Levine, Halberstadt & Goldstone 1996 Reasoning and the Weighting of Attributes in Attitude Judgments

7/30/2019 Levine, Halberstadt & Goldstone 1996 Reasoning and the Weighting of Attributes in Attitude Judgments

1/11

Journa l o f Personali ty and Social Psychology Copyrigh t 1996 by the Am erica n Psycholog ical Association , Inc.1996 , Vol . 70 , No. 2 , 230- 240 0022-3514/96 /$3 .00

R easoning and the W eight ing o f Attr ibutes in Att i tude Ju dgm entsG a ry M . L e v in e , J a m in B . H a lb e r s ta d t , a n d R o b e r t L . G o ld s to n eI n d i a n a U n i v e r s i ty B l o o m i n g t o n

Two experiments examin ed processes by which analyzing reasons m ay influence at t i tude udgm ents.Part icipants made m ult iple liking udgm ents on sets of s t imuli that v aried along 6 a priori dimen-sions. In Study l , the s t imulus set consisted of 64 cartoo n faces with 6 binary-valu ed at tr ibutes (e .g.,a s traight vs. a croo ked nose ) . In Study 2, the s t imuli were 60 digi t ized photograp hs from a collegeyearboo k that varied along 6 dimensions uncovered th rough mult idime nsional scaling. In each ex-perime nt, half of he pa rt icipants were instructed to think a bout the reasons why they l iked each facebefore making th eir l iking rating. P art icipants ' mu lt iple l iking rat ings were then regressed on thedimension values to deter mine how the y weighted each dime nsion in their l iking judgments. Theresults s upport a process whereby reasoning leads to increased variabil i ty and inconsistency in theweighting of s t imulus information . W iison 's model of the disruptive effects of reasoning on at t i tud ejudg me nts (e.g., T. D. W ilson, D. S. Du nn, D. K raft, & D. J. Lisle, 1989) is discussed.

I f o n e w e r e t r y i n g t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o b u y a p a r t i c u l a r c a r ,o r w h e t h e r t o h i r e a n e w a s s i s ta n t , o r e v e n w h e t h e r o r n o t t or e a d a j o u r n a l a r t i c l e , m a n y d e c i s i o n r e se a r c h e r s ( e. g . , E d w a r d s ,1 9 6 1 ; J a n i s & M a n n , 1 9 7 7 ; K e e n e y , 1 9 7 7 ; R a i f f a , 1 9 6 8 ) w o u l ds u g ge s t t h a t a n e f fe c ti v e s t r a te g y w o u l d b e t o t h i n k a b o u t a n de v a l u a t e e a c h o f t h e v a r i o u s c o m p o n e n t p r o p e r t i e s o r a t t r i b u t e so f t h e d e c i s i o n . F o r t h e c a r - p u r c h a s i n g d e c i s i o n , f o r e x a m p l e ,o n e m i g h t c o n s i d e r h o w o n e f e l t a b o u t t h e p r i c e , t h e r e p a i r r e -c o r d , t h e s a f e t y f e a t u r e s , a n d s o f o r t h t o r e a c h a f i n a l d e c i s i o n .T h e a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t b y b r e a k i n g t h e d e c i s i o n d o w n a n d a n a -l y z i n g e a c h a t t r i b u t e o f t h e a t t i t u d e o b j e c t , o n e c a n p r o p e r l yw e i g h t th e d i f f e r e n t a t tr i b u t e s a n d t h e r e b y i n c r e a s e t h e q u a l i t yo f t h e r e s u l t in g d e c i s i o n .

I n c o n t r a s t , W i l s o n a n d h i s c o l l e a g u e s h a v e a m a s s e d a s u b -s t a n t i a l b o d y o f r e s e a r c h t h a t q u e s t i o n s t h e u t i l i ty o f e x p l i c i tl ya n a l y z i n g r e as o n s w h e n m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s ( f o r r e v i ew s s e e W i l -s o n , D u n n , K r a f t , & L i s l e , 1 9 8 9 ; W i l s o n & H o d g e s , 1 9 9 2 ) . S p e -c i fi c al ly , W i l s o n h a s f o u n d t h a t i n t r o s p e c t i n g a b o u t t h e r e a s o n sw h y o n e l i k es ( o r d i s l ik e s ) a n a t t i t u d e o b j e c t c a n h a v e a d i s r u p -t i ve e f fe c t o n a t t i t u d e s a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y o n t h e d e c i s i o n s b a s e do n t h o s e a t t i tu d e s . F o r e x a m p l e , W i l s o n a n d S c h o o l e r ( 1 9 91 ,S t u d y l ) f o u n d t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s w h o a n a l y z e d t h e i r r e a s o n s( r e a s o n e r s ) f o r l ik i n g d i f f e re n t s t r a w b e r r y j a m s m a d e p r e f e r-e n c e d e c i s i o n s th a t c o r r e s p o n d e d l e s s w e l l w i t h t h o s e o f e x p e r t st h a n d i d t h o s e o f p a r t i c i p a n t s w h o d i d n o t a n a l y z e th e r e a s o n s

