No abstract

Stereotype-incongruent information Stereotype learning paradigm Indirect Stereotype-Incongruence Induced (ISI) Change phenomenonWhen a population is perceived to consist of two mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups, the stereotypes that people form of these groups are likely to be interdependent. We predicted that stereotype-incongruent information about members of one group (target group) may then evoke change in the stereotype of another group (alternative group) even in the absence of any stereotype-incongruent information about members of the alternative group. We demonstrated this Indirect Stereotype-Incongruence Induced (ISI) Change phenomenon in two studies using novel groups (Study 1 and 2). The effect occurred when the incongruent information was about a competent target group (changing the stereotype about the less competent alternative group) but not when it was about an incompetent target group (Study 2). The ISI Change phenomenon implies that stereotypes may change even in the absence of directly stereotype-incongruent information.

When confronted with subject-verb-object descriptions of interpersonal events people seem to make stronger causal attributions to the object and stronger personality inferences about the subject from descriptions with abstract rather than concrete verbs. We examined two explanations for this apparent contradiction: (1) verb abstraction affects causal attributions and personality inferences in opposite directions, and (2) verb abstraction affects both causality and personality inferences about the subject and the object in a parallel yet curvilinear manner. Studies 1, 2, and 3 refuted the first hypothesis and supported the second. Study 4 showed that the curvilinear relationship between verb abstraction and subject/object inferences does not occur because the verb types suggest differential personal control by the subject and the object. Instead, it occurs because different verb types suggest different levels of consensus and distinctiveness (Studies 5 and 6). Subject inferences revealed a negativity effect whereas object inferences revealed a positivity effect (Studies 1, 2, 3, and 6). The implications for person perception and causal attribution are discussed.People often describe interpersonal events. For instance, recruitment officers discuss how a job candidate has taken the lead during a group assessment task. Friends gossip about the romantic adventures of their mutual acquaintances. Television reporters describe the latest spree killing. The simplest manner to describe interpersonal events is through subject-verb-object descriptions (e.g., Paul inter-

Various causal attribution theories, starting with the covariation model, argue that people use consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency information to causally explain events and behaviors. Yet, the visual presentation of the covariation model in the form of a cube is based on the assumptions that these dimensions generally affect attributions independently, symmetrically, and equally. A Gricean analysis suggests that these assumptions may not generally hold in the case of causal judgments for verbally communicated interpersonal events. We had participants judge the causal role of an actor and a patient in interpersonal events that were described through actor‐verb‐patient sentences under high versus low consensus and distinctiveness (Studies 1, 2, and 3) or without such information (Studies 2 and 3). As predicted by Gricean logic, consensus and distinctiveness effects on causality ratings depended on the target whose causal role participants assessed, on the information about the alternative dimension, and, most consistently, on consensus and distinctiveness being high versus low. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.