What Is An Implicit Theme

Implicit Personality Theory

Past Charlotte Nickerson, published January 20, 2022

Accept-habitation Letters

Implicit personality theories draw how individuals think of individual traits as relating to and occurring with each other. For example, someone may associate sternness with coldness or humor with intelligence.
There are two main branches in implicit personality theory research: the first concerned with the role that bias plays in how people perceive others on the macro level, and the second with individual differences in how people perceive others.
Psychologists have debated methods for measuring implicit personality theories and accept devised diverse ways of finding similarities between the implicit personality theories of large groups of individuals.
Psychologists accept structured implicit personality theories effectually concepts such as centrality, additivity, and complexity.
Some psychologists have argued that implicit personality theories have a linguistic basis.
Implicit personality theories play an important role in making judgments apropos how much we trust others in social relationships also equally in our stereotyping of wide groups.

Implicit personality theories refer to individuals' notions almost what personality characteristics tend to co-occur in people. For instance, someone may want to correlate warmth with generosity, or a humor with intelligence.

These implicit personality theories guide inferences that social perceivers brand of other people. For example, if someone sees someone present an academic talk energetically and presumes that energy is linked to intelligence, the perceiver volition probable infer that the other person is intelligent (Dunning, 1995).

History and Overview

In the first major review of research on how people perceive the personalities of others, Bruner and Tagiuri (1954) introduced the term "naive, implicit personality theory" to draw the possibility that perceivers drew connections betwixt the attributes of other people (Schneider, 1973).

At the time, other psychologists such equally Jones (1954), Steiner (1954), and Kelly (1955) described phenomena similar implicit personality theories, merely perhaps the well-nigh notable case of implicit personality theories becoming incorporated into modern psychology in the 1950s was Lee Cronback's notion of "the generalized other" (Cronback, 1955).

In Cronback's view, the "other" independent the person's beliefs about the attributes and abilities that a typical person had, along with how these attributes and abilities interrelated.

Crohnback believed that people's theories about attributes and abilities placed these qualities into a few key categories.

Although different researchers have come up to unlike conclusions nearly what the major dimensions of personality were, mutual categories included divisions between practiced and bad traits, social skill and inadequacy, intellectually gifted and undistinguished, active vs. passive, friendly vs. unfriendly, dominant vs. submissive, and accepting vs. rejection dominance (Dunning, 1995).

There are ii master traditions in implicit personality theory.

The first tradition is concerned with the role that bias has in how people brand judgments nigh others.

The 2nd is concerned with individual differences in how people perceive others (Schneider, 1973).

Judgements Almost Others

Psychologists take ofttimes debated whether implicit personality theories reflect or distort reality. For case, researchers have debated whether when people associate, say, leadership with potency, they are reflecting the social earth as it truly exists or making an supposition not supported by real-world evidence, even one only cogitating of a cultural association betwixt leadership and authorization (Dunning, 1995).

Overall, enquiry has institute that implicit personality tends to mirror reality but overstate it: many people overestimate some traits when in reality, these traits are merely somewhat related (Dunning, 1995).

Research showing that perceivers tend to exaggerate the size of relationships amid traits dates to the 1920s (Newcomb, 1931; Thorndike, 1920; Schneider, 1973). Scientists working with the office that bias plays in how people make judgments near others take compared personal perception and impression germination to a large number of other judgment phenomena (Bruner, Shapiro, and Taagiuri, 1958; Wishner, 1960; Schneider, 1973).

Commonly these researchers look to the psychology of homo judgment and the biases implicit in language (Schneider, 1973).

Individual Differences

Meanwhile, researchers concerned with private differences in how people perceive others accept tended to focus on topics related to how certain factors such as authoritarianism, "The New Look," personality measurement, and personality construct theory contribute to how biases vary from person to person (Schneider, 1973).

Although Bruner and Tagiuri originally used the term implicit personality theory to describe the assumed relationships between traits, the term broadened to correspond to a broad formulation of archetype personality theory: a set of assumptions about why people carry the way they do (Schneider, 1973).

Crohnback, for instance (1955) painted a view of implicit personality theory as more than relationships among traits.

He suggested that a person'south so-called "lay theory of personality" consisted of the average strength and variability in strengths of each trait as well as the likelihood that other traits are to occur with a certain trait (Schneider, 1973).

