Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
Practice & Discussion
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on
Spontaneous Motive Inferences?
TANIGUCHI Yuri and YAGI Yasuki
（Graduate School of Literature and Human Sciences, Osaka City University /
College of Comprehensive Psychology, Ritsumeikan University）
In the present study, we examined whether spontaneous motive inferences are formed based on
the situational circumstance in which an actor behaves, and if they are influenced by spontaneous
trait inferences. Fifty-three Japanese undergraduates participated in the study, and they were
randomly assigned to three between-subjects conditions. One third of the participants were
presented with target helping behavior in the free-choice situation, and another one third were
presented the behavior in the no-choice situation, which they were asked to memorize. The rest of
the participants were presented neither of these behaviors. After the behavior was presented, we
measured spontaneous motive and trait inferences about the actor using the Go/No-Go Association
Task（GNAT）
. Results revealed that when the perceivers observed the actor voluntarily helping
a person, they spontaneously inferred motives based on situational circumstances, and
spontaneously inferred traits based on the inferred motives. In contrast, the perceivers
spontaneously inferred neither motives nor traits when they observed that the actor helped a
person involuntarily. These findings suggested that even under implicit processes, perceivers are
able to determine whether the behavior is voluntary or involuntary, based on the situational
circumstance. Only if the target acts on his/her own will would spontaneous motive inference be
formed based on the situational circumstance, and the spontaneous trait inferences emerging from
inferred motives would occur.
Key Words : Spontaneous Inferences, Go/No-Go Association Task, Situational Circumstance,
Motive, Trait
，
，
，
What do people think when they observe an
inference （see Uleman et al. 1996）. In the
unknown person s behavior? Social psychology
present study, we examined whether
research has investigated this question and
spontaneous trait inferences occur via
found that people implicitly and unintentionally
spontaneous motive inferences.
infer the person s traits, motives, and situational
Past research has focused on detecting
circumstances from his/her behavior（Hassin
various kinds of spontaneous inferences but
et al. 2005; Lupfer et al. 1990; Winter & Uleman
has not focused on the relationship between
1984）. This phenomenon is called spontaneous
motive, trait, and situational inferences, mainly
103
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
because, to date, it has been supposed that
motive mediates the relationship between a
people do not have sufficient cognitive capacity
situational force and a trait inference under
to integrate different types of inferences（e.g.,
explicit processes. In addition, research on
Gilbert & Malone 1995; Gilbert 1989）
. In
impression formation, that is, explicit processes,
addition, they considered that when perceivers
has also argued the importance of an actor s
observe a target person s behavior, owing to
motive in person perception. Reeder, Vonk,
implicit inferences, they infer a trait from the
Ronk, Ham, and Lawrence（2004）explored the
behavioral information and do not consider the
functions of an actor s motive. They revealed
situational circumstance which the target
that even if perceivers observed the same
behavior occurred because the vividness of the
behavior, they were likely to infer different
perception of the behavior is stronger than that
motives about an actor based on whether the
of situational circumstances（Gilbert & Malone
actor behaved voluntarily or is forced to
1995）
. However, we contend that although
behave in a particular way, and whether the
implicit inferences occur, trait inferences take
behavior benefitted the actor. They also found
into account not only a person s behavior but
that inferences about different motives induced
also his/her motive or situational circumstances
inferences concerning different traits of the
in which the behavior occurs. This is because
actor. Thus, the perceived motive of an actor
understanding an actor s motives is
significantly influences the evaluation of the
fundamental to a person s perception. Previous
behavior.
studies argued that trait inferences are
Regarding implicit processes, the speed of
adjusted for situational forces, that is, when we
occurrence of motive and trait inferences
see a target hitting another person, we do not
differs. Van Overwalle, Van Duynslaeger,
infer violence from his behavior if they are
Coomans, and Timmermans（2012）compared
fighting in a game of boxing（e.g., Gilbert 1989;
the speed of motive and trait inference
Heider 1958）. In sum, trait inferences are
occurrences using the recognition probe
discounted by situational forces, because,
paradigm（McKoon & Ratcliff 1986）
. In their
situational information is a useful clue for
experiment, participants were exposed to
understanding the target s motive. Even if we
behavior descriptions which implied either
saw the same two behaviors, the meaning of
motive or trait, or both. Immediately after
these behaviors differs depending on the
exposure to the descriptions, the participants
situation which these behaviors occurred. We
were asked to indicate whether there were
learn the relationship between the meaning of
implied motive or trait words in the
behavior and the motives of behavior since
descriptions. As a result, when they were
birth. Thus, to understand the target person,
exposed to descriptions that implied motive or
we consider the target s motive based on our
both motive and trait, they falsely recognized
past experiences（Trope & Gaunt 1999）
.
