An Asymmetry in Self-Serving Impact
Judgments Reflects Valence-Dependent
Processing of Self-Relevant Information
Neal Roese
Simon Fraser University
Ginger Pennington
Northwestern University
Self-Serving Tendencies in
Event Impact Judgments
-Negative events seen to influence others
more than oneself: “Hurts others but not me.”
-e.g., crime, weather, tight job market, etc.
-Literatures: a) Person-group discrimination
discrepancy; b) Third-person effect.
Outline
I. Judgments of Event Impact
II. Motivated Self-Serving Patterns
III. The Valence Asymmetry
IV. Internal vs. External
V. Valence-Dependent Trait Inference
VI. Three Experiments
VII. Conclusions
Motivated Event Impact Judgments
- Effect heightened by threat.
- Effect attenuated by self-affirmation.
- Effect moderated by trait SE.
- (Pennington & Roese, unpublished)
Self-Serving Effects as a Function of
Event Valence: Five Tests
1.2
Positive
Negative
1
0.8
Effect
Size
(d)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
E1
-0.2
E2
E3
E4
E5
Valence-Dependent Processing of SelfRelevant Information
- Negative: quick heuristic. “Bad = not me =
doesn’t affect me.”
- Positive: requires consideration of
interplay between external forces and
internal traits.
-“Do sunsets affect me? Well, I’m artistic …”
- Multifaceted opportunities to be selfserving; e.g., sensitivity vs. independence.
Study 1 (Fall 2000)
- Ratings of event impact: 7-pt scale.
- Self vs. other is between-subjects.
- Sensitivity items: sunsets, kittens,
friends.
- Independence items: counseling
services, healthcare, social mixers.
Self-Other Contrast as a Function of
Traits of Sensitivity vs. Independence
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Self
Other
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Sensitivity
Independence
Study 1 (Fall 2000)
- Manipulation check worked for sensitivity
but not independence.
- More complicated pattern of self-serving
judgment of positive than negative
external events.
Valence-Dependent Processing
- Does positive impact judgment differentially
prompt access / consideration of self-relevant
information from memory?
- Use paired judgments: impact rating then
trait ascription.
- Does positive vs. negative impact judgment
facilitate subsequent self inference?
Study 2 (July 2001)
-Paired tasks: impact+trait self-ascription.
-Target: “I am”: fill in blank.
-Prime: Impact vs. Frequency (Control)
-Valence: Pos vs. Neg
- Total: 40 paired judgments.
Study 2 (July 2001), n=17
Pos, t = 1.81, p = .05 (1-tail)
Neg, t = 0.08, p = .47 (1-tail)
10000
9000
8000
7000
RT
(ms)
6000
Impact
Control
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Pos
Neg
Study 3 (Sept 2001)
- Goal: replicate with improvements.
- Reduced item set to 6 pos, 6 neg.
- Total self trait ascriptions: 24
- Prime judgment: 3-pt scale.
Study 3 (Sept 2001), n=20
Pos, t = 1.26, p = .11 (1-tail)
Neg, t = 0.40, p = .35 (1-tail)
8000
7000
6000
RT
(ms)
5000
Impact
Control
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Positive
Negative
Conclusions
1. External impact judgments are
unique.
2. New twist on explication of valence
asymmetry in social judgment.