f o r t h e i r a t t i t u d e s ( n o n r e a s o n e r s ) . I n a n o t h e r e x p e r i m e n t( W i l s o n e t a l . , 1 9 9 3 ) , p e o p l e w h o d i d o r d i d n o t a n a l y z e t h er e a s o n s w h y t h e y l i k e d f i v e d i f f e r e n t p o s t e r s w e r e g i v e n a n o p -p o r t u n i t y t o s e l e c t o n e o f t h e p o s t e r s t o t a k e h o m e . W h e n t h e yw e r e c o n t a c t e d a f e w w e e k s l a t er , r e a s o n e r s w e r e l e s s s a t i s f ie dw i t h t h e i r c h o i c e s t h a n w e r e n o n r e a s o n e r s . T h e s e f i n d i n g s d e m -o n s t r a t e t h e p o t e n t i a l n o n o p t i m a l e f f e ct s o f r e a s o n i n g a b o u to n e ' s a t t i tu d e s o r c h o i c e s a n d m o t i v a t e a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th ep r o c e s s u n d e r l y i n g h o w r e a s o n i n g a f f e c t s a t t i t u d e s . I n t h e c u r -r e n t s t u d i es w e e x a m i n e s e v e ra l d if f e re n t p r o c e s se s t h a t c o u l dc o n t r i b u t e t o t h e s e e f f ec t s .W i l s o n ' s o w n e x p l a n a t i o n ( W i l s o n e t a l ., 1 9 89 ; W i l s o n &H o d g e s , 1 9 9 2 ; W i l s o n & S c h o o l e r , 1 9 91 ) a s s u m e s t h a t i n m a n ys i t u a t i o n s p e o p l e a r e g e n e r a l l y a b le t o w e i g h t a p p r o p r i a t e l y t h ed i f fe r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y h a v e a b o u t a n o b j e c t a n d t o f o r m ar e l a ti v e l y f u n c t i o n a l a t t i t u d e j u d g m e n t . H o w e v er , b e c a u s e p e o -p l e d o n o t h a v e p e r f e c t a c c e s s t o t h e a c t u a l r e a s o n s f o r t h e i ra t t i t u d e s (e . g ., N i s b e t t & W i l s o n , 1 9 7 7 ) , a s k i n g t h e m f o r t h e i rr e a s o n s m a y c a u s e t h e m t o s e l e c t a n d f o c u s o n a s u b s e t o f r e a -s o n s t h a t a r e v e r b a l i z a b l e , a c c e s s i b l e , p l a u s i b l e , a n d / o r s e l f - e n -h a n c i n g . B e c a u s e t h i s s u b s e t o f r e a s o n s r e c e i v e s g r e a t e r w e i g h ti n t h e s u b s e q u e n t a t t it u d e j u d g m e n t t h a n m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e , ap o t e n t i a l l y le s s o p t i m a l j u d g m e n t m a y r e s u l t.

A l t h o u g h t h e r e s u l ti n g d i f fe r e n c es i n a t t i t u d e s a n d a t t i t u d e -r e l e v a n t b e h a v io r s b e t w e e n r e a s o n e r s a n d n o n r e a s o n e r s a r e i m -p r e ss i v e, e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p r o c e s s t h a t W i l s o n h y p o t h e s i z e d t o


2/11


3/11

Figure I.Study 1. Examples of cartoon faces presented to participants in

their reasons for liking and disliking the people in the pho-tographs, and nonreasonersgenerated names for the people inthe photographs.

In both experiments we examined differences in the use ofspecific dimensions, bu t n o a prior i predictions were made as towhich (if an y) dime nsion s would be used differently as a resultof reasoning. However, our p rim ary analyses involved partici-pant s' reordered beta weights. We expected reasoners'and non-reasoners' patterns of dimensio n use on this measure, and thevariance of their liking scores, to provide suppor t for or againstthe variable-weight, the i mportance-weight, and the distri bute-weight hypotheses.

S tudy 1Method

Participants. Participants were 85 IndianaUniversity undergradu-ates enrolled in introductory psychology who participated to fulfil l acourse requirement.Stimulus materials. Sixty-four cartoon faces were generated on aMacintosh computer (see Figure t for examples). The faces variedalong six dimensions: oval versus curvy eyes (eyes), thick versus thineyebrows (brows), big versus small mouth (mouth) , straight versussideways nose (nose), lobed versus semicircular ears (ears), and circu-lar versus oblong head (head). The six features were completely crossedsuch that each feature appeared once with every possible combinationof the other five features. The distance between the four facial features(eyes, eyebrows, nose, and mouth) remained constant regardless ofhead shape. Each set of four facial features was centered on both of thetwo different head shapes. Earswere also centered on the sides of bothhead shapes. The faces were 3.9 cm from ear to ear.Procedure. Participantswere tested in small groups of 1 to 5. Eachparticipant was seated at a workstation approximately 61 cm from aMacintosh IIsi computer with a screen 25.4 cm wide by 19.1 cm high.


4/11

R E A S O N I N G A N D A T T R I B U T E W E I G H T I N G 233your reasons fo r l ik ing each face , the com pute r wi l l a sk you to en te ra l ik ing ra t ing . Be ca refu l , because once you p ress a n um ber i t i simm edia te ly en te red in to the compute r . There a re no "cor rec t"a n s w e r s - - r e m e m b e r , t he s e q u e s t i on s a r e f o r y o u r b e n e f i t - - y o ushou ld ind ica te whe ther o r no t the fea tu re in f luences how m uchYO U l ike o r d isl ike the face . P lease ask the Expe r imen te r now i fyou have any ques t ions . Thanks!

Par t ic ipan ts randomly ass igned to the nonrea son ing con t ro l cond i t ionwere given the following instructio ns:I n a m o m e n t , y o u w i l l b e a sk e d t o j u d g e h o w m u c h y o u l i k e a n u m -ber o f d if ferent ca r toon faces . Your ta sk i s to ra te how mu ch yo ul ike each o f he faces by typ ing a num ber f rom 1 o 9 . The compu te rwi l l a sk you to en te r a l ik ing ra t ing . Be ca re fu l, because once y oupress a num ber i t i s imm edia te ly en te red in to the compute r . D on o t s p e n d a l o t o f t i m e t h i n k i n g a b o u t e a c h f a c e ; j u s t g o w i t h y o u rgut feeling abo ut how m uch you like or dislike the face. Please askthe Exp er imen te r now i f you have any ques t ions . Thanks!

After viewing several ran dom ly selected faces to fam iliarize themwith the s t imul i , a l l pa r t ic ipan ts were p resen ted wi th the 64 ca r toonfaces in a rand om order. The centers of the faces were displayed 4.9 c mfrom the top o f the sc reen and 10 .7 cm f rom the le f t side o f the sc reen .Par t ic ipan ts in the reason ing cond i t ion were p resen ted wi th s ix yes - noques t ions (e .g . , " I s the nose im por ta n t fo r dec id ing how m uch yo u l ike /d isl ike th is face (Y /N )? ") , one fo r each o f the s ix d imens ion s . Thephrase " th in k abo u t how m uch yo u l ike th is face" was p resen ted be lowthe face . The s ix ques t ions were a lways p resen ted one a t a t im e in arandom order on each t r ia l , and pa r t ic ipan ts p ressed the y o r n key toind ica te the i r response . T he reason ing pa r t ic ipan ts were nex t p resen tedthe ques t ion "How mu ch do you l ike th is face? , be low the im por tanc eques t ions , and they e n te red the i r l ik ing judgm ents on a 1 -9 sca le an -chored by not very much a n d very much. T h e n o n r e a s o n i n gpar t ic ipan tss imply en te red the i r l ik ing responses wi thou t a nswer ing any ques t ions .Af te r a pa r t ic ipan t ind ica ted h is o r he r l ik ing ra t ing , the en t i re sc reenc lea red and the nex t s t im ulus face appeared . A f te r ra t ing a l l 64 faces ,pa r t ic ipan ts were debr ie fed and thanke d .Results and Discussion

