Aging of personality judgment ability: The moderating role of information richness*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0071

Abstract

Abstract:

Personality judgment, the assessment of others' personalities, is a fundamental social cognitive ability that significantly impacts individuals’ social functioning. Does this ability differ between younger and older adults? While previous research has primarily focused on the accuracy of personality judgment across ages, the present study delved deeper into two distinct components of this accuracy ?? normative accuracy and distinctive accuracy ?? to gain a more comprehensive understanding of age-related variations in personality judgment. We hypothesized that older adults may possess an advantage in normative accuracy due to their richer life experiences and social knowledge related to different groups (H1). However, cognitive declines associated with aging may hinder their ability to gather and utilize individual-specific personality information in specific contexts, resulting in decreased distinctive accuracy. Furthermore, we investigated how the richness of personality-relevant information available within the same time duration moderates the age differences in personality judgment. We predicted that younger adults would be more proficient in utilizing incremental information to improve their distinctive accuracy, while older adults’ cognitive declines would limit their proficiency in doing so, thereby widening the gap in distinctive accuracy between the two age groups (H2). Testing these hypotheses will advance our understanding of age differences in personality judgment.

To achieve these objectives, we adopted a 2 (age group of judge: older and younger) × 3 (richness of information: unitary, medium, and rich) between-subject experimental design. A total of 81 older participants (aged 60~83 years, M ± SD = 66.67 ± 4.44) and 82 younger participants (aged 18~27 years, M ± SD = 21.98 ± 2.12) were recruited to serve as judges. They watched the self-introduction videos of 24 target characters presented in a sequence, including 12 older adults and 12 younger adults. Each self-introduction video had three versions with varying richness of information, which was manipulated by changing the number of information modality: unitary (text/subtitle only), medium (text/subtitle and sound), and rich (text/subtitle, sound, and image). After each video, participants evaluated the Big Five personality traits of the target in the video.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multilevel linear modeling analyses were performed to investigate the effects of age group of the judge and information richness on the overall personality judgment accuracy, normative accuracy, and distinctive accuracy. The results revealed that older adults exhibited higher overall personality judgment accuracy than younger adults, which was mainly due to their superior normative accuracy, supporting H1. Furthermore, the overall personality judgment accuracy improved with increasing information richness. Information richness moderated the age differences in distinctive accuracy, but not normative accuracy. Specifically, older adults performed worse than younger adults when presented with videos containing only text/subtitle (i.e., in the unitary information condition). However, older adults performed similarly well as younger adults when presented with videos containing text/subtitle and sound (i.e., in the medium information condition) or videos containing text/subtitle, sound, and image (i.e., in the rich information condition). Contradicting with H2, the results revealed that older and younger adults’ discrepancy in distinctive accuracy narrowed with increasing information richness.

Overall, the results indicate that age-related declines in basic cognitive abilities did not diminish older adults’ social cognitive ability for personality judgment. Social knowledge and life experiences might play a crucial role in enhancing the personality judgment accuracy of older adults via improving their normative accuracy. Additionally, older adults demonstrated the ability to utilize incremental personality-related information to improve their distinctive accuracy and compensate for their gaps in distinctive accuracy compared to younger adults. These findings highlight the importance of valuing and considering the opinions of older adults in social practices, such as personnel selection, where accurate personality judgment is needed.

Key words: personality judgment, normative accuracy, distinctive accuracy, aging characteristics, richness of information

LIU Xueping, HUAI Qichen, GONG Xianmin, PENG Huamao. (2025). Aging of personality judgment ability: The moderating role of information richness^*. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(1), 71-83.

