Confidence of social judgments is not just error: Individual differences in the structure, stability, and social functions of perceptual confidence

Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

Confidence of social judgments is not just error: Individual differences in the structure, stability, and social functions of perceptual confidence Arman Daniel Catterson a,⇑, Laura P. Naumann b, Oliver P. John a a b

University of California, Berkeley, United States Nevada State College, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Available online 10 June 2015 Keywords: Confidence Person perception Judgment Social Relations Model Group interaction Status Power Self-enhancement Zero-acquaintance First impression

a b s t r a c t The present research uses a Social Relations Model approach to focus on individual differences in perceptual confidence – a person’s confidence in her or his impressions of others. Across two samples of group interactions, we found that the majority of variance in perceptual confidence was explained by individual differences in how people tended to perceive others (i.e., perceiver effects). A smaller percentage of variance was explained by differences in how people tended to be perceived by others (i.e., target effects). Both these individual differences were stable over time, were related to relevant personality measures, and group outcomes. Together, these results demonstrate that although perceptual confidence may not be substantially related to accuracy, it exists as a stable individual difference dimension that has important consequences for social interactions. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The decisions a person makes in life are based not only on her or his impressions of the world, but also on the confidence the person places in those same impressions (defined here as perceptual confidence). For example, when getting to know a potential romantic partner, a person forms both an impression (e.g., ‘‘she is outgoing, kind, and funny’’) as well as a feeling of confidence about whether that impression is correct or incorrect (‘‘I’m confident that she is outgoing, kind, and funny.’’) From deciding which potential romantic partner to pursue (or whether even to pursue a romantic partner in the first place) to which employee to promote, perceptual confidence is present in everyday life interactions. People generally have high levels of confidence in their impressions across a variety of domains, from the diagnoses of clinicians (Oskamp, 1965) to assessments of performance (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990) to impressions of a partner’s past sexual history (Gill, Swann, & Silvera, 1998). These feelings of confidence appear to matter. When people are confident about their judgments they are more likely to purchase products (Fazio & Zanna, 1978) and be satisfied with those purchases (Spreng & Page, 2001; Yi & La, 2003), report eyewitness ⇑ Corresponding author at: Institute of Personality and Social Research, 4141 Tolman Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.D. Catterson). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.06.001 0092-6566/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

testimony as valid (Deffenbacher, 1980), and gamble (Fast, Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012; Fischhoff, Slovic, & Lichtenstein, 1977) than when they are not confident about their judgments. As Swann and Gill (1997) write, ‘‘confidence serves as a psychological gatekeeper of sorts, systematically determining whether people translate their beliefs into action’’ (p. 747). Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that this psychological gatekeeper does not do a very good job. Past research suggests that levels of perceptual confidence are too high and may be unwarranted in general because the confidence a person feels about his or her impressions of others thus is not substantially related to the accuracy of those same impressions (e.g., Ames & Kammrath, 2004; Dunning et al., 1990; Gill et al., 1998; Swann & Gill, 1997). Recent research has assessed confidence across ratings of multiple targets in order to demonstrate that a person’s relative feeling of confidence is positively related to the person’s relative accuracy (Ames, Kammrath, Suppes, & Bolger, 2009; Biesanz et al., 2011; Carlson, Furr, & Vazire, 2010). However, the effect sizes reported in these studies are small, and further emphasize that a large percentage of variance in confidence is not related to accuracy. In this paper, we turn the focus away from questions about the relationship between confidence and accuracy and toward questions about the large variance in perceptual confidence itself. Below, we apply the Social Relations Model (Kenny & La Voie, 1984) to judgments of confidence, and explain how this approach helps to integrate past research to answer both new and

12

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

longstanding questions about the sources and stability of variance in confidence, whether variance in confidence is explained by individual differences, and whether confidence might actually serve important social functions.

2. Past research on perceptual confidence Research on the sources of perceptual confidence can be organized broadly into research on the characteristics of people who generally feel confident in their perceptions of others and research on the characteristics of people who are generally perceived confidently by others.

2.1. People who rate others confidently One line of research focuses on perceptual confidence at the level of the perceiver – the person who forms judgments about others. This research examines the characteristics of people who tend to rate others confidently, and identifies broad cognitive and motivational tendencies that explain why some people may be unwilling or unable to acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge, hold unrealistic expectations for their own performance, or form impressions with inflated confidence (e.g., Dunning, 2005; Dunning, 2012; Taylor & Brown, 1988). For example, some researchers argue that feelings of confidence are motivated by people’s needs for positive self-evaluation (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988; Dunning, 2012). However, empirical research is mixed about the specific processes that underlie this motivation. Some researchers report that self-esteem correlates with a person’s perceptual confidence (e.g., Wolfe & Grosch, 1990), whereas other researchers report that overconfident perceptions are related to narcissism (e.g., Campbell, Rudich, & Sedikides, 2002; John & Robins, 1994; Robins & John, 1997).

2.2. People who are rated confidently by others A different line of research focuses on perceptual confidence at the level of the target – the person for whom a judgment is formed. This research examines the characteristics of people who tend to elicit confident ratings from others, and suggests that confidence can be influenced by specific information about the target of perception. People’s perceptions depend on information being made available to them, and confidence will depend on the extent to which a target signals information (e.g., Griffin & Tversky, 1992; Kenny, 2004; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). For example, Funder (1999) outlined ways in which targets may signal information that perceivers believe is valid (which inflates feelings of confidence), whereas other targets may signal less information (which would not inflate feelings of confidence). Past research suggests that the amount of information that is available to perceivers does influence perceptual confidence. Oskamp’s (1965) seminal research demonstrated that clinicians increased the confidence of their assessments when given more information about target patients. More recently, Swann and Gill (1997) report that relationship length is positively related to confidence among already acquainted friends, Hall, Ariss, and Todorov (2007) found that perceivers who were given information about NBA team affiliation were more confident in their predictions about the team’s future performance than perceivers who were not given information about NBA team affiliation, and Borkenau, Leising, and Fritz (2014) demonstrated that confidence increased when perceivers discussed evaluations of a target with each other.

2.3. Limitations of the past research Together, this research presents a variety of explanations for why people vary in their levels of perceptual confidence. However, many of these studies assess perceptual confidence using single rating tasks, which prevent researchers from being able to determine whether variance in perceptual confidence is explained by characteristics intrinsic to the perceiver, characteristics of the target, or both (e.g., Dunning, 1999; Swann & Gill, 1997). Recently, more complex methods of assessment have allowed researchers to understand perceptual confidence at more fine-grained levels of analysis. For example, Ames et al. (2009) and Biesanz et al. (2011) had participants provide confidence ratings for multiple videos of participants to examine the relationship between relative confidence and relative accuracy. Carlson et al. (2010) used a round-robin group rating design to examine the relationship between accuracy and confidence in meta-perceptions. These studies demonstrate ways in which methods that require participants to rate multiple targets (and targets to be rated by multiple participants) can yield new insights about confidence. However, like much of the existing research on confidence, these studies focus their advanced methods on the relationship between confidence and accuracy. Might similarly sophisticated methods allow researchers to better understand confidence itself? Additionally, few studies have examined changes in perceptual confidence over time; those that do assess the stability in confidence in contexts where the amount of information made available to perceivers is experimentally manipulated (Oskamp, 1965; Peterson & Pitz, 1988). Little is known about how people update the confidence of their impressions of other people when faced with new information in real-life social interactions. Do perceivers maintain their initial levels of confidence when they get to know more about what other people are like, or do they adjust levels of confidence to take into account the new information? Are targets rated more confidently with time as perceivers learn more about what they are like? Furthermore, many studies have assessed perceptual confidence in tasks not directly involving interpersonal perception (e.g., Ames et al., 2009; Dunning, 2012; Hall et al., 2007). As a result, researchers have not yet tested whether perceptual confidence holds any social functions in interpersonal domains. Although perceptual confidence may only be somewhat related to accuracy, it may serve other social functions. 3. The present research With these limitations in mind, we assessed participants’ ratings of perceptual confidence across multiple targets to understand differences in the tendency to rate others confidently and be rated confidently by others. We also assessed confidence at two time points to answer questions about perceptual confidence’s stability and change when participants are presented with more information about targets. Finally, we studied these effects in the context of real-life group interactions to test for potential social functions of perceptual confidence. Below, we describe in detail how our methodological approach allows us to focus on two different aspects of perceptual confidence. We then outline four distinct questions about perceptual confidence based on this approach. 3.1. The Social Relations Model The Social Relations Model (SRM) describes a statistical method that decomposes variance into distinct components related to the perceiver making the ratings, the target being rated, or the unique

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

relationship between perceiver and target (Kenny, 1994). In a full round-robin design, each person in a group rates each other person in that group. From the total variation in this network of ratings, three different components of variance in a given construct can be extracted, compared, and saved for each individual (Back & Kenny, 2010). 3.1.1. Perceiver effects Perceiver effects represent the percentage of total variance in a given construct that is explained by the specific perceiver making the rating. In the context of perceptual confidence, a perceiver effect describes the degree to which a person tends to rate others confidently relative to the average person in the study. As an individual difference measure, a positive perceiver effect would indicate that the person tends to feel more confident in his or her perceptions compared to the average person.

13

find significant target effects of perceptual confidence. In other words, there will be significant individual differences in whether some people tend to be rated more confidently than others. 3.2.3. Hypothesis 1C: Perceiver and target effects will be independent Previous research treats the components of perceptual confidence related to perceivers and targets as conceptually distinct (e.g., Dunning, 2012; Swann & Gill, 1997). Although, this relationship has not yet been empirically tested, it is unclear why someone who generally rates others confidently would be systematically more or less likely to be rated confidently by others. On the basis of this conceptual independence, we expect that there will be no relationship between perceiver and target effects of perceptual confidence. 3.3. Question 2: How does perceptual confidence change?

3.1.2. Target effects Target effects represent the variance in a given construct that is explained by the specific target being rated. In the context of perceptual confidence, a target effect describes the degree to which a person is generally rated confidently by others. A person with a positive target effect would be a person for whom the other group members tend to rate with more confidence than the average person, whereas a negative target effect would indicate a person for whom the other group members feel less confident rating than average. 3.1.3. Relationship effects In the present study, we did not assess relationship effects – the variance in a construct unique to a specific dyad – for two reasons. First, relationship effects are analogous to the differential component of confidence that previous research has examined in relationship to accuracy (Ames et al., 2009; Biesanz et al., 2011; Carlson et al., 2010) and were therefore not the focus of our research. Second, the SRM requires two indicators of a latent construct in order to separate relationship effects from error (i.e., variation that is not explained by perceivers, targets, or the relationship). In the current studies, we only assess perceptual confidence with a single-item measure, and are thus unable to extract relationship effects. 3.2. Question 1: What is perceptual confidence? Whereas past research on perceptual confidence confounds the people who tend to feel confident (perceiver effects) with the people that tend to be rated confidently (target effects), our SRM design allows us to distinguish these two effects and examine their relative contribution to variance in confidence. 3.2.1. Hypothesis 1A: Significant and substantial perceiver effects of confidence The majority of past research on perceptual confidence has focused on ways in which internal processes influence perceptual confidence (Dunning, 2012). Based on this past theoretical emphasis on the source of confidence as internal to perceivers, we expect that perceiver effects will account for a significant percentage of variance in perceptual confidence. Variance in perception confidence should be explained by differences in the people who generally rate others confidently (i.e., some people will generally hold more confident perceptions than other people). 3.2.2. Hypothesis 1B: Significant target effects of confidence Other research suggests confidence is influenced by the presence of specific information made available to perceivers by a target of judgment (e.g., Oskamp, 1965). We therefore also expect to

By assessing confidence at multiple time-points, we can also examine how perceptual confidence changes when people are presented with new information. Though no studies have examined changes in confidence in naturalistic social interactions, previous research suggests different possibilities for perceiver and target effects that we can test in the present research. 3.3.1. Hypothesis 2A: High stability in perceiver effects of confidence The background characteristics of perceptual confidence that reside within individual perceivers should be stable to the extent that the person remains constant with time. We therefore predict that perceiver effects – the component of perceptual confidence that is internal to perceivers – will not change over time, and will exhibit high test-retest stability. 3.3.2. Hypothesis 2B: Moderate stability in target effects of confidence On the other hand, past research suggests that confidence increases as perceivers gather more information about the target (e.g., Borkenau et al., 2014; Gill et al., 1998; Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982). We therefore expect that target effects – the component of perceptual confidence that is influenced by the person being rated – will explain more variance in confidence over time as participants have more opportunities to learn about what targets are like. In other words, there should be more consensus among perceivers about the targets they feel confident about after the interaction task. As a result, target effects of perceptual confidence should exhibit only moderate test-retest stability. 3.4. Question 3: Who is confident? 3.4.1. Hypothesis 3A: Perceivers who feel confident Based on past research, we expected that individual difference measures related to self-esteem and narcissism would be related to perceiver effects of confidence (John & Robins, 1994; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990). We also looked to the sense of social power – defined as the psychological feeling of being able to exert control and influence over a situation (Anderson, John, & Keltner, 2012) – as another possible influence on people’s feelings of confidence. Recent research and theory suggest that social power is an important background characteristic that influences a variety of cognitive processes (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003). For example, individuals who are higher in social power are also more likely hold biased and overconfident perceptions about their own skills and competencies than individuals low in social power (Fast et al., 2012). Based on this research, we expected that perceivers who felt like they were high in social power would be likely to rate others confidently.

14

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

3.4.2. Hypothesis 3B: Targets who are rated confidently Based on past research that suggests people are more confident about targets that express information to perceivers (e.g., Hall et al., 2007; Swann & Gill, 1997), we expected that individuals who express more information should be rated more confidently. At the broadest level of personality, extraversion is related to behaviors related to self-expression in social situations (e.g., John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008; Riggio & Riggio, 2002). People high in social power not only signal more information through expressive behaviors, but also are paid attention to by others more than are people low in social power (e.g., Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske, & Yzerbyt, 2000). As such, we predicted that participants high in extraversion and social power would be more likely to be rated with a high degree of confidence by the other group members than participants low in these individual difference measures.

3.5. Question 4: What is the social function of perceptual confidence? Confidence has been hypothesized to predict important social functions (e.g., Swann & Gill, 1997), yet existing research has historically focused on the relationship to specific non-social behaviors like gambling or purchasing decisions (e.g., Fast et al., 2012). In this study, we test for potential social functions of both perceiver and target effects of perceptual confidence.

3.5.1. Hypothesis 4A: Social functions of perceiving others with confidence In the context of an unknown social interaction, feeling like you have a sense about what others are like may be an important predictor of feeling positive about interactions with the other group members. For example, previous research has found self-disclosure among pairs of roommates to increase with time (Cozby, 1973), suggesting that people self-disclose more when they feel like they know what the people they are disclosing to are like. Studies of consumer perceptions suggest that people who are more confident in their perceptions of products are more satisfied with those purchases than those who are not confident (Spreng & Page, 2001; Yi & La, 2003). Together, these studies suggest that people who feel confident in their perceptions of other people may feel more satisfied about those social interactions.

3.5.2. Hypothesis 4B: Social functions of being rated confidently In the context of a newly formed group, being rated confidently by other group members might help the individual attain social rewards. Past research shows that group members pay greater attention to individuals who have elevated status (Goodwin et al., 2000), which raises the possibility that group members who feel confident about what a person is like may be more likely to grant that person social status than a group member about whom they are not confident. Supportive of this possibility, Anderson, Brion, Moore, and Kennedy (2012) found that people whose confidence exceeded their competence on performance-based tasks attained status in groups. In this paper we predicted that people rated confidently by others will attain status.

4. Method Our four research questions and the related hypotheses are summarized in Table 1. To test and replicate these predictions, we analyzed data from two studies of impressions made before and after interactions in small groups.

Table 1 Summary of hypotheses. Perceiver Effect of Confidence People who tend to rate others confidently Q1. Structure What is perceptual confidence?

Target Effect of Confidence People who generally are rated confidently

Hypothesis 1A: Effect Hypothesis 1B: Effect should be significant should be significant Hypothesis 1C: Perceiver and target effects should be independent

Q2. Stability How does perceptual confidence change?

Hypothesis 2A: Will not increase with time; high test–retest stability

Hypothesis 2B: Will increase with time; low test–retest stability

Q3. Individual Differences Who is confident?

Hypothesis 3A: Predicted by self-esteem, narcissism, and power

Hypothesis 3B: Predicted by extraversion

Q4: Social Functions Does perceptual confidence influence group outcomes?

Hypothesis 4A: Initial confidence related to selfdisclosure

Hypothesis 4B: Initial confidence related to status attainment

4.1. Participants 4.1.1. Sample 1 Participants were 97 undergraduate students (50% Female) who received partial course credit for their participation. On average, participants were 21.5 years old (SD = 3.9) and of a variety of ethnic backgrounds (30% Chinese, 18% Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander, 18% White, 15% Latino, 7% Korean, 7% Indian, 3% Black, 2% Other). 4.1.2. Sample 2 Participants were 184 undergraduate students (67% Female) who received partial course credit for their participation. On average, participants were 21.4 years old (SD = 3.5), and of a variety of ethnic backgrounds (35% White, 26% Chinese, 9% Latino, 7% Southeast Asian / Pacific Islander, 6% Korean, 5% Middle Eastern, 2% Black, 10% Other). Gender and ethnicity did not moderate any analyses, and are not included in the results. 4.2. Procedure 4.2.1. Group formation Participants were first formed into groups comprised of four to six previously unacquainted people. Participants were randomly assigned to groups following three criteria: participants did not know any other group members, participants were available to meet at the same time, and groups should be as balanced for gender as possible. In Sample 1, there were 17 groups of 4.88 participants on average; in Sample 2 there were 36 groups of 5.69 participants on average. 4.2.2. Preliminary power analysis Our decision to form groups of this size was informed by statistical and practical concerns. Whereas Lashley and Kenny (1998) recommend having fewer groups of larger size, we wanted to ensure that all participants could adequately get to know each other in the allotted time. Based on tables presented in Lashley and Kenny (1998), we suspected that we would be underpowered to detect SRM effects in Sample 1 but adequately powered in Sample 2. Post-hoc power analyses for these SRM effects are reported in our results section, and support our initial predictions.

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

We also estimated the effect sizes we would be able to detect with adequate power (i.e., power = .80 with an alpha level of .05; Cohen, 1992). In Sample 1, our sample size would allow us to detect effect sizes of r = .28, whereas our sample size in Sample 2 would allow us to detect effect sizes of r = .20. Below, we interpret our effects in light of this power analysis. 4.2.3. Zero-acquaintance personality rating (T0) Participants were instructed to rate their initial impressions of each other on the basis of the information available to them at zero-acquaintance (i.e., what the person looked like). All participants were previously unacquainted with each other and instructed not to talk until all group members completed their ratings. 4.2.4. Fast friends task (T1) We adapted Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone, and Bator’s (1997) Fast Friends task to engage participants in discussions that would encourage self-disclosure. This procedure was originally designed to facilitate closeness in dyadic interactions with questions such as, ‘‘Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?’’ Because there were up to three times more participants in our round-robin group design than in the original dyadic design, we made the following three changes. First, we reduced the original set of 36 questions to twelve questions. Second, we instructed participants to prepare answers to the questions in advance in order to facilitate discussion. Third, we changed the way in which participants interacted with each other in order to ensure that every group member had the chance to participate in discussion, as described below. 4.2.4.1. Sample 1. Participants discussed their answers to the fast-friends task in dyads within their group; each dyadic interaction lasted for 7 min. After time elapsed, a researcher notified all pairs to rate each other and then switch partners. This procedure repeated until all group members had interacted with and rated each other. In groups with an odd number of members (i.e., five), one of the participants was instructed to wait patiently for one turn while the other group members conversed. 4.2.4.2. Sample 2. We adopted a traditional round-robin block design, in which participants interacted with each other as a single group, and then rated every other member of the group. At the beginning of the task, participants were instructed to take turns answering the questions to ensure that every group member had the chance to participate. Groups spent 35 min answering the fast-friend questions, and were then instructed to complete ratings of each other. One participant had to leave before the fast-friends task was completed; because this group only had three members after the departure and SRM analyses require a minimum of four participants, we report only results for 35 groups from T1 in Sample 2. 4.3. Measures Participants rated each other on a variety of personality characteristics at both T0 and T1. Personality ratings were completed privately on paper, and participants were instructed that their self-ratings and ratings of the other group members would be kept confidential. All group ratings were made on a scale from 1 (Not at All) to 15 (Extremely). 4.3.1. Measures of perceptual confidence We assessed confidence by asking participants to rate the degree to which they were confident that their ‘‘overall

15

impressions of each group member were correct.’’ Ratings of confidence were completed at the end of each person’s assessment of the other group members. 4.3.2. Individual difference measures Participants completed self-reports of personality as part of a series of online questionnaires. In both samples, we used the 10-item Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale (RSE) to measure self-esteem (e.g., ‘‘I take a positive attitude toward myself’’), the 8-item Sense of Power Scale (SOP; Anderson, John, et al., 2012) to measure social power (e.g., ‘‘I think I have a great deal of power’’), and the Big Five Inventory (BFI-E; John & Srivastava, 1999) to measure Extraversion (e.g., ‘‘Is talkative’’). In Sample 2, we administered the 40-item Narcissism Personality Inventory (NPI; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006) at a separate time point to measure individual differences in narcissism. Because these personality questionnaires used different rating scales between and within studies, we rescaled all variables by calculating the percent of maximum possible (POMP; Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 1999). Unlike Z-scores, POMP scores range from 0 to 100 and preserve the natural distribution in ratings. Descriptive statistics among these personality measures for both samples are reported in Table 2. 4.3.3. Group outcomes To test whether perceiver effects of perceptual confidence would predict a variety of different behaviors related to positive group interactions, we assessed participant’s perceptions of several group outcome measures. 4.3.3.1. Emotional disclosure in the group. We measured the extent to which participants disclosed personal details to their group members in the fast-friends task by asking participants to rate how much they ‘‘shared their emotional and personal lives with the group’’. 4.3.3.2. Concern with group evaluations. We measured the extent to which participants were concerned with evaluations by the other group members by asking participants to rate how much they were ‘‘very aware of being evaluated by the other group members’’, and ‘‘was worried about saying or doing the wrong thing’’. These measures were moderately correlated (r(182) = .38, p < .01), and were combined to create a composite measure. 4.3.3.3. Fits in with group. To assess the degree to which participants fit in with the group, we asked participants to rate the extent to which they ‘‘fit in with this group’’ and ‘‘felt alienated from this group’’ (reverse-scored). These items were also moderately correlated (r(182) = .38, p < .01) and were combined to create a composite measure. 4.3.3.4. Satisfaction with group interaction. Participants also rated the extent to which they were ‘‘satisfied with my interactions with the other group members’’. We did not assess emotional disclosure in the group, concern with group evaluations, fits in with group, and satisfaction with group interaction in Sample 1 because participants did not interact with all the other group members at once. 4.3.3.5. Social status ratings. Following previous studies of social status in groups (e.g., Anderson, Ames, & Gosling, 2008; Anderson, Brion, et al., 2012), we calculated target effects for each participant that describe the extent to which a given person was rated as high or low in power or status by the other group members relative to the average participant. In Sample 1, we assessed social status by asking participants to rate the extent to which each

