IA.

A WOMI

 

‘

‘
«
,

‘ . [‘13in ‘15,.- ~25 ~9W- :3"
n- it" 99'3“ wflwwlmfin ’...' n
' "5 ‘ 5 KM?" '
.- ‘IG- 4“ I“; 34

mu:

392% :"“
31

$9
3 39.14
1.3"

‘1

pi»??? -
7 ;

 

‘ N a . ;..
ivy-5 . . *1 v.» .u \
~ ‘43.“. . % inf."
w "“9"? WM; -
. , ‘ , a“ ,

-.
.‘k' .

'4;
3‘1‘.
9'1”}. :~
\9 " ‘

v 5-3;. v.
I}! g;
- s - ~
Liz‘s?
6-133;

135

7.5
bid

a
—

5.1.34“ ,u
”'1': #36“
“.3 - ‘ .' .‘ J -
. “ X5 f-‘fl'fi‘rfi‘
Me 11¢ . .,.
‘- {fry-- ‘

N.
.‘m

3‘“
3 .51.

f; ,

A'."
9‘_ 3".

fit}:

1:2,;

..\..v','g;. 7‘: r,
' .41}; f,“ -r ”‘1
d}‘. 4' I. 34"“(9.

A:

‘1
'A ‘ .

‘l
’V'lfl‘ ’4‘ 4
:J’K‘I" 9E _

”Mi;
' ~ my,“ ,

L" ’. ‘- - - 3,. ._ "7,9
‘ 7: :.. ;.;. "mum".
T—I-R" Pr"

up

    

‘. g
v f ”50’. " -_ ‘
-‘--"v-'I~ ' ‘ w. m,
""1"" "4‘”; ' “ , . - v. .
. c ., ., A. . , , , ‘ > ., ‘ x 1 ‘
A”; 4% :12 ‘ fl " 5.3:“ ‘ i’ - - 5.“; a 4" ‘ «.3: 1 JAE-{am .’ ; . 21%;.
KPH»: ‘ ; I, .r : - "‘3,- £23 A 134 f
‘ ‘ z

. in“

can“..-

'i‘
..
4

‘¢

 

j" 159$

i a;
“3%”? lit;

‘. mm." A
'2‘" 1 g. in???
52* a: :
. '1 ‘ A
.’ ‘33.?"
J?

I iris“

 

'- ‘ .
‘3‘. “1% HM, _ r J .
M193? ‘ r ‘. '13.”; L .r i:
L. :‘4‘ "V 9““.1'. p.
« r52 {4” $33.}. }£:§~'1?E4§5§£g.
' .4‘ 1. 1.4,»!
w M?
I ‘ 1'
,,

i ‘ ,
' I
"2‘. #371";

W
W .Tv'fifl'r‘
1 " l

J‘Iltnluw

 

:mifii ‘

“I
J

M’M w“
.

u

dir

h‘ ' I ‘ U r' J u . . . .
4%! ‘2' ; . ‘ . 13"” 4:} . 'Q' 7:".
.IQ"?! .‘ I . i ‘ ' I A 7m > ’«LI-rJ‘A I,
it 4" 'F . ,..1 ..
{A}. .7 rig 1" I "All ’ .. my .‘J
id‘bafifvo. 7‘ ,.: . ., A "I ‘4 w!“ WING] -
' 523,35»: ’ fitdrk‘z‘r’fiwi‘”: ," 407} .“
\I' r_ “I“ - n n ‘4'. .’ ' 7 v. ‘ ‘
3:5" If." n [‘49er fl: ‘ ‘ififlgfl‘ ”virgin”

 

.
'fli'r

 

 

 

-r'r'.r. s. -
“1.. p... ”-
; s

’93.?- . 1
“"r'v “” :43" m: "-m
1.. ”I ' ' “Slur: .77'
'3 ~ [$3.33. 3,. .,

. A .

..,.,.. . ‘
:. wruwfim.
aid"; Edgary,

9 ~ my}: 1

1"

I
”-I-
w-J
fl

 

"irfr‘v'

T171, '
.2”

" 4.
(I . ”‘1“
$5..“ , .-
53., .. . 4. - .... .,. .:._.:D "- .
”“""J. “1 -5”,"' _ .. ‘- J " 'J‘jr" ' r‘ H
,fl'lppr—r". V “v.92. Ar .- 4- M 5.3 :63? ’—
J "' c; 5‘ - ,‘JJ 1"

 

45$; ,rwr
1 ‘ ,1:;..., “W
«3:..,...‘ ,mnc.‘ _., .... ..
"' “TIER '7 2:." "5:". ... . .3"? “1.1. 73...:
"’7' "" ‘ Wk?“ ”fairy; '
-‘ F— .. . .u

*‘ "‘ " L ..
"-1 , _‘
5., .5 ~92?) 13:7, rah," W __” .
. _.
'.."-'“"".:'.£‘.1""..‘. agarrzirm. .. .. “.2."
a» l I O'fi‘)"' .u l“ ,A ‘ .«‘
'J 1:23....

k .3"
If 1. ..
"” J UL, a ,~ _
7T . o r - 'JJ _y‘
*Ei‘a'rm‘mfi -I. $15.53*" “(a .'. . afgm‘v r. 5'

 

~-
.47:

—.

. .Jy
1" é.

 

wcmom STAT‘
l
l

\

E UNIV RSITY LIBRARIES\

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\l \\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘l\\\\\\\\\\\

l
\ 3 1293 00906 3615

l\

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE EFFECT OF AROUSED POWER AND INTIMACY

MOTIVES ON COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY

presented by
Barbara Ann Woike

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

. P h 1
MA degree In syc o ogy

 

 

Major profes

02a/7o7/

Date

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

Mr—a— .—..—. ._--. .— . . h — .—._

 

 

 

 

to remove this checkout from your record.

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
n or before date due.

TO AVOID FINES return o

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

T\II l

MSU le An Affirmetlve Action/Equal Opportunity Institution
omens-M

 

THE EFFECT OF AROUSED POWER AND INTIMACY

MOTIVES ON COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY

BY

Barbara Ann Woike

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1991

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECT OF AROUSED POWER AND INTIMACY
MOTIVES ON COGNITIVE COMPLEXITY
BY

Barbara Ann Woike

This study examined the hypothesis that individuals
process their experiences at higher levels of cognitive
complexity when information has potential relevance for
personal motive satisfaction. Power- and intimacy-motivated
subjects viewed a videotape of two job candidates involved in
a peer interview under conditions which made power or
intimacy a relevant concern. As predicted, the complexity
with which subjects evaluated the target persons was greater
when perceivers' motives were congruent with the situations.
These findings are discussed in terms of the functional
utility of cognitive complexity to increase prediction and

control over hedonic outcomes.

In memory of Paul

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My work has greatly benefitted from the guidance and
assistance of others. First of all, I would like to thank
Joel Aronoff for his support, and great interest in my
professional development. He has been mentor as well as a
good friend. From the start of this project Joel was very
generous with his time and suggestions. He taught me how to
critically evaluate my own work by tirelessly reading drafts
and helping me work through problems at all stages of the
studyu Through this process, my ability to*write clearly and
explain the ideas to others has improved greatly. Joel
taught me to value my own work and enjoy not only the end
result but also the process. I enjoyed working with him very
much on this project.

I am grateful to Larry Messé for his insightful
suggestions and advice at various stages of this work. His
comments have helped to greatly improve the quality of my
work in many ways. I am particularly appreciative of his
thorough and prompt feedback during the final stages of this
work.

Thanks are also extended to Galen Bodenhausen for his

comments and suggestions. He carefully read several drafts

iv

of this work and helped to clarify a number of issues which
in turn bettered the presentation of the study.

This study would not have been possible without the
help of many students. I am especially grateful to Kim
Salstrom and Eric Sauer who generously agreed to make a
videotape of themselves that would scrutinizing and evaluated
by hundreds of undergraduates. They also generously lended
their time to be "on-hand" for the actual running of the
experiment to make the cover story more believable.

I am also indebted to Steve McEldowney who was quite
active in the development of gatgggrie§_gf_ggmp1gxity_coding
system. He critically read many drafts and evaluated many of
my decisions. lHe, Leah Yost, and Bill Kennedy'met tirelessly
with me to discuss problems and inconsistencies in the coding
manual and endured many revisions before they actually coded
the experimental sample.

Thanks are also extended to Kirk Stucky who used his
expert judgement to score the final TAT sample. In addition,
Kim Falk, Randy Soverinsky, Cynthia Howell, Todd McNeil, Alex
Ghiso, Chris Thomas, Jann Grinwis, Shari Shaftler and Kim
Keller were instrumental in the data collection and initial
scoring phases. They made it possible to complete the
running of the experiment in one term.

In addition, I am very grateful to many women who
provided me with inspiration, guidance, and hope over the

past nine years. Their support made it possible for me to

continue my education through many difficulties. These
friends include Sherry Turner, Kim Weiskoph-Raymond, Jean
Rooney, Nova Green, Rosemary Fitzgerald, Yo Ikuta, Diana
Green, Mary Lou Karg, Eve Abernathy, Betty Casey, Candy
Holland, Peg Pachasa, Sandy' Osborne, Ann. Bowman, Marie
Kilbane, Margie Kane, and.most.of all Marisol del Riveria.who
thought anything good was possible. I am alsolgrateful to my

parents for their consistent love and financial support.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00...COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOj-x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONOOOOOOOO00....0.00.00.00.000000001

Selecting Personality Variables. ............. ......6
Selecting Situational Variables. ......... .........15
Complex Social Cognitions............. ...... ......17

General Motive-Situation Congruence...............23
Specific Motive-Situation Congruence..............24
A Model of the Antecedents of Cognitive
Complexity........ ........ .. ....... ..........27
Overview of the Study.. ....... ..... .......... .....28

HypotheseSOOOOOOOOOOO0......0.00.00.00.0000000000029

CHAPTER 2 : METHOD 0 O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O OOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O 32
Overview of the Procedure. ............... .........32
SUbjeCtSo O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOO O 000000000000 O O O O O 33

The First Session.................................33
Classification of Subjects into Power and

Intimacy Groups..............................36
The Manipulation of Power and Intimacy Arousal....37

The Selection of the Impression Task ........ ......40

vii

Videotape Presentation of Target Persons..........41
Design................ ...... ................. ..... 43
Procedure of the Experimental Session ............. 43
Debriefing Period.................................46
The Selection of an Instrument to Measure Cognitive
Complexity...... ..... ........................47
Sample for Construction of the Cognitive Complexity
Measure......................................50
Outline of the Categories of Complexity...........51
Coding the Impressions............................56
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS.............. ...... ......... ..... ...60
The Psychometric Properties of the Cognitive
Complexity Measure...........................60
Testing the Hypotheses. .............. . ....... .....71
Additional Findings ........ .......................89
The Relationship between Cognitive Complexity and
Verbal Fluency. ............. ... ............ ..89
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION. ............. ..... .......... .....93
REFERENCES............................................101
APPENDIX A: EXPERIMENT MATERIALS.....................112
APPENDIX B: THE CATEGORIES OF COMPLEXITY CODING

MANUAL.0.0.0.0000.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0124

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Inter-rater Relabilities for the Categories of
Complexity Before Recoding........................58
Inter-rater Relabilities for the Categories of
Complexity After Recoding.........................59
Descriptive Statistics for the Major Components of
Cognitive Complexity..............................65
Relations Among the Major Components of Cognitive
Complexity........................................66
Descriptive Statistics for the Subcategories of
Differentiation...................................67
Relations Among the Subcategories of
Differentiation...................................68
Descriptive Statistics for Subcategories of
Integration.......................................69
Relations Among Subcategories of Integration.......70
Means for the Total Categories of Complexity in Motive-
Congruent versus Motive—Incongruent

Conditions ................... ........ ..... ........74

ix

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Means for the Subcategories of Differentiation in
Motive-Congruent versus Motive-Incongruent
Conditions ................ . ..... . ..... ....... ..... 79
Means for the Subcategories of Integration in
Motive-Congruent versus Motive-Incongruent
Conditions........................................80
Total Differentiation for Power versus Intimacy
Motivation in Congruent versus Incongruent Arousal
Conditions........................................83
Elaborated Differentiation for Power versus Intimacy
Motivation in Congruent versus Incongruent Arousal
Conditions........................................84
Total Integration for Power versus Intimacy
Motivation in Congruent versus Incongruent Arousal
Conditions........................................87
Elaborated Integration for Power versus Intimacy
Motivation in Congruent versus Incongruent Arousal
Conditions........................................88
Correlations between Word Count and the Major

Components of Cognitive Complexity................92

INTRODUCTION

Scientists and philosophers have long been fascinated
by our extraordinary ingenuity in forming mental
representations out of materials selected from the outside
world (e. g., Aristotle, 1931; Locke, 1979; Bruner, 1957).
Since the advent of Gestalt psychology (Brunswik, 1954:
Koffka, 1935), many psychologists have postulated that the
perceiver takes an active role in social perception
processes. Contemporary theories of social cognition assume
that the perceiver actively constructs perceptions (Neisser,
1967, 1976; Fiske & Taylor, 1984) through a process that
involves preference and selection.

One characteristic of this active construction process
is cognitive complexity. 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; Goldstein
G: Blackman, 1978; Schroder & Streufert, 1962: Schroder,
Driver, & Streufert, 1967; Streufert & Streufert, 1978:
Suedfeld & Tetlock, 1977: Tetlock, 1983: Tetlock & Kim,
1987). An event that one person views in a relatively simple

fashion may be viewed with a good deal of complexity by

2
someone else, just as the same individual may form a simple
construal of a person on one occasion and a complex one on
another.

To» explain ‘this ‘variability, substantial bodies of
research have shown that dispositional and situational
factors, when examined separately, influence the complexity
of social cognitions (e.g., Schroder, et al., 1967; Streufert
& Streufert, 1978; Tetlock, 1983; Tetlock & Kim, 1987).
However, to date, little attention has been paid to the more
inclusive possibility that dispositions and situations
interact to determine the level of complex processing.

Thus, it was reasoned that when the situation engages the
motives of the perceiver, more complex processing will be
used for goal-directed thoughts and actions. Based on the
general assumption that complex processing leads to more
prediction and control over hedonic outcomes, I expected that
this effect could.be found.with a variety of personal motives
and social situations.

Many lines of research concur that the perceiver
processes social information that is personally involving in
qualitatively different ways than other types of information
(e.g., Battistich, Assor, Messé & Aronoff, 1985: Bruner,
1957: Chaiken, 1980: Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Kelly, 1955;
Langer, 1989; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Petty & Cacioppo,
1986). For instance, the interactional and the ecological

approaches both maintain that the characteristics of the

3

perceiver can interact with the features of the stimulus
environment to create personally engaging experiences that
affect the perceiver’s cognitive processing of the "event."
Some environmental features are perceived as opportunities
for goal-directed action, called "affordances" by McArthur &
Baron (1983). The perceiver becomes perceptually drawn to
or, in their' words "attuned to" these features. The
differing goals of perceivers determine whether or not an
environmental feature is perceived as an affordance, as such,
affordances are in the eye of the beholder. When there is a
congruence between the perceiver’s goals and those aspects of
the social environment, this conjunction of dispositional and
situational attributes will lead the perceiver to become more
perceptually attuned to those relevant features. This
perceptual attunement may lead those environmental features
relevant to the perceiver’s purposes to be perceived with
greater salience. In addition, potentially rewarding
environmental features may appear more positive, while
potentially threatening features appear more negative to the
perceiver.

Past research suggests that the interaction of specific
personal and social attributes does in fact evoke such
perceptual attunement (Battistich, Assor, Messé & Aronoff,
1985) . For instance, Assor, Aronoff, and Messé (1981)
demonstrated that the personality variables of dominance and

dependency interact with situational factors (in this case,

4
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. This study provides evidence of motive-related
distortions that are consistent with hedonic gratification.
Each group of perceivers distorted their impressions in a
positive direction for the stimulus person with gratifying
characteristics and in a negative direction for the stimulus
person with threatening characteristics.

Assor, Aronoff, and Messé (1986) further demonstrated
that the presence of another dominant person leads to an
increase in autonomic arousal, and when exposed to this
potential threat, dominant observers engaged in defensive
reconstruction of their impressions of the dominant target.
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. As an
aside, it is interesting to note that although direct
descriptions of the target people on rating scales did not
show any type of bias produced by the dispositions of the
perceiver a bias was detected on free-response measures.

This finding may indicate that more naturalistic measures

5
have more utility in detecting differences in perceptual-
cognitive processes within the P X S framework.

In sum, these studies offer clear demonstrations of how
the interactive effects.of'the«observer's personality and the
social object's attributes affect the impression—formation
process in a ways that provide prediction and control over
hedonic outcomes” Moreover, these experiments were designed
to investigate the effects of hedonic relevance under
threatening (or less than favorable) conditions. Research
has not yet been conducted that examines how nonthreatening
and potentially rewarding social stimuli are processed by
motive-aroused observers within the P x S framework.

In a positively-arousing situation, the interaction of
personal motives and environmental characteristics can
enhance the degree to which an individual explores the
environment. Generally speaking, if the person perceives a
situation as a source of potential rewards, he or she should
be more inclined to approach that situation which should in
turn, increase information acquisition in ways that may
expedite complex processing. It is to the perceiver’s
advantage to approach the situation and comprehend it in a
thorough, complex, and flexible way in order to receive the

potential rewards available.

The premise that personality has an impact.on perception
was suggested in the 1950’s by a group of psychologists who
called their work the ”New Look in Perception" (Bruner,
1957). This work proposed that characteristics of the
perceiver can influence the nature of the cognitive
processing of a stimulus object. In other words, an
individual's salient concerns were believed to color his or
her perception of the environment. For instance, these
studies have demonstrated that the possession of certain
values increased the perceiver's sensitivity to those
characteristics of the world represented by those values
(Haigh & Fiske, 1952; Postman, Bruner, & McGinnies, 1948).

Although this idea had intuitive appeal, critics (e.g.,
Schneider, 1973; Shrauger & Altrocchi, 1964; Tagiuri, 1969;
Warr' & Knapper, 1968) found important. conceptual,
methodological, and statistical problems that appeared to
limit the conclusions that could be drawn from these studies
(Aronoff & Wilson, 1985). A major problem was lack of
careful consideration of the personal and situational
variables employed in these studies (Battistich, Assor, Messé
& Aronoff, 1985; Aronoff & Wilson, 1985). That is,

experimenters did not take an interactive perspective on the

7

nature of hedonic relevance. They did not seem to consider
that different social stimuli are hedonically relevant to
different individuals. In order to examine how the
environment influences the individual’s perception, it is
crucial to select a social context that is hedonically
relevant to that particular perceiver. Thus, Aronoff and
Wilson (1985) suggest that.past methodological problems found
in person x situation research (e.g. Endler & Magnusson,
1976: Endler, 1981) can be remedied by careful selection of
the personal and situational variables.

Following this approach, the basic assumption of the
interactionist model is that personality will affect
perception when the social context is personally or
hedonically relevant. If the individual does not perceive
the situation as affecting his or her welfare (i.e., the
social context.does not engage the individual's:motives), his
or her personality should not affect perception (Aronoff &
Wilson, 1985; Battistich, et al., 1985).

When considering which aspects of personality are most
likely to become engaged with the environmental attributes in
a.way that could affect the degree of complexity developed in
social cognitions, it. appeared, that ‘two ‘very' different
motives reflect a contrast that is central to many
descriptions of personality; This distinction is
characterized well in Bakan’s (1966) notion of agency and

communion, which describes the conflict between the need for

8

separation and autonomy on the one hand and the need for
connectedness and belonging on the other (e.g. , Angyal, 1951:
Chodorow, 1974; Gilligan, 1982: Leary 1957: Rank, 1929,
1945). Important aspects of these personality orientations
have been studied intensively in the research programs of the
need for power and the need for intimacy: the need for power
is described as a recurrent preference to have impact,
control, and influence over another person, group, or the
world at large (Winter, 1973), while the need for intimacy
refers to a recurrent readiness to experience warm, close,
and communicative exchanges with others (McAdams, 1980).

A large body of research by McClelland (1975, 1985) and
colleagues (e.g., McAdams, 1988, 1990: Winter, 1973, 1988:
Winter & Stewart, 1978) on the need for power and the need
for intimacy and affiliation has contributed a great deal to
our understanding of these fundamental motives. As this
group of researchers define these motives, the need for power
is a recurrent preference or readiness to "impact, control
and influence over another person, group or the world at
large." (Winter, 1973) In contrast, the need for intimacy is
a recurrent preference or readiness for experiences of a
warm, close and communicative interactions with others
(McAdams, 1980, 1988; McAdams & Powers, 1981). The body of
research on the need for power and the need for intimacy
offers an excellent illustration of how individuals differ in

their perceptions of what is hedonically relevant. It

9
appears that these motives are associated with two very
different perceptual—cognitive orientations.

According to theory, social motives have three basic
functions that are implicitly related to perception
(McClelland, 1985; Cofer & Appley, 1964). First of all,
motives have the power to drive, energize and arouse
individuals. This activation of a motive can.be triggered.by
the social context. Secondly, motives have an orienting
function that leads to an increase in sensitivity to motive-
related stimuli. And thirdly, motives have a selective
function in that motive-related stimuli tends to be processed
differently than other stimuli. Individuals tend to encode
and remember more motive-related stimuli (McAdams &
McClelland, 1983) and encode and learn motive-related
information faster (McClelland, 1985). IResearch.on power and
intimacy motivation indicates that both of these motives do
in fact energize, orient, and influence selection of behavior
for certain individuals (McClelland, 1985). The effects of
each motive on perception will be examined in turn, along
with a discussion of some illustrative studies.

The need for power has been extensively studied for the
past three decades (McAdams, 1988; McClelland, 1975, 1985;
Winter, 1973; Winter 8 Stewart, 1978). Individuals high in
the need for power (n Power) seek to have a personal impact
on or stand out in their social worlds. They are interested

in obtaining prestige and personal recognition and attempt to

10
do this through persuasion, direction, and control of others.
They seek, positions of leadership (e.g. teaching,
administration) in which they can influence and shape the
thoughts and behavior of others. Researchers have found a
complex set of affective, cognitive, and behavioral
orientations that are related. to ‘power' motivation. For
instance, Steele (1973, 1977) aroused power motivation in
student subjects by having them listen to excerpts of famous
political speeches such as Winston Churchill's speech at
Dunkirk, while a control group listened to recordings of
travel descriptions. After the recordings, all students
wrote imaginative stories to pictures. As expected, those
who heard the inspirational speeches wrote stories that
contained significantly more power imagery than those who
heard the travel tapes. In addition, Steele (1973) measured
changes in physiological arousal and found that the subjects
who showed the greatest signs of arousal, as indicated by
increases in epinephrine secretion, were those who used the
greatest amount of power imagery in their stories. In a
similar study, Steele (1977) found a relationship between
power motivation and general activation. As before, the
inspirational speeches produced a marked increase in the 3
Power score and also an increase in self-reported general
activation (i.e., extent to which subjects describe
themselves as feeling lively, vigorous, energetic, and full

of pep). Thus, physiological activation to power stimuli is

11
significantly related to n Power in thought content.

In addition, there is compelling evidence to suggest
that people high in the need for power are more sensitive to
power-related stimuli (McClelland, 1985). For example,
McClelland, Davidson & Saron (1979) assessed the electrical
responsivity of the brain to various stimuli and found a
difference in the way subjects high and low in the need for
power responded to power and neutral stimuli. People high in
n Power were much more sensitive to power-related words in
relation to neutral words than those low in n Power. This
difference was detected remarkably early in the perceptual
process (i. e., within a quarter of a second).

Thus, power motivation is characterized by both
physiological arousal and a specific perceptual and cognitive
orientation. The developmental experiences that have lead to
power motivation have also lead to certain physiological
responses. It appears that individuals high in n Power have
developed a sensitivity to power-relevant social stimuli.
This finding is reminiscent.of Bruner’s (1957) earlier notion
that the predispositions of the perceiver increase his or her
sensitivity to disposition-related words.

This special sensitivity is also manifest in the
selective encoding process. McAdams and McClelland (1983)
had subjects listen to a tape of someone telling a story
about a picture. The story contained thirty facts relating

to power, thirty facts relating to intimacy and fifteen

12

neutral facts. Subjects performed other activities and then
unexpectedly, were asked to recall the details of the story.
Individuals high in the need for power recalled more power
related words relative to neutral words than those low in the
need for power. This difference persisted at least twenty
minutes after they heard the story. In another study,
McClelland, Davidson, Saron and Floor (1980) found evidence
that selective recall of power-related material by power-
motivated people leads to faster learning of associations.
This finding appears to be due to physiological changes that
increase alertness. In contrast, in another learning
association experiment, subjects high in the need for
affiliation had better recall of affiliative facts but did
not show the same pattern of changes in physiological arousal
and alertness” These findings suggest. that. a complex
relationship exists between the perceiver and the motive-
relevant stimuli in which the pattern of moderating affective
responses is different for each motivation.

There is similar evidence to demonstrate that the need
for intimacy can energize, orient and influence the selection
of behavior in unique ways. Intimacy motivation refers to a
concern that individuals have for establishing contact and
close, friendly relations with others. People high in
intimacy motivation seek situations that create possibilities
for establishing and maintaining intimate relations. They

are, in a sense, more concerned with interpersonal

13
relationships per se than individuals concerned with power
(McAdams, 1988).

There is growing evidence that the need for intimacy (n
Intimacy) has definite effects on cognition and behavior.
For instance, McAdams and.Powers (1981) found.that.people'who
score higher on either the need for intimacy (or the need for
affiliation) engage in more energetic intimacy-related
activities. They had students engage in psychodrama sessions
that were videotaped and coded by independent judges. They
found that students high in n Intimacy (or n Affiliation)
stood closer to other people, made more "we" references in
discussing their scenarios, produced more laughter from the
group, made fewer demands on others, and touched.other people
more often in an affectionate, nonthreatening way.
Motivational differences were also reflected in the themes
chosen for the scenarios. Those high in the need for
intimacy more often chose themes of positive interpersonal
affect and surrender of control over the situation.

As with the need for power, the need for intimacy also
seems to be related to a unique perceptual and cognitive
orientation. McAdams (1979) found that the intimacy motive
sensitizes individuals to human faces. Subjects high in
intimacy motivation showed a greater sensitivity to
variations in placements of facial features than those low in
the need for intimacy as indicated by the variability of the

adjectives used to describe them. This finding is consistent

14
with the idea that face-to-face or eye-to-eye contact to an
essential and adaptive part of intimate relationships (e.g.,
Argyle & Cook, 1976).

The intimacy motive has been demonstrated to have a
selective effect on memory as well. McAdams (1982) found
that individuals high in the intimacy motive recalled more
autobiographical incidents involving intimacy experiences.
In another study, McAdams and.McClelland (1983) had subjects
read one of two stories equal in length and containing an
equal number of facts. One story had an intimacy theme and
the other had a neutral theme. As predicted, those high in
the intimacy motive recalled more facts from the intimacy
story relative to the neutral story than those low in the
intimacy motive.

Thus, research has established that power and intimacy
motivation. have a <definite effect on relatively simple
aspects of cognitive processing. The energizing component of
the motive seemed to create an affectively-toned alertness or
sensitivity which was strong enough to orient the individual
to encode and selectively process motive-related information.
It is quite likely that this sequence of motive arousal
affects more complicated aspects of information processing as
well. We have yet to know how power and intimacy motivation

effect higher levels of information processing. It seems

15
that a higher level of cognition would be especially likely
to mediate the thoughts and actions related to power and

intimacy goals and experiences.

5 J !' 5.! l' J K . l]

The social motives of power and intimacy interact with
social contexts in unique ways. To consider each motive in
turn, power motivation should affect the cognitive processing
of power related stimuli. The need for power is described as
a recurrent preference or readiness for experiences of having
impact.and feeling strong, potent, agentic in.relation to the
environment. (Winter, 1973). Situations that. offer the
opportunity to engage in these activities such as leadership
roles and competitive situations should be of special
interest to power-oriented individuals. As the research
presented above has demonstrated, power-related situations
have a unique effect on the activation mechanisms of power-
oriented individuals that allows them to process information
in a special manner that facilitates motive gratification.
A power-arousing situation, such as a competitive debate or
a leadership position should lead to a more complex construal
of that situation than a situation that is not related to
power such as studying quietly at home. A complex construal
of a power situation may be the key to attaining power-

related goals.

16

In the similar fashion, intimacy motivation should
affect the cognitive processing of intimacy-related stimuli.
The need for intimacy is the recurrent readiness or
preference to engage and maintain close and intimate
relations with others (McAdams, 1980). Situations in which
intimacy seems likely to occur should be of special interest
to intimacy-oriented individuals. As the research described
earlier has shown, intimacy-related situations have a special
effect on the activation mechanisms of intimacy-oriented
individuals that allows them to process information in their
own distinctive ways that facilitate motive gratification.
An intimacy-arousing situation, such as a discussion of
friendship or close relationships, should lead to a more
complex impression of that situation than a non-intimacy-
related situation such as a discussion of exam-taking
strategies. A more complex construal of an intimacy
situation may be essential to experiencing intimacy.

Thus, each of these motives is aroused by a particular
set of situational affordances that associated with two
fundamental social tasks: achieving control over the
environment as an autonomous agent and relating harmoniously
with others as an equal member in a shared experience (e.g.,
Bakan, 1966; Bales & Cohen, 1979: Chodorow, 1974: Erikson,
1963, Franz & White, 1985: Gilligan, 1982: Hogan, 1982). In
these descriptions, agentic situations are characterized as

task-related contexts that provide an opportunity to lead,

l7
persuade, influence, and assert power over others. Communal
situations, on the other hand, are characterized as socio-
emotional contexts that offer a chance to become acquainted
with, understand, and become emotionally connected with
others. From an interactionist perspective, power-motivated
individuals should be more attuned to agentic situations,
whereas intimacy-motivated individuals should be more attuned
to communal situations. Thus, although the content of the
impressions formed in each of these situations is likely to
be quite different, when either situation arouses the motives
of the perceiver, more complex processing can be used for

goal-directed thoughts and actions.

: 1 5 . J : '!'

Cognitive complexity allows us to perceive the nuances,
options, discrepancies, anomalies and unexpected
relationships in our social world. A complex perception (or
impression) of a social situation provides us with the means
to.have richer and more meaningful experience as well as plan
future action in a more informed and perhaps, strategic
manner. The construct of cognitive complexity consists of
two broad cognitive processes: differentiation and
integration (Schroder, et al., 1967). Differentiation
refers to the perception of multiple discrete attributes of

a social object and the contrasts and differences between

18
these attributes, while integration refers to the perception
of similarities, connections, and inter-relationships among
social objects and their attributes. Thus, complex structure
allows us to perceive many different features in the
environment and draw connections between them.

The term cognitive complexity has been used to study the
perceptual-cognitive processing of a wide array of social
stimuli including people (e.g. Crockett, 1965, Kelly, 1955),
the self-concept (e.g. Linville, 1985), and other abstract
subjects, issues, and problems (e.g. Tetlock, 1986: Winter,
McClelland, & Stewart, 1981). Over the past forty years, a
number of coding systems have been developed to measure
cognitive complexity. Of these systems, Schroder, Driver &
Streufert’s (1967), W is probably
the best known pioneering work on cognitive complexity. The
theory presented in this book was based on the idea that
differences in cognitive processing were influenced by early
developmental and social learning experiences and resulted in
a relatively stable characteristic of individuals. Thus,
”simple" individuals were those who processed information in
a less differentiated and less integrated way, while
"abstract" individuals processed information at higher levels
of differentiation and integration.

Research has since demonstrated that a wide array of
factors (e.g. , motivational-attributes of the situation, role

demands, and value conflicts) can shape the complexity

19

cognitive processing. It is now more commonly believed that
cognitive processing is influenced by both personal and
situational factors. That is, an individual's level of
cognitive complexity varies from situation to situation and
the same situation may be processed at different levels of
cognitive complexity by different individuals. In recent
years, Tetlock & Hannum (1984) has modified the Schroder,
Driver & Streufert (1967) coding system to better suit an
interactive theoretical approach. His term integrative
complexity refers to the complexity of cognitive structuring
as it is influenced by dispositional and situational factors.
Tetlock & Hannum’s (1984) system also expands the concept of
integration to include many examples from political rhetoric
and intellectual reasoning.

For example, Tetlock (1983: Tetlock & Kim, 1987) have
demonstrated that situational demands can affect the
complexity of an individual’s thoughts about social issues.
In one of these studies, Tetlock (1983), accountability
(i.e., their need to justify their views to others) was
experimentally manipulated, then subjects reported their
views on three important social issues. A structural
analysis revealed that increased accountability led to more
complex cognitive processing in that the participants who
believed that they were accountable generated more complex
opinions. In this study, cognitive complexity served as a

valuable way to discover situationally-induced differences in

20
information processing.

For a different purpose, Winter (1984) has developed a
coding system to measure cognitive skills such as flexibility
and critical thinking. This system has been used to
demonstrate that complex thought has functional utility in an
academic setting (see Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1981).
To investigate the intellectual abilities of liberal art
students, he asked them to write a descriptive analysis of
two thematic stories. The similarities and differences that
were drawn among the two subjects were then examined for
complexity. Results demonstrated that a liberal arts

education enhanced students' ability to think integratively.

Crockett's (1965) W
W was used to study

impressions written about others. The system consists of a
procedure to identify types of differentiated aspects or
"constructs" and types of integration or "organization." The
system emphasizes how positive and negative aspects are
structured within an impression. This system has been used
to test.hypotheses about.generality across domains.of content
and. the development. of cognitive complexity' within. the
individual (Crockett, 1965a). .

Linville (1985) developed a technique to measure what is
called self-complexity. In her View, "the self" is a
cognitive representation with multiple aspects, including

information about attributes, abilities, roles, traits, etc.

21
The main difference between Linville's and other systems is
that complexity is defined as "the number of nonredundant or
distinctive attributes underlying a person’s thinking about
a domain (p. 97)." In this scheme, the greatest degree of

complexity occurs with a large number of totally_independent

aspects. The lowest degree of complexity occurs with a small
number of totally__in;§zggpeng§nt aspects. Thus, what
Linville (1985) terms a high degree of complexity is what
most scholars (e.g., Crockett, 1965: Goldstein & Blackman,
1978: Schroder, Driver, Streufert, 1967: Tetlock & Hannum,
1984) term a high degree of differentiation.

The literature review above attests to the fact that
many forms of differentiation and integration have been
identified in naturally-occurring thoughts as well as
controlled cognitive tasks (e.g., Bieri, 1966: Crockett,
1965: Goldstein & Blackman, 1978: Harvey, Hunt & Schroder,
1961: Kelly, 1955: Linville, 1987: Schroder, et al., 1967:
Tetlock & Hannum, 1984: Winter, 1984). For convenience, I
have classified these components into four categories sorted
them into four types according to their common properties.
The complete list of references for each type are in the
Categori§§_gf_ggmplexity coding manual found in Appendix B.
First, in its simple form, differentiation, refers to the
number of isolated aspects that are perceived in a given
stimulus set. Second, more elaborated differentiated

thoughts are formed through distinctions, restrictions,

22

contrasts, and comparisons within a particular set of social
stimuli. Third, simple integration refers to the use of an
element to amplify the meaning of another. Fourth, more
elaborated integrated thoughts are developed through
identification of commonalities, causal connections, inter-
relationships, and resolutions of discrepancies between
elements.

Past research has demonstrated that there are a variety
of forms of complexity that allow perceivers comprehend their
social environment. In all of these systems, there is the
general implicit notion that a more complex construal of the
environment can lead to richer thought and behavior patterns.
Some of these types have been identified as more "complex"
than others (Schroder & Streufert, 1962: Schroder, et al.,
1967: Tetlock & Hannum, 1984). I assume, as past researchers
have maintained that higher levels of complexity should lead
to greater comprehension and thus have greater functional
utility for the perceiver. Moreover, while complex cognitive
processing facilitates comprehension of the world around us,
it is impossible to perceive all the environment.has to offer
in a complex way. Therefore, complexity must be regulated by

certain factors and conditions.

23

A congruence between the perceiver’s motives and
environmental affordances should generally lead to more
complex cognitions because differentiation and integration
processes can be used to obtain a wide array of goals. For
instance, differentiation allows perceivers to see multiple
facets of a topic and contrasting characteristics between
targets, as well as to draw distinctions and comparisons
among social objects. These kinds of cognitions should make
social stimuli appear more variable and distinct, which is
likely to be asset in sorting and decision-making tasks. In
contrast, integration allows perceivers to see common strands
of a topic and dynamic relationships within and between
targets as well as to see how concepts fit together and
resolve discrepancies between attributes. These kinds of
cognitions should make social stimuli appear more related and
less isolated, which is likely to be particularly useful in
tasks involving interdependence and accommodation. Both
differentiation and integration processes allow the perceiver
to became engaged with the social environment in ways that
can lead to greater prediction and control and therefore,
greater motive-satisfaction. The congruence or lack of
congruence between the perceiver's motives and situational

characteristics can, thus, explain the variability in complex

24
processing among perceivers.

Thus, a higher overall level of complexity of cognitive
processing is likely to occur when motives are positively
aroused. When the social context is activates the motives of
either power- or intimacy-oriented individuals, this
hedonically relevant event creates a sense of familiarity and
positive affect which allows the individual to acquire more
information from the situation and process it an a more
complex and productive manner. This complex perception is

essential to achieving motive satisfaction.

5 'E' H !' -S'! !' :

Within a general congruency model, differentiation and
integration can be seen as separate processes that may have
differential functional value to social motives. I suggest
that differentiation processes may be functionally related to
power motivation, while integration processes might be
functionally related to intimacy motivation. To consider
each of these processes in turn, differentiation is the
perception of separation. The differentiation process
involves thinking about the ways things differ and the
characteristics that make them separate. When the need for
power is positively aroused, the situation should be
perceived in a more differentiated way. The need to stand

out in relation to others can be expressed through the

25

drawing of distinctions and the perception of a greater
number of differences than similarities in power-related
stimuli. The need to command, influence, and impact has an
adversarial tone. The social stimulus or target is, in a
sense, in opposition to the power-oriented individual.
Differentiation involves the perception of autonomy that
might be part of a competitive strategy. Seeing oneself as
different in relation to an opposing object can facilitate
such a scheme. The stimulus is different and separate from
the perceiver and thus, more able to be viewed in an
"objective" and strategic way. In addition, power-motivated
individuals tend to enjoy opportunities to make quick
decisions that affect others. Differentiation processes can
expedite these decision making processes.

In contrast to power motivation, the need for intimacy
is characterized by two general themes. The theme of
communal concern seems to manifest in the readiness to engage
in interpersonal encounters and the ability to enjoy them.
This communal awareness or sensitivity may lead those with
positively aroused intimacy motivation to perceive more
commonalities than differences when construing motive-
relevant stimuli. This effect might be manifest in the form
of many similarities and fewer differences in the processing
and conceptualization of intimacy-related stimuli. The need
for communality is expressed through the forming of

relationships and similarities. The perception of

26
similarities and. connections between. people can. be ‘the
foundation for gratifying intimacy experiences.

Thus, I expect that differentiation processes are
functionally related to power motivation, while integration
processes should be functionally related to intimacy
motivation. Agentic motives such as the need for power are
based on a concern for separateness, autonomy, personal
recognition, and competition (Winter, 1973). I reason that
because differentiation processes involve special attention
to differences rather than similarities, separate rather than
collective systems, comparisons between groups, restrictions
and exclusions, they may serve to maintain a "separate"
cognitive orientation while making decisions, leading,
persuading, competing, and influencing others. In contrast,
communal motives such as the need for intimacy center on a
concern for relatedness, accommodations, empathy, and
reciprocity (McAdams, 1980). I expect that because
integration processes involve special attention to
similarities, generalities that resolve discrepancies and the
ways that social objects mutually affect.each.other, they'may
help intimacy-motivated people maintain a connected
orientation and a readiness to engage in interpersonal
encounters involving close and communicative exchange with
others and form relationships with others.

In sum, the interaction of personal motives and

different social situations is likely to produce different

27
styles of complex information processing. When motives are
positively aroused, specific types of targets or situations
are likely to be processed in a more differentiated or
integrated way. In many hedonically relevant situations, the
perceiver’s relationship to the person or target is
ambiguous. The situation allows for enough subjectivity for
the perceiver to structure the stimuli in.a‘way that reflects
his or her underlying motivation. When motives are aroused
in these situations, it is likely the perceiver will process
the information in ways that will reflect the style or
structure of that underlying motive and enhance the
situation's potential rewards. Thus, the power-motivated
individual may see more differences between themselves and
ambiguous, but positively arousing targets, whereas intimacy-
motivated individuals may see more similarities between

themselves and ambiguous, but positively-arousing targets.

E H i J E ll E ! i ! E : '!° : 1 '!

Thus, a model that describes that impact of the
interactive characteristics of the person and the situation
on the complexity of social impressions has been developed as
follows. The perceiver brings personal motives and hedonic
concerns to the situation. These motives can interact with
situational attributes in ways that to create a motive-

arousing experience for the perceiver. Under these motive-

28
arousing conditions, personal attributes interact with
situational attributes in ways that allow the perceiver to
acquire more information and be more cognitively active in
the situation. This increase in cognitive productivity is
reflected in a higher level of cognitive complexity.

When personal attributes do not interact with
situational attributes in a way that creates a motive-
arousing experience, or if motives are aroused but the person
is constrained by the demands of the a highly structured
task, the situation will not be processed in a way that
involves these special activation mechanisms and therefore
will not lead to more complexity information processing.

The final step in the model specifies that differences
in the structure of cognitive complexity are based on the
functional characteristics of the aroused motives. It is
predicted that the structure of the more complex impression
will be more differentiated for power-oriented people, while

it will be more integrated for intimacy-oriented people.

W

In order to test a set of hypotheses that describe the
relationship of cognitive complexity to a set of conditions
that determine the hedonic relevance and that different
motives influence different aspects of cognitive complexity,

I selected individuals who were high in either power or

29
9intimacy motivation. Social situations were experimentally
created that were hedonically relevant to either power or
intimacy. Within each social situation, power- and intimacy-
motivated individuals were asked to form impressions of two
target persons whom they believed they would be meeting
later. Their impressions were examined for simple and
elaborated forms of both differentiation and integration and

as well as the total amount of cognitive complexity.

Hypotheses

W

Individuals in congruent arousal conditions (i.e.,
individuals with high power motivation and low intimacy
motivation scores in power arousing conditions and
individuals with high intimacy motivation and low power
motivation scores in intimacy arousing conditions) will
process their experience at. a higher level of overall
complexity than those individuals in incongruent arousal
conditions (i.e., individuals with high intimacy motivation
and low power motivation scores in power arousing conditions
and individuals with high power motivation and low intimacy

motivation scores in intimacy arousing conditions).

3O

mum

The congruency effect should be present in both
components of complexity: differentiation and integration.
Individuals in congruent arousal conditions should process
their experience with higher levels of differentiation and
integration than those individuals in incongruent arousal

conditions.

W

More elaborated forms of complexity should have more
functional utility for the perceiver. Therefore, the
congruency effect should be stronger for the elaborated forms
of differentiation and integration than for the simple types

of differentiation and integration.

H¥991h3§i§_111§

In power arousal conditions, individuals who have a
high need for power (i.e., high power-low intimacy) are
expected to process their impressions of the targets with
greater differentiated complexity than people who score high
on the need for intimacy (i.e., high intimacy-low power).
Individuals high in power motivation in the power arousal
condition should have the most differentiated processing

relative to all others.

31

WWII:

In intimacy arousal conditions, individuals who have a
high need for intimacy (i.e., high intimacy-low power) are
expected to process their impressions of the targets with
greater integrative complexity than people who score high on
the need for power (i.e., high power-low intimacy). High
intimacy individuals in the intimacy arousal condition should

have the most integrated processing relative to all others.

CHAPTER 2

METHOD

WW

Female and male undergraduates participated in two
experimental sessions which were described as research
concerning "how imagination affects social impressions." In
the first session, they'wrote six TAT stories. In the second
session, subjects. high in intimacy' or’ power' motivation
watched. a 'videotape of two students conducting’ a peer
interview. They were told to imagine that they were a
psychologists who were looking for a research assistant to
help them in their work. Their job was described as one
relating to power or intimacy motivation. In addition, in
order to increase their arousal further, they were told that
they would be role-playing with one of the targets later.
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. Their
responses were coded for cognitive complexity including
simple and elaborated forms of differentiation and

integration.

32

33
Subjects

Introductory psychology students from the Michigan State
University subject. pool participated. in ‘the study; All
subjects received class credit for their participation.

In order to complete the data-gathering phase of the
study in one term, a large group of approximately 400
subjects were pre-tested for power and intimacy motivation.
From this large sample, distributions of power and intimacy
scores were examined and selection criteria as described
below were derived for high—intimacy, low-power and high-
power, low intimacy. Subjects whose TAT scores did not meet
these criteria performed tasks unrelated to this study for
the second session so they could receive the same amount of
class credit for their participation. 108 subjects
participated in the experimental session and approximately
300 subjects participated in a different, unrelated second

session.

The first session involved administering the Thematic
Apperception Test to find individuals who were high in power
and low in intimacy motivation or high in intimacy and low in

power motivation. Subjects participated in groups of 20 to

34
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 that is in two parts. In this session, you will
write some imaginative stories to pictures. Then we will
call your back in a couple weeks and arrange a convenient
time for you to participate in the second session. During
the second session, you will participate in other social
impression tasks. Please read the consent form and sign it
if you would like to participate in the study." (See
Appendix A).

The consent forms were 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 that were projected on
to a large screen. These slides have been used in past
research because they potentially cue power and intimacy
motives (McAdams, 1984). 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.

35
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 typically 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 were shown the 6 slides in the order used in
previous studies (e.g. McAdams, 1982, 1988: McAdams, Lester,
Brand, McNamara & Lensky, 1987: McClelland, 1985).

After all the TATs were shown and participants had
written all six stories, they were thanked and reminded that
they would be called for the second session in approximately

two weeks.

36

:1 'E' !' Eil't
'! E 11!. ll!’ !' ii

The Thematic Apperception Tests for the need for
intimacy (McAdams, 1984) and the need for power (Winter,
1973) were selected as the most direct way to test the
hypotheses because the hypotheses were broadly derived from
the literature that uses TATs to study these complex
motivations. Coders were trained in the assessment of power
and intimacy motivation through coding manuals (McAdams,
1984; Winter, 1973). These detailed manuals explain the
coding procedures and provide practice stories that allow
coder’s to compare their scores with an "Expert Scoring" key.
All coders achieved a reliability of x; = .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 a two-
step procedure that included an initial screening and then a
final selection to determine the final sample of subjects who
manifested the two motives most strongly. From these
scores, separate distributions were derived for males and
females on each motive. Sixty-three persons whose motive

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

37
half on the other were selected for participation in the
experiment. Females had the following scores: high power =
7-17, low intimacy = 0-6, low power = 0-6, and high intimacy
= 7-24. Males had the following scores: high power = 7-19,
low intimacy = 0—6, low power = 0-6, and high intimacy = 5-
11.

To examine if, in fact, the distributions of motive
scores were equal across arousal conditions, 2(motive) X
2(condition) X 2(sex) ANOVAs were performed on the power and
intimacy motivation scores. This analysis revealed only one
effect that was significant: the Motive x Arousal Condition
interaction for' power scores: Subjects high on power
motivation in the power condition had higher power motive
scores than subjects.high.on power in the intimacy condition.
To equate the power motive scores across the conditions,
three subjects with extremely high power motivation scores
were dropped from the final sample. This sample of 60
subjects whose data were used to test the hypotheses. Note,
however that data analyses that included these three subjects

yielded the same results as the analyses reported below.

TIIIIJ!' EB 31!. E J

The manipulation of power and intimacy arousal in a
laboratory setting entails some special considerations.

First, power and intimacy seem to be opposing, and at the

38

very least orthogonal social orientations: Situations that
engage power motivation will generally not engage intimacy
motivation and vice versa. An experimental situation had to
be devised that would generally appeal to both power- and
intimacy-motivated individuals. Since both power and
intimacy are "social" motives in that motive satisfaction can
be found in social settings, situations involving people
could be potentially engaging for both groups of individuals.
Secondly, the experimental situation had to be created in
which all aspects of it could be held constant except for the
arousal manipulation. And lastly, it was imperative that the
experimental situation be powerful enough to arouse these
motives in subjects and keep them aroused during the time
that the dependent measure was taken.

A social situation was selected in which the subjects
watched a videotape of two undergraduate students
interviewing each other for a job as a research assistant in
the psychology department. This videotape was constructed to
be especially interesting and relevant to the undergraduate
experience. A decision task was chosen as the best way to
obtain the dependent measure. The subjects were to chose the
target they felt was most suitable for the job. The
situation demanded that the subjects make a decision and
justify it.

To increase involvement even more, subjects were told

they would be actually meeting one of the targets on the

39
videotape. The subjects knew that the targets were in fact
waiting in the next room. It seemed that having at least one
of the targets physically present made the experimental
manipulation much more powerful and believable.

Once issues of general involvement were dealt with, the
differential arousal power and intimacy motivation was
considered. The general theme of "using your imagination"
was chosen.as a plausible way to engage subjects and give the
experiment.a sense of continuity from the first to the second
session. Thus, subjects were instructed that they would be
using their imaginations by thinking of themselves as a
psychologist who was viewing the videotape looking for a
research assistant. They were also told that they would be
acting in the role of a psychologist when they actually met
one of the targets. Subjects were given.descriptions of "the
type of psychologist we would like you to be." As described
below, in the intimacy arousal condition, subjects were given
a description related intimacy and in the power condition,
subjects were given a description related to power.

This approach had several advantages. First, by merely
changing the description of the psychologist the rest of the
experiment remained constant. The descriptions were equally
balanced so that they had an equal "strength" or salience to
the subject. The arousal was further augmented by the
subjects believing they would be interacting with one of

targets in an intimacy or power "role." Itexpected that the

40
role descriptions were powerful enough to arouse subjects’
motivations and at the same time, did not impose too much
control or structure on them so that they did not show
reactance or fall into "scripted" behavior, but were free to

choose to become more or less engaged.

I] E J !' E !l I . T I

To obtain a sample of cognitions under motive-arousing
conditions, a task was required that was unstructured enough
to allow the 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. Thus, in
the experiment, subjects were asked which of the two targets
was more suitable for the job. They were asked to put their
names on their responses but were not explicitly informed
whether or not the targets would see their answers. 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.

41

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.

V': ! E ! !' E T ! E

A 17—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 (IPS) coding

systems (Bales, 1950: Borgatta & Crowther, 1965). This

42
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,
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),
drawslattention: (13), asks for opinion, and (14), disagrees.
As expected, there was not a significant difference, 1 (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 3 (3) <
1, in the amount of affiliation behaviors used by the two
actors. Inter-coder reliability was high, I = .98 for the

combined initiation and affiliation categories.

43

Design

The design of this experiment consisted of three
independent variables, each with two levels each. The study
was a 2( power versus intimacy motive) X 2(power versus
intimacy arousal condition) X 2(female versus male subjects)

factorial design with a minimum of five subjects per cell.

E l E !l E . ! J 5 .

Subjects high on power or intimacy motivation were
called for the second one-hour session. Assistants to the
experimenter who were unaware of the motive orientation of
the subjects scheduled them to participate in groups of two.
Motivation and sex of subject were not controlled in the
scheduling of the experimental groups.

Each group of two was randomly assigned to either the
power or intimacy condition. The experimenter was blind to
subjects’ motivation throughout the experiment. The
experimenter greeted the participants. She explained that
the experiment room, which was a small room containing a
table and two chairs and some plants, was being used to make
videotapes for an interview tape library for students of
industrial and organizational psychology to practice and
learn about interviewing. Although the room also contained

a camera, the participants were assured that their session

44
would not be videotaped. It was demonstrated that the lens
cap was on the camera.

Subjects were told the session would be in two phrases.
First, they would watch a videotape of two people named Kim
and Eric conducting what is called a peer interview. After
they watched the tape, they would be asked a question and
given about 10-minutes to write out their thoughtful
responses. In the second.phase, they were told they'would be
doing a role-playing exercise in which they would be randomly
paired with either Kim or Eric. At this point, the
experimenter mentioned that either Kim or Eric had stepped
out and should be back soon. After role-playing with one of
the targets, they would again be asked their impressions.
The experimenter explained that the study was concerned.with
how the impressions that people form.of others on a videotape
differ from the impressions they form in real life. The
experimenter then asked if there were any questions.

The experimenter then gave the following arousal
orientation: "As you know in the first session, we were
interested in your imaginative skills--we asked you to write
some imaginative stories to pictures. In this session, we
are also like you to use your imagination in two ways.
First, as you are watching the videotape they would like you
to imagine that you are a psychologist who is looking for a
research assistant. As you know from your coursework, there

are many different kinds of psychologists and they do various

45
things in their work. Here is description of the type of

psychologist that we would like you to be:

[power description] You are a psychologist who is looking
for a research assistant. In your job, you are a leader. As
a psychologist, you are required to give many speeches and
lectures and convince students to become interested in
psychology. You are also expected to negotiate with other
staff members for research funding and other resources.

Your role as interviewer involves a sense of knowing how
to make important decisions that affect others. You have a
great deal of decision-making power. You must be able to
decide if a person’s right for a job, make evaluations of
others and give them instructions. Take a moment to imagine
yourself in this role."

[intimacy description] You are a psychologist who is looking
for a research assistant. In your job, you are a socially-
sensitive person. You have the ability to draw people out
and understand their needs. As a psychologist, you are
required to facilitate small group discussions for an ongoing
study of self-disclosure and friendship processes. You are
expected to work together and share ideas with others.

Your role as interviewer involves getting on the same
wavelength with prospective employees to find out what kind

of person will be compatible with a sensitive nature of the
job. Take a moment to imagine yourself in this role."

The experimenter asked again if there were any
questions. As the experimenter turned to start the
videotape, either Eric or Kim knocked on the door, opened it
and said "Kim's (or Eric's) here." The experimenter replied
"Ok, thanks." and began the tape and left the room.

After the tapes were viewed, the experimenter returned
and read aloud the paragraph completion instructions. These
instructions can be found in the previous section on
selecting an impression formation task. Subjects were

allowed ten minutes to write their responses. Then the

46
paragraphs were collected and subjects filled-out the Role-
Playing Questionnaire (i.e., a suspiciousness questionnaire
to insure that subjects really believed they would be meeting

one of the targets. See Appendix A).

E l . E' E . 3

After the subjects filled-out 'the suspiciousness
questionnaire, they were informed that they would not be
role-playing with the targets after all. Instead, they were
told about the nature of the experiment. Subjects were told
that the experiment was really about how people's attitudes,
concerns, and motivations affect their perceptions of others.
It was explained that the imaginative stories that subjects
wrote in the first session were used to study the concerns
and motives of students. By examining their decisions of the
best job candidate, the researchers will be able to see how
their opinions related to their personal concerns and
motivations. The subjects were told that it was necessary to
tell them they would be meeting either Kim or Eric so that
they would feel they had a personal stake in the decision
making. The experimenter apologized for having to use
deception and explained more generally why deception is
sometimes necessary in psychological research. She then
asked if there were any questions and gave them credit for

their participation.

47

H : °!' : J '!

An impression formation task was used as a means of
obtaining a sample of cognitive complexity. As people form
impressions of others, they must select a relatively small
amount of information and structure it in a way that can be
understood” .An impression is a representation of the
cognitive structuring of an event, person, topic, or
situation.

In order to study the complexity of impressions formed
by individuals with high power and intimacy motivation, it
was desirable to have a coding system that (a) is related to
structure rather than content, (b) can generate separate
differentiation and integration scores, (c) is more
discriminating than a global rating, and (d) can obtain
simple and elaborated levels of both differentiation and
integration.

In reviewing a wealth of previously developed coding
systems, it appeared that all of them met some the
requirements but no single coding system that met them all.
To consider each requirement in turn, the construct of
complexity refers to the structure of information rather than
its content" Therefore, it is desirable to use a system that

is as content-free as possible. The problem is that the

48

content-free systems such as Tetlock 8 Hannum's (1984)
integrative complexity coding system and Winter's (1984) Tee;
ef_Theme;ie_Anely§ie_were generally created to code material
such as political speeches and scholarly writings. By
comparison, the social impressions from this study are at a
much lower baseline level of complexity so that this type of
coding system would not have much discriminating power. That
is, all of social impressions would.be scored.as having a low
degree of complexity with these systems.

On the other hand, the coding systems that have been
used to examine person impressions and descriptions
(Crockett, 1965: Peevers 8 Secord, 1971) are strongly based
on content. For instance, these systems are concerned with
how positive and negative attributes are dealt with in an
impression. In studying both types of coding systems,
however it became possible to derive a system that contained
the structural components of the Tetlock 8 Hannum (1984) and
Winter (1984) systems that was relevant to person
impressions.

In addition, my system was developed so that
differentiation and integration could be considered as
separate cognitive processes. In the systems of measurement
employed by Tetlock (1983) and Schroder, Driver 8 Streufert,
(1967) , integration is dependent on differentiation such that
there cannot be a high level of integration without a high

level of differentiation. These coding systems consist of a

49

7-point Likert scale ranging from low differentiation, low
integration to high differentiation, high integration. In
this framework, it is not possible to assess differentiation
and integration separately and there is no category for low
differentiation, high integration. In fact, a review of
other coding manuals of cognitive complexity (Woike, 1989)
found that no previous system has dealt with the categories
of differentiation and integration separately. The closest
exception to this finding is a study of ideological reasoning
by Tetlock (1986) in which each response was given a global
rating for differentiation and a separate global rating for
integration. For the hypotheses of this study to be tested,
it was necessary to obtain separate scores for
differentiation and integration.

Thirdly, it was also preferable to obtain a frequency
measure of differentiated and integrated responses rather
than global ratings. Frequency measures of the presence of
differentiated and integration structures provide a more
precise representation of the psychological variable under
investigation. Therefore, a main objective of the coding
system I have derived was to create a technique to obtain
frequency measures of these separate categories from the same
psychological variable.

The fourth consideration was the possibility of
obtaining different levels of complexity within

differentiation and integration. Other coding systems that

50
used frequency measures (Crockett, 1965: Winter, 1984) gave
different "weights" to their categories to indicate that they
were more or less complex or important relative to the other
categories. Making the decision not to use global ratings
left merely a gross frequency measure. As the subcategories
of differentiation and integration were derived, it became
clear that some subcategories were more complex than others
but there was no clear basis to ‘make finely' weighted
discriminations. Therefore, by using the Schroder, Driver 8
Streufert ( 1967) distinction of "simple versus complex,"
differentiation and integration were each divided into two
levels. Simple differentiation refers to the naming of
different aspects or attributes in the impressionrand.complex
(or elaborated) differentiation refers to the process of
making distinctions and differentiated comparisons among
stimuli. Simple integration refers to forming simple links
between previously mentioned aspects of the impression and
complex (or elaboarated) integration refers to the
description of dynamic relationships and complex connections

between stimuli.

W
”:.!.:1.!"

An additional group of 60 subjects participated in a

modified version of the experimental second session. Groups

51

of 8 to 12 subjects watched the same videotape that was used
in the experiment. These subjects were instructed to imagine
that they were psychologists who were looking for a research
assistant and they were given either the intimacy or power
arousal description. However, they were not told they would
be role-playing with the targets. They wrote responses to
the same question as the experimental group.

This sample of approximately 60 paragraphs was used to
derive the categories of differentiation and integration.
This system sought to employ previously created structural
categories of complexity that were relevant to my sample.
That is, I wanted to capture how differentiation and
integration processes were used in this particular decision-
making task.

Some examples from these paragraphs were used to create a
coding manual that was written to teach coders how to score
the paragraphs from the experimental session. Below is an
outline of the categories of complexity. The complete coding

manual can be found in Appendix B.

: !1' E !l 1 ! . E ; J '!

DiEE !' !'

Differentiation is the process of focusing on differences

between and within a given stimulus group. The

52
differentiation process involves special attention to (a)
differences rather than similarities, (b) the ways in which
people and objects 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
exclusions, restrictions and contrasts that can be made

within a stimulus set.

1. 5' J E'EE !' !'

(A) A.neg_eepee§ of a given subject is one that is different
and relatively unrelated to any aspect mentioned in any
previous statement. This concept is central to many
theorists’ notions of complexity; For instance, it.is called
"aspect" in Linville’s (1985) work on self-complexity. A
similar concept is used by Tetlock (1984), Winter (1984),
Peevers and Secord (1973), Schroder 8 Streufert (1962), and
Crockett (1965). Sometimes neg_gepee§e are 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 group activities."

2 . Elgnggefl [21 f ferenti figl Qn

(A) Reletlye_eemperl§en refers to a comparison of relative

standing between two subjects, objects or targets on some

53
dimension on which they are perceived as being unequal. Words
such as "more," "better," or "best" signify that two or more
targets, subjects or objects are perceived as unequal on some

dimension.

(B) m refers to a comparison of two opposing aspects.
The perceiver sees the target(s) as being different from
other target(s) or object(s) through the use of contrasting
aspects that. may be (a) on. a bipolar' dimension (e.g.
dominant/submissive: active/passive), or (b) uni-dimensional
opposites (e.g. masculine/feminine), or an aspect and its
negation (interested in sports/not interested in sports:

intellectual/not intellectual).

(C) Wing refers to a statement that

restricts, makes more precise or delimits another statement.
The central idea is that these restrictive statements and
phrases confine aspects and structures to a jparticular
context, situation, perspective, condition, or criteria
rather than merely providing additional meaning to a

statement.

54

1111;333:1911

Integration refers to a way of perceiving and forming
impressions that includes larger structures. The central
feature of the integration process is the presence of
connections or links between stimuli that has been
differentiated (Schroder, Driver, 8 Streufert, 1967: Tetlock,
1984), at least to some degree. The perceiver does not stop
with a list attributes, but continues to form an impression
that is more whole, integrated, and interconnected. The
integration process involves special attention to (a)
similarities and congruencies within and between
differentiated stimuli, (b) relationships between targets and
objects, and (c) how targets and.cbjects influence and.affect
one another. In this manual, integration is divided into 5

discrete categories.

1.§imn1_e_1nts_gr_atis2n

(A) Suppertlng_eepee§ refers to an attribute that is linked
or some how related to a previous aspect. Instead of
perceiving attributes of the target as separate entities or
delimiting information, the perceiver builds or links two
aspects together by using a commonality that expands the

meaning. In the following example, the second sentence

55
supports the first sentence: "Kim seems very well-rounded.
She describes herself as being busy with a variety of

activities."

2- El§D9I§§§d_ln§§§I§§iQn

(A) mum refer to the perception of a dynamic
relationship between targets or subjects. The perceiver
views these features of the stimulus set as dynamic or
interacting with one another rather than existing in
isolation.

Subcategories:

(1) Dynamic relationship between the targets
(e.g. "Kim seemed to put Eric at ease.")

(2) Dynamic relationship between the target(s) and
perceiver (e.g., "Kim made me feel that I could
really trust her."

(3) Possibility of Interaction with the Target(s)
(e.g., "If Eric were my assistant we probably
wouldn’t get along well.")

(4) Simple Causal Links (not directly related to the
target influence) (e.g., "The job interview made

them nervous.")

(B) W refers to the perception of commonality

between two targets. The targets are described as sharing a

56
common attribute or a common experience. For example, "They

both enjoyed sports."

(C) W 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. For example, "Kim shows initiative

which will definitely help her in this position."

(D) W is characterized by (1) the

statement of choice for the job, then (2) stating attributes
of the target(s), reasons, observations and opinion that are
related to that.choice and.then (3) concluding the impression
by resolving these differentiated attributes, reasons, etc
with the choice restated in a way that provides the

impression with a central theme.

: 3' !l I .

Three independent coders. were trained. to, code ‘the
impressions f or di f f erenti ation and integration with the
Qetege:iee_efi_§emplexi;y scoring manual (Woike, 1989). All
three coders achieved at least .80 reliability for the total
complexity, differentiation and integration scoring

categories on the practice materials. Reliability was

57
determined by comparing their scores with the expert scoring
key of the practice paragraphs.

In coding the paragraphs from the experiment, trained
coders followed the procedure outlined in the coding manual,
see Appendix B. Coders were assigned to work in three coder
pairs so that each paragraph was scored by two independent
coders. Table 1 shows the inter-rater reliabilities for the
categories of complexity. If there were large disagreements,
the paragraph was given to the third coder and the mean of
the two scores in closest agreement were used for the
analysis. In a few cases, all three codings were discrepant
from each other. In those cases, all three scores were used.
Table 2 shows the inter-rater reliabilities after recoding.
The scores for each subject on the categories of complexity
were derived by taking the mean of the coders’ scores after
recoding. It should be noted that a few of these scores were
lower on the recoding than on the first coding, but for the

most part the recoding improved the reliability scores.

58

Table 1

I ! _ ! E 1 l'J'!° E !l : ! i

 

E l J '! E E E 3'
Category Mean Range
Total Complexity .88 .82 - .96
Total Differentiation .80 .73 - .93
Total Integration .87 .79 - .94
Simple Differentiation .77 .69 - .85
Complex Differentiation .83 .75 - .94
Restriction .24 .00 - .54
Relative Comparison .71 .37 - .93
Contrast .57 .04 - .95
Simple Integration .73 .61 - .80
Complex Integration .79 .62 - .91
Causal Links .74 .64 - .80
Similarities .89 .81 - .96
Matching .73 .57 - .85
Resolution .47 .17 - .75

 

59

Table 2

 

E : J .! EE! E 3'
Category Mean Range
Total Complexity .91 .87 - .97
Total Differentiation .86 .82 - .90
Total Integration .85 .83 - .87
Simple Differentiation .81 .78 - .84
Complex Differentiation .84 .80 - .91
Restriction .30 .17 - .46
Relative Comparison .84 .71 - .91
Contrast .54 .29 - .80
Simple Integration .67 .59 - .76
Complex Integration .82 .79 - .87
Causal Links .68 .60 - .73
Similarities .88 .84 - .94
Matching .74 .71 - .78
Resolution .37 .31 - .45

 

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS

III I !' E !' Ell
; 'I' 2 J i! I!

Since this particular combination of categories has not
been used before to measure differentiation and integration
processes, it is informative to examine the psychometric
properties of this measure of cognitive complexity. Analyses
were performed to obtain descriptive statistics, correlations
and internal reliabilities on the components and
subcategories of cognitive complexity.

For these analyses, as well as the tests of hypotheses,
both differentiation and integration components of complexity
were divided into simple and elaborated (or complex)
categories. Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for
the major components of cognitive complexity. Inspection of
the means reveals that, on average, total differentiation
scores are about twice the amount of total integration
scores. Simple differentiation (the total number of separate
attributes mentioned) makes up over a third of the total

differentiation score. For integration, the simple and

60

61
complex components are approximately equal.

Table 4 shows the relations among these major components
of complexity. Most notably, simple differentiation and
simple integration are significantly related (1: = .27, p.
<.05). This relationship indicates that the more simple
components of cognitive complexity occur together in
impressions, but the more complex components do not occur
together in impressions, as indicated by the lack of a
significant correlation between complex differentiation and

complex integration. The other significant correlations are

between total differentiation and simple integration (1.:
.29, p. < .05) and total differentiation and between total
integration (1: = .23, p. < .10). These correlations are
influenced by the relationship between the two simple
components of cognitive complexity as they make up a good
deal of the total scores.

To take a closer look at differentiation and
integration, I begin with the descriptive statistics on
differentiation presented in Table 5. There is one category
of simple differentiation and three categories of elaborated
differentiation. By examining the range and means, it
appears that relative contrast and contrast are the primary
subcategories that make up elaborated (or complex)
differentiation. The restriction subcategory has a very low
frequency.

Table 6 shows the correlations among the subcategories

62

of differentiation. Simple differentiation is significantly
related to one subcategory of elaborated differentiation,
contrast. This correlation between contrast and simple
differentiation differs from zero at the p <.001 level of
significance. The reason for the relationship is that a
contrast is typically (although not always) made up of new
aspects which are scored as simple differentiation. The
other two subcategories of elaborated differentiation are not
significantly related to simple differentiation. In
addition, there no significant relationships among the
subcategories of elaborated differentiation. This lack of
association may be due to the fact that different aspects of
the differentiation construct are being tapped.

The descriptive statistics for the subcategories of
integration can be found in Table 7. The largest subcategory
of integration is simple integration. As indicated by the
range and standard deviation, simple integration scores
appear highly variable. Inspection of the means indicates
that the subcategories of complex integration occur
infrequently. However, by looking at the range and
‘variability'of the scores, it appears that.some subjects used
these categories a great deal more than other subjects.
Given the hypotheses, this is a potentially promising
finding. As an aside, it should be noted that resolution was
scored for its presence or absence, therefore zero and one

are the only possible scores for each paragraph.

63

The correlations among the subcategories of integration

are presented in Table 8. There are some statistically
significant relationships among the subcategories of
elaborated integration. Notably, there was a strong

correlation between matching and resolution (p <.001). This
finding suggests that many subjects that matched the job
characteristics with the attributes of the target(s) also
used this information to give their impression a central
theme. There are also marginally significant relationships
between simple link and dynamic relationship with perceiver
(DRP) (p, <.05), between. simple integration. and. dynamic
relationship between targets (DRT) (p <.06) , and between
simple integration and simple link (p <.10).

In general, the correlations among the subcategories of
differentiation and integration were anticipated to be
higher. However, the primary goal in developing this coding
system was to create a comprehensive measure that could
capture unique differentiation and integration processes in
a brief description. Essentially, I sought to include a
number of nonredundant categories which people use to express
a given mode of information processing. The measure has
content validity in the sense that it truly represents.a*wide
range of differentiation and integration processes found in
the impressions formed in this experiment. In addition,
these categories were developed by relying heavily on

previous instruments designed to measure the construct of

64
cognitive complexity (or abstract thought).

In my review of these coding materials (Woike, 1989) , I
have not found tests of internal consistency for these
measures. Therefore, it might be informative to do such
analyses. Cronbach’s (1951) coefficient alpha was employed
to determine the measure’s internal consistency. The alpha
coefficient on whole complexity measure (including the four
differentiation and eight integration subcategories) was .08:
the standardized item alpha was .44. The internal
consistency of the differentiation and integration components
was tested separately. The alpha coefficient for the four
subcategories of differentiation was .35: the standardized
item alpha was .40. The alpha coefficient for the eight
subcategories of integration was .01: the standardized item
alpha was .32. These alpha coefficients were lower than
anticipated. They revealed no clear basis to regroup, drop,
or add categories. Therefore, the a priori groupings of
cognitive complexity that were specified previously were used

to test the hypotheses as there was no basis to do otherwise.

65

 

Table 3
. . . .
DgSQIlDI1Y9_SIAElSIlfS_iQE_§hf_flgfgr_99mn9n§n§§_gfi
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Range
Simple
Differentiation 7.2 3.0 - 14
Elaborated
Differentiation 2.9 1.9 - 9
Total
Differentiation 10.1 4.1 - 22
Simple
Integration 2.8 2.1 - 9
Elaborated
Integration 2.5 1.8 - 6
Total
Integration 5.4 3.0 - 12

 

66

Table 4

WWW

 

Simple
Differentiation

Elaborated
Differentiation

Total
Differentiation

E : '!' 2 J .!
Simple Elaborated Total
Integration Integration Integration

.27

.19

.29

.00 .19
.11 .19
.05 .23

 

67

 

Table 5
E . !i E! !l !° E II S l ! .
E E'EE !' !'
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Range
Simple differentiation 7.2 3.1 1 - 15

Elaborated Differentiation
Relative Contrast 2.0 1.5 0 - 7
Contrast 0.9 1.0 0 - 6

Restriction of Meaning .09 .25 0 - 1

 

68

Table 6

 

 

1. 2. 3. 4.
1. New Aspects --- .07 .51 .14
2. Relative Contrast --- .14 .10
3. Contrast --- .15
4. Restriction ---
Note: New Aspects are equivalent to simple differentiation.

69

 

Table 7
p - e - e .9: - . , :o’ .7,
Variable Mean Std. Dev. Range
1. Simple Integration 2.9 2.12 0 - 9
Elaborated Integration
2. Dynamic Relationship .19 .49 0 - 3
between Targets
3. Dynamic Relationship .12 .35 0 - 2
with Perceiver
4. Potential Interaction .24 .54 0 - 3
5. Simple Links .17 .38 0 - 2
6. Similarity .63 1.00 0 - 5
7. Matching .90 .98 0 - 4
8. Resolution .29 .37 0 - 1

 

70

Table 8

 

7.

8.

SA --- .25 .07

DRT --- .07

PIT

SL

SIM

M

RES

-.07

-.08

-.13

.22

.05

.26

-.09

.05

.02

.06

-.04

.08

.11

-.05

-.16

.11

.14

-.16

.14

-.08

.01

.17

.16

-005

.54

 

The key to abbreviations is as follows:

1. Supporting Aspects (i.e.,

2.

3.

4.

5.

Dynamic Relationship
between Targets

Dynamic Relationship
with Perceiver

Potential Interaction
Simple Links
Similarity

Matching

Resolution

simple integration)

71

,‘eAe "_ e-_ - y e ,0 . - 4 e“. e; 0.. . -
Maxim

Hypothesis I predicts that individuals in arousal
conditions that are congruent with their motivations will
process their experience at. a Ihigher level of overall
cognitive complexity than individuals in arousal conditions
that were incongruent.with their motivations. Specifically,
it was predicted that power-motivated individuals will have
a higher level of overall cognitive complexity in the power
arousal condition than power-motivated individuals in the
intimacy arousal condition. Similarly, it was predicted that
intimacy-motivated individuals have show a higher level of
overall cognitive complexity in the intimacy arousal
condition than intimacy-motivated individuals in the power
arousal condition. Hypothesis I was examined by an analysis
of. variance for power versus intimacy motivation and
congruent versus incongruent arousal condition on the total
complexity scores (the sum of the total differentiation and
the total integration).

Inspection of Table 9 which presents the planned
comparisons, reveals a significant main effect for condition

on total complexity. It appears that individuals in motive-

72
congruent arousal conditions did in fact have a higher level
of cognitive complexity. The lack of significant interaction
indicates that the congruency effect was demonstrated with
both motives. Therefore, Hypothesis I was strongly

supported.

Hypothesis Ia: mWiW
E'EE !.!. II! II E

 

Hypothesis Ia predicts that individuals in arousal
conditions that are congruent with their motivations will
process their experience at a higher level of both
differentiation and integration than those individuals in
arousal conditions that were incongruent with their
motivations. Specifically, it was predicted that power-
motivated individuals will have a higher level of
differentiation and integration in the power arousal
condition than power-motivated individuals in the intimacy
arousal condition. Similarly, it was predicted that
intimacy-motivated individuals will have a higher level of
differentiation and integration in the intimacy arousal
condition than intimacy-motivated individuals in the power
arousal condition.

Hypothesis Ia was examined by an analysis of variance
for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus

incongruent arousal condition on total differentiation (the

73

sum of the simple and complex differentiation scores) and by
an analysis of variance for power versus intimacy motivation
and congruent versus incongruent arousal condition on total
integration (the sum of the simple and complex integration
scores). Then, planned comparisons were performed within the
framework of the motive X congruence design. The results of
these planned comparisons can be found in Table 9.

Inspection of Table 9 reveals that a marginally
significant main effect was found for arousal condition on
differentiation. It appears that individuals in motive-
congruent arousal conditions did in fact have a higher level
of differentiation than those in incongruent arousal
conditions. Inspection of Table 9 further shows that there
was.a main.effect for arousal condition on total integration.
It. appears that individuals. in.:motive-congruent. arousal
conditions did in fact have a higher level of integration
than those in motive incongruent arousal conditions.
Therefore, these results lend further support for the
congruency hypothesis and suggest that a closer examination
of both differentiation and integration processes may be

enlightening.

74

I 0
,9. " 9!! -‘Q ‘ ‘ ~ 9‘ - ! .!°1-‘! 9”.

 

 

9!,
Condition
Complexity WW 1; p.._s
Total Complexity 16.71 13.54 2.14 .02
Total Differentiation 10.68 9.18 1.34 .10
Total Integration 6.03 4.36 2.12 .02

 

O O I
’01. 93> ° .9‘ ‘ ._ 0 yo ‘ Macs-a 9_1__u.9 ‘ :10

I I I 0
an. a ‘0. I ‘ :1. a 0! 2". I ‘0 z 0130 ‘._=‘

Hypothesis II predicted that individuals in arousal
conditions that are congruent with their motivations will
process their experience with more elaborated differentiation
and more elaborated integration than those individuals in
arousal conditions that were incongruent with their
motivations. This effect should be evident by separately
examining the simple and elaborated or complex processes of
differentiation and integration. Specifically, it was
predicted that power-motivated individuals will show more
complex differentiation and more complex integration in the
power arousal condition than power-motivated individuals in
the intimacy arousal condition. Similarly, it was predicted
that intimacy-motivated individuals will show more complex
differentiation and.more complex integration in the intimacy
arousal condition than intimacy-motivated individuals in the
power arousal condition.

Hypothesis II was examined by analysis of variances for
power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus
incongruent arousal condition on simple differentiation,
simple integration, elaborated differentiation, and
elaborated integration. Then, planned comparisons were
performed within the framework of the motive X congruence

design.

76

Inspection of Table 10 reveals that there is no
significant main effect for congruency on simple
differentiation. It appears that the congruent arousal
condition did not effect simple differentiation. This
finding is interesting because total differentiation is made
up of two-thirds simple differentiation which accounts for
the only marginally significant main effect for arousal
condition on total differentiation (see Table 9). Further
inspection of Table 10 reveals a significant main effect for
arousal condition on complex differentiation. It appears
that individuals in motive-congruent arousal conditions did
in fact show a higher level of complex differentiation than
those in incongruent arousal conditions. Inspection of Table
10 further reveals that there was a main effect for arousal
condition on the subcategories of relative contrast and
contrast. The congruency effect on the third category of
complex differentiation, restriction was not significant.
This finding is probably influenced by the fact that this
response occurred with such low frequency. Thus, it appears
that under congruent arousal conditions, subjects tended to
make 'more comparisons of relative standing’ between ‘the
targets and more comparisons using opposing attributes.
These results strongly support Hypothesis II on elaborated
differentiation processes.

The results of the analyses on integration are found in

Table 11. There is only a marginally significant main effect

77

for congruency on simple integration. It appears that the
arousal condition. did not. affect simple integration as
strongly as complex integration, since there is a significant
main effect for arousal condition on complex integration. It
appears that individuals in motive-congruent arousal
conditions did in fact show a higher level of complex
integration than those in incongruent arousal conditions.
Inspection of Table 11 further reveals that there was a main
effect for arousal condition on the subcategory of causal
links. The other subcategories of complex integration (i.e. ,
similarities, matching and resolution) were not significant
individually, but the means are in the predicted direction.
This pattern of findings could.be influenced.by the fact that
these subcategories occur with such low frequency. Thus, it
appears that under congruent arousal conditions, subjects
tended to perceive more dynamic relationships between the
targets or attributes of the targets. 'These results strongly
support Hypothesis II on elaborated integration processes.

In general, the findings strongly support the congruency
hypotheses which predict that individuals in motive-congruent
conditions will process their experience with more complex
differentiation and more complex integration. All the means
of all subcategories were in'the‘direction.of the hypotheses.
These directional findings also appear in the simple and
complex components of differentiation and integration. As

predicted, the congruency effect was stronger for the more

78
complex or elaborated components of differentiation and

integration.

Table 10

79

 

 

40 - 09° .1! V - - 40 01° 012' .Ois
Condition
Differentiation Congruent Incongreent t pt:
Simple Differentiation 7.30 7.07 0.28 ns.
Elaborated Differentiation 3.38 2.11 2.50 .01
Relative Contrast 2.23 1.49 1.84 .04
Contrast 1.08 0.50 2.18 .02
Restriction 0.07 0.12 0.68 ns.

 

80

 

 

Condition
Integration Congruent Incongruent t 2.:
Simple Integration 3.15 2.40 1.36 .09
Elaborated Integration 2.88 1.95 1.98 .03
Causal Links .87 .46 1.73 .05
Similarities .69 .52 .61 ns.
Matching 1.00 .73 1.01 ns.

Resolution .32 .23 .84 ns.

 

Hypothesis IIIa predicts that people high on power
motivation in the power arousal condition.will process their
experience in a more differentiated way compared to people
high on power motivation in intimacy arousal condition and
people high on intimacy motivation in either arousal
condition. This hypothesis was examined by an analysis of
variance for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent
versus incongruent arousal condition on total differentiation
which was the sum of simple and complex differentiation and
by an analysis of variance for power versus intimacy
motivation and congruent versus incongruent arousal condition

on complex differentiation.

LTotalJiffeLentiotion

Table 12 presents the results of an analysis of variance
for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus
incongruent arousal condition on total differentiation.
Inspection of the means in Table 12 reveals that there is a
strong congruency effect. That is, the means for congruent
versus incongruent arousal conditions are significantly
different from one another. However, there is no significant

difference between power and intimacy motivation in the

82

congruent conditions.

LEIoanteflitfetentiation

Table 13 presents the results of an analysis of variance
for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus
incongruent arousal condition on complex differentiation.
The means in Table 13 do not appear to support Hypothesis
IIIa either. The results of an analysis of variance of
motive by arousal condition on complex integration yield an
nonsignificant E value. Planned comparisons revealed only
that individuals in congruent conditions used significantly
more complex integration than individuals in incongruent
conditions. There were no significant differences between
power and intimacy motivation in the congruency conditions.
Thus, I must conclude that Hypothesis IIIa was not supported

by the results.

83

Table 12

 

Arousal Condition

 

Hotixe Congruent Incongruent
Power 10.60a 9.20b
Intimacy 10.76a 9.17b

 

Note: Means with noncommon subscripts differ at the p <.05
level of significance.

84

Table 13

 

Arousal Condition

 

Motixe Congruent Incongruent
Power 3.31a 2.42b
Intimacy 3.44a 1.86b

 

Note: Means with noncommon subscripts differ at the p <.05
level of significance.

85

0 I O O
2191- 0:. - ' .r‘ , r. 0 1 11.. to V on an

Hypothesis IIIb predicts that people high on intimacy
motivation in the intimacy arousal condition will process
their experience in a more integrated way compared to people
high on intimacy motivation in the power arousal condition
and people high. on. power’ motivation in either* arousal
condition. This hypothesis was examined by an analysis of
variance for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent
versus incongruent arousal condition on total integration and
by an analysis of variance for power versus intimacy
motivation and congruent versus incongruent arousal condition

on complex integration.

LTotaLIntegrotion

Table 14 presents the results of an analysis of variance
for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus
incongruent arousal condition on total integration.
Inspection of Table 14 reveals that all means are
significantly different from one another. The E value for
the interaction of motivation and arousal condition is not
significant, however. It appears that intimacy-motivated
subjects in the intimacy arousal condition have the highest

total integration. However, total integration means for

86
intimacy motivation in both congruent and incongruent
conditions are higher relative to the total integration means
for power motivation. This effect is further obscured by the
main effect for congruency. In order for these results to
support Hypothesis IIIb, the mean for intimacy motivation in
intimacy arousal needs to be significantly higher than all
other means with no other significant differences between
these means. Thus, in this case, the means do not provide
conclusive evidence that intimacy-motivated individuals in
intimacy arousal conditions use more total integration

relative to others.

2.313borateLInteQLation

Table 15 presents the results of an analysis of variance
for power versus intimacy motivation and congruent versus
incongruent arousal condition on elaborated integration. The
E 'value for the interaction of motivation and arousal
condition is not significant. However, planned comparisons
revealed that intimacy—motivated individuals in intimacy
arousal conditions used significantly more elaborated
integration than all other groups. There were no significant
differences between any of the other three cells. Thus,
Hypothesis IIIb was supported for elaborated integration:
Intimacy-motivated individuals in intimacy arousal conditions

do indeed use more elaborated integrated processing.

87

Table 14

O O
99, '_ .I

 

Arousal Condition

 

Motile congruent Incongruent
Power 5.73a 3.92b
Intimacy 6.30c 4.72d

 

Note: Means with noncommon subscripts differ at the p <.05
level of significance.

88

Table 15

 

Arousal Condition

 

Hotite tenement Ineongtuent
Power 2.49a 2.00a
Intimacy 3.22b 1.94a

 

Note: Means with noncommon subscripts differ at the p <.05 of
significance.

89

E!!'!' J E' 1' 8

There was only one unpredicted finding. A main effect
for condition on possibility of perceiver-target interaction
(i.e., a casual link subcategory of complex integration) was
found. Subjects in the intimacy condition used more PITs
(Mean = .42) than subjects in the power condition (Mean =
.06, E (1,56) = 6.56, p <.02. Apparently, subjects in the
intimacy arousal condition thought more about their future
interaction with the target(s) than those in the power

arousal condition.

I] E J !' l' l ! g .l. ; J '!
and_Yerbal_FluenoY

The last issue that must be considered is the
relationship between cognitive complexity and verbal fluency.
Because the measure of complexity used in this study involves
using a frequency count, it is important to understand this
relationship and its potential problems. First, complexity
has to be expressed through words in that it is not possible
to obtain a complexity score without words. However, it is
crucial to be able to demonstrate that significant findings

are not merely a result of the number of words. It is

90

possible that the relationships between complexity and verbal
fluency are not the same for all categories of complexity.
To examine this possibility, correlation coefficients
examined the relationship between total word count the major
components of complexityu In.Table 16, the results show'that
there is a stronger relationship between word count and the
simple components of complexity than between word count and
the more complex components of complexity. This distinction
is important in light of the findings. The congruency and
differential predictions for power and intimacy state that
the effects should be stronger on the more complex components
than the simple components of complexity. Therefore, it is
probably safe to conclude that the significant results that
were found.on the elaborated.components.of complexity can:not
be attributed to verbal fluency alone.

To separate word frequency from complexity, the
components of complexity were examined through a ANCOVA, with
word count as a covariate. There was a significant main
effect for congruency on elaborated complexity (i.e.,
combined elaborated differentiation and elaborated
integration), E (1,52) = 4.26, p < .05. Adjusted means
indicated that individuals in congruent conditions expressed
more elaborated complexity, (M = 6.01), than individuals in
incongruent conditions, (u:= 4.66), even when word count was
controlled. In addition, a main effect for congruency on

simple complexity (i.e., simple differentiation and simple

91
integration) approached significance, E (1,52) = 3.07, p <
.09. Examination of the adjusted means revealed a reverse
pattern; with word count controlled, individuals in congruent
conditions used less simple complexity, (u = 9.90) than those
in incongruent conditions, (I! = 10.94). Thus, when word
frequency was statistically equated across conditions,
individuals in the congruent situations demonstrated more
actual elaborate processing, while those in incongruent
situations tended to use more simple descriptors. This

finding lends further suport for the congruency hypothesis.

92

 

Table 16
O ‘ O. 0‘ 7! ‘0 O O Q ... Q‘ cytuog‘g -
E ; 'I' : J .!

Variable Correlation Coefficients p.<
Simple Differentiation .57 .0001
Simple Integration .69 .0001
Elaborated Differentiation .41 .005
Elaborated Integration .42 .001
Total Differentiation .62 .0001
Total Integration .72 .0001

 

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION

The major objective of this study was to demonstrate
that personal motives and situational attributes operate in
conjunction to affect social information processing in
important ways. Complexity is an attribute of cognitive
processing that can potentially lead to greater prediction
and control over hedonic outcomes. It was predicted that
when the situation engages the motives of the perceiver, more
complex processing will be used goal-directed thoughts and
actions.

The congruency hypothesis was strongly supported in two
very different motivational domains. The need for power and
the need for intimacy share little in common, other than they
both are motives that are expressed in one's social
environment. While power-oriented people seek to compete,
control and influence others, intimacy-oriented people seek
to cooperate, connect and know others. Opportunities to
engage in these behaviors are very satisfying to these
individuals. Such situations lead people to process
information quite differently when they can potentially

satisfy one of these underlying motivations.

93

Under these hedonically relevant conditions, both power-
and intimacy-motivated individuals, when asked to make a
decision through an impression formation task, tended to see
the people in the stimulus environment in more
differentiating or discriminating ways. They were more apt
to make comparisons of relative standing and perceive
opposing attributes between or within these persons. They
also tended to see the persons in their stimulus field as
having dynamic and interacting qualities. In fact, the whole
situation was perceived in a more "alive" and interrelated
way.

The congruency effect.was demonstrated.with individuals
who had very different social orientations, therefore it is
reasonable to assume that some generally adaptive principle
is at work. This study further confirms as past research
(e.g., Assor, et al. 1981, 1986; Battistich & Aronoff, 1985:
Battistich, et al., 1985) has demonstrated, that information
processing can be greatly influenced by the interaction of
individual's hedonic concerns and the attributes of the
situation.

Thus, I conclude that the variability in complexity
among perceivers can be best understood within a perspective
that considers both dispositional and situational
characteristics. The fundamental premises of the P x S and
ecological positions were used to explain this general

adaptive principle that seems to underlie important aspects

94

95

of cognitive functioning in social settings. The interactive
effects demonstrated in this study emphasize the conclusion
reached by several reviewers that main effects of person
variables on social perception are very weak in and of
themselves (e.g., Schneider, 1973; Taguiri, 1969) and that
only by considering the Person x Situation interaction in
one's theoretical conceptualization can individual
differences in social perception be consistently
demonstrated. This framework emphasizes the careful
selection of the personality and situational variables that
are hedonically relevant to each other, which is an important
theoretical consideration for the study of personality
influence' on the social cognition. processes (Aronoff &
Wilson, 1985).

By creating an experimental situation that was
personally involving for participants and employing a free-
response measure to study cognitive processes, I believe I
was able to approximate social cognitive processes as they
occur in natural settings. A broad range of social
information processing procedures are employed to select,
encode, and elaborate information in the process of making
decisions about people (Battistich, et al., 1985). A model
that considers hedonic relevance as a mediating factor to
account for differences in social cognition is essential to
understanding the variability within these components of

social information processing because these processes,

96
including cognitive complexity, have a great deal of
functional utility for perceivers in attaining a wide array
of interpersonal outcomes.

By using an inclusive measure of cognitive complexity
that consisted of both simple and more elaborated forms of
differentiation and integration, I was able to demonstrate
that individuals in motive-relevant situations used more
elaborated complexity (i.e., both elaborated.differentiation
and elaborated integration) than those in situations which
were not motive-relevant. In contrast, when verbal fluency
was controlled, it was found that individuals in situations
that were not relevant to their motives used more simple
descriptors than those in motive-relevant situations.
Individuals who were in the motive-relevant situations tended
to see the contrasting attributes between and within the
targets as well as inter-relationships between the targets
and the situation. They also attempted to resolve the
contrasts between discrepant attributes of the targets and
the situation. 0n the other hand, individuals in the
situation that was not motive-relevant used simple
descriptors, which is perhaps the easiest way to meet the
demands of the type of impression-based decision-making task
with which they were confronted.

Along these lines, the ‘ways in 'which stimuli are
"worked", processed, or structured is also a topic of

interest for cognitive psychologists who study attention

97

processes. One theory in this area may shed some light on
this finding. Treisman's Feature Integration Theory
(Treisman & Gelade, 1980) suggests that separable dimensions,
which are similar to "new aspects" in this study, are
initially' coded independently' of each. other’ through. an
automatic process. The particular values on these dimensions
represent "features" (e.g. round, blue). After this initial
encoding, attention processes "glue" the percept together.
Supporting evidence for this idea appears to be drawn
strictly from "cold" cognition research, but it is possible
to speculate about a similar social information processing
sequence. Following Treisman's notion, one could speculate
that individuals encode the same amount of information (or
”aspects") in motive-congruent and motive-incongruent
situations, but apply greater amounts of attention to the
social stimuli in motive-congruent situations. Further
research might tease apart the processes of encoding and
attention in examining the consequences of hedonic relevance.
Namely, the P X S method could be used for a finer grained
analysis of the mmchanisms that underlie the relationship
between social information processing and motive arousal in
which variables such as selective attention, retrieval, and
accuracy can be added to a model of complex cognitive
processing.

In this thesis, I also introduced the hypothesis that

differentiation and integration are separate processes that

98

have differential functional utility. Rather than viewing
power and intimacy motivation as related to fixed cognition
orientations, I proposed that in motive-relevant situations,
power-motivated individuals would use more differentiated
processing, (i.e. , perceive more separate and contrasting
attributes), while intimacy-motivated individuals would use
more integrated processing, (i.e., perceive more connected
and interrelationed attributes).

The hypothesis that intimacy-motivated individuals in
intimacy arousing situations should perceive the situation in
a more integrated way was confirmed. It appears that
intimacy-motivated individuals did in fact perceive more
inter-relationships and connections between and within the
targets and between themselves and the targets. This style
of cognitive complexity might be a foundation for subsequent
intimacy experiences.

However, the results fell short of demonstrating that
power-motivated individuals in power arousing situations
perceive a hedonically relevant situation in a more
differentiated way. One possible explanation for the null
finding might be found in the nature of the task. The need to
make a decision could have created more differentiated
thinking for all individuals in congruent groups rather than
just those high in power-motivation. Perhaps the
differential hypothesis should be tested in the future with

a different cognitive task.

99

Alternatively, because a consistent pattern emerged in
which intimacy-motivated individuals demonstrated a higher
level of complexity than power-motivated individuals in
motive-congruent situations, it is possible that intimacy-
motivated people are simply more sensitive to motive-
congruency. The nature of intimacy motivation and its
relation to psychological maturity may offer support for this
interpretation. McAdams (1980, 1988) has maintained that
the need for intimacy refers to a recurrent preference to
experience warm, close, and communicative exchanges with
others as an end in itself, rather than a striving to fulfill
a deficiency for love and belonging (c.f., Maslow, 1970).
Further, McAdams and Vaillant (1982) have found a positive
relationship between intimacy motivation and psychosocial
adaptation, supporting a common theoretical assumption that
the capacity and desire to engage in intimate relationships
with others is a hallmark of psychological health (Erikson,
1963, Fairburn, 1952; Levinson, 1978: Sullivan, 1953). Thus,
I reason that more psychologically mature people should have
a greater capacity to process social information that is
related to their needs (Erikson, 1963; Maslow, 1970). The
findings of the greater use of elaborated integration may
therefore be due to the greater capacity of intimacy-
motivated individuals to process motive-relevant information
rather than due to a specific cognitive style.

In conclusion, based on the assumption that complex

100
processing leads to more prediction and control over hedonic
outcomes, I have argued that the variability in complexity
among perceivers can be best understood through a Person x
Situation approach. Higher levels of complexity were
expected when the perceiver’s motives and the attributes of
the situation were congruent. This hypothesis was strongly
supported in two very different motivational domains. When
each motive is aroused by a situation related to these
desired interpersonal outcomes, more complex processing is

used to obtain these goals.

REFERENCES

Angyal, A. (1951). A theoretical model for personality
studies. Journal_9f_2er§9nalitx. 29. 131-142.

Aristotle. On memory and recollection. In W. D. Ross

(Ed-). J- I. Beare. (trans.). The_uork§_of_Aristotle.

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Argyle. H- & Cook. M. (1976). Gaze_and_mutual_gaze-
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Aronoff, J. & Wilson, J. P. (1985). Eersgnglity_in_§hg
§Q§i§l_pIQQ§§§. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Assor, A., Aronoff, J. & Messé, L. A. (1981). Attribute

relevance as a moderator of the effects of motivation

on impression formation. J9urnal_9f_£ersgnalitx_and

agglnl_zsxgngiggx. Al. 789-796.
Assor, A., Aronoff, J. & Messé, L. A. (1986). An

experimental test of defensive processes in impression

formation. J9urnal_9f_£ersonalitx_and_§ooial
WI 19: 644-650 '
Atkinson. J- w. (1958). u9tiyes_in_fanta§¥i_actionl_and

society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Bakan, D. The_dnali;¥_9f_hnman_§xistenge. Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.

101

102

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

Bales, R.F. & Cohen, S. P. (1979). SXMLQQ. New York: Free
Press.
Battistich, V. A. & Aronoff, J. (1985). Perceiver, target

and situational influences on social cognition: An

interactional analysis. a9nrnal_9f_23rsonalitx_and

Socia1_2§!2hglog¥. 32, 788-798.
Battistich, V. A., Assor, A., Messé, L. A. & Aronoff, J.

(1985). Personality and person perception. In P.
Shaver (Ed-) Self1_aituati9nsl_and_sgcial_nsxsholos¥-
Beverly, Hills, CA: Sage.

Bieri, J. (1966). Cognitive complexity and personality
development. In 0. J. Harvey (Ed.), Experiencei
srrngrnrel_and_adantahilitx (pp. 13-37)- New York:
Springer.

Borgatta, E. F. & Crowther, B. (1965). A_wcrkbeek_fcr_§he

stn§x_9f_sggial_in;era§tion_nzogess. Chicaqo= Rand
McNally.

Bruner, J. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Eeycnciegicai
Rexieu. 6A, 23-152.

Brunswik. E- (1954). Eer9epzion_and_the_renresentatixe
defiisn_of_n§¥9hologigal_exnerimenfs. (2nd ed-).

Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California

Press .

103

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

information processing and the use of source versus

message cues in persuasion. Journal_of_2er§9nalit¥
and.aogial_E§¥2holosx. 12. 752-766.

Chodorow, N. (1974). Family structure and feminine
personality. In H. z. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (Eds.),
flcmeni_cuicurei_end_ecciety. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.

Cofer, C. & Appley, M. (1964). netiyetieni_1hecry_end
reeeerch. New York: Wiley.

Crockett, W. H. (1965). Struc;nrei_eneiyeie_ef_the
9r9anization_of_nrit;en_imnresaions- Unpublished

manuscript, University of Kansas.

Crockett, W. H. (1965a). Cognitive complexity and
impression formation. In Maher (Ed.), Experimencei
pereeneiity_reeeerch. New York: Academic Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Peychcmetrike, ie, 297-334.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Eiewi__1he_peychciegy_ef
encimei_experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Endler, N. S. (1981). Persons, situations and their

interactions. In A. M. Rabin, J. Aronoff, A. M.

Barclay. & R. A- Zucker (EdS-). Enrther.explorations
in_nersenalit1 (pp. 114-151). New York: Wiley.

104

Endler, N. S. & Magnusson, D. (Eds.) (1976). Intetectienei
25W- Washinqton. DC:
Hemisphere.

Erikson, E. (1963). childhced_end_scciety. (2nd ed.), New
York: Norton.

Fairburn, W. R. D. (1952). Psycheenelytic studies cf the

1.! . I] l' ! 1 !i I] E
perseneiity London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. (1984). acciei_ccgniticn.
New York: Random House.

Franz, C. E. & White, K. H. (1985). Individuation and
attachment in personality development: Extending
Erikson's theory. Jcntnei_ef_2etseneiity, 5;, 224-
256.

Gilligan, C. (1982). 1n_e_different_ycice. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

Goldstein, K. N. & Blackman, S. (1978). ccgnitiye_styie.
New York: Wiley.

Haigh, G. V., & Fiske, D. W. (1952). Corroboration of
personal values as selective factors in perception.
W. 41. 394-
398.

Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E. & Schroder, H. H. (1961).

 

York: Wiley.

105

Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality.
In M- Page (Ed.), nehraska_§xmnosium_9n_Notixation-
(Vol. 30, pp.56-89). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.

Kelly. 6. A. (1955). The_nsx9hol9g¥_of_nersonal_gonstrnsts.

New York: Norton.

Koffka, K. (1935). Erinsinles_9f_§estalt_ns¥9holgg¥- New
York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.

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

Leary. T- (1957). Interners9na1_diagnosis_of_nersonalitx-

New York: Ronald Press.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). Ine_seesenis_cf_e_men;s_iifie. New
York: Knopf.

Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective
extremity: Don't put all your eggs in one cognitive
basket. $eciei_§egnitien, 3, 94-120.

Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive
buffer against stress-related illness and depression.

J9urnal_9f_Bers9na1itx_and_§osial_zs¥2hglog¥. 52. 663-
676.

Locke. J- (1979). Essax_gon9erning_hnman_understanding- New
York: Oxford University Press. (Originally published,

1690).

106

Haslow. A- (1970)- u9fixati9n_and_personalitx. New York:
Harper & Row.

McAdams. Do P. (1979). Yalidatign_9f_a_thematis_soding
EYSLem_£QI_the_intimecy_mctiye. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Harvard University.

McAdams, D. P. (1980). A thematic coding system for the
intimacy motive. 19urnal_9f_Re§ear2h_in_2ersonalit¥,
11, 413-432.

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

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

motive. Earshologioal_nosuments. 14, 2614.

McAdams, D- P- (1988). 2ouer1_intima921_and_the_life_storxi
Ears9nQlogi2al_innniries_into_identitx- Chicago. IL:
Dorsey Press.

McAdams, D. P. (1989). 1ntimecyi_1ne_need_te_ne_cicse.
New York: Doubleday.

McAdams, D. P., Lester, R., Brand, P., McNamara, W. &
Lensky, D. B. (1988). Sex and TAT: Are women more
intimate than men? Do men fear intimacy? gentnei_cf
Personalitx_bsss§sment. 52. 397-409.

McAdams, D. P. & McClelland, D. C. (1983). seciei_nctiyes
end_menety. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard

University.

107

McAdams, D. P. & Powers, J. (1981). Themes of intimacy in

behavior and thought. J9urnal_9f_£ersonalitx_and
§9§i§l_2§¥9thQg¥: $9, 573-537-
McAdams, D. P. & Vaillant, G. E. (1982). Jcntnei_ef

Rersonalitx_As§essment. lo. 586-593-
McArthur, L. z. & Baron, R. N. (1983). Toward a ecological

theory of social perception. Rsxgnglogieal_3exiau.
29, 215-238.

McClelland. D- C- (1975). E9ueri_The_inner_experienge. New

York: Irvington.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). unnen_metiyeticn. Glenview, IL:
Scott-Foresman.

McClelland, D. C., Davidson, R. J., & Saron, C. (1979).

E l i ! l' J . l' ! E I] . I E ll 3
f9r_noxar_Qn_p9r9ention_and_l§arning- Unpublished

manuscript, Harvard University.

McClelland, D. C., Davidson, R. J., Saron, C. & Floor, E.
(1980). The need for power, brain norepinephrine
turnover and learning. Bieiegicei_2sycncicgy, 1Q, 93-
102.

McClelland, D. C. & Steele, R. S. (1972). Mctiyeticn
WQIKSDQDE- New York: General Learning Press.

Neisser, U. (1967). ccgnitiye_nsycnciecy. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.

108

Neisser, U. (1976). ccgniticn_end_teeiity. San Francisco:

Freeman.

Peevers, B. H. and Secord, P. F. (1973). Developmental
changes in attribution of descriptive concepts to
persons. Jonrna1_9f_2ers9na1it¥_and_Sogial_Esxshglog1.
21, 120-128.

Petty, R. E. 8 Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.)
Adxan2es_in_experimental_sooial_nsxshologx. V01. 12.
pp. 125-205. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Postman, A. L., Bruner, J. 8 McGinnies, E. (1948). Personal
values as selective factors in perception. Jentnei_c£
Ahngrmal_and_sogial_zs¥sholosx. 46. 142-154.

Rank, 0. (1929). Ihe_ttenne_ef_pittn. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.

Rank. 0. (1945). Hi1l_tharap¥_and_truth_and_realitx. New
York: Knopf.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A
review. Esychciccicei_flniietin, 221 294-309.

Schroder, H. H. (1971). Conceptual complexity. In H. M.
Schroder 8 P. Suedfeld (Eds.), Eetscneiity_tnecty_eng
inferneticn_ntccessing. New York: Ronald Press.

Schroder, H. H., Driver, H. J., 8 Streufert, S. (1967).

Human_information_nrosessingl New York: Holt.

Rinehart, 8 Winston.

109

Schroder, H. M. 8 Streufert, S. (1962). The_neesntenent_cf

I O O
o :n- o o- -o'. ‘- ; .0 Q a :

of_ahstra2tness_1Senten2e_99mpletign_uethodl. Tech.
Rep. No.11, ONR. Princeton: Princeton University.
Sullivan. H. s. (1953). Tha_intezpersonal_thegrx_of

psychietty. New York: Norton.
Shrauger, S., 8 Altrocchi, J. (1964). The personality of

the perceiver as a factor in person perception.

Esychclegicei Bulletin. 52, 289-308.
Steele, R. S. (1973). The nhysiclegicel cenccmitent cf
1 . !' J . J] J .
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Steele, R. S. (1977). Power motivation, activation and
inspirational speeches. chtnel cf Retscnelity, 55,
53-64.
Streufert, S. 8 Streufert, S. (1978). Beheyict_in_the

cenpiete_enyitcnnent. Washington DC: Winston.
Suedfeld, P. E. 8 Tetlock, P. E. (1977). Integrative

complexity of communication in international crises.
aonrnal_of_Qonfligt_Resolntion. 21. 169-184.

Sullivan, H. S. (1953). Ihe_intetnetscnei_thecty_cfi
psychiatry. New York: Norton.

Taguiri, R. (1969). Person Perception. In G. Linzey, 8

E.Aronson (Eds.), Handhook_9f_sggial_ps¥9hglos¥ (2nd
ed., Vol. 3, pp.395-449). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

110

Tetlock, P. E. (1988). Monitoring the integrative
complexity of American and Soviet policy rhetoric:
What can be learned? Jcntnei_ef_fieciei_1ssnes, is,
101-131.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model od
ideological reasoning. Jcntnei_cf_2etscneiity_end
§QQi§l_E§¥QthQ§Y: 59. 819-827.

Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of
thought . WW
EfilflthQQYo ii. 74-33-

Tetlock. P. E. & Hannum. K. (1984). MW
ceding_mennei. Unpublished manuscript, University of

California, Berkeley.

Tetlock, P. E. 8 Kim, J. I. (1987). Accountability and
judgment processes in a personality prediction task.
WW. :2. 700-
709.

Treisman, A, 8 Gelade, G. (1980). A feature theory of

attention. chnitiye_2sychcicgy, 12, 97-136.

Warr, P. B. 8 Knapper, C. (1968). Ihe_nercentien_ef_neenie
end_eyents. New York: Wiley.

Weiner, B. A. (1972). Ihecties_cf_netiyetien. Chicago, IL.:

Rand NcNally.

Winter, D. G. (1973). Ihe_pewet_mctiye. New York: Free

Press .

111

Winter, D. G. (1984). ' a es
eneiysis. Unpublished manuscript, Wesleyan University.

Winter, D.G. (1988). The power motive in women--and men.
W. .51. 510-
519.

Winter, D. G., McClelland, D. C. and Stewart, A. J.
(1981). W. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Winter, D. G. 8 Stewart, A. J. (1978). The power motive.

In H. London 8 J. E. Exner, Jr. (Eds.), Dinensiens_cf
petscneiity. New York: Wiley.

Woike. B. A. (1989). W

Qggnitiye_cemniexity. Unpublished manuscript,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

APPENDIX A

EXPERIMENT MATERIALS

113

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 six imaginative
stories to pictures. I will return for a second session
that will be arranged. In the second session I will
perform some social impression tasks that ask me to form
impressions of others. Participation in this experiment
usually consists of two separate one-hour sessions.

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:

 

 

114
EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION
Name Sex Student#

Number
Phone(clear1y)

 

 

 

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 guides 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.

115

Picture # 1

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?

116

Picture # 2

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
Picture # 3

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?

118

Picture # 4

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?

119

Picture # 5

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?

120

Picture # 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?

121
ROLE PLAYING QUESTIONNAIRE

Directions: Read the following questions and circle the
best answer.

1. Have you ever met or seen Kim before viewing the
videotape?

YES NO
If yes, please explain.
2. Have you ever met or seen Eric before viewing the
videotape?
YES NO

If yes, please explain.

3. How likely is it that you will be role-playing with Kim?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
very somewhat equally somewhat very
unlikely unlikely likely and likely likely

unlikely

4. How likely is it that you will be role playing with
Eric?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
very somewhat equally somewhat very
unlikely unlikely likely and likely likely

unlikely

5. How pleasant do you think it will be to role-play with
Kim?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
very somewhat equally somewhat very
unlikely unlikely likely and likely likely

unlikely

6. How pleasant do you think it will be to role-play with
Eric?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
very somewhat equally somewhat very
unlikely unlikely likely and likely likely

unlikely

122

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

THE CATEGORIES OF COMPLEXITY CODING MANUAL

124

Categories of Complexity
Barbara A. Woike

Michigan State University

Cognitive complexity is a hypothetical construct used
to explain the number of aspects that one perceives or
recognizes in a stimulus group and the connections among
those aspects. This manual presents a coding system for
cognitive complexity that allows for the separate analysis
of the two major components of complexity: differentiation
and integration. Differentiation refers to the number of
different aspects that an individual perceives in a given
stimulus set. Integration refers to the number of links
and connections between and among differentiated aspects.

A number of other coding systems were consulted in
creating this manual. Schroder, Driver 8 Streufert’s
(1967). W is probably the best
known pioneering work on cognitive complexity. The theory
presented in this book was based on the idea that

differences in cognitive processing are influenced by early

125
developmental and social learning experiences. The ways in
which people structure information was believed to be a
relatively stable characteristic. Thus, "simple"
individuals were those that processed information in a less
differentiated and less integrated way, while "abstract"
(or "complex") individuals processed in information at
higher levels of differentiation and integration.

Research has since demonstrated that a wide array of
factors (e.g., motivational-attributes of the situation,
role demands, and value conflicts) can shape cognitive
processing. It is now more commonly believed that
cognitive processing is influenced by both personal and
situational factors. In recent years, Tetlock (1984) has
modified the Schroder, Driver 8 Streufert (1967) coding
system to better suit an interactive theoretical approach.
His term integtetiye_ccnniexity refers to the complexity of
cognitive structuring as it is influenced by dispositional
and situational factors. Tetlock's (1984) system also
expands the concept of integration to include many examples
from political rhetoric and scientific reasoning.

The coding categories contained in this manual were
derived from other sources as well. Winter's (1984) Test
ef_Themetic_Aneiysis is a scoring manual devised to analyze
written comparisons of TAT stories. Essentially, these
descriptions draw similarities and differences among two

TAT stories or subjects. It has been used to measure

126
intellectual abilities (e.g., intellectual flexibility,
critical thinking) in liberal arts students (Winter,

McClelland, 8 Stewart, 1981).

Crockett's (1965) W
W is used to study

impressions written about others. The system consists of a
procedure to identify types of differentiated aspects or
"constructs" and types of integration or "organization."
The system emphasizes how positive and negative aspects are
perceived. It has been used to test hypotheses about
generality across domains of content and development of
cognitive complexity within the individual (Crockett,
1965a).

Peevers and Secord (1973) also developed a system for
content analysis of descriptions of others. Their system
emphasizes the use of traits as well as other person
concepts that are considered to be developmental in nature.
People are asked to describe liked and disliked peers.
Their responses are coded on four dimensions called:
descriptiveness, personal involvement, evaluative
consistency, and depth. The system has been used to study
broad developmental changes in person perception (Peevers 8
Secord, 1973) as well as changes in perception brought on
by specific life events (Healy, 1989).

Linville (1985) developed a technique to measure what

is called self-complexity. In this view, "the self" is a

127
cognitive representation with multiple aspects, including
information about attributes, abilities, roles, traits,
etc. The main difference between Linville’s and other
systems is that complexity is defined as "the number of
nonredundant or distinctive attributes underlying a
person’s thinking about a domain (p.97)." In this scheme,
the greatest degree of complexity occurs with a large
number of teteiiy_independent aspects. The lowest degree
of complexity occurs with a small number of tcteiiy
interdependent aspects. Thus, what Linville (1985) terms a
high degree of complexity is what most scholars (e.g.,
Crockett, 1965: Goldstein 8 Blackman, 1978: Schroder,
Driver, Streufert, 1967: Tetlock, 1984) term a high degree
of differentiation.

A review of other coding manuals of cognitive
complexity (Woike, 1989) found that no previous system has
dealt with the categories of differentiation and
integration separately. The closest exception to this
finding is a study of ideological reasoning by Tetlock
(1986) in which each response was given a global rating for
differentiation and a separate global rating for
integration.

For the hypotheses of my research to be tested, it is
necessary to obtain separate scores for differentiation and
integration. In addition, it is also preferable to obtain

a frequency measure of differentiated and integrated

128
responses rather than global ratings. I believe frequency
measures of differentiation and integration will yield a
richer and more precise representation of the psychological
variable under investigation. Therefore, the main
objective of this coding system was to create a technique
to obtain frequency measures of these separate categories
from the same psychological variable.

Although differentiation and integration are related,
their structural characteristics are quite different.
Differentiation refers to the number of aspects an
individual perceives in a given topic, subject or
impression, whereas integration refers to the number of
connections between and among these differentiated aspects.
The sub-categories of differentiation and integration in
the manual will delineate fundamental structural
characteristics of each.

There are two levels of subcategories within
differentiation and integration. Following the Schroder,
Driver 8 Streufert (1967) distinction of "simple versus
complex," differentiation and integration were each divided
into two levels. Simple differentiation refers to the
naming of different aspects or attributes in the impression
and complex differentiation refers to the process of making
distinctions and differentiated comparisons among stimuli.
Simple integration refers to forming simple links between

previously mentioned aspects of the impression and complex

129
integration refers to the description of dynamic
relationships and complex connections between stimuli.

This manual was developed to help understand the
structure of "social impressions." As people form
impressions, they must select a relatively small amount of
information and structure it in a way that it can be
understood. Cognitive structuring is a necessary
adaptation that helps us organize our experiences. An
impression is a representation of the cognitive structuring
of an event, person, topic or situation. When experiencing
relatively common events such as watching two people
converse or hearing a discussion of a political issue, we
are continually engaged in the process of structuring our
social reality.

An experiment was designed to study this process of
impression formation. We made a 17-minute videotape of two
actors named Kim and Eric engaged in what is called a peer
interview in which they interviewed each other for a job as
a research assistant in the psychology department.

Subjects in the experiment were instructed to watch the
tape with a certain job description in mind. They were
told that after watching the tape, they would be randomly
selected to meet either Kim or Eric. After the subjects
viewed the tape, they were asked which person is best
suited for the job. The actual question they responded to

is below.

130

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.

The coding manual will be used to examine the
paragraphs written in response to this question. The
manual begins with a list of basic terms and their
definitions as they pertain to their usage in the manual.
This is followed by the main part of the manual which
consists of one section on differentiation and one section
on integration. There are four sub-categories within each
of the two sections. Each section starts with a
description of the general process (i.e., differentiation
or integration) and then each subcategory is explained
individually.

For each sub-category, there is first a short
definition followed by a description and references of how
similar categories have been used in other manuals. This
is followed by a "working definition" of the category that
is to be used for the actual coding. The working
definition is followed by several examples and a discussion
of each on the particular issues to be considered when
scoring the category.

It should be noted that in this manual, each exemplary

131
sentence is scored only for that particular category being
considered, unless otherwise mentioned. In actual coding,
all sentences will be scored for all categories. The
manual gives additional examples of scoring whole
paragraphs for all categories in the final section.

In this final section, a coding procedure outline will
give step-by-step instructions for coding. The coding
procedure outline is followed a brief section on specific
scoring rules. This is followed by examples of paragraphs
to be scored. Each paragraph will be followed by a scoring
key in which all phrases, sentences and paragraphs will be
scored completely. These examples will serve as
demonstrations as to how the manual is used in actual

scoring.

132

Basic Terms Used in Definitions

1. Ihe_perceiyer is the person who has watched the
videotape of Eric and Kim, formed an impression, and
written a paragraph.

2. Ihe_terget is the object perceived in the formation of
the impression. In this experiment, the target is Kim, or
Eric, or both.

3. An_espect is a cognitive representation which contains
information about a specific behavior or event, trait,
role, physical feature, personality characteristic,
category membership, ability, preference, goal, or relation

to another person.

133

Differentiation refers to a way of perceiving and
forming impressions. The number of different aspects an
individual perceives in a given stimulus group is the
common definition of differentiation (e.g., Schroder,
Driver 8 Streufert, 1967; Tetlock, 1984). In this manual,
the concept of differentiated thinking is used to describe
a particular cognitive style that individuals use in
perceiving the world.

The differentiation process involves focusing on
differences between and within a given stimulus group. The
perception of an 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. The perceiver uses this particular style to
form complex perceptions about the world. 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

134
exclusions, restrictions and contrasts that can be made
within a stimulus set.

In this manual, there are two levels of
differentiation, simple and complex. Simple
differentiation involves naming or listing attributes or
characteristics. When using simple differentiation the
perceiver does not attempt to compare, separate or further
differentiate between or among stimulus groups. In this
manual, simple differentiation is called new aspects which
refers to an aspect of the stimulus set that is unrelated
to any other aspect that a perceiver uses to form an
impression. In some cases, new aspects may be used to form
more complex differentiated structures.

Complex differentiation involves making distinctions,
separations, and comparisons within a particular stimulus
set. In this manual, there are three subcategories of
complex differentiation. First, restriction of meaning
refers to a statement that restricts, makes more precise or
delimits another statement. In this way, the perceiver
views certain attributes of the stimulus set through a
restricted point of view.

The second and third subcategories have to do with
comparisons. People or objects in the stimulus set are
perceived in terms of their relativeness to each other on
some dimension and are then described as being different or

opposing in some way. The second category, contrast refers

135
to a comparison of two opposing aspects. The perceiver
sees the target(s) or objects(s) as being different from
other target(s) or object(s) in that the impression is
formed in opposites. The third category relative
comparison refers to a comparison of relative standing
between two subjects, objects or targets on some dimension

on which they are perceived as being unequal.

136
Category D-1: Ney_hspect is an aspect of the stimulus set
that is unrelated to any other previously mentioned aspect
that the perceiver uses to form the impression. The more
new aspects the perceiver sees in the stimulus set, the

more simply differentiated the impression.

This concept is central to many theorists’ notions of
complexity. It is called "aspect" in Linville's (1985)
work on self-complexity. Tetlock (1984) and Schroder 8
Streufert (1962) refer to this concept as "Multiple
Dimensions," meaning that a person or object is perceived
as having multiple attributes. The dimension of
"descriptiveness" used by Peevers and Secord (1973) refers
to information that renders an individual unique from
others. The concept is referred to as "elements" by
Crockett (1965) and Winter (1984) and used in a similar

fashion.

A neu_espect of a given subject(s) is one that is different
and relatively unrelated to any aspect mentioned in any
previous statement. Differentiation is explicitly
expressed when a new attribute is used in perceiving the
person or object. For a list of entities that are
included, see the definition of the term "aspect" on page
9. Sometimes neu_espects are further defined by a context.

For instance, the perceiver may state, "Eric is a good

137
leader." Or she may state, "Eric is a good leader in
competitive activities." If the context mentioned with the
attribute enriches the meaning of that attribute, it is
scored as an nen_espect_uith_centext. Sometimes the
perceiver will use new_espects to describe things that are
not directly related to Kim or Eric. 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 neu

WNW.

Neu_Aspect (without a context) is abbreviated NA.

W is abbreviated NA/cxt.
W is abbreviated NA/un.

Example (A)

Eric seemed to me to be the best suited for this job. He
seemed like a very friendly person [NA].

Note: In this example, there is only one new aspect. The
phrase "best suited for this job" is not scored as NA
because it is considered part of the question stem that was
previously asked. This is explained in more detail later

in the section on specific scoring rules.

138
Example (B)
Eric has more diversity in the working world [NA/cxt].
Note: In this example, "diversity" is an attribute and "in
the working world" is the context in which it occurs. The
perceiver does not see the target as having a general
diversity, but as having diversity in a context. Thus, The

attribute and context are scored as one NA/cxt.

Example (C)

Kim shows good leadership skills when working out problems
[NA].

Note: In this example, "good leadership skills" is the
attribute and "when working out problems" is the context in
which it occurs. The attribute and context are scored as a
single NA/cxt. It is worth noting that the attribute
"shows good leadership skills" would be scored as an NA if

it appeared alone.

Example (D)

I think Eric would be best suited for the job. He showed
much more enthusiasm [NA/cxt] and confidence throughout the
interview [NA/cxt] than Kim. He also showed authority
[NA/cxt] and proposed ideas when making the arrangement out
of videotapes [NA/cxt].

Note: In this example, the total number of new aspects

with contexts is four. When two or more NAs appear to be

139
related to the same context, they are all scored as
NA/cxts. In this example, the perceiver forms a
differentiated impression by mentioning four relatively
unrelated attributes of the target within two contexts of
the interview. Again, "best suited for the job" is not
scored as a new aspect. See the section of specific

scoring rules.

Example (E)

She seemed to be a likeable person [NA] that got along well
with others [NA], and takes pride in what she's
accomplished [NA/cxt].

Note: In this example, "likeable person" and "got along
well with others" are scored as separate because they are
not explicitly or even implicitly related to each other:
there are many reasons why people can get along well. An
aspect that is related to one another will be considered in
detail in the section on integration. The phrase "got
along well with others" is not scored as an NA/cxt because
"with others" is necessary to understand the meaning of
"got along well." Contexts generally contribute additional
meaning that is not necessary to understanding the aspect.
Thus, in this example, the total number of new aspects in

this example is three: two NAs and one NA/cxt.

140
Example (F)
Kim seems like bright [NA] and interesting [NA] person and
she works well on cooperative tasks [NA/cxt]. Eric is very
good at telling stories [NA]. Their performance on the
videotape task was exceptional [NA/uh].
Note: In this example, new aspects are attributed to
different subjects. Two new aspects ("bright" and
"interesting") are used to describe Kim. Then, one new
aspect with context (”works well on cooperative tasks”) is
used to describe Kim and one new aspect (”very good at
telling stories") is used to describe Eric. Note that this
phrase ("very good at telling stories") is not scored as an
NA/cxt because the phrase "very good" in itself is not
meaningful in the perceiver's impression. Finally, one new
aspect unrelated to the targets ("exceptional") is used to
describe their performance. Thus, the total number of new
aspects in this example is five: three NAs, one NA/cxt and

one NA/un.

Example (G)

I think Eric is more qualified for the job because of his
current work experience [NA]. The work seems pretty
difficult [NA/un] but it is good counseling experience
[NA/un].

Note: In this example, the first attribute "his current

work experience" is an attribute directly related to the

141
target. This phrase is the first new aspect because the
phrase "qualified for the job" is not scored. The other
two attributes mentioned, "pretty difficult" and "good
counseling experience" are not directly related to the
target, therefore they are scored as new aspects unrelated

to the targets.

Example (H)

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

Note: In this example, the perceiver uses two unrelated
aspects to form an impression of Kim. It should be noted
that it is possible for these aspects to be related in
certain ways. If the phrase "although Kim looked good"
qualified or restricted the phrase "did not show too much
leadership ability," it would be scored as another form of
differentiation called restriction of meaning. The
restriction of meaning category refers to the perception of
the target as being restricted or qualified in some way.

It will be described in detail on the next section. If the
two aspects were related in the form of opposites, it would
be scored as another form of differentiation called
contrast. This category will be explained in detail later.
In this example, the two phrases or aspects are not related
in these ways. Thus, the total number of new aspects is

two.

142
Example (I)
Kim doesn't present her thoughts clearly [NA].
Note: In this example, the perceiver describes the target
using a negative aspect. The perceiver sees Kim as lacking
the attribute of ability to present thoughts clearly. This

phrase is scored as one NA.

Example (J)

When dealing with people, Eric is nervous [NA/cxt].

Note: In this example, the context appears before the NA.
This is scored as an NA/cxt because it has the same meaning

as "Eric is nervous when dealing with people."

143
Category D-2: Restricticn_ef_neening refers to a statement
that qualifies or delimits the meaning of another
statement. Differentiation is expressed through the
perceiver’s view of the target’s attribute(s) within a
restricted context, indicating that the perceiver has
differentiated the impression to include more than one

unspecified point of view.

This concept is called "exception-qualification" by Winter,
(1984) and is a form of "implicit differentiation" in

Tetlock's (1984) integrative complexity coding manual.

Restricticn_cf_Meening_is a statement that qualifies or

delimits the definition of a statement or particular aspect
or structure. These restrictive statements usually appear
immediately before or after the aspect or structure that is
being restricted. This category includes statements
intended to restrict but net illustrate or expand another
statement. The perceiver forms an impression with
attributes that are restricted to certain conditions. The
central idea is that these restrictive statements and
phrases confine aspects and structures to a particular
situation, perspective, condition, or criteria rather than
merely providing additional meaning to a statement. It is
important to remember that restriction of meaning is scored

only when a phrase is cieeriy used in a restrictive way.

144

Restrigtion_of_neaning is abbreviated RN-

Example (A)

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

Note: In this example, the target is perceived as being
courteous from a particular point of view. This is a
hypothetical perspective that the perceiver employs to
differentiate his impression of Eric. The perception of
Eric being courteous is restricted to that specific

perspective imposed by the perceiver.

Example (B)

Since the field of Psychology requires thought processes
not related to mechanical reasoning [RM], Kim seems to
illustrate a more abstract way of thinking.

Note: In this example, the target’s attribute(s) are viewed
through a complex and restricted criterion. It is
important to note that "restricted" does not imply that
these impressions are simpler or less complex. The
perceiver has imposed a complex criterion to perceive the

target.

145
Example (C)
Judging from the qualities displayed on the videotape [RM],
I feel Kim is best suited for the job.
Note: In this example, the perceiver uses a specific
restrictive criterion to structure the impression of the
targets. If the phrase was merely "On the videotape," is
would not be scored as an RM because the phrase represents
a context rather than a restrictive structure made by the

perceiver.

Example (D)

Although it might not have been all psychology [RM], he had
worked in a job related to his field of study.

Note: In this example, the NA "worked in a job related to
his field of study" is qualified by the phrase "although it
might not have been all psychology." The perceiver
restricts the attribute that follows by stating an

exception or qualification.

Example (E) net an RM

Although Eric had a lot to say about working in a helping
profession, he didn't seem to care much about Kim.

Note: In this example, the phrase "although Eric had a lot
to say about working in a helping profession" is used to
make a comparison rather than make a restrictive exception

to the NA "didn’t seem to care much about Kim." This

146
phrase would not scored as an RM. It is instead, a
contrast which is another category of differentiation that

will be described in detail later.

147
Category D-3: Beietiye_ccmperisen is a comparison of
relative standing between two objects, subjects, or targets
on a dimension. The perceiver sees these objects as being
unequal. Although both objects, subjects or targets are
compared on the same dimension, the important point is that
the perceiver has chosen to differentiate them on that

dimension.

This concept is called "simple relative comparison" by
Winter, (1984) and called "discrimination along a

dimension" by Schroder 8 Streufert, (1962).

Belatiye_§emperisen is made when one target, subject, or

object is described as unequal to another target, subject,
or object on the same dimension. By comparing two targets'
and/or subjects' and/or objects' relative standing on that
dimension the targets become differentiated. These
comparisons can be (a) made explicitly between two targets
and/or subjects and/or objects, or (b) the comparison may
be implied to the second target, subject or object. Words
such as "more," "better," or "best" signify that two or
more targets, subjects or objects are perceived as unequal

on some dimension.

Relatixe_§9mparison is abbreviated RC-

148
Example (A)
Kim seemed a little more personal [RC] than Eric during the
interview.
Note: In this example, the perceiver differentiates Kim
from Eric along the dimension of being personal. The two

targets are explicitly compared.

Example (B)

Kim seemed like more of a go-getter [RC].

Note: In this example, the perceiver differentiates Kim
from Eric implicitly in the role of "go-getter." The
comparison is made between Kim and Eric even though Eric is

not explicitly mentioned.

Example (C)

I feel Eric is the stronger [RC] leader.

Note: In this example, the perceiver differentiates Eric
from Kim in the role of strong leader. As in the example

above, the comparison is made implicitly.

Example (D)

Kim is too emotional [RC].

Note: In this example, the perceiver compares the target to
a particular standard. By perceiving Kim as being "too
emotional," the perceiver implicitly differentiates Kim

from others on some standard or norm of emotionality.

149
Example (E)
If I was looking for an assistant, I would choose Kim over
Eric [RC].
Note: In this example, the perceiver uses differentiation
to choose one target "over" the other. This means the
perceiver views the targets through a difference in

relative standing.

Example (F)

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

Note: In this example, the targets' conversation is
compared to a standard. This means that the perceiver
views the targets' conversation as compared to other

conversations.

Example (G) net an RC

I thought Eric was more suited for the job than Kim.

Note: In this example, there is no RC. The phrase ("more
suited for the job") is not scored as an RC because it is
considered part of the question stem to which the response
is written. For details, see the section on specific

scoring rules.

150
Example (H) net an RC
I will pick Eric for the job.
Note: In this example, the perceiver makes the selection by
considering both targets but without making a relative

comparison between the targets.

151
Category D-4: A centrest is a differentiated comparison
that employs two opposing aspects. The perceiver sees
people or objects as being different in the form of

opposites.

This type of differentiated comparison is called Direct
Compound Comparison by Winter (1984) and referred to as a

bipolar construct by Crockett (1965).

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 an aspect and
its negation (interested in sports/not interested in
sports: intellectual/not intellectual).

It should be noted that the unidimensional aspects
used to make contrasts are often not opposing when viewed
objectively. In these instances, it is important to take
the perceiver's perspective and consider the structure of
his or her impression rather than relying solely on
content. If two new aspects are set up to be a comparison
but are really orthogonal, they should be scored as a
centrest if there is a clear indication that the perceiver
considers them to be opposing.

centrests may be made (a) between targets, (b) within

a single target, (c) between two situations or contexts,

152
and (d) between target(s) and situation(s). In addition,
some contrasts may be implicit. Sometimes only one
contrasting aspect is explicitly mentioned. If the other
contrasting aspect can be readily implied, it is scored as
an implicit contrast. Key phrases that may indicate that a
centrest is being made include: but, although, whereas,

while, and the one that.

Qentrest is abbreviated C.

Example (A)

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

Note: In this example, the perceiver makes an explicit
contrast between two targets. An aspect and its negation

are applied to Kim and Eric, respectively.

Example (B)

Kim seems passive [1/2 C] while Eric seems active [1/2 C].
Note: In this example, the perceiver has makes an explicit
bipolar contrast on the dimensions of active/passive

between Kim and Eric.

153
Example (C)
She not only shared many of her own ideas [1/2 C], but she
was a good listener [1/2 C].
Note: In this example, the perceiver sees a contrast within
one target. Two opposing attributes are used to
characterize Kim. Even though the word "but" is used, it
should be noted that this example would not be scored as an
RM because there is no evidence of restriction or
qualification. In addition, this example could not be
scored as simply two NAs because they are related in the

form of opposites.

Example (D)

Eric is a smooth-talker [1/2 C], but a little bit uneasy
[1/2 C].

Note: In this example, the perceiver sees a contrast within
the target. As in the example above, there is no evidence
of qualification or restriction. Even though the word "but"
is used, the aspects are related in the form of opposites.

Therefore, it is scored as a contrast.

154
Example (E)
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 lead [1/2 C].
Note: In this example, the perceiver makes a subtle
contrast between two possible opposing roles of the target.
Eric's performance is contrasted in these two possible
roles. As in the example above, the second half of the
contrast does not restrict the first half, therefore it can

not be scored as a RM.

Example (F) net a C

I liked Kim better but I feel Eric is better suited for the
job.

Note: In this example, the phrase "better suited for the
job" is not scored. Therefore, the phrase ”I liked Kim" is

scored as an NA.

Below are examples of more complex contrasts. These
examples have been scored for all categories of
differentiation including NAs, RMs, and RCs. It is
important to note that the new aspects that make up the

contrast are scored as NAs as well.

155
Example (G)
Eric is more concerned with making things work on a whole
[RC] [NA] [1/2 C] and more willing to communicate [RC] [NA]
than Kim - who appears to be more concerned with herself
and her individual role [RC] [NA] [1/2 C].
Note: In this example, the perceiver makes a complex
contrast between Eric and Kim. First, two NAs are used to
describe Eric ("concerned with making things work on a
whole," "willing to communicate"). The word "more" before
each of these phrases means that Eric is being compared
relative to Kim. Therefore, they are also scored as two
RCs. Second, the phrase ("appears to be concerned with
herself and her individual role") used to describe Kim is
scored as one new aspect because it is one complete idea or
aspect. In addition, this phrase is scored for RC because
the word "more" indicates that Kim is being compared to
Eric. Finally, when examining the two NAs used to describe
Eric and the NA used to describe Kim, there is a contrast

of uni-dimensional opposites between these attributes.

Example (H)

Both Kim and Eric were creative with the video tape
holders, but Eric had the idea for the tables and chairs
[1/2 (:1 [NA].

Note: In this example, the perceiver sees something that

Kim and Eric have in common, then differentiates Eric from

156

Kim through a contrast. The perceiver describes Eric and
Kim as being creative with the videotape holders. This
kind of similarity is a form of integration which will be
described in detail in the next section. The perceiver
describes Eric as having the idea and implies that Kim did
not have an idea. Therefore, it is scored as a contrast.
The phrase "had the idea for the tables and chairs" is also

scored as an NA.

Example (1)

Kim spoke well [NA], and is still in school studying
psychology [NA] [1/2 C] which is another quality that would
qualify her for the job; whereas Eric had been out of
school for some time [NA] and not really in the thinking
terms of psychology [NA] [1/2 C].

Note: In this example, the perceiver makes a complex
contrast between Kim and Eric. The perceiver uses two NAs
("spoke well" and "is still in school studying psychology")
to describe Kim and two NAs ("had been out of school for
some time" and "not really in the thinking terms of
psychology") to describe Eric. The perceiver forms a
contrast between Kim and Eric by using one NA used to
describe Kim ("is still in school studying psychology") is
contrasted with both of the NAs (”had been out of school
for some time" and "not really in the thinking terms of

psychology") used to describe Eric. In addition, the

157
phrase ("which is another quality that would qualify her
for the job") is a type of integration called supporting
aspect of the NA ("is still in school studying psychology")
because it extends the meaning the NA. Supporting Aspects

will be discussed in detail in the next section.

Example (J)

Kim seemed like a real nice person [NA] [1/2 C (a)], but
you have to be aggressive in life [NA/un] [1/2 C (b)] and I
think she is too mellow [NA] [RC] [1/2 C (a)].

Note: In this example, the perceiver sees a contrast
between the attributes of the target and the attributes of
the situation. The perceiver contrasts the target’s
attributes of "a real nice person" and "she is too mellow"
with a situational attribute of "you have to be aggressive
in life." The attributes of the target (marked by [1/2 C
(a)]) that make half of the contrast are mentioned both
before and after the contrasting attribute of the situation

(marked by [1/2 C (b)]).

158

Integration

Integration refers to a way of perceiving and forming
impressions that includes larger structures. The central
feature of the integration process is the presence of
connections or links between stimuli that has been
differentiated (Schroder, Driver 8 Streufert, 1967:
Tetlock, 1984), at least to some degree. The perceiver
does not stop with a list of differentiated attributes, but
continues to make an impression that is more whole,
integrated, and interconnected. As with differentiated
thinking, the concept of integrated thinking refers to a
particular cognitive style that characterizes a pattern of
perceiving the world.

The integration process involves focusing on
similarities between and within a given stimulus group.
The perception of an object is developed and formed from
its common and interrelated qualities. 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. In general, the
perceiver views the stimuli as ”alive" -- having the

ability to influence and change other things.

159

The perceiver uses this particular style to form
complex perceptions about the world. 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.

As with differentiation, integration has two levels,
simple and complex. First, simple integration involves
perceiving simple links and commonalities between two
aspects. In this manual, the presence of simple
integration is called a supporting aspect which refers to
an attribute that is linked or some how related to a
previous aspect. Instead of perceiving attributes of the
target as separate entities or delimiting information, the
perceiver builds or links two aspects together by using a
commonality that expands the meaning.

The next set of subcategories are classified as complex
integration because they involve more than a simple
connection between two attributes. Complex integrated
structures are characterized by the perception of some kind
of relationship within (or among) the given stimulus set.
In this case, the important features of the stimulus set
are Kim, Eric, the perceiver, the characteristics of the
job, the need to decide who is best for the job and

possibility that the perceiver might actually interact with

160
Kim or Eric. Complex integrated structures are formed by
seeing the relationships been these features.

In this manual, there are seven subcategories of
complex integration that can be separated into two types.
The first type of complex integration concerns the
perception of a dynamic relationship between two targets or
subjects. The perceiver views these features of the
stimulus set as dynamic or interacting with one another
rather than existing in isolation. These relationships are
called causal links. There are four types of causal links
including dynamic relationship between the targets, dynamic
relationship between the target(s), possibility of
interaction with the target(s), and simple causal links.
Each will be discussed in detail.

The second type of complex integration concerns the
perception of consistency or congruency between two
subjects. The first subcategory, similarity refers to the
perception of commonality between two targets. The second
subcategory is called matching characteristics. Part of
the perceiver's task in the experiment was to select the
best person (or target) for a certain job. By integrating
the information on the videotape with the information
provided about the job, perceiver sees congruency (or lack
of congruency) within the stimulus set. Finally,
resolution of the impression is expressed by concluding the

impression by resolving differentiated attributes with the

161
restatement of choice in a way that provides the impression

with a central theme.

162
Category I-l: A Supperting_espect is an attribute that is
linked to a previous aspect in some way. The perceiver
introduces a new aspect and then introduces another aspect
that is in some way related to the first. The perceiver
views these two aspects as related to one another in a way

that emphasizes a commonality.

This concept is called "Example" by Winter (1984) and is
used to analyze how people use specific illustrations to
extend (as well as clarify) their comparisons of thematic
apperception stories. In addition, this concept includes
some examples of what Winter (1984) calls "redefinition"
(i.e., statements that are made to extend coverage of a

previous definition).

$upperting_espect is scored when a sentence is related to a
previous aspect. A suppertine_espect must be specifically
cennected to a previous aspect or structure. This can be
accomplished in a number of similar ways.

First, a supperting_espect 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

163
is related to another target or situation. In these cases,
a supperting_espect is scored when a link (or relation) is
drawn between that attribute and another attribute,
situation, possibility, or example.

Similarly, a suppertine_espect 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 supperting_espects. The aspect is scored as
supperting because there is a relationship of similarity

between the first and the second aspect.

W is abbreviated SA.

Example (A)

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

Note: In this example, the new aspect "confident in
herself" is attributed to the target and then this aspect
is supported through examples of the targets behavior. The
perceiver elaborates on the NA by providing two separate
examples. Therefore, this statement is scored as on NA/cxt

and two SAs.

164
Example (B)
Kim seemed more mellow [NA] than Eric. In conflict
situations, Kim is apt to stay cool—headed [SA].
Note: In this example, the perceiver uses the NA "mellow"
to describe Kim and then relates it to Kim's predicted
behavior in a particular kind of hypothetical situation.
This situation does not restrict the meaning of Kim's
attribute of "mellow" but extends it to a tendency to stay
cool-headed. In addition, the phrase "more mellow" is
scored as an RC. It should be noted that if the first
sentence did not support the second sentence. Then the
phrase "apt to stay cool-headed" is scored as an NA/cxt

because it is modified by "in conflict situations."

Example (C)

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].

Note: In this example, the perceiver describes Eric as
having a job at the hospital, then he extends this
attribute by relating it to Eric’s ability to work well
with people. Notice that working well with people is not
restricted to a certain context and having a job at the
hospital does not restrict Eric’s other attributes. It
should be noted that the phrase, "the type of job he had at

the hospital" is not an RM because it is an attribute of

165

the target rather than a restricted criterion.

Example (D)

His ability to answer questions [NA] and keep the
conversation rolling [NA] was much better than Kim's. This
would mean he could carry on speeches in front of an
audience much more smoothly [SA] than Kim.

Note: In this example, the perceiver forms a relative
comparison between the targets and then extends it to
another relative comparison. The perceiver makes a
relative comparison between Eric and Kim with the NAs
("ability to answer questions" and "keep the conservation
rolling") and extends it to the hypothetical context of

making speeches in front of an audience.

Example (E)

He demonstrated his commitment to any job that he held
[NA]. Even saying that being a busboy was a neat
experience [SA] and that he was always striving to do his
job the fastest [SA].

Note: In this example, the perceiver mentions an attribute
("demonstrated his commitment to any job that he held") and
then elaborates on its meaning by providing two specific
examples in which the attribute is present. Each of these
examples are elaborations that are not clearly restrictive

of the NA "demonstrated commitment;" therefore it is scored

166

as two separate SAs.

Example (F)

Eric also shared his humanitarian side when he spoke about
his job at the hospital [NA/cxt]. "The money's not great,
but the people make it worthwhile [SA].”

Note: In this example, the perceiver mentions an attribute
”shared his humanitarian side" and then specifies the
context (”when he spoke about his job at the hospital") in
which it occurs. Then a supporting aspect is introduced as

an example that elaborates on the NA/cxt.

Example (G)

Kim is a good leader [NA] who will work well with others
[SA].

Note: In this example, the perceiver uses two qualities of
the target that are connected to form an SA. By first
stating an attribute "good leader" of the target, and then
further describing the target in a way that is related to

the NA, the perceiver draws a supporting link.

Example (H)

Kim cried [NA] showing her vulnerability during a stressful
situation [SA].

Note: In this example, the NA "cried" is used to describe

the target and then this NA is elaborated on by stating its

167
implications. The perceiver elaborates on the NA by
providing additional meaning that is not clearly

restrictive, therefore it is scored as an SA.

Example (I)

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

Note: In this example, the NA "excels in leadership
situations," is elaborated by mentioning the context in
which it is especially likely to occur. The perceiver
elaborates on the NA by providing additional meaning that

is not restrictive.

Example (J)

Eric has trouble expressing his thoughts and ideas [NA] due
to lack of time and experience [SA].

Note: In this example, the NA "trouble expressing his
thoughts and ideas" is supported by a causal explanation
"lack of time and experience." The perceiver elaborates on

the NA by describing how it came about.

Example (K)

Kim showed good leadership skills [NA] because the
interviewer coached her [SA].

Note: In this example, the NA "good leadership skills" is

elaborated on by a statement of causality "the interviewer

168
coached her." The perceiver states the origin of the

target's attribute in a way the extends meaning.

Example (L)

By mixing academics and athletics [SA], Kim seems very
well-rounded [NA].

Note: In this example, the SA occurs before the NA of "very
well-rounded." The perceiver believes Kim seems very well-
rounded because she is mixing academics and athletics. The
perceiver forms a connection between an example of the

target’s attribute and the attribute itself.

169

Causal Links

The next four subcategories of integration are
classified under the general category of ceusei_iink.
These subcategories pertain to integration expressed
through the perception of one subject, target or object as
influencing another. This influence involves the inherent

linking of one person or object to another.

geusei_Link is considered a form of "implicit integration"
by Tetlock (1984).

Causei_iinks can be expressed as:

(A) one target influencing another target (This is called a
dynamic relationship between targets.)

(B) a target(s), object(s), or situation(s) influencing the
perceiver. (This is called a dynamic relationship
between target(s) or possibility of interaction with
the target(s).)

(C) one aspect influencing another aspect (This is called
a simple causal link.)

(D) a situation or object influencing a target(s) (This is

also called a simple causal link.)

170
In addition, the presence of a ceusei_iink can be expressed
negatively as: (a) one target not influencing another
target, (b) one aspect not influencing another aspect, and
(c) a situation, context or object not influencing a
target(s) and (d) a target(s), object(s), situation(s), or
context(s) not influencing the perceiver. The absence of
influence is scored because it is the recognition of
potential influence, and therefore the recognition of a

potential relationship.

171
Category I-2: WW
Relationshinetanhflargets is the perception of one

target influencing another.

A Dynamic Belatienship hetueen the Targets is
characterized by the perception of Kim and Eric as

interacting with one another rather than as separate

entities. When the perceiver sees a dynamic_reiatienship
hetueen_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.

An impression that does net describe the relationship
between the targets as dynamic is one in which the targets
are described as only having certain attributes. The
perceiver sees the targets in isolation and does not

mention their relationship to one another in any way.

Examples:

(A) Eric was nervous to be around Kim [DRT].

Note: In this example, Kim is described as having an
influence on Eric’s emotional state. The perceiver sees

the targets as "alive"--able to effect and influence one

172

another.

(B) Kim made him feel more at ease [DRT].
Note: In this example, Kim is described as actively
influencing Eric's emotional state. The perceiver sees the

targets as active and able to influence one another.

(C) When he said he wanted to be a counselor she told him
that her mother was one [DRT].

Note: In this example, the perceiver describes the
conversation between Kim and Eric in a way that shows the
understanding that they are influencing each other and that

their conversation is a dynamic process.

(D) Kim followed his lead like a wet dog [DRT].

Note: In this example, the perceiver describes Kim’s
actions as being implicitly influenced by Eric. The
perceiver’s way of perceiving Kim is not separate from

Eric’s actions.

(E) Kim.followed [DRT].

Note: In this example, the dynamic relationship between
targets is implicit. The phrase "Kim followed" implies
that she must have followed someone (given the context of

the impression formation task).

173
(F) Kim shared some stories of her life because of Eric

[DRT].

Note: In this example, Kim's actions are described as
having been influenced by Eric. At a glance, it might
appear that "shared some stories of her life" is an NA and
"because of Eric" is a SA, but a closer inspection reveals
the dynamic relationship between targets. Eric is clearly

described as having influenced Kim's story telling.

(G) She pointed out their similarities and put them on the

same level [DRT].

Note: In this example, Kim’s influence on Eric is implied.
By mentioning "their similarities" and putting "them on the
same level." The perceiver recognizes that Kim has the

capacity to influence Eric.

174
Category PM W
W is the

perception of the target(s) influencing the perceiver.

D g:|_u_ 1* ;_ o.-go a; ‘ez. .‘ ;_ o; :19 '; o : is
characterized by the perception of the target(s) as being
able to affect the perceiver. The perceiver sees the
connection between him or herself and the target(s) by
mentioning that the target’s actions are responsible for
the perceiver's impression of or reaction to the target.

It should be noted that a simple "I think..." or ”I
feel..." on the perceiver's behalf does net indicate that
the perceiver sees the connection between the impression

formed and the target's actions.

'103u (‘ s. or»! 0 .01: .c‘! 9‘ s 0: - an " z z is

abbreviated DRP.

Examples:

(A) Eric convinced me that he was right for the job [DRP].
(B) Kim left me feeling this I could really trust her
[DRP].

(C) Eric's nervousness made me realize that Kim was best

for the job [DRP].

175
Note: In these examples, the perceivers see the target as
directly influencing their decision. Thus, the examples
illustrate that the perceiver views the target as an active
agent and the relationship between the target(s) and

perceiver is viewed as dynamic in nature.

Examples:

(D) I laughed at Eric's story about the softball pitcher
[DRP].

(E) When I heard Kim talking about her waitressing jobs I
could really relate [DRP].

Note: In these examples, the perceivers see the target as
an active agent that has directly affected their
experience. In this way, the relationship between the

perceiver and the target is seen as a dynamic one.

(F) By saying he worked in a hospital [SA], Eric convinced
him.that he was the one for the job [DRP].

Note: In this example, the perceiver sees the target as
directly influencing his decision. In addition, a
supporting aspect precedes the DRP because the perceiver
uses this phrase to elaborate on the exact nature of the

influence.

176
Category PM W
W is the Perceiver’s
perception of a hypothetical link between him or herself

and the target(s).

When the perceiver expresses the HQfifiibili§¥_gfi_intezactien
flith_the_targetisi, he or she sees the targets on the

videotape as real persons who could potentially engage in a
real interaction. When the perceiver (a) mentions a
hypothetical interaction between self and target(s) or (b)
compares his or her own attributes with those of the
target(s) in the context of a hypothetical interaction.

The perceiver is making a connection between himself or

herself and the target(s).

E . !l E '1']'! E I ! li °!l !l
Targetisi is abbreviated PIT.

Examples:

(A) If Eric were my research assistant, we probably would
not get along too well [PIT].

(B) Kim seems like she would be fun to be with [PIT].
Note: In these examples, the perceivers mention the
hypothetical possibility of interaction between the target
and themselves and recognize the potential to make a real

connection with the targets.

177
Example (C) My personality is similar to Kim's so I think
Eric and I would be compatible [PIT].
Note: In this example, the perceiver compares her own
attributes with those of the target. By making a
connection between herself and the target, she makes a
decision about what might happen if she were to engage in a
real interaction with the target. In this way, the
perceiver sees her relationship with the targets to be a

dynamic one.

Example (D) net an CL

I felt Kim was warmer than Eric.

Note: The perceiver does not use any type of causai_iink in
this example. The targets are not described as having any
direct effect on the perceiver or on each other. A
sentence that simply begins with "I" does not necessarily

mean that the perceiver has been influenced by the subject.

178
Category I-5= WW
Link is the perception of an aspect, object or situation

influencing the target(s) or another object.

Sinpie_Link is integration 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)

Simple_Link is abbreviated SL.

Examples:

(A) Kim's assertiveness clashes with Eric's need for
control [SL].

(B) Kim's personality did not effect Eric’s answers [SL].
(C) Eric's wanting to lead made Kim act more submissively
[SL].

Note: In these examples, an aspect or attribute of one
target influences an aspect or attribute of the other
target. It is important to notice that it is the aspects
of the targets that are influencing each other and net the

targets themselves.

179
Examples:
(D) The camera seemed to make them self—conscious [SL].
(E) The job interview seemed to put Eric in a self-
Promoting mood [SL].
(F) Kim's questions made Eric nervous [SL].
Note: In these examples, an object, context, and attribute
of the target are perceived as having a direct effect on
the target. The perceiver sees the relationship between

various subjects and the target(s) as dynamic.

(G) Eric wasn't very good at staying cool [NA]. Either he
was nervous to be around Kim [DRT] and/or the camera made
him nervous [SL].

Note: In this example, the perceiver sees the target's
behavior as being affected by another target and the
situation. The perceiver considers two possible causal
influences. Eric's behavior is perceived as being
influenced by (a) Kim's presence and/or (b) the camera's
presence. Because the perceiver considers two different
possible causal influences, they are scored as two separate
causai_iinks. The first is scored as a DRT and the second

is scored as a SL.

180

Category I-6= Similarity_§tatement is a statement of

commonality between two targets or objects.

A similarity_statement is scored when an aspect is used to

illustrate a commonality between two or more subject(s),
target(s) or object(s). The perceiver describes these
subject(s), target(s) or object(s) as having some aspect in
common. In addition, a similarity_statenent is scored when
the targets are described as having shared a common

experience that is net clearly dynamic.

Similarit¥_§tatement is abbreviated SIM.

Examples:

(A) Both Kim and Eric seemed bright and hard-working
[SIM].

(B) Neither Kim nor Eric has what it takes for this job
[SIM].

(C) Both subjects did not display too much leadership
ability [SIM].

(D) Both were friendly and open [SIM].

Note: In these examples, the perceivers see the targets
has sharing common attributes or sharing a common lack of
an attribute. It is important to note that when more than
one attribute is listed in a similarity statement, SIM is

scored only once.

181
Examples:
(E) They enjoyed sports [SIM].
(F) Their performance was okay [SIM].
(G) They got along with each other [SIM].
Note: In these examples, the perceivers describe the
targets as having a common experience which are not clearly
dynamic. These are scored as similarity statements because
the two targets are seen as connected through a common

experience.

Examples that are NQT scored as SIMs

1. Anything scored as an CL or dynamic relationship is net
scored as a SIM.

2. Statements that describe the targets as sharing a common
experience that are clearly dynamic such as "They had an
interesting discussion" or "Kim and Eric joked around and
got along with each other" or "They enjoyed each other's
personal stories" would be scored as a DRT.

3. Context phrases that involve both Kim and Eric are
generally net scored as a SIM. For example, "when they
were building something with videotapes" or "when Kim and
Eric were asked to build something" would not be scored as
a SIM. (In some cases these phrase would be scored as NAs

with contexts).

182
Category I-7= Whistles 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.

This is a form of implicit integration in Tetlock’s (1984)

integrative complexity coding system.

Matching or congruency pertains to the perceptions of the
characteristics of the job and describes these
characteristics are related to the target’s attributes
and/or the target’s suitability of the job. The perceiver
shows integrated thinking by using the information that was
provided by the job description to relate to information
about the target(s). A matching or congruency is
characterized by a statement of the characteristics of the
job (i.e., what it calls for) and a statement of how
aspects of a target(s) are congruent or incongruent with
those job characteristics.

There are four kinds of matching or congruency. 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. Third, there are

183
statements that support previously mentioned attributes by
comparing or matching them to the (or a) job. And fourth,
there are statements of the criteria of the job following
an explanation of why or why not the target would be

suitable.

Congrueney_or_natshing is abbreviated M.

Examples:

(A) Eric seems like a born-leader [NA]. I can see him
running research groups [M].

(B) Kim seems very in touch with her feelings [NA] and the
feelings of others [NA]. This will help her in this
job [MAT].

(C) In building the table, it showed that she would work
well among employees [M] and has a creative mind
[NA/CXT].

(D) 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 [M].

(E) She is self-reliant [NA], not needing too much guidance
on the job [M], saving time and effort [SA].

(F) I think she would relate better [RC] to people [NA] and
be more [RC] successful as head of a PR firm [M].

(G) He appeared uncomfortable in a highly visible role

[NA/CXT]--which is what PR is all about [M].

184

(H) Although the job includes many demands [M], Eric would
be able to set priorities.

(I) Since Kim demonstrates decisiveness [NA] and Eric
didn't [C], she is more suitable for a job in which
making decisions is important and taking authority
with people as a manager [M].

Note: In these examples, characteristics of the targets are

perceived and then used them to expand on the target's

hypothetical behavior in the job context.

Example (J)

This position calls for a strong leader [NA/un]. Eric
was friendly and assertive during the videotape task
[NA/cxt].

Note: This is net a match because the characteristics of
the job and the characteristics of the target are

unrelated.

Examples:

(K) Eric is assertive [NA], after all isn't that what the
job calls for [M]?

(L) For this job, I need someone who cares [M], Kim is the
most [RC] considerate [NA].

Note: In these examples, the perceiver uses statements that

match the characteristics of the target with the

characteristics of the job.

185
Example (M)
Eric would best fill the role of personnel manager [M]. In
support of this, I remember his good leadership and
interpersonal skills [SA].
Note: In this example, the perceiver state his choice to
fill the job description and then adds a supporting aspect
to connect his choice to the attributes of target. It
should be noted that the first sentence would not be scored
as a MAT if it appeared alone without a sentence of

supporting characteristics of the target.

Examples:

(N) Eric seems to put more [RC] of himself and effort into
the project [NA/CXT], therefore, I feel, he would be a
dedicated worker [MAT] and try to also make it interesting
[SA].

(0) She demonstrated that she will speak up if things are
not the way they should be [NA/CXT], which is a good
quality for a manager [M].

Note: In these examples, the perceiver uses statements that
support previously mentioned attributes by comparing or

matching them to the job description.

186
Example (P)
This job calls for someone who will be calm [NA/UN], Eric
was too nervous to be a good worker [M].
Note: In this example, the perceiver states the criteria of
the job following an explanation of why the target would

not be suitable.

187
Category I-5= Ereference_a§_a_3esolution is the perception
of a central theme that the perceiver uses in forming the

impression and deciding who is best suited for the job.

This concept is similar to Winter’s (1984) term overarching

issues.

Ereferense_as_a_8esolution pertains to the problem of
selecting the target that is best suited for the job. The

perceiver shows integrated thinking by using his or her
choice to create a resolution of differentiated aspects
between and among the targets. The preterence_as_a
reseiutien is characterized by (1) the perceiver stating
his or her choice for the job, then (2) stating attributes
of the target(s), reasons, observations and opinions that
are related to that choice and then (3) concluding the
impression by resolving these differentiated attributes,
reasons, etc. with the choice restated in_a_uay_that
pIoyiaes_the_imnression_with_a_central_theme. It is
important to note that the choice simply being restated at
the end of the paragraph does net qualify as a resolution.
The paragraph must be "pulled together" around a central

theme.

Ereferenoe_as_a_Resolntian.is abbreviated as REs.

188
Examples:
1)I think Eric is more suitable for the job because he has
pretty good leadership qualities. 2)He presents himself
fairly well and seems to know where he is going in life.
3)He does need some help expressing his ideas and thoughts
clearly. 4)That come in time and experience. 5)He has
diversity in the working world, and has interacted with a
great deal of people in his many working experiences. 6)He
seems to be compassionate of people and understands human
thinking. 7)Kim is too emotional. 8)Her big downfall was
breaking down during a stressful situation while working.
9)Life is full of stress and people are expected to
function during stressful situations. 10)Eric's leadership
abilities impressed me most. 11)He is a take charge kind of
guy who isn't afraid to work. 12)Eric would be the best
choice for me.
Scoring:
(A) In Sentence 1, the perceiver states his choice for the
job.
(B) In Sentences 2 through 9, the perceiver states
attributes of the targets, reasons, observations and
opinions that are related to that choice.
(C) Beginning in Sentence 10, the perceiver starts
concluding the impression by resolving these differentiated
attributes, reasons, etc. with the restated choice as the
central theme of the impression (i.e., Eric is chosen for

his leadership qualities).

Note: Wan can only receive a maximum
score of ene for each paragraph. In other words, if RES is

present, it is scored as one and if RES is absent it is

scored as zero for each paragraph.

189

Paragraph Section

The following examples demonstrate how whole paragraphs
are scored. A detailed procedure that coders are to use
for scoring paragraphs is presented. This is followed by a
section that outlines some specific coding rules that have
not yet been discussed. Then, there are examples of
written paragraphs. Each paragraph is followed by an

example of how the actual coding sheet is to be completed.

190

Coding Procedure

The scoring procedure for each coder will be as follows:

a.

h.

f.

g.

1.

Read each response completely.

On a separate coding sheet, record the
identification number of the response.

Count the number of words and record them.

Count the number of sentences and record them.
Consider one_sentense_at_a_time.
Consider one_sategory_at_a_time.

Record the presence or occurrence of each category
and note the key word(s) or phrase(s) that were
scored.

After each sentence has been considered
separately, each response should read over
carefully for instances of differentiation and
integration that occur through the use of more
than one sentence. For instance, Cs, SAs, MAT
and RESs often evolve out of more than one
sentence. These are called secendary_sceres.

Carefully read the response over a third time to
be sure instances of differentiation and
integration were not omitted or scored

incorrectly.

191

Specific Scoring Rules

1. The first sentence in each paragraph is usually the
answer to the question: " ...who is best suited for the
job?" Therefore, the phrases such as "best suited,"
"better suited," "more suitable," "better candidate," etc.
are not scored because they are simply part of the question
stem that the perceiver has repeated in his or her answer.
2. If the perceiver repeats any phrase or sentence, it is
not scored the second time.

3. New aspects are sometimes used to create other
differentiated structures such as RMs, ROS and Cs. These
aspects are scored as NAs independent of the other
differentiated structures. For instance, if contrast
consisted of two new aspects, it would be scored as two NAs
and one C. However, this general rule, however, does not
extend to categories of integration. New aspects are net
scored within the categories of integration.

4. Two supporting aspects of previously mentioned NAs can
sometimes be used to create a contrast. For instance, the
perceiver might mention a new aspect related to Kim and a
new aspect related to Eric and then form a contrast using
two respective supporting aspects. In this example, the

two SAs within the contrast are scored as well as the two

 

192
NAs and the C.
5. It is possible for SIMS or any type of causal link to be
scored as an supporting aspect if it is connected to a

previously mentioned NA.

 

193

Paragraph (A)

1) I think Kim is the best suited for the job. 2) Since
she will be doing interviews and dealing directly with
people, I thought her face-to-face presentation was better.
3) She looked Eric straight in the eye while talking to
him, whereas Eric shuffled his foot and looked down.

4) Eric stated that he liked being a busboy because he
didn't have to interact with the customers. 5) A research
assistant would need to like talking and interacting with
them.

6) While Kim was doing the interviewing, she seemed to
very easily hold up the conversation, to get Eric to say
more than merely answering the questions. 7) By drawing
him out, she was able to find out more about his actual
personality than just his past experiences would reveal. 8)
This quality of being skilled at drawing people out is
extremely important in psychology.

9) Though both students were well educated, friendly

and experienced, I think Kim is better for the job.

194

Code Sheet for Paragraph (A)

ID # 089

Word Count

Sentence Count

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

better."

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

0

M

NA

RC

___l§2__
__2___

"Since she will be doing interviews and

dealing with people directly."
"face-to-face presentation"

"her face-to—face presentation was

1/2 C "She looked Eric straight in the eye

while talking to him"

1/2 C "whereas Eric shuffled his foot and

SA

SA

NA

SA

M

looked down."
"She looked Eric straight in the eye while
talking to him"
"whereas Eric shuffled his foot and looked
down."
"Eric stated that he liked being a
busboy."
"because he didn’t have to interact with

customers."

"A research assistant would need to like

talking with people and interacting with

SA

195

them."

whole sentence

Sentence 6 NA/cxt "While Kim was doing the interviewing,

DRT

RC

Sentence 7 DRT

DRT

RC

SA

Sentence 8 M

SA

Sentence 9 SIM

Secondary Scores

she seemed to very easily hold up
the conversation."

"to get Eric to say more than merely
answering the questions."

"more than merely"

"By drawing him out"

"She was able to find out more about his
actual personality"

"more about his actual personality than
just his past experience would reveal."

whole sentence

"the quality of being skilled at drawing

people out is extremely important in
psychology."

"the quality of being skilled at drawing
people out is extremely important in
psychology."

"both students were well-educated,

friendly, and experienced."

0

 

196

Total Scores for Example (A)

Differentiation Integration.
NAs - 3 SA - 6

RM - 0 CL - 3

RC - 3 SIM - 1

C - 1 M - 3
Total Differentiation = 7 RES - 0

Total Integration = 13

197

Paragraph (B)

1) I think that Eric would be the best one for the job.
2) He seemed like the type that would be easy to talk with.
3) Also he seemed relaxed and I think if you were talking
to him, he would make you feel relaxed also. 4) He had
experienced working at many jobs. 5) Also he had learned
how to get the best tip (telling people it was his first
day) so it showed he understood the people he waited on and
knew what to say to them to get the best tip he could. 6)
When given the tapes to build something, he was the one who
came up with the idea of the table and chairs. 7) Kim just
started putting them together, but he thought about it and
watched her for a minute and then he was the one who came
up with the idea. 8) Also he found room for the rest of
the tapes by putting a few here and there until they were

all used up.

198

Coding Sheet for Paragraph (B)

ID#

065

Word Count 166

Sentence Count §

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

Sentence 6

0

NA "the type that would be easy to talk
with.”

NA "relaxed"

PIT "make you feel relaxed also"

SA whole sentence

NA "experienced working at many jobs."

NA "learned how to get the best tip"

RC "best tip"

SA "by telling people it was his first day"

SA "so it showed he understood the people he
waited on."

SA "knew what to say to them to get the best
tip"

1/2 C "the one who came up with the idea

NA/cxt "the one who came up with the idea

1/2 C [it is implicit that Kim did not come

up with the idea.]

199
Sentence 7 1/2 C "Kim just started putting them together"
NA "the one who came up with the idea ...."
1/2 C "he thought about it and watched her
for a minute then he was the one that
came with the idea."
NA "he thought about it."
NA "and watched her for a minute."
NA ‘ "then he was the one that came with the
idea.”
Sentence 8 NA "found room for the rest of the tapes."
SA ”by putting a few here and there until
they were all used up."

Secondary Scores 0

EOE: I. I. I I I.
NA - 10 SA - 5
RM - 0 CL - 1
RC - 1 SIM - 0
C - 2 M - 0
RES - 0

Total Differentiation = 13 Total Integration = 6

200

Paragraph (C)

1) I think Eric and Kim both have good qualities for the
job. 2) Eric is good-looking, intelligent and sort of a
performer. 3) As my assistant, he would probably be a lot
of fun. 4) Also, he is creative and spontaneous as
demonstrated by his ability to make a table and chairs out
of videotape boxes. 5) Kim is smart, athletic, and a good
listener. 6) As my assistant, she would be a person I
could rely on. 7) She seemed to have a calming effect on
Eric. 8) I guess if I had to choose Kim would be my

choice.

201

Code Sheet for Paragraph (C)

ID # .017

Word Count 23

Sentence Count 8

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

Sentence

SIM "good qualities"

NA "good-looking"

NA "intelligent"

NA "sort of a performer"

PIT "As my assistant, he would probably be a
lot of fun."

SA whole sentence

NA "creative"

NA "spontaneous"

SA "as demonstrated by his ability to make a

table and chairs out of videotape boxes."

NA "smart"

NA "athletic"

NA "good listener"

PIT "As my assistant, she would be a person I
could rely on."

SA whole sentence

DRT "she seemed to have a calming effect on
Eric."

SA whole sentence

202

Sentence 8 0

Secondary Scores
Sentence 2 1/2 C "Eric is.... a sort of performer."

Sentence 5 1/2 C "Kim is.... a good listener."

Differentiation

Integration

NA-8 SA-4
RM-O CL-3
RC-O SIM-1
c-1 M-O

RES - 0

Total Differentiation = 9 Total Integration = 8

203

Paragraph (D)

1) Although Eric was quite fidgety, he seemed best
suited for the job as my assistant. 2) I could relate to
many of his past experiences such as working at a hospital
and being a busboy. 3) When building the videotapes, Eric
was creative but kind of domineering. 4) Eric is not as
good of a listener as Kim, but I guess that reflects his
ability to be a social and dominant leader. 5) Eric seemed
better able to handle stressful situations. 6) Kim would
be a nice person to talk to but Eric would be my choice

because I can better understand and relate to him.

204

Coding Sheet for Paragraph (D)

ID # 133

Word Count

__192__

Sentence Count 6

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

Sentence 6

 

NA "quite fidgety"
DRP "I could relate to many of his past
experiences."
SA "working at the hospital"
SA "being a busboy"
NA/cxt "creative"
NA/cxt "kind of domineering"
RC "Eric is not as good of listener as Kim"
NA "good listener"
SA "reflects his ability to be a social and
dominant leader."
1/2 C "social"
1/2 C "dominant"
RC "better able to handle stressful
situations."
NA "able to handle stressful situations."
PIT "would be a nice person to talk to"
PIT "I can better understand and relate to
him."

RC "better understand and relate"

205

RES whole sentence

Secondary Scores 0

Differentiation Integration
NA-5 sax-4
RM-O CL-2
RC - 3 SIM - o
c-1 M-O

RES-0

Total DifferentiationTetal Integration = 6

206

References

Crockett. W- H. (1965). Strnotural_analyeie_of_the
organization_of_written_imnreeeione. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Kansas.

Crockett, W. H. (1965a). Cognitive complexity and
impression formation. In Maher (Ed.), Experimental
persenality_research. New York: Academic Press.

Goldstein K. M. and Blackman, S. (1978). cegnitiye_style.
New York: Wiley.

Healy, J. M. (1989). Emotional Adaptation to life
transitions: Early impact on integrative cognitive
processes. In D. Buss 8 N. Cantor (Eds.), Emerging
Iaenee_in_2ersonality. Springer-Verlag-

Linville, P. W. (1985). Self-complexity and affective
extremity: Don’t put all of your eggs in one
cognitive basket. secial_cegnitien, 1, 94-120.

Peevers, B. H. 8 Secord, P. F. (1973). Developmental

changes in attribution of descriptive concepts to

persons. Iournal_of_2ereonality_and_5ooial
Psychology. 22. 120-128-
Schroder, H. M., 8 Streufert, S. (1962). The_measurement
E E I E 1.! I ! . .
leyel_of_ahetraotneea_ISentenoe_oomoletion_nethodl.
Tech. Rep. No.11, ONR. Princeton: Princeton

University.

207
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., 8 Streufert, S. (1967).
HonaLinformatiomorooeesing. New York: Holt.
Rinehart, Winston.

Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of

ideological reasoning. W051
Sooia1_25yonology an. 819-827.

Tetlock. P. E. (1984). W
manual. Unpublished manuscript, University of

California, Berkeley.
Winter. 0- G. (1984). ScorimmammlJorJestJLtnematio
analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Wesleyan
University.

Winter, D. G., McClelland, D. C. 8 Stewart, A. J. (1981). A
nep_case_rer_the_liheral_arts. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Woike. 13- A. (1989). LrexieLofJnethogenasedJnJoging

oognitiye_cemplexity. Unpublished manuscript,
Michigan State University.