Cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments

Share Embed


Descrição do Produto

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES

Cross-Cultural Consensus in Personality Judgments Linda Albright

Thomas E. Malloy

Westfield State College

Rhode Island College

Qi Dong

David A. Kenny

Beijing Normal University

University of Connecticut

Xiaoyi Fang

Lynn Winquist

Beijing Normal University

Rhode Island College

DaYu University of Connecticut Building on recent research demonstrating consensus and accuracy in interpersonal perception based on minimal information, the present studies examined American and Chinese participants' withinand cross-cultural judgments. In Study I, the authors used the zero-acquaintance paradigm in the People's Republic of China and found consensus on all personality dimensions. In Study 2, Chinese arid American participants judged each other on the basis of photographs, and consensus was found among Americans' judgments of Chinese and Chinese participants' judgments of Americans. Further, by correlating target effects based on within-culture zero-acquaintance judgments and cross-cultural photographic judgments, the authors found agreement in the judgments of individuals by members of their own culture and the other culture for both Chinese and Americans.

Research on social perception reflects the fact that a person is both a social and a visual stimulus. Because groups develop social codes and belief systems that link the external aspects of people to internal features, communication of information that is typically studied under the rubric of impression formation (e.g., trait attribution and organization) can occur prior to social interaction. This social construction of the interpersonal world can function to allow skilled social actors to manage particular impressions, but it can also limit the impressions people can attempt to manage.

Linda Albright, Department of Psychology, Westfield State College; Thomas E. Malloy and Lynn Winquist, Department of Psychology, Rhode Island College; Qi Dong and Xiaoyi Fang, Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China; David A. Kenny, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut; Da Yu, Department of Management, University of Connecticut. Lynn Winquist is now at the Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut. This research was conducted while Qi Dong was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and a visiting scholar at the University of California at Berkeley and while Xianyi Fang was a visiting scholar at Rhode Island College and the University of Maryland Medical School. This research was supported by grants from the University of Connecticut Research Foundation, National Science Foundation Grant DBS9307949, National Institute of Mental Health Grant RO1-MH51969, and by Beijing Normal University research funds. We thank Bing Ru Zheng for her assistance with the translation and preparation of the stimulus materials and Lin Chuan Chu for assistance with the back-translation. Also, we thank our research assistants, Xin Tao, Chen \fong, Suzy Barcelos, and Linda Pelopida. We thank YuehTing Lee for his comments. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda Albright, Department of Psychology, Westfield State College, Westfield, Massachusetts 01086. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to [email protected]

Numerous studies conducted in Western culture have demonstrated consensus or agreement in strangers' judgments of others' personality characteristics based on minimal information (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988; Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Berry, 1990; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992, 1993; Funder & Colvin, 1988; Gifford, 1994; Kenny, Homer, Kashy, & Chu, 1992; Levesque & Kenny, 1993; Norman & Goldberg, 1966; Paunonen, 1989; Watson, 1989). The face-to-face context in which unacquainted people judge each other's personality characteristics in the absence of social interaction or exposure to verbal behavior is referred to as zero acquaintance (Albright et al., 1988). Despite differences among the studies in terms of measures, designs, and analytic strategies, consensus in judgments of Extraversion and Conscientiousness has been found consistently.

Journal uf Personality and Social Psychology, 1997. Vol. 72, No. 3. 558-569 Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association. Inc. 0022-3514/97/S3.00

558

559

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE Moreover, in most studies the consensual judgments correlated with the targets' self-ratings (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1993; Kenny et al., 1992; Norman & Goldberg, 1966) and predicted behavior in an experimental context (Levesque & Kenny, 1993). Studies of the external cues that could serve as the basis of judgments have found that perceptions of both static, appearance cues and dynamic, nonverbal cues are strongly associated with judgments of particular personality attributes (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Gifford, 1994; Kenny et al., 1992). These findings indicate that in the absence of other information, people similarly use external cues as a basis for inferring personality traits, a social process that renders consensus in personality judgments. Presumably, people learn stereotypes that link external cues to personality dispositions and then apply them in the zero-acquaintance context. Such stereotypes could be adaptive for both groups and individuals in that they reflect and, through socialization, facilitate a shared construction of the social world (Vygotsky, 1978), which then allows individuals to predict others' inferences under conditions of minimal or controlled information. Although the zero-acquaintance phenomenon has been clearly established, all of the studies have been conducted in two Western cultures—the United States and Germany (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992, 1993); 1 no studies have been conducted in any Eastern culture. Given the current awareness of cultural differences and the lack of cross-cultural replication of a number of important social psychological phenomena (Smith & Bond, 1993), we have no basis for knowing whether consensus at zero acquaintance is limited to Western culture or whether it occurs cross-culturally. In addition, there are no studies that have examined this phenomenon in judgments across cultures. That is, we do not know whether consensus and self-other agreement at zero acquaintance generalizes to contexts in which perceivers and targets are from different cultures. Assuming the cross-cultural generality of consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance (within-culture judgments in a face-to-face context), there are two possibilities regarding the use of external cues: The pattern of associations between cues and traits may be similar or different across cultures. Sociocultural theory would imply that cultural differences in belief and meaning systems would result in different external cues for personality judgments in different cultures. Alternatively, the patterns of trait-cue associations may not differ between cultures, a result that would support the hypothesis of universality. In regard to cross-cultural judgment, assuming the existence of consensus in personality judgments across cultures (judgments of members of a different culture), there are three theoretical perspectives regarding the use of external cues. Postmodern epistemologies emphasize the worldview embeddedness of perception and cognition and suggest that understanding "others" (e.g., historical eras, paradigms, cultures, and social classes) is constrained by various "centrisms" (Campbell, 1996). That is, misinterpretation occurs because in-group observers do not consider, or perhaps even realize, that others may have a different worldview and mistake their own worldview as reality itself (Campbell, 1996). In intercultural perception, if people apply their own cultural beliefs and if their stereotypes are untrue or

meanings systems different, then misperception and misunderstanding may result. From a postmodern epistemological perspective, then, indigenous belief systems serve as the basis of intercultural perception, a process that would produce common differentiation among members of the same culture when judging those of a different culture. The empirical results of research on out-group perception, of which intercultural perception is a special case, however, suggest a different pattern of results. This research has indicated that people perceive members of an out-group as relatively homogeneous (e.g., Quattrone & Jones, 1980). On the basis of this research, when making personality judgments of individual members of another culture, people should simply use their stereotypes about the out-group, a process that would yield a lack of differentiation of the targets (i.e., all targets would be judged by the stereotypes of that group). The two perspectives discussed above rest on the assumption of different belief and meaning systems across cultures. If this assumption is untrue, then there should be one universal pattern of associations between trait judgments and external cues in all contexts of judgment. Given the different theoretical perspectives regarding the role of culture in the use of external cues when making social judgments under conditions of minimal information, we review the empirical results of research on the effects of appearance and nonverbal behavior in judgments of personality characteristics in Eastern and Western culture. Culture and Meaning Systems

