STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF THE CRGANIZATION OF URITTEN IMPRESSIONS Walter M1. Crockett Allan N. Pross Jesse Delia University of Kansas Kansas State University University of Illinois Charles T. Kenny ilemphis State University 7 Introduction Jn this report we present a system for renresonting the organizational structure of individual cognitions about other neopic. ‘The system is one approach ta the analysis of the organization of social cogeition, a type of analysis that has largely been avoided by social psycholonists. It is true that Zajone (1969), Scott. (1962, 1963), llarvey, Hunt, and Schroeder (1961}, Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967), Bieri et al (1966), and a variety of others have al! been concerned vith how specific social objects are represented and organized in an individual's congitions. Nevertheless, it is also true that the fields of attitude research and of impression formation have been largely unaffected by these dcvelopments. In the mursuit of objectivity and in the interest of simplicity, the great najority of research Workers have asked subjects to give an overall evaluation of the object of orienta- tion, or to assess its position on an adjective checklist, instead of describing their conceptions about the object and its properties, Tt need not detract from the obvious value of research using such “objective” eriteria to point out that there is more to an attitude than the evaluation of the object itself, more to an impression than the pattern of checks one makes on an adjective checklist. People often arrive at the sane evaluation of an object from quite different cognitive assessments of that object. Individuals who make the same pattern of responses when describing the traits of another person on an adjective checklist may hold much different conceptions of that person on aztri- butes that are not included in the checklist, or may, in their inpressions, give much different weights to the adjectives they have checked. Surely the analysis of social behavior will be enriched by a detailed consideration of wh individual 's cognitive orientation includes and how the clements of that orientation are organized. ‘This scoring manual presents one atterpt 2t ceveloping an objective, communicable system for analyzing the structure of social cognition. Definitions and Assumptions borrow the term con ion. i trust from Crorge Kelly (1985) to denote "3 usage, the rred to the way some things.are seen cs being alike and yet cifferent fron others; a constrect is a tuo-ended affair, javolving 2 particulct desis for considering likenesses end differences, and at the same tine for excluding certain things as irrelevant to the contrast involved" (Bannister and ikir, 1968),2 ae Lil seicor use Loti: 6 eunoeruct ad ats ast to vidual. Instead, he will use a considerable nother position Obviously, aa indiviceal describe his impression of a single ind: munber of terns, each drown cron one or . continua, We shall refer to each quality a subject employs in such descriptions as @construct, Our focus, more specific than that of Kelly, is on the nature of the constructs and on the relationships anong those constructs as they appear in the specific impression that confronts us. Because we deal with the impression as it is reported by the subject, this scoring system makes no consideration of preverbal er nonverbal constructs. Organization. To the present tine, the system deals with two aspects of organization: the denree of differentiation and the level of hivrarchiz organiza~ tion of the impression. The choice of these properties, as against others, wes dictated by the implications cf Norner's postulate that development proceeds from a State of relative globelity and lack of difforentiation to a state of increasing differentiation, articulation, and hierarchic integration (Verner, 1957, p. 126). Our present measures hove been developed to assess the properties of organization that are central to this "orthogenetic principle." A more theoretical discussion of the basis for this system may be found in Kaplan and Crockett (1968). The term differentiation is used to refer to "the number of part (Lewin, 1951, p. 116). Im the present context, the term structs that appear in a subject's description of another person or of an attitude object. It should be recognized that our usage of this term differs from that of Bieri (1961), who uses “differentiation” to refer to the extent to which a subject discriminates among others with his constructs. of the whole” jotes the number of con- A set of constructs are integrated to the extent that they are systematically related to one another. Ordinarily, constructs are integrated hierarchically, in the sense that one cr a few elements are used to tie together other elenents, to account for their joint vresonce in the object being described. Thus, the scoring of the extent of hierarchic, integration must be concerned with the patterns of relationship among pairs of constructs and with the extent to which the constructs as a group are organized in a unified manner Scoring Procedures Differentiation of the Impression 1. General Principles Scoring the degree of differentiation of the’ im recording, and counting the nurbor of constructs th pression includes. The decision as to which elements of an impression are to be scored as constructs is sonetimes difficult to make, To reduca the ambiguity in scoring procedures, a set of rules have becn developed which clarify the application of the general principles just discussed pression involves identifying, Rule 1. (a) Whenever it