Do Psychologically Adjusted Individuals Know What Other People Really Think About Them? The Link Between Psychological Adjustment and Meta-Accuracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Do psychologically adjusted individuals know what other people think about them? Participants rated their own personality and levels of intrapersonal and interpersonal adjustment and also estimated how a new acquaintance and friends perceived them on core personality traits. These individuals rated the participant’s personality and friends described participants’ adjustment. Intrapersonally and interpersonally adjusted individuals were aware of the positive rather than the distinctive and potentially negative impressions they made, although people who were interpersonally adjusted (e.g., socially skilled) had insight into what made them distinctive in their friends’ eyes. Psychologically adjusted individuals also tended to overestimate their transparency, meaning they assumed others saw them as they saw themselves more so than others actually did. Interestingly, effects depended somewhat on who reported on adjustment, such that friend-reported adjustment was linked to accuracy, whereas self-reported adjustment was linked to transparency. Implications for the adaptiveness of accuracy 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".