ArticlePDF Available

Popularity at first sight: Dominant behaviours mediate the link between extraversion and popularity in face-to-face and virtual group interactions

British Journal of Social Psychology

January 2024
63(1)

DOI:10.1111/bjso.12720

License
CC BY 4.0

Authors:

Martje Buss

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität in Munich

Jenny Wagner

Hamburg University

Eva Bleckmann

Hamburg University

Larissa Lucia Wieczorek

Hamburg University

Although there is robust evidence that being more extraverted is related to higher popularity, only few studies have examined which actual behaviours (e.g., verbal content, body language) might explain this association. The current study examined whether observer‐rated dominant behaviours (nonverbal, paraverbal, verbal, and general cues) mediate the relationship between self‐rated extraversion and its facets (assertiveness, sociability, and activity) and other‐rated popularity in zero‐acquaintance settings. In two studies, we analysed data from face‐to‐face (Study 1, N = 124) and virtual (Study 2, N = 291) group interactions where participants were videotaped while performing a task and subsequently rated each other on popularity. Across studies, extraversion and the facets assertiveness and sociability were consistently associated with higher popularity, while the role of dominant behaviours differed. In Study 1, only two nonverbal behaviours, dominant gestures and upright posture, mediated the association between extraversion and popularity. In Study 2, all four types of behavioural cues mediated the association between extraversion (facets) and popularity. We discuss how these findings provide insights into the mechanisms of attaining popularity at zero acquaintance in diverse social settings.

Content uploaded by Eva Bleckmann

Content may be subject to copyright.

Br J Soc Psychol. 2024;00:1–28.

wileyon linel ibrary.com/journal/bjso

Receive d: 22 Aug ust 2022

Accepted : 7 January 2023

DOI: 10. 1111/b jso.1 2720

ARTICLE

Popularity at first sight: Dominant behaviours

mediate the link between extraversion and

popularity in face- to- face and virtual group

interactions

Martje Buss | Jenny Wagner | Eva Bleckmann |

Larissa L. Wieczorek

This is an open a ccess ar ticle under t he terms of the Creat ive Commons Attribution License, which perm its use, d istribution a nd repro duction

in any medium, provided the ori gin al work is properly cited.

Depar tment of E ducational Psychology

and Personality Deve lopment, Institute of

Psycholog y, Univer sity of Ha mburg , Hambu rg,

Germa ny

Correspondence

Martje Buss, Educat ional Ps ycholog y and

Persona lity Development, Universit y of

Hamburg, Von- Melle- Park 5, 20146 Ha mburg ,

Ger ma ny.

Email: martje.buss@gmai l.com

Funding informat ion

German Resea rch Foundation, Grant/

Award Numbe r: WA 3509/3- 1;

Landesforschu ngsförderung Hamburg, Grant/

Award Number: LFF- GV79- 2019;P4

Abstract

Although there is robust evidence that being more extra-

verted is related to higher popularity, only few studies have

examined which actual behaviours (e.g., verbal content,

body language) might explain this association. The current

study examined whether observer- rated dominant behav-

iours (nonverbal, paraverbal, verbal, and general cues) me-

diate the relationship between self- rated extraversion and

its facets (assertiveness, sociability, and activity) and other-

rated popularity in zero- acquaintance settings. In two stud-

ies, we analysed data from face- to- face (Study 1, N = 124)

and virtual (Study 2, N = 291) group interactions where

participants were videotaped while performing a task and

subsequently rated each other on popularity. Across stud-

ies, extraversion and the facets assertiveness and sociability

were consistently associated with higher popularity, while

the role of dominant behaviours differed. In Study 1, only

two nonverbal behaviours, dominant gestures and upright

posture, mediated the association between extraversion and

popularity. In Study 2, all four types of behavioural cues

mediated the association between extraversion (facets) and

popularity. We discuss how these findings provide insights

into the mechanisms of attaining popularity at zero ac-

quaintance in diverse social settings.

KE YWORDS

dominance, extraversion, interpersonal percept ions, popularity, social

behaviou rs

BUSS et al .

BACKGROUND

Popularity, defined as the extent to which a person is liked by a group of people (Back & Kenny, 2010;

Leckelt et al., 2020), has been related to psychological and physical health (Berkman, 1995; Myers

& Diener, 1995), academic success (Kiuru et al., 2015; Lubbers et al., 2006), and better career per-

formance (Garden et al., 2 018). First- sight impressions of liking can have long- term consequences

and play an important role in the establishment of meaningful social connections ( Rau et al., 2022).

To understand individual differences in popularity, researchers have investigated its association

with relatively stable patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviour, that is, personality ( Roberts

et al., 2006).

Numerous studies found that people scoring high in extraversion, which generally refers to being

outgoing and talkative in social situations (Soto & Jackson, 2 013), are rated as more popular1 (Back,

Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 011; Carlson & DesJardins, 2015; Ciarrochi & Heaven, 2009; Ilmarinen, 2018;

Szczygiel & Mikolajczak, 2018; van der Linden et al., 2010) and more often emerge as leaders within

social groups (Anderson et al., 2001; DesJardins et al., 2015). Theoretical models (Back, Baumert,

et al., 2 0 11; Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 011) assume that specific behaviours in social interactions me-

diate such associations between personality and the popularity of a person. Corroborating this view,

initial empirical evidence suggests that dominant behaviours mediate the association between extraver-

sion and popularity (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011; Ilmarinen, 2 018). It remains an open question,

however, which specific behavioural cues (i.e., body language, verbal content) are at work here. The

current study addresses this research gap by investigating the mediating role of dominant behaviour in

the link between extraversion and popularity. For this purpose, data from two different samples, focus-

ing on face- to- face and virtual group interactions at zero acquaintance, were used.

The association between extraversion and popularity has been consistently found in both labora-

tory (Carlson & DesJardins, 2015) and real- life settings (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011; Ciarrochi &

Heaven, 2009; van der Linden et al., 2010), as well as across different age groups (e.g., children, adoles-

cents, young adults; Carlson & DesJardins, 2015; Ilmarinen, 2 018; Szczygiel & Mikolajczak, 2 018; van

der Linden et al., 2010). Whereas most of these studies used well- acquainted samples, such as college

dormitories (Wortman & Wood, 2011) or school classes (Ciarrochi & Heaven, 2009; Ilmarinen, 2018;

Szczygiel & Mikolajczak, 2018; van der Linden et al., 2010), the association between extraversion and

popularity was also established in zero acquaintance settings. In two previous studies, university stu-

dents with higher extraversion were rated as more popular by their fellow students after introducing

themselves at their first lecture (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 0 11) and when interacting in small groups

(4–6 people) during free conversation or an ice- breaking game (Carlson & DesJardins, 2015). Thus, al-

though personality- popularity associations might change from early to later stages of acquaintanceship

(Leckelt et al., 2 015), the association between extraversion and popularity appears to generalize to zero

acquaintance.

In addition to the study of personality traits, personality facets have received increasing atten-

tion, particularly in social settings (Deventer et al., 2019; Judge et al., 2013; Mund & Neyer, 2014;

Wieczorek et al., 2021). While all facets of a personality trait can be aggregated into one overall trait

score, each of them introduces unique features (Costa & McCrae, 1995; McCrae, 2015), and their re-

spective associations with a psychological outcome may differ from each other (Marrero Quevedo &

Carballeira Abella, 2011; Mund & Neyer, 2 014). Thus, by capturing narrower behaviours, thoughts,

and feelings, examining personality facets can not only contribute to a more refined understanding of

the interplay between extraversion and popularity but also uncover effects that might be overlooked

when overall scores are analysed (Mõttus, 2016; Mõttus et al., 2020; Stewart et al., 2022). According

to Soto and John (2 017 ), extraversion can be divided into the facets assertiveness, sociability, and

1Note that previou s research on long - te rm social rel ationships (de Vries e t al., 2020) has used different def initions of popula rity, d ifferentiat ing

betwe en a person's likability and t heir social i nf luence. I n the present study, we follow pre vious research on unacquai nted samples (B ack,

Schmu kle, & E gloff, 2 011; Leckelt et al., 2020) and use popu lar ity as a re latively broad concept.

20448309, 0, Downloaded from https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12720 by Universität Hamburg, Wiley Online Library on [31/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

activity. We assume that the relevance of extraversion facets for popularity could differ depending

on the social context. Assertiveness, which describes the tendency to be decisive, persuasive, and take

responsibility (Soto & John, 2017), may be relevant for popularity in groups that need to make ef-

ficient decisions to achieve an outcome. In empirical research, assertiveness has been consistently

linked to constructs such as social status and leadership emergence (Anderson et al., 2001; Judge

et al., 2002), but also to more negative perceptions among members of student houses (Wortman &

Wood, 2 011). Sociability, a tendency to be outgoing and talkative (Soto & John, 2 017 ), might relate

to popularity when people want to get to know each other and to “break the ice”. Whereas research

found that sociability was only weakly related to popularity among secondary school students (de

Vries et al., 2020), talkative individuals were found to be more popular among college students

(Wortman & Wood, 2011). Activity describes the tendency to experience positive emotions and mo-

tivation (Soto & John, 2 017 ) and could be associated with popularity in groups that face challenging

tasks and thus benefit from an enthusiastic and positive attitude. Previous studies found that activity

related to popularity in student dorms but neither in fraternity and sorority houses ( Wortman &

Wood, 2 011) nor in school classes (de Vries et al., 2020). In sum, initial research on extraversion fac-

ets and popularity shows mixed results and has predominantly focused on well- acquainted samples.

It thus remains an open question, to what extent assertiveness, sociability, and activity contribute to

the association between extraversion and popularity at zero acquaintance.

In addition, little research has addressed the underlying mechanisms that may connect extraversion

to popularity in social interactions. How does an individual's extraversion translate to interpersonal

judgements of popularity? The PERSOC framework (Back, Baumert, et al., 2 011) emphasizes that be-

haviours within social interactions are key to understanding the processes behind the association be-

tween an individual's personality and their social relationships with others. Along these lines, the Social

Relations Lens Model (SRLM; Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 011) highlights the role of behavioural cues

as mediators within this association and differentiates between individuals who show certain types of

behaviours (targets) and others who utilize these behaviours to form interpersonal perceptions (perceiv-

ers). Accordingly, targets scoring high on extraversion should be more popular because they show cer-

tain observable behaviours during social interactions, which are picked up by their interaction partners

and inform their popularity perceptions. These behavioural cues can involve specific behavioural chan-

nels, like nonverbal (e.g., facial expressions, body language), paraverbal (voice characteristics), and verbal

behaviours, or be more general and subsume several of these channels (Grünberg et al., 2018). Previous

studies indicate that dominant behaviours might play a mediating role in explaining the link between

extraversion and popularity. First, using a university student sample, Back, Schmukle, and Egloff (2011)

found that behaviours displayed during self- presentations, including dominant behavioural cues like

self- assured movements and strength of voice (Grünberg et al., 2018), mediated the association between

extraversion and popularity at zero acquaintance. Second, Ilmarinen (2018) found that oral fluency

partially mediated the association between parent- rated extraversion of primary school students and

popularity among classmates one year later. Finally, potentially mediating dominant behaviours, such as

a self- assured facial expression and a straight posture, could also be derived from research on extraver-

sion (Breil et al., 2020) and popularity (Back et al., 2010; Geukes et al., 2 018).

Taken together, there is empirical evidence that dominant behavioural cues have a mediating func-

tion in the association between extraversion and popularity. However, a comprehensive examination

of dominance cues on different behavioural channels, including verbal content, is lacking. A more

detailed investigation is needed to disentangle which specific dominant behaviours are seen as lik-

able and which behavioural channels convey signals that inf luence popularity among interaction part-

ners. Furthermore, it remains unknown whether the associations between extraversion, dominant

behaviours, and popularity generalize to small group interactions. In everyday life (e.g., at school or

at work), discussing and solving tasks in small groups is a frequent requirement. Gaining insights into

the underlying processes linking extraversion and popularity in these contexts may contribute to the

development of interventions and strategies aimed at enhancing social integration, group cohesion, and

individual well- being. Moreover, as digitalization advances, group interactions increasingly take place

BUSS et al .

in virtual environments (Raghuram et al., 2019). While previous studies point to higher well- being in

face- to- face compared to virtual interactions (Achterhof et al., 2022; Kroencke et al., 2023), there is

also evidence that some perceptual processes related to popularity may generalize across social settings

(Bleckmann et al., 2023; Tissera et al., 2023). To further advance this line of research, we investigate

the social dynamics underlying the association between extraversion and popularity in both face- to- face

and virtual group interactions.

