Detecting Perceiver Expectancies: The Role of Perceiver Distraction in Spontaneously Triggering Identity Negotiation

Abstract

To examine whether social interaction processes can trigger naturally-occurring identity negotiation, the current research manipulated perceiver distraction and valence of perceivers' expectations about targets. Nondistracted perceivers corrected their behaviors and impressions for the influence of their expectancies. Distracted perceivers corrected their overt information-gathering behaviors, but appeared to exhibit their biases in subtle ways. Targets detected distracted perceivers' negative expectancies, and showed signs of engaging in identity negotiation processes by behaving contrary to their perceivers' expectancies. The results suggest that distraction may facilitate the emergence of subtle expectancy-biased perceiver behaviors, and may trigger targets to intuitively engage in identity negotiation processes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Partial reports of these data were presented at the 2005 Society for Personality and Social Psychology conference. We thank Leigh Ann Vaughn, Robert Mather, Brandon Randolph-Seng, Monica Munoz, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, and Jaqui Cottle, Jennifer Fain, Sarah Fohn, and Heather Shirey for their hard work in coding the interviews.

Notes

Note. The source of the measure refers to whether the ratings were made by observers (O), applicants (A), or interviewers (I). Each entry reflects the mean and standard deviation and is formatted as M (SD). IE = interviewer expectancy.

¹One alternative explanation for the null effects on the information-gathering measure is that interviewers were simply choosing the same questions, which they believed to be the best ones to ask. However, this alternative is inconsistent with other data. For example, interviewers varied considerably in the total number of questions they asked (range = 5–26.5, M = 14.08, SD = 4.93), the number of positive questions they asked (range = 0–11, M = 4.63, SD = 2.30), and the number of open-ended questions they asked (range = 3–14.5, M = 8.75, SD = 2.96), suggesting that each interviewer took an individual approach to conducting the interview.

²Separate analyses on stammers/stutters and “ums/likes” also revealed the predicted interaction effect, F(1, 53) = 5.49, p = .02, and F(1, 53) = 4.18, p <.05, respectively. The moderate correlation between the measures (r = .34, p = .009) suggests that applicants varied in their proneness to each form of speech error.

³One potential counterargument is that personality differences were influencing applicant performance, such that the participants in the extremely negative, distracted interviewer condition actually were more highly qualified than everyone else. To examine this concern, additional analyses were conducted. Applicants rated themselves on 12 traits relevant to the job qualifications, and these trait ratings were averaged. A 2 × 2 ANOVA revealed no significant differences in self-rated traits across conditions (ps > .18). When these self-rated traits were included as a covariate in the primary analysis for the dependent measure of applicant performance, the covariate was significant, F(1, 52) = 6.63, p = .013. Of importance, the two-way interaction remained significant, F(1, 52) = 5.20, p = .027. Thus, applicants' performances were positively predicted by their self-rated traits, but the performance differences across conditions remained after controlling for self-rated traits, suggesting that performance differences were not simply because of individual differences and a failure of random assignment. It is also interesting to note that 49 of 57 applicants rated themselves at or above the midpoint on this index of self-rated traits, suggesting that most participants did indeed believe that they possessed characteristics that would qualify them for the job (M = 6.35, SD = 1.28).

⁴A hierarchical regression analysis on applicant performance with dummy-coded expectancy valence, dummy-coded distraction, centered confidence, and all interaction terms as predictors did not reveal a significant three-way interaction (p = .39). The main effect of self-confidence was significant (β = .39, t = 3.07, p = .003), as was the expectancy valence by distraction interaction (β = .45, t = 2.26, p = .028). Given that we predicted that the positive relationship between confidence and performance would be stronger in one condition than in the other three (rather than a crossover effect), and given the small sample size relative to the number of predictors in the regression equation, the power to detect a three-way interaction effect was low.

⁵The pattern of results for nondistracted interviewers on the interviewer impression and applicant behavior measures was not consistent with the occurrence of perceptual confirmation; a ttest confirmed that no similar effect emerged for this condition, t(28) = –.90, p = .38.