The Nature of Judgment

This topic submitted by Louisa Versaw, Sydney Willcox ( versawlc@muohio.edu ) on 4/28/06. [ Human Nature Team: Louisa Versaw, Sydney Willcox-Section: Cummins/Wolfe]

Louisa Versaw
Sydney Willcox
WCP 262
Project Report

The Nature of Judgment
Abstract
For our research project, we have studied how Miami students judge other students, specifically based on appearance, and the relationship between this type of judgment and human nature. We handed out a total of forty-six surveys to Miami students and had them rate themselves, rate how much they judge others, and rate their surveyor in eight different categories. The twist was that us (their surveyor) was aiming for a different ÔlookÕ each time a group of surveys was handed out to see how our certain appearance affected their perceptions. We found that there is not a significant difference between the ratings people gave themselves and how much they claimed to judge others; our ÔlooksÕ did not have as much of an affect as we had planned; there was no significant difference between the ratings males and females gave themselves, and there was not a significant difference between how much Western and non-Western major judge others on certain categories.

Background

According to Aristotle, judgment, like perception, is concerned with the particular and learned by experience and example (Fleischacker, 1994, p. 150). The judgment of others is a quality in humans based on competition, which is argued to be an element of human nature. The concept of the intolerant personality is a construct descriptive of only a specific personality style of the political right; other related constructs have been advanced to account for more generalized patterns of intolerance (Enright, 1981, p. 1053). How much is intolerance of others (by judging them) part of human society? We will be asking the question, how does judgment manifest itself from competition; what is the connection between judgment and competition? We will also be asking the question: is it human nature to judge others or it a culturally constructed concept?
In the past fifty years of personality psychology, judgments of personality are commonly regarded as little more than interesting social phenomena that have little, if anything, to do with any reality beyond the realm of social judgment itself (Craik, 1993, p. 208). However, if personality is shaped by culture, then judgments of personality would have a lot, if everything, to do with social judgment. As stated before, if competition is a part of human nature, then individuals would base their judgments of others on themselves. Evaluation of the self does not take place in isolation. Rather, the activities from which people infer information about the self are situated in a social contest in which the self relates to other objects in the world (Alicke, 2005, p. 109).
We have made an attempt to study the element of culture by testing students from both Western campus and main campus and comparing their answers and opinions. We have tested the social aspect of judgment by seeing if a person feels their judgment of others changing in a social or group setting. For instance, were people more likely to judge others in general or more specifically judge others in categories their peers do or make similar judgments that their peers do? We have used a scientific, empirical approach to our testing. We have used an empirical approach in our studies and actual research and interpretive approach in understanding the meaning of the information we acquire. This has helped us to gain a better understanding of the relationship between judgment and human nature.
Beauregard and Dunning did a research experiment which studied the motivational component(s) of social judgment. People act as though their thoughts of themselves are bound up in their judgments of others in that they manage and tailor their judgments of other people to maintain and bolster positive beliefs about themselves and their self-worth. They make sure that their evaluations of others place themselves and their own attributes in a positive light (Beauregard and Dunning, 1998, p. 606). Their study was geared to research how much of the self makes up our judgments of others. They used evidence from other studies as a departure point for their research: such diverse demonstrations of egocentric social thought provide strong evidence that information about the self exerts a pervasive impact on perceptions and judgments of other people (p. 606). Their study furthers these other studies through their specific research of the individualsÕ failure and success rates and self- esteem rates when judging others: after failure, as opposed to success, an individual's judgments of others showed more egocentric contrast. Also, individuals with higher self-esteem also showed more judgmental contrast and harsher judgments of others. Stories are used as a means of communications with others (gossiping about others to others) and one study found that our close friendÕs close friends close friends is about the farthest three steps our network can reach out when it comes to telling a story (Szefku, 2005, p. 310). Since making judgments of others has been found to form social bonds, we wanted to see how this plays out in our study.
Another study we researched asserted that people find themselves to have contrasting traits, while believing others to only be capable of one trait and not a trait which contrasts it. This study, by Sande, Goethals, and Radloff, showed that people view themselves as having a rich and varied set of personal characteristics that they will perceive themselves as possessing some degree of each of a pair of opposing traits (Sande, Goethals, and Radloff, 1988, p. 13) even if the individuals are aware that the traits are considered to be opposing, while also seeing others as having one trait but not the other (p. 14). The study also showed that people see themselves as possessing a greater degree of their traits than others do. The study asserts that we do not see traits as rigidly dictating our behavior, although we may view others traits as doing so (p. 20).

