Rating Traits Together or Apart: Presentation Format Affects First Impression Judgements.

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Nadine Lavan, Jessica H Turner, Matthew R Utber, Clare A M Sutherland
{"title":"Rating Traits Together or Apart: Presentation Format Affects First Impression Judgements.","authors":"Nadine Lavan, Jessica H Turner, Matthew R Utber, Clare A M Sutherland","doi":"10.1177/17470218261417512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In perception experiments, researchers often collect multiple perceptual judgements from the same stimuli and participants to answer their research questions. While the way in which perceptual judgements are collected may affect the data, research rarely considers task design when investigating this topic. We therefore investigated how two frequently used methods of collecting multiple ratings can affect perceptual judgements, focusing on first impressions of faces. One participant group provided ratings of seven person characteristics (e.g. femininity, youthfulness, trustworthiness) blocked by characteristic, rating faces for one person characteristic at a time, across seven blocks. Another participant group completed one block in which they rated all seven characteristics simultaneously via a list of rating scales. The listed presentation format reduced task duration by 22%, but affected the perceptual ratings in several ways, pointing to reduced data quality, potentially as a result of satisficing behaviours. Specically, inter-rater agreement was lower for some person characteristics (youthfulness, femininity, and trustworthiness) in the listed format. Variance in ratings was also reduced for youthfulness, femininity, and dominance, with ratings clustering closer to the middle of the scale. Importantly, correlations between different person characteristics became universally positive in the listed format, indicating reduced independence of judgements. These findings highlight that while presenting multiple judgements at the same time may offer efficiency, this approach can introduce systematic biases and potentially reduce the reliability of perceptual data. We therefore suggest using a blocked presentation format and consider how these trade-offs would impact experiments looking at multiple perceptual judgements collected from the same participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"2315-2327"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13498745/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218261417512","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In perception experiments, researchers often collect multiple perceptual judgements from the same stimuli and participants to answer their research questions. While the way in which perceptual judgements are collected may affect the data, research rarely considers task design when investigating this topic. We therefore investigated how two frequently used methods of collecting multiple ratings can affect perceptual judgements, focusing on first impressions of faces. One participant group provided ratings of seven person characteristics (e.g. femininity, youthfulness, trustworthiness) blocked by characteristic, rating faces for one person characteristic at a time, across seven blocks. Another participant group completed one block in which they rated all seven characteristics simultaneously via a list of rating scales. The listed presentation format reduced task duration by 22%, but affected the perceptual ratings in several ways, pointing to reduced data quality, potentially as a result of satisficing behaviours. Specically, inter-rater agreement was lower for some person characteristics (youthfulness, femininity, and trustworthiness) in the listed format. Variance in ratings was also reduced for youthfulness, femininity, and dominance, with ratings clustering closer to the middle of the scale. Importantly, correlations between different person characteristics became universally positive in the listed format, indicating reduced independence of judgements. These findings highlight that while presenting multiple judgements at the same time may offer efficiency, this approach can introduce systematic biases and potentially reduce the reliability of perceptual data. We therefore suggest using a blocked presentation format and consider how these trade-offs would impact experiments looking at multiple perceptual judgements collected from the same participants.

表达:综合或分开评价特征:陈述形式影响第一印象判断。
在知觉实验中,研究者经常从相同的刺激物和参与者中收集多个知觉判断来回答他们的研究问题。虽然收集感知判断的方式可能会影响数据,但在调查这一主题时,研究很少考虑任务设计。因此,我们研究了两种常用的收集多重评分的方法是如何影响感知判断的,重点是对面孔的第一印象。其中一组参与者提供了7个性格特征(如女性、年轻、可信赖)的评分,并在7个街区中一次对一个人的性格特征进行评分。另一组参与者完成了一个区块,他们通过评分量表同时对所有七个特征进行评分。列出的演示格式减少了22%的任务持续时间,但在几个方面影响了感知评级,指出数据质量降低,这可能是令人满意的行为的结果。在列出的格式中,对某些人的特征(年轻、女性气质和可信赖性),评分者之间的一致性较低。年轻、女性气质和支配力的评分差异也减少了,评分更接近中点。重要的是,在列表格式中,不同人的特征之间的相关性普遍为正,表明判断的独立性降低。这些发现强调,虽然提出多重判断可能会提高效率,但这种方法可能会引入系统偏差,并可能降低感知数据的可靠性。因此,我们建议使用阻塞的演示格式,并考虑这些权衡将如何影响从同一参与者收集的多个感知判断的实验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书