Personality Impressions Paper

Order Effects in Personality Impression Information

Abstract
This study deals with the idea that the tendency of our culture is to judge personality based on limited first impressions. Participants were presented with a list of adjectives that described a hypothetical person. They were to form impressions about that individuals personality based on that list. The presentation order was counterbalanced with favorable, unfavorable, and neutral descriptors. These lists would be the sole basis of the formation of their impressions. Measurements were based on participant response using a rating scale, brief written impressions, and descriptive adjective check list. The hypothesis pertinent to this experiment is that primacy has an affect on
how people form impressions. The results found here indicate that primacy is an important factor in impression formation.

Order Effects in Personality Impression Formation Method
Participants
Each experimenter was responsible for obtaining data from six participants.
There was a total of forty eight students assembled on a volunteer basis from Southern Oregon University, Psychology 201 classes. They were rewarded with extra credit points in their classes for being involved, and docked points if they signed up but did not appear at the assigned times. They were all treated in accordance with the "Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct" (American Psychological Association, 1992).
Materials
Three lists of descriptive adjectives were used to describe the hypothetical person. The three lists are favorable to unfavorable (FU), unfavorable to favorable (UF), and neutral (N). These lists are located in Table 1. The rating scale used by the participants to rank their impression of the hypothetical person is provided in Table 2. Table 3 contains the adjective check list, which the participants would be required to complete after forming their impression.
Design and
Procedure Participants were sat down across from the experimenter in an observation room and informed about the process they were to be involved in. The experimenters had previously determined a counterbalanced order for the presentation of the adjectives: FUN, UFN, NFU. The order of adjective presentation and the participant response to that particular word list is relevant to the entire experiment, and the experimenters are responsible for tracking this information. The relationship between the independent variables, or adjective conditions, and the participant response, the dependent variables, are correlated for each participant throughout the experiment. To make the collection process easier, the experimenter provided each participant with a small packet that included the rating scale in Table 2, the adjective check list from Table 3, and a blank piece of paper for the subjects written impressions.. After the participants were read a description from one of the lists of adjectives from Table 1, the experimenter would have them rate their impression of this person from 1 (very unfavorable) to 9 (very favorable) using the rating scale provided in Table 2. The participants were then asked to write a short paragraph describing their impression of the hypothetical person. These paragraphs would be used later to test the rating scales against the impressions developed from these answers by the experimenters. After completing the paragraph the participants were then asked to check any adjectives from the check list, Table 3, that they felt were descriptive of that person. The entire process of this experiment took an average of seven minutes for each participant, and included an opportunity for them to ask questions about the procedure.
Results
The participant impression ratings of the hypothetical person accumulated by each experimenter group were combined, and the mean average of the ratings were then determined for each group, FU, UF, and N. This data was then calculated through a one-way analysis of variance as represented in Fig.1. The FU group observed here, showed a significantly higher mean rating than the N group, also the UF group had a lower mean rating than the N group, providing evidence that a primacy effect was present.
Fig.1 indicates that the higher rating for the FU group shows that a subject exposed to favorable adjectives at the beginning of the description, then rated the person favorably.
The lower ratings for the UF group showed that when subjects were exposed to unfavorable adjectives they rated the person lower, or unfavorable. The results of the analysis indicate a significant difference between groups (F = 6.93, df = 1,46 , p> .05). The adjective check list data was analyzed with a chi square test of independence for the three groups, Fig.2. The amount of adjectives varied from group to group, although the analysis showed that the data did not show a significant difference in the number of adjectives checked, and the number of them that were expected. The last important aspect of this experiment involved the experimenters forming impressions of the person described in the paragraphs written by the subjects. They used the same rating scale as was used earlier in the experiment, the purpose was to compare and contrast the experimenter rating results using a one way analysis of variance. The data showed that the ratings remained consistent, although not revealing the same level of significance as the subjects had shown in their data findings. There was a significant difference found in the analysis (F=3.62, df 3,2 , p.> .05).
Discussion The results revealed in this experiment paralleled the findings of the original research from Asch, that impressions are formed in relation to the type of adjectives read first. What this research gives to the primacy effect theory is more evidence that first impressions are influential in forming our interpretations of other peoples personalities. Primacy effects have been observed throughout the format of this experiment such as the groups that received favorable adjectives first, consistently reported favorable impressions. Also those participants exposed to unfavorable adjectives first, consistently reported unfavorable impressions of the hypothetical person. The areas that this study are concerned with are limited in such a way that does not discredit the findings on an experimental level, but the results do not reflect learned impression formation techniques that may be existing in the individual. People learn that first impressions are not always concrete, and adjust those impressions accordingly as contact with an individual increase over time. Although the findings suggest that primacy has an effect on the formation of impressions in an experimental setting, it is not necessary to discard all other theories on how humans come to form impressions of other humans.