Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima 2000

7/25/2019 Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima 2000

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/kashima-woolcock-kashima-2000 1/29

Psychological Review Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2000, Vol. 107, No. 4, 914-942 0033-295X/00/ 5.00 DOI : 10.1037//0033-295X.107.4.914

G roup Impressions as D yna m ic Configurations The Tensor Product M odel

of G roup Im press ion Formation and Change

Yoshihisa Kashima and Jodie Woolcock

L a T r o b e U n i v e r s i t y

Emiko S Kashima

S w i n b u r n e U n i v e r s it y o f T e c h n o l o g y

Group impressions are dynamic configurations. The tensor product model (TPM), a connectionist model

of memory and learning, is used to describe the process of group impression formation and change,

emphasizing the structured and contextualized nature of group impressions and the dynamic evolu tion of

group impressions over time. TPM is first shown to be consistent with algebraic models of social

judg men t (the weighted averaging model; N. Anderson, 198 1) and exemplar-based social category

learning (the context m odel; E. R . Smith & M . A. 7_Arate, 1992), providing a theoretical reduction of the

algebraic models to the present connectionist framework. TPM is then shown to describe a common

process that underlies both formation and change of group impressions despite the often-made assump -

tion that they constitute different psychological processes. In particular, various time-dependent prop-

erties of both group imp ression formation (e.g., time variability, response dependency, and order effects

in impression judgments) and change (e.g., stereotype change and group accentuation) are explained,

demonstrating a hidden u nity beneath the diverse array of empirical findings. Implications of the model

for conceptualizing stereotype formation and change are discussed.

E v e r s i n c e A s c h ' s ( 1 9 4 6 ) g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g r e s e a r c h , p e r s o n

i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n h a s b e e n a m a j o r t o p i c o f i n q u i r y i n s o c i a l

p s y c h o l o g y f o r m o r e t h a n h a l f a c e n t u r y . D e s p i t e A s c h ' s ( 1 9 5 2 )

i n t e re s t , t h e to p i c o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e b e g a n

t o a t t r a c t e m p i r i c a l a t t e n t i o n r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y ( e .g . , H a m i l t o n &

G i f f o r d , 1 9 7 6 ) . B y r e s e a r c h o n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n , w e m e a n a c l a ss

o f s t u d i e s i n w h i c h v a r i o u s i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s

o f s o c i a l g r o u p s i s p r e s e n t e d , a n d t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n

p e o p l e ' s j u d g m e n t s a n d e v a l u a t i o n s a b o u t th e g r o u p s a r e e x a m -

i n e d . W h e n p a r t i c ip a n t s h a v e l i t t l e p r i o r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a t a r g e t

g r o u p , t h i s t y p e o f r e se a r c h e x a m i n e s t h e f o r m a t i o n o f g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n s . B y c o n t r a s t , a g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n c h a n g e o c c u r s w h e n

p a r t i c i p a n t s ' i m p r e s s i o n s a b o u t a t a r g e t g r o u p , a b o u t w h i c h p a r -

t i c i p a n t s h a v e s o m e p r i o r e x p e c t a n c i e s ( e . g . , s t e r e o t y p e s ) , e v o l v e

a s a r e s u l t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n .

T h e r e s e a r c h o n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e n o w

c o n s t i t u te s a s u b s t a n t i al l i t e r a t u re i n w h i c h a n u m b e r o f r o b u s t

e m p i r i c a l p h e n o m e n a h a v e b e e n i d e n t if i e d ( f or r e v i e w s , s e e H a m -

i l t o n & S h e r m a n , 1 9 9 4 ; H a m i l t o n & S h e r m a n , 1 9 9 6 ; H i l t o n & y o n

Yoshihisa Kashima, School of Psychological Science, La Trobe Uni-

versity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Jodie Woolcock, School o f Math-

ematical Science, La Trobe University; Emik o S. Kashima, Division of

Psychology, Sw inburne University of Technology, Melbourne, V ictoria,

Australia.

This research was supported by an Australian Research Council grant.

We acknowledge Paul Polidori for his programming and Paul Clifford for

conducting the experiment reported here. We thank Craig McGarty and

Michael Platow for their comments on earlier versions of the article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Yoshi-

hisa Kashima, who is now at the Department of Psychology, University of

Melbourne, V ictoria 3 01 0, Australia. Electronic ma ll may be sent to

y.kashima @ psych.unimelb.edu.au.

914

H i p p e l , 1 9 9 6 ) . H o w e v e r , t h e o r e t i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e p h e n o m -

e n a h a s b e e n h a m p e r e d b y t h e l a c k o f a c o h e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l

f r a m e w o r k t h a t d e s c r i b e s t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t

s o c i a l g r o u p s . H i l t o n a n d v o n H i p p e l ( 1 9 9 6 ) l a m e n t e d , ' ~ ' h e r e h a s

b e e n l i t t l e e f f o r t d i r e c t e d a t s p e c i f y i n g t h e d e t a i l s o f v a r i o u s

r e p r e s e n t a t io n a l m o d e l s ( p . 2 4 4 ) . M a n y e m p i r i c a l p h e n o m e n a

p o i n t t o t h e d y n a m i c c h a r a c t e r o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s , t h a t i s , t h e

e v e r - e v o l v i n g a n d c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g i n g n a t u r e o f g r o u p i m p r e s -

s i o n s . T h e o r i e s o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s , h o w e v e r , f a l l s h o r t o f c ap -

t u r i n g t h i s d y n a m i s m .

O u r m a i n o b j e c t i v e h e r e i s t o p r e s e n t a n e x p l i c i t t h e o r y o f g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n s t h a t c a n s h e d l i g h t o n t h e i r d y n a m i c s . W e p r o p o s e a

t h e o r y o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e b a s e d o n a

d i s t r ib u t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s y s t e m c a l l e d t h e t e n s o r p r o d u c t m o d e l

( T P M ) ( H u m p h r e y s , B a i n , & P i k e , 1 9 8 9 ; K a s h i m a , 1 9 9 9 ; K a s h i m a

& K e r e k e s , 1 9 9 4 ; K a s h i m a , W o o l c o c k , & K i n g , 1 9 9 8 ; P i k e , 1 9 8 4 ).

W e t h e n s h o w t h a t t h i s t h e o r y c a n p r o v i d e a n i n t e g r a t i v e f r a m e -

w o r k i n w h i c h t o e x p l a i n d i v e r s e t i m e - d e p e n d e n t p r o p e r t i e s o f

g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e . I t i s o f t e n a s s u m e d t h a t

t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e o f i m p r e s s i o n s a r e t w o s e p a r a t e p h e -

n o m e n a : T h a t i s , im p r e s s i o n s , o n c e f o r m e d , b e c o m e a s ta b l e e n t i ty

( e .g . , s c h e m a ) , a n d c h a n g e p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e s o m e t h i n g d i f f e re n t .

C o n t r a r y t o t h i s , w e s h o w t h a t t h e p r o c e s s u n d e r l y i n g b o t h f o r m a -

t i o n a n d c h a n g e o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s c o u l d b e a s i n g l e , l e a r n i n g

p r o c e s s d e s c r i b e d b y t h e T P M .

A n o t h e r o b j e c t i v e is a t h e o r e t i c a l r e d u c t i o n o f a l g e b r a ic m o d e l s

o f s o c i a l j u d g m e n t t o t h e T P M . C o n n e c t i o n i st m o d e l s a r e o f t en

s a i d t o d e s c r i b e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g a t a m i c r o c o g n i t i v e l e v e l .

J u s t a s t h e m a c r o l e v e l t h e r m o d y n a m i c d e s c r i p t i o n m a y b e r e d u c e d

t o m i c r o l e v e l s t a t i s t i c a l m e c h a n i c s ( N a g e l , 1 9 6 1 ) , w e s e e k t o

r e d u c e m a c r o l e v e l c o g n i t i v e t h e o r i e s t o a m i c r o l e v e l c o n n e c t i o n i s t

d e s c r i p t i o n . S m o l e n s k y ( 1 9 8 8 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t c o n n e c t i o n i s m

w o u l d p r o v i d e a t h e o r e t i c a l r e d u c t i o n o f s y m b o l p r o c e s s i n g t h e o -



G R O U P I M P RE S S IO N S A S D Y N A M I C C O N F I G U R A T I O N S 9 1 5

t i e s t o a s u b s y m b o l i c p a r a d i g m ; w e b e l i e v e o u r m o d e l p r o v i d e s a

t h e o r e t i c a l r e d u c t i o n o f a l g e b r a i c m o d e l s t o a d i s t r i b u t ed r e p r e s e n -

t a t i o n a l s y s t e m . S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s o f t e n s e e k a t h e o r y r e p l a c e -

m e n t , i n w h i c h a n o l d t h e o r y i s f a l s i f i e d a n d r e p l a c e d b y a n e w

t h e o r y . H o w e v e r , i n a th e o r y r e d u c t i o n , a n e w t h e o r y i n t e g r a t e s o l d

t h e o r i e s w i t h l e s s e r g e n e r a l i t y w i t h i n a m o r e g e n e r a l f r a m e w o r k .

W e b e l i e v e t h e r e a r e a d v a n t a g e s o f t h e o r y r e d u c t i o n i n s o c i a l

p s y c h o l o g y .

G r o u p I m p r e s si o n a s D y n a m i c C o n f i g u r a t i o n

O u r i m p r e s s i o n s a b o u t a s o c i a l g r o u p e v o l v e o v e r t i m e . A s w e

l e a r n m o r e a b o u t t h e g r o u p a n d i t s m e m b e r s , o u r i m p r e s s i o n s

b e c o m e m o r e e l a b o r a t e a n d c o m p l e x . T h i s i n t u i t i o n a b o u t t h e

d y n a m i c n a t u re o f g r o u p i m p r e s s io n w a s e x p r e s s ed b y A s c h ( 1 9 52 ,

p p . 2 3 4 - 2 3 5 ) n e a r l y h a l f a c e n t u r y a g o :

Our [initial] impressions o f groups are often global, corresponding to

particularly blunt central qualities . . . . Simplified impressions are a

first step toward understanding the surroundings and toward estab-

lishing clear, meaningful views . . . When conditions permit, initial

impressions are corrected and becom e more articulated in the light of

new experiences.

A s c h ' s e m p h a s i s o n t h e d y n a m i c s o f s o c i al p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o ce s s

p e r m e a t e s h i s 1 9 5 2 t e x t b o o k . T h e p r o c e s s o f im p r e s s i o n f o r m a -

t i o n , w h e t h e r r e g a r d i n g a g r o u p o r a p e r s o n , i s n o e x c e p t i o n J

A s c h ' s r e p u d i a t i o n o f e l e m e n t a r i s m a n d t h e o r e t i c a l a f f i l ia t i o n

w i t h t h e G e s t a l t t ra d i t i o n a r e a p p a r e n t e v e n i n t h i s s h o r t p a s s a g e o n

g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n w i t h h i s a l l u s i o n t o " m e a n i n g " a n d

a r t i c u l a t i o n . T o h i s o w n q u e s t i o n o f " I s t h e i m p r e s s i o n o f a g r o u p

o t h e r t h a n t h e s u m o f i m p r e s s i o n s o f s e p a r a t e i n d i v i d u a l s ? " ( p .

2 2 2 ) , A s c h r e s p o n d e d , " T h e r e a r e g r o u p p r o p e r t i e s t h a t a r e t h e

m o d e o f i n t e r a c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e m e m b e r s . T h e s e a r e n e i t h e r

i d e n t i c a l w i t h p r o p e r t ie s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s n o r w i t h

p r o p e r t i e s t h a t e x i s t i n s o m e w a y b e h i n d i n d i v i d u a l s " ( p . 2 2 6 ) .

G r o u p i m p r e s s io n w a s t o b e u n d e r s to o d a s a n o r g a n i z ed w h o l e . T o

A s c h , " i m p r e s s i o n s " w e r e m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t h a t a r e b o t h

d y n a m i c a n d m e a n i n g f u l l y s t r u c t u r e d o r , p u t s i m p l y , d y n a m i c

c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .

L i n v i l l e , S a l o v e y , a n d F i s c h e r ( 1 9 8 6 ; f o r s i m i l a r v i e w s , s e e , e .g . ,

B r e w e r , D u l l , & L u i , 1 9 8 1 ; T a y l o r , 9 8 1 ; R . W e b e r & C r o c k e r ,

1 9 8 3 ) g a v e a m o r e c o n t e m p o r a r y e x p r e s s i o n o f a s im i l a r l y d y -

n a m i c v i e w o f g r o u p i m p r e s s io n f o r m a ti o n .

Social categories ev olv e from relatively general, u ndifferentiated

structures to m ore highly d ifferentiated ones. Thus, ne w instances that

do not fit the category are dealt with in part through increasing

category differentiation. W e assume that category differentiation

tends to occur when the perceiver encounters numerous and varied

instances of the category, and experiences incentives to d istinguish

among category members. (p. 166)

A s r e v i e w e d l a t e r , t h i s v i e w o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s a s e v o l v i n g ,

d y n a m i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n s i s w e l l s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e m p i r i c a l l i t e r a -

t u r e. H o w e v e r , t h e o r i e s o f m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a ti o n s a b o u t s o c i a l

g r o u p s h a v e f a i l e d t o g i v e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e

e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s .

T h e c o n c e p t o f s c h e m a h a s o f t e n b e e n u s e d t o r e f e r t o m e n t a l

r e p r e s e n t a ti o n s o f so c i a l g r o u p s ( F i s k e & N e u b e r g , 1 9 9 0 ; F i s k e &

T a y l o r , 1 9 9 1 ) ; f o r a r e l a t e d f o r m u l a t i o n , s e e S t a n g o r & L a n g e ,

1 9 9 4 ). I n f a c t , A s c h ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s a r e s tr u c -

t u r e d ( a s i n G e s t a l t ) i s w e l l r e f l e c t e d i n t h e n o t i o n o f " g r o u p

s c h e m a . " N e i s s e r ( 1 9 7 6 ) d e f i n e d t h e c o n c e p t o f " s c h e m a t a " a s

w h a t h e c a l l e d c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s , w h i c h a r e " a n o n s p e c i f i c b u t

o r g a n i z e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e s " ( p . 2 8 7 ). F i s k e a n d

T a y l o r ( 1 9 9 1 ) s i m i l a r l y d e f i n e d " s c h e m a " a s " a c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e

t h a t r e p r e s e n t s k n o w l e d g e a b o u t a c o n c e p t o r t y p e o f s t i m u l u s ,

i n c l u d i n g i t s a tt r i b u te s a n d / h e r e l a t i o n s a m o n g t h o s e a t t r i b u t e s " ( p.

9 8 ) . R u m e l h a r t ( 1 9 8 0 ) d e f i n e d a s c h e m a a s " a d a t a s t r u c t u r e f o r

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e g e n e r i c co n c e l) t S s t o r e d i n m e m o r y . . . . I n a s m u c h

a s a s c h e m a u n d e r l y i n g a c o n c e p t s t o r e d i n m e m o r y c o r r e s p o n d s t o

the me ning

o f t h a t c o n c e p t , m e a n i n g s a r e e n c o d e d i n t e r m s o f t h e

t y p i c a l o r n o r m a l s i t u a ti o n s o r e v e n t s t h a t i n s t a n t i a te t h a t c o n c e p t "

(p. 34) .

H o w e v e r , t h e g e n e r a l l y s t a t i c n o t i o n o f s c h e m a i s n o t s u i t a b l e

f o r d e s c ri b i n g t h e d y n a m i c e v o l u t i o n o f i m p r e s s i o n s , d e s p i t e s o m e

a t te m pts a t r e v i s ing i t ( e . g . , Croc ke r , F i ske , & Ta ylor , 1984, on

s c h e m a c h a n g e ) . B a r t l e t t ( 1 9 3 2 ) , w h o i s c r e d i t e d w i t h h a v i n g

i n t r o d u c e d t h e s c h e m a c o n c e p t t o p s y c h o l o g y , m o s t c l e a r l y e x -

p r e s s e d t h i s c o n c e r n .

I strongly dislike the term "schema." It is at once too definite and too

sketchy . . . . I t suggests some pers istent, but f ragmentary, " form o f

arrangement," and it does not indicate what is very essential to the

whole notion, that the organised mass results of past changes of

position and po sture are actively doing something all the time; are, so

to speak, carried along with us, complete, though developing, from

moment to moment. (pp. 200-201)

I n t e r e s t i n g l y , o n e s c h e m a t h e o r i s t a l s o r e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t h e

s c h e m a c o n c e p t w i t h i n a d y n a m i c c o n n e c t i o n i s t f r a m e w o r k

( R u m e l h a r t , S m o l e n s k y , M c C l e l l a n d , & H i n t o n , 1 9 8 6 ) .

M o r e r e c e n t t h e o r i z i n g a b o u t m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f s o c i a l

g r o u p s m o v e d a w a y f r o m t h e s t a t ic c o n c e p t i o n w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h e

s t r u c tu r e d , G e s t a l t - l ik e p r o p e rt y . S m i t h a n d Z ~ a t e ( 1 9 9 0 , 1 9 9 2 ;

a l s o s e e L i n v i U e & F i s c h e r , 1 9 9 3 ) p o s t u l a t e d a n e x e m p l a r t h e o r y

o f m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f s o c i a l g r o u p s b a s e d o n t h e c o n t e x t

m o d e l o f e x e m p l a r - b a s e d c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ( e .g . , M e d i n & S c h a f f e r ,

1 9 7 8 ; N o s o f s k y , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e i r b a s i c p r e m i s e i s t h a t p e o p l e r e p r e -

s e n t s p e c i f i c e x e m p l a r s o f a g r o u p , i n c l u d i n g a n e p i s o d e o f e n -

c o u n t e r i n g a m e m b e r o f t h e g r o u p , a n i n f e r e n c e m a d e f r o m a n y

i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n a b o u t t h e g r o u p , a n d h e a r s a y a b o u t t h e g r o u p

f r o m o t h e r s . S m i t h a n d Z ~ a t e a s s u m e d t h a t e x e m p l a r s m a y v a r y

o n m u l t i p l e d i m e n s i o n s , a n d c a t e g o r i z at i o n s a n d j u d g m e n t s a b o u t

e x e m p l a r s a r e m o d e l e d b y a n a l g e b r a i c f u n c t i o n o f s i m i l a r i t i e s

a m o n g t h e e x e m p l a r s . F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n

t w o e x e m p l a r s i s a s s u m e d t o b e a m u l t i p l i c a t i v e fu n c t i o n o f t h e

s i m i l a r it i e s o n th e d i m e n s i o n s ( r e v i e w e d l a te r ). A s n o t e d b y M e d i n

a n d S c h a f f e r ( 1 9 7 8 ) , t h e m u l t i p l i c a t i v e s i m i l a ri t y f u n c t i o n u s e d i n

t h e c o n t e x t m o d e l e m b o d i e s i t s a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a c a t e g o r y i s

c o n f i g u r a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d ( e .g . , as o p p o s e d t o R e e d , 1 9 7 2 ) . A n

e x e m p l a r - b a s e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t a k e s f o r g r a n t e d a p o t e n t i a l f o r

It should be noted that Asch's sense of dynamics also implied that

meaning of a stimulus changes as a function o f preexisting mem ory and

concurrent stimuli. This sense of dynamics as meaning change is not

directly handled by the current mod el. To capture this, a model of encoding

processes is necessary, and it falls outside the current scope of TPM.



91 6 KASHIMA, WOOLCOCK, AND KASHIMA

change and development of group impressions; clearly, as new

exemplars are cumulated, representations should change as well.

Although the exemplar model incorporates both dynamic and

configural properties of group impressions, it falls short of ex-

plaining some quantitative properties of group impression forma-

tion. Smith and Zfirate (1992) assumed that when multiple exem-

plars are retrieved from memory, features are averaged on a

dimension. Although this averaging assumption is consistent with

the well-known averaging phenomenon in person impression for-

mation (e.g., Anderson, 1968, 1981; for a review, see Kashima &

Kerekes, 1994), it does not specify the mechanism by which the

computation may be accomplished. We explicate a model that

explains the averaging phenomenon while retaining the configural

nature of group representations postula ted by the exemplar model.

The weighted averaging model (Anderson, 1981, 1982) and the

context model adopted by Smith and Zfirate (1992) are shown to be

derivable from a more general connectionist model of memory:

TPM. 2

To locate TPM in the contemporary theoretical landscape, a

brief sketch of connect ionist applications may be useful (for re-

views, see Read & Miller, 1998; Read, Vanman, & Miller, 1996;

Smith, 1996). Currently, there are two general connectioni st ap-

proaches. Localist connectionist models assume that each

information-processing unit represents a meaningful concept and

that the interconnected units collectively represent a network of

concepts and ideas. In this framework, simultaneous activation of

the connected units produces mutual facilitation and inhibition,

enabling it to reproduce surprisingly complex psychological phe-

nomena such as stereotyping (Kunda & Thagard, 1996), causal

explanation (Read & Marcus-Newhall, 1993; Van Overwalle,

1998), and cogni tive dissonance (Schultz & Lepper, 1996) . Its

strength lies in its capacity to describe the dynamics involved in

the use of a network of existing concepts. In contrast, dist ributed

connectionist models (e.g., Kashima & Kerekes, 1994; Smith &

DeCoster, 1998a, 1998b) take the view that a meaningful concept

is represented by a pattern of activation over multiple processing

units and that learning occurs as the connections among the un its

are modified. In this framework, a central focus is learning. TPM

extends the distributed connectionist approach.

A virtue of the TPM is its versatility and generality. TPM has

been used to explain memory (e.g., Humphreys et al., 1989; Pike,

1984), natural language processing (e.g., Smolensky, 1990), and

reasoning (Halford et al., 1994). We show that TPM can account

for a wide range of findings on group impression formation and

change: averaging phenomena in impression formation (e.g.,

Anderson, 1981), the learn ing of group categories from exemplars

(Smith & Zgtrate, 1990), time-dependent phenomena in group

impression formation (e.g., recency, response dependency; see

Kashima & Kerekes, 1994), stereotype change (e.g., R. Weber &

Crocker, 1983), and category accentuation phenomena (e.g.,

Krueger & Rothbart, 1990; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963). In doing so,

the model incorporates a variety of theoretical insights such as

variable perspective model (Upshaw, 1969), the notion of individ-

uation (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), and relational

information about interpersonal and intergroup relationships

(Turner, 1987). We report the results of three major simulations

and one major experiment to support the model.

The Tensor Product Model of Group Impression

Formation and Change

In this section we offer an overview of the model, first expli-

cating its basic assumptions and then mathematically describing

the processes of encoding, storage, and output.

Basic ssumptions of the Model

Social perceivers acquire information about a social group

mostly from their social environment. Through direct interaction

with members of the group or indirect hearsay in interpersonal

discourse (Asch, 1952; Linvil le & Fischer, 1993; Park & Hastie,

t987), the perceivers construct their impressions about the group.

Like exemplar theories (e.g., Linvil le & Fischer, 1993; Smith &

Zfirate, 1992), TPM assumes that particular episodes of interaction

and discourse are the basis of group impression format ion and

change. The episodic social information is culturally structured

(e.g., Bruner, 1990; Triandis, 1995). Social events typically

present themselves as meaningful actions that can be described by

natural languages (i.e., action verbs in Semin & Fiedler's, 1988,

1991, linguistic category model; for instance, helping an old lady

crossing the street ). Conversants about a group use meaningful

words and phrases to characterize a group (i.e., adjectives or state

verbs in Semin & Fiedler; for instance, helpful ). It is those

culturally meaningful events that engage the perce ivers' cognitive

activities.

The episodic nature of social information makes it necessary for

a model of group impressions to represent the context in which the

cognit ive episode occurred (Tulving, 1983). Group impressions

not only are based on the information about the group but also

include the information about the context in which the information

was obtained. Contextual informat ion may inc lude the social sit-

uation in which the event was observed (e.g., at the party), tem-

porary information such as before or after a landmark event (e.g.,

shortly after the landing on the moon), the person who told the

perceiver about the group (e.g., Joe told me this ), the affective

state of the self, or even a simple indexical representation such as

this time as opposed to that time. Therefore, information is

assumed to be packaged as a configura tion of an event and the

context in which the event occurred. A number of researchers

presented evidence and arguments consistent with this assumption

(e.g., McConnell , Liebold, & Sherman, 1997; Schaller, 1992;

Shoda, Mischel, & Wright, 1989; Trafimow, 1998; Wright &

Mischel, 1987).

It is assumed that an event-in-context is cognitive ly analyzed

into various aspects and encoded into specific features. Aspects

were called respects by Medin, Goldstone, and Gentner (1993)

and dimensions by Turner, ta ke s et al. (takes , Haslam, &

Turner, 1994; Turner, 1987). In this article, aspects are defined as

culturally useful dimensions, and features are specific levels within

those dimensions. Kashima et al. (1998) illustrated these concepts

using the example of an American male viewer watching on

television a documentary of an Australian Aboriginal family in the

2 Although another type of mental representationspostulated for social

groups is an associative network model (e.g., Stangor & Lange, 1994), hat

type of model is not suitablefor modeling he averagingphenomenon.For

a further discussion, see Kashima and Kerekes (1994).



GROUP IMPRESSIONS AS DYNAMIC CONFIGURATIONS

9 7

outback of Aus tra l ia . From th is ep isode , the v iewer may ex trac t the

aspects of skin color , area of residence, and context and

encode these aspects in terms of specif ic features such as dark

skin, rural area, and on television. The TPM , therefore,

assumes that an event - in-con text is interpreted into a set of features

(with regard to aspects) .

The TP M a lso assumes tha t thus ana lyzed fea tures of an event-

in-con text are integrated into a coherent, configural representation,

and th is in tegra t ion process can be mathematica l ly modeled as the

computa t ion o f a tensor produc t . The process o f f ea ture in tegra t ion

may be ana logous to perceptua l b ind ing (Cr ick , 1984; Tre isman &

Gelade , 1980) , which is hypothes ized to occur when a v iewer ' s

neura l mechanisms rap id ly b ind a var ie ty of v isua l f ea tures to -

gether to present themselves to the viewer as a coherent, mean-

ingfu l ob jec t and event . Although the neura l bas is o f the b ind ing

process is yet to be examined fully (for a review, see Schacter ,

Norman, & Kouts taa l , 1998) , the TPM may provide a computa-

t iona l so lu t ion to th is p roblem (Humphreys , Wiles , & Dennis ,

1994).

Encoding Storage and Output Processes in the TPM

Figure 1 provides a schematic picture of the TPM architecture

invo lvin g four aspects: group, person, event, and context. Each

aspect is represented by a designated cluster of cognitive units , and

a pattern of activation over a given cluster of units represents a

feature (e.g., a specif ic group label, an in dividu ated person) . The

opera t ion of the TPM can be descr ibed in te rms of encoding ,

storage, and output processes.

Encoding Process

The encoding process consists of two subprocesses: feature

encoding and represen ta t ion cons truc t ion . In the fea ture -encoding

subprocess, an eve nt- in-c ontex t is analyze d into a set of features

jt un t

P e rs o n

g[i] Group

.... o

k

~-~Z-I n unit

x[l] Context

k]

k th un it

v e n t

Figure1. A schematic diagram of a tensor product net with four aspects

representing group, person, event, and context.

(e .g., group mem bership, person al identity, behavio ral description)

and represented in a distr ibuted format. This subprocess transform s

a feature into a distr ibuted representation of the feature. In exem-

plar theories , an exemplar is usually understood as a configuration

of features, whereas each feature takes a unitary representation.

With in a d is t r ibu ted represen ta t iona l sys tem, however , a meanin g-

ful, apparently unitary concept (e .g. , feature) may be represented

as a pattern of activation over a collection of cognitiv e units rather

than the ac t iva t ion of a s ing le semantic node ( see Hin ton &

Ande rson, 1989; Rumelhart et al. , 1986). For ease of exposition, it

is assumed that a feature is represented by a pattern of activation

over N cognitive units in a given cluster ; a unit takes any value

f rom nega t ive in f in i ty to pos i t ive in f in i ty ; and a un i t in the res t ing

state takes the activation level of

lPv/N.

Mathem atically, a pattern of activation over N units is described

by a real valued vector with N elements . In other words, one

feature of an event - in-con text is represented by a vector , f , whose

ith element, f[i] represents the level of activation of the ith unit.

I f two features are extracted, two N-el eme nt vectors , such as f~ and

f2 would represent the event- in-context. More generally, if m

features are extracted, m N-elem ent vectors are used. The length of

a vector is def ined as the square root of its inne r product w ith itself ,

that is , the length of f = %/(f f ) , where the inner product, ( f f ) =

Yf [ i] f [ i] . The vector , r , is used to represen t a collection of units all

in the resting state, that is , all N elements of r are 1/N/N (see

Hum phreys et al. , 1989). In this ar ticle , all the vectors are assumed

to have the length of un i ty .

The subprocess of representation construction integrates the

distr ibuted feature representations into a configu ral representation.

That is , a representation of a relevant social episode is constructed

as a configuratio n of the features with regard to various aspects o f

the experience. In Figure 1, this may be u nderstood as the spread-

ing of ac t iva t ion f rom the c lus te r s o f un i ts to the ir connec t ion

poin ts , and as the computa t ion of the amount by which each

connec t ion is s t r engthened . This m echanism, a genera l iza tion of

Hebbian lea rn ing , is mathematica l ly modeled as the computa t ion

of an outer product of the vectors . Recall that the vectors describe

the patterns of activation over the units , which represent the

features of the episode. The computation of the outer product

results in a mathematical entity known as a tensor . A tensor is a

generalizatio n of a vector and a matr ix. A vector can be thought of

as a Rank 1 tensor . When the outer product of two vectors is

computed, the result is a matr ix, which is a Rank 2 tensor . The

outer product of three or more vectors can also be computed,

resulting in a tensor of Rank 3 or higher .

Imagine an ep isode ana lyzed in to four f ea tures r epresen ted by

four N-e lem ent vectors: fm, f2, f3, and f4. The tens or product ,

El

o f

these vectors is written as

(1)

Let E 1 i, j , k, l] represent the elem ent at the ( i, j , k, /) coordinate o f

the tensor , Et . Then, th e tensor , E 1, is def ined as follows:

El[i j k l] = f~[i] f2[J] f3rk] f4[l].

The same nota tion can be generalized to a rank m tensor: E 1 = f~

® f2 ® f3 ® . • • ® fm- Note that a bold l owercase letter is used to

denote a vector and a bold uppercase letter is used to denote a

tensor.



9 1 8 K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H IM A

T h e p r e s e n t a r t i c le m o s t l y d e a l s w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s c o n s i s t i n g

o f g r o u p l a b e l , p e r s o n , b e h a v i o r e p i s o d e , a n d c o n t e x t . F o r e x a m -

p l e , a n e p i s od e i n w h i c h t h e o b s e r v e r w i t n e s s e d G e o r g e , a m e m b e r

o f a s o c c e r c l u b , h e l p a n o l d l a d y c r o s s i n g t h e b u s y s t r e e t m a y b e

r e p r e s e n t e d b y a r a n k f o u r t e n s o r o f t h e f o r m ,

E l = g 1 Q P l ~ e l Q x l ,

2 )

w h e r e g l r e p r e s e n t s t h e g r o u p l a b e l , s o c c e r c l u b , P l r e p r e s e n t s

G e o r g e , e l r e p r e s e n t s h e l p i n g a n o l d l a d y c r o s s i n g t h e b u s y

s t r e e t, a n d x ~ r e p r e s e n t s n e a r t h e b u s y s t re e t . I f t h e i n d i v i d u a l

m e m b e r o f t h e g r o u p i s n o t i n d i v i d u a t e d , t h e p e r s o n a s p e c t i s

a s s u m e d t o r e m a i n a t t h e r e s t i n g l e v e l ( i . e . , r ; a l l e l e m e n t s a r e

l / V b 0 .

T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e b e h a v i o r e p i s o d e m a y i n c l u d e a n y

i n f e r e n c e s m a d e o f t h e e p i s o d e , s u c h a s t r a i t s ( e .g . , S h e r m a n , 1 9 9 6 ;

c f. U l e m a n , N e w m a n , & M o s k o w i t z , 1 9 9 6 ) , ag e n t i c o r c o m m u n a l

o r i e n t a t i o n s f r o m r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s ( e . g . , E a g l y & S t e f f e n , 1 9 8 4 ;

H o f f m a n & H u r s t , 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d g e n e r a l i z e d e x p e c t a t i o n s b a s e d o n a

g r o u p ' s p e r f o r m a n c e a n d d e c i s i o n ( e. g ., A l l i s o n & M e s s i c k , 1 9 8 5 ;

f o r a re v i e w , s e e A l l i s o n , M a c k i e , & M e s s i c k , 1 9 9 6 ). W e a l s o

a s s u m e t h a t t h e a m o u n t o f a t t e n t i o n d i r e c t e d t o a g i v e n e p i s o d e

m a y v a r y. T h e a m o u n t o f a t t e n t io n a t t i m e t i s i n d e x e d b y t h e

a t ten t iona l pa ram ete r , ce , (0 -< a , --< 1 ) , whe re 0 i s no a t te n t ion

a n d 1 i s f u l l a t te n t i o n . T h e e n c o d e d e v e n t a t t i m e 1 i s, t h e r e fo r e ,

r e p r e s e n t e d a s or i e l . 3

S t o r a g e P r o c e s s

O n c e a m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n e v e n t i s c o n s t r u c t e d , i t i s

s t o re d i n m e m o r y . T h e c e n t ra l a s s u m p t i o n o f T P M i s t h at e v e r y

n e w r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s s u p e r i m p o s e d o n p r e e x i s t i n g r e p r e s e n t a ti o n s .

W i t h t h e p a s s i n g o f a u n i t t i m e p e r i o d , t h e m e m o r y t r a c e i s

a s s u m e d t o w e a k e n a s s p e c i f i e d b y t h e f o r g e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r , / 3

( 0 < /3 < 1 ). T h e s t o ra g e o p e r a t i o n is t h e n m o d e l e d a s a t e n s o r

a d d i t i o n . F o r i n s t a n c e , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n e w e p i s o d e , E l , i s

a d d e d t o t h e p r e e x i s t i n g m e m o r y , M o , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e m e m o r y ,

M 1, t h e s u m o f t h e t w o t e n s o r s :

M1 = /3M0 +

o r i E l

3)

wh ere M I[ i , j , k , / ] = /3Mo[i , j , k , I] cqE l[i , j , k , l] . T h i s i s

e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f t h e c o n n e c t i o n s a m o n g t h e u n i t s

i n F i g u r e 1 .

M o r e g e n e r a l l y , a s s u m i n g t h a t t h e t e n s o r s a r e o f t h e s a m e r a n k

a n d d i m e n s i o n a l i t y , t h e m e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t i m e t - 1 ,

M t _ 1 , i s u p d a t e d b y a n e w e p i s o d e a t t i m e t , E t , a s f o l l o w s :

M t

= ~ M t _ 1 o t t E t .

(4 )

N o t e t h a t t h e a t t e n t i o n p a r a m e t e r i s t i m e d e p e n d e n t : T h a t i s , i t m a y

v a r y f r o m t i m e t o t i m e ; h o w e v e r , t h e f o r g e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r i s

a s s u m e d t o b e a s y s t e m c o n s t a n t .

O u t p u t P r o c e s s

T w o k i n d s o f o u t p u t p ro c e s se s h a v e b e e n e x a m i n e d i n t h e g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e : j u d g m e n t a n d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . I n

j u d g m e n t , a n o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n i s r e p o r t e d o n a r a t i n g s c a l e ( e . g .,

H a m i l t o n & G i f f o r d , 1 9 7 6 ) ; i n c l a s s i fi c a t i o n , e x e m p l a r i n f o r m a -

t i o n i s u s e d t o c l a s s i f y th e e x e m p l a r i n t o a n a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r y .

T h e d i f f e r e n c e l i e s i n t h e u s e o f c u e s . I n j u d g i n g a g r o u p , t h e l a b e l

o f t h e g r o u p ( e . g ., g r o u p A ) i s u s e d a s a c u e t o a c c e s s m e m o r y , a n d

w h a t e v e r i s r e m e m b e r e d i s r e p o r t e d o n r a t i n g s c a l e s . I n c l a s s i f i -

c a t i o n , i t i s a c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e t h a t a c t s a s a c u e , a n d a n a s s o c i a t e d

g r o u p l a b e l i s r e t r i e v e d f r o m m e m o r y .

T o m o d e l t h e t w o t y p e s o f o u t p u t p r o c e s s e s , K a s h i m a e t a l .

( 1 9 9 8 ) u s e d t w o o p e r a t i o n s , retrieval and matching, p o s t u l a t e d b y

H u m p h r e y s e t a l . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . A c c o r d i n g t o H u m p h r e y s e t a l . , t h e

r e t r i e v a l o p e r a t i o n i s i n v o l v e d i n r e c a l l i n w h i c h a p i e c e o f i n f o r -

m a t i o n i s r e t r i e v e d f r o m m e m o r y . T h i s i s m o d e l e d w i t h i n t h e

t e n s o r p r o d u c t f r a m e w o r k a s t h e a c c e s s i n g o f a d i s t r ib u t e d m e m o r y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y a l o w e r r a n k e d t e n s o r . F o r i n s t a n c e , i f th e m e m -

o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n v o l v e s a R a n k 3 t e n s o r , a R a n k 2 t e n s o r i s

u s e d a s a c u e . T h i s o p e r a t i o n r e s u l t s i n t h e e m e r g e n c e o f a

d i s t r i b u t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ( i. e ., a v e c t o r ) . T h i s p r o c e s s i s a n a l o g o u s

t o c l a s s i f i c a t io n , i n w h i c h m e m o r y i s a c c e s s e d b y t h e r e p r e s e n t a -

t i o n o f a n e p i s o d e w i t h o u t a g r o u p l a b e l ( a t e n s o r o f a l o w e r r a n k ) ,

a n d a d i s t r i b u t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a g r o u p l a b e l ( a v e c t o r ) i s

re t r ieved .

M o r e f o r m a l l y , l e t M b e a t e n s o r o f R a n k 4 , c o n s i s t i n g o f t h e

a s p e c t s o f g r o u p l a b e l , p e r s o n , e v e n t , a n d c o n t e x t , a n d l e t C b e a

t e n s o r o f R a n k 3 w i t h t h e a s p e c t s o f p e r s o n , e v e n t , a n d c o n t e x t ,

t h a t i s , C = [ ] ( ~ P l Q e l ® x l , w h e r e [ ] d e n o t e s a m i s s i n g

a s p e c t. I n o t h e r w o r d s , C d o e s n o t c o n t a i n g r o u p l a b e l i n f o r m a t i o n .

T h e r e t r i e v a l f u n c t i o n i s d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s :

R e t r i e v e ( M , C ) = v,

w h e r e t h e v e c t o r , v , i s d e f i n e d a s b e l o w :

v [ i ] = E ~ ~ M [ i ,

j

k , / ]C [ j , k , l ] . (5 )

j k l

T h e r e t r i e v e d v e c t o r, v , i s a n o i s y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e g r o u p l a b e l

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e v e n t - i n - c o n t e x t .

T h e m a t c h i n g o p e r a t i o n w a s u s e d b y H u m p h r e y s e t a l . ( 1 9 8 9 ) t o

m o d e l r e c o g n i t i o n m e m o r y . T h e y p o s t u l at e d t h a t r e c o g n i t i o n j u d g -

m e n t i s b a s e d o n a s e n s e o f f a m i l i a r i t y t h a t p e o p l e f e e l w h e n t h e y

s e e a n o b j e c t. M a t c h i n g i n v o l v e s t h e a c c e s s i n g o f m e m o r y b y a c u e

r e p r e s e n t e d b y a t e n s o r o f t h e s a m e r a n k , r e t u r n i n g a s c a la r , w h i c h

i n d i c a t e s a g e n e r a l f e e l i n g o f m a t c h i n g s t r e n g t h , o r a f e e l i n g o f

k n o w i n g . P e o p l e w o u l d t a k e a g r e a t e r m a t c h i n g s t r e n g t h a s a n

i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y h a v e s e e n t h e o b j e c t b e f o r e . K a s h i m a e t a l .

( 1 9 9 8 ; a l s o s e e K a s h i m a & K e r e k e s , 1 9 9 4 ) p o s t u l a t e d t h a t b i p o l a r

i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t i n v o l v e s a p r o c e ss a n a l o g o u s t o r e c o g n i t i o n

m e m o r y . T h e y s u g g e s t e d t h a t , i n m a k i n g a g r o u p im p r e s s i o n

j u d g m e n t o n a b i p o l a r s c a l e ( e .g . , l i k e a b i l i t y , t r a it , o r a t t i t u d e

d i m e n s i o n s ) , p e o p l e a c c e ss m e m o r y b y c u e s c o n t a i n i n g t h e g r o u p

l a b e l , c o n t e x t i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d t h e h i g h - a n d l o w - e n d a n c h o r s o f

t h e j u d g m e n t s c a l e .

M o r e f o r m a l l y , l e t u s d e s i g n a t e b y a t e n s o r o f R a n k 4 , M , t h e

m e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a ti o n b a s e d o n w h i c h a b i p o l a r j u d g m e n t a b o u t a

g r o u p i s m a d e . T h i s t e n s o r c o n s i s t s o f t h e a s p e c t s o f g r o u p l a b e l ,

p e r s o n , b e h a v i o r e p i s o d e , a n d c o n t e x t . I n j u d g m e n t , t w o c u e s a r e

u s e d t o a c c e s s t h i s m e m o r y . T h e c u e s a r e d e s c r i b e d b y t e n s o r s o f

3 In this article, for expository simplicity, attention is assumed not to

differ for different aspects. However, it is possible to make the mo del more

general, so that attention varies across aspects or e ven for each exem plar's

different aspects.



GROUP IMPRESSIONS AS DYNAMIC CONFIGURATIONS 919

Rank 4, It and L, both including a particular group label and

context, g and x. In addition, they contain representations of a

person and the judgment scale. When a particular member of the

group is specified (i.e., George the soccer player), the person

aspect of the tensors involves a particular activation pattern, p, to

represent this person. When an individuated person is not specified

as a cue, the units for the person aspect stay at the resting state;

therefore, the person aspect of these tensors is described by a

vector r. In this section, we describe only the latter case, although

the former will be relevant later. The behavior episode aspect of

these tensors is either the mental representation of the higher or

lower end anchor of a judgm ent scale (e.g., likable or unlikable),

h, orl . Therefore, H=g ®r ®h ®x , an dL = g®r® i® x.

The matching operation is defined as

Mat ch( M, H) = ~ ~ ~ ~ M[i, j, k, /]H[i, j, k, l], (6)

j k l

and

Match(M, L) = ~ ' ~ M[i , j , k, I ]L[i , j , k, 1]. (7)

i j k l

These operations return a scalar that approximates the similarity

between the memory and the cue, which can be interpreted psy-

chologically as the general feeling of familiarity.

The judgmen t process is then modeled as follows:

Match(M, I-I)

Judg ment = Match(M, I-I) + Match(M, L) " (8)

This equation embodies the assumption that the judgment scale

provides a frame of reference in which people place the target

group. People are assumed to access the memory representation by

the higher end (Equation 6) and the lower end (Equation 7) of the

scale. They then evaluate the relative "closeness" of the target

group to the higher end relative to the lower end. This evaluation

is used to make a judgment on the bipolar scale (Equation 8). Note

that this is a special case of the relative goodness rule (Massaro &

Friedman, 1990; see also Luce, 1959).

General Characteristics of the TPM

The major characteristic of the TPM is its capacity to model

group impressions as dynamic configurations. The model explic-

itly traces the dynamic development of the mental representations

of a social group over time as new information is encountered. It

also provides a way of describing a configural representation that

Asch's (1946, 1952)

Gestalt

approach postulated. As noted by

Read et al. (1996), Kashima and Kerekes's (1994) simple linear-

associator does not handle a complex cortfigural representation;

however, the TPM rectifies this limitation and contributes to the

configural research tradit ion th/tt Read et al. advocated.

In modeling the output process for impression judgment, TPM

incorporates the insight of Upshaw's (1969) variable perspective

model. According to Equation 8, a judgment is, generally, a

function of how similar the memory is to the high-end anchor

relative to its similarity to the low-end anchor (for detailed dis-

cussion, see Kashima & Kerekes, 1994). This implies that people

interpret the adjectives and words that are used in judgment scales

differently, and observed judgments can vary as a function of the

mental representations of the scale anchors (e.g., Campbell, Lewis,

& Hunt, 1958; Manis, 1967; Ostrom & Upshaw, 1968; Volkmann,

1951). More recently, Biernat et al. (Biernat & Kobrynowicz,

1997; Biemat & Manis, 1994) convincingly demonstrated the

importance of this insight in group-relevant udgments by showing

that a social group membership of targets can alter the mental

representations of end anchors of judgment scales.

Several points are noteworthy about the representations of judg-

ment scale anchors. First, scale anchors must pertain to an aspect

of the tensor representation (e.g., in the present case, to the event

aspect). Second, we assume that the scale anchors are selected by

the experirnenter so that they are relevant to the expected memory

content.4 If they are irrelevant to the event memories, both

Match(M, I-I) and Match(M, L) would return relatively small

values. In this case, a judgment following Equation 8 may fall

around the scale midpoint because Match(M, H) and Match(M, L)

may both be equally small (this would be the case of indifference

as opposed to ambivalence). Third, the model accommodates the

possibil ity that the trait words used as scale anchors may be

relatively independent concepts. More formally, the mental repre-

sentations of the high and low endpoints of a scale, h and , may

be such that (h . 1) may be close to zero (or uncorrelated). Although

this assumption is not strictly necessary, it is consistent with the

finding by Skowronski and Shook (1997), in which antonymous

trait adjectives were shown to have relatively independent

representations.

Comparisons With Other Relevant Theories

In this section, we contrast TPM with three most relevant

connec tionist theories.

Kunda and Thagard s (1996) IMP Model

Kunda and Thagard's (1996) theory, which modeled person

impression formation as a parallel constraint satisfaction process,

differs from TPM in two respects. First, the Kunda-Thagard model

treats an observer's "knowledge" about a social group as given and

describes i ts use in forming impressions about a person. As Kunda

and Thagard (1996) noted, their model does "not address the

question of how incoming information may alter one's knowledge

about stereotypes, behaviors, and their associations" (p. 304). It is

this process of formation and change, or temporal dynamics, of

group impressions that TPM is designed to address.

Second, cognitive architectures differ. The present mode l as-

sumes a distributed representation, whereas the Kunda-Thagard

model assumes a localist representation. In a distributed represen-

tational system, a vector is used to represent a concept, whereas a

localist representational system uses a meaningful ly interpretable

"node" to represent a concept. An advantage of the distributed

representational system in the present context is the ease with

4 I n

fact, in most impression formation experiments, stimuli are con-

structed or selected so that they clearly mark higher or lower ends of a

given bipolar scale (e.g., likability). For example, personality rait words

may be selected for their clear evaluativeconnotation;behavioral descrip-

tions may be selected on the basis of their normative atings n a pilot study

so that some clearly indicate one trait and others, its opposite.



920 KASHIMA, WOOLCOCK, AND KASHIMA

which it can explain the averaging phenomenon in impression

formation (Kashima & Kerekes, 1994).

Fied ler s (1996) B IAS Model

Fiedler (1996) proposed the BIAS (Brunswikian Induction Al-

gorithm for Social Cognition) model to explain a number of

judgmental biases found in social cognition. This model uses a

distributed representational system in which a piece of information

is represented as a vector. Biases are explained as a consequence

of the process o f aggregating a number of representations. In terms

of its formal property, BIAS is a special case of the tensor product

model. When a Rank 1 tensor (or a vector) is used to represent a

concept, TPM reduces to BIAS. Alternat ively, TPM may be

thought of as an extension of BIAS along the dynamic configural

line. BIAS uses a vector representation but does not construct a

configural representation that conjunctivelycombines features of a

stimulus object. BIAS is not a memory model, but TPM is

grounded in the memory literature.

One major difference between BIAS and TPM lies in their

metatheoretical interpretations of the mathematical formalism.

TPM takes a cognit ive perspective and assumes that the processing

of distributed representations as characterized by the mathemat ical

formal ism is an algorithmic descript ion of the cognit ive processes

(Marr, 1982). By contrast, BIAS expl icitly interprets a distributed

representation as a set of mult iple proximal cues that bears prob-

abilistic relations with a distal object within Egon Brunswik's

(1956) theory of perception, wi thout adopting the cognitive met-

aphor (Fiedler, 1996, p. 200). Nevertheless, the metatheoretical

difference may be more apparent than real in that Marr 's algorith-

mic theory does not make a strong commitment to the way in

which a process is implemented in a physical system. Processing

units in TPM (or any distributed representational system for that

matter) can be interpreted as proximal cues.

Smi th and DeCo s ter s (1998a, 1998b) Recurren t Network

Smith and DeCoster (1998a, 1998b) used an autoassociative

network to model the process of person perception and memory.

Like the TPM and Fiedler' s BIAS, their model adopts a distributed

representational system. However, its capacity for memory makes

it different from BIAS. Further, the architecture and learning

algorithm of their autoassociative network differs from the TPM.

The processing units are all linked to each other (except with

themselves) in the recurrent network, whereas the TPM's associa-

tive links are limited to the units that represent different aspects of

a social event. The TPM uses a version of the Hebbian learning

rule (Kashima et al., 1998), but the Smith-DeCoster model uses the

delta rule, which is designed to minimize the network's error in

reproducing an input vector.

Like Kunda and Thagard, Smith and DeCoster model the do-

main of person perception, although they sometimes reported

simulat ions pertinent to group impressions. Smith and DeCoste r's

modeling attempt differs from ours in two respects. First is the

level of abstraction at which the research programs are pitched.

Smith and DeCoster are generally concerned about describing the

stereotype learning and use at an abstract level , whereas we at-

tempt to model empirical phenomena at a concrete level, much

closer to data. Therefore, Smith and DeCoster did not model

different types of output processes (i.e., impress ion judgment vs.

classification learning), a variety of time-dependent properties of

group impression formation (to be discussed later), and so on.

Second, Smith and DeCoster's model and TPM may also de-

scribe different types of learning processes. McClelland, Mc-

Naughton, and O'Reilly (1995) suggested that there are two types

of learning processes: a slow-lea rning system that extracts general

regularities, postulated to be implemented in the neocortex, and a

fast-learning system that requires at tentional resources and binds

novel stimuli to construct an episodic representation, which is said

to be localized in the hippocampal region. On the one hand,

McClel land et al., as well as Smith and DeCoster (1997), argued

that a connectionist learning system that uses an error-driven

algorithm (such as the delta rule) may be suitable for modeling the

slow-learning process. On the other hand, Denni s and Humphreys

(1997) postulated that a mechanism similar to the TPM may be

able to describe the fast-learning system (also see Wiles & Hum-

phreys, 1993).

This discussion suggests that Smith and DeCoster's model may

be best understood as an attempt at modeling the slow-learning

mechanism. An empirical inadequacy of Smith and DeCoster's

model (e.g., Kashima & Kerekes, 1994; also Busemeyer & Myung,

1988) may be interpretable in this light. As we discuss later,

Busemeyer and Myung analytically proved that the learning mech-

anism involved in the distributed memory system developed by

McClelland and Rumelhart (1985, 1986) and used by Smith and

DeCoster (1998a, 1998b) predicts that the way in which people

estimate the prototype of a category is time invari ant (to be

discussed later more fully). However, Busemeyer and Myung's as

well as Kashima and Kerekes's (1994) data contradicted this

prediction. Later in this article we show that group impression data

also contradict it. Although it is too early to tell, Smith and

DeCoster's model may be more suitable for modeling the slow-

learning system, whereas TPM may be better suited for modeling

the fast, binding mechanism.

Group Impression Formation

In this section, we first model group impression formation

processes within the TPM framework and then report an experi-

ment in which TPM predictions are tested.

Model ing G roup Impress ion Format ion

Two types of experimental paradigms have been used to exam-

ine the formation of group representations (Kashima, 1999;

Kashima et al., 1998). One type is based on the classification

learning paradigm (Medin & Schaffer, 1978). Exemplars that vary

along mult iple dimens ions are classified into two novel groups.

The participants' task is to learn the classification and to classify

new stimuli into the two categories (Smith & Zftrate, 1990). The

other type is analogous to the person impression formation para-

digm, in which novel groups are described by a series of stimuli,

and experimental participants are told to make judgments about a

group. A well-known example is the distinctiveness-based llusory

correlation (Hamil ton & Gifford, 1976) . The classif ication and

judgment paradigms have produced two different theories, which

have not been integrated within a single theoretical framework.




C l a s s i f i c a t i o n L e a r n i n g

Kashima et al. (1998) showed that the TPM is consistent with

the generalized context model of classification learning (Nosofsky,

1984, 1986; Smith & Z~ate, 1992). The generalized context model

assumes that when people learn to classify into n groups exemplars

that vary along multiple dimensions (e.g., artistic vs. scientific,

sociable vs. unsociable), the classification decision for a new

exemplar is a function of the similarities of the new exemplar with

the learned exemplars. In a typical experiment , people learn to

classify exemplars

E i j

into groups

G i

and are later tested for their

classification of the old and new exemplars. The probability of

classifying a test exemplar, T, into the ith group, G~, is:

s e , j , 1 3

i j G i

P(G~IT) = ~ ~ s(Eij T ) 9)

i i j G i

where s E ~ j, T ) is the similarity between a learned exemplar (jth

exemplar of the ith group), E 0, and the new exemplar, T. Note that

G~ ~ Eq indicates that the summation is over all the exemplars that

belong to the ith group, G~.

The context model (Medin & Schaffer, 1978) postulates that the

overall similarity between a learned exemplar and the test exem-

plar is a multiplicative function of the dimensional similarities:

s E O , 1 3 = 1 - [ s E o b , r k ) , (10)

k

where s E o k , T k ) is the similarity between the learned exemplar,

E e, and the new exemplar, T, on the kth dimension (where k =

1 . . . K ) .

From an analytical perspective, the classi fication choice pre-

dicted by TPM is consistent with the context model as character-

ized by Equation 9 and the multiplicative similarity function as in

Equation 10 (see Kashima et al., 1998, for a general proof). We

assume that the values that the exemplars

E e a n d T

take on the kth

dimension are encoded as eUk and etk. Then these exemplars may

be configurally represented as Eti =

g i

® %t ® ' ' ® etiK and T =

[ ] ® t I ® •

• ® t K, where [ ] indicates that the group aspect of

this representa tion is missing. Furthermore, assume that the mem-

ory representa tion after learn ing all the old exemplars is modeled

a s

M = E E E i j 1 1 )

i G i ~ i j

When this is accessed by the new exemplar, T, the retrieved

vector is a weighted sum of the vectors representing the group

labels

Retrieve(M, T) =

~ g i ] - [ k ( e t ik t k ) , ( 1 2 )

i G i ~ i j

where the weight, Y-o~Ei/I Ik (eUk tk), Can be interpreted as the

strength o f activation of the ith group label. Note that the similarity

between the kth feature of an exemplar, Eek, and the kth feature

of the test exemplar, irk, s E e k , Tk) = (eUk tk). Therefore, IIk

( e t i k • t k ) =

1-I s E u k , T k ) = s E o , T), according to Equation 10.

This implies that the TPM is consistent with the multiplicative

similarity function in Equation 10, which embodies the configural

representation assumed by the context model. If we assume that

the probability of choosing the ith group label, G i , for the test

exemplar, T, follows Luce 's (1959) choice rule, then the following

equation obtains

]--[ (e/jk t)

i j G I k

P(G,I13 = (13)

X ~ 1-[ (e0/%)

i i j G i k

Substitute the equality, I1k (eUk- tk) = IIk

s E o k , T k ) = s E e , 1 3 ,

into Equation 13, and we obtain Equation 9.

Empir ically too, Kashima et al. (1998) reported that Smith and

Z~ate's (1990) experimental results on classification learning

were closely reproduced by a computer simulat ion of the TPM. In

Smith and ZArate's experiment, human participants learned to

classify n ine exemplars into categories A and B (five to A and four

to B). Later they were given these nine exemplars and seven new

exemplars to classify into A and B. Figure 2 presents the proba-

bility of classifying the nine old and seven new exemplars to

category A, observed in the experiment (dashed line) and obtained

in the simulation. The simulation results closely followed the

empirical results.

I m p r e s s io n J u d g m e n t

Kashima et al. (1998) pointed out that TPM is compatible with

the weighted averaging model as well. Again, a simplified version

of the proof is provided here. Suppose that participants learn group

labels, i ndividual members, their behavior episodes, and the con-

text in which the episode was observed. We designate the ith

group's label G~ (i = 1 . . . I), the jth person in the ith group Pij (J

= 1 . . . J), the person's kth behavior episode

E o k ,

and the context

in which the episode is observed, X1, (1 = 1 . . . L). Most research-

ers assume that the weighted averaging model can describe group

impression judgments under this circumstance, so that the impres-

sion judgment for the ith group is described as follows:

E 2 w j j k

i k

J G r ) - ,

(14)

j k

where W ~ ,g a n d s i t k designate the weight and scale value of the

stimulus, S i ,y k . T h e relative weight for the stimulus, Srjk, is defined

as

w i v e t Y . j E k w i t k .

According to TPM, the event involving he kth episode of thejth

person in the ith group observed in the lth context is encoded as a

Rank 4 tensor, Etikl = g i ® P t i ® eti l, ® Xl For the ease of

exposition, let us assume that the context remains the same.

