RSITY LI IEBRARIS

MW“HHIIIHINUHUHHWWIN HIHUW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A Functional Utility Model
Of Cognitive Complexity

presented by

Barbara Ann Woike

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Psychology

 

 

MM

Major professo

Date 11/13/92

 

MSU it an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘ 0-12771

g.

I

LIBRARY
Michigan State
UnIversIty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove We checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ifiifi.

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Inunution
owns-9.1

A FUNCTIONAL UTILITY MODEL

OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY

BY

Barbara Ann Woike

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1992

ABSTRACT

A FUNCTIONAL UTILITY MODEL
OF COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY

BY

Barbara Ann Woike

This study investigated the impact of affective
experiences linked to implicit motives on the complexity
with which individuals process social information. It was
predicted that two dimensions of cognitive complexity serve
different functions that allow perceivers to attain
motivational satisfaction. Two general hypotheses were
tested. The type hypothesis predicted that the arousal of
the power motive would be linked to more differentiated
processing, whereas the arousal of the intimacy motive
would lead to more integrated processing. The level
hypothesis predicted that subjects would use more simple
complexity when there was no incentive to understand the
information thoroughly and use more elaborated complexity
when there were a reason for careful processing.

Power- and intimacy-motivated women and men were asked

to recall vividly either an event that led them to feel very

happy (i.e., one that led to motive satisfaction) or a
common, everyday experience (as a control). Subjects were
told that they were selected for the experiment because they
were in the process of developing skills related to either
power or intimacy that would lead them to be successful
later in life. Subjects then viewed a videotape of two
students conducting a peer interview and were asked to think
about the targets in terms of either power- or intimacy-
related abilities. After subjects viewed the tape, they
were asked their impression. These impressions were
analyzed for the simple and elaborated forms of
differentiation and integration.

Results showed that power- and intimacy-motivated
subjects in the Positive Arousal/ Congruent Information
condition used more differentiation and integration
respectively and more simple complexity than elaborated
complexity, generally. These findings are discussed in
terms of the functional utility of the four kinds of

cognitive complexity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My dissertation has benefitted greatly from the
guidance and assistance of others. First, Joel Aronoff
served as Chair of my Dissertation Committee and was
instrumental in helping me work through problems at various
stages of the study. I am grateful for his prompt comments
and suggestions. Many of my ideas about cognitive
complexity have grown out of our conversations.

Larry Messé was able to provide insightful comments
that greatly improved the quality of this study. I am
especially grateful for his thorough and prompt feedback
throughout the project and his availability to answer
questions on a moments notice.

Galen Bodenhausen provided insightful comments which I
believe increased the quality of my dissertation and helped
me anticipate some of the issues I must deal with as I
continue this line of work.

Linda Jackson also provided insightful criticisms that
have improved this document as well as helped me clarify my

thinking about my future work in this area.

iv

I am indebted to many undergraduates who helped with
the formidable task of coding the experimental materials and
the miscellaneous chores involved in carrying out this kind
of study. Without the help of Chris Adams, Molly Bast,
Kevin Candela, Steve Dean, Brian Downey, Chris Dureno, Eric
Fertuck, Traci Hartwell, Amy Kief, Steve McEldowney, Bruce
Millman, James Nelms, Tom Osier, Katy Rudolph, Kim Salstrom,
Eric Sauer, Mike Schmidt, Camille Tower, and Felicia Wilson,
this study would not have been possible.

Finally, I am grateful to Will Moseng and Joan Penfield
for the support and encouragement while I was working toward

completing my degree.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.........................................Viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...................... ...... . ..... 1
What are Implicit Social Motives?....................7
Selecting Implicit Social Motives: Power versus
Intimacy..................... ..... .............11
The Role of Cognitive Complexity....................16
The Type Hypothesis: Differentiation versus
Integration............................. ..... ..17
Evidence for the Type Hypothesis....................24
The Level Hypothesis: Simple versus Elaborated
Complexity.....................................36
Evidence for the Level Hypothesis...................38
The PrOposed Experiment and its Predictions.. ...... .42
CHAPTER 2: METHOD.......................................45
Overview of the Procedure.. ..... ...... ...... ........45
Subjects.................... ................... .....46
The Initial Testing Session.........................47
Selection of Power and Intimacy Motivated Subjects..49
Procedure of the Experimental Session.... ..... ......50

The Selection of the Impression Task.......... ...... 54

vi

Videotape Presentation of Target Persons...........56
Design.............................................57
Coding the Impressions ............................ .58
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS.....................................60
Overview of the Results............................60
Analysis of the Participant Information
Questionnaire.................................61
Content Analysis of the Responses to the Life
Experiences Questionnaire... ......... .........63
Testing the Hypotheses.............................69
Planned Comparisons...... ............. . ....... .....72
Simple Effects Tests........ ........ . ........ ......77
A Summary of the Findings........ ..... .............87
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION.. ........ ........................89
REFERENCES.............................................103
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT MATERIALS......................113
APPENDIX B: OUTLINE OF THE CATEGORIES OF COMPLEXITY
CODING MANUAL.....................................122

APPENDIX C: ADDITIONAL ANALYSES.......................130

vii

LI ST OF TABLES

Reported happiness as a function of motivation and
information condition............. ...... .............62
Power imagery as a function of motivation and arousal
condition............................................65
Intimacy imagery as a function of motivation and arousal
condition............................................67
Differentiation (Diff.) and integration (Int.) as a
function of sex, motive, arousal condition, and
information condition................................76
Males in the positive arousal condition: Type of
complexity as a function of motivation...............79
The Neutral Arousal/Congruent Information Condition:
Types of complexity as a function of motivation......82
Males in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent Information
condition: Type of complexity as a function of
motivation...........................................84
Females in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent Information
condition: Type of complexity as a function of

motivationOOOOOOCOOOO.....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.86

viii

INTRODUCTION

Theory and research in personality suggest that
motivation is at the root of many complex patterns of
affect, thought, and behavior (e.g., Aronoff & Wilson, 1985;
McClelland, 1985). According to McClelland (1985),
motivational states involve an affective readiness to engage
in intrinsically rewarding behavior. By considering these
affective states as mediators of cognitive processes, it is
possible to understand how specific motivational states
influence the cognitive processing of social events. In
this dissertation, I suggest that affective experiences
related to different social motives affect the kinds of
cognitive complexity people use to process social
information. In particular, I predict that different kinds
of complexity serve specific functions that allow
individuals to achieve motivational satisfaction.

For decades, psychologists have attempted to identify
the bases for variations in the complexity with which
individuals construe people, objects, and topics (e.g.,
Harvey, Hunt, & Schroder, 1961: Schroder, Driver, &

Streufert, 1967: Streufert & Streufert, 1978). An event

2

that one person views in a relatively simple fashion may be
viewed with a good deal of complexity by someone else, just
as the same individual may form a simple construal of a
person on one occasion and a complex one on another.

Theorists of many perspectives (e.g., Kelly, 1955;
Paulhus, 1991; Pratt, 1991; Schroder, Driver, & Streufert,
1967: Woike & Aronoff, 1992a) have suggested that cognitive
complexity is an important aspect of social cognition which
may serve many purposes that are integral to psychological
functioning. Cognitive complexity may provide a deeper,
more thorough understanding of the social environment (e.g.,
Woike & Aronoff, 1992a). Complex thinking may also allow
perceivers to have more prediction and control through a
richer understanding of both the nature of a given situation
and their possible courses of action in it (cf., Kelly,
1955). And, perceivers also may become more involved in
situations and events through complex thinking; and, this
greater involvement can serve a variety of functions
depending on the nature of the situation (cf.,
Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Hence, functional utility may be a
basis for explaining the variability in the complexity of
cognitive processing that a person engages in across
situations and the complexity level of different observers
in the same situation.

Psychologists have been studying cognitive complexity

for decades and have developed a variety of measurement

3
techniques. Woike (1989a, 1989b) reviewed these scoring
systems and found that two kinds of distinctions could be
made within the complexity construct, one of type and the
other of leygl. Both are based on qualitative differences
in how information is structured.

The type distinction is based on a common contrast
within the concept of complexity (e.g., Goldstein &
Blackman, 1978). Two types of complexity are typically
identified: differentiation, which refers to the number of
pieces used to form an impression: and integration, which
refers to the number of connection between those pieces.
The levels distinction is based on the degree of complexity
that is reflected in an impression of a person, topic,
object (Woike, 1989a, 1989b). Two legels of complexity can
be identified. Simple complexity refers to perceiving
different attributes and forming simple links between them,
but not perceiving more complicated and intricate
relationships among and between the attributes of a given
person, topic, or object. By contrast, elaborated
complexity refers to making contrasts and comparisons among
attributes and perceiving dynamic relationships and complex
connections between attributes. That is, elaborated
complexity involves moving beyond the perception of simple
characteristics to the perception of more complex patterns
and relationships within a given stimulus set.

When these two kinds of distinctions are considered

4
together, a typology with four components (called four
qualities here to avoid confusion with the type distinction)

of complexity is created. First, eimple_fiiffieren§ietien

refers to perceiving attributes and characteristics of
stimulus set. Second, einple_integretien involves
perceiving simple connections and exemplars related to
stimulus attributes and characteristics. Third, elebgzeted
differeneieeien refers to perceiving contrasts and
comparisons among the stimulus attributes. Fourth,
e1ebe:ete§_integre§ien involves perceiving dynamic
relationships among the stimulus attributes.

I expected the complexity of cognitive processing to be
linked to motivation in two ways. First, the type of
complexity (i.e., differentiation versus integration) should
be linked to motives that may be met by perceiving things as
separate and conflicting, or as connected and similar. I
suggest that through the perception of separate, different,
and contrasting attributes, differentiation may provide a
means for perceivers to meet needs related to competing
against, having power over, and achieving separation from
other people, objects, and topics. Integration, on the
other hand, may provide a means for perceivers to met needs
related to resolving differences, being connected to and
making contact with other people, objects and ideas through
the perception of connections, similarities, and

interrelationships. Second, the leyel of cognitive

5
complexity (i.e., simple versus elaborated) should be
influenced by the perceiver's degree of motivation to
understand the information. If the perceiver has no
motivation to understand the situation and there are no
situational demands for careful processing of the social
information, then perceivers should use simple complexity to
meet the minimal requirement of forming a social impression.
If, on the other hand, the situation is motive-relevant to
the perceiver and/or the situational demands careful
processing, then perceivers should use elaborated complexity
to gain a more thorough understanding of the situation.

In considering these two hypotheses and the four
qualities of complexity, each quality can be seen as having
its own specific function. First, because simple
differentiation involves perceiving the simple, separate
attributes and characteristics of the stimulus set, it
should generally be used more by perceivers who have no
motivation to gain a deeper understanding of the information
and who do not find it useful to see the connections among
the attributes. Second, simple integration involves
perceiving simple connections and exemplars related to the
stimulus attributes and characteristics; therefore, it
should generally be used more by perceivers who have no
motivation to gain a deeper understanding of the information
and who find it useful to perceive exemplars linked to these

attributes. Third, because elaborated differentiation

6
involves perceiving contrasts and comparisons among the
stimulus attributes, it should generally be used more by
perceivers who have motivation to gain a deeper
understanding of the stimuli and who find it useful to see
contrasting or distinct characteristics among the stimuli.
And fourth, elaborated integration involves perceiving
dynamic relationships among the stimulus attributes:
therefore, elaborated integration should generally be used
more by perceivers who have motivation to gain a deeper
understanding of the stimuli and who find to useful to see
connections or similarities among the stimuli.

Thus, Woike (1989a) and Woike 8 Aronoff (1992a, 1992b,
1992c) have suggested that these are different qualities of
complexity serve different functions. The purpose of this
study is to investigate if these four kinds of complexity
are linked to those specific functions. A clear definition
of implicit motives is key to understanding how these
affective states can mediate these four qualities of
cognitive complexity. In the McClelland (1985) model,
affective states are described as facilitating motive-
related behavior in the sense that they provide a kind of
”readiness" to engage in motive-satisfying activities. In
this dissertation, I suggest that these affective states
also facilitate motive-related cognitive processing (i.e.,

motive-related cognitive complexity).

In ! I J' .! E . J H !' ?

In research on personality motivation, McClelland
(1980, 1981, 1985) and colleagues (McClelland, Koestner, &
Weinberger, 1989) have made a distinction between operant
(or implicit) and respondent (or explicit) motives.
According to McClelland, motives reflect dispositions
defined as recurrent preferences for particular qualities of
affective experience (such as "feeling strong" for the need
for power or "feeling close" for the need for intimacy).
Motives tapped through operant measures are "implicit" in
the sense that individuals are usually not aware of them.
For instance, a person may experience recurrent desire to
have impact on others (i.e., the need for Power: Winter,
1973), but typically will not be able to articulate the
desire as such. For instance, the person may explain his or
her behavior of repeatedly interrupting the proceedings of a
meeting as an effort to make important points, not to evoke
a strong affective response (i.e., have impact) on others.
Implicit motives appear to be more closely linked to
particular qualities of affective experience rather than
explicit scripts or schemas related to the self-concept (see
McClelland, et a1. , 1989, for a review).

According to the McClelland (1985) model of implicit
motivation (also see Weinberger & McClelland, 1990), a

sequence of responses is first triggered by a learned cue

8
that represents an opportunity to engage in a
motivationally-arousing experience. This gives rise to an
emotionally charged anticipatory goal state in which the
motive is activated by the situation which, in turn, brings
about an impulse to act, followed by learned behaviors that
lead to a motivational "kick." This "kick" is brought about
by a specific hormone pattern (norepinephrine for n Power
and dopamine for n Intimacy) which corresponds to specific
affective experiences. The role of affect is introduced at
two points in the model: the anticipatory goal state and
the specific affect that follows the sequence of responses.
The anticipatory affect helps the individual stay on track
so that he or she can eventually experience the specific or
goal—related affect (i.e., motivational satisfaction). In
short, the model proposes that people engage in learned
behaviors to bring about a "kick" or affective experience
that is the specific outcome to satisfying a particular
motive.

Individuals engage in specific kinds of behaviors to
bring about these affective outcomes. Through repeated
experience, patterns of behavior develop that allow the
individuals to regularly experience this affect (Weinberger
& McClelland, 1990). However, an alternative to engaging in
specific behaviors that are linked to motivational
satisfaction, individuals may also have developed specific

cognitive strategies to bring about motivational

9
satisfaction. Although the link between implicit motives
and cognitive processes has not been studied extensively,
McClelland et al. (1989) suggest that implicit motives are
in fact related to specific cognitive processes; and, there
is some research to support this claim. For instance,
McAdams and McClelland (1983) found that individuals
remembered words related to their particular implicit
motives more than words that were not motive-related. Woike
(1991) found that the content of individuals' reported most
memorable experiences was related to their specific implicit
motives (e.g., achievement, intimacy).

Moreover, Aronoff and colleagues (e.g., Aronoff 8
Wilson, 1985: Battistich, Assor, Messé, & Aronoff, 1985)
have argued that the variability in cognitive processes can
be explained by identifying the relevant personal and
situational factors. According to this line of reasoning,
when the situation engages the motives of the perceiver,
cognitive processing will be used for goal-directed thoughts
and actions. Woike and Aronoff (1992a) used this
theoretical framework to explain the variability in the
complexity with which perceivers processed social
information. In this study, the use of complexity varied
with the congruency (or match) between the perceivers'
implicit motives and the situation. (This study will be

discussed in greater detail later.)

10

Other research suggests that the interaction of
personality motives (although not necessarily implicit
motives) and situations can lead to a variety of differences
in the cognitive processing of social events. For instance,
Assor, Aronoff, and Messé (1981) demonstrated that the
personality variables of dominance and dependency interact
with situational factors (in this case, the attributes of a
stimulus person) to affect the person perception process.
They found that dominance-motivated perceivers evaluated low
status targets more favorably than high status targets,
while dependency-motivated perceivers evaluated high status
targets more favorably than low status targets. Another
experiment by Battistich and Aronoff (1985) demonstrated
that dominance-motivated people seek information that deals
with the assertive properties of the target, whereas
dependency-motivated people seek information that deals with
the affiliative properties of the target.

This research suggests that individuals do in fact
develop cognitive strategies to select information from the
social environment that may allow them to satisfy their
implicit (as well as explicit) motives. And most central to
the present investigation, complexity may be important in
helping individuals experience motivational satisfaction
(Woike & Aronoff, 1992a). To expand this idea, I suggest
that the specific qualities of complexity may be employed to

satisfy particular implicit motives (Woike & Aronoff, 1992a,

ll
1992b, 1992c). Individuals may use certain types of
cognitive complexity to bring about or maintain motivational
satisfaction. That is, specific types of cognitive
complexity are linked to affective states that correspond to
particular implicit motives and that individuals may engage
in specific kinds of thinking to bring about these affective

outcomes.

In considering the implicit social motives that would
affect the complexity of cognitive processing, it appeared
that two very different implicit motives reflect a contrast
that is central to many perspectives on personality (e.g.,
Angyal, 1951: Bakan, 1966: Chodorow, 1974: Gilligan, 1982;
Leary 1957). This distinction is characterized well in
Bakan's (1966) concepts of agency and communion, which refer
to the need for independence and control and the need for
connectedness and belonging, respectively. Important
aspects of these personal orientations have been studied
extensively in research programs examining the need for
power and the need for intimacy. In this work, the need for
power (n Power) is described as a recurrent preference to
have impact, control, and influence over another person,
group, or the world at large (Winter, 1973), whereas the

need for intimacy (n Intimacy) refers to a recurrent

12
readiness to experience warm, close, and communicative
exchanges with others (McAdams, 1980).

Research on the power motive has shown that power-
motivated individuals tend to experience power arousal as a
feeling of strength, vigor, and energy (McClelland, 1985).
Physiological changes that correspond to the arousal of n
Power include increases in epinephrine and norepinephrine
which seem to be the source of this "energized" subjective
state (McClelland, 1989).

When McAdams (1982, 1985) asked power-motivated people
to describe a "peak" life experience, they told personal and
emotionally-involving stories with themes centered on (a)
enhanced perception of their own physical or psychological
strength, (b) exertion of influence or control over others,
(c) vigorous activity, and (d) an increase in fame or
prestige. Power-motivated individuals engage in behavior
that involves doing things to create and maintain this
positive affective experience of having impact on others.
For instance, they seek out positions of influence such as
holding elected offices, and careers in which they can
direct the behavior of others in accordance with
preconceived plans and with the use of positive and negative
sanctions, such as executive, teacher, or psychologist,
(McAdams, 1990). They are also more forceful, active and
influential in small groups, accumulate more prestigious

possessions, write more letters to newspapers and get into

13
more arguments than those not high in n Power (McAdams,
1990). These behaviors may maintain a state of excitement,
which is the affective "kick" that is pleasurable and
rewarding for the power-motivated individual (Weinberger &
McClelland, 1990).

In contrast, the need for intimacy (n Intimacy) refers
to a recurrent readiness to experience warm, close, and
communicative exchanges with others (McAdams, 1980).
Intimacy-motivated people in states of arousal seem to
experience positive affect close to that of happiness.
There is no research to date on the physiological changes
that correspond to the arousal of n Intimacy, but research
on the need for affiliation (n Aff), which is akin to n
Intimacy, suggests that arousal involves physiological
changes such as increases in dopamine which may contribute
to a "happy/loving" subjective state (McClelland, 1989). In
addition, mutual eye gaze behavior associated with intimacy
may also produce neurohormones that lead to increased immune
functioning and physical well-being (Argyle & Cook, 1976:
McAdams, 1985: McClelland, 1985, 1989).

When McAdams (1982, 1985) asked intimacy-motivated
people to describe a "peak" life experience, they described
personal and emotionally-involving experiences centered on
(a) interpersonal interaction, (b) increases in
loving/liking or emotional bonds between people, (c)

communication and sharing with others, (d) sympathy and

14
showing concern for others, and (e) touching and physical
closeness. Intimacy-motivated individuals engage in
behavior that involves being in a state of happiness and
togetherness or oneness with others rather than geing things
to force intimacy with others (McAdams, 1985). For
instance, they tend to use the word "we" more, engage in
more eye contact, and make fewer demands on others in group
discussions (McAdams, 1990). They aredescribed by their
friends as being more "natural," and "loving" and less
"dominant." Hence, these behaviors may maintain states of
positive affect that are pleasurable and rewarding to
intimacy-motivated people.

To affectively arouse the power and intimacy motive in
the laboratory, researchers (e.g., McClelland, 1985: Woike
& Aronoff, 1992a, 1992c) have constructed experimental
situations that provide an opportunity to engage in
experiences that bring about the affective states that are
linked to specific kinds of motivational satisfaction. For
instance, Woike and Aronoff (1992a) created experimental
situations in which power- and intimacy-motivated subjects
anticipated interacting with others in ways that were
arousing to their motives. Subjects in the motivationally-
congruent condition were more involved in the experience
than other subjects. In addition, this experimental
manipulation affected the complexity with which they

processed the information in order to understand the

15
situation.

In another experiment, Woike and Aronoff (1992c) found
that when power- and intimacy-motivated individuals were
asked to recall vividly an experience that made them feel
very happy, they wrote stories with power and intimacy
themes, respectively. In other words, happiness was defined
differently for each person. This experimental technique
allows subjects to recall personal and emotionally involving
experiences that led to a sense of happiness and
satisfaction, regardless of what the content of those
experiences might be. The technique allows people to ”self-
arouse" their own motive-related affective state. Thus, the
technique of vivid recall of personal experiences does in
fact seem to induce power- and intimacy-related affect, just
as these techniques have been used to induce more general
mood states (e.g., happiness, good moods) in a general
population of subjects (see Forgas, 1992). But curiously,
positive motive-relevant affect has been shown to be linked
to a more careful processing strategy (e.g., Woike &
Aronoff, 1992a), or what Forgas (1992) calls a metixeted
processing strategy, defined as one designed to achieve
specific, potentially rewarding judgmental outcomes. In
contrast, plain positive affect or "good mood" not
necessarily related to specific implicit motives, has been

shown to be linked to what Forgas (1992) calls a heuristie

16
processing strategy in which subjects simplify and short

circuit more substantive processing of the information.

I] E J E : '!' ; J '!

The ways in which people use the different forms of
cognitive complexity to structure their impressions of
others may be linked to these two very different
motivational states that are related to power and intimacy
(Woike & Aronoff, 1992a, 1992b, 1992c). Cognitive
complexity is expected to be linked to these implicit
motives in two different ways. First, different types of
cognitive complexity may allow individuals to structure
their social experiences in ways that bring about
motivational satisfaction. Motivationally-related affective
states should lead power-motivated individuals to use
cognitive complexity in ways that give them the feeling of
strength and individuality. Intimacy-motivated people
should use cognitive complexity in a way that allows them to
experience feeling close and connected to others.

Second, a higher legel of cognitive complexity may
provide a more thorough understanding of the situation. If
such understanding can help to achieve motivational
satisfaction, then it may be quite useful. By contrast,
lower levels of cognitive complexity may allow individuals

to obtain simplified impressions of the situation when there

17
is no need to understand it more thoroughly to achieve
motivational satisfaction, but when there is still a

requirement for some sort of cognitive response.
T o ' °

The construct of cognitive complexity consists of two
broad cognitive processes: differentiation and integration
(e.g., Goldstein & Blackman, 1978: Schroder, Driver,
Streufert, 1967). Differentiation typically refers to the
number of different aspects an individual perceives in a
given stimulus group (e.g., Schroder, et a1., 1967). The
perception of a social object is developed and formed from
its separate and distinctive qualities. The perceiver takes
a whole stimulus set and separates it into different
attributes, exceptions, comparisons, contrasts, and
restrictions. Hence, the differentiation process involves
special attention to (a) differences rather than
similarities, (b) the ways in which objects and people can
be perceived separately rather than collectively, (c) the
features that can be used to make distinctions between and
among stimulus groups, and (d) the comparisons,
restrictions, and contrasts that can be made within a
stimulus set.

By contrast, integration typically refers to a way of

perceiving and forming impressions that involve the presence

18

of connections or links between differentiated stimuli
(Schroder, et al., 1967; Tetlock & Hannum, 1984). The
integration process involves focusing on similarities
between and within a given stimulus group. The perceiver
takes a stimulus set and forms similarities, extensions, and
elaborations. The integration process is also marked by the
ability to perceive dynamic and causal relations between
objects in the stimulus group. Thus, the integration
process involves special attention to (a) how differentiated
stimuli are related within and between stimulus groups, (b)
relationships between targets and objects, and (c) how
targets and objects influence and affect one another.

Although both differentiation and integration processes
are commonly understood to provide together a richer more
meaningful perception of the social environment, they are
conceptually and operationally very different processes.
Differentiation involves perceiving social objects as
different, separate, independent, and/or opposing. By
contrast, integration involves perceiving social objects as
similar, connected, interdependent, and/or congruous. I
suggest, all things being equal, that differentiation
processes may potentially be linked to a sense of agency,
more so than integration processes, whereas integration
processes may be more readily linked to a sense of communion

than differentiation processes.

19

However, theory and research (e.g., Goldstein 8
Blackman, 1978) maintain that both differentiation and
integration are necessary for complex thinking about a
topic. Using only one of these components predominantly
would not be an adaptive way to process social information
because perceivers may find it useful to see the pieces as
well as the connections between those pieces. Only seeing
pieces or only connections may not be as useful. Therefore,
I expect the differences in type of complexity used in the
cognitive processing of power- and intimacy-motivated
individuals in affective states to be :eletiye, (i.e., the
amount of differentiation compared to the amount of
integration).

Many theoretical perspectives converge on distinctions
similar to the differentiation-integration contrast (e.g.,
Bakan, 1966; Chodorow, 1978: Gilligan, 1982: Lyons, 1983:
Miller, 1976: Pollak 8 Gilligan, 1982). For instance,
Gilligan (1982) and Lyons (1983) use the terms genetete and
genneeteg to describe two different experiences of the self:
one as autonomous (i.e., separate from others) and the other
as in relationship (i.e., connected to others). Belenky,
Clinchy, Goldberger, 8 Tarule (1986) extended these
definitions to include the perceiver’s relationship to other
objects and topics in addition to other people. They
describe two kinds of "procedural knowing," or what they

refer to as "positions in which [individuals] are invested

20
in learning and applying objective procedures for obtaining
and communicating knowledge." (p. 15) Out of procedural
knowing, two kinds of knower-object relationships can
develop.

First, separate knowing is the process of separating
oneself from the object through critical thinking and the
application of rules of exclusion. "Presented with a
proposition, separate knowers immediately look for something
wrong-~a loophole, a factual error, a logical contradiction,
the omission of contrary evidence" (p. 104). In relation to
the world, separate knowing is essentially adversarial.
Separate knowers use their knowledge to defend themselves
against others. Another feature of separate knowing
involves applying an impersonal perspective through the
perception of separation between the self and the object.
"To be objective, here, means to speak dispassionately, to
exclude your own concerns and to adopt a perspective that
your adversaries may respect, as in their own self-interest"
(p. 109).

By contrast, connected knowers develop procedures flor
gaining access to other people's knowledge. At the heart of
this process is the capacity for empathy or the ability to
see the other person’s point of view as similar to one's own
experience. Connected knowers begin with the facts about
others and then shift the focus to other people's ways of

thinking. While separate knowers seek to delimit the

21
"personality of the subject" because it slants the
perception by adding "noise," connected knowers see the
"personality of the subject" as adding to the perception.
Belenky et a1. (1986) describe the process of connected

knowing as follows:

"Connected knowers begin with an interest in the
facts of other people's lives, but they gradually shift
the focus to other people’s ways of thinking. As in
all procedural knowing, it is the form rather than the
content of knowing that is central. Separate knowers
learn through explicit formal instruction how to adopt
a different lens--how, for example to think like a
sociologist. Connected knowers learn through empathy.
Both learn to get out from behind their own eyes and
use a different lens, in one case the lens of a
discipline, in the other the lens of another person."

(p. 115)

"...[connected knowers] do not always find it easy
to enter perspectives very different from their own.
This requires real skill and effort. It is important
to distinguish between effortless intuition of
subjectivism (in which one identifies with the
positions that feel right) and the deliberate,

imaginative extension of one's understanding into

22
positions that initially feel wrong or remote.
Connected knowing involves feeling, because it is
rooted in relationship; but it also involves thought.

(p. 121)

Connected knowers purposefully develop connections between
themselves and others. They seek to understand people's
ideas on the other people's terms rather than their own
terms. Through this process, they develop many connections
on many different levels between themselves and the outside
world.

Belenky et. al. (1986) point out that although its
procedures have not yet been elaborately codified, connected
knowing is just as preeegnzel as separate knowing. That is,
a great deal of skill and effort are involved in the
process. These authors also suggest that there is a need to
study these forms of understanding from an empirical
perspective. The differentiation-integration distinction
may be a useful way to understand these perspectives,
particularly because this contrast is based on measurement
systems that have been used in a great deal empirical work.

Moreover, the separation-connection contrast is similar
to the power-intimacy contrast. Separate knowers are much
the same as those who have the need for power in that they
perceive and understand their social environments in ways

that allow them to be individualistic and have impact and

23
control over others. Connected knowers, on the other hand,
are similar to those who have the need for intimacy because
they seek to know and understand their social worlds in ways
that allow them to be connected to others. Hence, these two
different theoretical perspectives describe a common
contrast in the social motives, concerns, orientations, and
goals of individuals. This contrast should be useful in
explaining how these different orientations are linked to
cognitive processing of social events.

How might differentiation processes allow people to
feel powerful (and separate)? Viewing social objects as
separate, contrasting, and at odds has been said to be
characteristic of an agentic or "separate" orientation
(Belenky, et al., 1986: Gilligan, 1982: Lykes, 1985; Lyons,
1983). Differentiation processes may be more useful for an
agentic orientation because making impartial judgments often
involves separating one thing from the other. Critical
thinking and decision making are procedures of seeing
differences and relative differences between things. These
procedures may also involve applications of restricted
perspectives and decision rules. Thus, this way of thinking
can allow people to maintain a sense of power and mastery
over people, objects, and issues.

How might integration processes allow intimacy-
motivated people to feel close (and connected)? Viewing

social objects as interrelated and part of a whole is said

24
to be characteristic of an communal or "connected"
orientation (Belenky, et al., 1986: Gilligan, 1982; Lykes,
1985: Lyons, 1983). Integration processes may be more
useful for a communal orientation because seeing
commonalities, similarities, and relationships may be a
basis for creating cooperation between people. Empathy and
seeing the other person's point of view involves
acknowledging similarities and the potential for mutual
influence. Thus, this way of thinking can allow people to
maintain a sense of communion and connectedness with people,

objects, and issues.

W

The type hypothesis states that in situations involving
the potential for motivational satisfaction, power- and
intimacy-motivated individuals will use the type of
complexity that is most likely to lead to motivational
satisfaction. Specifically, in such situations, power-
motivated individuals should use more differentiation (as
compared to integration) and intimacy-motivated individuals
should use more integration (as compared to
differentiation).

There are two kinds of evidence to support the
hypothesis that differentiation and integration are linked

to agentic and communal orientations, respectively. First,

25
theory and research on gender differences (see Brody, 1985)
suggests that men frequently develop an agentic orientation,
whereas women tend to develop a communal orientation. These
respective orientations are reflected in gender differences
in the complexity of cognitive processing (Woike 8 Aronoff,
1992b). Secondly, a pilot study (Woike 8 Aronoff, 1992c)
and a reanalysis of a published study (Woike 8 Aronoff,
1992a) provide support for the type hypothesis for women and
men with different motivational orientations. Both motives
(i.e., power and intimacy) and gender were found to be
linked to differential use of the types of complexity.

The need for agency (power) and the need for communion
(intimacy) is often applied to understanding gender
differences (Bakan, 1966: Chodorow, 1978: Gilligan, 1982;
Lyons, 1983). Theorists (e.g., Bakan, 1966: Chodorow, 1978:
Gilligan, 1982: Lyons, 1983: Miller, 1976; Pollak 8
Gilligan, 1982) have suggested that men and women perceive
social situations quite differently based on their
underlying social concerns. For instance, Gilligan (1982)
and colleagues (Pollak 8 Gilligan, 1982) have argued that
women tend to construe self and others in terms of
interdependent communities of care, whereas men tend to
focus on conflicts among autonomous agents. Gilligan's
(1982) work on moral development suggests that women may
understand and make decisions by perceiving their specific

responsibilities to others as embedded in a social network.

26
Men, by contrast, may conceive of issues as conflicts among
abstract principles. Furthermore, Gilligan and others have
maintained that women may adopt a more intimate, communal
orientation to the world in general, as compared to men
(Chodorow, 1978: Miller, 1976: Pollak 8 Gilligan, 1982).
These theorists suggest that men, in contrast, may find such
a communal perspective threatening and, thus, may tend to
engage in activities to maintain a sense of independence and
emotional distance.

Research on gender differences suggests that there are
differences in the development of the expression,
recognition, and experiences of emotion that correspond to
these two interpersonal orientations (see Brody, 1985 for a
review). Findings of gender differences in several areas of
emotional functioning, including nonverbal sensitivity
(e.g., Hall 1978: Rosenthal et al., 1979): expressiveness,
(Buck, 1977): the quality of defenses (Brody, Rozek, 8
Mutin, 1986); and cognitive correlates of recognition
abilities (e.g., Rosenthal, et al., 1979) suggest that with
development, boys increasingly restrict their range of
emotional expression (Buck, 1977: Feldman 8 White, 1980:
Saarni, 1982: Shennum 8 Buegental, 1982), whereas girls
increasingly inhibit the expression and recognition of
socially unaccepted emotions, such as anger (Feldman 8
White, 1980: Shennum 8 Buegental, 1982). Thus, women may

develop emotional capacities that foster interpersonal

27
relatedness, whereas men may develop capacities for dealing
with emotions that allow them to maintain personal
independence, and perhaps emotional distance.

This contrast may also be reflected in the development
of cognitive capacities that allow perceivers to meet their
respective needs. Women may develop a special capacity to
use integration processes to foster and maintain a sense of
communion with others. By contrast, men may develop a
special capacity to use differentiation processes to create
and maintain a sense of agency and independence from others.

The idea that individuals develop "cognitive styles"
akin to personality dispositions is not a new one (see
Goldstein 8 Blackman, 1978). Theorists (e.g., Gilligan,
1982) have in fact explained the agency-communion contrast
in social perception from a trait perspective. Recently,
Lykes (1985) proposed that women's social perceptions across
a wide range of topics is rooted in the perception of
embeddedness and interrelationships, more so than men's
social perception. She gave men and women a series of
social perception measures (e.g., TAT, inkblot) to measure
to this difference. The results showed that the measures of
connectedness (which were mostly structural rather than
content-based) correlated with each other, but women did not
generally have more integrative social perceptions. This
finding suggests that these differences in cognitive

complexity may not be stable across all situations. Rather

28
than assuming that women and men do not use integration and
differentiation respectively, it may be that these
differences emerge only under conditions in which
differentiation and integration processes have the most
functional utility.

The Person X Situation approach to social perception
(Aronoff 8 Wilson, 1985) suggests that the specific concerns
that the perceiver brings to the situation should determine
whether or not the social environment is viewed as providing
opportunities for motivational satisfaction. When the
properties of a given situation affect the motives of the
perceiver, he or she should be more interested in that
situation and this greater interest should be reflected in
the complexity with which information is processed. Taking
this perspective, Woike 8 Aronoff (1992b) suggest that
differential use of differentiation and integration is most
likely to be found in situations that prompt the agentic or
communal social concerns of the perceiver. Thus, it is the
interaction of the characteristics of the perceiver
(including gender, implicit motivation, and/or developed
capacities to use differentiation and integration processes)
and the demands of the situation that leads to the most
functional cognitive response.

Woike and Aronoff (1992b) reasoned that if men and
women deal with emotional experiences differently in ways

that are related to their social concerns, then these

29

affective states may prompt women and men to use different
types of complexity. Women may use more integration in
order to maintain a sense of connection and relatedness with
others. Men, by contrast, may use more differentiation in
order to maintain a sense of independence and perhaps,
emotional distance. In a study designed to test this
hypothesis, Woike 8 Aronoff (1992b) had women and men go
through a mood induction procedure in which they were asked
to recall a personal experience that either made them feel
very happy or very angry (or that happened yesterday, as a
control condition). These subjects then performed a
standard social impression task which was coded for
cognitive complexity. In general, the results showed that
affective states led men to process social information using
more differentiation and women processed social information
using more integration. Woike and Aronoff (1992b) suggest
that these affective states prompted the agentic and
communal concerns of men and women, respectively.
Differentiated processing may be useful to men because it
allows them to maintain their sense of separateness and
restrict their emotional involvement. Integrated
processing, on the other hand, may be more useful to women
in situations in which they desire to maintain a sense of
connectedness and contact with others.

From another perspective on the agency-communion

contrast, McAdams (1985) and colleagues (McAdams, Brand,

30

McNamara, 8 Lensky, 1988) have suggested that it is the
person's metiyetien rather than his or her sex that
underlies this difference in social orientation.
Researchers (e.g., McAdams, et al., 1988: Winter, 1988) have
found that the power motive is more predominant among men,
while intimacy motivation is more predominant among women.
It follows, then, that motivational differences (as well as
gender differences) may be linked to the differential use of
differentiation and integration processes. Therefore, it
may be a combination of the characteristics of the perceiver
(including gender, implicit motives, and cognitive
capacities) interacting with the perceiver's immediate
affective experience and the characteristics of the
situation that create differences in the complexity of
cognitive processing. I suggest the following sequence: A
situation triggers the arousal of affect specific to the
implicit motive. If the characteristics of the situation
are linked to the affect goal (i.e., feeling strong or
feeling close), then the perceiver will engage in specific
kinds of perceptual/cognitive strategies to bring about
motivational satisfaction. Thus, I expect that the arousal
of specific motives in combination with the characteristics
of the situation will lead to differential use of
differentiation and integration processes.

More specifically the type hypothesis states that when

the power-motivated individual perceives environmental cues

31

related to power that present an opportunity to feel strong,
this activates the power motive and brings about an impulse
to act, followed by learned cognitive strategies that may
lead to the affective experience of feeling strong. One of
the ways in which power-motivated people may attempt to
achieve motivational satisfaction is to use more
differentiated processing. If differentiated processing
allows individuals to make impartial judgements, apply
restricted perspectives, and perceive differences, then such
processing may allow power-motivated individuals to have a
greater sense of power and mastery over the situation, which
may in turn allow them to achieve motivational satisfaction.

Similarly, the intimacy-motivated individual processes
cues related to intimacy and that present an opportunity to
feel close. This activates the intimacy motive and brings
about an impulse to act, followed by learned cognitive
strategies that lead to the affective experience of feeling
close. One of the ways in which intimacy-motivated people
may attempt to achieve motivational satisfaction is to use
more integrated processing. Through integrated processing
intimacy-motivated individuals can see similarities,
connections, and relationships, which may allow them to have
an increased feeling of closeness to and understanding of
others, and subsequently to achieve motivational

satisfaction.

32

To explore this hypothesis in a pilot study, Woike 8
Aronoff (1992c) had power- and intimacy-motivated women
recall a positive, emotionally-involving life experience
(designed to put them in a state of motivational arousal) or
a ordinary event that happened yesterday (designed to be a
control condition) and then view a videotape of two job
candidates involved in a peer interview under conditions in
which subjects were told that they were chosen for the
experiment because they had personalities similar to the job
candidates' who were described as either power- or intimacy-
oriented. It was expected that those who were in a state of
motivational arousal (after they recalled a pleasant
experience) and then received incongruent information (i.e.,
power [intimacy] -motivated subjects who were told that they
had personalities characteristics related to intimacy
[power]) would be experiencing greater difficulty reaching
motivational satisfaction than those who were in a state of
positive arousal and received congruent information, because
they believed they were chosen out of a large group of
people as those who were most likely to be in the process of
developing skills that were in a sense opposite to their
personal concerns and aspirations. This "mismatch" of
information was expected to create a situation that made
motive satisfaction more difficult. If power- and intimacy-
motivated individuals do in fact use the types of complexity

to bring about motivational satisfaction, then they should

33
increase their differential use of differentiation and
integration in this incongruent situation in order to
achieve motive satisfaction. That is, power-motivated
subjects were expected to use more differentiation to
reestablish a sense of feeling strong, while the
incongruency was expected to lead intimacy-motivated
subjects to use more integration to reestablish a sense of
feeling connected to others. By contrast, congruent
information was expected to sustain individuals' experience
of satisfaction rather than create a need to reestablish it:
therefore, individuals who were asked to recall a pleasant
experience and then received congruent information were not
expected to intensify their use of differentiation and
integration processes. The findings generally supported
these predictions. In motivationally-arousing and
incongruent information conditions, power-motivated women
used more differentiation than did intimacy-motivated women
and intimacy-motivated women used more integration than did
power-motivated women.

Thus, it appears that power- and intimacy-motivated
individuals, while under motivationally-arousing conditions
in which they are experiencing difficulty reaching
motivational satisfaction, do in fact use more
differentiated and integrated processing, respectively.
Moreover, the motivation of the perceiver may have a greater

(or lesser) influence on the sequence of events that lead to

34
differential use of these types of complexity than gender.
But, because this study used only females, it was not able
to explore this hypothesis.

To expand the type hypothesis to include gender
differences, it is important to consider the fact that
social situations that arouse power and intimacy motives are
often related to gender. Behaviors that allow people to
feel strong and independent are often considered more
appropriate males, while behaviors that allow people to feel
close and intimate are often considered more appropriate for
females (e.g., Block, 1973; Chodorow, 1974). Therefore, the
same situation may trigger the arousal of affect related to
these implicit motives, but the situational characteristics
may differentially make it more difficult to achieve
motivational satisfaction for men and women. For instance,
women who want to satisfy a need for power may not be able
to engage in the same kinds of behaviors that lead to the
motive satisfaction of feeling strong as men can. Likewise,
men who wish to satisfy a need for intimacy may not be able
to engage in the same kinds of behaviors that lead to the
motivational satisfaction of feeling close as women can.
Thus, power-motivated women and intimacy-motivated men may
develop different strategies to meet their respective needs.
These strategies may be more cognitive than overtly
behavioral because it may be easier to be sanctioned for

gender-inappropriate behavior than gender-inappropriate

35
cognition. Thus, gender-atypical women and men (i.e., power-
motivated women and intimacy-motivated men) may find the
differential use of differentiation and integration
processes to be particularly useful.

A reanalysis of the data from an initial study (Woike 8
Aronoff, 1992a) found evidence to support this view. In
this experiment, power- and intimacy-motivated men and women
viewed a videotape of two targets involved in a peer
interview under conditions in which they anticipated to be
interacting with the targets in a way that was either
congruent or incongruent with their implicit motives. They
formed impressions of the targets which were then coded for
cognitive complexity. A reanalysis of the data from this
study (the initial findings will be presented in the next
section) revealed that in congruent conditions, power-
motivated women used more differentiation than power-
motivated men and intimacy-motivated men used more
elaborated integration than intimacy-motivated women.

Thus, all these findings suggest that when power- or
intimacy-motivated individuals are in a state of
motivational arousal, but have not yet reached motivational
satisfaction, they will engage in specific cognitive
strategies to attain such satisfaction. Under these
circumstances, power-motivated individuals should use more
differentiated complexity and intimacy-motivated individuals

should more integrated complexity.

O 0
so: ‘ ‘ .1010 9‘. ' _ u... ‘ ~ .9311 ’0. on... ‘.

Woike (1989a) reviewed the different systems for
scoring cognitive complexity and concluded that there are
two level of both differentiation and integration. The
simple forms of complexity involved perceiving different
attributes (i.e., simple differentiation) and forming simple
links between them (i.e., simple integration). The
elaborated forms of complexity involved making contrasts and
comparisons among attributes (i.e., elaborated
differentiation) and perceiving dynamic relationships and
complex connections between attributes (i.e., elaborated
integration).

Simple complexity involves perceiving people, objects,
and topics through their separate characteristics and simple
exemplars of those attributes, therefore it should be used
in situations in which there is no motivation for a deeper
understanding of the person, object, or topic. The
elaborated forms of complexity, on the other hand, involve
perceiving people, objects, and topics through their
contrasting and interrelated characteristics, and should be
used in situations in which there is a motivation for
careful processing that will lead to a deeper understanding
of the person, object, or topic.

Many lines of research concur that the perceiver

processes social information that is personally involving

37
more thoroughly than other types of information (e.g.,
Aronoff 8 Wilson, 1985: Battistich, Assor, Messé 8 Aronoff,
1985: Chaiken, 1980: Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Forgas, 1992;
Kelly, 1955: Langer, 1989: McArthur 8 Baron, 1983; Petty 8
Cacioppo, 1986). Research also suggests that certain
factors determine "deeper" processing of the social
environment (e.g., Craik 8 Lockhart, 1972: Mueller, 1979)
and that individuals who are most engaged by the situation
will form richer construals of that situation (Woike 8
Aronoff, 1992a).

From a general social-psychological perspective, theory
and research on affective states and social cognition
suggests that immediate affective experiences can generally
influence social cognitive processing in important ways
(e.g., Bodenhausen, in press: Forgas, 1992: Schwarz, 1990).
Schwarz (1990) posits a functional analysis of affective
states which states that a particular emotion is likely to
trigger cognitive strategies that are adaptive for the
situations that elicit that emotion.

To use this perspective to understand implicit
motivational arousal as a mediator of cognitive processing,
I suggest the following sequence of events. An event
triggers the arousal of affect related to a specific
implicit motive. This leads the perceiver to engage in
specific kinds of perceptual/cognitive strategies (and

behaviors) to bring about motivational satisfaction. The

38
arousal of specific motives in combination with the
characteristics of the situation should lead to differential
use of simple and elaborated complexity. In motive-arousing
situations in which satisfaction is not yet achieved,
perceivers should intensify their efforts to understand the
situation in order to attain such motive satisfaction.
Thus, in motive-arousing situations in which satisfaction is
possible but not yet achieved, perceivers should increase
their use of elaborated complexity. In motive-arousing
situations in which the affective goal is already achieved,
perceivers should use more simple complexity because there
is no need to engage in effortful processing to experience

motivational satisfaction.

W

The levels hypothesis states that perceivers,
regardless of their specific personality (or implicit)
motivations, will use more simple and elaborated complexity
depending on their need to understand the information in
order to reach motive satisfaction. Perceivers will use
simple complexity when their incentive to understand the
information is low, but they will use elaborated complexity
when their motivation to understand the information is high.

There are three kinds of evidence described below which

support the hypothesis that the level of cognitive

39
complexity is linked to the degree of motivation to
understand the information. First, studies in social
psychology demonstrate that people use more elaborated
complexity in situations that specifically demand more
careful processing of information (e.g., Tetlock, 1983).
Secondly, studies in social psychology also demonstrate that
general forms of affective arousal can lead to greater use
of cognitive processes similar to simple complexity unless
perceivers have an incentive to engage in careful processing
(e.g., Forgas, 1992). Third, a study pertaining to implicit
motives demonstrates that when people anticipate events that
are likely to lead to motive satisfaction, they use more
elaborated complexity to understand that information (Woike
8 Aronoff, 1992a).

First, a good deal of research in social psychology
demonstrates that situational demands can influence the
level of complex cognitive processing. For instance,
Tetlock (1983) and colleagues (e.g., Tetlock 8 Kim, 1987)
have demonstrated that making people accountable for their
decisions on social issues by increasing their need to
justify their views leads to a higher (or more elaborated)
levels of complex processing. By contrast, there is a good
deal of evidence (see Fiske 8 Taylor, 1991) to demonstrate
that when there is no incentive to process information
carefully, perceivers use heuristics or methods of cognitive

processing defined by Woike (1989b) as simple complexity.

40
For instance, perceivers have been found to reduce their
impressions of targets to a small group of attributes and
traits and associated behaviors. The use of these
attributes can be understood as instances of simple
differentiation. Behavioral exemplars connected to these
traits are similar to what Woike (1989a) calls simple
integration.

Second, studies in social psychology (see Bodenhausen,
in press; Forgas, 1992: Schwarz, 1991) also demonstrate that
arousal of general positive affect (i.e., good moods) leads
to more heuristic and less careful processing than neutral
or negative moods. Research (see Isen, 1987; Murray, et
al., 1990) also demonstrates that happy people are more
likely to perceive different attributes in a given topic
(i.e., simple differentiation) and more unique but simple
connections between them (i.e., simple integration) than
people in bad or neutral moods. Thus, it appears that
individuals who are experiencing affective states with no
motivation to process information carefully will use more
simple complexity. Moreover, it could be that people in
such mood states are more interested and involved in their
own private affective experiences than the information
provided by the experimental situation.

Finally, Woike and Aronoff (1992a) studied implicit
motives as mediators of the complexity of cognitive

processing from an interactional perspective. They found

41
that when power- and intimacy-motivated people who
anticipated to be interacting with the targets in a way that
was congruent with their underlying motives, they formed
impressions using more elaborated complexity than those who
were not in such states of motivational arousal. They
argued that processing information in a deeper, more
elaborated way may provide a more thorough understanding of
the anticipated event. A more thorough understanding would
allow perceivers to attain motivational satisfaction.
Subjects in the congruent conditions did not use more simple
complexity, however. It appears to be the readiness to
engage in motivationally-relevant experiences that leads to
more elaborated complexity.

Thus, it appears that more elaborated complexity will
be used by perceivers when there is a personal reason to
understand the information thoroughly. By contrast, in
situations in which there is no need for thorough and
careful processing, simple complexity will be used to obtain
the "gist" of the information.

To summarize the findings of past research,
particularly the three previous studies (Woike 8 Aronoff,
1992a, 1992b, 1992c), different types of complexity do in
fact appear to serve specific functions. First,
differential use of differentiation and integration
processes are most likely to occur when (1) the situation

prompts or arouses agentic/communal concerns, (2) there is

42
an opportunity to satisfy these needs and (3) satisfaction
is difficult to reach and/or cannot be attained through
easier means. In these situations, agentic (or power-
motivated) individuals use more differentiated processing,
while communal (or intimacy—motivated) individuals use of
more integrated processing. Second, differential use of
simple and elaborated complexity occurs in situations that
vary the relevance or need to understand the information.
Simple complexity is used in situations that do not demand a
thorough understanding of the situation and elaborated
complexity is used in situations that do call for a thorough

understanding of the situation.

I] E i E . l I '! E 3' I'

In this experiment, power- and intimacy-motivated women
and men were asked to recall vividly either an event that
lead them to feel very happy (i.e., one that led to motive
satisfaction) or a common, everyday experience (as a
control). Subjects were told that they were selected for
the experiment because they were in the process of
developing skills related to either power or intimacy that
would lead them to be successful later in life. Subjects
then viewed a videotape of two students conducting a peer
interview and were asked to think about the targets in terms

of either power- or intimacy-related abilities. After

43
subjects viewed the tape, they were asked their impression.
These impressions were coded for the simple and elaborated
differentiation and integration.

Two general hypotheses were tested. First, the_Type
Hypptheeee predict that power-arousal should be linked to
more differentiated processing, whereas intimacy-arousal
should lead to more integrated processing. Perceivers who
vividly recall an experience that led to motive-satisfaction
and then receive incongruent information should be
experiencing a block or disruption in the affective
experience that was created by the recall of the motive—
satisfying event and should therefore use specific types of
cognitive complexity to process the information in order to
restore this sense of satisfaction. Thus, Iype_nypetne§i§_1
predicts that Power-motivated perceivers who recall a
motive-satisfying event and receive incongruent information
should use more differentiation than integration. Type
Hypgtheei§_2 predicts that Intimacy-motivated perceivers who
recall a motive satisfying event and receive incongruent
information should use more integration than
differentiation. I have also suggested that individuals
with atypical gender-motive combinations (i.e., power-
motivated women and intimacy-motivated men) may find it more
difficult to reach motivational satisfaction. Thus, Type
flypptheeie_1 states that Power-motivated women who recall a

motive-satisfying event and receive incongruent information

44
should use more differentiation than integration. Type
Hypetheei§_e states that Intimacy-motivated men who recall a
motive-satisfying event and receive incongruent information
should use more integration than differentiation.

Second, the_LeyeT_flypetheee§ predict that for power-
and intimacy-motivated subjects in motivationally-arousing
states in which there is no incentive to understand the
information thoroughly should not process information in an
elaborated manner. Those who are in motivationally-arousing
states in which there is an incentive to understand the
information more carefully should process the stimuli with
more elaborated complexity. Thus, Leye1_flypethe§ie_1 states
that perceivers who recall a motive-satisfying experience
and then receive congruent information should use more
simple complexity than elaborated complexity. By contrast,
Leyel_flyp9theeie_2 states that perceivers who recall a
motive-satisfying experience and then receive incongruent
information should use more elaborated complexity than

simple complexity.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

'ew o h e

Female and male undergraduates participated in two
sessions which involved research described as concerning
"social impressions." In the first session, they wrote six
TAT stories. In the second session, subjects high in power
or intimacy motivation participated in a two-part
experiment. In the first part, they were asked to either
recall a single event that was pleasant and that caused them
to feel very happy (i.e., motive-satisfying) or to recall a
single event that happened yesterday and that was ordinary
(neutral). Then, in the second phase, subjects were told
that they were selected for the experiment because their
test results showed that they were in the process of
developing skills related to either power- or intimacy-
related activities that would lead them to be successful
later in life. Subjects then viewed a videotape of two
students conducting a peer interview and were asked to
consider the targets for a job described as being either

power- or intimacy-related because they themselves were

45

46
believed to be in the process of successfully developing
such abilities. After they viewed the videotape, they were
asked to write a thoughtful paragraph describing their
choice of the person who they thought was best suited for
the job. These responses were be coded for simple and

elaborated levels of differentiation and integration.

m

Approximately 600 introductory psychology students from
the Michigan State University subject pool subjects were
pre-screened for power and intimacy motivation. All
subjects received class credit for their participation.
From this large sample, the distributions of power and
intimacy scores were examined and selection criteria were
derived based on the sample distribution and the selection
criteria used in a previous investigations (i.e., Woike 8
Aronoff, 1992a, 1992c). The criteria for high-intimacy,
low-power and high-power, low intimacy are described below.
Subjects whose power and intimacy scores met these criteria
were called back to participate in the experimental session
for which they received five dollars. One hundred and
twenty-one subjects were recruited to participate in the

experimental session.

47

I] I '!° 1 I !° 5 .

The first session involved administering the Thematic
Apperception Test to find individuals who are high in power
and low in intimacy motivation and whose who are high in
intimacy and low in power motivation. Subjects participated
in groups of 20 to 60 persons in a neutral classroom
setting. The experimenter greeted the subjects and gave

them the following instructions:

"Today you will be participating in a study about
social impressions. In this session, you will write
some imaginative stories to pictures. We may call you
back to participate in some other psychology
experiments next term. Please read the consent form
and sign it if you would like to participate in the
study.“

A consent form can be found in Appendix A. The consent
forms were he collected and the TAT booklets were passed
out. The experimenter read aloud the instructions on the
TAT cover sheet (see Appendix A). All subjects were shown 6
TAT slides which were projected on to a large screen. These
slides have been used in past research because they

potentially cue power and intimacy motives (McAdams, Lester,

48
Brand, McNamara 8 Lensky, 1988). These pictures include
the following:

1. Two people sitting on a park bench near a river.

2. A man sitting at a desk upon which sits a photograph

of a family.

3. A (male) ship's officer conversing with another man.

4. Two (female) scientists in a laboratory.

5. A man and a woman on a trapeze.

6. An older man, a younger woman, a dog, and horses

walking through a field.
Pictures (1) and (2) can be found in McClelland and Steele
(1972) and (3), (4), (5) and (6) can be found in McClelland
(1975).

All subjects were shown the same six pictures in the
same order under neutral classroom conditions. The testing
followed the standard group administration procedure and
standard instructions used in this type of assessment
(Atkinson, 1958). Each picture was projected onto the
screen for 20 seconds. Subjects then had five minutes to
write each story. All subjects wrote their stories in a
booklet composed of a cover sheet and six blank pages. (An
example of the TAT booklet can be found in Appendix A.) All
subjects will be shown the 6 slides in the order used in
previous studies (e.g. McAdams, 1982, 1985: McAdams, Lester,

Brand, McNamara 8 Lensky, 1987).

49
After all the TAT pictures were shown and participants
had written all six stories, they were thanked for their
participation and reminded that they may be getting a call

to participate in more research some time in the future.

I I O
.0.‘ 3.1.. It '13. 9° 5. ‘° ,-.° ‘7 s

The stories written to the TAT pictures were coded
using the standard scoring procedures developed for the need
for power (Winter, 1973) and the need for intimacy (McAdams,
1984). Coders were trained in the assessment of power and
intimacy motivation through coding manuals (McAdams, 1984:
Winter, 1973). These manuals explain the coding procedures
in detail and provide practice stories that allow coders to
compare their scores with an "Expert Scoring" key. All
coders achieved a reliability of z = .90 or higher before
scoring the stories written by subjects in the study. Their
reliability scores were computed by correlating the coders
scores with the expert coding provided in the manual for the
practice stories.

The TAT protocols were scored by these coders in order
to determine the sample of subjects who manifested the two
motives most strongly. From these scores, separate
distributions were derived for males and females on each
motive. One hundred and twenty-one persons whose motive

scores were in the top third on one motivation and the lower

50
half on the other were selected for participation in the
experiment. Similar to a study by Woike and Aronoff (1992a)

which entailed a similar selection procedure, females had

the following scores: high power = 7-17, low intimacy 0-6,

n = 29: low power = 0-6, and high intimacy = 7-24, 3 34:
and males had the following scores: high power = 7-19, low
intimacy = 0-6, 3 = 31: low power = 0-6, and high intimacy

= 6-11, n = 27.

E I E ll E . ! J S .

Research assistants unaware of the subjects' motive
scores scheduled them in groups of 2 to 6 persons:
motivation and sex of subjects were not controlled in
scheduling. Each group was randomly assigned to either the
motive-arousing or neutral condition and either the
congruent or incongruent information condition. The
experimenter was blind to subjects' motivation throughout
the experiment.

Subjects were told the session would be in two phrases
through the following directions:

"Last Fall (or Summer) term you participated in a
study in which you completed a number of questionnaires
and wrote some imaginative stories to pictures. We
chose you out of the 600 people who participated in

those studies because, based on your responses, we

51
believe you are the kind of people who have some
special qualities that we are particularly interested
in. I'll explain this greater detail once we get
started.

For today's study, first, in an effort to get to
know you a little better in the short time we have, we
would like you first to describe one of your life
experiences. Then you will be given some instructions
and asked to watch a videotape of two people who have
participated in a previous part of the study and asked
your impressions of them. If you would like to

participate, please read and sign the consent form."

The experimenter collected the consent forms and passed
out the Life Experiences Questionnaire and read the
instructions aloud (see Appendix A). Subjects had 10
minutes to complete the Life Experiences Questionnaire.
After 10 minutes, the experimenter returned and gave the
following instructions that provided descriptions of the
subjects and the targets that are related to either power or

intimacy:

"Our research as well as the research of other
psychologists has found that there are two kinds of
people who have special characteristics that lead them

to be successful later in life.

52

"The first type of person enjoys and does well at
being a leader to others. They enjoy giving
entertaining speeches and persuading others to agree
with their opinions on issues that they care about.
Through their experiences, these men and women develop
a sense of knowing how to make important decisions that
affect others. And they typically pursue careers in
which they have a great deal of decision-making power.

"The second type of person enjoys and does well at
being a close friend to others. They enjoy working
together cooperatively and sharing ideas with people
who they care about. Through their experiences, these
men and women develop the ability to draw people about
and understand their needs. And they typically pursue
careers in which they can demonstrate a great deal of
empathy and consideration for others.

"I want to stress the fact that both kinds of
people have been found to be equally successful and
happy. They just have different abilities and take

different approaches to dealing with people.

[Power description] Of course, you have been chosen as
part of the group of individuals who enjoys being a
leader to others.

[Intimacy description] Of course, you have been chosen

as part of the group of individuals who enjoys being a

53

close friend to others.

"I'm going to show you a videotape of two people
named Kim and Eric conducting what is called a peer
interview in which two people interview each other for
a job as a research assistant in the psychology
department. Two years ago, we videotaped a number of
these peer interviews with different students and found
that people liked Kim and Eric the best. We have been
using some excerpts of their peer interview to ask
these two types of people to test their knowledge and
abilities in their given area of expertise.

"The first group of people that I described is
being asked to think about Kim and Eric in terms of
their leadership ability and social power, while the
second group is being asked to think about Kim and Eric
in terms of their empathic abilities and social

sensitivity.

[Power description] "Since we believe you are in the
process of developing strong leadership abilities, we
would greatly appreciate your insights into Kim and
Eric. Specifically, do you think they would be
successful at a job that calls for developing a sense
of knowing how to make important decision that affect

others?

54
[Intimacy description] "Since we believe you are in
the process of developing excellent social sensitivity,
we would greatly appreciated your insights into Kim and
Eric. Specifically, do you think they would be
successful at a job that calls for developing the

ability to draw people out and understand their needs?

The experimenter then showed the 7-minute videotape of
the peer interview. After the subjects watched the
videotape, the experimenter gave them each an impression
task sheet (see Appendix A) and read the instructions aloud.
Subjects were given 10 minutes to write their impressions in
response to the question. After 10 minutes, the
experimenter collected the impressions and explained, "Now
we have a short questionnaire to find out more about the
people who are participating in these studies." The
experimenter handed-out the Participant Information Sheet
(see Appendix A). After subjects completed this last
measure, they were debriefed and given payment for their

participation.

TI 5 J l' E II I . I I

To obtain a sample of the complexity with which
information is processed under motive-arousing conditions, a

task was required that was unstructured enough to allow the

55

subjects to form their own impressions in a subjective way
but still required more than just a superficial level of
cognitive processing. A decision-making task was most
suitable because it required subjects to make a choice and
justify it. In addition, it has been used quite
successfully in past research (Woike 8 Aronoff, 1992a, 1992b
1992c). The instructions on the impression information task
were designed to get subjects to think in a thoughtful way
and to encourage them to use different sorts of information
from the videotape and job description in different ways
without giving them specific guidelines of how to structure
their decision.

Subjects wrote a response to the following question

during a 10-minute period:

"Think about what you have seen of Eric and Kim. Think
about the kind of job we have described. Since both
people and jobs are complex and hard to pigeon-hole,
they need to be thought of in relation to each other in
different ways and on different levels. Take a moment
or two to gather your thoughts and then decide who is
most suitable for the job. What kinds of qualities and
behaviors were shown on the videotape that lead you to
believe that this person is the best for the job?
Please carefully state your reasons for taking this

position."

56

ta es i et e so

A 7-minute videotape that was composed of segments of
the same female and male undergraduate conducting various
stages of the peer interview and working on a task together.
These two actors were chosen because they appeared to be in
similar appearance, size, attractiveness, pleasantness, and
intelligence. The two actors had conducted a series of peer
interviews and interactive tasks. From this sample of
approximately 6 hours of videotape, segments were edited to
create a videotape in which both actors performed the
interview and related tasks with equivalent competency and
equal participation. The tasks were performed to be
balanced, containing equal amounts of power and intimacy
behavior. In making this videotape, students studied an
outline describing initiation and affiliation behaviors
derived from the Interaction Process Analysis (IPA) coding
systems (Bales, 1950). This outline provided suggestions
for demonstrating initiation and affiliation behaviors in
the interview context. The final videotape was edited to be
used in the experiment.

To insure that the actors did not differ in the amount
of power or intimacy behaviors, the videotape was coded by
two assistants trained in the use of the Interaction Process
Scores (IPS) system for analyzing interpersonal behavior

(Borgatta 8 Crowther, 1965). Power-oriented behaviors,

57
defined by the initiation axis of the IPS system, included
the following categories: (4), acknowledges, understands,
recognizes: (6), procedural suggestion: (7), suggests
solution: (8), gives opinion: (11), gives orientation: (12),
draws attention: (13), asks for opinion, and (14),
disagrees. As expected, there was not a significant
difference, t (7) < 1, in the amount of initiative
behaviors between the two actors.

The intimacy behaviors, defined by the affiliation axis
of the IPS system, included the following scoring
categories: (1), social acknowledgment: (2), shows
solidarity through raising the other’s status: (3), shows
tension release, laughs: and (5), shows agreement,
concurrence, compliance. As expected, there was not a
significant difference t (3) < 1, in the amount of
affiliation behaviors used by the two actors. Inter-coder
reliability was high, t = .98 for the combined initiation

and affiliation categories.

Design

The design of this experiment is composed of four
independent variables each with two levels. The study was a
2(Motivation: power versus intimacy) X 2(Sex: female
versus male) x 2(Arousal condition: positive versus

neutral) X 2(Information condition: congruent versus

58
incongruent) factorial design. The number of subjects per

cell ranged from 6 to 9.

Woes

Coders were trained to score the impressions for
differentiation and integration with the Qetegepiee_efi
gemplexity scoring manual (Woike, 1989b). A concise version
of this scoring manual can be found in Appendix B. All
coders achieved at least .80 reliability for four categories
of complexity (i.e., simple differentiation, simple
integration, elaborated differentiation, and elaborated
integration) on the prepared practice materials.

Reliability was determined by comparing their scores with
the expert scoring key of the practice paragraphs.

In coding the paragraphs from the experiment, trained
coders were assigned to work in coder pairs so that each
paragraph was scored by two independent coders. If there
are large disagreements (i.e., more than three points), the
paragraph was given to a third coder and the mean of the two
scores in closest agreement was used for the analysis. The
scores for each subject on the categories of complexity were
derived by taking the mean of the coders' scores after
recoding. The inter-rater reliabilities (n = 121) for the
four categories of complexity were I = .91 for simple

differentiation, 2 = .88 for elaborated differentiation, I =

59
.77 for simple integration, and t = .94 for elaborated

integration.

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

Ov ' o e s

The analyses and results are presented in six sections.
First, to investigate if participants in the Positive
Arousal condition were experiencing the positive affect
associated with motive satisfying experiences, subjects’
ratings on a mood rating questionnaire were analyzed.
Secondly, to examine if subjects did in fact recall
experiences that were associated with their implicit
motives, the responses to the life experience questionnaire
were subjected to a content analysis. In the third section,
the tests of the hypotheses are described. The planned
comparisons of the means relevant to these predictions are
described in the fourth section. The fifth section
describes the simple effects tests that were performed to
find the bases of the statistically significant interactions
found when testing the hypotheses. These findings are then

summarized in a final section.

60

61

It was predicted that individuals in the Positive
Arousal condition would report more happiness than those in
the Neutral Arousal condition. A 2(Sex: male versus female)
x 2(Motive: power versus intimacy) x 2( Arousal Condition:
positive versus neutral) X 2(Information Condition:
congruent versus incongruent) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
was performed on the ratings of happiness. Contrary to
expectations, the main effect for mood condition was not
statistically significant, F (1,105) < 1, us. This analysis
did yield a nonpredicted Motive X Information Condition
interaction, E (1,105) = 5.64, p <.02, however. Examination
of the means, presented in Table 1, revealed that intimacy-
motivated subjects in the Congruent Information condition
reported less happiness than did Intimacy-motivated
individuals in the Incongruent Information condition and
Power-motivated subjects in either condition. No other

effects approached significance.

62

 

 

IE !' :3'!’
Congruent W

Motixe

Power 6.65b 6.41b

Intimacy 5.54a 6.85b

 

Note: Noncommon subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

63

WW
1.: E . : !' .

It was predicted that when Power- and Intimacy-
motivated individuals were asked to recall vividly an
personal experience that caused them to feel happy, their
emotional experiences would be linked to their respective
power and intimacy concerns. Based on the scoring system
used by McAdams (1982), power-motivated individuals should
recall happy events that pertain to (a) enhanced perception
of their own physical or psychological strength, (b)
exertion of influence or control over others, (c) vigorous
activity, and (d) an increase in fame or prestige. By
contrast, intimacy-motivated individuals should recall happy
events that pertain to (a) interpersonal interaction, (b)
increases in loving/liking or emotional bonds between
people, (c) communication and sharing with others, (d)
sympathy and showing concern for others, and (e) touching
and physical closeness. The responses from the life
experiences questionnaire were scored for these categories
so that each protocol received a score ranging from 0 to 4
on power-related imagery and a score ranging from 0 to 5 on
intimacy-related imagery. These protocols were scored by
two coders who were unaware of the hypotheses or motives of

the subjects. Inter-rater reliability was high, I (119) =

64
.98.

It was predicted that Power-motivated subjects in the
Positive Arousal condition would have more power-related
imagery than all others and that Intimacy-motivated subjects
in the Positive Arousal condition would have more intimacy-
related imagery than all others. A 2(Sex: male versus
female) X 2(Motive: power versus intimacy) X 2( Arousal
Condition: positive versus neutral) X 2(Information
Condition: congruent versus incongruent) Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) was performed on the power imagery scores.
This analysis yielded a nonsignificant Motive X Arousal
interaction, F (1,105) = 1.55, p <.22. However, planned
comparisons of the means in Table 2 demonstrated that Power-
motivated subjects in the Positive Arousal condition had
more power imagery than all other, as predicted, (ps ranged

from <.02 to <.0001).

65

 

Table 2
' O ‘ n e ‘ . . g o g 0 3g 0 O 1 1 g . O ..
Appgeel gengition
Positixe Neutral
Entire
Power 1.17a .26b
Intimacy .78b .17b

 

Note: Noncommon subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.02.

66

A 2(Sex: male versus female) X 2(Motive: power versus
intimacy) X 2( Arousal Condition: positive versus neutral) X
2(Information Condition: congruent versus incongruent)
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed on the intimacy
scores. As expected, this analysis revealed a Motive X
Arousal Condition interaction, F (1,105) = 6.88, p <.01.
Examination of the means in Table 3 showed that Intimacy-
motivated individuals in the Positive Arousal condition had
more intimacy imagery in their life experiences than all
others, (ps ranged from <.001 to .0001). (These analyses
revealed a number of other significant effects that were not
relevant to the hypotheses: see Appendix C for a summary of

these nonpredicted findings.)

67

 

Table 3
1 II n 0“ . g e. e no . e. .0 e
2.!. .
E J : 3.!.
Besitixe Neutral
Metixe
Power .77b .70b
Intimacy 1.72a .57b

 

Note: Noncommon subscripts indicate that means differ at

least p. <.001.

68

One of the underlying assumptions of the experiment is
that individuals in the Positive Arousal condition would
recall experiences related to their implicit motives:
therefore, each protocol was examined individually for the
presence of these motive-relevant themes. This analysis
found that in the Positive Arousal condition, the protocols
of fifty-three out of sixty of power-motivated subjects
contained power imagery and the protocols of fifty-one out
of sixty-one of the intimacy-motivated subjects contained
intimacy imagery. The results of analyses performed, as
described below, with these seventeen subjects eliminated (p
= 104) generally yielded parallel effects and similar mean
patterns, but these results were less significant. In the
smaller sample, cell sizes ranged from 3 to 9 within the 2
X 2 X 2 X 2 design, while the cell sizes ranged from 6 to 9
in the larger sample. Therefore, the larger sample was used
to increase statistical power. (This decision has
implications for interpreting the results which will be

discussed later.)

69

W

The six hypotheses detailed on pages 42—44 were tested
through a 6-factor Mixed Model Analysis of Variance with
Motive, Sex, Arousal Condition, Information Condition as
between-subject variables and type and level of complexity
as within-subject variables. Each of the six variables has
two levels.

Two general predictions were tested. First, the_Type
Hypetheeie predicted that the arousal of the power motive
should be linked to more differentiated processing, whereas
the arousal of the intimacy motive should lead to more
integrated processing. Specifically, Type_flypetheeie_1
predicted that Power-motivated perceivers who recalled a
motive-satisfying event and received incongruent information
would use more differentiation than integration. Type
Hypetheei§_2 predicted that Intimacy-motivated perceivers
who recalled a motive satisfying event and received
incongruent information should use more integration than
differentiation. Thus, hypotheses 1 and 2 would be
supported by a Motive X Arousal Condition X Information
Condition x Type interaction.

It was also predicted that individuals with atypical
gender-motive combination (i.e., power-motivated women and

intimacy-motivated men) may experience more difficulty

70
reaching in motivational satisfaction. Specifically, Type
Hypgtheeie_1_ stated that Power-motivated women who recalled
a motive-satisfying event and received incongruent
information should use more differentiation than
integration. Type_Hypethe§ie_e stated that Intimacy-
motivated men who recalled a motive-satisfying event and
received incongruent information should use more integration
than differentiation. This effect would be demonstrated
through a Sex X Motive X Arousal Condition X Information
Condition X Type interaction.

Second, tne_LeyeT_flypgthe§e§ predicted that power- and
intimacy-motivated subjects in motive-arousing states in
which there is no incentive to understand the information
thoroughly should not process information in an elaborated
manner, whereas those who are in motive-arousing states in
which there is an incentive to understand the information
more carefully should use more elaborated complexity.
Specifically, Leye1_Hypethe§ie_1_stated that perceivers who
recalled a motive-satisfying experience and then received
congruent information should use more simple complexity than
elaborated complexity. Leye1_nypetheei§_2 stated that
perceivers who recalled a motive-satisfying experience and
then received incongruent information should use more
elaborated complexity than simple complexity. This finding
would be demonstrated in a Motive X Arousal Condition X

Information Condition X Level interaction.

71

These hypotheses were tested through a 2(Sex: female
versus male) X 2(Motive: power versus intimacy) X 2(Arousal
Condition: positive versus neutral) X 2(Information
Condition: congruent versus incongruent) X 2(Level: simple
versus elaborated) X 2(Type: differentiation versus
integration) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). In this mixed
model design, Motive, Sex, Arousal Condition, and
Information Condition were between-subject variables and
type and level of complexity were within-subject variables.

As predicted from Type Hypotheses 3 and 4, this
analysis revealed a Sex X Motive X Arousal Condition X
Information Condition X Type interaction, F (1,105) = 4.34,
p <.04. Six other statistically significant effects all
subsumed under this 5-way interaction, also were found.
First, there was a significant Motive X Arousal Condition X
Information Condition X Type interaction, F (1,105) = 5.48,
p <.02, as predicted. Second, the Sex X Motive X
Information Condition X Type interaction, F (1,105) = 5.09,
p <.03 was significant. Third, there was a significant

Motive X Information Condition X Type interaction, F (1,105)

7.40, p <.008. Fourth, a Sex X Motive X Type interaction,
F (1,105) = 6.82, p <.01 was significant. Fifth, the Motive
X Type interaction, F (1,105) = 25.00, p <.0001 was also
significant. And lastly, there was a significant main
effect for Type, F (1,105) = 76.93, p <.001, in which

subjects generally used more differentiation (M = 11.67)

72
than integration (M = 7.71).

This analysis revealed no other effects. Notably,
there were no effects for Level of complexity. Moreover,
there were no significant between subjects effects,
indicating that there were no differences in the total
amount of complexity used in the various conditions. In
addition, a 2(Sex: female versus male) X 2(Motive: power
versus intimacy) X 2(Arousal Condition: positive versus
neutral) X 2(Information Condition: congruent versus
incongruent) X 2(Level: simple versus elaborated) X 2(Type:
differentiation versus integration) Analysis of Variance on
the total number of words used by each subject on the
impression protocols detected no statistically significant

effects.

W

The means for differentiation and integration in the
eight conditions of Sex, Motive, Arousal Condition, and
Information Condition can be found in Table 4. To test the
Type hypotheses, the means for the relevant variables were
examined via planned contrasts.

Type_flypgthe§ie_1 predicted that Power-motivated
perceivers who recalled a motive-satisfying event and
received incongruent information would use more

differentiation than integration. As predicted, power-

73
motivated individuals in the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent
Condition did use significantly more differentiation (M =
12.42) than integration (M = 6.40), F (1,105) = 28.01, p
<.0001. Even though the means were in the predicted
direction, this finding is not unequivocal because there was
a main effect for Type, whereby all subjects used more
differentiation.

Type_Mypptheei§_2 predicted that Intimacy—motivated
perceivers who recalled a motive satisfying event and
received incongruent information should use more integration
than differentiation. Contrary to prediction, Intimacy-
motivated individuals in the Positive Arousal Condition/
Incongruent condition did not use more integration (M =
8.89) than differentiation (M = 11.82). But, given the fact
that all subjects used more differentiation, the relative
use of integration could be interpreted as weak support for
this hypothesis.

Type_nypetneeie_1 stated that Power-motivated women who
recalled a motive-satisfying event and received incongruent
information would use more differentiation than integration.
As predicted, Power-motivated women in the Positive Arousal/
Incongruent Information condition did use significantly more
differentiation (M = 10.08) than integration (M = 6.42), F
(1,105) = 7.05 , p <.01. Again, this finding is not

unequivocal because of the main effect for Type.

74

Type_nypgtne§ie_e stated that Intimacy-motivated men
who recalled a motive-satisfying event and received
incongruent information should use more integration than
differentiation. But contrary to hypothesis 4, Intimacy-
motivated men in the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent
Information condition did not use more integration (M =
9.79) than differentiation (M = 11.93). But again, because
all subjects used more differentiation, this amount of
integration could be viewed as weak support for the
hypothesis.

Thus, the results of the planned comparisons show that
in the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent Information condition
Power-motivated subjects used more differentiation than
integration as expected, but Intimacy-motivated subjects in
the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent Information condition did
not use more integration. However, it appears that all
subjects did in fact use more differentiation than
integration since there was a strong main effect for Type.
Moreover, the large number of simple interactions subsumed
under the predicted five-way interaction suggest more
complex results than was initially anticipated.

The mixed-model ANOVA did not uncover any effects for
Level of complexity. Even though the Motive X Arousal
Condition X Information Condition X Level interaction was
not significant, planned comparisons were performed to test

the level hypotheses.

75

Leyel_hypetheeie_1 stated that perceivers who recalled
a motive-satisfying experience and then received congruent
information should use more simple complexity than
elaborated complexity. As predicted, Power—motivated
subjects in the Positive Arousal/ Congruent condition used
more simple complexity (M = 12.39) than elaborated
complexity (M = 7.98), F (1,105) = 27.30, p <.001. And as
expected, Intimacy-motivated subjects in the Positive
Arousal/ Congruent Information condition used more simple
complexity (M = 10.41) than elaborated complexity (M =
7.53), F (1,105) = 11.64, p < .001.

Leye1_hypetheeie_2 stated that perceivers who recalled
a motive-satisfying experience and then received incongruent
information should use more elaborated complexity than
simple complexity. Contrary to prediction, power-motivated
subjects in the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent Information
condition used more simple complexity (M = 11.34) than
elaborated complexity (M = 7.47) and Intimacy-motivated
subjects in the Positive Arousal/ Incongruent Information
condition used more simple complexity (H = 11.61) than

elaborated complexity (M = 9.10).

76

 

 

Table4
'1' I n 10,; u on o : no ..91
1.. 1. E . 1.. .
Ar 11 ii n
Positive Neutral
Congruent Incongruent Congruent Incongruent
Diff. Int. Diff. Int. Diff. Int. Diff. Int.
M .
Power
Males 14.05 6.33 14.75 6.37 12.71 5.07 13.14 5.93
Females 12.07 8.29 10.08 6.42 16.37 8.19 10.37 8.69
Intimacy
Males 10.06 8.94 11.93 9.79 7.67 7.58 9.92 9.00
Females 9.87 7.00 11.72 8.00 6.69 10.50 13.33 7.17

 

77

simple Effeets Tests

A simple effects analysis was performed to explore the
base of the significant Sex X Motive X Arousal Condition X
Information Condition X Type interaction. First, the simple
4-way effects of Motive, Sex, Information Condition and Type
within each Arousal Condition were examined.

T] E '!' E 1 : 1.!.

The analysis for the Positive Arousal Condition
revealed three significant simple effects: a main effect
for Type, E (1,54) = 49.31, p <.0001: a Motive X Type
interaction, F (1,54) = 8.27, p <.006: and a Sex X Motive X
Type interaction, E (1,54) = 6.33, p <.01. To explore the
basis of the Sex X Motive X Type simple interaction, the
simple 3-way effects of Motive, Information Condition and
Type within each Sex were examined. The analyses for males
in the Positive Arousal condition yielded two significant
effects. There was a simple main effect for Type, F (1,28)
= 34.86, p <.0001, in which men in the Positive Arousal
condition used more differentiation (M = 10.94) than
integration (M = 7.42). There was also a Motive X Type
simple interaction, F (1,28) = 15.30, p <.0005: Simple
effects tests of the means, presented in Table 5, revealed
that in the Positive Arousal condition, Power-motivated
males used significantly more differentiation than

integration, F (1,105) = 96.63, p <.0001. In the Positive

78
Arousal condition, Intimacy-motivated men used only
marginally more differentiation than integration, F (1,105)
= 3.49, p <.07. For females in the Positive Arousal
Condition, there was only a simple main effect for Type, F
(1,26) = 16.58, p <.0004, in which these women used more
differentiation (M = 10.94) than integration (M = 7.42).
That is, when asked to recall a motive-satisfying
experience, both power- and intimacy-motivated women used

more differentiation than integration.

79

Table 5

e I e e e 0
v3. ‘ 4 0‘ 010-, V 3. 0 o. .l! 0!. 9‘ 0 0!'.°,‘.

 

W
ElEE !° !' I I 1'
1193.119.
Power 14.40a 6.35a
Intimacy 10.99 9.36

 

Note: Common subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

80
Tl H ! J E J ; z.!.
The analysis for the Neutral Arousal Condition revealed
four significant simple effects: a main effect for type, E

(1,51) 29.57, p <.0001: a Motive X Type interaction, E

(1.51)

17.03, p <.0001: a Motive X Information Condition X
Type interaction, E (1,51) = 11.80, p <.001: and Sex X
Motive X Information Condition X Type, E (1,51) = 8.68, p
<.005.

To explore the basis of these interactions, the simple
3-way effects of Motive, Sex, and Type within each
Information Condition were examined. This analysis revealed
two significant simple effects for the Neutral
Arousal/Congruent Information condition group: a main
effect for Type, E (1,25) = 12.31 and a Motive X Type
interaction, E (1,25) = 32.16, p <.0001. Subjects in the
Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information condition used more
differentiation (M = 11.28) than integration (M = 7.77).
Table 6 presents the differentiation and integration means
for the power- and intimacy-motivated individuals who were
not asked to recall a motive-satisfying experience and
received motive-congruent information about themselves.
Examination of the means revealed that Power-motivated
individuals in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information
condition used significantly more differentiation than
integration, E (1,105) = 76.84, p <.0001 and intimacy-

motivated individuals used significantly more integration

81
than differentiation, E (1,105) = 4.56, p <.05.

The analysis for the Neutral Arousal/Incongruent
Information group revealed a simple main effect for type, E
(1,26) = 12.31, p <.002 and a Sex X Motive X Type simple
interaction, E (1,26) = 7.91, p <.009. To find the basis of
this interaction, the simple 2-way effects of Motive, and

Type within each Sex were examined.

82

Table 6

 

W
EiEE !' !' I 1 !'
M91113:
Power 14.54a 6.63a
Intimacy 7.18b 9.04b

 

Note: Common subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

83

For males in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent
Information condition, there was a simple main effect for
type, E (1,11) = 6.34, p <.03, in which these males
generally used more differentiation (M = 11.53) than
integration (M = 7.46). This analyses also revealed a
marginal simple Motive X Type interaction, E (1,105) = 3.80,
p <.08. Examination of the means in, presented in Table 7,
revealed that Power-motivated males in the Neutral Arousal/
Incongruent Information condition used significantly more
differentiation than integration, E (1,105) = 31.92, p
<.0001, but there was no difference in the amount of
differentiation and integration used by Intimacy—motivated
males in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent Information

condition, E (1,105) < 1, ne.

84

 

Table 7
yo ‘, 1 3e - r1 . 0 - 1 0:0 ‘1 I 0 u 0!
° ex' 5 a u ' f o 'vat'on.
W
Motixe
Power 13.14a 5.93a
Intimacy 9.92 9.00

 

Note: Common subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

85

For females in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent
Information condition, there was a simple main effect for
type, E (1,15) = 11.91, p < .004, in which these subjects
generally used more differentiation (M = 11.85) than
integration (M = 7.93). This analyses also revealed a
marginal Motive X Type simple interaction, E (1,105) = 3.87,
p <.07. Examination of the means in Table 8 revealed that
Power-motivated females in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent
Information condition did not use significantly more
differentiation than integration, E (1,105) = 1.98, as:
but, Intimacy-motivated women did use significantly more
differentiation than integration, E (1,105) = 24.41, p

<.0001.

86

 

Table 8
,‘u2.‘_ '1 1‘ 1e- ,._ 1.0--9 Mn 910,-71 1 tons 01
0 1 9 ° ' 9 1 ‘ 917 0 0 u 0 f . ° 2 - e - 1 ' 9 1 0 IL. . 0,1 .
E'EE !.!. I! !
Mile
Power 10.37 8.69
Intimacy 13.33a 7.77a

 

Note: Common subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

87

E E E 11 E' 1'

The type and level hypotheses were partially supported:
but, these results are not unequivocal because there was a
main effect for Type in which all subjects used more
differentiation than integration. Power- and intimacy-
motivated subjects in the Positive Arousal/ Congruent
Information condition used more differentiation and
integration, respectively, and more simple complexity than
elaborated complexity, generally. Simple effects test
revealed four main findings. First, after Power-motivated
men were asked to recall a motive-satisfying event, they
processed information using more differentiation, while
Intimacy-motivated men showed no difference between the
amount of differentiation and integration. Both Power- and
Intimacy-motivated women used more differentiation than
integration after they recalled a motive-satisfying event.
Second, subjects who did not recall a motive—satisfying
event but did receive motivationally-congruent information
about themselves tended to use the predicted differential
modes of complexity. Power-motivated individuals in the
Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information condition used more
differentiation than integration and Intimacy-motivated
individuals in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information

condition used more integration than differentiation.

88
Third, Power—motivated males who did not recall a motive-
satisfying event but did receive motivationally-congruent
information about themselves used more differentiation than
integration, while there was no difference in the amount of
differentiation and integration used by Intimacy-motivated
men in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information condition.
And fourth, there was no difference in the amount of
differentiation and integration used by Power-motivated
women who did not recall a motive-satisfying event but
received motivationally-congruent information about
themselves. But, Intimacy-motivated females in the Neutral
Arousal/ Incongruent Information condition used
significantly more differentiation and integration, which is
contrary to the general predictions about the differential
use of differentiation and integration. These findings will
be discussed in terms of the functional utility of the four

kinds of cognitive complexity in the next section.

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

This study investigated the role of affective states as
mediators of specific cognitive processes in order to
understand how motivational states influence the cognitive
processing of social events. Affect experiences related to
different social motives were proposed to be linked to the
kinds of cognitive complexity people use to process social
information. Specifically, it was predicted that different
types and levels of complexity serve specific functions that
allow individuals to gain motivational satisfaction.

The Type Hypothesis predicted that in situations
involving the potential for motivational satisfaction,
power- and intimacy-motivated individuals would use the type
of complexity that is most likely to lead to motivational
satisfaction. In such situations, power-motivated
individuals were expected to use more differentiation, while
intimacy-motivated individuals were expected to use more
integration. Specifically, the Type Hypotheses predicted
differential use of differentiation and integration under

conditions in which individuals were asked to recall a

89

90
motive-satisfying experience and then experienced a
disruption in positive affect associated with motive
satisfaction through receiving motive-incongruent
information about their personalities. Power-motivated
subjects were expected to use more differentiation in order
to restore a sense of feeling strong, whereas intimacy-
motivated individuals were expected to use more integration
to restore a sense of feeling connected and close under such
conditions. The pattern of results did not generally
support these predictions, however.

Instead, the pattern of results suggests that
differentiation and integration are used in other ways by
power- and intimacy-motivated people. The results showed
that there was a strong Motive by Type interaction in which
Power-motivated individuals used more differentiation than
integration and Intimacy-motivated individuals used more
integration than differentiation. This suggests that the
link between these two implicit motives and the two types of
complexity may be more fundamental than was originally
expected. Of course, this interaction was qualified by
several higher-order effects.

Perhaps most consistent with the hypotheses was the
finding of differential use of differentiation and
integration in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information
condition. Individuals who did not recall a motive-

satisfying event but did receive motivationally-congruent

91
information about themselves and their abilities seemed to
use the predicted modes of complexity. Power-motivated
individuals in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information
condition used more differentiation than integration and
Intimacy-motivated individuals in the Neutral Arousal/
Congruent Information condition used more integration than
differentiation. Curiously, this pattern was predicted in
the Qppgeite conditions (i.e., Positive Arousal/ Incongruent
Information). It was predicted that individuals who were in
the Positive Arousal condition and received Incongruent
information would have to work harder to achieve
motivational satisfaction.

Why might power- and intimacy-motivated individuals use
more differentiation and integration respectively in
situations in which they are told they were in the process
of successfully developing skills that were related to their
underlying motives? One reason might be that the congruent
condition asked power- and intimacy-motivated individuals to
think about the targets in ways that pertained to their
underlying motives. In order to do this, they used the mode
of cognitive complexity predicted to be associated with each
motive. In the Congruent condition, Power—motivated
individuals thought about the targets in terms of their
different and contrasting attributes, whereas intimacy-
motivated individuals focused on the connections and

similarities between the targets.

92

The congruent situation may also have been seen as an
opportunity to engage in a motive satisfying experience in
itself. These individuals were in a situation in which they
were told that experts had selected them out of a large
group of people as those who were most likely to be
successful at and in the process of developing skills
related to their underlying motives. Thus, the individuals
in the Neutral Arousal/Congruent Information condition may
have been in the process of experiencing motive satisfaction
during the impression formation task. Once the individual's
motives were aroused by the Congruent Information, they may
have then used differentiation (or integration) processes to
sustain a sense of feeling strong (or close to others).

Women and men in the Neutral Arousal/ Incongruent
Information condition showed a different pattern of use of
the types of complexity. Power-motivated males who did not
recall a motive-satisfying event but were told they were in
the process of successfully developing interpersonal skills
related to intimacy used more differentiation than
integration. In contrast, there was no difference in the
amount of differentiation and integration used by Intimacy-
motivated men in the Neutral Arousal who were told they were
in the process of successfully developing skills related to
power. Likewise, there was no difference in the amount of
differentiation and integration used by Power-motivated

women in the Neutral Arousal condition who were told that

93
they were in the process of successfully developing
interpersonal skills related to intimacy. But, Intimacy-
motivated females in the Neutral Arousal who were told that
they were in the process of successfully developing social
skills related to power used significantly more
difitezentietien than integration, which is contrary to the
general predictions about the differential use of these
types of complexity.

Thus, Intimacy-motivated females and Power-motivated
males who received incongruent information both used more
differentiation than integration. In both cases, this
information was, in a sense, deeply incongruent. The
message was clearly incompatible with their underlying
implicit motives, but it was also incongruent with gender
expectations for these individuals. Intimacy-motivated
women were told they were developing skills related to
having power over others and power-motivated men told they
were in the process of developing skills related to social
sensitivity. Therefore, it is possible that they found
these messages more disruptive or threatening than the
power-motivated women or the intimacy-motivated males.
Being told that one is similar to others who are clearly
dissimilar in not one way, but two ways, may lead to a
desire to separate from the situation. Differentiation may
serve the function of separating the perceiver from people

and social situations that create discomfort. In this way,

94
perceivers were able to use differentiation to
psychologically separate from the situation regardless of
their specific motivational orientation.

On the other hand, even though the information was
motive-incongruent for power-motivated women and intimacy-
motivated men, it was compatible with the typical
expectations for their gender. Power-motivated women were
told they were in the process of successfully developing
interpersonal sensitivity, while intimacy-motivated men were
told they were in the process of developing leadership
skills. Therefore, power-motivated women and intimacy-
motivated men may have found the motive-incongruent
information less threatening and disruptive because it was
compatible with their gender roles.

In the reanalysis of the Woike and Aronoff (1992a)
data, it was found that in congruent conditions in which
there was no disruption or threat to motive satisfaction,
power-motivated women used more elaborated differentiation
than intimacy-motivated men. Comparing the results of Woike
and Aronoff (1992a) with the present study, it appears that
the differential use of these types of complexity are used
by individuals with atypical motive and gender combinations
(i.e., power-motivated women and intimacy-motivated men) in
situations that provide an opportunity for motive
satisfaction, but do not activate their respective gender

orientations.

95

The recall of a happy personal experience (i.e.,
Positive Arousal condition) did not seem to mediate the
complexity of cognitive processing as expected, except for
power-motivated males. After Power-motivated men were asked
to recall a pleasant life event, they processed information
using more differentiation, while Intimacy-motivated men
showed no significant difference between the amount
differentiation and integration. Both Power- and Intimacy-
motivated women used more differentiation than integration
after they recalled a positive experience.

It is interesting to compare these results with the
findings of the Woike and Aronoff (1992b) study. This study
is clearly different from the present research in that it
looked at gender effects only. In the Woike and Aronoff
(1992b) study, women in the happy arousal condition were
found to use more simple integration than men, but men used
more elaborated integration than women in this condition.
When the use of differentiation and integration was compared
yithin gender and mood conditions, however, the data from
Woike and Aronoff (1992b) were consistent with the pattern
of results found in the current study: Subjects generally
used more differentiation than integration in the positive
mood condition. It may be that differentiation,
particularly simple differentiation, is easier for subjects
to use when they are more interested in their own private

affective experience than the social stimuli present. In

96
addition, cuing one's own affective experience may lead to
greater self-focus, which in turn lead to an increase in the
perception of the isolated attributes between the self and
others.

Originally, it was predicted that the arousal of the
power and intimacy motive through the recollection of a
positive motive-relevant experience was necessary to bring
about these differences in complexity, but the results
suggest that this is not the case. Examination of the
results showed that much of the differential use of
complexity occurred among individuals who were not asked to
recall a positive experience. Differential use of
complexity varied more between the Motive-Information
Congruent Conditions than between the Arousal Conditions.
Therefore, it appears that the motive-arousing manipulation
that affected the complexity of cognitive processing was in
fact the Motive-Information Congruent condition.

The few subjects in the Positive Arousal condition who
did not recall positive life experiences that were related
to their implicit motives were retained in the sample to
increase statistical power and because the pattern of
results was virtually the same without these subjects, as
discussed previously. As a caveat, it is conceivable that
the Positive Arousal condition may have evoked a general
positive mood rather than motive-related affects. But given

the fact the most of the significant findings were in the

97
Neutral Arousal condition rather than the Positive Arousal
condition, this issue does not seem critical.

How do these results compare with the findings of the
Woike and Aronoff (19920) study? As explained previously,
Woike and Aronoff (1992c) had power- and intimacy-motivated
women recall a positive, emotionally-involving life
experience (Positive Arousal) or a ordinary event that
happened yesterday (Neutral Arousal) and then view a
videotape of two job candidates involved in a peer interview
under conditions in which subjects were told that they were
chosen for the experiment because they had personalities
similar to the job candidates' who were described as either
power- or intimacy-oriented, thereby creating a Congruent/
Incongruent Information condition. In the Positive Arousal/
Incongruent Information condition, Power-motivated women
used more differentiation than did intimacy-motivated women
and intimacy-motivated women used more integration than did
power-motivated women. This pattern of results was not
present for women (or men) in the present study. Moreover,
unlike Woike and Aronoff (1992b), the types of complexity
were compared yithin sex, motive, arousal, and information
conditions in the present study, rather than between these
conditions.

The level hypotheses predicted that for power- and
intimacy-motivated subjects in motive-arousing states in

which there was no incentive to understand the information

98
thoroughly should not process information in an elaborated
manner, whereas those who are in motive-arousing states in
which there is an incentive to understand the information
more carefully should use more elaborated complexity.
Examination of the data revealed that the level hypotheses
were partially supported. Both power- and intimacy-
motivated perceivers who recalled a motive-satisfying
experience and then received congruent information did in
fact use more simple complexity than elaborated complexity,
as predicted. But, power- and intimacy-motivated perceivers
who recalled a motive-satisfying experience and then
received incongruent information did not use more elaborated
complexity than simple complexity. As mentioned previously,
it appears that individuals in the Positive Arousal/
Incongruent condition used differentiation to separate
themselves from the situation rather than to try to
understand it more carefully.

In general, the results from this study and the three
previous investigations (Woike 8 Aronoff, 1992a, 1992b,
1992c) suggest that the differentiation-integration and the
simple-elaborated distinctions within the construct of
cognitive complexity are useful ones. Theorists from many
perspectives have described distinctions in social
orientation that are similar to the power-intimacy contrast
(e.g., Bakan, 1966: Franz 8 White, 1985). Some have further

maintained that these orientations are related to

99
differences in social perception (e.g., Gilligan, 1982:
Lykes, 1985). To extend this idea, I have suggested that
these social orientations are linked to specific social-
cognitive processes that function to allow perceivers to met
the respective social needs. Specifically, individuals
concerned with power and individual action tend to perceive
their social worlds as made up of separate, distinct,
contrasting, and conflicting entities: and, individuals
concerned with intimacy tend to construe their social
reality as made up connections, similarities,
interrelationships and resolutions among and between social
entities.

Based on the findings from these four investigations,
it can be concluded that differential use of these types of
complexity are most likely to occur under certain
conditions. First, as was predicted in the present study,
differentiation may be used by power-motivated perceivers to
achieve a sense of feeling strong in situations in which
motivational satisfaction is difficult to reach. This was
demonstrated by the power-motivated individuals in the
Positive Arousal/ Incongruent condition of the present
investigation: they used more differentiation than
integration under these conditions. Also, Woike and Aronoff
(1992a) found that power-motivated women who anticipated
interacting with the targets in the power-related way used

more differentiation processing, presumably to attain motive

100
satisfaction.

Likewise, integration processes may be used by
intimacy-motivated perceivers to achieve a sense of feeling
close in situations where motive satisfaction is difficult
to reach. Supporting this, Woike and Aronoff (1992a) found
that intimacy-motivated men who anticipated interacting with
the targets in the intimacy-related way used more integrated
processing as a means to reach motive Satisfaction.

Second, differentiation processes may be used by power-
motivated perceivers who wish to augment or sustain their
experience of motivational satisfaction, such as the power—
motivated individuals in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent
Information condition of the present study. Likewise, it
integration may be used by intimacy-motivated perceivers to
augment or sustain their experience of motivational
satisfaction, as was demonstrated by intimacy-motivated
individuals in the Neutral Arousal/ Congruent Information
condition of the present study.

Third, it appears that differentiation may be used by
perceivers to psychologically separate themselves from
social situations that created discomfort, as was
demonstrated in the present study, and the Woike and Aronoff
(1992b) study. In the present study, perceivers who were in
conditions that were incongruent with their gender and
predominant social motives used more differentiated

processing. The general finding from the Woike and Aronoff

101
(1992b) study was that men used more differentiation when in
affective states as compared to men in the control
condition.

The level hypotheses states that differences in the
degree of complexity used to form an impression are linked
to the perceiver's motivation to understand the information.
As researchers in the area of social cognition have
suggested, people generally do as much cognitive processing
as is necessary to meet their purposes (e.g., Fiske 8
Taylor, 1991: Forgas, 1992: Tetlock, 1983). The results of
the Woike and Aronoff (1992a) study demonstrated that power-
and intimacy-motivated perceivers used more elaborated
complexity when they anticipated interacting with the
targets in motive-congruent ways. And, in the present
study, power- and intimacy-motivated perceivers in the
Positive Arousal/ Congruent Information condition used more
simple complexity because there was no reason to think
carefully in order to attain motive satisfaction.

In sum, these four studies suggest that affect, that
is, general mood as well as motive-specific affect is
closely intertwined with the use of different types of
cognitive complexity. I conclude, as many theorists (e.g.,
Fiske 8 Taylor, 1991: Forgas, 1992: McClelland, et al.,
1989), have suggested, that more work that investigates the
mutual influence of affect and cognition is needed to

understand this important aspect of psychological

102
functioning. In particular, attention must be given to
identifying the correspondence of motive-related affect and
the complexity with which information is processed in order
to understand how individuals meet their needs through this

basic social perception process.

REFERENCES

Angyal, A. (1951). A theoretical model for personality

studies. Journal_gf_2ersonalit¥. 29. 131-142-
Argyle. H- & Cook. M- (1976). Gaze_and_mutual_gaze-

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Aronoff, J. 8 Wilson, J. P. (1985). Eeteenelity_in_the
eeeiel_pzeeeee. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Atkinson. J- W- (1958). Motixes_in_fantasxl_acLionl_and
epeiety. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bakan, D- (1966)- The_dualitx_of_human_existence- Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Tnteteetipn_pzeeeee_enelyei§. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Battistich, V. A., Assor, A., Messé, L. A. 8 Aronoff, J.
(1985). Personality and person perception. In P.
shaver (Ed-I SelfI_situatiens1_end_sociel_nsxenolesx-
Beverly, Hills, CA: Sage.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., 8 Tarule,

J- M- (1986). figmenls_ua¥s_ef_knouing- New York:

Basic.

103

104

Block, J. H. (1973). Conceptions of sex role: Some cross-
cultural and longitudinal perspectives. Amezieen
Esyghglegiet, 2e, 515-526.

Bodenhausen, G. V. (in press). Emotions, arousal, and
stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect and
stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie 8 D. L. Hamilton (Eds.).
IEE ! '1' E ! ! . . I ! !°

. 1' .

Borgatta, E. F. 8 Crowther, B. (1965). A workbook for the
studx_9f_s9ciel_interactien_nzecess- Chicag°= Rand
McNally.

Brody, L. (1985). Gender differences in emotional
development: A review of theories and research. In A.
J. Stewart 8 M. B. Lykes (Eds.). Qengez_en§
pezegnelity. Durham: Duke University Press.

Brody, L., Rozek, M., 8 Mutin, E. (1986). Age, sex, and
individual differences in children's defensiveness.
Jeurnal_ef_Qlinical_9hild_£§¥§heleg¥. 51 123-138-

Buck, R. (1977). Nonverbal communication of affect in

preschool children: Relationships with personality and

skin conductance. 1ournal_9f.£ersonelitx_end_Secial
WI .151 225-236

105
Chaiken, A. L. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic

information processing and the use of source versus

message cues in persuasion. Jeurnal_ef_£ersonalit¥_and
Social_E§xch919g¥. 32. 752-766.

Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine
personality. In M. Z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Eds.).
flemeny_epltppey_eng_eeeiety. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Chodorow, N. (1978). The_reproduction_of_motheringe
Esx9heanalxsis_and_the_sogieleg¥_9f_gender. Berkeley.

CA: University of California Press.
Craik, F. I. M. 8 Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of

processing: A framework for memory research. Jpntnel

ef_Ierhal_Learning_and_yerbal_flehexier. 11. 671-684-
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). E1eyt_the_peyehplegy_pfi_pptimel
expezienee. New York: Harper 8 Row.
Feldman, R., 8 White, J. (1980). Detecting deception in
children. Jpgtne1_pt_gpmmnnieetien, 1Q, 121-128.
Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. (1991). Speiel_gggnitipn.

New York: Random House.
Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect and social perception:

Research evidence and integrative theory. In W.

Stroebe 8 M. Hewstone (Eds.). Eutepeen_3eyiey_gfi
Social_Es¥chelegx. 2911.1. Chichester: Wiley-
Gilligan. C- (1982). In_a_different_xoice. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

106
Goldstein, K. M. 8 Blackman, S. (1978). Eggnitiye_etyle.
New York: Wiley.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal

cues. Bsxohologioal_8ulletin. 85. 845-857-
Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E. 8 Schroder, H. M. (1961).

Qonoentual_sxstems_and_personalitx_orgenization. New
York: Wiley.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes,
and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Adyeneee_in
experimentalmialmhologx (Vol. 20). Orlando FL:

Academic Press.

Kelly. G. A. (1955). The_nsY9hol99¥_of_nersonal_constructs.
New York: Norton.

Langer, E. J. (1989). Mingfinlneee. Reading MA: Addison-
Wesley.

Leary. T- (1957). InteInsrsonal_diagnosis_of_nersonalit¥-
New York: Ronald Press.

Lykes, M. B. (1985). Gender and individualistic vs.
collectivist bases for notions about the self. In A. J.
Stewart 8 M. B. Lykes (Eds.). Qenfiez_eng_pez§enelity.
Durham: Duke University Press.

Lyons, N. P. (1983). Two perspectives: On self,
relationships, and morality. Mezyepg_Egpeetignel
Beyiefl, £1 (2), 125-145.

107
McAdams, D. P. (1980). A thematic coding system for the
intimacy motive. Journal_of_Besearch_in_2ersonalit¥.
15, 413-432.
McAdams, D. P. (1982). Experiences of intimacy and power:

Relationships between social motives and

autobiographical memory. Jeunnel_pt_2et§pnelity_eng
$991§l_£§¥§h91991. AZ. 292-302-

McAdams, D. P. (1982). Intimacy Motivation. In A. J.
Stewart (Ed.) Mptiyetien_en§_eeeiety. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

McAdams, D. P. (1984). Scoring manual for the intimacy

motive. Psychological_nocuments. 14. 2614.
McAdamS. 0- P. (1985). Eouer1_intimaoxl_and_the_life_stor21
Eersonological_inquiries_into_identitx- Chica90. IL:

Dorsey Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1990). Tne_pezegn. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.

McAdams, D. P., Lester, R., Brand, P., McNamara, W. 8
Lensky, D. B. (1988). Sex and TAT: Are women more
intimate than men? 00 men fear intimacy? Jepzne1_efi

Personalit¥_Assessment. 52. 397-409.
McArthur, L. 2. 8 Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward a ecological

theory of social perception. Psychological_8exieu. 29.
215-238.

McClelland. D. C- (1975). Eoweri_The_inneriexperienoe. New

York: Irvington.

108

McClelland, D. C. (1980). Motive dispositions: The merits
of operant and respondent measures. In L. Wheeler
(Ed.). Beyiew_of_Eersonalitx_and_Sooial_E§¥cholos¥
(Vol. 1, pp. 10-41). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McClelland, D. C. (1981). Is personality consistent? In A.
I. Rabin, J. Aronoff, 8 R. Zucker (Eds.), Entthet
explorations_in_personalit¥- (pp-86-113). New York:
Wiley.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Hemen_metiyetien. Glenview, IL:
Scott-Foresman.

McClelland, D. C. (1989). Motivational factors in health and
disease. Ame:ieen_£eyehplpgiet, 51, 675-683.

McClelland, D. C., Davidson, R. J., Saron, C. 8 Floor, E.
(1980). The need for power, brain norepinephrine
turnover and learning. Bielpgiee1_E§yenengy, 1Q, 93-
102.

McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R. 8 Weinberger, J. (1989).
How do self-attributed and implicit motives differ?
Esxchologicel_8exiew. 26, 690-702.

McClelland, D. C. 8 Steele, R. S. (1972). Mptiyetign
yezkengpe. New York: General Learning Press.

Miller. J. B. (1976). Toward_a_new_ps¥cholog¥_of_women.
Boston: Beacon Press.

Mueller, J. H. (1979). Anxiety and encoding processes in

memory. Eersonalitx_and_Social_Esxcholog¥_Bulletin. 5.
288-294.

109
Murray, N., Sujan, H., Hirt, E. R., 8 Sujan, M. (1990). The
influence of mood on categorization: A cognitive

flexibility interpretation. r e a ' n

Social_Esxchologx. 52. 411-425.
PauthS. D- L. (1991). A_dYnamic_complexitx_model_of

personalitx_prooesses. Umpublished manuscript.
University of British Columbia.

Petty, R. E. 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.)
Ad1anoes_in_experimental_social_ns¥chologx. Vol. 12.
pp. 125-205. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Pratt, M. (1991). Integrative complexity and relationships
reasoning. Presentation at the 99th Annual Meeting of
the American Psychological Association, San Francisco,
CA.

Pollak, S., 8 Gilligan, C. (1982). Images of violence in
Thematic Apperception Test stories. 19g:nel_efi
Bersonalitx_and_Social_Esxchologx, 42, 159-167.

Rosenthal, R., Hall, J., Dimatteo, M. R., Roger, P. L., 8
Archer. D. (1979). Sensitixitx_to_nonxerbal
epmngnieetienet_;Tne_EQM§_te§t. Baltimore: Johns

Hopkins University Press.
Saarni, C. (1982). Social and affective functions of
nonverbal behavior: Developmental concerns. In R. S.

Feldman (Ed.). Deyelopment_of_nonxerhal_behaxior_in
thldzen(pp. 123-147) New York: Springer-Verlag.

110

Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., 8 Streufert, S. (1967).
Mpmen_infippmetipn_ptpeeeeingy New York: Holt, Rinehart,
8 Winston.

Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information:

Informational and motivational functions of affective
states. In E. T.Higgins 8 R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.).
Handpook_of_motixation_ane_oognition (V01. 2. pp. 527-
561). New York: Guilford.

Shennum, W. A., 8 Buegental, D. B. (1982). The development
of control over affective expression in nonverbal
behavior. In R. S. Feldman (Ed.), Deyelppment_efi
nonxerbal_behaxior_in_children (PP- 101-121)- New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Streufert, S. 8 Streufert, S. (1978). Beneyipp_in_the

complex_enxironment. Washington DC: Winston.
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of

thought. Journal_of_2eraonalit¥_and_social_zs¥chologx.
35, 74-83.

Tetlock, P. E. 8 Hannum, K. (1984). Tntegpetiye_eemp1exity
epding_nenne1. Unpublished manuscript, University of
California, Berkeley.

Tetlock, P. E. 8 Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and
judgment processes in a personality prediction task.

2ournal_of_Eeraonalitx.and.§ocial.25¥oholog¥. 52. 700-
709.

111
Weinberger, J. 8 McClelland, D. C. (1991). Cognitive versus
traditional motivational models. In E. T. Higgins 8 R.

N- Sorrentino (Eds.). 112W
Qegnitien (Vol. 2, pp. 562-597). New York: Guilford.

Winter, 0. G. (1973). The_peyet_metiye. New York: Free
Press.

Winter, D.G. (1988). The power motive in women--and men.
W. 5.4. 510-
519.

Woike. B. A. (1989a). AW
epgnitiye_epmp1exity. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Woike. B. A. (1989b). WW5!
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan.

Woike, B. A., 8 Aronoff, J. (1992a). Antecedents of complex

social cognition. MW
Psychology. 6.3. 97-104-

Woike. 8- A. 8 Aronoff. J. (1992b). Affectixeexperiences
Manuscript in preparation, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, Michigan.

112

Woike, B. A. 8 Aronoff, J. (1992c). Ageptie_epg_eemmpnel

a .- i - - . é ° -1e . - . 001' f - one -.i

motiyational_experiences. Manuscript in preparation,

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

APPENDIX A

EXPERIMENT MATERIALS

114

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Department of Psychology

DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM

1. I have freely consented to take part in a scientific
study being conducted

by: ,

under the supervision of: Joel Aronoff

Academic Titles: Professor of Psychology

The research will require that I write a short
description of a personal experience and perform some social
impression tasks that ask me to form impressions of others.
Participation in this experiment will take approximately one
hour.

2. The study has been explained to me and I understand the
explanation that has been given and what my participation
will involve.

3. I understand that I am free to discontinue my
participation in the study at any time without penalty.

4. I understand that the results of the study will be
treated in strict confidence and I will remain anonymous.
Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made
available to me at my request.

5. I understand that my participation in the study does not
guarantee any beneficial results to me.

6. I understand that, at my request, I can receive
additional explanation of the study after my participation
is completed.

Signed:
Date:

 

 

115
EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION
Name Sex Student#

Number
Phone(clearly)

 

 

 

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

An important personal asset is imagination. This test
gives you an opportunity to use your imagination, to show
how you can create ideas and situations by yourself. In
other words, instead of presenting you with answers already
made up, from which you have to pick one, it gives you the
chance to show how you can think things on your own.

On the following pages, you are to make up and write
out a brief, imaginative story for each of the six pictures
that will be presented on the screen. You will have five
minutes for each story. There is one page for each story
(in any case, please do not write more than about 150 words
per story.) To help you cover all the elements of a story
plot in the time allowed, you will find these questions
repeated at the top of each page:

1. What is happening? Who are the people?

2. What has led up to this situation? That is, what
has happened in the past?

3. What is being thought: What is wanted? By whom?
4. What will happen? What will be done?

Please remember that the questions are only ggigee for your
thinking: you need not answer each specifically. That is,
your story should be continuous and not just a set of
answers to these questions. There are no "right" or "wrong"
stories. In fact, any kind of story is quite all right.
You have a chance to show how quickly you can imagine and
write a story on your own. Try to make your stories
interesting and dramatic. Show that you have an
understanding of people and can make up stories about human
situations. Don’t just describe the pictures, but write
stories about them.

Each picture will be projected onto the screen for 20
seconds, then turn the page and write the story suggested
to you by the picture. After 5 minutes, another picture
will be projected onto the screen. Turn the page, and write
the story suggested to you by the picture and so on for all
six pictures. I will announce that it is time to move on
before I show the next picture.

116

Picture # 1-6

1. What is happening? Who are the people?

2. What has led up to this situation? That is, what has
happened in the past?

3. What is being thought: What is wanted? By whom?

4. What will happen? What will done?

117
Life Experiences Questionnaire

We are interested in studying the relationship between
memory and emotion. Today we are interested in happiness.
To study the relationship between memory and happiness, we
would like you to recall a single positive and pleasant
event in your life that caused you to feel very happy at the
time it occurred. Use the rest of this sheet (and back if
necessary) to write down the event as you now remember it.
In particular, please describe how the event came about--as
vividly as you can. In fact, before you begin writing, take
a few minutes to try to re-experience this event as vividly
as possible. Then, take about 10 minutes to write your
description. (Your description will be confidential and
anonymous.)

118
Life Experiences Questionnaire

We are interested in studying the relationship between
memory and personal experiences. Today we are interested in
common, everyday personal experiences. To study the
relationship between memory and personal experiences, we
would like you to recall the events that happened to you
yeetetgey that seemed to be small, everyday events at the
time they occurred. Use the rest of this sheet (and back if
necessary) to write down the events as you now remember
them. Before you begin writing, take a few minutes to think
about these events. Then, take about 10 minutes to write
your description. (Your description will be confidential
and anonymous.)

119

Think about what you have seen of Eric and Kim. Think about
the kind of job we have described. Since both people and
jobs are complex and hard to pigeon-hole, they need to be
thought of in relation to each other in different ways and
on different levels. Take a moment or two to gather your
thoughts and then decide who is most suitable for the job.
What kinds of qualities and behaviors were shown on the
videotape that lead you to believe that this person is the
best for the job? Please carefully state your reasons for
taking this position. Take about 10 minutes to write your
impression.

120
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET

Inettpetiepe. It is helpful to us to know a little bit
about your background and current psychological
characteristics in order to understand more about the types
of people who are participating in the study. Please answer
each question below.

A. Age: years
B. Sex: Male Female (circle one)
C. Class Level (circle one)

(1) Freshman (2) Sophomore (3) Junior (4) Senior
(5) Other

D. List below are several descriptors of psychological
qualities. Please indicate how much feel each term
describes you tignt_npy. Do this by circling a number on
the scale from 0 (not at all) to 9 (extremely much) that
reflects how much each quality applies to you at this time.
Please be completely honest: your responses are anonymous.

not at extremely
all much
alert 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

distracted 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
calm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
energized 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
depressed 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
joyful 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
assertive 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
anxious 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
happy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
friendly 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
confused 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

irritated 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

121

Information to Participants

Currently, a great deal of research in psychology
concerns social information processing. Researchers are
studying the various ways in which we encode (or take in)
stimuli from the environment. For instance, some
experimenters study how well individuals remember certain
events or how people store and retrieve new information. The
experiment that you have just participated in is one such
study.

Psychologists agree that differences in motivation and
other types of social orientations can have a great impact
on how we differentiate and categorize one person from
another (as well as one situation from another). That is, a
person’s social orientation can have a great impact on how
he or she perceives the environment. For example, a person
with a high need for achievement might be better able to
remember information related to a class project or some
other achievement related task than a person who has
different concerns.

We all know that we have different personalities and
different "points of view" from others. In this experiment,
we were especially interested in how people’s general
attitudes influence their views and first impressions of
people and social situations. By asking you to first write
imaginative stories and then form an impression of the
people on the videotape we will be able to learn more about
how information is categorized and how distinctions are made
between people and social situations.

Thanks very much for participating in today's
experiment. We will be happy to answer any questions that
you might have at this time or you may speak with Barbara
Woike in 424 Baker Hall regarding this study.

APPENDIX B

OUTLINE OF THE
CATEGORIES OF COMPLEXITY CODING MANUAL

123

The Categories of Complexity

Barbara A. Woike

5' 1 l'EE t' t' .

Simple differentiation involves the naming or listing
of attributes (or simple descriptors), called ney_eepeet§
(NAs). The perceiver sees new aspects or aspects that are
unrelated to any other aspect that the perceiver uses in the
impression. Mey_e§peete may be further defined by a context.
For instance, the perceiver may state, "Eric is a good
leader." Or she may state, "Eric is a good leader in
competitive activities." Both of these examples are scored
as NAs. Sometimes the perceiver will use ney_eepeet§ to
describe things that are not directly related to the
target(s). For instance, the perceiver may state,
"Interviews are stressful." or "The question Kim asked was
stupid." In these examples, the attributes "stressful" and
"stupid” are scored as NAs.

Examples:
1. Eric seemed like a very friendly person [NA].

2. Kim showed much enthusiasm [NA] and confidence
throughout the interview [NA]. She also showed
authority [NA] and proposed ideas when working out
problems [NA].

3. Kim seems like bright [NA] and interesting [NA]
person and she works well on cooperative tasks [NA].
Eric is very good at telling stories [NA]. Their
performance on the videotape was exceptional [NA].

4. Kim, although she looked good [NA], did not show
too much leadership ability [NA].

124

1. Beletiye_eempepi§pp (RC) refers to a comparison of

relative standing between two subjects, objects or targets
along a single dimension on which they are perceived as
being different or unequal. Words such as "more,“ "better,"
"best," "less," or "too" may signify that two or more
targets, subjects, or objects are being compared in this
way.

Examples:

1. Kim seemed a little more personal [RC] than Eric
during the interview.

2. I feel Eric is the stronger [RC] leader.
3. Kim is too emotional [RC].

4. Eric and Kim had more than just superficial
conservation[RC].

2. gentpeet (C) is a differentiated comparison that employs
two opposing aspects. The contrasting aspects may be (a) on
a bipolar dimension (e.g. dominant/submissive:
active/passive), or (b) uni-dimensional opposites (e.g.
masculine/feminine: interested in work/interested in social
happenings), or (c) an aspect and its negation (interested
in sports/not interested in sports: intellectual/not
intellectual). gentteete may be made (a) between targets,
(b) within a single target, (c) between two situations or
contexts, and (d) between target(s) and situation(s). Key
phrases that may indicate that a eentpeet is being made
include: but, although, whereas, while, and on the one
hand.

Examples:

1. Kim seems dominant [1/2 C] but Eric isn’t dominant
[1/2 C] at all.

2. She not only shared many of her own ideas [1/2 C],
but she was also a good listener [1/2 C].

3. I could see Eric as a member of a group involved in
discussion about themselves [1/2 C] but I don't think
he has the initiative to be the leader [1/2 C].

125

3. Beetpietipn_pt_meenipg refers to a statement that

restricts, makes more precise, or delimits another statement
by confining attributes to a particular context,
perspective, condition, or criterion.

Examples:

1. From an employer's point of view [RM], Eric seemed
especially courteous.

2. Since most people put their best foot forward
during interviews [RM], they didn't seem to have any
negative qualities.

3. They talked about many things, but the most
important thing to consider is their ability to
understand people [RM].

4. Judging from qualities displayed on the videotape
[RM], Kim seemed superior to Eric.

W

5' J . ! !° .

Simple integration involves drawing a link with a previously

mentioned related aspect called a enppgpting_e§peet (SA). A
enpppzting_eepeet must be specifically connected to a
previous aspect or structure. This can be accomplished in a
number of similar ways. First, a enppgtting_eepeet may
extend coverage to another context or object. For example,
the perceiver may introduce a new aspect and then explain
how the target might use it or possess it in a hypothetical
context. This must be an additional context which extends
meaning rather restricts it. Or, in some cases, the
perceiver may introduce a new aspect and then explain how
this attribute is related to another target or situation.
In these cases, a enpppzting_eepeet is scored when a link
(or relation) is drawn between that attribute and another
attribute, situation, possibility, or example. Similarly, a
may bring in other element(s) to connect
with the target attribute. For example, the perceiver may
introduce a new aspect, then show a relationship between

that particular new aspect and other enppppting_eepeete.

126

Examples:

1. First of all, she seems to be more confident in
herself [NA]. She tells of her good qualities as a
softball player [SA] and the will to achieve a goal.
[SA].

2. Kim seemed more mellow [NA] than Eric. In conflict
situations, Kim is apt to stay cool-headed [SA].

3. The type of job he had at the hospital [NA], I
think a safe assumption can be made that he also works
well with people [SA].

4. Eric also shared his humanitarian side when he
spoke about his job at the hospital [NA] by saying "the
money’s not great, but the people make it worthwhile
[SA]."

5. Kim is a mature person [NA] therefore she will be
able to take on responsibility [SA].

6. Eric excels in leadership situations [NA],
especially those involving intermural sports [SA].

E9rms_9f_elahgrated_integzatign.

1. gau§a1_link§ (CLs) pertain to integration expressed
through the perception of one subject, target or object
influencing another. Four subcategories of integration are
classified under this general category.

A. When the perceiver sees a dynamic relationship between
the targets, he or she mentions them as (a) interacting with
one another, (b) influencing one another, or (c) sharing a
common experience that is clearly dynamic.
Examples:

1. Eric was nervous to be around Kim [CL].

2. Kim made him feel more at ease [CL].

3. Kim.shared some stories of her life because of Eric
[CL].

127

B. When the perceiver sees a dynamic relationship between
the target(s) and perceiver, he or she mentions that the
target's actions are in some way affecting him or her.

Examples:

1. Eric's nervousness made me realize that Kim was
best for the job [CL].

2. I laughed at Eric's story about the softball
pitcher [CL].

3. When I heard Kim talking about her waitressing jobs
I could really relate [CL].

C. When the perceiver expresses the possibility of
interaction with the target(s), the perceiver (a) mentions a
hypothetical interaction between perceiver and target(s) or
(b) compares his or her own attributes with those of the
target(s) in some way.

Examples:

1. If Eric were my research assistant, we probably
would not get along too well [CL].

2. Kim seems like she would be fun to be with [CL].
3. my personality is similar to Kim's so I think Eric

and I would be compatible [CL].

D. Simple Link is expressed through the perception of
influence that is not directly related to the target's
influence. This can be expressed as: (a) one aspect
influencing another aspect, or (b) a situation, context or
object influencing a target(s)

Examples:

1. Eric's wanting to lead made Kim act more
submissively [CL].

2. The camera seemed to make them self-conscious [CL].

3. Kim!s questions made Eric nervous [CL].

128

2. Similarity (SM) refers to the perception of commonality
between two targets. An aspect is used to illustrate a
commonality between two or more subject(s), target(s), or
object(s). The perceiver describes them as having some

aspect in common.
Examples:
1. Both Kim and Eric seemed hard-working [SM].

2. Neither Kim nor Eric has what it takes to be a
leader [SM].

3. WOrking as a counselor involves the same skills as
any other people-oriented job [SM].

4. Eric and Kim are like most college students in
terms of their future plans [SM].

3. Matching_gn§;agtgri§§ig§ (MC) refers to integrating the
information provided by the job description with the
characteristics of the target(s). The perceiver explains
how aspects of the target(s) are congruent or incongruent
with the job characteristics. There are three kinds of

' . First, there are statements that describe the
characteristics of the target and use them to expand on his
or her hypothetical behavior in the job context. Second,
there are statements that match the characteristics of the
target and the characteristics of the job. And third, there
are statements of the criteria of the job following an
explanation of why or why not the target would be suitable.

Examples:

1. Eric seems like a born-leader [NA]. I can see him
running research groups [MC].

2. Kim is more suitable because she is interesting
[NA] and holds together conversation [NA] which would
be a plus working with people in a personnel position
[MC].

3. For this job, I need someone who cares [MC], Kim is
the most [RC] considerate [NA].

129

4. W (RS) refers to the use of a

general theme that persists through the entire impression
and serves to guide the process of deciding who is best for
the job. The perceiver shows integrated thinking by using
his or her choice to create a resolution of differentiated
and integrated structures between and among the targets.

Examples:

1. All this leads me to believe that Kim and Eric
would handle their responsibilities in their own unique
ways [RS].

2. Both Kim.and Eric are talented people, but Kim
clearly has the edge for a number of reasons related to

social sensitivity [RS].

3. Eric is the only logical choice: he demonstrated
his suitability in every situation he was presented
with [RS].

APPENDIX C

ADDITIONAL ANALYSES

131

Other Findings

1‘ M ‘ -19‘ 'e1 e 0-: 0111 ‘

e 901,‘ _o

't

A 2(Motive) X 2(Sex) X 2(Arousal Condition x
2(Information Condition) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the
power imagery scores, also revealed a marginal main effect
for Motive, F (1,105) = 3.72, p <.06, in which Power-
motivated individuals used more power imagery (M = .72) than
did Intimacy-motivated individuals (M = .47). There was
also a strong main effect for the Arousal condition, R
(1,105) = 35.48, p <.0001, in which those in the Positive
Arousal condition wrote experiences that contained more
power imagery (M = .97) than did those in the Neutral
Arousal condition (M = .21). There was also a main effect
for Sex, E (1,105) = 4.58, p <.03, in which males used more
power imagery (M = .68) than did females (M = .40). The
main effects for Sex and Arousal Condition were qualified by
a Sex x Arousal Condition interaction, F (1,105) = 6.29, p
<.01. Examination of the means in Table 1a show that males
in the Positive Arousal condition had more power imagery
than females in the Positive Arousal Condition: and all
individuals in the Positive Arousal Condition had more power

imagery than those in the Neutral Arousal condition.

132

 

Table 1a
'0 ‘ 1120‘, -.. -. -1 ,01 0 -.‘. :1! e. 0.-.: 011 01.
E 1: a.!.
Egaifiye Neutral
Sex
Males 1.20a .150
Females .74b .27c

 

Note: Noncommon subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

133

The 2(Motive) X 2(Sex) X 2(Arousal Condition) X
2(Information Condition) ANOVA on the intimacy imagery
scores, revealed a main effect for Motive, E (1, 105) =
5.39, p <.02, in which intimacy-motivated individuals wrote
experiences that contained more intimacy imagery (H = 1.42)
than did Power-motivated individuals, (M = .73). There was
also a main effect for Arousal Condition, E (1,105) = 9.60,
p <.002, in which individuals in the Positive Arousal
condition used more intimacy imagery (H = 1.24) than did
individuals in the Neutral Arousal condition, (M = .63).
These main effects were qualified by the predicted Motive X
Arousal Condition interaction, E (1, 105) = 6.88, p <.01,
described on page 66. There was also a strong main effect
for Sex, E (1,105) = 11.64, p <.0009, in which females had
more intimacy imagery (M = 1.27) than did males (M = .60).
This main effect was qualified by a Sex x Arousal Condition
interaction, E (1,105) = 4.34, p <.04. Examination of the
means in Table 2a showed that females in the Positive

Arousal condition had more intimacy imagery than all others.

134

 

Table 2a
Imtimagy imagezy as a fanctigm of sax and arousal comditign.
r u C 0
Positive Mamttal
§§K
Males .71b .49b
Females 1.77a .78b

 

Note: Noncommon subscripts indicate that means differ at p.

<.05.

   

IE5

"I]]]]]]]]fl[fl[®lfllfill