Task Effects on Trait Inference: Distinguishing Categorization from Characterization

Whitney, Paul; Davis, Paul A.; Waring, Douglas A.

doi:10.1521/soco.1994.12.1.19

Cited by 25 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…And in both instances it is the act that is categorized rather than the actor (for spontaneous trait inferences) or the speaker (for speech act recognition). But there are times when spontaneous trait inferences also result in characterization of the actor (see, e.g., Overwalle, Drenth, & Marsman, 1999;Whitney, Davis, & Waring, 1994). And so it is possible that speech act recognition might sometimes result in inferences being made about the speaker.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehending illocutionary force

Holtgraves

Ashley

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehending illocutionary force

Holtgraves

Ashley

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Using a response latency procedure, Whitney, Davis, & Waring (1994) demonstrated that although traits could be spontaneously activated by a behavior, these traits would not necessarily be ascribed to the target individual. Differences in response latencies indicated that processing of behavioral information about a target individual was disrupted due to interference of competing information.…”

Section: Impression Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this study, response latency indicated the magnitude of 'disruption' incurred by capturing attention resources and effortful processing toward an inconsistent stimulus. Using response latency, Whitney et al (1994) were able to infer that encoding of behavioral information does not necessarily lead to trait ascription, by demonstrating conditions under which this process does not occur.…”

Section: Impression Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response latency in social psychological research

Nosek

2016

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgmentsThis paper was written under the direction of my advisor, Mahzarin Banaji. I am very appreciative of her motivational speeches and consistent support as I work to develop my writing skills. Also, much appreciation is due to Bethany Teachman who went over every word of this text with me, helping me to make my writing clearer and cleaner. AbstractWith the rise of social cognition, use of response latency as a dependent variable has become common in social psychological research. Response latency has been used by researchers to investigate processes that are not easily testable with other methodologies, such as self-report. Response latency's usefulness as a methodological tool is notable due to its broad application in social psychology, from research on close relationships and attribution to investigations of the self and attitudes. This paper reviews the breadth of social psychological research that has used response latency to inform about mental representations, cognitive processes, and motivational tendencies.Response Latency 2 Response latency in social psychological researchThe only property of mental events that can be studied directly, in the intact organism, while the events are taking place, is their duration.1 Pachella, 1974, p. 43 Mental processes are grounded in real time (Posner, 1978). As such, thinking, judging, and behaving all must unfold over a period of measurable time. Researchers of information processing assume that the measurement of time can be exploited to infer the content of the cognitive processing that produces thought and behavior. Response

show abstract

“…A number of investigations have now specified several conditions that affect the likelihood that trait inferences activate actor-trait links instead of trait concepts. For instance, procedural knowledge (Smith, 1990), the situational context (Uleman, Moskowitz, Roman & Rhee, 1993;Whitney, Davis & Waring, 1994), the goals and motivation of the individual perceiver (Uleman & Moskowitz, 1994), and the personality the perceiver brings into the situation (Moskowitz, 1993) may all affect the likelihood that trait inferences activate person descriptions or actor-trait links instead of behaviour descriptions. For example, specific actor-trait links (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential consequences of trait inferences: a direct test of the trait-referent hypothesis

Stapel

Koomen

1996

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The hypothesis was investigated that when trait inferences rejer to abstract behaviour labels (i.e. 'conceited') they act as a general interpretation frame and lead to assimilation in subsequent judgments of' an ambiguous target, whereas when they refer to specific actor-trait links (i.e. 'Peter is conceited') the activated information is likely to be used as a scale anchor and contrast effects are more likely. Compared to previous studies investigating the consequences of trait inferences, this 'trait-referent ' hypothesis was testedin a relatively direct w y . Target judgments of participants instructed that trait-implying sentences described a 'behaviour ' showed assimilation, whereas judgments of participants instructed that these sentences described a 'person' showed contrast.

show abstract

Task Effects on Trait Inference: Distinguishing Categorization from Characterization

Cited by 25 publications

References 18 publications

Comprehending illocutionary force

Comprehending illocutionary force

Response latency in social psychological research

Differential consequences of trait inferences: a direct test of the trait-referent hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About