Introduction
Our study has examined the autonomy of an individual's judgment. Where do judgments come from? Are they based on human instincts or are they influenced by outside variables? If they are influenced by outside variables, what is most likely to have an impact on judgments and what had the strongest impact? What are the patterns of judgment of others based on their own gender and other personal traits? Do people judge others more in one field if they believe themselves to be superior in that field? One prediction was that Miami students would judge others based on dimensions about which [they feel] competent and satisfied rather than using dimensions on which [they are] dissatisfied (Shrauger, 1974, p. 570). We have also looked at the connection between judgment and competition (which is argued to be a quality of human nature) as well as judgment and non-human nature elements, such as class and socialization. What is the cultural affect on an individual's judgment of others? Does gender influence an individualÕs judgment of others? How much does an individualÕs self-esteem level (low to high) affect how they judge others? Do Miami students feel their judgments of others are influenced by their peers.
One hypothesis predicted that the ratings Miami students gave themselves in our categories would match up (there would be no significant difference) with the ratings to which they feel they judge others on those same categories. Another hypothesis is that Miami students would rate their surveyor (either of us) higher or lower in certain categories based on the certain ÔlookÕ we are going for. For example, a ÔsmartÕ look would score higher on intelligence.

We also felt that there would be significant difference in the categories males and females rated themselves in. Finally, we predicted that there would not be a significant difference between the responses of the extent to which Western students and students of other majors judge others.
Our study is interdisciplinary because it requires the study and integration of many different disciplines, such as anthropology, sociology, biology and psychology. Our study addresses a fundamental issue of human nature: the judgment of others in relation to the self. Through our study, we hope to grasp a better understanding of judging others in relation to human nature. Since judging others is found in all societies, does that mean it is necessarily human nature? Our goal is to better understand if the judgment of others is an element of human nature or a culturally constructed concept. Is it a quality of human nature or a quality of society?
Our research connects with other aspects of our Nature of Human Nature course.
This project ties into Module 2: sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and human nature (competition as a part of evolution). It also ties into Module 4: The Social Animal because we believe that judging others is a trait in humans largely influenced by society.

Research Design
We planned to utilize empirical research methods through survey. We handed out a survey with 3 parts: one asking the individual to evaluate their self (questions of self-esteem issues, etc.), one part asking the individual to evaluate their judgment of others (the extent of judgment, their moral views of judgment, the social acceptance of judgment/if judgment occurs more in groups); and one part asking the individual to judge the surveyor. A copy of the survey will be emailed separately from this post. Do people judge others more on different qualities? This is significant in testing the social influences of judgment and getting a better understanding of the extent to which the judgment of others is a culturally constructed concept.
We have attempted to measure the social influences of judgment to test the nurture vs. nature of the judgment of others. By asking questions about oneself in the first part of the survey and then asking questions about judgment of others in the second part, we can get a good idea of how social influences of others relate to defining oneÕs self. There are eight categories that we asked the participant to rate themselves on, then rate the extent to which they judge others, and then rate the surveyor. The categories are Intelligence, Attractiveness, Athletic Ability, Sense of Style, Social Skills, Friendliness, Social Status/Popularity, and Honesty. The participants were given a scale of 1 to 5 to rate for each category, 5 being the highest. There were additional questions before and after the three sections of rating. Before the first section of rating, the participant was asked his/her sex, sexual orientation, declared major, and graduation year. After the third section of rating, the participants were asked how much they feel their perception of themselves influences their judgment of others and how much they feel their peers influence their judgments (both on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest). The last question of the survey asked the participants if they feel more inclined to judge others in a group setting (i.e. people watching with friends). This was a yes or no question.
Our study has both social and cultural dimensions components. We have been studying the role of gender and gender's social construction in judgment. For example, we found some evidence of the relation between gender and social judgment in the book Gender Roles: A Sociological Experience in a chapter section titled ÒIn gossip begins friendship.Ó Gossip allows girls and women to talk to one another in their common roles, share secrets, and support the needs of each other as well as themselves (Lindsey, 2005, p. 83). Also in one study, socially competent males were deemed more attractive while in males' ratings of females, attractiveness was relatively independent of the rating conditions (Effect of Presentation Modality). This is interesting because males' attractiveness relates to their social status where females' attractiveness is just based on their looks. We were interested to see how this played out in our study. We also wanted to study cultural and social dimensions of judgment at Miami. For example, are the social and cultural dimensions of main campus and Western campus so different that their judgments of others will be so different? Is Western as accepting and open-minded as we like to believe we are or do we judge just as much as others?

Materials and Methods

Our participants will fill out surveys on paper. In creating those surveys, we used a computer with word processing software, a printer, paper, pens or pencils. In these surveys we asked the participants to make confidential judgments of each of us (separately). For these questions, we were dressed in different outfits and accessories (for example: glasses, preppy clothes, slob look). Each survey was then labeled with a number corresponding to the 'look' we were going for as well as the person who gave out the particular survey (for instance, Louisa: Slob Look).
We conducted the surveys of Miami students individually and then organized and entered the data as a team to be analyzed. We numbered our surveys from 1 to 46 (46 participants total) and entered the data in the JMP program. The questions of the survey were the columns and the numbers of each survey were the rows. We used a one-way analysis as well as a T-Test to compare data to see if it was significant or not and why.

Results
Our first hypothesis predicted that the ratings Miami students gave themselves in our categories would match up with the ratings to which they feel they judge others on those same categories (those who rated themselves higher in certain categories would judge others more harshly in those categories.) We compared the ratings the participantsÕ gave themselves with the ratings they gave on how much they judge others on those same categories. The first category was intelligence and there was no significant difference between the rating people gave themselves and the rating of the extent to which they judge others (own: -0.29407, other: -0.13102). The second category was attractiveness and there was no significance difference (own: -0.32891, other: -0.15500). The third category was athletic ability and there was a significant difference (own: -0.40708, other: 0.63639). The fourth category was sense of style and there was no significant difference (own: -0.45708, other: 0.01142). The fifth category was social skills and there was no significant difference (own: -0.41450, other: -0.08841). The sixth category was friendliness and there was no significant difference (own: -0.40170, other: -0.29301). The seventh category was social status/popularity and there was a significant difference (own: -0.42316, other: 0.57684). The eighth and final category was honesty and there was no significant difference (own: -0.37025, other: -0.33764).

Our second hypothesis was that the students would rate the surveyors (us) higher or lower on certain categories based on the certain look we were going for. We compared the ratingsÕ the participants gave the surveyor for different looks in each category. For intelligence, the mean ratings for each look were as follows: Sydney Smart (4.133333), Louisa Nice (4.1111111), Louisa Slob (3.8666667), and Sydney Nice (3.7142857). SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look yielded the highest rating average and her ÔNiceÕ look the lowest. In the comparison of SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look, the p-Value was 0.647521, not showing a statistically significant difference. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look turned out a p-Value of 0.1102727, which was also not statistically significant. A comparison of SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look resulted in a p-Value of 0.1377476, also showing no statistically significant difference. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with her ÔSlobÕ look showed a p-Value of 0.2364148, once again showing no statistically significant value. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look resulted in a p-Value of 0.4941590, yet again showing no statistically significant difference. Finally, a comparison of SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look gave a p-Value of 0.9135660, also not showing a statistically significant difference.
For attractiveness, the mean ratings for each look were as follows: Louisa Nice (4.0000000), Sydney Smart (4.0000000), Sydney Nice (4.00000), and Louie Slob (3.8666667). While the first three mean ratings were the same, the ÔSlobÕ look got a lower rating than the other three looks. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with her ÔSlobÕ look showed a p-Value of 0.608096; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.553976; and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.636596. None of these values show a statistically significant difference.
For athletic ability, the mean ratings are as follows: Louisa ÔSlobÕ (2.9333333), Sydney ÔNiceÕ (2.8571429), Louisa ÔNiceÕ (2.7777778), and Sydney ÔSmartÕ (2.7333333). The ÔSlobÕ look received the highest rating while the ÔSmartÕ look received the lowest. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look to SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look showed a p-Value of 0.522383; LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look to LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.6661437; SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look to SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look a p-Value of 0.7516404; SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look to LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.8537475; LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look to SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.8455276; and LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look to SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look a p-Value of 0.9017926. None of these values show a statistically significant difference.
For sense of style, the mean ratings are as follows: Sydney ÔNiceÕ (4.4285714), Sydney ÔSmartÕ (4.3333333), Louisa ÔNiceÕ (3.8888889), and Louisa ÔSlobÕ (3.8666667). SydneyÕs nice look was a highest value and LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look was the lowest. A comparison of SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look showed a p-Value of 0.653193; SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.1061899; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.554129; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.1116175; SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look a p-Value of 0.7499706; and LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.9356241. None of these values show a statistically significant difference.
For social skills, the mean ratings are as follows: Sydney ÔNiceÕ (4.5714286), Sydney ÔSmartÕ (4.3333333), Louisa ÔNiceÕ (4.0000000), and Louisa ÔSlobÕ (4.00000). SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look received the highest mean rating and LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look received the lowest. A comparison of SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look showed a p-Value of 0.065076; SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.043126; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.193726; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.134728; and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look a p-Value of 0.389781. None of these values have a statistically significant difference except SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look.

