Showing papers by "Oliver P. John published in 1991"

Automatic Vigilance: The Attention-Grabbing Power of Negative Social Information

Abstract: One of the functions of automatic stimulus evaluation is to direct attention toward events that may have undesirable consequences for the perceiver's well-being. To test whether attentional resources are automatically directed away from an attended task to undesirable stimuli, Ss named the colors in which desirable and undesirable traits (e.g., honest, sadistic) appeared. Across 3 experiments, color-naming latencies were consistently longer for undesirable traits but did not differ within the desirable and undesirable categories. In Experiment 2, Ss also showed more incidental learning for undesirable traits, as predicted by the automatic vigilance (but not a perceptual defense) hypothesis. In Experiment 3, a diagnosticity (or base-rate) explanation of the vigilance effect was ruled out. The implications for deliberate processing in person perception and stereotyping are discussed. There is a fundamental asymmetry in people's evaluations of gains and losses, of joy and pain, and of positive and negative events. A considerable body of research, in fields as diverse as decision making, impression formation, and emotional communication, has shown that people exhibit loss aversion (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984): They assign relatively more value, importance, and weight to events that have negative, rather than positive, implications for them. In decision making, potential costs are more influential than potential gains (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In impression formation, negative information is weighted more heavily than positive information (e.g., Anderson, 1974; Fiske, 1980; Hamilton & Zanna, 1972). In nonverbal communication, perceivers are more responsive to negatively toned messages than to positive ones (Frodi, Lamb, Leavitt, & Donovan, 1978). Quite generally, then, "losses loom larger than gains" (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984, p. 348). There are good evolutionary reasons for this widespread and pronounced asymmetry in people's evaluative reactions. Events that may negatively affect the individual are typically of greater time urgency than are events that lead to desirable consequences. Averting danger to one's well-being, such as preventing loss of life or limb, often requires an immediate response. In

The basic level in personality-trait hierarchies: studies of trait use and accessibility in different contexts.

Abstract: A person's behavior and experiences can be described at different levels of abstraction. For example, a person might be described as charitable, as generous, as kind, or as good. Is there a level in such a trait hierarchy that is particularly useful in personality descriptions? The present 4 studies show that there is indeed a general preference for a particular level; the size of this preference depends on the familiarity and likability of the target people, which included various others and the self. These findings suggest that in trait hierarchies, people prefer the highest level of abstraction that is still descriptive of behavior (e.g., kind) over more descriptive subordinate levels (e.g., charitable and generous) and over an even broader level devoid of descriptive meaning (e.g., good). This level is basic in that it represents the optimal resolution of the trade-off between bandwidth and fidelity that characterizes all hierarchies.

The Basic Level in Personality-Trait Studies of Trait Use and Accessibility in Different Contexts

Abstract: A person's behavior and experiences can be described at different levels of abstraction. For example, a person might be described as charitable, as generous, as kind, or as good. Is there a level in such a trait hierarchy that is particularly useful in personality descriptions? The present 4 studies show that there is indeed a general preference for a particular level; the size of this preference depends on the familiarity and likability of the target people, which included various others and the self. These findings suggest that in trait hierarchies, people prefer the highest level of abstraction that is still descriptive of behavior (e.g., kind) over more descriptive subordinate levels (e.g., charitable and generous) and over an even broader level devoid of descriptive meaning (e.g., good). This level is basic in that it represents the optimal resolution of the trade-off between bandwidth and fidelity that characterizes all hierarchies.