Our understanding of impression formation comes from experiments constraining participants’ control over information sampling. This limits our understanding of how people sample information when forming impressions as well as the effects of self-generated samples on impressions. Our paradigm allows participants to actively collect information samples. This work investigates how people explore the social environment and how sampled information informs resulting impressions. Four experiments tested theoretically-driven predictions regarding information sampling patterns under interested and disinterested information search. Under interested search, participants truncated the sampling of social targets showing early untrustworthy behavior. Under disinterested search, participants sampled extensively and systematically, avoiding small-sample biases. The sampled information, once obtained, accurately determines final impressions. Moreover, we documented a direct link between sampled information and subsequent behaviors (partner selection in trust games, trustworthiness expectations). By investigating sampling-based trustworthiness impressions, the present research informs the origins of trustworthiness and sampling accounts of judgment and decision-making.
AbeleA. E.EllemersN.FiskeS. T.KochA.YzerbytV. (2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262
2.
AmesD. L.FiskeS. T.TodorovA. T. (2011). Impression formation: A focus on others’ intents. In DecetyJ.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social neuroscience (pp. 420–433). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195342161.013.0028
3.
AndersonJ. R. (1990). The adaptive character of thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
AndersonN. H. (1967). Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(2), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024995
5.
AndersonN. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory (Vol. 578). Academic Press.
6.
AndersonN. H. (1996). A functional theory of cognition. Psychology Press.
7.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756
8.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
9.
BrunswikE. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62(3), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047470
10.
DenrellJ. (2005). Why most people disapprove of me: Experience sampling in impression formation. Psychological Review, 112(4), 951–978. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.4.951
11.
DubsH. H. (1942). The principle of insufficient reason. Philosophy of Science, 9(2), 123–131.
12.
Engle-WarnickJ.SlonimR. L. (2006). Inferring repeated-game strategies from actions: Evidence from trust game experiments. Economic Theory, 28(3), 603–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-005-0633-6
13.
FazioR. H.ShookN. J.EiserJ. R. (2004). Attitude formation through exploration: Valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 293–311.
14.
FetchenhauerD.DunningD. (2010). Why so cynical? Asymmetric feedback underlies misguided skepticism regarding the trustworthiness of others. Psychological Science, 21(2), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609358586
15.
FiedlerK. (2000). Beware of samples! A cognitive-ecological sampling approach to judgment biases. Psychological Review, 107(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.4.659
16.
FiedlerK.JuslinP. (2006). Information sampling and adaptive cognition. Cambridge University Press.
17.
FiedlerK.KutznerF. (2015). Information sampling and reasoning biases: Implications for research in judgment and decision making. In KerenG.WuG. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 380–403). Wiley.
18.
FiedlerK.McCaugheyL.PragerJ.EichbergerJ.SchnellK. (2020). Speed-accuracy trade-offs in sample-based decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 1203–1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000986
19.
GelmanA.RubinD. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472.
20.
HarrisC.FiedlerK.MarienH.CustersR. (2020). Biased preferences through exploitation: How initial biases are consolidated in reward-rich environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 1855–1877. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000754
HütterM.NieseZ.IhmelsM. (2021). Bridging the gap between autonomous and predetermined paradigms: The role of sampling in evaluative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 151, 1972–1998.
23.
JuslinP.OlssonH. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104(2), 344.
24.
King-CasasB.TomlinD.AnenC.CamererC. F.QuartzS. R.MontagueP. R. (2005). Getting to know you: Reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange. Science, 308(5718), 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1108062
25.
KrepsD. M. (1990). Corporate culture and economic theory. In AltJ. E.ShepsleK. A. (Eds.), Perspectives on positive political economy (pp. 90–142). Cambridge University Press.
26.
Le MensG.DenrellJ. (2011). Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review, 118(2), 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023010
27.
MacyM. W.SkvoretzJ. (1998). The evolution of trust and cooperation between strangers: A computational model. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 638–660. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657332
28.
NieseZ. A.HütterM. (2023). The malleability of sampling’s impact on evaluation: Sampling goals moderate the evaluative impact of sampling a stimulus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 109, 104516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104516
29.
NortonM. I.FrostJ. H.ArielyD. (2007). Less is more: The lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.97
30.
NowakM.SigmundK. (1993). A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Nature, 364(6432), 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/364056a0
31.
OaksfordM.ChaterN. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–630.
32.
OaksfordM.ChaterN. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.
33.
OlivolaC. Y.TodorovA. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.12.002
34.
PragerJ.FiedlerK. (2021). Forming impressions from self-truncated samples of traits−interplay of Thurstonian and Brunswikian sampling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(3), 474–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000274
35.
PragerJ.KruegerJ. I.FiedlerK. (2018). Towards a deeper understanding of impression formation—New insights gained from a cognitive-ecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000123
36.
RobbinsH. (1952). Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 58(5), 527–535.
37.
SavageL. J. (1951). The theory of statistical decision. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 46(253), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280094
38.
SecordP. F.DukesW. F.BevanW. (1954). Personalities in faces. I. An experiment in social perceiving. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 49(2), 231–279.
39.
SimonH. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852
40.
SimonH. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
41.
SinnH.-W. (1980). A rehabilitation of the principle of insufficient reason. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 94(3), 493–506. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884581
42.
SlepianM. L.YoungS. G.Harmon-JonesE. (2017). An approach-avoidance motivational model of trustworthiness judgments. Motivation Science, 3(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000046
TodorovA. (2008). Evaluating faces on trustworthiness. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.012
45.
UllrichJ.KruegerJ. I.BrodA.GroschupfF. (2013). More is not less: Greater information quantity does not diminish liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 909–920. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033183
46.
Van OverwalleF. (2009). Social cognition and the brain: A meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 30(3), 829–858. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20547
47.
van’t WoutM.SanfeyA. G. (2008). Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition, 108(3), 796–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.002
48.
van WitteloostuijnA. (2003). A game-theoretic framework of trust. International Studies of Management & Organization, 33(3), 53–71.
49.
VehtariA.GelmanA.SimpsonD.CarpenterB.BürknerP.-C. (2020). Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved R for assessing convergence of MCMC. Bayesian Analysis, 16, 667–718. https://doi.org/10.1214/20-BA1221
50.
ZajoncR. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
