Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of response delay on automatizing self-reports Stoffer, Elaine Susan 1992

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_fall_stoffer_elaine_susan.pdf [ 1.28MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098946.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098946-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098946-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098946-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098946-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098946-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098946-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098946-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098946.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF RESPONSE DELAY ON AUTOMATIZING SELF-REPORTS by ELAINE SUSAN STOFFER B.A., York University, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Psychology  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1992 <c> Elaine Susan S t o f f e r , 1992  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  thesis  in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  of  department  this or  publication of  thesis for by  his  or  her  that the  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  It  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written  The University of Vancouver, Canada  DE-6 (2/88)  representatives.  requirements  agree that permission for extensive  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Date  the  p ç f . 7,  /qqff,  ii Abstract The  development of a u t o m a t i c s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n  examined t h r o u g h s t u d y i n g t h e e f f e c t s of  was  practicing  a r b i t r a r y s e l f - r e p o r t s on subsequent honest s e l f - r e p o r t s . In a r e p l i c a t i o n o f P a u l h u s , Bruce and subjects practiced strategies  s e l f - r e p o r t s under one  ( f a k e good, f a k e bad,  h i g h l e v e l s of speed and  of three  faking  h o n e s t ) u n t i l t h e y reached  accuracy.  t o respond h o n e s t l y under two speed, and  McKay (1990),  S u b j e c t s were t h e n asked  t e s t modes: (1) emphasize  (2) emphasize a c c u r a c y .  R e s u l t s r e p l i c a t e d the p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s :  Speed  i n s t r u c t i o n s y i e l d e d more c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s t h a n d i d accuracy i n s t r u c t i o n s .  As b e f o r e , even the  accuracy  i n s t r u c t i o n s g e n e r a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of errors  i n t h e fake-good c o n d i t i o n .  There was  carry-over also  a  "rebound e f f e c t " f o r f a k e - b a d s u b j e c t s :  That i s , p r a c t i c i n g  n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e s tended t o reduce the  subsequent  p r o b a b i l i t y of c l a i m i n g  them on the  post-test.  T h i s s t u d y a l s o extended Paulhus e t a l . by t e s t i n g d u r a t i o n o f the c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t s . between p r a c t i c e and  t e s t i n g was  m i n u t e s , 25 m i n u t e s ) .  A u t o m a t i c and discussed.  varied  delay  (no d e l a y ,  10  R e s u l t s showed no d i f f e r e n c e s  the t h r e e d e l a y c o n d i t i o n s , endures o v e r t i m e .  To do so, the  The  Controlled  i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the  implications  the  among  effect  of these f i n d i n g s  Self-presentation  theory  are  for  iii T a b l e o f Contents Abstract L i s t of Tables L i s t of Figures Acknowledgements Introduction  i i v vi v i i 1  ACSP t h e o r y  1  Relèvent Research  2  C u r r e n t Research Program  3  Self-concept m a l l e a b i l i t y  5  Implications  6  Duration of e f f e c t  6  Hypotheses  7  Hypothes i s 1  7  Hypothesis 2  8  Hypothesis 3  8  Hypothesis 4  8  Hypothe s i s 5  8  Hypothesis 6  8  Hypothesis 7  8  Method  9  Subjects  9  Design and Overview  10  Apparatus  11  Materials  11  Trait adjectives  11  Adjective checklists  12  iv Music r a t i n g forms  13  Procedure  14  Results  17  M a n i p u l a t i o n Check  17  L e a r n i n g Curves  17  E r r o r Rates  18  Practice-consistent  errors  Practice-inconsistent errors Discussion  19 21 23  Positive-Negative  Assymetry  25  C a r r y - o v e r t o Honest S e l f : I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n  26  D u r a t i o n of C a r r y - o v e r  26  Rebound E f f e c t  27  Future D i r e c t i o n s  28  T e s t i n g the l i m i t s  28  Other improvements  30  The  30  f i n a l goal  Footnotes  32  References  33  Figure Captions  44  Appendices  49  V  L i s t of Tables 1. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on E r r o r R a t e s  39  2. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - C o n s i s t e n t E r r o r Rates  40  3. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s . . . . 4 1 4. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s : D i s c l a i m i n g Negative f o r Honest and Fake-Bad S t r a t e g i e s  42  5. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s : Disclaiming Positive for Honest and Fake-Good S t r a t e g i e s  43  vi L i s t of 1. L e a r n i n g Curves By  Figures  Strategy  (Honest, Fake Good and  Fake Bad)  45  2. P r a c t i c e - C o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s  46  3. P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s  47  4. P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s : Honest S t r a t e g y D i v i d e d  into  P o s i t i v e and N e g a t i v e D i s c l a i m i n g  48  vii Acknowledgements T h i s endeavor would n o t have been p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t t h e immeasurable s u p p o r t I r e c e i v e d from a number o f people on a v a r i e t y of f r o n t s . Paulhus.  I ' d f i r s t l i k e t o thank my a d v i s o r , D e l  He g u i d e d my r e a s o n i n g from i d e a l i s t i c s p e c u l a t i o n  t o c o n c r e t e , t e s t a b l e t h e o r i e s , as w e l l as b e i n g t h e r e f o r me when i t r e a l l y  counted.  The i n s i g h t f u l comments from my o t h e r committee members, D a r r i n Lehman and Dan Perlman, were much a p p r e c i a t e d . I'd a l s o l i k e t o thank Nadine B r u c e , Steve Moon, L o r a l i e E r i c k s o n , G i n a K e l l y , J e n n i f e r P h i l l i p s , and K e l l y  Stenson  for t h e i r a i d i n t h i s research. On a p e r s o n a l n o t e , t h e r e a r e a number o f people a t UBC who p r o v i d e d i n v a l u a b l e s u p p o r t : t o p p i n g t h e l i s t ,  however  a r e K r i s t a T r o b s t , D a v i d Mandel, and P a u l T r a p n e l l . F i n a l l y , I'd l i k e t o thank t h r e e p e o p l e who have a t many t i m e s had more f a i t h i n me than I have m y s e l f . Ted W r i g h t , K i r k McKay, and Helmut S t o f f e r .  Thank you  1  The E f f e c t s o f Response Delay on A u t o m a t i z i n g S e l f - R e p o r t s  A major f o c u s o f t h e o r y and r e s e a r c h w i t h i n the f i e l d o f s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n has been on d e t e r m i n i n g how  people  attempt  t o c o n t r o l t h e i m p r e s s i o n s o t h e r p e o p l e form of them.  This  t o p i c i s o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o as s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n (SP) o r i m p r e s s i o n management ( e . g . , Jones 1964; S c h l e n k e r , 1985).  Tedeschi,  1981;  An i m p o r t a n t advance i n t h i s area  has  been t h e d i s c o v e r y t h a t SP p r o c e s s e s a r e not always as d e l i b e r a t e o r managed as t r a d i t i o n a l f o r m u l a t i o n s have assumed.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t now  p o s i t i v i s t i c s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s may  appears t h a t r e s u l t from a s e l f -  d e c e p t i v e b i a s ( P a u l h u s , 1984), h a b i t u a l r o l e ( S c h l e n k e r , 1985), o r r e f l e x i v e responses  responses  (Greenberg  &  P y s z c z y n s k i , 1985). ACSP Theory S t i m u l a t e d by t h e s e advances, Paulhus  ( i n press)  has  proposed an a t t e n t i o n a l model o f s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n , Automatic  and C o n t r o l l e d S e l f - P r e s e n t a t i o n (ACSP) t h e o r y : I t  i n v o l v e s what c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s r e f e r t o as  automatic  and c o n t r o l l e d p r o c e s s e s  Posner &  Snyder, 1975;  (Logan,  1978,  1980,  S h i f f r i n & S c h n e i d e r , 1977).  1989;  Automatic  p r o c e s s e s a r e w e l l - p r a c t i c e d forms t h a t o p e r a t e a t t e n t i o n a l resources.  without  C o n t r o l l e d processes are s t r a t e g i c ,  d e l i b e r a t e mechanisms t h a t r e q u i r e a t t e n t i o n t o  proceed.  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e ACSP t h e o r y , t h e r e i s a dynamic i n t e r p l a y  2  between a u t o m a t i c and c o n t r o l l e d a s p e c t s o f s e l f presentation.  Sometimes s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d : I t  i n v o l v e s d e l i b e r a t e and t a i l o r e d s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s .  At  o t h e r t i m e s , when i n s u f f i c i e n t a t t e n t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e , p r e s e n t a t i o n moves t o an a u t o m a t i c l e v e l .  Here,  self-  self-  d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h o u t t h o u g h t o r memory s e a r c h . A c c o r d i n g t o ACSP t h e o r y , a u t o m a t i c a l l y - g e n e r a t e d  self-  d e s c r i p t i o n s a r e h i g h l y p r a c t i c e d from y e a r s o f r e p e t i t i o n . They a l s o t e n d t o be p o s i t i v e i n n a t u r e , presumably because we a r e encouraged from c h i l d h o o d , and t h r o u g h a d u l t h o o d , t o say p o s i t i v e t h i n g s about o u r s e l v e s ( H e i l b r u n , 1964).  This  p o s i t i v i t y b i a s may a l s o r e s u l t from t h e f a c t t h a t p e o p l e r a r e l y r e c e i v e n e g a t i v e feedback from t h e i r p e e r s ( T e s s e r & Rosen, 1975). R e l e v a n t Research The f i r s t s t u d i e s t o t e s t a s p e c t s o f t h e ACSP model were a s e r i e s o f d u a l - t a s k e x p e r i m e n t s conducted by Paulhus and his associates.  I n 1987, Paulhus and L e v i t t a s s e s s e d t h e  e f f e c t s o f d i s t r a c t i o n on s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n by a s k i n g s u b j e c t s t o make s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e judgements w h i l e b e i n g exposed t o a f f e c t - l a d e n s t i m u l i .  More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,  s u b j e c t s were asked t o respond "me" o r "not me" t o t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s p r e s e n t e d on a microcomputer.  W h i l e each t r a i t  a d j e c t i v e was p r e s e n t e d , e i t h e r an innocuous o r an a f f e c t l a d e n d i s t r a c t o r word appeared nearby.  R e s u l t s showed t h a t  endorsements o f p o s i t i v e t r a i t s were i n c r e a s e d by t h e affect-laden distractors.  I t may be t h a t a f f e c t - l a d e n  3  d i s t r a c t o r s "grabbed" a t t e n t i o n , f o r c i n g s u b j e c t s t o p e r f o r m t h e t r a i t - r a t i n g t a s k i n a u t o m a t i c mode. explanation i s also plausible.  An a r o u s a l  That i s , i t may be t h a t  affect-laden distractors trigger a f a s t - r i s i n g arousal that i n c r e a s e s dominant ( i . e . , p o s i t i v e ) r e s p o n d i n g . To d i s t i n g u i s h between a t t e n t i o n a l and a r o u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , P a u l h u s , G r a f and Van S e l s t (1989) conducted a c o n c e p t u a l r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Paulhus and L e v i t t s t u d y . T h i s experiment employed a d i g i t c o u n t i n g t a s k t o p r o v i d e an affect-free attentional manipulation.  The r e s u l t s d i r e c t l y  p a r a l l e l e d t h o s e o f Paulhus and L e v i t t (1987).  They  t h e r e f o r e p r o v i d e s t r o n g s u p p o r t f o r an a t t e n t i o n a l explanation of the f i n d i n g s of both s t u d i e s . C u r r e n t Research Program A n o t h e r assumption o f t h e ACSP model i s t h a t p o s i t i v i s t i c s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s become a u t o m a t i z e d o v e r a l i f e t i m e o f practice.  The a f o r e m e n t i o n e d r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s , however,  p r o v i d e o n l y i n d i r e c t s u p p o r t f o r t h i s assumption i n t h a t t h e y m e r e l y demonstrate t h e e x i s t e n c e o f p o s i t i v e a u t o m a t i c self-presentation.  P a u l h u s , Bruce and S t o f f e r (1990), (see  a l s o S t o f f e r , Paulhus & B r u c e , 1990) t h e r e f o r e argued  that  t h e development o f a u t o m a t i c s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s h o u l d be examined under c o n t r o l l e d c o n d i t i o n s .  They noted t h a t  t h r o u g h r e p e a t e d e x p r e s s i o n , o t h e r c o g n i t i o n s such as person c a t e g o r i z a t i o n ( e . g . , Smith & L e r n e r , 1986) and p o l i t i c a l a t t i t u d e s ( F a z i o , Sanbonmatsu, P o w e l l , & Kardes, 1986) have been g r a d u a l l y a u t o m a t i z e d i n t h e l a b o r a t o r y .  Accordingly,  4  Paulhus e t a l . (1990) d e c i d e d t o use s i m i l a r p r o c e d u r e s i n an attempt t o a u t o m a t i z e v a r i o u s a r b i t r a r y s e l f - c o n c e p t s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e f o l l o w i n g procedure was employed i n two s t u d i e s .  S u b j e c t s were f i r s t asked t o p r o v i d e honest  responses on a c h e c k l i s t a s k i n g whether o r n o t each o f a s e r i e s o f t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s was s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e . then asked t o p r a c t i c e r e s p o n d i n g  They were  t o t h e same t r a i t s on a  microcomputer u s i n g e i t h e r f a k i n g good, f a k i n g bad responses,  o r , honest s t r a t e g i e s .  S i n c e i t has been found  t h a t automatism can be a c h i e v e d w i t h i n o n l y a few t r i a l s (Smith & L e r n e r , 1986), t h e number o f p r a c t i c e t r i a l s was l i m i t e d t o t e n . Afterwards,  s u b j e c t s were asked t o "respond  h o n e s t l y " on b o t h speed and a c c u r a c y  tests.  These t e s t s  p e r m i t t e d an e v a l u a t i o n o f p o s s i b l e " c a r r y - o v e r " e f f e c t s from t h e p r a c t i c e . The speed t e s t ("Respond as q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e . " ) was given f i r s t .  A c c o r d i n g t o ACSP t h e o r y , s u b j e c t s  s h i f t t o the automatic  mode o f r e s p o n d i n g  attentional-load condition.  should  under such an  Consistent with t h i s  reasoning,  r e s u l t s showed t h a t a s u b s t a n t i a l number o f c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s were o b t a i n e d i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e p r a c t i c e t r i a l s d u r i n g t h e speed t e s t as compared w i t h t h e a c c u r a c y  test.  However, unexpected f i n d i n g s were a l s o o b t a i n e d . The c a r r y - o v e r f o r f a k i n g good was found t o be g r e a t e r t h a n f o r f a k i n g bad.  I t appears t h a t p o s i t i v e t r a i t s a r e  more r e a d i l y a u t o m a t i z e d  than negative t r a i t s .  In f a c t ,  s u b j e c t s i n t h e f a k e bad c o n d i t i o n were l a t e r found t o  5  d i s c l a i m many o f t h e n e g a t i v e t r a i t s t h a t t h e y had originally  claimed.  A l s o s u r p r i s i n g was t h e f i n d i n g t h a t c a r r y - o v e r  errors  o c c u r r e d even when s u b j e c t s were s u b s e q u e n t l y asked t o r e p o r t t h e i r honest t r a i t s w i t h an emphasis on a c c u r a c y .  We  had no r e a s o n t o a n t i c i p a t e t h a t p r a c t i c e would a l t e r t h e honest s e l f , d e f i n e d here as t h e d e l i b e r a t e , c o n s i d e r e d assessment o f t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t g i v e n under honest instructions. Self-concept m a l l e a b i l i t y .  In retrospect, i t i s possible  t h a t t h e honest s e l f i s more m a l l e a b l e t h a n many t h e o r i s t s have assumed.  F o r example, i t may be t h e case t h a t t h e  priming of t r a i t s that c o n t r a d i c t the pre-test s e l f d e s c r i p t i o n evokes s e l f - r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s d i f f e r e n t from t h a t g u i d i n g t h e p r e - t e s t r e s p o n s e s .  This  new i n f o r m a t i o n t h e n o v e r r i d e s t h e p r e v i o u s l y a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n , l e a d i n g t o a response change on t h e a c c u r a c y post-test. I n f a c t , t h e r e i s a l r e a d y a p r e v i o u s body o f work t h a t examines t h i s i s s u e from a s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e . For example, Gergen (1965) found t h a t s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n becomes i n t e r n a l i z e d when rewarded o r v a l i d a t e d . r e s e a r c h conducted by F a z i o (1981) and h i s suggests t h a t reinforcement  However,  colleagues  i s not necessary:  Making  s p e c i f i c s e l f - r e l e v e n t i n f o r m a t i o n s a l i e n t was adequate t o e f f e c t changes i n s e l f - r a t i n g s .  The F a z i o e t a l . and t h e  Paulhus e t . a l f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t a v a i l a b i l i t y a l o n e can  6  s e r v e as a p o t e n t agent i n e f f e c t i n g changes t o t h e "internal" self-concept. I m p l i c a t i o n s . I f p o s i t i v e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t s of f a k i n g good a r e d i s c o v e r e d t o be r o b u s t t h e r e c o u l d be c l i n i c a l implications.  important  F o r example, i t might be p o s s i b l e t o  produce p o s i t i v e a f f e c t i v e and b e h a v i o r a l changes i n p e o p l e w i t h l a r g e l y n e g a t i v e s e l f - c o n c e p t s by h a v i n g them automatize c e r t a i n p o s i t i v e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s . be a c c o m p l i s h e d claiming"  T h i s might  through a v a r i a n t of the c u r r e n t  "trait-  procedure.  These i d e a s a r e not e n t i r e l y new.  French p s y c h o l o g i s t  E m i l e Coué (1917) used a t e c h n i q u e e n t i t l e d  "conscious  autosuggestion", which e n t a i l e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e p e a t i n g positive self-propositions.  The t e c h n i q u e was  said to  e f f e c t changes t o t h e " u n c o n s c i o u s " which would t r a n s l a t e t o changes i n one's " c o n s c i o u s " s e l f - i m a g e .  Similar  techniques  known as " s e l f - a f f i r m a t i o n s " have r e s u r f a c e d r e c e n t l y under t h e g u i s e o f so c a l l e d "new-age p s y c h o l o g y " 1958).  (Yogananda,  N e i t h e r Coué's nor t h e s e more r e c e n t v e r s i o n s o f  a u t o s u g g e s t i o n , however, have been t e s t e d e m p i r i c a l l y .  In  summary, g i v e n t h e g r e a t p o t e n t i a l v a l u e o f t h e s e techniques, i t i s c r u c i a l t o study t h e i r u n d e r l y i n g mechanisms i n a c o n t r o l l e d l a b o r a t o r y s e t t i n g . Duration of e f f e c t .  B e f o r e c o n s i d e r i n g such  a p p l i c a t i o n s , however, t h e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t must be shown t o be e n d u r i n g , not merely t r a n s i t o r y .  I t may  t h a t the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the p r a c t i c e d t r a i t s  be t h e rapidly  case  7  d e c r e a s e s and t h a t t h e s e t r a i t s soon l o s e t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o override the o r i g i n a l l y claimed t r a i t s .  A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the  a v a i l a b i l i t y e f f e c t s may be l o n g l a s t i n g and t h e y may  lead  to r e l a t i v e l y permanent changes i n t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t . In t h e Paulhus e t a l . (1990) s t u d y t h e dependent measure was t a k e n i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e p r a c t i c e  trials.  C o n s e q u e n t l y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t an e f f e c t o f some permanence.  The g o a l o f  t h i s t h e s i s i s t o examine t h e t e m p o r a l s t a b i l i t y o f t h e Paulhus e t a l . f i n d i n g s by c o n d u c t i n g a r e p l i c a t i o n - a n d extension of t h e i r study.  An a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r , t h e r e f o r e ,  i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e s i g n : The dependent measure was  taken  e i t h e r i m m e d i a t e l y , a f t e r a 10 minute d e l a y , o r a f t e r a 25 minute d e l a y .  I f t h e e f f e c t has any t e m p o r a l  stability,  t h e n t h e p a t t e r n o f d a t a o b t a i n e d by Paulhus e t a l . s h o u l d be r e p l i c a t e d a c r o s s t h e 3 l e v e l s o f t h e d e l a y f a c t o r . Hypotheses Based on t h e above l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w , s e v e r a l were  hypotheses  advanced.  H y p o t h e s i s 1.  The f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s concerns t h e shape o f  the l e a r n i n g curves.  For a l l t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s  (fake-good,  f a k e - b a d , and h o n e s t ) , r e a c t i o n t i m e s d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e trials  s h o u l d drop s u b s t a n t i a l l y o v e r t h e f i r s t few  and t h e n l e v e l o f f over t h e remainder o f t h e t r i a l s .  trials, This  h y p o t h e s i s i s based on t h e Paulhus e t a l . (1990) r e s u l t s , as w e l l as from t h o s e o f Smith and L e r n e r (1986).  8  H y p o t h e s i s 2.  A l s o from Paulhus e t a l . (1990), fake-bad  responses s h o u l d be t h e most d i f f i c u l t t o a u t o m a t i z e , as s h o u l d be i l l u s t r a t e d by s l o w e r r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r t h a t group d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e l e a r n i n g t r i a l s . H y p o t h e s i s 3.  The ACSP model, as w e l l as t h e r e s u l t s  from Paulhus e t a l . (1990), l e a d t o t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t more p r a c t i c e - c o n s i s t e n t , o r c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s , should occur d u r i n g speed t e s t mode t h a n i n t h e a c c u r a c y t e s t mode.  In  s h o r t , ACSP p r e d i c t s t h a t t h e a u t o m a t i z e d s e l f s h o u l d s u r f a c e under h i g h a t t e n t i o n a l H y p o t h e s i s 4.  load.  S u b j e c t s i n t h e fake-good s t r a t e g y s h o u l d  show more c a r r y - o v e r than s u b j e c t s i n t h e fake-bad and honest s t r a t e g i e s .  T h i s h y p o t h e s i s i s based on t h e p r e v i o u s  Paulhus e t a l . (1990) f i n d i n g s . H y p o t h e s i s 5.  A l s o based on t h e Paulhus e t a l . (1990)  f i n d i n g s , s u b j e c t s i n t h e fake-bad s t r a t e g y s h o u l d e x h i b i t t h e "rebound"  e f f e c t of disclaiming negative t r a i t s .  S p e c i f i c a l l y , r e s u l t s s h o u l d show more " p r a c t i c e i n c o n s i s t e n t " e r r o r s on i n i t i a l n e g a t i v e c l a i m s f o r fake-bad s u b j e c t s t h a n t h o s e i n each o f t h e o t h e r two s t r a t e g i e s . H y p o t h e s i s 6.  S u b j e c t s i n t h e fake-good s t r a t e g y s h o u l d  show c a r r y - o v e r i n t h e a c c u r a c y t e s t mode.  This hypothesis  i s a l s o based on t h e Paulhus e t a l . (1990) f i n d i n g s .  As  noted i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w , however, t h e work o f E m i l e Coué (1917) would a l s o p r e d i c t t h i s H y p o t h e s i s 7.  finding.  The f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s i s based s o l e l y on  Coué (1917). The p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d i n t h e a c c u r a c y  9  c o n d i t i o n s h o u l d endure over t i m e ; t h e r e p e t i t i o n o f p o s i t i v e s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s s h o u l d make them c h r o n i c a l l y a v a i l a b l e , which s h o u l d then l e a d t o l a s t i n g changes i n t h e self-image. Method Subjects F o r t y - f o u r undergraduate s t u d e n t s from t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h i s e x p e r i m e n t . A l l s u b j e c t s were r e c r u i t e d from a s u b j e c t p o o l o f f i r s t and second y e a r p s y c h o l o g y  s t u d e n t s who r e c e i v e c o u r s e  credit  f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n experiments. Design and Overview The e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n i n c l u d e d f o u r independent v a r i a b l e s : s t r a t e g y ( f a k e good, f a k e bad, and h o n e s t ) , d e l a y (no d e l a y , s h o r t d e l a y , and l o n g d e l a y ) , and t e s t mode (speed and a c c u r a c y ) and e r r o r t y p e ( p r a c t i c e c o n s i s t e n t and practice inconsistent). manipulated  The f i r s t two v a r i a b l e s were  between s u b j e c t s , whereas t h e l a t t e r two  v a r i a b l e s were m a n i p u l a t e d  within subjects.  The s t u d y had f o u r phases: p r e - t e s t , p r a c t i c e , d e l a y and post-test.  D u r i n g t h e p r e - t e s t phase, s u b j e c t s were  r e q u i r e d t o check o f f whether each o f a s e r i e s o f a d j e c t i v e s p r e s e n t e d on a l i s t was s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e .  During the  p r a c t i c e phase, t h e same t r a i t s were p r e s e n t e d one a t a time on a microcomputer.  S u b j e c t s were randomly a s s i g n e d t o  p r a c t i c e t h e t r a i t s under one o f t h e t h r e e i m p r e s s i o n management c o n d i t i o n s .  10  On c o m p l e t i o n of the p r a c t i c e t r i a l s , s u b j e c t s  were  randomly a s s i g n e d t o e i t h e r p r o c e e d i m m e d i a t e l y from p r a c t i c e t o p o s t - t e s t , o r t o complete a f i l l e r t a s k d e l a y ) b e f o r e p r o c e e d i n g t o the p o s t - t e s t . post-test, subjects each t r a i t was T h i s t a s k was two  trials.  Finally, for  self-descriptive (i.e.,  as i n the  pretest).  a l s o c a r r i e d out on the computer, and On the f i r s t t e s t t r i a l ,  subjects  accuracy.  they  1  dependent measure of i n t e r e s t was  the  proportion  e r r o r s from p r e - t e s t t o p o s t - t e s t .  over e r r o r was  counted i f t h e s u b j e c t  included  responded  On the second t r i a l ,  responded w i t h an emphasis on  of c a r r y - o v e r  the  were r e q u i r e d t o a g a i n i n d i c a t e whether  w i t h an emphasis on speed.  The  (the  A  carry-  changed a response  from p r e - t e s t t o p o s t - t e s t i n the d i r e c t i o n o f p r a c t i c e . For i n s t a n c e , me"  a fake-good s u b j e c t may  t o the t r a i t  have responded  " p a t i e n t " on t h e p r e - t e s t and  p r a c t i c e , r e p e a t e d t h a t he/she was s u b j e c t c l a i m e d t o be practice-consistent  "patient".  then  counted.  a  2  In c o n t r a s t , a p r a c t i c e - i n c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r would r e s p o n d i n g "me" bad by r e p e a t i n g  t o the t r a i t "me"  r e s p o n d i n g "not me"  involve  " c r u e l " on the p r e - t e s t ,  t o " c r u e l " , and on t h e  during  I f the  " p a t i e n t " on t h e p o s t - t e s t ,  e r r o r was  "not  faking  subsequently  post-test.  Apparatus An IBM  c o m p a t i b l e computer was  during p r a c t i c e t r i a l s . l a b e l e d "me"  and  "not me".  used t o p r e s e n t the  traits  S u b j e c t s responded on a keyboard T r a i t presentation  was  11  c o n t r o l l e d t h r o u g h a program developed u s i n g t h e M i c r o E x p e r i m e n t a l Lab  (MEL)  package.  The  program c o n t r o l l e d  t r a i t r a n d o m i z a t i o n f o r each t r i a l , and o n - l i n e r e c o r d i n g  of  such v a r i a b l e s as response a c c u r a c y , response s e l e c t i o n , and reaction  time.  Materials Trait adjectives.  The  12 t r a i t s used i n t h e  three  a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t s and on t h e computer were chosen from l i s t s t h a t had been r a t e d f o r s o c i a l - d e s i r a b i l i t y 1968;  (Anderson,  K i r b y & Gardner, 1972).  T r a i t d e s i r a b i l i t y and c l a i m r a t e t e n d t o be correlated.  Therefore,  highly  t r a i t s w i t h moderate c l a i m r a t e s  were chosen t o ensure t h a t s u b j e c t s would not always c l a i m p o s i t i v e t r a i t s , or conversely, T h i s was  deny a l l n e g a t i v e  done t o maximize t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r i n c o n s i s t e n t  p r a c t i c i n g i n t h e fake-good c o n d i t i o n .  That i s , i f c l a i m  r a t e s were t o o h i g h f o r p o s i t i v e t r a i t s , negative  traits.  (and t o o low  t r a i t s ) , t h e n s e l f - r a t i n g s would not  for  differ  s u f f i c i e n t l y from t h e fake-good c o n d i t i o n t o a l l o w f o r possible carry-over  errors.  I n a d d i t i o n t o t r a i t norms f o r d e s i r a b i l i t y , a w i t h i n s u b j e c t s t r a i t v a l e n c e measure was  a l s o i n c l u d e d i n t h e form  o f t h e fake-good a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t .  That i s , by  c o m p l e t i n g t h i s c h e c k l i s t , each s u b j e c t p r o v i d e d own  r a t i n g o f each t r a i t ' s v a l e n c e .  s u b j e c t s ' own  h i s or  her  T h i s ensured t h a t  r a t i n g s were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h norms on p o s i t i v e  12  and n e g a t i v e t r a i t s , as w e l l as p r o v i d i n g a dichotomous valence r a t i n g f o r the n e u t r a l t r a i t s . Adjective checklists. c h e c k l i s t s designed  S u b j e c t s completed t h r e e a d j e c t i v e  specifically for this  paradigm (see Appendix A ) .  experimental  Each l i s t c o n t a i n e d  the  i d e n t i c a l 12 t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s , f o r w h i c h s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o respond "me" For t h e f i r s t l i s t ,  o r "not  me".  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o i n d i c a t e  whether o r not the t r a i t s were s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e .  This  first  c h e c k l i s t s e r v e d as t h e p r e t e s t w i t h w h i c h subsequent t e s t t r i a l s were t o be compared t o measure c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s to p r a c t i c e . l i s t was  In a d d i t i o n , the i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  due  in this  e n t e r e d i n t o t h e computer and f u n c t i o n e d as a key  d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e rounds f o r t h o s e s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d the "honest" c o n d i t i o n .  That i s , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n  to  allowed  the computer program t o i d e n t i f y i n c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s . For t h e second l i s t ,  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o " f a k e good".  That i s , t h e y were t o respond t o t h e t r a i t s as an person would.  The  i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  in this  "ideal" list  f u n c t i o n e d as a key d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e rounds f o r t h o s e s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d t o t h e fake-good c o n d i t i o n . For t h e t h i r d l i s t ,  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o " f a k e  bad".  That i s , t h e y were t o respond as i f t h e y were t r y i n g t o create a negative impression. was  The  i n f o r m a t i o n gathered  used as a key f o r t h o s e s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d t o t h e  bad c o n d i t i o n .  here  fake-  13  M u s i c r a t i n g forms.  I n l i n e w i t h t h e c o v e r s t o r y , which  i d e n t i f i e d t h e s t u d y as b e i n g c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between music and p e r s o n a l i t y , s u b j e c t s were r e q u i r e d t o complete two music r a t i n g forms.  In a c t u a l i t y ,  b o t h forms s i m p l y f u n c t i o n e d as f i l l e r t a s k s w i t h i n t h e experiment. The f i r s t form l i s t e d 36 songs, and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g p e r f o r m e r s (see Appendix B ) .  S u b j e c t s were t o l d t o r a t e t h e  q u a l i t y o f t h e music and l y r i c s f o r each song on a 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t r a t i n g s c a l e r a n g i n g from "poor" t o " e x c e l l e n t " . S u b j e c t s performed t h i s t a s k a f t e r c o m p l e t i n g t h e t h r e e adjective checklists.  The s o l e purpose o f t h e t a s k was t o  occupy t h e s u b j e c t w h i l e t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r e n t e r e d i n t o t h e computer t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e c h e c k l i s t s t h a t s e r v e d as a key d u r i n g p r a c t i c e  trials.  S i m i l a r l y , t h e second music r a t i n g form was i n c l u d e d t o p r o v i d e an a c t i v i t y t o f u n c t i o n as a d e l a y between t h e p r a c t i c e and t e s t phases o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t .  T h i s form  r e q u i r e d s u b j e c t s t o r a t e , on a 7 - p o i n t L i k e r t s c a l e r a n g i n g from "poor" t o " e x c e l l e n t " , t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e music and l y r i c s o f songs t h e y l i s t e n e d t o on a c a s s e t t e r e c o r d e r (see  Appendix C ) .  S u b j e c t s r a t e d e i t h e r two o r s i x songs,  depending on t h e d e l a y c o n d i t i o n t o which t h e y had been assigned.  Subjects i n the no-delay c o n d i t i o n d i d not  perform t h i s task.  14  Procedure S u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t e d one a t a t i m e . On e n t e r i n g t h e l a b o r a t o r y , t h e s u b j e c t was g r e e t e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r and seated a t a t a b l e .  The e x p e r i m e n t e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e  experiment was concerned w i t h t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between music and p e r s o n a l i t y .  The s u b j e c t t h e n r e a d a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e  procedure t o be f o l l o w e d i n t h e experiment and gave h i s o r her c o n s e n t t o be a p a r t i c i p a n t . Next, s u b j e c t s were handed t h e t h r e e a d j e c t i v e checklists.  F o r t h e f i r s t l i s t , t h e s u b j e c t was asked t o  r a t e each t r a i t as e i t h e r s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e o r non s e l f d e s c r i p t i v e ("me" o r "not me").  F o r t h e second  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o " f a k e good".  list,  S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e y were  i n s t r u c t e d t o "answer as i f you were t r y i n g t o l o o k as p o s i t i v e as p o s s i b l e t o an e x p e r i m e n t e r l i k e me".  Finally,  for  the t h i r d l i s t ,  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t o " f a k e bad"; t h a t  is,  t h e y were t o l d t o "answer as i f you were t r y i n g t o  appear as n e g a t i v e as p o s s i b l e t o an e x p e r i m e n t e r l i k e  me".  On c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t s , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r c o l l e c t e d t h e l i s t s and gave t h e s u b j e c t t h e f i r s t  music  r a t i n g form t o complete. Next, she/he was asked t o s i t down a t t h e microcomputer. The s u b j e c t was i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e same 12 t r a i t s  that  appeared on t h e a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t s would appear one by one, i n random o r d e r , on t h e computer s c r e e n .  Each s u b j e c t  was t o l d t o r e p e a t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g t r i a l ( i . e . , 12 t r a i t p r e s e n t a t i o n s ) , t h e answers t h a t he/she had g i v e n on t h e  15  c h e c k l i s t o f t h e a s s i g n e d s t r a t e g y c o n d i t i o n , and t o c o n t i n u e t o do so f o r t h e subsequent t e n t r i a l s .  Further  i n s t r u c t i o n s i n c l u d e d p r e s s i n g a keypad l a b e l e d "me" "not me"  t o respond t o t h e t r a i t a d j e c t i v e s .  and  S u b j e c t s were  a l s o i n f o r m e d t h a t i f he/she d i d n o t respond as i n t h e a s s i g n e d a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t , a tone would sound and t h e t r a i t would be r e p e a t e d a t t h e end o f t h e t r i a l .  Finally,  t h e s u b j e c t was t o l d t o be a c c u r a t e , but t o t r y and t o i n c r e a s e h i s o r her speed, somewhat, from t r i a l  to t r i a l .  On c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e s u b j e c t was d i r e c t e d t o b e g i n t h e computer p r a c t i c e t r i a l s .  At t h i s  p o i n t , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e p e a t e d on a s e r i e s o f u s e r paced computer s c r e e n s .  Next, s u b j e c t s i n i t i a t e d t r i a l s  p r e s s i n g t h e space b a r .  A f t e r d o i n g s o , a message appeared  on t h e s c r e e n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e f i r s t t r a i t o f t h e would appear i n f i v e seconds, On p r e s s i n g e i t h e r t h e "me" d i s a p p e a r e d , and a new  appeared.  o r "not me"  To b e g i n t h e n e x t t r i a l ,  proceeded  key, t h e  trait  milliseconds.  a b r i e f i n s t r u c t i o n screen  s u b j e c t s t o p r e s s t h e space b a r . trial  trial  i n the c e n t r e of the screen.  t r a i t appeared i n 500  A t t h e end o f each t r i a l ,  by  the screen i n s t r u c t e d  A f t e r doing so, the next  i n t h e same manner as t h e p r e v i o u s  trial.  T h i s sequence o f e v e n t s c o n t i n u e d o v e r t h e t e n p r a c t i c e trials.  On c o m p l e t i o n , t h e s c r e e n i n s t r u c t e d t h e s u b j e c t t o  ask t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r  for further  instructions.  At t h i s p o i n t , s u b j e c t s i n t h e n o - d e l a y c o n d i t i o n remained a t t h e computer and proceeded  d i r e c t l y t o the t e s t  16  phase. led  S u b j e c t s i n t h e two d e l a y c o n d i t i o n s , however, were  t o a t a b l e and g i v e n a s e t o f headphones.  They were  t h e n t o l d t o p e r f o r m t h e second music r a t i n g t a s k .  When  done, t h e d e l a y - c o n d i t i o n s u b j e c t s r e t u r n e d t o t h e computer for  t h e t e s t phase. For P a r t 1 o f t h e t e s t phase, s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o  f o r g e t a l l t h e i r p r e v i o u s p r a c t i c i n g , and t o r e p o r t t h e i r "honest" t r a i t s .  As w e l l , t h e y were i n s t r u c t e d t o answer as  q u i c k l y as p o s s i b l e , and were i n f o r m e d not sound f o r e r r o r s .  t h a t t h e tone would  S u b j e c t s t h e n began t h e speed  trial,  which was t h e same as t h e p r a c t i c e t r i a l s i n terms o f t r a i t presentation.  On c o m p l e t i o n  of the t r i a l ,  the screen  i n s t r u c t e d s u b j e c t s t o ask t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r f o r f u r t h e r instructions. For P a r t 2 o f t h e t e s t phase, s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o r e p o r t t h e i r honest t r a i t s  again.  T h i s t i m e , however, t h e y  were t o l d t h a t a c c u r a c y was more i m p o r t a n t  t h a n speed, and  t h a t t h e y c o u l d t a k e as much t i m e as t h e y wanted t o complete the task.  O t h e r w i s e , P a r t 2 was i d e n t i c a l t o P a r t 1 o f t h e  t e s t phase. On c o m p l e t i o n  o f t h e t e s t phase, s u b j e c t s were  d e b r i e f e d , and thanked f o r t h e i r  participation.  Results M a n i p u l a t i o n Check To d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t s u b j e c t s a d e q u a t e l y t h e speed and a c c u r a c y  followed  i n s t r u c t i o n s , a t - t e s t was performed  t o compare t h e o v e r a l l speed mean (M=946.95) v e r s u s t h e  17  o v e r a l l a c c u r a c y mean (M=1287.42).  The d i f f e r e n c e between  t h e two means was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ,  t(43)=-4.75,  p_<.001, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t s u b j e c t s were indeed f o l l o w i n g t h e s e instructions. Learning  Curves  H y p o t h e s i s 1, c o n c e r n i n g t h e shape o f t h e p r a c t i c e l e a r n i n g c u r v e s , was s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e s u l t s .  A t-test  comparing r e a c t i o n t i m e s o v e r t h e f i r s t t h r e e p r a c t i c e t r i a l s w i t h those of the f o l l o w i n g three p r a c t i c e  trials  r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , t(43)=7.38, p_<.001. R e a c t i o n t i m e s d u r i n g t h e p r a c t i c e t r i a l s dropped from t h e f i r s t few t r i a l s t o t h e n e x t t h r e e t r i a l s .  I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 about here  H y p o t h e s i s 2 was a l s o s u p p o r t e d .  A one-way ANOVA  comparing r e a c t i o n t i m e s f o r t h e t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s r e v e a l e d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , F(2,41)=5.52, p<.01.  Fake-bad  r e a c t i o n t i m e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y s l o w e r t h a n t h o s e o f t h e o t h e r two s t r a t e g i e s , as i s e v i d e n t from a Newnam-Keuls m u l t i p l e comparisons p r o c e d u r e .  This test revealed that the  mean r e a c t i o n t i m e f o r t h e fake-bad s t r a t e g y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t (p_<.05) from t h a t o f each o f t h e o t h e r two s t r a t e g i e s .  T h i s r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s t h a t fake-bad  r e s p o n s e s were t h e most d i f f i c u l t t o a u t o m a t i z e .  18  E r r o r Rates The  dependent measure f o r t h e a n a l y s e s was t h e change i n  t r a i t r a t i n g s from p r e - t e s t t o p o s t - t e s t .  Two t y p e s o f  e r r o r s were p o s s i b l e : p r a c t i c e - c o n s i s t e n t and p r a c t i c e inconsistent.  Practice-consistent or, "carry-over"  errors  c o n s i s t e d o f r e s p o n s e s w h i c h changed from p r e - t e s t t o p o s t test i n the d i r e c t i o n of practice. practice-inconsistent. was  A l l o t h e r e r r o r s were  F o r each e r r o r t y p e , a p r o p o r t i o n  c a l c u l a t e d which r e p r e s e n t e d t h e r a t i o o f e r r o r s t o t h e  t o t a l number o f p o s s i b l e e r r o r s f o r t h e r e s p e c t i v e types.  F o r example, a c a r r y - o v e r  error  e r r o r could only occur f o r  t h o s e t r a i t s where t h e s u b j e c t was p r a c t i c i n g a r e s p o n s e that countered the i n i t i a l p r e - t e s t A mixed 3 x 3 x 2 x 3  claim.  ANOVA w i t h two between-groups and  two w i t h i n - g r o u p v a r i a b l e s was conducted on t h e s e The  two between f a c t o r s were s t r a t e g y  f a k e bad) and d e l a y The  scores.  ( h o n e s t , f a k e good,  (no d e l a y , s h o r t d e l a y , and l o n g  delay).  two w i t h i n f a c t o r s were t e s t mode (speed v s . a c c u r a c y )  and e r r o r t y p e ( p r a c t i c e - c o n s i s t e n t , p r a c t i c e i n c o n s i s t e n t ) .  I n s e r t T a b l e 1 about here  The  r e s u l t s o f t h e ANOVA a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1.  Main  e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r e r r o r t y p e , F ( l , 22)=4.26, p_=.05, and t e s t mode, F( 1, 22 )=17 .14 , p_<.001. two-factor  i n t e r a c t i o n was o b t a i n e d  Type, F ( l , 22)=25.5, £<.001.  A significant  f o r Strategy  A significant  X Error  three-factor  19  i n t e r a c t i o n was  o b t a i n e d f o r S t r a t e g y X E r r o r Type X T e s t  Mode, F(1,22)=4.67, p<.05.  No s i g n i f i c a n t main or  i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s were found f o r d e l a y .  I n s e r t Table 2 about here  P r a c t i c e - c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s . To c l a r i f y t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f i n d i n g s , we performed s e p a r a t e ANOVAs f o r t h e two e r r o r types.  Note t h a t t h e r e was  no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p r a c t i c e -  c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s i n t h e honest s t r a t e g y : Thus t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n was bad)  a 2 ( s t r a t e g y : fake-good v s .  X 3 ( d e l a y ) X 2 ( t e s t mode) mixed ANOVA.  fake  Main e f f e c t s  were o b t a i n e d f o r s t r a t e g y , F( 1,22)=15.05, p_=.001, and mode, F( 1,22) =15.67, p_=.001.  test  In a d d i t i o n , the Strategy X  T e s t mode i n t e r a c t i o n was m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F ( l , 22)=3.89, p_=.06.  I n s e r t F i g u r e 2 about here  The means f o r each l e v e l o f d e l a y (no d e l a y , s h o r t d e l a y , and l o n g d e l a y ) f o r p r a c t i c e - c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s were: M=.35, M=.20, and M=.36 r e s p e c t i v e l y . Because none o f t h e d e l a y e f f e c t s were s i g n i f i c a n t , t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d c o l l a p s e d over t h i s  i n F i g u r e 2 are  factor.  The main e f f e c t f o r t e s t mode d e r i v e d from a h i g h e r o v e r a l l mean i n t h e speed c o n d i t i o n (M=.36) t h a n i n t h e a c c u r a c y c o n d i t i o n (M=.26).  Thus, H y p o t h e s i s  3, t h a t  20  automatized s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n s h o u l d s u r f a c e r e l a t i v e l y more f r e q u e n t l y under a t t e n t i o n a l l o a d , i s s u p p o r t e d .  The  observed main e f f e c t f o r s t r a t e g y i n d i c a t e d t h a t c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s were h i g h e r i n t h e fake-good c o n d i t i o n (M=.50) than i n t h e fake-bad c o n d i t i o n (M=.09).  This f i n d i n g supports  H y p o t h e s i s 4, and r e p l i c a t e s t h e P a u l h u s e t a l . (1990) findings. These e f f e c t s were q u a l i f i e d , however, by a m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t S t r a t e g y X T e s t Mode i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g form.  The d i f f e r e n c e i n mean e r r o r r a t e s between  t h e fake-good/speed  c o n d i t i o n (M = .58) and t h e f a k e -  bad/speed c o n d i t i o n (M = .12) was g r e a t e r than t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f a k e - g o o d / a c c u r a c y  c o n d i t i o n (M =  .45) and t h e f a k e - b a d / a c c u r a c y c o n d i t i o n (M = . 0 8 ) . E r r o r s i n t h e fake-good/accuracy  condition  remained  e l e v a t e d , however, which s u p p o r t s H y p o t h e s i s 6.  The mean o f  t h i s group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from 0, t ( 1 3 ) = 6.33, E < .001. A g a i n , t h e Paulhus e t a l . (1990) f i n d i n g o f c a r r y - o v e r t o t h e honest s e l f i s r e p l i c a t e d . Combining t h e above r e s u l t w i t h t h e absence o f d e l a y p r o v i d e s s u p p o r t f o r H y p o t h e s i s 7, i n t h a t t h e e l e v a t e d e r r o r s i n t h e a c c u r a c y c o n d i t i o n endure o v e r t i m e .  This  r e s u l t p r o v i d e s f u r t h e r s u p p o r t f o r Coué's (1917) work.  I n s e r t T a b l e 3 about here  21  Practice-inconsistent errors.  The e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n  f o r t h e p r a c t i c e - i n c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s was a 3 ( s t r a t e g y ) X 3 ( d e l a y ) X 2 ( t e s t mode) mixed d e s i g n .  The means f o r each  l e v e l o f d e l a y (no d e l a y , s h o r t d e l a y , and l o n g d e l a y ) f o r p r a c t i c e - i n c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s were: M=.12, M=.18, and M=.08 respectively.  Because none o f t h e d e l a y e f f e c t s were  s i g n i f i c a n t , the data presented i n Figure  3 are collapsed  over t h i s f a c t o r . Only a main e f f e c t f o r s t r a t e g y was o b t a i n e d , F ( l , 23) =10.56, p_ < 001.  In t h i s case, t h e o v e r a l l e r r o r  was h i g h e r f o r t h e fake-bad c o n d i t i o n  rate  (M=.30) t h a n f o r t h e  honest (M=.06) o r fake-good (M=.02) c o n d i t i o n s .  This  f i n d i n g r e p l i c a t e s Paulhus e t a l . (1990), p r o v i d i n g  support  f o r H y p o t h e s i s 5.  Insert Figure  3 about here  To f u r t h e r examine t h e rebound e f f e c t , f a k e - b a d p r a c t i c e c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s were compared w i t h t h e comparable honest disclaiming-negative  errors.  Note t h a t o n l y s u b j e c t s  honest and fake-good s t r a t e g i e s had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  i n the  to  p r a c t i c e n e g a t i v e t r a i t s and t h e n s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s c l a i m them ( i . e . , t h e rebound e f f e c t ) .  A l l practice-inconsistent  e r r o r s i n t h e fake-bad s t r a t e g y c o n s i s t e d "disclaiming-negative"  errors.  of these  Practice-inconsistent  errors  i n t h e honest s t r a t e g y , however, c o n s i s t e d o f b o t h disclaiming-negative  and " d i s c l a i m i n g - p o s i t i v e " .  Thus,  22  e r r o r s i n t h e honest s t r a t e g y were d i v i d e d i n t o t h e two e r r o r types f o r the f o l l o w i n g analyses. The e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n was a 2 ( s t r a t e g y : honest v s . f a k e bad) X 2 ( t e s t mode) mixed ANOVA. o b t a i n e d f o r t e s t mode F (1,27)=9.34, were h i g h e r f o r t h e speed t r i a l accuracy t r i a l  (M = .16).  A main e f f e c t was  p=.01. E r r o r r a t e s  (M = .27) t h a n f o r t h e  The main e f f e c t f o r s t r a t e g y was  m a r g i n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , F (1,27)=3.73, E< - 1 0  Thus, t h e  I n s e r t T a b l e 4 about here  rebound e f f e c t was s t r o n g e r f o r t h e f a k e - b a d s t r a t e g y (M = .30) t h a n f o r t h e honest s t r a t e g y (M = .13).  This result  provides f u r t h e r support f o r Hypothesis 5 concerning the r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h e rebound e f f e c t .  The p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s ,  which i n c l u d e s t h a t o f t h e subsequent ANOVA f o r comparison, i s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 4.  I n s e r t F i g u r e 4 About Here  Note t h a t o n l y s u b j e c t s i n t h e fake-good and honest s t r a t e g i e s had t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r a c t i c e p o s i t i v e and t h e n s u b s e q u e n t l y d i s c l a i m them.  traits  Thus, an a d d i t i o n a l 2  ( s t r a t e g y : honest v s . f a k e good) X 2 ( t e s t mode) mixed ANOVA was performed on t h e d i s c l a i m i n g - p o s i t i v e s c o r e s f o r t h e s e two groups.  The o n l y e f f e c t t h a t  23  I n s e r t T a b l e 5 about here  approached s i g n i f i c a n c e was a m a r g i n a l i n t e r a c t i o n f o r S t r a t e g y X T e s t Mode, F ( l , 2 8 ) = 3 . 3 8 , p<.10. mean-error r a t e dropped o f f s l i g h t l y  from speed (M = .07) t o  a c c u r a c y (M =.01) i n t h e honest s t r a t e g y , virtually .02)  Whereas t h e  e r r o r s were  n o n - e x i s t e n t f o r f a k e good i n b o t h t h e speed (M =  and a c c u r a c y (M = .02) t e s t modes. Discussion  The  p r e s e n t r e s u l t s c l o s e l y r e p l i c a t e d t h o s e o f two  previous studies  (Paulhus e t a l . , 1990, S t u d i e s 1 and 2 ) .  S u b j e c t s who were asked t o make honest  self-descriptions  a f t e r p r a c t i c i n g a r b i t r a r y s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s were more l i k e l y t o make c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s when t e s t e d under a speed, r a t h e r t h a n an a c c u r a c y t e s t i n g mode.  These c a r r y - o v e r  e r r o r s were a l s o more apparent i n t h e fake-good t h a n i n t h e fake-bad c o n d i t i o n .  condition  I n f a c t , fake-bad  i n s t r u c t i o n s l e d t o t h e "rebound e f f e c t " , where s u b j e c t s u l t i m a t e l y renounced n e g a t i v e t r a i t s t h a t t h e y had practiced.  The p r e s e n t s t u d y a l s o went f u r t h e r t o show t h a t  a l l t h e s e e f f e c t s r e p l i c a t e d a c r o s s two l e v e l s o f t e s t delay. The First,  r e s u l t s s u p p o r t two b a s i c elements o f ACSP t h e o r y . t h e c a r r y - o v e r o b s e r v e d from p r a c t i c e t r i a l s t o  h o n e s t t e s t t r i a l s demonstrates t h a t t r a i t s can become automatized with p r a c t i c e :  Moreover, t h i s c a r r y - o v e r was  24  more apparent under h i g h a t t e n t i o n a l l o a d .  This  pattern  a g a i n s u p p o r t s o u r use o f t h e term " a u t o m a t i c s e l f " t o d e s c r i b e t h e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n emerging under a t t e n t i o n a l load. Apparently, r e p e t i t i o n increased the a v a i l a b i l i t y of practiced  traits.  The l e s s e r degree o f c a r r y - o v e r i n t h e  accuracy c o n d i t i o n  suggests the a b i l i t y of subjects t o  overcome s h e e r a v a i l a b i l i t y and s e a r c h more d e e p l y f o r descriptions. can  Other s t u d i e s  have demonstrated t h a t  self-  people  over-ride highly available c o g n i t i o n s — b u t only i n  conditions Martin,  o f low c o g n i t i v e  load  ( D e v i n e , 1989; P a u l h u s ,  & Murphy, 1991).  C o n s i d e r an a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s speed v s . accuracy e f f e c t .  Given t h e previous s t u d i e s  showing a  p o s i t i v i t y e f f e c t for high a t t e n t i o n a l load, i t i s possible t h a t o u r t e s t mode d i f f e r e n c e s automatization.  a r e n o t due s p e c i f i c a l l y t o  Indeed, t h e g r e a t e r c a r r y - o v e r o f p o s i t i v e  t h a n n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e s seems t o amount t o a p o s i t i v i t y effect. To r e f u t e t h i s a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e r e a d e r i s i n v i t e d t o compare t h e s t r o n g r e s u l t s i n t h i s s t u d y (£ = 15.67 f o r t e s t mode) t o t h e weak e f f e c t o f Paulhus and L e v i t t (1987) where F = 4.14 f o r t e s t mode.  An e f f e c t s i z e s i m i l a r t o t h e  l a t t e r was found i n P a u l h u s e t a l . (1989).  Clearly, the  p r a c t i c e t r i a l s i n t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y had t h e e f f e c t o f magnifying the t y p i c a l p o s i t i v i t y  effect.  25  N o n e t h e l e s s , t o examine d i r e c t l y whether t h e p r a c t i c e t r i a l s might be p r o d u c i n g such u n i n t e n d e d e f f e c t s , an a p p r o p r i a t e c o n d i t i o n s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d i n t h e d e s i g n o f a f u t u r e s t u d y : F o r example, s u b j e c t s would make t h e i r p o s t t e s t judgments a f t e r d e l a y , b u t w i t h o u t p r a c t i c e . P o s i t i v e - N e g a t i v e Asymmetry The f a c t t h a t p o s i t i v e t r a i t s were more e a s i l y a u t o m a t i z e d than n e g a t i v e ones i s an i n t r i g u i n g  finding.  T h i s asymmetry may s i m p l y r e f l e c t t h e well-known p o s i t i v i s t i c b i a s i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s (Greenwald, 1980; P a u l h u s , 1986; T a y l o r & Brown, 1988).  Particularly relevant  are s t u d i e s showing t h a t p o s i t i v e t r a i t s a r e e a s i l y p r o c e s s e d and e a s i l y r e c a l l e d whereas n e g a t i v e t r a i t s a r e p o o r l y p r o c e s s e d and d i f f i c u l t t o r e c a l l  (e.g., Kuiper,  O l i n g e r , MacDonald, & Shaw, 1985). S e v e r a l known mechanisms p r o v i d e p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e g r e a t e r a s s i m i l a t i o n of p o s i t i v e than negative traits.  Perhaps  i n h i b i t o r y r e a c t i o n s accompanying t h e s e l f -  a s c r i p t i o n of negative t r a i t s prevents t h e i r ( T a y l o r , 1991).  assimilation  A l t h o u g h more a c c e s s i b l e a f t e r r e p e t i t i o n ,  t h e y may n o t r e a c h t h e f i n a l s t a g e s o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n . n e g a t i v e e v e n t s grab a t t e n t i o n more t h a n do p o s i t i v e  Also events  ( P r a t t o & John, i n p r e s s ) : Some t i m e ago, Coué had warned about t h e d e b i l i t a t i n g e f f e c t o f drawing a t t e n t i o n t o t h e r e p e t i t i o n s — p a r t i c u l a r l y t h o s e t h a t have n e g a t i v e implications.  These mechanisms w a r r a n t f u r t h e r s t u d y as  26  p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s why t h e a u t o m a t i z a t i o n p r o c e s s seemed t o be n u l l i f i e d when s u b j e c t s f a k e d bad. Carry-over  t o Honest S e l f :  Internalization  The p r a c t i c e t r i a l s a l s o e f f e c t a c a r r y - o v e r t o t h e honest s e l f — t h a t i s , t h e d e l i b e r a t e , r e f l e c t i v e  self  d e s c r i p t i o n g i v e n by s u b j e c t s i n t h e a c c u r a c y c o n d i t i o n . Thus, i t appears t h a t a r b i t r a r y s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s can be, not o n l y a u t o m a t i z e d , Although  but i n t e r n a l i z e d through r e p e t i t i o n .  we had found a s i m i l a r c a r r y - o v e r i n o u r f i r s t  s t u d y , t h e import o f t h i s f i n d i n g m o t i v a t e d reconfirm i t .  us t o t w i c e  T h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s t h e arguments o f E m i l e  Coué (1917) who t o u t e d t h e b e n e f i t s o f r e p e a t i n g p o s i t i v e a f f i r m a t i o n s l o n g b e f o r e i t became f a s h i o n a b l e i n t h e New Age r e p e r t o i r e o f t h e r a p e u t i c t e c h n i q u e s .  He argued t h a t  permanent e f f e c t s c o u l d be e f f e c t e d by mere r e p e t i t i o n . Duration of carry-over Most i m p o r t a n t  f o r t h i s t h e s i s , the p o s i t i v e carry-over  e f f e c t was found t o endure even when t h e t e m p o r a l i n t e r v a l between t h e p r a c t i c e phase and t h e p o s t - t e s t measure was extended t o 25 m i n u t e s . automatic  The d u r a t i o n o f c a r r y - o v e r f o r t h e  s e l f was p r e d i c t a b l e from t h e t h e o r y — i n d e e d t h e  source of the automatic  s e l f i s h e l d t o be a l i f e t i m e o f  practice. The e n d u r i n g n a t u r e o f c a r r y - o v e r t o t h e honest s e l f , however, r e q u i r e s a l t e r a t i o n o f ACSP t h e o r y .  The o r i g i n a l  model p r e d i c t e d l i t t l e change between t h e p r e - t e s t and t h e p o s t - t e s t honest s e l v e s because s u b j e c t s s h o u l d , on b o t h  27  occasions, undertake c o n t r o l l e d searches t h a t should s i m i l a r information.  What appears t o be happening, however,  i s t h a t the p r a c t i c i n g of new  t r a i t s evokes n o v e l  i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s t h e n used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e t r u e Moreover, t h i s new  self.  i n f o r m a t i o n seems t o become i n t e r n a l i z e d  ( a t l e a s t f o r 25 m i n u t e s ) . seemingly e n d u r i n g One  tap  The  r e s u l t appears t o be  a  change i n t h e honest s e l f - c o n c e p t .  might c o u n t e r  t h a t , given t h a t the accuracy t e s t  always preceded by a speed t e s t , t h e e f f e c t may t e m p o r a r i l y primed.  was  be  I n o t h e r words, no m a t t e r how  long  the  d e l a y , i f s u b j e c t s must respond t o t h e speed c o n d i t i o n , t h e n a subsequent a c c u r a c y t e s t w i l l show a p p a r e n t internalization.  Other s t u d i e s from our  laboratory,  however, have demonstrated t h a t t h e same p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s appears i n a between s u b j e c t s d e s i g n  (Paulhus & McKay,  1992) . Rebound e f f e c t Most i n t r i g u i n g was  our f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p r a c t i c i n g of  already-held negative t r a i t s l e d subjects to subsequently renounce them. speculation.  T h i s s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t remains wide open f o r Perhaps an u n d e r m i n i n g p r o c e s s o p e r a t e s when  s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e y are b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o d e s c r i b e themselves w i t h negative t r a i t s .  Note, however, t h a t  such u n d e r m i n i n g appeared f o r p o s i t i v e t r a i t s . Taylor's  (1991) m o b i l i z a t i o n - m i n i m i z a t i o n  suggests t h a t the negative  no  Finally,  hypothesis  a f f e c t accumulating  from  r e p e a t e d l y c l a i m i n g n e g a t i v e t r a i t s would make them seem t o o  28  negative to claim afterward.  I n any c a s e , the o r i g i n a l  v e r s i o n of ACSP t h e o r y must now  be q u a l i f i e d t o i n c o r p o r a t e  the rebound e f f e c t . Note t h a t the r e s u l t s have i n t e r e s t i n g t h e r a p e u t i c implications.  Although  counter-intuitive,  be b e n e f i c i a l f o r d e p r e s s e d o r a n x i o u s  i t may  actually  c l i e n t s to repeatedly  avow t h e n e g a t i v e t r a i t s t h a t are most b o t h e r i n g them. Future D i r e c t i o n s T e s t i n g the L i m i t s .  G i v e n t h a t no d i s s i p a t i o n of t h e  a u t o m a t i c i t y e f f e c t s was one wonders how  o b s e r v e d a c r o s s a 25 minute d e l a y ,  l o n g t h i s change might l a s t .  f o r d a y s , weeks, o r l o n g e r . d u r a t i o n s may  I t may  On t h e o t h e r hand, l o n g e r  o n l y be p o s s i b l e i f t h e amount of  were i n c r e a s e d .  persist  practice  T h i s i n c r e a s e c o u l d t a k e t h e form of more  p r a c t i c e t r i a l s , o r i n the number of days o v e r which practice t r i a l s  occurred.  I t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e parameters of concept m a l l e a b i l i t y . malleable than others.  For i n s t a n c e , some t r a i t s may  self-  be more  To pursue t h i s q u e s t i o n , Paulhus and  McKay have r e c e n t l y completed a s t u d y t h a t examines t h e m a l l e a b i l i t y of 63 t r a i t s chosen from a l l f i v e of t h e B i g F i v e domains.  P r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s suggest t h a t t r a i t s  r e l a t e d t o N e u r o t i c i s m show t h e g r e a t e s t change w i t h cognitive load. As w e l l , o n l y l i s t s of u n r e l a t e d t r a i t s have as y e t been automatized  u s i n g t h e Paulhus paradigm.  I t would be  i n f o r m a t i v e t o see i f an e n t i r e c l u s t e r o f  traits  29  r e p r e s e n t i n g some c o h e s i v e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n c o u l d be automatized  t o subsequently  induce changes i n s e l f - r a t i n g s  on t h a t p a r t i c u l a r d i m e n s i o n .  An i n v e s t i g a t i o n was  recently  conducted by P a u l h u s , McKay, E r i c k s o n , K e l l y , P h i l l i p s & Stenson (1992) t h a t addressed t h i s i s s u e . s u b j e c t s automatized  In t h a t study,  i n t r o v e r s i o n and e x t r a v e r s i o n i n t h e  l a b o r a t o r y u s i n g t h e r e p e t i t i o n paradigm. F o l l o w i n g the p o s t - t e s t , s u b j e c t s i n t e r a c t e d w i t h a confederate.  S e v e r a l measures o f e x t r a v e r s i o n were t h e n  taken, i n c l u d i n g latency t o i n i t i a t e conversation, seating d i s t a n c e from t h e c o n f e d e r a t e , NEO-FFI.  and changes i n s c o r e s on  R e s u l t s showed t h a t mere r e p e t i t i o n of t h e s e  trait  c o n s t r u c t s l e a d s t o p r e - t e s t p o s t - t e s t changes i n s c o r e s t h e NEO-FFI.  the  on  U n f o r t u n a t e l y , no changes were o b s e r v e d w i t h  t h e s e b e h a v i o r a l measures.  I t i s possible that a different  a r r a y o f b e h a v i o r a l measures, perhaps combined w i t h extended p r a c t i c e t r i a l s would y i e l d p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . t h i s important question should  Research on  continue.  F i n a l l y , t h e i s s u e of s e l f - c o n c e p t m a l l e a b i l i t y c o u l d  be  examined f u r t h e r by i n c l u d i n g r e l e v a n t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e measures i n t h e c u r r e n t d e s i g n .  One  investigation i s self-concept c l a r i t y K a t z , & L a v a l e e , 1992).  measure t h a t m e r i t s (Campbell,  Trapnell,  P e r s o n s h i g h i n c l a r i t y demonstrate  higher consistency i n s e l f - r a t i n g s .  Presumably,  a u t o m a t i z a t i o n e f f e c t s would be s t r o n g e r f o r s u b j e c t s r a t h e r t h a n h i g h , on t h i s d i m e n s i o n .  low,  30  Other improvements.  I t might be i n f o r m a t i v e as w e l l t o  see t h e e f f e c t s o f e n c o u r a g i n g s u b j e c t s t o g i v e thought t o t h e i r p r e - t e s t t r a i t judgments. t r a i t c h e c k - l i s t s c o u l d be a d m i n i s t e r e d  considerable  In addition, the  on more than one  o c c a s i o n so t h a t t h e b a s e l i n e r e l i a b i l i t y o f t h e s e judgments c o u l d be a s s e s s e d . continuous,  I t might a l s o be u s e f u l t o employ  r a t h e r t h a n dichotomous, p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t  measures so t h a t more s u b t l e changes i n t r a i t  judgments  c o u l d be d e t e c t e d . Although the u t i l i t y of post-experimental  i n t e r v i e w s has  been c h a l l e n g e d by some ( e . g . , N i s b e t t & W i l s o n ,  1977), i t  may be u s e f u l t o query s u b j e c t s i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n who have changed t h e i r r e s p o n s e s .  These s u b j e c t s may be a b l e t o  p r o v i d e some i n s i g h t s i n t o t h e p r o c e s s e s m e d i a t i n g effects.  t h e above  F o r example, i t would be f a s c i n a t i n g t o ask  s u b j e c t s why t h e y had renounced n e g a t i v e t r a i t s  after  p r a c t i c i n g them. The  f i n a l goal.  Ultimately, the greatest p o t e n t i a l f o r  our a u t o m a t i c i t y f i n d i n g s l i e s i n t h e i r t h e r a p e u t i c b e n e f i t s for  n e u r o t i c s and dépressives.  Presumably, t h e s e  i n d i v i d u a l s have a u t o m a t i z e d n e g a t i v e at l e a s t a portion of t h e i r l i v e s . model, t h e n , t h e y s h o u l d m a n i f e s t a positivity  s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s over  According  t o t h e ACSP  a n e g a t i v i t y , r a t h e r than  b i a s under a t t e n t i o n a l - l o a d c o n d i t i o n s (see  a l s o Bargh & T o t a ,  1988).  But, as Coué (1917) s u g g e s t e d many y e a r s ago, i t may be p o s s i b l e f o r such i n d i v i d u a l s t o improve t h e i r  self-concepts  31  by r e p e a t e d l y c l a i m i n g  positive self-descriptions.  our r e s u l t s s u p p o r t h i s c a s e , our f i n d i n g s r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e i r n e g a t i v e t r a i t s may beneficial.  suggest  be a l s o  be  Although that  Footnotes The o r d e r o f t h e two t e s t mode measures, speed and a c c u r a c y , was  not counterbalanced i n t h i s study.  It  c o u l d be argued, t h e n , t h a t t h e r e s u l t s i n t h e a c c u r a c y c o n d i t i o n r e f l e c t an o r d e r e f f e c t .  However, subsequent  r e s e a r c h d i d employ a c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d d e s i g n i n d i c a t e s t h a t a c c u r a c y s c o r e s do not v a r y due t o o r d e r (Paulhus & McKay, 1992).  I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o note t h a t c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s were not p o s s i b l e i n t h e honest impression-management c o n d i t i o n because s u b j e c t s i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n d i d not p r a c t i c e inconsistent t r a i t s .  T h i s c o n d i t i o n was  i n c l u d e d merely  t o p r o v i d e a b a s e - r a t e f o r non c a r r y - o v e r e r r o r s .  References Anderson, N.H.  (1968). L i k a b l e n e s s r a t i n g s o f 555  p e r s o n a l i t y - t r a i t words. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 9, 272-279. Bargh, J.A., & T o t a , M.E.  (1988). Context-dependent  automatic p r o c e s s i n g i n depression: A c c e s s i b i l i t y of negative c o n s t r u c t s w i t h regard t o s e l f but not others. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 54, 925939. B a u m e i s t e r , R.F., H u t t o n , D.G., C o g n i t i v e processes  & T i c e , D.M.  (1989).  during deliberate self-presentation:  How s e l f - p r e s e n t e r s a l t e r and m i s i n t e r p r e t t h e b e h a v i o r of t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n p a r t n e r s .  Journal of Experimental  S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 25, 59-78. C a m p b e l l , J.D., T r a p n e l l , P.D.,  L a v a l l e , L. & K a t z , I .  (1992). P e r s o n a l i t y and s e l f - k n o w l e d g e : Development and v a l i d a t i o n of the s e l f - c o n c e p t c l a r i t y s c a l e .  Unpublished  m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Coué, E. (1917). S e l f - m a s t e r y t h r o u g h c o n s c i o u s autosuggestion. Devine, P.G.  London: A l l e n & Unwin.  (1989). S t e r e o t y p e s and p r e j u d i c e : T h e i r  a u t o m a t i c and c o n t r o l l e d components.  Journal of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 56, 5-18. F a z i o , R. H., E f f r e i n , E.A., & F a l e n d e r , V . J . (1981) perceptions following s o c i a l interactions.  Self-  Journal of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 41, 232-242.  F a z i o , R.H., Sanbonmatsu, D.M., (1986).  P o w e l l , M.C., & Kardes,  F.R.  On t h e a u t o m a t i c a c t i v a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s .  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 229238. Gergen, K . J . (1967). I n t e r a c t i o n g o a l s and p e r s o n a l i s t i c feedback as f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f s e l f . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1, 413-424. Greenberg,  J . , & P y s z c z y n s k i , T. (1985). Compensatory s e l f -  i n f l a t i o n : A response t o t h e t h r e a t t o s e l f - r e g a r d o f failure.  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y ,  49, 273-280. Greenwald, A.G. (1980). The t o t a l i t a r i a n ego: F a b r i c a t i o n and r e v i s i o n o f p e r s o n a l  history.  American  Psychologist,  35, 603-618. H e i l b r u n , A.B. (1964). S o c i a l l e a r n i n g t h e o r y ,  social  d e s i r a b i l i t y , and t h e MMPI. P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 61, 377-387. J o n e s , E.E. (1964). I n g r a t i a t i o n : A s o c i a l  psychological  a n a l y s i s . New York: I r v i n g t o n . K u i p e r , N.A., O l i n g e r , L . J , MacDonald, M.R.,  & Shaw, B.F.  (1985). I n J . S u i s & A.G. Greenwald ( E d s . ) ,  Psychological  p e r s p e c t i v e s on t h e s e l f ( V o l . 2, pp. 191-217). H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. K i r b y , D.M.,  & Gardner, R.C. (1972). E t h n i c  stereotypes:  Norms on 208 words t y p i c a l l y used i n t h e i r  assessment.  Canadian J o u r n a l o f P s y c h o l o g y , 26, 140-154.  35  Logan, G.D.  (1978). A t t e n t i o n i n c h a r a c t e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n :  Evidence f o r t h e a u t o m a t i c i t y o f component s t a g e s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 107. Logan, G. D.  (1980).  32-63.  A t t e n t i o n and a u t o m a t i c i t y i n S t r o o p  and p r i m i n g t a s k s : Theory and d a t a .  Cognitive  P s y c h o l o g y . 12, 523-553. Logan, G.D.  (1989). Toward an i n s t a n c e t h e o r y o f  automatization. N i s b e t t , R.E.,  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 95, 492-527.  & W i l s o n , T.D.  (1977).  T e l l i n g more than  we  can know: V e r b a l r e p o r t s on mental p r o c e s s e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 84, 231-259. P a u l h u s , D.L.  (1984).  Two  component models o f  socially  d e s i r a b l e r e s p o n d i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  Social  P s y c h o l o g y , 46, 598-609. P a u l h u s , D.L.  (1986). S e l f - d e c e p t i o n and i m p r e s s i o n  management i n t e s t r e s p o n s e s . I n A. A n g l e i t n e r & J.S. Wiggins ( E d s . ) , P e r s o n a l i t y assessment v i a questionnaire. P a u l h u s , D.L.  New  ( i n press).  York: S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . Bypassing the w i l l :  automatization of a f f i r m a t i o n s .  The  I n D. Wegner & J .  Pennebaker ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f M e n t a l  Control.  Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e H a l l . P a u l h u s , D.L.,  B r u c e , N.,  & S t o f f e r , E. S.  Automatizing s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s .  (1990).  Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e  American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n annual c o n v e n t i o n , Boston.  36  P a u l h u s , D.L., & L e v i t t , K. (1987). t r i g g e r e d by a f f e c t :  D e s i r a b l e responding  A u t o m a t i c Egotism?  Journal of  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 52, 245-259. P a u l h u s , D.L., & Murphy, G. (1987). i m p r e s s i o n management.  Disruption of  Unpublished  manuscript,  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. P a u l h u s , D.L., G r a f , P., & Van S e l s t , M. (1989). A t t e n t i o n a l load increases p o s i t i v i t y of s e l f - p r e s e n t a t i o n .  Social  C o g n i t i o n , 7, 389-400. P a u l h u s , D.L., M a r t i n , C.L., & Murphy, G. (1992). Some e f f e c t s o f a r o u s a l on s e x - s t e r e o t y p i n g . P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y B u l l e t i n , 18, 325-330. P a u l h u s , D.L., & S t o f f e r , E.S. (1992).  Optimal t r a i t study.  U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. P a u l h u s , D.L., S t o f f e r , E.S., E r i c k s o n , L., K e l l y , P h i l l i p s , J . , & S t e n s o n , K. (1992). study of automatizing s e l f - r e p o r t s .  G.,  A behavioural Unpublished  m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. Posner, M. I . , & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). cognitive control.  A t t e n t i o n and  I n R. L. S o l s o ( E d . ) , I n f o r m a t i o n  p r o c e s s i n g and c o g n i t i o n : The L o y o l a symposium (pp. 5585).  H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum.  P e e t e r s , G. & C z a p i n s k i , J . (1990). P o s i t i v e - n e g a t i v e asymmetry i n e v a l u a t i o n s : The d i s t i n c t i o n between a f f e c t i v e and i n f o r m a t i o n a l n e g a t i v i t y e f f e c t s . European Review o f S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1, 33-60.  37  P r a t t o , F., & John, O.P.  ( i n p r e s s ) . Automatic  vigilance:  The a t t e n t i o n - g r a b b i n g power o f n e g a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Ross, L., Lepper, M. R.,  & Hubbard, M.  Psychology. (1975).  Perseverance  i n s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n and s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n : B i a s e d a t t r i b u t i o n processes i n the d e b r i e f i n g  paradigm.  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 32.,  880-  892. S c h l e n k e r , B.R.(1985). I d e n t i t y and s e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . B.R.  S c h l e n k e r ( E d . ) , The s e l f and s o c i a l l i f e  9 9 ) . New  In  (pp. 65-  York: M c G r a w - H i l l .  S h r i f f r i n , R. M.,  & S c h n e i d e r , W.  (1977).  Controlled  and  a u t o m a t i c human i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : I I . P e r c e p t u a l l e a r n i n g , a u t o m a t i c a t t e n d i n g and a g e n e r a l t h e o r y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 84, 127-190. S m i t h , E.R.,  & L e r n e r , M.  o f s o c i a l judgments.  (1986). Development o f  automatism  J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  Social  P s y c h o l o g y , 50, 246-259. S t o f f e r , E.S.,  P a u l h u s , D.L.,  & B r u c e , M.N.  (1990).  A u t o m a t i z a t i o n o f s e l f - r e p o r t s . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e Canadian P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n annual c o n v e n t i o n , Ottawa. T a y l o r , S.E.  (1991). A s y m m e t r i c a l e f f e c t s o f p o s i t i v e  n e g a t i v e e v e n t s : The  mobilization-minimization  h y p o t h e s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 110, 67-85.  and  38  T a y l o r , S.E.,  & Brown, J.D.  (1988).  I l l u s i o n and  well-being:  A s o c i a l - p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on mental h e a l t h . Psychological Bulletin, T e d e s c h i , J.T.  (1981).  103,  193-210.  Impression  management t h e o r y  s o c i a l psychological research. T e s s e r , A.,  & Rosen, S.  (1975). The  bad news. I n L. B e r k o w i t z  New  and  York: Academic P r e s s .  reluctance to transmit  ( E d . ) , Advances i n  s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y CVol.8. 193-232). New  experimental  York: Academic  Press. Yogananda, P. Angeles:  (1958). S c i e n t i f i c h e a l i n g a f f i r m a t i o n s . Los Self-Realization Fellowship.  39  Table 1. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on E r r o r R a t e s  SS  DF  MS  2.62  22  .12  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Within C e l l s  F  Sig of F  4.84  1  4.84  40 .58  Delay  .07  2  .04  .30  Strategy  .16  1  .16  1 .32  D X S  .22  2  .11  .93  .40  Constant  Within C e l l s  2.49  22  .00** .74 . 26  .11  E r r o r Type  .48  1  .48  4..26  .05  D X E  .06  2  .03  .25  .78  S X E  2.89  1  2.89  25,.50  .02  2  .01  .08  D X S X E Within C e l l s  .14  22  . 00** .92  .01 . 00**  T e s t mode  .11  1  .11  17,.14  D X T  .02  2  .01  1,.68  .21  S X T  .00  1  .00  .11  .74  D X S X T  .01  2  .00  .77  .47  Within C e l l s  .23  22  .01  EXT  .03  1  .03  2,.63  .11  D X E X T  .02  2  .01  .80  .46  S X E X T  .05  1  .05  4,.67  .04*  D X S X E X T  .04  2  .02  1,.68  .20  * P < .05, ** p < .001.  40 Table 2. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - C o n s i s t e n t E r r o r Rates  SS  DF  MS  3.21  22  .15  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Within C e l l s Constant  S i g of F  .00**  4.19  1  4.19  28.71  .06  2  .03  .21  2 . 20  1  2.20  15.05  .16  2  .08  .53  Delay Strategy  F  D X S Within C e l l s  .17  22  .81 .00** .59  .01  T e s t Mode  .12  1  .12  15.67  D X T  .02  2  .01  1.20  .32  S X T  .03  1  .03  3.89  .06*  D X S X T  .04  2  .02  2.47  .10  * p_ < .10, * p_ < .001.  . 00**  41 Table 3. M i x e d - E f f e c t s ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s  F  SS  DF  MS  Within C e l l s  1.91  23  .08  Constant  1.14  1  1.14  13.73  Delay  .07  2  .03  .40  Strategy  .88  1  .88  10.56  D X S  .09  2  .04  .51  .60  Source of V a r i a t i o n  Within C e l l s  .20  23  S i g of F  .00* .67 .00*  .01  T e s t Mode  .01  1  .01  1.55  .22  D X T  .02  2  .01  1.10  .34  S X T  .02  1  .02  2.32  .14  D X S X T  .01  2  .00  .34  .71  * p_ <  .001.  42 Table 4. Mixed-Effects  ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s :  D i s c l a i m i n g N e g a t i v e f o r Honest and Fake-Bad S t r a t e g i e s  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Within  Cells  SS  DF  MS  2.81  27  . 10  F  S i g of F  .00***  Constant  2.70  1  2.70  25.89  Strategy  .39  1  .39  3.73  .06*  .01**  Within  Cells  .46  27  .02  T e s t Mode  .16  1  .16  9. 34  S X T  .01  1  .01  .30  * p_ < .10; ** E = .01; *** p. < .001.  .59  T a b l e 5. Mixed-Effects  ANOVA on P r a c t i c e - I n c o n s i s t e n t E r r o r s :  D i s c l a i m i n g P o s i t i v e f o r Honest and Fake-Good  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Strategies  SS  DF  MS  Within C e l l s  .16  28  .01  Constant  .05  1  .05  9.89  Strategy  .00  1  .00  .69  .42  Within C e l l s  .12  28  F  S i g of F  .00*  .00  T e s t Mode  .01  1  .01  2 .65  .12  S X T  .02  1  .02  3.38  .08  * p_ < .01.  44  Figure Captions 1. R e a c t i o n t i m e s as a f u n c t i o n o f p r a c t i c e t r i a l and f a k i n g strategy. 2. P r a c t i c e c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s as a f u n c t i o n o f t e s t mode and faking strategy. 3. P r a c t i c e i n c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s as a f u n c t i o n o f t e s t mode and faking strategy. 4. P r a c t i c e i n c o n s i s t e n t e r r o r s a f t e r s e p a r a t i n g negative d i s c l a i m i n g .  p o s i t i v e and  45  46  47  49  Appendix A  50  TRAIT QUESTIONNAIRE:  FAKE GOOD  For each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t r a i t s , p l e a s e respond "ME" o r "NOT ME", w h i l e f a k i n g good. NOT ME 1. t o l e r a n t 2. greedy 3. q u i e t 4. generous 5. b o r i n g 6. s e c r e t i v e 7. p a t i e n t 8. i n s u l t i n g 9. c o n v e n t i o n a l 10. r e l i a b l e 11. c o n c e i t e d 12. e x t r a v a g a n t  ME  51  TRAIT QUESTIONNAIRE:  FAKE BAD  For each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t r a i t s , p l e a s e respond "ME" o r "NOT ME", w h i l e f a k i n g bad. NOT ME 1. t o l e r a n t 2. greedy 3. q u i e t 4. generous 5. b o r i n g 6. s e c r e t i v e 7. p a t i e n t 8. i n s u l t i n g 9. c o n v e n t i o n a l 10. r e l i a b l e 11. c o n c e i t e d 12. e x t r a v a g a n t  ME  52  TRAIT QUESTIONNAIRE:  HONEST  For each o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t r a i t s , p l e a s e respond "ME" o r "NOT ME", w h i l e a n s w e r i n g h o n e s t l y . NOT ME 1. t o l e r a n t 2. greedy 3. q u i e t 4. generous 5. b o r i n g 6. s e c r e t i v e 7. p a t i e n t 8. i n s u l t i n g 9. c o n v e n t i o n a l 10. r e l i a b l e 11. c o n c e i t e d 12. e x t r a v a g a n t  ME  53  Appendix B  54 Music Ratings Rate t h e f o l l o w i n g songs i n terms o f music q u a l i t y and ( i . e . , the words). Use f o l l o w i n g r a t i n g s c a l e f o r music and 1 Poor  2  3  4 Moderate  lyrics  lyrics:  5  6  7 Excellent  I f you a r e not f a m i l i a r enough w i t h t h e song, check Don't Know I t Title it  Performer  Music  F a s t Car  T r a c y Chapman  S t i l l Be L o v i n g You  P r a i r i e Oyster  B i l l y Jean  Michael Jackson  Your Song  E l t o n John  Need You T o n i t e  INXS  Running Up That H i l l Kate Bush Whoever's i n N.E.  Reba M c l n t i r e  Have You Seen Her  M.C.  Iceblink  Cocteau Twins  C r a z y f o r You  Madonna  Hammer  R o c k i n i n F r e e World N e i l Young S t a i r w a y t o Heaven  Led Z e p p e l i n  People are People  Dépêche Mode  Lady i n Red  Chris  F i v e and Dime  Nancy G r i f f i t h  In Your Eyes  Peter Gabriel  Hotel C a l i f o r n i a  The E a g l e s  Teddy Bear Born i n USA  DeBerg  E l v i s Presley B. S p r i n g s t e e n  Lyrics  Don't know  Junk  k.d. l a n g  How Soon I s Now  The Smiths  Famous Blue R a i n c o a t J e n n i f e r Warnes S a v i n g A l l My Love  Whitney Houston  My Way  Frank S i n a t r a  Troy  S i n e a d O'Connor  Grape V i n e  M a r v i n Gaye  F i l l t h e i r Shoes  George Jones  When Doves C r y  Prince  L e t s Go t o Bed  The Cure  B l u e Sky Mine  Midnight O i l  Been Caught S t e a l i n ' Jane's A d d i c t i o n Add i t Up  V i o l e n t Femmes  My I s l a n d Too  R i t a McNeil  P l e a s e P l e a s e Me  Beatles  59th S t B r i d g e  Simon/Garfunkel  Ice,  Vanilla Ice  I c e , Baby  56  Appendix C  57 Cassette Tape Rating Form A f t e r each song on t h e c a s s e t t e , r a t e i t i n terms o f music q u a l i t y and l y r i c s ( i . e . , t h e w o r d s ) . Don't s t o p t h e t a p e .  Use f o l l o w i n g r a t i n g s c a l e f o r music and l y r i c s : 1 Poor  Number  2.  4. 5. 6.  2  3  Music  4 Moderate  Lyrics  5  6  7 Excellent  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098946/manifest

Comment

Related Items