Perceiver self-presentational goals as moderators of expectancy influences: Ingratiation and the disconfirmation of negative expectancies.

Abstract

Self-fulfilling prophecy processes enable people to confirm their negative expectancies for others. The perceiver goal of ingratiation was hypothesized to alter this behavioral dynamic and thus lead perceivers to disconfirm their negative expectancies. In an interview setting, we manipulated interviewer Ss' expectancies and interaction goals. As anticipated, "no goal" interviewers were relatively cold and challenging toward their negative-expectancy applicants; as a result, these applicants performed somewhat less favorably, consistent with interviewer expectancies. In contrast, "liking goal" interviewers were relatively warm and unthreatening toward their negative-expectancy applicants; as a result, these applicants performed favorably, disconfirming interviewer expectancies. These data support a framework in which perceiver self-presentation goals are conceptualized to moderate the expectancy-confirmation process.

The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation

“…Instead, participants in these conditions received instructions intended to induce a particular processing goal. We used a procedure adapted from Neuberg, Judice, Virdin, and Carrillo (1993). Just before participants were asked to write down their questions, participants in the accuracy-goal condition were told that ''extensive research has shown that when generating questions, professional negotiators tend to work hard to develop an accurate impression of the opposing person.…”

The effects of expectancies and actual communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes: A test of interaction adaptation theory

“…Additionally, while not manipulating expectancies specifically, Le found that interactants led to believe their partners were nonstigmatized, gay, or a person with AIDS, all reciprocated the levels of nonverbal involvement they encountered, (Neuberg, Judice, Virdin, & Carrillo, 1993) and other research indicating a tendency for perceivers to compensate and reciprocate anticipated behaviors in different situations (Honeycutt, 1989;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982), an important notion to remember is that the primary relevance for the current study lays in the demonstration of the effects of expectancies on communication.…”

When Interviewers Desire to Confirm Negative Expectations: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies and Inflated Applicant Self-Perceptions

“…Moreover, unrepresentative expectations can create self-fulfilling prophecies (Merton, 1948), whereby people behaviorally confirmÐ usually unintentionally and without aw arenessÐ the expectations held by others (for reviews, see Brophy, 1983;Darley & Fazio, 1980 ;Miller & Turnbull, 1986 ;Neuberg, 1996 ;Snyder, 1992). Self-fulfilling prophecies have been demonstrated not only within laboratory-based interview settings (e.g., Neuberg, 1989;Neuberg, Judice, Virdin, & Carrillo, 1993 ) but within ª real-worldº interview settings as well (e.g., Macan & Dipboye, 1990). They represent a particularly problematic form of expectation bias because interviewers can gain, through the self-fulfilling prophecy process, an unrepresentative reality on which to shape biased evaluations.…”

“…First, an interviewer' s expectations may influence his or her verbal and nonverbal expressive behaviors. The interviewer may express positive feelings toward applicants for whom he or she holds favorable expectations and leak negative feelings toward applicants for whom he or she holds unfavorable expectations (Harris & Rosenthal, 1985;Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982;Neuberg et al, 1993 ;Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977;Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Because the norms of social discourse often lead us to reciprocate others' behaviors with similar behaviors of our own (e.g., Goffman, 1959), applicants who benefit from the interviewer' s favorable expectations are likely to perform more positively than their counterparts who confront the relatively cold expressions associated with unflattering expectations.…”

“…Tw o lines of evidence suggest, however, that assessment accuracy may not be the overriding concern of interviewers. First, ample research has documented the expectation biases that interviewers commonly display, in both real interviews (Macan & Dipboye, 1990 ;Phillips & Dipboye, 1989 ) and laboratory simulations (Neuberg, 1989;Neuberg et al, 1993); such biases are incompatible with a strong orientation toward accuracy. Second, when interviewers in laboratory experiments are explicitly encouraged to be accurate, they are much less likely to exhibit expectation biases than interviewers in whom no explicit goals have been encouraged (e.g., Darley, Fleming, Hilton, & Swann, 1988;Neuberg, 1989); if the default interviewer goal is accuracy, of course, one would expect both sets of interviewers to exhibit similar behaviors and judgments.…”