Getting at the truth or getting along: Accuracy- versus impression-motivated heuristic and systematic processing.

Abstract

Two studies examined the heuristic and systematic processing of accuracy-versus impression-motivated individuals expecting a discussion with a partner believed to hold either a favorable or unfavorable opinion on the discussion issue. Given the goal of having a pleasant interaction, impressionmotivated (versus accuracy-motivated) participants in both studies were particularly likely to express attitudes that were evaluatively consistent with the partner's opinion, reflecting their selective use of a "go along to get along" heuristic. Study 2 yielded stronger evidence for the distinct nature of heuristic and systematic processing in the service of accuracy versus impression goals. In this study, the evaluative implication of impression-motivated participants' low-effort application of a "go along to get along" heuristic biased their more effortful, systematic processing, leading to attitudes consistent with the partner's views. In contrast, given the goal of determining an accurate issue opinion, accuracy-motivated participants exhibited relatively evenhanded systematic processing, resulting in attitudes unbiased by the partner's opinion. The results underscore the utility of a dual-process approach to understanding motivated cognition.Intuition and experience suggest that various motives can influence the way in which people process information and the judgments that result. That is, the motivated perceiver's cognitive processes will be a direct reflection of the goals that they are intended to satisfy. Using the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980(Chaiken, , 1987Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework, the present research aims to elucidate the distinct ways in which accuracy versus impression motives are served by both heuristic and systematic processes. The Heuristic-Systematic ModelThe heuristic-systematic model proposes a dual-process framework in which people may process information in a relatively effortless heuristic mode and in a more cognitively demanding, systematic mode. Whereas heuristic processing is characterized by the application of simple decision rules (e.g.,

Social Category Diversity Promotes Premeeting Elaboration: The Role of Relationship Focus

“…However, in Experiment 2 we now manipulate our proposed mediator (i.e., relationship focus) to be either high or low. Because of the theorized tradeoff between relationship and task focus, high relationship focus corresponds with low task focus and low relationship focus corresponds with high task focus (Chen et al 1996;Sanchez-Burks 2002, 2005. While it is often the case that the examination of an interaction effect is intended to establish moderation, our purpose here, as noted earlier, is instead to more robustly demonstrate the mediating role of relationship focus.…”

“…This relationship between social and task accuracy goals has been framed as a trade-off (Chen et al 1996;Sanchez-Burks 2002, 2005. This is not to say that individuals are only concerned with one goal at a time.…”

“…Research on motivated information processing provides insight into why decreased relationship focus stemming from the presence of social category diversity may influence pre-meeting elaboration. The presence or absence of social category diversity affects whether individuals are primarily motivated to pursue a social goal (i.e., getting along, impression management) or a task accuracy goal (i.e., performing well) (Chen et al 1996). Research suggests that individuals in settings with social category homogeneity versus social category diversity may be relatively more motivated by, and concerned about, social rather than task goals (e.g., Brewer and Miller 1996;Tajfel and Turner 1986).…”

Motivational Representations within a Computational Cognitive Architecture

“…Along a separate line, it was found that the goal of getting at the truth and the goal of getting along with others led to different styles of cognitive processing (Chen et al, 1996): With the goal of getting at the truth, systematic processing often takes place, while with the goal of getting along, shallower processing often happens (leading to agreeing with others' opinions). This phenomenon may be captured and explained using CLARION with its motivational representations.…”

Directly Plausible Principles

“…Ow intuitions are sensitive in non-rational ways to the judgments of those around us. Subjects' intuitions have been shown to shift rather automatically to conform to those of their social groups, interaction partners, and intimates (Newcomb et al 1965, Chen et al 1996, Davis and Rusbult 2001. Haidt (2001) argues that this shapes many of our ethical intuitions, and Kuhse and Singer (1985) suggest that the historical influence of Christianity has come by this mechanism to shape contemporary western views about the impermissibility of infanticide.…”