Group personality judgments at zero acquaintance: Communication among judges versus aggregation of independent evaluations

  • Beer A
  • 11


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 3


    Citations of this article.


The current study (N= 264) compared the validity of personality judgments made by groups of 2, 3, or 4 people to the validity of personality judgments from 2, 3, or 4 aggregated individual reports. I replicated the general increase in validity that accompanies the aggregation of independent judgments. However, group judgments did not follow this pattern. Small groups outperformed the average single rater, but increasing group size did not lead to similar increases in validity. In short, two heads are better than one across both judgment scenarios, but the point of diminishing returns on additional group members occurs more quickly when judgments are made interactively. © 2013 Elsevier Inc.

Author-supplied keywords

  • Accuracy
  • Aggregation
  • Consensus
  • Personality assessment
  • Reliability
  • Validity
  • Zero acquaintance

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • Andrew Beer

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free