The present study

The goal of this study was to investigate whether observer- rated cues of dominant behaviour mediate

the association between self- rated extraversion and other- rated popularity. To accomplish this goal, we

conducted two studies (Nove rall = 415) in which we analysed video- recorded data from group interactions

at zero acquaintance. In Study 1, participants attended an on- side lab session where they took part in a

cooperative task in groups of 3–6 people. In Study 2, participants took part in a virtual group interac-

tion with 3–5 people. Using the video recordings of these group interactions, trained observers rated

nonverbal, paraverbal, verbal, and general cues of dominant behaviour.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the study's hypotheses. In accordance with previous research (Carlson

& DesJardins, 2015; Ciarrochi & Heaven, 2009), we predicted a positive association between self- reported

extraversion and other- rated popularity (H1). In addition, building on previous findings on cues of domi-

nant behaviour (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 011; Breil et al., 2020; Ilmarinen, 2 018), we subsequently ex-

pected positive associations of extraversion and dominant behaviours (H2) as well as dominant behaviours

FIGUR E 1 Hypot hesized mediation model of the current study. Note: In both studies, we expected associations between

self- reported extraversion and ot her- rated popularit y (H1), between self- reported extraversion a nd observer- rated dominant

behaviours (H2), and between observer- rated dominant behaviours and other- rated popularity (H3). Finally, we hypothesized

that the relationship between self- reported extraversion and other- rated popularity is mediated by observer- rated dominant

behaviours (H4). Extraversion facets were exami ned in an exploratory manner. All analyses were controlled for age group a nd

gender in Study 1 and age, gender, and condit ion in Study 2.

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

and popularity (H3). Finally, we expected that cues of dominant behaviour mediate the link between extra-

version and popularity (H4). Due to the lack of research in this area and existing mixed findings (de Vries

et al., 2020; Wortman & Wood, 2 0 11), facet- specific effects were examined in an exploratory manner.

The present study makes at least three substantial contributions to the existing literature: First, we in-

vestigate age groups (adolescents, older adults) that have been underrepresented in previous research on the

relationship between extraversion, dominant behaviours, and popularity. Second, we conduct fine- grained

analyses of extraversion facets and dominant behaviours on different channels (nonverbal, verbal, paraver-

bal, and general) to understand subtle variations in interpersonal processes linking extraversion and popu-

larity. Third, we employ a multimethod approach incorporating three different types of reports (i.e., self- ,

observer- , and other reports) to ensure a robust test of our hypotheses. This comprehensive methodology is

further enhanced by examining both face- to- face (Study 1) and virtual (Study 2) interactions.

METHODS

All hypotheses and data analyses were preregistered at htt ps:// osf. io/ dj35z/ via the Open Science

Framework. Data of Study 1 were collected as part of the SELFIE project (https:// osf. io/ 4gnz9/ ), which

tracked individuals from two different age groups across important life transitions: high- school students

awaiting graduation and approaching pensioners. Ethical approval for the data collection was granted by the

German Psychological Society DGPs. In the current study, we only used data assessed during the introduc-

tory session in the laboratory at the Humboldt University of Berlin. The data used in Study 2 were part of

the SNAP project (https:// osf. io/ w4nmj/ ). In this research project, adolescents were accompanied during

social interactions both in virtual environments and in their everyday lives over a period of three months.

Ethical approval for data collection was granted by the local ethics committee at the Faculty of Psychology

and Human Movement Science, University of Hamburg. The present study used data from the first self-

report questionnaire (SQ1) and observer- and other- ratings from the virtual interactive session.

Participants

In Study 1, 124 participants took part in the introductory laboratory session. This sample consisted of

n = 103 high school graduates (70.87% female) aged between 15 and 22 years (Mage = 17.51, SD = 1.07) and

n = 21 older adults approaching retirement (76.19% female) aged between 56 and 69 years (Mage = 62.14,

SD = 3.86). No participants were excluded.

In Study 2, 303 participants completed the personality questionnaire and took part in the virtual

interactive session. Ten participants were excluded from the analysis because they reported knowing

each other prior to the interaction. Two participants were excluded due to technical problems during the

interactive session. Our final sample consisted of N = 291 adolescents (Mage = 15.73, SD = 1.27, 60.48%

female). 2 Therefore, our overall sample size was Noveral l = 415 part icipants.

Comparing the samples of Study 1 (face- to- face interaction) and Study 2 (virtual interaction), indepen-

dent t- tests (see Table S1) indicated that participants in Study 1 scored higher in extraversion (d = 0. 41),

sociability (d = 0.50), and activity (d = 0.41), but did not differ with regard to assertiveness and popularity

(ps ≥ .308). With respect to behavioural cue codings, self- assured body movement (d = 0.45), inf luence of

content (d = 0.43), testing and control (d = 0.28), and interaction leadership (d = 0.30), were more pronounced

in Study 1, whereas defending one's point of view was more pronounced in Study 2 (d = − 0 . 5 8 ) .

As both original studies were not specif ically designed to test the current research questions, we

determined the power for the existing sample sizes post hoc and based on existing research. According

to a study by Fritz and MacKinnon (2007) that simulated power for mediation models with different

2In a sensitivity analysis, independent t- tests did not reveal any sig nif icant differences for the dist ribut ion of our ma in variables as a result of

the dat a exclusions (all ps ≥ .682).

BUSS et al .

effect sizes for the a- and b- paths, the sample in Study 1 was large enough to detect indirect effects

resulting from regression paths of a = .39 and b = .26 or a = .26 and b = .39, respectively, with a power

of .80. Approximated from the same simulation, the sample size in Study 2 was large enough to de-

tect indirect effects resulting from a- and b- paths of .20 with a power of .80. In personality research

(Funder & Ozer, 2019), these effect sizes represent medium to large effects in the case of Study 1 and

medium effects in the case of Study 2. Although medium and large effect sizes are common in research

on behaviour in social interactions and interpersonal judgements (see Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2011;

Leckelt et al., 2020), smaller effects have also been reported in the context of nonverbal behaviours

(Breil et al., 2020). To account for this limitation, we compare the results of Study 1 and 2 and integra-

tively evaluate the findings with regard to their consistency across studies.

Procedure

The two studies shared many similarities in terms of their behaviour coding procedures and measures

used, yet they also showed differences in certain aspects of data collection. In the following, we describe

the procedures used in each study.

Study 1: Face- to- face interactions

In Study 1, participants were recruited through newspapers, online advertisements, and posters in public

spaces. All participants received monetary compensation of up to €150 for participating in the entire study

and were additionally rewarded with the opportunity to win lottery prizes and individual feedback for com-

pleting all study parts. In a laboratory session, participants completed a series of personality questionnaires

and took part in several experimental tasks. Unacquainted participants were divided into small groups of

3– 6 people (M = 4. 23, SD = 1.00 )3 and seated around a table. After introducing themselves to their fellow

group members, they were asked to complete a cooperative task: building a tower together as a team using

ten pieces of paper, one glue, tape, and one pair of scissors. To motivate participants, they were told that

pictures of the tower would be uploaded to the study website, and the team with the tallest and most beauti-

ful tower would win a prize. Throughout the task, the participants' behaviour was videotaped from three

different camera angles. The task ended after 10 minutes or when the tower was finished. Subsequently, the

experimenters measured and photographed the tower, and the participants were escorted to individual

computers where they indicated how much they liked each group member (round- robin design).

Study 2: Virtual interactions

In Study 2, participants were recruited through student job boards and social media platforms.

Eligibility criteria included having access to a computer with a webcam and microphone. Participants

received monetary compensation of €50 after completing all study parts, or partial compensation

if they dropped out earlier. Participants provided information about their personality via an online

survey and took part in a virtual group interaction via Zoom, which was recorded. During the vir-

tual interaction, groups of 3–5 (M = 4.05 , SD = 0.77) unacquainted individuals completed several

tasks together, including an interactive role play. In the role play, participants were assigned roles

in a fictive school project. They were instructed to allocate responsibilities for specific tasks (e.g.,

moderator, task manager). Each participant received a rating indicating their personal preference

for each task and was instructed to negotiate with their fellow group members to distribute the

3Severa l group s included par ticipants from both a ge groups, alt hough t he majority of groups only i ncluded high sc hool graduates.

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

tasks. Instructions differed depending on the condition to which the groups were randomly as-

signed. In the cooperative condition, participants were instructed to divide the tasks fairly among

the group. In the competitive condition, participants were instructed to take on as few tasks as

possible. Participants in both conditions rated each other on popularity four times (round- robin-

design). For the present study, ratings given immediately after the roleplay were used.

Behaviour coding procedure

In Study 1, three trained observers, the first author and two independent raters, watched the video ma-

terial and rated the degree of dominant behaviour using a coding scheme of 12 nonverbal, paraverbal,

verbal, and general cues (Grünberg et al., 2018). All observers rated all participants. The behaviour of

each participant was observed one at a time and preferably from one camera perspective, which was

chosen based on the participant's visibility and audio quality. Switching to a different perspective was

occasionally required when a participant was not seen or heard well. Ratings were continuously per-

formed while watching the video. The observers stopped the videos once at the halfway point (i.e., after

5 min) to ensure that they had entered ratings of all 12 cues of the participants' behaviour. Afterwards,

they continued watching and adjusted their ratings if required.

In Study 2, five trained observers watched recordings of the virtual group interactions and rated

the participants' behaviour using the INTERACT coding software, one of them being again the first

author. Given the larger sample size, a crossed design (Gerpott et al., 2019) was implemented for the

coding process: Each video was rated by at least two people, with one observer rating assessing 100%

of the videos and the remaining four observers rating 25% of the videos each. A subset of 25% of the

videos was rated by all five observers, which was used to estimate interrater reliability. As in Study 1,

they watched each video multiple times, focusing on each participant individually. To improve reliabil-

ity, observers in Study 2 provided two behaviour ratings per participant, once after 5 minutes and once

at the end of the recording, which were averaged.

Measures

All measures were identical across the two studies. Self- reported extraversion and its facets assertive-

ness, sociability, and activity were measured with the German version of the Big Five Inventory 2

(BFI- 2; Danner et al., 2019). Participants indicated their level of agreement with the 12 items on a scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Internal consistencies for extraversion and its facets

indicated by total omega ω ranged from .78 to .91 in Study 1 and from .70 to .87 in Study 2 (see Tables 2

and 3 for further details).

Dominant behaviour was rated based on 12 behavioural cues (see Table 1), selected from the dom-

inance domain of the Münster Behaviour Coding- System (M- BeCoSy; Grünberg et al., 2018). The M-

BeCoSy is a mixed rating and coding scheme for assessing social behaviours of individuals in group

interactions. For the present study, dominant behaviours were rated across all behavioural channels (i.e.,

verbal, paraverbal, nonverbal, general) at a meso- level abstraction (i.e., a medium resolution, neither

very global nor very detailed cues). The three trained observers rated dominant behaviours on a scale

from 1 (does not express a specified behaviour at all ) to 6 (very much expresses a specified behaviour). Interclass cor-

relations as an indicator for interrater reliability ranged from .66 to .87 in Study 1 and from .70 to .96 in

Study 2 (for further details, see Tables 2 and 3).

Other- rated popularity was assessed as a mutual (dyadic) evaluation of the group members (round-

robin design). That is, each group member rated everyone else in the group on a scale from 0 (not at all)

to 10 (very) with the item “How likable do you find this person?”. Finally, individuals reported demo-

graphic information such as age and gender (female, male).

BUSS et al .

Analytic strategy

To investigate our research questions, we applied a combined approach of a lens model analysis

(Brunswik, 1956; Nestler & Back, 2013) and a mediation analysis. Previous research on popularity used

similar approaches (Leckelt et al., 2020). To limit the number of mediation models and obtain detailed

information on the interrelatedness of self- reported extraversion, observer- rated dominant behaviours,

and other- rated popularity, we used a two- step procedure. As a f irst step, we examined the total effect of

extraversion (and its facets) on popularity in a multiple linear regression (Hypothesis 1) and determined

which dominance cues related to the predictor extraversion (Hypothesis 2) and the outcome variable

popularity (Hypothesis 3) by computing partial correlations. We conducted this first step for the overall

score of extraversion and each of the extraversion facets separately. As a second step, we conducted

mediation analyses (Hypothesis 4). Importantly, we only considered extraversion facets and dominance

cues which displayed a positive correlation both with each other and with popularity in the first step.

