Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 1 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Realistic Accuracy Model | Funder | Corr II 213 Realistic Accuracy Model/RAM/Funder/Biesanz: (…) the Realistic Accuracy Model starts with the premise that complete accuracy cannot be achieved. Assessing someone’s personality without error is neither conceptually possible nor empirically feasible. II 214 Realistic accuracy compares assessments of personality to a composite that includes as broad an array of criteria as possible (e.g., self-reports, informant-reports, behavioural measures). These criteria ideally represent a realistic assessment of someone’s personality across contexts, time and perspectives. The empirical assessment of accuracy of impressions and ratings of personality is then simply the observed correspondence between those impressions and assessments and the multifaceted and broad realistic criteria of personality – what the person has done. Cf. >Personality/Traits. (…) four necessary conditions must be met for an accurate impression to be formed. First, the target must engage in behaviours that are relevant to his or her personality. These behaviours must, in turn, be made available to the perceiver who then detects and then appropriately utilizes them when forming impressions. II 215 (…) alterating any of these paths will change the accuracy of impressions. Four primary potential moderators emerge from considering RAM. 1. Good target: If some individuals provide more relevant cues or make more information available to perceivers, then accuracy would be enhanced for these individuals. 2. Good judge: If some individuals are better able to detect and utilize the information that targets provide, then their impressions of others should be more accurate. 3. Good trait: Accuracy may be greater for some traits. 4. Good information: The quality and quantity of information should clearly impact the level of accuracy in personality judgments. These basic moderators may also interact with each other. Funder (1995)(1) argued that personality researchers need to examine these potential moderators and interactions to parallel the research on errors and bias. II 218 VsFunder/VsRealistic Accurcay Model: The criticisms raised by Allik and colleagues do not lie with the call to investigate accuracy or with RAM’s theoretical model (…) but rather primarily with the focus and attention devoted to examining moderators of accuracy. [E.g.] Allik (2017)(2) argues that after ~20 minutes the empirical evidence suggests that further observation does not enhance accuracy. This is consistent with the cross-sectional data from Biesanz, West and Millevoi (2007)(3) that demonstrate that self–other and consensus correlations increase by ~.01 per year of acquaintanceship after this rapidly increasing initial window. II 219 For personality, accuracy in impressions exists across all of the broad personality domains and Allik and colleagues argue that the impact of moderators of accuracy are modest compared to the existence of the overall magnitude of the levels of accuracy in perceiving broad dispositions. >Accuracy/Funder. 1. Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670. 2. Allik, J. (2017). The almost unbearable lightness of personality. Journal of Personality, 86, 109–123. 3. 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, 119–135. Biesanz, Jeremy C.: “Realistic Ratings of Personality Revisiting Funder (1995)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 209-223. |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.