Choice test of the averaging hypothesis for information integration

The averaging hypothesis of information integration was tested in two experimental tasks. Both supported the averaging hypothesis and infirmed the adding hypothesis. In Experiment I, Ss judged the likableness of persons described by personality-trait adjectives, then rated the importance of one or all of the individual traits. These importance ratings suggested that differential weighted averaging could account for a certain nonadditivity that has obtained with negative traits. In Experiment II, Ss chose which of two personality descriptions would be more likable. This critical test supported the averaging model, which predicted that adding moderately favorable to highly favorable information would produce a less favorable response.

[1]  C. Hendrick,et al.  Averaging vs Summation in Impression Formation , 1968 .

[2]  N. Anderson,et al.  Combining visual and verbal information in an impression-formation task. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  N. Anderson.  Application of an Additive Model to Impression Formation , 1962, Science.

[4]  N. Anderson.  Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  R. L. Arms,et al.  Adding versus averaging as a stimulus-combination rule in forming impressions of groups. , 1968 .

[6]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Differential weighting in integration theory. , 1971 .

[7]  N. Anderson.  Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment. , 1971 .

[9]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Two More Tests against Change of Meaning in Adjective Combinations. , 1971 .

[10]  Eugene Galanter,et al.  Handbook of mathematical psychology: I. , 1963 .

[11]  N. Anderson.  On the quantification of Miller's conflict theory. , 1962, Psychological review.

[12]  S S Stevens,et al.  To Honor Fechner and Repeal His Law: A power function, not a log function, describes the operating characteristic of a sensory system. , 1961, Science.

[13]  R. Wyer,et al.  Context effects in impression formation. , 1969, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  Norman H. Anderson,et al.  Component ratings in impression formation , 1966 .

[15]  R. Shepard.  Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. , 1964 .

[16]  N. Anderson,et al.  Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  R M Dawes,et al.  The evaluation of complex social stimuli. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  W. Griffitt,et al.  Context effects in impression formation as a function of context source , 1970 .

[19]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. , 1957, Journal of experimental psychology.

[20]  A. Parducci.  Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[21]  N. Anderson.  Integration theory and attitude change. , 1971 .

[22]  N. Anderson.  Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. , 1970, Psychological review.

[23]  C. Schmidt,et al.  A paired-comparisons paradigm for investigating person perceptions , 1970 .