Me a n , s t an dar d de v i a t i on , and r ange o f l i k i ng r a t i ngs . T h em e a n , s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n , a n d r a n g e o f t h e 6 4 l i k i n g r a ti n g sw e r e c o m p u t e d f o r e a c h p a r t i c i p a n t . A t t e st f o r in d e p e n d e n ts a m p l e s r e v e a l e d n o s i g n i fi c a n t d i f fe r e nc e s i n m e a n l i k i n g ra t -i n g s b e t w e e n t h e re a s o n i n g ( M = 4 . 9 5 ) a n d t h e n o n r e a s o n i n g( M = 5 . 0 0 ) p a r t i c i p a n t s , t ( 8 3 ) = 0 . 2 3 6 , p > . 0 5 , o r b e t w e e n t h es t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n f o r r e a s o n e rs ( M = 1 . 79 ) a n d n o n r e a s o n e r s( M = 1 .6 1 ) , t ( 8 3 ) = 1 . 3 09 , p > . 0 5 . H o w e v e r , c o n s i s t e n t w i t ht h e v a r i a b l e -w e i g h t h y p o t h e si s ( a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e d i s-

t i o n w e c o m p a r e d t h e f i t o f t h is m a i n - e f f e c t s - o n ly m o d e l t o t h ef it o f m o r e c o m p l e t e m o d e l s t h a t i n c l u d e d i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s ( c f.H o f f m a n , S l o v i c , & R o r e r , 1 9 6 8 ) . S p e c i fi c a ll y , f o r e a c h p a r t i c i -p a n t , w e c o m p u t e d t h e f it o f th e m o s t c o m p l e t e m o d e l ( i .e . , u pt o t h e f i ve - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s ) . W e t h e n t e s t e d w h e t h e r a r e d u c e dm o d e l ( i . e . , w i t h f i ve - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s r e m o v e d ) p r o v i d e d a s i g -n i f i c a n t l y w o r s e f i t t o t h e d a t a t h a n d i d t h e f u l l m o d e l . I f n o t ,t h e n t h e f o u r - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n t e r m s w e r e r e m o v e d f r o m t h em o d e l , a n d t h i s f u r t h e r - re d u c e d m o d e l ( w i t h o n l y m a i n e f f ec tsa n d t w o - a n d t h r e e - w a y i n t e r a c t i o n s ) w a s t e s t e d a g a i n s t t h ef o u r- w a y m o d e l . T h i s p r o c e d u r e w a s r e p e a t e d u n t i l a r e d u c e dm o d e l p r o d u c e d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y w o r s e f i t o r u n t i l a l l o f t h e i n -t e r a c t i o n t e r m s w e r e r e m o v e d . B y t h is p r o c e d u r e , t h e m a j o r i t yo f p a r t i c i p a n t s ' d a t a ( 7 0 o f 8 5 ) w e r e f it a s w e l l b y t h e m a i n -e f f ec t s -o n l y m o d e l a s b y m o d e l s i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n t e r a c t i o nt e r m s . F u r t h e r m o r e , w e r e r a n t h e a n a l y s e s w i t h o u t t h e 9 r e a -s o n e r s a n d 6 n o n r e a s o n e r s w h o w e r e b e t t e r f it b y a h i g h e r l ev e lm o d e l , a n d t h i s d i d n o t c h a n g e a n y o f t h e s i g n if i c a n t r e s u l ts w er e p o r t i n t h i s s e c t i o n .2

T h e m e a n a m o u n t o f v a r i a nc e a c c o u n t e d f or b y t h e m a i n -e f f e c ts - o n l y m o d e l w a s . 4 7 6 f o r t h e r e a s o n e r s a n d . 5 5 7 f o r t h en o n r e a s o n e r s , w i t h a m e a n F ( 6 , 5 7 ) o f 1 3 .3 f o r t h e r e a s o n e rsa n d o f 3 0 .1 f o r t h e n o n r e a s o n e r s . T h e d i f fe r e n c e i n v a r i a n c ea c c o u n t e d f o r b e t w e e n r e a s o n e r s a n d n o n r e a s o n e r s w a s n o t s i g -n i f i c a n t , t ( 8 3 ) = 1 . 6 6 7 , p = . 0 9 9 .

B e f o re r e o r d e r i n g t h e r e g r e s si o n w e i g h ts f o r t h e p r i m a r y a n a l -y s is , w e c o m p a r e d s p ec i fi c d i m e n s i o n u s e a s a f u n c t i o n o f e x -p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . A s a g r o u p , r e a s o n e r s s h o w e d s o m ed i f fe r e n ce s i n h o w t h e y w e i g h t e d t h e d i m e n s i o n s r e l a ti v e to n o n -r e a s o n er s . A v e r ag e d a c r o ss t h e n o n r e a s o n e r s , t h e o r d e r o f n o m -o t h e t ic d i m e n s i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e w a s a s f ol lo w s : m o u t h ( ~/ =. 3 7 9 ) , n o s e ( ~ / = . 1 2 4 ) , b r o w s (B = - . 1 2 1 ) , h e a d (/ ~ = . 0 5 7 ) ,e y e s ( /~ = . 0 4 6 ) , a n d e a r s ( /~ = - . 0 1 2 ) . A l l o f t h e d i m e n s i o n se x c e p t h e a d a n d e a r s d i f f e re d s i g n i f i c a n t l y f r o m z e r o , t s ( 4 2 ) >2 . 0 7 2 , p s < . 05 . F o r th e r e a s o n e rs , t h e o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e o fd i m e n s i o n s w a s m o u t h ( B = . 22 ) , n o s e ( ~ / = . 1 8 4 ) , h e a d ( /~ =. 1 0 1 ) , e y e s ( /5 = . 0 8 2 ) , e a r s ( ~ = . 0 4 2 ) , a n d b r o w s ( ~ = - . 0 2 7 ) .A l l o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s e x c e p t e a r s a n d b r o w s s i g n i f i c an t l yd i f f e r e d f r o m z e r o , t s ( 4 1 ) > 2 . 0 5 6 , p s < . 0 5 . R e a s o n i n g , t h e n ,r e s u l t e d i n c h an g e s i n t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h s o m e d i m e n s i o n sw e r e u t i li z e d : B r ow s a n d m o u t h w e r e s i g n i fi c a n t ly m o r e i m p o r -t a n t d i m e n s i o n s f o r n o n r e a s o n e r s t h a n f o r r e a s o n e rs , t ( 8 3 ) >1 .9 9 , p s < . 05 , a n d e a r s w a s a m a r g i n a l l y m o r e i m p o r t a n t d i -m e n s i o n f o r r e a s o n e r s t h a n f o r n o n r e a s o n e r s , t ( 8 3 ) = 1 .9 4 ,p = . 0 5 6 .

A s d i s c u s s e d e ar li e r, o u r p r i m a r y a n a l y s is in v o l v e d e x a m i n -


5/11

234 LEVINE, HALBERSTADT, AND GOLDSTONE

Figure 2.

0.70 . 6 "

0 . 5 "

0 . 4 -

"~ 0 . 3tt

0 . 2

0.1

' [ ] R e a s o n e r s

I I I I l Il 2 3 4 5 6

DimensionsOrdiaallyAn'eaged romMostImlxn'taatto LeastImportant or Each u b j e c tPattern of mean reordered dimension use for Study 1.

of variance (ANOVA). As can be seen in Figure 2, and consis-tent with both t he distribute-weight and the variable-weightmodels, a crossover interaction emerged such that reasonersshowed a flatter pattern of dimen sional importance than non-reasoners, F(5 , 410) = 7.163, p < .0001. This crossover patter nis deaf ly inc onsiste nt with the im portance- weight hypothesis,which proposes that people select and focus on th eir more im-portant attributes when reasoning and therefore predicts asteeper patte rn for reasoners tha n nonrea soners.In sec ondary analyses, we examin ed reasoners' responses tothe yes- no reasoning questions by correlating the total numb erof times they said that a feature was import ant with the magni-tude of that feature's regression weight. The correlations weresignificant (p < .05 ) for the head (r = .556), mou th (r = .363 ),and brows (r = .338) dimension s, margi nal for the ears (r =.257, p =. 10) dimension, and nonsignificant for the nose andeyes dimensions. As i n Wi lson's studies, this is consistent with aprocess whereby reasoners' liking udgm ent s are influ enced bythe features identified when reasoning.Distin guish ing between the distribute-weight an d the vari-able-weight models. Although the crossover interaction isconsistent with both the variable-weight and the distribute-weight hypotheses, one can distinguish between these two ac-counts by exa mining the variability of the participants' liking

their weights to dimensions more evenly than nonreasoners.However, if the variable-weight hypothesis is correct, then onany given trial reasoners should be focusing on some subset ofdimensions (that vary from trial to trial).

Although our pr ocedure allows us to e xami ne overall dime n-sion use for a parti cipan t across his or her set of judgme nts, itdoes not allow us to examine dimension use on any specifictrial. However, dimension use can be estimated by comparingliking ratings for very simi lar faces. If reasoners were using di-mensions more variably from trial to trial, then they shouldhave rated simil ar faces more va riably than no nreasone rs did.For example, on one judgment a reasoner might focus on thenose and eyes and rate the face primarily according to thosefeatures. However, when presented with a very similar face, thesame person might focus on the head and mouth and rate thesimilar face according to these other two featur es--hence po-tentially ratin g the two simila r faces very differently. In contrast,the distribute-weight account proposes that on each trial rea-soners are distribu ting their weights to mor e dim ensio ns thanare nonreasoners. As discussed earlier, this would tend to reducethe vari ability in how reasoners rated any two faces, let alonetwo si milar faces.

