1. Warm/Cold Central Traits 1
Running head: WARM/COLD CENTRAL TRAITS
Effect of Warm and Cold Central Traits
on First Impressions
Nicole K. Long
Diablo Valley College

2. Warm/Cold Central Traits 2
Abstract
Seventy-two undergraduates (about 87% female and 13% male, M age = 21.65 yr., SD =
4.25) participated in an experiment similar to Solomon Asch's original studies on impression
formation from 1946. All subjects were given the same packet with a picture of a woman's face
named Debbie on it, alongside a list of personality traits. Central traits "warm" and "cold" were
placed in the middle of each list, in two conditions to test effects on first impressions. As
hypothesized, Debbie-warm was rated significantly higher on generosity, humor, and good-
nature than Debbie-cold, using alpha level .05, p <0.001. The words warm and cold, when used
to describe someone, carry a lot of weight when it comes to making first impressions.

3. Warm/Cold Central Traits 3
In Solomon Asch's original studies, he found groundbreaking results about how people
form first impressions. Asch described forming impressions as "an organized process;" that "to
know a person is to have a grasp of a particular structure" (Asch, 1946). He conducted multiple
experiments on this subject to compare the strength of the words "warm" and "cold" with other
words, or omission of such words completely, to test what qualities are central traits which
contribute to forming impressions of others (Asch, 1946). In his pilot experiment on the subject,
Asch gave two different groups, Group A and Group B, lists of the same words: intelligent,
skillful, industrious, determined, practical, and cautious, with the only difference being
presentation of the words "warm" and "cold" which were included in the middle of each list to
Groups A and B respectively (Asch, 1946). Participants were then asked to picture a hypothetical
person whom they were to attribute the list of words to, then write up a sketch of their first
impression of that person and use a checklist to check off personality traits they believe that
person had (Asch, 1946). Asch found significant differences in perception of the hypothetical
person from the warm and cold manipulation, and was able to support his hypothesis that warm
and cold are central traits (Asch 1946).
After Asch's study was published, many psychologists used his research to branch out
more, and as a tool to continue researching other areas of impression formation. Widmeyer and
Loy (1988) used findings from both Asch (1946) and another researcher, H.H. Kelley (1950), on
this particular subject. These experimenters set out to replicate an experiment by Kelley,
employing the same ideas from Asch, but by using a real person whom participants actually met
in a classroom setting (Widmeyer & Loy, 1988). They chose to focus on a few different things
that previous experimenters did not take into account. First, Widmeyer and Loy wanted to see if
manipulating the warm/cold description would create a halo effect on students' impressions of a

4. Warm/Cold Central Traits 4
teacher's ability. Secondly, they wanted to see if the labels "physical education teacher" and
"social psychology teacher" would produce a difference in students' impressions of the
instructor's capability to teach. Lastly, they wanted to focus on the differences in impressions of
the teacher amongst male and female participants (Widmeyer & Loy, 1988). After their
experiment, they found that the subjects who received information that the teacher was a warm
person saw him as "less unpleasant, more sociable, less irritable, less ruthless, more humorous,
less formal, and more humane" than those who were told he was a cold person (Widmeyer &
Loy, 1988). Also, subjects who were told that the stimulus person was a warm person felt he was
"more intelligent, more interesting, more considerate of the class, and more knowledgeable of his
material than the instructor who was perceived as being cold" (Widmeyer & Loy, 1988). There
were no significant differences between the different disciplinary statuses, nor between sex of
participants in their perceptions of the teacher (Widmeyer & Loy, 1988). Similarly, in Cuddy,
Fiske, and Glick's (2004) study about perceived loss of competence and gained warmth in new
working mothers, there was no interaction between sex of participants and the manipulated
variables (Cuddy et al., 2004).
But what is to be said about timing? Higgins, Rholes, & Jones (1977) found in their
experiment that "a person' s previous categorization of a stimulus person can affect his or her
later judgments of the stimulus person either indirectly, through its effect on the construction and
reconstruction of the stimulus information. and/or directly, through the category's own denotative
and evaluative implications." After their initial experiment, they retested participants 10-14 days
later to see if the participants' ratings of overall desirability of the stimulus person had changed
(Higgins et al., 1977). They found that "the delayed effect of prior verbal exposure on subjects'

5. Warm/Cold Central Traits 5
evaluations was greater than the immediate effect," and "subjects' reproductions of the
information about the stimulus person became more polarized over time" (Higgins, et al., 1977).
Some years later, Reich and Ray (2006) used Asch's original idea and took an even closer
look at the words given in the lists in relation to social desirability and intellectual desirability.
These experimenters found their hypothesis that "warm would produce a more socially desirable
impression than cold was hypothesized, but serious and foolish were not expected to differ on
this dimension [of social desirability]" to be confirmed, as did their other hypothesis, that
"serious would produce a more intellectually desirable impression than foolish, but warm and
cold would not differ on this dimension [of intellectual desirability]" (Reich & Ray, 2006). These
experimenters delved deeper into this idea of impression formation by testing different domains
in which adjectives describing a person are listed to determine desirable central traits.
The purpose of this experiment was to determine if "warm" and "cold" are central traits
used to describe a person which have significant effects in determining first impressions. The
hypotheses for this experiment are that Debbie-warm will be rated significantly higher on the
"generous," "humorous," and "good-natured" items than Debbie-cold.
Method
Participants
Seventy-two students in a research methods psychology class in a west coast community
college (about 87% female and 13% male, M age = 21.65 yr., SD = 4.25) participated in this
study. Participants were separated by different class times they were enrolled in. Students were
told they could opt out of the experiment, but none did.
Stimulus Materials

6. Warm/Cold Central Traits 6
A picture of a woman named Debbie was shown to each subject, along with a list of
seven traits to be attributed to the woman in the picture. These describing words included:
intelligent, industrious, skillful, determined, cautious, and practical. The only difference in the
two lists was the presentation of the word "warm" or "cold," which was listed directly in the
middle of each list.
Procedure
The subjects were split into two groups: subjects receiving a picture of a woman named
Debbie being described as a warm person, and subjects receiving the same picture, being
described as a cold person. A packet was handed out to each participant, which they were to read
and follow instructions. In this 2 (different groups: class receiving packet A, class receiving
packet B) X 2 (condition: warm, cold) between-participants design, participants rated Debbie
using their honest first impressions, based on three different traits (Selfish - Generous,
Humorless - Humorous, Mean-spirited - Good-natured) using a 0-10 scale. This was a true-
experimental study, measuring causes and effects in a controlled environment. This procedure
was done in such a way to strongly manipulate one variable and measure its effects, similar to
Asch's (1946) classic experiment. A completely different experiment similar in length was
conducted right before this one, but it did not seem to cause any extreme or different behaviors in
participants to have any effect on the current study. Students signed an informed consent form
before they began the experiment.
Results
As predicted, participants rated Debbie-warm significantly higher based on generosity
than Debbie-cold, t(70) = 5.72, p = 0.00. The mean rating of Debbie-warm based on generosity

7. Warm/Cold Central Traits 7
was 6.89 (SD = 1.83), while the mean rating for Debbie-cold was 4.09 (SD = 2.33). Effect size
was 0.56. Based on these findings, using an alpha level of .05, we support the research
hypothesis that Debbie-warm will be rated significantly higher on the "generous" item than
Debbie-cold. Participants also rated Debbie-warm significantly higher based on humor than
Debbie-cold, t(69) = 3.33, p = 0.001. The mean rating of Debbie-warm based on humor was 5.21
(SD = 2.07), while the mean rating for Debbie-cold was 3.67 (SD = 1.80). Effect size was 0.37.
Based on these findings, using an alpha level of .05, we also support the research hypothesis that
Debbie-warm will be rated significantly higher on the "humorous" item than Debbie-cold. As
expected, participants rated Debbie-warm significantly higher based on good-nature than
Debbie-cold, t(69) = 6.12, p = 0.00. The mean rating of Debbie-warm based on good-nature was
7.50 (SD = 2.02), and the mean rating for Debbie-cold was 4.55 (SD = 2.03). The effect size was
0.59. Based on these findings, using an alpha level of .05, we support the research hypothesis
that Debbie-warm will be rated significantly higher on the "good-natured" item than Debbie-
cold. Occasionally, participants omitted answers on the rating scales, however these variations
were very minor.
Discussion
Asch's (1946) original experiments piloted the theory of warm and cold being central
traits people form impressions from. Now, even after almost seven decades, the results Asch
once found remain consistent. Even with six other listed traits, only the warm and cold
descriptions had a significant impact on how participants perceived the depicted stimulus person,
then and in the current study.

8. Warm/Cold Central Traits 8
As hypothesized, Debbie-warm was rated significantly higher in three different areas:
generosity, humor, and good-nature than Debbie-cold was. These results are congruent with
Reich & Ray's (2006) previously confirmed hypothesis that "warm would produce a more
socially desirable impression than cold was hypothesized..." (Reich & Ray, 2006). It seems as
though warm and cold descriptions define how we are in social interactions, but do not play a big
role in defining one's intellect. Reich & Ray (2006) went to further lengths in their experiment to
determine between social and intellectual desirability by placing central traits into different
domains of traits. The current experiment, executed at Diablo Valley College, was successful,
yet did not venture into the differences in central traits in different domains. This could have
potentially made the experiment even stronger.
Only alternating one cause (warm vs. cold) provided strong manipulation of the
independent variable. But perhaps by doing so, the experiment did not have enough levels to be
as realistic as the real world. This study was very similar to that of Solomon Asch (1946) in that
the same lists of words were used, but one major difference was in how information was
recorded. Asch used checklists and participant sketches to determine perceived positivity and
negativity in impression forming, while the current experiment employed interval scales from 0-
10 to rate subjects' first impressions on selected items. This way seems to give a more precise
quantitative value, than having to categorize qualitative information, which can lead to error and
experimenter bias. Though the experiment was on first impressions, it would be interesting to see
if the first impressions were to carry on over time, like the study by Higgins' et al. (1977) on
impression formation. In their experiment, they found that participants' impressions of the
stimulus person became much more strongly polarized in either the negative or positive way.

9. Warm/Cold Central Traits 9
The execution of the Debbie-warm/cold experiment was only slightly flawed, because it
was given directly after another non-related experiment had taken place having to do with how
participants rated things such as how their last week was and their mood, after writing about
positive or negative events. While the previous experiment was short and did not cause
significant changes to the data in the current study, it still could have affected individuals'
answers subconsciously. Another possible flaw in the Debbie-warm/cold study was the different
times the experiment took place. The first group to take part in the study received the warm
condition earlier in the morning, and the second group received the cold condition a couple of
hours later. While still insignificant in this case, events that could have taken place in between
the two experimental conditions could have caused different responses in subjects based on
extraneous factors.
The results from this experiment can easily be applied to everyday life. Each and every
day we, as humans, make judgments and first impressions based on very little information. This
is a survival technique we have adapted from early times. Zajonc (1980) quotes Keenan and
Bailett (1979) about how it is not always about "what the subject knows or the amount of
knowledge that is used in encoding the item, but rather what the subject feels about what he
knows" (Keenan & Bailett, 1979). The brain is instinctual when it comes to making first
impressions, which is why the Debbie-warm/cold study is so relevant to everyday life.
Future research investigating central traits should continue switching around the words
that surround the manipulated traits in the experiment. That way we can learn even more about
differences in desirability in individuals, going beyond just social and intellectual desirability.

10. Warm/Cold Central Traits 10
References
Asch, S.E. (1946) Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 41, 258-290.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., Glick, P. (2004) When professionals become mothers, warmth
doesn't cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701-718.
Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., Jones, C.R. (1977) Category accessibility and impression
formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.
Kcenan, J.M., & Bailett, S.D. (1979) Memory for personally and socially significant events. In
R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum
.
Reich, W.A. & Ray, S. (2006) Domain specific effects of central traits in impression formation.
Psychological Reports 98:3, 885-891.
Widmeyer, N.W. & Loy, J.W. (1988) When you're hot, you're hot! warm-cold effects in first
impressions in persons and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80, 118-121.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980) Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American
Psychologist, 35(2), 151-175.