Behavioral stimuli that pertain to specific moral dimensions are used in much research in social psychology. Researchers in person memory, attribution, and stereotyping (to name just a few topics) often use specific behaviors as stimuli and assume that these behaviors are related to broader trait dimensions (Brown, Trafimow, & Gregory, 2005;Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Reeder & Coovert, 1986;Rothbart & Park, 1986;Trafimow, 1998;Trafimow & Schneider, 1994;Vonk, 1993;Vonk & Van Knippenberg, 1994). However, this is just an assumption, and it is not necessarily clear whether or not it is actually true or how strong the specific trait-behavior relations may be. Because knowledge of specific trait-behavior relations is a prerequisite for the validity of so much research in person memory, attribution, stereotyping, and other areas, our goal was to provide a large index of ratings of specific trait-behavior relations that would satisfy this requirement.In addition, it is sometimes necessary to compare various behaviors on the topic of interest across trait categories. Trait attribution is clearly trait dependent (Biernat & Ma, 2005); for example, it is easier to disconfirm that a person is honest than to disconfirm that a person is friendly, because the observance of a single dishonest behavior carries more attributional weight than does the observance of one unfriendly act (Trafimow, Bromgard, Finlay, & Ketelaar, 2005). An assortment of theoretical constructs has been developed in attempts to explain and understand these differences. However, it is often difficult to test these theoretical constructs because of the necessity to make comparisons across trait dimensions. In making these comparisons, differences in the intensities of the specific behaviors along their respective trait dimensions must be controlled. Although there is an increasing trend among attribution researchers to test theories that specify different attributional processes for different trait dimensions (Birnbaum, 1972(Birnbaum, , 1973Klein, 1991;Lupfer, Weeks, & Dupuis, 2000;Peeters, 1971;Reeder & Brewer, 1979;Rothbart & Park, 1986;Skowronski & Carlston, 1987;Trafimow & Schneider, 1994;Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999;Vonk, 1993;Vonk & Van Knippenberg, 1994), these researchers all face the necessity to compare trait-behavior relations across different trait dimensions. Cross-categorical comparisons of this sort are difficult to interpret properly, and careful analytical methods must be employed when doing so. If generalizations are to be valid, a variety of specific examples must be used and a means of assuring equivalence across categories employed.Assuring equivalent intensity of items across trait dimensions is not as straightforward as it might at first appear. The method used to determine equivalence across trait dimensions depends on the specific needs of the research and the assumptions about the frequency distributions of the sample items obtained in each trait dimension. When a limited sample of behaviors drawn from a potentially infinite population of t...
Based on D. Trafimow, H. C. Triandis, and S. Goto's (1991) research on the distinction between the private, collective, and relational selves, the present authors explored the valence of each self. The authors administered to participants either a private self-prime, a collective self-prime, or a relational self-prime and then asked them to write 20 self-statements. The authors coded the statements for valence (positive, neutral, or negative) and self-statement type (individual, collective, or relational). The results indicated that the valence of individual self-statements were most positive when the collective self or the relational self was primed, indicating the possibility that positive illusions were exaggerated most in the context of other people.
This study examined affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to members of a stigmatized group -homosexual men. Male participants were placed in a situation in which they anticipated interacting with a gray or a non-stigmatized conversation partner. The topic of the impending conversation was either potentially threatening or non-threatening. Participants in the gay conversation partner condition sat either farther away from the conversation partner (in the threat condition) or closer to the conversation partner (in the no-threat condition) than they did from non-stigmatized conversation partners. There were no differences in attitudes toward the conversation partner as a function of experimental condition. The results were interpreted in terms of predictions based on ambivalenceamplification theory, aversive racism theory, and the integrated threat theory.
The current study tested how culture may affect the interpretation of the expression of pride among Norwegian and U.S. participants. Our results show that participants from Norway ascribed more negative trait attributions to a target person expressing pride than U.S. participants. It is proposed that Janteloven is responsible for the differences in these trait attributions, and we interpret the results from a "closed-system" and "open-system" (Mayr, 1976) perspective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.