the words of the implied motive as a part of
Reeder, Kumar, Hesson-McInnis, & Trafimow
the descriptions within at least 650 ms after
（2002）showed that an inference of a target s
the word appeared. In other words, perceivers
104
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
formed spontaneous motive inferences from
spontaneous trait inference corresponding to
behavior descriptions, and when implied motive
the inferred motive.
words appeared, they re-activated motive
To shed light on this possibility, the present
inferences within at least 650ms, spontaneously.
study tested the hypothesis that a spontaneous
With reference to trait inferences, however,
motive inference is formed based not only on
only when they were exposed to descriptions
an actor s behavior but also on the situation in
that implied both motive and trait did they
which the actor behaves, and that a
falsely recognize the words of implied trait as
spontaneous trait inference is formed based on
being a part of the descriptions at least after
the inferred motive.
1000 ms of the appearance of the words. In
sum, for the occurrence of spontaneous trait
Detecting spontaneous inferences
inferences from behavior descriptions, re-
In the present study, we used the Go/No-Go
activation of spontaneous trait inferences
Association Task（GNAT）to detect both
requires 1000 ms or more after the implied
spontaneous motive and trait inferences（Nosek
trait word appears, and motive inferences are
& Banaji 2001）
. The GNAT measures which
necessary for trait inferences. This means that
attribution is associated with a specific target
the speed of reaching a high level of re-
category. In the GNAT, the participant is
activation is faster for motive inferences than
required to discriminate stimulus words that
for trait inferences. These findings suggest that
belong to either a target category or attribution
trait inferences are formed not only from
from a distracter simultaneously. The GNAT is
behavioral information but also from knowing
based on the assumption that if a target
the actor s motive, even during implicit
category and attribution are associated, it
processing.
would be easy for the participants to
Considering the aforementioned results,
discriminate stimulus words that belong to
spontaneous motive inferences would be
either target category or attribution
formed from behavioral information and
simultaneously. Spontaneous inferences are
prompt spontaneous trait inferences. If, like
considered as processing either the inferred
explicit processing, situational information is
trait or motive that is attributed to a target
taken into consideration in information
person（Uleman et al. 1996）. In sum, when
processing of the target s behavior in implicit
perceivers form motive or trait inferences
processing, the target s motives are inferred
spontaneously, they easily discriminate
from situational circumstances spontaneously,
stimulus words that belong to either the target
and then the spontaneous motive inferences
person or inferred motive, or the trait in the
serve as a cue about spontaneous trait
GNAT. In the present study, the target person
inferences. In other words, it is possible that a
served as the target category, and inferred
motive is inferred spontaneously based on the
motives and traits were the applied target
situational circumstance in which the target
attributions. Accordingly, participants were
behavior occurred, and also induces a
presented with a behavior in one of different
105
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
situational circumstances that implied both
and trait for the free-choice situation,
motive and trait, and were asked to memorize
respectively, whereas to conform to the rule
the behavior. Subsequently, spontaneous
and obedience were judged as the implied
inferences were investigated using the GNAT.
motive and trait for the no-choice situation,
respectively.
I. Method
During the GNAT, we used terms connoting
to help and to conform to the rule as target
motive attributes and terms connoting
1. Participants
Fifty-three Japanese undergraduates from
kindness and obedience as target trait
Ritsumeikan University participated in the
attributes. We also used the terms connoting
study. They received 500 yen as a reward for
opposite motive and trait categories as
participation in the experiment. Participants
distracters. In each category, 8 terms were
were randomly assigned to three between-
included. In addition, we used 8 terms
subjects conditions.
pertaining to the target person as a target
category and 8 terms pertaining to a nontarget person s information as distracters.
2. Materials
Target behavior was defined as a target s
helping behavior for a person who was cleaning
3. Procedure
up a room. The target person was identified as
At the beginning of the experiment,
X. X was placed in two situations. One was a
participants were told that they would join a
free-choice situation, and the content was as
study examining cognitions about a person s
follows: X and another person played a table
behavior. In addition, they were informed as
game with a referee. After the game, X looked
follows:（1）Their task was to observe a
at the referee who was cleaning up the room
target s behavior and to memorize them:（2）
and said Can I help you ? The second was a
The amount of time required for the
no-choice situation, and the content was as
experiment was about 30 minutes:（3）This
follows: X and another person played a table
experiment was conducted by a participant s
game. The game rule was that the person who
voluntary agreement, and they have a right to
lost the game had to help the referee to clean
stop this experiment. There is no disadvantages
up the room. X lost the game. Both target
for them in case that they stop the experiment:
behaviors were captured on videotape.
