Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 1

Running Head: NORMATIVE AND DISTINCTIVE SITUATION PERCEPTION ACCURACY

Normative and Distinctive Accuracy in Situation Perceptions:

Magnitude and Personality Correlates

John F. Rauthmann1 & Ryne A. Sherman2

1
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (Germany)
2
Florida Atlantic University (USA)

Accepted for publication in

Social Psychological and Personality Science

– Version before copy-editing from 11/02/2016 –

Author Notes

We thank Jeremy Biesanz for valuable advice on data-analytical issues concerning SAM.

All findings and R codes as well as additional analyses can be found openly at osf.io/qgu6h

as well as in the online supplemental materials.

Correspondence: John Rauthmann, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, D-

10099 Berlin, Germany. Phone: 0049-30-2093-1836. Fax: 0049-30-2093-9342. E-mail:

jfrauthmann@gmail.com.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 2

Abstract

To what extent do people achieve accuracy in judging others’ situations? Based on interpersonal

perception models, we propose that ex-situ raters may attain accuracy by judging the

psychological characteristics of a situation that in-situ raters have experienced according to a

normative and distinctive characteristics profile. Biesanz’ Social Accuracy Model (SAM)

provides a flexible crossed-effects random coefficient modeling framework that can be applied to

situation perception data. By targeting characteristics profiles with the analytical unit of the ex-

situ rater-situation dyad, the extent of and variation in normative and distinctive accuracy of ex-

situ raters can be estimated and explained by personality correlates to quantify “the good ex-situ

rater.” We demonstrate a SAM approach to situational accuracy with real in-situ and ex-situ data

(402 ex-situ raters judged 10 situations on 8 characteristics) and sketch future research.

Key words: situations, situation perception, accuracy, normative and distinctive accuracy, Social

Accuracy Model
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 3

Normative and Distinctive Accuracy in Situation Perceptions:

Magnitude and Personality Correlates

People form impressions of situations as if they were real, coherent entities (Cantor et al.,

1982; Edwards & Templeton, 2005; Forgas, 1976; Magnusson, 1981; Rauthmann, 2012;

Rauthmann et al., 2015a,b; Serfass & Sherman, 2013; Sherman et al., 2012, 2013). Thus,

situation perception may follow principles similar to person perception (Nystedt, 1972a,b, 1981;

Rauthmann, 2012; Rauthmann et al., 2014). Attending to situation perception is important

because knowing others’ situations can help understand and predict their behavior better. Thus, a

crucial question is how good people actually are at deciphering others’ situations. Further, most

research interested in the situation as the unit of analysis or as a moderating variable will need

explicit measurements of situations (Rauthmann et al., 2015a), which will most often be ratings

of the psychological characteristics of target-situations from different sources (e.g., in-situ raters:

people in and affected by the situation; ex-situ raters: neither present nor affected) and thus

essentially tap perceptions. This opens up the door to investigate the agreement between different

kinds of situation raters (Rauthmann & Sherman, in revision).

This work serves to deepen our understanding of situational accuracy as the extent to

which ex-situ raters can accurately judge the characteristics of situations from in-situ raters with

only minimal information available. Specifically, we aim to address three questions within a

flexible multi-level modeling (MLM) approach:

(1) How accurately can people generally judge others’ situations?

(2) How strong is normative and distinctive situational accuracy?

(3) Which broad personality traits are associated with individual differences in being

normatively and distinctively accurate?

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 4

Situation Perception

Person and Situation Perception

Concepts and methods of interpersonal perception and person(ality) judgment literature

can also be applied to situation perception (Nystedt, 1981; Rauthmann, 2012; Rauthmann &

Sherman, in revision; Rauthmann et al., 2015a). Nonetheless, situation perception is in key

respects different from person perception. First, perceptions are only unidirectional (i.e., no

reciprocity as in interpersonal perceptions; Kenny, 1994). Second, situation perceptions could

fluctuate more as situations are ever-changing, dynamic, and fleeting (in contrast to persons as

lasting, physical beings). Third, situations cannot rate themselves, so raters are required to assess

their psychological characteristics. This latter point invites the question of reality: To what extent

is a situation a “real thing?” To cope with this question, Rauthmann et al. (2015a) proposed three

principles of psychological situation research: A psychologically relevant situation (1) only

“exists” if at least one person processes it, (2) is grounded in three types of reality (physical,

social, and personal), and (3) should be measured from different perspectives (i.e., in-situ and ex-

situ raters). These principles require a better understanding of how in-situ and ex-situ raters agree

in their perceptions of the same situation.

Situation Characteristics

People pervasively process environmental cues and form psychological situation

representations imbued with meaning and interpretations (Argyle et al., 1981; Block & Block,

1981; Magnusson, 1981; Rauthmann et al., 2015a,b). Psychological situations can be described

with situation characteristics similarly to how persons can be described with traits (de Raad,

2004; Edwards & Templeton, 2005; Rauthmann et al., 2014). Rauthmann et al. (2015a,b) argued

that situation research should proceed in a variable-oriented way by using continuous dimensions

of characteristics. For example, situations are assessed by asking participants to rate the extent
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 5

that a certain characteristic applied (e.g., work has to be done) rather than just list cues (e.g.,

books lying on the desk) or classify the situation (e.g., work situation). Thus, we obtain data on

what situations mean to people. This work concerns to what extent people agree in their

assessments of situations’ characteristics.

Recently, Rauthmann et al. (2014) proposed to taxonomize situation characteristics into

eight major domains, the Situational Eight DIAMONDS (Duty: Does work need to be done?

Intellect: Is deep thinking required? Adversity: Is someone threatened? Mating: Is the situation

sexually/romantically charged? pOsitivity: Is the situation enjoyable? Negativity: Could negative

feelings ensue? Deception: Is mistrust an issue? Sociality: Can meaningful social interaction and

relationships develop?). These eight domains, integrating most previously identified

characteristic dimensions into a common framework and language, have been shown to be useful

in understanding how people’s everyday situations look like (Brown & Rauthmann, 2016;

Serfass & Sherman, 2015) and how personality, situations, and behavior work together

(Rauthmann, 2016; Rauthmann et al., 2015c; Rauthmann et al., 2016; Rauthmann & Sherman,

2016a; Sherman et al., 2015). Thus, we deem the Situational Eight a good starting point to

examine situational accuracy.