Examples

Gender Stereotypes

At that place take been a number of studies seeking to obtain lists of "male person" and "female" traits. Hamilton (1981) argued that gender stereotypes derive from implicit personality theories.

Hamilton rephrased implicit personality theory as existence almost observed traits and relationships linked together in a cognitive structure.

Thus, in maxim, for example, that a man got a poor grade on an art consignment because "men are non artistically inclined," 1 is associating a not-personality trait (gender) with a personality trait (artistic inclination).

Perceived Riskiness of Sexual Partners

Williams et al. (1992), in their study of 308 university students, showed that many students usedimplicit personality theories to guess the riskiness of potential sexual partners.

Students in focus groups were asked by researchers to discuss when they would and would not engage in sexual practice using condoms.

Specifically, partners whom college students know and like (such equally monogamous partners who had non been tested for HIV infection) are not perceived to be risky, fifty-fifty if they do not know whatsoever information relevant to that person's HIV status.

Often, students tended to associate risky sexual partners with those that wearing apparel provocatively, whom one met in bars, who were older than nearly college students, who are from large cities, or who are overly anxious for sex (Williams et al, 1992).

Structures for Implicit Personality Theory

Trait Centrality

Asch's (1946) research into impression formation has greatly influenced implicit personality theory and methodology. One of Asch's concerns was trait centrality. Asch found that warm-cold was a cardinal trait in several contexts.

However, he failed to elaborate on when a trait is or is not fundamental or why cardinal traits exist (Schneider, 1973). Two traditions emerged effectually these bug.

The first was based on a so-called "correlational model" and the 2nd on a model of "trait implication." Forth the first line of thought, Wishner (1960) argued that the response traits most afflicted by the shift from warm to cold were also traits that correlated most highly with warm and cold.

By Wishner'southward logic, any trait can become a cardinal stimulus trait if it is correlated highly with enough response traits. Much of the research in the Wishneer school has been concerned with linguistic biases in trait ratings (east.g. D'Andrade, 1965).

The other schoolhouse of thought around trait centrality deals with Scaling. Hays (1958) for instance believed that traits were central to the extent that they unsaid other traits without being unsaid for them.

For case, fitness could be a key trait if it implied fastidiousness and energeticness, only fastidiousness and energeticness did non necessarily imply fitness. Meanwhile, irritability would not be a central trait if it implied anger, just acrimony likewise implied irritability.

Inquiry has found that warm-cold is, as Asch suspected, a fundamental trait — they lie at opposite ends of social evaluation (Friendly and Glucksberg, 1970). Rosenberg et al. (1968) argued that traits that exist on the extremes of ii dimensions (such equally warm-cold) are fundamental for traits that are less extreme on that dimension.

Similarly, Zanna and Hamilton (1972) have shown that varying warm and cold on a listing of traits affects whether that person will be labeled with traits that are either socially desirable or undesirable, and that varying the degree to which someone is seen every bit industrious or lazy affects the extent to which that person is rated as having intellectual desirable or undesirable traits (Schneider, 1973).

Yet, these models fail to address the weighting of each trait at the extreme of each dimension. For example, whether warmness would be less correlated with socially desirable traits than coldness is correlated with socially undesirable traits.

Hamilton and Huffman (1971) showed that in judgments of likability and evaluation, negative traits have a higher weight than positive ones. Researchers have also noted that traits that are more general or abstract tend to have stronger implications than less full general traits.

Hinkel, for example, had participants generate 10 "subordinate" — a linguistic term for the most specific category of an idea, such as a pear in one'southward hand or one'southward pet dog — and 10 "superordinate" constructs — the most full general category of an idea that controls many other ideas.

Hinkel institute that the superordinate constructs were more often thought to cause traits than the subordinate constructs.

Additive Models

Some other event from Assch's paper was his accent on condiment versus not additive processing of information (Schneider, 1973).

Asch opposed the thought that the impression that a person has of some other is based on the addition of traits, claiming, instead, that the traits someone has would create an impression that would be different for every new set up of stimuli (Asch, 1946).

Newer models have plant that certain variables greatly influence trait relationships, such as the occupation of the person whose traits are being assessed.

For case, there was a significant inverse correlation between awareness and unhappiness in lecturers and a slight positive i for road sweepers (Veness, 1969).

Over a quarter of the correlations in Veness' study differed significantly for dissimilar occupations (Schneider, 1973).

