Some meta-perceivers have more insight than others into the impressions they make, but what is this meta-accuracy about? Do good meta-perceivers have insight into the unique impressions they make (dyadic meta-accuracy), or do they simply understand their reputation (generalized meta-accuracy)? In two studies, we tested individual differences in dyadic and generalized meta-accuracy among close others, as well as potential mechanisms and correlates. Results suggest that, among close others, there are good meta-perceivers of dyadic and generalized meta-accuracy. Good meta-perceivers of dyadic meta-accuracy form more differentiated meta-perceptions, while good meta-perceivers of generalized meta-accuracy make and think they make consistent impressions that align with their self-views. Thus, among close others – unlike in first impressions – there are good meta-perceivers who perspective-take.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elsaadawy et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: