Distributional theories of impression formation

This paper examines theories of impression formation which represent stimulus information as distributions on subjective dimensions rather than points along a continuum. These theories explain why unfavorable information often overrides favorable information. Subjects were asked to imagine hypothetical persons described by single adjectives or adjective combinations and to estimate the probability that each person would have various degrees of likeableness. Three models were considered to describe how the likeableness distribution for the adjective combination depends on the distributions of the single adjectives. All three models assume that the mean of the distribution for the adjective combination is described by the equal probability criterion which, for symmetric distributions, implies a weighted average of the single adjective means with weights inversely proportional to their standard deviations. The models can be distinguished on the basis of the standard deviations of the adjective combinations. Estimated standard deviations of the single unfavorable adjectives were smaller than those for the single favorable adjectives. Furthermore, the standard deviation associated with an adjective combination tended to fall between the standard deviations of the single adjectives, consistent with the horizontal averaging model.     

Dogmatism and information gathering in personality impression formation

Subjects were assigned the task of forming an impression of another person with information being gathered from two conflicting sources. One half were given a positive first impression, and one half were given a negative first impression before allowing them to select additional information. Final ratings were made when Ss indicated that they had taken sufficient information. Dogmatic Ss took in less information before passing “final judgment,” gave more extreme stability ratings, expressed greater liking for their agreed-with source, and showed a trend toward a preference for explaining away impression-discrepant information rather than to withhold judgment.     

A robust attribution error in the personality domain

The error of inferring dispositional causes for constrained behavior was investigated in the domain of personality. Subjects were randomly assigned to write essays presenting themselves as strongly introverted or extraverted. Within groups, subjects exchanged essays and estimated the actual (self-rated) introversion/extraversion of the writer. The procedure minimized the likelihood of certain factors conducive to correspondent inference, e.g., the low salience of constraint or nonrepresentative sample of dispositions among essay writers. The experiment included an instructional set variable which involved accentuating the situational constraint or reinforcing the subjects' inclination to individuate the writer. In all conditions, a significant pattern of correspondent inference occurred, with attributions aligned to the directionality of the essays. The results, consistent with findings from attitude attribution research, suggest that the direction of the essay provides an initial hypothesis of correspondent inference. Subjects may then use their impression of the essay's extremity as a basis upon which to adjust their attribution in accord with the constraint of the position assignment.     

Folk personality psychology: mindreading and mindshaping in trait attribution

Character-trait attribution is an important component of everyday social cognition that has until recently received insufficient attention in traditional accounts of folk psychology. In this paper, I consider how the case of character-trait attribution fits into the debate between mindreading-based and broadly ‘pluralistic’ approaches to folk psychology. Contrary to the arguments of some pluralists, I argue that the evidence on trait understanding does not show that it is a distinct, non-mentalistic mode of folk-psychological reasoning, but rather suggests that traits are ordinarily understood as mentalistic dispositions. I also examine several ways in which trait attribution might also serve regulative, ‘mindshaping’ functions by promoting predictable norm-governed behavior, and argue that mindreading plays several important roles in these cases as well. I conclude that an appreciation of the relationship between trait attribution and mindreading is crucial to understanding the role it plays in our folk psychology.

     

Interpersonal distance and impression formation

Impression formation was examined as a function of interpersonal physical distance in an interview. It was predicted that a confederate would be rated less socially active as the distance between him and the subject increased. The hypothesis was supported by a significant negative linear trend in the composite ratings of friendliness, aggressiveness, extraversion, and dominance A variation in this trend, indicating that confederates seated closest to the subject were seen as less socially active, was explained in terms of compensatory behaviors minimizing the effect of close physical proximity     

Self-actualization and impression formation1

Self-actualization (SA), assessed by scores on the Personal Orientation Inventory, was related to interpersonal behavior in two person perception experiments. SA moderated both personality impression ratings of stimulus persons presented singly and person preference choices in a paired comparisons paradigm. In general, self-actualized individuals were found to be more extreme in their responses to social stimuli than were non-self-actualized individuals. Results were discussed in terms of previous attempts to assess the relationship between SA and cognitive processing.     

Negativity and potency effects in impression formation

This study examined the combined effects of likeability-related and potency-related information in an impression formation setting, using a 2 (likeability of target behaviour: high/low)×2(potency: high/low) design. Presumably, the behaviour of a strong, dislikeable person can produce more severe consequences than the behaviour of a weak, dislikeable or a strong, likeable person and, consequently, should be perceived as more informative. As predicted, judgements of the target person's likeability and potency indicated that (a) dislikeable behaviour carries more weight in likeability judgements when it co-occurs with strong than with weak behaviour, and that (b) strong behaviour carries more weight in potency judgements when it co-occurs with dislikeable than with likeable behaviour. These results suggest that the informativeness of behaviour is not only a function of its perceived causes (i.e. underlying dispositions) but also of its potential consequences for others.     

Three weighting criteria in impression formation

When several items of information are combined to give an overall judgement, it is usually found that some kinds of item are given greater weight than others. This study examines the relations between three criteria which judges may use in deciding how to apportion these weights. The criteria of evaluative direction and extremity have of ten been studied within impression formation, while demonstrations of the influence of ambiguity have produced unclear findings. Simple models of the combination of these three criteria are shown to be inadequate and a more complex account is suggested. A study is reported in which divergence between the criteria of extremity and ambiguity results in a generally greater bias to negative. This effect is related to other studies of the influence of inconsistency, and range adjustment model of the judgement process is extended to take it into account.     

An adding result in impression formation

Ss were presented with a highly polarized piece of information, followed by a same-signed moderately polarized piece of information, and were asked whether the second piece of information led them to like the person describedmore, less, or just the same. The obtained percentage ofadding responses was 65%; that is, most of the responses indicated that Ss impression of the person described became more polarized following addition of moderately polarized information (p <.001). More adding was obtained for negatively than for positively evaluated adjectives (p <.05).