Eine Untersuchung zur diagnostischen Verarbeitung widersprüchlicher Informationen
Zusammenfassung
In drei weitgehend parallel aufgebauten Untersuchungen hatten Vpn einzelne Eigenschaften und Kombinationen daraus auf einem Polaritätsprofil zu beurteilen. Die Profilbeurteilungen wurden a) gesondert für jede Vp über die Skalen hinweg interkorreliert und faktorenanalysiert und b) gesondert für jede Skala varianzanalysiert. Es konnte nachgewiesen werden, daß 1. der größte Varianzanteil der Beurteilungen widersprüchlicher Informationen auf Dimensionen erfolgte, die unabhängig waren von denjenigen, welche den Widerspruch beinhalteten, 2. bedeutsame interindividuelle Gemeinsamkeiten bestehen in der Richtung, in der bei der Beurteilung widersprüchlicher Informationen von der widerspruchsgeladenen Dimension abgewichen wird, und daß 3. die Brauchbarkeit eines linearen Modells zur Vorhersage der Beurteilung von Informations-Kombinationen mit der subjektiv erlebten Ähnlichkeit der Informationen ansteigt, sofern ein Minimum erlebter Ähnlichkeit gegeben ist; die Brauchbarkeit eines linearen Modells ist jedoch demgegenüber erheblich und relativ konstant herabgesetzt, wenn die kombinierten Informationen als unähnlich erlebt werden.
Summary
In three largely parallel experiments, subjects rated their impressions of persons described by single or combined personality-trait adjectives on 36 bipolar scales. Separately for each subject these ratings were correlated across the scales and factor-analyzed; separately for each scale analyses of variance were carried out.
It was shown that (1) when dissonant adjectives were combined, the major proportion of the judgments' variance was independent of the dimension that characterized the dissonance; (2) there was substantial interindividual agreement as to the direction of the deviation from the dimension characterizing the dissonance; (3) the applicability of a simple linear model to the prediction of judgments of combined trait adjectives improves considerably to the extent to which a subject experiences the combination as consonant. However, when subjects judge the combined adjectives as either independent or dissonant, a simple linear model has only limited predictive power, no matter to which extent a subject experiences the combination as dissonant.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
- Abelson, R. P.: Do predispositional factors summate ? Amer. Psychologist 16, 377 (1961) (Abstract).Google Scholar
- Anderson, N.H.: Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science 138, 817–818 (1962).Google Scholar
- —, and A. Jacobson: Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2, 531–539 (1965).Google Scholar
- Anderson, H. J.: Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. J. exp. Psychol. 70, 394–400 (1965).Google Scholar
- Asch, S. E.: Forming impressions of personality. J. abnorm, soc. Psychol. 41, 258–290 (1946).Google Scholar
- Brehm, J. W., and A. R. Cohen: Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1962.Google Scholar
- Bruner, J. S., D. Shapiro, and R. Tagiuri: The meaning of traits in isolation and in combination. In: R. Tagiuri, and L. Petrullo (ed.), Person perception and interpersonal behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press 1958.Google Scholar
- Cohen, R.: Empirische Untersuchungen zur klinischen Urteilsbildung auf Grund psychologischer Tests. In: F. Hardesty, u. K. Fyfert, (Hrsg.), Forderungen an die Psychologie. Bern: Hans Huber 1965.Google Scholar
- Gulliksen, H.: The structure of individual differences in optimality judgments. In: M. W. Shelly, and G. L. Bryan (ed.), Human judgments and optimality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1964.Google Scholar
- Hammond, K. R., C. Hursch, and F. J. Todd: Analyzing the components of clinical inference. Psychol. Rev. 71, 438–456 (1964).Google Scholar
- Hoffmann, P. J.: The paramorphic representation of clinical judgment. Psychol. Bull. 57, 116–131 (1960).Google Scholar
- Hofstätter, P. R.: Männlich und weiblich. Wien. Arch. Psychol. Psychiat. Neurol. 6, 3–16 (1956).Google Scholar
- Levy, L. H., and M. L. Richter: Impressions of groups as a function of the stimulus values of their individual members. J. abnorm, soc. Psychol. 67, 349–354 (1963).Google Scholar
- Manis, M., T. C. Gleason, and R. M. Dawes: The evaluation of complex sozial stimuli. J. Pers. soc. Psychol. 3, 404–419 (1966).Google Scholar
- McNemar, Q.: Psychological statistics, 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1962.Google Scholar
- Meehl, P. E.: The cognitive activity of the clinician. Amer. Psychologist 15, 19–27 (1960).Google Scholar
- Osgood, C. E., C. J. Suci, and P. H. Tannenbaum: The measurement of meaning. Urban: University Illinois Press 1957.Google Scholar
- Podell, H. A., and J. Podell: Quantitative connotation of a concept. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 67, 509–513 (1963).Google Scholar
- Rimoldi, H. J. A.: Prediction of scale values for combined stimuli. Brit. J. statist. Psychol. 9, 29–40 (1956).Google Scholar
- Sarbin, T. R., R. Taft, and D. E. Bailey: Clinical inference and cognitive theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc. 1960.Google Scholar
- Sherif, M., and C. I. Hovland: Social judgment. New Haven: Yale University Press 1961.Google Scholar
- Thorne, F. C.: Clinical judgment. Brandon 1961.Google Scholar
- Triandis, H. C., and M. Fishbein: Cognitive interaction in person perception. J. abnorm, soc. Psychol. 9, 29–40 (1963).Google Scholar
- Tucker, L. R.: Systematic differences between individuals in perceptual judgments. In: M. W. Shelly, and G. L. Bryan, (ed.), Human judgments and optimality. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1964.Google Scholar
- Weiss, W.: Scale judgments of triplets of opinion statements. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol. 66, 471–479 (1963).Google Scholar
- Wishner, J.: Reanalysis of impressions of personality. Psychol. Rev. 67, 96–112 (1960).Google Scholar