Western Culture The effect of physical attractiveness on judgments of personality and social characteristics has been examined in numerous studies. In most studies, participants have been shown photographs of individuals who vary in attractiveness while other relevant target characteristics, such as gender or ethnicity, have been controlled. Although an entirely ubiquitous attractiveness effect has not been found, attractive individuals have tended to be judged more positively (Dion, 1986; Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991). The physical attractiveness bias generalizes to face-to-face situations, as demonstrated by research conducted within the zero-acquaintance paradigm. These studies, which have typically used the Big Five trait taxonomy, have also shown a more limited effect of attractiveness. Specifically, the perceived personality correlates of attractiveness were limited to traits indicating Extraversion (Albright et al., 1988; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Kenny et al., 1992). Research on the perceived personality correlates of babyfacedness has also demonstrated an effect of physical appearance under conditions of limited information. These studies have

1 The Borkenau and Liebler (1992, 1993) studies are not technically zero-acquaintance studies in that perceivers were exposed to the verbal behavior of the targets (i.e., watching them recite a news report). However, because this behavior was scripted and identical for each target, it could not provide idiosyncratic information about the target. In fact, consensus in personality judgments occurred even when participants were only exposed to a silent videotape of the target.

560

ALBRIGHT ET AL.

shown that individuals with so-called babyfaces are perceived to be less powerful and dominant but more naive, honest, and warm(Berry &McArthur, 1986). BorkenauandLiebler (1992) found that people who were perceived to be baby-faced were rated as less conscientious. Nonverbal behavior has also been associated with stable internal characteristics. Reis et al. (1990) found that people who smiled were seen as more sincere, sociable, and competent but less independent and masculine than were those who did not smile. Consistent with these findings, Otta, Lira, Delevati, Cesar, andPires (1994) found that, in a sample of Brazilian undergraduates, people were perceived more favorably when they smiled. In a comprehensive program of research (Gifford, Ng, & Wilkinson, 1985; Gifford, 1991, 1994) investigating the relationships among personality, nonverbal behavior, and perception of personality based on nonverbal behavior, Gifford (1994) demonstrated that personality is encoded in nonverbal behavior, that personality judgments are linked to variation in nonverbal behavior, and that perceivers' judgments based on nonverbal behavior correlate with self-ratings of personality. Using traits from Leary's (1957) circumplex model, Gifford found a number of strong correlations between judgments of interpersonal traits and various nonverbal behaviors (mainly smiling, gesturing, nodding, and eye contact). Moreover, moderate to strong levels of self-other agreement were found on the traits gregarious extraverted and aloof-introverted. Gifford's (1994) results are consistent with findings that judgments of sociability are strongly correlated with smiling and body movement (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992; Kenny et al., 1992) and with eye contact (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992). They are also consistent with the research cited above that found correlations between consensual judgments of Extraversion at zero acquaintance and the self-ratings of Extraversion (Albright et al., 1988; Kenny et al., 1992). Indeed, a meta-analysis of studies measuring the accuracy of predictions of objective outcomes based on nonverbal behavior showed that such predictions are fairly accurate even when based on observations under 0.5 min in length (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992).

Eastern Culture Although a historical precedent for the belief in the link between appearance and character is evident in the ancient philosophical text, The Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine (cf. Lam & Berrios, 1992), empirical investigation of this hypothesis in Eastern culture is limited. Dion, Pak, and Dion (1990) sampled Chinese students attending school in Canada and classified them as being high or low in involvement in the Chinese community. They found that those who were more involved in the Chinese community were less affected by physical attractiveness when judging the characteristics of a target individual. Consistent with this finding, Hui and Yam (1987) examined the effect of physical attractiveness and English language proficiency on perceptions of Chinese targets and found no effect of attractiveness on judgments of personality characteristics. Empirical research on the perceived personality correlates of nonverbal behavior in Eastern culture is also limited. Consislency in the findings of Argyle, Henderson, Bond, Iizuka, and

Contarello (1986) and M. H. Bond (1993) indicates that there are strong norms against the expression of emotion in Chinese culture. Lau (1982), however, found that Chinese rated smiling targets as more interpersonally attractive and intelligent than nonsmiling targets. In addition, Matsumoto and Kudoh (1993) found that Japanese and Americans perceived smiling targets as more sociable, but only Americans perceived smiling targets as more intelligent.

Cultural Moderation of Belief and Meaning Systems Empirical research suggests that the formation and use of stereotypes linking external and internal characteristics is a cultural process, whereby group-level beliefs become incorporated into individual group members' belief systems and are then applied in everyday life. The research reviewed above suggests that some stereotypes are cross-cultural, whereas others are group specific. Conclusions about cultural differences cannot be drawn directly from this research, however, because judgments were made strictly within culture. In the next section, we review research in which people make judgments of members of a different culture. Cross-Cultural Interpersonal Perception Studies in which participants judge the personality attributes of individual members of a different culture (i.e., cross-cultural interpersonal perception) are relatively rare. Studies of facial expression of emotion, detection of deception, baby-facedness, and perception of physical attractiveness constitute the major research on interpersonal perception in which perceivers and targets are from different cultures. Although focused on different phenomena, these studies suggest universality rather than cultural moderation. For example, cross-cultural studies have typically shown that facial expressions of emotion are perceived consensually within and between cultures (Ekman et al., 1987; Gordon, Zukas, & Chan, 1982; Keating et al., 1981; Krauss, Curran, & Ferlinger, 1983). Given the robustness and reliability of this phenomenon, Darwin's (1872) hypothesis that facial displays of emotion are universal in meaning and biological in origin has become widely accepted as valid. Research on lie detection also has shown cultural similarity in that people from different cultures used similar external cues to detect deception (C. F. Bond, Omar, Mahmoud, & Bonser, 1990). Cross-cultural research on the perception of physical attractiveness has also shown evidence of universality. Cunningham, Roberts, Barbee, Druen, and Wu (1995 ) had Asians, Hispanics, and White Americans rate the attractiveness of photographs of Asian, Hispanic, Black, and White women. They found high correlations among the ratings of these groups, although Asians were less positively influenced by sexual maturity and expressive features. Consistent with these results, consensus in judgments of attractiveness has been found between Cruzans and Americans rating Whites (Maret & Harling, 1985); Chinese, Indians, and English rating Greeks (Thakerar & Iwawaki, 1979); Whites, Blacks, and Chinese rating Whites and Chinese (Bernstein, Tsai-Ding, & McClelland, 1982); and Americans