Ignoring the attention and forgetting parameters for the time being,

we come to the following memory representation:

M = ZZZ

g l

@ PU @ %k @ X,. (15)

i j k

Substituting Equation 15 into Equation 8 (judgment model) and

simplifying it using Equations 6 and 7, we obtain the following:



9

K A S H I M A , W O O L C OC K , A N D K A S H I M A

1 . 0

<

Q

L~ 0 8

o

~ 0 . 6

x

e-

o 4

o

o

~ 0 . 2

.1o

0.0

[ : ] Empi r i ca l

S i m u l a t i o n

a l a 2 a 3 a 4 a 5 b l b 2 b 3 b 4 n l n 2 n 3 n 4 n 5 n 6 n 7

F i gur e 2 . The probability o f classifying exemplars into category A , observed in Smith and ZArate (1990), and

the simulation results of the tensor product mo del. Constructed fro m the data reported in Table 3.1 in Kashima

et al. (1998, p. 84). The dashed line reports the observed p robability in the exemplar-only condition of Smith and

ZArate (I 990) and th e solid line represents the prototype + exemplar simulation results, the condition theorized

to be analogous to the exemplar-only cond ition in the empirical study. The positions on the x-axis axe different

exemplars used in the experiment: al to a5 are exemplars to be classified into category A; bl to b4 are exemplars

to be classified into category B; and nl to n7 are new exemplars.

~ (p, , j r)(e~, jk h ) ( x t x )

j k

J (G i , ) = ~ ~ (P i ' J r ) ( e i 'j k h ) ( x t x ) + (pi , j r )(e i , j k l ) ( x t x ) '

j k

( 1 6 )

a s s u m i n g t h a t a l l g r o u p l a b e l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , g i , a re d i s t inc t , so

that (gi gi , ) = 0 for a l l i :~ i ' .

L e t u s d e f i n e

a n d

(ei ,jk

h )

s i 'Jk -- (e i , j k . h) -I- (e i , ;k . 1) (17)

Wi'jk

= [(e i , jk h)

+ ( e i , j k

l ) ] ( p i , j r ) ( x l x ) . ( 1 8 )

W h e n E q u a t i o n s 1 7 an d 1 8 a re s u b s t it u t e d i n t o E q u a t i o n 1 6 , w e

o b t a i n E q u a t i o n 1 4 , w h i c h r e p r e s e n t s t h e w e i g h t e d a v e r a g i n g

m o d e l . 5 T h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e w e i g h t e d a v e r a g i n g m o d e l h o l d s

i n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n h a s n o t b e e n t e s t e d i n t h e l i t er a t u re .

E q u a t i o n 1 7 s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s c a l e v a l u e s h o u l d r e m a i n r e l a -

t i v e l y c o n s t a n t r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e c o n t e x t a n d p e r s o n v e c t o r s b e -

c a u s e t h e s c a l e v a l u e , si ,jk, i s a f u n c t i o n o n l y o f t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s o f

t h e e x e m p l a r a n d t h e s c a l e a n c h o r s . B y c o n t r a s t , E q u a t i o n 1 8

s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e w e i g h t , Wi,jk , C a n v a r y a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e p e r s o n

a n d c o n t e x t r e p r e s e n t a ti o n . I n p a r t i c u l ar , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t

t h e w e i g h t f o r a n e x e m p l a r v a r i e s a s a f u n c t i o n o f ( x • x ) ; t h a t is ,

t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e e x e m p l a r w a s

l e a r n e d ( x0 a n d t h e c o n t e x t in w h i c h t h e j u d g m e n t i s m a d e ( x ) , a s

w e l l a s a f u n c t i o n o f ( P i 'j r ) , t h a t i s , t h e s i m i l a r i ty b e t w e e n t h e

pe r son r e pre se nta t ion (p i . j ) a nd the r e s t ing s ta te ( r ) . Thi s prope r ty

i s i m p o r t a n t i n e x p l a i n i n g a v a r i e t y o f p h e n o m e n a a s w e s e e l a te r .

G r o u p I m p r e s s io n F o r m a t i o n a n d t h e I n f o r m a t io n

E n v i r o n m e n t

T h e f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n i m p l i e s th a t , a c c o r d i n g t o T P M , g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n s b e a r a d y n a m i c r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

e n v i r o n m e n t . O n c e a n e v e n t - i n - c o n t e x t i s p o s i t i v e l y o r n e g a t i v e l y

e n c o d e d f o r i n s t an c e , i t i s s t o r e d in m e m o r y , a n d g r o u p i m p r e s -

s i o n s a r e c o n s t a n t l y u p d a t e d . T h e r e s u l t a n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s a b o u t

s o c i a l g r o u p s c a n q u i t e a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e p r o b a b i l i s t i c e n v i -

r o n m e n t W i t h w h i c h t h e c o n n e c t i o n i s t l e a r n i n g s y s t e m i n t e r a c t s .

5 Hogarth and E inho m (1992) proposed a mod el that makes predictions

similar to the current mod el under som e conditions. How ever, it should be

noted that their model cannot account for the results of Smith and Z~rate

(1990). For a discussion about other inadequacies of their model, see

Kashima and Kerekes (1994).




However, the relationship between group impressions and the

probabilistic property of the information environment is rather

complex. TPM predicts that group impressions vary as a function

of both the probability of types of events encoded about a group

and the total amount of information (or number of events) learned

about the group.

To see this, we consider a simple case. Suppose that one event

is learned about a group member and that there are J members of

the group. That is, the number of events observed about the group

is J. Further suppose that, of those J events, the probability of

positive to negative events is p. Under some simplifying assump-

tions, the impression judgment about the group can be written as

follows (see Appendix for proof):

S o + J p s p + J(1 - p ) S n

Jud gme nt = 1 + J ' (19)

where so is the effect of the prior memory and S p a n d s n represent

the scale values of the positive and negative events. Assuming that

s n < s o < S p , Equation 19 implies that when J is constant,

impression judgment is more positive when p is greater, and as J

becomes very large, judgm ent approaches p S p + (1 - p ) s , , , a value

that is a function only of p. Therefore, impression judgments

should reflect the probabilistic property of the information envi-

ronmen t fairly accurately in the long run.6

Equation 19 also implies that impression judgment varies as a

function of the total amount of information, J, when J is relatively

small, even ifp is constant. In particular, i fp > (so - S n ) / S o - - Sn),

judgm ent increases (or becomes more positive) as J increases; if

p > S o - s n ) / S o - sn), judgment decreases (or becomes more

negative) as J increases. This implicat ion obtains because of so, the

effect of the prior memory (see Appendix). In other words, when

the number of positive events learned about a group is large

relative to that of negative events, a group about which social

perceivers know a great deal is more posi tively evaluated than a

group about which they know only a little. Conversely, when the

number of positive events learned about a group is small relative

to that of negative events, a group about which social observers

know a great deal is more negatively evaluated than a group about

which they know only a little.

Both of these implications of TPM are, in fact, consistent with

the distinctiveness-based illusory correlation first identified by

Hamilton and Gifford (1976; also see Hamilton, Dugan, Trolier,

1985), arguably the first experiment that reported about group

impression formation. In their Experiment 1, Hamilton and Gifford

presented 39 behavior episodes performed by individual members

of two groups (A and B). The majority group exhibited 18 positive

and 8 negative behaviors, whereas the minority performed 9 pos-

itive and 4 negat ive behaviors. Although the ratio of positive to

negative behaviors remained constant across the two groups, the

overall impression formed was more positive for the majority than

for the minority group. In their Experiment 2, they showed the

reverse tendency; that is, when more negative than positive be-

haviors were shown, the majority was evaluated more negatively

than the minority. This finding has been replicated in a number of

experiments (see Mull en Johnson, 1990).

This account of the phenomenon differs from that of Hamilton

and Gifford (1976). According to them, the combination of a

minority status and infrequent negative behaviors makes this class

of episodes distinctive. This distinctiveness is analogous to the

pairing of exceptionally long words (e.g., blossoms-notebook) in

Chapman's (1967; also see Chapman Chapman, 1967, 1969)

experiments. Chapman's participants overestimated the frequency

of the occurrence of distinct ive pairings. Likewise, the participants

in Hamilton and Gifford's experiment weighted the infrequent

behaviors more than others, leading to the more negative impres-

sion of the minority group.

More recently, a number of researchers suggested al ternative

explanations. First, Fiedler (1991, 1996; Fiedler Armbruster,

1994; also see Smith, 1991) suggested that info rmat ion loss can

explain the Hamilton-Gifford phenomenon within the BIAS model

framework. Positivi ty of informat ion was represented by a vector,

and another vector perfectly negat ively correlated with it as rep-

resenting negativity. A judgment was modeled by a correlation

between the positivity vector and the sum of all vectors represent-

ing the behavioral information of the majority and minority

groups. Even if the minority and majority groups exhibit the same

level of positivity (or negativity), the magnitude of the correlation

between the vector sum and the positivity vector was greater for

the majority than that for the minority only when some errors were

introduced to the vectors representing the behaviors. This amounts

to a more extreme judgment (either negative or positive) for the

majority than for the minority when errors are present or informa-

tion is lost. Second, McGarty, Haslam, Turner, and Oakes (1993)

suggested that the participants have a preconception about the

relationship between two contrasted groups. The contrast ive rela-

tionship may contribute to the differential evaluations of the

groups.

The robustness of the Hamilton-Gifford phenomenon suggests

that it may be multiply determined (e.g., Berndsen, Spears, Mc-

Garty, van der Pligt, 1998; Mackie, Hamilton, Susskind,

Rosselli, 1996). The TPM framework may provide a possibi lity for

incorporating a number of explanations of the Hamilton-Gifford

phenomenon and evaluating relative contributions of these effects.

To begin, the TPM is not inconsistent with the distinctiveness-

based account and can incorporate it in terms of the attentional

parameter postulated in Equation 8. In addition, if random error

vectors are added to the encoded behaviors in the TPM (as is

routinely clone in simulations), this can produce the condition

simulated by Fiedle r (1996). Finally, as suggested by McGarty et

al. (1993) and Berndsen et al. (1998), it is possible that the process

of different iating the contras ting groups (discussed later in the

Group Differentiation section) may be involved in the process.

Furthermore, research identified a number of limit ing condit ions

of the il lusory correlation phenomenon (Berndsen et al., 1998;

McConnell, Sherman, Hamilton, 1994; McConnell, Sherman,

Hamilton , 1997; Pryor, 1986; Sanbonmatsu, Sherman, Hamil-

ton, 1987; Schaller, 1992; Schaller Maass, 1989). As suggested

6 This statement holds provided that the endpoints of judgment scales

and scaling parameters are the same and the information environment

remains stable at least probabilistically. nterestingly, his implication of

the TPM is broadly in agreement with Gigerenzerand Hoffrage's (1995)

contention hat people's probabilistic udgments are often consistent with

the Bayesian normative criterion when information is presented in fre-

quency rather than in probability. The TPM, l ike other connectionist

models, retains informationabout the frequency of events.



924 KASHIMA, WOOLCOCK, AND KASHIMA

by Hamilton and Sherman (1996; also Bemdsen et al., 1998), a

theory based on the concept of entitativity (Campbell, 1958), the

extent to which a group is perceived to be a coherent entity, may

provide an integrative explanation of the complex processes in-

volved in the i llusory correlation phenomenon. In the meantime, it

should be noted that the effect of the prior memory, as suggested

by the TPM, may also play some role in generating this robust

phenomenon.

T i m e D e p e n d e n t P r o p e r t i es o f G r o u p I m p r e s s i o n

F o r m a t i o n

Impress ion judgments are time dependent. When a series of

stimuli are presented and a judgment is made, weight given to a

stimulus for the judgment depends on time. The TPM makes

detailed and novel predictions about time dependence of impres-

sion formation, which are explicated here and tested in a later

experiment reported. These predictions are couched in terms of a

serial position weight, which is the weight given to a stimulus that

occupies a certain serial position for a given impression udgment.

When a series of J stimuli (j = 1 to J) is presented and a judgment

is made after the Jth stimulus, the weight given to the jth stimulus

is written as SPW(j, J). For example, SPW(1, 4), SPW(2, 4),

SPW(3, 4), and SPW(4, 4) indicate the serial position weights for

Stimulus 1 through 4 computed based on the judgment made after

the fourth stimulus was presented.

Linearity a nd time invariance. Busemeyer and Myung (1988;

Myung & Busemeyer, 1992) showed that a number of connection-

ist models of category learning can be tested by examining time

dependence of impression formation. Those models include

Metcalfe-E ich's (Eich, 1982) holographic memory model, Hintz-

man's (1986) multiple-trace memory model, Knapp and Ander-

son's (1984) distributed memory model, and McClelland and

Rumelhart's (1985) connectionist model. Smith and DeCoster

(1998a) also used McClelland and Rumelhart's model. In partic-

ular, Busemeyer and Myung showed that prototype estimate,

which is an experimental participant's estimate of the prototype of

a category, can be predicted by these models and rewritten in the

following form:

Prototype estimate after the Jth exemplar = ~ w(j_j) ej, (20)

J

where ej is the jth exemplar (j = 1 . . . J) and w(j_~) is a scalar

weight for the jth exemplar when the prototype estimate is made

after the Jth exemplar is presented. This means that these models

have common properties of linearity and time invariance.7 Lin-

earity implies that the prototype estimate is a linear additive

function of the exemplars. Time invariance means that the weight

for a given exemplar should be constant in so far as, (J - j), the

time interval between the exemplar presentation and the judgment

(operationalized as the number of intervening exemplars) remains

the same. To use the present notation, this implies that SPW(j, J)

is constant when (J - j) i s constant.

By contrast, TPM does not have the time-invariance property,

although it implies linearity under a certain circumstance (see

Kashima & Kerekes, 1994, Kashima et al., 1998). Busemeyer and

Myung 's (1988; Myung & Busemeyer, 1992) empirical studies

showed that human prototype estimates are largely linear but not

time invariant. Although Kashima and Kerekes (1994) showed that

person impression judgments are t ime variable, it is yet to be

examined whether group impression judgments are time variable

or not. Further, a linearity assumption of group impressions has

never been tested directly.

Response dependency.

This means that the weight of a stim-

ulus for a judgme nt depends on whether, and if so when, another

judgment is made between the stimulus and the judgment.

Kashima et al. (Kashima & Kerekes, 1994; Kashima et al., 1998)

suggested that the TPM predicts a response dependency in impres-

sion judgments under some conditions. This prediction rests on

two arguments. First, Equation 18 predicts that the weight for a

given exemplar is a function of the similarity between the learning

and judgment contexts, other things being equal. Therefore, under

the condi tion in which people are expected to interpret the judg-

ment context to be different from the learning context, the exem-

plar will be weighted differently to the condition in which the

judgment context is interpreted to be the same as the learning

context. The greater the similarity between the learning and judg-

ment contexts, the greater should the weight be for an exemplar.

More formally, according to TPM (Equation 18; i.e., ignor ing

the attentional and forgetting parameters), SPW(j , J) can be

described by the following equation under some simplifying as-

sumptions:

x j . x j )

SPW (j, J) - ~] (xj xj )' (21)

J

where xj is the context representation for the jth stimulus and xj is

the context representation for the Jth stimulus. The assumptions

made for this are that the scale value and the stimulus represen-

tation remain constant for all stimuli and that the context for a

judgment after the Jth stimulus is the same as the context for the

Jth stimulus.

Second, it is hypothesized that the act of making a judgment

often prompts people to al ter the context representation. Suppose

that an experimental participant receives a first series of stimuli,

makes a first judgment, receives a second set of stimuli, and then

makes a second judgment. When one task using the first stream of

stimuli is completed by making a judgment, the subsequent stream

of stimul i may be differentiated from the first. This differentiat ion

of the two sets can be represented as a change in context repre-

sentation in TPM (Kashima & Kerekes, 1994, Footnote 5). Martin

(1986) made a similar suggestion in his analysis of assimilation

and contrast effects.

Based on this formulation, two predictions follow. First, the

weight for the jth stimulus for the judgment made after the Jth

stimulus, SPW(j, J), should vary depending on whether another

judgment is made between the jth and Jth stimuli. Suppose that a

series of J st imuli are presented, and a first impression udgment is

made after the Joth stimulus, and a second impression judgme nt is

made after the Jth st imulus is presented. The weights est imated

from the second judgment, SPW(j, J), should increase as a step

funct ion of j, where the increase occurs at the position of Jo

(Prediction 1). This is because the context representation for the

7 Busemeyer and Myung (1988) also discussed noninterference,but we

do not address it because it is not directly elevant o the current discussion.



GRO UP IMPRESSIONS AS DYNA MIC CONFIGURATIONS 92 5

s t i m u l i b e f o r e t h e f i r s t j u d g m e n t i s e x p e c t e d t o b e l e s s s i m i l a r to

t h e c o n t e x t r e p r e s e n t a ti o n f o r t h e s t i m u l i a f t e r it . P r o v i d e d t h a t t h e

s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t i s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e

l e a r n i n g a n d j u d g m e n t c o n t e x t s ( E q u a t i o n 2 1 ) , t h e f i rs t s et o f

s t i m u l i s h o u l d b e w e i g h t e d l e s s t h a n t h e s e c o n d s e t .

S e c o n d , t h e s a m e m e c h a n i s m p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n

w e i g h t s b e f o r e t h e f i r st j u d g m e n t e s t im a t e d f r o m t h at j u d g m e n t

s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e w e i g h t s f o r t h e s a m e p o s i t i o n s e s t i -

m a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e c o n d j u d g m e n t ( P r e d i c t i o n 2 ) . T h a t i s ,

S P W f j , J o) > S P W ( j , J ) , w h e r e Jo > J . T h i s is b ec a u s e t h e c o n t e x t

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t s e t o f s t i m u l i i s e x p e c t e d t o b e l e s s

s i m i l a r to t h e c o n t e x t f o r t h e s e c o n d j u d g m e n t t h a n t h e c o n t e x t f o r

t h e f i r s t j u d g m e n t ( E q u a t i o n 2 1 ) . A t e s t o f t h e s e p r e d i c ti o n s i s

r e por te d l a te r .

Order ef fect . W h e n t h e r e s p o n s e d e p e n d e n c y i s n o t a n i s s u e ,

a n o r d e r e f f e c t i s a n o t h e r i n s t a n c e o f t i m e d e p e n d e n c y . I f i n f o r -

m a t i o n e n c o u n t e r e d e a r l i e r h a s a g r e a t e r e f f e c t o n a j u d g m e n t t h a n

r e c e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , i t is c a l l e d a p r i m a c y e f f e c t ; a g r e a t e r e f f e c t o f

r e c e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i v e t o e a r l i e r i n f o r m a t i o n i s c a l l e d a r e -

c e n c y e f f e c t . H a m i l t o n a n d S h e r m a n ' s ( 1 9 9 6 ) f o r m u l a t i o n s u g g e s t s

t h a t a g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n m a y e x h i b i t a p r i m a c y o r r e c e n c y e f f e c t

d e p e n d i n g o n t h e t a r g e t g r o u p ' s p e r c e i v e d e n t i t a t i v i t y ( s e e M a n i s

& P a s k e w i t z , 1 9 8 7 , f o r s o m e e v i d e n c e ) . W h e n a g r o u p i s h i g h l y

e n t i t a t i v e ( i. e ., a g r o u p i s p e r c e i v e d t o b e a n e n t i t y ) , p e o p l e w o u l d

a t t e m p t t o f o r m a n i n t e g r a t i v e i m p r e s s i o n i n t h e s a m e f a s h i o n a s i n

p e r s o n i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . I n p e r s o n i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n ,

o b s e r v e r s h a v e b e e n p o s t u l a t e d t o d i r e c t a d e c r e a s i n g a m o u n t o f

a t t e n t i o n t o l a t e r s t i m u l i p r e s u m a b l y b e c a u s e t h e l a t e r s t i m u l i a r e

a s s u m e d t o b e r e d u n d a n t ( s e e K a s h i m a & K e r e k e s , 1 9 9 4 , f o r a

r e v i e w ) . T h i s i m p l i e s a p r i m a c y e f f e c t r e s u l t i n g f r o m a t t e n ti o n

d e c r e m e n t w h e n a g r o u p i s p e r c e i v e d t o b e a n e n t i t y .

I n c o n t r a st , w h e n a g r o u p d o e s n o t h a v e a h i g h l e v e l o f e n t it a -

t i v i t y , g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n m a y b e c o n c e p t u a l i z e d a s a

s e r i es o f p e r s o n i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s a m e

a t t e n t i o n d e c r e m e n t m a y o c c u r f o r e a c h i n d i v i d u a l b e c a u s e t h e

p e r s o n i s p e r c e i v e d t o b e a n e n t i t y . H o w e v e r , w h e n a n e w i n d i -

v i d u a l m e m b e r i s e n c o u n t e r e d , a t t e n t i o n i s r e n e w e d ; t h e r e f o r e , n o

s y s t e m a t i c a t t e n t i o n d e c r e m e n t s h o u l d o c c u r f o r t h e o v e r a l l g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n . I t i m p l i e s t h a t a r e c e n c y e f f e c t m a y o b t a i n f o r i m p r e s -

s i o n s o f a l o w e n t i t a t i v e g r o u p . T h i s i s b e c a u s e e a r l i e r i n f o r m a t i o n

m a y b e f o r g o t t e n , a n d m o r e r e c e n t i n f o r m a t i o n m a y h a v e a g r e a t e r

i m p a c t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a t t e n t i o n d e c r e m e n t . T h i s p r o c e s s i s

m o d e l e d i n T P M b y t h e a t t e n t i o n a l a n d f o r g e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r s , a

a n d / 3 ( E q u a t i o n 4 ) . A s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e l a t iv e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e

p a r a m e t e r s , a p r i m a c y o r r e c e n c y e f f e c t c o u l d o c c u r ( s e e S t r a n g e ,

S c h w e i , & G e i s e l m a n , 1 9 7 8 , f o r re s u l t s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h is r e a -

s o n i n g ) . A n e x p e r i m e n t i s r e p o r t e d , t e s t i n g t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t a

r e c e n c y e f f e c t i s l i k e l y t o o c c u r w h e n i m p r e s s i o n s a r e f o r m e d

w h e n g r o u p s a r e n o t e n t i t a t i v e .

E x p e r i m e n t: T i m e D e p e n d e n c y o f

Group Impress ion Format ion

T h i s e x p e r i n a e n t te s t e d t h e t i m e - d e p e n d e n t p r o p e r t i e s o f g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n p r e d i c t e d b y t h e T P M . A f i c t i t i o u s g r o u p o f

f o u r f r i e n d s s e r v e d a s a t a r g e t g r o u p . E a c h i n d i v i d u a l w a s a t t r i b -

u t e d t w o o p i n i o n s o n s o c i a l i s s u e s r e l e v a n t i n A u s t r a l i a : r e p u b l i -

c a n i s m ( w h e t h e r A u s t r a l i a s h o u l d b e c o m e a r e p u b l i c ) a n d A b o r i g -

i n a l is s u e s ( w h e t h e r A u s t r a l i a n A b o r i g i n a l s s h o u l d r e c e i v e a b e t t e r

t r e a tm e n t ) . T h i s p r o v i d e s a n e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n c o m p a r a b l e t o

D r e b e n , F i s k e , a n d H a s t i e ' s ( 1 9 7 9 ) p e r s o n i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n

e x p e r i m e n t , i n w h i c h a p e r s o n w a s d e s c r i b e d b y f o u r s e ts o f t w o

b e h a v i o r e p i s o d e s . P a r ti c i p a n t s w e r e t o l d t o f o r m a n i m p r e s s i o n o f

t h e g r o u p a n d m a d e t h e i r j u d g m e n t s o n t h e g r o u p ' s o p i n i o n o n

A b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s i n f i v e d i ff e r e n t j u d g m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . I n t h e f i n a l

r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n , a l l o p i n i o n s t a t e m e n t s w e r e p r e s e n t e d f i r s t ,

a n d a j u d g m e n t w a s m a d e . I n t h e c o n t i n u o u s - r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n ,

a j u d g m e n t w a s m a d e a f t e r e a c h i n d i v i d u a l . I n t h e o t h e r t h r e e

c o n d i t i o n s , j u d g m e n t s w e r e m a d e t w i c e . I n t h e ( 1 , 4 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) , a n d

( 3 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n s , a j u d g m e n t w a s f i r s t m a d e a f t e r t h e f i r st , s e c o n d ,

o r t h i r d p e r s o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y , a n d a l s o a f t e r t h e f o u r t h p e r s o n .

T h i s d e s i g n a l l o w e d u s t o t e s t t h e T P M a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a n

i m p l i c a t i o n o f a b e h a v i o r e p i s o d e c o n s t i t u t e s p a r t o f t h e r e p r e s e n -

t a t i o n o f a n e n c o d e d e v e n t . E a c h s t i m u l u s i n d i v i d u a l e x p r e s s e d a n

o p i n i o n a b o u t A b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s a s w e l l a s a n o p i n i o n o n r e p u b l i -

c a n i s m , w h i c h i s c l e a r l y a n i s s u e d i s t i n c t f r o m b u t r e l a t e d t o

A b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s a c c o r d i n g t o a p r e te s t . R e p u b l i c a n i s m i s a s t a n c e

a b o u t t h e c o n s t i t u t io n a l s t a t u s o f A u s t r a l i a a s a n a t io n . C u r r e n t l y ,

t h e h e a d o f t h e s t a t e o f A u s t r a l i a i s t h e B r i t i s h q u e e n . H o w e v e r ,

r e p u b l i c a n s t a k e t h e v i e w t h a t A u s t r a l i a s h o u l d b e c o m e a r e p u b l i c .

A u s t r a l i a n s t u d e n t s t e n d t o b e l i e v e t h a t a s y m p a t h e t i c s t a n c e t o

A b o r i g i n a l s a n d a r e p u b l i c a n s t a n c e g o t o g e t h e r , p r e s u m a b l y b e -

c a u s e t h e y e x p r e s s a l i b e r a l a t t i t u d e . O n e h a l f o f t h e s t i m u l u s

g r o u p s c o n s i s t e d o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o e x p r e s s e d p r o - r e p u b l i c a n

o p i n i o n s , a n d t h e o t h e r h a l f e x p r e s s e d a l l a n t i - r e p u b l i c a n o p i n i o n s .

I f t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f a n o p i n i o n o n r e p u b l i c a n i s m i s e n c o d e d , t h i s

s h o u l d h a v e a n e f f e c t o n t h e o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n a b o u t t h e g r o u p ' s

o p i n i o n o n A b o r i g i n a l i s s u e s .

M e t h o d

Participants.

Eighty (24 male, 56 female) undergraduate students at La

Trobe University participated in this experiment for AUD5 per hour.

Design.

Five response conditions were constructed. In the final re-

sponding cond ition, participants w ere given attitude statements purportedly

made by four members of a group and made an impression judgment after

the fourth stimulus person. In the sequential responding condition, a

participant made an impression judgment after each group member. In the

other three conditions, two judgments were requested: after the first and

fourth members in the (1,4) condition; after the second and fourth members

in the (2,4) condition; and after the third and fourth mem bers in the (3,4)

condition. Sixteen participants were randomly assigned to each condition.

Stimulus. To construct stimulus groups, 60 attitudinal statements (30

favoring and 30 opposing) on each of the republican and the Aboriginal

issues were written. These issues were chosen because a pilot study (N =

20) showed that they were perceiv ed to be related to each other in that

those wh o are in favor of Australia becoming a republic w ere perceived to

be likely more sympathetic to Aboriginals. In a separate pilot study, 40

participants drawn from the same pool as those who participated in the

main experiment were asked to jud ge whether the statements favors or

opposes Australia becoming a republic or favors or opposes Aboriginal

people receivin g a better treatment on an 11-point scale (0 = opposes,

10 =

favors .

Fou r statements with highest (M > 7.5; e.g., Any one who

denies the Aboriginal population the chance to retain som e of their land is

being racist and immoral ) and fou r statements with lowest (M < 2.5; e.g.,

Aborigines are basically unemployable because they are all lazy and

disruptive ) mean scale values were selected.

Each participant was shown 64 groups of stimulus individuals in total

(presented in a random order for each participant), of which 32 groups w ere

crucial to the experiment. The o ther 32 groups served as fillers to mask the

repetitive nature o f judgments about the crucial groups. Each group was



9 2 6 K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

said to consis t o f four Mends whose op in ions on two socia l i ssues were

presen ted . One i ssue wa s a ta rget i ssue (Aborig inal issue; whether Abo rig-

inal people should receive a bet ter t rea tment ) and the o ther i ssue was a

re la ted i ssue (republ ican i ssue; whether Aus t ra l ia should become a repu b-

l ic) . The 32 s t imulus groups w ere const ructed so tha t they embodied f ive

wi th in-part ic ipant fac tors ( two levels in each): g rou p 's op in ion on the

related issue (high vs. low on republican issue), first , second, third, and

fourth mem bers ' op in ion on the target i ssue (h igh vs. low o n the Aborig inal

i ssue), where h igh mean s favorab le to Aust ra l ia becom ing a republ ic and

sympathetic to Aboriginals.

