Info

effect with A

FIGURE 4.2. Four types of nomothetic accuracy. Adapted from "Accuracy in Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis," by D. A. Kenny and L. Albright, 1987, Psychological Bulletin, 102, p. 396. Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association.

FIGURE 4.2. Four types of nomothetic accuracy. Adapted from "Accuracy in Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis," by D. A. Kenny and L. Albright, 1987, Psychological Bulletin, 102, p. 396. Copyright 1987 by the American Psychological Association.

average rating corresponds with the average cooper-ativeness of others toward him and thus may eventually work like a self-fulfilling prophecy Generalized accuracy, in contrast, reflects whether the cooperative behavior of a group member corresponds with how it is perceived and judged by all others, whereas the dyadic accuracy of a perceiver predicts exactly how much a group member will cooperate with him or her.

The SRM's definitions of accuracy are not identical with Cronbach's. Although generalized accuracy resembles Cronbach's differential accuracy, and dyadic accuracy corresponds with Cronbach's differential accuracy, there are fundamental differences between both approaches. Whereas the SRM considers accuracy for a trait across a set of judges and targets, Cronbach examined the accuracy of a judge across a set of targets and traits. Research involving the SRM has provided some important insights into interpersonal perception. In ratings of contact frequency in groups, for instance, the generalized accuracy and dyadic accuracy seem both stronger than perceiver accuracy (Kenny, 1994). In another study, zero-acquaintance ratings of extraversion appeared highly accurate in terms of behavior prediction, with generalized accuracy being again much stronger than dyadic and perceiver accuracy (Levesque & Kenny, 1993). Moreover, regarding consensus, judges tend to view targets as being similar to each other. At the same time different judges of the same target person show substantial agreement, even after only a brief acquaintance (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). Perhaps the most important finding pertains to the fact that self-other agreement is substantial because the self and the judge base their impression on the same information (i.e., the target's behavior), rather than the self merely incorporating an impression of others, as suggested by symbolic interactionism (Kenny, 1994).

The SRM also has some complications (see Funder, 1999). First, employing a round-robin design can be time consuming and expensive, especially when groups of close relationships like families are of interest. In these cases, it may be difficult to bring each family member to the round-robin design. Second, the results of the SRM can most clearly be interpreted when each informant (or target, respectively) has comparable amounts of contact with everyone else. This situation could be established under experimental conditions, although such contexts are artificial in comparison to situations where informant assessment is typically used (e.g., classrooms, groups, families, etc.). Third, the interpretation of results is sometimes complicated because the SRM does not provide measures of consensus or accuracy in terms of correlation coefficients, but rather compares the relative proportions of variance accounted for by the different components of informant ratings (although these proportions can be converted into correlation coefficients; see Kenny, 1994).

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment