Two studies examined the role of individual differences in construct accessibility in subjective impressions and recall of others. In the first session of each study, subjects' accessible traits were elicited by asking them to list the characteristics of different people, with accessibility defined as frequency of output (Study 1) or as primacy of output (Study 2). In the second session, held 1 or 2 weeks later and supposedly investigating a different issue for a different researcher, subjects read an essay describing the behaviors of a target person. The essay contained both accessible trait-related information and inaccessible trait-related information for each subject, with different traits being accessible or inaccessible for different subjects. Both studies found that subjects deleted significantly more inaccessible trait-related information than accessible trait-related information in their impressions and in their reproductions of the target information. Moreover, this effect on impressions and reproductions was evident even 2 weeks after exposure to the target information (Study 1). This general effect was not found for the impressions of subjects low in cognitive differentiation, even though it was found for their reproductions (Study 2), which suggests that their active bias toward forming univalent impressions inhibited the passive-accessibility effect. The implications of this approach for personality differences, interpersonal conflict and attraction, similarity of self and other judgments, and therapeutic intervention are discussed.Construct systems can be considered as a kind of scan-observers may often be more critical than ning pattern which a person continually projects upon ^g ev entS themselves (cf. Kelly, 1955; Lewin, his world. As he sweeps back and forth across his per-m5 Mischd 1 98 1). T t i s interesting that ceptual field he picks up blips of meaning. (Kelly, 1955, .' . ,!! ., . ,.". . °p 145) consistent individual differences in person perception have been found most often in The interface of personality, social, and regard to t h e cognitive or intellective charcognitive psychology has recently received ac teristics of the judge (cf. Mischel, 1973; increasing attention (see, e.g., Cantor & Shrauger &Altrocchi, 1964; Tagiuri, 1969). Kihlstrom, 1981). An important aspect of The cognitive characteristics considered most this interface is that the same "objective" o f ten have been different kinds of cognitive stimulus tends to be processed differently by sty i e) sucn as cognitive differentiation, levdifferent individuals 4n terms of their per-ding-sharpening, and field independence sonal, subjective meanings and that these (Mischel, 1973; Shrauger & Altrocchi, idiosyncratic meanings arise from idiosyn-196 4) f As Mischel (1973) points out, howcratic histories. In fact, how social events are ever) individual differences in the subjective interpreted and remembered by different meaning of social events may be especially _____ ' evident in the personal constructs individualsResearch and ...

No abstract