Abstract
This study examined the relationship between accuracy and confidence on the Interpersonal Perception Task (IPT-15). This version of the IPT contains 15 brief, real-life scenes on videotape for which there are objectively correct answers to questions about status, intimacy, kinship, competition, and deception. A total of 241 participants were run in a 2 (high vs. low cognitive demand) × 2 (first impression vs. nonverbal cues strategy) × 2 (sex of participant) design. Overall, no significant relationship was found when accuracy scores were correlated with two between-participant measures of confidence. There was, however, a significant relationship within-participants between accuracy and confidence. Thus, participants' rated confidence for each of the 15 scenes did predict accuracy in judgments about the scenes. In addition, a 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVA on participants' transformed accuracy-confidence correlations revealed a small, significant effect of strategy. Specifically, the accuracy-confidence correlations were higher when participants were instructed to attend to specific nonverbal cues in making their judgments than when they were told to rely on their first impressions. Although there were no differences between men and women in either their accuracy or their accuracy-confidence correlations, men rated their confidence significantly higher than did women. The factors affecting the accuracy-confidence relationship and their role in automatic judgments are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Albright, L., Kenny, D.A., & Malloy, T. E. (1988). Consensus in personality judgments at zeroacquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 387–395.
Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Towards a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 201–272). Boston: Academic Press.
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M., & Conner, B. (1999). Accuracy of judgments of sexual orientation from thin slices of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 538–547.
Ambady, N., Hallahan, M, & Rosenthal, R. (1995). On judging and being judged accurately in zero acquaintance situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 518–529.
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256–274.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–40). New York: Erlbaum.
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.
Berry, D. S., & McArthur, L. Z. (1985). Some components and consequences of a babyface. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 312–323.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (1989). Interpreting the expressive behavior of others: The interpersonal perception task. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 13, 225–235.
Costanzo, M., & Archer, D. (Producers). (1993). Interpersonal perception task-15 [videotape]. (Available from the University of California Extension Center for Media and Independent Learning, 2000 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704).
DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, C., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuarcy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.
Funder, D. C. (1987). Errors and mistakes: Evaluating the accuracy of social judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 75–91.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Gillis, J. S., Bernieri, F. J., & Wooten, E. (1995). The effects of stimulus medium and feedback on the judgment of rapport. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 33–45.
Hall, J. A. (1984). Nonverbal sex differences: Communication accuracy and expressive style. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hall, J. A., & Carter, J. D. (1999). Gender-accuracy stereotype as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 350–359.
McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.
Patterson, M. L., & Stockbridge, E. (1998). Effects of cognitive demand and judgment strategy on person perception accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 22, 253–263.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Methodology. In A. Tesser (Ed.), Advanced social psychology. (pp. 16–49). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Smith. E. R. (1990). Content and process specificity in the effects of prior experience. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol 3, pp. 1–59). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, H. J., Archer, D., & Costanzo, M. (1991). "Just a hunch": Accuracy and awareness in person perception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 3–18.
Swann, W. B. Jr. (1984). Quest for accuracy in person perception: A matter of pragmatics. Psychological Review, 91, 457–477.
Swann, W. B. Jr., & Gill, M. J. (1997). Confidence and accuracy in person perception: Do we know what we think we know about our relationship partners? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 747–757.
Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181–192.
Zebrowitz, L. A., & Collins, M. A. (1997). Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gibsonian approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1,204–233.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Patterson, M.L., Foster, J.L. & Bellmer, C.D. Another Look at Accuracy and Confidence in Social Judgments. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25, 207–219 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010675210696
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010675210696