Individuals Struggle to Change Their Perceived Personality in a First Impression

Self-Gravity: Individuals Struggle to Change Their Perceived Personality in a First Impression

Ravin Alaei

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology University of Toronto

Self-Gravity: Individuals Struggle to Change their Perceived Personality in a First Impression

Ravin Alaei

Doctor of Philosophy

Psychology University of Toronto

2019 Abstract

People are motivated to change aspects of their personality traits and psychological research seems to document its regular occurrence. Nevertheless, most research has focused on whether people self-report that their personality traits have changed. Personality change is more than self- determined, however: People hope that changes to their personality are visible to others as well.

Across seven studies, I therefore investigated whether people’s attempts to change their Big Five personality in a first impression are successful, focusing especially on extraversion. My work demonstrates that (i) individuals’ personality traits remain robustly visible in a first impression regardless of attempts to change, (ii) acting experience does not improve this ability, (iii) individuals’ traits can affect their evaluations more strongly than their attempts to change, and

(iv) people attempting to change their personality in a first impression are largely unaware of how others truly judge them. This work therefore suggests that people struggle to control how their traits are perceived by others in a first impression.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my supervisor, Nick Rule, for making me a better scientist and person. I am lucky to have received your mentorship and will carry your guidance with me. Thank you to my committee members, Jacob Hirsh and Geoff MacDonald, for dissecting my findings and for pushing me to think more deeply, as well as Erika Carlson, Norman Farb, and Judith Hall for their insightful feedback. I am also grateful for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Department of Psychology for supporting my graduate work. Finally, thank you to my family and especially my mother—none of this would have been possible without their sacrifices.

iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ...... iii

Table of Contents ...... iv

List of Tables ...... vii

List of Appendices ...... ix

Chapter 1 General Introduction ...... 1

Density Distributions of Personality States ...... 1

Extraversion ...... 3

Big Five Personality Traits ...... 5

Overview of Current Studies ...... 9

Chapter 2 Study 1: Extraversion State Change in Videos ...... 10

Method ...... 10

5.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 10

Results ...... 12

A Brief Discussion ...... 15

Chapter 3 Study 2: Extraversion State Change in Still Frames ...... 16

Method ...... 16

8.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 16

Results ...... 16

A Brief Discussion ...... 19

Chapter 4 Study 3: Actors Acting Extraverted ...... 20

Method ...... 20

11.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 20

Results ...... 21

A Brief Discussion ...... 23

Chapter 5 Study 4: Cues to Extraversion ...... 24 iv

Method ...... 24

14.1 Procedure ...... 24

Results ...... 25

A Brief Discussion ...... 28

Chapter 6 Study 5: Evaluations ...... 29

Method ...... 30

17.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 30

Results ...... 30

18.1 Authenticity ...... 30

18.2 Hireability ...... 33

18.3 Likeability ...... 38

A Brief Discussion ...... 42

Chapter 7 Study 6: Natural Advantage ...... 43

Method ...... 44

20.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 44

Results ...... 44

A Brief Discussion ...... 52

Chapter 8 Study 7: Big Five Personality State Change in Videos ...... 53

Method ...... 54

23.1 Participants and Procedure ...... 54

Results ...... 56

A Brief Discussion ...... 65

Chapter 9 General Discussion ...... 67

Implications ...... 68

Limitations and Future Directions ...... 70

Conclusion ...... 72 v

References ...... 73

Appendix A: Script Used in Study 1 ...... 85

Appendix B: Adjectives Used in Study 7 ...... 86

Appendix C: Target Ratings in Study 7 ...... 87

List of Tables

Table 1: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Analyzing Perceivers’ Accuracy in Detecting Targets’ Extraversion in Study 1...... 14

Table 2: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Analyzing Perceivers’ Accuracy in Detecting Targets’ Extraversion in Study 2...... 18

Table 3: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Analyzing Perceivers’ Accuracy in Detecting Actors’ Extraversion in Study 3...... 22

Table 4: Correlations Between Targets’ Trait Extraversion and Their Nonverbal Behaviour in Study 4...... 26

Table 5: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Perceived Authenticity From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5...... 31

Table 6: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Perceived Hireability From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5...... 34

Table 7: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Models Predicting Targets’ Perceived Hireability From Their Trait Extraversion and Speaking Condition in Each Acting Condition in Study 5...... 36

Table 8: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Likeability From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5...... 39

Table 9: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Likeability From Their Trait Extraversion and Speaking Condition in Each Acting Condition in Study 5...... 41

vii

Table 10: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Hireability From Their Study Source, Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 6...... 46

Table 11: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Hireability for an Advertising Sales Agent Job From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 6...... 49

Table 12: Descriptive Statistics and Manipulation Checks of Acting Conditions in Study 7...... 59

Table 13: Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Analyzing Perceivers’ Accuracy in Detecting Targets’ Big Five Personality Traits in Study 7...... 61

Table 14: Descriptive Statistics of Targets’ Self-Judgments of their Perceived Big Five Personality Traits...... 63

Table 15: Correlations Between Targets’ Self-Judgments of Their Perceived Traits and Their Actual Perceived Traits...... 64

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Script Used in Study 1 ……...... 85

Appendix B: Adjectives Used in Study 7 ...... 86

Appendix C: Target Ratings in Study 7 …………...... 87

Chapter 1 General Introduction

Planets and stars, abuzz with quindecillions of atoms rattling within, are held tightly together by self-gravity. If there were no self-generated gravitational force holding celestial bodies together, they would fragment and dissipate. Here on Earth, people’s minds, abuzz with innumerable thoughts, feelings, and intentions, are held together by their personality; personality is their self- gravity. Nevertheless, individuals sometimes wish to change their personality; they seek to fragment in order to build themselves anew. Psychologists have articulated various ways that people achieve personality change, though the extent of such change remains unclear.

Density Distributions of Personality States

Burgeoning research demonstrates that momentary changes in personality are common. Fleeson (2001) argued that personality changes rapidly across situations, terming such fluctuations as “personality states.” Expressing a personality state is theorized to stimulate the same affective, behavioural, and cognitive consequences as the corresponding trait, only for a shorter duration (Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson, 2004; Fleeson, 2007). Thus, one can be genuinely extraverted at a party and then genuinely introverted at home.

Indeed, studies consistently show that people self-report varying substantially across the Big Five dimensions on a regular basis (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). An individual’s personality is therefore best conceptualized as a density distribution of personality states. The mean of the distribution (i.e., the personality state experienced most often) represents trait standing and is highly stable across time. Beyond their typical (mean) personality, people are thought to intentionally change their personality in response to situational affordances; the variation around the mean represents this flexibility (Fleeson, 2007).

Thus, the density distributions model argues that people can quickly change their personality via personality states. The model is well-supported and has stimulated significant progress in the understanding of personality. Nevertheless, two gaps remain in investigations of the density distributions model, precluding understanding of the extent of personality change possible via personality states.

1 2

First, the extent of personality change remains unclear because most density distributions research has investigated only whether people self-report whether they have changed. Self- reports are not ideal for measuring aspects of personality that are defined by their behavioural expression, however. If an introvert feels that he is being extraverted but is the quietest individual in the room, he is not being extraverted. Going further, some aspects of personality at least partly manifest in social identification. If an introvert speaks loudly in a forest but no one is around to hear it, he is, at least pragmatically, not being extraverted. Thus, aspects of personality with a social and visible nature are at least partly defined by successful expression in a socially visible manner, not simply by one’s internal assessment of how well he or she expressed that personality. Moreover, even if much of a personality dimension is defined by internal rather than socially visible features (e.g., neuroticism), people still instantly judge others’ personality from brief observations of their nonverbal behaviour (e.g., Carney, Colvin, & Hall, 2007). For a complete examination of personality change, one thus needs to examine whether individuals can behaviourally change others’ perceptions of them.

An additional consideration also precludes a full understanding of personality change. Namely, although one may change their personality relative to their usual self, an observer does not have access to others’ usual selves in a first impression—they only have access to others’ present self. For instance, one may choose to speak more than she usually does to seem more extraverted, but if she is still speaking less than her more trait extraverted peers, she will still seem comparatively introverted to an observer. Indeed, if one finds themselves being more extraverted than usual, it is likely that others are doing the same because of situational demands (Marlow & Crowne, 1961; Sherman, Nave, & Funder, 2010). Thus, she remains as introverted, relative to others, as before she elected to speak more. In contexts in which the comparative first impression decides one’s outcomes, such as a first date or job interview (where one has minimal time to succeed over other candidates), personality change without rank change is inconsequential. For a complete examination of personality change, one thus also needs to examine whether individuals can change their trait ranking.

It thus remains unclear whether people can momentarily change their perceived trait rankings, as would be expected by the density distributions model. The goal of the current work is to examine whether such personality change is possible by looking at it through the lens of the Five Factor Framework and through the lens of social perception. More specifically, I examine whether

3 individuals can effectively change the perceived rank of their Big Five personality traits. Importantly, this is not a test of faking one’s personality; the density distributions model argues that momentary personality change is genuine and common. Thus, given people’s self-reported routine experience in changing their personality momentarily, it is important to investigate whether others notice such changes. Given that extraversion is the most visible social trait, and a trait that people are especially interested in displaying (e.g., Cain, 2012; Connelly & Ones, 2010), the majority of this work examines whether people can change how extraverted they appear. Following my investigation into changing extraversion, I examine whether people can change how their other Big Five personality traits appear. To emphasize again, an important argument throughout the work is that change in a first impression must change one’s perceived rank to be interpersonally effective. Finally, because no verb exists to describe personality state change, “acting” is used for efficiency, though this is not to imply that such changes are disingenuous.

Extraversion

Extraversion is an individual’s degree of enthusiasm and assertiveness (DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007). Enthusiasm refers to extraverts’ greater sociability and tendency to experience positive emotions compared to introverts; assertiveness refers to their tendency to lead in social situations and more readily express their thoughts and desires.

Extraversion yields substantial benefits across species. From zebrafish to orangutans, extraverted animals (i.e., approach-oriented, bold, enthusiastic, and sociable animals) secure higher status, more abundant access to resources, and higher mate success; and live longer, happier, and healthier lives than introverted animals (e.g., Ariyomo & Watt, 2012; Favati, Leimar, & Løvlie, 2014; Weiss, King, & Perkins, 2006; Weiss, Gartner, Gold, & Stoinski, 2012).

Similarly, extraverted humans typically occupy leadership positions more frequently, make more money, have more social success, and lead happier and healthier lives than introverts (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Gensowski, 2014; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002; Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002; Miller, Cohen, Rabin, Skoner, & Doyle, 1999). For instance, one standard deviation increase in extraversion predicts earning approximately $500,000 more over one’s lifetime (Gensowski, 2014). As another example, extraversion promotes life satisfaction far more than

4 economic factors (Boyce, Wood, & Powdthavee, 2012). Extraversion is therefore a pervasively advantageous trait.

Recognizing these benefits, introverts report acting extraversion frequently to gain competitive advantage in professional and social settings (e.g., Cain, 2012; Fleeson, Malanos, & Achille, 2002; McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Doing so seems beneficial: Some research demonstrates that introverts intrapersonally benefit from acting extraverted by feeling more authentic and happier (Fleeson et al., 2002; Heller, Komar, & Lee, 2007; Zelenski, Santoro, & Whelan, 2012). Given that an extraverted state elicits experiences for introverts that parallel those of trait extraverts, researchers have reasoned that “acting extraverted may be equivalent to being extraverted” (Fleeson et al., 2002).

Nevertheless, the current research has focused on individuals’ self-reports of how much they vary their degree of extraversion (e.g., Fleeson et al., 2002; McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Beyond intrapersonal benefits, introverts also aim to reap the interpersonal rewards that extraverts typically experience, such as making friends more easily and being hired more often (e.g., Caldwell & Burger, 1998; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002). Thus, interpersonal judgments of individuals’ actual behaviour should be measured to comprehensively assess how effectively they can act extraverted and introversion (Baumeister, Vohs, & Funder, 2007; Funder, 2012; Furr, 2009).

Some research suggests that people can change their perceived extraversion. Most directly, individuals report varying from very introverted to very extraverted on nearly a weekly basis; regular practice may have made people adept at changing their perceived level of extraversion (e.g., Fleeson et al., 2002; McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Similarly, a great deal of research shows that people can succeed in impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Thus, individuals’ routine experience in seeming to successfully act extraverted and their broader capability to manage others’ impressions could jointly triumph in making acting extraverted (and introverted) interpersonally effective.

Yet, other research would suggest that trait-introverts acting extraverted would still be distinguishable from trait-extraverts. First, when the deception literature focuses on individuals feigning their identity, the outcomes are substantially different. For instance, when people try to appear intelligent, their actual level of intelligence only becomes more detectible compared to

5 when they were acting naturally (Murphy, 2007). Likewise, when individuals attempt to seem attractive and likable, or to conceal their sexual minority status, they ironically promote impressions of the opposite (Re, Wang, He, & Rule, 2017; Sylva, Rieger, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2010). Impression management can therefore backfire because revelatory nonverbal cues “leak” a cloaked truth during an interaction (DePaulo, 1992). Relatedly, when people are highly motivated to tell a convincing lie, their lies are easier to detect than lies from those without such motivation (Bond & DePaulo, 2006).

Second, contrasting against earlier work, recent research employing more ecologically valid methods shows that introverts do suffer intrapersonally from acting extraverted: When acting extraverted, introverts (compared to extraverts) experience less positive affective gains, greater increases in negative affect and fatigue, and dampened feelings of authenticity (Jacques- Hamilton, Sun, & Smillie, 2018; see also Leikas & Ilmarinen, 2017). Finally, extraversion is especially easy to detect, being visible from a brief 5-s interaction or even more constricted cues, including individuals’ facial appearance when presented for 50-ms (Borkenau, Brecke, Möttig, & Paelecke, 2009; Carney et al., 2007). This is because cues to extraversion abound and many are difficult or practically impossible to alter, including attractiveness, body size, and vocal dominance (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992a; Funder & Sneed, 1993; Lukaszewski & Roney, 2011). Thus, individuals’ trouble with feigning their core identity, introverts’ seeming distaste for feigning extraversion, and extraversion’s robust visibility, could conspire towards rendering acted extraversion interpersonally ineffective.

I therefore investigated these competing hypotheses by examining (a) whether individuals’ levels of extraversion are detectible even when acting extraverted or introverted and (b) whether individuals are evaluated more favourably when acting extraverted or introverted. In all cases, I examined these questions with regard to individuals’ perceived trait ranking. To expand my investigation further, I tested whether individuals can act the rest of their Big Five personality traits.

Big Five Personality Traits

In addition to extraversion, four other traits broadly encapsulate personality (DeYoung et al., 2007; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & John, 1992). Agreeableness is an individual’s degree of compassion (emotional affiliation with others) and politeness (cognitively influenced respect

6 for others’ needs and desires). Conscientiousness is an individual’s degree of industriousness (committed and proactive pursuit of achievement) and orderliness (meticulousness and discipline). Neuroticism is an individual’s degree of volatility (emotional instability and irritability) and withdrawal (negative affect). Finally, openness/intellect is an individual’s degree of openness (interest in aesthetics, imagination, and fantasy) and intellect (interest in abstract and complex ideas).

Each trait has a socially desirable pole; thus, individuals are motivated to express the desired poles of each trait (i.e., agreeable, conscientious, extraverted, nonneurotic, and open individuals are normatively preferred; Nettle, 2006). Nevertheless, different levels of each trait are more suited to certain social contexts (Fleeson, 2004; Fleeson, 2007; Nettle, 2006) and individuals may therefore benefit from changing their levels of each trait.

Contrasting its benefits, extraversion’s promotion of agency and exploring novelty can lead to relationship dissolution and risk-taking that results in injury, arrest, and death (Ellis, 1987; Field & O’Keefe, 2004; Nettle, 2005). In contrast, more introverted behaviours facilitate listening to others, elicit perceptions of humility rather than overconfidence, and encourage teamwork (Grant, 2013; Grant, Gino, & Hofmann, 2011).

Agreeableness, though associated with relationship success and happiness (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Jensen-Campbell et al., 2002), also has disadvantages resulting from over-trusting and a tendency to avoid competition. Thus, agreeableness also relates to lower earnings, lower status, and reduced creative accomplishment (e.g., Axelrod & Hamilton, 1981; Judge, Livingston, & Hurst, 2011; King, Walker, & Broyles, 1996).

Conscientiousness, despite being positively associated with health and academic and professional performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Richardson, Abraham, & Bond, 2012), can also lead to harmful levels of perfectionism and dutifulness. Thus, high conscientiousness is also associated with eating disorders and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (Austin & Dreary, 2000; Claridge & Davis, 2003). Less conscientious individuals may also better capitalize on spontaneous opportunities and more frequently experience immediate gratifications in life (Nettle, 2006).

Neuroticism, though associated with lower relationship satisfaction, poor mental and physical health, social isolation, and lower earnings (Claridge & Davis, 2001; Kelly & Conley, 1987; Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010; Mueller & Plug, 2006; Neeleman, Sytema, & Wadsworth, 2002); also promotes some advantageous behaviours. Given their vigilance to threats, neurotic individuals are typically competitive and, among those with resilient coping, more academically successful (McKenzie, 1989; McKenzie, Taghavi-Knosary, & Tindell, 2000; Ross, Stewart, Mugge, & Fultz, 2001). Conversely, low levels of neuroticism can blunt emotional safeguards against risky behaviour (e.g., Egan & Stelmack, 2003).

Finally, openness, albeit associated with creativity and intelligence (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; McCrae, 1987), can also encourage delusional thinking. For instance, individuals high in openness-related traits are more prone to paranormal belief and, at the extreme, schizophrenia (e.g., Charlton, 2005; Dyce & O’Connor, 1998).

Thus, degrees of each trait befit different situations. People are sensitive to situational demands and thus self-report regularly varying their expression of each of the Big Five personality traits— the outcome of such variation referred to as personality states (e.g., Churchyard, Pine, Sharma, & Fletcher, 2019; Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). Expressing a personality state is theorized to stimulate the same affective, behavioural, and cognitive consequences as the corresponding trait, only for a shorter duration (Fleeson, 2001; Fleeson, 2004; Fleeson, 2007). Thus, as with extraversion, individuals’ apparent experience in regularly varying their Big Five personality states should allow them to adequately act each Big Five trait interpersonally.

In support, some research shows that personality can change over time due to situational pressures, such as interpersonal contexts or job demands (Gundogdu et al., 2017; Roberts, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2003). Moreover, people exhibit systematic mean-level changes in personality over their lifetime, presumably due to changing contexts and responsibilities (Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Robins, Fraley, Roberts, & Trzesniewski, 2001; Soto, John, Gosling, & Potter, 2011). On a shorter time scale, people instructed to act neurotic report more negative affect; reciprocally, therapy can reduce neuroticism and increase extraversion (McNiel & Fleeson, 2006; Roberts et al., 2017). Finally, aging, acting training, and emotional expressions can substantially alter the trait inferences made based on others’ nonverbal cues (Antonakis, Fenley, & Liechti, 2011; Malatesta, Fiore, & Messina, 1987; Todorov & Porter, 2014; Zajonc,

Adelmann, Murphy, & Niedenthal, 1987). Thus, personality can change, both in the short- and long-term. Whether this change manifests effectively in first impressions (i.e., change in perceived trait ranking) remains to be tested, however.

Indeed, other research suggests the opposite conclusion. Examinations of rank-order consistency in personality traits across the life span (rather than aggregated mean-level changes) suggest that individuals’ personality rank remains quite stable from a young age and increasingly so as they mature (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Additionally, other work suggests that people struggle to effectively change their levels of personality traits interpersonally. For instance, individuals who behave more authentically rather than deceptively in romantic relationships and at work acquire more positive, long-term relationships and more job offers, respectively (Josephs et al., 2019; Moore, Lee, Kim, & Cable, 2017). Similarly, behaving more congruently with one’s personality is associated with greater well-being and health (Human, Mignault, Biesanz, & Rogers, 2019; Leary, Tchividijian, & Kraxberger, 1994).

Even more, some work suggests that the variance in self-reported personality state changes is largely (though not completely) accounted for by changes in affect and does not predict outcomes beyond self-reported personality traits (Finnigan & Vazire, 2018; Wilson, Thompson, & Vazire, 2017). This is not to say that personality states are illusory; rather, that an understanding of them built primarily upon on self-reports is vulnerable to participants’ self- serving biases. Indeed, people tend to positively enhance their personality traits compared to strangers’ impressions of them (Kim, Di Domenico, & Connelly, 2019). Moreover, people’s personality is visible even when cues are constrained (e.g., just neutral faces or just voices; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992b; Naumann, Vazire, Rentfrow, & Gosling, 2009; Penton-Voak, Pound, Little, & Perrett, 2006). Thus, other work suggests that people should struggle to effectively change their perceived level on each of the Big Five personality traits.

I therefore investigated these competing hypotheses regarding whether individuals’ levels on each of the Big Five personality traits are detectible even during acting. To investigate whether individuals’ self-assessments of change correspond with interpersonal judgments, I also examined whether individuals are aware of how well they can manage impressions of their Big Five personality traits (Carlson & Barranti, 2015; Carlson & Furr, 2009).

Overview of Current Studies

Overall, I investigated whether individuals can manage impressions of their extraversion (primarily) and other Big Five personality traits (secondarily) in first impressions. In Study 1, I examined whether individuals’ levels of trait extraversion are visible even when they are acting extraverted or introverted. To achieve this, I videotaped participants introducing themselves naturally on video, and then in two separate videos but as an extravert or as an introvert. I then assessed whether unacquainted judges could infer the students’ trait levels of extraversion from these videos regardless of their acting attempts. I was interested in whether individuals’ levels of extraversion were visible compared to their same-video peers, not whether individuals could simply act more extraverted when instructed compared to their natural or introverted-acting selves.

In Study 2, I investigated the robustness of judging others’ trait extraversion during acting. Thus, I cropped the original videos to single still frames and again asked judges to infer the targets’ levels of extraversion. In Study 3, I again assessed robustness by recruiting semi-professional actors as targets, examining whether acting extraverted or introverted becomes easier with more experience. In Study 4, I examined the nonverbal cues that indicate individuals’ trait extraversion during acting. These four studies therefore examined whether one’s perceived rank on extraversion and introversion can be changed in a first impression.

Introverts being more extraverted also seek to be evaluated similarly to trait extraverts (e.g., as leaders; McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Thus, I examined whether individuals are evaluated more favourably compared to their peers when acting extraversion and introversion. In Study 5, I examined judgments of the students’ authenticity, likeability, and hireability. In Study 6, I examined judgments of the students’ hireability for a job specifically requiring extraversion.

Finally, I conducted Study 7 to examine whether individuals can manage the impressions of their Big Five personality traits. I therefore recruited participants again and followed a similar procedure as in Study 1 but added the poles of all of the traits (e.g., acting agreeable and disagreeable). Study 7 also allowed for a replication of Study 1 and investigated whether individuals are aware of their ability to manage impressions of their Big Five personality traits. I report all measures, manipulations, and exclusions in every study reported below.

Chapter 2 Study 1: Extraversion State Change in Videos

In Study 1, I investigated whether individuals’ level of extraversion is detectable even when they act introverted or extraverted compared to when they express themselves naturally. To achieve this, I asked participants to first introduce themselves naturally on video, and then in two separate videos, as an extravert and as an introvert. They then repeated these videos while following a script (to control for verbal content). Afterwards, they reported their trait level of extraversion and strangers later judged their extraversion across the different video conditions. I preregistered the hypotheses that (a) perceivers would accurately detect targets’ extraversion from videos of them introducing themselves naturally; (b) perceivers’ level of accuracy may differ when targets are acting extraverted or introverted; and (c) perceivers’ level of accuracy may differ when targets are following a script versus speaking spontaneously (https://osf.io/dhmzs).

Method 5.1 Participants and Procedure

I recruited 107 undergraduate students (70 female, 37 male; Mage = 20.00 years, SD = 6.61; 42 East Asian, 26 White, 21 South Asian, 9 Middle Eastern, 5 Black, 3 mixed, and 1 Hispanic) to serve as targets. I instructed the targets to introduce themselves across six videos. In each case, they had to introduce themselves as if they were “meeting some new friends for the first time.” The first three videos were spontaneously performed (i.e., participants were free to say anything after a minute preparation for each). The next three videos were scripted (see Appendix A for the script).

Within the spontaneous (suffix “SP”) and scripted (suffix “SC”) videos, the first video was always the natural video (prefix “N;” i.e., “Your goal is to act naturally in order to make a genuine impression of your personality in about 30 seconds; do not overthink it.”). The next two videos were the acting extraverted (prefix “E”) and acting introverted videos, (prefix “I”), counterbalanced in order:

10 11

You want these new friends to think that you are a very extraverted [introverted] person. In other words, you need to make it convincing that you are bold, energetic, active, assertive, and adventurous [reserved, quiet, lethargic, passive, compliant, and unadventurous]. Your goal is to make a seemingly genuine impression that you are actually extraverted [introverted] in about 30 seconds. Do not overthink it. It will help to think of a recent situation in which you were very extraverted [introverted].

These instructions used adjectives commonly used to describe extraversion and introversion (Goldberg, 1992), replicating Fleeson’s original procedure examining the intrapersonal benefits of acting extraverted (e.g., Fleeson et al., 2002). Participants then completed the 44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; e.g., “I see myself as someone who is talkative”), rating from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991), as well as demographics questions (age, race, and sex). Targets were moderately extraverted, on average (M = 2.93, SD = 0.80).

I cropped the videos to the middle 20-s section, muted any personally identifying information (e.g., name or place of work), and added a black frame to the end of the video. Previous studies show a 20-s video enables accurate judgments of targets’ extraversion (e.g., Carney et al., 2007). If a target’s video was too short (i.e., less than 20 seconds), I did not include their video in that condition. Thus, I had 94 targets in the NSP, ESP, and ISP conditions; 107 in NSC; and 106 in ESC and ISC.

I then recruited 62 participants (37 women, 25 men; Mage = 36.81 years, SD = 12.99) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and randomly assigned them to judge 14 targets from each of the six video conditions (with no target repeated) on how “extraverted, enthusiastic” and “reserved, quiet” (reverse-scored) they seemed (1 = Disagree strongly, 7 = Agree strongly; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann Jr., 2003). Previous research demonstrated that observing 14 targets enables accurate judgments of extraversion (e.g., Beer & Watson, 2010). I preregistered a perceiver-level analysis, thus achieving approximately 95% power to test for perceivers’ accuracy within each video condition (assuming reffect size = .30; Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy,

Mast, & Feinstein, 2008) and for differences in accuracy across video conditions (assuming reffect size = .21; Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).

Results

I first checked whether my acting manipulation elicited differences between perceivers’ ratings of targets’ extraversion across conditions in a 3 (acting condition: natural, acting extraverted, acting introverted) × 2 (speaking condition: scripted, spontaneous) repeated measures ANOVA.

Acting condition affected how extraverted perceivers rated targets, F(2, 122) = 181.40, p < .001, η² = .51, as did speaking condition, F(1, 61) = 6.57, p = .01, η² = .01, which interacted, F(2, 122) = 13.72, p < .001, η² = .04. Thus, perceivers rated targets acting extraverted in both the scripted and spontaneous conditions as significantly more extraverted than when targets were being natural, who were judged as more extraverted than when acting introverted (ts ≥ 4.32, ps < .001, 1 reffect sizes ≥ .48). As the interaction signifies, these differences were amplified in the spontaneous videos, perhaps because targets could act more expressively during the spontaneous rather than scripted videos.

I next tested whether perceivers accurately judged targets’ extraversion within each video condition (i.e., the focal analysis). To do so, I correlated each perceiver’s judgments of targets’ extraversion (aggregate of the two items; see Method) with the targets’ self-reported extraversion within each video condition. Thus, each perceiver had six correlation coefficients that indicated the degree to which their judgments of the targets’ extraversion correlated with the targets’ trait extraversion within each condition (i.e., six sensitivity correlations). I then converted these sensitivity correlations to Fisher’s z scores and tested them against 0 in one-sample t-tests. One NSC participant was excluded from these analyses for rating all targets equally (precluding a correlation).

Although targets acted extraverted and introverted across conditions, their individual differences in extraversion were still visible within conditions (except ISP; see Table 1). I submitted these Fisher’s z scores to a 3 (acting condition: natural, acting extraverted, acting introverted) × 2

1 ESC: M = 4.95, SD = 0.71; ESP: M = 5.25, SD = 0.79; NSC: M = 4.55, SD = 0.75; NSP: M =

4.22, SD = 0.71; ISC: M = 3.39, SD = 0.79; ISP: M = 2.98, SD = 0.88.

(speaking condition: scripted, spontaneous) repeated measures ANOVA to test accuracy differences across conditions. Acting condition affected perceivers’ accuracy, F(2, 120) = 18.42, p < .001, η² = .10, but speaking condition and its interaction with acting condition did not, Fs ≤ 1.17, ps ≥ .31, η²s ≤ .006. Collapsing across speaking condition, I subsequently tested accuracy differences between acting conditions. Perceivers’ accuracy did not differ between the acting extraverted and natural conditions, t(60) = 1.95, p = .06, reffect size = .24, 95% CI [-.01, .46], but perceivers were more accurate in the acting extraverted condition compared to the acting introverted condition, t(60) = 3.76, p < .001, reffect size = .44, 95% CI [.21, .62], and in the natural condition compared to the acting introverted condition, t(60) = 6.25, p < .001, reffect size = .63, 95% CI [.45, .76].

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and One-Sample T Tests Comparing Perceivers’ Accuracy to Chance in Detecting Targets’ Extraversion in Study 1

Condition Mr, SDr t p reffect size [95% CI]

Scripted videos

Acting extraverted (ESC) .28, .33 6.88 < .001 .66 [.48, .77]

Natural (NSC) .33, .31 8.28 < .001 .73 [.59, .83]

Acting introverted (ISC) .13, .31 3.22 .002 .38 [.14, .58]

Spontaneous videos

Acting extraverted (ESP) .26, .30 6.87 < .001 .66 [.49, .78]

Natural (NSP) .37, .31 9.65 < .001 .78 [.66, .86]

Acting introverted (ISP) .08, .31 1.94 .06 .24 [-.01, .46]

Note. N = 62 per condition (except NSC, N = 61, because on participant rated all targets equally).

A Brief Discussion

In summary, targets were able to act more extraverted and more introverted than their natural selves (i.e., across conditions; mean-level changes). Nevertheless, perceivers could still differentiate between trait extraverts and trait introverts within every video condition except ISP (i.e., rank-order stability). In fact, perceivers detected targets’ extraversion nearly identically whether they acted extraverted or just introduced themselves naturally; acting extraverted did not at all affect the detectability of trait extraversion. Importantly, because accuracy persisted in the scripted videos where the content was constant, it is likely that targets’ nonverbal behaviour cued their trait extraversion.

The only time targets’ trait extraversion went undetected was in the ISP condition. This may be because they simply spoke quietly, less frequently, and with less gesticulation in the videos, effectively eliminating any cues to their trait extraversion. Alternatively, I may have observed significant levels of accuracy in ISP if I had more power; ISP’s effect size of r = .24 approximates the average in social and personality psychology (Richard et al., 2003). All other accuracy effect sizes were moderate to large (i.e., .38 ≤ reffect size ≤ .78), reiterating how easily targets’ trait extraversion was detected even when they attempted to act otherwise. To investigate further just how robustly perceivers can detect extraversion, even when targets are acting, I restricted the cues available even further in Study 2.

Chapter 3 Study 2: Extraversion State Change in Still Frames

In Study 1, I found that people detected targets’ extraversion from videos of them acting extraverted and introverted. In Study 2, I investigated whether individuals’ levels of extraversion are detectable even when I further restrict the cues available. To do so, I cropped a single frame from the middle of each of the six videos used in Study 1. I then presented these single frames to strangers and tested whether they could detect targets’ trait extraversion. Previous research indicates that static photographs can indicate individuals’ trait extraversion (Borkenau et al., 2009; Naumann et al., 2009; Penton-Voak et al., 2006). I extended this work by examining whether still frames reveal targets’ trait extraversion even when targets act extraverted and introverted.

Method 8.1 Participants and Procedure

I used the same targets and video conditions from Study 1. Research assistants cropped a frame from the midpoint of the video unless the target’s eyes were not open (eyes play a critical role in judgments of personality; e.g., Giacomin & Rule, 2018; Lee & Anderson, 2017). In this case, they cropped a frame just before or after the midpoint in which the target’s eyes were open.

I then randomly assigned 62 MTurk participants to judge 14 targets’ extraversion from still frames from each of the six video conditions with no targets repeated, following the same procedure as in Study 1. I preregistered this study identically to Study 1, again achieving approximately 95% power to test for perceivers’ accuracy within and across video conditions (https://osf.io/zu64x).

Results

I first checked whether my acting manipulation elicited differences in perceivers’ ratings of targets’ perceived extraversion across conditions in a 3 (acting condition: natural, acting extraverted, acting introverted) × 2 (speaking condition: scripted, spontaneous) repeated measures ANOVA. Acting condition affected how extraverted perceivers rated targets, F(2, 122) = 27.25, p < .001, η² = .09; speaking condition, F(1, 61) = 3.86, p = .05, η² = .01, and their

17 interaction, F(2, 122) = 0.35, p = .70, η² = .00, did not. Thus, I collapsed the speaking conditions in further analysis. Decomposing the acting condition main effect, perceivers rated targets acting extraverted (M = 4.32, SD = 0.54) as significantly more extraverted than when the targets were being natural (M = 4.20, SD = 0.49), t(61) = 2.35, p = .02, reffect size = .29, who were themselves judged as more extraverted than when acting introverted (M = 3.86, SD = 0.56; t(61) = 5.07, p <

.001, reffect size = .54).

I next tested whether perceivers accurately judged targets’ extraversion within each still frame condition. To do so, I again estimated six sensitivity correlations for each perceiver (i.e., one within each still frame condition), converted these sensitivity correlations to Fisher’s z scores, and tested them against 0 in one-sample t tests.

Although targets acted extraverted and introverted across conditions, their individual differences in extraversion were still visible within the still frame conditions (except ISP; see Table 2). I submitted these Fisher’s z scores to a 3 (acting condition: natural, acting extraverted, acting introverted) × 2 (speaking condition: scripted, spontaneous) repeated measures ANOVA to test accuracy differences between conditions. None of acting, F(2, 122) = 2.37, p = .10, η² = .01; speaking condition, F(1, 61) = 2.25, p = .14, η² = .01, nor their interaction, F(2, 122) = 2.51, p = .09, η² = .01, affected perceivers’ accuracy. Thus, perceivers were similarly accurate in detecting targets’ extraversion from the still frames regardless of their acting attempts.

Finally, I tested whether dynamic nonverbal cues boost accuracy compared to static nonverbal cues by comparing perceivers’ accuracy from Study 1 (dynamic cues) to perceivers’ accuracy from this study (static cues). I collapsed across speaking condition because it did not affect accuracy in either study. Indeed, perceivers judged extraversion more accurately when viewing videos than still frames when targets acted naturally, t(111) = 3.16, p = .002, reffect size = .29, 95%

CI [.11, .45], and acted extraverted, t(111) = 2.97, p = .004, reffect size = .27, 95% CI [.09, .43], but not when they acted introverted t(111) = 0.35, p = .73, reffect size = .03, 95% CI [-.16, .21].

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics and One-Sample T Tests Comparing Perceivers’ Accuracy to Chance in Detecting Targets’ Extraversion in Study 2

Condition Mr, SDr t p reffect size [95% CI]

Scripted still frames

Natural (NSC) .20, .35 4.57 < .001 .51 [.30, .67]

Acting extraverted (ESC) .20, .41 3.84 < .001 .44 [.21, .62]

Acting introverted (ISC) .20, .40 3.91 < .001 .45 [.23, .63]

Spontaneous still frames

Natural (NSP) .26, .32 6.25 < .001 .62 [.44, .75]

Acting extraverted (ESP) .10, .35 2.22 .03 .27 [.02, .49]

Acting introverted (ISP) .07, .33 1.74 .09 .22 [-.03, .45]

Note. N = 62 per condition.

A Brief Discussion

In summary, even still frames provide enough cues to differentiate targets’ trait extraversion regardless of their acting attempts. As in Study 1, perceivers detected targets’ extraversion nearly identically whether they acted extraverted or just introduced themselves naturally. Nevertheless, accuracy was generally higher in the videos in Study 1 than in the still frames in Study 2, demonstrating that dynamic nonverbal cues conspired with static nonverbal cues to additively reveal targets’ extraversion during acting attempts. The only time targets’ trait extraversion was invisible in the still frames was in the ISP condition, again echoing the results of Study 1. Nevertheless, the estimated effect size of r = .22 again approximates the average in social and personality psychology (Richard et al., 2003) and, thus, higher power may have shown significant accuracy in this condition as well.

One limitation of Studies 1 and 2 is that targets have thus far been students. Although students report regularly varying their degree of extraversion (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009), individuals with professional acting training and experience may act extraversion and introversion better. I tested this possibility in Study 3.

Chapter 4 Study 3: Actors Acting Extraverted

In Studies 1 and 2, I found that people struggle to effectively act extraverted and introverted. Nevertheless, my targets were undergraduate students who likely did not have professional experience nor training in acting (although they do have everyday experience; Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009). Some research shows that acting training can improve impression management, such as for charisma (Antonakis et al., 2011). I therefore recruited semi- professional actors and again tested whether they could act extraverted and introverted. Given that Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that the scripted videos did not affect accuracy (and that nonverbal cues substantially influence accuracy), I only collected spontaneous videos. Based on previous research showing that acting training improves impression management (Antonakis et al., 2011), I preregistered the hypotheses that (a) perceivers would accurately detect the actors’ levels of extraversion from videos of them introducing themselves naturally, (b) perceivers would not accurately detect actors’ extraversion from videos of them introducing themselves in an introverted manner, and (c) perceivers would not accurately detect actors’ extraversion from videos of them introducing themselves in an extraverted manner (https://osf.io/q7ejr).

Method 11.1 Participants and Procedure

Using local advertisements and snowball sampling, I recruited 15 semi-professional actors (10 female, 5 male; Mage = 31.33 years, SD = 11.92; 8 White, 3 East Asian, 1 mixed, 1 South Asian; one actor did not provide his race) to serve as targets. I asked the actors to introduce themselves across the three spontaneous videos (i.e., natural, extraverted, and introverted). Actors were explicitly told not to overact.

After reporting their extraversion (M = 3.52, SD = 0.73), the actors also reported their years of acting experience, whether they usually get paid for acting (1 = Yes, all of the time, 7 = Never), whether they are usually praised for their acting performances (1 = Yes, all of the time, 7 = Never), how much of the year they spend acting (1 = Less than one month, 7 = Around 11 or 12 months), and how many hours per week they spend acting (1 = Less than 20 hours, 7 = More than 51 hours). On average, the actors reported extensive acting experience (MYears = 11.36, SD

= 8.73), typically being compensated, mostly being praised for their work, acting for 1 to 2 months per year, and for less than 20 hours per week.

I then randomly assigned 253 MTurk participants (130 women, 123 men; Mage = 36.15 years, SD = 11.55) to judge how “extraverted, enthusiastic” and “reserved, quiet” (reverse-scored) all 15 actors in the natural (N = 86), extraversion (N = 84), or introversion (N = 83) acting conditions seemed from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly; Gosling et al., 2003). I preregistered a perceiver-level analysis, thus achieving approximately 95% power to test for reffect size = .24 (the smallest detection result in Study 1).

Results

I first checked whether my acting manipulation elicited differences in targets’ perceived extraversion across the acting conditions using independent t tests at the participant-level. As before, targets acting extraverted (M = 5.09, SD = 0.79) seemed significantly more extraverted than when natural (M = 4.39, SD = 0.56), t(168) = 6.71, p < .001, reffect size = .46, who were themselves judged as more extraverted than when acting introverted (M = 3.56, SD = 0.70), t(167) = 8.40, p < .001, reffect size = .55.

I next tested whether perceivers accurately judged targets’ extraversion within each video condition, following the same analyses in Studies 1 and 2. Although targets effectively acted extraverted and introverted across conditions, their individual differences in extraversion were still visible within conditions regardless of their acting attempts (see Table 3). I also tested for accuracy differences between acting conditions, finding none (all ts ≤ 1.48, all ps ≥ 0.14, all reffect sizes ≤ 0.12).

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics and One-Sample T Tests Comparing Perceivers’ Accuracy to Chance in Detecting Targets’ Extraversion in Study 3

Condition Mr, SDr t p reffect size [95% CI]

Spontaneous videos

Natural (NSP)a .21, .24 8.26 < .001 .67 [.53, .77]

Acting extraverted (ESP)b .26, .22 10.90 < .001 .77 [.67, .84]

Acting introverted (ISP)c .23, .21 10.10 < .001 .74 [.62, .82]

Note. Sample sizes differ because of random assignment. aN = 86. bN = 84. cN = 83.

A Brief Discussion

In summary, semi-professional actors could not effectively act extraverted or introverted, similar to the undergraduate students in Studies 1 and 2. Moreover, the results support my earlier suspicion that I did not observe significant accuracy in the ISP condition because of low power. As in Studies 1 and 2, perceivers detected targets’ extraversion nearly identically whether they acted extraverted or just introduced themselves naturally. These results contradict my preregistered hypotheses based on previous research showing that acting training improves impression management (Antonakis et al., 2011).

Importantly, these results do not suggest that actors cannot act. Rather, they suggest that actors’ traits are still visible when compared to other actors given the same acting instructions. Certainly, had I recruited even more highly skilled actors, their traits would have likely been nearly undetectable to the typical observer. Nevertheless, most individuals do not have the resources to become highly skilled actors, let alone semi-professional actors (as recruited for this study). These results therefore suggest that even with an average of about 11 years acting experience, one cannot completely mask trait extraversion. Thus, the capacity to act extraverted and introverted is barred from most individuals, indicating that the cues to extraversion are quite robust. I identified these cues in Study 4.

Chapter 5 Study 4: Cues to Extraversion

In Studies 1-3, I found that people generally struggle to effectively act extraverted or introverted in videos, still frames, or when targets had more than a decade of acting experience. This suggests that the cues to extraversion are very robust. Research consistently shows that the dynamic cues to extraversion consist of smiling, expressiveness, self-assuredness, and speaking with a loud voice (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992a; Funder & Sneed, 1993). I therefore measured the degree to which the targets from Study 1 exhibited these cues to examine whether the cues persist even when targets act extraverted and introverted.

Method 14.1 Procedure

To measure the targets’ voice loudness, I cropped their videos to 17 seconds (to avoid analyzing silence at the beginning and end of the videos) and analyzed their relative average decibels using Audacity (expressed as an “A-weighted RMS,” a value in which higher numbers mean a quieter voice). Additionally, two research assistants measured how long targets smiled in the natural spontaneous videos.2 Given their high agreement, r(92) = .85, p < .001, only one research assistant measured smiling time for the other video conditions. To measure self-assuredness, two research assistants timed how long targets held eye contact with the camera (see Borkenau & Liebler, 1992a). Again, they demonstrated high agreement within the natural spontaneous videos, r(92) = .85, p < .001, allowing for only one research assistant to proceed with the other videos. To index expressiveness, two research assistants measured how long targets gesticulated; again, high agreement, r(92) = .70, p < .001, enabled one research assistant to time the remaining videos. Finally, I measured expressiveness by analyzing targets decibel range using Audacity.

2 Results did not differ whether I defined smiles as lips upturned (closed or open mouth) or with the additional stipulation that teeth must show.

Results

I correlated targets’ trait extraversion with each of the measured cues (Table 4). Voice loudness significantly related to targets’ extraversion in the NSC, NSP, and ESP conditions, and marginally in the ESC condition. Smiling only marginally related to targets’ extraversion in the NSC condition. Eye contact significantly related to targets’ extraversion in the ESP condition and marginally in the NSC condition. Gesticulation significantly related to extraversion in all of the video conditions. Finally, voice range significantly related to targets’ extraversion in the NSC, NSP, and ESP conditions. Thus, many of the nonverbal behaviours that cue extraversion when people act naturally persist when they act extraverted and introverted.

Another way of analyzing cue consistency is to examine how much targets’ expression of a certain cue correlate with their expression of that cue in another condition. Given that the correlations were nearly identical regardless of speaking condition, I collapsed the data for the scripted and spontaneous videos. Indeed, targets’ average voice loudness correlated when acting naturally and extraverted, r(83) = .73, p < .001, when acting naturally and introverted, r(84) = .65, p < .001, and when acting extraverted and introverted, r(82) = .61, p < .001. Their duration of smiling correlated when acting naturally and extraverted, r(105) = .77, p < .001, when acting naturally and introverted, r(104) = .59, p < .001, and when acting extraverted and introverted, r(104) = .52, p < .001. Their duration of eye contact correlated when acting naturally and extraverted, r(103) = .63, p < .001, when acting naturally and introverted, r(105) = .42, p < .001, and when acting extraverted and introverted, r(103) = .28, p = .004. Their duration of gesticulation correlated when acting naturally and extraverted, r(105) = .64, p < .001, when acting naturally and introverted, r(105) = .36, p < .001, but not when acting extraverted and introverted, r(105) = .11, p = .27. Finally, targets’ voice range correlated when acting naturally and extraverted, r(83) = .61, p < .001, when acting naturally and introverted, r(84) = .49, p < .001, and when acting extraverted and introverted, r(82) = .59, p < .001.

Table 4

Correlations Between Targets’ Trait Extraversion and Their Nonverbal Behaviours in Study 4

Condition Average loudness Smiling Eye contact Gesticulation Average voice range (s) (s) (s) (A-weighted (A-weighted RMS) RMS)

Scripted videos

Natural (NSC) -.28** a .17† b .17† b .31** b -.25* a

Acting extraverted (ESC) -.18† c .15 d .09 d .26** d -.16 c

Acting introverted (ISC) -.11 c .07 d .06 d .23* d -.15 c

Spontaneous videos

Natural (NSP) -.22* e -.00 f .12 f .31** f -.24* e

Acting extraverted (ESP) -.35*** g .06 h .33** h .33** h -.38*** g

Acting introverted (ISP) -.04 i .06 j .01 j .33** j .01 i aN = 102.

26 27 bN = 107. cN = 101. dN = 106. eN = 89. fN = 94. gN = 91. hN = 95. iN = 88. jN = 92.

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

A Brief Discussion

Overall, Study 4 demonstrated that the cues to extraversion are quite robust, often persisting even when people are acting extraverted and introverted. Gesticulation was the most revelatory cue, always indicating targets’ trait extraversion. More extraverted individuals also tended to speak louder and with more range than more introverted individuals did. Finally, eye contact only once cued trait extraversion, whereas smiling never did. Perhaps smiling did not correlate with actual extraversion because whereas more smiling would be expected from one aspect of extraversion (i.e., enthusiasm), less smiling would be expected from another aspect (i.e., assertiveness). Previous research finding that trait extraversion correlates with smiling may have measured targets’ nonverbal cues in situations that elicit more enthusiasm rather than assertiveness (e.g., meeting other participants) or used scales of extraversion that focus more on its enthusiasm aspect. Finally, individuals’ expression of each cue was usually highly correlated across conditions regardless of their acting attempts, suggesting that changing one’s nonverbal behaviour is difficult. Study 4 therefore reiterates Studies 1-3 in showing that individuals’ nonverbal behaviour consistently reveals their trait extraversion even during acting. In Studies 5 and 6, I moved beyond perceived extraversion to investigate how individuals acting extraverted and introverted are evaluated.

Chapter 6 Study 5: Evaluations

In Studies 1-4, I found that people generally struggle to effectively act extraverted or introverted in videos, still frames, or when targets had more than a decade of acting experience, and that gesticulation and voice loudness are the primary behaviours that signal one’s trait extraversion despite acting. Beyond being identified as an extravert, introverts acting extraversion also seek to be evaluated similarly to trait extraverts. For instance, introverts may act more extraverted at a job interview because they believe it will increase their chances of being hired; or act more extraverted on a first date because they believe it will make them seem more likeable (McCabe & Fleeson, 2012).

Some work suggests that positive evaluations may result from acting extraverted. For one, because people value extraversion, acting more extraverted may elicit halo effects in social judgments (Fleeson et al., 2002; Latham & von Stumm, 2017). Moreover, individuals feel more authentic and happier when acting extraverted (Fleeson et al., 2002; Fleeson & Wilt, 2010), feelings that may translate into seeming more authentic and positive to others. Thus, the broad social value of extraversion and the translation of internal feelings of authenticity and positive affect into one’s visible behaviour may produce positive evaluations of individuals acting extraverted. I therefore investigated whether people seem more hireable, likeable, and authentic when acting extraverted and introverted.

Although these effects should emerge when compared to people’s natural behaviour, Studies 1-4 suggest that trait extraversion still remains visible despite acting attempts. I thus preregistered my hypotheses that (a) people acting extraverted would seem more hireable, more likeable, and more authentic compared to the acting introversion and natural conditions; (b) these effects may be moderated by targets’ trait extraversion; and (c) these effects may be moderated by whether targets are following a script or speaking spontaneously (https://osf.io/axuj4).

Method 17.1 Participants and Procedure

I used the same targets and video conditions from Study 1. I recruited 186 MTurk participants

(95 women, 90 men, 1 “other;” Mage = 34.82 years, SD = 9.92) and randomly assigned them to judge either how “authentic” (N = 65), “hireable” (N = 58), or “likeable” (N = 63) 14 targets from each of the six video conditions seemed (1 = Disagree strongly, 7 = Agree strongly) with no target repeated.3 I preregistered a cross-classified analysis and achieved 95% power with this sample (assuming reffect size = .30; Westfall, Kenny, & Judd, 2014). I planned for cross-classified models because targets repeated across conditions; thus, targets and perceivers were used as grouping variables.

Results 18.1 Authenticity

I estimated a cross-classified model predicting targets’ perceived authenticity from two dummy- coded variables (DC 1: acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0; DC 2: acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0), which I statistically crossed with effect- coded speaking condition (scripted = 1, spontaneous = -1) and trait extraversion (mean centered).

Most important, trait extraversion did not independently predict authenticity or interact with acting condition (i.e., DC 1 or DC 2; Table 5); thus, trait introverts and extraverts seemed similarly authentic, in general, regardless of whether they were acting or being themselves. People did seem more authentic when being natural than when acting introverted, and when speaking spontaneously than when following a script.

3 Though significant, the magnitude of the correlations between authenticity, likeability, hireability, and perceived extraversion suggested independence in these judgments (rs < .57).

Table 5

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Perceived Authenticity From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5

Predictor b SE t df p

Trait extraversion .07 .07 1.02 207 .31

DC 1 -.06 .06 -1.13 4994 .26

Speaking condition -.28 .04 -7.18 5008 < .001

DC 2 -.28 .06 -4.95 4992 < .001

Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.09 .07 -1.32 4992 .19

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.01 .05 -0.15 5019 .88

DC 1 × Speaking condition .09 .06 1.70 4995 .09

Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.08 .07 -1.20 5000 .23

DC 2 × Speaking condition .02 .06 0.34 4991 .73

Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition .03 .07 0.45 4994 .65

Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition .10 .07 1.40 5001 .16

Note. N Perceiver = 65, for N Target in each condition, see Study 1. a DC 1: Acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0. b DC 2: Acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0. c Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

18.2 Hireability

I estimated a cross-classified model predicting targets’ perceived hireability from two dummy- coded variables (DC 1: acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0; DC 2: acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0) crossed with effect-coded speaking condition (scripted = 1, spontaneous = -1) and trait extraversion (mean centered).

Targets were rated as more hireable the higher their trait extraversion (Table 6). Targets were also rated as more hireable when being natural compared to acting introverted and when following a script than when speaking spontaneously.

The trait extraversion effect was qualified by interactions with the dummy-coded variables. I decomposed these interactions by estimating new cross-classified models within each of the acting conditions (Table 7; note that fractional degrees of freedom are typical for multilevel models; Hayes, 2006). When being natural and acting extraverted, targets seemed more hireable the higher their trait extraversion. This trait extraversion advantage for hireability was eliminated when everyone acted introverted.

33 34

Table 6

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Perceived Hireability From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5

Predictor b SE t df p

Trait extraversion .32 .08 4.14 167 < .001

DC 1 .08 .05 1.60 4425 .11

Speaking condition .14 .04 3.85 4432 < .001

DC 2 -.72 .05 -13.76 4422 < .001

Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.14 .07 -2.13 4424 .03

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.06 .05 -1.19 4442 .23

DC 1 × Speaking condition .14 .05 2.76 4421 .006

Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.14 .07 -2.14 4425 .03

DC 2 × Speaking condition .14 .05 2.60 4418 .009

Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition -.13 .07 -1.91 4424 .06

Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition .12 .07 1.80 4423 .07

Note. Nperceiver = 58, for Ntarget in each condition, see Study 1. a DC 1: Acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0. b DC 2: Acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0. c Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

Table 7

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Models Predicting Targets’ Hireability From Their Trait Extraversion and Speaking Condition in Each Acting Condition in Study 5

Predictor b SE t df p

Natural condition

Trait extraversion .32 .08 3.97 97.30 < .001

Speaking condition .13 .04 3.52 1440.70 < .001

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.05 .05 -1.05 1451.50 .29

Acting extraverted condition

Trait extraversion .20 .08 2.42 102 .02

Speaking condition .30 .04 8.42 1435.60 < .001

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.20 .05 -4.48 1456.40 < .001

Acting introverted condition

Trait extraversion .16 .10 1.59 97.50 .12

Speaking condition .27 .04 7.11 1407 < .001

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .07 .05 1.39 1438 .16

Note. Nperceiver = 58, for N Target in each condition, see Study 1. a Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

18.3 Likeability

I estimated a cross-classified model predicting targets’ likeability from two dummy-coded variables (DC 1: acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0; DC 2: acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0) crossed with effect-coded speaking condition (scripted = 1, spontaneous = -1) and trait extraversion (centered).

Targets higher on trait extraversion were more likeable. Targets also seemed less likeable when acting introverted than natural (Table 8). Furthermore, targets’ trait extraversion interacted with acting condition (DC 1), such that its influence was larger in the natural condition than in the acting extraverted condition. Indeed, whereas trait extraverts were more likeable when targets acted naturally, this was eliminated when everyone was acting extraverted or introverted (Table 9).

Table 8

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Likeability From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 5

Predictor b SE t df p

Trait extraversion .16 .06 2.68 191 .008

DC 1 .02 .04 0.44 4861 .66

Speaking condition -.06 .03 -2.02 4878 .04

DC 2 -.43 .04 -9.88 4855 < .001

Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.13 .05 -2.40 4860 .02

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .02 .04 0.56 4886 .58

DC 1 × Speaking condition .04 .04 0.98 4864 .33

Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.06 .06 1.02 4860 .31

DC 2 × Speaking condition .10 .04 2.26 4859 .02

Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition -.02 .05 -0.30 4863 .76

39 40

Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition -.01 .06 -0.18 4864 .85

Note. Nperceiver = 63, for Ntarget in each condition, see Study 1. a DC 1: Acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0. b DC 2: Acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0. c Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

Table 9

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Likeability From Their Trait Extraversion and Speaking Condition in Each Acting Condition in Study 5

Predictor b SE t df p

Natural condition

Trait extraversion .16 .06 2.61 96.90 .01

Speaking condition -.07 .03 -2.61 1578.20 .009

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .02 .04 0.62 1582.30 .54

Acting extraverted condition

Trait extraversion .03 .06 0.55 100.10 .59

Speaking condition -.02 .03 -0.53 1594 .60

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .00 .04 0.08 1607 .94

Acting introverted condition

Trait extraversion .10 .07 1.50 96.30 .14

Speaking condition .05 .03 1.46 1575 .14

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .02 .04 0.44 1603 .66

Note. Nperceiver = 63, for N Target in each condition, see Study 1. a Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

41 42

A Brief Discussion

Study 5 examined the evaluative consequences from acting extraverted and introverted in terms of perceived authenticity, hireability, and likeability. Overall, acting extraversion or introversion did not affect one’s perceived authenticity. Indeed, trait extraversion did not predict perceived authenticity and did not interact with whether individuals acted extraverted or introverted. When acting introverted, everyone seemed less authentic, perhaps because acting introverted involved acting more reserved (i.e., less expressive of oneself).

The hireability results converged with the accuracy studies in showing the ineffectiveness of acting extraverted. Namely, when being natural or acting extraverted, individuals higher on trait extraversion were still seen as more hireable (though the trait advantage was attenuated when everyone acted extraverted). Trait extraversion did not predict hireability when everyone acted introverted. Notably, acting extraverted did not improve individuals’ hireability on aggregate. Thus, acting extraverted resulted in neither mean-level nor rank-order changes in perceived hireability. On the whole then, trait extraverts retain their natural advantage in hireability perceptions, even when everyone acts extraverted.

Finally, although trait extraverts were more likeable when targets acted naturally, trait extraverts and trait introverts seemed similarly likeable when they acted extraversion. Thus, acting extraver allows more introverted individuals to surmount trait extraverts’ natural advantage in making a likeable first impression.

Taken together, when everyone is being natural, observers more positively evaluate individuals who are more extraverted than introverted in terms of hireability and likeability. This baseline hireability advantage maintains even when more introverted individuals act extraverted. Conversely, this baseline likeability advantage largely disappears when more introverted individuals act extraverted Combined with Studies 1-4, it therefore seems that people like trait introverts similarly to trait extraverts when they act extraverted even though they recognize that they are not genuine trait extraverts. Yet, they still see trait extraverts as more capable, possibly because people tend to prefer “natural” skill rather than one that is enacted. In Study 6, I therefore examined whether people still value acted extraversion similarly to trait extraversion when “natural” skill may be beneficial.

Chapter 7 Study 6: Natural Advantage

In Study 5, I found that people can seem just as likeable as trait extraverts by acting extraverted, but not as hireable. Given that Studies 1-4 showed that individuals’ trait extraversion is still visible during acting, people seem to prefer “naturals” as hires over those who strive to make the right impression.

Indeed, some research suggests evaluators should preferably hire trait extraverts compared to those who are acting extraverted in certain contexts. Specifically, when judging others’ competence, evaluators prefer those who seem to naturally possess the traits necessary for a role rather than those who worked hard to attain those traits (Tsay, 2016). For instance, when judging professional pianists with equal achievement, expert musicians and laypeople evaluated the pianist with evidence of innate ability as more talented, more likely to succeed, and more hireable than the pianist who worked hard to achieve equal standing (Tsay & Banaji, 2011). Thus, perhaps participants will prefer trait extraverts compared to trait introverts if they evaluate their hireability for a job that explicitly requires extraversion. I therefore investigated whether acting extraverted and introverted can affect how hireable trait extraverts and introverts seem for a job that requires extraversion: advertising sales agent, a gender-neutral position that requires skills convergent with extraversion (e.g., autonomy; developing social networks; public speaking, persuasion and influence, and social perceptiveness; Couch & Siger, 2001; O*NET, 2018).

To more realistically examine whether trait extraversion influences hiring decisions, I also explicitly measured participants’ hiring experience and examined whether that experience affected their judgments. I preregistered my hypotheses that (a) trait extraverts will be especially preferred, (b) acting extraverted will be especially advantageous (compared to Study 5); (c) acting introverted will be especially disadvantageous (compared to Study 5); (d) introverts’ benefits from acting extraverted will be diminished; (e) extraverts’ disadvantage from acting introverted will be exacerbated; and (f) those with hiring experience may evaluate targets differently than those without hiring experience (https://osf.io/nw8t7).

Method 20.1 Participants and Procedure

I used the same targets and video conditions from Study 1. I recruited 62 MTurk participants (one extra participant finished the survey without seeking compensation; 41 women, 22 men;

Mage = 36.67 years, SD = 10.29) to judge how “hireable” 14 targets from each of the six video conditions seemed from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly) with no target repeated. Before rating the targets, participants read:

You will be judging these individuals for a sales job at an advertising agency. The person’s job will be to travel across the US for the next year to sell the advertising agency’s services to several major and minor (start-up) clients who need a new advertising campaign. Put simply, you are deciding how hireable the people in the videos are for a job that requires a very enthusiastic and persuasive salesperson who can deliver exceptional sales pitches for the next year.

I preregistered a cross-classified analysis and achieved 95% power with this sample (assuming reffect size = .30; Westfall et al., 2014). After the ratings, participants indicated whether they had “any experience in hiring employees” (yes or no) and, if so, how many years (“no” coded as 0).

Results

I first conducted a manipulation check to ensure that participants in Study 6 recognized that the ratings concerned a job requiring extraversion compared to participants in Study 5. I therefore combined the data from this study with the hireability data from Study 5 and estimated a cross- classified model predicting targets’ perceived hireability from two dummy-coded variables (DC 1: acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0; DC 2: acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0) crossed with trait extraversion (mean centered), a variable coding the study (1 = Study 6, -1 = Study 5), and each effect-coded speaking condition (scripted = 1, spontaneous = -1). Several findings validated my job manipulation. First, hireability ratings were lower here than in Study 5, perhaps suggesting that participants were more selective in who they considered a suitable candidate (because of the specific job demands being considered; Table

10). Second, acting extraverted provided a greater hiring advantage (compared to being natural), and acting introverted incurred a greater hiring disadvantage (compared to being natural) here versus in Study 5. Third, trait extraversion more positively predicted hireability in this study than in Study 5. Thus, participants seemed to recognize the importance of extraversion in hiring an advertising sales agent.

For the focal analyses, I estimated a cross-classified model predicting targets’ perceived hireability from two dummy-coded variables (DC 1: acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0; DC 2: acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0) crossed with trait extraversion (centered), participants’ years of hiring experience (mean centered), and effect- coded speaking condition (scripted = 1, spontaneous = -1). Hiring experience did not moderate any of the central findings and is therefore not discussed further.

Targets were rated as more hireable as their trait extraversion increased (Table 11). Targets were also rated as more hireable when acting extraverted compared to being natural, more hireable when being natural compared to acting introverted, and more hireable when following a script than when speaking spontaneously. Trait extraversion predicted hireability more weakly when everyone acted introverted compared to being natural (i.e., trait extraversion interacted with DC 2). Critically, trait extraversion similarly predicted hireability when everyone acted extraverted compared to when they were being natural (i.e., no interaction between trait extraversion and DC 1).

Table 10

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Hireability From Their Study Source, Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 6

Predictor b SE t df p

Source -.49 .06 -8.82 9046 < .001

Trait extraversion .33 .08 3.94 190 < .001

DC 1 .08 .06 1.51 9011 .13

Speaking condition .14 .04 3.52 9016 < .001

DC 2 -.73 .06 -13.11 9009 < .001

Source × Trait extraversion .15 .07 2.25 9005 .02

Source × DC 1 .29 .08 3.69 9001 < .001

Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.16 .07 -2.23 9017 .03

Source × Speaking condition -.01 .05 -0.24 9000 .81

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.05 .05 -1.10 9028 .27

46 47

DC 1 × Speaking condition .16 .06 2.86 9010 .004

Source × DC 2 -.24 .08 -3.12 9002 .002

Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.15 .07 -2.16 9017 .03

DC 2 × Speaking condition .14 .06 2.56 9008 .01

Source × Trait extraversion × DC 1 .02 .10 0.23 9008 .23

Source × Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.04 .07 -0.57 9008 .57

Source × DC 1 × Speaking condition -.31 .08 -4.08 9000 < .001

Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition -.14 .07 -2.08 9016 .04

Source × Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.11 .10 -1.14 9010 .25

Source × DC 2 × Speaking condition .16 .08 2.07 9001 .04

Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition .12 .07 1.71 9014 .09

Source × Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition .22 .10 2.26 9006 .02

Source × Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition .02 .10 0.19 9007 .85

Note. Nperceiver = 63, for Ntarget in each condition, see Study 1.

48 a Source: Study 6 = 1, Study 5 = -1. a DC 1: Acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0. b DC 2: Acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0. d Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

49 Table 11

Unstandardized Regression Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Test Statistics for the Model Predicting Targets’ Hireability for an Advertising Sales Agent Job From Their Trait Extraversion, Speaking Condition, and Acting Condition in Study 6

Predictor b SE t df p

Hiring experience -.01 .02 -0.55 72 .58

Trait extraversion .47 .09 5.18 148 < .001

DC 1 .36 .05 6.72 4452 < .001

Speaking condition .12 .04 3.05 4458 .002

DC 2 -.98 .05 -18.19 4450 < .001

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion .00 .01 0.02 4457 .98

Hiring experience × DC 1 -.00 .01 -0.69 4458 .49

Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.12 .07 -1.73 4457 .09

Hiring experience × Speaking condition -.00 .01 -0.44 4461 .66

Trait extraversion × Speaking condition -.10 .05 -2.13 4463 .03

DC 1 × Speaking condition -.15 .05 -2.79 4451 .005

Hiring experience × DC 2 -.00 .01 -0.33 4456 .74

Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.22 .07 -3.28 4461 .001

DC 2 × Speaking condition .32 .05 5.90 4447 < .001

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion × DC 1 -.00 .01 -0.01 4456 .98

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion × Speaking condition .00 .01 0.20 4469 .84

Hiring experience × DC 1 × Speaking condition -.01 .01 -0.89 4456 .38

Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking condition .09 .07 1.31 4453 .19

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion × DC 2 -.02 .01 -1.20 4461 .23

Hiring experience × DC 2 × Speaking condition .02 .01 1.48 4462 .14

Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking condition .13 .07 1.95 4454 .05

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion × DC 1 × Speaking -.00 .01 -0.18 4471 .86 condition

Hiring experience × Trait extraversion × DC 2 × Speaking -.01 .01 -0.46 4463 .64 condition

Note. Nperceiver = 63, for Ntarget in each condition, see Study 1.

51 a DC 1: Acting extraverted = 1, acting introverted = 0, natural = 0. b DC 2: Acting introverted = 1, acting extraverted = 0, natural = 0. d Speaking condition coded as -1 = spontaneous, 1 = scripted.

A Brief Discussion

Overall, the results of Study 6 largely supported my preregistered hypotheses. For one, trait extraverts were especially preferred for a job requiring extraversion (compared to an unspecified job). Most important, merely acting extraverted did not at all diminish the extraversion advantage for a job explicitly requiring extraversion (and regardless of participants’ hiring experience). These results support previous work indicating that people prefer individuals who already possess traits required for a task rather than those who strive to acquire those traits (Tsay, 2016; Tsay & Banaji, 2011). Future work may investigate whether liking judgments based on explicit desires for extraversion produce similar results, whereby acting extraverted no longer benefits introverts. For instance, people may still like trait extraverts more (compared to those acting extraverted) when they explicitly desire an extraverted friend.

Taken together, the results of Studies 1-6 demonstrate that trait extraversion is still visible when individuals attempt to act extraverted or introverted (and even when they have years of acting experience), that acting extraverted provides some benefit to individuals’ perceived likeability, but not much benefit to their hireability (and even less so if extraversion is explicitly desired). Having investigated extraversion thoroughly, I conducted a final study to examine whether people can effectively act the other Big Five personality traits.

52 53

Chapter 8 Study 7: Big Five Personality State Change in Videos

Across Studies 1-6, I found that people’s trait extraversion remains visible in a first impression regardless of their acting attempts; that acting experience does not improve acting; and that acting extraverted generally provides likeability but not hireability benefits. In Study 7, I concluded this work by investigating whether people can act their Big Five personality traits.

There are reasons to suspect that people will be able to act their Big Five personality traits effectively. For one, people can simply verbalize self-descriptions consistent with each of the traits. Whereas extraversion may be more difficult to convincingly verbalize because of conflicting nonverbal cues (e.g., stating that one enjoys public speaking with a timid voice), verbal claims regarding other traits may seem less verifiable by observing nonverbal behaviour (e.g., one’s nonverbal behaviour cannot directly dispute their stating that they keep a detailed schedule when acting conscientious). Second, people may be socialized to act certain traits (e.g., acting agreeable when meeting distant relatives or tempering one’s openness when discussing politics with an opinionated in-law). Finally, people report regularly varying their personality states across all of their Big Five personality traits (Fleeson & Gallagher, 2009).

Nevertheless, there are reasons to suspect that people cannot act their Big Five personality traits effectively. First, numerous studies demonstrate that individuals’ Big Five personality traits are generally visible in a first impression. Specifically, three meta-analyses converge in showing that extraversion is the most visible trait, followed closely by conscientiousness (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007; Hall et al., 2008). Findings regarding the relative visibility of agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness are inconsistent, though most studies demonstrate at least some visibility for all (i.e., at minimum, detected above chance), with neuroticism usually the least visible (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Connolly et al., 2007; Hall et al., 2008). Indeed, neuroticism may only be visible in relevant situations that elicit its expression (Hirschmüller, Egloff, Schmukle, Nestler, & Back, 2015). Furthermore, at least some of the nonverbal cues of Big Five personality traits are likely difficult to control, such as having a shorter stature for agreeableness, tension for neuroticism, composed demeanour for conscientiousness, and a soft voice for openness (Borkenau & Liebler, 1992a; Funder & Sneed,

1993). Thus, some research suggests that people will not be able to entirely act their Big Five personality traits.

I therefore investigated whether people can effectively act their Big Five personality traits (and replicated Study 1’s extraversion findings). I followed the same procedure as in Study 1 except for a number of changes: (a) participants rated a greater number of targets (to attain more reliable estimates of accuracy), (b) participants only viewed the spontaneous videos (because scripted videos did not moderate accuracy in Studies 1-3), (c) targets’ personality was measured using self- and informant-reports (to increase reliability and validity; Connelly & Ones, 2010), and (d) targets reported their meta-perceptions regarding how they were judged (to test whether people have insight into how they are judged in a first impression, including while acting; Carlson & Barranti, 2015; Carlson & Furr, 2009; Carlson, et al., 2013).

Method 23.1 Participants and Procedure

I recruited 195 undergraduate students (137 female, 58 male; Mage = 19.49 years, SD = 3.66; 57 East Asian, 57 White, 20 South Asian, 17 mixed, 14 Southeast Asian, 11 Black, 8 Middle Eastern, 4 Hispanic, 4 “other,” 3 unanswered) to serve as targets. I instructed the targets to introduce themselves across 22 videos. In each case, they had to introduce themselves as if they were “meeting some new classmates for the first time.” The first eleven videos were all spontaneously performed (i.e., targets were free to say anything after a 1-minute preparation for each video). The next eleven videos were scripted (collected for future research, though this study did not test the scripted videos).

Within the spontaneous (suffix “SP”) and scripted videos (suffix “SC”), the first video was always the natural video (prefix “N;” i.e., Your goal is to act naturally in order to make a genuine impression of your personality in about 30 seconds; do not overthink it). The next ten videos were the acting agreeable (prefix “A”), acting disagreeable (prefix “DA”), acting conscientious (prefix “C”), acting unconscientiousness (prefix “UC”), acting extraverted (prefix “E”), acting introverted (prefix “I”), acting emotionally stable (prefix “MS”), acting emotionally unstable (prefix “MU”), acting open-minded and creative (prefix “O”), and acting conventional

55 and uncreative (prefix “XO”) videos in randomized order. Each acting video was introduced with the following instructions:

Now, you’re going to again imagine that you are going to meet a few new classmates. The difference now is that I will give you some time to think about how you would introduce yourself if you wanted these new friends to think that you are a very [trait pole] person. Your goal is to make a seemingly genuine impression that you are actually [trait pole adjectives; see Appendix B] in about 30 seconds. Do not overthink it. It will help to think of a recent situation in which you were very [trait pole]. I will be back soon.

After the videos, targets self-reported their Big Five personality traits using the 60-item BFI-II (e.g., “I see myself as someone who leaves a mess, doesn’t clean up”), rating from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5; Soto & John, 2017). Targets’ means and standard deviations were as follows: agreeableness (M = 3.70, SD = 0.58), conscientiousness (M = 3.38, SD = 0.72), emotional stability (M = 3.05, SD = 0.87), extraversion (M = 3.25, SD = 0.74), and open- mindedness (M = 3.74, SD = 0.62).

Next, they reported how well they believed they made an impression of each of the Big Five personality traits in the eleven video conditions (I did not differentiate between scripted and spontaneous videos to avoid fatiguing participants) using two questions: “I think I was very convincing as [trait pole] ([trait pole adjectives]) during the [video condition]” and reverse- scored “Other people will not judge me as [trait pole] ([trait pole adjectives]) during the [video condition]” (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree).4 For instance, targets responded whether they believed they were “very convincing as conscientious (organized, efficient, prompt, practical, careful, and thorough) during the act-conscientious video.” When rating their ability to express the low-end of each trait (e.g., unconscientiousness), targets rated whether they believed they made that low-end impression, not the high-end impression; e.g., they rated whether they believed they were “very convincing as unconscientious (disorganized, inefficient, sloppy, impractical, careless, and inconsistent) during the act-unconscientious video.”

4 Six participants did not respond to these questions.

Finally, targets reported their demographics (age, race, sex, and level of English fluency) and provided their own contact information and that of up to three people who knew them well and could “answer a short 10-minute survey” (i.e., informants; I also asked targets not to communicate anything about this study to the informants). Informants were later emailed and asked to participate in a survey in which they reported their impression of the target’s personality traits using an adapted BFI-II. Targets who did not provide three informants, or whose informants were unresponsive, were emailed three times over subsequent weeks to ask for replacement informants. Targets’ self-reported personality scores were averaged with informants’ reports for a final aggregate score.

Next, I cropped the middle-section of the targets’ videos to 20 seconds, muted any personally- identifying information (e.g., name or place of work), and added a black frame to the end of the videos. If a target’s video was too short (i.e., less than 20 seconds of acting time), I did not include their video in that condition. Because scripted videos did not moderate accuracy in Studies 1-3, I did not present them to perceivers. Thus, I had 154 NSP targets, 149 ASP targets, 137 DASP targets, 161 CSP targets, 153 UCSP targets, 147 ESP targets, 141 ISP targets, 147 MSSP targets, 146 MUSP targets, 171 OSP targets, and 140 XOSP targets.

I then recruited five sets of 73 MTurk participants (though 41 additional individuals participated without collecting compensation; 231 men, 175 women; Mage = 35.57 years, SD = 11.33) for one of five studies: agreeableness (N = 99), conscientiousness (N = 76), extraversion (N = 82), emotional stability (N = 75), and open-mindedness (N = 74). Within each study, they judged three sets of 27-36 randomly-selected targets (i.e., 20% of the target sample size for that condition) from corresponding video conditions on one trait (e.g., rating the natural, acting agreeable, and acting disagreeable videos on agreeableness). The survey did not present any target more than once and randomized video condition order across participants. Participants rated targets using the BFI-II extra-short form (Soto & John, 2017; see Appendix C). I planned for perceiver-level one-sample t tests, thus achieving 95% power to test for perceivers’ accuracy within each video condition (assuming reffect size = .21; Richard et al., 2003).

Results

I first checked whether the acting conditions elicited the expected differences in impressions using paired t tests at the target-level (e.g., whether targets acting agreeable seemed more

57 agreeable than targets being natural).5 Indeed, all of the manipulations worked (except between acting emotionally stable and being natural; Table 12).

I next tested whether perceivers accurately judged targets’ Big Five personality traits within each video condition (i.e., the focal analysis). To do so, I again estimated sensitivity correlations for each perceiver within each video condition, converted these correlation coefficients to Fisher’s z scores, and then tested them against 0 in one-sample t tests.

Although targets acted as instructed in aggregate, participants still detected their individual differences in Big Five personality traits in nearly all video conditions with few exceptions (Table 13). Namely, participants detected targets’ agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion (replicating Studies 1-3) regardless of whether they were being natural or acting. Participants detected targets’ open-mindedness when they were being natural or acting open- minded and creative, but not when they acted conventional and uncreative. Finally, they were not able to detect targets’ emotional stability regardless of whether they were acting or behaving naturally—emotional stability was robustly invisible.

I also analyzed whether targets were aware of how they would be judged in terms of each Big Five personality trait (see Table 14 for descriptive statistics of targets’ self-judgments). To do so, I correlated their self-judgments of their perceived traits with how they were actually perceived for each trait in each video condition (e.g., correlating how introverted they believed they would be judged with how introverted they were actually judged). Of the 15 correlations, five were significantly positive, one was significantly negative, one was marginally negative, and the rest were null (Table 15). Specifically, targets were aware of how agreeable they seemed when being natural, how extraverted they seemed when being natural and acting extraverted, how emotionally stable they seemed when being natural, and how open-minded and creative they seemed when acting open-minded and creative. They were inversely aware of how agreeable they seemed when acting disagreeable (marginal) and how conscientious they seemed when

5 Presented in Table 12 at the target-level for efficiency; results are identical at the participant- level.

58 acting unconscientious (i.e., they believed they seemed high on the trait when they were actually perceived as low, and vice versa).

Another way to test targets’ awareness of the impressions they were making is to correlate how well they believed they made a trait impression, in aggregate, with how accurate perceivers were at detecting that trait, in aggregate. A negative association should emerge if targets are aware of how well they made a certain impression: The better that targets believed they acted a trait, the worse perceivers’ accuracy. A positive association would indicate that targets are inversely aware: The better that targets believed they acted a trait, the better perceivers were at detecting that trait. Finally, a null association would indicate no awareness: Targets’ assessment of their acting performance does not predict how well perceivers detected their underlying traits. More directly, then, I tested whether the means of targets’ self-judgments in each video condition correlated with the video conditions’ levels of accuracy. A null association emerged, r(13) = .12, p = .67. Thus, there was no overall association between how well targets believed they acted and how well participants detected their traits. The small sample size notwithstanding, this analysis converges with the higher-powered analyses above in showing a lack of awareness.

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics and Manipulation Checks of Acting Conditions in Study 7

Condition n M SD Comparison t df p reffect size

Agreeableness

ASP 127 3.80 0.37 ASP vs. NSP 6.11 126 < .001 .48

NSP 154 3.62 0.35 NSP vs. DASP 23.94 122 < .001 .91

DASP 123 2.39 0.47 ASP vs. DASP 27.07 112 < .001 .93

Conscientiousness

CSP 137 3.65 0.33 CSP vs. NSP 5.46 136 < .001 .42

NSP 154 3.45 0.39 NSP vs. UCSP 21.21 131 < .001 .88

UCSP 132 2.48 0.38 CSP vs. UCSP 24.48 123 < .001 .91

Extraversion

ESP 130 3.32 0.62 ESP vs. NSP 6. 82 129 < .001 .51

NSP 154 3.01 0.58 NSP vs. ISP 12.36 120 < .001 .75

ISP 121 2.34 0.51 ESP vs. ISP 17.97 113 < .001 .86

Emotional Stability

MSSP 128 3.48 0.49 MSSP vs. NSP -0.95 127 .34 .08

NSP 154 3.54 0.45 NSP vs. MUSP 16.82 122 < .001 .84

MUSP 123 2.62 0.51 MSSP vs. MUSP 13.37 107 < .001 .79

Open-mindedness

OSP 154 3.61 0.38 OSP vs. NSP 7.16 143 < .001 .51

NSP 144 3.32 .40 NSP vs. XOSP 16.27 122 < .001 .83

XOSP 123 2.62 0.39 OSP vs. XOSP 23.39 119 < .001 .91

Note. Only targets overlapping in the two conditions being compared were used for these analyses; ASP = agreeable spontaneous, NSP = natural spontaneous, DASP = disagreeable spontaneous, CSP = conscientious spontaneous, UCSP = unconscientious spontaneous, ESP = extraverted spontaneous, ISP = introverted spontaneous, MSSP = emotionally stable spontaneous, MUSP = emotionally unstable spontaneous, OSP = open-minded and creative spontaneous, XOSP = conventional and uncreative spontaneous.

Table 13

Descriptive and Inferential Statistics Analyzing Perceivers’ Accuracy in Detecting Targets’ Big Five Personality Traits in Study 7

Condition Mr, SDr t df p reffect size

Agreeableness

ASP .13, .23 5.58 87 < .001 .51

NSP .08, .17 4.55 87 < .001 .44

DASP .08, .21 3.41 69 .001 .38

Conscientiousness

CSP .04, .18 1.95 66 .06 .23

NSP .16, .16 8.57 70 < .001 .72

UCSP .05, .16 2.72 65 .008 .32

Extraversion

ESP .23, .23 8.46 68 < .001 .72

NSP .27, .23 10.42 71 < .001 .78

ISP .10, .17 5.15 72 < .001 .52

Emotional Stability

MSSP -.02, .17 -1.12 72 .27 .13

NSP -.02, .16 -1.24 73 .22 .14

MUSP -.01, .17 -0.61 72 .55 .07

Open-mindedness

OSP .13, .19 5.80 69 < .001 .57

NSP .08, .18 3.83 72 < .001 .41

XOSP .03, .20 1.21 69 .23 .14

Note. ASP = agreeable spontaneous, NSP = natural spontaneous, DASP = disagreeable spontaneous, CSP = conscientious spontaneous, UCSP = unconscientious spontaneous, ESP = extraverted spontaneous, ISP = introverted spontaneous, MSSP = emotionally stable spontaneous, MUSP = emotionally unstable spontaneous, OSP = open-minded and creative spontaneous, XOSP = conventional and uncreative spontaneous.

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics of Targets’ Self-Judgments of their Perceived Big Five Personality Traits

Condition M SD Condition M SD

Agreeableness Conscientiousness

ASP 4.87 1.12 CSP 4.48 1.03

NSP 4.88 0.98 NSP 4.52 1.22

DASP 4.38 1.24 UCSP 4.37 1.16

Extraversion Emotional Stability

ESP 4.77 1.38 MSSP 4.76 1.10

NSP 4.49 1.48 NSP 4.71 1.07

ISP 5.01 1.18 MUSP 4.39 1.33

Open-mindedness

OSP 4.38 1.27

NSP 4.27 1.22

XOSP 4.21 1.14

Note. N = 190 in each condition; ASP = agreeable spontaneous, NSP = natural spontaneous, DASP = disagreeable spontaneous, CSP = conscientious spontaneous, UCSP = unconscientious spontaneous, ESP = extraverted spontaneous, ISP = introverted spontaneous, MSSP = emotionally stable spontaneous, MUSP = emotionally unstable spontaneous, OSP = open- minded and creative spontaneous, XOSP = conventional and uncreative spontaneous.

Table 15

Correlations Between Targets’ Self-Judgments of Their Perceived Traits and Their Actual Perceived Traits

Condition r df p Condition r df p

Agreeableness Conscientiousness

ASP .03 142 .72 CSP .08 153 .32

NSP .21 146 .01 NSP -.01 146 .90

DASP -.16 132 .06 UCSP -.20 146 .01

Extraversion Emotional Stability

ESP .39 141 < .001 MSSP -.08 141 .34

NSP .35 146 .002 NSP .17 146 .04

ISP .08 135 .35 MUSP .01 141 .91

Open-mindedness

OSP .18 163 .02

NSP -.01 146 .90

XOSP .08 134 .35

A Brief Discussion

Overall, the results of Study 7 converged with those of Studies 1-6: People were almost completely unable to effectively act their Big Five personality traits. Indeed, people’s trait agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and open-mindedness were all detected even when targets attempted to act their personality traits (apart from when they acted conventional and uncreative). Emotional stability was the only trait that was never detected, perhaps because the situation (self-introductions on video) did not adequately recruit cues to emotional stability (whereas a more stressful situation would; see Hirschmüller et al., 2015).

Even in the case of emotional stability, however, it is unlikely that it went undetected because targets were unanimously maintaining a socially desirable façade of emotional stability (i.e., acting effectively). If this were the case, then targets would likely have been aware of how emotionally stable they seemed to others, as managing an impression requires understanding how one will be viewed (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Yet, targets’ perceptions of how emotionally stable they seemed when acting emotionally (un)stable did not correlate with how emotionally (un)stable others judged them. Thus, it is more likely that insufficient cues exist for emotional stability, precluding its detection (at least in the context of briefly introducing oneself). Situations that afford more revelatory cues regarding one’s capacity to handle stress and negative affect may better reveal one’s emotional stability, even during acting (e.g., an important job interview; Hirschmüller et al., 2015). Future research should test this possibility.

Furthermore, the data showed that people are often unaware of the first impressions they make. Indeed, in addition to emotional stability, people are largely ignorant of how agreeable, conscientious, and open-minded they seem to others in a first impression (with a few exceptions; see Table 15). Furthermore, people were inversely aware in two cases: The more they thought they seemed unconscientious and disagreeable (when acting as such), the more conscientious and agreeable they were actually judged, respectively. Although it seems improbable that one would want to seem unconscientious, certain occasions would call for it (e.g., when wanting to seem carefree or to shirk a responsibility), as would certain occasions for seeming disagreeable (e.g., when wanting to seem tough in a negotiation). People appear to be especially poor at sensing how effectively they can make these trait impressions, however. In contrast, people were quite

66 aware of how extraverted they seemed to others, perhaps because it is the most visible trait (Connelly & Ones, 2010).

Speculating, it is possible that people’s broad ignorance of how their traits are judged by others in a first impression is one reason why they struggle to effectively act their personality traits; perhaps with more awareness of how others judge them, individuals could better manage such judgments. Unawareness is not sufficient to explain acting inability, however, because even when people are aware (in the case of extraversion), their acting attempts still make no difference. Although more research is certainly needed, the latter conclusion may suggest that the trait impressions that people make are at least somewhat outside of their control.

Chapter 9 General Discussion

Different situations befit different personality traits, and thus, people regularly attempt to change their personality expression (Fleeson, 2004; Fleeson, 2007; Nettle, 2006). Although myriad studies demonstrate that personality change is possible, most have investigated individuals’ self- reports of their personality changing. Moreover, many studies of personality change have focused on mean changes in traits, whereas in a first impression, only one’s present rank-order is consequential. More simply, it remains unclear whether individuals can behaviourally change the perceived rank of their Big Five personality traits. I therefore investigated whether people can act their Big Five personality traits in first impressions, focusing particularly on extraversion because it is the most visible social trait and because people are especially motivated to appear extraverted (e.g., Cain, 2012; Connelly & Ones, 2010).

In Study 1, individuals introduced themselves naturally, as an extravert, and as an introvert in three separate videos. Regardless of these acting efforts, unacquainted judges were still able distinguish individuals’ trait extraversion from 20-s videos. Notably, judges’ accuracy in detecting extraversion was nearly identical whether targets introduced themselves naturally or as an extravert; acting extraverted did not at all attenuate the visibility of individuals’ trait extraversion. In two subsequent studies, I investigated how robustly judges can detect extraversion even when targets are acting. In Study 2, I did so by cropping each of the videos in Study 1 to a single still frame and having them judged for apparent extraversion. In Study 3, I did so by recruiting semi-professional actors as targets. In both cases, results were nearly identical to those in Study 1 with 20-s videos of undergraduate students: Whether targets acted extraverted or introverted, their trait extraversion was just as detectible as when they introduced themselves naturally.

Thus, Studies 1 to 3 suggested that the cues to trait extraversion are fairly robust to acting attempts, even when only available in a still frame or when ostensibly manipulated by actors with an average of 11 years acting experience. Given that individuals’ trait extraversion was more visible in the videos versus the still frames (i.e., Study 1 vs. Study 3), these robust cues were likely nonverbal.

In Study 4, I delineated the nonverbal cues that reveal trait extraversion during acting attempts, hypothesizing that they would be the same cues that reveal trait extraversion when individuals are acting naturally. Indeed, individuals higher in trait extraversion tended to gesticulate more, speak louder, and with more range, even when everyone attempted to appear extraverted. In other words, the cues that naturally distinguish individuals’ trait extraversion maintain their expression even when individuals attempt to modify them. Relatedly, individuals’ expression of each cue was highly correlated across acting conditions, suggesting that changing one’s nonverbal disposition (compared to other individuals) is difficult.

In Studies 5 and 6, I moved beyond perceived extraversion to examine whether acting extraverted and introverted alters how individuals are evaluated. In Study 5, I found that individuals higher on trait extraversion naturally seem more likeable and hireable. When individuals acted extraverted, the trait extraversion advantage for likeability was lost; individuals acting extraverted seemed similarly likeable regardless of their trait extraversion. Conversely, the hireability advantage maintained even when individuals acted extraverted (and was amplified when the job specifically required extraversion; Study 6). Thus, the social benefits of acting extraverted are tempered by individuals’ trait extraversion.

In sum, Studies 1-6 demonstrated that trait extraversion remains robustly visible regardless of acting attempts, and that acting extraverted can generally boost one’s likeability but not hireability. Finally, Study 7 demonstrated convergent results for the rest of the Big Five personality traits, which remained detectible even during change attempts. The only trait that was invariably invisible was emotional stability (replicating previous work; e.g., Kenny, 1994).

Implications

These results suggest that changing one’s personality is not as seamless as previous research (and popular culture) may suggest. Indeed, researchers have suggested that “acting extraverted may be equivalent to being extraverted” based on individuals’ self-reports of fluctuations in their extraversion and their intrapersonal feelings when being more extraverted (Fleeson et al., 2002). The results here underpin the importance of examining outcomes beyond self-reports and intrapersonal feelings. Indeed, whereas the intrapersonal consequences of acting extraverted may be indistinguishable from being extraverted (e.g., Fleeson et al., 2002), the interpersonal consequences seem quite distinguishable. No matter how extraverted one may feel, others still

69 robustly differentiate between trait extraverts and trait introverts acting extraverted or introverted. Moreover, as the hireability data show, at least some of the social outcomes expected from acting extraverted are difficult to attain (e.g., McCabe & Fleeson, 2012).

Furthermore, this research underscores the importance of individuals’ perceived rank-ordering of their personality traits. Although participants were nearly always able to change the perception of their personality traits compared to their natural behaviour (i.e., mean-level changes), they were rarely able to change their perceived personality traits compared to their peers (i.e., rank-order changes). For instance, though one can appear more extraverted than their natural self (e.g., by gesticulating more often), they struggle to appear more extraverted than their more naturally extraverted peers. Thus, changing one’s perceived trait rank is quite difficult.

Two possible reasons may explain why people struggle to change the perceived rank of their personality traits in first impressions. First, they may be unaware of how they are truly being judged by others. Indeed, Study 7 demonstrated that people are largely ignorant of how agreeable, conscientious, and open-minded they seem to others in a first impression. Unawareness of how one is being judged can preclude impression management (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Unawareness cannot completely explain why people struggle to act personality traits, however. Indeed, even when individuals were aware of how extraverted they appeared, they could not completely act extraverted. This may either be because expressing the cues to trait extraversion becomes increasingly difficult (e.g., one becomes fatigued by acting extraverted; Jacques-Hamilton et al., 2018), or because people do not realize just how frequently trait extraverts display the cues to trait extraversion. The latter is suggested by Study 4, whereby trait extraverts gesticulated more, spoke louder, and with more range even when everyone was acting extraverted or introverted.

Finally, these results pose social implications. Ultimately, when one’s outcomes depend on their ability to make an effective first impression compared against other individuals (e.g., job interview, first date), change is only beneficial if it alters one’s perceived rank. Given individuals’ confidence in their acting abilities (Study 7), it is likely that they do not realize how poor their change attempts actually are. Indeed, targets’ confidence in their acting ability did not correlate with how well they acted. Consequently, people may misunderstand why they sometimes struggle to attain the social outcomes they expect when managing impressions.

Namely, when one fails to make a desired first impression, he or she may not realize that how they appeared compared to their natural selves has no bearing on their outcomes; what matters is how they appeared compared to the others present.

Limitations and Future Directions

This research demonstrates consistent evidence that changing one’s personality traits in a first impression is difficult. Still, its limitations should stimulate future research to more comprehensively examine this phenomenon.

First, having the targets speak into a camera did not fully create a social experience (though the research assistant filming may have somewhat created one). I did this to facilitate standardizing the videos (and because it is a common method in first impressions research; e.g., Borkenau & Lieber, 1992a). Nevertheless, it is possible that people are better actors in more social situations because they can more comfortably incorporate their abilities. Yet, the cognitive load introduced by having to interact with another individual may instead worsen people’s acting ability (Sylva et al., 2010). Future research should therefore examine acting in more social situations.

Second, the targets were only given a minute to prepare their acting attempt. Given that people report substantially varying their personality traits regularly (e.g., acting very introverted and very extraverted in the same week), and because brief acting preparation reproduces the intrapersonal experience of being extraverted (Fleeson et al., 2002), it seems reasonable that acting a personality trait should not require much contemplation. After all, most social situations do not allow for thorough preparation. Still, other research demonstrates that training with specific, actionable, and individualized feedback can result in personality change (Antonakis et al., 2011; Hudson & Fraley, 2015). Thus, although the present research suggests that people’s baseline acting ability is poor, future research should examine acting ability after a thorough intervention. Such findings would likely have practical utility as well, given people’s substantial motivation to change their personality traits and pervasive corporate and self-help strategies claiming to successfully enable personality change (with varying levels of success; Antonakis et al., 2011).

Relatedly, it is also possible that certain individuals are better actors than others. It seems likely that such individuals would have more practice, more social awareness, and more physical

71 characteristics that enable acting. For instance, an introverted actor who has extensively practiced an extraverted character with thorough feedback from a director would likely act extraversion effectively (Antonakis et al., 2011). Moreover, if this individual had exceptional insight into others’ judgments and their own behaviour, they would likely act extraverted more effectively (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Finally, existing physical characteristics could also enable the individual to act extraverted (e.g., the ability to speak loudly for extended periods of time; Borkenau & Liebler, 1992a; Funder & Sneed, 1993). Ultimately, investigating individual differences in acting may also facilitate understanding of how acting ability develops and can be improved.

Third, Study 7 did not delineate the nonverbal cues that enabled accurate detection of Big Five personality traits during acting. I did this for two reasons. First, thorough research already outlines the nonverbal cues that enable accurate judgments of the Big Five personality traits (e.g., Borkenau & Liebler 1992a; Funder & Sneed, 1993). Second, the primary goal of this work was to examine whether personality state change is effective in first impressions. Thus, even if verbal content did influence participants’ accuracy, it does not detract from the practical implications of the findings. In fact, it may strengthen the conclusions, because targets likely attempted to use verbal content to their advantage (e.g., simply stating that they are reliable when acting conscientious). Still, future research may examine the particular cues underlying such accuracy. Doing so could also help improve understanding of why acting is difficult and how it may be improved.

Finally, the implication that people are poor at personality state change only applies to comparative first impressions (i.e., when strangers rank individuals for an outcome). Though some important social situations are comparative first impressions (e.g., first date, job interview), others are not. In situations in which one simply needs to appear higher or lower than their typical self (i.e., mean change), the results here demonstrate that this can be quite easily achieved. In further examining personality state change, future research should therefore maintain the distinction between rank and mean change.

Relatedly, although rank and mean change are orthogonal, there can be situations in which they overlap. Namely, if some individuals approach a situation with the goal to change compared to their typical selves, whereas others approach it with the goal of being their typical selves, the

72 former may usurp the latter in terms of rank via mean change. Given that the effect sizes of mean change observed here were on average larger than those observed for trait detection (i.e., lack of rank change), it seems possible that rank change can be achieved via mean change in such situations. Nevertheless, because all of the targets were given the same instructions (e.g., all acted extraverted), future work needs to investigate the possibility of differential goal selection and its effect on acting personality states.

Conclusion

In this work, I argued that research examining personality change should examine whether individuals can change the perceived rank of their personality traits. My work demonstrates that (i) personality traits are robustly visible in a first impression despite change attempts, (ii) personality state change cannot completely surmount the social advantages experienced by individuals high on a trait, and (iii) people are quite unaware of how others judge them when acting their personality traits. None of this is to say that acting personality is impossible, but rather, that one’s natural self weighs down on change attempts, often returning individuals to their traits. Escaping the pull of self-gravity likely requires prolonged and focused effort, and future research should elucidate exactly how this may be achieved.

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219-245.