Accuracy in Judging Situation Characteristics

When judging others’ situations, there can be two accuracy criteria: capturing what the

typical situation is like (= normative profile) and what makes the judged situation unique (=

distinctive profile as the deviation from the norm). People may be accurate with regard to none,

both, or only one of these. This means we should distinguish between normative and distinctive

accuracy (Biesanz, 2010; Furr, 2008), though achieving any form of situational accuracy is

important in daily life. To understand others, predict their behavior, and coordinate own behavior
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 6

with others, it is paramount to accurately judge others’ situations – both in terms of what

situations are generally like (normative accuracy) and what makes a specific situation stand out

from the average situation (distinctive accuracy). Being normatively accurate may aid navigating

typical or recurrent social situations, while being distinctively accurate could aid understanding

specific situations. Having distinctive situation knowledge (Sherman et al., 2012; Serfass &

Sherman, 2013) may, in turn, translate into better perspective-taking skills and more empathy or

at least underlie them. Thus, understanding situational accuracy is an important endeavor.

To date, however, there is only little direct research on situational accuracy. First,

Rauthmann et al. (2014) had ex-situ raters read brief vignettes describing the situations of in-situ

raters (e.g., “Going shopping with my boyfriend”), while both in-situ and ex-situ raters rated the

situations on the DIAMONDS. The average agreement hovered around r=.50, which is quite

sizable given that ex-situ raters had only limited written information on in-situ raters’ situations

available. However, this study cannot tell us whether ex-situ raters were normatively and/or

distinctively accurate.

Second, Rauthmann and Sherman (in revision) outlined how situational accuracy could

be studied using different variance decompositions (Biesanz, 2010; Cronbach, 1955; Jussim,

2005; Kenny, 1994; Kenny et al., 2006). Despite their appeal, the showcased decomposition

techniques cannot clearly distinguish between normative versus distinctive accuracy (Biesanz,

2010) and extract individual differences therein. For example, most techniques require piecemeal

procedures to examine personality correlates of situational accuracy (i.e., effect scores need to be

extracted first, which are then correlated with personality variables). This work employs an

MLM-approach by Biesanz (2010) to disentangle normative from distinctive situational accuracy

and flexibly incorporate personality moderators.

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 7

A Social Accuracy Model Approach to Situation Perceptions

Common ANOVA-inspired decomposition techniques usually require multi-step

approaches (e.g., extracting effects, correlating them, etc.). As Biesanz (2010, p. 858) noted,

such a “two-stage modeling approach is inelegant, inefficient, requires a complete and balanced

design, and is restrictive in the questions that it allows to be asked,” while “through the use of

[MLM], the entire analysis can be placed within a single model that will allow a richer set of

substantively important questions to be addressed.” MLM thus offers several advantages. First, it

can be used to analyze the entire data with robust estimations, handling missing values

effectively. Second, ex-situ raters’ personality traits may be introduced simultaneously into one

model in higher-order levels. Third, common decomposition techniques can be readily translated

into MLM (e.g., Gelman, 2006; Hoffman & Rovine, 2007; Kenny et al., 2006). Lastly, variations

in stimuli – here situations – can also be explicitly modeled by treating situations as random

factors (Judd et al., 2012).

To date, the most sophisticated MLM-approach to address accuracy questions is Biesanz’

(2010) Social Accuracy Model (SAM). SAM is particularly elegant because it disentangles

normative and distinctive accuracy in a straightforward manner. It embraces and reconciles the

Cronbachian tradition, concerned with distinguishing normative from distinctive accuracy, and

Kenny’s Social Relations Model tradition, concerned with relations between perceivers and

targets. Applying SAM to situation perception data, let the index p represent the pth perceiver, s

the sth situation, and c the cth characteristic:

Lower level: (1)

expsc = 0ps + 1psinsc + 2psc + psc

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 8

Upper level: (1.1)

0ps = 00 + 01Traitp + u0p + u0s + u0(ps)

1ps = 10 + 11Traitp + u1p + u1s + u1(ps)

2ps = 20 + 21Traitp + u2p + u2s + u2(ps)

– Table 1 –

The variables as well as fixed and random effects in this crossed-random effects MLM

are summarized in Table 1 (see also Biesanz, 2010, pp. 866-868). The basic rationale is that for

each rater-situation dyad across all characteristics, ex-situ ratings are predicted from the in-situ

criterion scores as well as the norm values of all characteristics (= typical/average situation: how

situations are generally rated on all characteristics sampled). Thus, profile relationships across

characteristics are focused on, and for these there are two kinds of accuracy (Equation 1). The

parameter 1ps provides an estimate of distinctive accuracy: how ex-situ ratings uniquely capture

in-situ ratings, controlling for the normative profile. The parameter 2ps provides an estimate of

normative accuracy: how ex-situ ratings capture the normative profile (controlled for in-situ

ratings).

The random effects of normative and distinctive accuracy for ex-situ raters and situations,

respectively, point towards differences in “the good ex-situ rater” and “the good situation” (for

personality judgment analogs, see Funder, 1995, 1999): ex-situ raters may attain more or less

normative or distinctive accuracy, respectively (i.e., perceptive accuracy; Biesanz, 2010), and

situations may be judged with more or less normative or distinctive accuracy, respectively (i.e.,

expressive accuracy; Biesanz, 2010). These relations are summarized in Table 2.

– Table 2 –
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 9

Going even further (Equation 1.1), we can attempt to explain the individual differences in

perceptive accuracy.1 Specifically, we can model to what extent personality traits of ex-situ raters

moderate distinctive (11) and normative perceptive accuracy (21). Such analyses address the

traits of who is a “good” (= more accurate) or “bad” (= less accurate) ex-situ rater.

Current Work

Aims

This work serves three main aims in demonstrating how an MLM-implementation can be

fruitfully applied to situation perception data. In doing so, we focus on Biesanz’ SAM approach

because it readily grants examining the magnitude of normative and distinctive situational

accuracy. First, we aim to uncover how well ex-situ raters can generally judge in-situ raters’

situations (impressionistic accuracy). Second, we aim to disentangle normative from distinctive

situational accuracy. Third, we seek to identify trait correlates in being normatively and

distinctively accurate as, within SAM, personality moderators can be added to explain individual

differences in perceptive accuracy.

Hypotheses

First, we expected both normative and distinctive accuracy to be sizable, though the

former should be higher than the latter (e.g., Biesanz, 2010). Second, we expected sizable

individual differences in perceptive accuracy: ex-situ raters should vary in their accuracies.

Substantial (and meaningful) variance in perceptive accuracy is a prerequisite to introducing

personality traits as predictors (or cross-level moderators).1 Third, we expected that broad

personality traits, such as the Big Five, would explain perceiver slope variances. However, we

did not form any clear a priori hypotheses on which Big Five traits would be positively or

1
Differences between situations in their normative and distinctive expressive accuracy could also be explained (e.g.,
by situation cues, other characteristics, or class memberships). However, this is not of primary concern here because
we do not introduce any situation variables to explain or moderate expressive accuracy and the number of target-
situations is relatively small.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 10

negatively associated with normative and distinctive accuracy, respectively. The lone exception

was Neuroticism, a trait associated with higher vigilance towards potentially negative (or

ambiguous) stimuli and negative biases (e.g., Hirsh & Inzlicht, 2008; Robinson et al., 2007) so

that situations may be processed more negatively than they are which may entail less accuracy in

judging situations.

Methods

Participants

The data used here were detailed in Rauthmann and Sherman (2015a,b). Further, Rauthmann

and Sherman (in revision) performed various variance decomposition techniques on the data to

tease apart different forms of accuracy. However, the current SAM analyses are novel and

provide unique insights into situational accuracy and possible personality correlates. The online

supplemental materials contain all data and R codes to reproduce findings (see also osf.io/qgu6h).

In-situ Raters. In-situ criterion data were gathered online from a German sample of

N=547 participants (407 women, 140 men; age: M=28.01, SD=10.47, range:15-77 years).

Participants were first asked to think about the situation they were in 24 hours earlier and then

answer five questions in an open-text field: What was happening? Who was with you? What

were you doing? Where were you? What time was it (approximately)? Next, participants rated

their situation on the S8-I (as well as some other measures not of relevance here). From the total

pool of 547 situations, we selected 10 target-situations (based on the criterion to have different

DIAMONDS profiles and reflect situations people could commonly experience) to be presented

to a second sample, from which we obtained ex-situ ratings. Table 3 shows the 10 criterion

situations, along with their raw in-situ ratings on the S8-I items.

– Table 3 –
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 11

Ex-situ Raters. Ex-situ ratings came from N=404 participants (300 women, 104 men;

age: M=25.2, SD=5.51, range:17-51 years) who rated each of the 10 situations in Table 3 on the

same S8-I items as in the in-situ data. Additionally, these participants completed a Big Five

questionnaire.

Measures

Situation Characteristics. Situations were rated in-situ and ex-situ on the S8-I with one

item per DIAMONDS characteristic (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016b), using a seven-point Likert

type scale (1=not at all, 7=totally). The items can be found under Table 3. The S8-I has favorable

psychometric properties (Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016b) and is useful for answering substantive

research questions (Sherman et al., 2015).

Personality Traits. Ex-situ raters’ Big Five traits were assessed with the 16-item BFI-

S16 (Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005, Lang, 2005), using a seven-point Likert-type scale (1=does not

apply at all to me, 7=applies totally to me). We obtained trait-scores for Openness (M=5.50,

SD=0.95, α=.62), Conscientiousness (M=4.96, SD=1.12, α=.68), Extraversion (M=4.65,

SD=1.32, α=.81), Agreeableness (M=5.21, SD=1.01, α=.46), and Neuroticism (M=4.31,

SD=1.31, α=.74).

Results

SAM analyses were conducted on 32,320 observations consisting of 404 perceivers’ ex-

situ ratings of 10 situations on 8 characteristics. The ex-situ ratings were made on a 7-point

Likert-type scale from 1 to 7, with M=3.58 (SD=2.38). We within-characteristic centered the in-

situ criterion ratings on the 8 characteristics by subtracting out the characteristics norm ratings on

those characteristics.2 These normative ratings stem from the total in-situ sample (Rauthmann &

2
J. Biesanz (personal communication)
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 12

Sherman, 2016b,c) with the following means (also on a 1-7 Likert-type scale): Duty=3.60,

Intellect=3.48, Adversity=1.58, Mating=2.56, pOsitivity=4.91, Negativity=2.71,

Deception=1.47, and Sociality=4.85. The norm values and personality scores were grand mean

centered.3

In total, we estimated three models: Model 1 predicted ex-situ ratings from in-situ ratings

(Aim 1), Model 2 predicted ex-situ ratings from in-situ ratings and normative values (Aim 2),

and Model 3 added perceivers’ personality traits to Model 2 as moderators (Aim 3). Findings

from Model 3 are summarized in Table 4 and random effects of Models 1-3 in Table 5. 4

– Table 4, 5 –

Model 1: Impressionistic Accuracy

Model 1 examined the overall effect of accuracy (i.e., impressionistic accuracy) by

predicting ex-situ ratings only from the in-situ data. Intercepts and slopes were allowed to vary

across perceivers and across situations (i.e., different perceivers and different situations could

vary in their accuracy levels). There was a statistically significant fixed effect (b=0.52, 95%

CI=[0.23, 0.80], t=3.40) indicating that, on average, ex-situ raters accurately judged the pattern

of characteristics of the situations.

