Beyond reliability in first impressions research: Considering validity and the need to “Mix it up with folks”

Liam Paul Satchell · Bastian Jaeger · Alex Lee Jones · Beatriz López · Christoph Schild

14 citations0/0 files storedSocial Psychological Bulletin

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Reliability and Agreement in Measurement Social and Intergroup Psychology Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

‘First impressions’ are a popular topic in social psychology. They are researched because the initial judgments of others are consequential in everyday life (such as job interviews, first dates, justice outcomes). In the context of broader concerns about the credibility of psychological science, first impressions research has developed commendable initiatives for improving reliability (open stimulus databases, international collaborations, replication studies and reanalyses). However, these initiatives can impact the validity of studying how people form first impressions. There is a long history of critiquing the usefulness of passive-observer judgments of controlled, reduced, presentations of people—and these concerns are still relevant today. Here, we highlight the praiseworthy practices improving reliability in first impressions research, before moving on to identify persistent methodological concerns in the field. This includes inadequate stimulus sampling and diversity, constrained participant response options, limited consideration of study context, and limitations of atomised presentations of target people. We identify how these methodological limitations impact theory development, how we might be over/underestimating everyday experience, and even misunderstanding social differences in autism and mental health. Finally, we identify opportunities for methodological reform, focusing on codifying instead of controlling interactions, promoting inductive, participant-led, methodologies, and asking for stronger theory development and clarity on ‘can’ vs. ‘do’ research questions. Overall, we praise reforms for improving the reliability of first impressions research, but improvements to making scientific predictions about first impressions require renewed consideration of validity.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

References

1955Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology.2016Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb 2010Valid Facial Cues to Cooperation and Trust 1988Consensus in personality judgments at zero acquaintance.2018The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology Through a Distributed Collaborative Network 2013A meta-analysis and scoping review of social cognition performance in social phobia, posttraumatic stress disorder and other anxiety disorders 2013Applications and Extensions of the Lens Model to Understand Interpersonal Judgments at Zero Acquaintance 2017Facial First Impressions Across Culture: Data-Driven Modeling of Chinese and British Perceivers’ Unconstrained Facial Impressions

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.