0.15** 0.09** 0.03 -0.07 76. mind wandered  -0.09** -0.06** -0.02 0.04 77. appears cold -0.07** -0.03* 0.01 0.04* Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 SD below the mean (low) and 1 SD above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. Further, between-person differences did not significantly impact behavior. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 113  Table 4.7 Impact of liking partner on behavior Items Within-person b 1. irritated -0.01 2. playful 0.09** 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.00 4. cheerful 0.07** 5. fearful, timid 0.02 6. genuine, natural 0.03 7. confident, self-assured 0.00 8. compares self 0.00 9. ambition 0.01 10. intelligence 0.01 11. condescending -0.01 12. social skills 0.00 13. expresses agreement 0.09*** 14. insecure, sensitive 0.01 15. sympathy 0.03 16. warm 0.03 17. open, welcoming -0.02 18. expressive 0.05 19. animated 0.03 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.01 21. talkative -0.04 22. trying hard 0.02 23. laughs 0.12** 24. physical contact -0.06 25. says interesting 0.08 26. seeks advice -0.03 27. seeks reassurance 0.00 28. detached -0.04 29. range of interests 0.05 30. enthusiasm 0.08* 31. tension, anxiety 0.00 32. smiles 0.11*** 33. speaks fluently 0.01 34. loud voice 0.03* 35. speaks quickly 0.00 36. controls interaction -0.12*** 37. large amount of information 0.01 38. charisma, charm 0.03 39. projected thoughts -0.02 40. defensive -0.01 41. perceptive -0.01 42. straightforward, forthright 0.01 114  Items Within-person b 43. rigid, closed off -0.01 44. negative about self -0.02 45. works hard at answers 0.02 46. dominates -0.17*** 47. eye contact 0.01 48. awkward -0.01 49. interviews -0.10** 50. distant -0.08* 51. interested in partner 0.09** 52. likeable to partner 0.15*** 53. enjoys interaction 0.14*** 54. likes partner 0.15*** 55. lack of interest in partner -0.08** 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.03 57. discussed actions, behaviors 0.03 58. others behave similarly 0.01 59. others discuss similarly -0.02 60. unique, distinctive information 0.06 61. candid, intimate answers 0.02 62. accurate, complete impression 0.05 63. detailed answers 0.03 64. thoughtful answers 0.02 65. effort into answers 0.02 66. high quality information 0.03 67. high quantity information -0.01 68. paid attention to partner 0.02 69. engaged in conversation 0.06 70. put other person at ease -0.02 71. individuals were similar 0.11* 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.19*** 73. held my attention 0.08** 74. was engaging 0.10** 75. was interesting 0.12** 76. mind wandered  -0.07*** 77. appears cold -0.03 Notes. Given that the interaction of within-person and between-person effects significantly impacted fewer than four behaviors, the models were trimmed to not include the interaction. Further, between-person differences did not significantly impact behavior. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   115  Table 4.8 Impact of perceiving partner as liking you on behavior Items W/N  Low b W/N Mean b W/N  High b W/N X B/N  b 1. irritated -0.07** -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 2. playful 0.09 0.15*** 0.21*** 0.08 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.05 0.06* 0.07† 0.01 4. cheerful 0.05 0.10** 0.14*** 0.06 5. fearful, timid 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 6. genuine, natural 0.03 0.06** 0.09** 0.03 7. confident, self-assured 0.02 0.05* 0.08* 0.03 8. compares self -0.05 0.01 0.07* 0.08 9. ambition -0.14† -0.03 0.09 0.14* 10. intelligence -0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 11. condescending 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 12. social skills 0.01 0.04 0.06* 0.03 13. expresses agreement 0.04 0.08*** 0.12*** 0.05 14. insecure, sensitive -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 15. sympathy -0.02 0.05 0.12** 0.09 16. warm 0.02 0.07** 0.11** 0.06 17. open, welcoming 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.00 18. expressive 0.06 0.08** 0.09* 0.02 19. animated 0.00 0.05 0.09† 0.06 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.01 -0.03 -0.06† -0.03 21. talkative -0.01 0.07 0.11* 0.05 22. trying hard -0.05 -0.01 0.03 0.05 23. laughs 0.09 0.15*** 0.22*** 0.08 24. physical contact -0.11 -0.06 -0.01 0.06 25. says interesting 0.02 0.12** 0.22*** 0.13* 26. seeks advice 0.07 0.02 -0.03 -0.06 27. seeks reassurance 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 28. detached -0.06 -0.09*** -0.12** -0.03 29. range of interests 0.04 0.10* 0.15* 0.07 30. enthusiasm 0.04 0.11* 0.19** 0.09 31. tension, anxiety -0.01 -0.06 -0.10* -0.06 32. smiles 0.03 0.09** 0.14*** 0.07 33. speaks fluently 0.00 0.03 0.06* 0.04 34. loud voice 0.01 0.06 0.09*** --- 35. speaks quickly 0.01 0.01 0.09*** 0.03 36. controls interaction 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.03 37. large amount of information -0.07 0.07 0.21*** 0.18** 38. charisma, charm 0.03 0.10*** 0.16*** 0.08* 39. projected thoughts 0.08† 0.06* 0.03 -0.03 40. defensive -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 41. perceptive 0.02 0.04* 0.06* 0.03 116  Items W/N  Low b W/N Mean b W/N  High b W/N X B/N  b 42. straightforward, forthright 0.01 0.05* 0.08** 0.05 43. rigid, closed off 0.01 -0.04 -0.09* -0.06 44. negative about self -0.07† -0.02 0.03 0.06 45. works hard at answers 0.06 0.08** 0.10* 0.02 46. dominates 0.07 0.03 -0.01 -0.05 47. eye contact 0.01 0.04 0.07* 0.04 48. awkward -0.03 -0.06* -0.10* -0.04 49. interviews 0.03 -0.08 -0.18** -0.13* 50. distanta -0.03 -0.08** -0.13** -0.07 51. interested in partner 0.07 0.12*** 0.16*** 0.06 52. likeable to partner 0.11† 0.22*** 0.32*** 0.13* 53. enjoys interaction 0.12 0.22*** 0.31*** 0.12 54. likes partner 0.10 0.20*** 0.30*** 0.12* 55. lack of interest in partner -0.06 -0.12*** -0.19*** -0.08 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.01 0.07* 0.14** 0.09 57. discussed actions, behaviors -0.01 0.06* 0.13** 0.09 58. others behave similarly 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.01 59. others discuss similarly -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 60. unique, distinctive information -0.02 0.08* 0.19** 0.13* 61. candid, intimate answers 0.00 0.09** 0.17*** 0.11* 62. accurate, complete impression 0.02 0.12** 0.22*** 0.12 63. detailed answers 0.00 0.10** 0.19*** 0.12* 64. thoughtful answers 0.01 0.06* 0.11* 0.06 65. effort into answers 0.00 0.05 0.11* 0.07 66. high quality information 0.00 0.10** 0.20*** 0.13* 67. high quantity information 0.02 0.14*** 0.26*** 0.15* 68. paid attention to partner 0.05 0.07** 0.09** 0.03 69. engaged in conversation 0.05 0.12** 0.16** 0.06 70. put other person at ease 0.04 0.06* 0.08† 0.03 71. individuals were similar 0.18* 0.32*** 0.45*** 0.17* 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.10 -0.22*** -0.35*** -0.16* 73. held my attention 0.04 0.11*** 0.18*** 0.09* 74. was engaging 0.10 0.17*** 0.25*** 0.09 75. was interesting 0.07 0.16*** 0.25*** 0.11 76. mind wandered  0.00 -0.06** -0.12*** -0.07* 77. appears cold -0.03 -0.04* -0.06* -0.02 Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. Further, between-person differences did not significantly impact behavior. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 117  Table 4.9 Impact of viewing partner as engaging on behavior Items Within-person b 1. irritated -0.02* 2. playful 0.13*** 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.05* 4. cheerful 0.09*** 5. fearful, timid 0.00 6. genuine, natural 0.06*** 7. confident, self-assured 0.03 8. compares self 0.02 9. ambition 0.02 10. intelligence 0.00 11. condescending -0.01 12. social skills 0.03* 13. expresses agreement 0.10*** 14. insecure, sensitive 0.00 15. sympathy 0.03 16. warm 0.05** 17. open, welcoming 0.03* 18. expressive 0.08*** 19. animated 0.05* 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.03 21. talkative 0.04 22. trying hard 0.05** 23. laughs 0.14*** 24. physical contact -0.02 25. says interesting 0.10** 26. seeks advice -0.02 27. seeks reassurance 0.00 28. detached -0.07** 29. range of interests 0.07* 30. enthusiasm 0.13*** 31. tension, anxiety -0.04 32. smiles 0.11*** 33. speaks fluently 0.04** 34. loud voice 0.03* 35. speaks quickly 0.01 36. controls interaction -0.10*** 37. large amount of information 0.05 38. charisma, charm 0.05** 39. projected thoughts 0.02 40. defensive 0.00 41. perceptive 0.04** 42. straightforward, forthright 0.03* 118  Items Within-person b 43. rigid, closed off -0.04* 44. negative about self 0.01 45. works hard at answers 0.05* 46. dominates -0.13*** 47. eye contact 0.04** 48. awkward -0.06** 49. interviews -0.10*** 50. distant -0.09*** 51. interested in partner 0.12*** 52. likeable to partner 0.18*** 53. enjoys interaction 0.19*** 54. likes partner 0.17*** 55. lack of interest in partner -0.12*** 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.06* 57. discussed actions, behaviors 0.04 58. others behave similarly 0.03 59. others discuss similarly 0.01 60. unique, distinctive information 0.08** 61. candid, intimate answers 0.07** 62. accurate, complete impression 0.10*** 63. detailed answers 0.09** 64. thoughtful answers 0.06* 65. effort into answers 0.05* 66. high quality information 0.07** 67. high quantity information 0.05 68. paid attention to partner 0.04*** 69. engaged in conversation 0.10*** 70. put other person at ease 0.00 71. individuals were similar 0.17*** 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.25*** 73. held my attention 0.10*** 74. was engaging 0.14*** 75. was interesting 0.17*** 76. mind wandered  -0.08*** 77. appears cold -0.03* Note. The interaction of within- and between-person effects is not included as fewer than four behaviors were significantly impacted. Further, between-person differences did not significantly impact behavior. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   119  Table 4.10 Correlations among dyadic quality interaction items Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Engage        2. Comfort 0.71       3. Interest 0.81 0.60      4. Expressive 0.79 0.69 0.72     5. Authentic 0.69 0.80 0.65 0.69    6. Rapport 0.71 0.83 0.64 0.74 0.83   7. Increased Rapport 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.40 0.44 0.46  8. Strained -0.73 -0.89 -0.65 -0.71 -0.76 -0.80 -0.40 Notes. All correlations are significant at p < .001. See Table 2.5 for full items.  120  Table 4.11 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by dyadic interaction qualities  Distinctive Accuracy  Normative Accuracy  b (se)  b (se) Average Fixed Effects 0.15 (.017)**  0.94 (.031)** Moderators     Engaging 0.04 (.017)**  0.16 (.025)**  Comfortable 0.02 (.014)†  0.13 (.020)**  Interesting 0.02 (.015)  0.13 (.020)**  Expressive 0.01 (.015)  0.13 (.022)**  Authentic 0.03 (.018)†  0.14 (.025)**  Rapport 0.03 (.016)†  0.14 (.022)**  Increased Rapport 0.05 (.025)†  0.12 (.034)**  Strained  -0.02 (.013)†  -0.11 (.019)**  Composite 0.03 (.018)†  0.18 (.025)** Note. Composite is the average of all items with strained reverse scored and does not include increased rapport as it was not as highly correlated with the other items. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   121  Table 4.12 Impact of behavioral synchrony on behavior Item b 1. irritated -0.04*** 2. playful 0.25*** 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.19*** 4. cheerful 0.23*** 5. fearful, timid -0.08*** 6. genuine, natural 0.14*** 7. confident, self-assured 0.13*** 8. compares self 0.05 9. ambition 0.06 10. intelligence 0.01 11. condescending 0.00 12. social skills 0.13*** 13. expresses agreement 0.12*** 14. insecure, sensitive -0.04 15. sympathy 0.08* 16. warm 0.14*** 17. open, welcoming 0.13*** 18. expressive 0.19*** 19. animated 0.13*** 20. reserved, unexpressive -0.16*** 21. talkative 0.23*** 22. trying hard 0.10*** 23. laughs 0.30*** 24. physical contact 0.04 25. says interesting 0.21*** 26. seeks advice 0.03 27. seeks reassurance 0.04† 28. detached -0.17*** 29. range of interests 0.15*** 30. enthusiasm 0.33*** 31. tension, anxiety -0.14*** 32. smiles 0.19*** 33. speaks fluently 0.07*** 34. loud voice 0.06*** 35. speaks quickly 0.06*** 36. controls interaction 0.01 37. large amount of information 0.18*** 38. charisma, charm 0.14*** 39. projected thoughts 0.05 40. defensive -0.02 41. perceptive 0.10*** 122  Item b 42. straightforward, forthright 0.12*** 43. rigid, closed off -0.17*** 44. negative about self 0.01 45. works hard at answers 0.09** 46. dominates 0.01 47. eye contact 0.13*** 48. awkward -0.19*** 49. interviews -0.02 50. distant -0.23*** 51. interested in partner 0.22*** 52. likeable to partner 0.29*** 53. enjoys interaction 0.35*** 54. likes partner 0.37*** 55. lack of interest in partner -0.24*** 56. discussed thoughts, feelings 0.18*** 57. discussed actions, behaviors 0.12** 58. others behave similarly 0.05* 59. others discuss similarly 0.02 60. unique, distinctive information 0.16*** 61. candid, intimate answers 0.22*** 62. accurate, complete impression 0.23*** 63. detailed answers 0.18*** 64. thoughtful answers 0.14*** 65. effort into answers 0.12*** 66. high quality information 0.17*** 67. high quantity information 0.19*** 68. paid attention to partner 0.09*** 69. engaged in conversation 0.24*** 70. put other person at ease 0.10** 71. individuals were similar 0.46*** 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.43*** 73. held my attention 0.18*** 74. was engaging 0.27*** 75. was interesting 0.28*** 76. mind wandered -0.15*** 77. appears cold -0.11*** Note. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   123   Table 4.13 Distinctive and normative accuracy moderated by interaction between perceiver and target personality traits   Target Personality Perceiver Personality  Agree. Extra. Con. Neur. Open. Distinctive Accuracy        Agreeableness   0.01  0.002  -0.005  0.002  -0.003  Extraversion   0.004  0.01*  -0.001  -0.01  0.003  Conscientiousness   0.001  0.01  0.01*  -0.005  0.02*  Neuroticism   -0.01  -0.01*  -0.02*  0.01†  -0.001  Openness   0.01  0.02*  0.02*  0.01  -0.01        Normative Accuracy        Agreeableness   -0.02  -0.01  -0.01  0.01  -0.01  Extraversion   -0.01  0.01  0.02†  -0.01  -0.01  Conscientiousness   -0.03*  -0.001  -0.01  0.01  -0.001  Neuroticism   -0.01  -0.01  -0.01  0.01  0.004  Openness   0.01  0.01  0.004  0.01  -0.02* Notes. Agree = Agreeableness; Extra = Extraversion; Con = Conscientiousness; Neur = Neuroticism; Open = Openness; †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.     124  Table 4.14 Perceptive distinctive accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior   Moderation  Distinctive Accuracy b B/N Person b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N  b Average Fixed Effect 0.17      Items       1. irritated  0.09 0.10 -0.03 -0.17 -0.81 2. playful  -0.01 0.08 0.01 -0.05 -0.11† 3. relaxed, comfortable  0.02 0.01 -0.09* -0.19** -0.19** 4. cheerful  0.01 0.11* -0.02 -0.15* -0.25** 5. fearful, timid  -0.01 0.19* 0.11† 0.03 -0.19 6. genuine, natural  0.03 0.02 -0.09† -0.18* -0.23* 7. confident  0.02 0.01 -0.06 -0.14† -0.12 8. compares self  0.05 -0.13 -0.06 0.01 0.30† 9. ambitiona  0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 10. intelligence  0.04 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 11. condescendinga  -0.02 -0.05 -0.02 0.01 0.15 12. social skills  0.02 0.07 -0.05 -0.17 -0.29* 13. expresses agreement  0.07 0.08 0.06 0.05 -0.06 14. insecure, sensitive  0.03 0.07 0.03 -0.02 -0.15 15. sympathy  0.04 -0.07 -0.03 0.00 0.11 16. warm  0.00 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.01 17. open, welcoming  0.02 0.04 -0.05 -0.12 -0.20† 18. expressive  0.03 0.08 -0.03 -0.14*a -0.19* 19. animated  0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 20. reserved  -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 21. talkativea  0.00 0.04 0.00 -0.04 -0.07 22. trying hard  -0.05 0.14* 0.07 -0.01 -0.27† 23. laughs  0.02 0.08* 0.03 -0.03 -0.07† 24. physical contact  -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 25. says interesting  0.03 0.04 0.01 0.00 -0.05 26. seeks advice  0.03 0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.18 27. seeks reassurance  0.00 0.16 0.10 0.05 -0.42 28. detached  -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.03 29. range of interests  -0.02 0.06† 0.06* 0.05 -0.01 30. enthusiasm  0.01 0.07† 0.00 -0.07 -0.10* 31. tension, anxiety  0.00 0.20** 0.10* 0.01 -0.10** 32. smilesa  0.01 0.05 -0.03 -0.10 -0.14* 33. speaks fluently  0.04 -0.01 -0.05 -0.09 -0.07 34. loud voice  0.00 -0.04 -0.08 -0.11 -0.04 35. speaks quickly  0.00 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 0.03 36. controls interaction  -0.02 -0.06 0.00 0.06 0.17† 37. large amount of informationa  0.01 0.04 0.01 -0.02 -0.09 125    Moderation  Distinctive Accuracy b B/N Person b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N  b 38. charisma, charm  0.00 0.06 -0.04 -0.13† -0.13* 39. projected thoughts  0.03 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.11 40. defensive  0.01 0.10 0.06 0.02a -0.31 41. perceptive  0.02 0.02 -0.01 -0.05 -0.11 42. straightforward  0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.13 -0.17 43. rigid, closed off  -0.01 0.18* 0.09† -0.01 -0.29* 44. negative about selfa  -0.05 -0.05 0.00 0.04 0.27 45. works hard at answers  0.02 0.11* 0.01 -0.08 -0.24* 46. dominates  -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04 47. eye contact  0.00 -0.04 -0.09 -0.13 -0.12 48. awkward  -0.01 0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.10 49. interviews  -0.05 0.04 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 50. distant  0.02 0.07 0.02 -0.04 -0.18 51. interested in partner  0.00 0.04 -0.05 -0.12* -0.27* 52. likeable to partnera  -0.01 0.03 -0.05 -0.13* -0.23** 53. enjoys interaction  0.01 0.04 -0.04 -0.12* -0.22** 54. likes partner  0.00 0.06† -0.01 -0.07 -0.25* 55. lack interest in partner  0.00 0.13 0.06 -0.01 -0.31† 56. discussed thoughts  0.03 -0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 57. discussed behavior  -0.01 0.09** 0.07* 0.04 -0.11 58. others behave similarly  0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 59. others discuss similarly  0.04 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05 60. unique information  0.01 0.05 0.02 -0.01 -0.09 61. candid answers  0.01 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.04 62. accurate impression  0.01 0.07† 0.02 -0.04 -0.11† 63. detailed answers  0.00 0.07† 0.02 -0.03 -0.09† 64. thoughtful answers  0.01 0.18* 0.03 -0.05 -0.18* 65. effort into answers  0.02 0.07† 0.04 0.00a -0.08 66. quality information  0.01 0.08* 0.02 -0.03 -0.11† 67. quantity information  0.01 0.05 0.02 -0.02 -0.07 68. paid attention to partner  -0.03 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01 69. engaged in conversation  0.01 0.01 -0.05 -0.10 -0.19 70. put person at ease  0.04 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.06 71. individuals similar  -0.14 0.05 0.02 0.00 -0.14 72. awkward interaction  -0.01 0.04 0.01 -0.02 -0.06 73. held my attention  0.01 0.03 -0.02 -0.07 -0.18 74. was engaging  0.00 0.03 0.01 -0.01 -0.04 75. was interesting  0.01 0.04 0.00 -0.05 -0.09† 76. mind wandered   -0.04 0.07 0.03 -0.01 -0.13 77. appears cold  0.01 0.17 0.07 -0.03 -0.33† 126  Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  127  Table 4.15 Perceptive normative accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior   Moderation  Normative Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N  Mean b W/N  High b W/N X B/N b Average Fixed Effect 0.98      Items       1. irritated  0.16 -0.37 -0.30† -0.23† 0.43 2. playful  0.17† 0.12† 0.15*** 0.18*** 0.06 3. relaxed  0.18† 0.02 0.11* 0.21* 0.18† 4. cheerful  0.19† 0.13* 0.17** 0.21* 0.07 5. fearful, timid  -0.22† 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.01 6. genuine, natural  0.33** 0.09 0.15* 0.19† 0.13 7. confident  0.19* 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.10 8. compares self  0.14 0.05 0.03 0.02 -0.04 9. ambitiona  0.12 -0.04 -0.01 0.02 0.07 10. intelligence  0.21 -0.16* -0.09† -0.03 0.17 11. condescendinga  -0.07 -0.24 -0.17 -0.10 0.35 12. social skills  0.26* 0.07 0.15† 0.23† 0.20 13. expresses agreement  0.17 0.19** 0.15** 0.12 -0.11 14. insecure, sensitive  -0.07 -0.11 -0.03 0.06 0.32 15. sympathy  0.22 0.02 -0.01 -0.04 -0.08 16. warm  0.25* -0.01 0.03 0.07 0.08 17. open, welcoming  0.31* -0.05 0.01 0.04 0.12 18. expressive  0.30*** 0.15* 0.15** 0.14a 0.00 19. animated  0.21** 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.01 20. reserved  -0.24* -0.03 -0.04 -0.06 -0.03 21. talkativea  0.19* -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 22. trying hard  0.18 0.21* 0.14* 0.08 -0.21 23. laughs  0.11 0.04 0.09** 0.14* 0.06 24. physical contact  0.08 0.05 0.03 0.00 -0.03 25. says interesting  0.28* 0.02 0.08* 0.14** 0.13 26. seeks advice  0.34 0.11 0.08 0.04 -0.33 27. seeks reassurance  0.05 0.09 0.06 0.04 -0.19 28. detached  -0.39 -0.27* -0.21* -0.15** 0.28 29. range of interests  0.24† 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.08 30. enthusiasm  0.17* 0.06 0.08* 0.10† 0.03 31. tension, anxiety  -0.12 -0.22** -0.11* -0.01 0.20* 32. smilesa  0.16 0.13* 0.11* 0.09 -0.02 33. speaks fluently  0.25** -0.02 0.05 0.12 0.13 34. loud voice  0.10 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.09 35. speaks quickly  0.11 -0.05 -0.03 0.00 0.02 36. controls interaction  0.16 -0.16* -0.20*** -0.26*** -0.14 37. large amount of informationa  0.25† -0.05 0.02 0.08† 0.17* 128    Moderation  Normative Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N  Mean b W/N  High b W/N X B/N b 38. charisma, charm  0.17* 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.05 39. projected thoughts  0.19 -0.01 -0.04 -0.07 -0.09 40. defensive  -0.04 -0.15 -0.06 0.04a 0.82 41. perceptive  0.23 0.00 0.11 0.21† 0.32† 42. straightforward, forthright  0.32* 0.04 0.14* 0.25* 0.28† 43. rigid, closed off  -0.31* 0.05 0.00 -0.06 -0.18 44. negative about selfa  0.31 -0.01 0.02 0.05 0.18 45. works hard at answers  0.29* 0.09 0.06 0.03 -0.07 46. dominates  0.17† -0.15** -0.15*** -0.14*** 0.00 47. eye contact  0.27† 0.03 0.17** 0.32** 0.41** 48. awkward  -0.16* -0.16 -0.10† -0.04 0.09 49. interviews  0.02 -0.07† -0.08* -0.08† -0.02 50. distant  -0.30† -0.18* -0.15** -0.11* 0.11 51. interested in partner  0.31 0.12* 0.22*** 0.32*** 0.36* 52. likeable to partnera  0.22 0.11* 0.24*** 0.37*** 0.38*** 53. enjoys interaction  0.26† 0.07† 0.18*** 0.29*** 0.30** 54. likes partner  0.31 0.08† 0.18*** 0.26*** 0.40** 55. lack of interest in partner  -0.39† -0.32** -0.23*** -0.13** 0.39† 56. discussed thoughts  0.47** -0.02 0.05 0.13† 0.23† 57. discussed actions  0.48† -0.03 0.06 0.16* 0.44** 58. others behave similarly  0.13 0.02 -0.03 -0.08 -0.15 59. others discuss similarly  0.05 -0.03 -0.11† -0.19* -0.36 60. unique information  0.38* 0.01 0.05† 0.10* 0.14 61. candid answers  0.31** -0.02 0.07* 0.16** 0.17* 62. accurate impression  0.34*** 0.00 0.05 0.09† 0.10 63. detailed answers  0.22* 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.05 64. thoughtful answers  0.31* 0.05 0.03 0.01 -0.04 65. effort into answers  0.31** 0.03 0.03 0.02a -0.01 66. quality information  0.29* -0.04 0.03 0.10† 0.14† 67. quantity information  0.23* -0.06 0.01 0.07 0.14* 68. attention to partner  0.39 0.06 0.22* 0.38* 1.03† 69. engaged in conversation  0.31† 0.07 0.16** 0.26** 0.33† 70. put person at ease  0.29* -0.03 -0.11** -0.18** -0.17† 71. individuals similar  0.28 0.01 0.05* 0.10** 0.26 72. awkward interaction  -0.18† -0.20*** -0.14*** -0.07** 0.12* 73. held my attention  0.42* 0.09 0.18** 0.26** 0.31 74. was engaging  0.21* 0.07 0.13*** 0.20*** 0.12 75. was interesting  0.23* 0.07† 0.12*** 0.16** 0.08 76. mind wandered   -0.37* -0.28** -0.20*** -0.11† 0.28† 77. appears cold  -0.24 0.13 0.01 -0.11 -0.40 129  Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 130  Table 4.16 Impact of physical attraction on perceptive normative accuracy moderated by perceiver behavior  aw  bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 2. playful 0.10** 0.08** 0.06 -0.03  0.09 0.13*** 0.17*** 0.06 4. cheerful 0.14*** 0.07*** 0.01 -0.08**  0.09 0.15** 0.20* 0.10 6. genuine 0.08** 0.03 -0.02 -0.06**  0.08 0.14* 0.20† 0.14 12. social skills 0.05* 0.01 -0.03 -0.04*  -0.01 0.13 0.05 0.18 16. warm 0.07* 0.04* 0.02 -0.03  -0.06 0.02 0.06 0.07 17. open, welcoming 0.07* 0.02 -0.02 -0.05*  0.13* 0.00 0.11 0.14 18. expressive 0.07** 0.05* 0.02 -0.03  0.05 0.12* 0.08 -0.02 19. animated 0.06* 0.06** 0.05 -0.01  0.00 0.07 -0.04 0.03 20. reserved -0.09** -0.03 0.03 0.07**  -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.04 21. talkative 0.12** 0.06* 0.01 -0.07  0.12 -0.02 0.07 0.01 22. try hard 0.12*** 0.05** -0.02 -0.08***  0.04 0.10† 0.11* -0.11 23. laughs 0.16* 0.07 -0.02 -0.11*  0.01 0.08* 0.12* 0.04 25. says interesting 0.12** 0.10*** 0.08† -0.02  -0.20 0.06* -0.12* 0.12 28. detached -0.10*** -0.06** -0.02 0.05  0.04 -0.16† 0.08 0.19 30. enthusiasm 0.17*** 0.10*** 0.04 -0.07*  0.09† 0.06† 0.06 0.03 32. smiles 0.15*** 0.10*** 0.05 -0.06*  -0.13* 0.07 -0.23*** -0.04 36. controls interactiona -0.03 -0.07** -0.12*** -0.05  -0.06† -0.17*** 0.06 -0.15 37. large amount of information 0.13* 0.10** 0.06 -0.04  0.05 0.00 0.21* 0.15* 42. forthright 0.06* 0.01 -0.04 -0.05*  0.04 0.13* 0.21* 0.24 43. rigid -0.07* -0.04* -0.02 0.03  0.07 0.03 0.01 -0.24 45. works hard at answers 0.09** 0.04 0.00 -0.06*  -0.14 0.04 -0.09* -0.06 50. distant -0.13*** -0.08*** -0.03 0.06*  0.09† -0.12* 0.27*** 0.07 51. interested in partner 0.12*** 0.06** 0.00 -0.07*  0.10* 0.20*** 0.34*** 0.37* 52. likeable to partner 0.09* 0.07** 0.05 -0.03  0.05 0.22*** 0.24*** 0.35*** 53. enjoys interaction 0.20*** 0.12*** 0.04 -0.09*  0.06 0.16*** 0.23*** 0.28** 54. likes partner 0.20*** 0.13*** 0.07 -0.08*  -0.05 0.14*** 0.56*** 0.32* 131   aw  bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 55. lack interest in partner -0.13*** -0.08*** -0.04 0.05  -0.25* -0.19** -0.11* 0.33 56. discussed thoughts 0.13*** 0.08** 0.03 -0.06  -0.05 0.03 0.14* 0.22† 57. discussed behaviors 0.10** 0.09** 0.07† -0.02  0.00 0.04 0.08† 0.40* 60. unique information 0.11* 0.09** 0.06 -0.03  -0.03 0.04 0.15* 0.14 61. candid answers 0.14*** 0.06* -0.02 -0.09*  -0.03 0.06 0.08 0.19* 62. accurate impression 0.17*** 0.11*** 0.06 -0.07  0.00 0.02 0.07 0.10 63. detailed answers 0.10* 0.07* 0.04 -0.04  0.02 0.04 0.01 0.06 64. thoughtful answers 0.11** 0.05* -0.01 -0.07*  0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.01 65. effort into answers 0.12** 0.05* -0.01 -0.08*  0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 66. quality information 0.12** 0.07* 0.02 -0.06  -0.07† 0.01 0.06 0.14† 67. quantity information 0.14** 0.08* 0.02 -0.07  0.03 0.00 0.36* 0.14* 68. attention to partner 0.05** 0.03* 0.00 -0.03  0.05 0.19† 0.21* 1.09* 69. engaged in convo. 0.15*** 0.07** -0.01 -0.09**  0.00 0.13* 0.08** 0.28 71. individuals similar 0.17** 0.14** 0.10 -0.04  -0.17*** 0.04† -0.07* 0.27 72. awkward interaction -0.17** -0.10* -0.04 0.07  0.07 -0.12*** 0.25** 0.10* 73. held my attention 0.09*** 0.06** 0.02 -0.04  0.22** 0.15** 0.07 0.28 74. was engaging 0.16*** 0.09** 0.02 -0.08*  0.06 0.11** 0.14** 0.10 75. was interesting 0.15** 0.09** 0.03 -0.07  -0.27** 0.10** -0.08 0.08 76. mind wandered  -0.09** -0.06** -0.02 0.04  -0.17** -0.17** -0.08 0.30† 132  Notes. aw is the impact of engagement on behavior; bw is the impact of behavior on normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. ---indicates model failed to converge using maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.    133  Table 4.17 Impact of perception of partner liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior   aw  bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 2. playful 0.10** 0.08** 0.06 0.00  0.08 0.11** 0.15** 0.06 3. relaxed 0.06† 0.02 0.00 0.00  -0.11 0.09† 0.29 0.17† 4. cheerful 0.14*** 0.07*** 0.01 -0.08**  0.09 0.11* 0.02a 0.03 6. genuine 0.08** 0.03 0.00 -0.06**  0.05 0.10 0.15 0.10 7. confident 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00  -0.01 0.02 0.08 0.06 13. expresses agreement 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01  0.18** 0.10* 0.02 -0.24 16. warm 0.07* 0.04* 0.02 0.00  -0.07 -0.01 0.04 0.14 18. expressive 0.07** 0.05* 0.02 0.00  0.12† 0.09† -0.04 -0.05 23. laughs 0.06* 0.06** 0.05 0.00  0.01 0.06† -0.10** 0.06 25. says interesting 0.12** 0.10*** 0.08† 0.00  0.00 0.05 -0.10† 0.10 28. detached -0.10*** -0.06** 0.00 0.05  -0.17 -0.13 -0.10† 0.14 29. range of interests 0.09* 0.06 0.03 0.00  -0.03 0.01 0.04 0.10 30. enthusiasm 0.17*** 0.10*** 0.04 -0.07*  0.05a 0.05 0.06 0.02 32. smiles 0.15*** 0.10*** 0.05 -0.06*  0.09† 0.07 0.06 -0.02 37. large amount of information 0.13* 0.10** 0.06 0.00  -0.06 -0.01 0.04 0.12† 38. charisma 0.07* 0.03 0.00 -0.10  -0.01 0.00 0.01a 0.02 42. forthright 0.06* 0.01 0.00 -0.05*  0.00 0.08 0.16 0.20 45. works hard at answers 0.09** 0.04 0.00 -0.06*  0.06 0.02 -0.02 -0.11 48. awkward 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04  -0.08 -0.04 -0.02 0.04 49. interviews 0.00 -0.10 -0.10* 0.00  -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 0.03 50. distanta -0.13*** -0.08*** 0.00 0.06*  -0.13 -0.11* -0.08† 0.08 51. interested in partner 0.12*** 0.06** 0.00 -0.07*  0.06 0.17*** 0.28*** 0.39* 52. likeable to partner 0.09* 0.07** 0.05 0.00  -0.46 0.17*** -0.01 0.30** 53. enjoys interaction 0.20*** 0.12*** 0.04 -0.09*  0.03 0.12** 0.22*** 0.25* 54. likes partner 0.20*** 0.13*** 0.07 -0.08*  0.04 0.11** 0.20** 0.26† 55. lack of interest in partner -0.13*** -0.08*** 0.00 0.05  -0.23* -0.16* -0.09† 0.30 134    aw  bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 56. discussed thoughts 0.13*** 0.08** 0.03 -0.10  -0.02 0.01 0.05 0.11 57. discussed behaviors 0.10** 0.09** 0.07† 0.00  -0.05 0.04 0.14* 0.41* 60. unique information 0.11* 0.09** 0.06 0.00  0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 61. candid, intimate answers 0.14*** 0.06* 0.00 -0.09*  -0.03 0.03 0.09 0.12 62. accurate, complete impression 0.17*** 0.11*** 0.06 -0.10  -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 63. detailed answers 0.10* 0.07* 0.04 0.00  0.01 0.02 0.04 0.03 64. thoughtful answers 0.11** 0.05* 0.00 -0.07*  0.03a 0.01 -0.02 -0.05 66. quality information 0.12** 0.07* 0.02 -0.10  -0.05 -0.01 0.04a 0.09 67. quantity information 0.14** 0.08* 0.02 -0.10  -0.07† -0.03 0.02 0.09 68. attention to partner 0.05** 0.03* 0.00 0.00  -0.01 0.13 0.08 0.93† 69. engaged in conversation 0.15*** 0.07** 0.00 -0.09**  -0.14 0.11† 0.93 0.27 70. put person at ease 0.06† 0.01 0.00 -0.10  -0.07 -0.14*** 0.00 -0.16 71. individuals were similar 0.17** 0.14** 0.10 0.00  -0.03 0.01 0.04 0.25 72. awkward interaction -0.17** -0.10* 0.00 0.07  -0.13** -0.10*** -0.06*a 0.08 73. held my attention 0.09*** 0.06** 0.02 0.00  0.03 0.11† 0.18* 0.26 74. was engaging 0.16*** 0.09** 0.02 -0.08*  0.04 0.08* 0.13* 0.08 75. was interesting 0.15** 0.09** 0.03 -0.10  0.05 0.08* 0.10* 0.05 76. mind wandered  -0.09** -0.06** 0.00 0.04  -0.22* -0.15** -0.09 0.22 Notes. aw is the impact of engagement on behavior; bw is the impact of behavior on normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 135  standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. ---indicates model failed to converge using maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 136  Table 4.18 Impact of liking on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior  Notes. aw is the impact of liking on behavior; bw is the impact of behavior on normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. ---indicates model failed to converge using maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.     aw  bw    W/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b Items        2. playful  0.09**  0.07 -0.09 0.13** -0.06 4. cheerfula  0.07**  0.05 0.11* 0.17* 0.12 13. expresses agreement  0.09***  0.11† 0.07 0.03 -0.13 23. laughs  0.12**  -0.01 0.04 0.09† 0.06 30. enthusiasm  0.08*  0.01 0.05 0.08 0.04 32. smiles  0.11***  0.03 0.02 0.01 -0.02 36. controls interaction  -0.12***  -0.10† -0.13*** -0.16** -0.10 46. dominates  -0.17***  -0.10* -0.10*** -0.11** -0.01 49. interviews  -0.10**  -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 0.00 50. distant  -0.08*  -0.13 -0.10† -0.06 0.10 51. interested in partner  0.09**  0.05 0.15*** 0.26*** 0.35* 52. likeable to partner  0.15***  0.06 0.14*** --- 0.23* 53. enjoys interaction  0.14***  0.05 0.10** 0.18** 0.21* 54. likes partner  0.15***  0.02 0.10** 0.19** 0.31* 55. lack of interest in partner  -0.08**  0.20* -0.13* -0.07 0.27 71. individuals were similar  0.11*  0.01 0.04† 0.06* 0.15 72. awkward, strained interaction  -0.19***  -0.13** -0.09*** 0.05* 0.08 73. held my attention  0.08**  0.04 0.09† 0.13 0.16 74. was engaging  0.10**  0.04 0.08* 0.12* 0.08 75. was interesting  0.12**  --- 0.07* 0.10* 0.05 76. mind wandered   -0.07***  --- -0.12* -0.06 0.20 137  Table 4.19 Impact of engagement on perceptive normative accuracy mediated by perceiver behavior     aw  bw Item   W/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean  b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 3. relaxed, comfortable  0.05*  -0.20 0.06 --- 0.15* 4. cheerful  0.09***  0.03 0.01 --- -0.04 13. expresses agreement  0.10***  --- 0.01 --- -0.18 16. warm  0.05**  --- -0.04 0.00 0.09 17. open, welcoming  0.03*  --- -0.05 -0.01a 0.07 18. expressive  0.08***  0.03 0.02 --- -0.02 19. animated  0.05*  -0.07a 0.00 --- 0.10 22. trying hard a  0.05**  --- 0.01 --- -0.12 23. laughs  0.14***  -0.01 0.00 --- 0.01 25. says interesting  0.10**  --- 0.01 --- 0.07 30. enthusiasm  0.13***  --- -0.02 -0.03 -0.01 33. speaks fluently  0.04**  -0.12† -0.09 -0.07 0.05 36. controls interaction  -0.10***  --- -0.10** -0.10† 0.00 38. charisma, charm  0.05**  -0.05a -0.02 --- 0.05 42. straightforward  0.03*  -0.01a 0.05 0.00 0.17 43. rigid, closed off  -0.04*  0.15a 0.08 --- -0.22 46. dominatesa  -0.13***  -0.10* -0.08*** -0.08* 0.02 48. awkward  -0.06**  -0.05 -0.02 --- 0.05 49. interviews  -0.10***  -0.10* -0.02 -0.08* 0.01 50. distant  -0.09***  -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 0.02 51. interested in partner  0.12***  -0.01a 0.07 0.15* 0.21* 53. enjoys interaction  0.19***  -0.02 0.03 -0.03 0.13 54. likes partner  0.17***  --- 0.04 0.12* 0.27* 55. lack interest in partner  -0.12***  0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 56. discussed thoughts  0.06*  --- -0.01 --- 0.14 60. unique information  0.08**  -0.02a 0.00 0.02 0.07 61. candid answers  0.07**  --- 0.00 --- 0.10 62. accurate impression  0.10***  0.00 -0.02 0.08 0.08 64. thoughtful answers  0.06*  -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 65. effort into answersa  0.05*  --- -0.03 -0.04 -0.03 67. high quantity information  0.05  -0.07* -0.02 0.03 0.10† 68. paid attention to partnera  0.04***  -0.07* -0.02 0.02 0.31 69. engaged in conversation  0.10***  -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.02 71. individuals similar  0.17***  -0.02 0.01 0.03 0.17 73. held my attention  0.10***  0.00a -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 74. was engaging  0.14***  0.01 0.02 0.03a 0.02 138     aw  bw Item   W/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean  b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 75. was interesting  0.17***  0.02a 0.02 --- -0.01 76. mind wandered   -0.08***  -0.01a -0.03 -0.05 -0.05 Notes. aw is the impact of engagement on behavior; bw is the impact of behavior on normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. ---indicates model failed to converge using maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   139  Table 4.20 Expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by target behavior   Moderation  Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b Average Fixed Effect 0.12      Items       1. irritated  0.11 0.13 0.10 0.05 -0.31 2. playful  -0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 3. relaxed, comfortable  0.04 -0.01 0.03 0.09 0.09 4. cheerful  0.02 -0.03 0.00 0.08 0.10 5. fearful, timid  -0.07 -0.15† 0.04 0.01 0.18† 6. genuine, natural  0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.05 0.03 7. confident, self-assured  0.03 -0.03 0.02 0.10 0.11 8. compares self  0.02 -0.03 0.01 0.07† 0.16 9. ambition  -0.03 -0.03 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 10. intelligence  -0.04 -0.02 0.01 -0.06 -0.04 11. condescending  0.03 0.03 -0.18 0.00 -0.15 12. social skills  -0.03 -0.04 0.01 -0.02 0.00 13. expresses agreement  -0.01 0.00 0.06 -0.02 0.00 14. insecure, sensitive  0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 -0.02 15. sympathy  -0.03 -0.10* -0.01 0.04 0.23** 16. warm  0.02 -0.07 0.05 0.11* 0.21* 17. open, welcoming  0.03 