Self-prediction: Exploring the parameters of accuracy.

We conducted four studies to explore people's self-prediction processes.Study I examined the types of information people report using when making self-predictions.Five categories of information were determined.Studies 2 and 3 examined the relation between the use of different categories of information and self-prediction accuracy.Using correlational and experimental methodologies, these two studies demonstrated the utility of attending to personal base rate and personal disposition information in formulating accurate self-predictions.Individual differences in accuracy as a function of public and private self-consciousness were also evident.Study 4 found that more certain selfpredictions, as well as predictions that were distinct from what was expected for the average individual, were more accurate.Overall, the findings suggest the importance of attending to individuating information in formulating accurate self-predictions.The traditional model of psychological assessment emphasizes the use of trained evaluators to formulate predictions about a person on the basis of testing data, historical information, and clinical judgment.To date, however, there has been much controversy and debate over the utility of efforts in the fields of personality and clinical psychology aimed at developing instruments to aid in behavior prediction (cf.Rorer & Widiger, 1983).Questions have been raised about the cross-situational predictive accuracy of traditional assessment techniques (Mischel, 1968), the adequacy of most professionals' abilities to integrate information with optimal weightings (e.g., Wiggins, 1973), and the potential biases prevalent in the inferences drawn from test data (Chapman & Chapman, 1967).Nevertheless, the standard method for assessment remains the intuitive appraisal of an external evaluator.Some writers have cautioned us about the conclusions we draw from research investigations into the nature of personality that use some of our most triedand-true personality assessment devices (Nicholls, Licht & Pearl, 1982), whereas others have warned us about the potential for thoughtlessness in measurement-based personality research (Hogan, Hogan, Briggs, & Jones, 1983). Convergence Toward a Viewpoint SupportingGreater Use of Self-AssessmentFueled by some of these continuing sources of dissatisfaction with assessment, several theorists, in taking stock of the field's