RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: People differ in how positively they tend to see others' traits, but people might also differ in how strongly they apply their perceptual styles. In two studies (Ns = 355, 303), the current research explores individual differences in how variable people's first impressions are across targets (i.e., within-person variability), how and why these differences emerge, and who varies more in their judgments of others. METHOD: Participants described themselves on personality measures and rated 30 (Study 1) or 90 (Study 2) targets on Big Five traits. RESULTS: Using the extended Social Relations Model (eSRM), results suggest that within-person variability in impressions is consistent across trait ratings. People lower in extraversion, narcissism and self-esteem tended to make distinctions across targets' Big Five traits that were more consistent with other perceivers (sensitivity). Furthermore, some people more than others tended to consistently make unique distinctions among targets (differentiation), and preliminary evidence suggests these people might be higher in social anxiety and lower in self-esteem and emotional stability. CONCLUSION: Overall then, a more complete account of person perception should consider individual differences in how variable people's impressions are of others.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The psychological profile of the moral person might depend on whose perspective is being used. Here, we decompose moral impressions into three components: (a) Shared Moral Character (shared variance across self- and informant reports), (b) Moral Identity (how a person uniquely views their morality), and (c) Moral Reputation (how others uniquely view that person's morality). METHOD: In two samples (total N = 458), we used an extended version of the Trait-Reputation-Identity model to examine the extent to which each perspective accounts for the overall variance in moral impressions and the degree to which social and personal outcomes were associated with each perspective, controlling for method variance (i.e., positivity and acquiescence bias). RESULTS: Results suggest that moral character impressions are strongly influenced by positivity and largely idiosyncratic. All components were related to higher levels of agreeableness. For the most part, however, the three components had unique correlates: people higher in Shared Moral Character tended to have higher standings on conscientiousness and honesty-humility, were more respected, and donated more during an in-lab game; people higher in Moral Identity endorsed various moral foundations to a greater extent; and people higher in Moral Reputation valued the loyalty foundation less. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the value of considering multiple perspectives when measuring moral character.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: How do targets shape consensus in impression formation? Targets are known to play an outsized role in the accuracy of first impressions, but their influence on consensus has been difficult to study. With the help of the recently developed extended Social Relations Model, we explore the structure and correlates of individual differences in consensus (i.e., dissensus). METHOD: Across 3 studies, 187 photographs of targets were rated by 960 perceivers on personality and evaluative traits, as well as being coded for physical cues by trained coders. We explored the within-target consistency of consensus across traits, as well as its relationship to four categories of theoretically relevant correlates: expressiveness, normativity, positivity, and social categories. RESULTS: The tendency to make a consistent impression on others was broadly consistent across traits. High-consensus targets tended to be more expressive, had more normative physical cues, and were viewed more positively. CONCLUSIONS: At least in a first impression context, targets may play a unique role in predicting the consensus of personality judgments by providing perceivers with more information to work with, and making a negative impression on others may carry social costs.
RESUMEN
Anti-Indigenous racism is a widespread social problem in health and education systems in English-speaking colonized countries. Cultural safety training (CST) is often promoted as a key strategy to address this problem, yet little evidence exists on how CST is operationalized and evaluated in health and education systems. This scoping review sought to broadly synthesize the academic literature on how CST programs are developed, implemented, and evaluated in the applied health, social work and education fields in Canada, United States, Australia, and New Zealand. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, and ASSIA were searched for articles published between 1996 and 2020. The Joanna Briggs Institute's three-step search strategy and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were adopted, with 134 articles included. CST programs have grown significantly in the health, social work, and education fields in the last three decades, and they vary significantly in their objectives, modalities, timelines, and how they are evaluated. The involvement of Indigenous peoples in CST programs is common, but their roles are rarely specified. Indigenous groups must be intentionally and meaningfully engaged throughout the entire duration of research and practice. Cultural safety and various related concepts should be careful considered and applied for the relevant context.