spontaneous trait inference

n. Spontaneous trait inference is the process of inferring personality traits about other people without intending to do so, and usually without even being aware of doing so. When you read, “The secretary solved the mystery halfway through the book,” you probably infer that the secretary is clever. If you see a student kick a puppy out of his way in his rush across campus, it is hard to escape the impression that the student is cruel. These are examples of spontaneous trait inferences (STIs), and the process that produces them is called spontaneous trait inference (STI). More than two decades of research show that whenever most people comprehend information about someone else that could be used to infer a personality trait, they make an inference, even if they do not intend to form an impression. These “implicit impressions” persist and influence subsequent judgments and interactions, even (or particularly) when people do not realize they have made them. They seem to be a ubiquitous feature of our social life. They are a major component of what is often called “intuition” about others. There is nothing to guarantee the accuracy of these impressions, and the presence of individual and cultural differences in STI about the same events ensures that some perceivers must be inaccurate.

Spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) may refer to the person doing the action, or to the action itself. Solving the mystery halfway through the book is clever behavior. So what evidence is there that STIs refer to the actor, in this case, the secretary? When we make inferences intentionally, we know what they refer to, because we have intentions to make them about something. But when they are unintended, how can we tell what they refer to (as distinct from what they are based upon)? There are two lines of evidence that show they are about actors (in addition, perhaps, to being about behaviors).

Traits are not the only things about other people that are inferred spontaneously. There is now evidence that, given the right information, we infer other people's goals and intentions, their social category memberships and the stereotypes associated with them, their emotions, and our evaluations of them. We spontaneously infer the causes of natural and human-caused events and aspects of other people's situations. We spontaneously infer counterfactuals, that is, alternative scenarios to those we actually observe. And we spontaneously develop expectancies and emotions about others, often based on their unrecognized similarity to significant others (i.e., important people whom we know well). This latter phenomenon, called social cognitive transference, has been studied extensively by Susan Andersen. Future research will no doubt extend this list.

Some people are more likely to infer STIs, and everyone is more likely to do it at some times rather than others. Perceivers' temporary states such as moods, thoughts, goals, or questions can make particular STIs more likely, when perceivers encounter relevant information about others. For example, if you were thinking about honesty (rather than rudeness) and learned that an actor told his friend that she has bad breath, you might spontaneously infer that the actor was honestrather than rude. Or if you were curious about what kind of situation an actor was in, rather than what kind of person he was, you might spontaneously interpret fearful behavior as evidence that the actor was in a frightening situation rather than a fearful person. That is, ambiguous behavior can be spontaneously disambiguated by perceivers' temporary mental states. And most behavior is ambiguous in one way or another.

Relatively stable personality differences can also affect STI. For example, authoritarian perceivers spontaneously interpret many behaviors differently than nonauthoritarians do. Those with high “personal need for closure” are more likely to make STIs, perhaps because they prefer to categorize others in trait terms. Those with repressive coping styles differ from others in their likelihood of inferring negative and threatening traits.

There are also cultural and social class differences in STIs. Those in individualistic cultures (as well as more individualistic perceivers within U.S. culture) make STIs more readily than those from collectivistic cultures. The best evidence for this is found in a study of Latino and Anglo college students in Texas, using the lexical decision procedure described earlier. Middle- and upper-middleclass Americans make STIs more readily than working- and lower-class Americans. – JSU

▶ See also PRIMING