Impression formation I

Question 1

the basic paradigm - what Asch found

Answer 1

Ss formed a unified impression

Ss went beyond the information given

Question 2

order effects - the primacy of first impressions

Answer 2

“You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”

Ss received list of trait words either:
A)intelligent-industrious-impulsive-critical- stubborn-envious or
B)envious-stubborn-critical-impulsive-industrious-intelligent

Question 3

results of the primacy effect

Answer 3

Info in each list exactly the same, but resulting impression very different…
A) seen as competent and ambitious – more positive views
B) seen as overly emotional and socially maladjusted – impressions more negative

Knock-on effects – give additional info – to what extent is person also … more inclined to add pos traits in after if had pos words first

The primacy effect – stuff get at beginning drives overall impression

Question 4

other studies that illustrate PEs

Answer 4

Anderson & Barrios (1961): person described first as positive, then negative = more likeable

A more naturalistic demonstration: Park (1986) - traits you ascribe to a person endure over time – groups of 7 met each other every week for 7 weeks – after each week write down verbal descriptions of others in group – what kind of info provided at beginning, middle and end – any kind of shift? - did stuff at start alter what they though at the end – traits ascribed in v. first week – most likely to still be repeated in week 7

Jones et al. (1968) - order affects judgements of ability, too – have to start off well

Implications for real life: recruitment settings; how essays are marked – make sure reader knows where it is going

Question 5

Jones et al. (1969)

Answer 5

Participants looked at folders of student performance:
A. 10 out of first 15 correct, 5 out of last 15 correct (started well, but faded)
B. 10 out of first 15 incorrect, 5 out of last 15 incorrect (started poorly, but improved)
(and control where correct/incorrect equally spread)

Rated person’s ability or competence

A rated higher than control, B rated as least competent

Question 6

trait centrality

Answer 6

Basically - some traits are more important in shaping impression than others

Famous ‘Warm’ and ‘Cold’ study

Ss received either
A)intelligent-skillful-industrious-warm-determined-practical-cautious or
B)intelligent-skillful-industrious-cold-determined-practical-cautious
Completed trait rating task

Question 7

trait centrality results

Answer 7

Ss receiving list A said target was generous, wise, happy, good-natured, humorous

Ss receiving list B said target was the opposite of these

Question 8

other trait centrality studies

Answer 8

Polite-blunt vs warm-cold - less impact – more fundamental distinction – hardwired to do – warm has lots of positive aspects

Bargh – study 1 – primed Ps with temp – hot coffee to hold/iced coffee – had to do Asch warm cold task – rate person read about – rated sig warmer if holding hot coffee – 4.71 v 4.25

Study 2 – product evaluation task – warm or cold pad to evaluate – knock-on effect – does it make you a nicer person – choose gift for friend or themselves – warm = more likely to choose friend – 54 v 46%

Question 9

impression formation in the lecture theatre

Answer 9

Kelley (1950) - gave student expectation A or B about guest lecturer

After lecturer left, trait rating task, similar results obtained

Also, students more likely to engage in discussion if led to believe he was warm than cold (56% vs. 32%)

Widmeyer & Loy (1988) - same expectancies but afterwards Ss rated lecturer on teaching ability

Warm lecturer seen as more effective teacher, more sociable, less formal

Question 10

central traits

Answer 10

create expectancies, which in turn influence interpretation of new info

Question 11

implicit personality theory

Answer 11

We acquire assumptions about which traits do and do not go together

…we develop implicit theories about personality

Bruner & Tagiuri (1954) - impressions we form are influenced by general rules we hold about relationships between traits

e.g., positive goes with positive, negative with negative

This can lead to bias…

Question 12

the halo effect

Answer 12

You learn a person is very honest

Chances are you’ll also assume he or she is generous, reliable, etc.

You mould new info to fit this impression…

You subsequently see person giving advice to another => attribution of helpful (as opposed to bossiness or interference)

Rule also applies to negative impressions

Question 13

Nisbett and Wilson (1977)

Answer 13

Students watched videotape of professor who expressed either positive or negative attitudes to students

Ss who saw pleasant version rated appearance, NVC and accent more positively – less difficult to understand

Question 14

the halo effect and physical attractiveness

Answer 14

Dion , Berscheid, & Walster (1972): Attractive individuals rated more positively on traits than average individuals, who were rated higher than less attractive individuals

Plus…attractive persons more likely to be in relationships, successful in relationships, have high-status jobs and to be happier overall

Extends to other settings – e.g. the court room – attractive defendant given less severe sentence

Question 15

not all pos traits go together

Answer 15

Traits have descriptive meanings that influence association

e.g., cautious and bold - both are positive, but imply opposite behaviours

So…IPT is influenced by both evaluative (e.g., +/-) and descriptive meaning

Question 16

Anderson (1962, 1965)

Answer 16

2 stage model

1. Evaluative rating assigned to each trait
2. Values combined into a single likeability rating

e.g., you meet a person who is:
intelligent, practical, boring and short

Question 17

assigning +/- weights

Answer 17

Assign a +/- rating to each trait (Anderson’s 555 item trait list)
intelligent = +9; practical = +1; boring = -3; short = -5

Overall impression could = sum of these (9 + 1 -3 -5 = 2)

Or better, the average of these (9 +1 -3 -5 = 2/4 = +.5, i.e., marginally positive)

Question 18

other ways to assign weights

Answer 18

Some traits are given more weightso…overall impression = product of a weighted average

To make this clearer…

According to Anderson, the weighted model is best

Question 19

how can the weighted model account for some of Asch’s findings?

Answer 19

Central traits given extra weight because they are important to overall evaluation

The importance/weight assigned to trait reflects how much attention it receives

Question 20

factors influencing attention

Answer 20

order

direction

extremity

Question 21

order

Answer 21

Pay attention to what comes first, less to what comes later

Says PE is not due to early traits influencing impression, rather, it’s down to differential weighting and attention

If instructed to pay equal attention to all items, primacy effect eliminated (Anderson & Hubert, 1963)

Question 22

direction

Answer 22

Negative traits weighted more than positive traits (Skowronski & Carlston, 1989)

Question 23

extremity

Answer 23

Extremity effects - traits with extreme evaluative meaning given more weight (Fiske, 1989) – e.g. vindictive

Question 24

Asch’s holistic approach

Answer 24

Asch would not agree with algebraic interpretations - why not?

Believed traits are perceived and understood in relation to each other

So, can’t produce an integrated impression by evaluating traits in isolation

Indirect support for Asch: Hamilton, Katz, & Leirer (1980)

The change-of meaning effect: Same trait interpreted differently depending on what other traits are with it - support for Asch: - e.g. proud

Hamilton & Zanna (1974); Watkins & Peynircioglu (1984)

Asch & Zukier (1984): Resolving inconsistencies

Question 25

Okten et al. (2019)

Answer 25

Three experiments examined updating of spontaneously formed trait inferences (STIs) and evaluative inferences (SEIs) as a function of the contingency information that alters the meaning of the initial information. All three studies showed that perceivers update their SEIs (both positive and negative) immediately after learning about the contingencies (i.e., transforming information). STIs, however, were not updated, even when the contingency information was provided immediately after the initial behavior information (Experiment 3). Instead, in all three experiments participants formed multiple STIs; one from the behavior information before and one from the information after the contingency. It was only when participants had the opportunity to elaborate on their trait judgments within explicit measures that they revised their judgments and aligned them with the contingency information.