Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mills, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ford, T. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Mills, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ford, T. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 3, 256-266 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167295213007
© 1995 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Effects of Importance of a Prospective Choice on Private and Public Evaluations of the Alternatives

Judson Mills

University of Maryland, College Park

Thomas E. Ford

University of Maryland, College Park

An experiment tested the hypotheses that the more important a prospective choice, (a) the greater the difference in private evaluations of the alternatives and (b) the less the difference in public evaluations of the alternatives. Female subjects expected to choose between two interviewers for a lengthy, personal interview (important choice) or a brief; superficial interview (unimportant choice). They rated the interviewers with the experimenter absent while "practicing" with a computer mouse apparently not registering responses (private evaluations), or did that and told the experimenter their ratings (public evaluations). The difference in private evaluations was significantly greater when the choice was important, supporting the first hypothesis. Results for public evaluations were consistent with the second hypothesis but non-significant. In a second experiment, subjects rated the interviewers on a questionnaire (public evaluations). The difference in public evaluations was significantly less when the choice was important, supporting the second hypothesis.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
A. L. Brownstein, S. J. Read, and D. Simon
Bias at the Racetrack: Effects of Individual Expertise and Task Importance on Predecision Reevaluation of Alternatives
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2004; 30(7): 891 - 904.
[Abstract] [PDF]