In hal f o f the 32 s t imulus groups, a l l mem bers expressed h igh opin ions

on the republ ican i ssue , and in the o ther ha l f , a l l mem bers had low

opin ions. On the A borig inals i ssue , the m emb ers ' op in ions varied in

accordance wi th the fac toria l design (e .g ., HHHH , H HHL, HHLH). How -

ever, to ensure tha t a l l four d i fferen t h igh s ta tements and low sta tements

appear a t each posi t ion equal ly frequent ly wi th in an experimenta l condi -

t ion , Anders on 's (1973; a l so see Kashim a & Kerekes, 1994) design was

used . Fi rs t , four h igh and low sta tements were each randomly numbered

from 1 to 4 . In St imulus Set 1 , s ta tements were ordered from Nu mbe r 1 to

Num ber 4 in a l l g roups. In o ther s t imulus se ts (Sets 2 th rough 4) , the order

of s ta tements was varied accord ing to the Lat in square design (4 , l , 2 , 3 ; 3 ,

4 , l , 2 ; and 2 , 3 , 4 , 1 ) . Four part ic ipants were random ly assigned to each

st imulus se t in each response condi t ion . Each group m em ber ' s op in ion on

the republ ican i ssue was a lways presen ted f i rs t , fo l lowed by an op in ion on

the target Abo rig inal i ssue .

This design a lso perm i t ted an est imat ion of seria l posi t ion weights, on

wh i c h t h e mo s t TPM p re d i c t i o n s we re b a se d . R e c a l l t h e n o t a t i o n ,

SPW (j , J ) , wh i c h re fer s t o t h e we i g h t fo r t h e j t h s t imu l u s fo r t h e j u d g me n t

made after the J th s t imulus. The est imat ion procedure was as fo l lows. Fi rst ,

we summ ed the judgm ents after the J th s t imulus for a l l the sequences of

s t imul i whose j th s t imulus person expressed a pos i t ive a tt i tude toward the

issue and then summed the judgments after the J th s t imulus for a l l the

sequences of s t imul i whose j th s t imulus person expressed a neg at ive

at t i tude toward the i ssue . F inal ly , the second sum was subt rac ted from the

fi rs t sum. The d i fference score sho uld be a l inear funct ion of SPW (j , J ) .

For the ra t ionale of th i s method , see Anderson (1973) and Kashima and

Kerekes (1994).

Procedure. Part ic ipants were gree ted by a male experimenter and

show n to a computer . After the experimen ter ensured the part ic ipants '

fami l iar i ty wi th the equipment , a l l the inst ruct ions were g iven on the

screen . Th e inst ruct ions in formed that the experim ent was concern ed wi th

h o w p e o p l e fo rm i mp re ss i o n s a b o u t g ro u p s a n d wo u l d b e sh o wn ma n y

groups of fr iends w ho express various op in ions about socia l i ssues. Fi rs t ,

they were asked to express the i r own opin ions on various socia l i ssues,

inc lud ing the republ ican and A borig inal i ssues using 11-poin t sca les (0 =

opposes,

10 =

favors . The

mean scores were 7 .8 and 7 .4 , ind ica t ing

genera l ly l ibera l a t ti tudes. A pract ice session was then presen ted , in wh ich

the part ic ipants were shown a series of four s ta tements a t t r ibu ted to four

d i fferen t ind iv iduals and asked to make judgm ents abou t the groups on the

same 11-poin t sca le regard ing socia l i ssues such as the republ ican ism and

Aborig inal i ssues. Each s ta tement was presen ted for 7 s , and judgm ents

were se l f-paced. The schedule by which judgm ents were requested was the

same as in the m ain experiment . After the prac t ice session , the part ic ipants

were prom pted for questions. No quest ions were asked . The m ain exper-

iment then began . Judgments about the target Aborig inal issue were m ade

on the 11-point scale (0 = opposes, 10 = favors . The experim ent las ted 50

to 70 min . P art ic ipants were thanke d and debriefed .

Simulation proced ures. Ident ica l experimenta l condi t ions were s imu-

la ted using Mathemat ica on a Si l icon Graphics Indy Worksta t ion . The

at ten t ion parameter a was se t a t 1 for the f i rs t s t imulus and .8 for a second

st imulus for each person . The forget t ing parameter/3 was se t a t .95 . For

each condi t ion , 16 s imula t ions were run , and the est imates of seria l

posi t ion weights were com puted based on these s imula t ions (see Appendix

for details).

R e s u l t s

Additivity. T o t e s t th e a d d i t i v i ty o f t h e i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s ,

a f iv e - w a y f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e ( A N O V A ) w a s c o n d u c t e d

o n t h e o v e r a l l i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t f o r t h e f i n a l r e s p o n d i n g c o n -

d i t i o n . F i v e w i t h i n - p a r t i c i p a n t s f a c t o r s w e r e r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e ( h i g h

v s . l o w ) , P o s i t i o n 1 ( h i g h v s. l o w ) , P o s i t i o n 2 ( h i g h v s . l o w ) ,

P o s i t i o n 3 ( h i g h v s . lo w ) , a n d P o s i t io n 4 ( h i g h v s . l o w ) . T h e T P M

p r e d i c t s a s i g n i f i c a n t m a i n e f f e c t f o r e a c h o f t h e f i v e w i t h i n -

p a r t i c i p a n t s f a c t o r s b u t n o i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s . A s p r e d i c t e d , t h e

f i v e m a i n e f f e c t s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( 1 , 1 5 ) = 9 . 3 7 , 8 8 . 5 9 , 1 5 4 . 6 4 ,

3 4 5 . 1 9 , a n d 1 4 1 . 1 3 , a l l p s < . 0 1 , f o r r e l a t e d a t t i tu d e , P o s i t i o n 1 ,

P o s i t i o n 2 , P o s i t i o n 3 , a n d P o s i t i o n 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . N o i n t e r a c t i o n

e f f e c t s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e s i z e o f th e a d d i t i v e e f f e c t s w a s

s u b s t a n t i a l ( 7 2 % o f t h e t o t a l v a r i a n c e ) , a n d t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s

w e r e r e l a ti v e l y m i n o r ( l e ss t h a n 2 % ) .

Overal l pat terns o f ser ia l pos i t ion weights . S P W ( 1 , 4 ) t h r o u g h

S P W ( 4 , 4 ) w e r e c o m p u t e d s e p a r a t e l y f o r t h e c o n d i t io n s i n w h i c h

r e l a t e d a t ti t u d e s t a t e m e n t s w e r e h i g h o r l o w . A R e l a t e d A t t i t u d e

( h i g h v s . l o w ) x P o s i t i o n ( P o s i t i o n I to 4 ) A N O V A w a s c o n d u c t e d

o n t h e s e e s t i m a t e d w e i g h t s f o r e a c h r e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n . N o n e o f

t h e m a i n a n d i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n v o l v i n g r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e w a s

s i g n i f i c a n t ( F < 1 . 2 0) . T h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s w e r e t h e n

c o m p u t e d b y a v e r a g i n g a c r o s s t h e j u d g m e n t s f o r t h e h i g h a n d l o w

r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e c o n d i t i o n s . A l l s u b s e q u e n t a n a l y s e s a r e b a s e d o n

t h i s m e a s u r e . T h e m e a n s f r o m t h e s i m u l a t i o n a r e r e p o r t e d i n

F i g u r e 3 , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e t h e o r e ti c a l p r e d ic t i o n s, a n d c o m p a r a b l e

m e a n s f o r th e h u m a n j u d g m e n t s a r e r e p o r t e d i n F i g u r e 4 . T h e

h u m a n a n d s i m u l a t i o n r e su l t s w e r e s i m i l a r , a s s e e n f r o m t h e

f i g ur e s . T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n d a t a a n d s i m u l a t e d

r e s u l t s w a s . 8 8 o v e r a l l a n d . 9 0 , . 8 7 , . 9 9 , . 9 6 , a n d . 7 9 f o r t h e f i n a l

r e s p o n d i n g , c o n t i n u o u s r e s p o n d i n g , ( 1 , 4 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) , a n d ( 3 , 4 ) c o n -

d i t i o n s , r e s p e c t i v e l y .

Tim e variabili ty. A t e s t o f ti m e v a r i a b i l i ty w a s c o n d u c t e d f o r

t h e c o n t i n u o u s - r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n f i rs t . I f t h e g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n

j u d g m e n t s w e r e t i m e i n v a r i a n t , t h e r e s h o u l d b e n o d i f f e r e n c e

a m o n g S P W ( 1 , 1 ), S P W ( 2 , 2 ) , S P W ( 3 , 3 ) , a n d S P W ( 4 , 4 ) . T h i s i s

b e c a u s e t h e s e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s a r e f o r t h e s t i m u l u s i m m e -

d i a t e l y p r e c e d i n g t h e j u d g m e n t ( i .e . , th e r e i s n o d i f f e r e n c e i n t i m e

l a g ) ; t i m e i n v a r i a n c e p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s

s h o u l d n o t d i f f e r . H o w e v e r , a s s e e n i n P a n e l B , F i g u r e 3 , T P M

p r e d i c ts s o m e t i m e v a r i a bi l it y . A r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s A N O V A o n

t h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s f r o m t h e h u m a n d a t a y i e l d e d a r e l ia b l e

l i n e a r t r e n d , F ( 1 , 4 5 ) = 5 . 7 1 , p < . 0 5 , s u g g e s t i n g t im e v a r i a b i l i t y

o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s .

A c o m p a r a b l e t e s t o f t i m e v a r i a b i l it y w a s c o n d u c t e d u s i n g t h e

s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s f o r t h e ( 1 , 4 ) , ( 2 , 4 ) , ( 3 , 4 ) , a n d f i n a l

r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , S P W ( 1 , 1 ) f r o m t h e ( 1 , 4 )

c o n d i t io n , S P W ( 2 , 2 ) f r o m t h e ( 2, 4 ) c o n d i t io n , S P W ( 3 , 3 ) f r o m t h e

( 3 , 4) c o n d i t i o n , a n d S P W ( 4 , 4 ) f r o m t h e f i n a l r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i -

t i o n w e r e c o m p a r e d . N o t e t h a t a l l t h e s e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s

i n d i c a te t h e w e i g h t s g i v e n f o r t h e s t i m u l u s t h a t i m m e d i a t e l y p r e -

c e d e s j u d g m e n t s . G i v e n t h a t th e r e i s n o d i f f e r e n c e i n t i m e l a g, t i m e

i n v a r i a n c e p r e d i c t s n o d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g t h e m , w h e r e a s T P M p r e -

d i c ts d i ff e r e n c e . A o n e - w a y A N O V A r e v e a l e d a s i g n i fi c a n t l i n e a r

t r e n d , F ( 1 , 6 0 ) = 5 0 . 8 3 , p < . 0 0 1 , s u p p o r t i n g T P M .

Re s pons e de pe nde nc y . T o i l l u s t r a t e r e s p o n s e d e p e n d e n c y , i t i s

m o s t i n f o r m a t i v e t o e x a m i n e t h e f i n a l a n d c o n t i n u o u s - r e s p o n d i n g

c o n d i t i o n s f i r s t . I n t h e f i n a l r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n , i n w h i c h o n l y



G R O U P I M P R E SS I O N S A S D Y N A M I C C O N F I G U R A T IO N S 9 2 7

t

t.

_o

o m

t / J

O

Q .

. r

G0

1.0

0 . 5 t 1

0.0

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0~0

==

i

j

I I I I

3.0

-

2.5

-

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

O

_ . . _ - -

i

I I I I

B

0.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5 1

"4

0.0

1.5

1.01

0.5

0.0

O

i

E

I I I I

C

m

m

I I I I

m

= _

I I I I

1 2 3 4

S e r i a l P o s i t i o n

D

E

B ased on t he

judgm en t a f te r t he

O 1 s t p e rs o n

2nd pe rson

3 rd pe rson

4th person

Figure 3 The m e a n s o f t h e s e r i a l p o s i ti o n w e i g h t s b a s e d o n t h e s i m u l a t i o n o f t h e t e n s o r p r o d u c t m o d e l i n t h e

f i na l , s e que n t i a l , 1 , 4 ) , 2 , 4 ) , a nd 3 , 4 ) c ond i t i ons .



928 K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

t -

C ~

° N

t -

O

~

° ~

/}

O

n

tO

° m

Or

3O

°

0

0

5 0

4 0 -

3 0 -

2 0 -

1 0 -

0

6O

5 0 -

4 0 -

3 0 -

2 0 -

1 0 -

3O

°

0

0

4 0 ,

3 0 - I

2 0 I

1 0 - 1

m

__J /__/

O

C

J

i

m

m

1 2 3 4

Serial Position

D

E

Based on the

judgment after the

- O- 1st person

2nd person

--El-- 3rd person

- I I - 4th person

F i g u r e 4 T h e m e a n s o f t h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s i n t h e f in a l , s e q u e n t i a l , 1 , 4 ) , 2 , 4 ) , a n d 3 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n s .



GROUP IMPRESSIONS AS DYNAM IC CONFIGURATIONS 92 9

o n e j u d g m e n t w a s m a d e , t h e r e s h o u l d b e n o e f f ec t o f p r i o r r e-

s p o n s e s . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y e f f e c t s o f a t t e n t i o n a n d f o r g e t t i n g ( c~ a n d

/ 3 i n E q u a t i o n 4 ) a r e e x p e c t e d . T h e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s h e r e a r e

e x p e c t e d t o b e s m o o t h a s s e e n i n P a n e l A o f F i g u r e 3 ( s i m u l a t i o n ) .

B y c o n t r a s t, i n t h e c o n t i n u o u s - r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n , i n w h i c h a

j u d g m e n t w a s m a d e a f te r e a c h s t i m u l u s p e r s o n , th e s e r i a l p o s it i o n

w e i g h t s a r e e x p e c t e d t o c h a n g e r a d i c a l l y . E x a m i n e t h e s h a p e o f

c o n n e c t e d p o i n t s f o r P a n e l B i n F i g u r e 3 . T h e r e i s a s t r o n g u p w a r d

s w i n g i n e a c h l i n e . T h i s i s e x p e c t e d b e c a u s e t h e s t i m u l u s a s s o c i -

a t e d w i t h t h e c o n t e x t f o r a j u d g m e n t ( i . e. , t h e m o s t r e c e n t s t i m u l u s

i n t h e c o n t i n u o u s c o n d i t i o n ) s h o u l d h a v e t h e g r e a t e s t w e i g h t , o t h e r

t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l ( E q u a t i o n 2 1 ) .

G e n e r a l l y , T P M s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e r ia l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s s h o u l d

d e p e n d o n t h e s c h e d u l e o f i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s . I n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e

e s t i m a t e d w e i g h t f o r a g i v e n s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s h o u l d c h a n g e w h e n a

j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n m a d e b e f o r e t h a t p o s i t i o n re l a t i v e to t h e c o n -

d i t i o n in w h i c h n o j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n m a d e . T h i s i m p l i e s t h at t h e

s e r i a l p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s s h o u l d v a r y a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n s e

c o n d i t io n . A P o s i t i o n ( 1 - 4 ) × R e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n (5 c o n d i t i on s )

A N ~ ) V A o n S P W ( 1 , 4 ) t h r o u g h S P W ( 4 , 4 ) y i e l d e d th e p r e d ic t e d

i n t e r a c t i o n o f p o s i t i o n a n d r e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n , F ( 1 2 , 2 2 5 ) = 2 . 8 2 ,

p < .01.

T P M m a k e s m o r e d e t a i l e d p r e d i c t i o n s . F i r s t , w h e n a n i m p r e s -

s i o n j u d g m e n t i s m a d e t w i c e , t h e w e i g h ts e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e

s e c o n d j u d g m e n t s h o u l d i n c r e a s e a s a s t e p f u n c t i o n o f s e r i a l

p o s i t i o n w h e r e t h e i n c r e a s e o c c u r s a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e f i r s t

j u d g m e n t ( P r e d i ct i o n 1 ). A n e x a m i n a t i o n o f S P W ( I , 4 ) t h r o u g h

S P W ( 4 , 4 ) o f t h e s i m u l a t i o n re s u l t s ( s e e F i g u r e 3 ) v e r i f i e s t h i s

p r e d i c t i o n . N o t e t h a t i n t h e ( 1 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n ( P a n e l C ) , S P W ( 1 , 4 )

i n c r e a s e s t o S P W ( 2 , 4 ) , a n d t h e r e s t i s r e la t i v e l y s t a b le t o S P W ( 4 ,

4 ) ; i n th e ( 2 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n ( P a n e l D ) , S P W ( 1 , 4 ) a n d S P W ( 2 , 4 ) a r e

s i m i l a r , a n d t h e n t h e w e i g h t i n c r e a s e s t o S P W ( 3 , 4 ) a n d S P W ( 4 , 4 ) ;

a n d i n t h e ( 3 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n ( P a n e l E ) , S P W ( 1 , 4 ) t h r o u g h S P W ( 3 ,

4 ) r e m a i n r e l a t iv e l y s t a b le , a n d t h e n j u m p s t o S P W ( 4 , 4 ) . T a b l e 1

s u m m a r i z e s e x p e c t ed p a t te r n s a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g r e s ul t s f r o m

t h e h u m a n p a r t i c i p a n t s . G e n e r a l l y , th e e x p e c t a t i o n s w e r e

s u p p o r t e d .

S e c o n d , w h e n i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s a r e m a d e t w i c e , t h e s e r i a l

p o s i t i o n w e i g h t s b e f o r e t h e f i r s t j u d g m e n t e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h a t

j u d g m e n t s h o u l d b e g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e s e r i a l p o s i t i o n s e s t i m a t e d

f r o m t h e s e c o n d j u d g m e n t ( P r e d i c t i o n 2 ) . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e ( 1 , 4 )

c o n d i t i o n , t h e w e i g h t f o r t h e f i r s t s e r i a l p o s i t i o n e s t i m a t e d f r o m t h e

f i r s t j u d g m e n t , S P W ( 1 , 1 ), w a s e x p e c t e d t o b e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e

w e i g h t f o r t h e s a m e p o s i t i o n e st i m a t e d f r o m t h e s e c o n d j u d g m e n t ,

S P W ( 1 , 4 ) ; s i m i l a r l y , f o r t h e ( 2 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n , S P W ( 1 , 2 ) a n d

S P W ( 2 , 2 ) w e r e e x p e c t e d to b e g r e a t e r t h a n S P W ( 1 , 4 ) a n d S P W ( 2 ,

4 ) ; a n d f o r t h e (3 , 4 ) c o n d i t i o n , S P W ( 1 , 3 ) , S P W ( 2 , 3 ) , a n d S P W ( 3 ,

3 ) w e r e e x p e c t e d t o b e g r e a t e r t h a n S P W ( 1 , 4 ) , S P W ( 2 , 4 ) , a n d

S P W ( 3 , 4 ) ( s e e F i g u r e 3 ) . A l l e x p e c t a t i o n s w e r e b o r n e o u t b y t h e

da ta ( see Tab le 1 ) .

Order effects. A s d i s c u s s e d , r e c e n c y e f f e c t s a r e e x p e c t e d i n

t h e p r e s e n t e x p e r i m e n t w h e n t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f r es p o n s e d e p e n -

d e n c y i s n o t r e l e v a n t . I n p a r t i c u l a r , a w e a k t o m o d e r a t e r e c e n c y

e f f e c t i s e x p e c t e d b e c a u s e o f m e m o r y d e c a y f o r t h e s t i m u l i w h o s e

c o n t e x t i s t h e s a m e a s t h e j u d g m e n t c o n t e x t ( i . e ., w h e n t h e r e i s n o

i n t e r v e n i n g j u d g m e n t ) . W h e n t h e j u d g m e n t a n d t h e s t i m u l u s c o n -

t e x t s d i f f e r , h o w e v e r , t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c o n t e x t d i f f e r e n c e m a y

o v e r r i d e t h a t o f t h e m e m o r y d e c a y . T h e r e f o r e , a r e c e n c y e f f e c t

s h o u l d b e o b s e r v a b l e i n w h i c h s t i m u l i s h a r e t h e s a m e c o n t e x t

r e p r e s en t a t io n a s t h e j u d g m e n t b u t n o t i n w h i c h t h e y h a v e d i f f e r e n t

c o n t e x t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . A s e r i e s o f p l a n n e d c o n t r a s t s g e n e r a l l y

s u p p o r t e d t h e e x p e c t a t i o n ( T a b l e 2 ) .

Discuss ion

T h e h u m a n ju d g m e n t s w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e T P M p r e d ic -

t i o ns . A l t h o u g h t h e c h a n g e s i n t h e h u m a n d a t a ( s e e F i g u r e 4 ) s e e m

s o m e w h a t s h a r p e r t h a n t h o s e i n t h e s i m u l a t i o n s ( s ee F i g u r e 3 ) , t h i s

i s b e c a u s e c o n t e x t v e c t o r s w e r e r a n d o m l y g e n e r a t e d . I t is p o s s i b l e

t o g e n e r a t e c o n t e x t v e c t o r s s o t h a t t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n

b e t w e e n p r e - a n d p o s t j u d g m e n t i s m o r e p r o n o u n c e d . T h i s w o u l d

h a v e p r o d u c e d s h a r p e r c h a n g e s a s o b s e r v e d i n th e h u m a n d a t a . A l l

i n a l l , t h e h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n a n d s i m u l a t i o n

r e s u l t s ( . 8 8 o v e r a l l ) i s i m p r e s s i v e g i v e n t h a t n o p a r a m e t e r f i t t i n g

w a s p e r f o r m e d .

F u r t h e r m o r e , o t h e r T P M p r e d i c t i o n s w e r e a l s o s u p p o r t e d . H u -

m a n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s t e n d t o b e a p p r o x i m a t e ly a d d i -

t i v e u n d e r t h e f i n a l r e s p o n d i n g c o n d i t i o n a s a n u m b e r o f r e s e a r c h -

T a b l e 1

Tests of Response Dependency: Expected Patterns of the Serial Position W eights SPW)

fo r the 1, 4), 2, 4), and 3, 4) Respon ding Conditions

Conditiona Predictionb Hypothesis testedc F(1, 15)

(1, 4) 1

2

(2, 4) l

2

(3, 4) 1

2

SPW (1, 4) vs. SPW (2, 4), SPW (3, 4), SPW (4, 4) 14.27

SPW (1, 1) vs. SPW (1, 4) 69.32*

SPW (1, 4), SPW (2, 4) vs. SPW (3, 4), SPW (4, 4) 8.64*

SPW (I, 2), SPW (2, 2) vs. SPW (1, 4), SPW (2, 4) 37.62*

SPW (I, 4) , SPW(2, 4), SPW(3, 4) vs. SPW(4, 4) 12.13

SPW (1, 3), SPW (2, 3), SPW (3, 3) vs. SPW (1, 4), SPW (2, 4), SPW(3, 4) 16. 56

a Response conditions: (1, 4) indicates that judgments were m ade after the first and fourth stimulus person; (2,

4) indicates judgm ents after the second and fourth stim ulus person; and (3, 4) indicates judgments after the third

and fourth stimulus person.

b Predictions are based o n tensor product m odel: Prediction 1 means that a serial position weight li ne increases

as a step function; Prediction 2 means that the weight estimated for a given position based on a first judgment

is greater than the weight for the same position estimated from a second judgment.

c Planned contrast: Contrast w eights were set so that th e su m of the contrast weights for the left-hand side and

the sum of the contrast weights for the right-hand side are both unity.

* p < .01.



9 3 0 K A S H IM A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

T a b l e 2

Recency Effects for the Stimuli That Share the Same Stimulus and Judgment Context

and Those That Do Not Share the Same Context

Context Condition Serial position weights

L i n e a r ~ e n d

F(1, 15)

ame a

Differentb

Final SPW(1, 4) - SPW(4, 4)

(1, 4) SPW(2, 4) - SPW(4, 4)

(2, 4) SPW (1, 2) - SPW (2, 2)

SPW(3, 4) - SPW(4, 4)

(3, 4) SPW (1, 3) - SPW (3, 3)

Sequential SPW (1, 3) - SPW (2, 3)

SPW(1, 4) - SPW(3, 4)

(2, 4) SPW(1, 4) - SPW(2, 4)

(3, 4) SPW (1, 4) - SPW (3, 4)

3.92

5.70

.53

4.99

6.18

.74

.74

.32

.25

a The judgm ent and stimulus contexts are expected to be the same.

b The judg m ent and stimulus contexts are expected to b e different.

P

.066

.031

.476

.041

.025

.403

.403

.577

.623

e r s r e p o r t e d i n t h e p e r s o n i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t ( e .g . , A n d e r s o n ,

1 9 8 1 ). T h e r e i s a v a r i e t y o f t i m e - d e p e n d e n t p r o p e r t i e s i n g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s a s p r e di c t e d b y T P M . T e m p o r a l d y n a m i c s

o f i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n h a v e b e e n c l a s s i f i e d i n t o t w o g e n e r a l

t y p e s , p r i m a c y a n d r e c e n c y , b u t t h i s s i m p l e c l a s s i f i c a ti o n m a s k s i t s

c o m p l e x i ty . S m a l l r e c e n c y e f f ec t s f r o m m e m o r y d e c a y a s w e l l a s

l a r g e o n e s f r o m r e s p o n s e d e p e n d e n c y ( i . e . , c h a n g e i n c o n t e x t

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ) m a y o c c u r i n i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n .

E v o l u t i o n o f G r o u p I m p r e s s io n

O n c e f o r m e d , g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s h a v e o f t e n b e e n a s s u m e d t o

p e r s i s t. T h e s t a t ic s c h e m a c o n c e p t a n d L i p p m a n n ' s ( 1 9 2 2 ) p i c t u r e

i n th e h e a d m e t a p h o r o f s te r e o t y p e s s e e m t o s u g g e s t t h e d u r a b i l i t y

o f i m p r e s s i o n s a b o u t s o c i a l g r o u p s . A l t h o u g h t h e p r o c e s s o f i m -

p r e s s i o n c h a n g e h a s b e e n a l o n g - s t a n d i n g c o n c e r n ( e . g . , A l l p o r t ' s ,

1 9 5 4 , c o n t a c t h y p o t h e s i s ; s e e P e t t ig r e w , 1 9 9 8 ) , R o t h b a r t w a s w e l l

j u s t i f ie d i n c o m m e n t i n g i n 1 9 81 t h a t a l t h o u gh a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g

o f h o w b e l ie f s c a n b e d i s c o n f i rm e d i s f u n d a m e n t a l fo r t h e d e v e l -

o p m e n t o f a n a d e q u a t e t h e o r y o f b e l i e f s , w e k n o w v e r y l i t tl e a b o u t

th is p rob lem (p . 176) .

S i n c e t h en , a n u m b e r o f s t u d ie s h a v e b e e n c o n d u c t e d t o e x a m i n e

h o w g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s ch a n g e a n d e v o l v e a s n e w i n f o r m a t i o n i s

e n c o u n t e re d , m a i n l y i n t w o e x p e r i m e n t a l p a r a d ig m s . O n e i s c o n -

c e r n e d w i t h s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e ( e . g ., R . W e b e r & C r o c k e r , 1 9 8 3 ) ,

i n w h i c h c h a n g e s i n a s t e r e o t y p i c i m p r e s s i o n a b o u t a s o c i a l g r o u p

( t y p i c a l l y c u l tu r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d a s a s o c i a l c a t e g o r y ) a r e e x a m i n e d

w h e n p e o p l e a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a -

t i o n . T h e s e c o n d p a r a d i g m m a y b e c a l l e d g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , i n

w h i c h i m p r e s s i o n s o f t w o c o n t r a st i n g g r o u p s a r e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y

c r e a t ed , a n d s u b s e q u e n t c h a n g e p r o c e s s e s e x a m i n e d w i t h a d d i -

t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n (e . g ., K r u e g e r & R o t h b a r t , 1 9 9 0 ) .

S t e r e o t y p e C h a n g e

a s i c F i n d i n g s o f S t e r e o ty p e C h a n g e

W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) c o n d u c t e d a s e m i n a l w o r k o n s t e-

r e o t y p e c h a n g e . I n E x p e r i m e n t 1 , i n f o r m a t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e

p r i o r i m p r e s s i o n a b o u t a n o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p ( c o r p o r a t e l a w y e r s

o r l i b r a r i a n s ) w a s p r e s e n t e d t o p a r t i c i p a n t s b y d e s c r i b i n g a l a r g e

n u m b e r o f g r o u p m e m b e r s w h o w e r e e a c h a s c r ib e d t hr e e c h a r a c-

t e r i st i c s t h a t a r e c o n s i s t e n t , i n c o n s i s t e n t , o r i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e p r i o r

i m p r e s s i o n a b o u t t h e g r o u p ( i .e . , s te r e o t y p e) . T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t h e n

e v a l u a t e d t h e o c c u p a t i o n a l g r o u p o n v a r i o u s s t e r e o t y p e - r e l e v a n t

t r a i t d i m e n s i o n s . I n a l l c o n d i t i o n s , o n e t h i r d o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s

i n c o n s i s t e n t , o n e s i x t h w a s c o n s i s t e n t , a n d o n e h a l f w a s i r r e l e v a n t .