All analy ses were performed with R version 4.3.0 (R C ore Team, 2023), and R Stud io (Posit team, 2023;

see htt ps:// osf. io/ dj35z/ for data and code) and, given the heteroscedasticity of our data, with robust

test statistics. Regression analyses were conducted with lmtest (version 0.9- 40; Zeileis & Hothorn, 2002),

lm.beta (version 1.7- 2; Behrendt, 2023), and the sandwich package (version 3.0- 2, Zeileis, 2004; Zeileis

et al., 2020) for heteroscedasticity- consistent (HC3) estimators. Partial correlations were computed with

the packages ggm (version 2.5; Marchetti et al., 2020) and bigstatsr (version 1.5.12; Privé et al., 2018).

Mediation analyses were conducted using the packages lavaan (version 0.6- 15; Rosseel, 2012) by employ-

ing maximum likelihood estimation with robust Huber- White standard errors and a scaled test statistic.

In Study 1, all analyses were controlled for target age group (0 = graduates, 1 = pensioners) and gender

(0 = male and 1 = female). In Study 2, we added the experimental condition as a control variable (0 = co-

operative, 1 = competitive) and age was not dummy coded but included as continuous variable. Prior to

our analysis, all predictors and mediators were centered at their grand mean.

In Study 1, we deviated from our preregistration in three aspects: First, given a strong multicol-

linearity of the dominance cues (see Table 2), we computed separate mediation models for each medi-

ator instead of models with multiple mediators. Nonetheless, findings from the analyses with multiple

mediators are reported in Table S2. Second, inference about indirect effects was made through 95%

percentile bootstrap confidence intervals with 5000 drawn samples. We chose this procedure over the

preregistered Sobel test to follow current methodological standards and prevent issues with statistical

power (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007; Schoemann et al., 2017 ). These adapted procedures were already

TABL E 1 Cues of dominant behav iour rated by trained observers in the present study.

Channel Cues Abbreviation

n1. Self- confident- dominant facial expressions Dominant facial expression

n2. Self- confident- dominant gestures Dominant gestures

n 3. Upright, dominant posture of body Upright postu re

n 4. Stability, self- assuredness regarding body movements and posture Self- assured body movement

p 5. Vibrant and powerful voice Strength of voice

p 6. Stable, self- assured oral fluency Oral fluency

v 7. Inf luences content strongly, makes clearly directed statements, t ries to

determ ine the way of hand ling tasks

Inf luence of content

v 8. Tests, controls, drives others Testing and control

v 9. Tries to defend own point of view, tries to assert own point of view Defend own point of view

v10. Self- assured content Self- assured content

g 11. Addresses others in an immediate way, leads interact ions Interaction leadership

g 12. Takes over responsibility, goes f irst, al locates t asks Responsibility- taking

Note: n = nonverbal, p = paraverbal, v = verbal, g = general (i ncludes nonverbal, paraverbal , and verbal beh aviour).

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

TABL E 2 Descriptive statistics, inter nal consistencies of the BFI- 2 scales, interrater reliability of domi nance cues, and intercorrelat ions (Study 1).

Var i ab le MSD Rel.

Intercorrel ations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Self- report

1. Extraversion 4.90 0.99 .91 —

2. Assert iveness 4.78 1.16 .84 .84 —

3. Sociability 4.88 1.22 .88 .88 .60 —

4. Activity 5.04 1.10 .78 .85 .55 .64 —

Dominance cues (obser ver rating)

5. Domi nant fa cial

expr.

3.31 1.07 .73 .35 .37 .38 .12 —

6. Domi nant

gestures

2.79 1. 07 .70 .26 .29 .27 .11 .71 —

7. Upright post ure 3.47 0.94 .75 . 32 .38 .31 .13 .76 .72 —

8. S.- a. body

movement

3.72 1.0 0 .74 .37 .39 .4 0 .14 .85 .77 .79 —

9. Streng th of voice 3.40 1.15 .82 .34 .35 .36 .16 .81 .70 .72 .75 —

10. Oral f luency 3.63 0.97 .73 .25 .28 .28 .06 .73 .70 .69 .77 .78 —

11. Influe nce of

content

3.45 1.24 .87 .24 .32 .21 .08 .63 .71 .64 .71 .71 .85 —

12. Testing and

control

3.01 1.00 .66 .26 .25 .33 .07 .65 . 61 .52 .62 .72 .74 .72 —

13. Defend point of

view

2.65 1.0 8 .73 .18 .25 .19 .01 .66 .73 .65 .65 .73 .81 .90 .76 —

14. Self- assured

content

3.33 1.2 3 .81 .25 .29 .28 .06 .7 7 .74 .72 .74 .84 .86 .84 .7 7 .85 —

15. Interaction

leadership

3.28 1.2 0 .83 .26 .32 .26 .08 .76 .74 .72 .77 .76 .87 .92 .75 .87 .86 —

16. Responsibility-

taking

3.43 1.2 3 .83 .24 .30 .24 .07 .64 69 .65 .74 .69 .85 .92 .72 .85 .82 .91 —

(Continues)

BUSS et al .

Var i ab le MSD Rel.

Intercorrel ations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Other- rating

17. Po pu lar ity 7.55 1.17 —. 17 .24 .08 .11 .16 .16 .21 .16 .08 .14 .19 .02 .12 .07 .18 .20 —

Covariates

18. Age group 0.17 0.38 —.13 .07 .13 .13 .02 .07 .07 .07 .13 .01 .05 .18 .12 .07 .09 .09 −.18 —

19. Ge nde r 0.72 0.45 —.00 −.12 .00 .13 −. 06 .- 23 −.03 −.08 −.06 .00 −.0 4 −.0 3 −.0 7 −.0 2 .00 .06 .15 .04

Note: Resu lts are based on N = 124 indiv iduals. Rel. = reliability (i nterrater ag reement , internal consistencies). Interrater agree ment is prov ided as ICC t ype 3k. Inter nal consistencies are provided a s total omega (ωt).

Age gr oup: 0 = g raduates, 1 = pensioners. Gender : 0 = male, 1 = female. Al l correlations above r = |.18| were sign ificantly diffe rent from zero ( p < .05).

TABL E 2 (Cont inued)

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

TABL E 3 Descriptive statistics, inter nal consistencies of the BFI- 2 scales, interrater reliability of domi nance cues, and intercorrelat ions (Study 2).

Var i ab le MSD Rel.

Intercorrel ations

12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Self- report

1. Extraversion 4.51 0.94 .87 —

2. Assert iveness 4.66 1.19 .79 .79 —

3. Sociability 4.27 1.21 .81 .84 .49 —

4. Activity 4.60 1.08 .70 .7 8 .39 .53 —

Dominance cues (obser ver rating)

5. Domi nant fa cial

expr.

3.35 0.86 .83 .33 .25 .29 .26 —

6. Domi nant

gestures

2.81 0.82 .76 . 31 .25 .27 .24 .71 —

7. Upright post ure 3.52 0.72 .76 .34 .31 .27 .24 .77 .62 —

8. S.- a. body

movement

3.34 0.76 .70 .27 .22 .23 .21 .82 .70 .76 —

9. Streng th of voice 3 .59 0.83 .87 .25 .19 .23 . 17 .72 .57 .60 .61 —

10. Oral f luency 3.60 0.75 .85 .26 .25 .21 .17 .72 .56 .60 .62 .63 —

11. Influe nce of

content

2.96 1. 11 .89 .21 .19 .18 .14 .71 .62 .57 .60 .60 .75 —

12. Testing and

control

2.72 1. 02 .91 .23 .22 .18 .15 .65 .57 . 51 .55 .55 .68 .86 —

13. Defend point of

view

3.23 0.94 .86 .19 .19 .16 .11 .64 .54 .53 .55 .57 .71 .80 .74 —

14. Self- assured

content

3.26 0.95 .84 .24 .21 .20 .17 .71 .63 .60 .63 .66 .73 .81 .74 .87 —

15. Interaction

leadership

2.90 1. 31 .96 .22 .21 .19 .14 .68 . 59 .55 .58 .59 .71 .9 2 .88 .73 .73 —

16. Responsibility-

taking

3.25 0.88 .91 .21 . 21 .17 .14 .66 .53 .57 .56 .60 .74 .90 .84 .74 .74 .89 —

Other- rating

17. Po pu lar ity 7.4 6 1.42 —.16 .12 .16 . 11 .26 .23 .20 .23 .19 .31 .19 .16 .16 .23 .20 .18 —

Covariates

(Continues)

BUSS et al .

Var i ab le MSD Rel.

Intercorrel ations

12345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

18. A ge 15.7 1.2 7 —.04 −.0 4 .03 .10 .30 .29 .28 .30 .20 .26 .17 . 14 .16 .23 .16 .18 .20 —

19. Ge nde r 0.61 0.49 —.05 .02 .05 .05 .05 .06 .00 .04 −.14 .08 −.03 −.0 6 −.0 2 −.0 5 −.01 −.05 .16 .26 —

20. Condit ion 0. 51 0.50 —.03 −.0 2 .11 −.0 2 .02 −.03 .02 .01 .02 .08 .09 −.0 0 .17 .14 .02 .07 .15 .00 −. 01

Note: Resu lts are based on N = 291 indiv idual s. Rel. = reliability (i nterrater ag reement , inter nal consistencies). Interrater agree ment is prov ided as ICC t ype 2k. Internal consistencies are provided as total omega (ωt).

Gender : 0 = male, 1 = f emale. C ondit ion: 0 = coop erativ e, 1 = compet itive . All co rrelat ions above r = |.12| were sig nificant ly different from zero ( p < .05).

TABL E 3 (Cont inued)

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

preregistered in Study 2. To account for multiple testing, we computed adjusted p- values on the basis of

the false discovery rate (FDR; Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

RESULTS

Tables 2 (Study 1) and 3 (Study 2) display the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among study

variables. In Study 1, out of all extraversion facets, only assertiveness was significantly related to pop-

ularity. In Study 2, assertiveness, and sociability demonstrated significant positive associations with

popularity. The dominant behavioural cues were highly intercorrelated (Study 1: r = .52 to .92; Study

2: r = .51 to .92) and related to extraversion, assertiveness, and sociability in both studies. Activity was

associated with dominant behaviours only in Study 2. One nonverbal, one verbal and two general cues

were correlated with popularity in Study 1, while all dominance cues were associated with popularity

in Study 2.

Pensioners showed more testing and controlling verbal behaviour during the social interaction,

whereas graduates and were rated as more popular by their interaction partners. Participants in late

adolescence showed more dominant behaviours and were rated as more popular by their fellow group

members than younger participants. Female gender was related to popularity in both studies. Being in

the competitive experimental condition was related to two verbal cues, defending one's point of view

and self- assured content, and to higher popularity.

Associations between extraversion, cues of dominant

behaviour, and popularity

Results regarding Hypothesis 1 are shown in Table 4. As expected and consistent across both studies,

higher self- rated extraversion related to higher other- rated popularity (Study 1:

adjusted

= .07; Study 2:

adjusted

= .08). In Study 1, this association did not remain significant after adjusting for multiple test-

ing. At the facet level, exploratory analyses revealed that assertiveness significantly predicted popularity

(Study 1:

adjusted

= .11; Study 2:

adjusted

= .08). In Study 2, we found a positive association between so-

ciability and popularity (

adjusted

= .08). Activity did not relate to popularity in either of the two studies.

Tables 5 and 6 show the results regarding Hypotheses 2 and 3. Supporting Hypothesis 2 and consis-

tent across both studies, partial correlations revealed that extraversion was positively correlated with all

observer- rated dominance cues. As an exception, defending one's point of view was not associated with

extraversion in Study 1. The exploratory analysis on extraversion facets revealed significant positive

associations of assertiveness and sociability with all twelve observer- rated cues of dominant behaviour.

As before, this finding was consistent across Study 1 and Study 2. As an exception the association be-

tween sociability and defending one's point of view in Study 1 did not remain significant after adjusting

for multiple testing. Whereas we found no signif icant associations with any cue of dominant behaviour

for activity in Study 1, activity was significantly related to all but one dominance cue (defend own point

of view) in Study 2. Importantly, the effects were smaller in magnitude compared to the other facets.

Partly in line with Hypothesis 3, six observer- rated dominance cues were significantly correlated

with other- rated popularity in Study 1 and all twelve cues in Study 2. In Study 1, participants were more

popular when they displayed nonverbal dominant behaviours such as dominant gestures, an upright

posture, and self- assured body movements during the task. Moreover, inf luence of content (verbal),

interaction leadership, and responsibility- taking (both general) were related to popularity. All these re-

sults did not remain significant after adjusting for multiple testing. Supporting and extending findings

of Study 1, all types of cues — nonverbal, verbal, paraverbal, and general cues — were related to pop-

ularity in Study 2. The magnitude of the correlations indicated medium effect sizes for dominant facial

expression, dominant gestures, oral fluency, and self- assured content and small effects for the other cues

(Funder & Ozer, 2019).

