DOCUMENT RESUMEo 4

ED; .2376 , ' CG pi7 117

Silka, LindaPerceptions of st'ability and Chan9e inOthers andSelf.Aug p , /

18p.; Paper presented at the Annual Convention of theamerican Psychological AssOciation (91st, Anaheim,ACA, August' Z6-30, 1983) . 4.

Reports Research/Technical (?43) --Speeches/Conference

LPapers (150) /

4

EDRb PRICE FOl/PC01 Plus Postage. ../

DESCRIPTORS Attitude Change; College Students; Evaluatixe.Thinkin; Higher Education; Indiv4dual ii,....

Characteristics) 4Intuition; *Personatity./Change;.Self:Airaluation (Individuals); *Social Cognition

IDENTIFIERS *Persob Perception; *Stability (Personal), / 4

ABSTRACT'Research in. the area of person perceptiWon has been

dominated by the assumption that people seek_stable trait informationand view others as highly consistent. To examine whether perceiverswould' ha e difficulty in 'thinking of ways that peopl.,ghavg,changed,and eporting instances of such change, 120 coil gelstudekts wereasked to complete Short essays in Ighich they reporied areas ofconstancy and of change in their bgst-friends and n themselves.,

Overall, the most 'frequent reference was to trait. attributes, wilichili

Resillts showed change judgments, were eqeally. as f equent as judgments'of sameness, and this was true in judging others as well as self.,

accounted for 40 percent of all judgmentsch!judgments weresignificantly more likely when describing areas( of constanc ratherthan change, and. when describing a friend rat4er than self. Subjectswere more.likely to refer to constancy in interests, aryl more likelyto refer to changes in goals and maturation han to constancy in thi$area. The redUlts provide clear evidence of/the richness anddiversity of'intuitive judgments of change/in persons. (JAC)

./

/ I.

AUTHOR

PUB DATE. N O T E . )

PUB%TyPE

1

/

****i************************* *********************** ***************Reproductions supplied by EDRb are the best that

from the original .document.******************************************************

an be made,*

***4**ft.*********,-

C.)

Perceptipns of Stability and Change in Others and SelfPt

Linda Silica

Uniyersity of Lowell

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE ,OF EDUCATION .

EDUCATION4L RESOURCES IN FORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

15(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

! Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated In this docu-ment do not necessarily represent of ficial.NIEposition or policy.

as

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATF,RIAL HAS I3EEN,GRANTED

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Paper presented at the 1983 American Psychological Associationmeeting in Anaheim, California.

1 AbstAct

Research in the area of perOon perceiktion 'has bee doMinsetect:

1 N

+

:'. i , .

by the assumption. that people seek staple trait in ormation"a,._.3 4 .. . ,

/ view others as highly consistent. This a8sUmPtion implies, at( .

, ..,

perce ivers will .have cliff iculity in thiliking of ways that personsd

- .

have charige sand in reporting instances - of sucA change. Whive ver

:the- results of the present study, in which peoples were ::asked to

reporV areas_ of constancy and bf change in themselves and others,

ast doubt -on. thisassumption.. IntUitive judgments of change 14.n

, self and oth'erslere found to 'readily' occur' however; aspects ofp,

personality. described as changing differed 'somewhat , from thosee

aspects desCribed as,Stable.

.4

., In the area of person perception a-primary focus has been the

phenomenon of staality in-person judgments. It has been widely

assumed within the field that perceive'rs generylly form highly7

stable judgments sch09521-Heider,'1958; Ap.schel, 1973), /and

that perceivers attend most closely to those aspects of person

information that areof valusin termsof.assessing stable,( ,

underlying characteristi'cs (Heider, 1958; Jones & Davis,11 5; Jones &

Nisbett; 101). Impressions are believed to be readily formed, Often

on'the basis of little information; and yet once ford are believe iv

to be tpritcLously held and Yhighly. 'retistatt, to change (Cantor &,*

Misdhel,'1979J Jones &dOethals, 1971!f Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rose,,

1977). Because OfIthe percei'ed centralAty of these stable, traitlike

judgments, much of the recent-work has been directed toward

examining-those'cognitive processes' which-presumably maintain and

support the perception of others as stable entities (cf. Hastie,

'Ostrom, Ebbesen, Wyer, Hamilton, & Carlston 1980; Higginst Herman,&

-'2anna 1981).

