Perception of Individual Psychological Characteristics of a Person Based on Nonverbal Behavior

Peculiarities of perception and assessment of individual psychological characteristics of unfamiliar people were studied using video images of their behavior. Participants were teachers with different professional experience (1—4 years; 5—29 years) and observers without teaching experience. We were interested in whether the personality assessment would change depending on the length of professional activity of the teacher. The stimulus material included video fragments of 7 students who described the personalities of strangers based on their picturesque portraits. Video clips lasted 1 minute and were shown without sound. The participants assessed the posers using the “Personal Differential” method and made a forecast of the success of their possible teaching activities. The ratings of participants with different teaching experience were compared with the posers’ self-ratings using Spearman’s correlation coefficient. The factorial structure of assessments in each of the groups of participants was analyzed (maximum likelihood method). The data were also analyzed using the method of semantic universals. The results showed that, depending on the presence and length of teaching experience of the observers, the set of semantic universals that characterize the perception of the posers’ personality varies, while maintaining the core of semantic categories. A similar factorial structure was obtained for assessments by teachers with little experience (up to 5 years) and participants without teaching experience. It includes factors “Energy”, “Fairness” and “Sociability”. The differences between these groups of participants and the group of teachers with extensive experience lie in the opposite sign of the loadings on the “Sociability” factor. For participants with extensive teaching experience (5 or more years), the assessment structure includes an additional fourth factor, “Emotional Stability”.

1. Artem'eva E.Yu. Psikhologiya sub"ektivnoi semantiki [Psychology of subjective semantics]. M.: Izd-vo MGU, 1980. 136 p. (In Russ.).
2. Bazhin E.F., Etkind A.M. Lichnostnyi differentsial. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii [Personality differential. Guidelines]. L.: Leningradskii nauchno-issledovatel'skii psikhonevrologicheskii institut im. V.M. Bekhtereva, 1983. 12 p. (In ).
3. Barabanschikov V.A. Kommunikativnyi podkhod v issledovaniyakh vospriyatiya [A communication approach to perception research]. In V.A. Barabanschikov (ed.). Kognitivnye mekhanizmy neverbal'noi kommunikatsii [Cognitive mechanisms of nonverbal communication]. : Kogito-Tsentr, 2017. Pp. 14—47. (In Russ.).
4. Belinskaya E.P., Bronin I.D. Tochnost' mezhlichnostnogo vospriyatiya v usloviyakh oposredovannogo znakomstva v sotsial'nykh setyakh [Accuracy of interpersonal perception under conditions of mediated acquaintance in social networks]. Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2015. Vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 91—108. DOI:10.17759/sps.2015060407 (In ).
5. Lupenko E.A. Oposredovannoe obshchenie i tochnost' mezhlichnostnogo vospriyatiya [Mediated communication and interpersonal perceptual accuracy]. In K.I. Anan'eva, V.A. Barabanschikov, A.A. Demidov (ed.). Litso cheloveka: poznanie, obshchenie, deyatel'nost' [Human face: cognition, communication, activity].: Kogito-Tsentr — Moskovskii institut psikhoanaliza, 2019. Pp. 341—351. (In Russ.).
6. Serkin V.P. Metody psikhologii sub"ektivnoi semantiki i psikhosemantiki [Methods of psychology of subjective semantics and psychosemantics]. M.: Izd-vo «Pchela», 2008. 382 p. (In ).
7. Adams R.B., Ambady N., Nakayama K., Shimojo S. The Science of Social Vision. In R.B. Adams, N. Ambady, K. Nakayama, S. Shimojo (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. 504 p. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333176.001.0001
8. Ambady N., Rosenthal R. Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993. Vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 431—441. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.431
9. Ambady N., Rosenthal R. Thin Slices of Expressive Behavior as Predictors of Interpersonal Consequences: A Meta-Analysis. Bull., 1992. Vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 256.
10. Fleeson W., Law M.K. Trait enactments as density distributions: The role of actors, situations, and observers in explaining stability and variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015. Vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 1090—1104. DOI:10.1037/a0039517
11. Funder D.C. Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1999.
12. Funder D.C., Colvin C.R. Explorations in behavioral consistency: Properties of persons, situations, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991. Vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 773—794. DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.773
13. Gegenfurtner A., Lewalter D., Lehtinen E., Schmidt M., Gruber H. Teacher Expertise and Professional Vision: Examining Knowledge-Based Reasoning of Pre-Service Teachers, In-Service Teachers, and School Principals. Frontiers in Education, 2020. Vol. 5. DOI:10.3389/feduc.2020.00059
14. Geukes K., Nestler S., Hutteman R., Küfner A.C.P., Back M.D. Trait personality and state variability: Predicting individual differences in within- and cross-context fluctuations in affect, self-evaluations, and behavior in everyday life. Journal of Research in Personality, 2017. Vol. 69, pp. 124—138. DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.003
15. Kosel C., Mooseder A., Seidel T., Pfeffer J. Measuring Teachers’ Visual Expertise Using the Gaze Relational Index Based on Real-world Eye-tracking Data and Varying Velocity Thresholds. ArXiv, 2023. Pp. 1—28.
16. Letzring T., Murphy N.A., Allik J., Beer A., Zimmerman J., Leising D. The judgment of personality: an overview of current empirical research findings. PsyArXiv, 2021. Pp. 1—34. DOI:10.31234/osf.io/8t63v
17. Letzring T.D., Funder D.C. Interpersonal Accuracy in Trait Judgments. The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume III: Applications of Personality and Individual Differences. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2018. Pp. 253—282. DOI:10.4135/9781526451248.n11
18. Murphy N.A., Hall J.A. Capturing Behavior in Small Doses: A Review of Comparative Research in Evaluating Thin Slices for Behavioral Measurement. Frontiers in Psychology, 2021. Vol. 12, pp. 1—13. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667326
19. Murphy N.A., Hall J.A., Schmid Mast M., Ruben M.A., Frauendorfer D., Blanch-Hartigan D., Roter D.L., Nguyen L. Reliability and Validity of Nonverbal Thin Slices in Social Interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2015. Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 199—213. DOI:10.1177/0146167214559902
20. Shoda Y. A unified framework for the study of behavioral consistency: bridging person×situation interaction and the consistency paradox. European Journal of Personality, 1999. Vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 361—387. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199909/10)13:5<361::AID-PER362>3.0.CO;2-X
21. Zebrowitz L.A. Ecological and Social Approaches to Face Perception. In A.J. Calder, G. Rhodes, J.V. Haxby, M.H. Johnson (ed.). Oxford Handbook of Face Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Pp. 31—50. DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199559053.013.0003
22. Zebrowitz L.A., Collins M.A. Accurate Social Perception at Zero Acquaintance: The Affordances of a Gibsonian Approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1997. Vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 204—223. DOI:10.1207/s15327957pspr0103_2