Processing time and the recall of inconsistent and consistent behaviors of individuals and groups.

Abstract

Although most researchers who have investigated the effect of expectancy on memory for behavioral information have found a recall superiority for schema-inconsistent information, this finding appears to occur most clearly only when an individual, rather than individuals in a group, is seen as performing the behaviors. In this study we demonstrate first that the individual-group distinction is important in obtaining a recall superiority of schema-inconsistent behaviors. We then investigate a mechanism hypothesized to underlie these effects, one that attributes the recall enhancement to extra processing given to inconsistent items. We obtain evidence supporting this mechanism from a study in which we measure reading times for behavior statements. We discuss the relevance of these findings to recent experiments.

Perceiving individuals and groups: Expectancies, dispositional inferences, and causal attributions.

“…As we noted earlier, Stern et al (1984) found that the increased processing of inconsistent information does not occur when forming impressions of a group based on information about group members' behaviors. In Experiment 2, we investigated whether the attribution process is less likely to be engaged for group targets as well.…”

“…Research has shown that when forming impressions of individuals, perceivers devote additional attention to processing information that is inconsistent with a prior expectancy (Bargh & Thein, 1985;Stern et al, 1984). This increased processing reflects an effort to reconcile the unexpected information with the overall impression of the target person and may entail the review of previously acquired items of information Srull, 1981) as well as attributional reasoning to explain the unexpected behaviors.…”

“…Moreover, Hamilton and Sherman argued that this difference in expectations for perceived unity can affect the impression formation process and produce differences in this process for individual and group targets. Thus, perceivers are more likely to form impressions of a social target on-line (Manis & Paskewitz, 1987;McConnell, Sherman, & Hamilton, 1994;Sanbonmatsu, Sherman, & Hamilton, 1987), to expect greater consistency in the target's behaviors (Weisz & Jones, 1993), to recall more behavioral information about the target (McConnell et al, 1994;Wyer, Bodenhausen, & Srull, 1984), and to spend more time encoding information inconsistent with their impression of the target (Stern et al, 1984) when the target is an individual than when it is a group.…”

“…When an individual engages in expectancy-violating behaviors, the perceiver attempts to determine why these behaviors occurred and searches for their causes. People spend more time processing impression-inconsistent information than impression-consistent information (Bargh & Thein, 1985;Stern, Marrs, Millar, & Cole, 1984), and this extra processing time is used to form causal attributions (Hamilton, 1988;Hastie, 1984). These impression formation processes follow from the perceptions of the target as a coherent, unified entity.…”

The impact of attributional processes on triggered displaced aggression

“…This inconsistent information serves to violate your expectations. A large body of research indicates that inconsistent or unexpected information leads to spontaneous causal thinking (see Weiner, 1985 for a review) and more effortful cognitive processing relative to consistent or expected information (e.g., Bargh & Thein, 1985;Stern, Marrs, Millar, & Cole, 1984). Behavior that disconfirms a prior expectation also prompts attempts to explain such behavior (e.g., Hastie, 1984;Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1981).…”