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
A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences
Weiner, B. (1979) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3 · Cited by 2,453
Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0 · Cited by 1,783
On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733 · Cited by 1,088
Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology
Humphreys, M. S., Krantz, D. H., Atkinson, R. C., Luce, R. D., & Suppes, P. (1976) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421426 · Cited by 984
A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.1.61 · Cited by 723
Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution.
Trope, Y. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.3.239 · Cited by 690
The rocky road from acts to dispositions.
JONES, E. E. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037//0003-066x.34.2.107 · Cited by 660
Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes.
Ross, L. D., Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.7.485 · Cited by 541
The rocky road from acts to dispositions.
JONES, E. E. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.2.107 · Cited by 446
On the confirmability and disconfirmability of trait concepts.
Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.131 · Cited by 382
Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person.
Quattrone, G. A. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.4.593 · Cited by 361
Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.269 · Cited by 335
An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion
Weiner, B. L. (1986) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4948-1_6 · Cited by 291
Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception.
Jones, E. E., Davis, K. E., & Gergen, K. J. (1961) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0048514 · Cited by 265
Suspicion of Ulterior Motivation and the Correspondence Bias
Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.753 · Cited by 236
Self-citationSuspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias.
Fein, S., Hilton, J. L., & Miller, D. T. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.58.5.753 · Cited by 232
Self-citationSome Determinants and Consequences of the Perception of Social Causality1
THIBAUT, J. W., & RIECKEN, H. W. (1955) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1955.tb01178.x · Cited by 219
Ingratiation. A social psychological analysis
WEISS, R. L. (1967) · Family Process · doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1967.129_2.x · Cited by 203
Reciprocity and credit building in a laboratory dyad.
Pruitt, D. G. (1968) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0025323 · Cited by 139
Attitude attribution when behavior is constrained
Snyder, M. L., & JONES, E. E. (1974) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90081-x · Cited by 121
Blurry words and fuzzy deeds: The attribution of obscure behavior.
Gilbert, D. T., McNulty, S. E., Giuliano, T. A., & Benson, J. E. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.18 · Cited by 107
When a coincidence is suspicious: The role of mental simulation.
Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W. W., & McFarland, C. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.581 · Cited by 90
Self-citationLevels of Inference in Dispositional Judgment
Trope, Y. (1989) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.1989.7.3.296 · Cited by 71
The perceptual and inferential effects of situational inducements on dispositional attribution.
Yaacov Trope, B., Cohen, O., & Maoz, Y. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.165 · Cited by 61
When actions speak louder than words: Implicational schemata and the attribution of ability
Reeder, G. D., & Fulks, J. L. (1980) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90034-7 · Cited by 42
Dimensional asymmetry in attributional inference
Reeder, G. D., Messick, D. M., & Van Avermaet, E. (1977) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90012-9 · Cited by 38
Miller, A. G., Schmidt, D., Meyer, C. L., & Colella, A. J. (1984) · Social Psychology Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3033944 · Cited by 33
Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association
(1989) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e584292009-001 · Cited by 1
When a coincidence is suspicious: The role of mental simulation.
Miller, D. T., Turnbull, W., & McFarland, C. (1989) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.581
Self-citation
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
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
