pocumemt resume - files.eric.ed.gov · .researchers,in the area of attribution theory have focused,...
TRANSCRIPT
POCUMEMT RESUME
AUTHORTITLE
_,11011 DATENOTE,-
E BS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
troxton, Jack S.; Miller, Arthur. G.'Impression Formationland the Attfibu ionAttitudes: "Sleeper" Effect?May BO20p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theMidwestern Psychological Association (52nd, St.Louis, Mitl,sMay 1-3, 1980) Best copy available.
1F61/PC01 Plus Postage.*Attitude change; *Attitude measures; *Attribution ,
Theory; *Behavior Theories; *Influences; Time Factors(Learning); *Time Perspective*Impression Formation
ABSTRACTRecent studies indicate that investigators.arenow-
focusing on the. cognitive determinants-of 't.he-.attribution ltoroCess:..however, few reSear- ers.are looking specifically at the attributionprocess. over time The itpactofattitudinal'and behavioral ..
information .cn mpression formation was studied to determine howimpressions changeover time. T.4 attitudinal information-given. to BO"-subjects consistedof_a'series at statements purportedly made by a.target person; the behavioral information consisted of. an, essaypurportedly written_' by.that person. Subjects were :told either thatthe essay. .position had been freely Chosen, by the target 'person ot4that-tie essay-pdsition had been' assigned. The influence Ilf-theessaywas initially -a function of eoth its contentand-dia*loSticity. Twoweeks later however, the diagnoStiCity of-the behavior exertedlittle influence. This result was similar to,the-"sleeper" effect inthe area of attitude change. Findings suggest that it may bedangerous to assume that the immediate discounting of a givenbehavior means that the impression of the actor will remainunchanged, or that the content ofthe behavior will be ignored..:(Author/KMF)
*** *** * ******** ** *** ** * ***ReproddetionS supplied by EDR5 are the beSt tha
from the original document.************ ******* ******* ************
* *** * *** * * #** * * **
can, be made
***
CQ
0
0
IMPRESSION FORMATION.ANb. HE ATTRiBUTIOH'OF-ATTITU6kS.-.7 -
A "S ES ER" EFFECT?
Jack S. Croxton.Sta_e University of New ydrk = College at FredOnia
A paper presenAssociation.
Arthur. G. MilleritY (Ohio.
at the 1980 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
U'S DEPARTMENT QF HEALTH.EDUCATION (WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATION
TEWL DOCUMENT FMTT1 BEET, E PF1O.
DUCED EXA1T1Y Ai pccroiro FOOMpEpwf., IJR opc,ANIzATIoN opirol-
AriNt-i IT PD,NTTL OF vi rod',TA TED DO NOT NFCFS', ARII_Y urpoSENT OFF AL NAT IONAL NT, T I TiiTi TE OFEr_3,r T pos. TION OR POI it v
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISwTERIAL EI EN OnANTiD RY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER. (ERIC=)
s
approach to the study of psychological 'issues. Nowhere
trend more dvdent than in the recent attempts to inves
,relationship between. Coglii 1-447a processes4
'and social behavior (cf.
OgistfIL
INTRODUCTION
e, currently advocating. an.intetdisciplinarY
Carroll & Payn 1976, Harvey Ickes, & Kidd, 1976, 1978;:Wyer 1974).Inpviduals mmonly find themselves in situations where they must
te ate',diverse types and often large quantities of information
and ubsequently make an interpretation or arriie at some type of
judgment based-upon their dilderstanding of that information.
.Researchers,in the area of attribution theory have focused,
on a common themes How ao pebple interpret their own behaviors
and the behaviors of otilers? Attribution 'theorists implicitlyassume that individuals are ntringically interested in the causes
,of behavior' since this enables them to anticipate and control the
behaVior Of others in given.eitilatione. Pntil recently, attrition
theorist6 .have hbt-d_ireet y investigated cognitive processes such
as encoding and retrieval. Rather, the focus has been on the
resultant attribution itself accompanied by an Implicit acknowledgment
of the 'intervening processes. Studies'using the typical attribution
paradigm have-converged in a number of well-corroborated findings?
The.eletent to which behavior is perceived to reflect an internal
disposition of an actor is positively related to the dygree to which,
that behavior appears tobe,free of any outside influences (Heider,
19581 Jones & Davis, 1965I.Kelley, 1971 This principle has been
demonstrated in- a-mutberAlf
19614 Steiner 19604 ,Thibaut &.klecken:.1955)
even hmmi potential constraints on the actor '.s behavior are, madE
quite evident,to an observer,, the tendency remainE4to assume that
- the behavior_ of an adtor-reflects the actor's true InalinatiOns.