The SDs of perceiver effects were 0.30 [0.27, 0.33] for intercepts and 0.05 [0.04, 0.07]

for slopes. The SDs of situation effects were 0.72 [0.42, 1.06] for intercepts and 0.48 [0.27, 0.74]

for slopes. The residual SD was 1.91. Overall, this indicates that there was sizable variation in

accuracies between situations, while the variation in perceiver accuracies was not as large (see

Figure 1). This indicates that there may be more differences in being a “good situation” (i.e.,

3
Random effects of perceiver  situation dyads were examined, but showed no unique variance beyond random
effects of perceiver and situation. Thus, analyses here did not estimate random intercepts and slopes at the dyad
level. Additionally, n=2 participants were missing personality data and therefore the analyses for Model 3 are based
on N=402 or 32,160 observations.
4
To ensure convergence, models were estimated using lme4.0, but 95% CIs were calculated using lme4 (Bates,
Maechler, Bolker, & Walker, 2015) with k=500 bootstrapped simulations.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 13

situations that are generally judged with more accuracy) than being a “good ex-situ rater” (i.e.,

ex-situ raters that generally judge situations with more accuracy).

– Figure 1 –

Model 2: Normative and Distinctive Accuracy

Model 2 added the normative characteristics profile as both a fixed and random effects

predictor of ex-situ ratings. Including the normative profile allows simultaneously estimating

normative and distinctive accuracy (Biesanz, 2010; Cronbach, 1955; Furr, 2009). By estimating

them as random effects, we allowed both normative and distinctive accuracy slopes to vary

across ex-situ raters and across situations. The results showed statistically significant effects of

both normative (b=0.88 [0.61, 1.15], t=6.56) and distinctive (b=0.49 [0.31, 0.68], t=5.82)

accuracy. Thus, on average, perceivers were both normatively and distinctively accurate in

judging the characteristics profiles of situations.

The SDs of the perceiver effects were 0.33 [0.30, 0.36] for intercepts, 0.19 [0.17, 0.21]

for normative accuracy slopes, and 0.08 [0.07, 0.09] for distinctive accuracy slopes. The SDs of

situation effects were 0.51 [0.29, 0.75] for intercepts, 0.42 [0.24, 0.57] for normative accuracy

slopes, and 0.27 [0.15, 0.41] for distinctive accuracy slopes. Thus, there was substantial variation

in both normative and distinctive accuracy between situations, with smaller but non-trivial

variation in normative and distinctive accuracy between ex-situ raters (see Figure 2).

– Figure 2 –

Model 3: Personality Correlates

Model 3 examined Big Five traits as moderators of normative and distinctive accuracy.

Centered scores of the personality variables and their interaction terms were added to Model 2 as

fixed effects. The results from this analysis are summarized in Table 4 (with random effects in

Table 5). As can be seen, the effects of normative accuracy were indeed associated with ex-situ
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 14

raters’ personality: those higher on Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness and

lower on Neuroticism were more normatively accurate, and those higher on Neuroticism more

distinctively accurate.

Discussion

This work used SAM analyses to disentangle normative from distinctive situational

accuracy and additionally examine personality moderators. First, in line with our expectations,

we found both substantial normative and distinctive accuracy, and the former was stronger in all

three estimated models. Second, the variances in normative and distinctive perceptive accuracy

were not as sizable as those of normative and distinctive expressive accuracy. Thus, on average,

there were only small differences between ex-situ raters in their accuracy levels (Figures 1 and

2). Because of the relatively large sample size of ex-situ raters, we could nonetheless associate

those small differences with the Big Five. Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and

Neuroticism emerged as significant predictors, but not Openness. Additionally, these traits

predicted mostly only normative perceptive accuracy.

Magnitude of Accuracy

How strong was accuracy? This question can be answered by comparing the

unstandardized effect estimates found here to those from the person perception literature. First,

the level of normative accuracy (0.88) was similar to those found in person perception literature,

while the level of distinctive accuracy (0.49) was higher (i.e., often around 0.10-0.30; e.g.,

Biesanz & Human, 2010; Biesanz et al., 2011; Chan et al., 2011; Human & Biesanz, 2011, 2012;

Lorenzo et al., 2010). Second, because standardized effect sizes are somewhat problematic for

level 1 effects in MLM, we only report unstandardized regression coefficients for effects at this

level (as is common in SAM analyses). The following is intended to aid in interpretation of these

effects. The intercept is the average rating made by all raters across all situations and across all

characteristics. The distinctive coefficient means that a 1-point increase in the in-situ ratings
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 15

yielded a 0.49 increase in the ex-situ ratings (across all characteristics), controlling for all other

fixed effects in the model (which includes the normative profile). In other words, the 0.49 value

is an index of the average ex-situ rater’s sensitivity to changes in the criterion (in-situ), where

1.00 would be perfect correspondence. Again, this effect is across all situations and all

characteristics. The normative coefficient means that a 1-point increase in the average situation

(in-situ ratings) yielded a 0.88 increase in ex-situ ratings (again, across all situations and

characteristics). This is close to perfect correspondence.5 Taken together, the accuracy levels

found are actually quite high, especially considering that ex-situ raters had only limited

information available (Table 3).

Inter-individual and Inter-situational Differences

Differences between Persons. We did not find strong individual differences in

perceptive accuracy despite a relatively large sample that should have created sufficient

variation. This may be the case because people are, on average, accurate in judging others’

situations – and there is little (but still non-negligible) room for variation. After all, it is adaptive

to perceive situations as most other people do because this enables joint communication and

coordination in a socially shared reality (Miller, 2007; Rauthmann et al., 2015a). Indeed,

person(ality) perception literature also finds small variation in perceptive accuracy (Biesanz,

2010; Kenny, 1994), explaining why it has been so difficult to identify “the good judge.” Small

perceptive accuracy differences may thus generalize across judging persons and situations.

