Ratings by college Ss of a young, female stimulus person on three status-relevant traits (ambitious, educated, cultured) and three status-non-relevant traits (friendly, moral, lazy) were compared when that person was photographed in a neutral (nature setting) vs a high, medium, or low status background (house type). It was hypothesized that: trait ratings would vary as a function of background across all traits, status-relevant traits would be more sensitive to background effects, and men and women would not differ in their ratings. All hypotheses were confirmed.
References
1.
AndersonN. H.Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 272–279.
2.
AngristS.LeftonM.DinitzS.PasamanickB.Women after treatment. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
3.
DoutyH. I.The influence of clothing on perceptions of persons in single contact situations. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1963, 23, 3882–3883.
4.
GuilfordJ. P.Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
5.
HimmelfarbS.SennD. J.Forming impressions of social class: Two tests of an averaging model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 38–51.
6.
LasswellT. E.Social class and stereotyping. Sociology and Social Research, 1958, 42, 98–108.
7.
LasswellT. E.ParshallP. F.The perception of social class from photographs. Sociology and Social Research, 1961, 45, 407–413.
8.
MaslowA. H.MintzN. L.Effects of aesthetic surroundings: I. Initial short-term effect of three esthetic conditions upon perceiving ‘energy’ and ‘well-being’ in faces. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 41–42, 247–254.
9.
MintzN. L.Effects of aesthetic surroundings: II. Prolonged and repeated experience in a ‘beautiful’ and an ugly' room. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 41, 459–466.
10.
PricerR. D.The effects of contextual variables on client perceptions of the initial counseling session. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, 32, 3013.
11.
RosenkrantzP. S.Relationship of some conditions of presentation and cognitive differentiation to impression formation. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1962, 23, 3528.
12.
RudinS. A.StagnerR.Figure-ground phenomena in the perception of physical and social stimuli. Journal of Psychology, 1958, 45, 213–225.
13.
ScottW. C.The influence of contextual variables on the attractiveness of a stimulus target. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, 5266–5267.
14.
WeyerR. S.Jr.WatsonS. F.Context effects in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 22–33.
15.
WinerB. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
16.
WishnerJ.Reanalysis of “impressions of personality.”Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 96–111.