is debatable whether a phrase showld be scored as ohe Construct or several constructs, or (b) rhen tvo nearly synoymous but not identical qualitics are mentioned in an inpression, the subject should be given the benefit of the doubt and multiple constructs should bo scored instead of3 Just one, further spceigications of this rule are provided in Rules 2 through 4 Rule 2, \heit the subject uses an adverbial or adjectival qualifier which, as used, “appears to be an intrinsic part of the noun it modifies, contrary to Rule 1, the two words are to be scored as one construct, In such instances, it is presumed that tle qualifier refers to the degree to which the attribute is held, or to one ranner in which it appears, rather than to a qualitatively different attribute, Thus, the ITsasonzuly selfish’ is scored cs one construct, not as beth “unreas md “selfish Decause the word ‘unreasonably’ refers more to the degree of sulfislness than to a distinct quality of unreascnableness. Rule 3, Identical, repeated words er Phrases are scored only once. tords which are Very sinilar in meaning but which are not identical are scored twice. Thus, if a subject describes the other person as ‘domineering, assertive, and aggressive," all three are scored as constructs, Similarly, if the other person is described as a "hard and thorough worker", tvo constructs ate scored on the assump- tion that the subject is reporting both a hard worker and a thorough worker and that the two adjectives describe somewhat different aspects of the other person. On the other hand, if a person is described as ‘helpful" twice in the same question--cven if it is phrased as ‘very helpful" the second time -- only one construct should be scored. Rule 4, Idiomatic constructions which run to several words are usually scored a5 one construct. Thus, the statement “John is a big, fat slob" is scored as only one construct because it is conventionally used as a single unit. S. Only qualities which are relevant to the task the subject has been set @ be scored as constructs. In most of our studies only aspects of the other person's personality or his stimulus value for his associates have been scored as constructs owing to the nature Of the task that was set for the subject. Physical traits, information about the other person's social role, his age, or the like usually are not scored, Sometines this restriction must be liberalized, however. For example, Hoymer (1965) conducted an experinent in which subjects formed impressions fron pictures viich were prosented at gradually increasing shutter speeds. It was expected that the content of subjects’ impressions would shift, with increased exnosure, fron descrintions of the other Person's appearance and dress to inferences about his internai, dispositional quali- ties. In this case, carryinz out the critical comparisons in the experiment required the scoring of both dispositional and external qualities in subjects’ descriptions Rule 6. General statements about what people should do ahout the nature of mankind or about the subject's ovn feelings are not scored as constructs unless they ar€ specifically tied te characteristics of the person who is being described, For example, statenents like "Peonle should he hunble," 'No one likes people vho are selfish," "Nobody is perfect,” or "I would like him as a reonmate" (as opposed. 4 to “ie would eke a goat Eaete pot ut eng wits Ue pees wsidvration, however much they may say about the criteria the subject has used in evaluating that person. 2. Measures of Difhi rentiation and Related Aspects of Inpressions A variety of measures may be defined on the constructs that are recorded. Me will discuss three such. + Degree of Differentiation. The degree “of-difversntiation was defined above as the munber of parts in the wibtes~aedoridnely, the measure of differentia- tion is the number of constructs in’ b. sion. Recording constructs in desirable, neutral or indeterminate, and widetirable categories permits a devermination of the valence of the inpression. Sne measure cf valence is the proportion of positive constructs to the total of positive and negative constructs (excluding neutral or indeternin- ate constructs}. An index of the polarization of the imression is the absolute deviation of this proportion from: 0.50. €. Quality of the Traits Included. In addition to the foregoing measures, a variety of content analyses may bo undertaken of the constructs subjects include in their inpressions. Ihether the subject's constructs are predominantly concrete or abstract; whether he relies heavily on motivational or nonmotivational constructs; whether he concentrates upon the other person's dispositional properties or upon the effects he has on others; whether he focuses his description in one or two donains of content or spreads his concern to a larse number of donains: and other, similar questions can be examined by an appropriate content analysis of the constructs in the inpressions. Such identification and use cf such content analyses will depend, of course, upon the research interests of the investigator. B. Recording Constructs in Scoring the Impression Whether inpressions ave obtained in writing or by interviewing, it is necessary that the transeribed impressions be available for detailed analysis. It is advisable to record the constructs in three colurms which index (a) desirable constructs, (b) noutral constructs or those of inbiguous valence, and (c) undesirable constructs, Each independent construct in the impression is entered encircle’, to permit its ready identiZication at a later tine, To present a graphic vepresentation