Nonetheless, some differences between persons still emerged. For example, inter-

individual differences in normative (but not distinctive) perceptive accuracy could be explained

by the Big Five (except for Openness), with small to medium effect sizes (see d in Table 4). On

5
The moderator effects can be interpreted accordingly. For example, the unstandardized .04 estimate for
Conscientiousness means that a 1-point increase in Conscientiousness yields an increase of .04 to the average
correspondence between the normative in-situ and ex-situ profile (which was .88).
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 16

the other hand, only (high) Neuroticism emerged as a predictor of distinctive perceptive

accuracy. One interpretation of this pattern of findings could be that those with a more normative

personality profile (i.e., high Conscientiousness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness, with low

Neuroticism) tend to use situational normativeness to achieve accuracy. This is similar to

findings in the person(ality) perception literature indicating that well-adjusted individuals tend to

be accurate perceivers of what others are generally like (Human & Biesanz, 2011). In contrast,

those with more non-normative personalities (i.e., high Neuroticism) may tend to be more

distinctively accurate, probably because they deviate more from the normative profile.

Interestingly, this improvement in distinctive accuracy for those high on Neuroticism is more

than negated by the losses in normative accuracy (i.e., .01 vs. -.02). However, individuals high in

Neuroticism may also be better in distinctive cue detection due to their hyper-sensitivity and

vigilance (Allen & Badcock, 2003). Guillaume et al. (2015) found that situations around the

world were typically social and mildly pleasant. Thus, as negative situations seem less

normative, distinctive accuracy could be achieved by a stronger focus on negative aspects.

Together, our data suggest that personality differences may matter most when using

normative situation knowledge. This is intriguing because traditionally unique and distinctive

patterns of perception have been associated with personality (Sherman et al., 2012). However,

such research only concerned how people (uniquely) perceive situations and not whether those

perceptions align with any criterion variables. Thus, our findings provide novel insights into

situational accuracy.

Differences between Situations. An interesting finding is the relatively large variance in

situations’ expressive accuracy: there were wide inter-situational differences in being judged

normatively and distinctively accurately. This finding, again, corresponds to person(ality)

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 17

perception literature which also find levels of expressive accuracy larger than perceptive

accuracy (Human & Biesanz, 2013). We insert the caveat, however, that we only had a limited

set of situations that were not selected to be homogeneous because we wanted meaningful

variance. Nonetheless, it is striking how much more situation variance there was than rater

variance. If we had sampled more situations and had other information available (e.g., physico-

biological cues of situations; “style” characteristics such as base-rate or situation strength;

situation class membership), we could also attempt to explain inter-situational differences in

accuracy slopes the same way as inter-individual accuracy differences were explained here by

traits. Examining explanatory variables of “the good (or bad) situation” as moderators of

expressive accuracy may be a fruitful direction for future research.

A Note on Statistical Modeling

We have demonstrated how SAM can be applied to situation perception data. It may not

have escaped the notice of those initiated in MLM that other data-analytical choices could have

been made. The accuracies uncovered reside at the ex-situ rater and situation level. However, one

could also quantify accuracies at other levels. First, running a model where we estimate random

intercepts and slopes for characteristics and for situations (i.e., not for raters) yields accuracies at

the level of situations and characteristics. In other words, for every situation separately the ex-

situ profile is predicted from the in-situ profile. So for each situation, this regression would be

based on 404 raters × 8 characteristics = 3,232 pairs of scores (across all raters and

characteristics). Additionally, because we have a cross-classified MLM, for each characteristic

we get a regression based on 404 raters × 10 situations = 4,040 pairs of scores across all

situations and perceivers.

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 18

Second, as another alternative, we could estimate random intercepts and slopes for

perceivers and characteristics, yielding accuracies at the level of raters and characteristics. Thus,

for each rater, we get a regression based on 10 situations × 8 characteristics = 80 pairs of scores,

and for each characteristic a regression based on 404 raters × 10 situations = 4,400 pairs of

scores. Findings of these models are compiled in the online supplemental materials (together

with R code) for interested readers.

Though these models can make interesting sense of the data (e.g., looking at normative

and distinctive characteristic accuracy), they are conceptually and statistically different from

SAM.6 In SAM, characteristics are fixed, while in these other analyses they are random. These

different sets of analyses create the problem that we cannot include moderators of normative

accuracies, though distinctive accuracies are not affected. Additionally, cross-random effects

need to be orthogonal, so we are not able to model the effect of characteristics changing by

situation and/or rater. Hence, SAM represents a more flexible modeling approach. For the sake

of completeness and to stimulate future research on MLM-implementations in situational

accuracy studies, we wanted to alert to different but non-equivalent modeling procedures here.

Limitations and Future Directions

The limitations of this work point towards future research that is needed to overcome

them. First, we have employed a relatively limited set of target-situations and characteristics

which may suggest lack of stimulus sampling (Judd et al., 2012; Wells & Windschitl, 1999; cf.

Biesanz, 2010). This was mainly the case to reduce participant burden. However, given that ex-

situ raters’ variance in accuracy estimates was not too high, future research could use fewer ex-

situ raters, but have them rate more situations on more characteristics (e.g., Situational Eight on

32 items: Rauthmann et al., 2014; on 24 items: Rauthmann & Sherman, 2016c; on 89 items from

6
J. Biesanz (personal communication)
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 19

the Riverside Situational Q-sort: Sherman et al., 2010; Wagerman & Funder, 2009). If more

situations are available, moderators of expressive situational accuracy can be examined.

Second, we used only one normative profile for the “average situation.” However, the

average DIAMONDS profile may be different for different classes of situations (e.g., van

Heck’s, 1984, 1989 ten types of situations). It did not make sense to distinguish different classes

within our sampled situations, but future research may seek to sample different situations within

different classes (and possibly derive normative profiles for each class). It will be interesting to

examine accuracy slopes for different classes and whether some people show high perceptive

accuracy across all or only within specific classes.