Cognitive Complication

The terminal issue in the structure of implicit personality theory concerns cognitive complexity. Some people assess the relationships between traits on more dimensions than others.

Many researchers, such as Crockett (1965) and Schroder, Driver, and Streufert (1967) have related complexity to impression formation processes. In particular, these researchers have focused on individual differences in complication.

Researchers such as Pedersen (1965) and Walters and Jackson (1966) have found individual differences in numbers of dimensions used for trait complications, only simply subtle and minor ones.

In general, researchers accept considered high relationships amidst traits to point cognitive complexity (little relationship between the dimensions traits are correlated with), and depression relationships high complication.

Zaajonc (1960) and Cohen (1961) investigated cerebral tuning and showed that data was related in a more circuitous fashion when participants expected to receive rather than communicate the information.

Still other researchers take establish that when participants brand a choice amid people they generally hold a more positive ready of trait assumptions for the person they have chosen.

This "halo effect" can exist increased by caffeine arousal and decision importance (O'Neal and Mills, 1969; O'Neal, 1971). These researchers have attributed the halo result to a person's desire to exist certain in their choosing another person.

People can create illusions of certainty in this situation by decreasing the complication of trait relationships (Schneider, 1973). Different types of stimuli tin can also trigger greater complication (a lower correlation between traits).

For instance, Crockett (1965) discusses unpublished studies by Nidorf and Supnick that testify that information seeking and descriptions are less circuitous for people who were very different from the participant making the judgment and for those who are highly disliked.

Meanwhile, Koltuv (1962) establish that the correlations betwixt traits were higher for those that participants did non know than those that they did. When people have more data about how a person is likely to act, they are less likely to make assumptions about their traits (Schneider, 1973).

Measurement of Trait Relationships

Archetype personality theories often attempt to find dynamic and causal relationships between traits.

The means that researchers have done then has differed in how they assign traits to "objects," create a and so-called trait matrix, interpret trait relationships, reduce the trait matrix into a more than basic matrix, and interpret the basic matrix.

Assignment of traits

Many researchers in implicit personality theory brainstorm past having several perceivers assign traits to stimulus objects.

Stimulus objects can either be people (such as through a flick of a person making certain facial expressions) or physical objects; all the same people are more mutual.

Usually, researchers inquire these perceivers to give each stimulus person a rating for how strong the item trait is in this stimulus object. This creates a matrix of trait ratings based on the perceiver, trait, and stimulus person.

The trait matrix

This trait matrix tin be used to calculate correlations amidst traits across stimulus people.

Often, even so, studies can rely on how similar participants rate certain traits to be (Messick and Kogan, 1966; Pedersen, 1965; Schneider, 1973) likewise as ratings of how likely sure traits are to co-occur.

Other studies, such equally those of Rosenberg (Rosenberg, Nelson, and Vivekananthan, 1968; Rosenberg and Olshan, 1970) ask participants to split a full sample of traits into piles, with each pile representing a distinct person.

The researchers and then give traits disassociation scores which depend on the number of participants who disagree on whether ii traits go together (Schneider, 1973).

Reduction and interpretation of the trait matrix Afterwards gathering a list of correlations between traits, researchers must determine how to make the data interpretable.

This tin can be done through a variety of mathematical methods (Schneider, 1973).

Later gathering a list of correlations betwixt traits, researchers must make up one's mind how to make the data interpretable. This can be done through a variety of mathematical methods (Schneider, 1973).

when researchers aim to study how individual implicit personality theories differ, it may be important to determine how different groups of people see relationships between traits.

For instance, women may run across confidence as associated with both competence and warmth, while men may see confidence as merely correlated with competence.

Stimulus People

Several studies into implicit personality theory have investigated the stimulus person. In such studies, researchers endeavor to obtain judgments of similarity among a variety of stimulus persons.

For example, Jacksson, Messick, and Solly (1957) had participants charge per unit how similar they were to each other; Messick (1961) scaled similarity judgments of political figures; and Wiggins and Hoffman (1968) had participants compare profiles representing stimulus persons.

Scientists can interpret these ratings — make up one's mind how the stimulus person'southward personality compares to ratings of traits that participants thought them to accept — in various ways.

For example, researchers could either use a public figure (whose personality traits are already known) or administer a personality test to the stimulus person.

The Situation

Individuals' situations, roles, and then on can also be scaled to determine similarity and correlation between traits.

