Beyond the information given : capacity, context and the categorization process in impression formation
Date
1996
Authors
Reynolds, Katherine Jane
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
This thesis exammes the impression formation process, with
particular reference to the distinction between individuated and
stereotypic impression formation. The emphasis is on issues such as:
What factors influence our impressions? When are impressions based
on a person's individual qualities? When do we form stereotypic
impressions of others? What processes underpin the formation of more
individuated or stereotypic impressions? Two theoretical perspectives,
social cognition and self-categorization theory, offer divergent
explanations of the impression formation process and are the
theoretical and empirical focus of the thesis. The argument developed
in recent impression formation models based on the social coguition
approach is that there are two impression formation processes.
Categorization is defined as the process used to form stereotypic
impressions, and a categorization-free process is thought to underlie
individuated impression formation. Whether one process or the other
operates is determined by motivational factors which impact on the
level of attention allocated to impression formation, such that
increased attention is inversely related to stereotyping. Alternatively,
self-categorization theory argues that the types of impressions we form
of others are the product of the relational, comparative and contextdependent
aspects of social perception. The same categorization
process, but operating at different levels of abstraction - interpersonal
or intergroup - is argued to underlie variations in impression
formation. Historical and contemporary developments related to both
perspectives are outlined.
There are four theoretical chapters which address: 1) the early
person perception and stereotyping literature (Chapter 2); 2) key
models of impression formation (Chapter 3); 3) the social cognition
analysis of the categorization process (Chapter 4); and 4) social
identity theory and self-categorization theory (Chapter 5). Based on
the theoretical analysis two main points of distinction between selfcategorization
theory and the social cognition approach emerge: 1)
whether attentional capacity or the salient level of categorization can best account for variations in impression formation; and 2) whether
both stereotypic and individuated impressions are formed through the
same categorization process. These issues frame the empirical work of
the thesis.
Four experiments are reported. Experiments 1 and 2 (chapters
6 and 7), directly examined whether variability in impression
formation is due to different levels of attentional capacity or the
defining social comparative context - interpersonal or intergroup. In
these studies interdependence (Experiment 1) and accuracy goals
(Experiment 2) together with the salient comparative context were
manipulated. Overall, there was no systematic evidence that subjects
formed more individuated impressions under conditions thought to
motivate the allocation of attentional resources (in interdependent and
accuracy goal conditions). However, results suggest that more
individuated impressions were formed in interpersonal contexts and
that stereotyping increased under conditions where ingroup-outgroup
categorizations were salient.
The role of categorization m impression formation is then
examined in experiments 3 and 4 (chapters 8 and 9). Is it the case, as
self-categorization theory would predict, that all impressions are
formed using the same categorization process? It is argued in these
chapters that if it can be shown that self-other similarities and
differences are accentuated when both individuated and stereotypic
impressions are formed, then this would provide evidence of
categorization. In these two experiments, the findings suggest that
self-other context-dependent accentuation is the basis of impression
formation in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. The results of
Experiment 4, in particular, indicate that individuated impressions
are as much based on relative self-other interpersonal judgements as
stereotypic impressions are based on relative intergroup comparisons.
The results of these studies enable us to draw some conclusions about
the relative accuracy of individuated and stereotypic impressions and
the role of the categorization process in impression formation. In the
final chapter future directions for research are outlined.
Description
Keywords
Citation
Collections
Source
Type
Thesis (PhD)
Book Title
Entity type
Access Statement
License Rights
Restricted until
Downloads
File
Description