T h e a m o u n t , b u t n o t t h e p r o p o r t i o n , o f i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n

w a s m a n i p u l a t e d b y p r e s e n t i n g e it h e r 6 m e m b e r s o r 3 0 m e m b e r s .

H o w e v e r , w i t h i n e a c h c o n d i t i o n , t h e p a t t e r n o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f

s t e r e o t y p e i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s a l s o m a n i p u l a t e d . I n t h e

c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n d i t i o n , t h e s t e r e o t y p e i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n

w a s c o n c e n t r a t e d i n o n e t h i r d o f t h e m e m b e r s ; i n t h e d i s p e r s e d

c o n d i t i o n , it w a s d i s p e r s e d a c r o s s a l l m e m b e r s . T h e y a l s o i n c l u d e d

a c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s s im p l y j u d g e d o c c u p a -

t i o n a l g r o u p s w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n .

W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r f o u n d t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n -

s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n c h a n g e s g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s . F i r s t , t h e o c c u p a -

t i o n a l g r o u p s w e r e j u d g e d l e s s s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y i n a l l t h e e x p e r i -

m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s p r e s e n te d

t h a n i n t h e c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h n o i n f o r m a t i o n w a s g i v e n .

H e i t ( 1 9 9 4 ) o b s e r v e d a s i m i l a r e f f e c t o f t h e a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n

i n h i s E x p e r i m e n t s 3 a n d 4 . T h i s c l e a r l y s u g g e s t s t h a t p e o p l e a r e

r e s p o n s i v e t o i n f o r m a t i o n th a t c o n t r a d i c t s t h e i r p r i o r g r o u p i m p r e s -

s i o n a t l e a s t i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n t e x t ( F i n d i n g 1 ) . S e c o n d , a

g r e a t e r a m o u n t o f i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , n o n e t h e l e s s , t e n d s t o

c h a n g e t h e p r i o r i m p r e s s i o n m o r e ( F i n d i n g 2 ). A l t h o u g h t h i s e f fe c t

w a s r e l i a b le o n l y w h e n t h e i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s d i s p e r s e d

a c r o s s i n d i v i d u a l s i n E x p e r i r n e n t 1 o f R . W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r

( 1 9 8 3 ) , i t w a s f o u n d e v e n i n t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n d i t i o n i n

E x p e r i m e n t 2 .

T h i r d , n o t o n l y t h e a m o u n t b u t a l s o t h e p a t t e r n o f s t e r e o t y p e -

i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s f o u n d t o i n f l u e n c e t h e e x t e n t o f

s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e . A g r e a t e r s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e w a s o b s e r v e d

w h e n s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s d i s p e r s e d a c r o s s a l l

g r o u p m e m b e r s t h a n w h e n c o n c e n t r a t e d to a m i n o r i t y ( F i n d i n g 3) .

A l t h o u g h t h i s t e n d e n c y w a s r e l i a b l y p r e s e n t w h e n a l a r g e a m o u n t

o f i n f o r m a t i o n w a s g i v e n ( 3 0 m e m b e r s ) , it w a s w e a k e r w h e n

o n l y 6 g r o u p m e m b e r s w e r e d e s c r i b e d . T h i s f i n d i n g , a g r e a te r

s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e i n t h e d i s p e r s e d t h a n i n t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n -

d i t i o n , h as b e e n r e p l i c a t e d b y J o h n s t o n , H e w s t o n e , e t a l . e v e n w i t h



GROUP IMPRESSIONS AS DYNAM IC CONFIGURATIONS 93 1

a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n (e . g ., J o h n s t o n & H e w -

s t o n e , 1 9 9 2 ; J o h n s t o n , H e w s t o n e , P e n d r y , & F r a n k i s h , 1 9 9 4 ; f o r a

r e v i e w , s e e H e w s t o n e , 1 9 9 4 ; a l s o H a n t z i , 1 9 9 5 ) .

T h e e f f e c t s o f d i s p e r s e d v e r s u s c o n c e n t r a t e d m a n i p u l a t i o n is

a p p a r e n t l y m e d i a t e d b y t h e p e r c e i v e d t y p i c a l i t y o f s t e r e o t y p e -

d i s c o n f i r m i n g g ro u p m e m b e r s . W h e n t h e t y p i c a li t y r a ti n g o f t h e

s t e r e o t y p e - d i s c o n f i r m i n g m e m b e r s w a s s t a t i s t i c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d , t h e

e f f ec t o f i n f o r m a t i o n p a t te r n b e c a m e n o n s i g n i f i c a n t ( E x p e r i m e n t 1

o f J o h n s t o n & H e w s t o n e , 1 9 9 2 ; H a n t z i , 1 9 9 5 ). T h i s e x p l a n a t i o n

h a s b e e n c o r r o b o r a t e d b y t w o o t h e r f i n d i n g s i n t h e l i te r a t u r e . F i r s t ,

b o t h R . W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r ' s ( 1 9 83 ) E x p e r i m e n t 3 a n d R o t h b a r t

a n d L e w i s ' s ( 1 9 8 8 ) E x p e r i m e n t 3 s h o w e d t h a t t h e e f f ec t o f t y p i c a l

e x a m p l e s o n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s w a s g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t o f a t y p i c a l

e x a m p l e s ( b l a c k , m e d i u m - i n c o m e l a w y e r s v s . w h i t e , h i g h - i n c o m e

l a w y e r s i n W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r; h i g h - , m e d i u m - , a n d l o w - t y p i ca l i ty

f r a t e r n i t y m e m b e r s i n R o t h b a r t a n d L e w i s ) . I n a d d i t i o n , R o t h b a r t

a n d L e w i s ' s E x p e r i m e n t s 1 a n d 2 s h o w e d t h a t p e o p l e t e n d e d t o

o v e r e s t i m a t e t h e f r e q u e n c y o f p a i r i n g o f p r o t o t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s o f

a c a t e g o r y ( e . g. , t y p i c a l t r i a n g l e s ) w i t h a f e a t u r e t h a t i s i r r e l e v a n t

t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e c a t e g o r y ( e .g . , t h e c o l o r o f a t r i a n g l e )

c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e c a s e i n w h i c h a t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s o f t h e c a te g o r y

w e r e p a i r e d w i t h t h e f e a t u r e . T h i s l a t t e r f i n d i n g w a s i n t e r p r e t e d a s

s h o w i n g t h a t t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s a r e w e i g h t e d m o r e t h a n a t y p i c a l

e x a m p l e s , a n i n s i g h t t o w h i c h w e r e t u r n l a t e r .

M o d e l i n g S t e r e o t y p e C h a n g e

T h e s e f i n d i n g s h a v e b e e n i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s o f t h r e e d i ff e r e n t

m o d e l s o f b e l i e f c h a n g e i n t h i s l i t e r a t u re ( H e w s t o n e , 1 9 9 4 ; R .

W e b e r & C r o c k e r , 1 9 8 3 ) . T h e b o o k k e e p i n g m o d e l ( R o t h b a r t ,

1 9 8 1 ) i m p l i e s a g r a d u a l c h a n g e o f b e l i e f s , i n d i c a t i n g a s t e p - b y - s t e p

u p d a t i n g o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s a s n e w i n f o r m a t i o n i s e n c o u n te r e d .

B y c o n t r a s t , t h e c o n v e r s i o n m o d e l ( R o t h b a r t , 1 9 8 1 ) s u g g e s t s a

s u d d e n a l t e r a ti o n o f a g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n b a s e d o n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n

a b o u t a g r o u p m e m b e r t h a t d r a m a t i c a l l y d i s c o n f i r m s t h e p r i o r

i m p r e s s i o n . F i n a l l y , t h e s u b t y p i n g m o d e l p o s t u l a t e s t h a t i n f o r m a -

t i o n i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e p r io r i m p r e s s i o n t e n d s t o b e s u b t y p e d

a s e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e r u l e . T h i s f e n c i n g o f f o f i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r -

m a t i o n , w h i c h A l l p o r t ( 1 9 5 4 ) c a l l e d t h e r e - f e n c i n g d e v i c e ( p .

3 2 ) , l e a d s t o a r e l a t i v e l y c o n s e r v a t i v e c h a n g e o f t h e p r i o r i m p r e s -

s i o n i f a n y .

T h e s e m o d e l s , h o w e v e r , c a n n o t p r o v i d e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e e x p l a -

n a t i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s . T h e b o o k k e e p i n g m o d e l c a n e x p l a i n t h e f i r s t

f i n d i n g , a c h a n g e o f s t e r e o t y p e w h e n s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n -

f o r m a t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d r e l a ti v e t o w h e n n o a d d i t i o n a l i n f o rm a t i o n

i s g i v e n . R . W e b e r a n d C r o c k e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) a r g u e d t h a t t h e b o o k k e e p -

i n g m o d e l c a n n o t a c c o u n t f o r t h e s e c o n d f i n d i n g , a g r e a t e r c h a n g e

w h e n t h e re i s a g r e a t e r a m o u n t o f i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i l e

t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f i n c o n s i s t e n t t o c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e m a i n s

t h e s a m e . T h e s u b t y p i n g m o d e l c a n e x p l a i n a g r e a t e r e f f ec t o f

d i s p e r s e d , a s o p p o s e d t o c o n c e n t r a t e d , s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n -

f o r m a t i o n o n s t e re o t y p e c h a n g e . W h e n i n c o n s i s t en t i n fo r m a t i o n i s

c o n c e n t r a te d i n a m i n o r i t y o f g r o u p m e m b e r s , t h e m i n o r i t y i s l i k e l y

t o b e s u b t y p e d a s a n a t y p i c a l s u b g r o u p w i t h i n t h e s te r e o t y p e d

g r o u p . T h e f e n c i n g o f f o f t h e s u b t y p e w o u l d r e d u c e t h e i m p a c t o f

i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e s t e r e o t y p e . I t h a s b e e n a r g u e d t h a t

t h i s f i n d i n g c o n t r a d i c t s t h e b o o k k e e p i n g a n d c o n v e r s i o n m o d e l s

( e . g. , R . W e b e r & C r o c k e r , 1 9 8 3 ) .

T P M a n a l y s i s o f s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e . T h e T P M p r o v i d e s a

g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e f i n d i n g s , i n w h i c h t h e p e r s o n r e p r e s e n -

t a t i o n p l a y s a c e n t r a l r o l e . O n t h e b a s i s o f F i s k e a n d N e u b e r g ' s

( 1 9 9 0 ) a n d B r e w e r ' s ( 1 9 8 8 ) t h e o r i e s o f s t e r e o t y p i n g , i t is a s s u m e d

t h a t w h e n a n e v e n t p e r t a i n i n g t o a g r o u p m e m b e r i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h e s t e r e o t y p e , t h e p e r s o n i s n o t i n d i v i d u a t e d , s o t h a t t h e a c t i v a t i o n

l e v e l o f t h e u n i t s f o r t h e p e r s o n a s p e c t r e m a i n s a t t h e r e s t in g l e v e l

( i t r e m a i n s a t

1/~¢/N,

o r t h e v e c t o r f o r t h e p e r s o n a s p e c t i s r ) . I n

o t h e r w o r d s , t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r a s t e r e o t y p e c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n ,

P c , i s a s s u m e d t o b e v e r y s i m i l a r to r . B y c o n t r a s t , w h e n a g r o u p

m e m b e r e x h i b i t s a s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t c h a r a c t e r i st i c , t h e p e r -

s o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s i n d i v i d u a t e d , s o t h a t i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , P I ,

d e v i a t e s f r o m t h e r e s t i n g s t a t e , r .

P u t m a t h e m a t i c al l y , w h e n t h e j t h p e r s o n , P . / (a n d e v e n t ,

E Ol) ,

is

e n c o u n t e r e d a b o u t a g r o u p ( G i ) , w e a s s u m e t h a t C 1 = g i ® r ® e u l

® x a n d C z = g i ® r ® r ® x a r e u s e d t o a c ce s s t h e m e m o r y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . C 1 is t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n e x e m p l a r o f t h e

g r o u p , G ~ , i n v o l v i n g th e e v e n t , E u ] , w h e n n o p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p

m e m b e r i s s p e c i f i e d . C 2 is a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e g r o u p w h e n

n e i t h e r p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p m e m b e r n o r e p i s o d e i s s p e c i f i e d .

M a t c h ( M , C 1 ) a p p r o x i m a te s t h e o v e r a l l s i m i l a r i ty o f t h e n e w

e x e m p l a r w i t h a l l e x e m p l a r s o f G ~ ; M a t c h ( M , C 2 ) p r o v i d e s a

m e a s u r e o f t h e b a s e l i n e s i m i l a r it y o f a n y e v e n t w i t h a l l e x e m p l a r s

o f G i, w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h e o v e r a l l f e e l i n g o f k n o w i n g a b o u t t h i s

g r o u p . W e a s s u m e t h a t t h e t y p i c a l i t y o f t h e e v e n t , i , i s i n d e x e d a s

f o l l o w s :

M a t c h ( M ,

C1

T y p i c a l i t y o f e v e n t , Eij~, ~ = M a t c h ( M , C 2) ( 2 2 )

T h i s r a t i o i n d i c a t e s t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f o l d e x e m p l a r s t o t h e n e w

e x e m p l a r r e l a t i v e t o t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e o l d e x e m p l a r s w i t h a n y

e x e m p l a r . T h e t y p i c a l i t y i n d e x , z , i s u s e d t o c o n s t r u c t t h e p e r s o n

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , P u = P c o r P I , s o t h a t 0 < ( P I r ) < ( P c r ) < 1 .

I n o t h e r w o r d s , a s t e re o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

i s c o n s t r u c t e d s o t h a t i t d o e s n o t d e v i a t e m a r k e d l y f r o m t h e r e s t i n g

s t a t e , r ( i . e . , t h e p e r s o n i s n o t i n d i v i d u a t e d ) . H o w e v e r , a

s t e r e o ty p e - i n c o n si s t e n t m e m b e r ' s r e p r e s e n ta t i o n d i f f e r s m a r k e d l y

f r o m t h e r e s t i n g s t a t e ( i .e . , t h e p e r s o n i s i n d i v i d u a t e d ; se e F i s k e ,

N e u b e r g , B e a t t i e, & M i l b e r g , 1 9 8 7 , f o r c o n s i s t e n t e v i d e n c e ) . I n

f a c t, t h i s p r o c e s s m a y l e a d t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a s u b t y p e ( e . g . , R .

W e b e r & C r o c k e r , 1 9 8 3 ) b y a d e l i b e r a t i v e p r o c e s s o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n

( K u n d a & O l s o n , 1 9 9 5 ) . M o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y , s u p p o s e t h a t e x p e r i -

m e n t a l p a r t ic i p a n ts c o m e t o t h e e x p e r i m e n t w i t h a p r i o r m e m o r y

r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d a t o t a l o f J s t i m u l i a b o u t o n e s o c i a l g r o u p

( g r o u p i ) a r e p r e se n t e d , a n d t h e n u m b e r o f s t e r e o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t

a n d s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t s t i m u l i i s J c a n d J 1 r e s p e c t i v e l y ( J =

J c + J ~) . U n d e r s o m e s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s , t h e j u d g m e n t

a b o u t g r o u p i w h e n t h e j t h m e m b e r i s e n c o u n t e r e d , J ( G i ) j , c a n b e

w r i t t e n a s f o l l o w s ( A p p e n d i x ) :

So + Jcsc + rJ1sl

J ( G i ) j - 1 + J c + ' r J ~ ' ( 2 3 )

wh ere s o i s the p r io r s te reo type ,

s c and s I a r e th e

s c a l e v a l u e s f o r

s t e r e o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t a n d s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d

T = ( p~ • r ) i s t h e t y p i c a l i t y o f a s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t p e r s o n .

N o t e t h a t E q u a t i o n 2 3 i s a s p e c i a l c a s e o f t h e w e i g h t e d a v e r a g i n g

m o d e l .



9 3 2 K A S H IM A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

E mp i r i c a l f i n d i n g s a n d t h e T P M. E q u a t i o n 2 3 m a k e s s e v e r a l

p o i n t s c l e a r . F i r s t, w h e n t h e r e a r e s u f f i c i e n t s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t

m e m b e r s , t h e s t e r e o t y p e l i k e l y c h a n g e s f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l l e v e l , s o

c l o s e r t o w a r d t h e s c a l e v a l u e o f t h e s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r -

m a t i o n , s T h i s i s b e c a u s e t h e w e i g h t f o r s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t

i n f o r m a t i o n b e co m e s g r e a te r w h e n J l b e c o m e s l a r g e r , a p r e d i c t i o n

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h F i n d i n g 1 . S e c o n d , t h e a m o u n t o f s t e r e o t y p e

c h a n g e c a n i n c r e a s e a s t h e a m o u n t o f s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n -

f o r m a t i o n i n c r e a s e s e v e n i f t h e r a t i o o f , / i to

J c

r e m a i n s c o n s t a n t

p r o v i d e d t h a t J c / J t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y s m a l l ( e s p e c i a l l y Jc / J l < r ).

T h i s c a n b e s e e n b y d i v i d i n g b o th t h e d e n o m i n a t o r a n d n u m e r a t o r

o f t h e f i g h t - h a n d s i d e o f E q u a t i o n 2 3 b y ,11.W h e n J l i s ve ry la rge ,

t h e e f f e c t o f s o i s n e g l i g i b l e . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h F i n d i n g 2 .

I n a d d i t i o n , E q u a t i o n 2 3 s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e n e w i n f o r m a t i o n

s h o u l d b e a p p r o x i m a t e l y a d d i t iv e l y c o m b i n e d w i t h t h e p r i o r i m -

p r e s s i o n . H e i t ' s ( 1 9 9 4 ) f i n d i n g s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h is i m p l i c a -

t i o n . H i s e x p e r i m e n t s e x a m i n e d t h e e f f e c t o f c a t e g o r y - c o n s i s t e n t

a n d c a t e g o r y - i n c o n s is t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e m e a n i n g o f a c a t e-

g o r y s u c h a s s h y n e s s . H e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y m a n i p u l a t e d t h e p r o b -

a b i l i t y t h a t a s h y p e r s o n is d e s c r i b e d b y b e h a v i o r s s u c h as d o e s

n o t a t t e n d p a r t i e s o f t e n ( c o n s i s te n t ) a n d a t t e n d s p a r t i e s o f t e n

( i n c o n s i s t e n t ) o r a n o t s h y p e r s o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y th e s e

b e h a v i o r s i n h i s s t i m u l u s a b o u t p e o p l e i n c i t y W . P a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e

a s k e d t o e s t i m a t e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g ( i . e ., a s h y

p e r s o n n o t a t t e n d i n g p a r ti e s a n d a n o t - s h y p e r s o n a t t e n d i n g p a r t i e s )

a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g ( i . e ., a s h y p e r s o n a t t e n d i n g p a r ti e s a n d a

n o t - s h y p e r s o n n o t a t t e n d i n g p a r t i es ) . T h e p r o b a b i l i t y e s t i m a t e f o r

c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g s w a s a l w a y s g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t f o r i n c o n s i s t e n t

p a i r i n g s , s h o w i n g t h e e f f e c t o f p r i o r e x p e c t a t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e

g r e a t e r t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f i n c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g i n t h e s t i m u l u s , t h e

s m a l l e r w a s t h e e s t i m a t e d p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g , s u g -

g e s t i n g a c h a n g e i n c a t e g o r y m e a n i n g . I n a d d i t i o n , H e i t s h o w e d

t h a t t h e e f fe c t o f t h e p r i o r e x p e c t a t i o n r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e r e g a r d -

l e s s o f t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n s i s t e n t a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t p a i r i n g i n t h e

s t i m u l u s . T h i s l a s t f i n d i n g i m p l i e s t h a t t h e e f f e c ts o f p r i o r i m p r e s -

s i o n s a n d n e w i n f o r m a t i o n ar e a d d i t iv e l y c o m b i n e & H a y e s a n d

T a p l i n ( 1 9 9 2 ) a l s o r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r f 'm d i n g s w i t h c h i l d r e n .

E q u a t i o n 2 3 a l s o i m p l i e s th a t t h e a m o u n t o f s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e i s

m e d i a t e d b y t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h a s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t g r o u p

m e m b e r i s i n d i v i d u a t e d . N o t e t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e w e i g h t f o r a

s t e r e o ty p e - c o n s i s te n t a n d s t e r e o t y p e -i n c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r i s

1/[1 + J c + ~'Jl] an d I /[1 + Jc + cJt], r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s m e a n s

t h a t a s te r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r ' s i n f o r m a t i o n i s w e i g h t e d

l e s s t h a n a s t e re o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r ' s i n f o r m a t i o n . R e c a l l t h a t

r = (Px r ) < 1 : ~ ind ica tes the ex ten t to wh ich the s te reo type-

i n c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r i s i n d i v i d u a t e d , f f a p e r s o n i s i n d i v i d u a t e d ,

t h e p e r s o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n d e v i a t e s f r o m t h e r e s t i n g s t a t e , r . T h i s

i m p l i e s t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a t e d g r o u p m e m b e r ' s i n c o n s i s t en t in f o r -

m a r i o n d o e s n o t a f f e ct t h e s t e re o t y p e a s m u c h a s a n o n i n d i v i d u a t e d

m e m b e r ' s e q u a l l y i n c o n s i s te n t in f o r m a t i o n .

T h i s i m p l i c a t i o n o f T P M i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t h e o r e t ic a l i n -

s i g h t e x p r e s s e d b y R o t h b a r t a n d J o h n ( 1 9 8 5 ) a s w e l l a s H e w s t o n e

a n d B r o w n ( 1 9 8 6 ; s e e , e . g ., S c a r b e r r y , R a t c l if f , L o r d , L a n i c e k , &

D e s f o r g e s , 1 9 9 7 , f o r e v i d e n c e ) . It i s a l s o c o n s i s t e n t w i t h R o t h b a r t ,

S r i r a m , a n d D a v i s - S t i t t ' s (1 9 9 6 ) f i n d i n g t h a t t y p i c a l m e m b e r s a r e

m o r e l i k e l y r e t r i e v e d b y c u i n g m e m o r y w i t h a g r o u p l a b e l t h a n

a t y p ic a l m e m b e r s . G i v e n t h a t a n a t y p i c al g r o u p m e m b e r i s m o r e

l i k e l y i n d i v i d u a t e d th a n a t y p i c a l g r o u p m e m b e r , t h e m o d e l i s

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s t h a t t y p i c a l g r o u p m e m b e r s a r e m o r e

l i k e l y to c h a n g e s t e r e o t y p e s t h a n a t y p i c a l g r o u p m e m b e r s . F i n a l l y ,

i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g t h a t a s t e r e o ty p e c h a n g e s m o r e

w h e n i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n is d i s p e r s e d a c r o ss a n u m b e r o f

i n d i v i d u a l s t h a n w h e n c o n c e n t r a t e d i n a f e w i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s i s

b e c a u s e d r a m a t i c a l l y a t y p i c a l i n d i v i d u a l s a r e l i k e l y i n d i v i d u a t e d o r

s u b t y p e d .

Gu r w i t z a n d Do d g e ( 1 9 7 7 ) f i n d i n g a n d T P M. O n e p u z z l i n g

f i n d i n g w a s r e p o r te d b y G u r w i t z a n d D o d g e ( 1 9 7 7) , w h o s e r e s u l t

a p p e a r s t o c o n t r a d i c t t h e w e a l t h o f e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h i n s t e r e o t y p e

c h a n g e . T h e i r e x p e r i m e n t w a s p r o b a b l y t h e f i r s t t o e x a m i n e t h e

e f f e c t o f d i s p e r s e d v e r s u s c o n c e n t r a t e d s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n -

f o r m a t i o n o n s t e r e o t y p e s . T h e y p r e s e n t e d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t th r e e

s o r o r i t y w o m e n w h o w e r e f r i e n d s a n d s h a r e d a r o o m t o g e t h e r . I n

t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n d i t i o n , o n e o f t h e t h r e e w o m e n h a d a l l

s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n , w h e r e a s a l l th r e e w o m e n h a d

s o m e s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n i n th e d i s p e r s e d c o n d i -

t i o n . I n b o t h c o n d i t i o n s , h o w e v e r , t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f s t e r e o t y p e -

i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e . T h e i r p a r t i c ip a n t s

w e r e t h e n a s k e d t o m a k e i m p r e s s i o n j u d g m e n t s a b o u t a n o t h e r

w o m a n w h o w a s d e s c r i b e d a s a f ri e n d o f th e t h r e e w o m e n , w h o

s h a r e d t h e r o o m w i t h t h e m , a n d w h o a l s o b e l o n g e d t o t h e s a m e

s o r o r it y . T h e i r f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e t a r g e t p e r s o n w a s j u d g e d

a s l e s s s t e r e o t y p i c a l i n t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d t h a n i n t h e d i s p e r s e d

c o n d i t i o n .

A l t h o u g h t h e G u r w i t z - D o d g e f i n d i n g s e e m s i n c o n s i s t en t w i t h

t h e o t h e r f i n d i n g s , T P M s u g g e s t s t h a t a f r i e n d o f o n l y m i l d l y

s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t g r o u p m e m b e r s ( d i s p e r s e d c o n d i t i o n ) c a n

b e e v a l u a t e d t o b e m o r e s t e r e o t y p i c a l t h a n a f r i e n d o f a r a d i c a l l y

s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t g r o u p m e m b e r ( c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n d i t i o n ) ,

a p p a r e n t l y s h o w i n g l e s s o f a s t e r e o t y p e c h a n g e i n t h e d i s p e r s e d

c o n d i t io n . T h e j u d g m e n t a b o u t a n i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r o f a g r o u p

c a n b e m o d e l e d b y T P M ( A p p e n d i x ):

rrso + rvlcsc + s( l , T)Jxst

J (Gi ,

P r ) = ( 2 4 )

r r + zv lc + s ( I , T )J t '

w h e r e ~ 'r r e p r e s e n t s t h e t y p i c a l i t y o f t h e t a r g e t p e r s o n a n d s(I, T) is

t h e s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n t h e t a r g e t a n d s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t m e m -

b e r s . N o t e t h a t

J ( G , P r )

i s a j u d g m e n t a b o u t a t a r g e t p e r s o n , w h o

i s a m e m b e r o f g r o u p i .

E q u a t i o n 2 4 i m p l i e s t h a t i f t h e t a r g e t i s s i m i l a r t o s t e r e o t y p e -

i n c o n s i s t e n t m e m b e r s , t h a t i s , s(I, 13 i s l a r g e , t h e n t h e j u d g m e n t

a b o u t t h e t a r g e t is i n f l u e n c e d m o r e b y t h e s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t

m e m b e r s . T h i s i m p l i c a t io n o f T P M c a n e x p l a i n t he G u r w i t z -

D o d g e f i n d i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e t y p i c a l i t y o f t h e

ta rge t pe rs on i s low ( i . e ., ~ ' r i s sma l l ) , the e f fec t o f the s te reo typ e

s h o u l d b e r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l . T h i s l a t t e r i m p l i c a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

F i s k e a n d N e u b e r g ' s c o n t i n u u m m o d e l ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

S i m u l a t i n g t h e S te r e o t y p e C h a n g e F i n d i n g s

J o h n s t o n a n d H e w s t o n e ' s ( 1 9 92 ) c o n d i t i o n s w e r e s i m u l a t e d

u s i n g M a t h e m a t i c a o n a S i l i c on G r a p h i c s I n d y W o r k s t a t i on . I n

t h e i r e x p e r i m e n t , p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e s h o w n e i g h t m e m b e r s o f a

s t e r e o t y p e d g r o u p , e a c h o f w h o m w a s d e s c r i b e d b y s i x p i e c e s o f

i n f o r m a t i o n . T h e r e w e r e 1 2 , 1 2 , a n d 2 4 p i e c e s o f s t e r e o t y p e -

c o n s i s t e n t , s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t , a n d s t e r e o t y p e - i r r e l e v a n t in f o r -

m a t i o n , r e s p e c t iv e l y . I n t h e c o n c e n t r a t e d c o n d i t i o n , t h e s t e r e o t y p e -

i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n w a s c o n c e n t r a t e d i n t w o m e m b e r s , b u t i n




the dispersed condition, it was distributed across six members (two

pieces each). In the latter condition, two members were ascribed

three pieces of stereotype-consistent information. Their third stim-

ulus condition was excluded from the simulation for simplicity.

The attention parameter a declined from 1, .8, .64, and so on

(i.e., 8k- l, where k = 1 to 8) from the ftrst to the eighth stimulus

for each person. The forgetting parameter/3 was set at .95. For

each condit ion, 20 simulations were run. Impression judgments

about the group and the individual person were collected after the

learning phase, the first change phase, and the second change

phase. The means are reported in Table 3 (see Appendix for

details).

