Does Writeing Rite Matter? Effects of Textual Errors on Personality Trait Attributions
- 87 Downloads
Adult participants (n = 224), mostly undergraduates, were randomly assigned to three major conditions representing three levels of textual errors (none, few, many). They read a text requesting financial assistance, then rated the writer on the Big Five personality traits (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Emotional Stability), and on three personality domains (Social Evaluation, Intellectual Evaluation, Potency). Finally, they judged the likelihood that the writer’s request would be granted, and gave reasons for their decision. Generally, textual errors created an overall negative impression, which was mainly accounted for by Conscientiousness. However, textual errors did not affect the financial judgments, which were predicted mainly by Conscientiousness and Intellectual Evaluation. Participants who cited writing errors in their reasons for their financial judgment gave a lower rating for the likelihood that the request would be honoured. For those who were more accurate at detecting errors, textual errors created a negative impression on the Big Five traits, accounted for by Conscientiousness, and on the three personality domains, accounted for by Intellectual Evaluation. There was also a negative effect of textual errors on the financial judgment, which was mediated mainly by Intellectual Evaluation. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
KeywordsTextual errors Personality attributions Financial recommendation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This experiment was conducted with human participants. All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and of the Canadian Tri-Council Statement on Ethical Conduct for Research involving Human Participants (TCPS2), 1998.
Conflict of Interest
Elizabeth Morin-Lessard declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Stuart J. McKelvie declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Beason, L. (2001). Ethos and error: How business people react to errors. College Composition and Communication, 33–64. doi: 10.2307/359061.
- Boland, J. E., & Queen, R. (2016). If You’re house is still available, send me an email: Personality influences reactions to written errors in email messages. PloS One, 11(3). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149885.
- Chaney, L. H., & Martin, H. S. (2007). The essential guide to business etiquette. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Furnham, A., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Callahan, I. (2003). Does graphology predict personality and intelligence? Individual Differences Research, 1, 78–94.Google Scholar
- Gill, A., & Oberlander, J. (2003). Perception of email personality at zero acquaintance: Extraver- sion takes care of itself; Neuroticism is a worry. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 456–461). Hills- dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The International personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gow, A. J., Whiteman, M. C., Pattie, A., & Deary, I, J, (2005). Goldberg’s ‘IPIP’ big-five factor markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 317–329. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.011
- Hoover, B. (2013). Good grammar should be everyone’s business. Harvard Business Review: HBR Blog Network https://hbr.org/2013/03/good-grammar-should-be-everyon.Google Scholar
- International Personality Item Pool (2017) A scientific Collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality traits and other individual differences (http://Ipip.Ori.Org/). Internet Web Site.
- Jessmer, S. L., & Anderson, D. (2001). The effect of politeness and grammar on user perceptions of electronic mail. North American Journal of Psychology, 3, 331–346.Google Scholar
- McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr., P. T. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, Personality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 179–198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. doi: 10.4135/9781849200462.n13.Google Scholar
- Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences (1 st ed.) (pp. 132–161). Blackwell Publishing Ltd..Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Ontario Public Works and Government. (1998). Available at: http://pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/ Accessed March 30, 2011.
- Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2004). E-perceptions: Personality impressions based on personal websites. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 123. doi: 10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.124
- Ypofanti, M., Zisi, V., Zourbanos, N., Mouchtouri, B., Tzanne, P., Theodorakis, Y., & Lyrakos, G. (2015). Psychometric properties of the International personality Item Pool big-five personality questionnaire for the Greek population. Health Psychology Research, 3(2206), 41–47. doi: 10.4081/hpr.2015.2206.Google Scholar
- Zheng, L., Goldberg, L. R., Zheng, Y., Zhao, Y., Tang, Y., & Liu, L. (2008). Reliability and concurrent validation of the IPIP big-five factor markers in China: Consistencies in factor structure between internet-obtained heterosexual and homosexual samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 649–654. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar