Posthumous Impression FormationPosthumous Impression Formation

Scott Allison, Dafna Eylon, Jennifer Bachelder, and Emily Breiner

University of Richmond

BackgroundBackground

Research on impression formation has focused on impressions of living targets

How do impressions of dead targets differ from impressions of living targets?

3

Philosophical Views of Posthumous Philosophical Views of Posthumous ImpressionsImpressions

Death “crystalizes” the impression:– `Tis after death that we measure men. -- James Barron Hope

– One does not know more facts about a man because he is dead. But what one knows hardens and becomes more definite. -- John Berger

Death leads to a more favorable impression:– Don’t insult the dead. -- Sophocles

– Death openeth the gate to good fame, and extinguisheth envy. -- Francis Bacon

4

Examples of How We Honor the DeadExamples of How We Honor the Dead

Statues, monuments, shrines Names of buildings, cities, awards, roads,

children Funerals, epitaphs, elegies, eulogies,

headstones Epic stories, myths, legends Faces on coins, currency, stamps Moments of silence

Two Main IssuesTwo Main Issues

The “evaluative” issue: How do evaluations of the dead differ from evaluations of the living?

The “process” issue: How do we process information differently about the dead than about the living?

Experiment 1: Posthumous EvaluationsExperiment 1: Posthumous Evaluations

Do people show a “death positivity bias” in their impressions of the dead?

Participants read a scenario describing a business leader and were asked to form an impression of him

The business leader was either alive or dead, and was described as either competent or incompetent at his job

3 possible results:

1 Subjects perceive the dead the same way as the living

2 Subjects show a death positivity bias

3 Subjects show a death extremitization bias

7

Experiment 1Experiment 1 Design: 2 (alive, dead) x 2 (competent, incompetent)

Examples of competent/incompetent target actions:– Visionary/shortsighted investment decisions– Hiring of good/bad employees

– Development of innovative/useless products

Dependent measures:– How favorable is your impression of this person

– How much respect do you have for this person

– How good a leader and how good a businessman

– How proud would you and others be to work for this person

– How motivated and inspired by this person are you and others

8

Experiment 1 ResultsExperiment 1 ResultsEvidence for the Death Positivity BiasEvidence for the Death Positivity Bias

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Alive Dead

Competent

Incompetent

Limits to the Death Positivity BiasLimits to the Death Positivity Bias

Experiment 1 manipulated the target’s standing on the competence

dimension, but what about the morality dimension?

Why might we expect a difference between competence and morality?

– When forming posthumous impressions, we may place greater

weight on the target’s standing on the morality dimension than the

competence dimension

– Terror management theory: Death anxiety intensifies allegiance to

moral codes (Becker, 1973). When mortality is made salient,

people punish immoral targets and reward moral targets

(Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Lyon, 1989)

Experiment 2 OverviewExperiment 2 Overview Two competing hypotheses:

– Death positivity for both competence and morality dimensions

– Death positivity for the dimension of competence but death

extremitization for the dimension of morality

Design: 2 (status: dead, alive) x 2 (dimension: competence,

morality) x 2 (valence: positive, negative)

Examples of moral/immoral target actions:

– Legal/illegal disposal of toxic waste

– Generous/stingy treatment of employees

– Giving/not giving to charities

11

Experiment 2: ResultsExperiment 2: Results

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Competent Incompetent Moral Immoral

Mean Ratings of Target

Alive

Dead

12

Experiment 3: OverviewExperiment 3: Overview

People are not always consistently good, bad, competent, or incompetent over their entire lifespan.

In Experiment 3, the target underwent a change in competence or morality.

Design: 2 (status: alive, dead) x 2 (dimension: morality, competence) x 2 (order of change: positive to negative, negative to positive)

13

Experiment 3: HypothesesExperiment 3: Hypotheses Morality Dimension:

– The St. Augustine effect. People love sinners who become great saints.

– The fallen angel effect. People loathe saints who become sinners.

– The above effects should be stronger when the target is dead than when the target is alive.

Competence Dimension:

– The diamond-in-the-rough effect. People love individuals who start out slow but then develop great competencies.

– The he-could-have-been-a-contender effect. People dislike individuals who fizzle out after showing early promise in abilities.

– The above effects should be stronger when the target is alive than when the target is dead. For dead targets, only the death positivity bias should emerge.

14

Experiment 3: ResultsExperiment 3: Results

012345678

Comp-Incomp

Incomp-Comp

Moral-Immoral

Immoral-Moral

Mean Ratings of Target

AliveDead

15

Process Issues: The “Why” and “How” of Process Issues: The “Why” and “How” of the Death Positivity Bias?the Death Positivity Bias?

