TY - JOUR
T1 - Moderation of Priming by Goals
T2 - Feeling Entitled to Judge Increases Judged Usability of Evaluative Primes
AU - Croizet, Jean Claude
AU - Fiske, Susan T.
N1 - Funding Information:
This research was supported by NIMH Grant 41801 to the second author, which also partially supported the first author during his postdoctoral stay at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, and by NSF Grant SBR 9421480, also to the second author. We thank Elizabeth Bosselman for her help in data collection in the first study and the Person Memory Interest Group, Jean-Léon Beauvois, Theresa Claire, Florian Delmas, Denis Hilton, Jacques-Philippe Leyens, Jean-Marc Monteil, Evelyne Serlin, Fritz Strack, and Vincent Yzerbyt for their comments on this research. This article has benefited from insightful comments on an earlier version draft by Tory Higgins. We are also grateful to several anonymous reviewers who provided valuable suggestions for revisions.
PY - 2000/3
Y1 - 2000/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Evaluative priming; social judgment; social goals; applicability
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346482219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0346482219&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1006/jesp.1999.1397
DO - 10.1006/jesp.1999.1397
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0346482219
SN - 0022-1031
VL - 36
SP - 155
EP - 181
JO - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
JF - Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
IS - 2
ER -