of the organization of the inpression, lines are drawn amone constructs to reflect the relationships that were specified in the subject's report, An additional tyye of verbal expression, which does not fall within the defini- tion of an interpersonal construct, rust frequentiy be recorded. te have termed 5 expressions "relevant conditions”, so nared lecause they iielp specify the conditions under which one or another aspect of the other person's beliavior will be displayed. h An elenent is scored as a relevant condition under two circunstances: 1. then it refers to some observation, condition, or circunstance that is not an inference about what the other person is like nor about the resetion he elicits from others, but which answers the question "Under what circumstances will he5 act thus?" or “then will he show this quality?" Exanples include such obser- vations as “To superiors he...but to subordiantes he...', "If he feels secure he...yet when he is anxious he...", or ‘in his official position he... while in private f 2. \hen it refers not to the other person's behavior as such, but to aspects in the reporters which affect their interpretations of that behavior. Examples include “Those who really know hin,..vut special pleaders and phonies... or, Most of his friencs say:-.others are jealous..." Expressions of this sort are enclosed in brackets when the impression is dia- grammed, Although such expressions often plsy an important role in relating con- Structs to one another in an impression, they are not counted when the difforentia- tion of the impression is scored, Their omission from the score for derree of differentiation is based on the fact that the constructs thoy tie together are each recorded independently while the relevant concitions, themselves, refer not to the qualities of the other persen but to the conditions within which these qualities are displayed or the circumstances that lead to their inference by some reporters. Relationships anong Constructs We are concerned not sinply with the differentiation of parts in an impression, but also with the manner in which those parts are organized. ‘e base our analysis of the relationships upon the links that are specifically included in the impression. We say that two constructs are linted when the presence of one is explained in terms of another, or when two or more constructs are brought together and accounter for by the presence of another construct or of a relevant condition. Such lincs ray tie together constructs of the sare velence or of different valences. The important eriterion of scoring their presence is that the constructs be linked unequivocally in the description that the subject provided. Rules for Scoring Links Except for a few borderline cases, the identification of constructs in an impression is not a difficult task. The subject either mentions a quality or he does not. The same intuitive clarity docs not apply to the identification of links among constructs, especially when the subject writes his impressions and cannot be queried about what he intended to say. Frequently, one scorer will conclude that an expression seers to imply a link asong two or store constructs, hile the same linkage is not evident to a different scorer. In the interest of coder relia- bility, therefore, it is necessary to restrict the scoring of links to those instan- ees when they are explicitly contained in the impression. In addition, links are scored only when the subject ties together two or more interpersonal constructs, or interpersonal constructs and relevant conditions, in the behavior of the other person. le repeat these two principles, for emphasis and exerplification, in two additional scoring rules. Rule 7. A link should not be scored betreen constructs unless the connection is explicitly made in the subject's impression. Links are never scored when the connection is implicit. This rule is directly counter to Tule 1, where the scorer was advised to give: 6 the subject the Venetit ox the doube in recurcinp conseructs. ie reversai was necesitated by the problem of obtaining reliability in scorinp: while the identi- fication of explicit links in za inpression is ¢ jucnment tiet trained scorers can usually agree upon, it is next to impossible to develop criteria which produce agreenent on vhether or not expressions provide inplicit links between constructs. Rule £. A link is scored only if it connects two constructs which the subject uses to describe the other person. Not infrequently, subjects reflect on their impressions as they write then dou, describing the chain of reasoring by which they inferred one construct or another. xamples include “ihe fact that ne is nelpful makes me think he is generous "I cannot believe ne is well Lixed becauss he is so boastful. Such staterients provide interesting information abcut individual subjects! inferential processes, but they are not scored as links arong constructs in the subjects! impressions of the other porson, In statenents of this type, there is no explanation of one quality in the other person as a fimetion of some other quality or of some relevant condi- tion; in the absence of suc: explanations, links are not to Le scored. 2. Types of Lil There are a variety of ways by which constructs can he linked to one another. Many of these links involve constructs of the same valence which the subject represents as related either causally or in some other manner. Sther Links provide pathuays between constructs of different valences. Conmoniy, these links across valences help the subject to achieve sone sort of resolution of inconsistent qualities that have been attributed to the other person. Sometimes the inconsistency is resolved by showing how the person's behavior is actually consistent, and the anparent incon- sistency is 1 function of somebody's mispercention, The first two types of links discussed below lend themselves readily to this type of resolution. ‘n the other sido, a resolution is sozetimes achieved in which the inconsistency is assumed to reside in the other person, himself, and an explanation is proposed of te varia- bility in his behavior. The last three types discussed elow are especizlly suited to this type of resolution. It should be noted, however, that any of the five links we identify might be used to connect constructs of 2 sinple valence as well as to Feconcile constructs of different valences, a, Reintorpretation, or the subsumption of one construct te another. This type of link usually accomplishes much the same purpose as vould an outright denial of one of the qualities, lowever, in reinterpretation the quality is not denied so much as its apparent nenifestation 's explained in terns of sone other construct, usually of the opposite valence. Con for example, an instance of outright denial, ‘I cannot jelieve that he is well liked bocause he is so boastful,” with one of reinterpretation, Sonctines he apnears to be boastful: actually, he's just trying to help out by telling you of a sirilar experience he's had. In the former case, the quality of boastfulness is simply denied; the relevent constructs would be recorded as iMelY Liked» toast ful) In the second case. the boastfuiness is reinterpreted; the connection between helpful and boastful would te represented in the scoring as7 Lolpgu Serial ~~ |- —S ‘Appears boastful > Wells of similur experiences >] Bie ceed ee eee tette As additional exailes, an instance of reinterarctetion is the staterent: Le is careful to-do @ good job on whatover he uxcerta%es, This soretines makes him seer, to be inconsivurate of othirs, but cetually he is not. (Careful to do m good jeu > => ‘Seems inconsiderate of others 1° By contrast, an instance of denial, not reinterpretation is the following Fie couldn't be set Fish. selfish streak. No one who is so helnful end syrpathetic can have a = tot selish * CSmpatietios te eeneeeeeea Note: When such reinteroretation or denial occurs, the construct is placed under the valence category wicre it vould be placed had it boon affirmed (e.g. ‘well liked in the positive column; ‘boastful’ in the nerative): the construct is circled with a dotted line to shov that its opposite is really attribute’, This convention is followed to record the fact that a positive or negative cuality was mentioned even if it vas negated. Constructs so encircled “ith dotter lines are counted as of the opposite valence from the column in whicn they aro recorded. b. vifferences anong observers. Subjects frequently ascribe the various reports of the other person's deiavior to differences in the persepetives, personalities, or role positions of those who made the reports. links of this tye use expressions such as "Friends...enemies...", or “those who kno.: hin...casuel acquaintances..." For a link of this type to be scored, it is essential that the subject be specific as to the differences that have produced the differential reports, For example, the Statenent “Sone people see John as helpful, others see ir as selfish’ is simply a recapitulation of the information that the suhject received such a statement does not specify a condition or process which might account for the differential reports. Unless there is a specific reference to tir source of differential roports, no link between constructs is recorded. Exanples of expressions which do quality as such links are the following: Casual friends say he is helpful, but those who knot him see aim as selfish. : ——— Cinna <— Casual friends CSeitish, Those who know hin ~ John's ‘girl friends think he is sympathetic, but his classnates know he is selfish. Sympathetie’y <—| Girl friends | z Selfish _— nates Classmatesi 8 c. Variation nox this wading fall linis uhich propose’ that the other person's behavior varies with the situation or the context in which he finds hirst£. Fer suck a link to be scored, it is necessary that those aspects of the context be icentificd which elicit the different tehavior patterns. It is not sufficient, for instance, for the subject to say 'Like most of us, he is sometines helpful and soretines selfish. Insteac, there ust be explicit reference to te conditions under which the anbivalent qualities are shown, as in the folloving oxanples: When he has tino, John is helpful, when he is rushed he is selfisi aN Qlelpful_) | thie he has tine ppseitish then he is rushed ae He boasts a lot when he's in large gatherings like a cocktail party, but he's sympathetic in smaller grows. In large gatherings| > Boastful [Im snatier groups} ‘hen he's feeling good he is sympathetic, when he is deprossed he'll be selfish. when depressed \tnen depresse ate To repeat an earlier coment, it is not necessary in links of this type for both desirable and undesirable qualitics to be joined by a pathway, For exanple, one subject describ: as symathetic, helpful, and possessed of other desirable qualitics, and th "but when he's in school he's boastful.” The relevant condition does not specify the contexts, such as vhen John is out of school, when he would be other then selfish; therefore, no link can be record between the condition and positive qualities of John. ‘The inpression would be scored as follows: Cieipfat (hea he's in school Cieap~ 4, Role relationships. Links in this category differ fron those in (b) and (c) above by specifying ‘Ocial role relationships vhich set the contexts for the other person's differential behavior. Again, a link is scored only when the inpres- sion unanbiguously identifi of an impression which would not receive credit differently to different types of people--sonot: Examples vhich do qualify are: 7 Selfi 77 Selfish the role relationsnips that are involvec. An exarple r such a link is ‘John behaves s he's ‘wipful, sonetines selfish. John is helpful to close friends but boastful when around mere acquaintances. Cerphin}— (o toss eriends| 4 east > To acqu9 le is selfish toverd che considers L izes with those in superior positions, Chetzrul To those beneath bin eGR) te swertore | CR” Senet Aeeeoear eee ~ cei : e. Dispositional cualitics. ‘The final type of lint involves the explicit accounting for on> or hore other constructs Ly sore underlying motivational or dispositional quality, Once nore, the connection between one construct and another must be explicit in the impression. Isolated rotivational or dispositional state. ments such as ‘lie wants to succeed" or “he has an inferiority corplex" do not qualify as links because they are not connected explicitly to other constructs. Examples of such links include the followin, He wants to be liked, so Le is helpful and sympathetic. This behavior sometimes Bives the appearance of boast fulness, Belpial —— ph ce enue aaa eee C\ants to be liked + Boastful ‘; plait to be Bked Toast ful IN Srmpethetios He feels inferior; therefore, he tends to boast in an effort to build up his ego. = jClants to build eo) - ( creeis Tatestor > , He is selfish and wants to get ahead at any cost: therefore, he acts sympathetic and helpful to others whenever it may help him achieve his ovn ends. Steet eee ea 4 lielpful °, i en he can achieve his om ends)\{ (Selfish ) Fants to get atead~) at any cost. ‘Sympathetic D. Level of Organization of Inpression Two systems for scoring impressions will be described. ‘me of these was developed to analyze impressions that were formed fron both positive and nerative Personality information ebout the other yerson. The other permits the analysis a¢ impressions that have been formed from univalent or unknown personality information. 1.- Level of Organization of Impressions Fornec fron Inconsistent Information Suppose thet the subject has receivod both positive and nevative stimilus information about the cther perscn. As leider (1952) ‘as shiovn, the acceptance of anbivalent: qualities in another person jsroduces inbalance which’ the subject is lmotivatec'' to reduce. To represent adequately the information he has received, the Subject must include both aspects of the information; to reconcile the inbalmee, he must finc sone techanisr by which the inconsistency is accounted for. These two aspects, recognition of and reconciliation of the inconsistency, constitute the criteria on which is based the system for scoring level cf organization.: 10 The resent scoring syrven fort! tes Ale, yrnerst Dacie of sycninstisn, sce with throe lovels within, resulting in a fifteen-point ordinal scale which varies fron uninterrated to fuily intograted. The continuity of the system with the earlier work of Kaplan und Crockett is illustrated in the (efinition of the five general levels of organization, These are: (1) Apgreration, the representation of both desirable and undesirable qualities without recormition of their inconsistency and without reconciling that inconsistency; in such irpressions the inconsistent ingor- mation is differentiated but not integrated. (2) Implicit recognition of incons tency, the inclusion of only desirable or only undesirable qualities in the inpres- Sion. Univalence is placed higher than aggregation in the schere because such impressions usually achieve a considerable degree of unity and integration, even the inconsistency is not faced and the inconsistent elerents are not reconciled (3) Explicit recognition of inconsistency, the inclusion of bot desirable and undesirsile qualities and the recognition of their inconsistency, without the inconsistency being resolved. (4) Resolution, the inclusion and integration of some, but not all, of the inconsistent qualities, whence the inpression as a whole is not integrated. (5) Advanced resolution, “he inclusion of inconsistent qualities and their integration within an organized whole. Aggregation fm aggregate inpression, assimed to levels 1, 2 or 3, is one in which both socially desirable and socially undesirabel aspects of the personality information are included without any recognition of affective incompatibility. That is, in Such inpressions the inconpatibility of the information is represented but not recognized. Level 1 An impression is scored at Level 1 if (2) both positive and negative parts of the personclity information are included with Ro recognition of inconsistency, and (b) there are no inferences which go beyond the information given Example. John is very confident of himself and he conforns to the actions of + others. He has very high iceals, is very sarcastic, and also tries to pry into the affairs of others. Level 2: Average aggregation, Inpressions scored at Level 2 are aggregate impressions which contain inferences which go heyond the original information but do not serve to either recognize or resolve the inconsistency. Example. John is very confident of himself, thereby showing he is a resourceful person, and he conforns to the actions of others. He has very high ideals, is very Sarcastic, and also tries to pry into the affairs of otlors. Level 3: Advanced a An inp red at Level 3 if it is an aggregate inprossion ani les inferences which give sore indication that an implicit resolution of the inconsistency may have been made (c.g. "all in all he's a nice guy"). Example. John is very confident of himself, thereby showing he is 2 resourceful Person, and he conforns to the actions of others. [le has very high ideals, is very sarcastic, and also tries to pry into the a that Join is generally not 2 very nice guy. ‘airs of others, it appears, then,An impression is assimed to levels 4, 5 or 6 if it resolves the inconsis- tency by including only one sido or the other ef tie personalic’ ingorvacion, There is no explicit recognition of the inconsistency; ratior the ineonsistency is implicitiy recognized by ignoring and leaving out all te information of one or the other valence. Tron reading such irpressions one would think that only desirable or only undesirable inforration had Loon made available to the pereciving. Level 4: jiinimal imlicit recon Impressions scored at Level 4 include only a shall part of the infoniistion vresontee of any one valonce. It nay also include a general global quality of the other. Example, le's a real loser: a sercastic and nosy guy. Level 5: Average inplicit recornition, Impressions scored at this level differ fron the preceding only in that they include a larger part of the personality infornation available, and ray in addition include several inferre? qualities which g0 beyond the information given. he's a real loser. Example, This cat is as nhony as ¢ threo dollar bill, a r as the epitony of all Hie is confroning, sarcastic, md nosy. Te that stinks in iiudie Class fuerica today. Level 6: Advanced implicit recognition. Impressions scored at level 6 are univalent irpressions which contain either attributions of motivation or relevent conditions which, if corpleted and presented vith naterial fron tho ether valence, might have been used to account for the inconsistency (e.%. ‘his insecurity leads him to boast a lot"; or, ‘with his friends, he's really a helpfu’ puy'). Example. ‘his cat is as phony as a three collar bill, and he's a real loser, He is conforning, sarcastic, and nosey’ the last tuo characteristics help hin £0 overcone this inferiority. |e strikes ne a> the epitery of all that stinks in idddle Class tmerica tod. Explicit Recomnition of Inconsistency Impressions scored ot levels 7, 8 and 9 show explicit recognition that the other person has both positive and negative qualities but do not include mterial vhick Teconciles this affective inconsistency tarouch the use of appropriate superordiante, integrative constructs or statenonts. Such inpressions may he predoninmely positive or negative ir quality, so long as they explicitly recopnize the éneonsis tency and represent at least one quality fron the opposite valence. Inpressons which reject the task and indicate that so inconsistent @ person cannot oxist are also included. Level 7: ‘i‘inizal explicit recomiticn. An impression i3 scored at Level 7 when the ‘recognition of inconsistency is demonstrated hy the use of such connecting as "but", “ovever", 'nevertheless’ which connect information of one valence to opposite-valencod information, but (b) there is no direct verbal statement about the inconsistency. Impressions which reject the task by stating the equivalent of “someone with these qualities cannot also possess thes other qualitics" are scored ac level 7.12 fe } Exaile, Join is inconsistent sonchou. fe seems like a regular cuy conforming Pte situacies, cis secre 'Sea1s> of Lis confidence in wrt be fees. 1 has bad characteristics too. Le is nosey and sarcastic. Ie is polite, hovever. Level 9: Advanced explicit recognition. Inpressions scored at Level 9 differ from the precoding in the fact that they not only exnlicitly rocomnize the inconsis- tency but seer te attemt sove resolution of it either (a) by invekine some pseudo- personality traits or (b) employing sore vague an? irmrecise relevant condition. Exanples of psculo-porsonality traits are «schizonirenic: or “split-personality" which may describe but de not explain the inconsistency. Lxanples of vapue relevant conditions are ‘Sore poople think he is..., others thin! tr 2"; or ‘with sone people he's..., with other he's..." These statements express the inconsistency in the person's behavior but do not specify the circumstances when one quality or the other will be displayed. John is inconsistent soreho tuations. renic. Tle seens like a te cure becatise of uis confidence characteristics too. He is nosey and sarcastic in olite, hovever, in others. an Example Tegular guy conforning to in what he does. Le aas i some situations. ‘e is Resolution and Extended "esolution of Inconsi stency An impression is assigned to Levels 19 through 15 if it both recognizes th affective inconsistency in tie other person and then resolves at least a part of it through the use of integrative, superordinate links. The kinds of links which facilitate various modes of resolution have already heen described. Inpressions are scored at level 10, 11 or 12 if the Links between constructs involve qualities either external to the person or internal to them, but not both types of links, integrated around inter-related qualities of the othor. They are scored at level 13, Adior 15 if the perceiver employs both internal and external links (or internal links and external relevant conditions) in such a vay that positive and negative qualities arg shown to stem from internal dynamic qualities of the otier which result in the other behaving differently as a function of context. Level 10: ‘inimal