Third, future research could sample several situations per in-situ rater (we used just one

per person), preferably a representative set of situations in daily life. This allows examining

idiosyncrasies in in-situ ratings and to what extent ex-situ raters might pick up on those.

Lastly, future research could use traits other than the Big Five, such as empathy,

perspective-taking ability, and socio-emotional competencies to explain inter-individual

accuracy differences. These may be more closely tied to accurately judging distinctive situation

profiles and thus increase the chance of predicting distinctive perceptive accuracy.

Conclusion

We demonstrated that person perception models, such as SAM, may be fruitfully applied

to situation perception data, making it possible to examine normative and distinctive accuracies

concerning ex-situ raters (perceptive accuracy) and situations (expressive accuracy) – a

distinction that has so far not been made in situations literature. This work thus provides a first

window into how strong normative and distinctive situational accuracy are and which person

variables may explain them. These findings may be important for research seeking to understand

the basis of good perspective-taking skills.

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 20

References

Allen, N. B., & Badcock, P. B. T. (2003). The social risk hypothesis of depressed mood:
Evolutionary, psychosocial, and neurobiological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin,
129, 887-913.
Argyle, M., Furnham, A., & Graham, J.A. (1981). Social Situations. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models
using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing
individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 45, 853-885.
Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). The Cost of Forming More Accurate Impressions Accuracy-
Motivated Perceivers See the Personality of Others More Distinctively but Less Normatively
Than Perceivers Without an Explicit Goal. Psychological Science, 21, 589-594.

Biesanz, J. C., Human, L. J., Paquin, A. C., Chan, M., Parisotto, K. L., Sarracino, J., & Gillis, R.
L. (2011). Do we know when our impressions of others are valid? Evidence for realistic
accuracy awareness in first impressions of personality. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 2, 452-459.
Block, J., & Block, J. (1981). Studying situational dimensions: A grand perspective and some
limited empiricism. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of situations: An
interactional perspective (pp. 85-106). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, N. A., & Rauthmann, J. F. (in press). Situation characteristics are age graded: Mean-level
patterns of the situational eight DIAMONDS across the life span. Social Psychological
and Personality Science.
Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations.
Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45-77.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 21

Chan, M., Rogers, K. H., Parisotto, K. L., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Forming first impressions:
The role of gender and normative accuracy in personality perception. Journal of Research
in Personality, 45, 117-120.
Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on “understanding of others” and “assumed
similarity.” Psychological Bulletin, 52, 177-193.
de Raad, B. (2004). Situations that matter to personality. In A. Eliasz, S. E. Hampson, & B. de
Raad (Eds.), Advances in Personality Psychology (Volume 2, pp. 179-204). Hove, UK:
Routledge.
Edwards, J. A., & Templeton, A. (2005). The structure of perceived qualities of situations.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 705-723.
Forgas, J. P. (1976). The perception of social episodes: Categorical and dimensional
representations in two different social milieus. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 199-209.
Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach.
Psychological Review, 102, 652-670.
Funder, D. C. (1999). Personality Judgment: A Realistic Approach to Person Perception. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Furr, R M. (2008). A framework for profile similarity: Integrating similarity, normativeness, and
distinctiveness. Journal of Personality, 76, 1267-1316.
Furr, R. M. (2009). Profile analysis in person-situation integration. Journal of Research in
Personality, 43, 196-207.
Gelman, A. (2006). Analysis of variance. In New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (2nd ed.).
See http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/econanova3.pdf
Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics
in Medicine, 27, 2865-2873.
Gerlitz, J.-Y., & Schupp, J. (2005). Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten
Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP.Research Notes. See
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43490.de/rn4.pdf
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 22

Guillaume, E., Baranski, E., Todd, E., Bastian, B., Bronin, I., Ivanova, C., Cheng, J.T., de Kock,
F.S., Denissen, J.J.A., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Halama, Pl, Han, G.Q., Bae, J., Moon, J.,
Hong, R.Y., Hřebíčková, M., Graf, S., Izdebski, P., Lundmann, L., Penke, L., Perugini,
M., Costantini, G., Rauthmann, J., Ziegler, M., Realo, A., Elme, L., Sato, T., Kawamoto,
S., Szarota, P., Tracy, J.L., van Aken, M.A.G., Yang, Y., & Funder, D.C. (2016). The
world at 7: Comparing the experience of situations across 20 countries. Journal of
Personality, 84, 493-509.
Hirsh, J. B., & Inzlicht, M. (2008). The devil you know: Neuroticism predicts neural response to
uncertainty. Psychological Science, 19, 962-967.
Hoffman, L., & Rovine, M.J. (2007). Multilevel models for the experimental psychologist:
Foundations and illustrative examples. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 101-117.
Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2013). Targeting the good target: An integrative review of the
characteristics and consequences of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 17, 248-272.
Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2012). Accuracy and assumed similarity in first impressions of
personality: Differing associations at different levels of analysis. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46, 106-110.
Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed
similarity in well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 100, 349-364.
Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social
psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored
problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54-69.
Jussim, L. (2005). Accuracy: Criticisms, controversies, criteria, components, and cognitive
processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 1-93.
Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal Perception: A Social Relations Analysis. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 23