Figures/Tables 6

References 48

[1]	Beer A., Rogers K. H., & Letzring T. D. (2019). Effects of escalated exposure to information on accuracy of personality judgment. Journal of Research in Personality, 83, Article 103864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103864
[2]	Biesanz J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of interpersonal perception: Assessing individual differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853-885. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2010.519262 doi: 10.1080/00273171.2010.519262 URL pmid: 26795267
[3]	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(4), 589-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610364121 doi: 10.1177/0956797610364121 URL pmid: 20424106
[4]	Brunswik E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments (2nd ed). Berkeley, USA: University of California Press.
[5]	Castro V. L., & Isaacowitz D. M. (2019a). Aging and the social ecology of everyday interpersonal perception: What is perceived, in whom, and where? Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 74(6), 988-998. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbx159
[6]	Castro V. L., & Isaacowitz D. M. (2019b). The same with age: Evidence for age-related similarities in interpersonal accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1517-1537. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000540
[7]	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(1), 117-120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.11.001
[8]	Chen S. (2017). Lens model analyses of personality judgment. Journal of Guangzhou University (Social Science Edition), 16(8), 51-58.
[9]	Connelly B. S., & Ones D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092-1122. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021212 doi: 10.1037/a0021212 URL pmid: 21038940
[10]	Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. -G., & Buchner A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146 doi: 10.3758/bf03193146 URL pmid: 17695343
[11]	Freiherr J., Lundström J. N., Habel U., & Reetz K. (2013). Multisensory integration mechanisms during aging. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00863 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00863 URL pmid: 24379773
[12]	Freund A. M., & Isaacowitz D. M. (2014). Aging and social perception: So far, more similarities than differences. Psychology and Aging, 29(3), 451-453. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037555 doi: 10.1037/a0037555 URL pmid: 25244466
[13]	Funder D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of personality judgment-A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 102(4), 652-670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.4.652 URL pmid: 7480467
[14]	Funder D. C. (1999). Personality judgment: A realistic approach to person perception. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
[15]	Funder D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412445309
[16]	Funder D. C., & West S. G. (1993). Consensus, self-other agreement, and accuracy in personality judgment: An introduction. Journal of Personality, 61(4), 457-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.tb00778.x URL pmid: 8151499
[17]	Gosling D. S., Rentfrow J. P., & Swann J. R. B. W. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
[18]	Hess T. M., Bolstad C. A., Woodburn S. M., & Auman C. (1999). Trait diagnosticity versus behavioral consistency as determinants of impression change in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 77-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.14.1.77 URL pmid: 10224633
[19]	Hess T. M., Osowski N. L., & Leclerc C. M. (2005). Age and experience influences on the complexity of social inferences. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 447-459. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.3.447 URL pmid: 16248704
[20]	Hess T. M., & Smith B. T. (2014). Aging and the impact of irrelevant information on social judgments. Psychology and Aging, 29(3), 542-553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036730 doi: 10.1037/a0036730 URL pmid: 25244474
[21]	Hirschmüller S., Egloff B., Nestler S., & Back M. D. (2013). The dual lens model: A comprehensive framework for understanding self-other agreement of personality judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030383 doi: 10.1037/a0030383 URL pmid: 23046068
[22]	Hirschmüller S., Egloff B., Schmukle S. C., Nestler S., & Back M. D. (2015). Accurate judgments of neuroticism at zero acquaintance: A question of relevance. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12097 doi: 10.1111/jopy.12097 URL pmid: 24655148
[23]	Hirschmüller S., Schmukle S. C., Krause S., Back M. D., & Egloff B. (2018). Accuracy of self-esteem judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 308-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12316 doi: 10.1111/jopy.12316 URL pmid: 28317118
[24]	Hong S., Suk H. W., Choi Y., & Na J. (2021). Face-based judgments: Accuracy, validity, and a potential underlying mechanism. Psychological Science, 32(9), 1452-1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211000308
[25]	Huelsnitz C. O., Neel R., & Human L. J. (2020). Accuracy in perceptions of fundamental social motives: Comparisons to perceptions of Big Five traits and associations with friendship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219838546 doi: 10.1177/0146167219838546 URL pmid: 31023153
[26]	Human L. J., Sandstrom G. M., Biesanz J. C., & Dunn E. W. (2013). Accurate first impressions leave a lasting impression: The long-term effects of distinctive self-other agreement on relationship development. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(4), 395-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612463735
[27]	Jones S. A., & Noppeney U. (2021). Ageing and multisensory integration: A review of the evidence, and a computational perspective. Cortex, 138(7), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2021.02.001
[28]	Kaurin A., Heil L., Wessa M., Egloff B., & Hirschmüller S. (2018). Selfies reflect actual personality - Just like photos or short videos in standardized lab conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 76, 154-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.007
[29]	Krzyzaniak S. L., Colman D. E., Letzring T. D., McDonald J. S., & Biesanz J. C. (2019). The effect of information quantity on distinctive accuracy and normativity of personality trait judgments. European Journal of Personality, 33(2), 197-213. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2196
[30]	Leclerc C. M., & Hess T. M. (2007). Age differences in the bases for social judgments: Tests of a social expertise perspective. Experimental Aging Research, 33(1), 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610730601006446 URL pmid: 17132566
[31]	Li J. (2013). Psychometric properties of ten-item personality inventory in China. China Journal of Health Psychology, 21(11), 1688-1692. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2013.11.008
[32]	Nestler S., & Back M. D. (2013). Applications and extensions of the lens model to understand interpersonal judgments at zero acquaintance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 374-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413486148
[33]	Norenzayan A., Choi I., & Nisbett R. E. (1999). Eastern and Western perceptions of causality for social behavior:Lay theories about personalities and situations. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds), Cultural divides: The social psychology of intergroup contact (pp. 239-272). New York, USA: Russell Sage Foundation.
[34]	Park D. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. In D. C. Park & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 3-21). New York, USA: Psychology Press.
[35]	Peng H., Wang D. (2012). The cognitive mechanisms of primary mental abilities aging. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(8), 1251-1258.
[36]	Peugh J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 85-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.002 URL pmid: 20006989
[37]	Radvansky G. A., Copeland D. E., & von Hippel W. (2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.010 URL pmid: 20161549
[38]	Salthouse T. A., & Meinz E. J. (1995). Aging, inhibition, working- memory, and speed. Journals of Gerontology Series B:Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 50(6), 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/50B.6.P297
[39]	Schlegel K., Vicaria I. M., & Isaacowitz D. M. (2020). Facets of interpersonal accuracy across the lifespan: Is there a single skill in older age? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 44(2), 253-278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00326-x
[40]	Soto C. J., & John O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117-143. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000096 doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096 URL pmid: 27055049
[41]	Stevenson R. A., Nelms C. E., Baum S. H., Zurkovsky L., Barense M. D., Newhouse P. A., & Wallace M. T. (2015). Deficits in audiovisual speech perception in normal aging emerge at the level of whole-word recognition. Neurobiology of Aging, 36(1), 283-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2014.08.003 URL pmid: 25282337
[42]	Sunderland T., Hill J. L., Mellow A. M., Lawlor B. A., Gundersheimer J., Newhouse P. A., & Grafman J. H. (1989). Clock drawing in Alzheimer’s disease: A novel measure of dementia severity. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 37(8), 725-729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1989.tb02233.x doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1989.tb02233.x URL pmid: 2754157
[43]	Tong S. T., Corriero E. F., Wibowo K. A., Makki T. W., & Slatcher R. B. (2020). Self-presentation and impressions of personality through text-based online dating profiles: A lens model analysis. New Media & Society, 22(5), 875-895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819872678
[44]	Vicaria I. M., Bernieri F. J., & Isaacowitz D. M. (2015). Perceptions of rapport across the life span: Gaze patterns and judgment accuracy. Psychology and Aging, 30(2), 396-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000019 doi: 10.1037/pag0000019 URL pmid: 25894485
[45]	Wiedenroth A., & Leising D. (2020). The more the better - But more of which? Information quantity and shared meaning as predictors of consistency and accuracy in person judgment. Journal of Research in Personality, 87, Article 103968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103968
[46]	Wu T., & Zheng Y. (2019). The validity of cues in personality judgment. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(3), 533-543. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00533 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00533 URL
[47]	Zebrowitz L. A., & Franklin R. G. (2014). The attractiveness halo effect and the babyface stereotype in older and younger adults: Similarities, own-age accentuation, and older adult positivity effects. Experimental Aging Research, 40(3), 375-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073x.2014.897151 doi: 10.1080/0361073X.2014.897151 URL pmid: 24785596
[48]	Zhang B., Li Y. M., Li J., Luo J., Ye Y., Yin L., … John O. P. (2022). The Big Five Inventory-2 in China: A comprehensive psychometric evaluation in four diverse samples. Assessment, 29(6), 1262-1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211008245

Age Group	n	Extraversion		Agreeableness		Conscientiousness		Neuroticism		Openness
Age Group	n	Item 1	Item 6^c	Item 2^c	Item 7	Item 3	Item 8^c	Item 4	Item 9^c	Item 5	Item 10^c
Young	131^a	4.69	3.78	3.05	5.11	4.84	3.64	3.95	4.40	5.10	3.69
Old	145^b	5.22	4.32	3.05	5.42	5.49	3.03	2.90	5.03	5.39	3.88

Age Group	n	Extraversion		Agreeableness		Conscientiousness		Neuroticism		Openness
Age Group	n	Item 1	Item 6^c	Item 2^c	Item 7	Item 3	Item 8^c	Item 4	Item 9^c	Item 5	Item 10^c
Young	131^a	4.69	3.78	3.05	5.11	4.84	3.64	3.95	4.40	5.10	3.69
Old	145^b	5.22	4.32	3.05	5.42	5.49	3.03	2.90	5.03	5.39	3.88

Indicators	Young judges(n = 82)			Old judges(n = 81)
Indicators	Unitary information	Medium information	Rich information	Unitary information	Medium information	Rich information
Overall indicator
Self-other agreement ^a	0.37 (0.14)	0.40 (0.13)	0.41 (0.16)	0.45 (0.20)	0.51 (0.12)	0.54 (0.10)
Sub-components
Normative accuracy ^b	0.66	0.73	0.84	0.99	0.88	1.13
Distinctive accuracy ^c	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.06

Indicators	Young judges(n = 82)			Old judges(n = 81)
Indicators	Unitary information	Medium information	Rich information	Unitary information	Medium information	Rich information
Overall indicator
Self-other agreement ^a	0.37 (0.14)	0.40 (0.13)	0.41 (0.16)	0.45 (0.20)	0.51 (0.12)	0.54 (0.10)
Sub-components
Normative accuracy ^b	0.66	0.73	0.84	0.99	0.88	1.13
Distinctive accuracy ^c	0.06	0.05	0.04	0.03	0.06	0.06

Effects	Model 0	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Fixed effects
Other-ratings on TIPI-C (Y_ijk)
Intercept	4.30^***	4.30^***	4.14^***	4.11^***
Old judges (Age_i)			0.33^***	0.39^***
Medium information (Info1_i)			?0.02	?0.02
Rich information (Info2_i)			0.01	0.10^*
Old judges × medium information				?0.004
Old judges × rich information				?0.18
Normative accuracy(β_1i)
Intercept		0.87^***	0.70^***	0.66^***
Old judges (Age_i)			0.25^**	0.33^***
Medium information (Info1_i)			?0.02	0.07
Rich information (Info2_i)			0.16	0.18
Old judges × medium information				?0.18
Old judges × rich information				?0.04
Distinctive accuracy(β_2i)
Intercept		0.05^***	0.05^***	0.06^***
Old judges(Age_i)			<0.001	?0.03⁺
Medium information(Info1_i)			0.01	?0.01
Rich information(Info2_i)			0.003	?0.02
Old judges × medium information				0.04^*
Old judges × rich information				0.05⁺
Random effects
Level 1, σ²	2.089^***	1.329^***	1.329^***	1.329^***
Level 2, τ00	0.098^***	0.102^***	0.075^***	0.073^***