Personality differences in spontaneous personality inferences at encoding.

Abstract

In this article, a method is described for studying personality differences in the spontaneous encoding of complex information about others, and is illustrated in a study of authoritarianism (F). Two sets of sentences were developed in pretesting. In the first set, events suggested a consensual disposition for each sentence actor to either high F (HF) or low F (LF) subjects. In the second set, events suggested a different consensual disposition to HF and LF subjects. Then 77 HF and LF subjects read both sets of sentences for a "memory study." Consensual dispositions and semantic associates to the actors were used to cue recall. For the first set, there was a significant interaction between subject type, sentence type, and cue type. LF dispositions were more effective retrieval cues for LF than for HF subjects. Subjects had very little accurate awareness of having made trait inferences. No significant effects were found for HF cues alone or for the second sentence set. Results indicated that HF and LF subjects differ in their spontaneous social inferences about others and have little awareness of making these inferences. Implications for integrating trait and cognitive approaches to personality are discussed. The interactionist approach to personality emerging from recent debates over personality traits (Magnusson & Endler, 1977) has taken several forms. Most research has been at a macrolevel, and demonstrates that the expression of traits is conditional upon situational variables, producing statistical interactions between traits and situations. Crowne and Marlowe's (1964) work on the need for social approval, and Christie and Geis' (1970) work on Machiavellianism provide numerous examples. More recent macrolevel research indicates that traits predict the individual's active selection and even creation of different situations (dynamic interactions). Snyder's (1979) work on selfmonitoring, Swann's (1983) research on self-esteem and selfverification, and research on self-consciousness (Turner, Scheier, Carver, & Ickes, 1978) describe some of the macrolevel processes involved. At this macrolevel, the smallest unit of analysis is the individual's response or action. More microlevel analyses break the production of behavior itself into multistage processes (e.g.. attention, encoding, storage, retrieval), and examine effects of individual differences at particular stages. These may be measured with personality inventories more typically used to measure traits at the macrolevel, such as anxiety (Sarason, 1980), locus of control (Lef-Portions of this research were presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, August 1985. We wish to thank Lawrence Brotzen, Becky Granatstein, and Jody Pincus for their assistance in running subjects and coding data and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this article.

Converting Verbs into Adjectives: Asymmetrical Memory Distortions for Stereotypic and Counterstereotypic Information

“…The most convincing evidence for this idea comes from an extensive research project by Uleman and collaborators, showing that such inferences require no intention or explicit instruction and often occur without awareness (Uleman, 1987;Uleman, Hon, Roman, & Moskowitz, 1996;Uleman & Moscowitz, 1994;Uleman, Newman, & Winter, 1986;Uleman, Winborne, Winter, & Shechter, 1986;Winter & Uleman, 1984;Winter, Uleman, & Cunniff, 1985; see also Carlston & Skowronski, 1994;Carlston, Skowronski, & Sparks, 1995;Van Overwalle, Drenth, & Marsman, 1999). Much less clear, and rarely investigated, is the opposite inference from traits to behaviors (see Wyer & Lambert, 1994).…”

Inferências espontâneas de traço: Os quatro paradigmaschave

“…É comum incluir um questionário de consciência no final da experiência, de forma a examinar se os participantes inferiram traços de personalidade de forma explícita, o que poderia constituir uma estratégia de recordação das frases (Lupfer, Clark, & Hutcherson, 1990;Moskowitz, 1993;Uleman & MosKowitz, 1994;Uleman, Winborne, Winter, & Shechter, 1986;.…”

The Relation between Individual Differences and Accountants' Fraud Detection Ability

“…In particular, a common theme of perseverance, skepticism (suspiciousness), integrity, and diligence emerged from his series of interviews as important frauditor characteristics. Further, some psychological research has found that certain personality traits affect individuals' perceptions of everyday events (Uleman et al ., 1986) and are also related to one's general knowledge (Chamorro‐Premuzic et al ., 2006).…”