document resume - eric · 2014. 3. 30. · linda silica. uniyersity of lowell. u.s. department of...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUMEo 4
ED; .2376 , ' CG pi7 117
Silka, LindaPerceptions of st'ability and Chan9e inOthers andSelf.Aug p , /
18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of theamerican Psychological AssOciation (91st, Anaheim,ACA, August' Z6-30, 1983) . 4.
Reports Research/Technical (?43) --Speeches/Conference
LPapers (150) /
4
EDRb PRICE FOl/PC01 Plus Postage. ../
DESCRIPTORS Attitude Change; College Students; Evaluatixe.Thinkin; Higher Education; Indiv4dual ii,....
Characteristics) 4Intuition; *Personatity./Change;.Self:Airaluation (Individuals); *Social Cognition
IDENTIFIERS *Persob Perception; *Stability (Personal), / 4
ABSTRACT'Research in. the area of person perceptiWon has been
dominated by the assumption that people seek_stable trait informationand view others as highly consistent. To examine whether perceiverswould' ha e difficulty in 'thinking of ways that peopl.,ghavg,changed,and eporting instances of such change, 120 coil gelstudekts wereasked to complete Short essays in Ighich they reporied areas ofconstancy and of change in their bgst-friends and n themselves.,
Overall, the most 'frequent reference was to trait. attributes, wilichili
Resillts showed change judgments, were eqeally. as f equent as judgments'of sameness, and this was true in judging others as well as self.,
accounted for 40 percent of all judgmentsch!judgments weresignificantly more likely when describing areas( of constanc ratherthan change, and. when describing a friend rat4er than self. Subjectswere more.likely to refer to constancy in interests, aryl more likelyto refer to changes in goals and maturation han to constancy in thi$area. The redUlts provide clear evidence of/the richness anddiversity of'intuitive judgments of change/in persons. (JAC)
./
/ I.
AUTHOR
PUB DATE. N O T E . )
PUB%TyPE
1
/
****i************************* *********************** ***************Reproductions supplied by EDRb are the best that
from the original .document.******************************************************
an be made,*
***4**ft.*********,-
C.)
Perceptipns of Stability and Change in Others and SelfPt
Linda Silica
Uniyersity of Lowell
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE ,OF EDUCATION .
EDUCATION4L RESOURCES IN FORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
15(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.
! Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated In this docu-ment do not necessarily represent of ficial.NIEposition or policy.
as
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATF,RIAL HAS I3EEN,GRANTED
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Paper presented at the 1983 American Psychological Associationmeeting in Anaheim, California.
1 AbstAct
Research in the area of perOon perceiktion 'has bee doMinsetect:
1 N
+
:'. i , .
by the assumption. that people seek staple trait in ormation"a,._.3 4 .. . ,
/ view others as highly consistent. This a8sUmPtion implies, at( .
, ..,
perce ivers will .have cliff iculity in thiliking of ways that personsd
- .
have charige sand in reporting instances - of sucA change. Whive ver
:the- results of the present study, in which peoples were ::asked to
reporV areas_ of constancy and bf change in themselves and others,
ast doubt -on. thisassumption.. IntUitive judgments of change 14.n
, self and oth'erslere found to 'readily' occur' however; aspects ofp,
personality. described as changing differed 'somewhat , from thosee
aspects desCribed as,Stable.
.4
., In the area of person perception a-primary focus has been the
phenomenon of staality in-person judgments. It has been widely
assumed within the field that perceive'rs generylly form highly7
stable judgments sch09521-Heider,'1958; Ap.schel, 1973), /and
that perceivers attend most closely to those aspects of person
information that areof valusin termsof.assessing stable,( ,
underlying characteristi'cs (Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis,11 5; Jones &
Nisbett; 101). Impressions are believed to be readily formed, Often
on'the basis of little information; and yet once ford are believe iv
to be tpritcLously held and Yhighly. 'retistatt, to change (Cantor &,*
Misdhel,'1979J Jones &dOethals, 1971!f Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rose,,
1977). Because OfIthe percei'ed centralAty of these stable, traitlike
judgments, much of the recent-work has been directed toward
examining-those'cognitive processes' which-presumably maintain and
support the perception of others as stable entities (cf. Hastie,
'Ostrom, Ebbesen, Wyer, Hamilton, & Carlston 1980; Higginst Herman,&
-'2anna 1981).
Yet while the perceDtion of persons has been construed largely.
as a search for stable, traitlike information, outside the person
perception area 'emphasis has been' placed 011 person change.: Outside
person perception there,. is evident concern with.how and how much
people change. Although intefest in person change is evident across,%
a variety Of area in psychology, it is perhaps most salient inA
clinical and developmental psychology. Those in clinical psychology
have become increasingly concerned with issues of how and when change
occurs as a result'of therapeutic intervention.
f
Widespread
Silka
2,
professional disagreement, coupled with empirical work which has-1
failed to support professional percepticn& ofttherapeutid effedtiveness,/-
has led to the reconsideration of basic issues or.therapeutic change
(Ervin, 1980; Garfield, 1981; Goldfried, 1980; Smith & Glass;,'19171
Wachtel; 1977; Wolpe, 1981). While witilin the clinical field, interest
in person change ds generally related to interest in the Consequences
of an intervention, in developmental psychology interest :is, often
expressed in more gradual change. 'Students of developmental chanie
. address issue's. of progreSsidi that 'eflect the gradual accumulation
of change duesto added years of living and experiende. How is a'
ten year old diffirent from a five year old? In what ways is someone
at midlife differeht from what he or she was' like in early adulthood?
What changes does later l'i'fe britg? And, as in clinical psychology,,
a number of interesting conflict& have'developed surroundi.ng issues
of stability versus change (cf. Block, 1981;,Brim &Kagan, 1980I"
Costa & McCrae, 1980). These ongoing controversies clearly reflect
the centrality of issues of person change. 1.
''rIn sharp contrast to developments in other areas, reuearch
in person perception As not donsidereil 'judgments of change; in. .
1
A
facteperhhps just the opposite has occurred in the area., Instead
of a concern with intuitive judgments of change, it has' been
argbed that people essehtialliseb'each other. as unchangeable- -that
at base intuitive perceivers are thorough-going trait theorists
Al,(Cantor& Mischel, 1979; Ebbesen, 1981; Mischel, 1968): At
it has been asserted that.this is due to' motivational
cauberlPervin, 1978) and sometimes as a result
, Silka
3,
of specific cognitive mechanisms (NisbItt &-Ross, 19801 Ross, 15771
Taylor *Crocker 1 81), but inther case peOple argil b4ieved to
be relatively insen itive t new infor ation'.and.reiatively unlikely
to alter their th ries, e acceptance of. this conception .of
person perception as a :rnservative", trai -dori.._ated apprpagh
has :been widespread./
When this aSsumption of constancy is juxtaposed against the
gat ,interest in person change in other areas, the question is
raised of whether intuitive perceivers sh9w an absence of interest,
}ri and judgments of person change. It might be Expected that;,
,\ A
)perceivers areconcernedAvith change', perhaps in MuchNthe:same.
way, as are psychologists. It is quite possible that-inCativei
judgments of 'person change are common and-are of certtral,impor,taricer.
-whenever more than brief relationships and interactions.are
considered,: /-Yet these dudgment have' remained Unnotided by the
4
person percepticin community.
In the,present'studi we turn to.the.basic,quegtion of-whether
perceivers make intuitive judgments of person' change, Clearly
a fundamental issue arising from recenttheorizingabouithed.
predominance of 'cOnsiste;ne, udgments in person:perception.... This
&s ,one' in a series p studi investigating int itive Judgments
of change. In other wor$ (Silka,,Note 1) we h've begin a
i.e4Xamination of the research that maylrhave 4litribUteeto the
widespread belief that people largely heck out and 'perceivet
App) sistpncy. 'We have also begun te;look at various ,processes
that may influence intuitive' judgments. of Chang°, i4ilka, 1981).
4
r"
4
SilksI ' 4'
The present study,4egin,s with the simple :premise that if people...:
focusl'on tracts, view )ieis as, highly' consistent, and form stable
impressions, they'will have great difficulty. inythiniqnkbf Ways,
that other peiSple have changed. Thip will become apparent, for.
.,,b1,.A(asked to 4escribechangeb they will list fewer itdit than when
asked to describe, areas of sameness. To test/for this 5bility.in the current study open-ended essays written,on issues pf constancy
_ ,
and issues Of.dhange, were analyzed for relative frequencies of
referenceib to Ch6ge and references. to constancy. 'Consideration..
P , .: , ..was given not only to th-e relativefrequency of such judgment? but.,,
, s / ,
also to gdsibl,e area*, differences in per6 e tristicsn cha..4%
.
. el
intuitiyely,described 'as saving changed or .remained the same.i..
.In addition'to inves-egatinftAludgments o person change, the
t
study altle investigat d. bidgments of eel change. perceptions.:
..., .,
of.41f change were i cludedbecause'bflheir importance an-maw. . . .,.
.
ateas.. In both developmental and clinical'pekchology:there has,
been considerable interest in the consequences for the self of change
(cf. i4m &1Kagan, 140). There also has peen- considerable,
I
controversy abo4 when assessment of self change occur* (cf. Garfield,3.
..
,
1981). 4)
is. not clear how perceptions of self change night
)differ froM perceptions of change4iA others. Early person perception
watc,'`sparticularly in the attribu.Ln area, suggestedjthat.the'\.... '
precool; of ilakinself attributions is quite diffprent'than
making attri4utiOns for others (Jones & Nisbett, 19714 Nisbett &
Valins, 1971). However recent social cognition work ha6 focuselt
..
Silks
k C'.
on cert iri Similarities ,be wAnNthe processes underlying judgments
. .
of thers "and judgments of'self (Kuiper & Derry, 1981: Markus,
1977; Rogei, 1981):. Thus, judgments of change in self may be
,
quite similar to :dr quite differetrom intuitive judgments of
change in othei.s.
Method
-Subjects. One hundred and twenty general ,psychology students
'participated in partial fufiillment of course requirements.,
4
Participants were randomly ass4ed, to one of four orders of essay=
writing conditions: c
Procedure. Participants were informed'that the purpose
the study was to investigate various aspects of person perception.
They were told that they would ;be armed to write four short essays
on :this general topic. Each subjec -wrote two essays abbut
his/her bbst friend, one describing the ways the best friend had1
chaxiged in the lastfew years and ono. describing the ways in which
his/her best,fiend was "still pretty much the same as he/stie
was a few years ago. Each participant also wrote'two essays about.10
him/herself 'ond describing changes and one'outlinipg points of
constancy. The essay order was randomly,varied such that one-
quarter of thsesubjects wrote one.of these four essays first.. ,Apbjedts
were not informedof thd specific nature of the subsequent. essay'
topieS. until:completing the initial essay. For the purposes of
the prebent study, only the first essay written by each participant
was included In the final'analysis. These'essays were subjected
toa content analysis. Base& on pretests with in earlier, sample,
pretested categories of response items were emityed to analyze essays.
Results
An analysis of number of judgments in each area was first
completed. As Table 1 shows,change judgments were equally as
frequent as judgments of sameness, and this,was true in judging
others and in judging self. A test for significance showed no
sig nificant difference as a function Cf essay type. Participariti
were equally adept at pointing to areas of change as describing
areas of constancy. On the average 4.11 judgments were made.4*
The number of .judgments made ranged frdm one tq elevens In all, 93
,
judgments were imade,238 describing areas of change and 255 detailing14
areas of constancy. Because the overall number of items was
comparable in the various conditions, it as possible to directly
compare judgments. in terms of area of persocharacteristice
described. As is evident in Table 2, several different categories
of judgments were compared. v.These categorips summarized' the major
, ,
kinds of items described, and all but'29,judgments could be'placed
in one,of the pretested categories. Overall, the most frequent
reference was to trait attributes. Comments in this area
accounted for 400 of all judgmen'ts. Such judgments wore significantly
more like ,3y, howovor, when describing areas of'constancy than
whon describing areas of change (X=4.3, pe.05).and When d.e cribing.
