Forming Impressions of Personality
作者: Solomon Asch / 15971次阅读 时间: 2017年8月01日
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网IV. SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCE OF IMPRESSIONS心理学空间-^4|(Z.L(eO6gp

心理学空间-_6k'G@F5M

The preceding discussion has definite consequences for the perception of identity and difference between the characteristics of different persons. Of these the most significant for theory is the proposition that a given trait in two different persons may not be the same trait, and, contrariwise, that two different traits may be functionally identical in two different persons. We turn now to an investigation of some conditions which determine similarity and difference between personal qualities.

-yl'O5GFGf`0

.\&x6Xo Nn0Experiment X心理学空间SmC!?9l,q!d!VF_

9MGY#B6|LubG-@~#h0I. The group has before it Sets 1, 2, 3, and 4 with instructions to state (I) which of the other three sets most resembles Set 1, and (2) which most resembles Set 2.

KQ?/t^CB ]0心理学空间)I2^Y*xo%c_&Y

SET 1: quick, skillful, helpful

qJ c0j x,j;hx1~*G0心理学空间lK]4].f3sp^

SET 2: quick, clumsy, helpful

+d*j(qmS'H9UH1@0

[R"cI&[3Z!?"OJpz*F0SET 3: slow, skillfull, helpful心理学空间7S&Q0i9J$wv(O7A|#~

YD;UT!?0SET 4: slow, clumsy, helpful

,N GB+c7CJQx"wV0

H9x D3wz ^k0One quality—"helpful"—remains constant in all sets. The other two qualities appear in their positive form in Set 1, and are changed to their opposites singly and together in the three other sets. A remarkable uniformity appears in the findings, reported in Table 12.

(y$`0h)W8f;q0心理学空间 LP'D;Ed#b)q;S rT

心理学空间1V$M)g'Q D2_OdT

心理学空间9I c_ }.sV

Set 1 is equated with Set 3 in 87 per cent of the cases, while its similarity to Set 2 is reported in only 13 per cent of the cases. Similarly, Set 2 is asserted to resemble Set 4 in 85 per cent of the cases, while the resemblance to Set 1 drops to 9 per cent.

pN6Wrm.N}Y3r0

O'GG1@nc[ g `0The choice of similar sets cannot in this case be determined merely on the basis of the number of "identical elements," for on this criterion Sets 2 and 3 are equally similar to 1, while Sets 1 and 4 are equally similar to 2. What factors may be said to determine the decisions with regard to similarity and difference?

|1wc(R7maP~0

-orUg m'X0We come somewhat closer to an answer in the replies to the following question: "Which characteristics in the other sets resemble most closely (a) 'quick' of Set 1? (b) 'quick' of Set 2? (c) 'helpful' of Set 1? (d) 'helpful' of Set 2?" The results appear in Table 13.心理学空间0CXN$r z:\T

PWl[VS;y8Df0心理学空间 ]$`JC d

2s%c7X&G Qp2S#^0We see that qualities which, abstractly taken, are identical, are infrequently equated, while qualities which are abstractly opposed are equated with greater frequency. For example, the quality "quick" of Sets 1 and 2 is matched in only 22 and 25 per cent of the cases, respectively, while "quick" of Set 1 is, in 32 per cent of the cases, matched with "slow" of Set 3, and "quick" of Set 2 with "slow" of Set 4 in 51 per cent of the cases.

(D6i a(X"Y,Z7c)t2d0n0心理学空间\k6R&NK*U;g8r1y

At this point the reports of the subjects become very helpful. They were requested at the conclusion to state in writing whether the quality "quick" in Sets 1 and 2 was identical or different, together with their reasons, and similarly to compare the quality "slow" in Sets 3 and 4. The written accounts permit of certain conclusions, which are stated below.

(p D:wd-s\0心理学空间hs1_%QQ-U[

I. The content of the quality changes with a change in its environment.

aZM3rZnz0

{sLAk6r-kN0The protocols Below, which are typical, will show that the "quicks" of Sets 1 and 2 are phenomenally different, and similarly for the "slows" of Sets 3 and 4.心理学空间2H)cz"P?,F7J"p

&H&z5_f9T h0The quickness of 1 is one of assurance, of smoothness of movement; that of 2 is a forced quickness, in an effort to be helpful.

%Ra^ekO(L;O0心理学空间*o3|9Il*a'n._E

1 is fast in a smooth, easy-flowing way; the other (2) is quick in a bustling way—the kind that rushes up immediately at your request and tips over the lamps.

