The Role of Moral Information in Impression Updating

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20230503

Abstract

Abstract: Impression formation refers to receive information from an individual and forming an opinion on one's characteristics and personality. Previous studies on concrete factors that promote or hinder the formation of impressions have focused on the two-dimensional model of stereotype (i.e., warmth and ability). The warmth dimension of the two-dimensional stereotype model has been recently derived into moral and social dimensions. However, compared with abundant studies on how moral influences impression formation, the literature on how moral influences impression updating is extremely limited, and these limited researches have not systematically compared the roles of moral, social and ability dimensions in promoting impression updating, as well as the different influences of different information intensities on impression updating. Therefore, this study highlights the important role of moral information in impression updating by comparing moral information with social information and moral information with ability information in the Chinese context, and further divides the high and low strength of moral information to explain the information strength conditions that trigger impression updating. Two studies were designed to test the above hypotheses.
Study 1 was divided into two parts. First of all, Experiment 1 adopted a 2 (the first behavioral dimension: morality, sociality)×2(information valence: positive, negative)×2(the second behavioral dimension: morality, sociality) within subject design, aiming at comparing the influence of moral information and social information on impression updating process. The results showed that when forming the first impression, positive moral information produces more positive impressions than positive social information, and vice versa. After calculating the impression update score, it is found that moral information can produce greater impression update than social information under both positive and negative valence conditions. Experiment 2 also adopted a 2(first behavioral dimension: morality, ability)×2(information valence: positive, negative)×2(second behavioral dimension: morality, ability) within subject design, aiming at comparing the influence of moral information and ability information on impression updating process. When forming the first impression, positive moral information produces more positive impressions than positive ability information, and vice versa. After calculating the impression update score, it is found that moral information can produce greater impression update than ability information under both positive and negative titer. Therefore, we conclude that, compared with social information and ability information, moral information plays a greater role in the process of impression updating.
On the basis of Study 1, Study 2 further divided the strength of moral information, and also adopted an within subject design of 2(the first behavioral dimension: high-strength morality, low-strength morality)×2(the information valence: positive, negative)×2(the second behavioral dimension: high-strength morality, low-strength morality), aiming at exploring whether the low-strength moral information can update the first impression by manipulating the different intensities of moral information. The procedure of Study 2 is basically the same as that of Study 1. The only difference is that moral information is presented to the subjects in Study 2, and the high and low moral strength is divided. The results of Study 2 showed that low-strength moral information can cause impression renewal, even when the first behavioral dimension is high-strength moral information. Meanwhile, whether under positive or negative conditions, high-strength moral information can always produce greater impression update than low-strength moral information.
To sum up, this study draws the following conclusions. First, the impression of others will be updated according to new information inconsistent with previous information. Second, under the stereotype content model, the moral dimension can play a leading role in the process of impression updating more than other dimensions (social and ability). Finally, the higher the intensity of moral information, the greater the impression update.

Key words: moral information, form an impression, impression updating, information strength

摘要： 以往研究只关注道德对印象形成的作用,忽略了道德对印象更新的影响。因此,本研究以刻板印象内容模型为基础,探讨了道德对印象更新的影响以及引发印象更新的道德信息强度条件。通过对比道德信息和社交信息以及道德信息和能力信息,结果发现：（1）对他人的印象会根据与先前不一致的新信息进行更新;（2）在刻板印象内容模型下,道德信息在印象更新中比社交和能力两个维度更能发挥重要作用;（3）高强度的道德信息比低强度的道德信息更能引起印象更新。这些结果表明,道德对印象更新起主导作用,且道德信息的强度越高,越能够引起更大的印象更新。

关键词: 道德信息, 印象形成, 印象更新, 信息强度

Chen Li, Ou Yao, Li Weina, Cao Shijing. The Role of Moral Information in Impression Updating[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(5): 1046-1056.

陈莉, 欧瑶, 李维娜, 曹师静. 道德信息在印象更新中的作用 ^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(5): 1046-1056.