Kenny, D. A., West, T. V., Malloy, T. E., & Albright, L. (2006). Componential analysis of
interpersonal perception data. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 282-294.
Lang, F. R. (2005). Erfassung des kognitiven Leistungspotenzials und der „Big Five“ mit
Computer-Assisted-Personal-Interviewing (CAPI): Zur Reliabilität und Validität zweier
ultrakurzer Tests und des BFI-S. Research Notes. See
http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43950.de/rn9.pdf
Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more
accurately understood physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of
personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777-1782.
Magnusson, D. (1981). Toward a psychology of situations: An interactional perspective.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, G. F. (2007). Reconciling evolutionary psychology and ecological psychology: How to
perceive fitness affordances. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 546-555.
Nystedt, L. (1972a). A modified lens model: A study of the interaction between an individual
and the ecology. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 34, 479-498.
Nystedt, L. (1972a). Predictive accuracy and utilization of cues; Study of the interaction between
an individual’s cognitive organization and ecological structure. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 34, 171-180.
Nystedt, L. (1981). A model for studying the interaction between the objective situation and a
person's construction of the situation. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology of
situations: An interactional perspective (pp. 375-391). New York: Academic Press.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2012). You say the party is dull, I say it is lively: A componential approach to
how situations are perceived to disentangle perceiver, situation, and perceiver x situation
variance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 519-528.
Rauthmann, J. F. (2016). Motivational factors in the perception of psychological situation
characteristics. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(2), 92-108.
Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A.,
Ziegler, M., Jones, A. B., & Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 24

taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 107, 677-718.
Rauthmann, J. F., Jones, A. B., & Sherman, R. A. (2016). Directionality of person-situation
transactions: Are there spill-overs among and between situation experiences and
personality states? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(7), 893-909.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016). Situation change: Stability and change of situation
variables between and within persons. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:1938.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016b). Ultra-brief measures for the situational eight
DIAMONDS domains. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32, 165-174.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (2016c). Measuring the Situational Eight DIAMONDS
characteristics of situations: An optimization of the RSQ-8 to the S8*. European Journal
of Psychological Assessment, 32, 155-164.
Rauthmann, J. F., & Sherman, R. A. (in revision). Towards a research agenda for the study of
psychological situations: A variance componential framework for situation perceptions.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015a). Principles of situation research:
Towards a better understanding of psychological situations. Target Article. European
Journal of Personality, 29, 363-381.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., & Funder, D. C. (2015b). New horizons in research on
psychological situations and environments. Rejoinder to Target Article: European
Journal of Personality, 29, 382-432.
Rauthmann, J. F., Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2015c). Personality-driven
situation experience, contact, and construal: How people's personality traits predict
characteristics of their situations in daily life. Journal of Research in Personality, 55, 98-
111.
Robinson, M. D., Ode, S., Moeller, S. K., & Goetz, P. W. (2007). Neuroticism and affective
priming: Evidence for a neuroticism-linked negative schema. Personality and Individuals
Differences, 42, 1221-1231.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 25

Serfass, D. G. & Sherman, R. A. (2013). Personality and the perceptions of situations from the
Thematic Apperception Test. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 708-718.
Serfass, D. S., & Sherman, R. A. (2015). Situations in 140 characters: Assessing real-world
situations on Twitter. PLOS One, 10(11), 1-19.
Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. S., & Jones, A. B. (2015). The
independent effects of personality and situations on real-time expressions of behavior and
emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872-888.
Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. N., & Funder, D. C. (2010). Situational similarity and personality
predict behavioral consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 330-
343.
Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2012). Properties of persons and situations related
to overall and distinctive personality-behavior congruence. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46, 87-101
Sherman, R. A., Nave, C. S., & Funder, D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to
personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 1-14.
van Heck, G. L. (1984). The construction of a general taxonomy of situations. In H. Bonarius, G.
L. Van Heck, & N. Smid (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe: Theoretical and
empirical developments (pp. 149-164). Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
van Heck, G. L. (1989). Situation concepts: Definitions and classification. In P. J. Hettema (Ed.),
Personality and environment: Assessment of human adaptation (pp. 53-69). Oxford,
England: Wiley.
Wagerman, S. A., & Funder, D. C. (2009). Situations. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.),
Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological
experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 26

Table 1. Overview of multi-level variables and parameters for situation perception data
Variable/Parameter Meaning
Variables in the model
expsc ex-situ ratings by perceiver p of situation s on characteristic c
Insc in-situ criterion-rating of situation s on characteristic c
c Norm value of characteristic c based on a(nother) large, preferably representative sample
Traitp Trait-score of perceiver p (to be treated as a moderator of accuracy)
Lower level estimates
0ps Intercept
1ps Level of distinctive accuracy (as the correspondence between perceiver p’s ratings and situation s’ ratings while controlling for the
average characteristic profile by holding constant c)
2ps Level of normative accuracy (as the correspondence between perceiver p’s ratings and the average characteristic profile after
partialling out situation s’ ratings)
psc Error
Upper level estimates
Fixed effects
00 Average intercept across perceivers and situations
10 Average distinctive accuracy slope across perceivers and situations
20 Average normative accuracy slope across perceivers and situations
Random effects
u1p Perceiver p’s unique distinctive accuracy slope averaged across all situations
u1s Situation s’ unique distinctive accuracy slope averaged across all perceivers
u1(ps) Dyadic (plus residual) component as the specific distinctive accuracy of Perceiver p for Situation s after the grand mean (10), the
perceiver main effect (u1p), and the situation main effect (u1s) of distinctive accuracy have been removed
u2p Perceiver p’s unique normative accuracy slope averaged across all situations
u2s Situation s’ unique normative accuracy slope averaged across all perceivers
u2(ps) Dyadic (plus residual) component as the specific normative accuracy of Perceiver p for Situation s after the grand mean (20), the
perceiver main effect (u2p), and the situation main effect (u2s) of normative accuracy have been removed
Moderator effects
01 Slope of Perceiver p’s trait associated with his/her ex-situ ratings
11 Slope of Perceiver p’s trait associated with his/her distinctive accuracy level
21 Slope of Perceiver p’s trait associated with his/her normative accuracy level
Note. See more information in Biesanz (2010). Perceiver = ex-situ rater.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 27

Table 2. The “good ex-situ rater” and the “good situation”

Ex-situ rater:
Accuracy types
Perceptive accuracy
u2p:
Individual differences in
the extent to which a perceiver’s ratings of
Normative accuracy
a situation’s characteristics capture the
characteristics of the
normative/average/general situation
u1p:
Individual differences in
Distinctive accuracy the extent to which a perceiver’s ratings of
a situation’s characteristics capture the
situation’s distinct, unique characteristics
Note. Adapted from Biesanz (2010, Figure 4, p. 864).
Situation:
Expressive accuracy
u2s:
Situational differences in
the extent to which a situation’s
characteristics are perceived similar to the
characteristics of the
normative/average/general situation
u1s:
Situational differences in
the extent to which a situation’s distinct,
unique characteristics are perceived
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 28

