Professors Randall Colvin of Northeastern University and David Funder of the University of California, Riverside, are two psychologists who have conducted research into the accuracy with which people judge a "target"-individual. They have compared the accuracy of judgments of a target-person made by acquaintances against those made by strangers.

Funder and Colvin's studies show that, among college students, judgments about a target person made by acquaintances of the individual tend to be similar; judgments made about the same target-person by strangers, by comparison, tend to diverge from one another. 

People who know the target-person also can predict how the target-person thinks about him or herself better than can strangers.

Yet a 1991 study also by Funder and Colvin introduces a complication (abstract). In that study, both longer-term acquaintances and strangers interacted with a target person for five minutes. Then, the acquaintances and strangers were asked to predict how the target-person would behave in the future. 

One month later, the target-person was asked to interact with a new person for five minutes, while being videotaped. Independent coders rated the target person's videotaped behaviors in that new interaction. 

Results of this study indicated that the strangers and the acquaintances of the target had been equally good at predicting the target-person's videotaped interaction when they had made their predictions one month earlier.  The strangers and acquaintances predicted the target's liveliness, anxiety, sensitivity and nonconformity at equal levels. So, when it comes to predicting someone's behavior, strangers may not be at an obvious disadvantage.

Colvin and Funder's findings can be applied to the Fact magazine poll of psychiatrists.

In the libel trial that followed the Fact poll, Mr. Goldwater had expressed his opinion on the witness stand that none of the psychiatrists knew him: He had never consulted any of those psychiatrists professionally, he said, and doubted he ever had met any of them socially.

Some of the psychiatrists who responded to the Fact poll saw matters a bit differently. Four of the psychiatrists who wrote into Fact claimed to know Mr. Goldwater personally or socially. Three of the four signed their names. As Colvin and Funder might have predicted, the four psychiatrists who knew the Senator agreed among themselves: all four shared positive opinions of Mr. Goldwater. One wrote:

"I have known Goldwater personally for 40-plus years. He is not out of touch with reality."

Another:

"...As a psychoanalyst with over 40 years experience, and with the opportunity of observing Goldwater at firsthand (though not as a personal or professional acquaintance but because I reside in the same general area as he)...he is exceptionally well-adjusted..."

A third lived in Phoenix and had seen Goldwater speak in person:

"...I have had the privilege of hearing Mr. Goldwater in person and over television several times...when I have observed Mr. Goldwater directly, I have been impressed with his emotional stability and emotional control... "

The fourth acquaintance of Goldwater wrote:

"I have known Goldwater for several years and He is a good man and well able to serve the Country in any capacity. He is not a neurotic and as often as I have seen Him and after more than thirty years as a psychiatrist I should be able to determine His mental reactions."

The agreement and positivity of these four responses are in striking contrast to the rest of the poll, in which there was considerable diversity of opinion, and far more negative reactions -- including descriptions of the Senator as "grossly psychotic," and "schizophrenic."

If we voted in the presidential election of 1964, the opinions of the four psychiatrists who knew Goldwater might have reassured us as to the Senator's mental health at the time (if we were patient enough to locate those letters amidst all the other published letters in the poll).

Colvin and Funder's research suggests, however, that a psychiatrist's degree of familiarity with Goldwater's character might not influence whether they could predict the Senator's behavior better than others.

So, we are left with an intriguing -- but ultimately inconclusive -- state of affairs. The four "knowers-of-Goldwater" in the Fact poll all believed Goldwater to be mentally stable, whereas many of those who did not know Goldwater believed the Senator to be mentally disordered. Those who know a person possess some advantage in judging him or her, but not necessarily an advantage in the key realm of predicting the person's future behavior.

Notes

Goldwater's testimony was covered in two NY Times articles: "I'm going to show you..." Burks, E. C. (1968, May 7). Goldwater never mentally ill, wife testifies at libel trial. New York Times, p. 21., and in Burks, E. C. (1968, May 10). Defense attacks calm Goldwater. New York Times, p. 15.

All quotes from letters are from Boroson, W. (1964, September/October). What psychiatrists say about Goldwater. Fact, 1, pp. 24-64. An anonymous writer: "I have known Goldwater personally" (p. 31). Reginald B. Weiler wrote "...As a psychoanalyst with over 40 years experience," (p. 54). I have known Goldwater for several years... (p. 36) - signed by F. S. Marnell, M. D. of San Diego. Robert T. Dean, Jr., M.D. of Phoenix wrote: I have had the privilege of hearing Mr. Goldwater (p. 45).

Revisions: Lightly copyedited for clarity and flow: + 24 hours of posting.

Copyright © 2009 John D. Mayer