16

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

Table 2 Personality measure descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for samples 1 and 2.

Note. Zero-order correlations for Sample 1 reported above the diagonal; zero-order correlations for Sample 2 reported below the diagonal. Significance tests adjusted for multiple comparisons using the ‘‘Holm’’ correction applied by the psych R package (Revelle, 2014). ⁄⁄ p < .01 (two-tailed tests).

group member ‘‘Has a lot of power in the group (e.g., influence, respect)’’. In Sample 2, we assessed sociometric status by having participants rate the extent to which each group member ‘‘Has a lot of status in the group (e.g., influence, respect)’’. 5. Results 5.1. Question 1: What is perceptual confidence? 5.1.1. Hypothesis 1A: Perceptual confidence is composed of significant perceiver effects We used TripleR Version 1.2.1 (Schönbrodt, Back, & Schmukle, 2012) to estimate SRM effects of perceptual confidence. Specifically, we conducted separate univariate manifest analyses for our single-item measure of confidence at T0 and T1, controlling for group differences as recommended by Kenny and La Voie (1984). Participants differed systematically in how confidently they generally rated others (i.e., perceiver effects). The majority of variance in perceptual confidence was explained by perceiver effects at both T0 (63% in Sample 1, p < .01; 55% in Sample 2, p < .01) and T1 (58% in Sample 1, p < .01; 57% in Sample 2, p < .01), suggesting that differences in perceptual confidence were largely explained by differences in the way that people felt confident in their ratings of others. 5.1.2. Hypothesis 1B: Perceptual confidence is composed of significant target effects We also found that participants differed systematically in how confidently they were rated by others (i.e., target effects). However, in contrast to perceiver effects we found that target effects accounted for a much smaller, yet still statistically significant, percentage of variance in confidence at T0 (3% in Sample 2, p < .01) and T1 (6% in Sample 1, p = .04 and in Sample 2, p < .01). The estimated target variance in perceptual confidence at T0 for Sample 1 was negative and thus set to zero by TripleR. This prevented us from using this sample to conduct analyses related to predictions about target effects at zero-acquaintance. 5.1.3. Hypothesis 1C: Perceiver and target effects are independent To test the relationship between perceiver and target effects, we used TripleR to estimate separate effects of perceptual confident for each participant. These effects estimate the extent to which a specific person tends to confidently rate others (perceiver effect) and tends to be confidently rated by others (target effect), controlling for group membership. SRM effects are standardized relative to the average person in the study. Thus, a participant with a positive target effect of perceptual confidence would be someone who is rated by the other group members more confidently than the average person in the study is rated, whereas someone with a

⁄

p < .05 (two-tailed tests).

positive perceiver effect would be someone who generally rates others more confidently than the average person in the study rates others. We found that target and perceiver effects of confidence were uncorrelated at zero-acquaintance (Sample 2: r(184) = .01, p = .87) and after the interaction task (Sample 1: r(76) = .14, p = .21; Sample 2: r(184) = .07, p = .37). How confidently a participant rated others had no relationship to how confidently he or she was rated by others. 5.2. Question 1: Follow-up analyses 5.2.1. Power analyses We conducted post hoc power analyses of our SRM effects, using the AIM–SRM program developed by Lashley and Kenny (1998). Based on our sample sizes, average group sizes, and estimate effect sizes, we had sufficient power to detect perceiver effects of confidence at T0 (Sample 1 = 100%; Sample 2 = 99%) and T1 (Sample 1 = 100%; Sample 2 = 99%). As expected, we were underpowered to detect the smaller target effects of confidence in Sample 1 (T0 = 5%; T1 = 62%) but had adequate power in Sample 2 (T0 = 68%; T1 = 98%). 5.2.2. Group effects of perceptual confidence Group membership was unrelated to perceiver or target effects of perceptual confidence in either Sample 1 or Sample 2. This suggests that participants’ tendency to perceive others confidently or be rated confidently by others did not differ across groups. Furthermore, additional analyses reveal that group membership was unrelated to nine of the thirteen other variables measured in this study, and did not influence our results. As accounting for group membership in the following regression models would add 15 extra parameters in Sample 1 and 35 extra parameters to Sample 2, we report our results for the remaining three hypotheses without controlling for group membership below. 5.3. Question 2: How stable are perceiver and target effects of perceptual confidence? As SRM effects are standardized, we were unable to test for specific mean-level changes in perceiver and target effects over time. However, we evaluated changes in participants’ overall feelings of perceptual confidence by conducting a paired-sample t-test of raw confidence scores. Ratings of confidence increased over time in both Sample 1 (t(327) = 12.02, p < .01, d = .95) and Sample 2 (t(952) = 13.27, p < .01, d = .77). This indicates that participants were more generally confident in their ratings after getting to know the other group members.

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

5.3.1. Hypothesis 2A. Perceiver effects of confidence exhibit high test– retest reliability As predicted, we found substantial and significant test–retest correlations for perceiver effects of perceptual confidence in both Sample 1 (r(77) = .56, p < .01) and in Sample 2 (r(183) = .54, p < .01). Over 25% of the variance in a person’s confidence after the first-impression task was explained by the participant’s confidence in their rating of others before this task. These results converge with the small changes in the percentage of variance in perceptual confidence explained by perceiver effects that we reported in Hypothesis 1; variance explained by perceiver effects only decreased by 12% in Sample 1 and increased by 4% in Sample 2 after the fast-friends task. Together, these findings suggest that individual differences in the tendency to rate others confidently are stable before and after first impressions are formed. 5.3.2. Hypothesis 2B: Target effects of confidence exhibit low test–test reliability In contrast, we found small but significant positive relationship between target effects of confidence at T0 and T1 in Sample 2 (r(183) = .35, p < .01). People who were rated confidently at zero-acquaintance also tended to be rated confidently after the fast-friends task. This result is consistent with the substantial increase in variance explained by target effects after the fast-friends task we reported as part of Hypothesis 1, and suggests that increases in confidence are influenced more by target effects than by perceiver effects. 5.4. Question 3: Is perceptual confidence related to broader individual difference measures? To test the hypotheses related to this third question, we examined the relationship between the perceiver and target effects of perceptual confidence and our individual difference measures. We report the zero-order correlational relationships between these measures in the top-half of Table 3. Significance tests for all Table 3 Zero-order correlations: relationship between perceiver and target effects of confidence at T0 and T1, and personality and group outcome measures.

17

correlational relationships have been adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm correction applied by the R package ‘‘psych’’ (Revelle, 2014). Below, we highlight the relevant findings from this table, and report the results of additional regression analyses. 5.4.1. Hypothesis 3A: Are perceiver effects of perceptual confidence related to individual differences? At zero-acquaintance, the sense of power emerged as the strongest predictor of the tendency to rate others confidently (Sample 1 r(76) = .22, p = .50; Sample 2 r(178) = .28, p < .01). Although extraversion, self-esteem, and narcissism were all positively related to perceiver confidence at T0, these relationships were not statistically significant given our sample sizes. However, because these individual difference measures were all positively correlated with each other (Table 2) and with perceiver confidence at T0, we conducted a follow-up multiple regression analysis to address potential problems of collinearity. When entered simultaneously into a regression equation (Table S1 of Supplementary Materials), the sense of power remained as the strongest predictor of the initial tendency to perceive others confidently (Sample 1 b = .19, p < .14; Sample 2 b = .32, p < .01). The sense of power was not related to perceiver effects of confidence after the first-impression task in Sample 2 (r(179) = .12, p = 1). Follow-up analyses (Table S1 in Supplementary Materials) suggest that the positive relationship between the sense of power and perceiver effects of confidence in Sample 1 was explained by extraversion, although we note this significant effect of extraversion did not replicate in the (higher-powered) Sample 2. 5.4.2. Hypothesis 3B: Target effects of perceptual confidence are related to individual differences in extraversion We did not find evidence that our measures of personality were related to individual differences in the tendency to be rated confidently by others. Although there was a positive relationship between target effects of confidence and extraversion at zero-acquaintance (Sample 2 r(169) = .18, p = .71) and after the first-impression task (Sample 1 r(73) = .23, p = .50; Sample 2 r(169) = .22, p = .11), we did not have adequate power to establish the statistical significance of these effects given our sample sizes and number of comparisons. In contrast to our predictions, the sense of power was unrelated to target effects of confidence at in both samples at both time points. 5.5. Question 4: What are the social functions of perceptual confidence? To test hypotheses related to this fourth question, we examined the relationship between the perceiver and target effects of perceptual confidence and our group outcome measures. In the bottom-half of Table 3, we report the zero-order correlational relationships between these measures, again adjusted for multiple comparisons as in Question 3. Below, we highlight the relevant findings from this table, and report the results of additional regression analyses.

Note. Significance tests adjusted for multiple comparisons using the ‘‘Holm’’ correction applied by the psych R package (Revelle, 2014). ⁄ p < .05 (two-tailed tests). ⁄⁄ p < .01 (two-tailed tests). (⁄) p < .10 (two-tailed tests).

5.5.1. Hypothesis 4A: Do perceiver effects of confidence predict group outcomes? We found some evidence that perceiver effects of perceptual confidence were related to group consequences. Participants’ initial confidence in rating the other group members were positively related to the amount that they reported self-disclosing in the subsequent fast-friends task (r(182) = .25, p = .03). Furthermore, this effect appears to be specific to perceptual confidence, and was not explained by other individual difference measures related to engagement in social groups. Follow-up regression analyses