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE and White South Africans rating Whites (Morse, Gruzen, & Reis, 1976). In a series of studies investigating perceived relationships between external cues and personality traits, Zebrowitz and her colleagues have demonstrated cross-cultural agreement in babyfacedness-trait associations (McArthur & Berry, 1987; Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992) and vocal quaJity-trait relationships (Montepare & Zebrowitz-McArthur, 1987), but crosscultural differences in perceived relationships between speech rate and power (Peng, Zebrowitz, & Lee, 1993). Using pointlight displays as stimuli, Montepare and Zebrowitz (1993) found cross-cultural agreement in the perception of the target's age, gender, happiness, sexiness, and physical strength. Overview of the Present Research Given the consistent finding of within-culture consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance in Western culture, the major purposes of Study 1 were to demonstrate the crosscultural general izability of this phenomenon and to investigate Chinese belief and meaning systems in terms of trait—cue associations. Study 2 was designed to demonstrate consensus in personality judgments among members of one culture when judging members of another culture and agreement in judgments between culture. Conducting cross-cultural research presents a number of methodological issues. One issue involves the translation of the instructions and stimulus materials from the language in which they were originally conceived to the host language (Brislin, 1980). Central to problems of translation is the emic-etic distinction, a concept, which has received much attention in crosscultural research, that refers roughly to the difference between elements that are culture specific versus culture general, respectively (Triandis, 1994). When using an etic framework, which is necessary for cross-cultural comparisons, emic phenomena may be overlooked or misrepresented. However, given that the present research involved a replication, designing the studies required a balance between keeping aspects constant and being sensitive to cultural emics. Because the procedures were fairly simple (primarily entailing having participants judge each other and themselves), the nature of the rating dimensions was our main concern with respect to the emic-etic issue. In this regard, we selected five traits from Yang and Bond's (1990) emic taxonomy of personality dimensions, which they labeled the Chinese Big Five, and five traits from the Western Big Five. Questioning whether the Western Big Five adequately represents the full range of personality dimensions Chinese use to structure interpersonal variation, Yang and Bond (1990) analyzed the factor structure of trait ratings of 150 emic personality dimensions and 20 traits from the Western Big Five. Their analyses revealed five factors, which they labeled Social Orientation, Competence, Expressiveness, Self-Control, and Optimism. Study 1 Study 1 entailed a cross-cultural replication of the zero-acquaintance paradigm in the People's Republic of China. Participants, who were students of Beijing Normal University, were

561

randomly assigned to groups of 5 with the constraint that no group member had any previous acquaintance with or knowledge of any other group member. Once each group of participants arrived at the laboratory, they were requested to rate themselves and each other on 10 personality dimensions and 4 external dimensions, while remaining silent. Our attempts to be sensitive to the special methodological problems of cross-cultural research consisted of the translation procedure and the selection of the personality dimensions.

Method Participants. Participants were 80 female and male students from Beijing Normal University who were randomly selected from five departments within the university. Each group contained 1 student from each department. Most of the participants were first-year students and came from different provinces throughout China. They were recruited on a voluntary basis and were paid $5 each for their participation. To assure zero acquaintance, at recruitment, participants were asked whether they knew any persons in the other four departments. If not, he or she was selected as a participant. As an additional check, after the experiment participants were asked again whether they knew any other member of the group prior to the study. Measures and translation. Participants rated each other and themselves on 14 dimensions. Five of these were traits representing each of the factors of the Western Big Five: sociable, good-natured, responsible, calm, and intelligent; the other 5 dimensions were traits representing each factor of Yang and Bond's (1990) Chinese Big Five: honest, independent, active, self-controlled, and optimistic. Selection of each particular trait from the Chinese dimensions was based on two criteria, namely factor loading and ease of translation (see Brislin, 1970). The final 4 dimensions were salient external cues: physical attractiveness, neatness of dress, smiling, and eye contact. All ratings were made on 7-point scales anchored by the trait term on one end and its opposite on the other end. The scale was reversed for some items to discourage response set. To produce a semantically equivalent version of the rating instrument in Chinese, the back-translation method (Brislin, 1980) was used. When preparing the stimulus materials for translation, we followed the relevant guidelines proposed by Brislin (1980). In this regard, we used simple sentences, phrased in the active voice, that contained familiar terms and presented the directions and variables redundantly to facilitate comprehension. Brislin also advocated the use of a multimethod approach, which, in the present context, entailed the formation of five factors from the 10 personality trait judgments. Procedure. Groups of 5 participants were scheduled for each experimental session of the study. As participants arrived at the laboratory, they were greeted by the experimenter, asked to sit as quietly as possible, and instructed not to talk. Prior to their arrival, packets of rating forms and identification tags were placed face down on desks that were arranged approximately 6 ft (1.8 m) apart in a circle. Each rating packet was labeled with a group number and letter (A, B, C, D, or E ) ; each identification tag was marked with the corresponding letter. Thus, persons were identified to each other only by a letter, not by names, and once seated, they were instructed to pin the identification tag on their left shoulders. They were then told that they would be requested to make judgments about themselves and the other members of the group on the forms in front of them. The experimenter then instructed the participants to take a moment to look at each other. After approximately 10 s, they were told to turn the forms over, complete them in silence, and turn them face down again when they were finished. Once all forms were completed, the experimenter collected them and informed participants that the first phase of the study was over. The second phase, which was optional, entailed taking photographs of each

562

ALBRIGHT ET AL.

participant and provided the stimuli for Study 2. Participants were then thanked and paid for their participation. Design and analysis. The round-robin design was used in this research. The round-robin is a reciprocal design (Kenny & Albright, 1987) in which each member of the group rales each other member of the group. Thus, each person rates multiple targets and is rated by multiple perceivers. A social relations analysis of the data was accomplished by using the computer program SOREMO (Kenny, 1995b). This analysis partitions the variance in interpersonal perception data into three components, which are called perceiver, target, and relationship. A thorough description of the social relations model can be found elsewhere (Kenny, 1994; Kenny & La Voie, 1984), so we only briefly discuss the relevant aspects of the model and analysis here. Because consensus was the primary interest in this research, the target effect is the most relevant component. The target effect reflects die way the target tends to be seen by the perceivers and, to the extent that the targets are seen similarly by different perceivers (but discriminated from each other), there will be target variance. The tendency for the target to be seen similarly by different perceivers is called consensus. Target variance on the trait of honesty, for example, would indicate that some targets were consensually seen as honest, whereas other targets were consensually seen as dishonest.

