Augmentation and Discounting in Impressions of Targets Described by Third Parties with Ulterior Motives

Abstract

Third parties are influential sources of information about other people, but their impact on audiences' impressions may depend on perceptions of their motives to provide the information. In two experiments we showed that when sources had a motive congruent with the target information they provided (i.e., negative information while having an obstructive motive and positive information with a facilitative motive) target impressions were less correspondent with the information (i.e., discounting). when sources had an incongruent motive (e.g., positive information while having an obstructive motive) target impressions were more correspondent with the information (i.e., augmentation). These effects were obtained with target information about likeability (Study 1) and competency (Study 2). Extending principles of attribution theory and ulterior motivation, these results show that inferences about one person can affect impressions of another one.

How Modifying Third-Party Information Affects Interpersonal Impressions and the Evaluation of Collaborative Online Media

“…Relatedly, in contrast to the examination of warranting on social network sites, the distinction between self and third‐party claims might be moot in other online venues where information is provided exclusively by third parties, comes from an ambiguous source, or is the product of multiple individuals. As indicated in this study and previous research (Brandt et al, ), the perceived objectivity of third parties can vary—they can be seen as biased or unbiased—and such variability can have a meaningful impact on impressions. These findings suggest that the perceived objectivity of third parties can be affected by the extent to which their evaluations are modifiable by others.…”

“…And across blogging platforms, people regularly express information about their personal relationships and feelings (see Stefanone & Jang, ). Akin to the findings of Brandt et al (), indicators of relational closeness that appear online might dampen the effect that third‐party claims have on impressions. Specifically, the more a positive evaluation produced by a third party is perceived to be from an objective source, the more favorably the person being judged is rated (H2).…”

“…In addition to the ability to modify self‐referential content generated by third parties, it sometimes is difficult to discern whether a contributor is indeed an objective third party online. As previously noted, the more third parties are perceived to be objective, the greater their evaluations affect impressions (Brandt et al, ). Online systems that contain viewer recommendations have consistently wrestled with the challenge of how to ensure that people providing reviews online are truly objective third parties and not people who purposely disguise their identity or affiliations in order to self‐servingly sway opinions.…”

“…Targets were rated as more sociable and more competent when the same positive evaluation was presented by a third party instead of the target being evaluated. However, a follow‐up study documented how the influence of third‐party claims might vary depending on whether the third party appears to be an objective or biased source of information (Brandt, Vonk, & Knippenberg, ). For instance, a third party motivated to facilitate a positive impression of a target (experimentally induced by indicating friendship) was viewed as less trustworthy than a more neutral third party.…”

Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence

“…If the observer knows that the student has been nominated for an award to be judged by the professor, the student's helpful behaviour might be attributed to a desire to win the award. Although the majority of work on augmentation and discounting has dealt with judgements about dispositional versus situational attributions for observed behaviour, these principles also apply to other aspects of judgements, such as the perceived validity of information (Brandt, Vonk, & van Knippenberg, ).…”