The means show that the stereotype was successfully learned by

the TPM after the learning phase. The impression udgments using

the group and person cues were both .81, indicating a high level of

stereotyping (1 = perfec tly stereotypical . When information that

is inconsist ent with the group stereotype was presented, however,

group impression judgments clearly changed. The group impres-

sion judgments after the first change phase were less stereotypical

than those before it. The impression judgments were even less

stereotypical after the second change phase than immedia tely after

the ftrst change phase. Clearly, a greater amount of stereotype-

inconsistent information changes the stereotype.

The effects of concentra ted versus dispersed st imulus configu-

ration were successfully simulated in the present simulation. When

the group was the target as in the typical experimental paradigm,

the impression judgments were more stereotypical in the concen-

trated condition than in the dispersed condition, suggesting a

greater stereotype change in the dispersed condition. By contrast,

when the person was the target, as in Gurwitz and Dodge, there

appears to be a greater stereotype change in the concentrated

condi tion than in the dispersed condition.

Comments

The simulation results showed that TPM can reproduce both the

basic fmdings and Gurwitz and Dodge's finding, showing its

capacity to provide a unifi ed account. Central in this is the process

of individuat ion, a process with an ironic implication. On the one

hand, as noted by Fiske et al. (e.g., Fiske Neuberg, 1990), the

individuated person is less likely stereotyped. On the other hand,

as pointed out by Rothbart et al. (e.g., Rothbart John, 1985), the

individuated person less likely affects the group impression: That

is, less stereotype change is likely. In other words, individuation

may be good for the individua l but not necessarily good for the

group (see Yzerbyt, Coull, Rocher, 1999). Nevertheless, this

does not mean that individuat ion should be avoided to change an

undesirable stereotype. As Rothbart and John (1985) pointed out

and TPM suggests, although radically stereotype-inconsistent ex-

emplars may have only small effects on stereotypes (as shown in

the concentrated condition), they too could eventually effect a

stereotype change if cumulated over time. It would just take more

exemplars to attain the same amount of stereotype change when

group members are individuated than when they are not.

Finally, in accounting for Gurwitz and Dodge's (1977) finding,

we made use of relational information, that is, information about

the interpersonal relationship between the stimulus persons and the

person about whom impression judgments were required. We

assumed that a friend of stimulus persons would be represented in

a way that resembles the representations of the stimulus persons.

The effect of information about interpersonal relationships on

group impressions should be examined more systematically.

Group Differentiation

Tajfel and Wilkes's (1963) classical research on the accentua-

tion phenomenon provided the original impetus to this line of

research. Participants in their study were shown a series of lines

and asked to estimate their lengths. Tajfel and Wilkes then com-

pared estimated lengths of the lines that were adjacent to each

other in length. In some conditions, shorter l ines and longer lines

were classified into different categories, whereas in other condi-

tions there was no meaningful relation between classification and

line length. In the former conditions, the difference between the

estimated lengths of adjacent lines was exaggerated when the two

lines were classified into two different categories, although this

accentuation of interclass difference was not observed when the

classification did not meaningfu lly correlate with line length. A

number of studies successfully replicated this finding in the past

(e.g., Eiser, 1971; McGarty Penny , 1988; see the latter for a

review).

Tajfel and Wilkes's (1963) original studies examined people's

evaluation of individual stimuli that were classified into categories.

As noted by Krueger, Rothbart, et al. (Krueger, 1991, 1992;

Krneger Rothbart, 1988; Krueger, Rothbart, Sriram, 1989),

this procedure cannot distinguish two sources of the interclass

accentuation. One is a contrast effect, in which the perception of an

individual stimulus is affected by its membership with one of the

two contras ting categories. The other is an accentuation effect, in

which a difference between the central tendencies of the differen-

tiated categories is accentuated over and beyond what is expected

only from the contrast effect. In this article, we are concerned with

this latter phenomenon as it pertains to the judgments of central

tendencies, or group impressions.

Basic Findings of Group Differentiation

Krueger and Rothbart's (1990) Experiment 2 provides a proto-

typical example. Participants were shown a series of personality

Table 3

Mean Simulated Group Impression Judgments or the Stereotype Change Simulation

Change phase 1 Change phase 2

Cue Le ar ni ng Concentrat ed Dispers ed Concentrated Dispe~ed

Group .81 .75 .72 .68 .65

Person .81 .68 .75 .64 .68



93 4 KASHIMA, WOOLCOCK, AND KASHIMA

trait adjectives (pretested to determine their favorability) that were

classified into two contrasting groups (focal and context groups)

and rated the favorability of each adjective as well as the overall

mean favorability of the two groups. In the learning phase, the

distributions of the stimulus traits in two groups did not overlap in

their favorability. The mean favorability of the context group was,

relative to that of the focal group, higher in one condition and

lower in the other condition. In the change phase, additional trait

adjectives were presented for the two groups. Although the actual

means of the two distributions remained constant, the variance of

the focal group was made greater than before, so that there was

now some overlap between the focal and context groups. Krueger

and Rothbart examined the estimated means of the focal and

context groups before and after the change phase while controlling

for the average of the favorability judgments for the individual

traits. They found that the estimated mean of the focal group

moved away from the mean of the context group, although there

was no change in either the actual mean of the trait adjectives or

the average of the rated favorabi lity of indiv idual traits. This

finding was largely replicated in their Experiment 3. Krueger and

Rothbart's (1990) Experiment 1 using traits, as well as Krueger et

al. (1989) and Krueger (1991) using numbers as stimuli, showed a

comparable effect when there was a real change in the central

tendency of the distribution.

Modeling Group Differentiation

In line with the suggest ion made by Krueger, Rothbart, et al.,

TPM accounts for the basic group differentiation phenomenon by

extending the analysis for the stereotype change. In modeling the

stereotype change phenomena, the typicality of a person was

determined with regard to the single group for which the person

was a member. In the group differentiation paradigm, in which two

groups are contrasted, however, we assume that an exemplar's

typicality is determined not only by the exemplar's similarity with

its group's representation but also by its dissimilarity from the

representation of the group to which its group is contrasted (Camp-

bell, 1958; Turner, 1987; also see Ford & Stangor, 1992). As in the

stereotype change paradigm, we suggest that the person represen-

tation is constructed as a function of the typicality, but it is defined

within the frame of reference set by the two contrasting groups.

This can be modeled mathematically. Suppose that two groups,

Group 1 (G 1) and Group 2 (G2), are contrasted with each other,

and an event pert aining to Group 1, Elik, is encoded as eUk. Let

Cll = gl ® r ®

e l i k

@ X and

C2 =

g2 ® r ®

e l j k

@

X C l l

is the

representation of an exemplar of Group 1 involving he event, and

C21 is the representation of the same event counterfactually as-

suming that it pertained to Group 2. We then assume that the

typical ity of Ga's exemplar, E~jk, is determined by the following

rule:

Match(m, Cn)

zljk = Matc h(M, Cn) + Ma tch (M, Czl)

(25)

The typicality of G2's exemplar E2jk(e~4k), r2jk, can be defined

analogously.

Equation 25 is closely related to the concept of metacontrast

(Campbell, 1958; Turner, 1987). Match (M, Cujk) approximates

the similarity of the exemplar, El , with all the other exemplars o f

Group 1 stored in memory (plus some error), and Match(M, C21)

approximates the similarity of the same exemplar with all the

exemplars of Group 2. As the similarity of the event with all the

events associated with Group 1 increases and the similarity of the

event with all the events associated with Group 2 decreases, the

typical ity of this event for Group 1 increases. Therefore, ~'l~k

increases as the metacontrast ratio, Match(M, C11)/Match(M,

C21), increases.

Simulating the Group Differentiation Find ings

To show that TPM with these additional assumptions can ac-

count for the group differentiation phenomena, Krueger and Roth-

bart's (1990) Experiment 2 was simulated. The results (Table 4)

showed that the mean judgments of the focal group moved away

from the context group mean in the change phase relative to the

learning phase. In the condition in which the context group mean

was lower than the focal group mean (Condition 1), the simulated

judgme nt mean for the focal group became larger. Similarly, in the

condition in which the context group mean was higher than the

focal group mean (Condition 2), the simulated judgment mean for

the focal group became smaller. For each condition, a two-way

repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with the judgment as

the dependent variable and phase (learning vs. change) and group

(focal vs. context) as independent variables. As expected, the

Phase × Group interaction effect was significant, F(1, 19) = 6.24,

p = .022, and F(1, 19) = 26.67, p < .001, for Conditions 1 and 2,

respectively.

Discussion

In line with the current theories of stereotyping and group

differentiation (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Rothbart & John,

1985), we postulated that the evaluation of typicality drives the

encoding of the individual member. Central in this formulation

was the importance of various relational information, that is, the

assumpt ion that social perceivers make use of not only the infor-

mation about the relationship between the group and an indiv idual

exemplar (group-person relationship) but also the information

about the relationship between two groups (intergroup relation-

ship) in computing the typicality of an individual exemplar. This

assumption enabled the TPM to explain the empirical phenomena

of stereotype change and group differentiation.

General Discussion

Group impressions are dynamic configurations. They represent

social perceivers' flexibly structured and constantly evolving un-

derstandings about social groups. The empirical findings reviewed

Table 4

Means of the Simulated Mean Judgments or the

Group Differentiation

Group Learning phase Change phase

Focal group .5076 .5141

Context Group 1 .2019 .2024

Focal group .5064 .4958

Context Group 2 .7971 .7968




and the experiment reported here underscore the dynamics of

group impressions. Group impressions exhibit a number of time-

dependent properties and evolve over time in interaction with the

information environment. Despite the implicit assumption that

group impression formation and change are two separate phenom-

ena, the process underlying both formation and change of group

impressions could be a single, learning process.

Group impressions are configural too. The configural use of

features is c learly important in learning group categories. A variety

of research on the use of context information corroborates the

importance of the configural encoding of groups, group members,

social events pertaining to them, and context in which the events

are said to occur. The use of relational information about person-

group and intergroup relationships also underlines the significance

of configurat ion, that is, the structure of the social information

based on which group impressions are formed. The TPM provides

a unified framework for theorizing about group impressions as

dynamic configurations.

S t r e n g th s a n d W e a k n e s s e s o f th e T P M a s a F r a m e w o r k

f o r G r o u p I m p r e s s i o n F o r m a t i o n a n d C h a n g e

The TPM not only provides a unified framework for the diverse

array of empirical findings but also affords an insight about the

interpretation of algebraic models postulated in social cognition.

Algebraic models are often regarded literally as describing the

psychological process in terms of algebraic operations and, there-

fore, as a description of the controlled, deliberative processing of

information (e.g., Fazio, 1990; Fiske Neuberg, 1990). However,

as shown here, both the weighted averaging model and the context

model can fall out of the current connect ionist model as a natural

consequence of the memory and judgme nt process. This implies,

first, that algebraic models should be construed as computational

models that simply describe input-output relations rather than

algorithmic models that describe the psychological process

(Kashima Kerekes, 1994; E. U. Weber, Goldstein, Buse-

meyer, 1991). In other words, the algebraic models should not be

interpreted literally but may be seen as describing macrolevel

regularities that emerge from microlevel psychological processes,

which may not be effortful at all.

Despite these strengths, TPM has its weaknesses. In many

social -cogni tive theories (e.g., Wyer Carlston, 1979), the cen-

tral processing unit (CPU) has been implicitly or explicitly postu-

lated, whose function is to execute procedural knowledge to ma-

nipulate declarative knowledge. In connectionist networks, a set of

simple processing units, whether localist or distributed, collec-

tively process information. This removed the necessity for the

CPU, which smacks of a homunculus in the head. This feature of

connectionism may be regarded as an advantage. However, TPM

cannot do away with a control mechanism. For example, recall that

order effects were explained partly by the attentional parameter

and that the individuation process involved in stereotype change

and group differentiation was expla ined in terms of the construc-

tion of a person representation. Some mechanism is needed to

control the attentional parameter and the construction process for

a person representation. This mechanism does not have to be a

single CPU but may have a parallel distributed architecture.

A number of areas are yet to be incorporated into the present

framework. For instance, more detailed discussion is necessary

about the process o f stereotyping and indiv idua tion in which an

individual is the target of judgment (e.g., Fiske Neuberg, 1990),

the perception of an indiv idual 's behavior (e.g., Manis, Biernat,

Nelson, 1991), the judgment of group variability (e.g., Ostrom

Sedikides, 1992), memory about groups (e.g., Rothbart, Evans,

Fulero, 1979; Rothbart, Fulero, Jensen, Howard, Birrell, 1978),

and the relation between memory and judgment (e.g., Hastie

Park, 1986; Srull Wyer, 1989). Because of this, we did not

discuss some studies that examined the process of group impres-

sion formation when the target was a new group consisting of

members of a stereotyped social category (e.g., Dijksterhuis van

Knippenberg, 1995; Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, Kruglanski ,

Schaper, 1996) . We have not addressed some of the nonl inear

processes associated with group impression formation and change.

People construct emergent properties when two pieces of contra-

dictory information are integrated (e.g., Asch Zukier, 1984;

Hastie, Schroeder, Weber, 1990; Kunda, Miller, Claire,

1990). Although TPM can address this issue by adopting a strategy

similar to Smith and DeCoster's (1998a, 1998b), full impli cations

of this type of cognitive activity are still outside its scope.

A d v a n t a g e s o f T h e o r e t i c a l R e d u c t i o n

We attempted a theoretical reduct ion of algebraic models to the

TPM, and there are clear advantages. Because old theories are not

falsified, they can be regarded as simpler approximations to more

complex descriptions provided by a new theory. Old theories can

be retained as a useful tool for investigation and a practical

approximation. Old theories can be interpreted in a new light, and

new theoretical insights may be gained. The use of the weighted

averaging model in the current article provides an illustration. The

weighted averaging model was shown to be derivable from TPM.

The weight and scale value concepts in the weighted averaging

model allowed us to examine the time-dependent properties of

group impress ion formation. Furthermore, we could use a model

similar to the weighted averaging model (Equations 23 and 24) to

shed light on the stereotype change literature.

A theoretical reduction shows a cumulat ive and dynamic nature

of the scientific enterprise of social psychology. Echoing Massaro

(1990; also Massaro Cowan, 1993), we believe connectionist

approaches underscore a continuity in psychological theorizing

(also see Kashima Kerekes, 1994; Read et al., 1996) rather than

a radical departure, f f Asch's (1946, 1952) foundational insight

was to conceptualize impressions as dynamic configurations, the

evolution of socia l-cogn itive theories in the past two decades

since

Person Memory The Cognitive Basis of Social Perception

by Hastie et al. (1980) may be seen as a pursuit of an increasingly

dynamic theory of socia l-cognitive processes. The upsurge of

interest in connectionism may be a continuation of this trend. The

current formulation attempted to show that at least one

connectionist-type model, TPM, can describe both dynamic and

Gestalt-like configural properties of group impression formation

and change, making a contribution o the social- cognit ive research

tradition (Laudan, 1977; or research program as in Lakatos, 1970).

Connec t ion i sm as a Research T radi t ion

In providing support for TPM in particular, we showed the

utility of connectionism in general. Connectioni sm too is a re-



9 3 6 K A S H IM A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H IM A

s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n w h o s e c o r e c o n s i s t s o f a s e t o f t h e o r e t i c a l p r i n c i -

p l e s. T h i s w a y , c o n n e c t i o n i s m p ro v i d e s a v e r y g e n e r a l f r a m e w o r k

i n w h i c h t o d e v e l o p m o r e s p e c i f i c a r c h i t e c t u r e s . J u s t a s a n u m b e r

o f s p e c i f i c m o d e l s o f p e r s o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n c a n b e g e n e r a t e d

w i t h i n t h e f r a m e w o r k o f a s s o c i a t i v e m e m o r y ( e . g ., S r u l l & W y e r ,

1 9 8 9 ) , a s p e c i f i c c o n n e c t i o n i s t a r c h i t e c tu r e s u c h a s T P M c a n

g e n e r a t e a n u m b e r o f m o r e s p e c i f ic m o d e l s . T h e s e m o d e l s c a n b e

c o m p e t i t i v e l y te s t e d a n d f a l s i f i e d ( e .g . , E q u a t i o n s 2 2 a n d 2 5 ) . W e

s h o w e d t h a t t h e c u r r e n t f o rm o f T P M c a n e x p l a i n e x i s ti n g d a t a a n d

g e n e r a t e n e w , e m p i r i c a l l y s u p p o r t e d p r e d i c t i o n s .

I n s o d o i n g , w e a l s o s h o w e d t h a t t h e c u r r e n t f o r m s o f o t h e r

c o n n e c t i o n i s t a r c h i t e c tu r e s h a v e s o m e d i f f i c u l t y e x p l a i n i n g t h e

d a t a w e p r o v i d e d . A t o n e l e v e l , t h e c u r r e n t f o r m s o f t h o s e a r c h i -

t e c t u r e s w e r e f a l s i f i e d . H o w e v e r , i t d o e s n o t m e a n t h a t t h o s e

a r c h i t e c tu r e s c a n n o t b e m o d i f i e d t o a c c o u n t f o r t h e d a t a. J u s t a s

i m p r e s s i o n s a r e d y n a m i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n s , s o t o o a r e t h e o ri e s . T h e y

m a y v e r y w e l l e v o l v e i n t h e f a c e o f e m p i r i c a l c h a l l e n g e s a n d

d e v e l o p s o m e n o v e l p r e d i c t i o n s a n d p o s s i b i l i t i e s . C o n n e c t i o n i s m

p r o v i d e s a s e t o f c o n c e p t u a l t o o l s w i t h w h i c h t o t h e o r i z e a b o u t

p s y c h o l o g i c a l p h e n o m e n a . W i t h n e w t o o l s , n e w p o s s i b i l i t i e s

e m e r g e . I n t h i s w a y , t h e r e s e a r c h t r a d i t i o n o f c o n n e c t i o n i s m a n d i ts

p a r t i c u l a r a r c h it e c t u r e s c o e v o l v e w i t h e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .

Implications for Stereotype Formation and Maintenance

O n e r e a s o n f o r t h e c u r r e n t i n t e r e s t i n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a -

t i o n a n d c h a n g e i s i t s p o t e n t i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r r e a l - l i f e s t e r e o -

t y p e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , u n p r i n c i p l e d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s o f l a b o r a t o r y r e -

s u i t s b a s e d o n h y p o t h e t i c a l g r o u p s c a n a l w a y s b e c h a l l e n g e d f o r

t h e i r l a c k o f e c o l o g i c a l v a l id i t y . H o w e v e r , a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d t h e o r y

c a n p r o v i d e a d e f e n s i b l e b a s i s f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g l a b o r a t o r y r e s u l t s to

t h e s o c i o c u l t u r a i m i l i e u . I n o u r a s s e s s m e n t , t h e T P M c a n p r o v i d e

j u s t s u c h a t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s . T h e p r e s e n t m o d e l i n g o f g r o u p i m -

p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n i m p l i e s t h a t e x i s t i n g s t e r e o t y p e s l i k e l y r e f l ec t

t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t y p e s o f e v e n t s i n t h e p r o b a b i l i s t i c s o c i o c u l t u r a l

e n v i r o n m e n t , a lt h o u g h s o m e a s p ec t s o f g r o u p i m p r e s s i o ns m a y

h a v e a g e n e t i c , m o d u l a r b a s i s ( H i r s c h fe l d , 1 9 9 6 ). A g r o u p i s l i k e l y

p e r c e i v e d i n a p o s i t i v e l i g h t w h e n t h e p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f d i r e c t o r

i n d i r e c t h e a r s a y i n f o r m a t i o n i s r e l a t i v e l y p o s i t i v e o r v i c e v e r s a .

H o w e v e r , w h e n a r e l a t iv e l y s m a l l a m o u n t o f i n f o r m a t i o n is i n -

v o l v e d , s t e r e o t y p e s m a y n o t r e f l e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n i n

t h e s o c i o c u l t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s - b a s e d i l l u -

s o r y c o r r e l a t i o n m a y f o r m t h e b a s i s o f s o m e s t e r e o t y p es .

T h e c u r r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n s h e d s l i g h t o n t h e p r o c e s s o f s t e r e o t y p e

m a i n t e n a n c e . T h e m o d e l s u g g e s t s t h a t g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s c a n

c h a n g e i n t h e l o n g r u n i n s o f a r a s s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a -

t i o n c o n t i n u e s t o b e e n c o d e d a n d s t o r e d . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e c u r r e n t

m o d e l a s s u m e s , b u t d o e s n o t a d d r e s s , t h e e n c o d i n g p r o c e s s f u l l y

( e s p e c i a l l y f e a t u r e e n c o d i n g p r o c e s s ). A s v o n H i p p e l , S e k a q u a p -

t e w a , a n d V a r g a s ( 1 9 9 5 ) e m p h a s i z e d , t h e p e r c e p t u a l e n c o d i n g

p r o c e s s m a y , i n f a c t , b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e p e r s i s t e n c e o f s t e r e o -

t y p e s . T o t h i s e x t e n t , t h e s t a b i l i ty o f s t e r e o ty p e s m a y s t e m o n l y i n

p a r t f r o m t h e r i g i d i t y o f t h e c o g n i t i v e s y s t e m d e s p i t e t h e p i c t u r e -

i n - t h e -h e a d m e t a p h o r e n s h r i n e d b y L i p p m a n ( 1 9 22 ) . P o t e n t i a l

s o u r c e s o f s t er e o t y p e m a i n t e n a n c e m a y b e m o r e a f f e c t iv e a n d

m o t i v a t i o n a l (s e e F o r g a s , 1 9 9 2 ; K u n d a , 1 9 9 0 ) . F o r v a r i o u s r e a s o n s

s u c h a s r i g h t - w i n g a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m ( A d o r n o , F r e n k e l - B r u n s w i k ,

L e v e n s o n , & S a n f o r d , 1 9 5 0 ; se e A l t e m e y e r , 1 9 9 8 ; P r a t t o, 1 9 9 9 ) ,

p e o p l e m a y e n g a g e i n m o t i v a t e d r e a s o n i n g , s o t h a t t h e y c a n

m a i n t a i n o n c e - f o r m e d s t e re o ty p e s . A s K u n d a a n d O l e s o n ( 1 9 9 5 )

n o t e d , s u c h p r o c e s s e s o f ju s t i f i c a t i o n o f e s t a b l i s h e d i m p r e s s i o n s

m a y b e a s i g n i f i c a n t s o u r c e o f s t e r e o ty p e m a i n t e n a n c e . H o f f m a n

a n d H u r s t ( 1 9 9 0 ) a r g u e d t h a t g e n d e r s t e r e o t y p e s ( a n d p r o b a b l y

s t e r e o t y p e s i n g e n e r a l ) a r e b a s e d n o t o n l y o n o b s e r v e d c o v a r i a t i o n

b e t w e e n g r o u p c a t e g o r i e s a n d r o l e o c c u p a n c y , a s a r g u e d b y E a g l y

a n d S t e f f e n ( 1 9 8 4 ) , b u t a l s o o n j u s t i f i c a t i o n s t h a t p e o p l e m a k e

a b o u t t h e g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e ( s e e J o s t & B a n a j i , 1 9 9 4 , f o r a r e l a t e d

p o i n t ) .

A n o t h e r s o u r c e o f t h e s t a b i l i t y o f s t e r e o t y p e s m a y b e t h e i n f o r -

m a t i o n e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h t h e c o g n i t i v e s y s t e m r e s i d e s , t h a t i s,

t h e s o c i o c u l t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . I n p a r t i c u l a r, a s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e

m a y b e s u s t a in e d b e c a u s e a s o c ia l o b s e r v e r ' s e n v i r o n m e n t , f r o m

w h i c h s t e r e o t y p e - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s l e a r n e d , p r o v i d e s a s t e a d y

f l o w o f a s i m i l a r m i x o f s t e r e o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t a n d s t e r e o t y p e -

i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n . A s O a k e s e t a l . ( 1 9 9 4 ) a r g u e d , t h e i n t e r -

g r o u p r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t a c t u a l l y e x i s t b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e i v e r ' s

i n g r o u p s a n d o u t g r o u p s m a y p r o v i d e a s t r o n g b a s i s f o r s t e r e o t yp e s .

A l t e r n a t iv e l y , u n d e r s o m e c i r c um s t a n c e s , a s J u s s i m a n d F l e m i n g

( 1 9 9 6 ) n o t e d , a s t e r e o t y p i c a l e x p e c t a t i o n m a y a c t a s a s e l f -

f u l f i l l i n g p r o p h e c y , b r i n g i n g t h e s o c i a l r e a l i ty i n l i n e w i t h t h e

s t e r e o t y p e ( e . g . , R o s e n t h a l & J a c o b s o n , 1 9 6 8 ) . M a c k i e a n d

S m i t h ' s ( 1 9 9 8 ) r e v i e w s h o w s t h a t s t e r e o t y p i n g c a n b e c o n c e p t u -

a l i z e d w i t h i n a n i n t e g r a t i v e f r a m e w o r k o f i n t e r g r o u p r e l a ti o n s h i p s .

A s B a r t l e t t ( 1 9 3 2 ) a n d A l l p o r t a n d P o s t m a n ( 1 9 4 7 ) n o t e d l o n g

a g o , c u l t u r a l l y s h ar e d s t e r e o t y p e s m a y p e r s i s t a s t h e y a r e t o l d a n d

r e t ol d i n i n f o r m a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n . I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h i s , K a s h i m a

( 2 0 0 0 b ) s h o w e d t h a t s t e r e o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t e n d s to b e

r e t a i n e d b e t t e r t h a n s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a s a s t o r y

e m b e d d i n g s t e r e o t y p e - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n i s t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m

o n e p e r s o n t o t h e n e x t . C u l t u r a l l y s t r u c t u r e d e x p l a n a t i o n s a n d

j u s t i f i c a t i o n s . a r e l i k e l y t o p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n s t e r e o t y p e

m a i n t e n a n c e i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e i n t e rg r o u p r e l a t io n s h i p s ( M c -

G a r r y , 1 9 9 9 ) . W h a t i s r e q u i r e d i s a s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y o f c u l t u r a l

d y n a m i c s ( K a s h i m a , 2 0 0 0 a , 2 0 0 0 c ) , t h a t i s , a s y s t e m a t i c i n v e s t i -

g a t i o n o f t h e d y n a m i c s i n v o l v e d i n t h e s o c i o c u lt u r a l e m b e d d i n g o f

s t e r e o t y p e s a s d y n a m i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n s .

A l l i n a l l , c o n n e c t i o n i s t m o d e l i n g o f l a b o r a t o r y - b a s e d g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n s c a n p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l

p r o c e s s i n v o l v i n g e x i s t i n g s o c i a l s t e r eo t y p e s . T h i s i s p o s s i b l e

b e c a u s e s t r o n g t h e o r ie s c a n l a y a s o l i d f o u n d a t i o n f o r l a b o r a t o r y

p h e n o m e n a , a n d t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e t h e o r y c a n b e u s e d a s a b a s i s

f o r p r i n c i p l e d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n o f t h e o r e t ic a l i n s i g h t s t o t h e r e a l -

l i f e p h e n o m e n a i n s o c i o c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t .

oncluding Remarks

I n 1 9 5 2 , A s c h d e s c r i b e d t h e s t a t e o f k n o w l e d g e a b o u t g r o u p

i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n a n d c h a n g e :

We know li tt le today of the question at issue, mainly because of our

failure to study directly the process of impression-forming. Therefore

we are n ot in a position to answer certain first questions such as: What

are the organizational properties of group impressions? In what re-

spects do they differ among individuals? What conditions determine

their rigidity and lability? (p. 235)

W e h a v e i n d e e d m a d e s o m e h e a d w a y b u t a r e n o w o n l y b e g i n n i n g

t o a n s w e r t h e s e q u e s t i o n s i n a t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r i n c i p l e d m a n n e r .



G R O U P I M P R E S S I O N S A S D Y N A M I C C O N F I G U R A T I O N S 9 7

eferences

A dor no , T . W. , F r e nke l - Br unsw i k , E . , L e ve nson , D . J . , & S a nf o r d , R . N .

(1950). The authoritarian personality. N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r & R o w .

A l l i son , S . T ., M a c k i e , D . M . , & M e ss i c k , D . M . ( 1996) . O u t c om e b i a se s

i n soc i a l pe r c e p t i on : I mpl i c a t i ons f o r d i spos i t i ona l i n f e r e nc e , a t t i t ude

c ha nge , s t e r e o t yp i ng , a nd soc i a l be ha v i o r . Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology 28

5 3 - 9 3 .

A l l i son , S . T . , & M e ss i c k , D . M . ( 1985) . T he g r oup a t t r i bu t i on e r r o r .

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 21 5 6 3 - 5 7 9 .

A l l po r t , G . W. ( 1954) . The nature of prejudice. R e a d i n g , M A : A d d i s o n -

W e s l e y .

A U por t , G . W. , & P os t m a n , L . ( 1947). T he

psychology of rumor.

N e w

Y or k : H e nr y H o l t .

