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.g008: 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: A linear mixed model with the same repeated factors as above was conducted for the probability ratings of future competent and incompetent behaviors. There was no main effect of rating valence; F(1,74.91) = 0.39, p = .534, and no main effect for warmth; F(1,59.23) = 0.13, p = .715. There was a main effect for competence; F(1,69.56) = 8.76, p = .004, showing that targets who had showed competence were rated somewhat more likely to perform the various behaviors (M = 49.72, SE = 0.65) compared to incompetent targets (M = 47.91, SE = 0.76). More interestingly, a competence × rating valence interaction effect was found; F(1,60.52) = 66.66, p < .001 (Fig 8). There was no significant competence × warmth × rating valence interaction effect; F(1,63.00) = 3.26, p = .075. Pairwise comparisons showed that differences in probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors were significant for targets who had previously showed competence (MDiff = 10.76, SE = 1.66, p < .001). Differences in probability ratings were also significant among the incompetent targets (MDiff = -9.07, SE = 1.96, p < .001).


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.g008: 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: A linear mixed model with the same repeated factors as above was conducted for the probability ratings of future competent and incompetent behaviors. There was no main effect of rating valence; F(1,74.91) = 0.39, p = .534, and no main effect for warmth; F(1,59.23) = 0.13, p = .715. There was a main effect for competence; F(1,69.56) = 8.76, p = .004, showing that targets who had showed competence were rated somewhat more likely to perform the various behaviors (M = 49.72, SE = 0.65) compared to incompetent targets (M = 47.91, SE = 0.76). More interestingly, a competence × rating valence interaction effect was found; F(1,60.52) = 66.66, p < .001 (Fig 8). There was no significant competence × warmth × rating valence interaction effect; F(1,63.00) = 3.26, p = .075. Pairwise comparisons showed that differences in probability ratings of future competent and future incompetent behaviors were significant for targets who had previously showed competence (MDiff = 10.76, SE = 1.66, p < .001). Differences in probability ratings were also significant among the incompetent targets (MDiff = -9.07, SE = 1.96, p < .001).

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.