Selective perception of events

Massad, Christopher M.; Hubbard, Michael L.; Newtson, Darren

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(79)90049-0

Cited by 112 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern was not found, however, when the trait concept was activated after the initial presentation of behaviors. Thus, the results of this study, like those of Massad et al (1979) and Srull and Wyer (1980), suggest that the effects of activating generic concepts at the time of encoding are considerable but that the effects of activating such concepts only at the time of retrieval and judgment seem to be negligible at best.…”

Section: Pre-and Post-information Effectssupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Research on "priming" has also documented that havinga certain frameof reference activated before one encounters ambiguous information can have a powerful effect on the interpretation that is given to that information (e.g., Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977;see Wyer & Srull, 1989, for a comprehensive review). However, several studies suggest that once the information has been interpreted, providinga new frame of reference (or a different schema) may have littleeffecton judgments that are made of the stimulus (e.g., Massad, Hubbard, & Newtson, 1979;Srull & Wyer, 1980). Thus, as with information acquisition, the information-interpretation effectsof GKSs generally appear to requirethe activation of the knowledge structure(s) prior to encountering the stimulusin order for the effects to occur.…”

Section: Four Cognitive Functions Of Generic Knowledge Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study allowing a comparison of the two types of effects was conducted by Massad et al (1979). They had subjects view a film of abstractgeometricfigures movingdynamically around the screen.…”

Section: Pre-and Post-information Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Schwarz¹,

Sudman²

1992

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.Camera-ready copy supplied by the authors. Printed and bound by Braun-Brumfield, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. Bibb Latane and Deborah Richardson hosted the conference at the Nags Head Conference Center in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina. Their hospitality, the joys of southern cooking, and the outer banks of North Carolina greatly contributed to an enjoyable and productive meeting. Special thanks are due to Mary A. Spaeth, who edited all contributions to this volume and turned a pile of manuscripts into a readable book. Finally, we thank all conference participants for lively and controversial discussions from breakfast to midnight and for the fine chapters that they contributed.

show abstract

Section: Pre-and Post-information Effectssupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Four Cognitive Functions Of Generic Knowledge Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research

Schwarz¹,

Sudman²

1992

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When perceivers diverge in their observational goals (Cohen and Ebbesen 1979;Lassiter et al 2000), in their prior interpretive sets (Massad et al 1979) in their affective expectations (Geers and Lassiter 2002), or in their observational skill levels (Newtson et al 1979, unpublished manuscript), it has been shown that there can be concomitant shifts in their patterns of unitization. For example, Cohen and Ebbesen (1979) and later Lassiter et al (2000) found that individuals whose observational goal was to learn an 2 Not all kinds of information become more memorable as unitization rate increases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

On the Induction and Consequences of Variation in Behavior Perception

Ratcliff

Lassiter

2007

Curr Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research indicates that perceivers regulate information gain from their observation of ongoing behavior by varying the number and kind of actions they identify as meaningful. Although numerous factors have been shown to induce variation in this behavior-perception process, it is not currently known whether observers must consciously and intentionally initiate these changes. To address this question, different observational goals (impression formation or memorization) were nonconsciously primed in participants who then viewed and segmented a behavior sequence into meaningful actions. Although participants were unaware of its effects, the priming manipulation led to quantitative and qualitative shifts in their perception of the behavior that were similar to those found in a previous study in which observational goals were manipulated via explicit instructions. Importantly, these shifts in perception, in turn, influenced evaluations of the observed actor and memory for her behavior. We conclude that an act of will is not required for adjustments in behavior perception to be initiated, and, furthermore, that a full understanding of social judgment cannot be achieved without examination of the behavior-perception process.

show abstract

“…One came when he called a Pentagon troop estimate "A guess derived from speculation informed by ignorance and fueled by desire" [82]. The other described his reaction to President Johnson's "Gulf of Tonkin" speech in August, 1964 as "...the product of ignorance blended with wishful thinking and dulled perceptions [83].…”

Section: Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%