To examine whether reasoners were more or less variabletha n nonre asoners from trial to trial, we calculated the absolutevalue of the difference in liking for the mos t simi lar faces (i.e.,the 192 pairs of faces that matched on five of the six dimensi ons)for each participant. A t test conducted on these differencesshowed that reasoners were significantly more variable in howthey rated sim ilar faces than were nonreasoners (Ms = 1.635and 1.277, respectively), t(83) = 2.922, p < .001. This resultfurther supports the variable-weight hypothesis. 3A more appropriat e way to co nduct this test would be to havepartic ipants rate the same face twice. Unfortunat ely, time con-straints p ermit ted only single ratings of the faces. However, 30new participants made liking udgments for a reduced set of theface stimuli (varying along only four of the six dimen sions ). Asin the pr ima ry study, partici pants either rated the set of 16 facesor answered the reasoning questions before rating the faces.However, after completin g an u nrel ated task that took approxi-mately 20 min , participants once again rated, or reasoned about

a Admittedly, differences in these liking ratings are a reflection notonly of variability from trial to trial but also of how important the onediffering dimension was to the given liking judgment. Therefore, thisresult could potentially have been caused by reasoners' giving ncreasedattention and weighting to the one differing dimension for each pair.


6/11

R E A S O N I N G A N D A T T RI B UT E W E I G H T I N G 2 3 5a n d t h e n r a t e d , t h e 1 6 fa c e s ( w h i c h e v e r t a s k t h e y p e r f o r m e d i nt h e f i rs t s e t o f t r i a l s ) . A t t e s t c o m p a r i n g t h e m e a n a b s o l u t ev a l u e s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t w o l i k i n g r a t i n g s o f s a m e - f a c ep a i r s r e v e a l e d t h e p a t t e r n p r e d i c t e d b y t h e v a r i a b l e - w e i g h tm o d e l b u t d i d n o t r e a c h s i g n i fi c a n c e , t ( 2 8 ) = 1 .58 , p = . 1 2 6( M s - - 1 .4 1 a n d 1 .0 0 f o r r e a s o n i n g a n d n o n r e a s o n i n g p a r t i c i -p a n t s , r e s p e c t i v e l y ). A d d i t io n a l l y , h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' b e t a w e i g h t sf r o m t h i s e x p e r i m e n t w e re c a l c u l a t e d , r e o r d e r e d , a n d t h e n a n a -l y z e d a s i n t h e m a i n e x p e r i m e n t . T h e c r o s so v e r in t e r a c t i o n w a sr e p l i c a t e d s u ch t h a t r e a s o n e r s s h o w e d a f l a t t er p a t t e r n o f i d i o -g r a p h ic d i m e n s i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e t h a n d i d n o n r e a s o n e rs , F ( 3 ,8 4 ) = 3 .8 5 ,p < . 0 5 .Summary R e a s o n i n g a f f e c t e d h o w p e o p l e w e i g h t e d t h e f a c ed i m e n s i o n s i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e j u d g m e n t s . I n b o t h t h e m a i n e x p e r -i m e n t a n d t h e f o l l o w - u p e x p e r i m e n t , r e a s o n e r s s h o w e d a f l a tt e rp a t t e r n o f d i m e n s i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e t h a n n o n r e a s o n e r s . T h i sp a t t e r n i s c le a r l y i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i m p o r t a n c e - w e i g h t h y -p o t h e s i s , w h i c h p r o p o s e s t h a t r e a s o n e r s s e l e c t a n d f o c u s o n t h e i rm o r e i m p o r t a n t a t t r i b u t e s . T h i s p a t t e r n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b o t ht h e v a r i a b l e - w e i g h t a n d d i s t r i b u t e - w e i g h t p r o c e s s e s . H o w e v e r ,t w o o t h e r a n a l y s e s s u p p o r t t h e v a r i a b l e - w e i g h t m o d e l . F i r s t , th er a n g e a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f t h e l i k i n g r a t i n g s w e re n o t m o d -e r a t e d f o r r e a s o n e rs , a s p r e d i c t e d b y t h e d i s t r i b u t e -w e i g h t h y -p o t h e s i s ; m o r e o v e r , a n d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e v a r i a b l e - w e i g h tm o d e l , r e a s o n e r s h a d a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r r a n g e i n t h e i r l i k i n gr a t i n g s t h a n d i d n o n r e a s o n e r s . S e c o n d , r e a s o n e r s w e r e s i g n i f i -c a n t l y m o r e v a r i a b l e in t h e i r r a t in g s f o r s i m i l a r f a c es t h a n w e r en o n r e a s o n e r s, a g a i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i d e a t h a t t h e y w e r em o r e v a r i a b l e i n h o w t h e y w e i g h t e d t h e v a r i o u s a t t r i b u t e s o f th ef a c e s fr o m t r i a l t o t r i a l .