^!xTA\)i;Q4R0

7s9y8B wv+b!O03 takes his time in a deliberate way; 4 would like to work quickly, but cannot— there is something painful in his slowness. 3 is slow in a methodical, sure way, aiming toward perfection; in 4 it implies a certain heaviness, torpor.心理学空间S[yD2M:\5\

'aPIEf$fz$?k?02. The dynamic sources of the quality are relationally determined.心理学空间 [3ao\,f

心理学空间,A C+}'k;x6}0c5om

In the protocols we observe a process of mutual determination between traits. They are grasped as not simply contiguous to one another but in dynamic relation, in which one is determined by, or springs from, the other.

;U;OXo j,ImB0心理学空间#N_$@u2c? B6G

1 is quick because he is skillful; 2 is clumsy because he is so fast. Great skill gave rise to the speed of 1, whereas 2 is clumsy because he does everything so quickly.

a/UQ _4a1G6P-g&q0心理学空间_5D+\N'L7I9g:UC

The quality slow is, in person 3, something deliberately cultivated, in order to attain a higher order of skill.心理学空间q"bR2s0f/[

!E"ITE `f2r?3A&R0In 3 slowness indicates care, pride in work well-done. Slowness in 4 indicates sluggishness, poor motor coordination, some physical retardation.心理学空间;J&m*y8qy4`G

.q S,W6wx4mW v0Speed and skill are not connected as are speed and clumsiness. Without exception, "quick" is perceived to spring from skill (skillful->quick); but the vector in Set 2 is reversed, "clumsy" becoming a consequence of speed (clumsy<-quick). While Sets 1 and 3 are identical with regard to the vectors, Set 2 is not equivalent to 4, the slowness and clumsiness of 4 being sensed as part of a single process, such as sluggishness and general retardation (slow<->clumsy).

W+gy#S2h)x%W U-t0

$oa _4~J_S]03. Dynamic consequences are grasped in the interaction of qualities.

K7]0@.G `xK.~0心理学空间*_LA2Y4b h(z5JB1U {

"Quick" and "skillful" (as well as "slow" and "skillful") are felt as cooperating, whereas "quick" and "clumsy" cancel one another.

#H U u1t+xiw9_0心理学空间-\I+R:K5B0x.DX8|w{

2 drops everything fast. He is fast but accomplishes nothing. The clumsy man might be better off if he were slow.心理学空间V&LR3eY d

s$}uP._nY0The second person is futile; he is quick to come to your aid and also quick to get in your way and under your hair.心理学空间0[!TF y1V+gu:p e

l.o:[1_5b#P0I can afford to be quick; 2 would be far better off if he took things more slowly.

-k4a+t|%l:n-a0

p%h8mb@ u.ay0In the light of these comments, which are representative, we are able to formulate the prevailing direction of the relations within the sets.心理学空间X&m0\9M%vU

心理学空间 Q C#vd~#g

In Sets 1 and 3 the prevailing structure may be represented as:心理学空间 @l s'~GGv2}9F

H'i2A p]Dn0

9mBC-y l L!N'e0

I6n\8ne"e8b0"Quick-slow" derive their concrete character from the quality "skillful"; these in turn stand in a relation of harmony to "helpful," in the sense that they form a proper basis for it and make it possible. In Sets 2 and 4 the characteristic structures are as follows:

e"MWy,t0

M&m"Iv3J h!d*D-b,[*P9L0心理学空间i(L%Zgv

心理学空间Q/HMrYs0q)h&r

But now these stand in a relation of inherent contradiction to the quality "helpful," the fulfillment of which they negate.心理学空间+\g Il$p&R

心理学空间G"Bd)qEIxZ

Our results contain a proportion of cases (see Tables 12 and 13) that are contrary to the described general trend. These do equate the characteristic of 1 and 2 and of 3 and 4. They require explanation. It is especially important to decide whether the disagreements are capricious or whether they have an understandable basis. As a rule we find in these cases that the given quality is viewed in a narrower, more limited way. For example, these subjects view "quick" of Sets 1 and 2 in terms of sheer tempo, deliberately excluding for the moment considerations of fitness. The following protocols are illustrative:

pz K3U xR%h TUz0心理学空间w$mi$L'|'v

These persons' reactions to stimuli are both quick, even though the results of their actions are in opposite directions.

`e1ADoo0

I+i(~_q0c+Rh4uC0They are both quick, but they differ in the success of their actions.心理学空间hsUI/{)P

心理学空间2V/@)\5\(w4JHP+L

The two terms are basically the same, for both would execute their tasks with their individual maximum speed.

*~C8P3K7Vr3W0

*f^!HN;^3M HuOe0II. The reader will readily think of other sets of characteristics involving similar processes. In view of the fact that such analyses have not been previously reported, we select for brief description a few additional examples. The task was to state whether the term "aggressive" was alike or different in Sets 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, respectively. This example will be of particular interest to psychologists, in view of current discussions of aggressiveness.心理学空间ny&?+Pu6kP:Xa

心理学空间M ~,z2w&iSf_z&O

SET 1: active, helpful, aggressive心理学空间"L:Yt,i$ot'J4M5X:d

心理学空间6d6d;KE#] d4j z(jUtS

SET 2: lazy, unhelpful, aggressive

gR!F$Q)P6C7`*nm z0

AD'z @9k;O^0SET 3: weak, sensitive, aggressive

1[+JG}l0

S+lCR;O5R&]$^0SET 4: strong, self-centered, aggressive心理学空间 Q,zAMj fy

&\d[G7^R-ye0Nineteen out of 20 subjects judge the term to be different in Sets 1 and 2; 17 out of 20 judge it to be different in Sets 3 and 4. Some representative reports follow:

#bZuG:m+I0心理学空间A LSP Qa+_|/^

The aggressiveness of 1 is friendly, open, and forceful; 2 will be aggressive when something offends him.

@I m+tdv0心理学空间j(q!i|F.AR

The aggressiveness of 1 is an expression of confidence in his abilities, of his strength of will and mind; in 2 it is a defensive measure to cover sensitivity.心理学空间#fxC iRs#GrG,|

心理学空间)s)Tj!y[

3 will be aggressive to try to hide his weakness. The aggressiveness of 4 is a natural result of his strength and self-centeredness.

iWH![l Nd}k*\2a0心理学空间6Y"nfp!p(T9TLf7j

4 is aggressive because he has needs to be satisfied and wishes nothing to stand in his way; 3 has the aggressiveness of self-pity and indecision.

Yg:Px}/b bq4p0

{ w ` x1}J']0In nearly all cases the sources of aggression and its objects are sensed to be different. In consequence, the form it takes and its very psychological content become different in the series compared.心理学空间&K(t ^3^+e/y1s

p3Gq pU0Substantially the same results are observed in another group in the comparison of "unaggressive" in Sets 1 and 2 below.

lR;Zxrt0

iqy3o x0SET 1: active, helpful, unaggressive

D"I(^'\&@{P m0心理学空间.i)p3K$BJ

SET 2: weak, sensitive, unaggressive心理学空间}8Qh Y,H3E:wQ,^3R

.y(HMf~ ]*S7f0Twenty-eight out of 30 subjects call "unaggressive" different in the two series. Some of their reasons follow:心理学空间"rX ~~e1q

z j"T/]5Gx0Z0Unaggressive in 1 might mean that he does not push or force his way into things. In the second case it may mean meekness or fear of people.

.Uhkj-} CR5a\0

h2H8keR;cjF v01 does not care to be aggressive; 2 lacks the stamina for it.心理学空间w hO*Ur,VY]Y2K

心理学空间H2Jwx,KV(I

2 does not fight back at the world nor try to rise above his weaknesses.心理学空间5["F#[zx:L(m

f,[z m~A S6rn'Z0The word "aggressive" must have the same connotations in both cases; otherwise why not use different terms to express different things?

:G,R&o+jpg:Ww0H8_0

R&H;fE.vS5|0@0III. The second and third terms in Sets 1 and 2 below were compared, respectively.心理学空间-vW4s5OC

&v[I6V:I8V.d*JI-\0SET 1: intelligent, critical, stubborn心理学空间/K+U,Mc$~xA d

#s8K M\f0SET 2: impulsive, critical, stubborn

*m%[KL8C9xnj0

&k6P3L|4P3v:]i8mh0All subjects in a group of 31 judged the term "critical" to be different in the two sets; while 19 (or 61 per cent) judged "stubborn" as different. A few of the remarks follow:心理学空间:A"o#T+L6`(F

心理学空间/@_0H%Ozuc

Critical:

1y4]1EZ;hz^iB0

gdAm/oo-xi01 is critical because he is intelligent; 2 because he is impulsive.

"T6Z5W!O6~-`0y`0

,E*C ^qys0The intelligent individual is critical in a constructive manner; the impulsive one probably hurls criticism unthinkingly.

|*c@&ADB&\h0

3U#QZSr*{b0The intelligent person may be critical in a completely impersonal way; 2 may be critical of people, their actions, their dress, etc.

~s^yC6r%u$l0心理学空间-t.P,E%F HAq`

Stubborn:

a?#{R9V`k0心理学空间` G'{ qt|+k

The stubbornness of an intelligent person is more likely to be based on reason and it can be affected by reasoning.心理学空间E-^0a r4Wx

+^KTqFi0The intelligent person might be stubborn about important things, things that mean something to him, that he knows something about; whereas an impulsive person might be stubborn just to be contrary.心理学空间#dz C9N,r vH

心理学空间5s+m0i3E6Whl

An intelligent person may be stubborn because he has a reason for it and thinks it's the best thing to do, while an impulsive person may be stubborn because at the moment he feels like it.

M,G%jMOi@4Eo0

k_%l*G @*V4f!N0Some representative statements defending the identity of "stubborn" in the two series follow:心理学空间*qk$D(|u5OfL"v6WL@-}

b1}e)O+e"[0Stubbornness to me is the same in any language. Of course, an intelligent person may have a better reason for being stubborn than an impulsive one, but that does not necessarily change the degree of stubbornness.心理学空间7k S]? f0cNW

心理学空间L O&bC?

Both refuse to admit to anything that does not coincide with their opinion.心理学空间{)_5^H;z Z/W3p

$p}yYX-R'h0In my opinion there is only one kind of stubbornness—an unswerving desire either to do or not to do a certain thing.

(V+`J^z1G~'J;h}{0

B%R?9lrYJ:jv0IV. In the following series the second and third terms were to be compared:心理学空间vOu"pB#` Z6w x

5lL^ g&e7eH0SET 1: warm, witty, persuasive心理学空间U0B R4el/_~!Kv R

e1CB3o7Pp!y8O,qez0SET 2: cold, witty, persuasive

-aTFbjBw6L1Gj"}|B0心理学空间y S a$LT_`-L

Twenty-seven of 30 subjects judged "persuasive" as different; all judged "witty" to be different. A few of the comments follow:

SV4nIK_"S!t0

{)z5_py0Witty:心理学空间8K0e3ad ~8S?8e+{

"m(P2Sy ]R^01 laughs with the audience; 2 is either laughing at or trying to make others laugh at some one. 2 is satirical, not humorous.心理学空间@%| ]-A HM#C

心理学空间 ~ L/O`2r `Ue

1 has a jolly and happy-go-lucky wit. 2 will use wit as one uses a bow and arrow— with precision. He will have a target which will not be missed.

$PD-}&CIs0

8o%Y ZbW.Hb,BN"O0The wit of the warm person touches the heart. The cold person's wit is touched with irony.心理学空间}WY x$M K,U6BK

心理学空间(me\4|:mLB}:T

Persuasive:

is*t-LO8~:{!y0

j8S K6Tqcz s01 is persuasive in trying to help others; 2 in trying to help himself.

bJ|'{|BO;wI Y0

)`#[2q3j y,M4M H02 may persuade through fear.心理学空间3Nj$r&^f"wZb2[0L

心理学空间\+j'c3?I;b

2 would be detached in his arguments; 1 would appeal more to the inner emotional being of others.

9G,B@/V7b9qlFCR0心理学空间 u"ma)p4S i[GM

V. The term "gay" was compared in the following series:

]'Y QlF%[ _ C,{/a0心理学空间.?O@1FK%?

SET 1: gay, intelligent, industrious

%M'~'o H!v+db!yJ d0心理学空间!t~Ob6F,g'V*}l

SET 2: gay, stupid, lazy

Xp}"g C:c0心理学空间%P,C*]/`"\

Twenty-seven of 30 subjects call "gay" different. Some representative reasons follow:心理学空间2[/r)d.En[?7m5M k8N

心理学空间)[/v1|2f8l1W f e

They may both be equally gay, but the former is different. The stupid person can be gay over serious, sad matters, while the intelligent person is gay with reason.心理学空间P&Xk&Tt$E

心理学空间k {m pX

The first person's gaiety comes from fullness of life; 2 is gay because he knows no belter.

