{"title":"Two modes of social impressions and their effects on choice.","authors":"Leor M Hackel, Peter Mende-Siedlecki","doi":"10.1037/xge0001432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Our memories of other people shape how we interact with them. Yet, even when we forget exactly what others said or did, we often remember impressions that capture a general gist of their behavior-whether they were forthright, friendly, or funny. Drawing on fuzzy trace theory, we propose two modes of social impression formation: impressions formed based on ordinal gist (\"more competent,\" \"less competent\") or categorical gist (\"competent,\" \"incompetent\"). In turn, we propose that people gravitate toward the simplest representation available and that different modes of memory have distinct consequences for social decisions. Specifically, ordinal impressions lead people to make decisions based on an individual's standing relative to others, whereas categorical impressions lead people to make decisions based on discrete classifications that interpret behavior. In four experiments, participants learned about two groups of individuals who differed in their competence (Studies 1a, 2, and 3) or generosity (Study 1b). When participants encoded impressions as ordinal rankings, they preferred to hire or help a relatively good target from a low-performing group over a relatively bad target from a high-performing group, even though both targets behaved identically and accuracy was incentivized. However, when participants could use categorical boundaries to interpret behavior, this preference was eliminated. In a final experiment, changing the category participants used to encode others' generosity changed their impressions, even when accounting for memory for verbatim details. This work links social impressions to theories of mental representation in memory and judgment, highlighting how distinct representations support divergent patterns of social decision-making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"3002-3020"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001432","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Our memories of other people shape how we interact with them. Yet, even when we forget exactly what others said or did, we often remember impressions that capture a general gist of their behavior-whether they were forthright, friendly, or funny. Drawing on fuzzy trace theory, we propose two modes of social impression formation: impressions formed based on ordinal gist ("more competent," "less competent") or categorical gist ("competent," "incompetent"). In turn, we propose that people gravitate toward the simplest representation available and that different modes of memory have distinct consequences for social decisions. Specifically, ordinal impressions lead people to make decisions based on an individual's standing relative to others, whereas categorical impressions lead people to make decisions based on discrete classifications that interpret behavior. In four experiments, participants learned about two groups of individuals who differed in their competence (Studies 1a, 2, and 3) or generosity (Study 1b). When participants encoded impressions as ordinal rankings, they preferred to hire or help a relatively good target from a low-performing group over a relatively bad target from a high-performing group, even though both targets behaved identically and accuracy was incentivized. However, when participants could use categorical boundaries to interpret behavior, this preference was eliminated. In a final experiment, changing the category participants used to encode others' generosity changed their impressions, even when accounting for memory for verbatim details. This work links social impressions to theories of mental representation in memory and judgment, highlighting how distinct representations support divergent patterns of social decision-making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.