{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/20804"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/20804","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"The cognitive processes underlying impression change","abstract":"Two experiments explored the causes and consequences of impression change. Subjects changed their impressions when they preferred an expectancy-inconsistent explanation for an expectancy-deviant event but not when they preferred an expectancy-consistent explanation for it. Subjects had better recall of behaviors that were consistent with their impression when either no explanation or an expectancy-consistent explanation was provided for the event. When an expectancy-inconsistent explanation was provided, subjects recalled behaviors that were inconsistent with their impression better. However, there was no relation between subjects' judgments and their recall of the target's behaviors. Subjects' judgments and recall were not influenced by the presence or absence of a specific expectation for the target, but rather, were determined by normative expectations for people's behavior. Finally, impression change did not lead to the formation of a separate representation of the target. The implications of these results for models of person memory are discussed.","abstract_html":"Two experiments explored the causes and consequences of impression change. Subjects changed their impressions when they preferred an expectancy-inconsistent explanation for an expectancy-deviant event but not when they preferred an expectancy-consistent explanation for it. Subjects had better recall of behaviors that were consistent with their impression when either no explanation or an expectancy-consistent explanation was provided for the event. When an expectancy-inconsistent explanation was provided, subjects recalled behaviors that were inconsistent with their impression better. However, there was no relation between subjects' judgments and their recall of the target's behaviors. Subjects' judgments and recall were not influenced by the presence or absence of a specific expectation for the target, but rather, were determined by normative expectations for people's behavior. Finally, impression change did not lead to the formation of a separate representation of the target. The implications of these results for models of person memory are discussed.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Wyer, Robert S., Jr."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-05-07T12:49:47Z","date_published":"2011-05-07T12:49:47Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:16Z","subjects":["Psychology, Social","Psychology, Experimental"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":["Copyright 1992 Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9215781","(UMI)AAI9215781"],"render_values":[{"text":"AAI9215781","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"(UMI)AAI9215781","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/20804","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Wyer, Robert S., Jr."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2011-05-07T12:49:47Z","10000-01-01","1992"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology, Social","Psychology, Experimental"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 1992 Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["AAI9215781","(UMI)AAI9215781","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/20804"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Two experiments explored the causes and consequences of impression change. Subjects changed their impressions when they preferred an expectancy-inconsistent explanation for an expectancy-deviant event but not when they preferred an expectancy-consistent explanation for it. Subjects had better recall of behaviors that were consistent with their impression when either no explanation or an expectancy-consistent explanation was provided for the event. When an expectancy-inconsistent explanation was provided, subjects recalled behaviors that were inconsistent with their impression better. However, there was no relation between subjects' judgments and their recall of the target's behaviors. Subjects' judgments and recall were not influenced by the presence or absence of a specific expectation for the target, but rather, were determined by normative expectations for people's behavior. Finally, impression change did not lead to the formation of a separate representation of the target. The implications of these results for models of person memory are discussed.","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:49:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9215781.pdf: 5444311 bytes, checksum: d42e0e2cb6429452b347dac930cce227 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1992","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:46:23Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:20:46-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The cognitive processes underlying impression change"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Wyer, Robert S., Jr."],"dc:creator":["Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"],"dc:date":["2011-05-07T12:49:47Z","10000-01-01","1992"],"dc:description":["Two experiments explored the causes and consequences of impression change. Subjects changed their impressions when they preferred an expectancy-inconsistent explanation for an expectancy-deviant event but not when they preferred an expectancy-consistent explanation for it. Subjects had better recall of behaviors that were consistent with their impression when either no explanation or an expectancy-consistent explanation was provided for the event. When an expectancy-inconsistent explanation was provided, subjects recalled behaviors that were inconsistent with their impression better. However, there was no relation between subjects' judgments and their recall of the target's behaviors. Subjects' judgments and recall were not influenced by the presence or absence of a specific expectation for the target, but rather, were determined by normative expectations for people's behavior. Finally, impression change did not lead to the formation of a separate representation of the target. The implications of these results for models of person memory are discussed.","Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:49:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9215781.pdf: 5444311 bytes, checksum: d42e0e2cb6429452b347dac930cce227 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1992","Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:46:23Z Item is restricted indefinitely.","Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:20:46-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission","U of I Only"],"dc:identifier":["AAI9215781","(UMI)AAI9215781","http://hdl.handle.net/2142/20804"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 1992 Budesheim, Thomas Lee, II"],"dc:subject":["Psychology, Social","Psychology, Experimental"],"dc:title":["The cognitive processes underlying impression change"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:25:16Z"}