Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Induction and Consequences of Variation in Behavior Perception

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research indicates that perceivers regulate information gain from their observation of ongoing behavior by varying the number and kind of actions they identify as meaningful. Although numerous factors have been shown to induce variation in this behavior-perception process, it is not currently known whether observers must consciously and intentionally initiate these changes. To address this question, different observational goals (impression formation or memorization) were nonconsciously primed in participants who then viewed and segmented a behavior sequence into meaningful actions. Although participants were unaware of its effects, the priming manipulation led to quantitative and qualitative shifts in their perception of the behavior that were similar to those found in a previous study in which observational goals were manipulated via explicit instructions. Importantly, these shifts in perception, in turn, influenced evaluations of the observed actor and memory for her behavior. We conclude that an act of will is not required for adjustments in behavior perception to be initiated, and, furthermore, that a full understanding of social judgment cannot be achieved without examination of the behavior-perception process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The question of whether changes in the behavior-perception process can be initiated nonconsciously is not meant to imply that human beings lack the capacity for moral agency. Instead, our purpose is to examine the possibility that a mental process that has been assumed to operate largely under the continuous guidance of conscious intentions and deliberate choices can, at least in certain instances, function automatically—that is, be initiated and played out in the absence of awareness on the person’s part that it is occurring (for example, Bargh and Chartrand 1999). A discussion of how such automatization could arise can be found in the section entitled, “Are Perceivers Aware of Initiating Variation in How They Unitize?” A discussion of some potential benefits and drawbacks to metal processes becoming automated or nonconscious can be found in the section entitled, “Automatic Shifts in Behavior Unitization: Consequences for the Social Perceiver.”

  2. Not all kinds of information become more memorable as unitization rate increases. Based on Newtson’s (1976b) view of behavior perception as a feature-monitoring process, Lassiter et al. (1988) predicted and found a negative relationship between unitization rate and memory for the nonaction-related details of a behavior sequence. That is, in maximizing action-related information gain, perceivers appear to shift more of their limited monitoring capacity to those features most critical to defining actions, thereby resulting in the acquisition and subsequent retention of less nonaction-related information.

  3. This association between a high unitization rate and a positive affective response may not hold when the information being picked up by perceivers has a predominantly negative valence.

  4. Cohen and Ebbesen (1979) used behavior sequences that were not highly structured or goal-directed to minimize their predictability. However, Lassiter et al. (2000) reported no differences in unitization rate between those instructed to memorize the task versus form an impression when the sequences observed consisted of more prototypical, highly structured, task behavior (for example, making a quilt). To give ourselves the best chance of finding unitization rate as well as unitization pattern differences, we presented our participants with a behavior sequence patterned after those described by Cohen and Ebbesen.

  5. This result was found when the actor possessed average qualities. In a better-known condition in which the actor possessed superior qualities, Aronson et al. (1966) found that a blunder or pratfall actually increased liking, presumably because it humanized such an individual. In the present study there is nothing in the behavior or appearance of the actor participants would see to suggest that she is anything other than average.

  6. We recognize that Cohen and Ebbesen’s (1979) memory results are exactly the opposite of those found by Hamilton et al. (1980a, b) and, more recently, Chartrand and Bargh (1996). This discrepancy, we believe, is primarily due to the nature of the stimulus materials used in the different studies (see “General Discussion” for elaboration). Therefore, because our stimulus materials were modeled after those of Cohen and Ebbesen, we anticipated that our certainty-of-memory measure (study 1) and recall task (study 2) would yield results more in line with what they found.

  7. Unitization (button-pressing) responses for three participants were lost due to a computer malfunction, which accounts for the differences in degrees of freedom for those analyses performed on or including the unitization data.

  8. In two previously published articles (Lassiter 1988; Lassiter et al. 1996), we used a subset of 100 randomly chosen intervals in our analyses of unitization-pattern data, with degrees of freedom as high as approximately 8,000. In those experiments, we were not expecting, nor did we find, any significant effects of our independent variables on unitization patterns. Thus, even though our level of statistical power here will still be substantial, using only 60 intervals, it is clearly possible for a nonsignificant result to emerge. It is also important to note that the number of button presses in the average interval for the random sample of 60 intervals was 2.95 with a median of 1.70, which compares favorably with the corresponding parameters of 2.65 and 1.86 for the entire population of 420 intervals. These values, then, support the conclusion that the subset of intervals was a representative sample.