Results A social relations analysis was performed by using the computer program SOREMO (Kenny, 1995b). In a social relations analysis, both the absolute variance and the proportion of total variance due to each component are estimated. Although Yang and Bond (1990) found the Chinese factors to be somewhat independent of the Big Five, we found that target effects on the Chinese factors did correlate with target effects on the Big Five factors. Therefore, to reduce the number of estimates, the following data reduction strategy was used. The 10 trait judgments were used to form five factors, which were based on the Big Five taxonomy. Using Goldberg's (1990) classification, we formed the following factors: Extraversion (sociable and active), Agreeableness (good-natured, honest, and optimistic), Conscientiousness (responsible), Emotional Stability (calm, independent, and self-controlled), and Culture (intelligent). To compute target variances for each factor, we averaged the target variances across the multiple indicators of each factor. To compute correlations between target effects, we averaged the target effects across the multiple indicators of each factor and then computed correlations between the averaged target effects. To estimate the relationship of trait judgments and cues, we first conducted a canonical correlation analysis treating the target effects on trait judgments as criteria and observable cues as predictors while controlling the group effect for each judge. Individual-within-group was the unit for this analysis. If the multivariate test showed a statistically significant association between criteria and predictors, univariate analyses were then conducted. The target variances and all correlations were tested by t tests, and statistically based inferences were made at the .05 significance level. The unit of analysis was group for both the target variances and the univariate correlations between target effects. Correlations involving variance components that are near zero should not be considered as they are meaningless and sometimes anomalous. For example, if the researcher was interested in the correlation between the target effects on honest and smiling, but the target variance on honest was very low

Table 1 Proportion of Target Variance in the Chinese Zero-Acquaintance Judgments Variable Trait Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Culture External cue Attractiveness Neatly dressed Smiling Eye contact

Proportion of target variance 16* 10* 8* 10* 10* 30* 8* 25* 15*

Note. Entries are percentages of total variance. Unit of analysis is group ( # = 15).

*p < .05.

(e.g., .01), this correlation would be uninterpretable and may even be out of range. Consensus. Table 1 displays the percentage of the total variance that was due to the target for the personality and the external cue judgments. As discussed earlier, the proportion of variance due to the target is the estimate of consensus. As can be seen, the proportions of variances that were due to the target are statistically reliable for all variables. Thus, there is clear evidence of consensus at zero acquaintance among the Chinese. It is interesting that the magnitudes of the target variances of the traits were fairly homogeneous, ranging from 8% to 16%. We note that although the magnitudes of the target variances were more homogenous than in the American samples, an important pattern replicates: The highest target variance occurred on the Extraversion dimension. As noted earlier, the pattern of target variances is quite consistent across American samples in that consensus tended to occur on the dimensions Extraversion and Conscientiousness, with Extraversion showing the greatest consensus. Table 1 also shows the percentage of variance that was due to the target for the external cues. As can be seen, the proportion of variance due to the target was higher overall for the external cues than for the traits. It is interesting that the external cue that seemed the most observable and objective, neatness of dress, had the lowest level of consensus. This counterintuitive result may be a matter of differential interpretation of the Chinese translation of the English term, or it may be due to homogeneity in dress. Correlations between external cues and traits. The multivariate analysis showed that the set of predictor cues was significantly related to the set of target effects on trait judgments, Hotelling's T2 = 3.34, p < .05 with F(20, 218) - 9.12. Table 2 shows the univariate correlations between the target effects on the traits with the target effects on the external cues. One can readily see from this table that static cues (attractive and neatly dressed) were generally uncorrelated with the target effects on the traits. The clear exceptions to this pattern are the correlation of .95 (p < .05) between Culture (intelligent) and attractive and the correlation of .51 (p < .05) between Culture

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE Table 2 Correlations Between Target Effects on External Variables and Traits for the Chinese Zero-Acquaintance Judgments External cue Trait

Attractiveness

Neatly dressed

Smiling

Eye contact

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Culture

.44 .37 .02 -.04 .95*

.21 .30 .11 -.05 .51*

.76* .66* .34 -.85* .17

.66* .36 -.16 -.35 -.03

Note, Unit of analysis is group (df = 15). * p < .05.

and neatly dressed. Thus, those who were seen as attractive and neatly dressed were rated as more intelligent. In contrast to the appearance variables, there were a number of statistically reliable and strong correlations between the nonverbal behavior cues and the traits. Smiling correlated strongly with Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Emotional Stability, and eye contact correlated strongly with Extraversion. Note, however, that smiling was negatively correlated with Emotional Stability. Indeed, analyses at the single indicator level showed that smiling was associated with a lack of calmness and self-control, and eye contact was associated with a lack of perceived calmness.

Discussion The results of Study 1 confirmed the hypothesis that consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance is a crosscultural phenomenon. Consensus in judgments occurred on all personality factors and on all external cues. Consistent with typical results in Western studies using the zero-acquaintance paradigm (e.g., Albright et al., 1988), consensus was highest on judgments of Extraversion, accounting for 16% of the variance. Although the pattern replicates, we note that the level of consensus was typically higher (approximately 25%) in the Western studies. The correlations between the target effects on the traits and on the external cues suggest that these cues played a role in the consensus in personality judgments. Correlations between the nonverbal cues and the traits were more numerous than between the appearance cues and traits; however, a strong correlation between attractiveness and Culture (intelligence) was found. Further, although most correlations between traits and cues were positive, the correlation between smiling and Emotional Stability was strong and negative ( — .85). This result, however, is consistent with the Chinese cultural norm to suppress the expression of emotion, particularly with strangers, so as not to impose one's feelings on others. Study 2 Given the demonstration of consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance among the Chinese, there were three

563

primary purposes of Study 2. One was to address the question of whether consensus in strangers' judgments of personality generalizes to contexts in which perceivers and targets are from different cultures. Another purpose was to determine whether people would apply the appearance stereotypes and meaning systems for nonverbal behavior from their own culture to judge members of another culture. That is, will perceivers impose the worldviews of their own culture when judging members of other cultures? Or, would the trait-cue associations more strongly reflect those of the other culture? The third purpose was to determine the extent to which judgments of strangers are moderated by culture. That is, would people from different cultures similarly judge the personality characteristics of a stranger? Given these three purposes, we formulated and tested the following hypotheses. First, we predicted that there would be consensus in both the Americans' ratings of the Chinese (Hypothesis la) and the Chinese ratings of the Americans (Hypothesis l b ) . Second, because theory suggests that cross-cultural perception is constrained by differential worldviews (Campbell, 1996), we predicted that for each culture the pattern of correlations between the traits and the external cues for the crosscultural judgments would more closely resemble the patterns observed in the within-culture judgments. More specifically, on the basis of the results of Study 1, we predicted that the covariation between perceived attractiveness and Culture would be higher than the correlation between attractiveness and sociability (Extraversion) for the Chinese (Hypothesis 2a) but that the reverse pattern would hold for the Americans (Hypothesis 2b). We also predicted that the covariations between perceived smiling and the traits calm and self-control (Emotional Stability) would be negative for the Chinese (Hypothesis 2c) but neutral or positive for the Americans (Hypothesis 2d). Finally, because Study 1 suggested that there is cross-cultural agreement on the perceived external correlates of Extraversion, Hypothesis 3 was that there would be cross-cultural consensus in judgments of Extraversion, That is, we predicted agreement between Americans' and Chinese judgments of Extraversion for the American targets and between Americans' and Chinese judgments of Extraversion for the Chinese targets.