References

[1] 程婕婷, 张斌, 汪新建. (2015). 道德: 刻板印象内容的新维度. 心理学探新, 35(5), 442-447.
[2] 代涛涛, 佐斌, 温芳芳. (2014). 社会认知中热情与能力的补偿效应. 心理科学进展, 22(3), 502-511.
[3] 王妍, 罗跃嘉. (2005). 大学生面孔表情材料的标准化及其评定. 中国临床心理学杂志, 13(4), 396-398.
[4] 喻丰, 彭凯平, 董蕊, 柴方圆, 韩婷婷. (2013). 道德人格研究: 范式与分歧. 心理科学进展, 21(12), 2235-2244.
[5] 喻丰, 彭凯平, 韩婷婷, 柴方圆, 柏阳. (2011). 道德困境之困境——情与理的辩争. 心理科学进展, 19(11), 1702-1712.
[6] Brambilla M., Carraro L., Castelli L., & Sacchi S. (2019). Changing impressions: Moral character dominates impression updating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 64-73.
[7] Brambilla M., Hewstone M., & Colucci F. P. (2013). Enhancing moral virtues: Increased perceived outgroup morality as a mediator of intergroup contact effects. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 648-657.
[8] Brambilla, M., & Leach, C. W. (2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32(4), 397-408.
[9] Brambilla M., Sacchi S., Rusconi P., Cherubini P., & Yzerbyt V. Y. (2012). You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 149-166.
[10] Christy A. G., Kim J., Vess M., Schlegel R. J., & Hicks J. A. (2017). The reciprocal relationship between perceptions of moral goodness and knowledge of others' true selves. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(8), 910-917.
[11] Cone, J., & Ferguson, M. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 37-57.
[12] Cone J., Flaharty K., & Ferguson M. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(20), 9802-9807.
[13] Cone J., Mann T. C., & Ferguson M. J. (2017). Changing our implicit minds: How, when, and why implicit evaluations can be rapidly revised. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 131-199.
[14] Dunning, D. (2004). On the motives underlying social cognition. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Emotion and motivation (pp. 137-164).Blackwell.
[15] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Buchner A., & Lang A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
[16] FeldmanHall, O., & Shenhav, A. (2019). Resolving uncertainty in a social world. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 426-435.
[17] Ferguson M. J., Mann T. C., Cone J., & Shen X. (2019). When and how implicit first impressions can be updated. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 331-336.
[18] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., & Glick P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
[19] Goodwin, G. P. (2015). Moral character in person perception. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(1), 38-44.
[20] Hartley A. G., Furr R. M., Helzer E. G., Jayawickreme E., Velasquez K. R., & Fleeson W. (2016). Morality' s centrality to liking, respecting, and understanding others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(7), 648-657.
[21] Heiphetz, L. (2019). Moral essentialism and generosity among children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(12), 2077-2090.
[22] Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
[23] Koch A., Yzerbyt V., Abele A., Ellemers N., & Fiske S. T. (2021). Social evaluation: Comparing models across interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, several-group, and many-group contexts. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 1-68.
[24] Leach C. W., Bilali R., & Pagliaro S. (2015). Groups and morality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 123-149). American Psychological Association.
[25] Luttrell A., Sacchi S., & Brambilla M. (2022). Changing impressions in competence-oriented domains: The primacy of morality endures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104246.
[26] Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2015). Can we undo our first impressions? The role of reinterpretation in reversing implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(6), 823-849.
[27] Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2017). Reversing implicit first impressions through reinterpretation after a two-day delay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 122-127.
[28] Mende-Siedlecki P., Baron S. G., & Todorov A. (2013). Diagnostic value underlies asymmetric updating of impressions in the morality and ability domains. Journal of Neuroscience, 33(50), 19406-19415.
[29] Mende-Siedlecki, P., & Todorov, A. (2016). Neural dissociations between meaningful and mere inconsistency in impression updating. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(9), 1489-1500.
[30] Piazza J., Landy J. F., & Goodwin G. P. (2014). Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important, overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing. Cognition, 131(1), 108-124.
[31] Sanbonmatsu D. M., Mazur D., Behrends A. A., & Moore S. M. (2015). The role of the baserate frequency of correspondent behavior and trait stereotypes in attribution: Building on Rothbart and Park (1986). Social Cognition, 33(4), 255-283.
[32] Shen, X., & Ferguson, M. J. (2021). How resistant are implicit impressions of facial trustworthiness? When new evidence leads to durable updating. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104219.
[33] Siegel J. Z., Mathys C., Rutledge R. B., & Crockett M. J. (2018). Beliefs about bad people are volatile. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(10), 750-756.
[34] Strohminger N., Knobe J., & Newman G. (2017). The true self: A psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 551-560.
[35] Trafimow, D., & Trafimow, S. (1999). Mapping perfect and imperfect duties onto hierarchically and partially restrictive trait dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 687-697.