Suspicion of ulterior motivation and the correspondence bias.

Abstract

Three studies examined the hypothesis that when perceivers learn of the existence of multiple, plausibly rival motives for an actor's behavior, they are less likely to fall prey to the correspondence bias than when they learn of the existence of situational factors that may have constrained the actor's behavior. In the first 2 studies, Ss who learned that an actor was instructed to behave as he did drew inferences that corresponded to his behavior. In contrast, Ss who were led to suspect that an actor's behavior may have been motivated by a desire to ingratiate (Study 1), or by a desire to avoid an unwanted job (Study 2), resisted the correspondence bias. The 3rd study demonstrated that these differences were not due to a general unwillingness on the part of suspicious perceivers to make dispositional inferences. The implications that these results have for understanding attribution theory are discussed.

The Process of Becoming Suspicious of Ulterior Motives

“…In line with Vonk's (1999a) studies, in which participants evaluated an actor's positive behavior differentially depending on the target's hierarchical position, the largest changes in suspicion and evaluation emerged on the basis of target information. By comparison, the general actor cues used by Fein et al (1990) had a minor effect on suspicion in our studies. In only four out of 120 instances, general actor cues led to suspicion or to certainty that the actor had an ulterior motive.…”

“…This type of behavior descriptions, in other settings, was also used in studies by Fein et al (1990).…”

“…Subsequently, additional information is provided that can change participants' judgments in one direction or the other. For example, Fein, Hilton, and Miller (1990) had participants read a story about a man who courts a wealthy widow. Participants were unwilling to conclude either that he was in love with her or that he was after her money; they were not certain which inference to make (i.e., they were suspicious).…”

Effects of suspicion on the perception of online referrals: the role of congruity and message sidedness

“…It is rather thought to "hover in readiness" and is only activated when specific circumstances during a persuasion episode are met (Friestad and Wright, 1994, p.10). A psychological state in which access to persuasion knowledge becomes more likely is known as suspicion of ulterior motives (Fein et al, 1990). Suspicion of ulterior motives is defined as "questioning the motives that underlie another person's behaviour or questioning the authenticity of that behaviour" (DeCarlo, 2005, p.239).…”

“…Suspicious recipients should be likely to consider intrinsic as well as extrinsic motives as possible causes for observed referral behaviour, as suspicion motivates consumers to access persuasion knowledge (Campbell and Kirmani, 2000). As a result suspicious recipients should refrain from taking referrals at face value, at least until their suspicious thoughts have been invalidated (Fein et al, 1990). Conversely, referral behaviour that is congruent to consumer expectations should not prompt extensive elaboration (Mandler, 1982).…”