Limited research has examined the effects of using disclaimers on person perception, and none has examined disclaimer effectiveness. Four studies test whether disclaimers effectively ward off negative judgments regarding the specific disclaimed traits. Study 1 finds that using an arrogance disclaimer (“I don't mean to sound arrogant, but . . .”) increased judgments of the speaker's arrogance but only when followed by an arrogant comment. Studies 2 and 3 yield similar findings using laziness and selfishness disclaimers. Studies 2, 3, and 4 examine five possible underlying mechanisms regarding why disclaimers can backfire. The most support was obtained for the notion that disclaimers increase an audience's expectations that the speaker will say something consistent with the unwanted trait, which then increases perceptions of that trait in the speaker. We discuss some possible moderating variables as well as some implications of these findings for general impression formation models.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.
Bell, R.A., Zahn, C.J., & Hopper, R. (1984). Disclaiming: A test of two competing views. Communication Quarterly, 32, 28-36.
3.
Biernat, M., & Ma, J.E. (2005). Stereotypes and the confirmability of trait concepts . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 483-495.
4.
Bradley, P.H. (1981). The folk-linguistics of women's speech: An empirical examination. Communication Monographs, 48, 73-90.
5.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press .
6.
Brewer, M.B. (1988). A dual process of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Brewer, M.B., & Feinstein, A.S.H. (1999). Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 255-270). New York: Guilford.
8.
Darley, J.M., & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33.
9.
Devine, P.G., Hirt, E.R., & Gehrke, E.M. (1990). Diagnostic and confirmation strategies in trait hypothesis testing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 58, 952-963.
10.
Dowd, E.T., Milne, C.R., & Wise, S.L. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A measure of psychological reactance. Journal of Counseling and Development , 69, 541-545.
11.
Erickson, B., Lind, E.A., Johnson, B.C., & O'Barr, W.M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279.
12.
Fiske, S.T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S.L. (1999). The Continuum Model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 231-254). New York: Guilford.
13.
Fiske, S.T., & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
14.
Hewitt, J.P., & Stokes, R. (1975). Disclaimers as aligning actions preserving situational definitions in face of disruptive lines of conduct. American Sociological Review, 40, 1-11.
15.
Hong, S.M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173-182.
16.
Isbell, L.M., Smith, H.L., & Wyer, R.S., Jr. (1998). Consequences of attempts to disregard social information. In J. M. Golding & C. M. Macleod, Intentional forgetting: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 289-320). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Jones, E.E. (1986). Interpreting interpersonal behavior: The effects of expectancies. Science, 234, 41-46.
18.
Jones, E.E., & Harris, V.A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.
19.
Kleck, R.E., & Strenta, A. (1980). Perceptions of the impact of negatively valued physical characteristics on social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 861-873.
20.
Macrae, C.N., Bodenhausen, G.V., Milne, A.B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67, 808-817.
21.
Moscowitz, G.B. (1993). Individual differences in social categorization: The influence of personal need for structure on spontaneous trait inferences . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 132-142.
22.
Napolitan, D.A., & Goethals, G.R. (1979). The attribution of friendliness . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 105-113.
23.
Neuberg, S.L., & Newsom, J.T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.
24.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W.B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.
25.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. (2000). The impact of opposites: Implications of trait inferences and their antonyms for person judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 439-464.
26.
Stapel, D.A., Koomen, W., & van der Pligt, J. (1997). Categories of category accessibility: The impact of trait concept versus exemplar priming on person judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 47-76.
27.
Uleman, J.S. (1989). A framework for thinking intentionally about unintended thoughts. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought: The limits of awareness, intention, and control. New York : Guilford.
28.
von Hippel, W., Sekaquaptewa, D., & Vargas, P. (1995). On the role of encoding processes in stereotype maintenance. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 27, pp. 177-254). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
29.
Wegner, D.M., Schneider, D.J., Carter, S.R., & White, T.L. (1987). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 5-13.
30.
Zuckerman, M., Knee, C.R., Hodgins, H.S., & Miyake, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation: The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescence response set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 52-60.