'eU2x!|a1w @)QC0

W?HB1Im01 knows when to be gay and when not to be.

%Aw'B7[G2Pa0心理学空间!Y%hhx \!s8{ ?ac

The gaiety of 1 is active and energetic; the gaiety of 2 is passive.心理学空间;r1G'@x}L W-k

心理学空间B;m*}XqO0Xs6b

The intelligent person is gay in an intelligent way.

RD3A |q&B5u0心理学空间8UQ H$DW.|3P

They are the same - gaiety has no relation to intelligence and industriousness.心理学空间4YH-f\)s m

~(~zJi0u0The foregoing observations describe a process of relational determination of character-qualities. A given quality derives its full concrete content from its place within the system formed by the relations of the qualities. Some qualities are seen as a dynamic outgrowth of determining qualities. Qualities are seen to stand in a relation of harmony or contradiction to others within the system. These processes set requirements for the comparison of impressions. Identical qualities in different structures may cease to be identical: the vectors out of which they grow may alter, with the consequence that their very content undergoes radical change. In the extreme case, the same quality in two persons will have different, even opposed, meanings, while two opposed qualities will have the same function within their respective structures.

h!Uq.?Lv Z}2{k0心理学空间m'}*q Om_3[S)P

Discussion I心理学空间[3G"v]L

心理学空间{4at0Q h^G&uZ G a

The investigations here reported have their starting-point in one problem and converge on one basic conclusion. In different ways the observations have demonstrated that forming an impression is an organized process; that characteristics are perceived in their dynamic relations; that central qualities are discovered, leading to the distinction between them and peripheral qualities; that relations of harmony and contradiction are observed. To know a person is to have a grasp of a particular structure.心理学空间-F;czFDe,b,B|"s:J\

3T}JaGB x6~'p0Before proceeding it may be helpful to note two preliminary points. First: For the sake of convenience of expression we speak in this discussion of forming an impression of a person, though our observations are restricted entirely to impressions based on descriptive materials. We do not intend to imply that observations of actual persons would not involve other processes which we have failed to find under the present conditions; we are certain that they would. But we see no reason to doubt that the basic features we were able to observe are also present in the judgment of actual persons. Secondly: We have not dealt in this investigation with the role of individual differences, of which the most obvious would be the effect of the subject's own personal qualities on the nature of his impression. Though the issue of individual differences is unquestionably important, it seemed desirable to turn first to those processes which hold generally, despite individual differences. A proper study of individual differences can best be pursued when a minimum theoretical clarification has been reached.

[n4QW5CcI*~:}+D0

%^Y.]zN hxI g0Let us briefly reformulate the main points in the procedure of our subjects:

s_]$R[-w0

z0lZJI \4E01. There is an attempt to form an impression of the entire person. The subject can see the person only as a unit he cannot form an impression of one-half or of one-quarter of the person. This is the case even when the factual basis is meager; the impression then strives to become complete, reaching out toward other compatible qualities. The subject seeks to reach the core of the person through the trait or traits.心理学空间9@r*fG9JAzt H

心理学空间v~+`"?!^Z

2. As soon as two or more traits are understood to belong to one person, they cease to exist as isolated traits, and come into immediate dynamic interaction. The subject perceives not this and that quality, but the two entering into a particular relation. There takes place a process of organization in the course of which the traits order themselves into a structure. It may be said that the traits lead an intensely social life, striving to join each other in a closely organized system. The representation in us of the character of another person possesses in a striking sense certain of the qualities of a system.心理学空间r+|ki)m Uq

心理学空间1q|#Sk0Pe9~

3. In the course of this process some characteristics are discovered to be central. The whole system of relations determines which will become central. These set the direction for the further view of the person and for the concretization of the dependent traits. As a rule the several traits do not have equal weight. And it is not until we have found the center that we experience the assurance of having come near to an understanding of the person.心理学空间f7U)A0j"t[X1l

心理学空间6m p U_ }#y

4. The single trait possesses the property of a part in a whole. A change in a single trait may alter not that aspect alone, but many others—at times all. As soon as we isolate a trait we not only lose the distinctive organization of the person; the trait itself becomes abstract. The trait develops its full content and weight only when it finds its place within the whole impression.心理学空间v8l)r;V'z X&c

