This article was downloaded by: [University of Victoria] On: 08 April 2015, At: 23:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
The Effect of Selective Attention on Communicating Personality Impressions Raymond P. Perry
a
a
University of Manitoba , Canada Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Raymond P. Perry (1976) The Effect of Selective Attention on Communicating Personality Impressions, The Journal of Social Psychology, 98:1, 121-130, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9923373 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9923373
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal o f Social Psychology, 1976, 98, 121-130.
T H E EFFECT O F SELECTIVE ATTENTION ON COMMUNICATING PERSONALITY IMPRESSIONS*1*2 University of Manitoba, Canada
RAYMONDP. PERRY
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
SUMMARY An area in person perception that researchers have not considered closely involves the communication of personality impressions from one person to another. This experiment investigated the role of attention in impression communication with the use of Norman’s model of selective attention. Specifically, it was hypothesized that selective attention facilitates communication accuracy. The Ss were 56 paid undergraduate volunteers, 28 males and 28 females, ranging in age from 18 to 24. Three encoding groups of 12 Ss each were given identical videotaped object person information, but Group I was instructed to attend to the object persons’ physical characteristics, Group I1 to forming accurate personality impressions, and Group I11 received no instructions. All groups were tested for recall of physical characteristics and also were requested to write down their impressions of each object person. Decoders were presented with the same videotapes and then matched each encoded impression with the correct referent. Results showed Group I recalled significantly more physical characteristics ( p < .001), while Group I1 communicated personality impressions most accurately ( p < .001). The data were interpreted as supporting Norman’s model.
A. INTRODUCTION Attention is recognized as occupying a central role in cognitive functioning and, consequently, should have a direct influence on various interpersonal judging processes. An examination of the person perception literature reveals
*
Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on October 29, 1974. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. 1 This research was supported by a Canada Council predoctoral fellowship (W705162) and was carried out in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, University of Calgary. The author is grateful to his thesis supervisor, J. E. Boyd, for his advice and encouragement and to the other members of the thesis committee, C. G. Costello, V. Corfield, and J. Ells, for their critical readings of the thesis. Some parts of this study were presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal, 1972. 2 Requests for reprints should be sent to the author at the address shown at the end of this article.
121
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
122
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
no systematic analysis of attention effects although certain stimulus attributes of the object person are recognized as having cueing properties which influence the final personality judgment. Information about attention-like processes has generally come from other areas of research which have evolved sophisticated theories based on both human ( 2 ) and infrahuman Ss (6, 16, 1 7 ) . In studying attention and memory functions, researchers have presented Ss with geometric figures, nonsense syllables, etc. and then tested recall. Clearly parallels exist between processing this kind of information and the impression formation process in which certain information is retrieved from memory and incorporated into the personality impression. Moray ( 7 ) identified six concepts of attention currently in use in the psychological literature, while Posner and Boise ( 15) suggest in their review that attention research can be categorized into at least three major groupings: alertness, information selection, and limited central processing capacity. Although all three groupings are an integral part of the overall attention process, the latter two appear more central to interpersonal judging activities where personality assessments depend on the information sampled ( c f . 1). Frequently in interpersonal situations we are met with a kaleidoscope of information of which only a small part is incorporated into the final impression, raising a question about the determinants of information selection. How often have we been asked to comment on the color of a friend’s apparel and not been able to remember, even though we have been exposed to that information? Several human information processing theories of attention have been proposed ( c j . 2, 4, 18) which attempt to account for the storage and retrieval of different kinds of information. These theories rely heavily on a limited capacity processing system which consists of two stages: short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). In the first stage, physical energy or stimulation is translated into nervous impulses by the sensory receptors, and these are transmitted as signals along neural pathways to STM. The important point to note in this respect is that all stimuli impinging on the receptors are conveyed to STM. Once in STM the information is available for further processing into LTM for a very short period of time after which it fades and is replaced with additional incoming signals. In the second stage, information passes from STM into LTM ; however, because the channels between the two memories are of limited capacity, only certain information enters LTM. A selective attention mechanism is posited to handle the information overload which chooses only part of the information in STM for transfer into LTM. Once in LTM the information is available for future use. Recently, Norman outlined a selective attention mechanism which appears
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
RAYMOND P. PERRY
123
potentially useful for investigating interpersonal judging processes (8, 9 ) . Consistent with previous theories, attention is posited as the mechanism responsible for selecting which information has access to LTM. However, in order for a particular item to receive attention, it must first be activated by two factors: sensory input and pertinence. Sensory input is simply the physical presence of a stimulus and its representation in STM. Pertinence refers to the psychological aspects of input as determined by the individual’s expectations and linguistic system. Suppose that sensory input caused storage items a, 6, and c to be highlighted and that pertinence activates storage representations c, d, and e. The common element ( c ) which receives stimulation from both sensory input and pertinence is the most activated and consequently is selected by the attention mechanism for further processing. A person’s name ( c ) presented dichotically with a number of other words ( a , b ) at the same intensity will be readily attended to and recalled because of its psychological pertinence to the person. It is important to note two basic characteristics of this model. First, because of limited capacity, not all the information impinging on the receptors is totally processed (that is, permitted to pass into LTM). Secondly, information not placed in LTM is totally lost for retrieval after a very short period of time. The information fades in STM and is quickly replaced by other incoming signals. Consider a typical interpersonal judging situation. According to this model ( a ) not all information pertaining to the stimulus complex or object person can be processed, and consequently certain attributes may be attended to, such as style of clothes and facial features, while others are ignored; (6) only that information placed in LTM is available for future reference. If some particular item of information is important to accuracy but was not attended to and stored, the judge would not be able to recall the item, and accuracy would be impaired. The implications of this analysis are especially important for such individuals as clinicians, counsellors, or personnel officers who must make accurate judgments about people. It is essential that they make accurate predictions about the object person’s behaviors and communicate accurately personality impressions of the object person. This predisposition toward accurate personality analysis would cause the assessor to seek selectively information about the object person which would enhance behavior prediction and would facilitate impression communication accuracy. The question remains whether such information-seeking strategies do, in fact, make a person more accurate in his interpersonal judging ability. Person perception researchers have examined interpersonal judging behavior from two perspectives: the process approach and the accuracy approach.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
124
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Asch’s classic study (1) of the warm-cold variable is representative of process studies which attempt to investigate the impact of certain variables on the ensuing personality judgment. Accuracy researchers, on the other hand, have been primarily interested in the veridicality of the judgments (cf. 3). More recently Perry and Boyd (11) suggested that in addition to these two activities, interpersonal judging patterns involve the communication of personality impressions between people. They argue that a good part of the impression formation process is devoted to the exchange of personality impressions both in a professional capacity and in a variety of social settings. Much of their research has been concerned with developing an adequate methodology for studying the phenomenon. Essentially, an encoder makes a personality judgment and transmits it by written message to a decoder who attempts to identify the intended referent. Although this experimental analogue does not reproduce the entire complex social pattern associated with impression communication, it does permit the basic components of the system to be examined under controlled laboratory conditions. In their studies Perry and Boyd examined a number of variables related to impression communication, including object person presentation methods, message length, perceived motivation, and response style (11, 12, 13). The methodology used in the present experiment is an outgrowth of these studies and has been shown to be reliable (13). Although Norman’s model is based primarily on well-controlled laboratory tests using simple, discreet stimuli, its principles should generalize to less structured social settings where the object person can be considered as a complex stimulus configuration. The attention hypothesis was tested with five object persons from three communication errors categories. Previous impression communication research (12; 13, Experiment I ) has shown that object person identification errors generally fall into three separate categories. Specifically, it was predicted that attention would facilitate impression communication accuracy. I t was hypothesized that the attention group (11) would have the lowest communication error rates. Also, in accordance with the previous impression communication research, similar mean error rates were expected in communicating impressions of the three object persons.
B. METHOD 1. Subjects
The Ss were 56 paid volunteers (28 males and 28 females) from the University of Calgary who were assigned to one of two groups. Thirty-six were designated as encoders whose task was to communicate personality im-
125
RAYMOND P. PERRY
pressions so that another person (decoder) could identify who was being described. Twenty Ss were designated as decoders whose task was to match the encoders’ impressions with the correct object persons.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
2.
Materials and Procedure
The object person stimulus materials were taken from five filmed interviews used in Cline and Richards’ research (3). Each object person responded to the same questions concerning the kind of information that comes from a brief acquaintance with a person: occupation, political and religious beliefs, hobbies and sports activities, and life satisfaction and goals. The first four minutes of each film were transferred to a black and white videotape, and each interview was separated by a 30 second interval. Two object persons were male-a newspaper writer (Charles Auburn) and a police officer (Harold Dunlop)-and three were female-a model-maker working in map design (Susan Reid), a psychology student (Norma Peterson), and an English student (Jane Davis). In previous research impressions of C. Auburn had consistently low communication error means = 1.98), while impressions of N. Peterson had extremely high error rates = 6.57) and impressions of S. Reid, H. Dunlop, and J. Davis fell in between = 5.20, 5.28, 5.83, respectively)? C.Auburn, N. Peterson, and S. Reid were used in the present study as the target persons, along with the two others from the middle error category who were included as filler items to increase the difficulty of the communication task. Two paper-and-pencil questionnaires were used : a memory test examined the encoder’s ability to recall various physical attributes of the object persons, such as manner of dress and hair style, and a communication accuracy test required the encoder to write down his impression of each object person using exactly five words. The encoders were told to use personality traits and to employ descriptive terms only, omitting connectives, conjunctives, articles, etc. Previous research by Perry and Boyd (12, 13) showed that, for messages varying between one and 30 words, five word messages were most conducive to communication accuracy. a. Encoders. Attention was manipulated according to Norman’s model in which two factors are assumed to increase activation of a particular information item: sensory input and pertinence. Sensory input was identical in the encoding groups in the form of the videotaped object person interviews. However, pertinence was varied between the groups through the use of writ-
(z (x
(x
3 Each of these values represents an aggregate mean based on the previously cited experiments (12, 13) and has a range of zero to 10 errors.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
126
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ten instructions. Group I was informed that the experiment examined how well people attended to and remembered the physical attributes of those individuals they have met. They were instructed to pay attention to the physical features of each object person and to the interview setting, as they would be examined on them later. No mention was made of the impression communication task they would be required to complete. Group I1 was told that they would be asked to communicate accurately their impressions of the five object persons to others. The encoders were not informed that they would also be required to take a memory test. Group I11 encoders did not receive any instructions about the experiment except that it was concerned with social relationships. The inclusion of Group I in the experiment with instructions to attend to some other task than forming accurate impression-. g., recall of physical attributes-has two advantages. First, it prevents judges from storing information relevant to accurate judgments merely by chance. Norman’s model predicts that judges would abstract only information pertinent to their task. Secondly, it provides an independent assessment of whether the attention manipulation was successful. The experimental procedure for the three groups of 12 encoders (six males and six females) was essentially the same. Encoders received a counterbalanced booklet containing instructions and the two questionnaires. After reading the instructions, the encoders were presented with the videotaped interviews and then answered the two questionnaires. 6. Decoders. Twenty Ss were assigned to one of two groups of decoders, each balanced for sex. The impressions generated by the encoders ( 5 object persons X 12 encoders x 3 groups = 180 messages) were equally divided into two booklets (I and 11) of 90 impressions each to reduce task fatigue and/or boredom. A counterbalanced version of each booklet controlled for order effects. Each decoder received one of the four types of booklets. After reading the instructions, the decoders observed the five interviews, then attempted to match each message with the correct referent.
C. RESULTS 1. Memory Test
A completely randomized ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference between the three encoding groups in the number of physical characteristics recalled correctly (F = 10.20, df = 2/35, p < .001). The means for the three groups were as follows: Group I (16.17)’ Group I1 (12.33), Group I11 (1 1.83), out of a possible 20 correct. A priori t tests showed that Group I recalled correctly significantly more items than Group I1 (t = 3.18,
RAYMOND P. PERRY
127
< .01) or Group I11 ( t = 4.13, df = 33, p < .Ol), while Groups I1 and I11 recalled approximately the same number of items ( t < 1, df = 33, p > .05). These data suggest that the pertinence factor was successfully manipulated with the use of written instructions. The group told to attend to physical characteristics was superior in recalling such items to those groups receiving different instructions.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
df = 33, p
2. Impression Communication Impression communication accuracy was defined as the number of errors decoders made in matching a personality impression with the correct object person. To prevent chance level responding on the decoding task (i. e., 18 correct out of 90 matchings) and to maximize motivation, those decoders whose total scores fell below a specified proficiency level (40) were eliminated from further analysis. The range of correct scores for decoders who received booklet I was 44 to 56 = 47.5), and for booklet 11, 46 to 61 = 51.9), with each message being decoded 10 times and errors varying between zero and 10. A 3 X 3 factorial mixed ANOVA indicated that impression communication accuracy was influenced significantly by both the attention variable ( F = 6.53, df = 2/33, p < .001) and the object persons variable (F = 30.86, df = 2/66, p .001). The mean communication error rates for the three encoding attention groups were as follows: Group I, 4.83; Group 11, 2.87; Group 111, 4.11. Group 11, which was instructed to attend to forming personality impressions that would be accurately communicated, had significantly fewer errors than Group I which was asked to attend to physical characteristics ( t = 3.55, df = 33, p < .01) or Group 111 which received no instruction regarding pertinent information ( t = 2.3 1, df = 33 ; p < .025). The mean communication errors for impressions of the object persons were as follows: Auburn, 1.39; Reid, 5.14; Peterson, 5.19. The ordering of these means is consistent with Perry and Boyd’s earlier findings (12, 13), although the mean errors were somewhat lower especially for Peterson (6.57). A priori t tests indicated that impressions of Auburn were communicated with fewer errors than Reid ( t = 7.25, df = 66, p < .001) or Peterson ( t = 7.34, df = 66, p < .001), while impressions of Reid and Peterson were similar ( t < 1, df = 66, p > .05).
(x
x
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
The Effect of Selective Attention on Communicating Personality Impressions Raymond P. Perry
a
a
University of Manitoba , Canada Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Raymond P. Perry (1976) The Effect of Selective Attention on Communicating Personality Impressions, The Journal of Social Psychology, 98:1, 121-130, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1976.9923373 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1976.9923373
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal o f Social Psychology, 1976, 98, 121-130.
T H E EFFECT O F SELECTIVE ATTENTION ON COMMUNICATING PERSONALITY IMPRESSIONS*1*2 University of Manitoba, Canada
RAYMONDP. PERRY
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
SUMMARY An area in person perception that researchers have not considered closely involves the communication of personality impressions from one person to another. This experiment investigated the role of attention in impression communication with the use of Norman’s model of selective attention. Specifically, it was hypothesized that selective attention facilitates communication accuracy. The Ss were 56 paid undergraduate volunteers, 28 males and 28 females, ranging in age from 18 to 24. Three encoding groups of 12 Ss each were given identical videotaped object person information, but Group I was instructed to attend to the object persons’ physical characteristics, Group I1 to forming accurate personality impressions, and Group I11 received no instructions. All groups were tested for recall of physical characteristics and also were requested to write down their impressions of each object person. Decoders were presented with the same videotapes and then matched each encoded impression with the correct referent. Results showed Group I recalled significantly more physical characteristics ( p < .001), while Group I1 communicated personality impressions most accurately ( p < .001). The data were interpreted as supporting Norman’s model.
A. INTRODUCTION Attention is recognized as occupying a central role in cognitive functioning and, consequently, should have a direct influence on various interpersonal judging processes. An examination of the person perception literature reveals
*
Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on October 29, 1974. Copyright, 1976, by The Journal Press. 1 This research was supported by a Canada Council predoctoral fellowship (W705162) and was carried out in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, University of Calgary. The author is grateful to his thesis supervisor, J. E. Boyd, for his advice and encouragement and to the other members of the thesis committee, C. G. Costello, V. Corfield, and J. Ells, for their critical readings of the thesis. Some parts of this study were presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Montreal, 1972. 2 Requests for reprints should be sent to the author at the address shown at the end of this article.
121
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
122
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
no systematic analysis of attention effects although certain stimulus attributes of the object person are recognized as having cueing properties which influence the final personality judgment. Information about attention-like processes has generally come from other areas of research which have evolved sophisticated theories based on both human ( 2 ) and infrahuman Ss (6, 16, 1 7 ) . In studying attention and memory functions, researchers have presented Ss with geometric figures, nonsense syllables, etc. and then tested recall. Clearly parallels exist between processing this kind of information and the impression formation process in which certain information is retrieved from memory and incorporated into the personality impression. Moray ( 7 ) identified six concepts of attention currently in use in the psychological literature, while Posner and Boise ( 15) suggest in their review that attention research can be categorized into at least three major groupings: alertness, information selection, and limited central processing capacity. Although all three groupings are an integral part of the overall attention process, the latter two appear more central to interpersonal judging activities where personality assessments depend on the information sampled ( c f . 1). Frequently in interpersonal situations we are met with a kaleidoscope of information of which only a small part is incorporated into the final impression, raising a question about the determinants of information selection. How often have we been asked to comment on the color of a friend’s apparel and not been able to remember, even though we have been exposed to that information? Several human information processing theories of attention have been proposed ( c j . 2, 4, 18) which attempt to account for the storage and retrieval of different kinds of information. These theories rely heavily on a limited capacity processing system which consists of two stages: short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM). In the first stage, physical energy or stimulation is translated into nervous impulses by the sensory receptors, and these are transmitted as signals along neural pathways to STM. The important point to note in this respect is that all stimuli impinging on the receptors are conveyed to STM. Once in STM the information is available for further processing into LTM for a very short period of time after which it fades and is replaced with additional incoming signals. In the second stage, information passes from STM into LTM ; however, because the channels between the two memories are of limited capacity, only certain information enters LTM. A selective attention mechanism is posited to handle the information overload which chooses only part of the information in STM for transfer into LTM. Once in LTM the information is available for future use. Recently, Norman outlined a selective attention mechanism which appears
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
RAYMOND P. PERRY
123
potentially useful for investigating interpersonal judging processes (8, 9 ) . Consistent with previous theories, attention is posited as the mechanism responsible for selecting which information has access to LTM. However, in order for a particular item to receive attention, it must first be activated by two factors: sensory input and pertinence. Sensory input is simply the physical presence of a stimulus and its representation in STM. Pertinence refers to the psychological aspects of input as determined by the individual’s expectations and linguistic system. Suppose that sensory input caused storage items a, 6, and c to be highlighted and that pertinence activates storage representations c, d, and e. The common element ( c ) which receives stimulation from both sensory input and pertinence is the most activated and consequently is selected by the attention mechanism for further processing. A person’s name ( c ) presented dichotically with a number of other words ( a , b ) at the same intensity will be readily attended to and recalled because of its psychological pertinence to the person. It is important to note two basic characteristics of this model. First, because of limited capacity, not all the information impinging on the receptors is totally processed (that is, permitted to pass into LTM). Secondly, information not placed in LTM is totally lost for retrieval after a very short period of time. The information fades in STM and is quickly replaced by other incoming signals. Consider a typical interpersonal judging situation. According to this model ( a ) not all information pertaining to the stimulus complex or object person can be processed, and consequently certain attributes may be attended to, such as style of clothes and facial features, while others are ignored; (6) only that information placed in LTM is available for future reference. If some particular item of information is important to accuracy but was not attended to and stored, the judge would not be able to recall the item, and accuracy would be impaired. The implications of this analysis are especially important for such individuals as clinicians, counsellors, or personnel officers who must make accurate judgments about people. It is essential that they make accurate predictions about the object person’s behaviors and communicate accurately personality impressions of the object person. This predisposition toward accurate personality analysis would cause the assessor to seek selectively information about the object person which would enhance behavior prediction and would facilitate impression communication accuracy. The question remains whether such information-seeking strategies do, in fact, make a person more accurate in his interpersonal judging ability. Person perception researchers have examined interpersonal judging behavior from two perspectives: the process approach and the accuracy approach.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
