The self-other knowledge asymmetry: what others see that you do not

What is the self-other knowledge asymmetry?

The self-other knowledge asymmetry, often shortened to SOKA, is a model of who is best placed to judge a given trait, you or the people around you. It replaces who knows you better with the more useful question, who knows what.

In the study that named the model, 165 people rated themselves, were rated in turn by four friends and up to four strangers, and completed behavioural tasks that supplied an outside criterion for each trait. No side won across the board. The self was the best judge of traits low in observability, such as those related to neuroticism. Friends were the best judges of traits high in evaluativeness, such as those related to intellect. For traits related to extraversion, everyone judged about equally well (Vazire, 2010). Your own view, in other words, is not simply more or less accurate than everyone else's; it is more accurate about some things, and less about others, following the trait rather than the rater.

Why does accuracy depend on the trait rather than the rater?

The SOKA model organises traits along two properties. The first is observability: how much of the trait shows up in behaviour anyone else can see. Anxious rumination, private self-doubt and a low mood that never reaches your face are real, but they happen inside you, so an outside observer has little to go on. You are the only one in the room with that information, which is why the self keeps its advantage on traits related to neuroticism.

The second is evaluativeness: how much a trait carries a built-in value judgement, such as being clever or dull. People are reluctant to rate themselves harshly on a trait that sounds like a verdict, and they judge their own standing relative to others poorly. Friends carry no such reluctance and have more people to compare you against, which is why they tend to have the advantage on evaluative traits such as intellect. Traits related to extraversion sit in the middle on both counts: talking often, seeking company and taking the lead in a group are visible to anyone, including you, so nobody holds a special advantage, and every perspective in the study judged them about equally well (Vazire, 2010).

What do the people who know you well actually predict better?

Informant ratings are not just a curiosity. Across three meta-analyses covering 263 independent samples and 44,178 rated people, observer ratings predicted real-world outcomes about as well as self-ratings, and better for some, including academic achievement and job performance, where their predictive validity was substantially greater than, and added something beyond, self-ratings (Connelly & Ones, 2010). What mattered was not how often the rater saw you but how well they knew you, since knowing someone well predicted rating accuracy more than frequent contact did (Connelly & Ones, 2010). A friend of ten years is a better informant than a colleague you pass daily, which is a reason to pick observers by closeness, not convenience.

What are introspection's limits, and what helps you see past them?

If self-knowledge had a single reliable route, thinking harder about yourself would close the gap on its own. Reviewing the evidence, Wilson and Dunn conclude it does not, because introspection is not a direct pipeline to the processes that drive perception, personality and attitudes; much of that machinery runs outside conscious access, however carefully you look inward (Wilson & Dunn, 2004). The same review points to two routes that do help, seeing yourself through other people's eyes and observing your own behaviour rather than your intentions, and it makes a quieter point worth keeping, that a self-view need not be perfectly accurate to be useful (Wilson & Dunn, 2004).

Which traits does each side tend to know best?

How can you find your own blind spots?

Not by introspecting harder, but by adding another source.

• Pick people by closeness, not proximity. Someone who knows you well judges more accurately than someone who simply sees you often (Connelly & Ones, 2010).
• Ask two or three, not one. A single observer carries their own blind spots.
• Ask about behaviour, not character. What do I do when a plan falls through gets a usable answer where am I organised gets a guess.
• Expect disagreement to be informative. On an internal trait such as calmness, hold your own view more firmly; on an evaluative trait, weigh theirs more heavily (Vazire, 2010).
• Watch what you do, not what you meant to do. Observing your own conduct does not depend on introspective access (Wilson & Dunn, 2004).

How does Wellington measure this?

Wellington is a science-based personality assessment from Therabot Labs LLC. It measures personality as continuous traits, built on the Big Five and HEXACO models, and writes the results back as a personal report rather than a type.

The free Snapshot is a self-report, and only that: 60 questions, about 7 minutes, scoring 6 broad dimensions, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, Openness to Experience and Honesty-Humility. Every trait is reported as a percentile against the reference sample. The three bands (Quiet below the 30th percentile, Balanced to the 70th, High above) and the Portrait names exist to make the result easier to talk about; the percentile is the measurement, and it is always shown alongside. Norms are provisional. The first ten questions are answered before anything is asked; after question ten you sign in with an email so answers are saved and results shown. No card.

The Wellington Membership, $4.99 a month, adds the Portrait, 336 questions in 4 chapters, reaching 90 traits, then adds a short weekly module toward all 255 traits across eight domains. In the written report, every trait has three pages, one per band, and your answers choose which one you read. Because the asymmetry runs both ways, a page built from your own answers cannot close it alone: ask two people who know you well to read your trait pages with you and say where each one sounds right, and where it does not.

Wellington is a wellness tool for reflection, not a medical or psychological diagnosis, and it does not replace care from a qualified professional. It is not designed for hiring, and you can export or delete your data at any time. The methods page sets out how the items and norms are built.

Questions people ask

Do other people know me better than I know myself?

For some traits. Friends judge evaluative traits, such as those related to intellect, more accurately than you judge yourself. You keep the advantage on internal traits, such as those related to neuroticism, that others cannot observe. On visible traits, such as those related to extraversion, you and the people who know you judge about equally well (Vazire, 2010).

Which traits are hardest for other people to judge accurately?

Traits that stay inside you rather than showing up in behaviour, such as private worry, rumination and a low mood that never reaches your face. Nobody else has access to that experience, which is why self-report keeps its advantage on traits related to neuroticism (Vazire, 2010).

Should I trust my own ratings on a personality test?

For internal traits nobody else can observe, yes. On evaluative traits, such as those related to intellect, informant ratings tend to be more accurate, and they predict outcomes such as job performance and academic achievement about as well as self-ratings, or better (Connelly & Ones, 2010).

How many people should I ask for feedback on myself?

Two or three tends to be enough, chosen for how well they know you rather than how often you see them, since closeness predicts rating accuracy more than frequency of contact does (Connelly & Ones, 2010).