Measurement and generality of response dispositions in person perception1

Kaplan, Martin F.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1976.tb00117.x

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This positive-negative asymmetry is attributed to people's perception of the world as a moderately positive place, apositivity bias (e.g. Kaplan, 1976). Such positivity is still higher when the targets of evaluations are other persons, apersonpositivity bias (Peeters, 1991;Sears, 1983).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐categorization effects in intergroup discrimination: Adding versus averaging

Singh

Yeoh

Lim

et al. 1997

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two between‐participants experiments (Ns = 216 and 260), Chinese in Singapore rated competence and attractiveness of strangers described (a) by cross‐categorizations of race (Malay: out‐group vs. Chinese: in‐group) and nationality (Malaysian: out‐group vs. Singaporean: in‐group), (b) by simple categorization of either race or nationality, and (c) by no‐group label. An additive effect of cross‐categorizations was obtained: Both the race and nationality categorizations produced main effects but no interaction effect. Analyses of variance of the simple and cross‐categorization data together also retained the additive effect as predicted by the adding rule. However, the higher ratings of the in‐group than of the out‐group in both the simple and cross‐categorization conditions were based on an out‐group derogation instead of an in‐group bias. Explanations of the out‐group derogation and suggestions for additional work on the cross‐categorization effects are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐categorization effects in intergroup discrimination: Adding versus averaging

Singh

Yeoh

Lim

et al. 1997

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Scholars have suggested that actors invoke initial impressions when information processing is constrained (Kaplan, 1975(Kaplan, , 1976, particularly when the information is considered "unreliable or potentially invalid" (Kaplan, Wanshula, & Zanna, 1993: 260), which is likely to be the case when a firm reneges on its initial commitment. Accordingly, consumers are likely to invoke initial impressions of a firm in the event of a breach of promise or loss of legitimacy.…”

Section: Moderating Effect Of Csr Reputationmentioning

confidence: 98%

Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter?

Campbell

Eden²,

Miller³

2011

J Int Bus Stud

416

190

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies have found that foreign affiliates of multinational enterprises (MNEs) suffer from liability of foreignness (LOF). Foreign affiliates may be able to improve their social legitimacy and overcome LOF by demonstrating social commitment to host-country constituents through corporate social responsibility (CSR). If LOF is positively related to the distance between the home and host countries, and CSR activities confer social legitimacy benefits on foreign affiliates, we should expect CSR activities and distance to be positively related. However, we argue that, despite this potential motivation, foreign affiliates from more distant home countries are in fact less likely to engage in host-country CSR. Our argument focuses on the ways in which distance affects the MNE's willingness and ability to engage in CSR abroad. We also predict that hostcountry CSR reputation negatively moderates this relationship. Using Community Reinvestment Act data for foreign bank affiliates from 32 countries in the United States over 1990-2007, we find strong support for our hypotheses. The paper enriches our understanding of CSR practices in MNEs, and of when and how MNEs try to overcome legitimacy issues in host countries.

show abstract

“…The subjective neutral point along most response measures is often higher than their mid-point (Parducci, 1968). Such a point is still higher when the target of evaluation is another person, a person positivity bias (PPB) (Kaplan, 1976 ;Sears, 1983). It may be more appropriate, therefore, to use the response to a control condition of no-trait (Singh et al, 1997) and no-attitude (Singh & Tan, 1992 ;Tan & Singh, 1995) information as the baseline.…”

Section: Evidence For Behavioural Adaptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As noted earlier, response to such a control condition provides an estimate of the PPB in the participants. In view of possible wide individual diåerences in the PPB (Kaplan, 1976), it was decided to use two groups of randomly assigned participants to estimate the same. Identical estimates from the two conditions are important for providing a convergent validation of the PPB in the population studied.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impression formation from intellectual and social traits: Evidence for behavioural adaptation and cognitive processing

Singh

Teoh

2000

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Judgments of intellectual and social attractiveness of a target were taken from a pair of moderate and extreme intellectual or social traits. Weights of the traits given were identified from the pattern in their two-way interaction effect. Responses to a control condition of no-trait information provided the estimates of the person positivity bias in the participants, and the relative effects of the negative and positive traits were determined relative to such bias values. Consistent with the cognitive hypothesis, positive intellectual and negative social traits received more weight in the intellectual and social attraction responses, respectively. However, negative and moderate traits carried more weight in social attraction as predicted by the hypothesis of behavioural adaptation. Despite the asymmetric weighting of intellectual traits in intellectual attraction and of social traits in social attraction, the negativity effect was stronger than the positivity effect. Evidently, mechanisms postulated by both the hypotheses co-exist but they are detectable by only the operationalization employed in the two research paradigms.

show abstract

Measurement and generality of response dispositions in person perception1

Cited by 28 publications

References 29 publications

Cross‐categorization effects in intergroup discrimination: Adding versus averaging

Cross‐categorization effects in intergroup discrimination: Adding versus averaging

Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter?

Impression formation from intellectual and social traits: Evidence for behavioural adaptation and cognitive processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About