Information to Users
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 BIASES IN IMPRESSION FORMATION. A DEMONSTRATION OF A BIVARIATE MODEL OF EVALUATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Wendi L. Gardner, M.A. The Ohio State University 1996 Dissetation Committee: Approved by John Cacioppo, Adviser Gary Berntson Marilynn Brewer UMI Number: 9639240 UMI Microform 9639240 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 i ABSTRACT Research in the area of impression formation has consistently revealed systematic asymmetries in the impact of positive and negative attributes on the overall evaluation of a target. A positivity bias, such that neutral targets are evaluated in a favorable fashion, and a negativity bias, such that negative information carries greater weight in impressions, are hallmarks of these asymmetries. Many theories have been presented to explain both the positivity and negativity biases in impression formation, however all have implicitly assumed a single, bipolar, reciprocally activated evaluative dimension. The current analysis proposes a general model of evaluation that can accomodate both the positivity and negativity biases that are frequently found in the impression formation literature. The bivariate model of evaluation challenges the traditional bipolar perspective by asserting that positivity and negativity are separable evaluative substrates, founded on distinct neural mechanisms, that can be reciprocally, independently, or jointly activated. In addition the activation functions for positivity and negativity are hypothesized to differ. For example, the model proposes a "positivity offset" for the evaluative system, or in other words, predicts that the organism will respond positively without the presence of positive or negative information. The model also proposes a "negativity bias" within the evaluative system such that negative information is weighted more heavily than positive information, and thus, negativity often has greater impact on impressions and behavior. ii The current work was designed to test several hypotheses of the bivariate model through examining attitudes that were created towards fictional persons and animals during an impression formation task. Each of the studies was designed to test the predictions of the bivariate model as well as alternative explanations for the biases present in the impression formation literature. The predictions of the bivariate model of evaluation were supported across all five studies. The positivity offset and negativity bias were evidenced despite varying the diagnosticity of the information presented, and were demonstrated for both human and non-human targets. Implications of these findings for other models of biases in impression formation, and for evaluative processing in general, are discussed. The bond that links your true family is not one o f mere blood, but o f respect andjoy in each other's life. Richard Bach Dedicated to all of the members of my family ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, John Cacioppo, for the intellectual support, encouragement, and enthusiasm that made this research both possible and pleasurable. I thank the members of the Social Cognition Research Group and the Social Psychophysiology Lab Group for their discussions and suggestions for the research at it's early stages. I am grateful to John Krosnick for the genesis of Study Three, as well as for stimulating conversations concerning the three-stage model of evaluation. I also wish to thank Jennifer Welbourne, both for discussing various aspects of the reseach with me, and for her patience and assistance during the writing of the manuscript. VITA July 30, 1968........................Born - Washington D.C. 1992.........................................B.A., Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida 1994.........................................M.A., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1990 - present......................... Graduate Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Research Publications 1. Brewer, M.B. & Gardner, W.L. Who is this "we"? Levels of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 71. 83-93. 2. Crites, S.L., Cacioppo, J.T., Gardner, W.L. & Berntson, G.G. (1995). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categorization: II. A late positive brain potential that varies as a function of attitude registration rather than attitude report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 68, 997-1013. 3. Gardner, W.L. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1995). Multi-gallon blood donors: Why do they give? Transfbsion. 10. 795-798. 4. Richardson, D.R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., Gardner, W.L., & Signo, M. (1994). Empathy as a cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior. 20. 275-289. vi 5. Cacioppo, J.T., Crites, S.L., Gardner, W.L., & Berntson, G.G. (1994). Bioelectrical echoes from evaluative categorization: I. A late positive brain potential that varies as a function of trait negativity and extremity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67. 115-125. 6. Cacioppo, J.T. & Gardner, W.L. (1993). What underlies medical donor attitudes and behavior? Health Psychology. 12. 269-271. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Psychology TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract...........................................................................................................ii Dedication...................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... v Vita................................................................................................................. vi List of Tables..................................................................................................x List of Figures................................................................................................xi Chapters: 1. Introduction.........................................................................................1 2. Study One........................................................................................ 22 3. Study Two........................................................................................30 4. Study Three..................................................................................... 38 5. Studies Four and Five.....................................................................44 6. General Discussion......................................................................... 50 Page Bibliography 71 Appendices: APPENDIX A: Illustrations and Figures...................................................... 81 APPENDIX B: Behaviors Used in Each Study........................................... 92 APPENDIX C: Instructions and the BEAMs..............................................105 APPENDIX D: Cover Story for Studies Three through Five.....................123 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Correlations among positivity, negativity, and ambivalence ..91 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. A bivariate model of evaluation.............................................................. 82 2. The activation functions of positivity and negativity..............................83 3. Changes in impressions of Sam in Study One....................................... 84 4. Changes in impressions of Sam in response to morality relevant behaviors in Study Two............................................................85 5. Changes in impressions of Sam in response to ability relevant behaviors in Study Two............................................................86 6. Changes in impressions of Sam after initially viewing non-diagnostic neutral behaviors in Study Three.................................. 87 7. Changes in impressions of the Aguaphore fish in Study Four..............88 8. Changes