ANALYSIS OF WEIGHTED AVERAGING MODEL ON INTEGRATION OF INFORMATIONS IN PERSONALITY IMPRESSION FORMATION

SUSUMU TAKAHASHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.12.154

SUSUMU TAKAHASHI

Author information

JOURNAL FREE ACCESS

1970 Volume 12 Issue 4 Pages 154-162

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.12.154

Details

Published: 1970 Received: December 11, 1970 Available on J-STAGE: February 24, 2009 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
Correction information
Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : In this experiment, 42 Ss were randomly assigned to two rating scale conditions: 21 to the single scale condition (S-S) and 21 to the complex scale condition (C-S). They rated their favorableness for persons described by sets of 2, 4, 6, or 8 personality adjectives. Results were as follows. (a) The ad-dition of the moderately polarized stimuli to the extremely polarized ones produced a less extreme response than the set of the extremely polarized alone. (b) The fitness of observed responses to predicted responses was significantly high. (c) While weights for informations given by C-S were almost equal, those by S-S increased with increased informations. (d) The set size effect was found obviously in responses to highly desirable traits given by both S-S and C-S, but did not found in those to highly undesirable traits.
Right : In this experiment, 42 Ss were randomly assigned to two rating scale conditions: 21 to the single scale condition (S-S) and 21 to the complex scale condition (C-S). They rated their favorableness for persons described by sets of 2, 4, 6, or 8 personality adjectives. Results were as follows. (a) The addition of the moderately polarized stimuli to the extremely polarized ones produced a less extreme response than the set of the extremely polarized alone. (b) The fitness of observed responses to predicted responses was significantly high. (c) While weights for informations given by C-S were almost equal, those by S-S increased with increased informations. (d) The set size effect was found obviously in responses to highly desirable traits given by both S-S and C-S, but did not found in those to highly undesirable traits.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : ANDERSON, N. H. 1962 Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science., 738, 817-818.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1965 Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 70, 394-400.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1967 Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 75, 158-165.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1968 Application of a linearserial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 10, 345-362.
ANDERSON, N. H., & LAMPEL, A. K. 1965 Effect of context on ratings of personality traits. Psychon. Sci., 3, 433-434.
GULLIKSEN, H. 1956 Measurement of subjective values. Psychornetrika., 21, 229-244.
FISHBEIN, M., & HUNTER, R. 1964 Summation versus balance in attitude organization and change. J. abnerrn. soc. Psychol., 69, 505-510.
LEVY, L. H., & RICHTER, M. L. 1963 Impres-sions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 67, 349-354.
LEWIS, D. 1960 Quantitative methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp. 334-418.
PODELL, J. E., & AMSTER, H. 1966 Evaluative concept of the numbers of stimulus traits. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 4, 333-336.
ROSENBERG, S. 1968 Mathematical models of social behavior. In LINDZEY, G., & ARONSON, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Pp. 179-244.
TAKAHASHI, S. 1968 Experimental study of im-pression formation (1). -order effects in giving informations and impression change-Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 7, 209-220. (In Japanese)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969a Note on summation and averaging models in personality impression formation. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Hiroshima University., 18, Part 1, 91-102. (In Japanese with English summary)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969b Experimental study of im-pression formation (2). -fundermental analysis of integration model of informations Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 9, 61-69. (In Japanese)
TANAKA, Y. 1965 An exploratory cross-cultural study of the behavioral component of social attitudes by the Behavioral Differential method. Jap. J. Psychol., 37, 104-108. (In Japanese)
TRIANDIS, H. C. 1964 Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral component of social attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 64, 420-430.
TRIANDIS, H. C., & FISHBEIN, M. 1963 Cognitive interaction in person perception. J. abnorm. sac. Psycol., 67, 446-453.
WYER, Jr., R. S., & WATSON, S. F. 1969 Context effects in impression formation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 12, 22-33.

