This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland] On: 20 January 2015, At: 19:55 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
The Effect of Deviant Group Membership upon Impressions of Personality a
Theodore A. Weissbach & Gary Zagon
a
a
Pomona College Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Theodore A. Weissbach & Gary Zagon (1975) The Effect of Deviant Group Membership upon Impressions of Personality, The Journal of Social Psychology, 95:2, 263-266, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1975.9918712 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9918712
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 95, 263-266
T H E E F F E C T O F DEVIANT GROUP MEMBERSHIP UPON IMPRESSIONS O F PERSONALITY* Pomona College
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
THEODORE A. WEISSBACH
AND
GARYZAGON
SUMMARY Personality impressions of a videotaped stimulus person were compared when he was introduced as a member of a homosexual group to when he was not. It was predicted that no differences would be found in overall attraction, but that the homosexual condition would elicit ratings consistent with a male homosexual stereotype. Results were consistent with the hypothesis; in the homosexual condition, the stimulus person was judged more feminine, emotional, submissive, unconventional, and weaker than in the nonhomosexual condition, but equally likable.
A. INTRODUCTION Studies by Asch (2), Kelley ( S ) , and Wishner (8) among others have indicated the power of certain personality characteristics to dominate impressions of personality. Their findings indicate that a simple additive model would not account for the wealth of connotation which some trait descriptive adjectives appear to carry. If we know a person is “warm” or “cold,” that knowledge has an effect upon ratings of other personality characteristics (8). Similarly, if we know that a person is a member of a particular social group, we may already feel that a great deal about his personality, character, and abilities is known to us. Such social groupings as race or ethnicity and their attendant stereotypes have been especially well investigated (4).In a sense, membership in a minority group appears to have the same kind of ef€ect upon ratings of personality attributes as the central traits studied by Asch (2) and others. The effects of membership in such deviant groups as homosexuals or criminals upon personality impressions is less well known. This study was designed to assess the effect of homosexual group membership upon personality impressions. I t is generally believed that
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November 19, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 2 63
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
2 64
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
homosexuality is disapproved by Americans. In one recent survey (6) 60% of a sample of 3000 adults disapproved of sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex. Athanasiou, Shaver, and Tavris (3) report that 22% of a responding sample of Psychology Today readers think homosexuality is a character disorder or worse. And, 49% of the responding male homosexuals fear social disapproval. However, such gross data do not provide very much information about how general the effect of homosexual membership is upon impressions of personality. I t is possible that knowing that a person is a homosexual would bias all judgments about him or only those which are reflected in the homosexual stereotype. It was hypothesized that likability (1) would not be affected by knowledge of homosexuality, but that judgments of personality on homosexual-sensitive personality dimensions would. B.
METHOD
The subjects were 2 0 student volunteers from the Claremont Colleges. Ss were randomly assigned to conditions. Upon entering the experimental setting, Ss were seated so that they could view a videotape monitor. They were informed that they were to participate in a study of personality impressions. The purpose of the study was to compare their judgments of personality with the judgments of graduate students in clinical psychology in an attempt to discover whether clinical students were more sensitive judges of personality than the general college population. It was explained that Ss would view a videotape of a clinical interview that was used in clinical training. Following the tape, Ss would be given an opportunity to record their judgments. Prior to viewing the tape, Ss were given one of two “Background Information” sheets so that they might have some idea of the stimulus person’s background. It was explained to Ss that this procedure was analogous to receiving the kind of information which was elicited from clients during an initial interview. Two “Background Information” sheets were prepared. They were identical in all respects but one. Both gave demographic information about the stimulus person, high school and college data, family background, and so forth. Ten Ss received a sheet which indicated that the stimulus person had been a member of Gay Students Alliance while in college while the other 10 Ss did not. All Ss viewed the same taped interview prepared especially for this study. Thus, the only difference in conditions was whether or not Ss were told that the stimulus person had been a member of a homosexual group.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
THEODORE A. WEISSBACH AND GARY ZAGON
265
After viewing the tape, Ss were given a personality impression measure which consisted of 10 bipolar rating scales, each with seven rating categories. This was similar to a semantic differential (7), but the scales were different. Five of the scales (happy-unhappy, tolerant-intolerant, kind-unkind, flexible-rigid, and ambitious-unambitious) were chosen to reflect general personality characteristics which would not distinguish homosexuals from nonhomosexuals. For each scale, the first adjective in the pair is the more desirable or likable (1). The other five scales (strong-weak*, masculine-feminine*, emotional*-unemotional, dominant-submissive*, and unconventional*-conventional) were believed a priori to be sensitive to homosexual-nonhomosexual differences. Again, the first adjective in each pair is the most likable. The asterisked member of each pair represents the homosexual end of the scale.
C. RESULTS The first analysis of the data compared likability ratings for each rating scale between conditions. Only two of the rating scales significantly differentiated between groups. The homosexual’ was found to be more emotional (t = 2.31, p < .05) and more unconventional (t = 3.88, p < .01). When likability ratings were combined across the 10 rating scales, the homosexual was rated slightly more likable than the nonhomosexual but not significantly so (t = .54, p > .25). Apparently, likability or attraction for the stimulus person was not affected by knowledge that he belonged to a homosexual organization. For the second analysis, the five homosexual rating scales were rescored so that a high score now reflected a rating toward the homosexual end of the dimension (weak, feminine, emotional, submissive, and unconventional). Ratings in the two conditions were compared for each of the five re-scored scales. In every case, the homosexual was rated higher (more homosexual) than the nonhomosexual. When the ratings on the five scales were combined, the difference between the two conditions was significant (t = 4.39, p < .OOl). Comparison of the total scores for the other five rating scales indicated no significant difference between the groups (t = .37, p > .25). DISCUSSION The results were consistent with the hypothesis that differences in personality impressions would be found only on homosexual-sensitive personD.
’
“The homosexual” refers to the stimulus person when viewed with prior information that he belonged to a homosexual organization.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
266
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ality dimensions. For this sample at least, a homosexual stimulus person is viewed as different, but not less attractive or likable, from a nonhomosexual stimulus person. At this point, there is only anecdotal information regarding the effects of either dislike of homosexuals or perception of homosexuals as different upon overt behavior towards homosexuals. Whether or not persons who perceive homosexuals as different but no less likable than nonhomosexuals would treat homosexuals differently in key situations (e.g., employment) remains a question for further research. It may be that judgments of personality difference may just be a more subtle way of indicating disfavor and disrespect. It does not seem that the findings in this study seriously challenge an additive model of personality impression formation. While it is true that the term “homosexual” effected ratings across a wide range of related dimensions, it seemed to do so in a linear manner. That is, ratings were shifted on all the relevant dimensions. For these dimensions, it would be necessary to add (or subtract) a constant in order to account for the shift, a procedure consistent with an additive model.
REFERENCES 1.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
ANDERSON,N. H. Likeableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. J. Personal. 6. SOC. Psychol., 1968, 9, 272-279. ASCH, S. E . Forming impressions of personality. J. Abn. 6. SOC. Psychol., 1946, 41, 258-290. ATHANASIOU, R . , SHAVER,P., & TAVRIS,C. Sex. Psychol. Today, 1970, 4(2), 39-52. BRIGHAM, J. C. Ethnic stereotypes. Psychol. Bull., 1971, 76, 15-38. KELLEY,H. H . The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. J. Personal., 1950, 18, 431-439. LEVITT,E . , & KLASSEN,A., JR. Report to the American Ortho-psychiatric Association. Cited in Psychol. Today, 1973, 7(4), 17-18. OSGOOD, C. E . , SWI, G. J . , & TANNENBAUM, P. H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: Univ. Illinois, 1957. WISHNER, J. Reanalysis of “Impressions of Personality.”Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 96-112.
Department of Psychology Pomona College Claremont, California 91 711
The Journal of Social Psychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20
The Effect of Deviant Group Membership upon Impressions of Personality a
Theodore A. Weissbach & Gary Zagon
a
a
Pomona College Published online: 01 Jul 2010.
