Trait transference and the logic of conversation Ben Van Calster and Vera Hoorens

1. EAESP 13th General Meeting San Sebastián (Spain) 26-29 June, 2002 Trait transference and the logic of conversationBen Van Calster and Vera Hoorens Abstract Trait transference or the phenomenon that people ascribe traits to communicators when observing these communicators describing other people’s trait-implying behaviours has been presented as an associative phenomenon. However, an artefact explanation may be derived from Schwarz’s (1994) analysis of social cognition research in terms of the logic of conversation. While judging communicators, participants who are confronted with these communicators’ descriptions of other people’s behaviours may believe that they are explicitly expected to use this information and hence show a spurious trait transference effect. To test this possibility, participants rated communicators and actors after they saw photographs of the communicators together with their trait-implying descriptions of the actors’ behaviours. Half of them judged the communicators after having judged the actors’ traits, apparently ‘to control for nonsystematic communicator-related error in trait inference’. The other half rated the communicators first, without knowing that the behavioural information on the actors would be useful for judging the actors’ themselves. Trait transference did not depend on this manipulation, implying that the phenomenon is no artefact of the rule of relevance being applied to this specific experimental situation. • Introduction • Trait Transference: The Phenomenon • Trait transference occurs when observers ascribe a trait to a person after observing that person describing someone else’s trait-relevant behaviours (Skowronski et al., 1998; Mae et al., 1999). • The effect doesn’t occur for traits that are evaluatively congruent with or opposite to the traits implied by the description. Hence, it does not boil down to the halo effect. • If the phenomenon proves to be general, it may have implications for all contexts in which people discuss other people’s behaviours (e.g. job selection, employee evaluation, gossip…) • The Paradigm Used By Skowronski et al. (1998, Experiment 2) • Participants see photographs of ‘communicators’, each accompanied by a trait-implying description that the communicator has allegedly given of another person’s behaviours (the ‘actor’). They judge each communicator on the trait being implied and on both an evaluatively congruent and incongruent trait. In addition, they judge previously unseen individuals on the same traits. Trait transference is evidenced by higher trait ratings on the implied trait for communicators than for ‘new’ people. • Communicators are being judged after the behavioural descriptions have been removed and hence during a second viewing of the photographs. • The Principle Of Relevance: An Alternative Explanation • While participating in conversations, people rely (among other principles) on the principle of relevance saying that each partner’s contributions should be relevant to the goals of the conversation. • Participants in social cognition experiments respond as if the principles of conversation were followed. Consequently, they believe that the information they get is relevant and should be used for the task at hand (Schwarz, 1994). • When not being given a rationale for obtaining communicators’ descriptions of others, they may believe that the researcher deems the information relevant. Hence they use this information in judging the communicators whereas in real life they might not do so. • (Main) Results • Analyses: 2 (Type of Trial: critical vs control) X 2 (Implied Trait Valence) X 2 (Communicator’s Gender) X 2 (Target Order) X 2 (Version) repeated measurements ANOVA on the mean ratings for focal, congruent, and incongruent traits separately. • Trait transference occurs if focal traits are attributed to communicators on critical trials more strongly than on control trials. • Attribution Of The Focal Trait • The focal trait was attributed to the communicator more strongly if s/he described another person behaving according to it than if s/he described another person showing trait-irrelevant behaviour, Mcontrol = 3.64, Mcritical = 3.77. Main effect of Type of Trial: F(1,108) = 4.16, p = .04. • Trait transference occurred for positive descriptions, t(111) = 3.24, p = .0016, Mcontrol = 4.17, Mcritical = 4.40 (Figure 1), but not for negative descriptions, t(111) = 0.18, p = .86, Mcontrol = 3.12, Mcritical = 3.13 (Figure 2). Interaction Type of Trial X Valence: F(1,108) = 5.94, p = .017. • Neither the main trait transference effect nor its interaction with valence depended on Target Order, F(1,108) = 1.39, p = .24, and F(1,108) < 1, respectively. • Attribution Of The Evaluative Congruent And Incongruent Trait • Congruent traits were attributed to the communicator more strongly if s/he described a person behaving according to the focal trait than if s/he described a person showing trait-irrelevant behaviour, Mcontrol = 3.81, Mcritical = 4.10. Main effect of Type of Trial: F(1,108) = 41.82, p < .0001. • No equivalent effect was obtained for evaluatively incongruent traits, F(1,108) = 1.02, p = .31. • Figure 1. Mean rating of a positive focal trait Figure 2. Mean rating of a negative focal trait • to the communicator depending on the order of the to the communicator depending on the order of the • judgment tasks. judgment tasks. • Aims Of This Study • Testing the trait transference phenomenon • - in a situation mirroring ‘real life’ impression formation more closely • - further examining its specificity to the traits being implied • - examining its generality over positive and negative traits • Testing the ‘logic of conversation’ interpretation • Conclusions • Trait transference did occur in on-line impression formation. • Trait transference was neither as specific nor as general as suggested by previous studies. • - Less specific: Descriptions of other people’s behaviours affected participants’ • impressions of the communicators on focal traits and on evaluatively congruent • traits. • - Less general: Trait transference stricto sensu only occurred if the descriptions implied • positive traits, whereas the effect for evaluatively congruent traits did not depend on • the descriptions’ (and the traits’) valence. • Trait transference cannot merely be an artefact based on research participants’ naïve use of the principle of relevance. The above effects were not limited to a situation in which the rule of relevance dictated the use of behavioural descriptions while forming an impression of the communicator. • One explanation for the difference between focal and evaluatively congruent traits may be that participants deliberately tried not to transfer negative personality information onto the communicators while judging them on the focal traits without realizing that this information might affect their view on related traits as well. • Method • Participants • 112 undergraduate psychology students of the K.U. Leuven, 93 females and 19 males. • Materials • 24pretested descriptions: 12 neutral, 6 implyinga positive trait and 6 a negative trait. • 24 frontal head-and-shoulders photos (Martinez & Benavente, 1998), 12 males and 12 females, pretested for neutrality as to their facial expression and physical attractiveness. • Procedure And Design • Participants were seated in cubicles with the experiment being administered on PC. • Photos of ‘communicators’ were presented, each with a behavioural description ‘the communicator had given of another person’ (the ‘actor’). • On 12 critical trials, the description implied a trait, while on 12 control trials it was trait-irrelevant. Two versions were being used, reversing the set of photographs serving on critical versus control trials. • For each photograph-description combination, participants judged both the actor and the communicator on three 7-points scales. Two by two, critical and control trials were yoked concerning the traits on which participants judged the targets. • Participants judged the targets on a focal trait (the trait implied by the description in critical trials or, for control trials, by its yoked equivalent), plus on two traits that were evaluatively congruent and incongruent to the focal trait, respectively. • In order to simulate real-life and hence on-line personality judgements, responses were given with the photograph-description combination present. • The order of the targets (communicators / actors) was manipulated between participants. The second task was introduced as ‘designed to control for nonsystematic variance in people’s responses to the first task’. Target order determined the implication of the rule of relevance while judging the communicators: • - actors-communicators: no reason to use the behavioural descriptions • - communicators-actors: behavioural descriptions seem useful References Mae, L., Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (1999). Spontaneous trait transference to familiar communicators: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? JPSP, 77, 233-246. Martinez, A. M., & Benavente, R. (1998, June). The AR face database. CVC Technical Report #24. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgment in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), AESP (Vol. 26), pp. 123-162. San Diego: Academic Press. Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L., & Crawford, M. T. (1998). Spontaneous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in others. JPSP, 74, 837-848. Contact Information: Ben Van Calster Vera Hoorens Address: Laboratory for Experimental Social Psychology ben.vancalster@psy.kuleuven.ac.be vera.hoorens@psy.kuleuven.ac.be Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium Phone: +32 (0) 16 32 58 86 Phone: + 32 (0) 16 32 60 28 Fax: + 32 (0) 16 32 59 23