the another rather than the self (x a3.8, p<.05). Judgments of
constancy also departed from judgments of change with regard to
which of the various categories was next moot common: Whothei'
referring ,to self or other, in describing areas of constancy,
subjects were more likely to refer to constancy in'interests than
Silica
to Otanges in interests with Yates 20.89, p<.05).
When referring to changes subjects -(both ing selves and
others) were more likely. to refer to changes.in goals and maturation
0
than to .constancy in this area (7C = 22.0, K.05). amments about
cons ancy and change aloe, occurred in several other areas, as can..
be seen in Table 2, but ins these categories such judgments were
equally common across all essay conditions..
1
, .( "Discussion,
Th present study provides clear evidence'of the richness
4 4*
and div rsity of intuitive judgments of change in person'e.
Participants rphdily made judgments of change,. not only about
others, but alto about.themselven. The judgments ranged from440-
obviously transient characteristics to characteristics thato
might clearly be considered stable and central. It is true that
perception of .change occurred in slightly different arean than
perdeptions of constancy, although again there wan nubstantial
elkerlap. Insayn written about change wore more likely to
describe.changea in cuCh person characteriatimaa goals and
maturity, -whereas essays written about areas-of constancy were
more 11 ely to focus on constancy. in Interestn. Yet both groups
made t 3 majority of commenta'about trait attbibutes.4
And although It might have been' argued that change judgmenta
would be made only about relatively peripheral nupeoto of
functioning, the present study doe's not support ouch an assertion.
Both change judgments and judgment4 of cobstancy occurred in areas
that have traditionally boon considered rather central to
personality functioning (e.g., attitudes, values, and trait
attrIbutes)6 10
Silka
8
Some might argue that the present results which reflect high
fre4uencies of change percapti s are representative only of this
particular population. That is people in their college years may
be undergoing rapid change quite' at odds with the redgeed amount
of change people experience at later points in life. According
to this view, in other age groups the relative proportiotc of change
to stability judgrvnts would be quite different. Although'it is4
clearly the case that the particWants in't.his study were un4ergoing.
Significant change, and perhaps mom than might occur later, change
may be more comma, across the lifespan than is oftemsuppoued.
Further research would bel'needed to invostigat4th6 generality
of the findings described here. Howovor, itio iMportnnt to consider
the possibility that the!porception that intuitive judgments of change
areNenorally limited toj a few brief period may represent Amply
the name assumption among researchern in the person perception area
.that stability judgments dominate the poruon perception process.
11.
11
Silka
9
Reference Notes
1. Silka, L. Traits vs, the inference of changel A classic
-study re-examined.. Paper to be presented at the Eastern
Psychological Annociation meeting, Philadelphia April, 1983.
References
Englewdod'Cliffs, N.J.I PrentiCe-
Hall, 1952.
Bldbk, J. Scime.endurinR and consequential structures of personality.
In A.I. Rabin (Ed.) Further explorations in personality.' dew .
,.;,S1h
Yorks 'Wiley-Interscience 1981.
Silka
10
.
Brim, O.G.i & Kagan, -J. (Eds.):ConStanty and.change ihAuMan.
development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980..
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. Prototypes in person perception}..
L. Berkpwit4jEd.), Advances in .experimental 'soc).A1 psychology,
NevvYorks Academic Press, 1979..
Costa, P.T.e Jr., & McCrae, R.R. Still stable after all'these years:
Personality'as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In
P.B. Baltes & 0.G. -Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and
behavior. (Vol. 3). New Yorki-Aceemio.Press, 1980,,
Ebbdsen, E.B: Cognitive processes in inferences about a person's
personality. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & Zanna (Eds.),
Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.':
Lawrence,Erlbaum, 1981.