Method Participants. The American participants were 77 female and male students from Rhode Island College who received course credit for their participation in the study, and the Chinese participants were 72 male and female students from Beijing Normal University, all of whom had participated in Study 1. Eight of the participants from Study 1 did not participate in Study 2. Measures and translation. We used the same instrument that was used in Study 1, except that the instructions were modified. That is, participants were requested to rate the individuals in tiie photographs in front of them (as opposed to the actual people) on 14 dimensions. Because the instrument was virtually identical to that used in Study 1, most of the translation had been accomplished. R>r this study, then, only the instructions required translation. Back-translation of this portion of the instrument indicated that the American and Chinese participants received the same instructions. Procedure. Because we needed zero-acquaintance data for the American participants, they were scheduled for the study in groups of 5, with die constraint that no individual had any prior acquaintance with any other member of the group. These individuals then participated in

564

ALBRIGHT ET AL.

a zero-acquaintance study that replicated the procedure that was used in Study 1. These data were collected so that perceiver and target effects based on Americans' ratings of Americans could be estimated and used for the analyses of cross-cultural consensus. After the zero-acquaintance data were collected, each participant in the group was photographed. No instructions were given to the participant prior to the photographing. After the photographs were taken, the American participants rated the Chinese targets. Because it would have required too many ratings, participants did not rate every participant from the other culture; rather each group was assigned randomly a group from the other culture to rate. Thus, each of the 16 American groups was paired randomly with 1 of the 16 Chinese groups, and each Chinese group rated the American group that rated them. Located in different cubicles, participants were seated with the rating form and photographs in front of them and were requested to rate each individual on the 14 dimensions. These photographs were arranged in a random order for each judge, and the individual in each photo had a label with their participant code (e.g., 3D) pinned on their left shoulder. Once these ratings were completed, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. We used the same procedure to obtain the Chinese ratings of the American participants. The Chinese participants, however, made these judgments at a second experimental session. Design and analysis. The block round-robin design (Kenny, 1994) was used in this research. A block round-robin design is one that contains a block and two round-robin data structures. The round-robin is a reciprocal design (Kenny & Albright, 1987) in which each member of the group rates each other member of the group and perhaps provides a self-rating. The block is a design in which subgroups of individuals rate each individual in the other subgroup. In the present research, the subgroups were the Chinese and the Americans. Each group of Chinese rated themselves, each other (round-robin), and each member of a randomly assigned American group (half block), and each American group rated themselves, each other (round-robin), and each member of a Chinese group (half block). Table 3 illustrates the data structure of the present study. A social relations analysis of the data was accomplished by using the computer programs SOREMO (Kenny, 1995b) and BLOCKO (Kenny,

Table 3 Block Round-Robin Design Target Americans Perceiver

A

B

C

Chinese D

E

F

G

H

I

J

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

s z z z

z

z z s z z

z

z

.Ajnericans A B C D E

S

W

w w w w

s w w w

w w s w w

W W

w s w

W W W W

s

Chinese F G H I J

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

z

s

z z z

z z s z

z

z z s

Note. Ss represent self-ratings; Ws represent Americans' ratings of Americans; Xs represent Americans' ratings of Chinese; Ys represent Chinese ratings of Americans; Zs represent Chinese ratings of Chinese.

Table 4 Relative Variances of Americans' Ratings of Chinese Photographs Variable Trait Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiou sness Emotional Stability Culture External cue Attractiveness Neatly dressed Smiling Eye contact

Proportion of target variance 23* 26* 15* 8* 18* 16* 20* 43* 7*

Note. Entries are percentages of variance. Unit of analysis is group (df= 15). *p < .05.

1995a). Because of the nature of the data structure in this study, we were able to compute two target effects for each participant. One target effect was computed on the basis of ratings of a participant made by members of the participant's culture; the other target effect was based on ratings of a participant made by members of the other culture. We then computed ordinary correlations between the two target effects (crosscultural target-target correlations).

Results Again, we formed five factors representing the Big Five with the 10 personality traits and conducted initial multivariate analyses to test for overall significance of cue-trait relationships. The perceiver and target variances and all correlations were tested by t tests against the null hypothesis (i.e., that the variances were zero). The unit of analysis was group for both the variance components and the within-culture correlations of variance components (e.g., trait-cue correlations) and individual-within-group for the cross-cultural correlations between individual-level measures (i.e., target effects). Americans' ratings of Chinese: Consensus. Table 4 displays the consensus estimates for the Americans' ratings of the Chinese. As can be seen, these estimates were statistically reliable on all the personality factors and ranged from 8% to 26% of the variance. Consensus was highest on the factors Extraversion and Agreeableness and occurred at levels close to those observed among highly acquainted persons (Kenny, Albright, Malloy, & Kashy, 1994). The external cues also showed statistically reliable and substantial levels of consensus, ranging from 7% to 43% of the variance.2 Overall, the American perceivers agreed to a remarkable extent on the personality traits and external features of the Chinese targets, thereby supporting Hypothesis la. Americans' ratings of Chinese: Relationships between external cues and traits. The multivariate analysis showed that the set of predictor cues was significantly related to the set of target 2

The low level of consensus on the variable eye contact is assumed to be due to the ambiguity of rating this cue on the basis of a photograph.

565

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE Table 5 Correlations Between Target Effects on External Cues and Traits: Americans' Ratings of Chinese

Table 7 Correlations Between Target Effects on External Variables and Traits: Chinese Ratings of Americans External cue

External cue Trait

Attractiveness

Neatly dressed

Smiling

Eye contact

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Culture

.64* .62* .55* .32 .64*

.04 .29 .90* .57* .71*

.83* .86* .08 .23 .25

.50* .44 .64* .56* .47

effects on trait judgments, Hotelling's T1 = 12.15, p < .05 with

F(15, 158) = 42.65. Table 5 shows the univariate correlations between the target effects on the traits and the target effects on the external cues on the basis of the Americans' ratings of the Chinese. Target effects on attractiveness were correlated at a statistically significant level with the target effects on all personality factors, except Emotional Stability. Target effects on neatly dressed were significantly correlated with the target effects on Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Culture. Target effects on smiling were correlated with target effects on Extraversion and Agreeableness. Target effects on eye contact were correlated with target effects on Extraversion, Conscientiousness4 and Emotional Stability. Consistent with Hypothesis 2b, the correlation between the target effects on attractiveness and sociable (r — .74) was higher, r(15) = 1.76, p — .05, one-tailed, than the correlation between the target effects on attractiveness and intelligent (r = .64). Consistent with Hypothesis 2d, there were no statistically reliable correlations between smiling and calm or self-control (Emotional Stability). Chinese ratings of Americans: Consensus. Table 6 shows the proportions of variance that were due to the target, which is the estimate of consensus.3 These estimates are statistically significant on four of the five personality factors and range from

Table 6 Relative Variances of Chinese Ratings of American Photographs

Trait Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability • Culture External cue Attractiveness Neatly dressed Smiling

Attractiveness

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Culture

.63* .65* .50* .25 .96*

Neatly dressed - Smiling .38 .37 .29 .09 .68*

1.00* .82* .29 -.36 .60*

Note. Unit of analysis is group (df = 15). * p < .05.