124
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Asch’s classic study (1) of the warm-cold variable is representative of process studies which attempt to investigate the impact of certain variables on the ensuing personality judgment. Accuracy researchers, on the other hand, have been primarily interested in the veridicality of the judgments (cf. 3). More recently Perry and Boyd (11) suggested that in addition to these two activities, interpersonal judging patterns involve the communication of personality impressions between people. They argue that a good part of the impression formation process is devoted to the exchange of personality impressions both in a professional capacity and in a variety of social settings. Much of their research has been concerned with developing an adequate methodology for studying the phenomenon. Essentially, an encoder makes a personality judgment and transmits it by written message to a decoder who attempts to identify the intended referent. Although this experimental analogue does not reproduce the entire complex social pattern associated with impression communication, it does permit the basic components of the system to be examined under controlled laboratory conditions. In their studies Perry and Boyd examined a number of variables related to impression communication, including object person presentation methods, message length, perceived motivation, and response style (11, 12, 13). The methodology used in the present experiment is an outgrowth of these studies and has been shown to be reliable (13). Although Norman’s model is based primarily on well-controlled laboratory tests using simple, discreet stimuli, its principles should generalize to less structured social settings where the object person can be considered as a complex stimulus configuration. The attention hypothesis was tested with five object persons from three communication errors categories. Previous impression communication research (12; 13, Experiment I ) has shown that object person identification errors generally fall into three separate categories. Specifically, it was predicted that attention would facilitate impression communication accuracy. I t was hypothesized that the attention group (11) would have the lowest communication error rates. Also, in accordance with the previous impression communication research, similar mean error rates were expected in communicating impressions of the three object persons.
B. METHOD 1. Subjects
The Ss were 56 paid volunteers (28 males and 28 females) from the University of Calgary who were assigned to one of two groups. Thirty-six were designated as encoders whose task was to communicate personality im-
125
RAYMOND P. PERRY
pressions so that another person (decoder) could identify who was being described. Twenty Ss were designated as decoders whose task was to match the encoders’ impressions with the correct object persons.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
2.
Materials and Procedure
The object person stimulus materials were taken from five filmed interviews used in Cline and Richards’ research (3). Each object person responded to the same questions concerning the kind of information that comes from a brief acquaintance with a person: occupation, political and religious beliefs, hobbies and sports activities, and life satisfaction and goals. The first four minutes of each film were transferred to a black and white videotape, and each interview was separated by a 30 second interval. Two object persons were male-a newspaper writer (Charles Auburn) and a police officer (Harold Dunlop)-and three were female-a model-maker working in map design (Susan Reid), a psychology student (Norma Peterson), and an English student (Jane Davis). In previous research impressions of C. Auburn had consistently low communication error means = 1.98), while impressions of N. Peterson had extremely high error rates = 6.57) and impressions of S. Reid, H. Dunlop, and J. Davis fell in between = 5.20, 5.28, 5.83, respectively)? C.Auburn, N. Peterson, and S. Reid were used in the present study as the target persons, along with the two others from the middle error category who were included as filler items to increase the difficulty of the communication task. Two paper-and-pencil questionnaires were used : a memory test examined the encoder’s ability to recall various physical attributes of the object persons, such as manner of dress and hair style, and a communication accuracy test required the encoder to write down his impression of each object person using exactly five words. The encoders were told to use personality traits and to employ descriptive terms only, omitting connectives, conjunctives, articles, etc. Previous research by Perry and Boyd (12, 13) showed that, for messages varying between one and 30 words, five word messages were most conducive to communication accuracy. a. Encoders. Attention was manipulated according to Norman’s model in which two factors are assumed to increase activation of a particular information item: sensory input and pertinence. Sensory input was identical in the encoding groups in the form of the videotaped object person interviews. However, pertinence was varied between the groups through the use of writ-
(z (x
(x
3 Each of these values represents an aggregate mean based on the previously cited experiments (12, 13) and has a range of zero to 10 errors.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
126
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ten instructions. Group I was informed that the experiment examined how well people attended to and remembered the physical attributes of those individuals they have met. They were instructed to pay attention to the physical features of each object person and to the interview setting, as they would be examined on them later. No mention was made of the impression communication task they would be required to complete. Group I1 was told that they would be asked to communicate accurately their impressions of the five object persons to others. The encoders were not informed that they would also be required to take a memory test. Group I11 encoders did not receive any instructions about the experiment except that it was concerned with social relationships. The inclusion of Group I in the experiment with instructions to attend to some other task than forming accurate impression-. g., recall of physical attributes-has two advantages. First, it prevents judges from storing information relevant to accurate judgments merely by chance. Norman’s model predicts that judges would abstract only information pertinent to their task. Secondly, it provides an independent assessment of whether the attention manipulation was successful. The experimental procedure for the three groups of 12 encoders (six males and six females) was essentially the same. Encoders received a counterbalanced booklet containing instructions and the two questionnaires. After reading the instructions, the encoders were presented with the videotaped interviews and then answered the two questionnaires. 6. Decoders. Twenty Ss were assigned to one of two groups of decoders, each balanced for sex. The impressions generated by the encoders ( 5 object persons X 12 encoders x 3 groups = 180 messages) were equally divided into two booklets (I and 11) of 90 impressions each to reduce task fatigue and/or boredom. A counterbalanced version of each booklet controlled for order effects. Each decoder received one of the four types of booklets. After reading the instructions, the decoders observed the five interviews, then attempted to match each message with the correct referent.
C. RESULTS 1. Memory Test
A completely randomized ANOVA indicated that there was a significant difference between the three encoding groups in the number of physical characteristics recalled correctly (F = 10.20, df = 2/35, p < .001). The means for the three groups were as follows: Group I (16.17)’ Group I1 (12.33), Group I11 (1 1.83), out of a possible 20 correct. A priori t tests showed that Group I recalled correctly significantly more items than Group I1 (t = 3.18,
RAYMOND P. PERRY
127
< .01) or Group I11 ( t = 4.13, df = 33, p < .Ol), while Groups I1 and I11 recalled approximately the same number of items ( t < 1, df = 33, p > .05). These data suggest that the pertinence factor was successfully manipulated with the use of written instructions. The group told to attend to physical characteristics was superior in recalling such items to those groups receiving different instructions.
Downloaded by [University of Victoria] at 23:51 08 April 2015
df = 33, p
2. Impression Communication Impression communication accuracy was defined as the number of errors decoders made in matching a personality impression with the correct object person. To prevent chance level responding on the decoding task (i. e., 18 correct out of 90 matchings) and to maximize motivation, those decoders whose total scores fell below a specified proficiency level (40) were eliminated from further analysis. The range of correct scores for decoders who received booklet I was 44 to 56 = 47.5), and for booklet 11, 46 to 61 = 51.9), with each message being decoded 10 times and errors varying between zero and 10. A 3 X 3 factorial mixed ANOVA indicated that impression communication accuracy was influenced significantly by both the attention variable ( F = 6.53, df = 2/33, p < .001) and the object persons variable (F = 30.86, df = 2/66, p .001). The mean communication error rates for the three encoding attention groups were as follows: Group I, 4.83; Group 11, 2.87; Group 111, 4.11. Group 11, which was instructed to attend to forming personality impressions that would be accurately communicated, had significantly fewer errors than Group I which was asked to attend to physical characteristics ( t = 3.55, df = 33, p < .01) or Group 111 which received no instruction regarding pertinent information ( t = 2.3 1, df = 33 ; p < .025). The mean communication errors for impressions of the object persons were as follows: Auburn, 1.39; Reid, 5.14; Peterson, 5.19. The ordering of these means is consistent with Perry and Boyd’s earlier findings (12, 13), although the mean errors were somewhat lower especially for Peterson (6.57). A priori t tests indicated that impressions of Auburn were communicated with fewer errors than Reid ( t = 7.25, df = 66, p < .001) or Peterson ( t = 7.34, df = 66, p < .001), while impressions of Reid and Peterson were similar ( t < 1, df = 66, p > .05).
(x
x
