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.


Competence ratings across the 17 trials for mainly competent and mainly incompetent targets.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0175210.g006: Competence ratings across the 17 trials for mainly competent and mainly incompetent targets.

Mentions: Similar analyses were conducted for the competence ratings, where behavior along the competence dimension influenced competence ratings (Table 2). In addition, warmth ratings influenced competence ratings, in that warm targets were rated as more competent. Also, the developed warmth × developed competence interaction effect was significant. The interaction revealed that warmth influenced competence ratings the most when the target was competent, so that targets that were both warm and competent were rated as most competent. Competent targets were rated as more competent on the last compared to the first trial; MDiff = 9.92, SD = 12.54, t(71) = 6.70, p < .001, and incompetent targets as more incompetent on the last compared to the first trial; MDiff = 11.83, SD = 12.67, t(71) = 7.92, p < .001 (Fig 6). The mean difference between the first and the last ratings were not significant between competent and incompetent targets; t(71) = 1.04, p = .301.


Judgments of warmth and competence in a computerized paradigm: Little evidence of proposed impression formation asymmetries
Competence ratings across the 17 trials for mainly competent and mainly incompetent targets.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone.0175210.g006: Competence ratings across the 17 trials for mainly competent and mainly incompetent targets.
Mentions: Similar analyses were conducted for the competence ratings, where behavior along the competence dimension influenced competence ratings (Table 2). In addition, warmth ratings influenced competence ratings, in that warm targets were rated as more competent. Also, the developed warmth × developed competence interaction effect was significant. The interaction revealed that warmth influenced competence ratings the most when the target was competent, so that targets that were both warm and competent were rated as most competent. Competent targets were rated as more competent on the last compared to the first trial; MDiff = 9.92, SD = 12.54, t(71) = 6.70, p < .001, and incompetent targets as more incompetent on the last compared to the first trial; MDiff = 11.83, SD = 12.67, t(71) = 7.92, p < .001 (Fig 6). The mean difference between the first and the last ratings were not significant between competent and incompetent targets; t(71) = 1.04, p = .301.

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.