Moderation of Priming by Goals: Feeling Entitled to Judge Increases Judged Usability of Evaluative Primes

Jean Claude Croizet, Susan T. Fiske

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Scopus citations

Abstract

Two studies investigated how social goals moderate priming effects on judgment. Strong motivation to judge was hypothesized to compensate for the low judged usability (see Higgins, 1996) of a general evaluative activation following nonapplicable priming. Supporting this hypothesis, the results of two experiments showed that when participants felt entitled to judge, either because they were led to believe that they were expert at judging others' personality (Study 1) or because they thought they had received more information about the target (Study 2), their judgment was evaluatively congruent with the primed nonapplicable categories. However, their judgment was not influenced by prior exposure to nonapplicable primes when they were in a more standard situation. Discussion focuses on the notion of judged usability, the way it is influenced by social goals and norms, and its relationship with other concepts in the literature.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)155-181
Number of pages27
JournalJournal of Experimental Social Psychology
Volume36
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2000
Externally publishedYes

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Keywords

  • Evaluative priming; social judgment; social goals; applicability

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Moderation of Priming by Goals: Feeling Entitled to Judge Increases Judged Usability of Evaluative Primes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this