Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
Past research has shown that conventional strategies of persuasion tend to be ineffective against... more Past research has shown that conventional strategies of persuasion tend to be ineffective against people who are highly certain of their beliefs. To change the beliefs of such individuals, we devised a paradoxical strategy that consisted of posing superaUitudinal leading questions (questions that encouraged respondents to make statements that were consistent with, but more extreme than, their own viewpoints). We expected that individuals who were high in belief certainty would resist such questions and, therefore, change their beliefs in the opposite direction. To test this reasoning, we used either a conventional or a paradoxical strategy to change people's beliefs about women's roles. As suggested by earlier research, the conventional strategy was effective in changing the beliefs of targets who were low in belief certainty only. In contrast, the paradoxical strategy was effective in changing the beliefs of targets who were high in belief certainty only. A follow-up investigation replicated this effect and indicated that paradoxical injunctions change people's positions on belief dimensions rather than their perception of the dimension itself. The implications of these findings for an understanding of the interpersonal mechanisms that generate stability and change in people's beliefs are discussed.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
How do attempts to regulate one's own behavior affect the inferences one draws about others? We s... more How do attempts to regulate one's own behavior affect the inferences one draws about others? We suggest that perceivers draw dispositional inferences about targets (characterization) and then adjust those inferences with information about the constraints on the targets' behaviors (correction). Because correction is more effortful than characterization, perceivers who devote cognitive resources to the regulation of their own behavior should be able to characterize targets but unable to correct those characterizations. In Experiment 1, unregulated subjects incidentally ignored an irrelevant stimulus while they observed a target's behavior, whereas self-regulated subjects purposefully ignored the same irrelevant stimulus. In Experiment 2, unregulated subjects expressed their sincere affection toward a target, whereas self-regulated subjects expressed false affection. In both experiments, self-regulated subjects were less likely than unregulated subjects to correct their characterizations of the target. The results suggest that social interaction (which generally requires the selfregulation of ongoing behavior) may profoundly affect the way in which active perceivers process information about others.
Three studies examined the implicit (nonconscious) and explicit (conscious) self-concepts of peop... more Three studies examined the implicit (nonconscious) and explicit (conscious) self-concepts of people who varied in their degree of exposure to individualistic cultures. Studies 1 and 2 compared the implicit and explicit self-concepts of recent Asian immigrants with those of ...
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989
Three factors were identified that uniquely contribute to people's global self-esteem: (a) people... more Three factors were identified that uniquely contribute to people's global self-esteem: (a) people's tendencies to experience positive and negative affective states, (b) people's specific self-views (i.e., their conceptions of their strengths and weaknesses), and (c) the way people frame their self-views. Framing factors included the relative certainty and importance of people's positive versus negative self-views and the discrepancy between people's actual and ideal self-views. The contribution of importance to people's self-esteem, however, was qualified in 2 ways. First, importance contributed only to the self-esteem of those who perceived that they had relatively few talents. Second, individuals who saw their positive self-views as important were especially likely to be high in self-esteem when they were also highly certain of these positive self-views. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings are discussed. award (MH 00498) to William B. Swann, Jr. We are grateful to
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989
Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek... more Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek subjectively accurate feedback (self-verify). Consistent with self-enhancement theory, people with low self-esteem as well as those with high self-esteem indicated that they preferred feedback pertaining to their positive rather than negative self-views. Consistent with self-verification theory, the very people who sought favorable feedback pertaining to their positive self-conceptions sought unfavorable feedback pertaining to their negative self-views, regardless of their level of global self-esteem. Apparently, although all people prefer to seek feedback regarding their positive self-views, when they seek feedback regarding their negative self-views, they seek unfavorable feedback. Whether people self-enhance or self-verify thus seems to be determined by the positivity of the relevant self-conceptions rather than their level of self-esteem or the type of person they are.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
Person perception includes three sequential processes: categorization (what is the actor doing?),... more Person perception includes three sequential processes: categorization (what is the actor doing?), characterization (what trait does the action imply?), and correction (what situational constraints may have caused the action?). We argue that correction is less automatic (i.e., more easily disrupted) than either categorization or characterization. In Experiment 1, subjects observed a target behave anxiously in an anxiety-provoking situation. In Experiment 2, subjects listened to a target read a political speech that he had been constrained to write. In both experiments, control subjects used information about situational constraints when drawing inferences about the target, but cognitively busy subjects (who performed an additional cognitive task during encoding) did not. The results (a) suggest that person perception is a combination of lower and higher order processes that differ in their susceptibility to disruption and (b) highlight the fundamental differences between active and passive perceivers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
Past research has shown that conventional strategies of persuasion tend to be ineffective against... more Past research has shown that conventional strategies of persuasion tend to be ineffective against people who are highly certain of their beliefs. To change the beliefs of such individuals, we devised a paradoxical strategy that consisted of posing superaUitudinal leading questions (questions that encouraged respondents to make statements that were consistent with, but more extreme than, their own viewpoints). We expected that individuals who were high in belief certainty would resist such questions and, therefore, change their beliefs in the opposite direction. To test this reasoning, we used either a conventional or a paradoxical strategy to change people's beliefs about women's roles. As suggested by earlier research, the conventional strategy was effective in changing the beliefs of targets who were low in belief certainty only. In contrast, the paradoxical strategy was effective in changing the beliefs of targets who were high in belief certainty only. A follow-up investigation replicated this effect and indicated that paradoxical injunctions change people's positions on belief dimensions rather than their perception of the dimension itself. The implications of these findings for an understanding of the interpersonal mechanisms that generate stability and change in people's beliefs are discussed.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
How do attempts to regulate one's own behavior affect the inferences one draws about others? We s... more How do attempts to regulate one's own behavior affect the inferences one draws about others? We suggest that perceivers draw dispositional inferences about targets (characterization) and then adjust those inferences with information about the constraints on the targets' behaviors (correction). Because correction is more effortful than characterization, perceivers who devote cognitive resources to the regulation of their own behavior should be able to characterize targets but unable to correct those characterizations. In Experiment 1, unregulated subjects incidentally ignored an irrelevant stimulus while they observed a target's behavior, whereas self-regulated subjects purposefully ignored the same irrelevant stimulus. In Experiment 2, unregulated subjects expressed their sincere affection toward a target, whereas self-regulated subjects expressed false affection. In both experiments, self-regulated subjects were less likely than unregulated subjects to correct their characterizations of the target. The results suggest that social interaction (which generally requires the selfregulation of ongoing behavior) may profoundly affect the way in which active perceivers process information about others.
Three studies examined the implicit (nonconscious) and explicit (conscious) self-concepts of peop... more Three studies examined the implicit (nonconscious) and explicit (conscious) self-concepts of people who varied in their degree of exposure to individualistic cultures. Studies 1 and 2 compared the implicit and explicit self-concepts of recent Asian immigrants with those of ...
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989
Three factors were identified that uniquely contribute to people's global self-esteem: (a) people... more Three factors were identified that uniquely contribute to people's global self-esteem: (a) people's tendencies to experience positive and negative affective states, (b) people's specific self-views (i.e., their conceptions of their strengths and weaknesses), and (c) the way people frame their self-views. Framing factors included the relative certainty and importance of people's positive versus negative self-views and the discrepancy between people's actual and ideal self-views. The contribution of importance to people's self-esteem, however, was qualified in 2 ways. First, importance contributed only to the self-esteem of those who perceived that they had relatively few talents. Second, individuals who saw their positive self-views as important were especially likely to be high in self-esteem when they were also highly certain of these positive self-views. The theoretical and therapeutic implications of these findings are discussed. award (MH 00498) to William B. Swann, Jr. We are grateful to
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1989
Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek... more Three studies asked why people sometimes seek positive feedback (self-enhance) and sometimes seek subjectively accurate feedback (self-verify). Consistent with self-enhancement theory, people with low self-esteem as well as those with high self-esteem indicated that they preferred feedback pertaining to their positive rather than negative self-views. Consistent with self-verification theory, the very people who sought favorable feedback pertaining to their positive self-conceptions sought unfavorable feedback pertaining to their negative self-views, regardless of their level of global self-esteem. Apparently, although all people prefer to seek feedback regarding their positive self-views, when they seek feedback regarding their negative self-views, they seek unfavorable feedback. Whether people self-enhance or self-verify thus seems to be determined by the positivity of the relevant self-conceptions rather than their level of self-esteem or the type of person they are.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1988
Person perception includes three sequential processes: categorization (what is the actor doing?),... more Person perception includes three sequential processes: categorization (what is the actor doing?), characterization (what trait does the action imply?), and correction (what situational constraints may have caused the action?). We argue that correction is less automatic (i.e., more easily disrupted) than either categorization or characterization. In Experiment 1, subjects observed a target behave anxiously in an anxiety-provoking situation. In Experiment 2, subjects listened to a target read a political speech that he had been constrained to write. In both experiments, control subjects used information about situational constraints when drawing inferences about the target, but cognitively busy subjects (who performed an additional cognitive task during encoding) did not. The results (a) suggest that person perception is a combination of lower and higher order processes that differ in their susceptibility to disruption and (b) highlight the fundamental differences between active and passive perceivers.
Uploads
Papers by Brett Pelham