（4）Because this study was reported using
= 12）
, participants were
their data analyzed statistically, someone did
presented with the target behavior and asked
not specify an individual person. When
to rate to what extent the behavior fitted each
participants agree to a participation in the
of the 17 motives and 20 traits in the
experiment, the experiment was conducted.
In a pilot study（
questionnaire on a 5-point scale（1 = not at all,
First, participants were presented with
5 = extremely）
. As a result, to help and
information about the target person and asked
kindness were judged as the implied motive
to memorize it for the purpose of a later task.
106
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
The information included what the target had
category, non-target category, target attribute,
eaten on the previous day, handedness, the
and opposite attribute）
. Participants were
manner of going to school, and so on. This
instructed to either press the space bar as
information was not indicative of either the
quickly as possible for items belonging to
person s traits or his/her motives. Second, one
either of the labeled categories, or do nothing
third of the participants watched X s behaviors
for items that did not belong to them. Feedback
in a free-choice situation, and another one third
on performance accuracy was provided for 100
watched X s behaviors in a no-choice situation.
ms, when the participant pressed the space
They were asked to memorize them. We did
bar, or the response deadline was reached,
not request them to form an impression of X or
whichever occurred first. After the
think about X s motives. Thus, any inferences
presentation of the feedback and a 150 ms
about X s traits or motives can be assumed to
inter-stimulus interval, a subsequent trial
have occurred spontaneously. The rest of the
began. Based on Nosek & Banaji（2001）, the
participants in the control condition observed
response deadline was 700 ms in the two
neither of these behaviors.
blocks in which the target attributes were
Along with the presentation of target
inferred motives and 666 ms in the two blocks
behavior, spontaneous inferences were
in which the target attributes were inferred
measured using the GNAT. The GNAT
traits. Van Overwalle et al.（2011）indicated
consisted of four blocks. In two blocks, Target
that forming of spontaneous trait inferences
Person X and inferred motive（ to help or to
requires at least 1000 ms after the presentation
conform to the rule ）were the the target
of the trait word. However, in the GNAT, 1000
category and attribute, respectively. This
ms is too long for the measurement of implicit
measured the strength of associations between
inferences（Nosek & Banaji, 2001）. Thus, in
Target Person X and each inferred motive. In
the experiment, we followed the procedure
the remaining blocks, Target Person X and
used in the study by Nosek & Banaji（2001）
.
the inferred trait（ kindness or obedience ）
After these task, they were debriefed the true
were the target category and attribute to
aim of the experiment which was to examine
measure the strength of associations between
implicit impression formation, were explained
Target Person X and each inferred trait.
the structure of GNAT, and were apologized
Each block consisted of 84 trials. The first 24
for telling a false aim.
trials were practice trials and the remaining 60
trials were the main trials. The target person s
II. Results
picture and a target attribute label appeared
and remained on the screen in the upper left
Based on the signal detection theory, the
and right quadrants, as reminders of the target
rates of correct response to stimulus words
category and attribute for that block. The trials
（hits）and the rates of false response to
began with the appearance of a single stimulus
distracters（false alarms）were each converted
item from one of the four categories（target
to z-scores. The difference between the z-score
107
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
values for hits and false alarms was d′
（Table 1）. Higher d′values represent a
situation, and in turn, infer a trait about
obedience
spontaneously, based on the
stronger association between a target person
inferred motive. They would make a stronger
and an attribution. In other words, higher d′
motive inference about to conform to the rule
values indicate a stronger formation of
and trait inference about obedience than in
spontaneous inferences. The data of 7
the other two situations, i.e., in the free-choice
participants were excluded from the analysis
situation and control condition. Using d′values,
because some of their d′values were 0 or less.
planned contrasts confirmed our hypothesis.
Our hypothesis was that different motive
The contrasts showed that, as predicted, the
inferences are formed spontaneously depending
strength of an association between target
on situational circumstances, and these induce
person, an inferred motive about to help, and
different spontaneous trait inferences. In other
the strength of an association between target
words, participants would infer a motive about
person and an inferred trait about kindness
to help spontaneously from the free-choice
were significantly greater in the free-choice
situation, and in turn, infer a trait about
situation（coded +1）than in the other two
kindness spontaneously, based on the inferred
situations（in each, no-choice coded -1/2;
motive. They would make a stronger motive
control coded -1/2; （42）= 2.27 and 1.60,
inference about to help and trait inference
respectively;
about
kindness
= .01 and .06, respectively）
.
than in the other two
Next, the contrasts showed that neither the
situations, i.e., in the no-choice situation and
strength of an association between target
control condition. Meanwhile, participants
person and the inferred motive about to
would infer a motive about to conform to the
conform to the rule, nor the strength of the
rule
association between target person and an
spontaneously from the no-choice
Measure
Motive
Target
Target
Trait
Target
Target
Table 1 Means of d′values.
