This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reynolds, K. J. Articles by Oakes, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Reynolds, K. J. Articles by Oakes, P. J. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Variability in Impression Formation: Investigating the Role of Motivation, Capacity, and the Categorization Process

The Australian National University, Katherine.Reynolds{at}anu.edu.au

Penelope J. Oakes

The Australian National University

Current theory and research suggests that stereotyping is inversely related to the allocation of attentional resources. For example, motivational factors (e.g., interdependence, accuracy goals) are argued to increase attentional investment and encourage individuation. Within this model, a neglected feature of the impression formation process is the role of the perceivers’ own self-definition. Based on self-categorization theory, it is argued that whether the salient self-other categorization is defined in interpersonal or group terms, respectively, will determine whether impressions will be more individuated or stereotypic. Two experiments are reported where the effect of interdependence (Experiment 1) and accuracy goals (Experiment 2) as well as the salient comparative context (interpersonal, intergroup) on impression formation were investigated. The results suggest that the nature of self-other categorizations does play a significant role in explaining variability in impression formation.

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