For friendliness, the mean ratings are as follows: Louisa ÔNiceÕ (4.7777778), Sydney ÔSmartÕ (4.6000000), Louisa ÔSlobÕ (4.2000000), Sydney ÔNiceÕ (4.0000000). A comparison between LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ shows a p-value of 0.0052833; Sydney ÔSmartÕ and Sydney ÔNiceÕ shows a p-value of 0.0164512; Louisa ÔNiceÕ and Louisa ÔSlobÕ shows a p-value of 0.0124181; Sydney ÔSmartÕ and Louisa ÔSlobÕ shows a p-value of 0.0428597; Louisa ÔSlobÕ and Sydney ÔNiceÕ showed a p-value of 0.4095595; Louisa ÔNiceÕ and Sydney ÔSmartÕ showed a p-value of 0.4260175. The only significant difference was between LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ.

For social status/popularity, the mean ratings are as follows: Sydney ÔSmartÕ (4.0666667), Sydney ÔNiceÕ (4.0000000), Louisa ÔSlobÕ (3.8666667), Louisa ÔNiceÕ (3.6666667). A comparison between LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ and SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ shows a p-value of 0.1621148; Sydney ÔNiceÕ and Louisa ÔNiceÕ shows a p-value of 0.3268029; Louisa ÔNiceÕ and Louisa ÔSlobÕ shows a p-value of 0.4807001; Sydney ÔSmartÕ and Louisa ÔSlobÕ shows a p-value of 0.4159533; Louisa ÔSlobÕ and Sydney ÔNiceÕ showed a p-value of 0.6643994; Sydney ÔNiceÕ and Sydney ÔSmartÕ showed a p-value of 0.8281243. There were no significant differences.
For honesty, the mean ratings are as follows: Louisa ÔNiceÕ (4.6666667), Sydney ÔSmartÕ (4.2000000), Sydney ÔNiceÕ (3.7142857), and Louisa ÔSlobÕ (3.6666667). LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look rated the highest and LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look rated the lowest. A comparison of LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look shows a p-Value of 0.0038036; LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.0189157; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look a p-Value of 0.0660787; SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look a p-Value of 0.1776768; LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔSmartÕ look a p-Value of 0.1601286; and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look. Only two of these comparisons show a significant statistical difference: the comparison of LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look and LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look with SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look.

Our third hypothesis was that there would be a significant difference in the ratings that males and females gave themselves in each category. For intelligence, there was no significant difference between the ratings of males and females (males: -0.34884, females: -0.15460). For attractiveness, there was no significant difference (males: -0.25103, females: -0.34115). For athletic ability, there was no significant difference (males: -0.14326, females: -0.56043). For sense of style, there was no significant difference (males: -0.57165, females: -0.32301). For social skills, there was no significant difference (males: -0.46793, females: -0.31446). For honesty, there was no significant difference (males: -0.04351, females: -0.51105). For friendliness, there was no significant difference (males: 0.00091, females: -0.047618). For social status, there was no significant difference (males: -0.49889, females: -0.19068).

Our fourth and final hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference between Western majors and others majors rate the extent to which they judge others in certain categories. For intelligence, there was no significant difference (western: -0.48409, non-western: -0.27692). For attractiveness, there was no significant difference (western: -0.60261, non-western: -0.521274). For athletic ability, there was no significant difference (western: -0.45004, non-western: -0.61426). For sense of style, there was no significant difference (western: -0.59783, non-western: -0.70324). For social skills, there was no significant difference (western: -0.17038, non-western: -0.66306). For friendliness, there was no significant difference (western: -0.00831, non-western: -0.63277). For social status, there was no significant difference (western: -0.38725, non-western: -0.66770). For honesty, there was no significant difference (western: -0.29565, non-western: -0.54848).