resolution. An impression is assigned to level 10 if either (a) incompatibility is resolved through Linguistic reinterpretation, or (b) an unclear or minimal example of any one of the other links are used Example. Johr seens to be a person who cares reinly for hirself an‘ wants people to think well of hin, Le is not acvally idealistic, but rather believes only in his own ideas and ovinions. John probably cores from a middle class suburban fone and has learned that he should he polite when it is to his om advantage. Level 11: Average resolution, An irpression is assimed to Level 11 if 2 clear example oF ons of the modes of resulucion (in addition to linguistic rein- terpretation) is used. : : Example. Wien you first ret to neet John he appears to be a very confident, Tikeabie person. After k for auhile, John scens to bo a person vio cares mainly for himself and wants people to think well of ir. fie is not actually idealistic, but rather believes only in his oun ideas an? opinions. John probably cones from a middle class suburban hone and has learned thet he should be polite when it is to his own advantage.A 13 Level 12: Advanced resolution. An inprossion is assigned to Level 12 if nore than one cYear Vanple cF internal or external links is given, These modes are either 411 internal or all external, Example. When you first got to mct John he appears to be 2 very confident, Tikeable porson. After knowing him Zor a while, John seems to be a person who cares mainly for himself and wants pecple to think well of him. He is also Very idealistic; in situations where he is asked his opinion this idealism shows itself. John probably comes fron a middle elass suburban home and has learned that he should be polite when it is to his ow advantage, Level 13: Mininal extended resolution. An inpression is assigned to Level 13 if (2) @ Clear exanplo of an internal and an external link is given or (b) a clear example of an internal link is given with an external relovant condition such that external’ context is shown to vary as a fimction of the internal Link. Example. After knowing him for a while, John seems to be a person who cares mainly for himself and wants people to think wcll of him. Because he necds to feel superior to evoryonu he is very idealistic; in situations where he ts asked pis opinion, this idealism shows itself. John probably comes from a middle class suburban home and has learned that he should be polite when it is to his own advantage. Level 14: Average oxtended resolution. An impression is assigned to Level 14 when (a) the criteria for Level 13 are net and (b) thore are cloar examples of inter-relationships between internal and external factors. Example. After knowning him for a while, John seems to be a person that cares mainly for himself and wants poople to think well of him. Because he feels superior to everyone he is very idealistic; in situations where he is asked his*opinion, this idealisn shows itsolf, John cones from a middle clase suburban hone, and has learned that he should be polite, but only when it is to his own advantage. In all other situations, his feelings of superiority reassert themselves, and he acts extremely rudely and sarcastically. Level 15: nced_ext ion, An impression is assigned to Level 15 when (a) aii the criteria for Level If arc met but (b) they are mot to such an extent that substantiel parts of the impression are inter-related in such a way that a highly complex picture of the other is presented. Example. When you first got to moet John he appears to be_a very confident, likeable person. lic appcers to be very polite and confident. Tut things are much more complex 2 After knowing him for a while, John seems to be 8 person who cares mainly for himself, and hos a deep need for people to th Well of hin. Fron John's point of viow, havevor, he feels superior to every one yand is thus very dualistic; in situations where he is askod his opinion, thié idealism shows itsclf. John cones from a middle class suburban hime, and has learned that he should be polite, but only when it is to his own advantage. In ali other situations, his feclings of suporiority reassert themselves, and he acts extremely rudely and sarcastically, in such a way as to conponsato for his deoper fcelings of infeviority.: 4 2. Levei of Organization of Impressions when the jtinus Iafornation necessarily Inconsistent Impressions are often formed fron information that is not inconsistent or from spontaneous interactions in which the other nerson's behavior is not strikingly ambivalent. it is clearly impossivle to apgly the previous scoring method to such impressions, for there is no obvious inconsistency to reconcile. ievertheless, examination of such impressions leads one to the clear inference that there are substantial differences in their level of organization. A more general scoring system was developed to permit the analysis of such impressions. This system is based on the propositis variable over different situati: Such variability normally involves ambivalence, in that his actions are socially desirable along some dimensions or in sone situa tions and socially undesirabie in others. However, a person may behave at dif- ferent poles of the sane dimension even though both po (see Peabody, 1967 }-- "Sonetines, he's talkative and outgoing, at ethe quiet and serious". in either case, the more adeq i recognizes end accounts for such variability. These qualities, the imputation of variable behavior to the other person and the kind of processes that are called upon to account for the variability, constitute the criteria in terms. of which the various levels