Categories of Category Accessibility: The Impact of Trait Concept versus Exemplar Priming on Person Judgments

Stapel, Diederik A.; Koomen, Willem; Pligt, J. van der

doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.1311

Cited by 131 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

193

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, when the target other activates information that could be included in one's self-view, automatic and assimilative encoding processes may occur. Specifically, Stapel, Koomen, and Van der Pligt (1997) have shown in several experiments that whereas "priming persons" yields contrastive comparison effects (akin to what is typically found in the social comparison literature), "priming animals" yields assimilative interpretation effects. In one of these experiments (i.e., Experiment 2), respondents were asked to form an impression of person whose behavior could be interpreted as friendly as well as aggressive.…”

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 79%

“…Thus, on the one hand some social comparison research suggests that, when other-self dissimilarity is high, no social comparison effects will occur (see Blanton, 2001;Wood, 1989). On the other hand, some priming research suggests that, although information about a dissimilar other is unlikely to instigate comparison processes, such information may be used as an encoding frame and thus result in assimilative interpretation effects (Stapel et al, 1997). How can these opposing views be reconciled?…”

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of these factors is the apples and oranges principle, which states that the pull towards comparison (and contrast) is strongest when similarity is high and the pull towards interpretation (and assimilation) is strongest when dissimilarity is high. When similarity and/or dissimilarity is moderate, the pulls towards interpretation and comparison are equally strong and no effect is likely to occur (Stapel et al, 1997;Stapel & Winkielman, 1998).…”

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Defensive Social Comparisons and The Constraints of Reality

Stapel¹,

Schwinghammer²

2004

Social Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that defensive interpretations (accept positive effects, discard negative effects) of social comparisons are constrained by reality, that is by perceived other-self similarity. Whereas moderately similar others may yield defensive contrast effects on self-evaluations, non-defensive contrast effects occur when other-self similarity is high and the relevance of the social comparisons is thus undisputed. Furthermore, we demonstrate that, whereas the self-evaluative impact of moderately dissimilar others is null, extremely dissimilar others yield assimilation. The findings support the interpretation-comparison perspective on social comparison processes and effects.

show abstract

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other-self Dissimilaritymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Defensive Social Comparisons and The Constraints of Reality

Stapel¹,

Schwinghammer²

2004

Social Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is possible that as long as the degree of perceived similarity between a target and the self lies within the range of acceptance (Sherif & Hovland, 1961), the target is perceived as being similar to the self. The average student and the average Dutch person might be assimilated to the self, leading to comparable levels of perceived similarity for those targets (Stapel, Koomen, & van der Pligt, 1997). Support for this suggestion is provided by the fact that participants underestimated the mean age of the imagined average Dutch person (M ¼ 27.96 years) considering national statistics on the mean age of Dutch citizens (M ¼ 38.2 years) (2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mussweiler & Strack, 2000). Abundant studies show that people's self-evaluation varies as a function of the social comparison target (e.g., Buunk & Ybema, 1995;Mussweiler, 2001;Stapel & Koomen, 2001;Stapel et al, 1997). Commonly, social comparison information of a target is processed in a way to enhance the self.…”

Section: Research On Social Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Pollmann

Finkenauer

Dijk

2007

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two factors known to affect the use of self in social prediction, target similarity and order of predictions, are considered in concert to understand how the use of self varies across the prediction of different targets. Replicating earlier studies, we predicted and found that people use the self more when predicting similar others than when predicting dissimilar others. Extending existing studies, we predicted and found order effects for similar others. As predicted no order effects emerged for predictions for dissimilar targets. Because the self is more accessible during the prediction of similar others, it matters whether self-predictions precede or follow other-predictions. Feature-matching theory is proposed as a possible explanation for the emergence of order effects in predictions of similar targets.

show abstract

Differential consequences of trait inferences: a direct test of the trait-referent hypothesis

Stapel

Koomen

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis was investigated that when trait inferences rejer to abstract behaviour labels (i.e. 'conceited') they act as a general interpretation frame and lead to assimilation in subsequent judgments of' an ambiguous target, whereas when they refer to specific actor-trait links (i.e. 'Peter is conceited') the activated information is likely to be used as a scale anchor and contrast effects are more likely. Compared to previous studies investigating the consequences of trait inferences, this 'trait-referent ' hypothesis was testedin a relatively direct w y . Target judgments of participants instructed that trait-implying sentences described a 'behaviour ' showed assimilation, whereas judgments of participants instructed that these sentences described a 'person' showed contrast.

show abstract

Categories of Category Accessibility: The Impact of Trait Concept versus Exemplar Priming on Person Judgments

Cited by 131 publications

References 36 publications

Defensive Social Comparisons and The Constraints of Reality

Defensive Social Comparisons and The Constraints of Reality

The order effect in self–other predictions: considering target as a moderator

Differential consequences of trait inferences: a direct test of the trait-referent hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About