Effect of Diagnosis and Personality on Impression Formation1

Nurses were asked to rate patients differing in diagnosis and personality type. Two diagnosis conditions (psychogenic or physiogenic) were compared across two personality conditions: Mr. Cummings, a hypothetical patient presented to nurse/subjects via audiotape, willingly disclosed information about his illness in a nonemotional manner; while Mr. Lockwood, the second “patient”, disclosed less and was more emotional. Two control conditions were also included: One measured subjects' reactions to the personality type independent of diagnostic label; the second determined nurses' stereotypic reactions to the two diagnostic labels alone. Subjects reacted more favorably to Mr. Cummings than to Mr. Lockwood regardless of Cummings' diagnosis. Nurses' impressions of Mr. Lockwood, on the other hand, varied as a function of his diagnosis.     

Deceit as a function of sex of subject and target person

Thirty male and female undergraduates were run in same- and opposite-sex pairs to determine if the extent of experimentally sanctioned deceit would be influenced by sex pairings and potential for harm to another's self-esteem. Ss, who all believed they were playing the role of a teacher in a learning experiment, were instructed to provide false feedback (lie) at least three times during 30 trials to a learner, the other S. Consistent with hypotheses derived from a consideration of the potential harm to another's self-esteem and a suggested norm of white lying, perceived relative importance of male and female sex roles, and greater female concern for the social welfare of others, it was found that white lies occurred significantly more often than lies, that males were significantly more likely to give false feedback than females, that females were the target of false feedback significantly more often than males, and that the interaction between sex of S and sex of target person was also significant in that males lied to females more than any other sex pairing.This research was partially supported by the New Mexico Highlands University Institute of Scientific Research. A brief version of this report was presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association meeting, Denver, May, 1974.