Limits...
Judgments of warmth and competence in a computerized paradigm: Little evidence of proposed impression formation asymmetries

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Much of what we know concerning impression formation is based on experimental methods where the participant receives a list of traits or behaviors and is asked to make trait judgments or meta-cognitive judgments. The present study aimed to put some well-known effects from the impression formation literature to a test in a more dynamic computerized environment, more akin to many real world impression formation scenarios. In three studies participants were introduced to multiple target persons. They were given information about the target persons’ behavior, one at a time, while making ratings of their warmth and competence, and their probability of performing related behaviors in the future. In neither of the studies the negativity effect of warmth or the positivity effect of competence were reproduced.

No MeSH data available.


Mean probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors.Ratings of targets with previously mainly competent or mainly incompetent behavior. Error bars represent standard errors.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5384683&req=5

pone.0175210.g004: Mean probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors.Ratings of targets with previously mainly competent or mainly incompetent behavior. Error bars represent standard errors.

Mentions: As in experiment 1, probability ratings were analyzed in a repeated measure ANOVA with target competence (previously competent vs. previously incompetent) and competence rating (future competent vs. future incompetent) as within-subject variables. There was no main effect of target competence (F(1,95) = 1.39, p = .240, η2 = 0.01), but there was a near-significant main effect of competence rating ((F(1,95) = 3.80, p = .054, η2 = 0.03) in that competent behaviors overall were rated as somewhat more likely to be conducted (M = 51.37, SE = 0.71) than incompetent behaviors (M = 48.77, SE = 0.93). As expected, a significant target competence × competence rating interaction was found (F(1,95) = 101.62, p < .001, η2 = 0.51, Fig 4). Pairwise comparisons showed that differences in probability ratings of competent vs incompetent behaviors were somewhat larger for targets who had previously shown competence (MDiff = 14.42, SE = 1.81, p < .001) than for targets who had previously shown incompetence (MDiff = -9.23, SE = 1.73, p < .001). The difference was near significant; M = 5.19, SD = 26.06, (t(95) = 1.95, p = .054.


Judgments of warmth and competence in a computerized paradigm: Little evidence of proposed impression formation asymmetries
Mean probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors.Ratings of targets with previously mainly competent or mainly incompetent behavior. Error bars represent standard errors.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5384683&req=5

pone.0175210.g004: Mean probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors.Ratings of targets with previously mainly competent or mainly incompetent behavior. Error bars represent standard errors.
Mentions: As in experiment 1, probability ratings were analyzed in a repeated measure ANOVA with target competence (previously competent vs. previously incompetent) and competence rating (future competent vs. future incompetent) as within-subject variables. There was no main effect of target competence (F(1,95) = 1.39, p = .240, η2 = 0.01), but there was a near-significant main effect of competence rating ((F(1,95) = 3.80, p = .054, η2 = 0.03) in that competent behaviors overall were rated as somewhat more likely to be conducted (M = 51.37, SE = 0.71) than incompetent behaviors (M = 48.77, SE = 0.93). As expected, a significant target competence × competence rating interaction was found (F(1,95) = 101.62, p < .001, η2 = 0.51, Fig 4). Pairwise comparisons showed that differences in probability ratings of competent vs incompetent behaviors were somewhat larger for targets who had previously shown competence (MDiff = 14.42, SE = 1.81, p < .001) than for targets who had previously shown incompetence (MDiff = -9.23, SE = 1.73, p < .001). The difference was near significant; M = 5.19, SD = 26.06, (t(95) = 1.95, p = .054.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Much of what we know concerning impression formation is based on experimental methods where the participant receives a list of traits or behaviors and is asked to make trait judgments or meta-cognitive judgments. The present study aimed to put some well-known effects from the impression formation literature to a test in a more dynamic computerized environment, more akin to many real world impression formation scenarios. In three studies participants were introduced to multiple target persons. They were given information about the target persons&rsquo; behavior, one at a time, while making ratings of their warmth and competence, and their probability of performing related behaviors in the future. In neither of the studies the negativity effect of warmth or the positivity effect of competence were reproduced.

No MeSH data available.