Table 3. Criterion data: Target-situations and their in-situ ratings

Situation vignette (from in-situ raters) Criterion ratings in-situ
D I A M O N D S
1 At home with my three children: Did the housework, homework help and packed for the kids their sports stuff for the evening 7 2 1 1 4 6 1 7
2 Sat in the library and read, researched, took notes 4 7 1 5 5 5 1 4
3 My spouse and I work together and he criticized me in front of our employee 7 5 7 1 1 7 6 7
4 Conversation with partner in bed while we cuddled 2 5 1 7 7 2 1 7
5 Watched a movie lying in bed and drank a glass of wine 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1
6 My partner and I were arguing in the kitchen. Tried to make him realize that he hurt me 1 1 7 1 1 7 1 7
7 Had to introduce myself and present in English in a role play in front of everyone (1 teacher and 9 course-participants) in a course room of a 6 4 5 2 5 6 7 5
language center. I managed pretty well
8 Had breakfast and conversations with female roommate, male roommate + his girlfriend and former female roommate 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 7
9 Drinking coffee with a female friend and chatting 1 3 1 4 7 6 1 4
10 Meeting at a friend's apartment with 4 friends (from the university) before a party; drinking cocktails together, chatting, and listening to music 2 4 1 5 7 2 1 7
Note. Situations 1-8 were selected specifically because of their high ratings on one Situational Eight DIAMONDS dimension (see gray-shaded
cells). Situations 9 and 10 were not selected on any specific basis except for being mundane, everyday situations.
English translations of the German vignettes are given.
The Situational Eight DIAMONDS dimensions were measured with the S8-I (Rauthmann& Sherman, 2015b).
D = Duty: Work has to be done.
I = Intellect: Deep thinking is required.
A = Adversity: Somebody is being threatened, accused, or criticized.
M = Mating: Potential romantic partners are present.
O = pOsitivity: The situation is pleasant.
N = Negativity: The situation contains negative feelings (e.g., stress, anxiety, guilt, etc.)
D = Deception: Somebody is being deceived.
S = Sociality: Social interactions are possible or required.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 29

Table 4. Multi-level regression estimates for Model 3

Effects Estimate SE 95% CI d
Fixed effects
Intercept (b0) 3.3928*** 0.1614 [3.0475, 3.7052]
In-situ rating (distinctive accuracy; b1) 0.4936*** 0.0851 [0.3282, 0.6776]
Normative profile (normative accuracy; b2) 0.8789*** 0.1340 [0.637, 1.1366]
Ex-situ raters’ personality effects
Ex-situ rating (b01)a
Openness 0.0721*** 0.0195 [0.0534, 0.0924] 0.43
Conscientiousness -0.0360* 0.0165 [-0.053, -0.0185] -0.26
Extraversion -0.0109 0.0143 [-0.0237, 0.0036] -0.09
Agreeableness -0.0561** 0.0184 [-0.0751, -0.0388] -0.36
Neuroticism 0.0350* 0.0141 [0.0215, 0.0475] 0.29
In-situ rating (distinctive accuracy, b11)b
Openness -0.0040 0.0059 [-0.0139, 0.0064] -0.09
Conscientiousness 0.0042 0.0050 [-0.0054, 0.0126] 0.12
Extraversion 0.0031 0.0043 [-0.0048, 0.0114] 0.10
Agreeableness 0.0004 0.0056 [-0.0104, 0.0108] 0.01
Neuroticism 0.0134** 0.0043 [0.0061, 0.0221] 0.44
Normative profile (normative accuracy, b21)b
Openness 0.0140 0.0119 [-0.0101, 0.0363] 0.15
Conscientiousness 0.0416*** 0.0101 [0.0238, 0.0628] 0.55
Extraversion 0.0252** 0.0088 [0.0099, 0.0427] 0.39
Agreeableness 0.0397*** 0.0113 [0.0185, 0.0605] 0.47
Neuroticism -0.0201* 0.0086 [-0.0352, -0.0034] -0.31
Note. N = 402, Nobs = 32,160. Estimate = effect sizes of slopes. SE = Standard Error.
*** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05 using Estimate/SE as t-statistic on 384 degrees of freedom.
95% confidence intervals (CIs) are based on 500 bootstrapped simulations.
𝑆𝐷
d = standardized effect size estimates, computed as 2 ∙ (𝑏 ∙ (𝑆𝐷𝑥 )), where b is the regression coefficient,
𝑦

SDx the standard deviation for the moderator variable, and SDy the random effect standard deviation for
the slope of interest. The multiplication by 2 makes yields an effect size equivalent to a Cohen’s d, as
suggested by Gelman (2008).
a
These estimates correspond to main effects. Because the intercept is the person’s average rating across
all situations and all characteristics, personality predictors of individual differences in scale usage are
captured. More open and neurotic ex-situ raters had higher than average ratings and those more
conscientious and agreeable had lower than average ratings.
b
These estimates correspond to cross-level interaction effects.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 30

Table 5. Summary of random effects

Models SDs
Intercept In-situ rating Normative profile
Model 1
Perceivers 0.31 0.05 -
Situations 0.72 0.48 -
Residual 1.91 - -
Model 2
Perceivers 0.33 0.08 0.19
Situations 0.51 0.27 0.42
Residual 1.54 - -
Model 3
Perceivers 0.31 0.08 0.17
Situations 0.51 0.27 0.42
Residual 1.54 - -
Note. N = 402, Nobs = 32,160. SD = standard deviation. See text for details on Models 1-3.
Perceivers = ex-situ raters.
 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 31

Figure 1. Slope density distributions for Model 1

 Normative and Distinctive Situational Accuracy 32

Figure 2. Slope density distributions for Model 2