The impact of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on knowledge accessibility effects.

Abstract Many models of social judgment assert that both the interpretation of a perceived target stimulus and the comparison of this stimulus to a relevant standard are important components of the impression formation process. The present research examines the consequences of the activation of mindsets corresponding to these components for the use and impact of accessible knowledge on subsequent judgments. The findings of three studies support the hypothesis that accessible knowledge is more likely to produce assimilative interpretation effects when an interpretation goal is activated, whereas contrastive comparison effects occur when a comparison goal is activated. These goal × knowledge priming effects occurred without perceivers being aware of having or working toward these mindsets during the target task. Implications for models of knowledge accessibility effects and other social phenomena are discussed.

[1]  P. Herr,et al.  Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. , 1986 .

[2]  J. Pligt,et al.  The Referents of Trait Inferences: The Impact of Trait Concepts Versus Actor-Trait Links on Subsequent Judgments , 1996 .

[3]  T. K. Srull,et al.  The Role of Category Accessibility in the Interpretation of Information About Persons: Some Determinants and Implications , 1979 .

[4]  Differential-effects of Priming At the Encoding and Judgment Stage , 1991 .

[5]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. , 1989 .

[6]  J. Bargh.  The automaticity of everyday life. , 1997 .

[7]  D A Stapel,et al.  Let’s Not Forget the Past When We Go to the Future: On Our Knowledge of Knowledge Accessibility , 2001 .

[8]  P. Devine.  Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. , 1989 .

[9]  C. Sedikides.  Effects of Fortuitously Activated Constructs Versus Activated Communication Goals on Person Impressions , 1990 .

[10]  Tom Postmes,et al.  Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. , 1998 .

[11]  L. Newman,et al.  When are You What You Did? Behavior Identification and Dispositional Inference in Person Memory, Attribution, and Social Judgment , 1993 .

[12]  B. Major,et al.  Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control , 1991 .

[13]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Stereotypes and social judgment: Extremity, assimilation, and contrast. , 1988 .

[14]  E. Higgins,et al.  Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. , 1996 .

[15]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing. , 1996 .

[16]  S. E. Taylor,et al.  Social comparison activity under threat: downward evaluation and upward contacts. , 1989, Psychological review.

[17]  M. Zeelenberg,et al.  The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: accuracy x knowledge accessibility effects. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  John J. Skowronski,et al.  The Law of Cognitive Structure Activation , 1991 .

[19]  H. Helson.  Adaptation-level theory : an experimental and systematic approach to behavior , 1964 .

[20]  Paul W. Paese,et al.  Contrast Effects on Strategic-Issue Framing , 1996 .

[21]  John B. Pryor,et al.  Sexual harassment proclivities in men , 1987 .

[22]  Joop van der Pligt,et al.  Categories of Category Accessibility: The Impact of Trait Concept versus Exemplar Priming on Person Judgments ☆ , 1997 .

[23]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Superstars and me : Predicting the impact of role models on the self , 1997 .

[24]  W. S. Rholes,et al.  Category accessibility and impression formation , 1977 .

[25]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Effects of mindset on positive illusions. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[27]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. , 1994 .

[28]  W. Koomen,et al.  Let's not forget the past when we go to the future: On our knowlegde of knowledge accessibility effects , 2001 .

[29]  M. Biernat,et al.  Simultaneous assimilation and contrast effects in judgments of self and others. , 1997, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[30]  P. Carnevale,et al.  Social values and social conflict in creative problem solving and categorization. , 1998 .

[31]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  An individual differences perspective on assessing cognitive processes. , 1996 .

[32]  R. Hastie.  Person memory : the cognitive basis of social perception , 1980 .

[33]  Y. Trope.  Identification and Inferential Processes in Dispositional Attribution. , 1986 .

[34]  R. Cialdini,et al.  Preference for Consistency: The Development of a Valid Measure and the Discovery of Surprising Behavioral Implications , 1995 .

[35]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[36]  L. L. Martin,et al.  Set/reset: use and disuse of concepts in impression formation. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[37]  J. Suls,et al.  Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. , 1991 .

[38]  Seymour Sudman,et al.  Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research , 1995 .

[39]  Norbert Schwarz,et al.  Constructing reality and its alternatives: an inclusion/ exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment , 1992 .

[40]  M. Manis,et al.  Judging psychopathology: Expectation and contrast , 1984 .

[41]  P. Herr,et al.  On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects , 1983 .

[42]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Automatic Activation of Impression Formation and Memorization Goals: Nonconscious Goal Priming Reproduces Effects of Explicit Task Instructions , 1996 .

[43]  Eliot R. Smith,et al.  Category accessibility as implicit memory , 1988 .

[44]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Effects of Epistemic Motivations on the Use of Accessible Constructs in Social Judgment , 1995 .

[45]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influences of media events: a cognitive-neoassociation analysis. , 1984, Psychological bulletin.

[46]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources. , 1989 .

[47]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives , 1986 .

[48]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Flexible correction processes in social judgment: the role of naive theories in corrections for perceived bias. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.