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.06 18. expressive  0.05 -0.07 0.02 0.16* 0.18* 19. animated  0.01 -0.08 0.04 0.09† 0.12† 20. reserved  -0.01 -0.05 0.01 0.03 0.09 21. talkative  0.03 -0.02 0.01 0.08† 0.09† 22. trying hard  -0.03 0.03 0.02 -0.10† -0.20 23. laughs  0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 24. physical contact  0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 25. says interesting  0.04† 0.01 0.08 0.07† 0.08 26. seeks advice  -0.02 -0.03 0.28 0.01 0.20 27. seeks reassurance  -0.08 -0.11 0.16 -0.02 0.40 28. detached  0.01 0.01 -0.10 0.00 -0.05 29. range of interests  0.02 -0.04 0.09 0.09* 0.17* 30. enthusiasm  0.03 -0.05 0.01 0.11** 0.11** 31. tension, anxiety  -0.06 -0.06 -0.04 -0.05 0.00 32. smiles  0.02 0.02 -0.01 0.04 0.00 33. speaks fluently  0.11† -0.04 0.01 0.27** 0.24** 34. loud voice  0.01 -0.03 -0.02 0.05 0.05 35. speaks quickly  0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.05 0.05 36. controls interaction  0.04 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.04 37. large amount of information  0.02 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 140    Moderation  Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 38. charisma, charm  0.03 -0.06 0.04 0.12† 0.13* 39. projected thoughts  -0.05 -0.14* -0.11 0.04 0.33** 40. defensive  -0.04 0.01 -0.05 -0.08 -0.34 41. perceptive  0.02 -0.05 -0.01 0.09 0.21 42. straightforward  0.03 0.02 -0.05 0.04 0.02 43. rigid, closed off  0.08† 0.12 0.04 0.03 -0.15 44. negative about self  0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 -0.34 45. works hard at answers  0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.08 0.13 46. dominates  0.01 -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 47. eye contact  0.01 0.03 0.00 -0.02 -0.08 48. awkward  -0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 49. interviews  -0.03 -0.04 -0.06 -0.01 0.03 50. distant  -0.02 -0.05 -0.07 0.01 0.08 51. interested in partner  0.01 -0.06 0.04 0.08 0.25* 52. likeable to partner  0.00 -0.03 0.00 0.04 0.09 53. enjoys interaction  0.02 -0.03 0.05 0.08† 0.14† 54. likes partner  0.02 -0.05 0.10 0.09* 0.26* 55. lack interest in partner  -0.04 -0.10 -0.12 0.02 0.22 56. discussed thoughts  0.03 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.09 57. discussed actions  0.03 0.01 0.16 0.06 0.10 58. others behave similarly  -0.11* -0.05 -0.07 -0.17* -0.20 59. others discuss similarly  -0.09† -0.09† -0.16 -0.09 0.01 60. unique information  0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 61. candid answers  0.02 -0.01 0.05 0.05 0.07 62. accurate impression  0.01 -0.03 0.03 0.06 0.10† 63. detailed answers  0.02 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.03 64. thoughtful answers  0.04 0.06 0.03 0.03 -0.03 65. effort into answers  0.04 0.06 0.07 0.03 -0.02 66. quality information  0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 67. quantity information  0.04† 0.01 0.03 0.06† 0.06 68. attention to partner  0.02 0.00 -0.08 0.04 0.08 69. engaged in conversation  0.01 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.11 70. put person at ease  0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.04 0.08 71. individuals were similar  0.03† 0.01 0.01 0.05* 0.17 72. awkward interaction  -0.01 -0.04 -0.04 0.02 0.05 141    Moderation  Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 73. held my attention  0.05 -0.01 0.07 0.10 0.20 74. was engaging  0.03 -0.02 0.05 0.09* 0.12* 75. was interesting  0.02 -0.02 0.05 0.07† 0.09† 76. mind wandered   -0.02 -0.07 -0.07 0.02 0.14 77. appears cold  0.02 0.03 -0.04 0.01 -0.03 Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  142  Table 4.21 Expressive normative accuracy moderated by target behavior   Moderation  Normative Accuracy b W/N b B/N b Average Fixed Effect 0.90   Items    1. irritated  -0.17 -0.26† 2. playful  0.07 0.07† 3. relaxed, comfortable  0.13* 0.05 4. cheerful  0.11† 0.15** 5. fearful, timid  -0.16* -0.10 6. genuine, natural  0.17* 0.10 7. confident, self-assured  0.13** 0.11† 8. compares self  0.08 0.13* 9. ambition  0.19* 0.02 10. intelligence  0.27*** 0.05 11. condescending  0.11 -0.04 12. social skills  0.17* 0.12 13. expresses agreement  0.13 0.10† 14. insecure, sensitive  -0.17 -0.11† 15. sympathy  0.13 0.03 16. warm  0.08 0.07 17. open, welcoming  0.13† 0.20** 18. expressive  0.08 0.14* 19. animated  0.04 0.11† 20. reserved, unexpressive  -0.15* -0.11* 21. talkative  0.07 0.08* 22. trying hard  0.14 0.05 23. laughs  0.05 0.10** 24. physical contact  0.03 0.07* 25. says interesting  0.09 0.08* 26. seeks advice  0.17 -0.03 27. seeks reassurance  -0.05 0.07 28. detached  -0.22 -0.10† 29. range of interests  0.10 0.03 30. enthusiasm  0.07† 0.14*** 31. tension, anxiety  -0.13* -0.08 32. smiles  0.12* 0.15** 33. speaks fluently  0.13* 0.20* 34. loud voice  0.09* 0.12 35. speaks quickly  0.07 0.10 36. controls interaction  0.12 0.07 37. large amount of information  0.07 0.05 38. charisma, charm  0.12** 0.10† 143    Moderation  Normative Accuracy b W/N b B/N b 39. projected thoughts  -0.03 -0.04 40. defensive  -0.16 -0.38*** 41. perceptive  0.23** 0.00 42. straightforward, forthright  0.12 0.17** 43. rigid, closed off  -0.23** -0.13* 44. negative about self  0.12 0.05 45. works hard at answers  0.10 0.09† 46. dominates  0.05 0.05 47. eye contact  0.11 0.05 48. awkward  -0.12** -0.08 49. interviews   0.03 0.00 50. distant  -0.16† -0.12* 51. interested in partner  0.24* 0.17** 52. likeable to partner  0.23** 0.13** 53. enjoys interaction  0.16* 0.12** 54. likes partner  0.23* 0.14** 55. lack of interest in partner  -0.18 -0.16** 56. discussed thoughts, feelings  0.06 0.10* 57. discussed actions, behaviors  0.07 0.07 58. others behave similarly  0.23* 0.05 59. others discuss similarly  0.14 0.03 60. unique, distinctive information  0.05 0.05 61. candid, intimate answers  0.12† 0.06 62. accurate, complete impression  0.11† 0.07† 63. detailed answers  0.09† 0.06† 64. thoughtful answers  0.12 0.10* 65. effort into answers  0.11 0.11* 66. high quality information  0.09 0.07† 67. high quantity information  0.07 0.06† 68. paid attention to partner  0.34† 0.27** 69. engaged in conversation  0.24* 0.12* 70. put other person at ease  0.17* 0.07 71. individuals were similar  0.40* 0.04 72. awkward, strained interaction  -0.14* -0.07* 73. held my attention  0.18† 0.21*** 74. was engaging  0.15** 0.12** 75. was interesting  0.14* 0.10** 76. mind wandered   -0.12 -0.16** 77. appears cold  -0.24* -0.20** 144  Note. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect. The interaction of within- and between-person effects is not included as the number of significant effects was fewer than would be expected by chance. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  145  Table 4.22 Expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by target behavior (video raters)    Moderation   Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b Average Fixed Effect 0.11      Items       1. irritated  -0.07 -0.07 -0.05 -0.03 0.13 2. playful  0.08 -0.03 0.00 0.02 0.04 3. relaxed, comfortable  0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.07 0.08* 4. cheerful  0.04 -0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 5. fearful, timid  0.08 -0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.03 6. genuine, natural  0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.06 0.08† 7. confident, self-assured  0.00 -0.05 0.03 0.10 0.09* 8. compares self  0.14 0.04 0.03 0.01 -0.07 9. ambition  0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 10. intelligence  -0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 11. condescending  -0.21 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.03 12. social skills  0.02 -0.05 0.01 -0.01 0.04 13. expresses agreement  0.11 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 14. insecure, sensitive  0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 15. sympathy  0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 16. warm  0.10 0.01 0.03† 0.05† 0.04 17. open, welcoming  0.13† -0.05† -0.02 0.01 0.08 18. expressive  0.06 -0.05* 0.00 0.05 0.10* 19. animated  0.04 -0.09 -0.01 0.10† 0.02 20. reserved, unexpressive  0.02 -0.04 -0.01 0.04 0.06 21. talkative  0.03 -0.02 0.01 0.05* 0.06* 22. trying hard  0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.05 23. laughs  0.05 -0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03† 24. physical contact  0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 25. says interesting  0.07 -0.02 0.01 0.05* 0.08* 26. seeks advice  0.49† 0.01 0.01 0.00 -0.04 27. seeks reassurance  0.33 -0.09 0.01 -0.01 -0.09 28. detached  -0.10 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 29. range of interests  0.10 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 30. enthusiasm  0.03 -0.02 0.02 0.06** 0.05* 31. tension, anxiety  -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.04 32. smiles  0.02 -0.01 0.02 0.05 0.05 33. speaks fluently  0.03 0.00 0.05† 0.10* 0.09† 34. loud voice  -0.02 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 35. speaks quickly  -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 36. controls interaction  -0.01 -0.04† 0.00 0.05* 0.13* 37. large amount of information  0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 146     Moderation   Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 38. charisma, charm  0.06 -0.03 0.01 0.06† 0.07* 39. projected thoughts  -0.10 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.09 40. defensive  0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.12 41. perceptive  0.03 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.06 42. straightforward, forthright  0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.06 43. rigid, closed off  0.01 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.08 44. negative about self  0.16 -0.04 -0.04† -0.05* -0.02 45. works hard at answers  0.07 0.02 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 46. dominates  0.03 -0.05** -0.01 0.03† 0.07*** 47. eye contact  0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.05 48. awkward  0.00 -0.06 -0.02 0.01 0.05† 49. interviews  -0.03 -0.02 0.00 0.01 0.04 50. distant  -0.06 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 0.08 51. interested in partner  0.10 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 52. likeable to partner  0.06 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.05 53. enjoys interaction  0.08 -0.04 0.01 0.08† 0.03 54. likes partner  0.14 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 55. lack interest in partner  -0.15 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.09 56. discussed thoughts  0.14 0.03† 0.01 -0.01 -0.06 57. discussed behaviors  0.11 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 58. others behave similarly  -0.16† -0.02 0.00 0.01 0.06 59. others discuss similarly  -0.22† -0.10* 0.00 -0.11 0.07 60. unique information  0.06 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.03 61. candid answers  0.07 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 62. accurate impression  0.06 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 63. detailed answers  0.05 0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 64. thoughtful answers  0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 65. effort into answers  0.08 0.02 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 66. high quality information  0.04 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 67. high quantity information  0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 -0.01 68. paid attention to partner  0.03 0.05 0.03 0.02 -0.08 69. engaged in conversation  0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 70. put other person at ease  0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 71. individuals were similar  0.16 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.11† 72. awkward, strained interaction  -0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 73. held my attention  0.08 -0.02 0.03 0.08* 0.16* 74. was engaging  0.05 -0.02 0.01 0.05* 0.07** 75. was interesting  0.07 -0.02 0.01 0.04* 0.06* 147     Moderation   Distinctive Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 76. mind wandered   -0.08 -0.06† -0.02 0.02 0.13* 77. appears cold  -0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001. 148  Table 4.23 Expressive normative accuracy moderated by target behavior (video raters)   Moderation  Normative Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b Average Fixed Effect 0.59      Items       1. irritated  -0.50** -0.25† -0.26** -0.26*** -0.03 2. playful  0.22*** 0.14*** 0.11*** 0.07* -0.06 3. relaxed  0.27*** 0.02 0.11*** 0.09 -0.02 4. cheerful  0.31*** 0.14*** 0.18*** 0.21*** 0.06 5. fearful, timid  -0.27*** 0.01 -0.07† -0.15*** -0.18* 6. genuine, natural  0.37*** 0.13*** 0.18*** 0.23*** 0.11 7. confident  0.22*** 0.09 0.13*** 0.16 -0.08 8. compares self  0.34** 0.04 0.04 0.04 -0.01 9. ambition  0.19* 0.00 0.03 0.05* 0.06 10. intelligence  0.29*** 0.11* 0.11*** 0.12** 0.02 11. condescending  0.02 -0.02 -0.04 -0.07 -0.13 12. social skills  0.35*** 0.02 0.25*** 0.27 0.12 13. expresses agreement  0.19† 0.13** 0.09** 0.06 -0.11 14. insecure, sensitive  -0.16 -0.08 -0.11** -0.13*** -0.09 15. sympathy  0.26** 0.06 0.03 0.01 -0.08 16. warm  0.32*** 0.16*** 0.12*** 0.08* -0.09 17. open, welcoming  0.41*** 0.16*** 0.14*** 0.11* -0.06 18. expressive  0.27*** 0.11** 0.17*** 0.24*** 0.11* 19. animated  0.16*** -0.08 0.11*** 0.20* 0.03 20. reserved  -0.33*** -0.18 -0.19*** -0.06 0.09 21. talkative  0.24*** 0.13*** 0.13*** 0.13*** -0.01 22. trying hard  0.33** 0.28*** 0.20*** 0.12** -0.28* 23. laughs  0.13*** 0.10*** 0.09*** 0.09** -0.01 24. physical contact  0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 25. says interesting  0.23*** 0.07** 0.09*** 0.11*** 0.04 26. seeks advice  0.83** 0.04 0.01 -0.01 -0.24 27. seeks reassurance  0.56* 0.38* 0.01 0.10 -0.26 28. detached  -0.59*** -0.34* -0.25*** -0.08 0.36* 29. range of interests  0.24** 0.10*** 0.09*** 0.08** -0.02 30. enthusiasm  0.21*** 0.12*** 0.14*** 0.15*** 0.02 31. tension, anxiety  -0.24*** -0.08† -0.10*** -0.11*** -0.03 32. smiles  0.26*** 0.15*** 0.18*** 0.20*** 0.05 33. speaks fluently  0.23*** 0.21*** 0.29*** 0.38*** 0.15* 34. loud voice  0.15*** 0.26*** 0.16*** 0.05 -0.13* 35. speaks quickly  0.13* 0.15* 0.14** 0.13* -0.01 36. controls interaction  0.27** 0.08* 0.11*** 0.13*** 0.07 149    Moderation  Normative Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 37. large amount of information  0.23** 0.08*** 0.07*** 0.06* -0.02 38. charisma, charm  0.23*** 0.19*** 0.20*** 0.21*** 0.01 39. projected thoughts  0.22† 0.08† 0.07* 0.05† -0.05 40. defensive  -0.17 -0.40*** -0.33*** -0.26*** 0.61 41. perceptive  0.40*** 0.17*** 0.19*** 0.22** 0.07 42. straightforward  0.34*** 0.18*** 0.20*** 0.21*** 0.04 43. rigid, closed off  -0.46*** -0.23 -0.19*** -0.09 0.11 44. negative about self  0.27 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05† -0.10 45. works hard at answers  0.30*** 0.13*** 0.11*** 0.09* -0.05 46. dominates  0.21*** 0.08** 0.09*** 0.10*** 0.02 47. eye contact  0.27** 0.15*** 0.17*** 0.19** 0.05 48. awkward  -0.22*** -0.11* -0.12*** -0.13*** -0.02 49. interviews  0.10 0.04 0.03 0.01 -0.04 50. distant  -0.37*** -0.13* -0.13*** -0.14*** -0.02 51. interest in partner  0.53*** 0.14*** 0.10*** 0.07 -0.12 52. likeable to partner  0.40*** 0.08** 0.09*** 0.10** 0.03 53. enjoys interaction  0.39*** 0.06 0.11*** 0.13 -0.03 54. likes partner  0.54*** 0.13*** 0.10*** 0.06† -0.13 55. lack interest in partner  -0.60*** -0.13* -0.14*** -0.15*** -0.05 56. discussed thoughts  0.35*** 0.12*** 0.09*** 0.06 -0.10 57. discussed actions  0.29† 0.07** 0.11*** 0.16*** 0.21* 58. others behave similarly  0.32*** 0.14*** 0.16*** 0.18* 0.06 59. others discuss similarly  0.08 0.03 0.08* 0.04 0.02 60. unique information  0.25* 0.05* 0.06*** 0.07* 0.02 61. candid answers  0.31*** 0.11*** 0.09*** 0.07† -0.05 62. accurate impression  0.25*** 0.09*** 0.10*** 0.10*** 0.01 63. detailed answers  0.21*** 0.13*** 0.10*** 0.09** -0.04 64. thoughtful answers  0.34*** 0.16*** 0.13*** 0.09** -0.08 65. effort into answers  0.34*** 0.15*** 0.12*** 0.10*** -0.05 150    Moderation  Normative Accuracy b B/N b W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 66. quality information  0.23*** 0.09** 0.09*** 0.08** -0.01 67. quantity information  0.18** 0.10*** 0.08*** 0.07** -0.03 68. attention to partner  0.83** 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.20* -0.05 69. engaged in conversation  0.53*** 0.14*** 0.16*** 0.17** 0.04 70. put person at ease  0.30*** 0.12** 0.10*** 0.08* -0.05 71. individuals were similar  0.55** 0.05* 0.04** 0.04† -0.05 72. awkward interaction  -0.26*** -0.05† -0.06*** -0.07*** -0.02 73. held my attention  0.38** 0.19*** 0.16*** 0.14** -0.09 74. was engaging  0.25*** 0.12*** 0.11*** 0.11** -0.01 75. was interesting  0.22*** 0.10*** 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.01 76. mind wandered   -0.31*** -0.15** -0.16*** -0.17*** -0.04 77. appears cold  -0.46*** -0.32*** -0.30*** -0.27*** 0.08 Notes. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. aindicates model was fit using maximum likelihood, all other models fit using restricted maximum likelihood. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  151  Table 4.24 Impact of perceived partner liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior  aw  bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b 15. sympathy -0.02 0.05 0.12** 0.09   -0.10 -0.03 0.04 0.22** 16. warm 0.02 0.07** 0.11** 0.06   -0.08 0.02 0.11* 0.22* 18. expressive 0.06 0.08** 0.09* 0.02   -0.07 0.04 0.16* 0.21** 30. enthusiasm 0.04 0.11* 0.19** 0.09   -0.05 0.03 0.11** 0.11** 33. speaks fluently 0.00 0.03 0.06* 0.04   -0.04 0.12* 0.27** 0.28** 38. charisma, charm 0.03 0.10*** 0.16*** 0.08*   -0.06 0.03 0.12† 0.13* 39. projected thoughts 0.08† 0.06* 0.03 -0.03   -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 0.04 51. interested in partner 0.07 0.12*** 0.16*** 0.06   -0.06 0.01 0.08 0.27* 54. likes partner 0.10 0.20*** 0.30*** 0.12*   -0.05 0.02 0.09* 0.27* 74. was engaging 0.10 0.17*** 0.25*** 0.09   -0.03 0.03 0.10* 0.12* 65. effort into answers 0.12** 0.05* -0.01 -0.08*  0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 Notes. aw is the impact of perceived partner liking on behavior; bw is the impact of target behavior on expressive normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   152   Table 4.25 Impact of liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior           Notes. aw is the impact of liking on behavior; bw is the impact of target behavior on expressive normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.                           