Beyond the information given : capacity, context and the categorization process in impression formation
Creators: name: Reynolds, Katherine Jane
Publisher: name: The Australian National University
Year: 1996

description: This thesis exammes the impression formation process, with particular reference to the distinction between individuated and stereotypic impression formation. The emphasis is on issues such as: What factors influence our impressions? When are impressions based on a person's individual qualities? When do we form stereotypic impressions of others? What processes underpin the formation of more individuated or stereotypic impressions? Two theoretical perspectives, social cognition and self-categorization theory, offer divergent explanations of the impression formation process and are the theoretical and empirical focus of the thesis. The argument developed in recent impression formation models based on the social coguition approach is that there are two impression formation processes. Categorization is defined as the process used to form stereotypic impressions, and a categorization-free process is thought to underlie individuated impression formation. Whether one process or the other operates is determined by motivational factors which impact on the level of attention allocated to impression formation, such that increased attention is inversely related to stereotyping. Alternatively, self-categorization theory argues that the types of impressions we form of others are the product of the relational, comparative and contextdependent aspects of social perception. The same categorization process, but operating at different levels of abstraction - interpersonal or intergroup - is argued to underlie variations in impression formation. Historical and contemporary developments related to both perspectives are outlined. There are four theoretical chapters which address: 1) the early person perception and stereotyping literature (Chapter 2); 2) key models of impression formation (Chapter 3); 3) the social cognition analysis of the categorization process (Chapter 4); and 4) social identity theory and self-categorization theory (Chapter 5). Based on the theoretical analysis two main points of distinction between selfcategorization theory and the social cognition approach emerge: 1) whether attentional capacity or the salient level of categorization can best account for variations in impression formation; and 2) whether both stereotypic and individuated impressions are formed through the same categorization process. These issues frame the empirical work of the thesis. Four experiments are reported. Experiments 1 and 2 (chapters 6 and 7), directly examined whether variability in impression formation is due to different levels of attentional capacity or the defining social comparative context - interpersonal or intergroup. In these studies interdependence (Experiment 1) and accuracy goals (Experiment 2) together with the salient comparative context were manipulated. Overall, there was no systematic evidence that subjects formed more individuated impressions under conditions thought to motivate the allocation of attentional resources (in interdependent and accuracy goal conditions). However, results suggest that more individuated impressions were formed in interpersonal contexts and that stereotyping increased under conditions where ingroup-outgroup categorizations were salient. The role of categorization m impression formation is then examined in experiments 3 and 4 (chapters 8 and 9). Is it the case, as self-categorization theory would predict, that all impressions are formed using the same categorization process? It is argued in these chapters that if it can be shown that self-other similarities and differences are accentuated when both individuated and stereotypic impressions are formed, then this would provide evidence of categorization. In these two experiments, the findings suggest that self-other context-dependent accentuation is the basis of impression formation in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. The results of Experiment 4, in particular, indicate that individuated impressions are as much based on relative self-other interpersonal judgements as stereotypic impressions are based on relative intergroup comparisons. The results of these studies enable us to draw some conclusions about the relative accuracy of individuated and stereotypic impressions and the role of the categorization process in impression formation. In the final chapter future directions for research are outlined.