心理学空间l-P!]nVk

5. Each trait is a trait of the entire person. It refers to a characteristic form of action or attitude which belongs to the person as a whole. In this sense we may speak of traits as possessing the properties of Ehrenfels-qualities. Traits are not to be considered as referring to different regions of the personality, on the analogy of geographical regions which border on another.

e3t|f']0zI0

FC9z1]K,Dl06. Each trait functions as a representative of the person. We do not experience anonymous traits the particular organization of which constitutes the identity of the person. Rather the entire person speaks through each of his qualities, though not with the same clearness. 7. In the process of mutual interaction the concrete character of each trait is developed in accordance with the dynamic requirements set for it by its environment. There is involved an understanding of necessary consequences following from certain given characteristics for others. The envy of a proud man is, for example, seen to have a different basis from the envy of a modest man.心理学空间H_m1wNU

心理学空间xLPw;{(`)go8])X5T~p

8. On this basis consistencies and contradictions are discovered. Certain qualities are seen to cooperate; others to negate each other. But we are not content simply to note inconsistencies or to let them sit where they are. The contradiction is puzzling, and prompts us to look more deeply. Disturbing factors arouse a trend to maintain the unity of the impression, to search for the most sensible way in which the characteristics could exist together, or to decide that we have not found the key to the person. We feel that proper understanding would eliminate, not the presence of inner tensions and inconsistencies, but of sheer contradiction. (It may be relevant to point out that the very sense of one trait being in contradiction to others would not arise if we were not oriented to the entire person. Without the assumption of a unitary person there would be just different traits.)

9K#j(u/cm#N|0

&Vgy%Q8wa7PH09. It follows that the content and functional value of a trait changes with the given context. This statement expresses for our problem a principle formulated in gestalt theory with regard to the identity of parts in different structures (8, 10). A trait central in one person may be seen as secondary in another. Or a quality which is now referred to the person may in another case be referred to outer conditions. (In the extreme case a quality may be neglected, because it does not touch what is important in the person.)心理学空间8d6c `8MG9p*B(d

EVc L'A"F`+p0We conclude that the formation and change of impressions consist of specific processes of organization. Further, it seems probable that these processes are not specific to impressions of persons alone. It is a task for future investigation to determine whether processes of this order are at work in other important regions of psychology, such as in forming the view of a group, or of the relations between one person and another.

4MOZ*fx'}3F3_ i0心理学空间v:^uH m;Q'B d+_s-?-m

Discussion II心理学空间C,JF,Q:] oBGEp%]$B

心理学空间3o ~O,b"n a|C

It may be of interest to relate the assumptions underlying the naive procedure of our subjects to certain customary formulations, (1) It should now be clear that the subjects express certain definite assumptions concerning the structure of a personality. The gaining of an impression is for them not a process of fixing each trait in isolation and noting its meaning. If they proceeded in this way the traits would remain abstract, lacking just the content and function which makes them living traits. In effect our subjects are in glaring disagreement with the elementaristic thesis which assumes independent traits (or traits connected only in a statistical sense) of constant content. (2) At the same time the procedure of our subjects departs from another customary formulation. It is equally far from the observed facts to describe the process as the forming of a homogeneous, undifferentiated "general impression." The uriity perceived by the observer contains groupings the parts of which are in more intimate connection with each other than they are with parts of other groupings. Discrimination of different aspects of the person and distinctions of a functional order are essential parts of the process. We may even distinguish different degrees of unity in persons. Increasing clearness in understanding another depends on the increased articulation of these distinctions. But in the process these continue to have the properties of parts in a single structure.心理学空间,EV,c!QbabV2l(Sb9{l

心理学空间~8h/^8?)e@-Y

If we may for the purpose of discussion assume that the naive procedure is based on a sound conception of the structure of personality, it would by no means follow that it is therefore free from misconceptions and distortions. But in that case the nature of errors in judgment would have to be understood in a particular way. It would be necessary to derive the errors from characteristics of the organizational processes in judgment. The present investigation is not without some hints for this problem. It points to the danger of forcing the subject to judge artificially isolated traits—a procedure almost universally followed in rating studies—and to the necessity of providing optimal conditions for judging the place and weight of a characteristic within the person (unless of course the judgment of isolated traits is required by the particular problem). Under such conditions we might discover an improvement in the quality of judgment and in agreement between judges. At the same time this investigation contains some suggestions for the study of errors in factors such as oversimplification leading to "too good" an impression, viewing a trait outside its context or in an inappropriate context.心理学空间t[Qd2C ?]1X

