Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wjfd9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T00:21:34.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spontaneous inferences provide intuitive beliefs on which reasoning proper depends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

James S. Uleman ,
Laura M. Kressel  and
SoYon Rim
James S. Uleman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003. jim.uleman@nyu.edu http://www.psych.nyu.edu/uleman lmk323@nyu.edu https://files.nyu.edu/lmk323/public/ soyon.rim@nyu.edu
Laura M. Kressel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003. jim.uleman@nyu.edu http://www.psych.nyu.edu/uleman lmk323@nyu.edu https://files.nyu.edu/lmk323/public/ soyon.rim@nyu.edu
SoYon Rim
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003. jim.uleman@nyu.edu http://www.psych.nyu.edu/uleman lmk323@nyu.edu https://files.nyu.edu/lmk323/public/ soyon.rim@nyu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Spontaneous inferences are unconscious, automatic, and apparently ubiquitous. Research has documented their variety (particularly in the social domain) and impact on memory and judgment. They are good candidates for Mercier and Sperber's (M&S's) “intuitive beliefs.” Forming spontaneous inferences is highly context sensitive, varying with the perceiver's conscious and unconscious goals, and implicit and explicit theories about the domain in question.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 90 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Campion, N. (2006) Hypothetical and certain inferences from conditional arguments read in texts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32:547–58.Google ScholarPubMed
Carlston, D. E. & Skowronski, J. J. (2005) Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:884–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., Schenck, W., Watling, M. & Menges, J. I. (2005) Priming trait inferences through pictures and moving pictures: The impact of open and closed mindsets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88:229–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goren, A. & Todorov, A. (2009) Two faces are better than one: Eliminating false trait associations with faces. Social Cognition 27:222–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, J. & van den Bos, K. (2008) Not fair for me! The influence of personal relevance on social justice inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44:699–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, J. & Vonk, R. (2003) Smart and easy: Co-occurring activation of spontaneous trait inferences and spontaneous situational inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39:434–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassin, R. R., Bargh, J. A. & Uleman, J. S. (2002) Spontaneous causal inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38:515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kressel, L. (2010) Spontaneous trait inferences, and explicit and implicit theories about traits causing behaviors. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.Google Scholar
Kressel, L. & Uleman, J. S. (2010) Personality traits function as causal concepts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lea, R. B. (1995) On-line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 21:1469–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(10):1915–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rader, A. W. & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002) Processing of logically valid and logically invalid conditional inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28:59–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Rim, S., Min, K. E., Uleman, J. S. & Chartrand, T. L. (2010) A functional analysis of stages of spontaneous impression formation, serving nonconscious affiliation goals. Unpublished manuscript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rim, S., Uleman, J. S. & Trope, Y. (2009) Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45:1088–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L. & Crawford, M. T. (1998) Spontaneous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:837–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinney, D. (1979) Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18:645–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todorov, A. & Uleman, J. S. (2002) Spontaneous trait inferences are bound to actors: Evidence from false recognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:1051–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uleman, J. S. (2005) On the inherent ambiguity of traits and other mental concepts. In: Other minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others, ed. Malle, B. F. & Hodges, S. D., pp. 253–67. Guilford.Google Scholar
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L. S. & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996) People as flexible interpreters: evidence and issues from spontaneous trait inference. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 28, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 211–79. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Uleman, J. S., Saribay, S. A. & Gonzalez, C. (2008) Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology 59:329–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed