Implicit Personality Theory and Social Judgment

This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen] On: 07 December 2013, At: 08:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Multivariate Behavioral Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hmbr20

Implicit Personality Theory and Social Judgment: Effects of Familiarity with a Target Person Roose Vonk & Willem J. Heiser Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Roose Vonk & Willem J. Heiser (1991) Implicit Personality Theory and Social Judgment: Effects of Familiarity with a Target Person, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26:1, 69-81, DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr2601_4 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2601_4

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. 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

Downloaded by [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen] at 08:46 07 December 2013

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Multivariate Behavioral,Research, 26 (I), 69-81 Copyright 0 1991, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Implicit Personality Theory and Social Judgment: Effects of Familiarity with a Target Person Roos Vonk and Willem J. Heiser Downloaded by [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen] at 08:46 07 December 2013

Leiden University (The Netherlands) The hypothesis tested in this study is that judgments of the personality of unfamiliar target persons correspond better with the subject's Implicit Personality Theory (IPT) than judgments of the personality of familiar persons do. Each subject's IPT was individually assessed and represented using multidimensional scaling. Then judgments were obtained about three familiar and three unfamiliar target persons. The correspondence between a subject's IPT and hisher judgments about each target person was measured by fitting these judgments to the subject's IPT structure. This correspondence measure was significantly better for unfamiliar than for familiar targets. This result confirmed the hypothesis.

In the present study two lines of person perception research are connected: research on the structure of Implicit Personality Theory (IPT) and on judgments of specific target persons. The study starts from the assumption that people employ their IPT in making inferences about characteristics of a target person (cf., Hamilton, 1981), but only to the extent that these characteristics are unknown: If they are known, they need not be inferred (cf., Weiss, 1979). For instance, if subjects only know about a person that (s)he is assertive and they are asked to judge this person on the trait intelligence, they will make an inference on the basis of the relation between both traits within their IPT. On the other hand, if subjects also have information about the intelligence of the target person, they need not make such an inference. Whereas in the former case, the relation between the ratings on both traits corresponds with their relation within the IPT of the subject, this need not be so in the latter case: Just as subjects recognize that there are assertive females, thus contradicting their own stereotypic belief about women (Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980), subjects may also acknowledge that some persons are assertive but not intelligent, thus contradicting their IPT (assuming that in general these traits are perceived as co-occurring). This article was written during the first author's stay at Rutgers University, NJ, which was financed by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Leiden University Fund (LUF). We wish to acknowledge the helpful and conscientious comments made by Seymour Rosenberg on previous drafts. Address requests for reprints and correspondence to Roos Vonk, Department of Social Psychology, Nijmegen University, P.O. Box 9104,6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands. JANUARY 1991

69


R. Vonk and W. Heiser

The hypothesis of the present study follows from this line of reasoning. Because people have more information about familiar persons than about unfamiliarpersons, we hypothesize that the pattern of co-occurrencesin judgments of familiar persons will deviate more from the co-occurrences that would be expected on the basis of their IPT than the pattern of co-occurrences in judgments of unfamiliar persons.' Two kinds of studies can be distinguished on the nature of judgments about familiar and unfamiliar persons. In one kind (e.g., Koltuv, 1962; Passini & Norman, 1966; Wiggins & Blackburn, 1976), the correlational structure of judgments about familiar persons is compared with that about unfamiliar persons. For example, Koltuv calculated the intercorrelations among traits separately across a set of familiar and a set of unfamiliar targets and found that these intercorrelations were larger in judgments of unfamiliar persons than in judgments of familiar persons. She concluded that "when little information is available, the trait expectancies that the perceiver brings to the perceptual situation are manifested with greater intensity" (pp.19-20). However, the "trait expectancies" themselves (i.e., the IPT of the subjects) were not assessed, thus leaving this explanation untested. In the second kind of study, the correlational structures of judgments about familiar and unfamiliar persons are both compared with an independently assessed IPT structure. For example, Gara and Rosenberg (1981) examined the hypothesis that "the structure of traits based on descriptions of non-intimate persons will correspond more closely to the structure of traits based on similarity judgments than the structure of traits based on descriptions of intimate persons7' (p.452). In their study, the structure of traits based on similarity judgments can be considered as a representation of the subjects' IPT. Because the correlation (r = 3 4 ) between these similarity judgments and the judgments about unfamiliar persons was higher than the correlation (r = .73) between the similarityjudgments and judgments about familiar persons, the authors conclude that "subjects rely less on a shared trait structure when they describe intimate people than when they describe non-intimates" (p. 456). The word "shared" in this conclusion indicates its scope: Because analyses were performed across subjects, conclusions are limited to the shared aspects in the structures of different subjects. As Rosenberg himself (1977; Kim & Rosenberg, 1980) has demonstrated, there may be An assumption underlying this hypothesis is that co-occurrencesin realpersons do in fact deviate from relations within IPT. Obviously, they only do so to some extent, because perceptual schemata such as IPT are developedby experienceand would be of no use if they did not have any correspondencewith reality. However, if such theories were just as complicated and differentiated as reality, they would not be functional either. Therefore, we assume that the structure of interrelations between traits within IPT is more simple and more uniform than the structure of co-occurrences in reality. 70

MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH



considerable differences between the IPT's of individual subjects (cf., Vonk, 1990). Therefore, in order to examine to what extent subjects rely on their IPT in judging other persons, in the present study this IPT will be assessed not only independently of the target person judgments, but also individually. Our second objection to the Gara and Rosenberg (1981) study as well as to the other studies in this area, is that in order to obtain astructure of trait judgments about familiar and unfamiliar persons, judgments about different target persons within the same familiarity class are collapsed. This is necessary if one wants to compute correlations between traits, because they inevitably are computed across some unit of measurement, which can be either at the subject level, the target person level (as in the Koltuv, 1962, study), or both (as in the Gara and Rosenberg study, whereas the three-way principal components analysis performed by Wiggins and Blackburn, 1976, alternates between these different levels of aggregation). However, although it has been recognized that "trait intercorrelations which are derived nomothetically (i.e., by aggregation across subjects) may be vitiated by competing tendencies resulting from individual differences" (Koltuv, 1962, p. 17), it has not been acknowledged that, consequently, competing tendencies resulting from perceived differences among target persons may have the same distorting effect on the magnitude of correlations computed across targetpersons. For instance, if some target persons are judged as both assertive and intelligent (thus producing a positive correlation), whereas others are judged as intelligent but not assertive (or vice versa) by the same subject (producing a negative correlation), the final correlation between these two traits computed across all target persons would be unduly low. Such an effect is one plausible specification of the lower intensity with which trait expectancies were manifested in judgments about familiar persons, as reported by Koltuv. In fact, in testing the hypothesis that subjects employ their IPT to a lesser extent in judging familiarpersons, we believe we should not attempt to establish a structure of thesejudgments at all. Assuming that subjectshave awell-developed, differentiated impressionof each familiarperson (cf., Gara, 1990;Rosenberg, 1988), there does not seem to be any point in reducing these separateimpressionsto one common structure, thus destroying precisely the distinctionswhich make these impressionsunique and different from the subject's general IPT. Therefore, in the present study, the co-occurrences in thejudgments about each target person will be independentlyand separately comparedwith the relations within the subject's IPT. Admittedly,the final measures we obtain for each subject with respect to each target person will be aggregated in order to statisticallytest the hypothesis. However, in this final analysis we will be analyzing a dependent variable that has more psychological significance than a correlation triangle derived from a set of subjects and/or targets, because our measure represents the relation of an individual target person as perceived by an individual subject to this same subject's IPT structure. JANUARY 1991

71


Thus, themethodology of the present study makes it different fiom preceding studies in that it treats subjects as well as target persons at the individual level up to the final test of the hypothesis. Moreover, the individual analyses in this study allowed us to let subjects use their own personally relevant attributes rather than adjectives provided by the experimenter as in most other studies. The technical tools needed for testing our hypothesis on these individual data will be described in the Method section. Downloaded by [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen] at 08:46 07 December 2013

Method Subjects

Subjects were recruited by means of a letter to a random sample of 125 inhabitants of Leiden (the Netherlands), listed in the telephone directory. In this letter they were asked to participate in a study on their ideas and impressions of other people, and informed that their participation would require several visits to the Psychology Department, for which they would be paid afterwards. Forty persons replied to the request by returning the application form. Twenty-five of the 40 persons were selected so as to maximize variation on gender, age, and professional level. Three of these 25 did not finish the investigation due to illness or personal circumstances. The remaining final sample consisted of 11men and 11 women, ranging in age from 22 to 69 (mean of 40), with varying educational levels (from elementary school to university) and professions (e.g., homemaker, mechanic, secretary, teacher). Overview

Altogether, there were four experimental s e s s i ~ n s Each . ~ of these sessions was conducted individually with each subject. The purpose of Sessions 1 to 3 was to obtain a stable representation of the individual subject's IPT structure. The method for accomplishing this is reported in detail elsewhere (Vonk, 1990) and consists of three steps. At Session 1, the subject's personally relevant attributes were elicited by means of a modified Personal Construct Repertory Test (Reptest; Kelly, 1955). Seventeen subjects were given an impression formation task between the second and third session. The experimental stimulus material presented in this task did not elicit enough variation in familiarity with the target persons to warrant a test of our hypothesis (see Vonk & Heiser, 1988). Therefore, this part of the study is not described in this article. The analyses of the present study were performed separately for these 17 subjects and the other 5 who did not participate in the additional task. Because there are no differences between these two groups in any of the results, the results that are reported in this article apply to both groups. 72




At Session 2, the perceived interrelations between the obtained attributes were assessed, by means of a direct and asymmetric assessment of the perceived similarity between each pair of attributes. The time lapse between Session 1and Session 2 was two or three days. In order to examine the stability of the similarity judgments obtained at Session 2, this assessment was repeated at Session 3, three weeks later. The third step in the reconstruction of the subject's IPT is the multidimensional scaling (MDS) of a square k x kmatrix (in which k is the number of attributes) containing the obtained similarity judgments (see Kruskal, 1964; Kruskal & Wish, 1978). At Session 4, which was conducted eight to ten weeks after Session 3, the subject's judgments of three familiar and three unfamiliar target persons were obtained. Instruments Assessment of individual IPT's At the first session a modified Reptest was administered to each subject, in order to obtain 15 to 20 attributes the subject employs in perceiving and judging other persons. The sample of Role Titles (most of which were extracted from Kelly, 1955)presented to the subject consisted of descriptions of close intimates (e.g., self, mother, best friend), as well as less familiar persons (e.g., neighbor, the most successful person you know, someone you would like to know better), in order to elicit attributes that would be relevant to familiar as well as unfamiliar persons. After the subject had filled out the 21 names corresponding with the Role Titles, the investigator successively presented 30 pairs of target persons, constituting a systematic sample of the possible combinations between and within the familiarity categories of the Role Figures. For each target pair, the subject was asked to name one or more features the two had in common. The attributes named by the subject were recorded by the investigator. The investigator stopped presenting new pairs, as soon as (a) all 30 pairs had been presented, @) the subject had repeated preceding attributes for 5 trials without mentioning any new attribute in between, or (c) 20 different attributes had been obtained. An attribute was included only if it lent itself to a rating on a multi-point scale; attributes which can only be rated dichotomously (e.g., "is a woman", "lives in my neighborhood7') were not used. At the second session, the obtained attributes (each typed out onto a separate card) were presented one at a time in alphabetic order. With each attribute, the subject was asked to keep an image in mind about people in general who could be characterized by this attribute, and to rate the other attribute cards on a 6-point JANUARY 1991

73



scale ranging from this attribute fits such persons very well (rating of 1) to this attribute does notfit suchpersons at all (rating of 6). There was a separate don't know category. This rating was repeated k times, so that all of the attributes operated once as a stimulus attribute for rating the remaining k - 1attributes. The investigator recorded the ratings into a k x k matrix. In order to examine the test-retest reliability of these ratings, the same procedure was repeated after three weeks. Thus, for each subject two matrices containing dissimilarity judgments about his or her personally relevant attributes were obtained. The final step in the method of IPT assessment involves the MDS of the obtained matrices and will be described in a sub-section Data Analysis. Judgments about Target Persons

Subjects chose three unfamiliar and three familiar persons from their everyday lives. For unfamiliar targets, they were asked to choose: A neighbor whom you do not know well; a colleague whom you do not know well; a person whom you sometimes meet in your leisure time (e.g., at a party or a club) and whom you do not know well. For familiar targets, they were asked to use the following descriptions: Your present partnerlspouse or a former partnerlspouse; your best friend (of your own sex); and your brother or sister who you know best of your siblings. The names of these target persons were written down by the subject in the columns of a grid that already contained in the rows the subject's personal attributes elicited at the first session. The 6-point measurement scale that had been used for the similarity ratings of the attributes was placed in front of the subject, because it contained the wording of the scale points, ranging from the attribute fits this person very well to the attribute does not fit this person at all. The subject was instructed to fill the grid column-wise, by assigning numbers from 1 to 6 to each combination of an attribute with a target person. Data Analysis

In this sub-section, we will describe techniques of analysis that were applied prior to the critical analysis for a test of our hypothesis. Also, we will outline the basic principles of the technique by which the dependent variable in the final analysis was constructed. As was already mentioned, two dissimilarity matrices were obtained for each subject. Initially, they were analyzed separately so that for each subject two MDS configurations were obtained. The program used was SMACOF-1B (Stoop & De Leeuw, 1982)because it allows for missing values and asymmetry 74




in the data. The options chosen were conditional and nonmetric scaling, minimizing Kruskal (1964) stress formula 1. Out of the two configurations obtained for each subject, one centroid configuration wascomputed aftermoving(i.e., allowingrotation, reflection, and translation of the origin) the two initial configurations into closest conformity by means of a Procrustes analysis (Gower, 1975; ten Berge, 1977), thus obtaining a configuration representing their optimal a ~ e r a g e . ~ Detailed information on the dimensional contents of the obtained configurations is reported elsewhere (Vonk, 1990). For the present purposes, it suffices to state that the dissimilarity data of all subjects could be represented adequately in two spatial dimensions (the stress values ranged from .O1 to .15, with a mean of .08), and that the correspondence between the first and second configuration of each subject was satisfactory (the mean fit value of the centroid configurations was .94; in the present case, this fit value represents the correlation between either one of the two original configurations and the centroid configuration). These results warrant the computation of one centroid configuration for each subject. This final individual centroid IPT configuration can be considered as a stable spatial representation of the subject's IPT. This representation is strictly individual, because it contains different relations as well as different attributes for each subject. The obtained individual IPT configurations were involved in subsequent analyses on the ratings of the target persons. In order to establish the correspondence between the co-occurrences in these ratings and the co-occurrences that would be expected on the basis of the subject's IPT, a computer program was developed that determines the position and fit of each target person within an IPT configuration, by externally unfolding the subject's ratings of the target person (see Heiser, 1987; Heiser & Vonk, 1990). In this technique, the IPT configuration is taken as fixed, which is in accordance with the assumption that it represents a general and stable cognitive structure. Thus, the positioning of a target person into this structure of attributes does not affect the relative positions of the attributes themselves. It does not affect the positions of the other target persons either, because each target person is positioned independently of the others. This is done on the basis of the subject's ratings of the target person: A target person is plotted into the IPT configuration in such a way that the point representing this person has small distances to attributes that are highly applicable to this person, and large distances to attributes that are not applicable to this person at all, according to the subject's judgments. Thus, the We wish to acknowledge the help of Jacques Commandeur in making available his MATCHALS (Commandeur, 1991) program for performing these analyses. JANUARY 1991



target person is pulled towards some attributes and pushed away from other attributes in the multidimensional space. The result of this procedure is called the idealpoint of the target p e r ~ o n . ~ Figure 1illustrates the result of the technique. It shows the IPTconfiguration of a subject, into which the ideal points of the six target persons have been plotted. As can be seen in this figure, the overall impression the subject has of these persons can easily be inferred from their ideal points. For instance, the partner as well as the best friend of this subject are perceived as socially positive, the brother as intellectually positive, whereas this subject has a rather negative view of his neighbor. More important in this study, however, is that each ideal point representing a target person has a badness-of-fit value, which indicates the correspondence between the distances of the ideal point to the attributes in the configuration and the ratings in the subject's data. The badness-of-fitvalue actually used, sometimes called Work after McGee (1966), measures the deviation of the ratio of distance to dissimilarity from one, according to the formula

= $ [ l - dj(Xi)/aij] 2, Work (Xi) where dj(Xi) is the Euclidean distance of ideal point i with respect to attribute pointj, and a,, is the rescaled perceived dissimilarity of target person i with respect to attribute j. Rescaling of the perceived dissimilarities is performed by means of an optimal scale factor computed so as to match the distance and the dissimilarity scales. Compared to the more usual badness-of-fit function called Stress (Kruskal, 1964), Work puts more emphasis on getting the small distances right (cf., Greenacre & Underhill, 1982). Hence, positioning a target person close to attributes that are highly applicable to this person is more important than positioning the person far apart from attributes that are not applicable (i.e., the pulling is stronger than the pushing), which may prevent ideal points from ending up far away from the entire configuration of attribute points. A simple example will illustrate the psychological meaning of this badness-of-fit. Let us assume that in the IPT configuration of a subject, the attributes assertive and intelligent have a small distance to each other (i.e., they tend to co-occur according to the subject's similarity judgments), whereas both these attributes have a large distance to the attribute helpful. Let us also assume In this respect, the output of the program that was developed is similar to the output of the ideal point model in preference mapping (Carroll, 1972; Heiser & De Leeuw, 1981). However, whereas Carroll's model of preference mapping involves a multiple regression analysis which may cause theemergenceof so-called anti ideal points(and thus give rise to interpretiveproblems), the present model is based on the direct optimization of a loss function (cf., Heiser, 1987) and thereby circumvents this problem. MULTIVARIATE BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH


a vain a self-willed inconsiderate stubborn


+ Neighbor quiet, calm

a confident @determined

courts popularity

lively, fidgety ambitious

young, immature

@intelligent

* *

pays attention, a enthusiastic good listener leisure time Colleague + ~ c~uaintance someone you can talk with Best friend sociable cheerful

chatterbox

*

helpful *Partner

Figure 1 Two-dimensional MDS configuration of perceived relations among the personal attributes (represented by circles) of a 26 year old male administrator, with ideal points of three familiar and three unfamiliar persons (represented by stars). (Note: Points which are denoted by more than one word represent one attribute the subject described in these words.)

that this subject has rated several target persons on these three traits. A target person judged as both highly assertive and intelligent but not very helpful, or a target judged as very helpful but not intelligent or assertive can be fitted into the subject's IPT very well. On the other hand, a target judged as highly intelligent but not assertive at all does not fit well into the IPT structure in which intelligent and assertive are close together, because the ideal point would have to be close to intelligent but not to assertive. The result will be a compromise between both requirements, and the badness-of-fit value of this target will be higher than that JANUARY 1991

77



of the others. This badness-of-fit value would be even higher if the target person was also judged as highly helpful: Because helpful and intelligent have a large distance to each other in the IPT configuration, the ideal point cannot have a small distance to both these attributes. As this simplified example illustrates: The lower the badness-of-fit value of an ideal point, the higher the correspondence between the co-occurrences in the ratings of a target person and the co-occurrences that would be expected from the subject's IPT configuration. Results and Discussion In order to test our hypothesis, the badness-of-fit value of each target person was computed for each subject, thus representing the correspondence between the subject's judgments about the target and this subject's IPT configuration. Table 1presents these badness-of-fit values averaged across subjects. (Note that all of the means, across subjects as well as target persons, were computed only after the analysis of the structure of similarity judgments and co-occurrences in the target person judgments.) These values operated as the dependent variables in a Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), which confirmed the hypothesis: The mean badness-of-fit values of the familiar persons (M = 1.42 across the three familiar persons) were significantly higher than those of the unfamiliar persons (M = 1.26);F(3,19) = 4 . 1 8 , ~= .02, q2(effect size estimate) = .40. This indicates that the judgments of the familiar persons did not fit the IPT of thesubjects as well as theirjudgments of the unfamiliar persons did. However, it can also be seen from Table 1 that the mean badness-of-fit value of "best friend" is not impressively higher than the values of the unfamiliar persons. That is, the significantly higher badness-of-fit mean of the familiar persons is produced by "sibling" and "partner/spouse". In this study, the hypothesis that judgments about unfamiliar persons correspond better with the subject's IPT than judgments about familiar persons, was confirmed using a method which is superior to methods used in previous research in several respects. First, a completely individual representation of each subject's IPT was obtained, independent of the social judgment data. Moreover, the stability of these representations was demonstrated. Second, each subject's judgments about the target persons were given on attribute scales that were personally relevant to the subject. Third, judgments about the three target persons within the same familiarity class were not collapsed, but independently fitted into the subject's IPTrepresentation, which is the only way of doing justice to the uniqueness and complexity of the perceived pattern of co-occurrences in a familiar person. Last but not least, this study employed a sample of "ordinary people" rather than college students. 78



Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations of Badness-of-fit Values of Three Unfamiliar and Three Familiar Target Persons fN = 221


colleague leisure time acquaintance neighbor Mean unfamiliar persons best friend partnerlspouse sibling Mean familiar persons

The fact that our results are in accordance with results obtained in preceding studies, should certainly not be taken as evidence that the methodology employed in our study really makes no difference compared to a less time consuming one. A clarifying statement on this issue was recently made by Rosenberg (1989): The goal of psychology is an understanding of the individual human behaving, and within personality, nomothetic principles must be systematically integrated into the analysis of an individual personality to be of service to this goal. A sharable methodology capable of yielding an idiographic picture of personality would seem to be an important component in such an integration. The present study presents a generally applicable methodology able to achieve this goal in the field of person perception, particularly in connection to research on social judgment and impression formation. Although we only needed the badness-of-fit values to test the hypothesis of this study, an ideal point comprises more than this, because its coordinate values represent the overall impression the subject has indicated of a target person. In general, the basic methodological tools employed in this study enable an examination of developments or differences in the position and/or badness-of-fit of ideal points representing target persons under different experimental conditions.

JANUARY 1991



References Carroll, J. D. (1972). Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, & S. B. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences (vol. 1: Theory; pp.105-155). New York: Seminar Press. Commoander, J. (1991). Matching Configurations. Leiden: DWSO Press. Gara, M. A. (1990). Aset-theoretical model of person perception. MultivariateBehavioralResearch, 25,275-293. Gara, M. A., & Rosenberg, S. (1981). Linguistic factors in implicit personality theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41,450-457. Gower, J. C. (1975). Generalised procrustes analysis. Psychometrika, 40,33-51. Greenacre, M. J., & Underhill, L. G. (1982). Scaling a data matrix in a low-dimensional Euclidean space. In D. M. Hawkins (Ed.), Topics in Applied Multivariate Analysis @p. 183-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Cognitive representations of persons. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (vol. 1, pp.135-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Heiser, W. J. (1987). Joint ordination of species and sites: The unfolding technique. In P. Legendre, & L. Legendre (Eds.), Developments in NumericalEcology(pp.189-221). Berlin: Springer Verlag. Heiser, W. J., & De Leeuw, J. (1981). Multidimensional mapping of preference data. Mathimatique et Sciences Humaines, 19,39-96. Heiser, W. J., & Vonk, R. (1990). Elasticerternalunfolding.Leiden: Internal Report, Department of Datatheory. Kelly, G. A. (1955). Thepsychology ofpersonal constructs (vol.1). New York: Norton & Company. Kim, M. P., & Rosenberg, S. (1980). Comparison of two structural models of implicit personality theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 375-389. Koltuv, B. B. (1962). Some characteristics of intrajudge trait intercorrelations. Psychological Monographs, 76 (Whole no. 552). Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27. Kruskal, J. B., &Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensionalscaling. Murray Hill, NJ: Sage Publications. Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,821-831. McGee, V. E. (1966). The multidimensional scaling of "elastic" distances. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19, 181-196. Passini, F. T., & Norman, W. T. (1966). A universal conception of personality structure? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,44-49. Rosenberg, S. (1977). New approaches to the analysis of personal constructs in person perception. In J. K. Cole, & A. W. Landfield (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 179-242). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. 80



R. Vonk and W. Heiser Rosenberg, S. (1988). Self and others: Studies in social personality and autobiography. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vo1.21). New York: Academic Press. Rosenberg, S. (1989). A study of personality in literary autobiography: An analysis of Thomas Wolfe's Look Homeward, Angel. JournalofPersonality andSocialPsychology,56,416-430. Stoop, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1982). How to use SMACOF-If?. Leiden: Department of Datatheory. ten Berge, J. M. F. (1977). Orthogonal procrustes rotation for two or more matrices.Psychometrika, 42, 267-276. Vonk, R. (1990).A multidimensional study of implicit personality theory, person judgments and impression formation. Leiden: unpublished dissertation - Leiden University, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden. Vonk, R., & Heiser, W. J. (1990). Effects of familiarity and familiaruation on social judgment. Unpublished manuscript, Leiden University, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, Leiden. Weiss, D. S. (1979). The effects of systematic variations in information on judges' descriptions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,2121-2136. Wiggins, N. H., & Blackburn, M. C. (1976). Implicit theories of personality: An individual differences approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 11,267-285.

JANUARY 1991