2008
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.509
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

People as resources: Exploring the functionality of warm and cold

Abstract: We propose a motivational model of impression formation-people as resources-as a way to understand what information perceivers seek in their interpersonal world. Prior work has established that the warm-cold dimension is fundamental to impression formation. Building on other functional approaches, we suggest that the attributes warm and cold are important because they predict the direction of target resource use in interpersonal relationships-whether a person's valued resources are likely (warm) or unlikely (c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
12
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In conclusion, although previous research has shown that embodied approach-and avoidance-related states can influence perceivers' judgments of static social stimuli, the current research indicates that the effect may not generalize to judgments of more complex and dynamic stimuli. It should be noted, however, that these findings do not invalidate the assumption that credibility judgments are intimately tied to people's evaluations of others, as would be predicted from a functional perspective on social cognition (Fiske, 1992;Scholer & Higgins, 2008). Indeed, in the current experiments, sender evaluation consistently displayed a substantial correlation with credibility judgments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 45%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In conclusion, although previous research has shown that embodied approach-and avoidance-related states can influence perceivers' judgments of static social stimuli, the current research indicates that the effect may not generalize to judgments of more complex and dynamic stimuli. It should be noted, however, that these findings do not invalidate the assumption that credibility judgments are intimately tied to people's evaluations of others, as would be predicted from a functional perspective on social cognition (Fiske, 1992;Scholer & Higgins, 2008). Indeed, in the current experiments, sender evaluation consistently displayed a substantial correlation with credibility judgments.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 45%
“…That is, social cognitive processes are best understood in terms of how they help us navigate and act in our social environment. A key idea within this framework is that, at a fundamental level, people process information about others primarily because they want to know whether the other is to be approached or avoided (Scholer & Higgins, 2008). For instance, people spontaneously and rapidly assess others along a warmth-coldness dimension, corresponding to information about the social goodness or badness of the individual (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007;Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007).…”
Section: The Process Of Credibility Attributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Animal and human research has pointed out that one must be cautious in inferring motivational urges from measurements of affective experiences, because (i)negative stimuli can also evoke a motivational urge to approach (Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004;Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009;Scholer & Higgins, 2008) and (ii) approach motivation is occasionally experienced as a negative affective state (Berridge, Robinson, & Aldridge, 2009;Carver, 2004;Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, & Price, 2013). In short, approach and avoidance motivations are dissociable from positive and negative affective states; consequently, more direct evidence is needed to evaluate the theoretical claim of a motivational avoidance of conflict-inducing stimuli.…”
Section: Outline Of the Present Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A target's communal traits generally influence attitudes towards him/her more than his/ her agentic traits (Abele & Wojciszke, 2007;Cislak & Wojciszke, 2008;De Bruin & Van Lange, 1999. Communal traits determine the resource value of another person's desired attributes more than agentic traits (Scholer & Higgins, 2008) and are also perceived as having more predictive power for the target's future behavior than agentic traits (De Bruin & Van Lange, 1999;Kenworthy & Tausch, 2008). Moreover, communal information has a stronger impact on group perception and stereotypes than agentic information (Cuddy et al, 2008;Fiske et al, 2002;Leach et al, 2007).…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%