Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction.

Abstract

Four studies tested the hypothesis that temporal distance increases the weight of global dispositions in predicting and explaining future behavior. Study 1 found that the correspondence bias was manifested more strongly in predictions of distant future behavior than of near future behavior. Study 2 found that participants predicted higher cross-situational consistency in distant future behavior than in near future behavior. Study 3 found that participants sought information about others' more global dispositions for predicting distant future than near future behavior. Finally, Study 4 found that participants made more global causal attributions for distant future outcomes than for near future outcomes. The results were interpreted as supporting the assumption of construal level theory that perceivers use more abstract representations (higher level construals) to predict and explain more distant future behaviors.The ability to control one's outcomes in social situations often depends on one's ability to predict others' behavior. The quality of everyday life decisions, such as the decision to approach or avoid others, to compete or cooperate, or to seek or avoid help, depends on one's ability to predict how others will respond. Indeed, much of the motivation for social information processing has been assumed to derive from the need to reduce uncertainty in predicting others' behavior (see, e.g., Fiske, 1993;Higgins & Bargh, 1987;Trope & Liberman, 1996). Sometimes these predictions concern others' near future behavior (e.g., "Will Leslie come to my birthday party this weekend?"). In other cases, the predictions concern more distant future behavior (e.g., "Will Leslie come to my birthday party next month?"). The question we address in this article is what kind of knowledge perceivers use for predicting behavior in near future versus distant future situations. If we suppose that perceivers have the same information about the two situations, the question is whether perceivers would use this information differently depending on whether they are trying to predict others' behavior in near future or in distant future situations. Temporal ConstrualOur approach to this question is grounded in the socialcognitive view that perceivers' predictions of future events depend on how the perceivers mentally construe those events (see, e.g., Griffin & Ross, 1991;Sherman, 1980;Wilson, Wheatley, Meyers, Gilbert & Axsom, 2000). In this view, perceivers' predictions about their own and others' behavior are based on an abstract, schematic representation of the behavior and fail to incorporate contextual factors. Overreliance on schematic models of future behavior has been assumed to underlie individuals' overconfident behavior predictions (Dunning, Griffin, Milojkovic, & Ross, 1990;Vallone, Griffin, Lin, & Ross, 1990). Several researchers have suggested that the planning fallacy-namely, the tendency to underestimate task completion times-can be traced to individuals' reliance on oversimplified representations of future tasks-representati...

Predicting the near and distant future.

“…More directly related to the present studies is our earlier research on attributional inferences regarding near versus distant social behavior (Nussbaum, Trope, & Liberman, 2003). It was assumed that personal dispositions are relatively abstract and decontextualized constructs and are therefore more likely to be used for predicting others' behavior in the distant future than the near future.…”

Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: Implications for perception of others’ actions

“…It should be noted, however, that this should mostly be the case for judgment about a temporally proximal self (i.e., the self in the present or in the near past or future) than for judgment about a temporally distant self (i.e., the self in the distant past or future). Indeed, judgments about a temporally distant self should resemble judgments about others, that is, they should be based more on high-than low-level construal features (e.g., Nussbaum, Trope, & Liberman, 2003;Pronin & Ross, 2006;Wakslak, Nussbaum, Liberman, & Trope, in press). …”

Aversive smell associations shape social judgment

“…The fact that aversive olfactory conditioning induced more trait attributions irrespective of the valence of behavior could possibly reflect increased psychological distance (Nussbaum, Trope, & Liberman, 2003). Previous research found that we tend to make more trait attributions for others' compared to own behavior (Fiedler, Semin, Finkenauer, & Berkel, 1995;Jones, 1976;Robins, Spranca, & Mendelsohn, 1996), even more so when the other person is unfamiliar (Idson & Mischel, 2001).…”

“…We note, however, that the association of trait attributions with social distance is speculative in our study, as we did not measure social distance directly. Nevertheless, the link between trait attributions and distance is empirically well supported by multiple studies showing that humans tend to make more trait attributions for people who are more psychologically, socially, and physically remote (Henderson, Fujita, Trope, & Liberman, 2006;Nussbaum et al, 2003;Nussbaum, Liberman, & Trope, 2006;Rim, Uleman, & Trope, 2009).…”

“…Although we could successfully associate a social target with aversive visual stimuli, only the smell-induced negative affect predicted subsequent attributions. It is possible that olfaction-induced affect triggers avoidance and mental distancing (Nussbaum et al, 2003) and therefore promotes a disengaged attribution style. Future studies could provide more evidence for a possible domain-specific role in how affect modulates the perceived diagnosticity of behavior.…”