Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

Two studies examined the heuristic and systematic processing of accuracy- versus impression-motivated individuals expecting a discussion with a partner believed to hold either a favorable or unfavorable opinion on the discussion issue. Given the goal of having a pleasant interaction, impressionmotivated (versus accuracy-motivated) participants in both studies were particularly likely to express attitudes that were evaluatively consistent with the partner's opinion, reflecting their selective use of a "go along to get along" heuristic. Study 2 yielded stronger evidence for the distinct nature of heuristic and systematic processing in the service of accuracy versus impression goals. In this study, the evaluative implication of impression-motivated participants' low-effort application of a "go along to get along" heuristic biased their more effortful, systematic processing, leading to attitudes consistent with the partner's views. In contrast, given the goal of determining an accurate issue opinion, accuracy-motivated participants exhibited relatively evenhanded systematic processing, resulting in attitudes unbiased by the partner's opinion. The results underscore the utility of a dual-process approach to understanding motivated cognition. Intuition and experience suggest that various motives can influence the way in which people process information and the judgments that result. That is, the motivated perceiver's cognitive processes will be a direct reflection of the goals that they are intended to satisfy. Using the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980, 1987; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework, the present research aims to elucidate the distinct ways in which accuracy versus impression motives are served by both heuristic and systematic processes.

[1]  Doris G. Bazzini,et al.  Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of well-grounded attitudes: Implications for change and for subsequent behavior , 1995 .

[2]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitudes and attitude change. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[3]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Accountability and complexity of thought. , 1983 .

[4]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[5]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Communication and persuasion , 1986 .

[6]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[7]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages , 1992 .

[8]  V B CLINE,et al.  INTERPERSONAL PERCEPTION. , 1964, Progress in experimental personality research.

[9]  M. Snyder.  Public Appearances, Private Realities: The Psychology of Self-Monitoring , 1986 .

[10]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Attitudes and Attitude Change , 1987 .

[11]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

[12]  E. Higgins,et al.  Handbook of motivation and cognition : foundations of social behavior , 1991 .

[13]  Philip E. Tetlock,et al.  Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology - a useful dichotomy , 1985 .

[14]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Appeals to image and claims about quality: Understanding the psychology of advertising. , 1985 .

[15]  J. Bargh,et al.  Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. , 1982 .

[16]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. , 1994, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  J. Bargh.  The ecology of automaticity: toward establishing the conditions needed to produce automatic processing effects. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

[18]  Blair T. Johnson,et al.  Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis , 1989 .

[19]  G. Moskowitz,et al.  Goal effects on thought and behavior , 1996 .

[20]  D. Katz.  THE FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF ATTITUDES , 1960 .

[21]  Kenneth G. DeBono.  Investigating the social-adjustive and value-expressive functions of attitudes: Implications for persuasion processes. , 1987 .

[22]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. , 1992 .

[23]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[24]  M. Deutsch,et al.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[25]  James T. Tedeschi,et al.  1 – Identities, the Phenomenal Self, and Laboratory Research , 1981 .

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

[27]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[28]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[29]  Jerome S. Bruner,et al.  Opinions and Personality. , 1956 .

[30]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Handbook of Social Cognition , 1993 .

[31]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. , 1996 .

[33]  B. R. Schlenker.  Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[34]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. , 1979 .

[35]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[36]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. , 1983 .

[37]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Selective Use of Heunrstic and Systematic Processing Under Defense Motivation , 1997 .

[38]  Curtis D. Hardin,et al.  Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. , 1996 .

[39]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion , 1984 .

[40]  M. Snyder.  Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. , 1974 .

[41]  L. Ross,et al.  The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes , 1977 .

[42]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Working Knowledge, Cognitive Processing, and Attitudes: On the Determinants of Bias , 1996 .

[43]  Diane M. Mackie,et al.  Systematic and nonsystematic processing of majority and minority persuasive communications. , 1987 .

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

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

[46]  John A. Bargh,et al.  Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. , 1990 .

[47]  J. Bargh,et al.  Automaticity in action: The unconscious as repository of chronic goals and motives. , 1996 .

[48]  M. R. Leippe,et al.  When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. , 1987 .

[49]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[50]  R. Sorrentino,et al.  The case of the mysterious moderates: Why motives sometimes fail to predict behavior. , 1977 .

[51]  M. Brewer.  A dual process model of impression formation. , 1988 .

[52]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[53]  Jerome S. Bruner,et al.  Opinions and personality , 1957 .

[54]  F. Strack,et al.  Awareness of influence as a precondition for implementing correctional goals. , 1996 .

[55]  William Ickes,et al.  The Role of Sex and Self-Monitoring in Unstructured Dyadic Interactions , 1977 .

[56]  P. Tetlock,et al.  Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[57]  Michael A. Becker.  Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles , 1998 .

[58]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[59]  T. K. Srull,et al.  A Dual process model of impression formation , 1988 .

[60]  J. Tedeschi.  Impression Management Theory and Social Psychological Research , 1981 .

[61]  J. Bargh,et al.  The Role of Consciousness in Priming Effects on Categorization , 1987 .

[62]  Eliot R. Smith.  Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. , 1994 .

[63]  E. Higgins.  Achieving 'Shared Reality' in the Communication Game: A Social Action That Create; Meaning , 1992 .

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

[65]  M. Snyder,et al.  A functional approach to attitudes and persuasion: The Ontario Symposium , 1987 .