BUSS et al .

TABL E 4 Multiple l inear regressions: self- rated extraversion and extraversion facets, and ot her- rated popularity.

DV: popularity Extraversion Assertiveness Sociability Activity

Var i abl e bCI95% βp b CI95% βp b CI95% βp b CI95% βp

Study 1: Face- to- face interactions

Intercept 7.36 [7.0 4 , 7. 69 ] .00 .000 7.3 0 [6.97, 7.63] .00 .000 7.36 [7.0 4, 7. 68 ] .00 .000 7.39 [ 7.0 5, 7.7 2] .00 .000

Person al ity 0.23 [0.02, 0.43] .19 .032†0.28 [0.11, 0.44] .28 .001 0.10 [−0.08, 0.29] .11 . 276 0.12 [−0.08 , 0.33] .12 . 239

Age group −0.65 [−1.35, 0.06] −. 21 .073 −0.63 [−1.33, 0.07] −. 2 0 .079 −0.61 [−1.33, 0.10] −.2 0 .094 −0.62 [−1.31, 0.08] −.2 0 .085

Gender 0.41 [0.00, 0.82] .16 .052 0.50 [0.10, 0.90] .19 . 017†0.41 [−0.01, 0.82] .16 .056 0.37 [−0.06, 0.80] .14 .092

adjusted .070 .109 .044 .046

Study 2: Virt ual Interactions

Intercept 4.27 [2. 24 , 6.31] .00 .000 4.10 [2.06, 6.15] .00 .000 4.26 [2.22 , 6.31] .00 .000 4.34 [2. 29, 6.40] .00 .000

Person al ity 0.22 [0.05, 0.40] .15 . 010 0.15 [0.02, 0.29] .13 .025 0.16 [0.03, 0.29] .13 .019 0.12 [−0.03, 0.27] .09 .111

Age 0.18 [0.05, 0.31] .16 .007 0.19 [0.06, 0.32] .17 .004 0.18 [0.05, 0.31] .16 .006 0.17 [0.04, 0.30] .15 .009

Gender 0.34 [−0.01, 0.68] .12 .047 0.34 [0.00, 0.69] .12 .043 0.34 [−0.01, 0.68] .12 .048 0.35 [0.00, 0.69] .12 .042

Condition 0.40 [0.09, 0.72] .14 .012 0.42 [0.11, 0.74] .15 .009 0.37 [0.06, 0.69] .13 .020 0.42 [0.10, 0.74] .15 .009

adjusted .082 .077 .078 .069

Note: Resu lts are based on n1 = 124 (Study 1) and n2 = 291 ind ividuals (St udy 2). Regression coeff icients, respec tive t- tests, and conf idence intervals were computed us ing robu st (HC3) standard errors. Ag e group:

0 = gradu ates, 1 = pe nsioners . Gender : 0 = male, 1 = fe male. C ondit ion: 0 = coope rative , 1 = compet itive. † i ndic ates that p- value did not rema in sig nif icant after adjusting for mult iple testing ( FDR).

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

TABL E 5 Lens model analysis: correlation of dominance cues with extraversion, extraversion facets, and popu lar ity (Study 1).

Extraversion

Dominance cues (channel)

PopularityFactor score Assertiveness Sociability Activity

r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95%

.35 .000 [0.18, 0.49] .37 .000 [0.20, 0.51] .38 .000 [0.22, 0.52] .13 .14 8 [−0.05, 0.30] Dominant facial expression (n) .18 .052 [−0.0 0, 0.34]

.26 .003 [0.09, 0.42] .26 .003 [0.09, 0.42] .27 .002 [0.10, 0.43] .14 .131 [−0.04, 0.30] Domi nant gestures (n) .22 .015†[0.04, 0.38]

.32 .000 [0.15, 0.47] .38 .000 [0.21, 0.52] .30 .001 [0.13, 0.46] .12 .175 [−0.06, 0.29] Upright posture (n) .24 .008†[0.06, 0.40]

.36 .000 [0.20, 0.51] .38 .000 [0.22, 0.53] .39 .000 [0.23, 0.53] .14 .126 [−0.04, 0.31] Self- assured body movement (n) .19 .037†[0.01, 0.35]

.33 .000 [0.16, 0.48] .34 .000 [0.17, 0.49] .35 .000 [0.18, 0.49] .16 .078 [−0.02, 0.33] Strengt h of voice (p) .11 . 218 [−0.07, 0.28]

.25 .006 [0.07, 0.41] .28 .002 [0.11, 0.44] .28 .002 [0.11, 0.44] .06 .487 [−0.12, 0.24] Ora l fluency ( p) .15 .106 [−0.03, 0.32]

.24 .009 [0.06, 0.40] .32 .000 [0.15, 0.47] .21 .022 [0.03, 0.37] .08 .396 [−0 .10, 0.2 5] Inf luence of content (v) .21 .019†[0.04, 0.38]

.24 .007 [0.07, 0.40] .24 .007 [0.07, 0.40] .32 .000 [0.15, 0.47] .05 .567 [−0.13, 0.23] Testi ng and control (v) .06 .489 [−0.12, 0. 24]

.17 .0 61 [−0.01, 0.34] .24 .008 [0.06, 0.40] .18 .047†[0.00, 0.35] .01 .927 [− 0.17, 0.19] Defend own point of view (v) .16 .079 [−0.02, 0.33]

.24 .007 [0.07, 0.40] .28 .002 [0.11, 0.44] .27 .003 [0.10, 0.43] .06 .519 [−0.12, 0.23] Self- assured content (v) .09 .345 [−0.09, 0.26]

.25 .005 [0.08, 0.41] .32 .000 [0.15 0.47] .25 .006 [0.07, 0.41] .07 .423 [−0.11, 0.25] Interaction leadership (g) .20 .028†[0.02, 0.36]

.23 .01 [0.05, 0.39] .31 .001 [0.14, 0.46] .23 .012 [0.05, 0.39] .05 .596 [−0.13, 0.22] Responsibility- taking (g) .22 . 016†[0.04, 0.38]

Note: Resu lts are based on N = 124 indiv iduals. Target a ge group and gender were pa rtialed out of correlations for all c ues. Dom ina nce cues t hat correlated sign ificantly with b oth ext ravers ion (facets) and popul arit y

are pri nted in bold. The behavioural chan nel of each c ue is ind icated in brackets: n = nonverbal , p = pa raverbal, v = verbal, g = general (includes nonverbal, p araverbal, a nd verba l behav iour). † in dicates that p- va lue did

not remain sig nif icant after adju stin g for mult iple test ing (FDR).

BUSS et al .

TABL E 6 Lens model analysis: correlation of dominance cues with extraversion, extraversion facets, and popu lar ity (Study 2).

Extraversion

Dominance cues (channel)

PopularityFactor score Assertiveness Sociabil ity Act ivit y

r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95% r p CI95%

.34 .000 [0.23, 0.44] .28 .000 [0.17, 0.38] .29 .000 [0.18, 0.39] .24 .000 [0.13, 0.35] Dominant facial expression (n) .22 .000 [0.11, 0.33]

.32 .000 [0.21, 0.42] .27 .000 [0.16, 0.38] .27 .000 [0.16, 0.38] .22 .000 [0.11, 0.33] Dominant gestures (n) .20 .001 [0.08, 0.31]

.35 .001 [0.24, 0.45] .34 .000 [0.23, 0.43] .28 .000 [0.17, 0.38] .23 .000 [0.12, 0.33] Upright postu re (n) .16 .005 [0.05, 0.27]

.28 .000 [0.17, 0.38] .24 .000 [0.13, 0.35] .24 .000 [0.13, 0.34] .19 .001 [0.08, 0.30] Self- assured body movement (n) .19 .001 [0.08, 0.30]

.26 .000 [0.15, 0.36] .21 .000 [0.10, 0.32] .25 .000 [0.13, 0.35] .16 .005 [0.05, 0.27] Strengt h of voice ( p) .18 .002 [0.07, 0.29]

.26 .000 [0.15, 0.36] .27 .000 [0.16, 0.38] .20 .0 01 [0.09, 0.31] .15 .010 [0.04, 0.26] Oral f luency ( p) .27 .000 [0.16, 0.37]

.21 .000 [0.10, 0.32] .20 .001 [0.09, 0.31] .17 .003 [0.06, 0.28] .13 .032 [0.01, 0.24] Influence of content (v) .17 .005 [0.05, 0.28]

.23 .000 [0.11, 0.33] .23 .000 [0.12, 0.33] .18 .002 [0.07, 0.29] .14 .019 [0.02, 0.25] Testing and control (v) .15 . 010 [0.04, 0.26]

.19 .001 [0.08, 0.30] .21 .000 [0.09, 0.32] .14 .016 [0.03, 0.25] .11 .067 [−0.01, 0.22] Defend ow n point of v iew (v) .12 .038 [0.01, 0.23]

.25 .000 [0.14, 0.35] .24 .000 [0.13, 0.34] .19 .001 [0.08, 0.30] .16 .005 [0.05, 0.27] Sel f- assured content (v) .20 .001 [0.08, 0.31]

.22 .000 [0.11, 0.33] .22 .000 [0.10, 0.32] .19 .001 [0.08, 0.30] .13 .027 [0.02, 0.24] Interaction leadership (g) .18 .002 [0.07, 0.29]

.22 .000 [0.10, 0.32] .22 .000 [0.11, 0.33] .17 .004 [0.05, 0.28] .12 .034 [0.01, 0.24] Responsibility- taking (g) .15 .008 [0.04, 0.27]

Note: Resu lts are based on N = 291 indiv idual s. Target a ge, gender, and condit ion were pa rtialed out of correlations for all cues. Dom ina nce cues t hat correlated sign ificantly with b oth ext ravers ion (facets) and

popularit y are printed i n bold. T he behav ioura l chan nel of each cue is indicate d in brackets: n = nonverbal, p = parave rbal , v = verba l, g = g enera l (inc ludes nonverbal , parave rbal, and verbal behav iour).

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

In sum, self- reported extraversion and assertiveness were positively related to other- rated popular-

ity in both studies. In Study 2, we additionally found that sociability was associated with popularity.

Further analyses revealed that in Study 1, selected nonverbal, verbal, and general cues were positively

related to both extraversion (assertiveness) and popularity, whereas all dominant behaviours were linked

to extraversion (assertiveness, sociability) and popularity in Study 2. Accordingly, we examined these

cues as potential mediators in our second analysis step.

Dominant behaviours as mediators

To test Hypothesis 4, we conducted separate mediation analyses using self- reported extraversion, as-

sertiveness, and sociability as predictors, observer- rated dominant behaviours as mediators, and other-

rated popularity as the outcome variable (see Tables 7–10). As illustrated in Figure 2, the relationship

between extraversion and popularity was mediated by dominant gestures and an upright posture in

Study 1. The set of mediation analyses using assertiveness as a predictor did not reveal any significant

results. In Study 2, the relationship between extraversion and popularity was mediated by selected

nonverbal (dominant facial expression, dominant gestures, self- assured body movement), paraverbal

(strength of voice, oral fluency), verbal (influence of content, testing and control, self- assured content),

and general cues of dominant behaviour (interaction leadership). Interestingly, the set of mediation

analyses using the facets of assertiveness and sociability as predictor variables showed highly robust

results. Specifically, we replicated all associations also on the facet level and even found an additional

mediation for upright posture.

In sum, our mediation analyses indicated that observer- rated dominant behaviour cues function as

mediators between self- reported extraversion and other- reported popularity. Results were largely robust

for the facets assertiveness and sociability.

DISCUSSION

The present study examined two research questions: First, what is the role of specific dominant behav-

iours in the association between extraversion and popularity? Second, do these associations differ for

the extraversion facets assertiveness, sociability, and activity? Relying on a combination of a lens model

approach (Brunswik, 1956; Nestler & Back, 2013) and mediation analyses, we conducted two studies

using data from face- to- face (Study 1) and virtual group interactions (Study 2). Across both studies, we

found that self- reported extraversion was positively linked to other- rated popularity. Furthermore, we

identified specific dominant behaviours as mediators in this relationship: Whereas only two nonverbal

behaviours mediated the association between extraversion in Study 1, all types of dominant behaviours

functioned as mediators in Study 2. Finally, across both studies, facet- specific analyses highlighted the

relevance of assertiveness and sociability for dominant behaviours and popularity at zero acquaintance.