Thid phenomenen has -been dimonstrated empii7ieally on a number of
differdnt occasions (Jones & Harr is ; 1967: Schneider & Miller; 19754
Snyder & jefitis; 1976: Miller, 1976)0' Stimulus --materials are9
-pieally in the form of an essay that has purportedly been written
by the actor.
Attribution theorists see thit individuals reflect on the
available information when asked `..to make an attribution of some type.
A few investigators are currently studying the relationship between
memory.and the attribution process. For example, Pryor and Kriss
(1977)in two related studies manipulated the salience of information
and found reaction times for recognizing the more salient information
to,beless and attributions of causality to be greater. Taylor andr ,
Fiske (1979) assumed that memory .might mediate perceptions .of
causality but their results were inconclusive. Harvey, Yarkin,
Li ter Breslauer, and-Strange (1978) found a positive relationship,
between the.number of causalstatements made by an observer when
asked to view an interpersonal encounter and the accuracy of recall
r the specifics of the interaction. The authors also discovered
that subjects who were given instructions to remember as much as
Tossible ebOut:the interaction were more apt to later.desorihe
it in terms -of causal units,:. -As these recent 'studies
,investigators are.now focusing on the cognitive detertirnints of
,:attributionprodesses. Relatively few researchers, however, -have
4
-lookedspecifically
time.Therefore the
.e attribution proC ol'er he co
or pu4000 ef the pros z 4. ex +p
determine how impress one and attributiondchangeivith the -pa a
to
of time.
An individual's impression of a given person ,should naturally
reflect the information made available about that person.. If
pattern of information differs from one individual to another,
their corresponding impressions-should reflect this difference.
However, behavioral inforMation may not always be consistent wi
previously held impression. In the present experiment we var
he, consistency between the pr or-information-provided about a
ven,person'and the subsequent behavior performed by that person.
I addition we varied the diagnosticity of that behavior. The
-reasions people form should be influenced by-the accumulation
of new information._ If a behavior of an actor 'ie consistent. with
th impression formed from previous statements-made by that actor,
Ite impression should be strengthened. If the behavior ,is incon-
sis ent however, the impression should Vs Weakened. Furthermere,
the impact of a given, behavior should be related-to its diagnos-. .
tiji Impression change should/be more likely,to result, when
the actor freely cheoSes:toengage in the.behaiiiori However such
chan
cons
should beiess likely when the actor's behavior has been
fined in some manner. ,Our goal west() test the above
pred4tions, both when the resulting impressions and attributions
easured immediately and when they are measured after a passage
-of.time.
rolETHOp'
A total of.80 subjects from the subject: pool of the
Two target pereOns were created by varying the attitude
purportedly ,ode each. Ten `liberal attitude statements
OW neutral statements were choler ..as those to be made by the
`Ten conservative attitude statements and
thes same ,ter} neutral statements were ehosen as those to be made
the Conservative get, Person. Two essays were also constructed,
\one generally favoring the legalita of- marijuana and one
general* op sing legalization.
The attitude stimuli were randomly displayed on a white screen
for apprOximately three seconds by a Kodak Ektographic RA-960
Random AcCess Projector., All subjects were told that. these
statements had been endorsed by a fellow undergraduate. Half.of
the subjects viewed the te'n liberal statements and the ten irrelevan
statements. The remaining subjects Viewed the ten conservative
statements and the same ten irrelevant .statements.,
All Aubjects were then given-an essay to read that had been
purofted1y written by the target person. eHalf of the subject-J.
were given the pro- marihuana essay to read and half were given the
- marijuana essay. Furthermore, half of the subjects were
told that the target person had freely chosen tha position taken
in the essay and half were told that the target person had been
as gned the position, taken.
The design consisted of a 2 (Target Pers nIg-attitudess Liberal
vs,. Conservative) X 2 (Essay Directions Pro-marijuana vs. Anti-
a) X 2 (Writer's Choices Free Choice vs. Assigned) complete
h 10 sub jects 'randomly. assi ned ,to each of the eight
experimental conditlenw.
After everyone had finished reading the e- ay subjec were-
asked to estimate the arget person's true attitude toward the
legalization of marijuana on a 0 Strongly Opposed) to (Strongly
Le.. Subjects were
which containedlthirty new attitude statements 'and were instructed
-in Favor) c given a deck of computer cards
.to:Tank the-statements:appearing on the cards from those: most likely
to be made by the target perfson to those least likely to be made
by that. person. These statementswere also rated by subjects on
a censervative-liberaldimension. A subject's rating of each
statement was -ffiultiplied-by its ranking. These resulting products
were summed in ,order to provide a measure o4 each sub ect's current:
impression of the tget person. Lower numbers indicated a more
liberal 4mpression and higher numbers indicated A sore conservative
impression. Subjects also simply rated the target person on a
0 (Conservative) to 10 (Liberal)
All participants returned approximately two weeks later. for
the second session. Afthis.tile ,subjects respOnded to the dependent
measures once again. At theconcluttion of the second session,
each p cipant was thanked for his or her parti.ci.pation in the
research projdct.
Results. The impact of the essay on subjects impressions was
assessed analyzing their ranking of the'attitude statements.
A marginally siinificant two-way interaction between essay direction
and constraint (F = 3.49, df = 1/79,-p( .10) reveals that:during-
the first session the effect of essay direction on subjects'
.,impressions was greater when the essay position was freely chosen
:trier than assigned. The nature-of the in
in Figure However analysis of the ranking
-weeks-lIter rev gIs nO-such interaction (
_njs displayed
collected two
=1/
Instead there is only amain effect for essay direction
14, df = 1/79, e(.05) Furthermore an analysis of the
change scores between the firitt and second sessions reveals that
the effect of essay direction is more pronounced at Time 2 than
at Time 1 (F = 4 03 df = 1/79. p<.05) This difference
displayed in Figure 2)..
An analysis of the ratings Of the target' person on
ConseryatiVe-Liberal dimension reveals a sign
ConStraint interaction -(F 7 8.99'0 df =1 79i,I):(41)fduring:the
first session. The effect of essay direction Al ratings was greater-
he
ficant Essay Direction
when the position taken in the essay had been freely chosen rather
than assigned. This interaction is- displayed in Figure 3. An
analysis of the ratings made two weeks later reveals no such
interaction (F = 2,50, df = 1/79, p-= ns).
Thus, the behavior engaged in by the target person did affect
subjects' impressions. HoWever0 the amount of constraint placed-,
on the target person when writing the essay only mediated this
effect when the impressions were measured immediately after subjec
had read the essay. Two weeks later, only the position taken in ,
the essay was significantly related to subjects' resultant impression;
As erected, attributions ofattitude were influenced by
the attitude information provided about the target person, the
position taken in the essay, and the constra nt..placed on the target
person when writing the essay.. The effect of essay direction
s much eatexe
hosen rather
gardiess of
resulting.int
when thS,' position-ion .t an -freely
assigned to the target p.erson., This Was true
th?spravious sttitude- inform**ion provided. The
raction between essay direction and constraint
tithin.each.Attitudeaonditiois,diSpianaphicallYinFigure 4.
This inters.
immediately
made two wee 'later me 1i
n was obtained b6th when the attribution was made
er reading the ess'ay and when the attributiOn was
df 1/79. p< 011 Time
sr pOit2 F:.= 40.550 df 1/79 p( .01). when the e.freely, chosen by the target ,person, the, effect of essay direction
on .attributions of attitude was SubStantial..(TiMe'it PH=489.94
p<.01;..Time .30.00 df = 1/39, p( .01) .,
However, when the essay position was purportedly assigned to the
targqpersenl,the effect of essay direction on attributions of
attitude was. minimal (Time it 7 = .170 df = 1/39, p = As: Time 2:
=.040 df
On the
inferma.ion
'.diagnostidi
was greater when. the essay position was assigned to the essay wr
rather than freely. chosen.. The interaction_ between attitude
information, and constraint was statistically significant both when
the attribution was made immediately after reading the essay and
when the 'attributionwaS made o weeks later (Time 1:.P
df = 091 134.01; Time 2: F = 1/79, p..05 When the
essay position was freely chosen by the target person,. the effect
on was
= 1/39, p = ns .
other hand, as expected, the effect of the attitude
on ,attribut ens was inversely related to the dss
That i the effect of-the attitude, nformat on
of atitude information on attributions was netattributions
F = 1.47, df = 1/39, P = ns; Time 2: F = 1.39, d
er
ign c t (Time is
= I/391 P no
However, when the essay position was purportedly assigned to the
target person, the effect of Attitude Direction on attributions
was substantial (Time 11 F = 16. df f 1/39; p<.01: Time 2,
= 10.64 df = 1/39. P4 .01 ) . In BUM, the utilization of the
behavioral information appears to have been directly related to
its diagnoSticity, while the utilization of the attitude information
was inversely related to the subsequent behavior's diagnosticity.
Overall, these results provide a, strong validation of previous
findings in the area of attitude attribution.
DISCUSSION
Based on our results can conelude'that individuals form
predictable impressions about others on the basis of specific
attitudinal information when combined with subsequent behavioral
information. It should beThoted that the attitude information
provided for subjects in this research contained no glaring in-
consistencies. In real life people's attitudes are probably not
as systematic as those presented here. In fact, at times people
may seem to be a bundle of contradictions. On the other hand,
certain behaviors are more informative about an individual'stl
true nature than others. In this research the, directionality ofo
the behavior (i.e., essay) was varied but each essay was only of
moderate strength. If the essay writer had appeared to take a
strong stand on the issue of the legalization of marijuana, the
impact of this information may.have been greater. A more detailed
investigation would involve* varying the strength as well as the
direction of the stimulus information. In fatt there may be ways
of solidifying an impression in the mind.of-a pereeiver other
1i)
than vary ng
-9-
ength. Te er- (1978 ) has demOnstrated that
attitudes toward a stimulus object become more polarized when
individuals are instructed to spend time thinking about that
object. Perhaps the Ampression of a target person can be
strengthened in an analogous manner by asking individuals to
think about the persoft,for a few minutes based on the information
provided. Another possibility is to have perceivers explicitly
describe the target person in writing. Either type of prObedure
might make the impression more resistant to change.A:
As in other attribution studies, we have found th
of behavioral direction on attributions of attitude is less when
e effect
the behavior has been constrained in some manner. Moreover, thisH
is true regardleas of whether the attribution is made immediately
or later in time. -Howeverd the lack of Any essay direction effect
in the assigned condition appears to be inconsistent with earlier
results which indicate that observers tend to continue to make
attributionafof attitude consistent with the essay position even whe3'
the position has been assigned. The majority of these previous
studies,- however did not specifically create a behavioral expectanc
Jones, Worchel, Goethals, and Grumet (1971) did manipulate behaviora
expectancies and discovered that when weak essays were written
Ander constraint conditions and were inconsistent with the behaviore
expectancy, judges attributed attitudes in reverse of the essay's
directionality. Since a behavioral expectancy was created in the
present research, and since the essays used were only moderate in',
strength, the lack of any direction effect in the assigned conditioy
is not surprising.-
The finding that attributions made two weeks later paralleled
use made immediately after reading the e
its of a- re'iont study conducted by Jon0
-(1979)R d'Auattrone
vheitti authobs, origirially thought that the
information t be fgrFotten later. Therefore, the
that the attributions of perceivers who were initiall
that-lhe essay position had been assigned.would later
assigned
p edicted
ormed
shift in a
direction more correspondent ith.the essay position. However,
they discovered thatthis was not the'ease. The results of our
research are consistent with this finding.
Perhaps the most interesting outcome of our research is the
finding that initially the influence of a behavior on people's
impressions is a function of both its direction and its diagnosticity.
As time passes however, the diagnosticity of that behavior becomes
less important. The dims nishing effect of the'constraint information
is analogous to a sleeper effect in the area of attitude Change.
Previous results indicate that the information in a pei-suasive
communication tends to be remembered while related information.
Concerning the source's credibility tends to be forgotten (Hovland &
Weiss, 1951: Kel an '& Hovland, 1953). In the present case; the
position t_aen iii the essay was apparently remembered two weeks
later:while the accompanying constraint information no longer
exerted, effect. Of course, if the essays had themselves been.
extremely strong.the constraint information may have wielded little
influence either initially or later. In any case, it does appear
that With the passage,'of time certain types of information may
assume more weight than others and that later impressions tend to
reflect this diffetence.
Apparently the constrain4
_a on was impo
perceivers when it had direct licgtions judgment to be
made, such as an attribution. However, the directionality of
the essay took precedence over the accompanying constraint infol
mation when perceivers were asked to indicate- their general impression
of the target person. This result may have certain practical
implications. Suppose, for example, that a prisoner or war or a
hostage makes a series .of, unpatriotic statements,. Observers May.
readily acknowledge that the behavior was constrained and they may
also assume that these statements are not an accurate reflection
of the person's true attitudes. However, if the results of this
research are ey -.cation, impressions of the person may still
change as a result of the person's behayior. Thus it may be
dangerous to assume that the i )ediate discounting of a given
behavior means that the impression of the actor will remain
undhanged or that the content of the behavior will be ignored.