Note. Unit of analysis is group (df — 15). • p < .05.

Variable

Trait

Proportion of target variance 44* 29* 4 14* 25* 33* 31* 59*

Note. Entries are percentages of variance. Unit of analysis is group < # = 15). * p < .05.

14% to 44% of the variance, thereby supporting Hypothesis lb. The greatest amount of consensus occurred on judgments of Extraversion (44% of the variance), whereas judgments of Conscientiousness showed no reliable target variance. Judgments on the external cues attractiveness, neatly dressed, and smiling were also reliably consensual, with partner effect estimates ranging from 31 % to 59% of the variance. Thus, there was a moderate degree of consensus on the static appearance cues attractiveness and neatly dressed and substantial consensus on the degree of smiling. Chinese ratings of Americans: Relationships between external cues and traits. The multivariate analysis showed that the set of predictor cues was significantly related to the set of target effects on trait judgments, Hotelling's T2 = 6.70, p < .05, with F(20, 218) = 18.25. Table 7 shows the univariate correlations between the target effects on the traits and the external cues. Consistent with the analogous correlations from the Americans' ratings of the Chinese, target effects on attractiveness were correlated with target effects on all personality factors except Emotional Stability, The target effect on Culture was correlated with the target effects on all external cues, but most highly correlated with attractiveness. Inconsistent with Hypothesis 2a, however, the correlation between the target effects on attractiveness and Culture (r = .96) was not reliably higher, t(15) = 0.54, than the correlation between the target effects on attractiveness and sociable (r = .63). The target effect on neatly dressed correlated only with Culture at .68. The target effect on smiling correlated significantly with target effects on Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Culture. Consistent with the Chinese ratings of Chinese (Study 1) but inconsistent with the Americans' ratings of Chinese, the target effects on the traits calm and self-control (Emotional Stability) were negatively correlated with the target effect on smiling ( — .59 and —.38, respectively), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2c. Thus, targets who smiled were judged as being less emotionally stable (i.e., less calm and self-controlled). Cross-cultural consensus in judgments. Table 8 shows the correlations between the target effects that were based on the 5 The Chinese participants did not rate the degree of eye contact when judging the American targets, although the variable appeared on the rating instrument. Presumably, rating the degree of eye contact on the basis of a photograph did not make sense to them.

566

ALBRIGHT ET AL.

Table 8 Cross-Cultural Correlations Between Target Effects Variable Trait Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional Stability Culture External cue Attractiveness Neatly dressed Smiling Eye contact

American targets

.I9f

,27t -.05

.27t -.11

General Discussion

Chinese targets

.29t .35t -.08 -.08 •22t

.41t

.16 .26t .37t



.13

.461 .34f

(Vore. Entries are between-subjects correlations between target effects based on ratings made by American participants and target effects based on ratings made by Chinese participants. Degrees of freedom for American participants is 60; for Chinese participants, 63. Dash indicates data were not available, t p < -05, one tailed.

ratings made by the American perceivers and the target effects that were based on the ratings made by the Chinese perceivers for both the American and the Chinese targets. These estimates are between-subjects correlations in that they represent the relationship between two variables (target effect estimates) whose measures originate from two different groups of judges. Note also that the two target effect estimates for each participant were based on ratings made in two different contexts of judgment: face-to-face versus photographs. As can be seen in Table 8, for the American participants, these cross-cultural targettarget correlations were statistically significant for three of the five personality factors and for all external cues for which measures were available from both cultures, and ranged from .19 on Extraversion4 to .46 on attractiveness. Cross-cultural consensus was strong on judgments of external cues and moderate on judgments of personality traits. Table 8 also shows the cross-cultural consensus estimates for the Chinese targets. These estimates are correlations between the Chinese target effects based on Chinese ratings, which were made in a face-to-face context, and the Chinese target effects based on the Americans' ratings, which were based on a photograph. As can be seen, these cross-cultural target-target correlations were statistically significant for three of the five personality traits and two of the four external cues, and ranged from .22 to .37. Intercultural consensus for the Chinese targets occurred on Extraversion, Agreeableness, Culture, neatly dressed, and smiling. Note the absence of intercultural consensus on judgments of attractiveness, a result that stands in contrast to the results for the American targets in which intercultural consensus of attractiveness was strongest. The cross-cultural consensus estimates for both the Chinese and Americans support Hypothesis 3, which predicted crosscultural consensus in judgments of Extraversion. Indeed, crosscultural consensus also occurred on Agreeableness for both the American and Chinese targets, a result that suggests that crosscultural consensus in personality judgments generalizes to traits beyond Extraversion.

Cross-Cultural Replication of Consensus at Zero Acquaintance Study 1 was primarily designed to test the hypothesis that consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance is a phenomenon that generalizes to an Eastern culture. Through the use of measures from both the American and Chinese Big Five factors, statistically reliable consensus occurred on all personality traits among the Chinese. Consensus levels were highest on Extraversion, a finding that is consistent with the American studies. This replication is important because it suggests thai consensus at zero acquaintance is a general psychological phenomenon. The fact that this phenomenon occurs cross-culturally indicates that it may serve important social psychological functions. In group formation and task allocation within groups, for example, consensus is essential. Very early in the group process, people must determine who has the intellect, the good heart, or the leadership potential so that efficient task allocation and coordinated interpersonal behavior can occur. Social codes and shared meaning systems that accurately reflect the correspondence between external features, such as appearance and nonverbal behavior, and internal characteristics would clearly simplify and facilitate effective interpersonal processes.