In the following, we discuss our findings in detail, address limitations, and give an outlook for future

research.

The association between extraversion and popularity in different

social contexts

In line with previous research that predominantly focused on university student samples (Back,

Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 011; Carlson & DesJardins, 2015), we found a positive association between self-

reported extraversion and other- rated popularity in face- to- face interactions in late adolescence and late

adulthood (Study 1) and in virtual interactions in middle and late adolescence (Study 2). Our findings

contribute to the existing body of research by demonstrating that relationship between extraversion and

BUSS et al .

TABL E 7 Simple mediation analyses: self- reported extraversion/assertiveness, observer- rated dominant behav iours, and other- rated popularit y (Study 1).

DV: Popularity

Model a path b path c′ path a × b path

Predictor Mediator βSE pβSE pβSE pβSE pCI95%

Extraversion Domi nant gestures .28 0.10 .004 .20 0.09 .031 .17 0 .11 .10 7 .06 0.03 .055 [0.003, 0.125]

Upright posture .30 0.08 .000 .24 0.10 .013 .16 0.11 .144 .07 0.04 .045†[0.010, 0.158]

S.- a. body movement .36 0.08 .000 .16 0.10 .124 . 17 0. 11 .117 .06 0.04 .134 [−0.022, 0.140]

Inf luence of content .30 0 .11 .005 .16 0.09 .065 .18 0.10 .083 .05 0.03 . 074 [− 0.007, 0.108]

Interaction leadership . 31 0.11 .003 .15 0.09 .087 .18 0.11 .089 .05 0.03 .091 [−0.010, 0.110]

Responsibility- taking .29 0.11 .008 .17 0.08 .036 .18 0.10 .082 .05 0.03 .065 [0.000, 0.109]

Assertiveness Dominant gestures .24 0.08 .004 .17 0.09 .058 .24 0.09 .006 .04 0.02 .078 [−0.0 03 , 0.101]

Upright postu re .31 0.07 .000 .19 0.10 .046 .22 0.09 .013 .06 0.03 .071 [−0.0 05, 0.122]

S.- a. body movement .33 0.07 .000 .11 0.10 .267 .24 0.09 .007 .04 0.03 .280 [−0. 03 4 , 0 .111]

Inf luence of content .34 0.09 .000 .13 0.09 .162 .24 0.09 .008 .04 0.03 .159 [−0.02 5, 0.109 ]

Interaction leadership .34 0.09 .000 .12 0.09 .201 .24 0.09 .007 .04 0.03 .191 [− 0.026 , 0.101]

Responsibility- taking .33 0.09 .000 .13 0.08 .096 .24 0.09 .006 .04 0.03 .103 [− 0.011, 0.10 4]

Note: a pat h: extraversion/assertiveness → domina nt behav iours; b path: dominant behav iours → popul arit y; c′ pat h: partial effec t of extraversion/asser tive ness on popu lar ity; a × b: indi rect effect (extr aversion/

assert iveness → dominant beh aviou rs → popula rity). Result s are based on N = 124 individua ls. Med iation models we re computed by maxi mum l ikel ihood e stim ation w ith robu st Huber- White st anda rd errors and

a scaled t est stat istic. All analyses are control led for ta rget age group and gender. The re ported estimates are stand ardi zed. Dominance cues with a significant mediation (percenti le bootstrappe d 95% confidence

inter vals not includ ing zero) are pri nted in bold, p- values for indirect effects (Sobel test) are reporte d as as add ition al informat ion for the interested reader. † ind icates t hat p- value did not re main sign ificant after

adjusting for mu ltiple testi ng (F DR).

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

TABL E 8 Simple mediation analyses: self- reported extraversion, obser ver- rated dom inant behaviours, and other- rated popularity (Study 2).

DV: Popularity

Model a path b path c′ path a × b pat h

Predictor Mediator βSE pβSE pβSE pβSE pCI95%

Extraversion Domi nant facial expr. .30 0.05 .000 .33 0.11 .004 .13 0.10 .188 .10 0.04 .010 [0.027, 0.177]

Dominant gestures .27 0.05 .000 .29 0.09 .000 .14 0.09 .112 .08 0.03 .008 [0.024, 0.141]

Upright postu re .26 0.04 .000 .25 0.14 .066 .16 0.10 .11 3 .07 0.04 .078 [−0.001, 0.145]

S.- a. body movement .22 0.04 .000 .31 0.12 . 014 .16 0.09 .096 .07 0.03 .025†[0.013, 0.129]

Strength of voice .22 0.05 .000 .26 0.10 .009 .16 0.09 .072 .06 0.03 .028†[0.012, 0.118]

Oral f luency .20 0.04 .000 .46 0.12 .000 .13 0.09 .161 .09 0.03 .002 [0.038, 0.155]

Inf luence of content .24 0.06 .000 .18 0.08 .028 .18 0.09 .050 .04 0.02 .0 47†[0.002, 0.090]

Testing and control .25 0.06 .000 .17 0.08 .042 .18 0.09 .049 .04 0.02 .058 [0.001, 0.088]

Defend point of view .19 0.05 .001 .14 0.10 .134 .20 0.09 .032 .03 0.02 .152 [−0.0 08, 0.067]

Self- assured content .24 0.05 .000 .25 0.09 .005 .16 0.09 .080 .06 0.03 .014 [0.017, 0.116]

Interaction leadership .31 0.08 .000 .16 0.07 .017 .17 0.09 .060 .05 0.02 .034†[0.006, 0.103]

Responsibility- taking .20 0.05 .000 .20 0 .11 .058 .18 0.09 .050 .04 0.02 .090 [−0.002, 0.092]

Note: a pat h: extraversion → dominant beh aviou rs; b path: domi nant behaviou rs → popu lar ity; c′ path: pa rtial effe ct of extraversion on popul arit y; a × b: indire ct effect (extraversion → dom inant behav iours →

popularit y). Results are based on N = 2 91 individua ls. Mediation models we re computed by maxi mum likel ihood estim ation w ith robust Huber- White st anda rd error s and a sca led test st atistic. A ll an alyses are

control led for ta rget a ge, gender, and condit ion. The reported esti mates a re standard ized. D ominance cues with a sign ificant med iation (percentile boot strapped 95% conf idence i ntervals not i nclud ing zero) are

printed in bold , p- va lues for indirect effects (Sobel test) are r eported only as as additiona l infor mation for the intereste d reader. † indicates th at p- va lue did not remai n significant af ter adjustin g for mult iple test ing

(FDR).

BUSS et al.

TABL E 9 Simple mediation analyses: self- reported assertiveness, observer- rated dominant behaviours, and other- rated popularity (Study 2).

DV: Popularity

Model a path b path c′ path a × b path

Predictor Mediator βSE pβSE pβSE pβSE pCI95%

Assertiveness Dominant fac ial expr. .19 0.04 .000 .34 0.11 .002 .09 0.07 .215 .06 0.02 .008 [0.021, 0.117]

Dominant gestures .18 0.04 .000 .30 0.09 .001 .10 0.07 .156 .06 0.02 .007 [0.018, 0.100]

Upright posture .20 0.03 .000 .27 0.13 .040 .10 0.07 .161 .05 0.02 .033†[0.004, 0.102]

S.- a. body movement .15 0.03 .000 .32 0.12 .007 .10 0.07 .135 .05 0.02 .015 [0.012, 0.088]

Strength of voice .14 0.04 .000 .28 0.10 .005 .11 0.07 .10 0 .04 0.02 .024†[0.009, 0.079]

Oral f luency .17 0.04 .000 .47 0.12 .000 .07 0.07 .307 .08 0.03 .002 [0.033, 0.130]

Inf luence of content .18 0.05 .000 .18 0.08 .021 .12 0.07 .094 .03 0.02 . 051 [0.003, 0.017]

Testing and control .19 0.05 .000 .17 0.08 .031 .12 0.07 .095 .03 0.02 .054 [0.003, 0.073]

Defend point of view .16 0.04 .000 .15 0.10 .12 3 .13 0.07 .071 .02 0.02 .152 [−0.006, 0.059]

Self- assured content .18 0.04 .000 .26 0.09 .003 .10 0.07 .135 .05 0.02 .010 [0.015, 0.088]

Interaction leadership .23 0.06 .000 .17 0.07 .012 .11 0.07 .112 .04 0.02 .036†[0.007, 0.082]

Responsibility- taking .16 0.04 .000 .21 0.11 .049 .12 0.07 .101 .03 0.02 .084 [0.000, 0.076]

Note: a pat h: asser tive ness → dominant behaviours; b path: dom inant behaviours → popula rity ; c′ path : part ial effect of assertiveness on popula rity; a × b: i ndirect effect (assertivene ss → domi nant behaviou rs

→ popularit y). Results are based on N = 2 91 individua ls. Mediation models we re computed by maxi mum likel ihood estim ation w ith robust Huber- White st anda rd error s and a sca led test st atistic. A ll an alyses are

(FDR).

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

TABL E 10 Simple med iation analyses: self- reported sociabil ity, obser ver- rated dom inant behaviours, a nd other- rated popularity (Study 2).

DV: Popularity

Model a path b path c′ path a × b path

Predictor Mediator βSE pβSE pβSE pβSE pCI95%

Sociabilit y Dominant facial expr. .20 0.04 .000 .34 0.11 .002 .09 0.07 .203 .07 0.03 .0 11 [0.021, 0.124]

Dominant gestures .18 0.04 .000 .30 0.09 .001 .10 0.07 .126 .05 0.02 .007 [0.017, 0.097]

Upright posture .16 0.03 .000 .27 0.13 .040 .11 0.07 .122 .04 0.03 .078 [0.003, 0.099]

S.- a. body movement .14 0.03 .000 .32 0.12 .009 .11 0.07 .11 3 .05 0.02 .033†[0.004, 0.087]

Strength of voice .16 0.04 .000 .27 0.10 .007 .11 0.07 .103 .04 0.02 . 031†[0.009, 0.090]

Oral f luency .12 0.03 .000 .47 0.12 .000 .10 0.07 .134 .06 0.02 .006 [0.020, 0.100]

Inf luence of content .16 0.05 .002 .19 0.08 .020 .13 0.07 .056 .03 0.01 .0 47†[0.002, 0.062]

Testing and control .15 0.05 .001 .18 0.08 .028 .13 0.07 .054 .03 0.01 .059 [0.002, 0.059]

Defend point of view .11 0.04 .009 .16 0.10 .098 .14 0.07 .036 .02 0.01 .14 8 [−0.003, 0.04 4]

Self- assured content .15 0.04 .001 .26 0.09 .0 03 .12 0.07 .081 .04 0.02 .023†[0.010, 0.078]

Interaction leadership .20 0.06 .001 .17 0.07 .013 .12 0.07 .070 .04 0.02 .036†[0.004, 0.072]

Responsibility- taking .12 0.04 .003 .21 0 .11 . 041 .13 0.07 .054 .03 0.02 .091 [0.000, 0.061]

Note: a pat h: soci abil ity → dom ina nt behav iours; b p ath: dom ina nt behav iours → p opularit y; c′ path: par tia l effect of so ciabi lit y on popul arit y; a × b: indirect effect (sociabi lit y → domi nant behaviou rs → popu larity).

Result s are based on N = 291 individua ls. Med iation models we re computed by maxi mum likelihood estimation with robust Huber- White standard errors and a sca led test st atist ic. All ana lyses a re controlled for t arget

age, gender, and condit ion. The report ed esti mates are stand ardized. Dominance cues with a s ign ific ant med iation (percenti le bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals not includi ng zero) are printed in bold , p- values

for indirect ef fects (Sobel test) are reported on ly as Supporting Information. † indicates that p- va lue did not remai n signif icant af ter adju sting for mult iple test ing (FDR).

BUSS et al.

popularity at zero acquaintance generalizes across different social contexts and age groups. Specifically,

the robustness of effects in face- to- face and virtual interactions holds important implications, highlight-

ing the relevance of extraversion for forming first impressions and attaining popularity also in virtual

social environments. Complementing previous research, we found evidence for a relationship between

extraversion and popularity in adolescence and adulthood. It should be noted, however, that our sub-

sample of older adults was comparatively small. Future studies using more diverse and balanced samples

might include individuals in middle and late adulthood to replicate our findings.

The mediating role of dominant behaviours

To investigate potential mechanisms underlying the association between extraversion and popularity,

we examined the role of observable dominant behaviours during small group interactions. In line with

previous research (Back et al., 2 010; Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2 0 11; Grünberg et al., 2018), participants

with higher extraversion showed more dominant behaviours across all behavioural channels in both

studies. Whereas some of these behaviours were associated with popularity across both studies, the

number and specific cues that served as mediators differed between Study 1 and 2.