Whatever direction future research in this area should take,
it promises to be both provocative and stimulating. more importantly,
the outcome of such re -carob should contribute substantially to
better understanding of human behavior.
'Conserva ve 2500
L AL. ...,
2450
2400
235C
2300
2
200
_)()
tido
zuf)t)
U
Pr,o-mari Juanaessay
o Antl-mari anaessay
yy 24 '4 A A
1 .1 .and At[5 costrain, (¼L 1)
Conservative 2500
2400
2350
2300
2250
2200
2ItA
2100
zW,0
zouo
A
Anfl-marijo8naessay
o Pro-mail JUdlicie6bay
1 A
_- joana essayPro arl Juana- essay
ti,,i,e gnedA5, a t A
1 . .ti e ii. Ion a f.htiotL ut LAN Llirtk1un WI I, dill( 1
Pro 10
Anti.
9
2 -
1
Choice
Atticuc1e 5t.
Pro
9 -
8 --o
7
6-0
5 -
0
cjUr LAttr;buLion of 3t..tit 4. :1,ALI-LIpn dt_and writer's constraint (Tir,e 1)
aL_ Anti-marijuanaessay
Pro-Tarijuanaessay
Coice
,=Jn6.e_rva
_ -.,itude_hera, essa :21rec.:ionlt,
,
HEFERENCES
Carroll, J.S.: Payne, J.W. (Eds.). Cognition and social behavior.Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1976.
Harvey, J.H., Ickes, & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.). New direction inattribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NI s Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, 197 .
Harvey, J. I., Ickes, W.J. & Kidd, R.F. (Eds.attribution research (V.01. 2). HillsdaleAssociates, 1978.
'Harvey, J.H., Yarkin, K.L. Lightner, J.M., Breslauer, H.S., &Strange, A.L. Unsolicited interpretation and recall of interper-sonal events. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-western Psychological Association, 1978.
Heider, F. Th&ml.asholo of inter ersonal relations. New York:John Wiley & Sons, 195 .
Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. The influence of source credibility oncommunication effectivenesp. Public Opinion quarterly, 1951,11, 635-650.
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K From acts to dispositions' The attributionprocess in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances nex erimental social gyshology (Vol. 2). New York: AcademicPress, 19 .
New directions inawrence ErlbaumJ.1
Jones, EE., Davis, K.E., & Gergen, K.J. Role playing variationsand their information value for persozl perception. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Ps cholo 1961, 302-310.
Jones, E.E., & Harris, V.A. The attribution of attitudes. Journalof erlmental 1967, 2, 1-24.
Jones, E.E., Riggs,-J.M., & Quattrone, G. Observer biasattitude attributimm paradigm' Effect of time and infoorder. Journal of PersonalitY and Social Psycholo
Jones, g.E., Worchel, S., Goethals, G.R.;& Grumet, Priorexpectancy and behavior extremity as determinants of attitudeattribution. Journal of Ex:erimcntal Social Ps cholcZ. 59-80.
Kelley, H.H. Attribution in social interracti.on. Morristown. N.J.GenerpkLearning Press, 1971.
Kelman, H.C., & Hovland, C.I. "Reinsta emen of the communicatuLin delayed measurement of opinion ch nge. ournal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1953, 48, 327*335.
Miller, A.G. Constraint and target affects in the attribution ofattitudes. Journal of Ex erimental Social Ps cholo 1976,la. 325-339
Pryor, J.Bi, & Kriss, M. The cognitive dynamics of salience in theattribution process. .1211171g12fp2E222211tySocial Psychology,1977. 35, 49-55
theation
1971,
Schneider, D.J., & Miller, R.S. The` effects of enthusiasm and(auali of arguments on attitude attribution. Journal of Per on1975. 693-708.
nyder, M., & Jones, F.E. Attitude attribution when behavior isconstrained. talasipyg2.1PscholocJournalofE), 1974,10_, 585-600.
Steiner, I.D. Field, W.L. Role assignment and interparsonalinfluence. Journal of Abno m and Social Ps cholo 1960, 61,
Taylor, S.F., & Fiske, S.T. Point of view and perceptions ofcausality. 1975,la, 439-445
Thibaut, J.W., & Riecken,of the perception of s1955, 2 113-133.
H.R. Some determinants and consequencescial causality.r Journal of Personality,