18

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

(Table S2 of Supplementary Materials) suggest that perceiver confidence at T0 and emotional self-disclosure were still positively related (b = .23, p < .05) even when controlling for the effects of sense of power, extraversion, and group membership. However, we did not find evidence that perceptual confidence was related to all group outcomes. As seen in Table 3, perceiver effects of perceptual confidence before and after the interaction task were unrelated to participant ratings of fitting in with the group, concern about others’ evaluation, and satisfaction with group interactions. 5.5.2. Hypothesis 4B: Do target effects of confidence predict status attainment in groups? Target effects of confidence were significantly related to social status at zero-acquaintance (Sample 2 r(184) = .31, p < .01) and after the first-impression task (Sample 1 r(77) = .46, p < .01; Sample 2 r(184) = .49, p < .01). Participants who were rated more confidently were also rated as having more status in the group. To test our hypothesis that individuals who are rated confidently attain more status in group interactions than they might have otherwise had, we conducted multiple regression analyses and predicted target effects of status at T1 from target effects of status at T0 and target effects of confidence at T1. In both samples, we found a main effect of status at T0 on status at T1 (Sample 1 b = .21, p = .04; Sample 2 b = .60, p < .01). This pattern suggests that initial ratings of social status are stable over time, and replicates Anderson et al. (2008). However, we also found that the degree to which group members rated a target confidently independently predicted changes in status. Individuals who were rated confidently by others in the zero-acquaintance rating task attained more status in the group than would have been predicted by their initial status rating alone (Sample 1 b = .41, p < .01; Sample 2 b = .30, p < .01). These effects were not influenced by group membership, and remained significant even after controlling for the effects of extraversion and the sense of power (Table S3 in Supplementary Materials) – other individual difference measures that have previously been shown to be an important precursor to attaining status in groups (e.g., Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Anderson, John, et al., 2012).1 6. General discussion Across two samples, we used a Social Relations Model approach to demonstrate that variation in perceptual confidence is not just error, but is explained by stable individual differences in the tendency to perceive others confidently (perceiver effects) as well as the tendency to be perceived confidently by others (target effects). Below, we summarize our findings and conclude with a discussion of limitations and future research directions. 6.1. The structure and stability of perceptual confidence In both samples, the majority of variance in perceptual confidence was explained by differences in the extent to which participants felt confident in their ratings of others. These perceiver effects were highly stable over time; participants who rated others confidently at zero-acquaintance also rated others confidently 1 Although not the goal of this paper, readers may be interested in whether people who were rated confidently by others were also rated more accurately by others. Target effects of confidence did not significantly moderate the relationship between self-ratings and target effects of any of the Big Five measures (Table S4 of the Supplementary Materials). Although we did not find evidence that confidence was related to accuracy in these studies, our method was not designed to test for accuracy. We therefore do not see these null results as rejection of past work (e.g., Ames et al., 2009; Biesanz et al., 2011; Carlson et al., 2010).

after the first impression task. Differences in participants’ tendency to be rated confidently by others were significant, but explained substantially less variance in confidence than perceiver effects and were less stable over time. Perceiver and target effects were unrelated, suggesting that they are independent components of perceptual confidence. Together, these results suggest that perceptual confidence is primarily described by individual differences inherent to perceivers. Researchers seeking to explain why some people are more or less confident than others might focus their studies on understanding the factors that influence perceivers (e.g., Dunning, 2005) rather than the features of targets themselves (e.g., Hall et al., 2007). 6.2. The sources of perceptual confidence In this study, we found that differences in the tendency to perceive others confidently at zero-acquaintance were primarily explained by individual differences in the sense of power. These results support emerging research on the cognitive effects of experiencing social power (e.g., Keltner et al., 2003); the tendency to perceive others confidently may be based in part on people’s need to feel control within a specific situation. However, individual differences in the sense of power were not related to perceiver effects of confidence after the interaction task, suggesting that there may be limits to the desire to feel in control by feeling confident. Future research might examine how changes in a perceiver’s status or power influences changes in perceptual confidence. For example, will people who experience a loss in power also experience a corresponding loss of confidence in their perceptions of others? Contrary to our predictions and past research (e.g., John & Robins, 1994; Wolfe & Grosch, 1990), we did not find that self-esteem or narcissism were related to the tendency to perceive others confidently. Furthermore, we did not find evidence that participants who were rated more confidently by others were more extraverted or higher in power. It’s possible that these relationships are simply described by small effects, and the current studies were underpowered to detect small effect sizes. However it’s also possible that our research design itself contributed to these null results. For example, the fast-friends task instructed participants in both samples were instructed to take turns answering similar questions about themselves. Participants may therefore have been more similar in the amount of information that they expressed to perceivers during this fast friends task than would be expected during less structured interactions. Other research designs thus might yield different insights. 6.3. The social functions of perceptual confidence Whereas past research has only theorized about the social functions of perceptual confidence, we found empirical evidence that both perceiver and target effects of confidence are related to interpersonal outcomes. Participants who were confident in their perceptions of others at zero-acquaintance were more likely to self-disclose emotional information during the subsequent group evaluation than were participants who did not confidently perceive the other group members. However, we were not able to test for these effects in Study 1, and the tendency to perceive others confidently was not associated with all group outcome measures included in this study. We did, however, find replicating evidence that target effects of perceptual confidence predict important social consequences. Participants who were rated confidently by the other group members after the fast-friends task were also rated as higher in status, even when controlling for impressions of status at zero-acquaintance as well as individual differences in extraversion

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

and the sense of power, than participants who were not rated confidently. These findings, along with Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012) findings that confident people are granted status, suggest that perceptions and behaviors of confidence are both key components of processes and outcomes related to social status. Together, we believe these findings present encouraging initial evidence perceptual confidence has social functions. However, it’s possible that the relationship between confidence and social consequences is more complex. Thus, one reason why people who tended to feel confident in their impressions of others may not have felt like they fit in with the group is that they may have felt confident about negative impressions. Although our study design could not test for this possibility, future research might examine whether the relationship between confidence and social consequences depends on whether the person is confident about positive or negative impressions.

6.4. Limitations and future research directions In this study, we assessed a person’s general confidence in his or her overall ratings across multiple targets. This design did not allow us to assess the person’s relative level of confidence with SRM relationship effects (i.e., the person’s unique level of confidence for a specific target). Whereas past research has focused on the relationship between relative confidence and relative accuracy, future research might examine the stability and sources of relative confidence itself, as well as the individual differences measures and features of the relationship that predict when a person is high or low in perceptual confidence for a specific target. Are people high in power more likely to feel confident when rating a low-power person? Would someone high in extraversion be rated more confidently when interacting with someone low in extraversion who allows her or him to talk more in the interaction? Additionally, we assessed a person’s general level of confidence in his or her perceptions of others. Future research might examine differences in perceptual confidence for specific personality traits. For example, would being perceived confidently on dimensions such as extraversion and neuroticism be more relevant to status attainment than being perceived confidently on conscientiousness or openness to new experiences? Might there be more substantial target effects of confidence for certain traits (such as social status) or in certain contexts (such as a job interview) in which the perception of personality characteristics may be more salient or important? Finally, our round robin group interactions focused on one type of relationship context in one kind of interaction context. It is likely that the effects of perceptual confidence will depend on the domain of perception and duration of relationship. For example, whereas research on perceptual confidence in the domain of consumer purchases found a positive relationship between confidence and satisfaction, we found no relationship between confidence and satisfaction with group interactions in these studies of interpersonal interactions. Would the stability of perceiver and target effects if participants had been assigned to new groups between interaction tasks? Might perceptual confidence be an important predictor of satisfaction and stability in the context of a romantic relationship? We hope our results inspire future researchers to examine the structure, stability, and social functions of confidence across different kinds of relationship contexts.

Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.06.001.

19

References Ames, D. R., & Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual competence, predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(3), 187–209. Ames, D. R., Kammrath, L. K., Suppes, A., & Bolger, N. (2009). Not so fast: The (notquite-complete) dissociation between accuracy and confidence in thin-slice impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Ames, D. R., Rose, P., & Anderson, C. P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440–450. Anderson, C., Ames, D. R., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Punishing hubris: The perils of overestimating one’s status in a group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(1), 90–101. 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. Anderson, C., Brion, S., Moore, D. A., & Kennedy, J. A. (2012). A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718. Anderson, C., John, O. P., & Keltner, D. (2012). The personal sense of power. Journal of Personality, 80(2), 313–344. Aron, A., Melinat, E., Aron, E. N., Vallone, R. D., & Bator, R. J. (1997). The experimental generation of interpersonal closeness: A procedure and some preliminary findings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(4), 363–377. Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2010). The social relations model: How to understand dyadic processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 855–870. Biesanz, J. C., Human, L. J., Paquin, A. C., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J., et al. (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. Borkenau, P., Leising, D., & Fritz, U. (2014). Effects of communication between judges on consensus and accuracy in judgments of people’s intelligence. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30(4), 274. Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and direct versus indirect forms of self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 445. Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 358–368. Carlson, E. N., Furr, R. M., & Vazire, S. (2010). Do we know the first impressions we make? Evidence for idiographic meta-accuracy and calibration of first impressions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(1), 94–98. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155. Chicago. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(3), 315–346. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(2), 73. Deffenbacher, K. A. (1980). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 4(4), 243–260. Dunning, D. (1999). A newer look: Motivated social cognition and the schematic representation of social concepts. Psychological Inquiry, 10(1), 1–11. Dunning, D. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York: Psychology Press. Dunning, D. (2012). Confidence considered: Assessing the quality of judgment and performance. In K. Demarree & P. Brinol (Eds.), Social metacognition (pp. 63–80). New York: Psychology Press. Dunning, D., Griffin, D. W., Milojkovic, J. D., & Ross, L. (1990). The overconfidence effect in social prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 568. Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(2), 249–260. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1978). Attitudinal qualities relating to the strength of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(4), 398–408. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1977). Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(4), 552. Funder, D. C. (Ed.). (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. Academic Press. Gill, M. J., Swann, W. B., Jr., & Silvera, D. H. (1998). On the genesis of confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(5), 1101. Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602. 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. Griffin, D., & Tversky, A. (1992). The weighing of evidence and the determinants of confidence. Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 411–435. Hall, C. C., Ariss, L., & Todorov, A. (2007). The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 277–290. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 3, 114–158.

20

A.D. Catterson et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 58 (2015) 11–20

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. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1999), 102–138. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. Guilford Press. Kenny, D. A. (2004). PERSON: A general model of interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 265–280. Kenny, D. A., & La Voie, L. (1984). The social relations model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 142–182. Lashley, B. R., & Kenny, D. A. (1998). Power estimation in social relations analyses. Psychological Methods, 3(3), 328. Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Oskamp, S. (1965). Overconfidence in case-study judgments. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 29(3), 261. Peterson, D. K., & Pitz, G. F. (1988). Confidence, uncertainty, and the use of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 85. Revelle, W. (2014). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research, Northwestern University. ; Version = 1.4.8.

Riggio, H. R., & Riggio, R. E. (2002). Emotional expressiveness, extraversion, and neuroticism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 26(4), 195–218. Robins, R. W., & John, O. P. (1997). The quest for self-insight: Theory and research on accuracy and bias in self-perception. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psycholology (pp. 649–679). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Schönbrodt, F. D., Back, M. D., & Schmukle, S. C. (2012). TripleR: An R package for social relations analyses based on round-robin designs. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 455–470. Spreng, R. A., & Page, T. J. (2001). The impact of confidence in expectations on consumer satisfaction. Psychology & Marketing, 18(11), 1187–1204. 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(4), 747. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193. Wolfe, R. N., & Grosch, J. W. (1990). Personality correlates of confidence in one’s decisions. Journal of Personality, 58(3), 515–534. Yi, Y., & La, S. (2003). The moderating role of confidence in expectations and the asymmetric influence of disconfirmation on customer satisfaction. The Service Industries Journal, 23(5), 20–47.