Specifically, only dominant gestures consistently emerged as a mediator within the extraversion-

popularity relationship in both studies. Thus, in both face- to- face and virtual social interactions, the

higher popularity of participants with higher extraversion was partly explained by their use of more

dominant gestures. This highlights the relevance of nonverbal behaviour for the formation of first

impressions (Hall et al., 2 019) in different social settings. For the other behavioural cues, in contrast,

we see a more complex pattern of results. In Study 1, only one other nonverbal behavioural cue, that

is, upright posture, also mediated the relationship between extraversion and popularity. In Study 2, a

wide range of dominant behaviours from all behavioural channels emerged as mediators. To illustrate,

some cues were significantly correlated with extraversion and popularity in Study 1 (self- assured body

movement, inf luence of content, and interaction leadership), but the mediation effects were only found

in Study 2. Paraverbal cues such as strength of voice and oral fluency were not related to popularity in

Study 1 whereas they showed especially high correlations with popularity in Study 2 and also served as

FIGUR E 2 Mediation pat hs li nking self- rated extraversion with other- rated popularit y through obser vable cues of

dominant behaviour. Note: Separate med iation analyses for each cue revealed significant mediations for t he depicted paths.

The path coefficients i ndicate the standardized robust max imum likelihood estimates. The numbering of the indirect effects

denotes the corresponding mediation pat hs from top to bottom. * indicates signif icant percentile bootstrapped CIs.

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

mediators in the relationship between extraversion and popularity. We propose three explanations for

these differences across studies.

First, it could be that our sample size in Study 1 was not large enough to detect small mediation

effects of dominant behaviours. Taking a closer look at the results, we see consistent correlations with

both extraversion and popularity for behavioural cues such as self- assured body movement, influence

of content, and interaction leadership in both studies, but the corresponding mediation effects were

only significant in Study 2. Descriptively, estimates of nonsignificant mediation effects in Study 1 (e.g.,

influence of content) pointed in the same direction as in Study 2 with confidence intervals just including

zero. Future studies with larger sample sizes should replicate our findings with respect to mediation

effects for these cues of dominant behaviour.

Second, the procedure of Study 1 and Study 2 differed in two major aspects: The interaction task

(tower- building vs. role- playing exercise) and the mode of communication (face- to- face vs. virtual so-

cial interaction). As for the interaction task, Dufner and Krause (2023) point out that dominant be-

haviours are likely to contribute to popularity as long as they are beneficial to achieving a common

goal. Particularly in Study 2, the common goal could only be obtained through communication and

negotiation, which may have led to a more pronounced effect of verbal dominant behaviours than in

Study 1. Regarding the mode of communication, preliminary research indicates that people may feel less

socially connected and are more susceptible to distractions in virtual compared to face- to- face interac-

tions (Bennett et al., 2021). As these factors could hinder the successful completion of the experimental

task, it could be perceived as particularly positive and helpful when group members take the lead and

moderate the discussion. In addition, the technical boundary conditions of videoconferences may lead

to a more structured and balanced communication, which could mitigate less likable aspects of verbal

dominant behaviours, such as interrupting others (Dufner et al., 2016; Dufner & Krause, 2023). Future

research should explore the generalizability of our results to different types of social interactions.

Third, the two studies differed in some sample characteristics, particularly in terms of age. Study

1 included late adolescents and older adults, while Study 2 focused on middle to late adolescents. Due

to the growing concern for peer acceptance in adolescence, it could be that individuals in middle ado-

lescence pay more attention to dominant behaviours and use these cues more strongly to inform their

social judgements.

Facets matter: the distinctive roles of assertiveness, sociability, and activity

Taking a closer look at the facet level of extraversion, assertiveness and sociability were related to domi-

nant behaviours and popularity, while activity did not play a role for popularity in either of the two

studies. Of note, mediation analyses revealed significant indirect effects of extraversion facets (i.e., as-

sertiveness and sociability) on popularity via dominant behaviours only in Study 2 but not Study 1. As

in the analyses based on the overall scores of extraversion, differences in sample size likely account for

this difference.

Altogether, assertive and sociable individuals thus appear to display more dominant behaviours in

small group interactions and are subsequently more liked by their interaction partners. Particularly in

unacquainted groups, participants seem to appreciate team members who are talkative, show confi-

dence, and take responsibility for the completion of the task. In contrast, previous research suggests a

different pattern of associations in well- acquainted groups, where assertiveness was found to be nega-

tively associated with popularity ( Wortman & Wood, 2011). Interestingly, activity, which did not relate

to popularity at zero acquaintance in either of our studies, has been shown to be particularly important

for interpersonal perceptions and social experiences in well- acquainted samples (de Vries et al., 2020;

Wieczorek et al., 2021; Wortman & Wood, 20 11). Thus, the different facets of extraversion might serve

different purposes for social experiences across relationship stages, such that assertiveness and sociabil-

ity may be particularly relevant for initiating new relationships, while activity may be more important

BUSS et al.

for relationship maintenance. Further longitudinal research is needed to determine how the relevance

of specific extraversion facets for popularity changes over time.

Limitations and future directions

Despite various strengths of our study, such as the fine- grained analysis examining extraversion facets

and specific cues of dominant behaviour as well as the use of self- , observer- , and other reports, we

need to consider several limitations. First, although our study fulfils the condition of temporal order-

ing, our correlational design does not allow for causal inferences, and we cannot ensure that the found

associations are due to non- observed third variables. For example, higher ratings of dominant gestures

might also reflect a general expressiveness of people with higher extraversion (Human & Biesanz, 2013)

instead of specific dominant behaviours. Whereas we note that drawing causal conclusions from studies

involving social interactions is complex, future studies could use experimental designs with confeder-

ates to investigate other- rated popularity in response to varying degrees of certain dominant behav-

iours. Second, social situations are per se characterized by a high complexity. In the case of our two

studies, the situational demands differed in several ways potentially affecting our results. For example,

the role- playing exercise might have required more talking than the tower- building exercise which may

have led to verbal dominant behaviours being perceived more positively. It is, therefore, an important

avenue for future research to explore to which extent our results generalize to various types and settings

of social interactions. Finally, similar to social judgements made by interaction partners, behaviours

coded by trained observers are likely to underlie perceptual biases (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). In

Study 1, cameras and microphones were placed in three corners of the room and recorded the group

interaction from an external perspective, with a few participants sitting with their backs to the camera

while others were in focus. Conversely, in Study 2, the perceptual input of trained observers watching

recordings of the videoconferences closely resembled the social reality experienced by participants en-

gaging in the virtual interaction and providing ratings on popularity. Thus, even though distinct groups

of people provided the ratings of dominant behaviour (trained observers) and popularity (interaction

partners), the similar nature of the social perspective could have produced common- method variance

(Podsakoff et al., 2003). To overcome this problem, future studies might extend the data basis by ad-

ditionally extracting behavioural cues automatically using trained algorithms instead of human coders

(Phan & Rauthmann, 2021; Vinciarelli & Mohammadi, 2 014).

CONCLUSION

At zero acquaintance, individuals scoring high in extraversion are commonly perceived as more popu-

lar in both face- to- face and virtual group interactions. Our results suggest that this link can be partly

explained by the fact that people with higher extraversion display more dominant behaviours, which

interaction partners observe and use to form their popularity judgements. Beyond this overall pattern,

the relevance of specific behavioural channels (nonverbal, paraverbal, verbal, and general) may differ

across social settings and tasks. Furthermore, when examining facets of extraversion in detail, the cur-

rent study highlights the particular importance of assertiveness and sociability for popularity during

early relationship stages.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Martje Buss: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; methodology; project administration;

visualization; writing – original draft. Jenny Wagner: Funding acquisition; investigation; project ad-

ministration; resources; supervision; writing – review and editing. Eva Bleckmann: Conceptualization;

formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project administration; writing – review and editing.

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

Larissa L. Wieczorek: Conceptualization; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; project ad-

ministration; software; supervision; writing – review and editing.

ACKNO WLE DGE MENTS

This article uses data from the SELFIE project (https:// osf. io/ 4gnz9/ ) and the SNAP project (h t t p s ://

osf. io/ w4nmj/ ). For the SELFIE project, Jenny Wagner received funding from the German Research

Foundation (DFG: WA 3509/3- 1). The SNAP project is part of the joint interdisciplinary project

“Change Mechanisms in Dynamic Social Interactions”, which is funded by the city of Hamburg

(Landesforschungsförderung: LFF- GV79- 2019; P4). We thank Chantal Badenschneider- Faltis, Sonja

Brutscheidt, Sarah Koldehoff, and Hanna Niemeyer for their help with the behaviour ratings. Open

Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose.

OPEN RESEARCH BADGES

This article has earned Open Data, Open Materials and Preregistered Research Design badges. Data,

materials and the preregistered design and analysis plan are available at https:// osf. io/ dj35z/.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework

(OSF) at https:// osf. io/ dj35z/ .

ORCID

Martje Buss https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4190-0086

Jenny Wagner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6605-0313

Eva Bleckmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2942-3114

Larissa L. Wieczorek https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1281-4939

REFERENCES

Achterhof, R ., Kirtley, O. J., Schneider, M., Hagemann, N., Hermans, K. S. F. M., Hiek karanta, A. P., Lecei, A ., Laf it, G., &

Myin- Germeys, I. (2022). Adolescents' real- time social and affective experiences of online a nd face- to- face interactions.

Computers in Human Behavior, 129, 107159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. c hb. 20 21. 107159

Anderson, C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., & Kri ng, A. M. (20 01). Who att ains socia l status? Effects of persona lit y and physical

attractiveness in social g roups. Jour nal of Personality and Soc ial Psycholog y, 81(1), 116–132. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514.

81.1. 116

Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J. A., Hart ung, F.- M., Penke, L., Schmuk le, S. C., Schönbrodt, F. D., Schröder- Abé,

M., Vollma nn, M., Wagner, J., & Wrzus, C. (2011). PERSOC: A u nified framework for understanding the dynamic

interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personalit y, 25(2), 90 –107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 10 02/

pe r. 8 11

Back, M. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2 010). The social relations model: How to u nderstand dyad ic processes. Social and Personality

Psycholog y Compass, 4(10), 855–870. ht t p s:// doi. o rg/ 10. 1111/j . 1751- 9004 . 2 010. 0 030 3. x

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010). Why are narcissists so charmi ng at first sight? Decoding the narcissism–pop -

ularity l ink at zero acquaintance. Jour nal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 98(1), 132–145.

Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2011). A closer look at first sight: Social relat ions lens model analysis of persona lity

and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance. European Journal of Personality, 25(3), 225–238. htt ps:// doi. or g/ 10. 10 02/

per. 790

Behrendt, S. (2023). lm.beta: Add standardized regression coefficients to linear- model- objects. https:// CRAN. R- proje ct. org/ packa ge= lm.

beta

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controll ing t he false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to mult iple test-

ing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B: Methodological, 57(1), 289–30 0.

BUSS et al.

Bennett, A. A ., Campion, E. D., Keeler, K. R., & Keener, S. K. (2021). Videoconference fatig ue? Exploring changes in fatig ue

after videoconference meetings during COVID- 19. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 106(3), 330 –344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/

apl00 00906

Berkman, L . F. (1995). The role of social relations in healt h promotion. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57(3), 245–254.

Bleckmann, E., Nest ler, S., & Wagner, J. (2023). Routes to momentary self- esteem in adolescence: Lin ks wit h inter personal

percept ions of liking and personality metaperceptions with in social interact ions. Journal of Personality, 1–18. ht t p s :// d o i .

or g/ 10 . 1111/ jo py. 12 8 83

Breil, S. M., Osterholz, S., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2020). Contributions of nonverbal cues to the accurate judgment of per-

sonal ity traits. In T. D. Letzr ing & J. S. Spai n (Hrsg.), The Oxford handbook of accurate personality judgment. Oxford University

Press. ht tps:// doi. org/ 10. 10 93/ oxfor dhb/ 97801 90912 529. 013. 13

Brunswik , E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. University of California Press.

Carlson, E. N., & DesJardins, N. M. L. (2015). Do mean g uys always finish first or just say that they do? Na rcissists' awareness

of their social status and popularity over time. Personality and Social Psycholog y Bulletin, 41(7), 901–917. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10.

1177/ 01461 67 215 581712

Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (20 09). A long itud ina l study into the l ink between adolescent personalit y and peer- rated like-

ability and adjustment: Evidence of gender differences. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (6), 978 –986. htt ps:// doi. or g/ 10.

1016/j. jrp. 2 009. 08. 006

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personal ity assessment using the revised NEO personal-

ity inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 7752j pa6401_ 2

Danner, D., Rammstedt, B., Bluemke, M., Lechner, C., Berres, S., Knopf, T., Soto, C. J., & John , O. P. (2019). Das Big Five

Inventar 2: Valid ieru ng eines Persönlichkeitsinventars zur Erfassung von 5 Persönlich keitsdomänen und 15 Facetten.

Diagnostica, 65(3), 121–132. ht tps:// doi . org/ 10. 1026/ 0012- 1924/ a000218

de Vries, R. E ., Pronk, J., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2020). Getti ng along and/or getting ahead: Different ial HEXACO per-

sonal ity correlates of likeability and popularity among adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 34(2), 245 –261. h t t p s: //

doi. org / 10. 1002/ per. 2243

DesJardins, N. M. L., Sr ivastava, S., Küfner, A. C. P., & Back, M. D. (2015). Who attains stat us? Similarit ies and d iffer-

ences across social contexts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 692–700. ht tps:// doi. org / 10 . 1177/ 194 85 50 615

58 0171

Deventer, J., Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Trautwein, U. (2019). Are persona lit y traits and relationship characterist ics reciprocal ly

related? Longitudinal analyses of codevelopment in the transition out of high school and beyond. Journal of Personal ity and

Social Psychology, 116 (2), 331– 347.

Dufner, M., & Krause, S. (2023). On how to be liked in f irst encounters: The effects of agentic and communal behaviors on

popularity and un ique liking. Psychological Science, 34(4), 481–489. ht t ps :// doi. org / 10. 1177/ 0 9567 9 76 22 11472 58

Dufner, M., Leising , D., & Gebauer, J. E. (2016). Which basic rules underlie social judgments? Agency fol lows a zero- sum prin-

ciple and communion follows a non- zero- sum principle. Personality and Social Psycholog y Bulletin, 42(5), 677–687.

Fritz, M. S., & MacKi nnon, D. P. (2007). Required sample si ze to detect the med iated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239.

ht t ps:// doi. org / 10. 1111/j . 14 67- 9 2 80. 2 0 0 7. 018 8 2 . x

Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2 019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and

Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25152 45919 8 47202

Garden, R., Hu, X., Zha n, Y., & Yao, X. (2018). Popularit y procurement and pay off: Antecedents and consequences of popular-

ity in t he workplace. Journal of Business and Psycholog y, 33(2), 297–310. https:// doi. org / 10. 1007/ s1086 9- 017- 9494- 9

Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann- Willenbrock, N., Voelpel, S. C., & van Vugt, M. (2019). It's not just what is said, but when it's said: A

temporal account of verbal behaviors and emergent leadership in self- managed teams. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3),

717–738. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2017. 0149

Geukes, K., Breil, S. M., Hutteman, R., Nestler, S., Küfner, A., & Back, M. (2018). Explaining the longitudinal Inter play of personality

and social relationships in the laborator y and in the f ield: The PILS and the CONN ECT study. PsyArXiv. https:// doi. org/ 10. 312 34/

osf. io/ gnbm8 .

Grünberg, M., Mattern, J., Geukes, K., Küfner, A. C . P., & Back, M. D. (2 018). Assessing group i nteractions i n personality psy-

chology : The Münster behavior cod ing- system ( M- BeCoSy). In E. Brauner, M. Boos, & M. Kolbe ( Hrsg.), The Cambridge

handbook of group interaction analysis (1. Auf l., S. 602–611). Cambridge University Press. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ 97813 16286

302. 042

Hall, J. A., Horgan, T. G., & Murphy, N. A. (2019). Nonverbal com munication. Annual Review of Psycholog y, 70(1), 271–294.

htt ps:// doi. or g/ 10. 1146/ an nur ev- psych - 010 41 8- 103145

Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2013). Targeti ng the good target: A n integrative review of the characteristics and consequences

of being accurately perceived. Personality and Social Psycholog y R eview, 17(3), 248–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68313

495593

Ilmarinen, V.- J. (2018). When and why is “extraversion” associated with social popularity? [Ph D, University of Helsinki]. https:// helda.

helsi nki. fi/ handle/ 10138/ 235192

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review.

Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 87(4), 765 –780.

POPUL AR IT Y AT FIR ST SIGHT

Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R . (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five- factor

model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical per-

spectives. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 98(6), 875–925.

Kiuru, N., Aunola, K., Lerkka nen, M.- K., Pakarinen, E., Poskiparta , E., Ahonen, T., Poikkeus, A.- M., & Nurmi, J.- E. (2015).

Positive teacher and peer relations combine to predict primary school students' academic skill development. Developmental

Psyc holog y , 51(4), 434–446. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0038911

Kroencke, L., Harari, G. M., Back, M. D., & Wagner, J. (2023). Well- being in social interactions: Exam ining personal ity-

situat ion dynamics i n face- to- face and computer- med iated communication. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psycholog y, 124(2),

437–4 60. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000 422

Leckelt , M., Geukes, K., Küfner, A. C. P., Niemeyer, L. M., Huttema n, R., Osterholz, S., Egloff, B., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D.

(2020). A longitudinal f ield investig ation of narcissism and popu lar ity over t ime: How agentic and antagon istic aspects of

narcissism shape the development of peer relationships. Personalit y and Social Psycholog y Bulletin, 46(4), 643 –659. ht t p s : // d o i .

org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67219 872477

Leckelt , M., Kuefner, A. C. P., Nestler, S., & Back, M. D. (2015). Behavioral processes underlying the decline of narcissists' pop-

ularity over time. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 109(5), 856 –871. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000057

Lubbers, M. J., Van Der Werf, M. P. C., Snijders, T. A. B., Creemers, B. P. M., & Kuyper, H. (2006). The i mpact of peer

relations on academic prog ress in junior h igh. Journal of School Psycholog y, 44(6), 491–512. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp.

2006. 07. 005

Marchetti , G. M., Drton, M., & Sadeghi, K. (2020). g gm: Graphical Markov models with mixed gra phs (2.5) [Soft ware]. ht t p s : // C R A N .

R- proje ct. org/ packa ge= ggm.

Marrero Queve do, R. J., & Carbal leira Abel la, M. (2011). Well- being a nd personality: Fac et- level analyses. Personality and Individual

Differences, 50(2), 206–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2010. 0 9. 03 0

McCrae, R. R. (2015). A more nuanced view of reliability: Specif icity in the t rait h ierarchy. Personalit y and Social Psycholog y Review,

19(2), 97–112. ht tps:// doi . org/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68314 541857

Mõttus, R. (2016). Towards more rigorous personality trait–outcome research. European Jour nal of Personality, 30(4), 292–303.

htt ps:// doi. or g/ 10. 10 02/ per. 20 41

Mõttus, R., Wood, D., Condon, D. M., Back, M. D., Baumer t, A., Costant ini, G., Epsk amp, S., Greiff, S., Johnson, W.,

Luka szewski, A., Mu rray, A., Revel le, W., Wright , A. G. C., Yarkoni, T., Zie gler, M., & Zim mermann, J. (2020 ). Descriptive ,

predictive and explanatory persona lit y research: Different goals, different approaches, but a shared need to move beyond

the big few traits. European Journal of Personality, 34(6 ), 1175 –12 01 .

Mund, M., & Neyer, F. J. (2014). Treating personal ity- relationship transactions with respect: Narrow facets, advanced

models, and extended time frames. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psycholog y, 107(2), 352–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/

a0 036719

Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). W ho is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19.

Nestler, S., & Back , M. D. (2013). Applicat ions and extensions of the lens model to understand inter personal judgments at zero

acquaintance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(5), 374 –379. htt ps:// doi . org/ 10. 117 7/ 09 637 21413 48 614 8

Phan, L . V., & Rauthmann, J. F. (2021). Personality computi ng: New frontiers in personality assessment. Social and Personalit y

Psycholog y Compass, 15(7), e12624. h t tps :// doi. org / 10 . 1111/ sp c3. 12 62 4

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., L ee, J.- Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A

critical rev iew of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 88(5), 879–903. htt ps:// doi. org/

10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 8 8. 5. 879

Posit team. (2023). R Studio: Integrated development environment for R. Posit Software, PBC. http:// www. posit. co/ .

Privé, F., Aschard, H., Ziyatdinov, A., & Blum, M. G. B. (2018). Efficient analysis of large- scale genome- wide data with two R

packages: Bigstatsr and bigsnpr. Bioinformatics, 34(16), 2781–2787. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ bioin forma tics/ bty185

R Core Team. (2023). R: A L anguage and Environment for Stat istical Computing. R Foundation for Stat istical Comput ing. ht tp s ://

www. R- proje ct. org/ .

Raghu ram, S., Hill, N. S., Gibbs, J. L ., & Marupin g, L. M. (2019). Virtual work: Br idging research clusters. Academy of Management

Annals, 13(1), 308–341. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ ann als. 2017. 0 02 0

Rau, R ., Carlson, E. N., Dufner, M., Geukes, K ., Kraft, L ., Krause, S., Nikoleizig, L ., Nestler, S., & B ack, M. D. (2022). Positivity

in peer perceptions over time: Personality explains variation at zero- acquaintance, popularit y expla ins differential change.

Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 123, 423 –443. ht tps:// doi. org / 10. 1037/ pspp0 00 0407

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E ., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean- level change in personality t raits across the life

course: A meta- analysis of longitudi nal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (1), 1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033 - 2909. 132.1.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equat ion modeling. Journal of Stat istical Software, 48(1), 1. https:// doi. org/

10. 18637/ jss. v048. i02

Schoemann, A . M., Bou lton, A. J., & Short, S. D. (2017). Determining power and sample si ze for simple and complex mediat ion

models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 19485 50617 715068

Soto, C. J., & Jackson, J. J. (2013). Five- factor model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1285–13 02.

BUSS et al.

Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017). The next big five inventor y (BFI- 2): Developing and assessing a h ierarchical model with 15 fac-

ets to enhance bandwidt h, fidelit y, and pred ictive power. Jour nal of Personality and Social Psycholog y, 113 (1), 117–143. ht tp s ://

doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000096

Stewar t, R. D., Mõttus, R., Seeboth, A ., Soto, C. J., & Johnson, W. (2022). The finer deta ils? T he predictabi lit y of life outcomes

from big f ive doma ins, facets, and nuances. Journal of Personality, 90(2), 167–182. http s:// doi . or g / 10 . 1111/ jo py. 126 60

Szczygiel, D., & M ikolajczak, M. (2018). Is it enough to be an extrovert to be liked? Emot ional competence moderates the

relationship between extraversion and peer- rated likeability. Frontiers in Psycholog y, 9, 804. ht t p s: // doi . or g / 10. 338 9/ f psy g.

2018. 00804

Tissera, H., Mignau lt, M.- C ., & Human, L. J. (2023). “Zooming” in on posit ive and accurate metaperceptions in first im-

pressions: Examining the l inks with social anx iety a nd liking in online video interact ions. Jour nal of Personality and Social

Psyc holog y , 125(4), 852– 873. ht tps:// doi . org/ 10. 1037/ pspp0 000457

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4 157), 112 4 –1131. h t t p s: //

doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 185. 4157. 1124

van der Linden, D., Scholte, R. H. J., Cillessen, A. H. N., te Nijen huis, J., & Segers, E. (2 010). Classroom ratings of likeability and

popularity are related to the big five and the general factor of personal ity. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(5), 669– 672.

htt ps:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. jr p. 2010. 08. 0 07

Vinciarel li, A., & Mohammadi, G. (2014). A survey of personal ity computing. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 5(3),

273 –291. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ TAFFC . 2014. 2330816

Wieczorek , L. L ., Muel ler, S., Lüdtke, O., & Wagner, J. (2021). What ma kes for a pleasant social experience i n adolescence? The

role of perceived socia l interaction behavior in associations between personality traits and momentary social sat isfact ion.

European Journal of Personality, 36, 787–808. ht tp s:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08902 0 7021 1017745

Wortman, J., & Wood, D. (2011). The personal ity traits of liked people. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(6), 519–528. h t t ps ://

doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrp. 2011. 06. 006

Zeileis, A. (2004). Econometric comput ing w ith HC and HAC covariance matri x esti mators. Journal of Statistical Software, 11(1),

1. htt ps:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss . v011. i10

Zeileis, A., & Hot horn, T. (2002). Diagnost ic check ing in regression relationships. R News, 2(3), 7–10.

