Contrast effects and their relationship to subsequent behavior

Sherman, Steven J.; Ahlm, Karin; Berman, Leonard B.; Lynn, Steven Jay

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(78)90030-6

Cited by 141 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, they are more likely to be retrieved and used in later situations in which they are applicable. This principle has a corollary: after a judgment or decision has been made and a representation of it has been stored in memory, this representation may later be retrieved and used as a basis for other judgments and decisions independently of the information on which it was originally based (Carlston, 1980;Sherman, Ahlm, Berman, & Lynn, 1978;Srull & Wyer, 1980). The power of the knowledge accessibility principle derives from the diversity of the cognitions to which it applies.…”

Section: General Principlesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Procedural influences on judgments and behavioral decisions

Wyer

2011

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals' decisions are not only influenced by their immediate objective and the relevance of the available information to the attainment of this objective. When several different cognitive procedures could be used to make a decision, the nature of this decision can depend on the procedure that happens to be used. The selection of this procedure, which might come into play at different stages of cognitive functioning, can be affected by factors that are totally irrelevant to the judgment or decision to be made or to the goal that is being pursued. In fact, procedures that have been employed in one situation can influence behavior in a quite different situation in the pursuit of a quite unrelated objective. Examples of these effects are reviewed and interpreted in terms of three basic principles of cognitive functioning that pertain to cognitive efficiency, knowledge accessibility and the impact of subjective experience.

show abstract

Section: General Principlesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Procedural influences on judgments and behavioral decisions

Wyer

2011

J Consum Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, would perceivers spontaneously evaluate the targets following priming? Earlier work by Sherman, Ahlm, Berman, and Lynn (1978) suggests that only when an overt judgment about an object is made will the context in fact influence behavior. More recently, however, Winter, Uleman, and Cunniff (1985) have suggested that social judgments are in fact made automatically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior.

Herr¹

1986

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

432

426

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments investigated the judgmental and behavioral consequences of priming a social category. In the first experiment, assimilation and contrast effects of judgment of a target person's hostility obtained following priming with exemplars of, respectively, moderate and extreme levels of the category hostility. The second experiment replicated these findings and, in addition, demonstrated that subjects then behaved consistently with their evaluations of the target person in a social interaction. The results are discussed in terms of the social interaction literature, with category accessibility serving as a means of creating an expectancy for the target's behavior.A considerable amount of research evidence supports the notion that the expectations held by an individual regarding the behavior of a target person determine, to a great extent, the content of the social interaction between the two individuals. In game settings, subjects who thought that their partner disliked them (Jones & Panitch, 1971) or who were led to believe that their partner was a generally hostile person (Snyder & Swann, 1978) behaved significantly more competitively toward that person than when such an expectancy was not present. Kelley and Stahelski (1970) found that subjects who expected their partners to be competitive behaved in a more competitive manner as well. In each case, subjects' expectancies of another individual were manipulated and the subject holding that expectancy came to act differently toward the target person.The effects of expectancies on social interactions are not confined to game situations. Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) found that, in the context of an interracial interview, black "job applicants" received shorter interview times, greater physical distancing, and higher rates of speech errors from white interviewers than did white applicants. Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977) demonstrated that men's beliefs that women who were physically attractive would be warmer and more sociable than physically unattractive women resulted in different behavior to a female target in a telephone conversation.All of these studies provide evidence that individuals' expectations indeed affect the nature of a behavioral interaction. Whether the expectancy was formed in the lab by an experimenter or held by the subject before, the social interaction with This article is based on a doctoral dissertation conducted at Indiana University and supported by an Indiana University doctoral dissertation grant.I would like to thank the members of the dissertation committee,

show abstract

“…For example, Krantz and Campbell (1961) argued that the reduction of contrast effects on length judgments observed when responses were expressed using the well-known scale of inches rather than an arbitrary rating scale provided a measure of the response component underlying these effects. Further support for a response-based interpretation of contrast is evidence that contrast effects may not generalize to other related scales (Upshaw, 1978) or to related behavioral indexes (Sherman, Ahlm, Berman, & Lynn, 1978). On the other hand, contrast effects have been found to generalize to open-ended written descriptions (Simpson & Ostrom, 1976), cross-modality matching procedures (Manis, 1967), and even physiological measures, such as skin conductance as a measure of anxiety (Krupat, 1974).…”

Section: Evidence For Early and Late Occurrence Of Contextual Contrastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: A test of pre- versus postintegration models of contrast.

Wedell¹

1994

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined at what stage contrast effects occur within the impression-formation process. University students rated the likability of persons described by 5 trait adjectives, with the distribution of trait adjectives manipulated between Ss. Theoretically, contextual stimuli may affect the valuation of component traits before integration, a preintegration model, or they may affect the valuation of the composite impression after the components have been integrated, a postintegration model. Context was manipulated so that the preintegration model predicted an interaction between context and target, but the postintegration model did not. The predicted interaction was replicated several times, supporting preintegration processing of contextual information. However, when subjects were divided into fast and slow judges (on the basis of judgment latencies), the pattern of results supported preintegration contrast for fast judges and postintegration contrast for slow judges. These results support the conclusion that contrast effects may operate at different levels in impression formation.

show abstract

Contrast effects and their relationship to subsequent behavior

Cited by 141 publications

References 17 publications

Procedural influences on judgments and behavioral decisions

Procedural influences on judgments and behavioral decisions

Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior.

Contextual contrast in evaluative judgments: A test of pre- versus postintegration models of contrast.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About