of organization are defined. Thus the major level to which an impression is assigned depends first, on whether the other person is described as being variable either in his behavior or in the dispositional qualities that a used to account for his behavior; and, second, on whether he accouits variability through tho use of superordinant, integrative types cf constr statements. yn that a given person's behavior is ‘sare socially desirable es he is ression will be one which It should be noted that there is a direct correspondence betueen definitions of the levels of this system and the definitions of the levels of the preceding system. These similarities will be noted when appropriate. Aggregation An aggregated irpression assigned to levels 1, 2 or 3 is one in which no varia- bility is attributed to the other person's behavior or distositional qualities. The person is portrayed as always behaving in a constant manner. Level 1: _itinimal aggregation. Impressions scored at level 1 contain little if any personality information about the other. An impression at this level either rejects the task (¢.g."l can't form an impression of this person", focuses entirely on extraneous aspects of the person (e.g. physical characteristics, type of living quarters, ete.), cr includes one or two qualities of the other person (e.g. "he's a nice guy"). Example. He's a good friend and a very nice cuy. Level 2: Average agpregation. Inpressions scored at this level portray the person in“a more extended way but provide no indication that the person might be variable in his behavior. Example, He's a good friend and a very HK tic to everyone, and docs 3 for peopleis don> 9) 1 : ne coviertval factors or internal: motivational aynanics which might influence the person's behavior, For example, ‘He relaxes ¢ lot a here’ provide: e indication that he does not relax avay from hone, but dove not explicitly say so. ‘Ile needs to feel superior to other people" alsn indicates the possibility of variable behavior without asserting its presence Example. He! 2 gocd friend and a very nice guy. Me's syupathotie to every- one, and docs many favors for people. All in all, everyone who knows hin thinks he's an OK guy Implicit Reccgnition of Yarisbility Impressions are assigned %2 levels 4, 3 or 6 ¥ variability in the other yerson wivicw by specifying ) an unclesy or Minimal example of any one of the other links are used. Example. lle's a good friond and a very nice guy. [ith people he feels OK tovards Soccer syapathetic, although with other people he's unsympathetic, Te usually docs favors for people bocause it mekes him feel useful. All in all, however, everyone who knows him thinks he's an OK guy. Level 11: Average resolution. An impression is assigned to Level 11 if a clear. example of one node of Yesolution (in addition to linguistic interpretation) is uscd. Example, L's a good friend and a very nice guy. In particular, with people he Likes, he's synpathetic, although with people he dislikes he can bo unsym- Pathetic. fic usually does favors for peanle because it makes hir feel useful . All in all, however, everyone sho knows h m thinks he's an OK guy. Level 12: Advanced resolution. An impression is assigned to Level 12 if nore than one cleaz example of internal or external links is given. These modes are either all interncl or all external. Example. He's a good friend and a very nice guy, With people he likes, he's Syapathetic, although with people he dislikes, bo can be wisympathetic, Also, when he's with his friends he'll do favors for people; otherwise, forget it All in ail, houever, everyone who flows Kin winks ses an Ok euyy Level 13: _iinirel oxtondod resolution. An inoression if (a) @ clear example of an internal ane an external link are ¢iven, or (h) a clear example of an internal link is given with an extemal relevant condition such that the internal link is show to vary as a function of oxteznal contex:. is ossigned to Level 13 Example. ile's a good friend and 4 very nice guy. ith noople he likes, he's Sympathetic, although with people he dislikes, he cen ly unsyrpathetic, Although not_a guy who does favors, when he dees co Favors for people it's hecnise Te nos * Min feel useful “AI in all, Novever, Gveryone who Kiows hin thinks he's an Ur poy.45 when (a) all extent that substantial parts of the impression are interrelated such that a highly cor is. - sunded solution ssion is assigned to Level 14 when (a) the criteria for fevel 13 are mot and (b) there is at least one clear example of an interrelationship between internal and external factors, Example. He's a good friend and a very nice guy. he's symprthotic, altacu While he do just anyone; Fecl user OK guy. ith people he likes, zh with people he dislikes he can be unsympathetic. he is not a guy who does favors f for others it's because it makes hin ul. All in all, however, everyone who knows him thinks he's an Level 15: Advenced extended resolution. An inpres: the criteria ion is assigned to Level T4 ere ment but (b) they are met to such an plex picture of the other is presented. Example. He's a good friend to some, and can be a very nice guy. With people he likes, he’s sympathetic, frequently thourh to build himself vp in their eyes. Mth peoplo he dislikes he is almost always unsympathetic, not caring what they think of hin. Similarly, while he docs favors for people, he is not a guy who does favors just to be helpful; when he does do favors At's because he expects others to like him more. In general th insecurities frequentiy get in the way of his hasica Al in all, however, evoryone who knows hin weit th she's an OF gly