To cite this article: Theodore A. Weissbach & Gary Zagon (1975) The Effect of Deviant Group Membership upon Impressions of Personality, The Journal of Social Psychology, 95:2, 263-266, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1975.9918712 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1975.9918712
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 95, 263-266
T H E E F F E C T O F DEVIANT GROUP MEMBERSHIP UPON IMPRESSIONS O F PERSONALITY* Pomona College
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
THEODORE A. WEISSBACH
AND
GARYZAGON
SUMMARY Personality impressions of a videotaped stimulus person were compared when he was introduced as a member of a homosexual group to when he was not. It was predicted that no differences would be found in overall attraction, but that the homosexual condition would elicit ratings consistent with a male homosexual stereotype. Results were consistent with the hypothesis; in the homosexual condition, the stimulus person was judged more feminine, emotional, submissive, unconventional, and weaker than in the nonhomosexual condition, but equally likable.
A. INTRODUCTION Studies by Asch (2), Kelley ( S ) , and Wishner (8) among others have indicated the power of certain personality characteristics to dominate impressions of personality. Their findings indicate that a simple additive model would not account for the wealth of connotation which some trait descriptive adjectives appear to carry. If we know a person is “warm” or “cold,” that knowledge has an effect upon ratings of other personality characteristics (8). Similarly, if we know that a person is a member of a particular social group, we may already feel that a great deal about his personality, character, and abilities is known to us. Such social groupings as race or ethnicity and their attendant stereotypes have been especially well investigated (4).In a sense, membership in a minority group appears to have the same kind of ef€ect upon ratings of personality attributes as the central traits studied by Asch (2) and others. The effects of membership in such deviant groups as homosexuals or criminals upon personality impressions is less well known. This study was designed to assess the effect of homosexual group membership upon personality impressions. I t is generally believed that
* Received in the Editorial Office, Provincetown, Massachusetts, on November 19, 1973. Copyright, 1975, by The Journal Press. 2 63
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
2 64
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
homosexuality is disapproved by Americans. In one recent survey (6) 60% of a sample of 3000 adults disapproved of sex acts between consenting adults of the same sex. Athanasiou, Shaver, and Tavris (3) report that 22% of a responding sample of Psychology Today readers think homosexuality is a character disorder or worse. And, 49% of the responding male homosexuals fear social disapproval. However, such gross data do not provide very much information about how general the effect of homosexual membership is upon impressions of personality. I t is possible that knowing that a person is a homosexual would bias all judgments about him or only those which are reflected in the homosexual stereotype. It was hypothesized that likability (1) would not be affected by knowledge of homosexuality, but that judgments of personality on homosexual-sensitive personality dimensions would. B.
METHOD
The subjects were 2 0 student volunteers from the Claremont Colleges. Ss were randomly assigned to conditions. Upon entering the experimental setting, Ss were seated so that they could view a videotape monitor. They were informed that they were to participate in a study of personality impressions. The purpose of the study was to compare their judgments of personality with the judgments of graduate students in clinical psychology in an attempt to discover whether clinical students were more sensitive judges of personality than the general college population. It was explained that Ss would view a videotape of a clinical interview that was used in clinical training. Following the tape, Ss would be given an opportunity to record their judgments. Prior to viewing the tape, Ss were given one of two “Background Information” sheets so that they might have some idea of the stimulus person’s background. It was explained to Ss that this procedure was analogous to receiving the kind of information which was elicited from clients during an initial interview. Two “Background Information” sheets were prepared. They were identical in all respects but one. Both gave demographic information about the stimulus person, high school and college data, family background, and so forth. Ten Ss received a sheet which indicated that the stimulus person had been a member of Gay Students Alliance while in college while the other 10 Ss did not. All Ss viewed the same taped interview prepared especially for this study. Thus, the only difference in conditions was whether or not Ss were told that the stimulus person had been a member of a homosexual group.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
THEODORE A. WEISSBACH AND GARY ZAGON
265
After viewing the tape, Ss were given a personality impression measure which consisted of 10 bipolar rating scales, each with seven rating categories. This was similar to a semantic differential (7), but the scales were different. Five of the scales (happy-unhappy, tolerant-intolerant, kind-unkind, flexible-rigid, and ambitious-unambitious) were chosen to reflect general personality characteristics which would not distinguish homosexuals from nonhomosexuals. For each scale, the first adjective in the pair is the more desirable or likable (1). The other five scales (strong-weak*, masculine-feminine*, emotional*-unemotional, dominant-submissive*, and unconventional*-conventional) were believed a priori to be sensitive to homosexual-nonhomosexual differences. Again, the first adjective in each pair is the most likable. The asterisked member of each pair represents the homosexual end of the scale.
C. RESULTS The first analysis of the data compared likability ratings for each rating scale between conditions. Only two of the rating scales significantly differentiated between groups. The homosexual’ was found to be more emotional (t = 2.31, p < .05) and more unconventional (t = 3.88, p < .01). When likability ratings were combined across the 10 rating scales, the homosexual was rated slightly more likable than the nonhomosexual but not significantly so (t = .54, p > .25). Apparently, likability or attraction for the stimulus person was not affected by knowledge that he belonged to a homosexual organization. For the second analysis, the five homosexual rating scales were rescored so that a high score now reflected a rating toward the homosexual end of the dimension (weak, feminine, emotional, submissive, and unconventional). Ratings in the two conditions were compared for each of the five re-scored scales. In every case, the homosexual was rated higher (more homosexual) than the nonhomosexual. When the ratings on the five scales were combined, the difference between the two conditions was significant (t = 4.39, p < .OOl). Comparison of the total scores for the other five rating scales indicated no significant difference between the groups (t = .37, p > .25). DISCUSSION The results were consistent with the hypothesis that differences in personality impressions would be found only on homosexual-sensitive personD.
’
“The homosexual” refers to the stimulus person when viewed with prior information that he belonged to a homosexual organization.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 19:55 20 January 2015
266
JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
ality dimensions. For this sample at least, a homosexual stimulus person is viewed as different, but not less attractive or likable, from a nonhomosexual stimulus person. At this point, there is only anecdotal information regarding the effects of either dislike of homosexuals or perception of homosexuals as different upon overt behavior towards homosexuals. Whether or not persons who perceive homosexuals as different but no less likable than nonhomosexuals would treat homosexuals differently in key situations (e.g., employment) remains a question for further research. It may be that judgments of personality difference may just be a more subtle way of indicating disfavor and disrespect. It does not seem that the findings in this study seriously challenge an additive model of personality impression formation. While it is true that the term “homosexual” effected ratings across a wide range of related dimensions, it seemed to do so in a linear manner. That is, ratings were shifted on all the relevant dimensions. For these dimensions, it would be necessary to add (or subtract) a constant in order to account for the shift, a procedure consistent with an additive model.
REFERENCES 1.
2.
3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
ANDERSON,N. H. Likeableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. J. Personal. 6. SOC. Psychol., 1968, 9, 272-279. ASCH, S. E . Forming impressions of personality. J. Abn. 6. SOC. Psychol., 1946, 41, 258-290. ATHANASIOU, R . , SHAVER,P., & TAVRIS,C. Sex. Psychol. Today, 1970, 4(2), 39-52. BRIGHAM, J. C. Ethnic stereotypes. Psychol. Bull., 1971, 76, 15-38. KELLEY,H. H . The warm-cold variable in first impressions of persons. J. Personal., 1950, 18, 431-439. LEVITT,E . , & KLASSEN,A., JR. Report to the American Ortho-psychiatric Association. Cited in Psychol. Today, 1973, 7(4), 17-18. OSGOOD, C. E . , SWI, G. J . , & TANNENBAUM, P. H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: Univ. Illinois, 1957. WISHNER, J. Reanalysis of “Impressions of Personality.”Psychol. Rev., 1960, 67, 96-112.
Department of Psychology Pomona College Claremont, California 91 711