Discussion

The results of our data explain that for the most part (six out of our eight categories) the level that Miami students rated themselves in each category was similar (had no significant difference) to the level and extent to which they claim to judge others in the same category. This supports our first hypothesis and agrees with some claims made in texts we researched that people judge others more in categories that they feel they excel in.
The results of our data also support our second hypothesis and show that our use of different ÔlooksÕ worked. The Ôsmart lookÕ was rated at a higher intelligence than the other looks, though there was no significant difference. This suggests that people assume others to be more intelligent if they wear glasses or dress in a ÔdorkyÕ way. For the attractiveness category, the Ôslob lookÕ rated the lowest, though there was no significant difference. This suggests that people rate attractiveness on more than face and body type, but on the image of a person as well. For the athletic ability category, the Ôslob lookÕ rated highest, though there was no significant difference. This suggests that wearing sweat or gym clothes makes people assume that someone is more likely to be athletic. For the sense of style category, the Ônice looksÕ rated higher than the opposing looks for each surveyor, though there was no significant difference. This suggests that people look more fondly on nice outfits and assume that people have more style if they look more professional or fit into a certain style category. Again, for the social skills category, the Ônice looksÕ rated higher than the opposing looks for each surveyor, though there was no significant difference (except between the Sydney Ônice lookÕ and the Louisa Ôslob lookÕ). This suggests that people assume that individuals are more social if they put more effort into their appearance or fit into a particular style category. For the friendliness category, LouisaÕs Ônice lookÕ was rated highest, then Sydney Ôsmart,Õ Louisa Ôslob,Õ and then Sydney ÔniceÕ. The only significant difference was between LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ. Perhaps this is because those who judged Sydney in her Ônice lookÕ were mostly people who knew her, and so this reflected in the ratings. For the social status category, SydneyÕs Ôsmart lookÕ was rated highest, followed by Sydney Ônice,Õ Louisa Ôslob,Õ and Louisa Ônice,Õ though there were no significant differences. Perhaps this was the case because some friends filled out the survey when Sydney was dressed in the ÔsmartÕ look, and they believe that being friends with them is an indicator of high social status. For the honesty category, the Louisa Ônice lookÕ rated the highest, and there were two significant differences, one between the LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look and LouisaÕs ÔSlobÕ look, and one between the LouisaÕs ÔNiceÕ look and SydneyÕs ÔNiceÕ look. This suggests that people assume that nicely dressed people and individuals who care more about their appearance are more honest.
The results of our data do not support our third hypothesis that there would be a significant difference between the ratings of males and females in the categories they rated themselves in. Maybe society would think that males consider themselves to be more athletic or that females care more about appearance, but this is not the case shown by our data. Our data supported our fourth hypothesis that there would not be a significant difference between the extent to which western majors and non-western majors rated others.

If we were going to do this survey again or if someone else wanted to repeat it, there would be a few things that we would change to make it easier and more effective. First of all, we would have used a pool of participants who did not know us. The fact that some of the participants knew us may have changed the way they judged us. Those who knew us were not able to judge us only on our appearances the way strangers were able to; their personal feelings towards us may have swayed their vote more than our appearances. Also, we would have tried more Ôlooks,Õ as well as each try the same look in different places on campus. If we had done this , we would have had more data and evidence as to the fact that appearance affects peopleÕs judgments of others. We would also have used a larger sample size and a more equal sample size for each different Ôlook.Õ Also, we would have changed the rating scale: instead of 1 to 5, make it 1 to 10, to hopefully yield more varying results. Perhaps people would have had to think more about their choice if there were more options for them to choose from. One other area we could have worked on was managing our research time better when conducting the survey because we could have possibly had more time to conduct a more in-depth aspect of the survey. We had initially planned on furthering the survey with some of our participants where we would have studied peopleÕs snap judgments by testing their reactions to photos of individuals.

Literature Review
Alicke, M., Dunning, D., & Krueger, J. (Eds.). (2005). The self in social judgment. New York:
Psychology Press.
This book deals with the self as a source of constraint and social judgment. Since we want to see how much judging others affects one's notions of self, this book will be useful in providing us with what has already been done and how much judgment and social awareness have to do with that.

Atoum, A. O., & Al-Simadi, F. A. (2000). the effect of presentation modality on judgments of
honesty and attractiveness. Social Behavior And Personality, Retrieved Feb 12, 2006,
from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3852/is_200001/ai_n8892065.
This study draws upon other studies of judgments of others in social interaction and how certain cues, such as non-verbal behaviors, are used in making these judgments. In this particular study, judges 'judged' others on honesty and attractiveness and the researchers saw if this related to the judges gender and nationality. This is important to our study because we want to see how the characteristics of the judger relate to the characteristics of the 'judgee.'

