Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

An experiment was conducted to test a derivation from a model of impression formation that inconsistent trait information would be evaluated more favorably than consistent trait information. It was predicted that the derivation would hold only under conditions where Ss were forewarned about the inconsistency. Ss rated their liking for several persons, each described by either one trait or a pair of traits. For half the trait pairs the two traits positively implied each other. For the other half of the trait pairs the two traits in a pair were strongly inconsistent. The results of the study supported the model. Inconsistent trait pairs were evaluated more favorably than consistent pairs. This result was obtained regardless of whether or not Ss were forewarned about the inconsistency.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

N. H.

Averaging versus adding as a stimulus combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 394–400.

Aronson

Carlsmith

J. M.

Performance expectancy as a determinant of actual performance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 65, 178–183.

Carlsmith

J. M.

Aronson

Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 151–156.

Dustin

D. S.

Baldwin

P. M.

Redundancy in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 500–506.

Fishbein

Hunter

Summation versus balance in attitude organization and change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, 69, 505–510.

Freedman

J. L.

Preference for dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 287–289.

Freedman

J. L.

Sears

D. O.

Selective exposure. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Pp. 57–97.

Hays

W. L.

An approach to the study of trait implication and trait similarity. In Tagiuri

Petrullo

(Eds.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford Univer. Press, 1958. Pp. 289–300.

Hendrick

Averaging versus summation in impression formation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 1295–1302. (a)

10.

Hendrick

Measurement of trait implication. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1968, 27, 443–446. (b)

11.

Manis

Gleason

T. C.

Dawes

R. M.

The evaluation of complex social stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 404–419.

12.

McGuire

W. J.

The current status of cognitive consistency theories. In Feldman

(Ed.), Cognitive consistency. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 1–46.

13.

Peabody

Trait inferences: evaluative and descriptive aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph, 1967, 7, No. 4 (Whole No. 644)

14.

Rosenkrantz

P. S.

Crockett

W. H.

Some factors influencing the assimilation of disparate information in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 397–402.

Preference for Inconsistent Information in Impression Formation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References