Review Articles & Write Paper

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418758437

Current Directions in Psychological Science 2018, Vol. 27(5) 309 –314 © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/0963721418758437 www.psychologicalscience.org/CDPS

ASSOCIATION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

We constantly form impressions about other people. Is my superior annoyed with me or just distracted? Is my teenager telling the truth about what he did last night? Will this job applicant be reliable once hired? Is this person genuinely interested in me or just playing nice? The consequences of being wrong can be huge. We might hire or marry the wrong person, jeopardize rela- tionships, and get disappointed by other people.

The skill to accurately assess other individuals’ emo- tions, personality, intentions, motives, and thoughts is called interpersonal accuracy (Hall, Schmid Mast, & West, 2016; Schlegel, Boone, & Hall, 2017). Surely we need this skill for successfully developing, maintaining, and manag- ing our social relationships and for being effective in social interactions. But what is known empirically about the impact of interpersonal accuracy for social interac- tions? Does being interpersonally accurate profit the social interaction partner or the person who is accurate? And how exactly does interpersonal accuracy manifest itself in social interactions? We review the existing litera- ture on outcomes of interpersonal accuracy and discuss when and why it is related to interaction outcomes.

What Is Interpersonal Accuracy?

Although interpersonal accuracy can fluctuate depend- ing on current motives (Smith, Ickes, Hall, & Hodges, 2011), most often it is considered a skill because it improves over development (Isaacowitz, Vicaria, & Murry, 2016), correlates with declarative knowledge on the topic (Rosip & Hall, 2004; Schlegel & Scherer, 2017), and is trainable (Blanch-Hartigan, Andrzejewski, & Hill, 2012; Schlegel, Vicaria, Isaacowitz, & Hall, 2017). It is different from emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008) because emotional intelligence is at the same time broader (e.g., it includes the manage- ment of emotions and the expression of emotions in the self and in others and not just the perception of others’ emotions) and narrower (it is about emotions only and not about motivation or personality). Both

758437CDPXXX10.1177/0963721418758437Mast, HallInterpersonal Perception Accuracy research-article2018

Corresponding Author: Marianne Schmid Mast, University of Lausanne, HEC Lausanne, Department of Organizational Behavior, Quartier Unil-Chamberonne, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]

The Impact of Interpersonal Accuracy on Behavioral Outcomes

Marianne Schmid Mast1 and Judith A. Hall2 1Department of Organizational Behavior, HEC Lausanne, University of Lausanne, and 2Department of Psychology, Northeastern University

Abstract Interpersonal accuracy, the ability to correctly assess other people’s states or traits, has been studied for over 60 years, and many correlates have been uncovered. Furthermore, theorists routinely propose that having this kind of skill matters for social and workplace outcomes. However, much of the empirical work concerned with interpersonal accuracy does not directly address real-life outcomes for people who have, or lack, this skill. The present article summarizes literature pointing to behavioral correlates of interpersonal accuracy and illustrates when and why interpersonal accuracy is related to favorable interaction outcomes. There seems to be no specific behavior associated with high interpersonal accuracy. Instead, interpersonal accuracy seems to foster behavioral adaptability, the ability to change one’s behavior to match the expectations of the social interaction partner. This behavioral adaptability might be responsible for the positive interaction outcomes related to interpersonal accuracy. We illustrate the mechanism and boundary conditions underlying and framing how interpersonal accuracy affects interaction outcomes and discuss future directions in research on interpersonal accuracy.

Keywords interpersonal accuracy, behavioral adaptability, emotion recognition

310 Mast, Hall

concepts overlap with accurate emotion recognition, which is the predominant operationalization of the con- cept of interpersonal accuracy in empirical studies. We know much less about how accurately assessing the personalities of other people, for instance, relates to social interaction outcomes.

Because it is conceptualized as a skill, interpersonal accuracy is mainly measured with performance tests. Participants hear or see other people’s behavior, usually in short videos or in photographs, and infer something about the target people, for instance their status, per- sonality, or what emotions they display. This inference is then compared with a criterion (the operationally defined gold standard, such as the target’s self-reported emotions) to obtain an accuracy score. Research shows that people sometimes overestimate their interpersonal accuracy (Ames & Kammrath, 2004) and that self- reports of interpersonal accuracy are rather weakly cor- related with tested interpersonal accuracy (Hall, Andrzejewski, & Yopchick, 2009), which is why research- ers use performance-based assessments.

Are People Accurate at Assessing Others?

Although many studies have investigated whether peo- ple are accurate in their judgments, it is hard to com- ment on interpersonal accuracy in an absolute sense and to compare accuracy rates across domains and tests of interpersonal accuracy because of methodological decisions made by test developers (e.g., using shorter or longer exposures, selecting items for their difficulty level, presenting posed vs. spontaneous behavior; Hall, Andrzejewski, Murphy, Schmid Mast, & Feinstein, 2008). At the extremes, judging deception is known to be very difficult (Bond & DePaulo, 2006), while judging proto- typical emotions, especially on the face, can be very easy (Hall et al., 2008; Matsumoto et al., 2000). In the present article, we focus on individual differences in interpersonal accuracy.

Who Is Interpersonally Accurate?

Numerous traits are modestly positively correlated with interpersonal accuracy, including tolerance, extraver- sion, conscientiousness, internal locus of control, and mental adjustment (Hall et  al., 2009). Interpersonal accuracy measured as emotion recognition accuracy is positively correlated with general mental intelligence (r = .19; Schlegel, Palese, et al., 2017), but intelligence does not explain the effect of interpersonal accuracy on interaction outcomes (Bommer, Pesta, & Storrud- Barnes, 2011). In general, females outperform males, although mostly what is studied are emotion judgments.

The gender difference, although not large, is very con- sistent across tests, ages, and geography (Hall, Gunnery, & Horgan, 2016).

Is Interpersonal Accuracy Related to Interaction Outcomes?

Empirical evidence suggests that a person who is inter- personally accurate is more successful in social interac- tions. Overall, this person’s relationships are of higher quality (Hall et al., 2009). With regard to specific set- tings, salespeople who score higher in interpersonal accuracy have better sales and higher salaries (Byron, Terranova, & Nowicki, 2007). Doctors with high inter- personal accuracy are more attentive to signs of patient distress and have patients who are more satisfied and more likely to keep their appointments (Hall, 2011). More interpersonally accurate superiors have more sat- isfied subordinates (Schmid Mast, Jonas, Cronauer, & Darioly, 2012), and people with higher levels of inter- personal accuracy obtain better results in negotiations (Elfenbein, Der Foo, White, Tan, & Aik, 2007) and are less guided by their stereotypes when evaluating others (Frauendorfer & Schmid Mast, 2013). High school stu- dents who have higher levels of interpersonal accuracy are better at learning new word definitions in a dyadic teaching situation (Bernieri, 1991), and music teachers with high levels of interpersonal accuracy are rated as more effective by their students and by outside observ- ers (Kurkul, 2007). People with high interpersonal accu- racy (together with being extraverted) also emerge more easily as leaders in a group (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005; Walter, Cole, van der Vegt, Rubin, & Bommer, 2012), and female more than male managers who have high interpersonal accuracy are given better performance ratings by their subordinates (Byron, 2007). Being interpersonally perceptive is correlated with good outcomes in a work context, as confirmed by two articles statistically combining the existing literature (Elfenbein & Ambady, 2002; Hall et  al., 2009).

Thus, being interpersonally accurate is related to benefits for the social interaction partner of an accurate individual (e.g., more satisfaction) as well as for the person who is interpersonally accurate (e.g., higher salary, better able to learn, more effective as a teacher). The relationship is probably dynamic and interactive, in that being interpersonally accurate positively affects one’s social interaction partner, which in turn has a positive effect on the person who is interpersonally accurate.

But interpersonal accuracy is not always directly related to better interpersonal outcomes. For some people and under certain circumstances, this link is

Interpersonal Perception Accuracy 311

stronger or weaker. Female managers more so than male managers who scored highly on interpersonal accuracy received better performance ratings by their subordi- nates (Byron, 2007). Interpersonal accuracy was also related to better performance in an assessment center, more so for non-Whites than for Whites and more so for people with lower general intelligence than for people with higher levels of general intelligence (Bommer et al., 2011). These results suggest that high interpersonal accuracy might compensate for social disadvantages.

Emerging as a leader or being perceived as a trans- formational leader by subordinates were both related to interpersonal accuracy, but only when individuals also had high levels of extraversion (Rubin et al., 2005; Walter et al., 2012). Extraversion seems a prerequisite for leadership effectiveness, and only when a person is already extraverted can possessing interpersonal per- ception skills boost leadership. In sum, personality characteristics seem to affect interpersonal accuracy and the link of interpersonal accuracy to behavioral outcomes.

How Does Interpersonal Accuracy Affect Social Interaction Outcomes?

Researchers have proposed that interpersonally accu- rate individuals communicate more effectively, establish better rapport with the social interaction partner, coor- dinate the interaction better, and show more supportive behavior, thereby achieving better interaction outcomes (Byron, 2007; Byron et  al., 2007; Kurkul, 2007; Walter et al., 2012). However, there are two important unknowns. One is whether the relation between interpersonal accuracy and outcomes is actually causal, as nearly all studies are correlational and do not manipulate inter- personal accuracy.

Second, there is the proverbial “black box” between interpersonal accuracy and outcomes: Researchers have not made much progress in identifying the behavioral repertoire that mediates this relationship. In fact, rela- tively little research has even documented the first link in such a process, that is, behaviors that people with high interpersonal accuracy display. Specific nonverbal cues such as smiling and gazing, though little studied, are not promising as notable correlates of interpersonal accuracy (Hall et al., 2009). Individuals with high inter- personal accuracy are, however, more skilled at express- ing desired emotions (Elfenbein et  al., 2010), and as medical students, they behave in a more engaged way with patients (Hall et al., 2015). Also, they are perceived by peer acquaintances to be warmer and more compas- sionate, to behave in a more sympathetic and considerate manner in social interactions, and to be more productive

and to get things done (Funder & Harris, 1986). In line with these findings, interpersonally accurate women were perceived as being more socially competent in a videotaped interaction (Firth, Conger, Kuhlenschmidt, & Dorcey, 1986). Byron (2007) showed that female managers who were interpersonally accurate were per- ceived by their subordinates as being more supportive, whereas for male managers, in contrast, being interper- sonally accurate was related to being perceived as more persuasive by the subordinates.

A few studies have empirically tested which variables explain the link between interpersonal accuracy and outcomes. As an example, interpersonally accurate employees had better political skills (i.e., interpersonal influence, networking ability, and apparent sincerity) as rated by peers, and these were related to higher interpersonal facilitation skills (i.e., being helpful and supportive, having listening skills) as rated by their supervisors, which in turn predicted higher income (Momm et al., 2015).

Although it seems that there is not one type of behavior that characterizes a highly interpersonally accurate individual, being interpersonally accurate appears to affect how a person acts and is perceived in a social interaction, which brings about better inter- action outcomes. We propose next a novel path that does not depend on any specific behavior but rather on the flexibility with which people with high interper- sonal accuracy can deploy a range of behaviors in their repertoire.

Behavioral Adaptability

Behavioral adaptability refers to a person’s skill at adapting his or her behavior to the needs and prefer- ences of the social interaction partner. Expectation- confirmation theory posits that satisfaction increases if a person’s expectations are met ( Jiang & Klein, 2009). In a social interaction, if people can accurately assess the other person’s needs, intentions, emotions, prefer- ences, or personality (i.e., demonstrate interpersonal accuracy), they possess the prerequisite to adapt their behavior accordingly (Carrard & Schmid Mast, 2015).

To test a person’s level of behavioral adaptability, one needs to observe whether this person changes his or her behavior when interacting with people who have different preferences. In a recent study (Palese & Schmid Mast, 2017), participants gave a pep talk to two of their subordinates (virtual humans in an immersive virtual environment), one of whom was described as perform- ing best under a directive leadership style (e.g., receiv- ing orders, not being involved in decision making), and the other was described as performing best under a participative leadership style (e.g., discussing tasks,

312 Mast, Hall

being included in decision making). To obtain a behavior- based measure of adaptability, the researchers filmed participants’ talks and then coded how much participa- tive and directive leadership behavior participants showed toward the two subordinates. High behavioral adaptability was operationalized as showing more par- ticipative leadership toward the subordinate who prefers a participative leadership style while showing more directive leadership toward the subordinate who prefers a directive leadership style. Female participants with higher interpersonal accuracy showed greater behav- ioral adaptability (Palese & Schmid Mast, 2017).

In another study, physicians who adapted their com- munication to their patients’ preferences had patients who were more satisfied (Carrard, Schmid Mast, & Cousin, 2016). Behavioral adaptability of female (but not male) physicians was positively related to their interpersonal accuracy, and female physicians who showed more nonverbal behavioral adaptability had more satisfied patients (Carrard, Schmid Mast, Jaunin- Stalder, Junod Perron, & Sommer, 2018). This is the first evidence that individuals with high interpersonal accu- racy obtain good interaction outcomes not because they are particularly nice or friendly to other people (although indeed they may be) but because they adapt their interaction behavior to their social interaction partners’ needs or preferences. Being able to commu- nicate effectively, to build rapport, or to coordinate an interaction, as well as being able to successfully navi- gate in social networks and to influence social relation- ships (i.e., possessing political skills), necessitates the ability to change one’s interpersonal behavior according to the social interaction partner; these actions require behavioral adaptability.

Future Directions

We still do not know enough about when and for whom interpersonal accuracy is related to behavioral adapt- ability and to better interaction outcomes. Moreover, the causality of the relation among interpersonal accu- racy, behavioral adaptability, and outcomes remains to be tested. Although the existing literature points to positive outcomes for people with high levels of inter- personal accuracy, there might be circumstances in which high levels are detrimental. Sometimes people might be better off not being accurate about others (e.g., showing motivated inaccuracy; Rollings, Cuperman, & Ickes, 2011). Also, high interpersonal accuracy might have detrimental effects on the self if a person con- stantly adapts to others and neglects his or her own needs. Such boundary conditions of the positive interac- tion outcomes of interpersonal accuracy should be addressed in future research.

Although we do know which traits are related to interpersonal accuracy, as discussed above, we lack an understanding of how these traits affect outcomes and can thus contribute to opening the black box. Maybe people with high interpersonal accuracy bring out rel- evant behaviors from other individuals that then make judgments easier and more accurate. Relevance and availability of the cues for judgment are important for accuracy (Funder, 1995).

Interpersonal accuracy is a skill that facilitates social interactions and benefits the person who is interperson- ally accurate. Given that the frequency with which we meet new people has increased dramatically as a result of globalization and social media, being able to assess others accurately is a highly treasured skill. Individuals who possess it will most likely be more successful in their professional and personal lives, and those who do not possess it will want to learn it to benefit equally. We believe that training in interpersonal accuracy will become a substantial demand in the future.

Recommended Reading

Carrard, V., & Schmid Mast, M. (2015). (See References). An article outlining a model that illustrates behavioral adaptability and how it relates to interpersonal accuracy.

Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). (See References). A quantitative review about correlates of interpersonal accuracy.

Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., & West, T. V. (Eds.). (2016). (See References). A comprehensive overview of different aspects of interpersonal accuracy and empirical findings in support of them.

Action Editor

Randall W. Engle served as action editor for this article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Katja Schlegel, Tristan Palese, and David Funder for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Project Number 100014_15 9292/1).

References

Ames, D. R., & Kammrath, L. K. (2004). Mind-reading and metacognition: Narcissism, not actual competence,

Interpersonal Perception Accuracy 313

predicts self-estimated ability. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 187–209.

Bernieri, F. J. (1991). Interpersonal sensitivity in teaching interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 98–103.

Blanch-Hartigan, D., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Hill, K. M. (2012). The effectiveness of training to improve person percep- tion accuracy: A meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 483–498.

Bommer, W. H., Pesta, B. J., & Storrud-Barnes, S. F. (2011). Nonverbal emotion recognition and performance: Differences matter differently. Journal of Managerial Psy- chology, 26, 28–41.

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

Byron, K. (2007). Male and female managers’ ability to read emotions: Relationships with supervisor’s performance ratings and subordinates’ satisfaction ratings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 713–733.

Byron, K., Terranova, S., & Nowicki, S. (2007). Nonverbal emotion recognition and salespersons: Linking ability to perceived and actual success. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2600–2619.

Carrard, V., & Schmid Mast, M. (2015). Physician behav- ioral adaptability: A model to outstrip a “one size fits all” approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 98, 1243–1247.

Carrard, V., Schmid Mast, M., & Cousin, G. (2016). Beyond “one size fits all”: Physician nonverbal adaptability to patients’ need for paternalism and its positive consulta- tion outcomes. Health Communication, 31, 1327–1333.

Carrard, V., Schmid Mast, M., Jaunin-Stalder, N., Junod Perron, N., & Sommer, J. (2018). Patient-centeredness as physi- cian behavioral adaptability to patient preferences. Health Communication, 33, 593–600.

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). Predicting work- place outcomes from the ability to eavesdrop on feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 963–971.

Elfenbein, H. A., Der Foo, M., Mandal, M., Biswal, R., Eisenkraft, N., Lim, A., & Sharma, S. (2010). Individual differences in the accuracy of expressing and perceiving nonverbal cues: New data on an old question. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 199–206.