aw  bw Items W/N  b  W/N b   30. enthusiasm 0.08*  0.14***   32. smiles 0.11***  0.15**   51. interested in partner 0.09**  0.16**   52. likeable to partner 0.15***  0.12*   53. enjoys interaction 0.14***  0.11**   54. likes partner 0.15***  0.13**   71. individuals were similar 0.11*  0.03   72. awkward, strained interaction -0.19***  -0.06*   73. held my attention 0.08**  0.20**   74. was engaging 0.10**  0.12**   75. was interesting 0.12**  0.09* 153  Table 4.26 Impact of perceived partner liking on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior  aw   bw Items W/N Low b W/N Mean b W/N High b W/N X B/N b  W/N  b 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.05 0.06* 0.07† 0.01  0.05 4. cheerful 0.05 0.10** 0.14*** 0.06  0.14* 6. genuine, natural 0.03 0.06** 0.09** 0.03  0.10 7. confident, self-assured 0.02 0.05* 0.08* 0.03  0.10† 9. ambition -0.14† -0.03 0.09 0.14*  0.01 30. enthusiasm 0.04 0.11* 0.19** 0.09  0.14*** 32. smiles 0.03 0.09** 0.14*** 0.07  0.15** 38. charisma, charm 0.03 0.10*** 0.16*** 0.08*  0.10† 41. perceptive 0.02 0.04* 0.06* 0.03  -0.01 48. awkward -0.03 -0.06* -0.10* -0.04  -0.07 50. distant -0.03 -0.08** -0.13** -0.07  -0.11* 51. interested in partner 0.07 0.12*** 0.16*** 0.06  0.17** 52. likeable to partner 0.11† 0.22*** 0.32*** 0.13*  0.14** 53. enjoys interaction 0.12 0.22*** 0.31*** 0.12  0.12** 54. likes partner 0.10 0.20*** 0.30*** 0.12*  0.14** 61. candid, intimate answers 0.00 0.09** 0.17*** 0.11*  0.06 62. accurate, complete impression 0.02 0.12** 0.22*** 0.12  0.06† 63. detailed answers 0.00 0.10** 0.19*** 0.12*  0.06 68. paid attention to partner 0.05 0.07** 0.09** 0.03  0.27** 69. engaged in conversation 0.05 0.12** 0.16** 0.06  0.12* 70. put other person at ease 0.04 0.06* 0.08† 0.03  0.07 71. individuals were similar 0.18* 0.32*** 0.45*** 0.17*  0.04 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.10 -0.22*** -0.35*** -0.16*  -0.07* 73. held my attention 0.04 0.11*** 0.18*** 0.09*  0.21** 74. was engaging 0.10 0.17*** 0.25*** 0.09  0.13** 75. was interesting 0.07 0.16*** 0.25*** 0.11  0.09* 77. appears cold -0.03 -0.04* -0.06* -0.02  -0.19* Notes. aw is the impact of perceived partner liking on behavior; bw is the impact of target behavior on expressive normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect, W/N*B/N = interaction of within- and between-person effect. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of the between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   154  Table 4.27 Impact of engagement on expressive distinctive accuracy mediated by target behavior                               Notes. aw is the impact of engagement on behavior; bw is the impact of behavior on normative accuracy. W/N = within-person effect, B/N = between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   aw  bw Items W/N  b  W/N b B/N b 3. relaxed, comfortable 0.05*  0.05    0.15** 6. genuine, natural 0.06***  0.10 0.19** 12. social skills 0.03*  0.11 0.18* 16. warm 0.05**  0.06 0.08 18. expressive 0.08***  0.14* 0.09† 29. range of interests 0.07*  0.03 0.10 30. enthusiasm 0.13***  0.14*** 0.08† 32. smiles 0.11***  0.15** 0.12* 33. speaks fluently 0.04**  0.20* 0.14* 34. loud voice 0.03*  0.12 0.09* 38. charisma, charm 0.05**  0.10† 0.12** 41. perceptive 0.04**  -0.01 0.25** 43. rigid, closed off -0.04*  -0.12* -0.25** 48. awkward -0.06**  -0.07 -0.13** 51. interested in partner 0.12***  0.17** 0.24* 52. likeable to partner 0.18***  0.14** 0.24** 53. enjoys interaction 0.19***  0.12** 0.17* 54. likes partner 0.17***  0.14** 0.24* 68. paid attention to partner 0.04***  0.27** 0.34 69. engaged in conversation 0.10***  0.12* 0.25* 71. individuals were similar 0.17***  0.04 0.42* 72. awkward, strained interaction -0.25***  -0.07* -0.16** 73. held my attention 0.10***  0.21*** 0.18† 74. was engaging 0.14***  0.13** 0.15** 75. was interesting 0.17***  0.10* 0.14* 77. appears cold -0.03*  -0.20** -0.24* 155   Figure 4.1 Impact of perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy on distinctive dyadic accuracy moderated by target expressive distinctive accuracy Notes. The standardized simple slopes for the perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of target expressive distinctive accuracy. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3−2−1012Perceiver Perceptive Distinctive AccuracyDistinctive Dyadic AccuracyTarget Expressive AccuracyHighβ = .29***Meanβ = .14***Lowβ = −.01156   Figure 4.2 Impact of perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy on video raters dyadic accuracy moderated by target expressive distinctive accuracy Notes. Here the distinctive dyadic accuracy is calculated using the average video rater impression. The standardized simple slopes for the perceiver perceptive distinctive accuracy effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of target expressive distinctive accuracy. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.       -2 -1 0 1 2 3-2-1012Perceiver Perceptive Distinctive AccuracyVideo Raters Distinctive Dyadic AccuracyTarget Expressive AccuracyHighβ = -.08†Meanβ = .003Lowβ = .09†157   Figure 4.3 Impact of within-person changes in “cheerfulness” on perceptive distinctive accuracy moderated by average levels of “cheerfulness” Notes. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.    −2 −1 0 1 2−0.20.00.20.40.6Within personDistinctive AccuracyBetween personLow (−1 SD)b = 0.11*Meanb = −0.02High (+1 SD)b = −0.14†158   Figure 4.4 Impact of within-person changes in “interest in partner” on perceptive normative accuracy moderated by average level of “interest in partner” Notes. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.   −2 −1 0 1 20.40.60.81.01.2Within personNormative AccuracyBetween personLow (−1 SD)b = 0.1*Meanb = 0.2***High (+1 SD)b = 0.34***159   Figure 4.5 Impact of within-person changes in "expressivity" on expressive distinctive accuracy moderated by average level of "expressivity" Notes. The simple slopes for the within-person effect are shown at 1 standard deviation below the mean (low) and 1 standard deviation above the mean (high) of between-person effect. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.  −2 −1 0 1 2−0.4−0.20.00.20.40.6Within personDistinctive AccuracyBetween personHigh (+1 SD)b = 0.16*Meanb = 0.02Low (−1 SD)b = −0.07160  Chapter 5: Discussion Given the real life consequences of forming accurate impressions of personality, such as relationship development (Human et al., 2013) and hiring decisions (Posthuma et al., 2002) it is imperative to understand when and for whom first impressions are accurate. Further, accurate perceptions are associated with a number of other positive intra- and interpersonal outcomes, such as psychological adjustment (e.g., Human & Biesanz, 2011b) and relationship satisfaction (e.g., Bernieri, 2001; De La Ronde & Swann, 1998). Finally, individuals generally desire to be seen by others as they see themselves (Swann, 1987; Swann & Hill, 1982). Thus, there are numerous potential benefits to accurate impressions in general and also specifically related to dyadic accuracy. This dissertation was the first research to examine systematically the role of dyadic accuracy in first impressions. Specifically, this dissertation investigated: a) how dyadic characteristics and processes impacted distinctive and normative accuracy, b) how behavior changes across interactions, c) why these behaviors change and d) how changes in behavior are associated with changes in distinctive and normative accuracy. Understanding within-person changes in distinctive accuracy and dyadic distinctive accuracy requires looking beyond stable individual differences and examining the broader context. That is, changes in distinctive accuracy depend on the interaction of the stable individual differences in both individuals in the dyad. Specifically, the combination of the stable characteristics of the individuals is a particularly important aspect for understanding dyadic accuracy. An individual’s judgeability, ability to judge others, and personality (i.e., dyadic similarity and interaction of perceiver and target traits) all impacted distinctive accuracy. One key to understanding distinctive dyadic accuracy may lie within cue utilization and understanding shared meanings systems.  161  Considering within-person changes in normative accuracy and dyadic normative accuracy we have a clearer understanding of why normative accuracy changes. Specifically, when individuals have greater interpersonal attraction, engagement, behavioral synchrony, and higher quality interactions normative accuracy increases. Further, these changes are associated with and mediated by changes in behavior associated with greater liking, positive affect, and enjoyment of the interaction. Thus, increases in normative accuracy, as measured here, are primarily related to the positivity of the interaction leading to a positive impression. 5.1 H1) Accuracy in First Impressions As expected, a significant and substantial amount of reliable variance in the accuracy of impressions, both normative and distinctive, was attributable to the dyad. Thus, in order to understand when and for whom first impressions are accurate, it is necessary to examine dyadic accuracy to fully understand interpersonal interactions. Research has long searched for the good judge – the individual who tends to form accurate impressions of others (e.g., Adams, 1927). More recently, research has focused on the good target – the individual who tends to be viewed accurately by others (e.g., Human & Biesanz, 2013). Returning to Figure 1.1, research on the good judge has largely focused on path b – who tends to detect and utilize cues best – and research on the good target has focused on path a – who tends to make the most relevant cues available (e.g., target expressivity)? We, however, examined the combination of the good and the good target and as expected, the combination yielded more distinctly accurate impressions than would be expected by their respective main effects. Thus, a multiplicative and synergistic effect occurs when an individual who tends to understand others forms an impression of an individual who is judgeable.  162  Specifically, we hypothesized that the interaction of the good judge and the good target could lead to increased dyadic accuracy via two pathways that are not mutually exclusive. First, the good target could impact the judge’s ability to detect or utilize cues (path a impacts path b). Secondly, the good judge could impact the amount of relevant cues from the target (path b impacts path a). Finally, both paths could occur (see Figure 1.1). Considering first path a impacting path b, did the good target impact the judge’s ability to detect or utilize cues? By examining the individual differences in the ability to be viewed accurately combined with the individual differences in the ability to judge others accurately, we are able to see that the good judge is important, but only for good targets. That is, good targets who make relevant cues available allow good judges to detect and utilize these cues to form impressions that are more accurate. For poor targets, individuals who do not make relevant cues available, the judge’s ability to detect or utilize the cues is of little consequence. Thus, path b matters to the extent that path a is large. Importantly, while previous research on the good judge has been mixed (e.g., Davis & Kraus, 1997) and others have hinted that these individuals do not exist or that the individual differences in the ability are small enough to be inconsequential (e.g., Haselton & Funder, 2006), we are able to demonstrate the importance of the good judge.  Turning to the possibility of path b impacting path a, did the good judge impact the availability and relevancy of the target’s cues? By comparing dyadic accuracy between the round-robin and video raters we were able to gain some insight into this possible mechanism. If the good judge primarily impacted dyadic accuracy by increasing the number of relevant cues made available by the target then we would have seen little or no difference between the dyadic accuracy in the round-robin and video raters, as the information was constant across conditions. Instead, we found that that the interaction between the good judge and good target resulted in 163  less distinctly accurate impressions by the average impressions formed by video raters. Thus, it appears that a good judge may actually decrease the total amount of cues given from a target, but instead is better able to utilize these cues. While including a measure of the good video rater judge to examine video rater dyadic accuracy would help clarify this process, there was not enough variability in the good video rater judge to investigate this possibility. Thus, the good judge may form more accurate impressions by having a greater path b, but further research is necessary to gain greater insight into the process. Using a lens model approach (e.g., Nestler & Back, 2013), an individual will be more accurate to the extent that they rely on or utilize cues which are valid compared to invalid cues about personality. The ability to utilize valid cues more than invalid cues is termed sensitivity, as the individual is more sensitive to the differences between accurate and inaccurate cues. In this sense, the good judge is likely to be highly sensitive and able to weight valid cues appropriately compared to invalid cues. This is in contrast to previous research that has found that the good judge is an individual who creates an environment where a target is comfortable and willing to provide relevant cues (Letzring, 2008).  That the increase in distinctive accuracy that occurs between good judges and good targets is related to the good judge’s ability to appropriately utilize cues is further by the lack of changes in behaviors, as improved utilization is least likely to be associated with any behavioral changes. That is, if the accuracy improved due to greater cue relevancy and availability, the good target interacting with the good judge should have increased in behaviors related to information quality and quantity. Similarly, if accuracy improved due to greater cue detection, the good judge interacting with the good target should have increased in behaviors related to attention. Instead, the interaction of the good judge and good target was not associated with changes in behavior. 164  Thus, the pattern of changes in behavior are most in line with good judge’s improved utilization when interaction with a good target.  While the ability of the good judge may be due to improved cue utilization, further research needs to be done to clarify this effect and rule out alternative explanations. Specifically, given the design of this study, it is possible that when the video raters watched the interactions, the good judges distracted the raters from their task of rating the target. In this case, dyadic accuracy decreases in the video ratings because the attention of the raters was split between the target and the perceiver, while in interactions with a poor judge, they were better able to focus on the target. One way to examine this possibility would be to have participants rate the target videos again, but in a way that they are not able to see the judge, which would increase their ability to focus on the target. It may also be useful be to code the transcripts from the videos and compare the amount of relevant information given by targets when interacting with good versus poor judges. In sum, in face-to-face interactions, the combination of good judge and the good target results in impressions that are more in line with the target’s own unique personality profile, but more research is necessary to determine the mechanism driving this effect.  5.2 H2) Dyadic Similarity and Accuracy We expected to find that greater similarity would be associated with greater dyadic accuracy. On the target side, we expected that similarity would impact accuracy by increasing the number of relevant cues the target emits during the interaction. The increase in relevant cues could be associated with feeling more comfortable around individuals with whom you are more similar (e.g., Stephan & Stephan, 1985) and less pressure to behave in a specific manner that may not be in line with your true personality (e.g., Apfelbaum et al., 2008). On the perceiver side, we expected that similarity would impact detection and utilization of cues. Specifically, 165  perceivers should pay more attention to individuals who are similar to them as similarity is associated with increased desire to understand the other person (Liviatan et al., 2008) and liking (e.g., Byrne, 1997). Increased similarity may also impact utilization, as similarity should be associated with having a more similar understanding of trait construals and cues (Kenny, 1991).  Overall, across all the various measures of similarity (e.g., personality, adjustment, socioeconomic status), similarity generally did not impact the accuracy of impressions as strongly as expected. Given that previous research on the impact of cultural and ethnic similarity on accuracy in impressions has found relatively small effects (Rogers & Biesanz, 2014a), it is likely we did not replicate this effect here because of the reduced sample size. However, similarity in self-reported personality did increase the distinctive accuracy of impressions. That is, when individuals had more similar self-reported personalities, either overall similarity or distinctive similarity, the dyads resulted in impressions that were more in line with the target’s own unique traits. Yet, personality similarity was not related to forming more normatively accurate and positive impressions.  