Beauregard, K. S., & Dunning, D. (1998). Turning up the contrast: self-enhancement motives
prompt egocentric contrast effects in social judgments. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 74(3), 606-621.
This study is very similar to the study done in 1974 that we want to build upon. This study tests a motivational account suggesting that people tailor their judgments of others to affirm their own worth. The discussion of this study centers on relating these findings to theories on social comparison, self-affirmation, and social judgment.

Biernat, M. (2005). Standards and expectancies: contrast and assimilation in judgments of self
and others. New York: Psychology Press.
This book contains social psychology essays dealing with social perception, self-perception, judgment, and comparison psychology. Since so many of the articles we found deal with similar topics, this book will help in designing our survey to build upon what is already known about these topics.

Craik, K., Hogan, R., & Wolfe, R. (Eds.). (1993). Fifty years of personality psychology. New
York: Plenum Press.
This book contains two chapters that deal with our topic. One chapter deals with judging others based on their behavior and the other is based on judging personality. Along with the many studies we have found, this book will help to give us an idea on what has already been done and what still remains unstudied.

Darby, B. W., & Jeffers, D. (1988). The effects of defendant and juror attractiveness on
simulated courtroom trial decisions. Social Behavior & Personality: An International
Journal, 16(1), 39-50.
This experiment was done to investigate the interactive effects of the physical attractiveness of defendants and mock jurors on judicial decisions. The more attractive participants in the study were treated as expected. The results of the study are then discussed in terms of leniency when judging others with similar attributes.

Drapkin, J. (2005). The dirty little secret about gossip. Psychology Today, 38(6), 54-60.
Since gossip is seen to be a large part of making social connections, especially among women and much of gossip is making judgments of others, we needed an article that focused on gossip. This article discusses gossip, advantages of gossip, punishment for gossip, and how the Bible deals with gossip.

Enright, R. D., & Lapsley, D. K. (1981). Judging others who hold opposite beliefs: the
development of belief-discrepancy reasoning. Child Development, 52(3), 1053-1064.
This article describes three studies conducted on children. The subjects' judgments of intolerance toward disagreeing others were examined developmentally in three studies. By using a study on children in different stages of development, we can see how judgment begins or was there from the start.

Fleischacker , S. (1994). The ethics of culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
There are two chapters in this book that deal specifically with judging others and judging ourselves. Since we have found many studies that use judging others as a way of defining oneself as well using judgments one has made about oneself to judge others, it will be helpful in seeing these as separate as well as related concepts.

Kenealy, P., Gleeson K., Frude N., and Shaw, W. (1991). The importance of the individual in the
'causal' relationship between attractiveness and self-esteem. Journal of Community and
Applied Psychology, 1(1), 45-56.
This paper argues the importance of the relationship between attractiveness and self-esteem. Since some of the other studies found a relationship between self-esteem and judging others, this study will be useful in better understanding attractiveness and how that leads to high or low self-esteem and judging others.

Lindsey, L. (2005). Gender roles: a sociological perspective. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.
In a section of this book titled, 'The Language of Friendship,' the author discusses that gossip begins friendship in women and girls because they talk to one another in their common roles, share secrets, and support the needs of each other and themselves. Since we are going to be using gender as part of our study, what this book has to say about gossip and gender is important.

Sande, G., Goethals, G., & Radloff, C. (1988). Perceiving One's Own Traits and Others: The
Multifaceted Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (1), 13-20.
This study examines the difference between one's perception of their own traits and one's perception of the traits of others. This will help our study in that it provides groundwork into the oppositions of internal and external perception of personality characteristics and how this affects social judgment.

Shrauger, J. S., & Patterson, M. B. (1974). Self-evaluation and the selection of dimensions for
evaluating others. Journal of Personality, 42(4), 569-585.
This study was conducted on the belief that social comparison and comparative appraisal emphasize the importance of the evaluation of others as a way that people maintain or modify opinions of themselves. This study is important to ours because we want to build upon the findings of this study and possibly add other elements such as gender, class, group, and sexual orientation to see what else we can find.

Szefku, B., & Szvetelszky, Z. (2005). Three degrees of inclusion: the gossip-effect in human
networks. AIP Conference Proceedings, 776(1), 308-313.
This study draws upon the scientific definition of gossip to measure its effects on human connections and networks. Before this study, no studies had been done to see how the effects of gossip lead to a network of people's self-organizing communication. This research is important to our study because judgments of others is a large part of gossip, and gossip as a social network-building tool can relate to the amount and degree of judgment that individuals or groups place on others.

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu