How Well Do We Know How Others See Us? A Systematic Review of Meta‐Accuracy Across Relational Contexts, Research Foci, Attribute Domains, and Measurement Approaches

Datos Bibliográficos

ID19280010
AutoresCraig Harper (Monash School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia), Melissa Cameron (The You Project Blackburn Victoria Australia), Lucy Albertella (0000-0001-5232-6414, Monash School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia), Odkhishig Ganbold (Department of Medicine at Royal Melbourne Hospital The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Medical School Melbourne Victoria Australia), Campbell Ince (0000-0002-2072-5741, Monash School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia), Lars Kooijman (0000-0002-0902-5752, Monash Business School Monash University Caulfield East Victoria Australia), Maria Suetin (Monash Business School Monash University Caulfield East Victoria Australia), Benjamin Kozoolin (Monash School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia), Murat Yücel (0000-0002-4705-452X, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute Herston Queensland Australia), Kristian Rotaru (0000-0003-2570-2044, Monash School of Psychological Sciences Monash University Clayton Victoria Australia, autor de correspondencia)
Año2026
Fecha de publicación2026-05-04
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Personality (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0022-3506 • E-ISSN: 1467-6494
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/jopy.70075
PMID42083441
OpenAlexW7160325869
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas117

INTRODUCTION: Meta-accuracy, the degree to which individuals accurately infer how others perceive them, is fundamental to social interactions. Yet the field draws on diverse methods across disciplines, and variation in conceptualizations and approaches has not been systematically captured. This review synthesizes the meta-accuracy literature across relational contexts, research foci, attribute domains, and measurement approaches. METHOD: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched five databases (January 2025; coverage through December 31, 2024) for peer-reviewed empirical studies assessing meta-accuracy. Two reviewers independently screened 1,336 records and extracted data using a preregistered protocol (OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/VMH6W). RESULTS: Ninety-three studies met inclusion criteria: dyadic meta-accuracy (DMA; k = 56; 60.2%), generalized meta-accuracy (GMA; k = 17; 18.3%), and combined approaches (k = 20; 21.5%). DMA and GMA differed in interaction settings and acquaintance levels; research foci diverged across disciplines; most studies targeted personality traits; and measurement approaches varied across studies. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (k = 88; 94.6%) and most samples were tertiary students (k = 60; 64.5%). CONCLUSION: This review systematically maps the conceptual, methodological, and contextual diversity in meta-accuracy research. We propose three priorities: (1) standardizing terminology to distinguish DMA from GMA, (2) transparent reporting of measurement approaches, and (3) developing unified frameworks that bridge disciplinary boundaries to support integrated future research

Discipline · Diversity (politics) · Empirical research · Field (mathematics) · Inclusion (mineral) · Personality · Terminology · Variation (astronomy) · Attachment and Relationship Dynamics · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · Personality Traits and Psychology