Elfenbein, H. A., Der Foo, M., White, J., Tan, H. H., & Aik, V. C. (2007). Reading your counterpart: The benefit of emo- tion recognition accuracy for effectiveness in negotiation. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 205–223.

Firth, E. A., Conger, J. C., Kuhlenschmidt, S., & Dorcey, T. (1986). Social competence and social perceptivity. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 4, 85–100.

Frauendorfer, D., & Schmid Mast, M. (2013). Hiring gender- occupation incongruent applicants: The positive impact of recruiter interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 182–188.

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102, 652–670.

Funder, D. C., & Harris, M. J. (1986). On the several facets of personality assessment: The case of social acuity. Journal of Personality, 54, 528–550.

Hall, J. A. (2011). Clinicians’ accuracy in perceiving patients: Its relevance for clinical practice and a narrative review of methods and correlates. Patient Education and Coun- seling, 84, 319–324.

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

Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149–180.

Hall, J. A., Gunnery, S. D., & Horgan, T. G. (2016). Gender differences in interpersonal accuracy. In J. A. Hall, M. Schmid Mast, & T. V. West (Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 309–327). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, J. A., Schmid Mast, M., & West, T. V. (Eds.). (2016). The social psychology of perceiving others accurately. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Hall, J. A., Ship, A. N., Ruben, M. A., Curtin, E. M., Roter, D. L., Clever, S. L., . . . Pounds, K. (2015). Clinically relevant correlates of accurate perception of patients’ thoughts and feelings. Health Communication, 30, 423–429.

Isaacowitz, D. M., Vicaria, I. M., & Murry, M. W. E. (2016). A lifespan developmental perspective on interpersonal accuracy. In J. A. Hall, M. Schmid Mast, & T. V. West (Eds.), The social psychology of perceiving others accurately (pp. 206–229). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2009). Expectation confirmation the- ory: Capitalizing on descriptive power. In Y. K. Dwivedi, B. Lal, M. D. Williams, S. L. Scheberger, & M. Wade (Eds.), Handbook of research on contemporary theoretical models in information systems (pp. 384–401). New York, NY: Hershey.

Kurkul, W. W. (2007). Nonverbal communication in one-to- one music performance instruction. Psychology of Music, 35, 327–362.

Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, K., Ekman, P., . . . Goh, A. (2000). A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test ( JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179– 209.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits? American Psychologist, 63, 503–517.

Momm, T., Blickle, G., Liu, Y., Wihler, A., Kholin, M., & Menges, J. I. (2015). It pays to have an eye for emotions: Emotion recognition ability indirectly predicts annual income. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 147–163.

Palese, T., & Schmid Mast, M. (2017). Interpersonal accuracy is related to leadership behavioral adaptability in women. Manuscript in preparation.

314 Mast, Hall

Rollings, K. H., Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2011). Empathic accuracy and inaccuracy. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 143–156). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Rosip, J. C., & Hall, J. A. (2004). Knowledge of nonverbal cues, gender, and nonverbal decoding accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28, 267–286.

Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 845–858.

Schlegel, K., Boone, R. T., & Hall, J. A. (2017). Individual differences in interpersonal accuracy: A multi-level meta- analysis to assess whether judging other people is one skill or many. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41, 103–137.

Schlegel, K., Palese, T., Schmid Mast, M., Rammsayer, T. H., Hall, J. A., & Murphy, N. A. (2017). The relationship between emotion recognition ability and cognitive intel- ligence: A multi-level meta-analysis. Manuscript in prepa- ration.

Schlegel, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2017). The nomological net- work of emotion knowledge and emotion understanding in adults: Evidence from two new performance-based tests. Cognition & Emotion. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02699931.2017.1414687

Schlegel, K., Vicaria, I., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Hall, J. A. (2017). Effectiveness of a short audiovisual emotion recognition training program in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 646–660.

Schmid Mast, M., Jonas, K., Cronauer, C. K., & Darioly, A. (2012). On the importance of the superior’s interpersonal sensitivity for good leadership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 1043–1068.

Smith, J. L., Ickes, W., Hall, J. A., & Hodges, S. D. (Eds.) (2011). Managing interpersonal sensitivity: Knowing when and when not to understand others. New York, NY: Nova Science.

Walter, F., Cole, M. S., van der Vegt, G. S., Rubin, R. S., & Bommer, W. H. (2012). Emotion recognition and emergent leadership: Unraveling mediating mechanisms and bound- ary conditions. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 977–991.