A l t e m e ye r , B . (1998). T he o t he r a u t ho r i t a ri a n pe r sona l i t y . Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology 30 4 7 - 9 2 .

A nd e r son , N . H . ( 1968). A pp l i c a t i on o f a l ine a r - s e r ia l mode l t o a

pe r sona l i t y - i m pr e s s i on t a sk us i ng s e r i a l p r e se n t a t i on . Journal o f Person-

ality and Social Psychology 10 3 5 4 - 3 6 2 .

A nd e r son , N . H . ( 1973) . S e r i a l pos i t i on c u r ve s i n i mpr e s s i on f o r ma t i on .

Journal of Experimental Psychology 97 8 - 1 2 .

A nde r son , N . H . ( 1981) . Foundations of information integration theory.

N e w Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P re s s .

Anderson, N. H. (1982) . Methods of information integration theory. N e w

Y or k : A c a de mi c P r e s s .

A sc h , S . E . (1946) . F o r m i ng i mpr e s s i ons o f pe r sona l i ty . Journal of Ab-

normal and Social Psychology 41

2 5 8 - 2 9 0 .

Asch, S . E . (1952) . Social psychology. E ngl e w ood C l i f f s , N J : P r e n t i c e

Hal l .

A sc h , S . E . , & Z uk i e r , H . ( 1984) . T h i nk i ng a bou t pe r sons . Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 46 1 2 3 0 - 1 2 4 0 .

Bar t le t t , F . C . (1932) . Remembering: A study in experimental psychology.

N e w Y o r k : M a c m i l l an .

Be r udse n , M . , S pe a r s , R . , M c G a r t y , C . , & va n de r P l i g t , J . ( 1998). D y-

na mi c s o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i on : S i mi l a r i t y a s t he p r e c u r so r a nd p r oduc t o f

s t e r e o t ype f o r ma t i on . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74

1451- 1463 .

B i e r ua t , M , , & K obr y now i c z , D . ( 1997). G e nd e r - a nd r a c e - ba se d s t anda r ds

o f c o m p e t e n c e : L o w e r m i n i m u m s t a n d ar d s b u t h i g h e r a b i l i ty s t a nd a r d s

f o r de va l ue d g r oups .

Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology 72

5 4 4 - 5 5 7 .

B i e r na t , M . , & M a n i s , M . ( 1994). S h i f t i ng s t a nda r ds a nd s t e r e o t ype - ba se d

j u d g m e n t s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 5 - 2 0 .

Br e w e r , M . B . ( 1988). A dua l p r oc e s s mod e l o f i mpr e s s i o n f o r ma t i on .

Advances in Social Cognition 1

1- 36 .

Br e w e r , M . B . , D u l l , V . , & L u i , L . ( 1981). P e r c e p t i ons o f t he e l de r l y :

S t e r e o t ype s a s p r o t o t ype s . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy 41 6 5 6 - 6 7 0 .

Bruner , J . (1990) . Acts of meaning. C a m b r i d g e , M A : H a r v a rd U n i v e r s it y

P r e s s .

Brunswik, E . (1956) .

Perception and the representative design o f experi-

ments.

Be r ke l e y : U n i ve r s i t y o f Ca l i f o r n i a P r e s s .

Buse m e ye r , J . R . , & M yung , I . J . (1988) . A ne w me t h od f o r inve s t i ga t i ng

pr o t o t ype l e a r n i ng . Journal o f Experimental Psychology: L earning

Memory and Cognition 14

3 - 1 1 .

Ca m pbe l l , D . T . ( 1958). Com mo n f a t e , s imi l a r i t y , a nd o t he r i nd i c e s o f t he

s t a t us o f a ggr e ga t e s o f pe r sons a s soc i a l e n t i t ie s .

Behavioral Science 3

1 4 - 2 5 .

Ca m pbe l l , D . T . , L e w i s , N . A . , & H un t , W . A . ( 1958). Con t e x t e f fe c t s w i t h

j udgme n t a l l a ngua ge t ha t i s a bso l u t e , e x t e ns i ve , a nd e x t r a -

e xpe r i me n t a l l y a nc hor e d . Journal of Experimental Psychology 55 2 2 0 -

228 .

Cha p ma n , L . J . ( 1967) . I l l u so r y c o r r e l a t ion i n obse r va t i ona l r e por t . Journal

of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 6 151- 155 .

Cha pm a n , L . J ., & Cha pm a n , J . P . ( 1967). G e ne s i s o f popu l a r bu t e r r one ous

d i a gnos t i c obse r va t i ons .

Journal of Abnormal Psychology 72

193- 204 .

Cha pm a n , L . J . , & C ha pm a n , J . P . (1969). I l l u so r y c o r re l a t i on a s a n

obs t a c l e t o t he use o f va l i d psyc hod i a gnos t i c s i gns . Journal of Abnormal

Psychology 14 2 7 1 - 2 8 0 .

Cr i c k , F . ( 1984). F unc t i on o f t he t ha l ami c r e t i c u l a r c ompl e x : T h e s e a r c h -

l i gh t hypo t he s i s . Proceedings o f the National Academy o f Sciences 81

4 5 8 6 - 4 5 9 0 .

Cr oc ke r , J . , F i ske , S . T . , & T a y l o r , S . E . ( 1984) . S c he m a t i c ba se s o f be l i e f

c ha nge . I n J . R . E i s e r ( E d . ) ,

Attitudinal judgment

( pp . 197- 226) . N e w

Y or k : S pr i nge r .

D e nn i s , S . , & H um phr e ys , M . S . ( 1997).

Integrating global matching and

dual processing approaches to episodic recognition: The bind cue

decide model o f episodic memory. U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r ip t , D e p a r t m e n t

o f P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i ty o f Q u e e n s l an d .

D i j ks t e r hu i s , A . , & va n K n i pp e nbe r g , A . ( 1995). M e m or y f o r s t e r e o t ype -

c ons i s t e n t a nd s t e r e o t yp e - i nc ons i s t e n t i n f o r ma t i on a s a f unc t i on o f p r o -

c e s s i ng pa c e . European Journal of Social Psychology 25 6 8 9 - 6 9 3 .

D i j ks t e r hu i s , A . , va n K n i pp e nbe r g , A . , K r ug l a nsk i , A . W. , & S c ha pe r , C .

( 1996). M ot i va t e d so c i a l c ogn i t i on : N e e d f o r c l osu r e e f f e c t s on m e mo r y

a n d j u d g m e n t .

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 32

2 5 4 - 2 7 0 .

D r e be n , E . K . , F i ske , S . T ., & H a s t i e , R . (1979). T he i nd e pe nd e nc e o f

e va l ua t i ve a nd i t e m i n f o r ma t i on : I mpr e s s i o n a nd r e c a l l o r de r e f f e c t s i n

be ha v i o r - ba se d i mpr e s s i on i n f o r ma t i on . Journal o f Personality and So-

cial Psychology 37 1 7 5 8 - 1 7 6 8 .

E a g l y , A . H . , & S t e f f e n , V . J . ( 1984). G e nd e r s t e r e o t ype s s t e m f r om t he

d i s t r i bu t ion o f w om e n a nd m e n i n t o soc i a l r o l e s .

Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 46 7 3 5 - 7 5 4 .

E i c h , J . M . ( 1982) . A c om pos i t e ho l ogr a ph i c a s soc i a t i ve r e c a l l mode l .

Psychological Review 89 6 2 7 - 6 6 1 .

E i se r , J . R . ( 1971). E nha nc e m e n t o f c on t r a s t in t he a bso l u t e j udgm e n t o f

a t t it ude s t a t e me n t s . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17

1- 10 .

F a z i o , R . H . ( 1990). M ul t i p l e p r oc e s se s by w h i c h a t t i t ude s gu i de be ha v i o r :

T he mo de mo de l a s an i n t e g r a t i ve f r a me w or k .

Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology 23 7 5 - 1 0 9 .

F i e d i e r , K . (1991). T he t r i c ky na t u r e o f ske w e d f r e que nc y t a b l e s : A n

i n f o r ma t i on l o s s a c c oun t o f d i s t i nc t i ve ne s s - ba se d i ll u so r y c o r r e l a t ions .

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 2 4 - 3 6 .

F i e d l e r , K . (1996). E xp l a i n i ng a nd s i mul a t i ng j udg me n t b i a se s a s a n

a ggr e ga t i on phe nome non i n p r oba b i l i s t i c , mu l t i p l e - c ue e nv i r onme n t s .

Psychological Review 103 193- 214 .

F i e d l e r , K . , & A r mb r us t e r , T . (1994). T w o ha l f s ma y b e mor e t ha n on e

w hol e : C a t e gor y - sp l i t e f f e c t s on f r e que nc y i l l u s i ons . Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology 66

6 3 3 - 6 4 5 .

F i ske , S . T . , & N e ube r g , S . L . (1990). A c on t i nuum m ode l o f i mpr e s s i on

f o r ma t i on f r om c a t e gor y - ba se d t o i nd i v i dua t i ng p r oc e s se s : I n f l ue nc e o f

i n f o r ma t i on a nd m ot i va t i on on a t t e n t i on a nd i n t e r p r e t a t ion . Advances in

Experimental Social Psychology 23 1- 74 .

Fiske , S . T . , Neuberg, S . L . , Bea t t ie , A. E . , & Milberg, S . J . (1987) .

Ca t e gor y - ba se d a nd a t t r i bu t e - ba se d r e a c t i ons t o o t he r s : S ome i n f o r ma -

t i ona l c ond i t i ons o f s t e r e o t yp i ng a nd i nd i v i dua t i ng p r oc e s s e s .

Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology 23 3 9 9 - 4 2 7 .

Fiske , S . T . , & Taylo r , S . E . (1991) . Social cognition ( 2nd e d . ) . N e w Y or k :

M c G r a w - H i l l .

F o r d , T . E . , & S t a ngor , C . ( 1992). T he r o l e o f d i a gnos t i c i t y i n s t e r e o t ype

f o r ma t i on : P e r c e i v i ng g r oup me a n s a nd va r i a nc e s . Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology 63 3 5 6 - 3 6 7 .

F or ga s , J . P . (1992). A f f e c t i n soc i a l j udgm e n t s a nd d e c i s i ons : A mu l t i -

p r o c e s s m o d e l . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25 2 2 7 -

275.

G i ge r e nz e r , G . , & H of f r a ge , U . ( 1995) . H ow t o i mp r ove ba ye s i a n r e a son-

i ng w i t hou t i n s t r uc t i on : F r e que nc y f o r m a t s . Psychological Review 102

6 8 4 - 7 0 4 .



9 8 K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

Gurw i tz , S. B., & Dodge, K. A . (1977). Effec ts o f confi rmat ions and

discon firm ations on stereotype-based attributions. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 35, 4 9 5 -5 0 0 .

Hal ford , G . S. , Wi lson , W. H . , Guo, J . , Gayler, R. W ., Wi les , J , & Stewart ,

J . E. M . (1994). Conn ect ion is t impl ica t ions for p rocessing capaci ty

l imi ta t ions in analogies . In K. J . H olyoak & J . A. B arnden (Eds.) ,

Advances in connectionist and neural computation theory (pp . 363-

415). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ham il ton , D. L. , Dugan , P. M., & Tro lier, T. K. (1985). The form at ion of

stereo typic bel iefs : Further ev iden ce for d is t inc t iveness-based i l lusory

correlations. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 5 -1 7 .

Ham ilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K . (1976), Il lusory correlation in interper-

sonal perception: A co gnitive basis of stereotypic judgm ents. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 3 9 2 -4 0 7 .

Ham ilton, D. L., & Sherm an, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr.,

& T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp,

1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hamilton, D . L., & Sherm an, S. J. (1996). Perceivin g perso ns and groups.

Psychological Review, 103,

3 3 6 -3 5 5 .

Hantz i, A. (1995). Ch ange in s tereotypic percept ions of fami l iar and

unfam i l iar g roups: The pervasiveness of the subtyping model . British

Journal o f Social Psychology, 34, 4 6 3 - 4 7 7 .

Hastie, R., Ostrom, T. M ., Ebbese n, E. B., Wyer , R. S., Jr., Hamilton , D. L.,

& Carlston, D. E. (1980).

Person mem ory: The cognitive basis of social

perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

Hast ie , R. , & Park , B . (1986). The re la t ionsh ip betwee n memory and

j u d g me n t d e p e n d s o n wh e t h e r t h e ju d g me n t t a sk i s me mo ry -b a se d o r

on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 2 5 8 -2 6 8 .

Hastie, R., Schroeder, C., & W eber, R. (1990). Creating com plex social

conjunct ion ca tegories from simple ca tegories .

Bulletin of the Psy-

chonomic Society, 28, 2 4 2 -2 4 7 .

Hayes, B. K . , & Tapl in , J . E. (1992). D evelopme nta l changes in ca tegori -

zation processes: K nowledge and sim ilarity-ba sed mo des of categoriza-

tion. Journal o f Experimental C hild Psychology, 54, 1 8 8 -2 1 2 .

Hei t , E. (1994). Models of the effec ts o f p rior knowledge on ca tegory

learning. Journal o f Experimental Psychology: Learning, Mem ory, and

Cognition, 20,

1 2 6 4 -1 2 8 2 .

Hewstone, M. (1994). Rev ision and chan ge of stereotypic beliefs: In search

of the e lusive subtyping model . European Review o f Social Psychol-

ogy, 5,

6 9 -1 0 9 .

Hewstone, M., & B rown, R . J . (1986). C ontact i s no t enough: An in ter-

group perspect ive on the contac t hypothesis . In M. Hew stone & R.

Brow n (Eds.) , Contact and con flict in intergroup encou nters (pp . 1 -44).

Oxford, England: Blackwell .

Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of

Psychology, 47,

2 3 7 -2 7 1 .

Hin ton , G. E. , & Anderson , J . A. (Eds.) . (1989). Parallel models of

associative memory (rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.

Hintzman, D. L. (1986). Schem a abst rac t ion in a mul t ip le-t race mem ory

model. Psychological Review, 93, 4 1 1 -4 2 8 .

Hirschfeld, L. A. (1996).

Race in the making: Cognition, culture, and the

child s construction of human kinds.

Cambridge , MA: MIT Press .

Ho ffm an, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). G ende r stereotypes: Pe rceptio n or

ra t ional iza t ion? Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1 9 7 -

208.

Hogarth , R. M ., & Einhorn , H. J . (1992). Orde r effec ts in bel ief updat ing :

The bel ief-ad justm ent model . Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1-55 .

Hum phreys, M. S. , Bain , J . D. , & Pike , A. R. (1989). Di fferen t ways to cue

a coheren t memo ry system: A theory for ep isodic , semantic , a nd proce-

dural tasks. Psychological Review, 96, 4 1 1 - 4 2 8 .

Humphreys, M. S. , Wi les , 3 , & Dennis , S. (1994). Toward a theory of

hum an mem ory: Data s t ructures and access processes. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences, 17, 6 5 5 -6 9 2 .

3ohnston, L., & Hewstone, M . (1992). Cogn itive models of stereotype

change 3 : S ubtyping and the perceived typ ica l i ty of d isconfi rming group

me mb e rs . Journal o f Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 3 6 0 -3 8 6 .

Johnston , L., Hewstone, M., Pendry , L. , & Frankish , C. (1994). Cog ni t ive

models o f s tereotype change 4 : Mot ivat ional and c ogni t ive in fluences.

European Journa l of Social Psychology, 24, 2 3 7 -2 6 5 .

Jost , J . T. , & Banaj i , M. R. (1994). The ro le of s tereo typing in system-

just i f ica t ion and the prod uct ion o f fa l se consciousness .

British Journal of

Social Psychology, 33,

1-27 .

Jussim, L., & Flem ing, C. (1996). Self-fulfil l ing prop hecie s and the main-

tenance of socia l s tereo types: The ro le of dyad ic in terac t ions and socia l

forces. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes

and stereotyping (pp . 161-192). New York: Gui l ford Press .

Kashima, Y. (1999). Tensor product model o f exemplar-based ca tegory

learn ing . In J . Wi les & T. Darmal l (Eds.) , Perspectives on cognitive

science: Theories, experiments, and foundations, VoL 2 (pp . 191-203).

Stamford, CT: Ablex.

Kashima, Y. (2000a). Co ncept ions of cu l ture and perso n for psychology .

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31,

1 4 -3 2 .

Kashima, Y. (2000b). M aintain ing cultura l stereotypes in the serial repro-

duction of narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,

5 9 4 - 6 0 4 .

Kashima, Y. (2000c). R ecovering Bart le t t ' s socia l psychology of cu l tura l

dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 3 8 3 -4 0 3 .

Kashima, Y. , & Kerekes, A. R. Z. (I994). A d is t r ibu ted mem ory model o f

averag ing phenomena in person impression format ion . Journal of Ex-

perimental Social Psychology, 30,

4 0 7 - 4 5 5 .

Kashima, Y. , Woolcock , J . , & King , D. (1998). T he dynam ics of g roup

impression format ion : The tensor product model o f exemplar-based

social category learning. In S. J. Read & L. C. Miller, (Eds.),

Connec-

tionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp . 71-109).

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Knapp, A. G . , & Ande rson , J . A. (1984). Theory of ca tegoriza t ion based on

dist r ibu ted memory s torage . Journal o f Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 6 1 6 - 6 3 7 .

Krueger, J . (1991). Accen tuat ion effec ts and i l lusory change in exem plar-

based ca tegory learn ing . European Journal of Social Psychology, 21,

3 7 - 4 8 .

Krueger, J . (1992). O n the overest imat ion of be twee n-group d i fferences.

European Review of Social Psychology, 3, 31-56 .

Krueger, J . , & Rothbart , M. (1988). T he use of ca tegorica l and ind iv idu-

a t ing in format ion in making inferences about personal i ty . Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55,

187-195 .

Krueger, J . , & R othbart , M. (1990). Con t rast and accentuat ion effec ts in

category learn ing . Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

6 5 1 -6 6 3 .

Krueger, J., Rothbart , M., & Sriram, N. (1989). Cate gory learning and

change: Differences in sensi t iv i ty to in format ion tha t enhances or re-

duce s interca tegory distinctions.

Journal o f Personality and Social Psy-

chology, 56, 8 6 6 - 8 7 5 .

Kunda, Z . (1990). The case of motivate d reasoning. Psychological Bulletin,

108,

4 8 0 - 4 9 8 .

Kunda, Z., M iller, D. T., & Claire, T. (1990). C om binin g social concepts:

The ro le of causal reasoning .

Cognitive Science, 14,

5 5 1 -5 7 7 .

Kunda, Z ., & Oleson , K. C. (1995). M aintai ning stereotypes in the face of

d isconfi rmat ion : Const ruct ing grounds for subtyping devian ts .

Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565-5801

Kunda, Z. , & Thagard , P. (1996). F orming im pressions from stereotypes,

traits, and beh aviors : A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psycho-

logical Review, 103, 2 8 4 -3 0 8 .

Lakatos , I . (1970). Fals i f ica t ion and the methodology o f sc ien t i f ic research

programmes. In I . Lakatos & A. M usgrave (Eds.) ,

Criticism and the

growth of knowledge (pp . 91-195). Cambridge , England: Cambridge

Universi ty Press.



G R O U P I M P R E S S I O N S A S D Y N A M I C C O N F I G U R A T I O N S 9 9

Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory o f scien-

tific growth. Berkeley : U niversi ty of Cal i forn ia Press .

Linvi l le , P. W., Fischer, G. W. (1993). Exem plar and abst rac t ion models

of per ceive d group va riabili ty and stereotypicality. Social Cognition 11

9 1 -1 2 5 .

Linville , P. W ., Salovey, P., Fischer, G. W. (1986). Stereotyping and

perceived d is t r ibu t ions of socia l characteris t ics : An appl ica t ion to

ingroup-outgroup percept ion . In J . F. Dovid io S. L. Gaertner (Eds.) ,

Prejudice discrimination and racism (pp . 165-208). Orlando , FL:

Academic Press .

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jo-

vanovich .

Luce, R. D. (1959). Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley .

Mac kie, D. M., Ham ilton, D. L , Susskind, J., Rosselli, F. (1996). Socia l

psychologica l foundat ions of s tereo type format ion . In C. N. M acrae , C.

Stangor, M. He ws tone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp.

41-78). New York: Gui l ford Press .

Mackie, D. M., Sm ith, E. R. (1998). Interg roup relations: Insights from

a theoretically integrative approach.

Psychological Review 105

4 9 9 -

529.

Manis , M. (1967). Contex t effec ts in communicat ion . Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology 5

3 2 5 -3 3 4 .

Manis , M., Biem at , M., Nelson , T. F. (1991). Compa rison and expect-

a n c y p ro c e sse s i n h u m a n ju d g me n t . Journal o f Personality and Social

Psychology 61

2 0 3 -2 1 1 .

Manis , M., Paskewi tz, J . R. (1987). Asse ssing psychopathology in

ind iv iduals and groups: A ggregat ing behavio r samples to form overa l l

impressions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 13 8 3 -9 4 .

Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco , CA: Freem an.

Mart in , L. L. (1986). Set / rese t: Use an d d isuse of concepts in impression

format ion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 4 9 3 -5 0 4 .

Massaro , D. W . (1990). The psychology of connect ion ism. Behavioral and

Brain Sciences 13 4 0 3 - 4 0 6 .

Massaro , D. W., Cow an, N. (1993). In format ion processing models :

M i c ro sc o p e s o f t h e mi n d . Annua l Review of Psychology 44 3 8 3 -4 2 5 .

Massaro , D. W., Friedman , D. (1990). Mode ls of in tegra t ion g iven

mul t ip le sources of in format ion . Psychological Review 97 2 2 5 -2 5 2 .

McC lel land , J . L. , McN aughton , B. L. , O'Re i l ly , R. C. (1995). Why

t h e re a re c o mp l e me n t a ry l e a rn i n g sy s t e ms i n t h e h i p p o c a mp u s a n d

neocortex : Insigh ts from the successes an d fa i lu res of connect ion is t

mo d e l s o f l e a rn i n g a n d me mo ry .


4 1 9 - 4 5 7 .

McC lel land , J . L. , Rum elhart , D. E. (1985). Dist r ibu ted mem ory and the

represen ta t ion of genera l and speci f ic in format ion . Journal of Experi-

mental Psychology: General 1 14

1 5 9 -1 8 8 .

McC lel land , J . L. , Rum elhart , D. E. (1986). A d is t r ibu ted model o f

human learn ing and memory . In J . L. McClel land , D. E. Rumelhart ,

the PDP Research Group (Eds.) , Parallel distributed processing: Explo-

rations in the microstructure of cognition: V ol. 2 (pp . 170-215). Cam-

bridge , MA: MIT Press .

McC onnel l , A. R., Liebold , J . M., Sherman, S. J . (1997). Wi th in-target

i l lusory corre la t ions and the form at ion of contex t -dependen t a tt itudes.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 6 7 5 -6 8 6 .

McC onnel l , A. R., Sherman, S. J . , Ham il ton , D. L. (1994). I llusory

corre la t ion in the percept ion of g roups: An ex tension of the

d is t inc t iveness-based account . Journal o f Personality and Social Psy-

chology 67 4 1 4 - 4 2 9 .

McC onnel l , A. R. , Sherman , S. J . , Ham il ton , D. L. (1997). Target

en t i ta t iv i ty : Impl ica t ions for in format ion processing about ind iv idual

and group targets.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72

7 5 0 -7 6 2 .

McG arty , C. (1999).

Categorization in social psychology.

London: Sage.

Mc Gar ty, C., Has lam, S. A., Turn er, J. C., Oakes, P. J. (1993). Il lusory

corre la t ion as accentuat ion of ac tual in terca tegory d i fference: Evidence

for the effec t wi th min imal s t imulus in format ion . European Journal of

Social Psychology 23 3 9 0 - 4 1 0 .

Mc Gar ty, C., Pen ny, R. E. C. (1988). Categorization, ac centu ation and

socia l judgm ent . British Journal of Social Psychology 27 147-157 .

Medin , D. L. , Goldstone , R. L. , Gentuer, D. (1993). Respects for

similarity. Psychological Review 100 2 5 4 -2 7 8 .

Medin , D. L. , Schaffer , M. M. (1978). Contex t theory of c lassi f ica t ion

learn ing .


2 0 7 -2 3 8 .

Mul len , B. , Johnson , C. (1990). Dist inc t iveness-based i l lusory corre la-

tions and stereotyping: A m eta-an alytic integration. British Journal of

Social Psychology 29 11-27 .

Myun g, I . J . , Busem eyer, J . R. (1992). Measure ment -free tes t s o f a

genera l s ta te-space model o f p ro to type learn ing . Journal o f Mathemat-

ical Psychology 36 3 2 - 6 7 .

Nagel, E. (1961). The structure o f science. Ne w Yo rk: Ha rc o u r t B ra c e a n d

World.

Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco , CA: Freeman.

Nosofsky, R. M. (1984). Choice, similarity, an d the context theory of

classification.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory

and Cognition 10 1 0 4 -1 1 4 .

Nosofsky, R. M. (1986). Attention, similarity, an d the identification -

categoriza t ion re la t ionsh ip .

Journal o f Experimental Psychology: Gen-

eral 115 3 9 - 5 7 .

Oakes, P. J., Haslam, A., Turn er, J. C- (1994). Stereotyping and social

reality.

Oxford, England: Blackwell .

Ost rom, T. M., Sedik ides , C. (1992). Out -group homo genei ty effec ts in

natura l and m in imal groups. Psychological Bulletin 112 5 3 6 - 5 5 2 .

Ost rom, T. M., Upshaw , H. S. (1968). Psychologica l perspect ive and

at ti tude change. In A. G. Greenw ald , T. C. Brock , T. M. Ost rom

(Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp . 217-242 ). New York:

Academ ic Press .

Park, B., Hastie, R. (1987). Perception of variab ili ty in catego ry devel-

opment : Instance versus abst rac t ion-based s tereo types. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 53 6 2 1 -6 3 5 .

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergro up contact theory. Annual Re v ie w o f

Psychology 49

6 5 - 8 5 .

Pike , A. R. (1984). Comparison of convohi t ion and mat rix d is t r ibu ted

memory systems for associa t ive recal l and recogni t ion . Psychological

Review 91

2 8 1 -2 9 4 .

Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continu ing group inequality: P iecing

togeth er psychological, social, and cultural forces in social domin anc e

theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 31 191-263 .

Pryor, J . B. (1986). The influence of d i fferen t encoding se ts upon the

format ion of i l lusory corre la t ions and group impressions. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin 12 2 1 6 -2 2 6 .

Read , S. J . , Marcus-N ewhal l , A. (1993). Explanatory coherence in socia l

explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology 65 4 2 9 - 4 4 7 .

Read, S. J., Miller, L. C. (1998). Connectionist models of social rea-

soning and social behavior.

M a h wa h , NJ : E r l b a u m.

Read , S. J . , Vanm an, E. J . , Mi l ler , L. C. (1996). Connect ion ism, para l le l

const ra in t sa t i sfac t ion processes , and gesta l t p rinc ip les: (Re)in t roducing

cogni t ive dynam ics to socia l psychology .

Personality and Social Psy-

chology Review 1 2 6 - 5 3 .

Reed, S. K. (1972). Pattern recognition and categorization. Cognitive

Psychology 3 3 8 2 -4 0 7 .

Rosenthal , R. , Jacobson , L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom:

Teacher expectations and student intellectual development. New York:

Hol t , Rinehart and Winston .

Rothbart , M. (1981). Memory processes and socia l be l iefs . In D. L.

Hamil ton (Ed .) , Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup

behavior (pp. 145-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rothbart , M., Eva ns, M., Fulero, S. (1979). Rec all for conf irm ing events:



94

K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

M e m o r y p r o c e s s e s a n d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p i n g . Journal

o f Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 15 3 4 3 - 3 5 5 .

R o t h b a r t , M . , F u l e r o , S . , J e n s e n , C . , H o w a r d , J ., B i r r e l l , B . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . F r o m

i n d i v i d u a l t o g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n s : A v a i l a b i l i t y h e u r i s t i c s i n s t e r e o t y p e

f o r m a t i o n . Journal o f Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 14 2 3 7 - 2 5 5 .

R o t h b a r t , M . , J o h n , O . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a n d b e h a v i o r a l

e p i s o d e s : A c o g n i t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e e f f e c t s o f i n t e r g r o u p c o n t a c t .

Journal o f Socia l Issues 41

8 1 - 1 0 4 .

R o t h b a r t , M . , L e w i s , S . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . I n f e r r i n g c a t e g o r y a t t r i b u t e s f r o m

e x e m p l a r a t t r ib u t e s : G e o m e t r i c s h a p e s a n d s o c i a l c a te g o r i e s . J o u rn a l o f

Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 55

8 6 1 - 8 7 2 .

R o t h b a r t , M . , S r i r a m , N . , D a v i s - S t i t t , C . (1 9 9 6 ) . T h e r e t r i e v a l o f t y p i c a l

a n d a t y p i c a l c a t e g o r y m e m b e r s . Journal o f Experimenta l Socia l Psy-

chology 32

3 0 9 - 3 3 6 .

