On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived.

Person perception includes three sequential processes: categorization (what is the actor doing?), characterization (what trait does the action imply?), and correction (what situational constraints may have caused the action?). We argue that correction is less automatic (i.e., more easily disrupted) than either categorization or characterization. In Experiment 1, subjects observed a target behave anxiously in an anxiety-provoking situation. In Experiment 2, subjects listened to a target read a political speech that he had been constrained to write. In both experiments, control subjects used information about situational constraints when drawing inferences about the target, but cognitively busy subjects (who performed an additional cognitive task during encoding) did not. The results (a) suggest that person perception is a combination of lower and higher order processes that differ in their susceptibility to disruption and (b) highlight the fundamental differences between active and passive perceivers. Many of us can recall a time when, as students, we encountered a professor at a party and were surprised to find that he or she seemed a very different sort of person than our classroom experience had led us to expect. In part, such discrepant impressions reflect real discrepancies in behavior: Professors may display greater warmth or less wit at a party than they do in the classroom. However, just as the object of perception changes across situations, so too does the perceiver. As passive perceivers in a classroom, we are able to observe a professor without concerning ourselves with the mechanics of social interaction. At a party, however, we are active perceivers , busy managing our impressions, predicting our partner's behavior, and evaluating alternative courses of action. Of all the many differences between active and passive perceivers, one seems fundamental: Active perceivers, unlike passive perceivers, are almost always doing several things at once ( Gilbert, Jones, & Pelham, 1987 ; Gilbert & Krull, 1988 ; Jones & Thibaut, 1958 ).

[1]  J. Uleman,et al.  When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. , 1984, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[2]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Influence and inference: What the active perceiver overlooks. , 1987 .

[3]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Seeing Less and Knowing More The Benefits of Perceptual Ignorance , 1988 .

[4]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[5]  E. E. Jones,et al.  Perceiver-Induced Constraint: Interpretations of Self-Generated Reality , 1986 .

[6]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[7]  J. Uleman,et al.  How automatic are social judgments? , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[8]  Daniel T. Gilbert,et al.  Thinking lightly about others: Automatic components of the social inference process. , 1989 .

[9]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Judgements under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases , 1984 .

[10]  E. E. Jones Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior , 1987 .

[11]  John H. Harvey,et al.  Attribution : basic issues and applications , 1985 .

[12]  Y. Trope Identification and Inferential Processes in Dispositional Attribution. , 1986 .

[13]  Darren Newtson An Interactionist Perspective on Social Knowing , 1980 .

[14]  H. Kelley Attribution in social interaction. , 1987 .

[15]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[16]  P. Ekman,et al.  Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception †. , 1969, Psychiatry.

[17]  J. Fodor The Modularity of mind. An essay on faculty psychology , 1986 .

[18]  E. E. Jones,et al.  From Acts To Dispositions The Attribution Process In Person Perception1 , 1965 .

[19]  G. A. Miller,et al.  Book Review Nisbett, R. , & Ross, L.Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. , 1982 .

[20]  T. Pettigrew,et al.  Causal attribution and dispositional inference: Evidence of inconsistent judgments , 1984 .

[21]  U. Neisser On "Social Knowing" , 1980 .

[22]  R. Baron,et al.  Toward an Ecological Theory of Social Perception , 1983 .

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

[24]  E. E. Jones,et al.  A robust attribution error in the personality domain , 1981 .

[25]  V. A. Harris,et al.  The Attribution of Attitudes , 1967 .

[26]  W. Swann,et al.  Quest for accuracy in person perception: a matter of pragmatics. , 1984, Psychological review.

[27]  L. Ross,et al.  The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process”, in Ed), Advances in Experimental Social New York, pp. . , 1977 .

[28]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[29]  J. Bruner On perceptual readiness. , 1957, Psychological review.

[30]  W. Hirst,et al.  Characterizing attentional resources. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  R. Tagiuri,et al.  Person perception and interpersonal behavior , 1959 .

[32]  George A. Quattrone Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. , 1982 .