Zeileis, A., Köl l, S., & Graham, N. (2020). Various versatile variances: An object- oriented implementation of clustered covari-

ances in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 95(1), 1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v095. i01

SUPPORTING INFORM ATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the

end of this article.

How to cite this article: Buss, M., Wagner, J., Bleckmann, E., & Wieczorek, L. L. (2024).

Popularity at first sight: Dominant behaviours mediate the link between extraversion and

popularity in face- to- face and virtual group interactions. British Journal of Social Psycholog y, 00,

1–28. ht t ps://doi.or g /10.1111/ bjso .12 720

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.

Routes to momentary self‐esteem in adolescence: Links with interpersonal perceptions of liking and personality metaperceptions within social interactions

Article

Full-text available

Sep 2023

Objective This study provides insights into the perceptual processes contributing to positive social experiences and momentary self‐esteem in adolescents' initial social interactions. Background A person's self‐esteem is shaped by their social experiences. However, little is known about which interpersonal perceptions are linked to momentary self‐esteem within social interactions. Identifying two key interpersonal perceptions, we examined differential associations between an individual's meta‐liking and other‐perceptions of liking by interaction partners with momentary self‐esteem. Further, we investigated how preceding personality metaperceptions (i.e., meta‐accuracy and meta‐positivity) extended these sociometer processes. Method The current study used round‐robin data from N = 296 adolescents participating in a virtual group interaction. Social accuracy modeling was used to estimate meta‐accuracy and meta‐positivity of personality metaperceptions, and path models were used to test associations with interpersonal perceptions of liking and momentary self‐esteem. Results Two main findings emerged: First, meta‐liking was consistently related to higher momentary self‐esteem, whereas other‐perceptions of liking were not. Second, meta‐positivity of personality metaperceptions was linked to higher meta‐liking and indirectly contributed to higher momentary self‐esteem through meta‐liking. Conclusion These findings highlight the importance of considering different interpersonal perceptions to understand social interaction experiences.

On How to Be Liked in First Encounters: The Effects of Agentic and Communal Behaviors on Popularity and Unique Liking

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023
PSYCHOL SCI

When meeting other people for the first time, how should one behave in order to be liked? We investigated the effects of agentic and communal behaviors on two forms of being liked: popularity (being generally liked by others) and unique liking (being uniquely liked by specific interaction partners). In a round-robin study, 139 unacquainted German adults had dyadic conversations and provided liking ratings afterward. The conversations were recorded on video, and four agentic behaviors (leading, dominant, confident, boastful) and four communal behaviors (polite, benevolent, warm, friendly) were each rated by trained observers. Participants who generally showed agentic and communal behavior were also generally liked (popularity). When participants’ level of communal, but not agentic, behavior exceeded their personal standards during an interaction, they were particularly well-liked by the respective interaction partner (unique liking). The behavioral predictors of being liked thus differ, depending on whether one focuses on popularity or unique liking.

“Zooming” in on Positive and Accurate Metaperceptions in First Impressions: Examining the Links With Social Anxiety and Liking in Online Video Interactions

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Many of us rely on online communication methods, such as videoconferencing, to connect with each other. However, less is known about how interpersonal processes unfold in this novel context. For example, do people believe others view them positively, displaying meta-positivity, and realize others’ unique impression of them, displaying distinctive meta-accuracy, and do these processes have implications for liking in social interactions? And, do the same characteristics that predict lower meta-positivity and distinctive meta-accuracy in-person, such as being more socially anxious, predict similar difficulties in video interactions? We examined these questions in an online first impressions context using a videoconferencing platform, Zoom (N = 555; NDyads = 3,068), and compared them against an in-person sample (N = 305; NDyads = 1,683). People believed others saw them positively and understood others’ unique impressions of them, displaying similar degrees of meta-positivity and distinctive meta-accuracy in video interactions as in in-person interactions. In both contexts, meta-positivity was related to liking others more, whereas distinctive meta-accuracy was related to being liked more by others. Further, social anxiety seemed to impair meta-positivity, which in turn contributed to why they liked others less in both contexts. In contrast to in-person interactions, social anxiety did not impair distinctive meta-accuracy in video interactions. Therefore, distinctive meta-accuracy did not account for the links between social anxiety and being liked in the video interaction context. Overall, metaperception processes generally operated very similarly online as in-person, though there were some noteworthy exceptions, in turn potentially bearing important implications for those with higher social anxiety.

Well-Being in Social Interactions: Examining Personality-Situation Dynamics in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

Decades of research show that people's social lives are linked to their well-being. Yet, research on the relationship between social interactions and well-being has been largely inconclusive with regard to the effects of person-situation interactions, such as the interplay between contextual factors (e.g., interactions occurring in physical vs. digital contexts, different interaction partners) and dispositional tendencies (e.g., Big Five personality traits). Here, we report on exploratory and confirmatory findings from three large studies of college students (Study 1: N = 1,360; Study 2: N = 851; Study 3: N = 864) who completed a total of 139,363 experience sampling surveys (reporting on 87,976 social interactions). We focus on the effects of different modes of communication (face-to-face [FtF] interactions, computer-mediated communication [CMC], and mixed episodes [FtF + CMC]), and types of interaction partners (close peers, family members, and weak ties). Using multilevel structural equation modeling, we found that FtF interactions and mixed episodes were associated with highest well-being on the within-person level, and that these effects were particularly pronounced for individuals with high levels of neuroticism. CMC was related to lower well-being than FtF interactions, but higher well-being than not socializing at all. Regarding the type of interaction partner, individuals reported higher well-being after interactions with close peers than after interactions with family members and weak ties, and the difference between close peers and weak ties was larger for FtF interactions than for CMC. We discuss these findings with regard to theories of person-situation interactions and research on well-being and social interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Adolescents’ real-time social and affective experiences of online and face-to-face interactions

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2021
COMPUT HUM BEHAV

Much disagreement exists surrounding the relationship between digital communication and adolescent well-being. Micro-level insight into the direct effect of online interaction on affective experiences in daily life is crucial to advancing this discussion. In this registered study, we used experience sampling in 1705 general-population adolescents (n = 43.226 total observations) to examine different emotional and social experiences, at the moment they engage in online and face-to-face social interactions. Adolescents reported significantly less positive affect when alone compared to when interacting online (B(SE) = -0.15 (0.04), p = .001), but significantly more positive affect (B(SE) = 0.12 (0.04), p < .001) and less negative affect (B(SE) = -0.12 (0.03), p < .001) and loneliness (B(SE) = -0.65 (0.05), p < .001) when interacting face-to-face compared to online. Exploratory moderator analyses do not support the hypothesis that those with more social support experience greater benefits from online interaction. This study uniquely highlights both the momentary affective benefits and potential disadvantages of online interaction, thereby bringing clarification and nuance to this highly contentious topic.

Positivity in Peer Perceptions Over Time: Personality Explains Variation at Zero-Acquaintance, Popularity Explains Differential Change

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

People have characteristic ways of perceiving others’ personalities. When judging others on several traits, some perceivers tend to form globally positive and others tend to form globally negative impressions. These differences, often termed perceiver effects, have mostly been conceptualized as a static construct that taps perceivers’ personal stereotypes about the average other. Here, we assessed perceiver effects repeatedly in small groups of strangers who got to know each other over the course of 2 to 3 weeks and examined the degree to which positivity differences were stable vs. developed systematically over time. Using second order latent growth curve modelling, we tested whether initial positivity (i.e., random intercepts) could be explained by several personality variables and whether change (i.e., random slopes) could be explained by these personality variables and by perceivers’ social experiences within the group. Across three studies (ns = 439, 257, and 311), personality variables characterized by specific beliefs about others, such as agreeableness and narcissistic rivalry, were found to explain initial positivity but personality was not reliably linked to changes in positivity over time. Instead, feeling liked and, to a lesser extent, being liked by one’s peers, partially explained changes in positivity. The results suggest that perceiver effects are best conceptualized as reflecting personal generalized stereotypes at an initial encounter but group-specific stereotypes that are fueled by social experiences as groups get acquainted. More generally, these findings suggest that perceiver effects might be a key variable to understanding reciprocal dynamics of small groups and interpersonal functioning.

Personality computing: New frontiers in personality assessment

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Personality Computing (PC) is a burgeoning field at the intersection of personality and computer science that seeks to extract personality-relevant information (e.g., on Big Five trait levels) from sensor-assessed information (e.g., written texts, digital footprints, smartphone usage, non-verbal behavior, speech patterns, game-play, etc.). Such sensor-based personality assessment promises novel and often technologically sophisticated ways to unobtrusively measure individual differences in a highly precise, granular, and faking-resistant manner. We review the different conceptual underpinnings of PC; survey how well different types of sensors can capture different types of personality-relevant information; discuss the evaluation of PC performance and psychometric issues (reliability and validity) of sensor-derived scores as well as ethical, legal, and societal implications; and highlight how modern personality and computer science can be married more effectively to provide practically useful personality assessment. Together, this review aims to introduce readers to the opportunities, challenges, pitfalls, and implications of PC.

What makes for a pleasant social experience in adolescence? The role of perceived social interaction behavior in associations between personality traits and momentary social satisfaction

Article

Full-text available

May 2021

Whereas theory and research agree that social interactions are central mediators of the associations between personality traits and relationship outcomes, less is known about the mechanisms involved. This is particularly evident when looking at adolescence, when social networks restructure and expand. Drawing on experience sampling data from two adolescent samples (overall N > 200), we examined which self- and other-perceptions of real-life social interaction behaviors contribute to the links between personality traits (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) and momentary satisfaction with social interactions. Multilevel exploratory factor analyses revealed that most social perceptions could be represented by two factors, labeled expressive and communal behavior. As hypothesized, we found that higher extraversion and agreeableness and lower neuroticism predicted greater social satisfaction. These associations were mediated by perceptions of more expressive and communal behaviors in the case of agreeableness and extraversion and perceptions of less expressive behavior in the case of neuroticism. Contrary to our expectations, the results were the same no matter whether self- or other-perceptions were used as mediators. We discuss how our results provide information about the co-development of personality traits and social relationships from a microlevel perspective and outline directions for future research on perceived social interaction behavior.

Videoconference Fatigue? Exploring Changes in Fatigue After Videoconference Meetings During COVID-19

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2021

In response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global health pandemic, many employees transitioned to remote work, which included remote meetings. With this sudden shift, workers and the media began discussing videoconference fatigue, a potentially new phenomenon of feeling tired and exhausted attributed to a videoconference. In the present study, we examine the nature of videoconference fatigue, when this phenomenon occurs, and what videoconference characteristics are associated with fatigue using a mixed-methods approach. Thematic analysis of qualitative responses indicates that videoconference fatigue exists, often in near temporal proximity to the videoconference, and is affected by various videoconference characteristics. Quantitative data were collected each hour during five workdays from 55 employees who were working remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Latent growth modeling results suggest that videoconferences at different times of the day are related to deviations in employee fatigue beyond what is expected based on typical fatigue trajectories. Results from multilevel modeling of 279 videoconference meetings indicate that turning off the microphone and having higher feelings of group belongingness are related to lower postvideoconference fatigue. Additional analyses suggest that higher levels of group belongingness are the most consistent protective factor against videoconference fatigue. Such findings have immediate practical implications for workers and organizations as they continue to navigate the still relatively new terrain of remote work.

The finer details? The predictability of life outcomes from Big Five domains, facets, and nuances

Article

Jul 2021

Associations between personality traits and life outcomes are usually studied using the Big Five domains and, occasionally, their facets. But recent research suggests these associations may be driven by the items (reflecting nuances) chosen to measure these traits. Using a large dataset (N = 6,126), we examined associations with 53 self‐reported outcomes using domains, facets and items (markers for nuances), training and validating models in different sample partitions. Facets better predicted outcomes than domains (on average, 18.0% vs 16.6% of variance explained), but items provided the most accurate predictions (on average 20.9%). Removing domain and facet variance from items had no effect on their predictive validity, suggesting that outcome‐related information was often in items’ unique variances (i.e., nuance‐specific). Item‐based prediction also showed the highest discriminant validity. These observations, replicating previous findings, suggest that personality traits’ associations with outcomes are often driven by narrow personality nuances.

Popularity at first sight: Dominant behaviours mediate the link between extraversion and popularity in face-to-face and virtual group interactions

Abstract

Recommended publications

I Think You Might Like Me: Emergence and Change of Meta-Liking in Initial Social Interactions

I Think You Might Like Me: Emergence and Change of Meta-Liking in Initial Social Interactions

The Role of Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Relationship-Specific Features in Self- and Other-Percep...

The role of interpersonal perceptions of social inclusion and personality in momentary self-esteem a...