Group impressions as dynamic configurations: The tensor product model of group impression formation and change.

Abstract

Group impressions are dynamic configurations. The tensor product model (TPM), a connectionist model of memory and learning, is used to describe the process of group impression formation and change, emphasizing the structured and contextualized nature of group impressions and the dynamic evolution of group impressions over time. TPM is first shown to be consistent with algebraic models of social judgment (the weighted averaging model; N. Anderson, 1981) and exemplar-based social category learning (the context model; E. R. Smith & M. A. Zárate, 1992), providing a theoretical reduction of the algebraic models to the present connectionist framework. TPM is then shown to describe a common process that underlies both formation and change of group impressions despite the often-made assumption that they constitute different psychological processes. In particular, various time-dependent properties of both group impression formation (e.g., time variability, response dependency, and order effects in impression judgments) and change (e.g., stereotype change and group accentuation) are explained, demonstrating a hidden unity beneath the diverse array of empirical findings. Implications of the model for conceptualizing stereotype formation and change are discussed.

Exploring the Dynamics of Incongruent Beliefs about Women and Leaders

“…Despite participant's projections that task-oriented traits and in particular person-oriented traits would become more important for leadership roles, participant's ascriptions of feminine traits to leaders remained stable. Although the projected change in leadership demands in this study reflects management experts' emphasis on a more androgynous blend of attributes -that is relevance of both task-oriented and person-oriented traits -(e.g., Fondas, 1997;Rastetter, 2001; see also and change, see Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima, 2000). This might be the reason why we Exploring the Dynamics -19 did not find evidence showing that change in leadership demands mediated the effect of year on feminine traits ascribed to leaders in the present study (see Hypothesis 2b).…”

Labeling Bias and Categorical Induction: Generative Aspects of Category Information.

“…In the field of judgment and decision making, researchers have also emphasized the dominance of similarity information (e.g., representative heuristics; Kahneman & Tversky, 1973;Tversky & Kahneman, 1983). The same focus has been prevalent in stereotyping and impression-formation research (Allport, 1954;Duckitt, 1992;Hamilton & Sherman, 1994;Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima, 2000;Kunda & Thagard, 1996;Stangor, 2000).…”

Linking Syntax and Inductive Reasoning: Categorical Labeling and Generic Noun Phrases

“…This experiment employed another induction task, in which the same item (e.g., Premise: Linda has attribute X) has different attributes (e.g., Conclusion: Linda has attribute Y). This type of tasks are often employed in inductive reasoning and impression formation studies (e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1983;Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima, 2000). The two types of tasks are analogous in the sense that both investigate the relationship between categorical information and inductive inferences.…”