The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Suspicion and Dispositional Inference
Open accessAbstract
The role of suspicion in the dispositional inference process is examined. Perceivers who are led to become suspicious of the motives underlying a target's behavior appear to engage in more active and thoughtful attributional analyses than nonsuspicious perceivers. Suspicious perceivers resist drawing inferences from a target's behavior that reflect the correspondence bias (or fundamental attribution error), and they consciously deliberate about questions of plausible causes and categorizations of the target's behavior They are, however, quite willing to make strong correspondent inferences about the target if they learn additional contextual information that renders alternative explanations for the target's behavior less plausible. Implications of these findings for current multiple-stage models of the dispositional inference process are discussed, and the need for these and other models to give more consideration to the social nature of social perception is asserted.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Suspicion—questioning whether a target’s behavior reflects genuine motives or ulterior ones—leads perceivers to suspend dispositional inferences and resist the correspondence bias. Suspicious perceivers remain willing to make strong correspondent inferences when later contextual information disambiguates the target’s behavior, suggesting multiple-stage models underweight the social and motivational nature of social perception.
Key findings
- In Fein, Hilton, and Miller’s (1990) Studies 1 and 2, subjects in no-choice conditions inferred that an essay author’s true attitude matched the position argued, whereas subjects in ulterior-motives conditions drew no person inferences from the speech.
- Suspicion is not mere conservatism: suspicious subjects wrote significantly more open-ended explanations and, in Fein (1991, Studies 1 and 2), were significantly more likely to report attribution-relevant thoughts than nonsuspicious subjects.
- Suspicious perceivers use behavior selectively: in Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1989), subjects would not infer whether a suitor loved a wealthy widow or was after her money, but they did infer that he strongly wanted to marry her.
- When later information disambiguates behavior, suspicious perceivers make strong correspondent inferences: Fein et al. (1990, Study 3) and Fein et al. (1989) found that additional sincerity or honesty/greed cues led to correspondent inferences about attitude, love, or greed.
- Suspicion can produce cynicism toward expectancy-disconfirming behavior: in Fein (1991, Studies 6 and 7), subjects rated a student’s cultural interests more negatively and an ex-convict less trustworthy when the target was aware of the negative expectancy; in Study 8, they revised expectations for hard-to-fake analytical performance but not for interpersonal style.
Methods
- Design: theoretical and conceptual review article, not a new empirical study; it integrates prior experiments on suspicion and dispositional inference.
- Data or sample: reviewed experiments use assigned-essay, courtship-of-wealthy-widow, fellowship-interview, and ex-convict job-candidate paradigms; no sample sizes or statistical values are reported in the provided text.
- Main analysis: narrative synthesis and critique of multiple-stage dispositional inference models, including anchor-and-adjustment accounts and Trope’s model, with a proposed distinction between diagnostic and calibrative discounting.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a formal limitations section. It states that current multiple-stage models do not clearly account for suspicion and calls for models that better recognize the social nature of social perception.
- Evident from the text: the argument relies on prior studies, including an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Fein, 1991) and a conference paper (Fein, Hilton, & Miller, 1989), and reports no new data or numeric effect sizes.
- Evident from the text: as a theoretical review, its causal claims depend on the reviewed experiments rather than on new manipulations reported here.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
44 Own interpretation · 19 Sources not found · 10 No full text of the sources · 8 Own result · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Own method
In the paper
“Thibaut and Riecken (1955) manipulated the relative status of the helper and the recipient and found that the helper was liked less when he was of lower status than the recipient.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Thibaut and Riecken (1955) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Pruitt (1968) manipulated the resources available to the helper and found that the person who received help was less grateful when the help represented a relatively small proportion of the helper's resources.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pruitt (1968) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the subjects who read this information did tend to make strong correspondent inferences about his attitude.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein et al. (1990, Study 3)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“subjects in the no-choice conditions saw the target's behavior as more normative (expected) than subjects in the ulterior motives conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, when the selfdescriptions were consistent with the job description, and therefore possibly given in order to get the job, subjects'ratings did not differ from neutral ratings”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jones, Davis, and Gergen's (1961) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“when we (Fein et al., 1990, Study 1) asked subjects to indicate why the author behaved as he did, subjects in the suspicion conditions wrote significantly more than subjects in the no-choice conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein et al., 1990, Study 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The results showed that subjects' trait descriptions of the actors corresponded most closely to the actor's self-descriptions when those descriptions were inconsistent with the job description.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jones, Davis, and Gergen's (1961) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with predictions, subjects who read that the candidate knew that the interviewer was aware of his status as an ex-convict rated him as significantly less trustworthy than subjects in any of the other conditions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with predictions, subjects who knew of both the negative expectancy about the student's cultural interests and the student's awareness that the interviewer would have this expectancy rated the student's true attitude toward theater, opera, and art significantly more negatively than subjects in any of the other conditions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Whereas the subjects who did not read this additional information were unwilling to make a correspondent inference about the target's true attitude toward the issue discussed in his essay”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein et al. (1990, Study 3)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“the subjects were unwilling to infer either that the man was truly in love with the woman or that he was simply after her money.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1989)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Their responses indicated that these subjects did not tend to conclude that the target was influenced by ulterior motives but, rather, that the target may have been influenced by ulterior motives.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein (1991, Study 1)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“their open-ended responses indicated that these subjects merely recognized the possibility that his behavior may have been influenced by ulterior motives and perceived that they therefore could not make a confident inference about his true attitude.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects in our studies who have been induced to become suspicious tend to take situational factors into sufficient account, to become actively concerned with questions of causality, to distinguish between information that can and cannot be explained by particular causal explanations, and to use subtle cues that can help them determine which among several dispositional inferences is most appropr”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects in the typical assigned-essay paradigm may wonder whether the author really holds the expressed attitude, but it is unlikely that they question why the attitude was expressed.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter possibility makes them cynical and leads them to be conservative in their inferences.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“subjects should very quickly identify the author's behavior and initially infer that the author holds an attitude that corresponds to the attitude expressed in the essay. Then they should begin to correct this inference in light of the information about situational constraint.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjects were assigned randomly to one of three conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Notice that what separates the two examples is that the perceiver in the latter scenario assumes that the target is aware of the stereotype. This awareness leads to suspicion, which, in turn, leads to a rejection of the expectancy-disconfirming behavior.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Until the perceivers are able to resolve this ambiguity and determine whether the motives underlying the behavior reflect the author's true attitude, the desire to ingratiate, or some combination of these factors, they should suspend their judgments and thereby avoid the correspondence bias.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the wealth of the woman presents a very plausible, though not necessarily the most probable, alternative explanation for the behavior, and this plausibility is sufficient to lead the perceiver to suspend judgment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“subjects who are suspicious do not behave as if they had gained no information from the target's behavior. Instead, they behave as if they had received important information whose meaning remains ambiguous, and they suspend their judgments only until the meaning of the behavior can be made clear.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to our analysis, however, suspicion results in midpoint ratings because the subjects suspend their judgments, not because they conclude that the target has a moderate disposition.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current models do not specify how the correction stage would lead to a consideration of a variety of dispositions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although it is doubtful that they can appreciate completely the role of contextual information in their construal of the target's behavior, suspicious perceivers consciously consider competing identifications, and they seek additional cues that can reduce the ambiguity created by this competition.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus it would appear that controlled processing and considerations of situational factors would be evident at both the early anchoring stage(s) and the later adjustment stage.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, suspicious perceivers entertain multiple inferences, and these inferences sometimes implicate very different dispositions or characterizations (e.g., greed vs. love).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gilbert, McNulty, Giuliano, and Benson (1992) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because suspicion involves active, deliberative attributional thinking concerning the multiple and potentially rival explanations for a target's behavior”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The discounting that occurs in the case of no-choice conditions may involve more moderate inferences, but the discounting that occurs in the case of ulterior motivation seems to reflect suspended judgment rather than moderate inferences.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although many of these models can account well for the strong tendency of the typical perceiver to draw inappropriately correspondent inferences, they do not offer as clear an account for the role of suspicion in the dispositional inference process.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although suspicion may be especially likely to trigger thoughtful diagnostic discounting because people may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: People may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a sucker in the face of an actor influenced by ulterior motives.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After all, in order to become suspicious in the first place, the perceiver must recognize the situational factors that suggest that ulterior motives may offer a plausible explanation for the target's behavior.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When perceiving nonsocial behavior, perceivers need not concern themselves with the motives underlying the behavior. In perceiving people, however, the plausibility of hidden, illicit motives is often great.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic inducements makes sense as long as the corresponding disposition has already been identified.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note, however, that one implication of this analysis may be that although the process may at times be fairly cyclical, perceivers often must first diagnose which trait or motives correspond to the behavior before they can complete their adjustment for intrinsic and extrinsic inducements.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Stereotypes are often both public and negative.
“because stereotypes are often both public and negative”
The paper relies on this without support.
The negative aspects of stereotypes are often extremely difficult to disconfirm.
“It is clear that the negative aspects of stereotypes are often extremely difficult to disconfirm.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a sucker in the face of an actor influenced by ulterior motives.
“Although suspicion may be especially likely to trigger thoughtful diagnostic discounting because people may be quite concerned about being duped or appearing to be a”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, perceivers do not make these correspondent trait attributions when they become suspicious of the motives underlying the actor's behavior.”
From The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations (2006) · cites this paper as Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Citations
Cites
The psychology of interpersonal relations.
Heider, F. (1958) · doi:10.1037/10628-000 · Cited by 13,457
An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion
Weiner, B. L. (1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1 · Cited by 5,036
The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process
Ross, L. (1977) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60357-3 · Cited by 4,170
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: 1955
Feshbach, S., & Jones, M. R. (1957) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1419253 · Cited by 3,842
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior
JONES, E. E. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,760
From acts to dispositions the attribution process in person perception
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60107-0 · Cited by 3,424
Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
Bem, D. J. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024835 · Cited by 2,959
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0041593 · Cited by 2,945
Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Connolly, T., Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. D. (1981) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392481 · Cited by 2,690
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Fein, S. (1991). The suspicious mind. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
- Gilbert, D. T., 1989, Unintended thought, 189
- Hilton, J. L., 1990, Review International de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 519
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TRUST AND DISTRUST IN ORGANIZATIONS: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions
Kramer, R. M. (1999) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.569 · Cited by 3,415
“Hochschild (1983) described how fear of monitoring adversely impacted organizational trust and customer service among flight at-tendants at Delta Airlines.”
BackgroundBuilding Corporate Associations: Consumer Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs
Ellen, P. S. (2006) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1177/0092070305284976 · Cited by 1,591
Accuracy of Deception Judgments
Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 · Cited by 1,953
“Pursuing Ekman's emphasis on high-stakes deceit, forensic psychologist Vrij (2000) discussed the implications of experimental findings for professional lie catchers.”
BackgroundThe Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Activities on Companies With Bad Reputations
Yoon, Y., Gürhan‐Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9 · Cited by 1,429
“Given this ambiguity of positive behavior, people refrain from making correspondent inferences about the actor's positive dispositions whenever they have reason to suspect ulterior motives (Fein et al., 1990; Fein & Hilton, 1994; Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundThe bright side of being blue: depression as an adaptation for analyzing complex problems.
Andrews, P. W., & Thomson, J. A. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0016242 · Cited by 549
Bering, J. M. (2006) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x06009101 · Cited by 458
“This place error is seemingly compounded by nonnegotiable simulation constraints that tempt us into reasoning about these dead agents’ continued psychological functioning (as discussed in the previous section).”
BackgroundMotivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information.
Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G., Apanovitch, A., & Lockhart, L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.53 · Cited by 389
The sinister attribution error: Paranoid cognition and collective distrust in organizations
Kramer, R. M. (1994) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/bf02249399 · Cited by 359
“However, despite the logical inappropriateness of doing so, there is substantial evidence that people often make overly personalistic attributions of others' actions even when competing explanations for those actions are readily available (Fenigstein, 1979; Fenigstein & Vanable, 1992; Greenwald, 1980; Heider, 1958; Hi…”
BackgroundParanoid Cognition in Social Systems: Thinking and Acting in the Shadow of Doubt
Kramer, R. M. (1998) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_3 · Cited by 302
de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2013) · Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management · doi:10.1002/csr.1327 · Cited by 291
“…people may be suspicious about the truthfulness of this claim; they may doubt the company’s authenticity and start to suspect ulterior motives (Hilton et al., 1993; Fein, 1996; Forehand and Grier, 2003; Yoon et al., 2006).1 That is, the motives of energy companies are generally inferred to…”
BackgroundWoolfolk, R. L., Doris, J. M., & Darley, J. M. (2005) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.002 · Cited by 282
When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution.
Morris, M. W., & Larrick, R. P. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.331 · Cited by 226
The Effects of Sales Message and Suspicion of Ulterior Motives on Salesperson Evaluation
DeCarlo, T. E. (2005) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_9 · Cited by 199
Elliott, W. B., Hodge, F. D., & Sedor, L. M. (2011) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/accr-10202 · Cited by 181
“When another’s behavior is inconsistent with one’s positive expectations, trust is damaged (Hilton et al. 1993; Brockner et al. 1997; Dirks and Ferrin 2002; Kim et al. 2004).”
BackgroundEncoding Under Trust and Distrust: The Spontaneous Activation of Incongruent Cognitions.
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., & Burnstein, E. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.668 · Cited by 167
“A similar conclusion has been suggested by Fein and colleagues (Fein, Hilton, & Miller, 1990; Fein, McCloskey, & Tomlinson, 1997; Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993 ).”
The slime effect: Suspicion and dislike of likeable behavior toward superiors.
Vonk, R. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.849 · Cited by 166
“As argued by Fein and his colleagues (Fein et al., 1990; Hilton et al., 1993), these deliberations are aimed at identifying information that could disambiguate the meaning of the suspect behaviors.”
BackgroundConsumer cynicism: antecedents and consequences
Chylinski, M., & Chu, A. (2010) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/03090561011032720 · Cited by 170
Pappu, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2014) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-014-0373-x · Cited by 171
Target Article: "The Really Fundamental Attribution Error in Social Psychological Research"
Sabini, J. P., Siepmann, M., & Stein, J. (2001) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1201_01 · Cited by 165
Dispositional attribution: Multiple inferences about motive-related traits.
Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J. R. C., & Lawrence, M. (2004) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.4.530 · Cited by 158
“Moreover, such motives are particularly relevant to the literature on dispositional inference, in which manipulations are often similar to the no-choice condition (e.g., Jones & Harris, 1967) or to the ulterior-motive condition (e.g., Fein, 1996; Hilton et al., 1993 ) of our research.”
BackgroundJudging others in the shadow of suspicion
Fein, S., & Hilton, J. L. (1994) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/bf02249398 · Cited by 142
Self-citationContextualizing person perception: Distributed social cognition.
Smith, E. R., & Collins, E. C. (2009) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0015072 · Cited by 142
“Insko and Wilson (1977) demonstrated that responsiveness during interaction increases liking.”
BackgroundGood Gone Bad: One Toxin Away From Disease for Bacteroides fragilis
Valguarnera, E., & Wardenburg, J. B. (2019) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2019.12.003 · Cited by 141
Wood, M. (2017) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12231 · Cited by 80
Suspending judgment to create value: Suspicion and trust in negotiation
Sinaceur, M. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.002 · Cited by 122
“It involves the belief that another might have hidden motives (Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundLevine, T. R., Kim, R. K., Park, H. S., & Hughes, M. (2006) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750600873736 · Cited by 116
“Further, it is likely that individuals have schemas or stereotypes concerning certain situations in which one should be alert to the possibility of deception, and people are likely less truthbiased in situations where they perceive that another person might be motivated to deceive (cf. Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993 ).”
BackgroundFein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672972311008 · Cited by 126
Self-citationIdson, L. C., & Mischel, W. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.4.585 · Cited by 113
Trust and distrust in online banking: Their role in developing countries
Benamati, J. ‘., & Serva, M. A. (2007) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1002/itdj.20059 · Cited by 113
Moody, G. D., Galletta, D. F., & Lowry, P. B. (2014) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2014.05.001 · Cited by 126
“Suspicion is defined as the truster doubting the sincerity or motivations of the trustee (Hilton et al. 1993).”
Davis, D., & O’Donohue, W. (2004) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012524196-0/50037-1 · Cited by 108
Rose, J. M. (2007) · Behavioral Research in Accounting · doi:10.2308/bria.2007.19.1.215 · Cited by 109
“Hilton et al. (1993) finds similar results in a related study.”
ResultKammrath, L. K., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Mischel, W. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.605 · Cited by 109
“Perceivers consider a friendly person, for example, to be someone whose social behaviors stem specifically from a genuine concern for others and not from a self-serving desire to ingratiate (Hilton et al., 1993; Jones, 1964; Vonk, 1999).”
BackgroundMunro, G. D., Weih, C., & Tsai, J. (2010) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973531003738551 · Cited by 106
“Thus, when making judgments about an outgroup member, suspicious attributional processing is in effect (Fein, 1996; Fein et al., 1990; Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundJain, S. P., & Posavac, S. S. (2004) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1509/jmkr.41.1.46.25080 · Cited by 100
Rennie, M., Kopp, L. S., & Lemon, W. M. (2010) · Auditing A Journal of Practice & Theory · doi:10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.279 · Cited by 104
Suspicious spirits, flexible minds: when distrust enhances creativity
Mayer, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2011) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024407 · Cited by 78
Effortfulness and flexibility of dispositional judgment processes.
Trope, Y., & Alfieri, T. J. (1997) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.662 · Cited by 97
Cognition is a matter of trust: Distrust tunes cognitive processes
Mayo, R. (2015) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463283.2015.1117249 · Cited by 78
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galletta, D. F., & Moody, G. D. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.03.005 · Cited by 95
1. Organizational paranoia: Origins and dynamics
Kramer, R. M. (2001) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0191-3085(01)23002-0 · Cited by 86
The Underdog Effect: When Low Expectations Increase Performance
Nurmohamed, S. (2019) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2017.0181 · Cited by 83
Grant, A. M., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.06.005 · Cited by 82
“We selected these items based on the conceptual definition of suspicion in terms of questioning the genuineness or sincerity of motives or behavior (Hilton et al., 1993), as the sincerity of the speaker was the target of suspicion.”
MethodSuspicion of motives predicts minorities' responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions
Major, B., Kunstman, J. W., Malta, B. D., Sawyer, P. J., Townsend, S. S. M., & Mendes, W. B. (2015) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.007 · Cited by 75
Robinson, M. D., Johnson, J. T., & Shields, S. A. (1995) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365095022005003 · Cited by 76
Andrews, P. W. (2001) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00059-3 · Cited by 76
“For instance, in one study (reviewed in Hilton et al., 1993), a man of moderate means courts a wealthy woman.”
BackgroundInfluentialMinding the source: toward an integrative theory of human–machine communication
Lee, E.-J. (2023) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/hqad034 · Cited by 102
Corneille, O., Leyens, J., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Walther, E. (1999) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.76.3.377 · Cited by 72
Developmental and Gender Differences in Preadolescents' Judgments of the Veracity of Gossip
Kuttler, A. F., Parker, J. G., & Greca, A. M. L. (2002) · Merrill-palmer Quarterly · doi:10.1353/mpq.2002.0008 · Cited by 70
“For example, studies (e.g., Doelger et al., 1986; Hilton et al., 1993) suggest that individuals engage in more active reflection and are more skeptical of messages when they are led to believe that speakers may harbor ulterior motives.”
BackgroundBenamati, J., Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2006) · Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'06) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2006.63 · Cited by 28
Lucky or clever? From expectations to responsibility judgments
Gerstenberg, T., Ullman, T. D., Nagel, J., Max Kleiman-weiner, A., Lagnado, D. A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2018) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.019 · Cited by 68
The Pandering Politicians of Suspicious Minds
McGraw, K. M., Lodge, M. G., & Jones, J. M. (2002) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00130 · Cited by 61
Guenzi, P., Luca, L. M. D., & Spiro, R. L. (2016) · Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing · doi:10.1108/jbim-02-2015-0037 · Cited by 60
The Effects of Cognitive Capacity and Suspicion on Truth Bias
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (1997) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/009365097024005005 · Cited by 59
The Construct of State-Level Suspicion
Bobko, P., Barelka, A. J., & Hirshfield, L. M. (2013) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720813497052 · Cited by 20
“…persuasive arguments; his definition included an implied TABLe 1: Definitions of Suspicion From Social Science Literatures social psychology — Hilton, Fein, and Miller (1993) defined suspicion as having two components of “questioning motives” and being in a state of “suspended judgment”…”
BackgroundDistrust: A critical review exploring a universal distrust sequence
Six, F. E., & Latusek, D. (2023) · Journal of Trust Research · doi:10.1080/21515581.2023.2184376 · Cited by 72
“This lack of decisiveness increases the motivation to acquire more information through a more thorough decision process (Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundBehavioral Adaptation, Confidence, and Heuristic-Based Explanations of the Probing Effect
Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (2001) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1093/hcr/27.4.471 · Cited by 52
Gender Differences in Persistence and Attributions in Stereotype Relevant Contexts
Kiefer, A. K., & Shih, M. J. (2006) · Sex Roles · doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9051-x · Cited by 54
“Even in the face of contradictory evidence, stereotype-driven attributions serve to maintain a social perceiver’s initial beliefs about a group (Hastie, 1984; Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993; Wilder, Simon, & Myles, 1996).”
BackgroundBobko, P., Barelka, A. J., Hirshfield, L., & Lyons, J. B. (2014) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9360-y · Cited by 51
“Regarding the facet of uncertainty, suspicion involves ‘‘suspended judgment’’ (Hilton et al. 1993, p. 502), ‘‘questioning’’ (DeCarlo 2005, p. 239), or simply ‘‘uncertainty’’ itself (Kim and Levine 2011, p. 52; Lyons et al. 2011, p. 220).”
Misconnecting the dots: origins and dynamics of out-group paranoia
Kramer, R. M., & Schaffer, J. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139565417.015 · Cited by 46
The Effect of Suspicion on Deception Detection Accuracy: Optimal Level or Opposing Effects?
Kim, R. K., & Levine, T. R. (2011) · Communication Reports · doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.615272 · Cited by 47
“From a receiver’s perspective, no specific explanation is required to believe others, but construal of ulterior motives is necessary to be suspicious (Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundDeCarlo, T. E., Laczniak, R. N., & Leigh, T. W. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0319-0 · Cited by 44
Benamati, J. ‘., Serva, M. A., & Fuller, M. A. (2010) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2010.516632 · Cited by 42
“According to Hilton et al, “To be suspicious is also to be in a state of suspended judgment” [ 34 , p.”
BackgroundHype and Suspicion: The Effects of Pretrial Publicity, Race, and Suspicion on Jurors' Verdicts
Fein, S., Morgan, S. J., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (1997) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1997.tb02124.x · Cited by 42
Self-citationIndex of suspicion: feeling not believing
Levi, B. H., & Loeben, G. S. (2004) · Metamedicine · doi:10.1007/s11017-004-3136-8 · Cited by 41
How Surveillance Begets Perceptions of Dishonesty: The Case of the Counterfactual Sinner.
Miller, D. T., Visser, P. S., & Staub, B. D. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.117 · Cited by 41
“This latter possibility is supported by evidence suggesting that people tend to be highly vigilant for signs of dishonesty (Fein, Hilton, & Miller, 1990; Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citationManipulating Public Opinion with Moral Justification
McGraw, K. M. (1998) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716298560001010 · Cited by 40
Kleiman, T., Sher, N., Elster, A., & Mayo, R. (2015) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2015.06.001 · Cited by 40
The Process of Becoming Suspicious of Ulterior Motives
Marchand, M. A. G., & Vonk, R. (2005) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2005.23.3.242 · Cited by 36
The Optimistic Trust Effect: Use of Belief in a Just World to Cope with Decision-Generated Threat
Wilson, A. E., & Darke, P. R. (2012) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/664499 · Cited by 35
Auditor Sensitivity to Real Earnings Management: An Experimental Investigation
Commerford, B. P., Hermanson, D. R., Houston, R. W., & Peters, M. F. (2014) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.12441 · Cited by 45
Rose, A. M., & Rose, J. M. (2003) · Accounting Forum · doi:10.1111/1467-6303.00108 · Cited by 34
Two-Faced Morality: Distrust Promotes Divergent Moral Standards for the Self Versus Others
Weiß, A., Burgmer, P., & Mussweiler, T. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167218775693 · Cited by 35
Vonk, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (1994) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1994.12.3.169 · Cited by 28
Azer, J., & Alexander, M. (2022) · Journal of Service Theory and Practice · doi:10.1108/jstp-08-2021-0184 · Cited by 25
Lee, E., Kim, H. S., & Joo, M. H. (2022) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2022.2074781 · Cited by 25
Unweaving the Web: Deception and Adaptation in Future Urban Operations
Gerwehr, S., & Glenn, R. W. (2003) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/mr1495 · Cited by 25
Brandt, A. C., Vonk, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167209335056 · Cited by 20
You Must Have a Preference: The Impact of No Preference Communication on Joint Decision Making
Kim, N. Y. J., Zwebner, Y., Barasch, A., & Schrift, R. Y. (2020) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/00222437221107593 · Cited by 19
Mitchell, R. J., Gu, J., & Boyle, B. (2022) · Human Resource Management Journal · doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12476 · Cited by 19
Deception and Applicant Faking: Putting the Pieces Together
Kim, B. H. (2012) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118311141.ch7 · Cited by 18
How people cope with uncertainty due to chance or deception
Schul, Y., Mayo, R., Burnstein, E., & Yahalom, N. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.015 · Cited by 21
Social Media Use and Paranoia: Factors That Matter in Online Shopping
Zimaitis, I., Degutis, M., & Urbonavičius, S. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12030904 · Cited by 21
“These types of situations are known as triggering uncertainties and distrust [21], but studies almost never reach towards an even more irrational factor—paranoia.”
BackgroundDoes it pay to beat around the bush? The case of the obfuscating salesperson
Bickart, B. A., Morrin, M., & Ratneshwar, S. (2015) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2015.01.010 · Cited by 18
Jones, M. A., & Taylor, V. A. (2018) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2017.12.013 · Cited by 18
van Ooijen, I. (2022) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1177/10949968221080499 · Cited by 20
“…when consumers infer ulterior motives that underlie a company’s seemingly (social) responsible behavior, they tend to engage in more thoughtful attributional thinking compared to consumers who do not infer such motives (i.e., who are not “suspicious”; Campbell 1999; Hilton, Fein, and Miller 1993).”
BackgroundThe cognitive science of souls: Clarifications and extensions of the evolutionary model
Bering, J. M. (2006) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x06499106 · Cited by 16
Cultural intelligence and state suspicion: attachment styles as moderators
Tuấn, L. T. (2017) · Corporate Communications An International Journal · doi:10.1108/ccij-06-2015-0032 · Cited by 16
Moral Opportunities Versus Moral Tests
Miller, D. T., & Monin, B. (2016) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315644189-3 · Cited by 16
Self-citationSuspicion, inclusive leadership and team innovation: A motivated information processing approach
Mitchell, R. J., Gu, J., & Boyle, B. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114399 · Cited by 15
Effects of consumer suspicion: a review and agenda for future research
Panigyraki, A., & Polyportis, A. (2024) · Journal of Consumer Marketing · doi:10.1108/jcm-10-2023-6376 · Cited by 21
Distrust and Simultaneous Activation of Multiple Categories
Friesen, J. P., & Sinclair, L. (2010) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550610382666 · Cited by 15
“In addition, research on suspicion (Fein, 1996; Fein & Hilton, 1994; Fein, Hilton, & Miller, 1990; Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993) suggests that distrustful people tend to reserve interpersonal judgments, becoming less likely to make dispositional attributions for others’ behavior (Fein et al., 1990; Hilton et al., 1993…”
BackgroundThe Role of Human Operators' Suspicion in the Detection of Cyber Attacks
Hirshfield, L., Bobko, P., Barelka, A. J., et al. (2015) · International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism · doi:10.4018/ijcwt.2015070103 · Cited by 15
Leakage Beliefs and the Correspondence Bias
Lord, C. G., Scott, K. O., Pugh, M. A., & Desforges, D. M. (1997) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167297238004 · Cited by 15
Learning that there is life after death
Harris, P. L., & Astuti, R. (2006) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x06369105 · Cited by 16
Patterns of Trust and Collaboration among Nonprofit Organizations and Health Funds: A Case Study
Reiter, V., Tzafrir, S. S., & Laor, N. (2018) · Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs · doi:10.20899/jpna.4.2.134-155 · Cited by 14
Can Simple Metaphors Be Used as Decision Aids to Promote Professional Skepticism?
Durkin, M. P., Rose, J. M., & Thibodeau, J. C. (2019) · Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.2308/isys-52380 · Cited by 18
Examining buyers' negative word-of-mouth intentions following suspected salesperson transgressions
DeCarlo, T. E., & Hansen, J. D. (2022) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.01.004 · Cited by 14
Andrews, P. W. (2002) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(01)00084-8 · Cited by 13
Moody, G. D., Galletta, D. F., & Lowry, P. B. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2287398 · Cited by 14
“precedence for one attitude over the other causes an increased motivation to acquire more information or to more thoroughly process information to arrive at a conclusion (Hilton et al., 1993).”
BackgroundInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Hilton, J. L., Fein, S., & Miller, D. T.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Williams College (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 501-512
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2079398527
- Semantic Scholar
- 399a99633ce8421df81198b2f98dd1b7bf6af833
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 9.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Keywords
- suspicion, dispositional inference, fundamental attribution error, correspondence bias, attributional analysis, social perception, contextual information, causal explanation, categorization
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