Given the positive relationship personality similarity and liking (e.g., Carli et al., 1991) we had hypothesized that dyadic accuracy may increase when the individuals were similar due to increased liking. In turn, increased liking is associated with greater attention (Human et al., 2012). However, liking is also associated with forming more normative impressions (Human & Biesanz, 2011a; Rogers & Biesanz, 2015), yet we found little evidence that personality similarity impacted normative accuracy. Since normative accuracy did not increase with increased similarity, it is unlikely that increased liking drives the increase in distinctive accuracy. Surprisingly, increased similarity was not associated with changes in behavior. Indeed, when the individuals were similar, they did not appear to like one another more or enjoy the 166  interaction more. Further, given that individuals were not more talkative, expressive, and did not provide greater quality information, it seems unlikely that similarity influences dyadic accuracy by increasing the availability of relevant cues. Additionally, individuals did not seem to pay more attention to their partners or be more engaged in the interaction and thus, it is unlikely the effects are due to increased cue detection. Instead, perceivers may be able to better utilize cues when their personality is more similar to the target’s personality due to shared understanding of what the cues mean. For example, a shy individual may interpret another shy individual’s quietness as being shy while an extraverted individual may interpret the quietness as a lack of interest in talking. It may also be that perceivers relied more on their own idiosyncratic personality when forming an impression of a similar personality target. That is, dyadic similarity was associated with increased distinctive assumed similarity (e.g., Human & Biesanz, 2011b; Kenny & Acitelli, 2001). In sum, personality similarity is associated with forming impressions more in line with the target’s own unique traits and this is likely due to changes in utilization. Yet, the impact of dyadic personality similarity on accuracy did not appear when using informant reports of personality. One possible reason for this is the decreased sample size, as the total number of dyadic interactions using only informant reports was about one-third of the full sample size. Alternatively, it may be that the similarity of unique self-perceptions is the key aspect associated with increased distinctive accuracy.    While we did not find an impact of similarity in socioeconomic status on accuracy, this effect likely does exist in reality and there are a number of reasons why we did not find an effect here. First, the method we used to measure socioeconomic status (parental education attainment) was very coarse and did not provide detailed insight into the individual’s SES. Notably, based on number of years of formal schooling, individuals who completed doctorates (PhDs) were 167  considered as having a greater SES than individuals who completed medical school (MDs), despite the fact that MDs would have to complete more training during residency. This measure also does not take into account the likely difference in salaries, as PhDs generally do not earn as much as MDs. Thus, while in reality MDs are quite likely to be higher SES than PhDs, this difference is not reflected as measured here. However, given the focus on similarity of SES, coding the MDs as higher status than PhDs is unlikely to have changed the results. Additionally, the measure we used may be especially problematic given the large percentage of immigrants in the sample. That is, an individual may have been trained as a doctor in another country, but was not able to obtain a similarly high status job when moving to Canada thus complicating the picture of the individual’s SES. Finally, a sample of primarily undergraduate students attending the same university is likely to be more similar in SES than the general public and capturing greater variability in SES will likely impact accuracy. Finally, perceived similarity did impact the normativity and positivity of impressions, but there was no impact on distinctive accuracy. This relationship is likely due to increased liking, which is associated with increased perceived similarity (e.g., Byrne, 1997) and also forming more positive impressions (Human & Biesanz, 2011a; Rogers & Biesanz, 2015). Thus, perceived similarity is one characteristic of the dyad that is associated with increased normative dyadic accuracy in first impressions. While objective similarity may not consistently have a strong impact on the accuracy of impressions, there may be aspects of similarity that are important. One useful measure would be to include how important the characteristic is to the individual, as similarity may differentially impact impressions based on importance. For example, political similarity may have a greater impact on accuracy when both individuals highly value their political beliefs, as they may gain 168  information that is more useful or experience greater liking. Finally, similarity in terms of goals and hobbies could be particularly important in first impressions as these are more likely to be discussed during an initial interaction and finding common ground may lead to smoother interactions and more accurate impressions. 5.3 H3) Interpersonal Attraction and Accuracy In line with previous research (Lorenzo et al., 2010), we expected that increased interpersonal attraction, such as physical attraction and liking, would be associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy. We also expected that increases in interpersonal attraction would be associated with increased attention and better quality and a greater quantity of information. The increase in attention would enable perceivers to detect more cues, while the increase in information quantity and quality would increase the availability of relevant cues.  We examined interpersonal attraction as the degree to which the participant tended to find their interaction partners attractive (between-person effect) and the degree of change in the individual’s interpersonal attraction from their average (within-person effect). Measured in this manner, interpersonal attraction was associated with greater expressive and perceptive normative accuracy. That is, when an individual reported being more interpersonally attracted to their interaction partner than they tend to be, they formed impressions that were move positive and they were also viewed more positively. However, there was less evidence that interpersonal attraction impacted distinctive accuracy, aside from thinking that your partner liked you. As expected, increased interpersonal attraction was associated with changes in behavior. When individuals were more interpersonally attracted to a partner, they displayed more positive affect, liking and enjoyment of partner and the interaction and were more engaged and engaging.  169  Interestingly, how much an individual reported liking their interaction partner had less of an impact on their behavior than did believing their partner liked them. That changes in an individual’s behavior were associated more with what they believed the other individual thought of them than what they thought of their interaction partner highlights the complexity of the dyadic interaction. This effect may be related to expectancy effects (e.g., Cappella, 1981; Ickes et al., 1982; Rosenthal, 2002). That is, when individuals believe others like them, they may attempt to live up to that impression and change their behavior appropriately. Alternatively, individuals may feel their behaviors in the interaction have led their partners to like them more.  While we focused primarily on how one’s own perception of others impacts their own impressions and their own behavior, future research should examine the reverse as well. For example, if a perceiver likes a target, how does that impact the target’s behavior and subsequent impressions? 5.4 H4) Engagement and Accuracy In line with previous research (Human et al., 2012), we expected that greater engagement would be associated with greater distinctive and normative accuracy. As expected, when perceivers found their partners more engaging, they formed more positive impressions. Similarly, when targets found their partners more engaging, they were viewed more positively and similar to the average person. However, there was no impact of within-person changes on perceptive or expressive distinctive accuracy. We also expected changes in engagement would be associated with behaviors associated with increased attention, which would increase the perceiver’s ability to detect cues from the target. Additionally, we expected the targets to behave in a way that would increase their information quantity and quality during the interaction, which would increase the availability of relevant cues. Indeed, when an individual found their partner 170  more engaging, they appeared to like their interaction partner more and be more engaged in the interaction, more comfortable and less anxious, and more warm and expressive.  It is possible that we did not find an increase in perceptive distinctive accuracy when an individual found their partner more engaging because they are putting more effort into the impression that their partner is forming of them. Thus, they lack the necessary cognitive resources to view an individual in line with their own unique traits. Considering both perceptive and expressive, while engagement is associated with increased attention, this increased attention and interest in the target would only improve distinctive accuracy if the target were providing relevant cues. Thus, increased attention is only useful when there is quality information to detect and utilize. In sum, viewing an individual as engaging is related to forming more positive impressions, but not more distinctly accurate impressions. Viewing someone as engaging is also associated with being more engaged in the interaction. Finally, engagement may only improve distinctive accuracy to the extent that there is relevant information that be gained by the increased engagement.  5.5 H5) Quality Dyadic Interactions and Accuracy As expected, dyads that had good interactions – those that appeared comfortable, authentic, and engaging resulted in more normatively accurate and positive impressions. There was some support for dyads with good interactions resulting in more distinctly accurate impressions. However, given the low reliability of the items, we would expect to find stronger results if using a cleaner measure. Thus, there is support for the idea that behavior at the dyadic level influences accuracy similarly to behaviors at the individual level. Notably, similar items at the individual level had higher reliability than items describing the dyad, which may speak to a 171  general difficulty in judging the dyad versus an individual. Indeed, it appears particularly difficult to judge the authenticity of the interaction and also determine how engaging a dyad is.   5.6 H6) Behavioral Synchrony and Accuracy We expected that dyads with greater behavioral synchrony would form more distinctly and normatively accurate impressions because of the relationship to rapport (Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al., 1996; Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1987). Despite increased behavior synchrony being associated with increased attention and engagement and better quality information, we did not find that greater behavioral synchrony resulted in more distinctly accurate impressions. However, we did find that greater behavioral synchrony resulted in more normatively accurate and positive impressions. Finally, as expected, behavioral synchrony was associated with increased liking and smoother interactions. In sum, moving in synch is associated with more positive impressions which may be due to increased liking, but it does not appear to be related to the distinctive accuracy of impressions.    5.7 H7) Interaction of Perceiver and Target Personality Traits and Accuracy While examination of the impact of the interaction between perceiver and target personality traits on accuracy was largely exploratory, we did expect to find that personality traits that would increase the likelihood of the target feeling more comfortable or liked (e.g., extraversion, agreeableness) during an interaction may give targets who generally are expressive (e.g., extraversion) an extra boost. However, this was not quite supported by our results.  While previous research has found that the levels of agreeableness and extraversion in the interaction partners is particularly related to the nature of the interaction (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009), we have little evidence of that interaction here. Indeed, across the 18 combinations that include an agreeable individual, only one was significant. It may be that an agreeable individual 172  has positive social interactions regardless of whom they interact with thus, the main effects are strong, but there are no interactions. Considering extraversion, we found extraverted perceivers only experienced greater dyadic accuracy when paired with an extraverted target, and extraverted targets were only associated with changes in accuracy with paired with individuals high on neuroticism and openness. Thus, the role of agreeableness and extraversion in dyadic accuracy is less important than expected. Looking across the pattern of findings, the interaction of perceiver and target traits influenced distinctive accuracy more than twice as often as normative accuracy. As with the interaction of the good target and good judge, understanding changes in distinctive accuracy may depend more on examining both individuals in the interaction than does normative accuracy. There is also some support for the role of shared meaning systems in improving accuracy, given that for three of the five traits dyadic accuracy increased when individuals had similar standings on the trait. Thus, they may be able to better understand one another. Finally, the perceiver-target interactions do not mirror one another, that is, perceiver extraversion and target openness are not associated with similar changes in accuracy as is perceiver openness and target extraversion. Thus, the specific traits play different roles in influencing how accurately an individual views others and is viewed by others. This likely occurs because traits are associated with behaviors that have differential impact on perceptive and expressive accuracy. For example, being unexpressive plays a larger role in expressive accuracy than it does in perceptive accuracy. Similarly, an individual’s trait level and associated behavior can evoke behaviors from their partner that also have a differential impact on perceptive and expressive accuracy. For example, when interacting with extraverted partners, individuals seem more interested in what their partners have to say (Eaton & Funder, 2003).  173  In sum, the specific combination of perceiver-target traits does play a role in dyadic accuracy. Future research should examine these processes associated with these changes to understand the mechanism behind the findings.  5.8 H8) Behavior and Perceptive Accuracy  While the analyses examining the impact of perceiver behavior on perceptive accuracy, were largely exploratory, we expected to find that increases in behaviors associated with greater attention and engagement, comfort, and warmth and social skill would be associated with greater perceptive accuracy. Since perceivers are primarily responsible for detecting and utilizing cues, behaviors associated with paying attention, appearing engaged and being interested in the interaction should increase the perceiver’s ability to detect cues. Further, appearing comfortable and relaxed may increase the perceiver’s ability to utilize cues, as they have the necessary cognitive resources. Finally, perceptive accuracy may also increase because the perceiver creates an environment where the target feels comfortable expressing themselves (Letzring, 2008), as such behaviors that relate to being warm and socially skilled may enhance the cues from the target.   However, our results were surprising, as we found little support for the main effects of within-person changes and between-person differences on accuracy. Instead, the effects of within-person changes in behavior were generally moderated by between-person effects. Specifically, behaviors associated with being comfortable and open in the interaction and enjoying the interaction and liking one’s partner are associated with viewing a target less in line with their own unique traits for individuals who tend to be high on those behaviors. Thus to understand the impact of changes in behavior on impressions, it is necessary to also examine how the individual behaves on average.  174  Further, these results suggest there may be an optimum level of physiological arousal: a Yerkes-Dodson effect (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Specifically, in line with Easterbrook (1959) being relaxed and comfortable during an interaction is helpful, but only to a point. For individuals who tend to be comfortable in interactions, when they appear even more comfortable and relaxed it may result from disinterest in the interaction partner. Individuals who tend to be uncomfortable in an interaction may be able to form more accurate impression when they are more relaxed, as they are better able to detect and utilize cues. Further, happiness and positive affect, which could be related to enjoying the interaction, are associated with a looser, less deliberative processing style which relies more on heuristics (Forgas, 2002; Forgas & Bower, 1987). This may occur because happy individuals temporarily lack the cognitive resources necessary for deliberate thought (Isen & Daubman, 1984; Mackie & Worth, 1989). As such, it is possible that there is a tipping point where enjoying the interaction pushes an individual to be too happy and unable to properly detect or utilize cues.    Alternatively, it may be that changes in behavior are differentially motivated based on the individual’s average behavioral tendencies, as such these changes cannot necessarily be interpreted as equivalent. For example, for individuals who tend to be relaxed during interactions, being more relaxed than usual is due to being disengaged and uninterested in the interaction; however, for individuals who tend not to be relaxed during interactions, being more relaxed than usual is due to feeling more comfortable with their interaction partner. Turning to perceptive normative accuracy, we expected that behaviors associated with liking, social skills, and positive affect would be associated with more positive and normatively accurate impressions (Human & Biesanz, 2011a; Letzring, 2014). This may be due to socially skilled individuals having had more practice with interpersonal interactions and therefore a 175  greater understanding of the average person’s personality. Further, liking and positive affect may lead to forming positive impressions. Indeed, individuals who tended to like others, be socially skilled, and display greater positive affect viewed others more positively and when individuals increased in these behaviors, also formed more normative impressions. Additionally, unlike the effects of distinctive accuracy, within-person increases in liking, social skills, and positive affect were associated with even greater normative accuracy for individuals who tended to behave in that manner. Thus, while there may be a tipping point for distinctive accuracy, there does not appear to be a similar effect for normative accuracy. Finally, the impact of the increased interpersonal attraction and engagement on perceptive normative accuracy is mediated by these changes in behavior. That is, when an individual is more interpersonally attracted to the target, they appear to like the target more, display greater interpersonal attraction, and more social skills, in turn they form a more normatively accurate and positive impression.  While behavior has an impact on changes in perceptive distinctive accuracy, we have less of an understanding as to why these behaviors change. However, changes in perceptive normative accuracy are strongly related to changes in interpersonal attraction and engagement, and importantly these effects are mediated by changes in behavior. Thus, for perceptive normative accuracy increased interpersonal attraction and engagement partially impact accuracy via changes in behavior. 5.9 H9) Behavior and Expressive Accuracy While the examination of behavior and within-person changes in behavior on expressive accuracy were also largely exploratory, we expected to find that behaviors associated with being interesting and attention grabbing would be associated with increases in accuracy, as these behaviors should increase the number of cues the perceiver can detect (e.g., Lorenzo et al., 176  2010). Further, behaviors associated with expressivity and authenticity would be associated with greater accuracy, as the quality and quantity of information would be improved (e.g., Human et al., 2014).  As expected, when individuals were more expressive, animated, and engaging than they were on average, they were viewed more in line with their own unique traits. However, this was only true for individuals who tended to be high on those behaviors, as individuals who tended to be low did not benefit from increases in attention grabbing behaviors. Further, there was less evidence that increases (between people or within-person) in behaviors that would be associated with expressing more relevant cues (e.g., high quality of information, genuine) were related to being viewed more distinctly accurately. Finally, the effects were similar when impressions were formed face-to-face or in the video perceptions.  Given that research has found that between-person differences in authenticity are related to judgeability (Human et al., 2014) it is likely that our measures did not cleanly capture the construct. Thus, examining within-person changes in authenticity by examining distinctive personality-behavior congruence (i.e., the degree to which the person behaved in line with their own unique traits during a given interaction) would be useful in understanding the impact of within-person changes in behavior on expressive accuracy.  Turning to normative accuracy, we expected that individuals who were engaging, socially skilled, likeable, and had smooth, positive interactions would be viewed more normatively accurately and positively (Human et al., 2014). Indeed, individuals who were generally engaging, socially skilled, and likeable were viewed more normatively accurately and increases in these behaviors were also associated with being viewed more normatively accurately. These 177  effects were similar when considering impressions formed in face-to-face interactions and all in the video perceptions.  In sum, distinctive expressive accuracy increased when individuals were expressive and engaging, likely due to increased attention. However, we have less understanding of why these behaviors changed and it remains an open question for future research. Finally, changes in expressive normative accuracy are strongly related to changes in interpersonal attraction and engagement and these effects are mediated by changes in behavior. Thus, when a target is more interpersonally attracted and engaged, they behave more positively, resulting in being viewed more normatively accurately.  5.10 Implications While this dissertation was primarily interested in examining the good dyad and understanding the process through which accurate impressions are formed, this research can also inform research on impression formation more broadly, judgment of traits and behaviors, and personality. 5.10.1 Realistic Accuracy Model While most recent work has focused on the first three stages of the Realistic Accuracy Model (Funder, 1995, 1999) – relevancy and availability of cues and cue detection – this research highlights the importance of the final stage of RAM – utilization. Further, there is evidence that the path is not strictly linear, but instead may also covary and demonstrates the reciprocal nature of dyadic interactions. For example, the degree to which a perceiver detects and utilizes cues from a target not only impacts the perceiver’s impression of the target, but it may also impact the relevancy and availability of cues from the target. While further research is 178  necessary to understand these processes, this dissertation is the first to directly examine these possibilities.   5.10.2 Understanding the Good Judge As noted previously, the good judge does indeed matter, not only for the accuracy of impressions, but also for changes in behavior. Importantly, it is necessary to also consider the target’s judgeability when assessing the good judge, as such previous research may have overlooked the good judge by focusing on main effects instead of the interaction.  Although there was variability in the good judge in the face to face interactions, there was little variance in the good judge when using the video raters. This difference may speak to the importance of the good judge specifically in real-life interactions as opposed to more passive forms of judgment. Importantly, much work on the good judge, especially considering the utilization phase, has employed methods more similar to these passive forms of impression formation (e.g., Asch, 1946). Research on the good judge of nonverbal cues (e.g., Rosip & Hall, 2004) and emotions (e.g., Nowicki & Duke, 1994) has also primarily used passive tasks, whereby the judge watches a video and/or completes a questionnaire. Thus, the utility of the good judge may depend on who they are forming an impression of and the context in which the impression is being formed. 5.10.3 Within-person Processes Recently there has been a focus on examining within-person fluctuations in personality (e.g., Biesanz & West, 2000; Fleeson, 2001, 2007), however this push has not yet reached interpersonal interactions and impression formation. These findings indicate that to fully understand the nature of interpersonal interactions, it is necessary to examine both the between and within-person effects. Importantly, to do so requires having many perceivers meeting many 179  targets, thus adopting a round-robin approach to studying impression formation is a primary means by which to understand within-person effects in impressions.  5.10.4 Judging Personality and Behaviors While not the focus of this research, it is interesting to consider the reliability of the judgments of personality and behaviors. Considering personality items, in line with previous research (Vazire, 2010), items associated with extraversion were the most reliably rated by the personality video raters and items associated with neuroticism were the least reliable along with aspects of openness. That is, judges tended to agree most on items that were associated with more observable traits and behaviors compare to items that were low in observability and referred to more internal processes. Further, “Is bashful and unassuming” stood out as being judged very unreliably, which may indicate that raters were unsure of what the phrase meant. However, on average, the personality items demonstrated moderate reliability; thus, individuals are able to reach a degree of consensus regarding a person’s personality in a particular interaction.  Turning to the behavioral items coded by research assistants, behaviors that would likely be related to aspects of extraversion (e.g., Is talkative; Shows high enthusiasm) or required the least amount of inference (e.g., Laughs frequently; Smiles frequently) were the most reliably judged. However, behaviors that were less likely to occur in these situations (e.g., Acts irritated; Exhibits condescending behavior) or required more inference (e.g., trying hard to make a good impression; projected own thoughts) were the least reliably judged.  The reliability of dyadic ratings of interaction quality and behavioral synchrony was generally lower than the reliability of items of specific individuals. Specifically, we can compare specific items that were essentially identical in judging an individual and a dyad (i.e., engaging, 180  interesting, comfortable, and expressive) and see that the reliability was much lower for the dyadic judgments than the individual judgments. Dyadic ratings of authenticity were particularly low, despite a similar item (behaves in a genuine and natural manner) in the individual ratings demonstrating good reliability. Thus it appears that judging dyads is a more difficult task than judging individuals. This may be because people generally have more experience in considering the behaviors of an individual, compared to the behaviors of the dyad. Notably, the single item “had rapport” demonstrated similar reliability to the composite measure of behavioral synchrony. Finally, raters were reliable in their judgments of strained interactions. This may be because we have more experience judging how awkward and strained an interaction was. That is, individuals are less likely to leave an interaction and comment on how expressive it was, but are likely to comment on it being strained.  5.10.5 Role in Relationship Development Recent research has shown that accurate first impressions are associated with relationship development over time, above and beyond initial liking (Human et al., 2012). Given that distinctive personality similarity was associated with forming more distinctly accurate impressions, it may be that personality similarity helps facilitate these longer term relationships. Indeed, similarity and familiarity are associated with increased liking (e.g., Byrne, 1997; Carli et al., 1991). Although more research is needed, the impact of similarity on distinctive accuracy could also inform research examining personality similarity in romantic relationships (e.g., Watson et al., 2004). 5.10.6 Applications of the Good Dyad One of the goals of this research was to use the knowledge gained here and apply it to improving decision making relying on first impressions. For example, is it possible to pair the 181  right interviewer with a job applicant to lead to better hiring decisions? Similarly, given that accurate personality impressions lead to relationships (Human et al., 2014), can we use the good dyad to help facilitate possible friendship development? The answers to these questions are not necessarily straightforward.  In order to be successful during an interview, a job applicant will likely need to be viewed accurately (assuming of course, they are qualified for the job) and also positively. Thus, there are some hints as to how one might go about creating a dyad to elicit those specific impressions. For example, knowing the personality of the applicant and interviewer could be used to assign individuals who are more similar to one another, as this is likely to result in impressions more in line with the target’s own unique personality. Further, knowing where each individual stands on specific traits may also lead to greater accuracy. Finally, if it were possible to know whether the interviewer was a good judge and the applicant was a good target, then pairing those individuals together would lead to particularly accurate impressions. However, if the interaction was going to be watched by other individuals, this would not be a favorable situation, as the accuracy of observers may decrease. The positivity of impressions was influenced more by idiosyncratic perceptions during the interaction (e.g., liking the other person or finding the other person engaging) and thus, these would be difficult to predict prior to the interaction.  However, of course, while the interactions in this research are similar to job interviews and first dates, they are not exactly the same. As such, while this research can be considered a first step toward improving the accuracy and positivity of impressions in those situations, more research is necessary to fully understand these processes. Specifically, examining interactions in higher stakes situations, manipulating an individual’s motivation, providing more specific goals, 182  and having a greater age range of participants would provide a clearer picture of how the good dyad may impact everyday life.   5.11 Limitations  5.11.1 Methodological The research presented here is correlational; thus, we are not able to make strong causal claims. For example, behavioral synchrony may lead to greater engagement or engagement may lead to greater behavioral synchrony. Thus, experimental research is needed to understand the specific causal ordering of processes. Relatedly, understanding the broader processes associated with dyadic accuracy would also benefit from experimental work. For example, it is possible that similarity leads to behavioral synchrony which leads to engagement which then impacts accuracy.  Finally, with the intent of forming impressions in the most naturalistic manner as possible, these results are limited to first impressions formed in brief, unstructured interactions. That is, participants were given no specific goals, tasks, or discussion topics. While impressions are likely to be a natural byproduct of most interpersonal interactions, there are times when impression formation is likely to be secondary to a more pressing goal. For example, students may meet with a teaching assistant to review an exam, thus the primary goal is obtain information about the exam, but as seen in teaching evaluations, students often form impressions of the teaching assistants from these encounters. Relatedly, there are times when forming an accurate impression is the highest priority, but an individual may be focused only on specific aspects. For example, an auto repair shop looking to hire a new car mechanic may care a great deal about how detail oriented and punctual an individual is, but be less concerned about the individual’s talkativeness or appreciation for art. To the extent that these differing goals impact 183  an individual’s behavior and the cognitive resources devoted to impression formation, different patterns may emerge. 5.11.2 Sample Demographics Our sample of undergraduate students means that we have less variability than exists in the general population on a number of factors, such as socioeconomic status, adjustment, education, and age. As mentioned previously, this is likely to have an impact on the similarity findings, in particular. For example, it is difficult to imagine that an interaction between a millionaire brain surgeon and minimum wage grocery store clerk would result in impressions that are as accurate as interactions when the individuals are from a more similar socioeconomic background. Further, we were not able to examine the impact of age similarity on impressions given that the majority of participants were very similar in age. Finally, while this sample was relatively culturally and ethnically diverse, the participants had all lived in North America and as such, exposed to western cultural ideals. Given that the accuracy of impressions differs based on cultural and ethnic differences (Rogers & Biesanz, 2014a), there may also be differences in dyadic accuracy.       5.12 Generalizability and Future Directions This research focused on first impressions of personality in unstructured interactions, however, as previously noted people form impressions about a variety of aspects of other people, with a variety of goals in mind, and over various periods of time. Thus, it is useful to examine how the present research may relate to and inform other aspects of impression formation, as well as other potential moderators. 184  5.12.1 Beyond First Impressions Of particular interest in considering these findings beyond first impressions are the behavioral changes associated with the interaction of the good judge and good target (i.e., that the good judge generally overwhelmed and overshadowed the good target). That is, would the good judge have a similar impact on the good target throughout the course of a longer interaction, a friendship, or even a romantic relationship? While this question is beyond the scope of this dissertation, it seems unlikely that the good judge would continue to overwhelm a good target over time, such as in a romantic relationship. Further, to the extent that the good judge is able to use their understanding of their partner’s personality, they may be able to fit their partner’s needs better over time.   