A n u m b e r o f c o n c e r n s s t i ll n e e d t o b e a d d r e s s e d . A l t h o u g hw e h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n i n g m a n i p u l a t i o n i n f l u e n c e d p a r -t i c i p a n t s ' d i m e n s i o n w e i g h ts , t h e r e a r e s e v e ra l p o t e n t i a l c o n -f o u n d s. F i r s t, r e a s o n e r s c o m p l e t e d a n a d d i t i o n a l t a s k ( t h e r e a -s o n i n g t a s k ) , a n d i t c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l ti m et h e s e p a r t i c i p a n t s s p e n t i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t , a n d n o t t h e r e a s o n -i n g t a s k p e r s e , a c c o u n t s f o r t h e p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s . I t is a l s o p o s -s i b le t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e r e a s o n i n g t a s k i n c r e a s e d v a r i a b i l i t yf r o m t r i a l t o t r i a l . T h a t i s , t h e r e a s o n i n g t a s k u s e d w a s s o m e -w h a t a r t if i c i al i n t h a t p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e r e q u i r e d t o a n s w e r e x -p l i c i t q u e s t i o n s a b o u t a l l o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s o n e a c h t r i a l , a n dt h e s e q u e st i o n s w e r e r a n d o m l y o r d e r e d f r o m t r i a l t o t r i a l. P e r -h a p s p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e r e a s o n i n g c o n d i t i o n w e r e d r a w n t o ap a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e ( e . g . , t h e f i r st o r l a s t a t t r i b u t e a s k e d a b o u t )w h e n m a k i n g t h e i r l i k i n g j u d g m e n t a n d t h i s l e d t o m o r e i n c o n -s i s te n c y i n t h e i r w e i g h t i n g o f d i m e n s i o n s . A d d i t i o n a l ly , n o n r e a -

F i n a l l y , i n o r d e r t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e r e s u l t s o f S t u d y 1 , i n S t u d y2 w e u s e d d i g i t i z e d p h o t o g r a p h s t a k e n f r o m a c o l le g e y e a r b o o k ,w h i c h h a d a m o r e c o m p l e x a n d l es s t r a n s p a r e n t d i m e n s i o n a ls t r u c t u r e . I n S t u d y 2 a w e u s e d m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l in g t o d e -t e r m i n e t h e d i m e n s i o n s o n w h i c h t h e s e s t i m u l i d if f e re d . N e x t,i n S t u d y 2 b w e e x a m i n e d c h a n g e s i n d i m e n s i o n u s e i n a f a s h i o ns i m i l a r t o t h a t i n S t u d y 1 .

S t u d y 2 aW e d e s i g n e d S t u d y 2 a t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e

