global evaluations

[keannu]

This "global evaluations" is hard to understand here. In the first paragraph, the subjects already gave him some judgements which seem to be "evalutions of each attribute". Does the "global evaluatons" refer to the sum of all the attributes? I can't get how global evaluations brought about altered evaluatons of the attributes. Could you help me out?

330-259
ex)Two different videotaped interviews were conducted with the same individual - a college instructor who speaks English with a European accent. In one of the interviews the instructor was warm and friendly, but in the other, cold and distant. The subjects who saw the warm instructor rated his appearance, mannerisms, and accent as appealing, whereas those who saw the cold instructor rated these attributes as irritating.
These results indicate that global evaluations of a person can induce altered evaluations of the person's attributes, even when there is sufficient information to allow for independent assesments of such attributes. Furthermore, the subjects were unaware of this influence of these global evaluations on their ratings of attributes.
In fact, the subjects who saw the cold instructor actually believed that the direction of influence was the opposite of the actual direction. They reported that their dislike of the instructor had no effect on their ratings of his attributes, but that their dislike of his attributes had lowered their global evaluations of him.

[SoothingDave]

"Global" here would mean "overall."

The point here is that someone who comes across as unfriendly is going to get lower ratings on his individual attributes than someone who is warm and friendly.

Seems like a dumb study. If someone is annoying in general, people would tend to rate their mannerisms and accent as annoying.

How, exactly, did this same person act "cold" while maintaining the same mannerisms?

[keannu]

Thanks a lot! Final thing! Could you tell me what "the direction of influence" and "the opposite of the actual direction" each means?
I think the former is the positive perception while the latter is the negative perception of the instructor, but I'm not sure as it sounds too vague.

the subjects who saw the cold instructor actually believed that the direction of influence was the opposite of the actual direction.

[SoothingDave]

The subjects who had the "cold" person to evaluate were asked whether they thought they had let their impressions of him "globally" affect how they ranked him on his attributes. They reported the opposite, that they had no bias about him globally, but that his poor attributes totaled up to a bad global marking.