Unraveling the web of personality judgments: the influence of social networks on personality assessment.

Contemporary assessment models have focused on the degree to which self- and other reports of personality description agree in an effort to define consensus and agreement about personality attributes. In general, we believe that analyses of this type of data have been limited in that they tend to focus on both simple models (usually dyad-based) and simple aggregations of data (usually correlations between self- and other ratings). In addition, the behaviors used as stimuli in experimental settings lack the richness of behaviors in natural social settings. Here, we present some ideas from social network models in an effort to influence broader conceptualizations of agreement and consensus in assessment. Social network models provide a more complete description of interpersonal behavior beyond the dyadic level in both laboratory and natural settings. After defining some basic social network concepts, we go on to suggest the applicability of these concepts to personality assessment and, more specifically, to how these models might be used to study self-other agreement and consensus about personality judgments. Empirical data are used to illustrate social network concepts in the domain of personality assessment.

[1]  H. White,et al.  “Structural Equivalence of Individuals in Social Networks” , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[2]  R. Alba.  A graph‐theoretic definition of a sociometric clique† , 1973 .

[3]  P. Arabie,et al.  An algorithm for clustering relational data with applications to social network analysis and comparison with multidimensional scaling , 1975 .

[4]  Ronald S. Burt,et al.  Positions in Networks , 1976 .

[5]  L. Hubert,et al.  Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. , 1976 .

[6]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[7]  S. Seidman,et al.  A note on the potential for genuine cross-fertilization between anthropology and mathematics , 1978 .

[8]  Stephen B. Seidman,et al.  A graph‐theoretic generalization of the clique concept* , 1978 .

[9]  Ronald L. Breiger,et al.  Personae and Social Roles: The Network Structure of Personality Types in Small Groups , 1979 .

[10]  Douglas T. Kenrick,et al.  Personality traits and the eye of the beholder: Crossing some traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for consistency in all of the people. , 1980 .

[11]  F. Harary,et al.  Cluster Inference by using Transitivity Indices in Empirical Graphs , 1982 .

[12]  J. Cheek.  Aggregation, moderator variables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. , 1982 .

[13]  Katherine Faust,et al.  Predicting the structure of a communications network from recalled data , 1982 .

[14]  S. Seidman.  Internal cohesion of ls sets in graphs , 1983 .

[15]  K. Reitz,et al.  Graph and Semigroup Homomorphisms on Networks of Relations , 1983 .

[16]  David Krackhardt,et al.  When friends leave: A structural analysis of the relationship between turnover and stayers' attitudes. , 1985 .

[17]  L. Freeman,et al.  Cognitive Structure and Informant Accuracy , 1987 .

[18]  David A. Kenny,et al.  Accuracy in interpersonal perception: a social relations analysis. , 1987 .

[19]  P. Bonacich.  Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  R. Burt.  Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus Structural Equivalence , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  T. Snijders,et al.  Extensions of triad counts to networks with different subsets of points and testing underlying random graph distributions , 1987 .

[22]  Christopher Winship.  Thoughts about roles and relations: An old document revisited , 1988 .

[23]  Detecting Positions in Networks: A Formal Analysis of Loose Social Structure in Rural Java , 1988 .

[24]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Homogeneity in confiding relations , 1988 .

[25]  D. Funder,et al.  Profiting from controversy. Lessons from the person-situation debate. , 1988, The American psychologist.

[26]  Patrick Doreian,et al.  Equivalence in a social network , 1988 .

[27]  S. Borgatti,et al.  The class of all regular equivalences: Algebraic structure and computation☆ , 1989 .

[28]  M. Zelen,et al.  Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples☆ , 1989 .

[29]  B. Latané,et al.  From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. , 1990 .

[30]  W. Baker.  Market Networks and Corporate Behavior , 1990, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  August E. Grant,et al.  Individual and network influences on the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging , 1990 .

[32]  S. Borgatti,et al.  LS sets, lambda sets and other cohesive subsets , 1990 .

[33]  William Ickes,et al.  Naturalistic Social Cognition: Empathic Accuracy in Mixed-Sex Dyads , 1990 .

[34]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Theoretical Foundations for Centrality Measures , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  L. Freeman,et al.  Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow , 1991 .

[36]  D. Funder.  Global Traits: A Neo-Allportian Approach to Personality , 1991 .

[37]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  Personality: structure and assessment. , 1992, Annual review of psychology.

[38]  N. Contractor,et al.  Structural position and perceived similarity , 1992 .

[39]  L. Freeman.  Filling in the Blanks: A Theory of Cognitive Categories and the Structure of Social Affiliation , 1992 .