Antonakis, J., Fenley, M., & Liechti, S. (2011). Can charisma be taught? Tests of two interventions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 374-396.

Ariyomo, T. O., & Watt, P. J. (2012). The effect of variation in boldness and aggressiveness on the reproductive success of zebrafish. Animal Behaviour, 83, 41-46.

Austin, E. J., & Deary, I. J. (2000). The four ‘A’s: A common framework for normal and abnormal personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 977-995.

Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390-1396.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1996). Effects of impression management and self-deception on the predictive validity of personality constructs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 261-272.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self- reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 396-403.

Beer, A., & Watson, D. (2010). The effects of information and exposure on self-other agreement. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 38-45.

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: A meta- analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 887-919.

Bond Jr., C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 214-234.

Borkenau, P., Brecke, S., Möttig, C., & Paelecke, M. (2009). Extraversion is accurately perceived after a 50-ms exposure to a face. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 703- 706.

Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992a). Trait inferences: Sources of validity at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 645-657.

Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1992b). The cross-modal consistency of personality: Inferring strangers’ traits from visual or acoustic information. Journal of Research in Personality, 26, 183-204.

Boyce, C. J., Wood, A. M., & Powdthavee, N. (2013). Is personality fixed? Personality changes as much as “variable” economic factors and more strongly predicts changes to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 111, 287-305.

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking. New York, NY: Crown.

Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51, 119-136.

Carlson, E. N. & Barranti, M. (2015). The accuracy of metaperceptions: Do people know how others perceive them? In J. A. Hall, M. S. Mast, & T. V. West (Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 165-182). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Carlson, E. N., & Furr, R. M. (2009). Differential meta-accuracy: People understand the different impressions they make. Psychological Science, 20, 1033-1039.

Carney, D. R., Colvin, C. R., & Hall, J. A. (2007). A thin slice perspective on the accuracy of first impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1054-1072.

Charlton, L. (2005). Schizotypy, personality and paranormal belief. Unpublished project, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, England.

Churchyard, J. S., Pine, K. J., Sharma, S., & Fletcher, B. (C). (2019). Variation in personality states as predicted by interpersonal context. Journal of Individual Differences, 40, 13-19.

Claridge, G., & Davis, C. (2001). What’s the use of neuroticism? Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 383-400.

Claridge, G., & Davis, C. (2003). Personality and psychological disorders. London, UK: Arnold.

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092-1122.

Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta‐analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 110-117.

Couch, J. V., & Sigler, J. N. (2001). Gender perception of professional occupations. Psychological Reports, 88, 693-698.

DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197-229.

DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203-243.

DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896.

Dyce, J. A., & O'Connor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of facet-level predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 31-45.

Egan, S., & Stelmack, R. M. (2003). A personality profile of Mount Everest climbers. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1491-1494.

Ellis, L. (1987). Relationships of criminality and psychopathy with eight other apparent manifestations of sub-optimal arousal. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 905- 925.

Favati, A., Leimar, O., & Løvlie, H. (2014). Personality predicts social dominance in male domestic fowl. PLoS One, 9, e103535.

Field, C. A., & O'Keefe, G. (2004). Behavioral and psychological risk factors for traumatic injury. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 26, 27-35.

Finnigan, K., M., & Vazire, S. (2018). The incremental validity of average state self-reports over global self-reports of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115, 321-337.

Fleeson, W. (2001). Toward a structure-and process-integrated view of personality: Traits as density distributions of states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 1011- 1027.

Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 83-87.

Fleeson, W. (2007). Situation‐based contingencies underlying trait‐content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825-862.

Fleeson, W., & Gallagher, P. (2009). The implications of Big Five standing for the distribution of trait manifestation in behavior: Fifteen experience-sampling studies and a meta- analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1097-1114.

Fleeson, W., Malanos, A. B., & Achille, N. M. (2002). An intraindividual process approach to the relationship between extraversion and positive affect: Is acting extraverted as “good” as being extraverted?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1409-1422.

Fleeson, W., & Wilt, J. (2010). The relevance of Big Five trait content in behavior to subjective authenticity: Do high levels of within‐person behavioral variability undermine or enable authenticity achievement?. Journal of Personality, 78, 1353-1382.

Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177-182.

Funder, D. C., & Sneed, C. D. (1993). Behavioral manifestations of personality: An ecological approach to judgmental accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 479- 490.

Furr, R. M. (2009). Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. European Journal of Personality, 23, 369-401.

Gensowski, M. (2014). ‘‘Personality, IQ, and Life- time Earnings.’’ Discussion Paper 8235, IZA, Uppsala, Sweden.

Giacomin, M., & Rule, N. O. (2019). Eyebrows cue grandiose narcissism. Journal of Personality, 87, 373-385.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann Jr, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.

Grant, A. M. (2013). Rethinking the extraverted sales ideal: The ambivert advantage. Psychological Science, 24, 1024-1030.

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the extraverted leadership advantage: The role of employee proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 528- 550.

Gundogdu, D., Finnerty, A. N., Staiano, J., Teso, S., Passerini, A., Pianesi, F., & Lepri, B. (2017). Investigating the association between social interactions and personality states dynamics. Royal Society Open Science, 4, 170194.

Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., Murphy, N. A., Mast, M. S., & Feinstein, B. A. (2008). Accuracy of judging others’ traits and states: Comparing mean levels across tests. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1476-1489.

Hayes, A. F. (2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32, 385-410.

Heller, D., Komar, J., & Lee, W. B. (2007). The dynamics of personality states, goals, and well- being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 898-910.

Hirschmüller, S., Egloff, B., Schmukle, S. C., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Accurate judgments of neuroticism at zero acquaintance: A question of relevance. Journal of Personality, 83, 221-228.

Hudson, N. W., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Volitional personality trait change: Can people choose to change their personality traits?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 490- 507.

Human, L. J., Mignault, M. C., Biesanz, J. C., & Rogers, K. H. (2019). Why are well-adjusted people seen more accurately? The role of personality-behavior congruence in naturalistic social settings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advanced online publication.

Jacques-Hamilton, R., Sun, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2018). Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.

Jensen-Campbell, L. A., Adams, R., Perry, D. G., Workman, K. A., Furdella, J. Q., & Egan, S. K. (2002). Agreeableness, extraversion, and peer relations in early adolescence: Winning friends and deflecting aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 224-251.

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford.

Josephs, L., Warach, B., Goldin, K. L., Jonason, P. K., Gorman, B. S., Masroor, S., & Lebron, N. (2019). Be yourself: Authenticity as a long-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 143, 118-127.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765-780.

Judge, T. A., Livingston, B. A., & Hurst, C. (2012). Do nice guys—and gals—really finish last? The joint effects of sex and agreeableness on income. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 390-407.

Kelly, E. L., & Conley, J. J. (1987). Personality and compatibility: A prospective analysis of marital stability and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 27-41.

Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal perception: A social relations analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kim, H., Di Domenico, S. I., & Connelly, B. S. (2019). Self-other agreement in personality reports: A meta-analytic comparison of self-and informant-report means. Psychological Science, 30, 129-138.

King, L. A., Walker, L. M., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189-203.

Latham, R. M., & von Stumm, S. (2017). Mothers want extraversion over conscientiousness or intelligence for their children. Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 262-265.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two- component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Leary, M. R., Tchividijian, L. R., & Kraxberger, B. E. (1994). Self-presentation can be hazardous to your health: Impression management and health risk. Health Psychology, 13, 461-470.

Lee, D. H., & Anderson, A. K. (2017). Reading what the mind thinks from how the eye sees. Psychological Science, 28, 494-503.

Leikas, S., & Ilmarinen, V. J. (2017). Happy now, tired later? Extraverted and conscientious behavior are related to immediate mood gains, but to later fatigue. Journal of Personality, 85, 603-615.

Lukaszewski, A. W., & Roney, J. R. (2011). The origins of extraversion: Joint effects of facultative calibration and genetic polymorphism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 409-421.

Malatesta, C. Z., Fiore, M. J., & Messina, J. J. (1987). Affect, personality, and facial expression characteristics of older people. Psychology and Aging, 2, 64-69.

Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 124-127.

Marlow, D., & Crowne, D. P. (1961). Social desirability and response to perceived situational demands. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109-115.

McCabe, K. O., & Fleeson, W. (2012). What is extraversion for? Integrating trait and motivational perspectives and identifying the purpose of extraversion. Psychological Science, 23, 1498-1505.

McKenzie, J. (1989). Neuroticism and academic achievement: The Furneaux factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 509-515.

McKenzie, J., Taghavi-Knosary, M., & Tindell, G. (2000). Neuroticism and academic achievement: The Furneaux factor as a measure of academic rigour. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 3-11.

McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258-1265.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60, 175-215.

McNiel, J. M., & Fleeson, W. (2006). The causal effects of extraversion on positive affect and neuroticism on negative affect: Manipulating state extraversion and state neuroticism in an experimental approach. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 529-550.

Miller, G. E., Cohen, S., Rabin, B. S., Skoner, D. P., & Doyle, W. J. (1999). Personality and tonic cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune parameters. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 13, 109-123.

Moore, C., Lee, S. Y., Kim, K., & Cable, D. M. (2017). The advantage of being oneself: The role of applicant self-verification in organizational hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1493-1513.

Mueller, G., & Plug, E. (2006). Estimating the effect of personality on male and female earnings. ILR Review, 60, 3-22.

Murphy, N. A. (2007). Appearing smart: The impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy, and behavior in social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 325-339.

Naumann, L. P., Vazire, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality judgments based on physical appearance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1661- 1671.

Neeleman, J., Sytema, S., & Wadsworth, M. (2002). Propensity to psychiatric and somatic ill- health: Evidence from a birth cohort. Psychological Medicine, 32, 793-803.

Nettle, D. (2005). An evolutionary approach to the extraversion continuum. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 363-373.

Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622-631.

O*NET. (2018). Summary report for: 41-3011.00 – Advertising sales agents. Retrieved from https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/41-3011.00

Penton-Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24, 607-640.

Re, D. E., Wang, S. A., He, J., & Rule, N. O. (2016). Selfie indulgence: Self-favoring biases in perceptions of selfies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 588-596.

Richard, F. D., Bond Jr, C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363.

Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students’ academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 353-387.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experiences and personality development in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 582- 593.

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3-25.

Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R., & Hill, P. L. (2017). A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 117- 141.

Ross, S. R., Stewart, J., Mugge, M., & Fultz, B. (2001). The imposter phenomenon, achievement dispositions, and the five factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1347- 1355.

Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330- 343.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1-25.

Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). A longitudinal study of personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617-640.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117-143.

Soto, C. J., John, O. P., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2011). Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65: Big Five domains and facets in a large cross-sectional sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 330-348.

Sylva, D., Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2010). Concealment of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 141-152.

Todorov, A., & Porter, J. M. (2014). Misleading first impressions: Different for different facial images of the same person. Psychological Science, 25, 1404-1417.

Tsay, C. J. (2016). Privileging naturals over strivers: The costs of the naturalness bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 40-53.

Tsay, C. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 460-465.

Weiss, A., Gartner, M. C., Gold, K. C., & Stoinski, T. S. (2013). Extraversion predicts longer survival in gorillas: An 18-year longitudinal study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280, 20122231.

Weiss, A., King, J. E., & Perkins, L. (2006). Personality and subjective well-being in orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 501-511.

Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2020-2045.

Wilson, R. E., Thompson, R. J., & Vazire, S. (2017). Are fluctuations in personality states more than just fluctuations in affect? Journal of Research on Personality, 69, 110-123.

Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 335-346.

Zelenski, J. M., Santoro, M. S., & Whelan, D. C. (2012). Would introverts be better off if they acted more like extraverts? Exploring emotional and cognitive consequences of counterdispositional behavior. Emotion, 12, 290-303.

Appendix A: Script Used in Study 1

Participants filled in the blanks.

Hi, my name is [______] and I major in [______]. My biggest achievement so far is [______]. After I’m done school, I really want to work as a [______]. I’d also like to travel to [______] when I’m finished school.

When I’m not in school, one of my favourite hobbies is [______]. Besides that, I like listening to music, and my favourite genre is [______]. I also really like to watch movies. My favourite movie is [______].

Finally, I like food. My favourite food is [______] and my favourite dessert is [______].

85 86

Appendix B: Adjectives Used in Study 7

Adapted from Goldberg’s (1992) mini-markers:

Agreeable: Sympathetic, considerate, kind, cooperative, helpful, and warm.

Disagreeable: Unsympathetic, rude, harsh, uncooperative, selfish, and cold.

Conscientious: Organized, efficient, prompt, practical, careful, and thorough.

Unconscientious: Disorganized, inefficient, sloppy, impractical, careless, and inconsistent.

Extraverted: Bold, talkative, energetic, active, assertive, and adventurous.

Introverted: Reserved, quiet, lethargic, passive, compliant, and unadventurous.

Emotionally stable: Calm, unenvious, relaxed, unemotional, unexcitable, and composed.

Emotionally unstable: Anxious, jealous, nervous, moody, emotional, and tense.

Open-minded and creative: Creative, imaginative, philosophical, intellectual, complex, and deep.

Conventional and uncreative: Uncreative, unimaginative, unreflective, unintellectual, simple, and shallow.

Appendix C: Target Ratings in Study 7

Participants judged targets on the following:

Agreeableness

1. Is compassionate, has a soft heart.

2. Is sometimes rude to others. (R)

3. Assumes the best about people.

Conscientiousness

1. Tends to be disorganized. (R)

2. Has difficulty getting started on tasks. (R)

3. Is reliable, can always be counted on.

Emotional Stability

1. Worries a lot. (R)

2. Tends to feel depressed, blue. (R)

3. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset.

Extraversion

1. Tends to be quiet. (R)

2. Is dominant, acts as a leader.

3. Is full of energy.

Open-mindedness

1. Is fascinated by art, music, or literature.

2. Has little interest in abstract ideas. (R)

3. Is original, comes up with new ideas.