The Role of Metaperception in Personality Disorders: Do People with Personality Problems Know How Others Experience Their Personality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do people with personality problems have insight into how others experience them? In a large community sample of adults (N = 641), the authors examined whether people with personality disorder (PD) symptoms were aware of how a close acquaintance (i.e., a romantic partner, family member, or friend) perceived them by measuring participants' metaperceptions and self-perceptions as well as their acquaintance's impression of them on Five-Factor Model traits. Compared to people with fewer PD symptoms, people with more PD symptoms tended to be less accurate and tended to overestimate the negativity of the impressions they made on their acquaintance, especially for the traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Interestingly, these individuals did not necessarily assume that their acquaintance perceived them as they perceived themselves; instead, poor insight was likely due to their inability to detect or utilize information other than their self-perceptions. Implications for the conceptualization, measurement, and treatment of PDs are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".