Many researchers have recognized the function of the situation in perception of behavior (Hastorf, Schneider, and Polefka, 1970), biasing personality judgments toward one'southward correlated with one'southward function.

For example, a dancer may be seen as socially graceful and a tax-collector as ruthless.

Disquisitional Evaluation

Realism

Research as far dorsum as Thorndike's (1920) halo effect has shown that the perceived relationships that people come across between traits differs significantly from empirical relationships.

At that place has also been considerable research examining how implicit personality theory can exist independently of people's subjective experiences.

Levy and Dugan (1960), for instance, used 15 traits and measured how often each was used to depict photographs. Three researchers institute that people often attempted to correlate the same traits with the same pictures.

Mulaik (1964), meanwhile, asked different groups of participants to rate real people and stereotypical roles. Similarly, Mulaik constitute that people often rated existent people and stereotypical roles in a similar, but not identical way.

Nonetheless, many studies take findings contradicting this early research (due east.1000. Chapman, 1967; Lay and Jackson, 1969). All in all, these findings suggest that perceived trait relationships deviate from what researchers have calculated the "truthful" relationships between traits to be.

Language and Implicit Personality Theory

Many scholars have claimed that implicit personality theories are determined past linguistics. For example, Kusinen (1969) showed that the differential ratings of trait names creates a linguistic structure like to the construction for other concepts.

I of the biggest controversies around linguistic factors as a basis for implicit personality theory involves the fact that traits take both denotations and connotations.

For case, as Walters and Jackson (1966) demonstrated, while some factors of personality can be characterized by high ratings of interpersonal warmth and sociability, all of the socially desirable terms besides are associated with interpersonal warmth (Schneider, 1973). Researchers have tried to block out linguistic dimensions in a way that avoids this loading.

Peabody (1967), for example, organized traits into groups of iv then that they would be paired with traits that have opposite evaluative and meaning dimensions.

This means that Peabody would pair a trait such equally cautious with one that meant the same thing but had an opposite evaluation (such as timid) and with ii traits of positive descriptive meaning, one positive (east.g. assuming) and one negative (e.thousand. rash).

He then asked subjects to make inferences from diverse traits on scales consisting of a positive trait and its negative descriptive reverse (e.k. cautious-rash or timid-bold).

Peabody showed that nigh inferences people fabricated were descriptive rather than evaluative.

Withal, others, such as Rosenberg and Olshann (1970) take criticized Peabody's enquiry, arguing that Peabody's traits obscured the evaluative dimension of implicit personality theory (Felipe, 1970).

Nigh the Author

Charlotte Nickerson is a member of the Class of 2024 at Harvard University. Coming from a enquiry groundwork in biology and archeology, Charlotte currently studies how digital and physical space shapes human beliefs, norms, and behaviors and how this tin can exist used to create businesses with greater social impact.

How to reference this article:

Nickerson, C. (2022, Jan 20). Implicit personality theory. Only Psychology. world wide web.simplypsychology.org/implicit-personality.html

References

Asch, Due south. E. (1961). Forming impressions of personality (pp. 237-285). Academy of California Printing.

Bruner, J. S., & Tagiuri, R. (1954). Person perception. Handbook of social psychology, ii, 634-654.

Bruner, J. S., Shapiro, D., & Tagiuri, R. (1958). The meaning of traits in isolation and in combination. Person perception and interpersonal behavior, 277-288.

Chapman, 50. J. (1967). Illusory correlation in observational report. Journal of Exact Learning and Exact Behavior, six(1), 151-155.

Cohen, A. R. (1961). Cognitive tuning every bit a factor affecting impression formation. Journal of Personality.

Crockett, W. H. (1965). Cerebral complication and impression formation. Progress in experimental personality research, 2, 47-90.

Cronbach, L. J. (1955). Processes affecting scores on" agreement of others" and" causeless similarity.". Psychological bulletin, 52(three), 177.

D'Andrade, R. G. (1965). Trait psychology and componential analysis. American Anthropologist, 67(5), 215-228.

Dunning, D. (1995). Trait importance and modifiability every bit factors influencing self-assessment and self-enhancement motives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(12), 1297-1306.

Felipe, A. I. (1970). Evaluative versus descriptive consistency in trait inferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 627.

Friendly, M. L., & Glucksberg, Due south. (1970). On the clarification of subcultural lexicons: A multidimensional arroyo. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 55.

