Blurry words and fuzzy deeds: The attribution of obscure behavior.
Abstract
When people attempt to infer the existence of traits from another's behavior, they categorize the behavior, characterize the actor in trait terms, and then correct that inference with information about situational constraints. The 1st 2 stages require fewer attentional resources than does the 3rd. However, when behavior is obscure (i.e., difficult to categorize because its features are not easily apprehended), the 1st stage should consume resources on which the 3rd stage depends, and undercorrected inferences should result. In 2 experiments, behavior was made obscure by distorting its visual or acoustical parameters. Although the obscure behaviors could logically have been attributed to the constraining situations in which they occurred, Ss who observed such behaviors were especially unlikely to correct their trait characterizations of the actors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Gilbert et al. (1992) found that when perceivers are presented with perceptually obscured behavioral stimuli concerning a target person, the cognitive effort they must devote to deciphering the proper categorization reduces their ability to engage in the cognitively effortful process of correction, thereby increasing the likelihood of succumbing to the correspondence bias.
“Gilbert, McNulty, Giuliano, and Benson (1992), for example, have found that when perceivers are presented with perceptually obscured behavioral stimuli concerning a target person, the cognitive effort they must devote to deciphering the proper categorization reduces their ability to engage in the cognitively effortful process of correction, thereby increasing the likelihood of succumbing to the”
From Suspicion and Dispositional Inference (1993) · cites this paper as Gilbert, McNulty, Giuliano, and Benson (1992)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 36 · Cited by 107
- Authors
- Gilbert, D. T., McNulty, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., & Benson, J. E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
- Published
- 1992-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-25
- ISSN
- 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1315
- OpenAlex
- W2063022081
- Cited by
- 107
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 25.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- trait inference, attribution, situational constraints, attentional resources, visual distortion, person perception
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