R u m e l h a r t , D . E . ( 1 9 8 0 ). S c h e m a t a : T h e b u i l d i n g b l o c k s o f c o g n i t io n . I n

R . J . S p i r o , B . C . B r u i c e , W . F . B r e w e r ( E d s . ) , Theoretical issue s in

reading comprehension

( p p . 3 3 - 5 8 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : E r l b a u m .

R u m e l h a r t , D . E . , S m o l e n s k y , P . , M c C l e l l a n d , J . L . , H i n t o n , G . E .

( 1 9 8 6 ) . S c h e m a t a a n d s e q u e n t i a l t h o u g h t p r o c e s s e s i n P D P m o d e l s . I n

J . L . M c C l e l l a n d , D . E . R u m e l h a r t , t h e P D P R e s e a r c h G r o u p (E d s . ),

Paral le l d i s t r ibu ted processing: E xplora t ions in the microstructure o f

cognition: Vol. 2

( p p . 7 - 5 7 ) . C a m b r i d g e , M A : M I T P r e s s .

S a n b o n m a t s u , D . M . , S h e r m a n , S . J . , H a m i l t o n , D . L . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . I l l u s o ry

c o r r e l a t i o n i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s a n d g r o u p s . Social Cogni-

tion 5

1 - 2 5 .

S c a r b e r r y , N . C . , R a t c l i f f , C . D . , L o r d , C . G . , L a n i c e k , D . L . , D e s f o r g e s ,

D . M . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . E f f e c t s o f i n d i v i d u a t in g i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n

p a r t o f A l l p o r t ' s c o n t a c t h y p o t h e s i s .

Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology

Bulletin 23 1 2 9 1 - 1 2 9 9 .

S c h a c t e r , D . L . , N o r m a n , K . A . , K o u t s t a a l , W . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e c o g n i t i v e

n e u r o s c i e n c e o f c o n s t r u c t i v e m e m o r y .

Annua l Review o f Psychology 49

2 8 9 - 3 1 8 .

S c h a l l e r , M . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . I n - g r o u p f a v o r i t i s m a n d s t a t is t i c a l re a s o n i n g i n s o c i a l

i n f e r e n c e : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f o r m a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f g r o u p s t e r e o -

t y p e s . Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 63 6 1 - 7 4 .

S c h a l l e r , M . , M a a s s , A . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . I l l u s o ry c o r re l a t i o n a n d s o c ia l c a t e g o -

r i z a t io n : T o w a r d a n i n t e g r a t i o n o f m o t i v a t i o n a l a n d c o g n i t i v e f a c t o rs i n

s t e r e o t y p e f o r m a t i o n . Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 56

7 0 9 - 7 2 1 .

S c h u l t z , T . R . , L e p p e r , M . R . (1 9 9 6 ) . C o g n i t i v e d i s s o n a n c e r e d u c t i o n a s

c o n s t r a i n t s a t i s f a c t i o n .

Psychologica l Review 103

2 1 9 - 2 4 0 .

S e m i n , G . , F i e d l e r , K . (1 9 8 8 ) . T h e c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s o f l i n g u i s t ic

c a t e g o r i e s i n d e s c r i b i n g p e r s o n s : S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n a n d l a n g u a g e . J o u rn a l

o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 54 5 5 8 - 5 6 8 .

S e m i n , G . R . , F i e d l e r , K . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e l i n g u i s t i c c a t e g o r y m o d e l , i t s b a s i s ,

a p p l i c a t io n s , a n d r a n g e . I n W . S t r o e b e M . H e w s t o n e ( E d s .) , European

review o f socia l psychology

( V o l . 2 , p p . 1 - 3 1 ) . C h i c h e s t e r , E n g l a n d :

W i l e y .

S h e r m a n , J . W . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . D e v e l o p m e n t a n d m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t io n o f s t e r e o -

t y p e s .

Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 70

1 1 2 6 - 1 1 4 1 .

S h o d a , Y . , M i s c h e l , W . , W r i g h t , J. C . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . I n t u i t iv e i n t e r a c t i o n i s m i n

p e r s o n p e r c e p t i o n : E f f e c t s o f s i t u a t i o n - b e h a v i o r r e l a t i o n s o n d i s p o s i -

t i o n a l j u d g m e n t s . Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 56

4 1 - 5 3 .

S k o w r o n s k i , J . J . , S h o o k , J . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . F a c i l i t a t i o n i n r e p e a t e d t r a i t j u d g -

m e n t s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t r a i t c o n c e p t s .

J o u rn a l o f Ex -

perim ental Socia l Psychology 33

2 1 - 4 6 .

S m i t h , E . R . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . I l l u s o r y c o r r e l a t i o n i n a s i m u l a t e d e x e m p l a r - b a s e d

m e m o r y .

Journal o f Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 27

1 0 7 - 1 2 3 .

S m i t h , E . R . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . W h a t d o c o n n e c t i o n i s m a n d s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y o f f e r

e a c h o t h e r ?

Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychology 70

8 9 3 - 9 1 2 .

S m i t h , E . R . , D e C o s t e r , J . ( 1 9 9 7 ) . Heuristic-systematic and other dual

process models in socia l and cogni t ive psychology: An in tegra tion and

connectionist interpretation.

U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , D e p a r t m e n t o f

P s y c h o l o g y , P u r d u e U n i v e r s i t y .

S m i t h , E . R . , D e C o s t e r , J . ( 1 9 9 8 a ) . K n o w l e d g e a c q u i s i t io n , a c c e s s i b i li t y ,

a n d u s e i n p e r s o n p e r c e p t i o n a n d s t e r e o t y p i n g : S i m u l a t i o n w i t h a r e c u r -

r e n t c o n n e c t i o n i s t n e t w o r k .

Journal o f Personal i ty and Socia l Psychol -

ogy 74 2 1 - 3 5 .

S m i t h , E . R . , D e C o s t e r , J . ( 1 9 9 8 b ) . P e r s o n p e r c e p t i o n a n d s t e r e o t y p in g :

S i m u l a t i o n u s i n g d i s t r i b u t e d re p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n a r e c u r r e n t c o n n e c t i o n i s t

n e t w o r k . I n S , J . R e a d L . C . M i l l e r ( E d s . ) ,

Connect ion is t models o f

socia l reasoning and socia l behavior ( p p . 1 1 1 - 1 4 0 ) . M a h w a h , N J :

E r l b a u m .

S m i t h , E . R ., Z A tr at e, M . A . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . E x e m p l a r a n d p r o t o t y p e u s e i n so c i a l

c a t e g o r i s a t i o n ,

Social Cognition 8

2 4 3 - 2 6 2 .

S m i t h , E . R . , Z ~ a t e , M . A . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . E x e m p l a r - b a s e d m o d e l o f s o c i a l

j u d g m e n t .

Psychologica l Review 99

3 - 2 1 .

S m o l e n s k y , P . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . O n t h e p r o p e r t r e a t m e n t o f c o n n e c t i o n i s m , Behav-

ioral and Brain Sciences 11

1 - 7 4 .

S m o l e n s k y , P . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . T e n s o r p r o d u c t v a r i a b l e b i n d i n g a n d t h e r e p r e s e n -

t a t i o n o f s y m b o l i c s t r u c t u re s i n c o n n e c t i o n i s t s y s t e m s .

Artif icial Intell i-

gence 46 1 5 9 - 2 1 6 .

S r u l l, T . K . , W y e r , R . S . , J r . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . P e r s o n m e m o r y a n d j u d g m e n t .

Psychologica l Review 96 5 8 - 8 3 .

S t a n g o r , C ., L a n g e , J . E . (1 9 9 4 ) . M e n t a l re p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f s o c i a l g r o u p s :

A d v a n c e s i n u n d e r s t a n d i n g s t e r e o t y p e s a n d s t e r e o t y p i n g . Advances in

Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 26

3 5 7 - 4 1 6 .

S t r a n g e , K . R . , S c h w e i , M . , G e i s e l m a n , R . E . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . E f f e c t s o f t h e

s t r u c tu r e o f d e s c r i p t i o n s o n g r o u p i m p r e s s i o n f o r m a t i o n . Bul le t in o f the

Psychonom ic Socie ty 12

2 2 4 - 2 2 6 .

T a j f e l , H . , W i l k e s , A . L . (1 9 6 3 ) . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n a n d q u a n t it a t i v e j u d g -

m e n t .

Bri t i sh Journal o f Psychology 54

1 0 1 - 1 1 4 .

T a y l o r , S . A . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . A c a t e g o r i z a t i o n a p p r o a c h t o s t e r e o t y p i n g . I n D . L .

H a m i l t o n ( E d . ) ,

Cognitive process es in stereotyping and intergroup

behavior ( p p . 8 3 - 1 1 4 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : E d b a u m .

T r a f i m o w , D . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . S i t u a t i o n - sp e c i f i c e f f e c t s in p e r s o n m e m o r y .

Pe r -

sonal i ty and Socia l Psychology Bul le t in 24 3 1 4 - 3 2 1 .

T r e i s m a n , A . M . , G e l a d e , G . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A fe a t u r e - i n t e g r a ti o n t h e o r y o f

a t t e n t i o n .

Cognitive Psychology 12

9 7 - 1 3 6 .

T r i a n d i s , H . C . ( 1 9 9 5 ) .

Culture and social behavior.

N e w Y o r k : M c G r a w -

Hi l l .

T u l v i n g , E . ( 1 9 8 3 ) .

Elements o f ep isodic memory.

N e w Y o r k : O x f o r d

U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s .

T u r n e r , J . C . ( 1 9 8 7 ) .

Redisc overing the so cial group: A self-categorisation

theory. O x f o r d , E n g l a n d : B l a c k w e l l .

U l e m a n , J . S . , N e w m a n , L . S . , M o s k o w i t z , G . B . ( 1 9 9 6 ) . P e o p l e a s

f l e x i b l e i n t e r p r e t e r s : E v i d e n c e a n d i s s u e s f r o m s p o n t a n e o u s t r a i t i n f e r -

e n c e .

Advan ces in Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 28

2 1 1 - 2 7 9 .

U p s h a w , H . S . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . T h e p e r s o n a l r e f e r e n c e s c a l e : A n a p p r o a c h t o s o c i a l

j u d g m e n t .

Advanc es in Experimenta l Socia l Psychology 14

3 1 5 - 3 7 1 .

V a n O v e r w a l l e , F . ( 1 9 9 8 ). C a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n a s c o n s t r a i n t s a ti s f a c ti o n : A

c r i t i q u e a n d a f e e d f o r w a r d c o n n e c t i o n i s t a l t e rn a t i v e .

J o u rn a l o f P e rso n -

ality and Social Psychology 74 3 1 2 - 3 2 8 .

V o l k m a n n , J . ( 1 9 5 1 ) . S c a l e s o f j u d g m e n t a n d t h e i r im p l i c a t i o n s f o r s o c i a l

p s y c h o l o g y . I n J . H . R o h r e r M . S h e r i f ( E d s .) , Socia lpsychology a t the

crossroads

( p p . 2 7 3 - 2 9 4 ) . N e w Y o r k : H a r p e r .

V o n H i p p e l , W . , S e k a q u a p t e w a , D . , V a r g a s , P . ( 1 9 9 5 ) . O n t h e r o l e o f

e n c o d i n g p r o c e s s e s i n s t e r e o t y p e m a i n t e n a n c e . Advance s in Experimen-

tal Social Psychology 27

1 7 7 - 2 5 4 .

W e b e r , E . U . , G o l d s t e i n , W . M . , B u s e m e y e r , J . R . ( 1 9 9 1 ). B e y o n d

s t r a te g i e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s o f m e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d m e m o r y p r o -

c e s s e s f o r m o d e l s o f j u d g m e n t a n d d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . I n W . E . H o c k l e y

S . L e w a n d o w s k y ( E d s . ) , Rela t ing theory and data: E ssays on human

m e m o ry i n h o n o u r o f Be n n e t B . Mu rd o c k

( p p . 7 5 - 1 0 1 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J :

E r l b a u m .

W e b e r , R ., C r o c k e r , J. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n t h e r e v i s i o n o f



G R O U P I M P R E S S IO N S A S D Y N A M I C C O N F I G U R A T I O N S

941

s t e r e o t y p i c b e l i e f s .

J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 4 5 ,

9 6 1 - 9 7 7 .

W i l e s , J . , & H u m p h r e y s , M . S . ( 1 9 9 3 ) . U s i n g a r t i fi c i al n e u r a l n e t s t o m o d e l

i m p l i c i t a n d e x p l i c i t m e m o r y t e s t p e r f o r m a n c e . I n P . G r a f & M . E . J .

M a s s o n ( E d s . ) , I m p l i c i t m e m o r y : N e w d i r e c t i o n s i n c o g n i t io n , d e v e l o p -

m e n t , a n d n e u r o p s y c h o l o g y ( p p . 1 4 1 - 1 6 5 ) . H i l l s d a l e , N J : E r l b a u m .

W r i g h t , J . C . , & M i s c h e l , W . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . A c o n d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h t o d i s p o s i -

t i o n a l c o n s t r u c t s : T h e l o c a l p r e d i c t a b i l i t y o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . J o u r n a l o f

P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 5 3 ,

1 1 5 9 - 1 1 7 7 .

W y e r , R . S . , J r . , & C a r l s t o n , D . E . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . S o c i a l c o g n i t io n , i n f e re n c e , a n d

a t t r i b u t i o n .

H i l l s d a l e , N J : E r l b a u m .

Y z e r b y t , V . Y . , C o u l l , A . , & R o c h e r , S . J . ( 1 9 9 9 ) . F e n c i n g o f f t h e d e v i a n t :

T h e r o l e o f c o g n i t i v e r e s o u r c e s i n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f s t e r e o t y p e s.

J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y a n d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 7 7 , 4 4 9 - 4 6 2 .

ppendix

Group Impression Formation and Information Environm ent Equation 19)

T h e r e a r e f i v e s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s . F i rs t , t h e re i s s o m e i n f l u e n c e o f

p r i o r m e m o r y . W h e n a n o v e l g r o u p i i s j u d g e d w i t h o u t n e w i n f o r m a t i o n ,

t h e j u d g m e n t , J ( G i ) o = M a t c h ( M o , H ) / [ M a t c h ( M o , H ) + M a tc h (M _ o , L ) ] ,

i s a s s u m e d t o b e S o , w h i c h i s a s s u m e d t o b e c l o s e t o t h e n e u t r a l p o i n t o f t h e

s c a l e ( . 5 ). S e c o n d , a l l p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e p i e c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n a r e

r e p r e s e n t e d b y

p

a n d e n . A s s u m e Sp = ( % " h ) / [ ( e p • h ) + ( e p " 1 )] a n d s ~

= ( e~ • h ) / [ ( % • h ) + ( e , • 1 ) ] ( .5 <

Sp

< 1 a n d 0 < s , < . 5 ; s o t h a t s , <

s o < s p ) . T h i r d , b o t h t h e a t t e n t i o n a n d f o r g e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r s a r e a s s u m e d

t o b e I . F o u r t h , a s s u m e t h a t e v e r y p e r s o n i s r e p r e s e n t e d a s r . F i n a l l y ,

a s s u m e t h a t

[ M a t c h ( M 0 , H ) + M a t c h ( M 0 , L ) ] = [ ( e p " h ) + ( e p . 1)]

= [ ( e n ° h ) + ( e n I ) ] .

U n d e r t h e s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s , t h e m e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a f te r t h e

J t h g r o u p m e m b e r i s

M j = M 0 + J p E p + J ( 1 - p ) E ~ , ( A 1 )

w h e r e E p = g l ® r ® p ® x I and E n = g l ® r ® e . ® x~ , and p i s the

p r o b a b i l i ty o f p o s i t i v e e v e n t s a n d ( 1 - p ) i s t h e p r o b a b i l i ty o f n e g a t i v e

e v e n t s . W h e n t h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n is a c c e s s e d b y H a n d L , t h e j u d g m e n t

a f t e r t h e J t h g r o u p m e m b e r i s

J ( G i ) j = M a t c h ( M s , H ) / [ M a t c h ( M s , H ) + M a t c h ( M s , L ) ] ( 8)

= [ (So + J p s e + J ( 1 - p ) s , ] / [ J + 1 ] . ( A 2 )

E q u a t i o n A 2 i s E q u a t i o n 1 9 i n t h e te x t .

W h e n J i s c o n s t a n t , J ( G i ) J a p p r o a c h e s ( so + J s p ) l ( 1 + J ) a s p a p -

p r o a c h e s 1 . W h e n J b e c o m e s v e r y l a rg e , J ( G ~ ) a p p r o a c h e s p s p + ( 1 - p ) s ~ ,

t h a t i s, t h e a v e r a g e o f t h e p o s i t i v e a n d n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . W h e n J i s

r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l a n d p i s c o n s t a n t , t h e c h a n g e o f J ( G ~ ) w h e n J i n c r e a s es

b y 1 i s

J ( G , ) ~ - J ( G , ) j - i = [ p - - (S o - - s , ) l ( s p - - s , ) ] l ( s p - - s , ) ( Y + 1 ) Y . ( A 3 )

N o t e t h a t E q u a t i o n A 3 s h o w s t h a t th i s i s p o s i ti v e ( i .e . , j u d g m e n t b e c o m e s

m o r e p o s i t i v e ) , w h e n p - ( s o - s , ) l ( s , - s , ) > 0 ( sp - s , > 0 ; J > 0) . I t

i s n e g a t i v e o t h e r w i s e .

Stereotype Change Equations 23 and 24)

T h e r e a r e f i v e s i m p l i f y i n g a s s u m p t i o n s . F i r s t, t h e r e i s a s t e r e o t y p e a b o u t

g r o u p i . T h a t i s , w h e n g r o u p i i s j u d g e d i n t e r m s o f I t a n d L w i t h o u t n e w

i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e j u d g m e n t , J ( G i ) o = M a t c h ( M o , H ) / [ M a t c h ( M o , H ) +

M a t c h ( M o , L ) ] , i s a s s u m e d t o b e s o w h e r e . 5 < s o < 1 . S e c o n d , a l l

s t e r e o t y p e - c o n s i s t e n t a n d s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n a r e r e p r e -

s e n t e d b y e c a n d e l , a n d a s s u m e t h a t s c = (e c • h ) / [ ( e c • h ) + ( e c • I ) ] and

s = ( e • h ) / [ ( e • h ) + ( e • ) ] ( .5 <

s c

< 1 a n d 0 < s < . 5 ) . T h i r d , b o t h

t h e a t t e n t i o n a n d f o r g e t t i n g p a r a m e t e r s a r e 1 . F o u r t h , a s s u m e ( P c " r ) = 1

a n d ( P I " r ) = ~" < 1 . F i n a l l y , a s s u m e [M a t c h ( M o , H ) + M a t c h ( M o , L ) ] =

[ (ec . h ) + ( e c . l ) ] = [ ( e . h ) + ( e - I ) ] .

U n d e r t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s , t h e m e m o r y r e p r e s e n t a ti o n a f t e r t h e J t h g r o u p

m e m b e r i s

M j = M 0 + J c E c + J t E t , ( A 4 )

w h e r e E c = g i ® P c ® e c ® x l a n d E I = g l ® P l ® e i ® x i , and J = J c

+ 3 1 ( J c = n u m b e r o f s t e r e o t y p e - co n s i s t e n t s t im u l i , a n d -/1 = n u m b e r o f

s t e r e o t y p e - i n c o n s i s t e n t s t i m u l i ) .

G r o u p T a r g e t

W h e n t h e t a r g e t i s a g r o u p , t h e re p r e s e n t at i o n , M s , i s a c c e s s e d b y H a n d

L , a n d t h e j u d g m e n t i s

J ( G i ) , = [ ( s o + ( P c " r ) J c s c + ( P I " r ) J : , ] / [ 1 + ( P c " r ) J c + ( P I " r ) J , ]

= [ ( So + J c s c +

r J i s l ] l [ 1 + Jc + r J t ].

( A 5 )

E q u a t i o n A 5 i s E q u a t i o n 2 3 .

erson Target

W h e n t h e t a r g et i s a n i n d i v i d u a l, t h e a c c e s s i n g c u e s i n c l u d e t h e t a r g e t

p e r s o n r e p r e s en t a t i o n , l r r . T h e m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n M s ( E q u a t i o n A 2 ) i s

a c c e s s e d b y H ' = g i ® P ' r ® h ® x I a n d L ' = g i ® P r ® 1 @ x I . B y

m o d i f y i n g E q u a t i o n A 3 , t h e j u d g m e n t i s

J ( G , , P) = [~ ' r s0 + r : ,, /cSc + (P I" P r ) J : i ] / [ ' r r + r ~I c + ( P I " P r ) J , ] ,

( A 6 )

w h e r e ~ 'r = ( r • P x ) = ( P c " P T ) , t h e t y p i c a l i t y o f t h e t a r g e t p e r s o n .

E q u a t i o n A 6 i s E q u a t i o n 2 4 .

Details of the Simulations

I n a l l s i m u l a t i o n s , r e l e v a n t t e n s o r s a n d v e c t o r s w e r e g e n e r a t e d a s f o l -

l o w s . M o is a t e n s o r w h o s e d e m e n t i s a r a n d o m n u m b e r b e t w e e n 0 a n d 1 .

A l l v e c t o r s w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d b y f i r st g e n e r a t in g a 1 0 - e l e m e n t v e c t o r w i t h

a r a n d o m n u m b e r b e t w e e n 0 a n d 1 f o r e a c h e l e m e n t c o n f o r m i n g t o a

s p e c i fi c a t io n , a d d i n g a s m a l l r a n d o m v e c t o r ( l e n g t h = . 1 ) an d n o r m a l i z i n g

i t ( m a k i n g i t s l e n g t h u n i t y ) . T h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s f o r a g r o u p , a g r o u p

m e m b e r , a n d a c o n t e x t w e r e r a n d o m v e c t o r s , g , p , a n d x. A n e w r a n d o m

v e c t o r w a s c o m p u t e d f o r a n e w g r o u p , a n e w p e r s o n , a n d a n e w c o n t e x t .

T h e h i g h a n d l o w e n d s o f a j u d g m e n t s c a l e ( e . g ., a t t it u d e o r s t e r e o t y p e

c o n s i s t e n c y ) , h a n d , w e r e s p e c i f i e d s o t h a t ( h • ) = 0 ; s t i m u l i e h a n d e I



9 4 2

K A S H I M A , W O O L C O C K , A N D K A S H I M A

T a b l e A 1

Distribution of Events Used in the Simulation or the Group Differentiation

G r o u p

L e a r n i n g p h a s e C h a n g e p h a s e

1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

F oc a l g r oup 4 16 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2

Con t e x t G r oup 1 4 16 4 4 16 4

Con t e x t G r oup 2 4 16 4 4 16

a V a l ue o f s , w he r e a n e v e n t ' s s c a l e va l ue i s s/lO.

we re so tha t ( eh h) / [ (eh h) + (eh 1)] = .9 and (e • h) / [ (e • h) + (e l I ) ]

= . 1 .

T o s i mul a t e t he ma i n e xpe r i m e n t , h i gh a nd l ow s t i mul i f o r a r e l a t e d t op i c

we re e rh and e r l , so tha t ( e rh • eh) = ,7 and (e r l • e l ) = .7 .

F or t he s t e r e o t ype c ha ng e s i mul a t i on , 80 s t e r e o t ype - c on s i s t e n t , 10

s t e r e o t ype - i nc ons i s t e n t , a nd 10 s t e r e o t ype - i r r e l e va n t e xe m pl a r s w e r e p r e -

se n t e d i n t he l e a r n i ng pha se . T he spe c i f i c a t i ons f o r s t e r e o t ype - c ons i s t e n t ,

s t e r e o t ype - i nc ons i s t e n t , a nd s t e r e o t ype - i r r e l e va n t i n f o r ma t i on w e r e e c , e ~,

a nd e R , w he r e ( e c • h ) / [ ( e c • h ) + ( ec • 1)] = .9, (ei h)/[ (el • h) + (e • 1)]

= . 1 , a nd ( eR • h ) = ( eR • I ) = 0. The ta rge t per s on represen ta t ion, PT , was

ma de s i mi l a r t o t he g r oup me mbe r s ( do t p r oduc t be t w e e n . 6 a nd . 8 ) .

F or t he g r oup d i f f e r e n t i a ti on s i mul a t i on , e ve n t r e p r e se n t a t i ons , es , w i t h

d i f f e r e n t s c a l e va lue s w e r e spe c i f i e d so t ha t ( es • h) / [ (e s • h) + (es • I)] =

s / 10 , w he r e s t ook a n i n t e ge r f r om 1 t o 9 . T he f oc a l a nd c on t e x t g r oups

w e r e g l a nd g2 , so t ha t ( g l g2 ) = 0 ( f oc a l g r oup = G r oup 1 w i t h s c a l e

va l ue s be t w e e n . 4 a nd . 6, a nd c on t e x t g r oup = G r oup 2 w i t h s c a l e va l ue s

r a ng i ng f r om . 1 t o . 3 o r . 7 t o . 9 ). T h e d i s t r i bu t i on o f e ve n t s f o r t he

s i mul a t i on i s p r e se n t e d i n T a b l e A 1 . T he p e r son r e p r e se n t a t i on w a s c on -

s t r uc t e d fo r G r oup 1 ,

i f

~ l j k (

. 5 t h e p e r s o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n = P t l , s u c h t h a t ( P lj r ) < l ;

o t h e r w i s e , t h e p e r s o n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n = r .

T he pe r son r e p r e se n t a t i on w a s c ons t r uc t e d a na l ogous l y f o r G r oup 2 .

R e c e i v e d M a r c h 5 , 1 9 9 9

R e v i s i o n r e c e i v e d J a n u a r y 3 1 , 2 0 0 0

A c c e p t e d F e b r u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 0 •

N e w E d i to r s A p p o i n t ed 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 7

T h e P u b l i c a ti o n s a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s B o a r d o f t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c ia -

t i o n a n n o u n c e s t h e a p p o i n t m e n t o f f i v e n e w e d i t o r s f o r 6 - y e a r t e r m s b e g i n n i n g i n 2 0 0 2 .

A s o f J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 0 1 , m a n u s c r i p t s s h o u l d b e d i r e c t e d a s fo l l o w s :

F o r Behavioral Neuroscience s u b m i t m a n u s c r i p t s t o J o h n F . D i s t e r h o f t, P h D , D e p a r t -

m e n t o f C e l l a n d M o l e c u l a r B i o l o g y , N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y M e d i c a l S c h o o l , 3 0 3 E .

C h i c a g o A v e n u e , C h i c a g o , I L 6 0 6 1 1 - 3 0 0 8 .

F o r t h e Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied s u b m i t m a n u s c r i p t s t o P h i l li p L .

A c k e r m a n , P h D , G e o r g i a I n s ti tu t e o f T e ch n o l o g y , S c h o o l o f P s y c h o l o g y , M C 0 1 7 0 , 2 7 4

5 t h S t r e e t, A t l a n t a , G A 3 0 3 3 2 - 0 1 7 0 .

F o r t h e Journal of Experimental Psychology: General s u b m i t m a n u s c r i p t s t o D . S t e p h e n

L i n d s a y , P h D , D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c to r i a , P . O . B o x 3 0 5 0 , V i c t o r ia ,

B r i t is h C o l u m b i a , C a n a d a V 8 W 3 P 5 .

• F o r Neuropsychology s u b m i t m a n u s c r i p ts t o J a m e s T . B e c k e r , P h D , N e u r o p s y c h o l o g y

R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m , 3 5 0 1 F o r b e s A v e n u e , S u i t e 83 0 , P it t s b u r g h , P A 1 5 2 1 3 .

• F o r Psychological Methods s u b m i t m a n u s c r i p ts t o S t e p h e n G . W e s t , P h D , D e p a r t m e n t o f

P s y c h o l o g y , A r i z o n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , T e m p e , A Z 8 5 2 8 7 - 1 1 0 4 .

M a n u s c r i p t s u b m i s s i o n p a t t e r n s m a k e t h e p r e c i s e d a t e o f c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e 2 0 01 v o l -

u m e s u n c e r ta i n . C u r r e n t e d i t o r s , M i c h e l a G a l la g h e r , P h D ; R a y m o n d S . N i c k e r s o n , P h D ; N o r a

S . N e w c o m b e , P h D ; P a t r i c i a B . S u t k e r, P h D ; a n d M a r k I . A p p e l b a u m , P h D , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w i ll

r e c e iv e a n d c o n s i d e r m a n u s c r i p t s t h ro u g h D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 00 0 . S h o u l d 2 0 0 1 v o l u m e s b e c o m -

p l e t e d b e f o r e t h a t d a t e , m a n u s c r i p t s w i l l b e r e d i r e c t ed t o t h e n e w e d i t o r s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n

2 0 0 2 v o l u m e s .

Documents

Kashima, Woolcock, & Kashima 2000