Selective perception of events.

Abstract Two hundred and twelve subjects were given one of two interpretive sets prior to viewing an event. Following observation, the first interpretation was discredited, and subjects were asked to interpret the event they had seen under the contrasting set. Some subjects were only provided with the alternate interpretation, while others were also given an opportunity to view the event a second time. Both the perceptual segmentation and the subjects' impressions of the participants in the event were assessed. Results disclosed that (1) the two sets produced both differing perceptual organization and differing impressions of the participants; (2) reversing the sets produced a reversal of the impressions of the participants only when accompanied by a second viewing; and (3) the reversal of the impressions was accompanied by a shift in the perceptual organization of the event. It was concluded that observers may differ in their initial perception of an event as the result of differences in prior expectations, and that the resulting biased sample of information they acquire may limit their retrospective reinterpretation of the event.

[1]  Darren Newtson,et al.  The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior , 1976 .

[2]  Darren Newtson,et al.  Effects of availability of feature changes on behavior segmentation , 1978 .

[3]  Ebbe B. Ebbesen,et al.  Observational goals and schema activation: A theoretical framework for behavior perception , 1979 .

[4]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Predictability of Behaviors, Goals, and Unit of Perception , 1978 .

[5]  Darren Newtson.  Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. , 1973 .

[6]  H. Gerard,et al.  Attributed intentions and informational selectivity , 1974 .

[7]  R. Shor,et al.  Effect of preinformation upon human characteristics attributed to animated geometric figures. , 1957, Journal of Abnormal Psychology.

[8]  S. C. Johnson.  Hierarchical clustering schemes , 1967, Psychometrika.

[9]  E. Lehmann.  Testing Statistical Hypotheses , 1960 .

[10]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

[11]  M. S. Mayzner,et al.  Cognition And Reality , 1976 .

[12]  Darren Newtson,et al.  Variation in behavior perception and ability attribution. , 1979 .

[13]  R. Sokal,et al.  Principles of numerical taxonomy , 1965 .

[14]  L. Strickland,et al.  “Apparent Behavior” Revisited , 1973 .

[15]  Richard C. Anderson,et al.  Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective. Technical Report No. 41. , 1977 .

[16]  David A. Wilder,et al.  Effect of Predictability on Units of Perception and Attribution , 1978 .

[17]  J E Cutting,et al.  A biomechanical invariant for gait perception. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  L. Ross.  The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .

[19]  E. Loftus,et al.  Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory , 1974 .

[20]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[21]  Mark R. Lepper,et al.  Perseverance in self-perception and social perception: biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. , 1975, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  Darren Newtson,et al.  The objective basis of behavior units. , 1977 .