The bias may reflect the use of the social norm or heuristic, “Show respect for the dead”.– This explanation suggests shallow, superficial processing

– Applies to targets with whom we share a weak unit relationship

Death makes salient the miraculous uniqueness of the person -- the “ache of cosmic specialness” (Becker, 1973). This specialness tends to be most recognizable at life’s salient transitions of birth and death.– This explanation suggests deeper, more systematic processing

– Applies to targets with whom we share a strong unit relationship

16

Process Issues Associated With Posthumous Process Issues Associated With Posthumous Impression FormationImpression Formation

Impressions of Living Targets– The perceiver forms an

impression of the target’s personality

– Impressions are made via “on-line” processing

– Impressions show a primacy effect

– Trait inferences made quickly

– Impressions are subject to change in response to changes in the target’s behavior

– Shallow processing more likely

– Impressions are formed in the service of behavior

Impressions of Dead Targets– The perceiver uses the target’s

moral actions as the main basis for the impression

– Impressions are made via “memory-based” processing

– Impressions show a recency effect

– Trait inferences made slowly

– Impressions are stable and immutable; the target becomes “frozen in time”

– Deeper processing more likely

– Impressions serve more cosmological functions

17

Experiment 4: OverviewExperiment 4: Overview Purpose: To investigate differences in the processing of

information about living versus dead target persons Method:

– Behavioral information about a target (either living or dead) displayed sequentially on a computer screen

– Subjects presented with 12 target behaviors corresponding to 3 trait dimensions (athleticism, intelligence, and sociability)

Dependent measures:

– Favorability of the impressions

– Response latencies of trait ratings

– Free recall of information about target

– Confidence in trait ratings

18

Experiment 4: ResultsExperiment 4: ResultsReplication of the Death Positivity BiasReplication of the Death Positivity Bias

0

1

2

3

4

5

Favorability Ratings

Living Dead

19

Experiment 4: Response Latencies Experiment 4: Response Latencies of Trait Ratingsof Trait Ratings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Seconds

Athletic Intelligent Sociable

LivingDead

Evidence of on-line processing of living target and memory-based processing of dead target

20

Experiment 4: Experiment 4: Response latency for moralityResponse latency for morality

Subjects asked to “type the first word that comes to mind”

0

1

2

3

4

Seconds

Living Dead

21

Experiment 4: Confidence of Experiment 4: Confidence of Trait RatingsTrait Ratings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Degree of Confidence

Athletic Intelligent Sociable

LivingDead

22

Experiment 4Experiment 4

Subjects forming posthumous impressions were quicker to indicate “a willingness to say nice things” about the target

1234567

Seconds

Living Dead

23

Experiment 4 Experiment 4

Subjects forming posthumous impressions recalled more behavioral information about the target

4

5

6

7

8

Items recalled

Living Dead

Summary of Findings: Experiments 1 and 2Summary of Findings: Experiments 1 and 2

People show a death positivity bias, forming more favorable impressions of dead targets than of living targets

– People display the bias independent of the target’s standing on intellectual or ability-related dimensions (Experiment 1)

People show a death extremitization bias when forming an impression of a target based on the target’s standing on the dimension of morality (Experiment 2)

25

Summary of Findings: Experiment 3Summary of Findings: Experiment 3

When perceiving a change in a target:

– People are sensitive to a change in a target’s abilities when the target is alive but are insensitive to the change when the target is dead

– People are sensitive to the direction of change in morality Impressions of a living target are based on information

about the target’s moral actions performed early in life Impressions of a dead target are based on the target’s

moral actions performed later in life near the time of death (St. Augustine effect)

26

Summary of Findings: Experiment 4Summary of Findings: Experiment 4

Replication of the Death Positivity Bias People engage in on-line processing of living targets

and memory-based processing of dead targets People are more confident of their impressions of living

targets than of dead targets Perceiving a dead target primes the notion of “morality” People are quicker to praise the dead than the living,

suggesting that the DPB reflects the use of a heuristic People also recall more information about the dead,

suggesting overall deeper processing of the dead

27

Future DirectionsFuture Directions Issues pertaining to “evaluation”:

– Is the death positivity bias moderated by the strength of the unit relationship between the perceiver and the target person?

– Is the death positivity bias part of a more general “Life Transition Positivity Bias” phenomenon?

Issues pertaining to process, stability, and meaning:– Does the target’s standing on the dimension of morality receive

more weight when the target is dead than when the target is living?

– Are posthumous impressions more stable and immutable than impressions of the living?

– How are posthumous impressions affected by the circumstances of the target’s death?

– Do people draw meaning from posthumous impressions?