Perceivers received information about a target person’s level of athletic performance (e.g., kicking a soccer ball) and the situational forces surrounding that performance. Perceivers’ inferences about the effort and ability of the target depended on whether the situational forces involved psychological forces (a bribe offered for low performance) or physical forces (a wind that hindered performance). Replicating past research, psychological forces had a stronger impact on inferred ability given the presence of low performance, as opposed to high performance. Additional analyses indicated that this pattern was mediated by inferences about the effort of the target. In contrast, physical forces appeared to have a direct impact on inferences of ability and affected inferences based on both low and high performance. The results suggest that perceivers make inferences about multiple attributes within a target person and, in the process, attempt to reconcile those inferences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, N. H. , & Butzin, C. A. (1974). Performance = motivation x ability: An integration-theoretical analyysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 598-604.
2.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258-290.
3.
Asch, S. E. , & Zukier, H. (1984). Thinking about persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1230-1240.
4.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
5.
Fein, S. (1996). Effects of suspicion on attributional thinking and the correspondence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1164-1184.
6.
Fleming, J. H. (1994) Multiple-audience problems, tactical communication, and social interaction: A relational-regulation perspective. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 26) (pp. 215-292). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
7.
Gilbert, D. T. (1998). Ordinary personology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 89-150). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
8.
Gilbert, D. T. , & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38.
9.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley.
10.
Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Freeman.
11.
Jones, E. E. , & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
12.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.
13.
Krull, D. S. , & Erickson, D. J. (1995). Inferential hopscotch: How people draw social inferences from behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 35-38.
14.
Kunda, Z. (1998). Parallel processing in person perception: Implications for two-stage models of attribution. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 115-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
15.
Malle, B. F. (1999). How people explain behavior: A new theoretical framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 21-43.
16.
Malle, B. F. , Knobe, J., O’Laughlin, M. J., Pearce, G. E., & Nelson, S. E. (2000). Conceptual structure and social functions of behavior explanations: Beyond person-situation attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 309-326.
17.
McArthur, L. Z. , & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215-238.
18.
McClure, J. (1998). Discounting causes of behavior: Are two reasons better than one?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 7-20.
19.
McClure, J. , & Hilton, D. (1998). Are goals or preconditions better explanations? It depends on the question. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 897-911.
20.
Morris, M. W. , & Larrick, R. P. (1995). When one cause casts doubt on another: A normative analysis of discounting in causal attribution. Psychological Review, 102, 331-355.
21.
Neter, J. , Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
22.
Read, S. J. (1987). Constructing causal scenarios: A knowledge structure approach to causal reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 288-302.
23.
Read, S. J. , & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1993). Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 429-447.
24.
Read, S. J. , & Miller, L. C. (1993). Rapist or “regular guy”: Explanatory coherence in the construction of mental models about others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 526-541.
25.
Reeder, G. D. (1997). Dispositional inferences of ability: Content and process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 171-189.
26.
Reeder G. D. , & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal perception. Psychological Review, 86, 61-79.
27.
Reeder, G. D. , & Fulks, J. L. (1980). When actions speak louder than words: Implicational schemata and the attribution of ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 33-46.
28.
Reeder, G. D. , & Spores, J. M. (1983). The attribution of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 736-745.
29.
Skowronski, J. J. , & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142.
30.
Trafimow, D. (1997). The implications of success for hierarchically and partially restrictive ability dimensions. Social Cognition, 15, 312-326.
31.
Trafimow, D. (1998). Situation-specific effects in person memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 314-321.
32.
Trafimow, D. , & Schneider, D. J. (1994). The effects of behavioral, situational, and person information on different attribution judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 351-369.
33.
Trafimow, D. , & Trafimow, S. (1999). Mapping perfect and imperfect duties onto hierarchically and partially restrictive trait dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 686-695.
34.
Trope, Y. (1998). Dispositional bias in person-perception: A hypothesis-testing perspective. In J. M. Darley & J. Cooper (Eds.), Attribution and social interaction: The legacy of Edward E. Jones (pp. 67-97). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35.
Vonk, R. (1999). Effects of outcome dependency on correspondence bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 382-389.
36.
Vonk, R. (1999). Impression formation and impression management: Motives, traits, and likability inferred from self-promoting and self-deprecating behavior. Social Cognition, 17, 390-412.
37.
Vonk, R. , & Van Knippenberg, A. (1994). The sovereignty of negative inference: Suspicion of ulterior motives does not reduce the negativity effect. Social Cognition, 12, 169-186.
38.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and achievement. New York: Springer-Verlag.