Hamilton, D. Fifty., & Huffman, Fifty. J. (1971). Generality of impression-germination processes for evaluative and nonevaluative judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 20(2), 200.

Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive approach. Cerebral processes in stereotyping and intergroup beliefs, 333-353.

Hastorf, A. H., Schneider, D. J., & Polefka, J. (1970). Person perception.

Hays, W. L. (1958). An arroyo to the study of trait implication and trait similarity. Person perception and interpersonal behavior, 289-299.

Jackson, D. Northward., Messick, S. J., & Solley, C. 1000. (1957). A multidimensional scaling approach to the perception of personality. The Periodical of Psychology, 44(2), 311-318.

Jones, E. E. (1954). Authoritarianism every bit a determinant of kickoff-impression formation. Periodical of Personality.

Kelly, E. 50. (1955). Consistency of the adult personality. American Psychologist, 10(11), 659.

Koltuv, B. B. (1962). Some characteristics of intrajudge trait intercorrelations. Psychological Monographs: General and Practical, 76(33), one.

Kuusinen, J. (1969b). Factorial invariance of personality ratings. Scandinavian journal of psychology, ten(one), 33-44.

Lay, C. H., & Jackson, D. North. (1969). Assay of the generality of trait-inferential relationships. Periodical of personality and social psychology, 12(1), 12.

Levy, L. H., & Dugan, R. D. (1960). A constant error approach to the study of dimensions of social perception. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(one), 21.

Messick, S., & Jackson, D. N. (1961). Desirability calibration values and dispersions for MMPI items. Psychological Reports, viii(3), 409-414.

Messick, S., & Kogan, Due north. (1966). Personality consistencies in judgment: Dimensions of role constructs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 165-175.

Mulaik, S. A. (1964). Are personality factors raters' conceptual factors?. Periodical of Consulting Psychology, 28(six), 506.

Newcomb, T. (1931). An experiment designed to test the validity of a rating technique. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22(four), 279.

O'Neal, E., & Mills, J. (1969). The influence of anticipated option on the halo effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(3), 347-351.

O'Neal, East. (1971). Influence of future choice importance and arousal upon the halo outcome. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(3), 334.

Peabody, D. (1967). Trait inferences: Evaluative and descriptive aspects. Periodical of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4p2), i.

Pederson, D. M. (1965). Ego strength and discrepancy between conscious and unconscious self concept. Perceptual and Motor skills, xx, 691-692.

Rosenberg, S., Nelson, C., & Vivekananthan, P. Due south. (1968). A multidimensional approach to the construction of personality impressions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 9(4), 283.

Rosenberg, South., & Olshan, K. (1970). Evaluative and descriptive aspects in personality perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(4), 619.

Schneider, D. J. (1973). Implicit personality theory: A review. Psychological bulletin, 79(5), 294.

Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, South. (1967). Homo information processing: Individuals and groups functioning in complex social situations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Steiner, I. D. (1954). Ethnocentrism and tolerance of trait" inconsistency.". The Journal of Aberrant and Social Psychology, 49(iii), 349.

Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A abiding mistake in psychological ratings. Journal of applied psychology, 4(1), 25-29.

Veness, T. (1969). Trait assessment intercorrelation and occupational stereotypy. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 8(three), 227-234.

Walters, H. A., & Jackson, D. Due north. (1966). Group and individual regularities in trait inference: A multidimensional scaling assay. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(ii), 145-163.

Wiggins, N., & Hoffman, P. J. (1968). Dimensions of profile judgments as a function of instructions, cue-consistency and private differences. Multivariate Behavioral Inquiry, 3(1), 3-20.

Williams, S. S., Kimble, D. 50., Covell, N. H., Weiss, L. H., Newton, K. J., Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (1992). College Students Use Implicit Personality Theory Instead of Safer Sex 1. Periodical of Applied Social Psychology, 22(12), 921-933.

Wishner, J. (1960). Reanalysis of" impressions of personality.". Psychological Review, 67(ii), 96.

Zajonc, R. B. (1960). The procedure of cognitive tuning in communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(2), 159.

Zanna, M. P., & Hamilton, D. L. (1972). Attribute dimensions and patterns of trait inferences. Psychonomic Science, 27(vi), 353-354.

Home | Near The states | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Contact United states of america

Simply Psychology's content is for informational and educational purposes only. Our website is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

Ezoic