Alphabetical List | Categorical List
Higgins1977.zip
Higgins1977Stimuli.zip
HIggins1977Data.zip
Higgins, E. Tory; Rholes, William S.; Jones, Carl R. (1977). Category Accessibility and Impression Formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154. (pdf)

(Don't read the summary before running the experiment on yourself -- it probably won't work.)

Some participants were given words in a memory task that related to a later passage. The words either suggested a positive or a negative connotation to the actions of the person described in the passage (there were also two control groups given positive or negative traits that didn't relate to the passage).

The prediction was that the words that were presented would be more accessible to the participants as they read the passage, so they would be more likely to be used to describe the behaviors depicted. For instance "bungee jumps" would be more likely to be described as "adventurous" if that had been in the memory task, or alternatively as "reckless" if that had been in the memory task instead.

Hamilton, Katz, and Leirer 1980

Anderson, N.H. Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 272-279.

Bach, S. & Klein, G.S. Conscious effects of prolonged subliminal exposure of words. American Psychologist, 1957, 12, 397.

Bartlett, F.C. Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press, 1932.

Becker, H.S. Becoming a marihuana user. In D. Solomon (Ed.), The marihuana papers. New York: Signet Books, 1966.

Bem, D.J., Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Bruner, J.S. On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 123-152.

Bruner, J.S. Social psychology and perception. In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and WInston, 1958.

Carmichael, L., Hogan, H.P., & Walter, A.A. An experimental study of the effect of language on the reproduction of visually perceived form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1932, 15, 72-86.

Forbach, G.B., Stanners, R.F., & Hochhaus, L. Repetition and practice effects in a lexical decision task. Memory and Cognition, 1974, 2, 337-339.

Gillig, P.M., & Greenwald, A.G. Is it time to lay the sleeper effect to rest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 132-139.

Higgins, E.T., & Rholes, W.S. Impression formation and role fulfillment: A "holistic reference" approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1976, 12, 422-435.

Hovland, C.I., Lumsdaine, A.A., & Sheffield, F.D. Experiments on mass communication. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.

Janis, I.L. Attitude change via role playing. In R.P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1968.

Knouse, D.E. Language, labeling, and attribution. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Percieving thte causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1971.

Kelley, H.H. The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. Journal of Personality, 1950, 18, 431-439.

Neisser, U. Cognitive Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.

Nunnally, J.C. Individual differences in word usage. In S. Rosenberg (ed.), Directions in Psycholinguistics. New York: MacMillan, 1965.

Posner, M.I., & Warren, R.E. Traces, concepts, and conscious constructions. In A.W. Melton & E. Martin (Eds.), Coding processes in human memory. Washington, D.C: V.H. Winston & Sons, 1972.

Ruble, D.N., & Higgins, E.T. Effects of group sex composition on self-presentation and sex-typing. Journal of Social Issues, 1976, 32, 125-132.

Salancik, G.R. Inference of one's attitude from behavior recalled under lingusitcally manipulated cognitive sets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, 415-427.

Sapir, E. Speech as a personality trait. American Journal of Sociology, 1927, 32-892-905.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J.E. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 1962, 69, 379-399.

Spiro, R.J. Inferential reconstruction in memory for connected discourse. Tehcnical Report No. 2, Laboratory for Cognitive Studies in Education, University of Illinois, October 1975.

Thomas, D.R., DeCapito Caronite, A., LaMonica, G.L, & Hoving, K.L. Mediated generalization via stimulus labeling: A replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, 78, 531-533.

Tulving, E. Episodic and semantic memory. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.) Organization of memory . New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Warren, R.E. Stimulus encoding and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 94, 90-100.

Wyer, R.S., Jr. Category ratings as "subjective expected values": Implications for attitude formation and change. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 446-467.

{Cited By}
The present study examined the immediate and delayed effects of unobtrusive exposure to personality trait terms (e.g., “reckless,” persistent”) on subjects’ subsequent judgments and recollection of information about another person. Before reading a description of a stimulus person, subjects were unobtrusively exposed to either positive or negative trait terms that either could or could not be used to characterize this person. When the trait terms were applicable to the descriptions of the stimulus person, subjects’ characterizations and evaluations of the person reflected the denotative and evaluative aspects of the trait categories activated by the prior exposure to these terms. However, the absence of any effects for nonapplicable trait terms suggested that exposure to trait terms with positive or negative associations was not in itself sufficient to determine attributions and evaluations. Prior verbal exposure had little effect on reproduction of the descriptions. Moreover, no reliable difference in either evaluation or reproduction was found between subjects who overtly characterized the stimulus person and those who did not. Exposure to applicable trait terms had a greater delayed than immediate effect on subjects’ evaluations of the stimulus person, suggesting that subjects may have discounted their categorizations of the stimulus person when making their immediate evaluations. The implications of individual and situational variation in the accessibility of different categories for judgments of self and others are considered.
{Works Cited}
{Data Instructions}

05-Mar-2002

Brian MacWhinney