Cross-Cultural Consensus in Personality Judgments In Study 2, consensus in personality judgments across cultures was demonstrated in two ways. First, the Americans agreed among themselves to a substantial degree about the personality attributes of Chinese individuals, and the Chinese agreed among themselves to a substantial degree about the personality attributes of Americans. Thus, judgments made by members of one culture about members of the other culture were highly consensual. Second, Chinese and Americans' consensual judgments of Americans were correlated on three of five personality factors, and Chinese and Americans' consensual judgments of Chinese were correlated on three of five personality factors. Thus, people from different cultures, who were unacquainted with each other and with the target, similarly judged the target on several dimensions. This finding is even more remarkable considering not only that the perceivers were from different cultures but also that the context of judgment was different (noninteractive, faceto-face vs. photographs). Given that these judgments can be based on only physical appearance and nonverbal behavior, these results suggest that there is both universality and cultural moderation in construals of the social world. What is the basis of the cross-cultural consensus in personality judgments? That is, what processes underlie the finding that

4 This correlation is likely attenuated because of the low target variance on trait sociability in the Americans' ratings of Americans (4% of the variance). We believe that this atypical result is due to the scale reversal on this variable (i.e., 1 represented sociable; 7 represented reserved). Because some participants used the scale appropriately and others did nol, consensus was attenuated.

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE Americans' consensual judgments of each other agree with Chinese consensual judgments of Americans and vice versa? Two personality dimensions showed cross-cultural consensus for both the Chinese and Americans: Extraversion and Agreeableness. Considering the commonalities and differences in the patterns of association between the external cues and the traits, we propose that the primary basis of cross-cultural agreement is smiling. In all contexts of judgment—Chinese judging Chinese, Chinese judging Americans, Americans judging Americans, and Americans judging Chinese—smiling was associated strongly and positively with judgments of Extraversion and Agreeableness,

Cultural Similarities and Differences in Covariation Between External Cues and Personality Although in both cultures there was a more general attractiveness-based halo effect on the cross-cultural judgments, in all contexts, attractiveness was associated with positive personality traits. However, whereas attractiveness was most strongly associated with intelligence among the Chinese (when judging themselves or Americans), attractiveness was most strongly associated with Extraversion among the Americans (when judging themselves or Chinese). Similarly, in both cultures, smiling was positively associated with socially oriented dimensions (Extraversion and Agreeableness) whether making within-culture or cross-cultural judgments. However, among the Chinese, smiling was associated with a lack of self-control and calmness (Emotional Stability), whether making within- or cross-cultural judgments, whereas no analogous associations were made by Americans, whether making within- or cross-cultural judgments. Finally, only one relationship between neatly dressed and personality was common across cultures: neatly dressed and Culture (intelligence). For the Chinese, Culture was the only trait associated with neatly dressed, whether making withinor cross-cultural judgments. However, among the Americans' judgments of Chinese, neatly dressed was associated with Culture, Conscientiousness, and Emotional Stability. These associations have not been found typically in Western zero-acquaintance studies (e.g., Americans' within-culture judgments) in which neatness of dress has usually been strongly associated only with Conscientiousness. However, note that in the Americans' judgments of Chinese, the strongest correlation with neatly dressed occurs on Conscientiousness. Overall, the data concerning the covariation between external cues and personality trait judgments indicate that there are both cultural similarities and cultural differences in these belief and meaning systems. When there were cultural differences, the patterns of covariation in the cross-cultural judgments more closely reflected the pattern of covariation in the within-culture judgments; this fact indicates that people do impose their worldviews when making intercultural judgments. Clearly, the tendency to impose one's (different) worldview could produce intercultural miscommunication and misunderstanding. These data also indicate that "they don't [italics added] all look alike" (Zebrawitz, Montepare, & Lee, 1993).

567

Limitations of This Research Although these data have important implications for theory and research on consensus within and across cultures, there are important limitations that should be explicit. First, because only two cultures were included in this research, the generalizability is limited strictly to Americans and Chinese. Also, because we were not able to bring the Chinese and American participants to a single location, judgments across cultures were made by using photos, whereas within-culture judgments were made in a face-to-face context. We did not compare consensus within and between culture for this reason. However, it is noteworthy that in spite of the different contexts for the within- and betweenculture judgments, the use of cues was similar within each culture. However, this procedural limitation should be considered in future research. Although we chose traits that were based on the American Big Five and a Chinese factor structure, this principled approach to trait selection did not yield an equal number of traits for each of the five factors.

Conclusion and Implications This research has demonstrated within-culture consensus in personality judgments of members of a very different culture and between-culture agreement in judgments between members of two cultures. Further, similarities and differences in the covariation between perceptions of observable characteristics (e.g., appearance and nonverbal behavior) and personality traits have been observed between Americans and Chinese. These findings are consistent with both sociocultural (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) and ecological (Baron & Misovich, 1993a, 1993b; Berry & Finch Wero, 1993; McArthur & Baron, 1983) theories. That is, many individual-level assumptions that are applied in everyday life originate from and reflect cultural beliefs about the social world that have origin in the inherent and real structure of the environment. For example, a smile is generally perceived as a nonthreatening social display, because the ecologically based belief that smiling signifies benevolent intent has been transmitted and reinforced through sociocultural processes. However, to the extent that sociocultural-historical experience differs among people, attunement to the stimulus will differ, in which case a smile may further afford other dispositional properties or states. The finding of cross-cultural consensus in judgments of Extraversion, in particular, suggests that this trait is afforded through the individual's appearance or facial expression and that attunement to this information is not moderated by culture. Because the ability to immediately detect information specifying social orientation serves an adaptive function for the individual, direct perception of such dispositional information, as opposed to inference, is necessary. However, the nature of the information available to perceivers in the zero-acquaintance situation or in judging photographic stimuli is characterized by what Baron and Misovich (1993b) called "first-order invariants" (p. 545), or individual-level, as opposed to relational, information. Whereas some traits can be perceived by observing the individual in isolation, others require information derived from social interaction. In the present study, the fact that only first-order, or individual-level, information was available to perceivers may

568

ALBRIGHT ET AL.