Right : ANDERSON, N. H. 1962 Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science., 738, 817-818.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1965 Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 70, 394-400.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1967 Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 75, 158-165.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1968 Application of a linearserial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 10, 345-362.
ANDERSON, N. H., & LANIPEL, A. K. 1965 Effect of context on ratings of personality traits. Psychon. Sci., 3, 433-434.
GULLIKSEN, H. 1956 Measurement of subjective values. Psychornetrika., 21, 229-244.
FISHBEIN, M., & HUNTER, R. 1964 Summation versus balance in attitude organization and change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 69, 505-510.
LEVY, L. H., & RICHTER, M. L. 1963 Impres sions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 67, 349-354.
LEWIS, D. 1960 Quantitative methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp.334-418.
PODELL, J. E., & AMSTER, H. 1966 Evaluative concept of the numbers of stimulus traits. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 4, 333-336.
ROSENBERG, S. 1968 Mathematical models of social behavior. In LINDZEY, G., & ARONSON, E.(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol.1. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Pp.179-244.
TAKAHASHI, S. 1968 Experimental study of impression formation (1).-order effects in giving informations and impression change-Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 7, 209-220.(In Japanese)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969a Note on summation and averaging models in personality impression formation. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Hiroshima University., 18, Part 1, 91-102.(In Japanese with English summary)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969b Experimental study of impression formation (2).-fundermental analysis of integration model of informations Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 9, 61-69.(In Japanese)
TANAKA, Y. 1965 An exploratory cross-cultural study of the behavioral component of social attitudes by the Behavioral Differential method. Jap. J. Psychol., 37, 104-108.(In Japanese)
TRIANDIS, H. C. 1964 Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral component of social attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 64, 420-430.
TRIANDIS, H. C., & FISHBEIN, M. 1963 Cognitive interaction in person perception. J. abnorm. Soc. Psycol., 67, 446-453.
WYER, Jr., R. S., & WATSON, S. F. 1969 Context effects in impression formation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 12, 22-33

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: PDF FILE Details: -

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: ABSTRACT Details: Wrong : In this experiment, 42 Ss were randomly assigned to two rating scale conditions: 21 to the single scale condition (S-S) and 21 to the complex scale condition (C-S). They rated their favorableness for persons described by sets of 2, 4, 6, or 8 personality adjectives. Results were as follows. (a) The addition of the moderately polarized stimuli to the extremely polarized ones produced a less extreme response than the set of the extremely polarized alone. (b) The fitness of observed responses to predicted responses was significantly high. (c) While weights for informations given by C-S were almost equal, those by S-S increased with increased informations. (d) The set size effect was found obviously in responses to highly desirable traits given by both S-S and C-S, but did not found in those to highly undesirable traits.
Right : In this experiment, 42 Ss were randomly assigned to two rating scale conditions: 21 to the single scale condition (S-S) and 21 to the complex scale condition (C-S). They rated their favorableness for persons described by sets of 2, 4, 6, or 8 personality adjectives. Results were as follows.(a) The addition of the moderately polarized stimuli to the extremely polarized ones produced a less extreme response than the set of the extremely polarized alone.(b) The fitness of observed responses to predicted responses was significantly high.(c) While weights for informations given by C-S were almost equal, those by S-S increased with increased informations.(d) The set size effect was found obviously in responses to highly desirable traits given by both S-S and C-S, but did not found in those to highly undesirable traits.