心理学空间7S[0l'S0D#k

Discussion III

/]!y.}o2Z:J0心理学空间(|M)C%AU ih0x

Returning to the main theoretical conceptions described earlier it is necessary to mention a variant of Proposition I, which we have failed so far to consider and in relation to which we will be able to state more precisely a central feature of Proposition II. It would be a possible hypothesis that in the course of forming an impression each trait interacts with one or more of the others, and that the total impression is the summation of these effects. The impression would accordingly be derived from the separate interaction of the components, which might be represented as follows:心理学空间*vW4BD%G*c v\zm

心理学空间9B;xO]?(KUK

*v'L6tGKP.I4SA0

"] u"?zp0It is important to note that this formulation is in a fundamental regard different from Proposition II. The latter proposition asserts that each trait is seen to stand in a particular relation to the others as part of a complete view. The entire view possesses the formal properties of a structure, the form of which cannot be derived from the summation of the individual relations. In the same manner that the content of each of a pair of traits can be determined fully only by reference to their mutual relation, so the content of each relation can be determined fully only with reference to the structure of relations of which it is a part. This we may illustrate with the example of a geometrical figure such as a pyramid, each part of which (e.g., the vertex) implicitly refers to the entire figure. We would propose that this is the basis for the discovery of central and peripheral traits and for assertions such as that a given person is "integrated," restricted, etc.心理学空间C} r3L;^t+~Ly

心理学空间jX0_.^VS(B'?

On the other hand, the notion of structure is denied in all propositions of the form I, including Ib. In the latter, an assumption is made concerning the interaction of qualities, which has the effect of altering the character of the elements. Once we have taken account of this change, we have in the final formulation again a sum of (now changed) elements:

5S%n6V S!~+~-A+D0

#rc({!^+S&q _X(J0Ib. Impression = a + b + c + d + e心理学空间J6^Y!Y-jEB

心理学空间#o0S3ke3A-pl

In still another regard there is a difference between Propositions II and Ib. This has to do with the nature of the interaction between the traits. In terms of Proposition II the character of interaction is determined by the particular qualities that enter into the relation (e.g., "warm-witty" or "cold-witty"). It is doubtful however whether a theory which refuses to admit relational processes in the formation of a whole impression would admit the same relational processes in the interaction of one trait with another.心理学空间(]4vX5y6y'q/m7TH2_

'T o%s ["Ye0In view of the fact that Proposition Ib has not, as far as we know, been explicitly formulated with reference to the present problem, it becomes necessary to do so here, and especially to state the process of interaction in such a manner as to be consistent with it. This we might do best by applying certain current conceptions. We could speak of traits as "conditioned verbal reactions," each of which possesses a particular "strength" and range of generalization. Interaction between traits would accordingly be assimilated to the schema of differential conditioning to single stimuli and to stimuli in combination, perhaps after the manner of the recent treatment of "stimulus configurations" by Hull (4,5).心理学空间.H'F-JF1XQ4@P

)^2FM"s}4S4a0How consistent would this interpretation be with the observations we have reported? It seems to us that there are grave difficulties in the way of such an interpretation. In so far as the terms of conditioning are at all intelligible with reference to our problem, the process of interaction can be understood only as a quantitative increase or diminution in a response. This is not, however, the essential characteristic of interaction as we have observed it, which consists in a change of content and function. The gaiety of an intelligent man is not more or less than the gaiety of a stupid man; it is different in quality. Further, the conditioning account seems to contain no principle that would make clear the particular direction interaction takes.心理学空间U\ct4b

心理学空间,{+E8q6IS:mT

Here we may mention a more general point. We have referred earlier to the comparative ease with which complex situations in another person are perceived. If traits were perceived separately, we would expect to encounter the same difficulties in forming a view of a person that we meet in learning a list of unrelated words. That we are able to encompass the entire person in one sweep seems to be due to the structured character of the impression.心理学空间%s9y0E5y,_$al0x6w

心理学空间 qK5Zf5jjb4C7]

In terms of an interaction theory of component elements, the difficulty in surveying a person should be even greater than in the formulation of Proposition I, since the former must deal with the elements of the latter plus a large number of added factors.心理学空间!]XR;M_

(T*O%d!Vp0www.psychspace.com心理学空间网

123456
«阿希的从众实验 Asch's conformity research 41 阿希 | Solomon E .Asch
《41 阿希 | Solomon E .Asch》
没有了»
查看全部回复