Yet while the perceDtion of persons has been construed largely.

as a search for stable, traitlike information, outside the person

perception area 'emphasis has been' placed 011 person change.: Outside

person perception there,. is evident concern with.how and how much

people change. Although intefest in person change is evident across,%

a variety Of area in psychology, it is perhaps most salient inA

clinical and developmental psychology. Those in clinical psychology

have become increasingly concerned with issues of how and when change

occurs as a result'of therapeutic intervention.

f

Widespread

Silka

2,

professional disagreement, coupled with empirical work which has-1

failed to support professional percepticn& ofttherapeutid effedtiveness,/-

has led to the reconsideration of basic issues or.therapeutic change

(Ervin, 1980; Garfield, 1981; Goldfried, 1980; Smith & Glass;,'19171

Wachtel; 1977; Wolpe, 1981). While witilin the clinical field, interest

in person change ds generally related to interest in the Consequences

of an intervention, in developmental psychology interest :is, often

expressed in more gradual change. 'Students of developmental chanie

. address issue's. of progreSsidi that 'eflect the gradual accumulation

of change duesto added years of living and experiende. How is a'

ten year old diffirent from a five year old? In what ways is someone

at midlife differeht from what he or she was' like in early adulthood?

What changes does later l'i'fe britg? And, as in clinical psychology,,

a number of interesting conflict& have'developed surroundi.ng issues

of stability versus change (cf. Block, 1981;,Brim &Kagan, 1980I"

Costa & McCrae, 1980). These ongoing controversies clearly reflect

the centrality of issues of person change. 1.

''rIn sharp contrast to developments in other areas, reuearch

in person perception As not donsidereil 'judgments of change; in. .

1

A

facteperhhps just the opposite has occurred in the area., Instead

of a concern with intuitive judgments of change, it has' been

argbed that people essehtialliseb'each other. as unchangeable- -that

at base intuitive perceivers are thorough-going trait theorists

Al,(Cantor& Mischel, 1979; Ebbesen, 1981; Mischel, 1968): At

it has been asserted that.this is due to' motivational

cauberlPervin, 1978) and sometimes as a result

, Silka

3,

of specific cognitive mechanisms (NisbItt &-Ross, 19801 Ross, 15771

Taylor *Crocker 1 81), but inther case peOple argil b4ieved to

be relatively insen itive t new infor ation'.and.reiatively unlikely

to alter their th ries, e acceptance of. this conception .of

person perception as a :rnservative", trai -dori.._ated apprpagh

has :been widespread./

When this aSsumption of constancy is juxtaposed against the

gat ,interest in person change in other areas, the question is

raised of whether intuitive perceivers sh9w an absence of interest,

}ri and judgments of person change. It might be Expected that;,

,\ A

)perceivers areconcernedAvith change', perhaps in MuchNthe:same.

way, as are psychologists. It is quite possible that-inCativei

judgments of 'person change are common and-are of certtral,impor,taricer.

-whenever more than brief relationships and interactions.are

considered,: /-Yet these dudgment have' remained Unnotided by the

4

person percepticin community.

In the,present'studi we turn to.the.basic,quegtion of-whether

perceivers make intuitive judgments of person' change, Clearly

a fundamental issue arising from recenttheorizingabouithed.

predominance of 'cOnsiste;ne, udgments in person:perception.... This

&s ,one' in a series p studi investigating int itive Judgments

of change. In other wor$ (Silka,,Note 1) we h've begin a

i.e4Xamination of the research that maylrhave 4litribUteeto the

widespread belief that people largely heck out and 'perceivet

App) sistpncy. 'We have also begun te;look at various ,processes

that may influence intuitive' judgments. of Chang°, i4ilka, 1981).