Ervin, E. Psychoanalytic the*rapys The Eysenck argument. American
Psychologist, 1980, 11, 435-443,
Garfield, S.L. Psychotherapy& A 40 year appraisal. American
Psychologist,.1981, 16, 174-183.
_Goldfried M.R. Toward the delineation of therapeutic change.
principles. American Pslchologist, 1980, 31, 991-999.
1.3
a Silka
11
Wyer, Hamilto4P.
CarlSton, D,E..(Eds.),'Person memory: The bognitive-,45isThf.
social perception. Hillsdale, N.J.: LaWreligp Erlbaum,
Heider, F. The psychology of interperirsonal relations. New York:
1958.
Higgins, E.P., HermanC.P., & Zanna, NL P. (Eds,), Social cognition:
ThQLnImiLsymp2fAmne Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.
Jijnes, E,E1, & K.E. From acts tb dispositions:, The attribtktionf.
process in person
experimental soc
1965,
perception, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
al psychology Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,4
Jones E.E., 4 Nisbett, R.E., The actor and the'observer: Divergent
perceptionslof the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D.E.
Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.),
/Attribution: Perceiv* g_.the causes of behavior. Morristown, -N.J.:
GeneralLearning\Press, 1971.
Kuiper, N.A., & Derry, P.A. The self as a cognitre prototype: An
\ Nt
.application to person perception and depression. In N. Cantor &
Kihlstrom (Eds.),. Personality, Cognition, and social interac
Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.
Markus, H. Self-schemata and processinginformatpn about the self..
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 14-63-78,
Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.
Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality, American /
Psych41.ogi&t 1973, 28, 1012 -1018.
14
& Rosi, L.D. Human inference,
shor,Comings of social Judgment. Century Series in P76*ology../
Englewood Clif0, )N.J.s Prentice-Hall, 1980.
vNisbett R E., &-Valins, S. Perceiving tie causes of one's own.
`behavior, In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H.Kelley, R.E.
Silka
'12
Strategies and
Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.) A9ributions Perceiving
1./N-the cause of behavior, Morristown, N.J.s Gener, arning Press;
1971.
Pervin, L.A. Current controversies and issues in personality.
New Yorks Wiley, 1978.
Rogers, T.B. A model of the self as an aspect of the hilman information
processing system. In N. Cantor & J.F. Kihlstrom (Eds.),
Personality, cognition, and social interaction.. Hillsdale, N.J.s
Lawrence Erlbaum,--1981.
Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings* Distortions
in the attribution process." In L. 'Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vdi, 10). New Yorks Academic
Press, 1977.
Silka, L. Effects of limited recall of variability on intuitive
judgments of change. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1981, 40, 1010-1016.
Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome
studies, American Psychologist, 1977, 124'752-76W.
Taylor, S. & Crocker, J. 'Schematic basis of social information
prOcessing. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.),
Social cognitions The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.:
LaWrence Erlbaum, 1981.
15.
,Silica.1
, 13
Wachtel, P. psychoanalysis and behavior therapy. New Yorks
Basic Books, 1977.
Wolpe, Js Behavicr therapy vs. psychoanalysis. American Psychologist,
1981, 16, 159-164,.
Jn
s-\
PersontJudged
.41
y.
C7
e.
Silka.
14
Table 1
Mean Number' of. Change and Constancy Judgments
, 0
Type of Judgment
Change Constancy
Other 3.8 4.5(30) (30)
Self 4.1 4.0(30) (30)
17
p
Table 2
Silka
15
Relative Frequencies-of Judgments of Various Categories
Area Type of Judgment
Other-Same Other-Changed
Goals and 12 24maturity
Attitudessandvalues' 7
Intellectual skillsand abilities
Feelings towardothers
Physical
11i
2
7
characteristics 8 9
Interests 24 6
Trait attributes 67 44
18
Self-Same Self-Changed
10 42
.8 5
10 10
14 13
)
9 8
15 1
45 39