Cited by 723Social and Intergroup PsychologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment

A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.

Reeder, Glenn D., Brewer, Marilynn B.·1979·Psychological Review

Abstract

Previous research on dispositional attribution has failed to take into account how the inference process may be affected by variations in schematic representation of dispositional attributes. A schema is denned here as a set of implicational links between dispositional levels and categories of relevant behaviors. Three general schemata are discussed—the partially restrictive schema, the hierarchically restrictive schema, and the fully restrictive schema—each having different implications for the rules of inference employed in making attributions based on observed behaviors. Relevant research on utilization of information regarding consensus, situational context, and actor's past behavior is reviewed in this framework.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-295x.86.1.61

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • It is much less plausible that someone who is not athletic but is motivated to appear to be a good athlete could behave in a very athletic fashion for any length of time than that someone motivated to appear culturally literate could act culturally literate during a brief interaction.

    “Whereas virtually anyone who is motivated to deceive another by appearing to be culturally literate, for example, could act in a culturally literate manner during a brief interaction (if given some time to prepare), it is much less plausible that someone who is not athletic but is motivated to appear to be a good athlete could behave in a very athletic fashion for any length of time”

    From Suspicion and Dispositional Inference (1993) · cites this paper as Reeder & Brewer, 1979

  • A first impression of a partner can bias the way we process interactions with them.

    “For example, a first impression of a partner can bias the way we process interactions with them 80.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B.
Affiliations
Illinois State University (US)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
1979-01
Volume
86
Issue
1
Pages
61-79
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2036781493
Cited by
723
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 24
FWCI
36.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Keywords
dispositional attribution, interpersonal perception, schema theory, consensus information, situational context, past behavior

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