4

r"

4

SilksI ' 4'

The present study,4egin,s with the simple :premise that if people...:

focusl'on tracts, view )ieis as, highly' consistent, and form stable

impressions, they'will have great difficulty. inythiniqnkbf Ways,

that other peiSple have changed. Thip will become apparent, for.

.,,b1,.A(asked to 4escribechangeb they will list fewer itdit than when

asked to describe, areas of sameness. To test/for this 5bility.in the current study open-ended essays written,on issues pf constancy

_ ,

and issues Of.dhange, were analyzed for relative frequencies of

referenceib to Ch6ge and references. to constancy. 'Consideration..

P , .: , ..was given not only to th-e relativefrequency of such judgment? but.,,

, s / ,

also to gdsibl,e area*, differences in per6 e tristicsn cha..4%

.

. el

intuitiyely,described 'as saving changed or .remained the same.i..

.In addition'to inves-egatinftAludgments o person change, the

t

study altle investigat d. bidgments of eel change. perceptions.:

..., .,

of.41f change were i cludedbecause'bflheir importance an-maw. . . .,.

.

ateas.. In both developmental and clinical'pekchology:there has,

been considerable interest in the consequences for the self of change

(cf. i4m &1Kagan, 140). There also has peen- considerable,

I

controversy abo4 when assessment of self change occur* (cf. Garfield,3.

..

,

1981). 4)

is. not clear how perceptions of self change night

)differ froM perceptions of change4iA others. Early person perception

watc,'`sparticularly in the attribu.Ln area, suggestedjthat.the'\.... '

precool; of ilakinself attributions is quite diffprent'than

making attri4utiOns for others (Jones & Nisbett, 19714 Nisbett &

Valins, 1971). However recent social cognition work ha6 focuselt

..

Silks

k C'.

on cert iri Similarities ,be wAnNthe processes underlying judgments

. .

of thers "and judgments of'self (Kuiper & Derry, 1981: Markus,

1977; Rogei, 1981):. Thus, judgments of change in self may be

,

quite similar to :dr quite differetrom intuitive judgments of

change in othei.s.

Method

-Subjects. One hundred and twenty general ,psychology students

'participated in partial fufiillment of course requirements.,

4

Participants were randomly ass4ed, to one of four orders of essay=

writing conditions: c

Procedure. Participants were informed'that the purpose

the study was to investigate various aspects of person perception.

They were told that they would ;be armed to write four short essays

on :this general topic. Each subjec -wrote two essays abbut

his/her bbst friend, one describing the ways the best friend had1

chaxiged in the lastfew years and ono. describing the ways in which

his/her best,fiend was "still pretty much the same as he/stie

was a few years ago. Each participant also wrote'two essays about.10

him/herself 'ond describing changes and one'outlinipg points of

constancy. The essay order was randomly,varied such that one-

quarter of thsesubjects wrote one.of these four essays first.. ,Apbjedts

were not informedof thd specific nature of the subsequent. essay'

topieS. until:completing the initial essay. For the purposes of

the prebent study, only the first essay written by each participant

was included In the final'analysis. These'essays were subjected

toa content analysis. Base& on pretests with in earlier, sample,

pretested categories of response items were emityed to analyze essays.

Results

An analysis of number of judgments in each area was first

completed. As Table 1 shows,change judgments were equally as

frequent as judgments of sameness, and this,was true in judging

others and in judging self. A test for significance showed no

sig nificant difference as a function Cf essay type. Participariti

were equally adept at pointing to areas of change as describing

areas of constancy. On the average 4.11 judgments were made.4*

The number of .judgments made ranged frdm one tq elevens In all, 93

,

judgments were imade,238 describing areas of change and 255 detailing14

areas of constancy. Because the overall number of items was

comparable in the various conditions, it as possible to directly

compare judgments. in terms of area of persocharacteristice

described. As is evident in Table 2, several different categories

of judgments were compared. v.These categorips summarized' the major

, ,

kinds of items described, and all but'29,judgments could be'placed

in one,of the pretested categories. Overall, the most frequent

reference was to trait attributes. Comments in this area

accounted for 400 of all judgmen'ts. Such judgments wore significantly

more like ,3y, howovor, when describing areas of'constancy than

whon describing areas of change (X=4.3, pe.05).and When d.e cribing.

the another rather than the self (x a3.8, p<.05). Judgments of

constancy also departed from judgments of change with regard to

which of the various categories was next moot common: Whothei'

referring ,to self or other, in describing areas of constancy,

subjects were more likely to refer to constancy in'interests than

Silica

to Otanges in interests with Yates 20.89, p<.05).

When referring to changes subjects -(both ing selves and

others) were more likely. to refer to changes.in goals and maturation

0

than to .constancy in this area (7C = 22.0, K.05). amments about

cons ancy and change aloe, occurred in several other areas, as can..

be seen in Table 2, but ins these categories such judgments were

equally common across all essay conditions..

1

, .( "Discussion,

Th present study provides clear evidence'of the richness

4 4*

and div rsity of intuitive judgments of change in person'e.

Participants rphdily made judgments of change,. not only about

others, but alto about.themselven. The judgments ranged from440-

obviously transient characteristics to characteristics thato

might clearly be considered stable and central. It is true that

perception of .change occurred in slightly different arean than

perdeptions of constancy, although again there wan nubstantial

elkerlap. Insayn written about change wore more likely to

describe.changea in cuCh person characteriatimaa goals and

maturity, -whereas essays written about areas-of constancy were

more 11 ely to focus on constancy. in Interestn. Yet both groups

made t 3 majority of commenta'about trait attbibutes.4

And although It might have been' argued that change judgmenta

would be made only about relatively peripheral nupeoto of

functioning, the present study doe's not support ouch an assertion.

Both change judgments and judgment4 of cobstancy occurred in areas

that have traditionally boon considered rather central to

personality functioning (e.g., attitudes, values, and trait

attrIbutes)6 10

Silka

8

Some might argue that the present results which reflect high

fre4uencies of change percapti s are representative only of this

particular population. That is people in their college years may

be undergoing rapid change quite' at odds with the redgeed amount

of change people experience at later points in life. According

to this view, in other age groups the relative proportiotc of change

to stability judgrvnts would be quite different. Although'it is4

clearly the case that the particWants in't.his study were un4ergoing.

Significant change, and perhaps mom than might occur later, change

may be more comma, across the lifespan than is oftemsuppoued.

Further research would bel'needed to invostigat4th6 generality

of the findings described here. Howovor, itio iMportnnt to consider

the possibility that the!porception that intuitive judgments of change

areNenorally limited toj a few brief period may represent Amply

the name assumption among researchern in the person perception area

.that stability judgments dominate the poruon perception process.

11.

11

Silka

9

Reference Notes

1. Silka, L. Traits vs, the inference of changel A classic

-study re-examined.. Paper to be presented at the Eastern

Psychological Annociation meeting, Philadelphia April, 1983.

References

Englewdod'Cliffs, N.J.I PrentiCe-

Hall, 1952.

Bldbk, J. Scime.endurinR and consequential structures of personality.

In A.I. Rabin (Ed.) Further explorations in personality.' dew .

,.;,S1h

Yorks 'Wiley-Interscience 1981.

Silka

10

.

Brim, O.G.i & Kagan, -J. (Eds.):ConStanty and.change ihAuMan.

development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980..

Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. Prototypes in person perception}..

L. Berkpwit4jEd.), Advances in .experimental 'soc).A1 psychology,

NevvYorks Academic Press, 1979..

Costa, P.T.e Jr., & McCrae, R.R. Still stable after all'these years:

Personality'as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In

P.B. Baltes & 0.G. -Brim (Eds.), Life-span development and

behavior. (Vol. 3). New Yorki-Aceemio.Press, 1980,,

Ebbdsen, E.B: Cognitive processes in inferences about a person's

personality. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & Zanna (Eds.),

Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.':

Lawrence,Erlbaum, 1981.

Ervin, E. Psychoanalytic the*rapys The Eysenck argument. American

Psychologist, 1980, 11, 435-443,

Garfield, S.L. Psychotherapy& A 40 year appraisal. American

Psychologist,.1981, 16, 174-183.

_Goldfried M.R. Toward the delineation of therapeutic change.

principles. American Pslchologist, 1980, 31, 991-999.

1.3

a Silka

11

Wyer, Hamilto4P.

CarlSton, D,E..(Eds.),'Person memory: The bognitive-,45isThf.

social perception. Hillsdale, N.J.: LaWreligp Erlbaum,

Heider, F. The psychology of interperirsonal relations. New York:

1958.

Higgins, E.P., HermanC.P., & Zanna, NL P. (Eds,), Social cognition:

ThQLnImiLsymp2fAmne Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.

Jijnes, E,E1, & K.E. From acts tb dispositions:, The attribtktionf.

process in person

experimental soc

1965,

perception, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

al psychology Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press,4

Jones E.E., 4 Nisbett, R.E., The actor and the'observer: Divergent

perceptionslof the causes of behavior. In E.E. Jones, D.E.

Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.),

/Attribution: Perceiv* g_.the causes of behavior. Morristown, -N.J.:

GeneralLearning\Press, 1971.

Kuiper, N.A., & Derry, P.A. The self as a cognitre prototype: An

\ Nt

.application to person perception and depression. In N. Cantor &

Kihlstrom (Eds.),. Personality, Cognition, and social interac

Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1981.

Markus, H. Self-schemata and processinginformatpn about the self..

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 14-63-78,

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.

Mischel, W. Continuity and change in personality, American /

Psych41.ogi&t 1973, 28, 1012 -1018.

14

& Rosi, L.D. Human inference,

shor,Comings of social Judgment. Century Series in P76*ology../

Englewood Clif0, )N.J.s Prentice-Hall, 1980.

vNisbett R E., &-Valins, S. Perceiving tie causes of one's own.

`behavior, In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H.Kelley, R.E.

Silka

'12

Strategies and

Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.) A9ributions Perceiving

1./N-the cause of behavior, Morristown, N.J.s Gener, arning Press;

1971.

Pervin, L.A. Current controversies and issues in personality.

New Yorks Wiley, 1978.

Rogers, T.B. A model of the self as an aspect of the hilman information

processing system. In N. Cantor & J.F. Kihlstrom (Eds.),

Personality, cognition, and social interaction.. Hillsdale, N.J.s

Lawrence Erlbaum,--1981.

Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings* Distortions

in the attribution process." In L. 'Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vdi, 10). New Yorks Academic

Press, 1977.

Silka, L. Effects of limited recall of variability on intuitive

judgments of change. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 1981, 40, 1010-1016.

Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome

studies, American Psychologist, 1977, 124'752-76W.

Taylor, S. & Crocker, J. 'Schematic basis of social information

prOcessing. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.),

Social cognitions The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, N.J.:

LaWrence Erlbaum, 1981.

15.

,Silica.1

, 13

Wachtel, P. psychoanalysis and behavior therapy. New Yorks

Basic Books, 1977.

Wolpe, Js Behavicr therapy vs. psychoanalysis. American Psychologist,

1981, 16, 159-164,.

Jn

s-\

PersontJudged

.41

y.

C7

e.

Silka.

14

Table 1

Mean Number' of. Change and Constancy Judgments

, 0

Type of Judgment

Change Constancy

Other 3.8 4.5(30) (30)

Self 4.1 4.0(30) (30)

17

p

Table 2

Silka

15

Relative Frequencies-of Judgments of Various Categories

Area Type of Judgment

Other-Same Other-Changed

Goals and 12 24maturity

Attitudessandvalues' 7

Intellectual skillsand abilities

Feelings towardothers

Physical

11i

2

7

characteristics 8 9

Interests 24 6

Trait attributes 67 44

18

Self-Same Self-Changed

10 42

.8 5

10 10

14 13

)

9 8

15 1

45 39