explain why there was so much consensus but so little selfother agreement, a result that may indicate a lack of accuracy. Finally, although research on interpersonal perception with unacquainted individuals provides the necessary control to isolate and examine a number of basic psychological processes, it is not representative of most of the contexts in which individuals perceive, judge, and form impressions of each other. Representing one interval in time just prior to actual acquaintance, zero acquaintance is a temporary and relatively stimulus-deprived context, which likely necessitates the use of inferential strategies that may or may not facilitate accuracy (see Brunswik, 1956). References Albright, L., Kenny, D. A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 55, 387-395. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993). Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431-441. Argyle, M., Henderson, M., Bond, M. H., Iizuka, Y., & Contarello, A. (1986). Cross-cultural variations in relationship rules. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 287—315. Baron, R. M., & Misovich, S. J. (1993a). Dispositional knowing from an ecological perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 541-552. Baron, R. M., & Misovich, S. J. (1993b). An integration of Gibsonian and Vygotskian perspectives on changing attitudes in group contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 53-70. Bernstein, I. H., Tsai-Ding, L., & McClelland, P. (1982). Cross- vs. within racial judgments of attractiveness. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 495-503. Berry, D. S. (1990). Taking people at face value: Evidence for the kernel of truth hypothesis. Social Cognition, 8, 343-361. Berry, D. S., & Finch Wero, J. L. (1993). Accuracy in face perception: A view from ecological psychology. Journal of Personality, 61, 4 9 7 520. Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1986). Perceiving character in faces: The impact of age-related craniofacial changes on social perception. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 3-18. Bond, C. R, Omar, A., Mahmoud, A., & Bonser, R. N. (1990). Lie detection across cultures. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 189204. Bond, M. H. (1993). Emotions and their expression in Chinese culture. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 245-262. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. ( 1992). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645-657. Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1993). Convergence of stranger ratings of personality and intelligence with self-ratings, partner ratings, and measured intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 546-553. Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. THandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol. 2. Methodology (pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1996). Can we overcome world-view incomensurability/relativity in trying to understand the "other"? In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 153-172). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Barbee, A. P., Druen, P. B., & Wu, C. H. (1995). "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 261-279. Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of the emotions in man and animals. London: John Murray. Dion, K. K. (1986). Stereotyping based on physical attractiveness: Issues and conceptual perspectives. In C. P. Herman, M. P. Zanna, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 3, pp. 7 - 2 1 ) . Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dion, K. K., Pak, A. W., & Dion, K. L. (1990). Stereotyping physical attractiveness: A sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 158-179. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but. . .: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109-128. Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., Chan, A., Diacoyanni-Tarlatzis, L, Heider, K., Krause, R., LeCompte, W. A., Pitcaim, T, RicciBitti, P., Scherer, K., Tomita, M., & Tzavaras, A. (1987). Universal and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expressions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 7 1 2 717. Funder, D. C , & Colvin, C. R. (1988). Friends and strangers: Acquaintanceship, agreement, and the accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 149-158. Gifford, R. (1991). Mapping nonverbal behavior on the interpersonal circle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 279-288. Gifford, R. (1994). A lens-mapping framework for understanding the encoding and decoding of interpersonal dispositions in nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 398-412. Gifford, R., Ng, C. E, & Wilkinson, M. (1985). Nonverbal cues in the employment interview: Links between applicant qualities and interviewer judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 729-736. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229. Gordon, I. E., Zukas, M., & Chan, J. (1982). Responses to schematic faces: A cross-cultural study. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 2 0 1 202. Hui, C. H., & Yam, Y. M. (1987). Effects of language proficiency and physical attractiveness on person perception. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 257-261. Keating, C. F., Mazur, A., Segall, M. H., Cysneiros, P. G., DiVale, W. T, Kilbride, J.E., Komin, S., Leahy, P., Thurman, B., & Wirsing, R. (1981). Culture and the perception of social dominance from facial expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 615626. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New "York: Guilford Press. Kenny, D. A. (1995a). BLOCKO Version V. Unpublished manual, University of Connecticut. Kenny, D. A. (1995b). SOREMO Version V.I. Unpublished manual, University of Connecticut. Kenny, D. A., & Albright, L. (1987). Accuracy in interpersonal perception; A social relations analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 390402.

CONSENSUS ACROSS CULTURE Kenny, D. A., Albright, L., Malloy, T. E., & Kashy, D. A. (1994). Consensus in interpersonal perception: Acquaintance and the Big Five. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 245-258. Kenny, D. A., Homer, C , Kashy, D. A., & Chu, L. C. (1992). Consensus at zero acquaintance: Replication, behavioral cues, and stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 88-97. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 142-182). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Krauss, R. M., Curran, N. M., & Ferlinger, N. (1983). Expressive conventions and the cross-cultural perception of emotion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 295-305. Lam, C. W., & Berrios, G. E. (1992). Psychological concepts and psychiatric symptomology in some ancient Chinese medical texts. History of Psychiatry, 3, 117-128. Lau, S. (1982). The effect of smiling on person perception. Journal of Social Psychology, 111, 63-67. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality—A functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. New \brk: Ronald Press. Levesque, M. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1993). Accuracy of behavioral predictions at zero acquaintance; A social relations analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1178—1187. Maret, S. M., & Harling, C.A. (1985). Cross-cultural perceptions of physical attractiveness: Ratings of photographs of Whites by Cruzans and Americans- Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 163-166. Matsumoto, D., & Kudoh, T. (1993). American-Japanese cultural differences in attributions of personality based on smiles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 231-243. McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238. McArthur, L. Z., & Berry, D. S. (1987). Cross-cultural agreement in perceptions of babyfaced adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 165-192. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1993). A cross-cultural comparison of impressions created by age-related variations in gait. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 55-68. Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz-McArthur, L. (1987). Perception of adults with childlike voices in two cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 331-349. Morse, S. T, Gruzen, J., & Reis, H. (1976). The "eye of the beholder": A neglected variable in the study of physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality, 44, 209-225. Norman, W. T., & Goldberg, L. R. (1966). Raters, ratees, and randomness in personality structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 681-691. Otta, E., Lira, B. B. P., Delevati, N. M., Cesar, O. P., & Pires, C. S. G.

569

(1994). The effect of smiling and head tilting on person perception. Journal of Psychology, 128, 323-331. Paunonen, S. V. (1989). Consensus in personality judgments: Moderating effects of target-rater acquaintanceship and behavior observability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 823-833. Peng, Y, Zebrowitz, L. A., & Lee, H. K. (1993). The impact of cultural background and cross-cultural experience on impressions of American and Korean male speakers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 203-220. Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 1 4 1 152. Reis, H. T, Wilson, I. M., Monestere, C , Berstein, S., Clark, K., Seidl, E., Franco, M., Gioioso, E., Freeman, L., & Radonane, K. (1990). What is smiling is beautiful and good. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 259-267. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Thakerar, J. N., & Iwawaki, S. (1979). Cross-cultural comparisons in interpersonal attraction of females toward males. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 121-122. Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New %rk: McGraw-Hill. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Haufman & G. Vahar, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Watson, D. (1989). Strangers' ratings of the five robust personality factors: Evidence of a surprising convergence with self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 120-128. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Yang, K. S., & Bond, M. H. (1990). Exploring implicit personality theories with indigenous or imported constructs: The Chinese case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1087-1095. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (1992). Impressions of babyfaced individuals across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 28, 11431152. Zebrowitz, L. A., Montepare, J. M., & Lee, H. K. (1993). They don't all look alike: Individuated impressions of other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 85-101.

Received April 11, 1996 Revision received October 18, 1996 Accepted November 1, 1996 •

Lihat lebih banyak...

Comentários

Copyright © 2017 DADOSPDF Inc.