It is also worth considering if good dyads would experience similar benefits in accuracy and positivity of impressions over time. Given that increased time is associated with more distinctly accurate impressions and less normatively accurate and positive impressions (Biesanz, West, & Millevoi, 2007), would the trajectory be similar for the good dyad compared to the poor dyad? It seems likely that the good dyad would level off in accuracy more quickly than the average dyad given that there is a point at which an impression cannot be more accurate. That is, the good dyad requires less time to form accurate impressions compared to other dyads.  However, in terms of the normativity and positivity of impressions, it seems plausible that there are two trajectories. First, the good dyad shows a similar trajectory to the average dyad, in that the amount of decrease is similar over time and therefore it takes longer for the good dyad to level off. Alternatively, the good dyad may actually retain their increased normativity and positivity of impressions over time. That is, while the good dyad may decrease somewhat over time, they level off at a higher point than do others. This may occur due to an 185  effect of a feedback loop whereby positive interactions lead to more normative and positive impressions which then lead to more positive interactions in the future. Thus, to the extent that the good dyad continues to have positive interactions, the normativity and positivity of the impressions may never decrease to the same extent that is does for other dyads.  Finally, the characteristics of the good dyad during first impressions may or may not be the same as characteristics of the good dyad over time. That is, the characteristics and processes that are associated with more accurate and positive first impressions may or may not be the same over time. 5.12.2 Beyond Personality Traits The research presented here is limited to the accuracy of personality impressions. However, there are other types of accuracy, such as understanding nonverbal information and another person’s emotions (i.e., empathic accuracy). Research on nonverbal and empathic accuracy have generally focused on the main effects of the perceiver or the target (see however, Elfenbein et al., 2006). It seems plausible that dyadic similarity may be associated with increased dyadic accuracy in nonverbal and empathic accuracy. However, the type of similarity may differ, as it is most likely related to shared meaning systems and understanding the underlying meaning of an action. However, there are likely other aspects of the good dyad that would differentially impact accuracy of personality impressions, nonverbal cues, and emotions. Thus, fully examining the good dyad in terms of nonverbal and empathic accuracy remains an open question for future research.  5.12.3 Status One aspect of dyadic interactions that is likely to have an impact on impressions is status and given the behavioral changes, may be particularly important in understanding the interaction 186  between the good target and the good judge. While we examined similarity in terms of socioeconomic status using parental education, a more thorough examination is necessary. A clear first step would be to use an objective measure of social status that is more applicable to undergraduates. This would allow for a better understanding of the impact of status as a stable characteristic, similarly to the method used in this study.  Further, it would be beneficial to examine how an individual’s perception of their partner’s status influences impressions and behaviors. While being high status, both as a trait and an experimental manipulation, is likely related to being viewed more accurately (see Human & Biesanz, 2013 for a review), there is still an inherent hierarchy within a dyadic interaction that may uniquely influence impressions. Indeed, status can change over time and context (e.g., Neuberg & Fiske, 1987). Of particular interest to dyadic accuracy would be that while two individuals may generally be considered high status, in their interaction, one individual will be higher status than the other. Status also likely impacts the perceiver’s ability to detect and utilization information in an interaction. For example, people tend to pay more attention to high status individuals (Fiske, 1993). Further, status influences the specific type of information to which perceivers attend (Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000; Overbeck & Park, 2001) and how much attention a perceiver is able to devote to a target (Guinote, 2007). In sum, future research should examine the impact of status on dyadic accuracy.  5.13 Final Conclusion Personality does not exist only within an individual, but also impacts an individual’s social interactions and environment and the consequences therein. This dissertation examined one route through which this occurs – impression formation – and how this is influenced by behaviors and perceptions. The stable characteristics of the perceiver and the target, the 187  idiosyncratic expression and behaviors of the perceiver and the target, the idiosyncratic perceptions of the perceiver and target, and the interaction of each of these aspects can all influence the accuracy of impressions in dyadic interactions. Who makes a good dyad and why? In terms of distinctive accuracy, the interaction of the target’s and perceiver’s stable individual differences influenced accuracy and this may be due to improved cue utilization and shared meaning systems. In terms of normative accuracy, having good quality, positive interactions was associated with more accurate impressions and this was mediated by changes in behavior. Thus, examining the broader context of the impression and the interaction are necessary to fully capturing the process of impression formation.   188  References Ackerman, R. A., Kashy, D. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. D. (2011). Positive-engagement behaviors in observed family interactions: A social relations perspective. Journal of Family Psychology: Journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association (Division 43), 25(5), 719-30. doi:10.1037/a0025288 Adams, H. F. (1927). The good judge of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 22(2), 172-181. doi:10.1037/h0075237 Albright, L., Forest, C., & Reiseter, K. (2001). Acting, behaving, and the selfless basis of metaperception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 910-921. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.910 Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Oxford England: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero-acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 518-529. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.69.3.518 Andersen, S. M., & Bem, S. L. (1981). Sex typing and androgyny in dyadic interaction: Individual differences in responsiveness to physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 74-86. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.74 Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362-1377. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1362 189  Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 918-932. doi:10.1037/a0011990 Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.63.4.596 Aronoff, J., Stollak, G. E., & Woike, B. A. (1994). Affect regulation and the breadth of interpersonal engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 105-114. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.67.1.105 Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258 - 290. doi: 10.1037/h0055756 Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J., Hartung, F. M., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C., ... & Wrzus, C. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25(2), 90-107. doi: 10.1002/per.811 Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting actual behavior from the explicit and implicit self-concept of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(3), 533-548. doi:10.1037/a0016229 Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25(3), 225-238. doi:10.1002/per.790 190  Baird, B. M., Le, K., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). On the nature of intraindividual personality variability: Reliability, validity, and associations with well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3), 512-527. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.512 Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2008). Personality judgment at zero acquaintance: Agreement, assumed similarity, and implicit simplicity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3), 250-260. doi:10.1080/00223890701884970 Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher-student interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(2), 120-138. doi:10.1007/BF00986930 Bernieri, F. J. (2001). Towards a taxonomy of interpersonal sensitivity. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bernieri, F. J., Gillis, J. S., Davis, J. M., & Grahe, J. E. (1996). Dyad rapport and the accuracy of its judgment across situations: A lens model analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 110-129. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.71.1.110 Bernieri, F. J., Reznick, J. S., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother-infant interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(2), 243-253. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.2.243 Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853-885. doi:10.1080/00273171.2010.519262 Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). The cost of forming more accurate impressions: Accuracy-motivated perceivers see the personality of others more distinctively but less 191  normatively than perceivers without an explicit goal. Psychological Science, 21(4), 589-594. doi:10.1177/0956797610364121 Biesanz, J. C., & West, S. G. (2000). Personality coherence: Moderating self-other profile agreement and profile consensus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 425-437. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.425 Biesanz, J. C., West, S. G., & Millevoi, A. (2007). What do you learn about someone over time? The relationship between length of acquaintance and consensus and self-other agreement in judgments of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 119-135. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.119 Biesanz, J. C., Human, L. J., Paquin, A. -C., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J., & Gillis, R. L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 452-459. doi:10.1177/1948550610397211 Blackman, M. C., & Funder, D. C. (1998). The effect of information on consensus and accuracy in personality judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(2), 164-181. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1347 Block, J. (1978). The q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bond, M., Byrne, D., & Diamond, M. J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity of attitude. Psychological Reports, 23(3f), 1167-1172. doi:10.2466/pr0.1968.23.3f.1167 192  Borkenau, P., Mauer, N., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2004). Thin slices of behavior as cues of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 599-614. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.599 Borkenau, P., & Zaltauskas, K. (2009). Effects of self-enhancement on agreement on personality profiles. European Journal of Personality, 23(2), 107-123. doi:10.1002/per.707 Bourgeois, P., & Hess, U. (2008). The impact of social context on mimicry. Biological Psychology, 77(3), 343-52. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.11.008 Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Brundage, L. E., Derlega, V. J., & Cash, T. F. (1976). The effects of physical attractiveness and need for approval on self-disclosure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3(1), 63-66. doi:10.1177/014616727600300108 Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 417-431. doi:10.1177/0265407597143008 Carli, L. L., Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarity and satisfaction in roommate relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(4), 419-426. doi:10.1177/0146167291174010 Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Furr, R. M. (2011). Meta-insight: Do people really know how others see them?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(4), 831. doi: 10.1037/a0024297 193  Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Forming first impressions: The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(1), 117-120. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.001 Chaplin, W. F., & Panter, A. T. (1993). Shared meaning and the convergence among observers' personality descriptions. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 553-585. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00782.x Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893 Christiansen, N. D., Wolcott-Burnam, S., Janovics, J. E., Burns, G. N., & Quirk, S. W. (2005). The good judge revisited: Individual differences in the accuracy of personality judgments. Human Performance, 18(2), 123-149. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1802_2 Clifton, A. (2014). Variability in personality expression across contexts: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 103-115. doi:10.1111/jopy.12038 Collins, N. L., & Miller, L. C. (1994). Self-disclosure and liking: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), 457-475. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.116.3.457 Colvin, C. R. (1993a). "Judgable" people: Personality, behavior, and competing explanations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 861-873. Colvin, C. R. (1993b). Childhood antecedents of young-adult judgeability. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 611-635. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00784.x Cronbach, L. (1955). Processes affecting scores on "understanding of others" and "assumed similarity.". Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 177-193. doi:10.1037/h0044919 194  Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts "disagreeables". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 667-684. doi:10.1037/a0015741 Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 284-290. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.284 Davis, M. H., & Kraus, L. A. (1997). Personality and empathic accuracy. In W. J. Ickes (Ed.), Empathic accuracy (pp. 144-168). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. De La Ronde, C., & Swann W. B. (1998). Partner verification: Restoring shattered images of our intimates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 374-382. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.374 Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71-75. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children's peer groups. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1146 - 1158. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146 Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(3), 69-106. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00018.x Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2003). The creation and consequences of the social world: An interactional analysis of extraversion. European Journal of Personality, 17(5), 375-395. doi:10.1002/per.477 195  Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of  behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3),183-201. doi: 10.1037/h0047707 Edwards, A. L. (1957). Social desirability and probability of endorsement of items in the interpersonal check list. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(3), 394-396. doi:10.1037/h0048497 Elfenbein, H. A., Foo, M. D., Boldry, J., & Tan, H. H. (2006). BRIEF REPORT dyadic effects in nonverbal communication: A variance partitioning analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 20(1), 149-159. doi:10.1080/02699930500339908 Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48(6), 621-628. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621 Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure- and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distribution of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 1011-1127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.1011 Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through the eyes of love: Reality and illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627-58. doi:10.1037/a0019792 Forgas, J. P. (2002). Feeling and doing: Affective influences on interpersonal behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 13(1), 1-28. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1301_01 Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53-60. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.53 196  Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1997). Congruence of others' and self-judgments of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617-647). San Diego, CA US: Academic Press. Funder, D. C., & Sneed, C. D. (1993). Behavioral manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 479. Funder, D. C., & West, S. G. (1993). Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 457-476. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00778.x Funder, D. C., Furr, R. M., & Colvin, C. R. (2000). The riverside behavioral q-sort: A tool for the description of social behavior. Journal of Personality, 68(3), 451-489. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00103 Furr, R. M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76(5), 1267-1316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00521.x Goodwin, S. A., Gubin, A., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2000). Power can bias impression processes: Stereotyping subordinates by default and by design. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 227-256. doi: 10.1177/1368430200003003001 Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 685-697. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008 197  Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. M. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness an integrative review of empirical research. Small Group Research, 36(1), 83-105. doi:10.1177/1046496404268538 Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., Murphy, N. A., Mast, M. S., & Feinstein, B. A. (2008). Accuracy of judging others traits and states: Comparing mean levels across tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(6), 1476-1489. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.06.013 Hall, J. A., Goh, J. X., Mast, M. S., & Hagedorn, C. (2015). Individual Differences in Accurately Judging Personality From Text. Journal of Personality. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12170 Haselton, M. G., & Funder, D. C. (2006). The evolution of accuracy and bias in social judgment. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 15-37). Madison, CT, US: Psychosocial Press, 2006. Heller, D., Watson, D., Komar, J., Min, J. -A., & Perunovic, W. Q. E. (2007). Contextualized personality: Traditional and new assessment procedures. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1229-1253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00474.x Hill, S. E., DelPriore, D. J., & Vaughan, P. W. (2011). The cognitive consequences of envy: Attention, memory, and self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 653-666. doi:10.1037/a0023904 Holtzman, N. S., Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2010). Sounds like a narcissist: Behavioral manifestations of narcissism in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 478-484. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.06.001 Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It's all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27(6), 949-960. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.6.949 198  Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011a). Target adjustment and self-other agreement: Utilizing trait observability to disentangle judgeability and self-knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 202-216. doi:10.1037/a0023782 Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011b). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in well-adjusted individuals' first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 349-364. doi:10.1037/a0021850 Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 248-272. doi:10.1177/1088868313495593 Human, L. J., Biesanz, J. C., Finseth, S. M., Pierce, B., & Le, M. (2014). To thine own self be true: Psychological adjustment promotes judgeability via personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 286-303. doi:10.1037/a0034860 Human, L. J., Sandstrom, G. M., Biesanz, J. C., & Dunn, E. W. (2013). Accurate first impressions leave a lasting impression: The long-term effects of distinctive self-other agreement on relationship development. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 395-402. doi:10.1177/1948550612463735 Ickes, W. J. (1997). Empathic accuracy. New York, NY US: Guilford Press. Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1206-1217. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1206 John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of interjudge agreement on personality traits: The big five domains, observability, evaluativeness, and the unique perspective of the self. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 521-551. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00781.x 199  John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: Individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206-219. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York, NY, US: Guilford. Kenny, D. A. (1991). A general model of consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 98(2), 155-163. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.155 Kenny, D. A. (1996). Prospects for applying the social relations model to person perception. Psychological Inquiry, 7(3), 288-294. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0703_17 Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(3), 439-448. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.439 Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 390-402. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.102.3.390 Kenny, D. A., Mohr, C. D., & Levesque, M. J. (2001). A social relations variance partitioning of dyadic behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 128-141. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.128 Kolar, D. W. (1996). Individual differences in the ability to accurately judge the personality characteristics of others. Dissertation. Koranyi, N., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Interactive self-regulation during mate searching. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 220(3), 194-199. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000113 200  Krueger, J. (1996). Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 536-548. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.536 Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being" right": The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 395-409. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.3.395 Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334-339. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.14481 Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 390-423. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390 Lemay, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339-353. doi:10.1177/0146167209359700 Letzring, T. D. (2008). The good judge of personality: Characteristics, behaviors, and observer accuracy. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(4), 914-932. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.12.003 Letzring, T. D. (2010). The effects of judge-target gender and ethnicity similarity on the accuracy of personality judgments. Social Psychology, 41(1), 42-51. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000007 201  Letzring, T. D. (2014). Observer judgmental accuracy of personality: Benefits related to being a good (normative) judge. Journal of Research in Personality. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2014.05.001 Lippa, R. (1976). Expressive control and the leakage of dispositional introversion-extraversion during role-played teaching. Journal of Personality, 44(4), 541-559. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00137.x Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others' actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256-1269. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007 Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood. Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1777-1782. doi:10.1177/0956797610388048 Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Interpersonal similarity and the social and intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Social Cognition, 6(4), 269-286. doi:10.1521/soco.1988.6.4.269 Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Processing deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1), 27-40. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.1.27 Macrae, C. N., Duffy, O. K., Miles, L. K., & Lawrence, J. (2008). A case of hand waving: Action synchrony and person perception. Cognition, 109(1), 152-6. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.007 202  MacArthur Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health. MacArthur Sociodemographic Questionnaire, from http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/research/socialenviron/sociodemographic.php Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Delton, A. W., Hofer, B., Wilbur, C. J., & Neuberg, S. L. (2003). Sexually selective cognition: Beauty captures the mind of the beholder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1107-1120. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1107 Markel, N. N., Prebor, L. D., & Brandt, J. F. (1972). Biosocial factors in dyadic communication: Sex and speaking intensity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23(1), 11-13. doi:10.1037/h0032879 Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 320-339. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01022.x Mehl, M. R., Gosling, S. D., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 862-877. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.862 Meltzer, L., & Russo, N. F. (1970). Interpersonal evaluation as a function of social attention. The Journal of Social Psychology, 81(1), 79-86. doi:10.1080/00224545.1970.9919912 Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80(4), 252-283. doi:10.1037/h0035002 Mischel, W. (2004). Toward an integrative science of the person. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1-22. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.042902.130709 203  Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246-268. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.674 Mischel, W. (1999). Personality coherence and dispositions in a cognitive-affective processing system (CAPS) approach. In D. Cervone & Y. Shoda (Eds.), The coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of personality consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 37-60). New York: Guilford Press. Moskowitz, D. S., & Zuroff, D. C. (2004). Flux, pulse, and spin: dynamic additions to the personality lexicon. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(6), 880. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.880 Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2013). Applications and extensions of the lens model to understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 374-379. doi: 10.1177/0963721413486148 Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(3), 431-444. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.431 Noftle, E. E., & Fleeson, W. (2010). Age differences in big five behavior averages and variabilities across the adult life span: Moving beyond retrospective, global summary accounts of personality. Psychology and Aging, 25(1), 95-107. doi:10.1037/a0018199 Nowicki Jr, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Nonverbal behavior, 18(1), 9-35. doi: 10.1007/BF02169077 204  Overbeck, J. R., & Park, B. (2001). When power does not corrupt: superior individuation processes among powerful perceivers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(4), 549-565. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.549 Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598-609. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.46.3.598 Pickett, C. L., Gardner, W. L., & Knowles, M. (2004). Getting a cue: The need to belong and enhanced sensitivity to social cues. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), 1095-1107. doi:10.1177/0146167203262085 Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyond employment interview validity: A comprehensive narrative review of recent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 1-81. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00103.x Radloff, L. S. (1977). The ces-d scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316-320. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00528.x Richeson, J. A., Baird, A. A., Gordon, H. L., Heatherton, T. F., Wyland, C. L., Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). An fmri investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1323-1328. doi:10.1038/nn1156 Richeson, J. A., Trawalter, S., & Shelton, J. N. (2005). African Americans’ implicit racial attitudes and the depletion of executive function after interracial interactions. Social Cognition, 23(4), 336-352. doi:10.1521/soco.2005.23.4.336 205  Rogers, K. H. (2011). Knowing versus liking: Separating normative knowledge from evaluation in impressions. Unpublished master’s thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Rogers, K. H. & Biesanz, J. C. (2014a). The accuracy and bias of interpersonal perceptions in intergroup interactions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(8), 918-926 doi: 10.1177/1948550614537307 Rogers, K.H. & Biesanz, J.C. (February, 2014b). Accuracy in first impressions: Perks and perils of simply observing. Poster presented at Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX. Rogers, K. H. & Biesanz, J. C. (2015). Beyond the halo effect: Individual differences in normative judgments reflect generalized knowledge and evaluative tendencies. Conditional Acceptance at Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(4), 267-286. doi: 10.1007/s10919-004-4159-6 Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 141-154. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.66.1.141 206  Saucier, G. (2010). The structure of social effects: Personality as impact on others. European Journal of Personality, 24(3), 222-240. doi: 10.1002/per.761 Sherman. R. A. (2014). multicon: An R package for the analysis of multivariate constructs (version 1.2). http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=multicon. Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Evaluating correlations in studies of personality and behavior: Beyond the number of significant findings to be expected by chance. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 1053-1063. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.010 Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2012). Properties of persons and situations related to overall and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(1), 87-101. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.006 Shoda, Y., & Mischel, W. (1998). Personality as a stable cognitive-affective activation network: Characteristic patterns of behavior variation emerge from a stable personality structure. In S. J. Read, L. C. Miller, S. J. Read, L. C. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 175-208). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Solomon, B. C., & Jackson, J. J. (2014). Why do personality traits predict divorce? Multiple pathways through satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(6), 978. doi: 10.1037/a0036190 Snyder, M. (1983). The influence of individuals on situations: Implications for understanding the links between personality and social behavior. Journal of Personality, 51(3), 497-516. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1983.tb00342.x 207  Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Wondra, J. D. (2013). Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(4), 497-514. doi:10.1177/0265407512459033 Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 157-175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x Story, A. L. (2003). Similarity of trait construal and consensus in interpersonal perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(4), 364-370. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00529-2 Swann, W. B. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91(4), 457-477. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.4.457 Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1038-1051. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.6.1038 Swann, W. B., & Hill, C. A. (1982). When our identities are mistaken: Reaffirming self conceptions through social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 59-66. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.1.59 Taft, R. (1955). The ability to judge people. Psychological Bulletin, 52(1), 1-23. doi:10.1037/h0044999 Valdesolo, P., & Desteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning of compassion. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 11(2), 262-266. doi:10.1037/a0021302 Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. (2010). The rhythm of joint action: Synchrony promotes cooperative ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 693-695. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.004 208  Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self-other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 281-300. doi:10.1037/a0017908 Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity of self-ratings and other-ratings of daily behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1202-1216. doi:10.1037/a0013314 Vogt, D. S., & Colvin, C. R. (2003). Interpersonal orientation and the accuracy of personality judgments. Journal of Personality, 71(2), 267-295. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7102005 Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1-5. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02253.x Wilson, R. E. & Vazire, S. (2014, February). The ups and downs of personality: How situations influence fluctuations in personality states. Poster presented at Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX. Winquist, L. A., Mohr, C. D., & Kenny, D. A. (1998). The female positivity effect in the perception of others. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(3), 370-388. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2221 Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). The effect of age and role information on expectations for big five personality traits. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1482-1196. doi:10.1177/0146167206291008 Wood, D., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2007). Normality evaluations and their relation to personality traits and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 861-879. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.861 209  Wood, D., Harms, P., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your perceptions of others say about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 174-190. doi:10.1037/a0019390 Worthy, M., Gary, A. L., & Kahn, G. M. (1969). Self-disclosure as an exchange process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 59-63. doi:10.1037/h0027990 Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personality traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 519-528. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.006 Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L., & Peace, V. (2006). Implicit behavioral mimicry: Investigating the impact of group membership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30(3), 97-113. doi:10.1007/s10919-006-0010-6 Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit‐formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology,18(5), 459-482. doi: 10.1002/cne.920180503 Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(3), 204-223. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_2 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0166525/manifest

Comment

Related Items