Date of correction: February 24, 2009 Reason for correction: - Correction: CITATION Details: Wrong : ANDERSON, N. H. 1962 Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science., 738, 817-818.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1965 Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 70, 394-400.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1967 Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 75, 158-165.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1968 Application of a linearserial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 10, 345-362.
ANDERSON, N. H., & LANIPEL, A. K. 1965 Effect of context on ratings of personality traits. Psychon. Sci., 3, 433-434.
GULLIKSEN, H. 1956 Measurement of subjective values. Psychornetrika., 21, 229-244.
FISHBEIN, M., & HUNTER, R. 1964 Summation versus balance in attitude organization and change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 69, 505-510.
LEVY, L. H., & RICHTER, M. L. 1963 Impres sions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 67, 349-354.
LEWIS, D. 1960 Quantitative methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp.334-418.
PODELL, J. E., & AMSTER, H. 1966 Evaluative concept of the numbers of stimulus traits. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 4, 333-336.
ROSENBERG, S. 1968 Mathematical models of social behavior. In LINDZEY, G., & ARONSON, E.(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol.1. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Pp.179-244.
TAKAHASHI, S. 1968 Experimental study of impression formation (1).-order effects in giving informations and impression change-Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 7, 209-220.(In Japanese)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969a Note on summation and averaging models in personality impression formation. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Hiroshima University., 18, Part 1, 91-102.(In Japanese with English summary)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969b Experimental study of impression formation (2).-fundermental analysis of integration model of informations Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 9, 61-69.(In Japanese)
TANAKA, Y. 1965 An exploratory cross-cultural study of the behavioral component of social attitudes by the Behavioral Differential method. Jap. J. Psychol., 37, 104-108.(In Japanese)
TRIANDIS, H. C. 1964 Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral component of social attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 64, 420-430.
TRIANDIS, H. C., & FISHBEIN, M. 1963 Cognitive interaction in person perception. J. abnorm. Soc. Psycol., 67, 446-453.
WYER, Jr., R. S., & WATSON, S. F. 1969 Context effects in impression formation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 12, 22-33

Right : ANDERSON, N. H. 1962 Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science., 738, 817-818.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1965 Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 70, 394-400.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1967 Averaging model analysis of set-size effect in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol., 75, 158-165.
ANDERSON, N. H. 1968 Application of a linearserial model to a personality-impression task using serial presentation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 10, 345-362.
ANDERSON, N. H., & LAMPEL, A. K. 1965 Effect of context on ratings of personality traits. Psychon. Sci., 3, 433-434.
GULLIKSEN, H. 1956 Measurement of subjective values. Psychometrika., 21, 229-244.
FISHBEIN, M., & HUNTER, R. 1964 Summation versus balance in attitude organization and change. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 69, 505-510.
LEVY, L. H., & RICHTER, M. L. 1963 Impressions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 67, 349-354.
LEWIS, D. 1960 Quantitative methods in psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, Pp.334-418.
PODELL, J. E., & AMSTER, H. 1966 Evaluative concept of the numbers of stimulus traits. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 4, 333-336.
ROSENBERG, S. 1968 Mathematical models of social behavior. In LINDZEY, G., & ARONSON, E.(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol.1. 2nd ed. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Pp.179-244.
TAKAHASHI, S. 1968 Experimental study of impression formation (1).-order effects in giving informations and impression change-Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 7, 209-220.(In Japanese)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969a Note on summation and averaging models in personality impression formation. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education, Hiroshima University., 18, Part 1, 91-102.(In Japanese with English summary)
TAKAHASHI, S. 1969b Experimental study of impression formation (2).-fundermental analysis of integration model of informations-Jap. J. educ. soc. Psychol., 9, 61-69.(In Japanese)
TANAKA, Y. 1965 An exploratory cross-cultural study of the behavioral component of social attitudes by the Behavioral Differential method. Jap. J. Psychol., 37, 104-108.(In Japanese)
TRIANDIS, H. C. 1964 Exploratory factor analyses of the behavioral component of social attitudes. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 64, 420-430.
TRIANDIS, H. C., & FISHBEIN, M. 1963 Cognitive interaction in person perception. J. abnorm. soc. Psycol., 67, 446-453.
WYER, Jr., R. S., & WATSON, S. F. 1969 Context effects in impression formation. J. Pers. soc. Psychol., 12, 22-33.

Abstract

In this experiment, 42 Ss were randomly assigned to two rating scale conditions: 21 to the single scale condition (S-S) and 21 to the complex scale condition (C-S). They rated their favorableness for persons described by sets of 2, 4, 6, or 8 personality adjectives. Results were as follows.(a) The addition of the moderately polarized stimuli to the extremely polarized ones produced a less extreme response than the set of the extremely polarized alone.(b) The fitness of observed responses to predicted responses was significantly high.(c) While weights for informations given by C-S were almost equal, those by S-S increased with increased informations.(d) The set size effect was found obviously in responses to highly desirable traits given by both S-S and C-S, but did not found in those to highly undesirable traits.

Corresponding author

Correction information

Register with J-STAGE for free!