Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall.

Abstract

Two studies examined the role of individual differences in construct accessibility in subjective impressions and recall of others. In the first session of each study, subjects' accessible traits were elicited by asking them to list the characteristics of different people, with accessibility defined as frequency of output (Study 1) or as primacy of output (Study 2). In the second session, held 1 or 2 weeks later and supposedly investigating a different issue for a different researcher, subjects read an essay describing the behaviors of a target person. The essay contained both accessible trait-related information and inaccessible trait-related information for each subject, with different traits being accessible or inaccessible for different subjects. Both studies found that subjects deleted significantly more inaccessible trait-related information than accessible trait-related information in their impressions and in their reproductions of the target information. Moreover, this effect on impressions and reproductions was evident even 2 weeks after exposure to the target information (Study 1). This general effect was not found for the impressions of subjects low in cognitive differentiation, even though it was found for their reproductions (Study 2), which suggests that their active bias toward forming univalent impressions inhibited the passive-accessibility effect. The implications of this approach for personality differences, interpersonal conflict and attraction, similarity of self and other judgments, and therapeutic intervention are discussed.Construct systems can be considered as a kind of scan-observers may often be more critical than ning pattern which a person continually projects upon ^g ev entS themselves (cf. Kelly, 1955; Lewin, his world. As he sweeps back and forth across his per-m5 Mischd 1 98 1). T t i s interesting that ceptual field he picks up blips of meaning. (Kelly, 1955, .' . ,!! ., . ,.". . °p 145) consistent individual differences in person perception have been found most often in The interface of personality, social, and regard to t h e cognitive or intellective charcognitive psychology has recently received ac teristics of the judge (cf. Mischel, 1973; increasing attention (see, e.g., Cantor & Shrauger &Altrocchi, 1964; Tagiuri, 1969). Kihlstrom, 1981). An important aspect of The cognitive characteristics considered most this interface is that the same "objective" o f ten have been different kinds of cognitive stimulus tends to be processed differently by sty i e) sucn as cognitive differentiation, levdifferent individuals 4n terms of their per-ding-sharpening, and field independence sonal, subjective meanings and that these (Mischel, 1973; Shrauger & Altrocchi, idiosyncratic meanings arise from idiosyn-196 4) f As Mischel (1973) points out, howcratic histories. In fact, how social events are ever) individual differences in the subjective interpreted and remembered by different meaning of social events may be especially _____ ' evident in the personal constructs individualsResearch and ...

The self and social judgment: Effects of affective reaction and "own position" on judgments of unambiguous and ambiguous information about others.

“…In light of these and other findings, Higgins, King, and Mavin (1982) have suggested that a similarity between judgments of the self and others may be attributable, at least in part, to differences in chronic accessibility. For example, highly sociable subjects who are asked to form sociability judgments of an ambiguous behavior may be more likely to encode this statement as sociable relative to subjects whose own position is less extreme (and therefore, for whom that trait concept may be less accessible).…”

“…For example, highly sociable subjects who are asked to form sociability judgments of an ambiguous behavior may be more likely to encode this statement as sociable relative to subjects whose own position is less extreme (and therefore, for whom that trait concept may be less accessible). As Higgins et al (1982) were careful to note, however, this process does not necessarily involve direct access of self-relevant knowledge. That is, similarity in self-other judgments may simply reflect a tendency for some individuals to use certain constructs in processing information about people in general, including the self.…”

Future work selves: How salient hoped-for identities motivate proactive career behaviors.

“…Activated, salient possible selves organize and energize individuals" behavior aimed at bringing them about (Leonardi, Syngollitou, & Kiosseoglou, 1998). Like other mental constructs, identities can become chronically accessible if they are activated and used frequently (Bargh, 1982;Higgins, King, & Mavin, 1982;Srull & Wyer, 1986). The salience of Future Work Selves thus develops over time as individuals think about their hopes and aspirations for their future, observe role models (Ibarra, 1999), and consider who they might become.…”

Emotional transfer in goal systems

“…Following the research logic of Higgins, King, and Mavin (1982), we assumed that such order reflects the strength of association between the goal and the individuals mentioned, or the accessibility of their names once the goal was activated. In summary then, we hypothesized that participants will develop a preventiontype affect toward people strongly associated with helping them to attain ought goals, whereas they will develop a promotion-type affect toward persons strongly associated with helping them attain ideal goals.…”