s t i m u l i t o b e u s e d i n S t u d y 2 b . M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g( M D S ) h a s b e e n s h o w n t o b e a u se f u l t e c h n i q u e f o r u n d e r s t a n d -i n g t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i m e n s i o n s t h a t u n d e r l i e p e o p l e ' s p e r c e p -t i o n s a n d j u d g m e n t s ( K r u s k a l & W i s h , 1 9 78 ) . T y p ic a ll y , M D Su s e s so m e f o r m o f s i m i l a r i t y j u d g m e n t s i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t sa r e r e q u i r e d t o r a t e t h e s i m i l a r i t y a m o n g a l l p o s s i b le p a i r s o fs t i m u l i . H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e a l a rg e n u m b e r o f s t i m u l i w e r en e e d e d t o g e t r e l i a b l e r e g r e s s io n c o e f f i c i e n ts i n S t u d y 2 b , t h et i m e c o n s t r a i n t s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t p r e c l u d e d p a i r w i s e s i m -i l a r i ty j u d g m e n t s . I n s t e a d , w e u s e d G o l d s t o n e ' s ( 1 9 9 4 ) M D St e c h n i q u e , i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s m a k e m u l t i p l e s i m i l a r i t y u d g -m e n t s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y b y m o v i n g s t im u l i a r o u n d o n a c o m p u t e rs c r e e n u n t i l t h e d i s t a n c e b e t w e e n t h e s t i m u l i re f l e c t s t h e i r p e r -c e i v e d d i s s i m i l a r i t y . T h i s a l l o w s o n e t o c o l l e c t (n)(n - 1 ) / 2s i m i l a r i t y j u d g m e n t s p e r s c r e e n ( w h e r e n i s t h e n u m b e r o f s i-m u l t a n e o u s l y d i s p l a y e d o b j e c t s ) a n d g r e a t l y r e d u c e s th e t i m en e e d e d t o c o l l e ct t h e s i m i l a r i t y d a t a . T h i s p r o c e d u r e i s a l s o a p -p e a l i n g b e c a u s e i t a l l o w s fo r f i n e r g r a d a t i o n s o f c o n t i n u o u s d a t at h a n i s p e r m i t t e d , f o r e x a m p l e , b y a L i k e r t - t y p e sc a le . A l t h o u g ht h i s t e c h n i q u e a s s u m e s p e o p l e ' s s t im u l u s s p a c e t o h a v e a E u -c l i d e a n m e t r i c s t r u c t u r e , a s i m i l a r a s s u m p t i o n i s r e q u i r e d b yo t h e r M D S s c a l in g te c h n i q u e s , a n d a l l in c o r p o r a t e t h e i n t u i t i v en o t i o n t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d i n t e r m so f p h y s i c a l d i s t a n c e.MethodParticipants. Seventy undergraduates from Ind iana University par-t ieipated in the study in order to fulfi l l a course requirement.Materials. Sixty black and white photographs o f Caucasian maleswere taken from a 1959 midwestern college yearbook. Each ph otog raphwas transferred by an analog-to-digital scanner to Macintosh IIsi com -puters . The average dimensions for the pho tographs were 2.8 c m highby 2.1 cm wide. The targct ' s head was centered in each pho tograph, andmos t pho tographs con ta ined the m id to upper to r so o f the pe rson aswell . The d ata were obtained and rec orded on M acintosh IIsi comp uters


7/11

236 LEVINE, HALBERSTADT, AND GOLDSTONE

Figure 3. Example plot of Dimension 1 (book-smart) and Dimension 2 (smiling) resulting from Study2a. Some of the photograp hs have been moved slightly to en hance visibility. Photogra phs were taken froma 1959 midwestern college yearbook.

tion of the faces, whereupon she or he would move the cursor into abox labeled "DO NE " and would press the button. The com puter thenrecorded the distances (in pixels) between each pair o f faces.On e ach display, 20 faces were presente d simultaneously. Thes e faceswere selected at random from the set of 60 faces. They were arranged infive colum ns of four faces each. The partic ular loc ation of each face wasrandomized. Each par ticipant received 30 displays in all.

Results an d DiscussionW e u se d t h e n o n m e t r i c M D S s c a l i n g p r o c e d u r e f r o m t h e S ta -

t i s ti c a l Package fo r t he Soc i a l Sc i ences (SPSS) so f tw a re t o ana -lyze t he da t a . S t r e ss s i gn i f ican t l y dec r ea sed a s t he nu m be r o fd im ens io ns i nc r ea sed : S t r e s s f o r tw o d im en s ions w as . 3842; f o rt h r ee d im ens ion s , . 30 ; fo r f ou r d im ens ions , . 249 ; f o r f i ve d im en -s ions , . 211 ; and fo r s ix d im e ns io ns , . 18 . The re fo re , t he s i x -di -m ens iona l so lu t i on ( t he l a rges t c a l cu l ab l e by SPSS) w as u sed .F igu re 3 i s a p lo t o f D im en s ion 1 ve r sus D im e ns ion 2 t ha t i l lu s -

S t u d y 2 bMethod

Participants. Participants were 65 Indiana University undergradu-ates enrolled in in troduc tory psychology an d fulfilling a course require-ment. One participant's data were removed from all analyses becausehe rated only 13 of the 60 faces.Stimulus materials. The stimuli consisted of the 60 scanned blackand white photog raphs described in Study 2a (examples of the faces areshown in Figure 3).Procedure. Participants were tested in small groups of 1 to 5. Eachparticipa nt was seated at a cubicle with a Macinto sh IIsi computer. Par-ticipants in th e reasoning co ndition received the following instructionson the comp uter screen:

This Study involves judging how much you like a number ofdifferent faces. All of the faces come from an old college yearbook.Your task is to rate h ow muc h yo u like each of the faces by typingin a number from 1 to 9. In order to prepare you for your evalua-tions you will be asked to analyze why you feel the way you do


8/11


9/11


10/11


11/11

Levine, Halberstadt & Goldstone 1996 Reasoning and the Weighting of Attributes in Attitude Judgments

Documents

Transcript of Levine, Halberstadt & Goldstone 1996 Reasoning and the Weighting of Attributes in Attitude Judgments