References

  • Aronson, E., Willerman, B., & Floyd, J. (1966). The effect of a pratfall on increasing interpersonal attractiveness. Psychonomic Science, 4, 227–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attneave, F. (1959). Applications of information theory to psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A. (1990). Auto-motives: Preconscious determinants of social interaction. In E. T. Higgins, & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (vol. 2, pp. 93–130). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54, 462–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trötschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automatic activation of impression formation and memorization goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces effects of explicit task instructions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 464–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (2002). Nonconscious motivations: Their activation, operation, and consequences. In A. Tesser, D. Stapel, & J. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 13–41). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, C. E., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1979). Observational goals and schema activation: A theoretical framework for behavior perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 305–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geers, A. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (1999). Affective expectations and information gain: Evidence for assimilation and contrast effects in affective experience. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 394–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geers, A. L., & Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Effects of affective expectations on affective experience: The moderating role of optimism–pessimism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1026–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, P. C., & Hoyoak, K. J. (1983). Implicit learning and generalization of the “mere exposure” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 492–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, W. G., Moore, J. S., & Collins, J. E., II (1988). Social cognition as segmentation of the stream of behavior. Developmental Psychology, 24, 568–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Katz, L. B., & Leirer, V. O. (1980a). Cognitive representation of personality impressions: Organizational processes in first impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1050–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Katz, L. B., & Leirer, V. O. (1980b). Organizational processes in impression formation. In R. Hastie, T. M. Ostrom, E. B. Ebbesen, R. S. Wyer, Jr., D. L. Hamilton, & D. E. Carlston (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception (pp. 121–153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handley, I. M., & Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Mood and information processing: When happy and sad look the same. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 223–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, C., & Hirst, W. (1989). On the representation of events: A study of orientation, recall, and recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 136–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. (1979). Person memory: Personality traits as organizing principles in memory for behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, C., Mischel, W., & Mazze, K. (1981). The role of purpose in the organization of information about behavior: Trait-based versus goal-based categories in person cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, T. D., & Rottmeyer, L. W. (1986). Visual information-processing of television commercials: Cognitive effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 158–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 2, pp. 220–266). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, (4th ed., vol. 1, pp. 233–265). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D. (1988). Behavior perception, affect, and memory. Social Cognition, 6, 150–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Briggs, M. A., & Bowman, R. E. (1991). Need for cognition and the perception of ongoing behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 156–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., & Apple, K. J. (2002a). Communication set and the perception of ongoing behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 158–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Apple, K. J., & Beers, M. J. (2000). Observational goals and behavior unitization: A reexamination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 649–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confessions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 33, pp. 189–254). New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Ploutz-Snyder, R. J., & Breitenbecher, D. L. (2002b). Illusory causation: Why it occurs. Psychological Science, 13, 299–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Koenig, L. J., & Apple, K. J. (1996). Mood and behavior perception: Dysphoria can increase and decrease effortful processing of information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 794–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., & Slaw, R. D. (1991). The unitization and memory of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 80–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., & Stone, J. I. (1984). Affective consequences of variation in behavior perception: When liking is in the level of analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 253–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Stone, J. I., & Rogers, S. L. (1988). Memorial consequences of variation in behavior perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 222–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, R. A., Lavrakas, P. J., Bentley, B., & Parrella, G. (1977). Role of sex identification in perception of a social blunder. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 933–934.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H., Smith, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1985). Role of the self-concept in the perception of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1494–1512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massad, C. M., Hubbard, M., & Newtson, D. (1979). Selective perception of events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, J. P., Macrae, C. N., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Encoding-specific effects of social cognition on the neural correlates of subsequent memory. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 4912–4917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moreland, R. L., & Zajonc, R. B. (1982). Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 28–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D. (1976a). Foundations of attribution: The perception of ongoing behavior. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (vol. 1, pp. 223–247). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D. (1976b). The process of behavior observation. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 2, 114–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D. (1980). An interactionist perspective on social knowing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 520–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D., & Engquist, G. (1976). The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 436–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D., Engquist, G., & Bois, J. (1976). The reliability of a measure of behavior perception. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 6, 5 (Ms. no. 1173).

    Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D., Engquist, G., & Bois, J. (1977). The objective basis of behavior units. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 847–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D., Hairfield, J., Bloomingdale, J., & Cutino, S. (1987). The structure of action and interaction. Social Cognition, 5, 191–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newtson, D., Rindner, R. J., Miller, R., & LaCross, K. (1978). Effects of availability of feature changes on behavior segmentation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Wolfe, C. T., Fong, C., & Dunn, M. (1998). Automatic activation of stereotypes: The role of self-image threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1139–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Funds from the National Science Foundation (SES-0453302) facilitated completion of this research. We thank Kristen Bell, Cara Cashour, and Michael Mindala for assistance with the research, Tanya Chartrand for providing stimulus materials, and Kim Lassiter and Keith Markman for helpful commentary on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ohio University, Athens, OH, 45701, USA

    Jennifer J. Ratcliff & G. Daniel Lassiter

Authors
  1. Jennifer J. Ratcliff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Daniel Lassiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Daniel Lassiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ratcliff, J.J., Lassiter, G.D. On the Induction and Consequences of Variation in Behavior Perception. Curr Psychol 26, 16–36 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-007-9003-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-007-9003-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation