Three weighting criteria in impression formation

Warr, Peter; Jackson, Paul

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420060104

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, individuals report more confidence in evaluations of individuals when based on negative information rather than positive information (Fiske, 1980;Hodges, 1974;Levin & Schmidt, 1969;Warr & Jackson, 1976;Wyer, 1970). The evidence of a stronger relationship between stated voting intentions and actual voting behavior after exposure to negative political advertising than after exposure to positive political advertising suggests that negative advertising appears much more likely to influence actual voting behavior than positive advertising (Shapiro & Rieger, 1989).…”

Section: Third-person Perceptions and Voting Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative effects of political disaffection on the less experienced voter

Austin¹,

Pinkleton²

1995

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Third-person Perceptions and Voting Efficacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Positive and negative effects of political disaffection on the less experienced voter

Austin¹,

Pinkleton²

1995

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Across widely varying events, settings, and persons, positive experiences or positive aspects of stimuli have been found to be less influential in the formation of judgments than are negative experiences or negative aspects of stimuli (see, for review, Fiske, 1980;Kanouse & Hanson, 1972;Kellermann, 1984). The negativity effect has been demonstrated consistently in research on impression formation and person perception (Anderson, 1965;Hamilton & Huffman, 1971;Hamilton & Zanna, 1972;Hodges, 1974;Jordan, 1965;Levin & Schmidt, 1969;Miller & Rowe, 1967;Warr & Jackson, 1976;Wyer, 1970). For example, in employment interviews (Bolster & Springbett, 1961;Crissy & Regan, 1951;Springbett, 1958;Webster, 1964), negative characteristics of employees influence hiring decisions more than positive characteristics: negative information serving as a basis for rejecting a job applicant rather than positive information serving as a basis for hiring the applicant.…”

Section: The Negativity Effect Description and Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Negativity Effect in Interaction It's All in Your Point of View

Kellermann

1989

Human Comm Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The negativity effect is defined as thedisproportionateweightingofnegative information in comparison to equidistantly rialenced positive information in the formation of judgments. The informativeness explanation ofthe negativity effect posits that the evaluative extremity (the distance from a psychological neutral point) and evaluative valence (positivelnegafiael of an event serve as determinants of its informativeness. Traditionally, this informativeness hypothesis explains the Occurrence of a negativity effect by presuming a skcwcd distribution with unequal tails for the frequency of outcomesfor valence; a mirror-image distribution for informativeness as afunction ofmlence; and a negative, linear relationship between typicality and informativeness. These three assumptions were tested directly in this research through thefitting of nonlinear equations. It was determined that (a) a negatively skewed distribution ofoutcomesfor valence does not occur in interaction contexts and that (b) typicality was a determinant ofinformativeness, although its importance as a determinant varies in response to whether one's perspective is that ofan observer or a participant. Thus, reliance on evaluative extremity and evaluative valence as determinants of informativeness was rejected; these variables are only descriptors when the distribution for the frequency of outcomesfor valence is skmed and has uneven tails.onversations contain information and are vehicles for information exchange (Kellermann, 1987). Conversations are C rich in their provisions of both content and relational information, although relatively little of the information available in the conversational stream is remembered by participants. Although the gist of conversations can be recognized at above chance levels

show abstract

“…It is possible, for example, that traits with extreme scale values carry more weight than do neutral traits (e.g., Warr, 1974;Warr & Jackson, 197S). These findings are difficult to interpret, however, because of confounding between negativity, ambiguity, and extremity (Warr & Jackson, 1976;Wyer, 1973).…”

Section: Differential Weightingmentioning

confidence: 96%