Free-choice
（N = 16）
No-choice
（N = 15）
Control
（N = 15）
1.27
0.60
0.92
0.49
0.90
0.41
1.84
0.58
1.74
0.72
1.59
0.66
1.87
0.81
1.47
0.58
1.53
0.79
1.39
0.82
1.38
0.63
1.28
0.64
person "X" + to help
person "X" + To conform to the rule
person "X" + kindness
person "X" + obedience
※ Higher d′values indicate a stronger association between a target person and an attribution.
108
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
inferred trait about
obedience
were
choice situation, and in turn, spontaneously
significantly different between the no-choice
inferred the trait kindness based on this
condition（coded +1）and the other two
inferred motive.
situations（in each, free-choice coded -1/2;
Finally, we conducted a path analysis on the
control coded -1/2; （42）= 0.10 and 0.24,
data obtained from the no-choice situation and
respectively;
control condition to test whether the motive
= .46 and .40, respectively）
.
The results indicated that target person
inference about to conform to the rule was
and to help were more strongly associated in
spontaneously formed from the no-choice
the free-choice situation than in the other two
situation and induced the spontaneous trait
situations. Similarly,
and
inference about obedience （see Fig. 1 lower
kindness were more strongly associated in
panel）
. We used a dummy variable for the
the no-choice condition than in the other two
conditions（0 = control, 1 = no-choice）
.
situations. In other words, the spontaneous
Bootstrapping results indicated that neither
motive inference about
indirect effect was significant（d′of Target
target person
to help
and the
spontaneous trait inference about kindness
Person X and motive to help : -0.070‒0.180;
occurred in the free-choice situation. In
Target Person X and motive to conform to
contrast, these spontaneous inferences did not
the rule : -0.192‒0.417）. This suggests that
occur in the no-choice situation.
situational circumstances influenced neither
We conducted a path analysis on the data
motive nor trait inferences.
obtained from the free-choice and control
condition to test whether the motive inference
III. Discussion
about to help was spontaneously formed from
the free-choice situation and if they induced the
Previous studies examined that what kinds
spontaneous trait inference about kindness
of inferences are formed from behavior
（see Fig. 1 upper panel）
. We used a dummy
descriptions. They revealed that perceivers
variable for the conditions（0 = control, 1 =
usually form motive and trait inferences
free-choice）. Bootstrapping results indicated
spontaneously（e.g., Hassin et al. 2005; Winter
that when Target Person X and to help
& Uleman 1984）, and these spontaneous
were signaled, the indirect effect for d′was
inferences co-occur（Ham & Vonk 2003; 2011;
marginally significant because the 90%
Todd et al. 2011）. However, these studies did
confidence interval did not include zero（0.002‒
not focus on how motive and trait inferences
0.464）, but the 95% confidence interval did
are related. In the present study, we tested
（-0.034‒0.526）
. However, when Target Person
whether spontaneous motive inferences are
X and to conform to the rule were signaled,
formed based not only on an actor s behavior
the indirect effect for d′was not significant
but also on the situation in which the actor
（the 95% confidence interval was -0.045‒0.306）
.
behaves, and that spontaneous trait inferences
This suggests that participants spontaneously
inferred the motive to help from the free-
are formed based on the inferred motive.
When participants were presented with a
109
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
e
.35*
e
.24
Target person
+ to help
.38*
.49*
Target person
+ kindness
.09
Situational force
(0 = control,
1 = free-choice)
e
e
.05
.20
Target person
+ to conform to
the rule
.14
Target person
+ obedience
(Ȥ2(2) = 0.81, ns., GFI = .99, RMSEA = .00)
e
.03
e
.31
Target person
+ to help
.10
.42*
Target person
+ kindness
-.05
Situational force
(0 = control,
1 = no-choice)
e
e
.03
.11
Target person
+ to conform to
.58***
the rule
Target person
+ obedience
(Ȥ2(2) = 0.03, ns., GFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00)
Fig. 1. Inferred motives as mediators of inferences about inferred traits（free choice vs. control）
are indicated in the upper panel. The lower panel shows no-choice vs. control. Coefficients
followed by an asterisk are statistically significant.
target behavior in which the target person
than those in the other two situations, i.e., the
helped another person in a free-choice situation,
no-choice and control conditions, respectively.
an association between the target person and
In addition, an association between the target
implied motive to help（another person）
, and
person and the implied motive
an association between the target person and
mediated the relationship between the
an implied trait of kindness was stronger
situational circumstance and implied trait of
110
to help
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
kindness. It was indicated that when they
would assess whether the target person makes
saw the voluntary and kind behavior of the
his own decision to behave in light of the
target person, they formed a spontaneous
situational circumstance in which the target
motive inference about
to help another
behavior occurred and then they form
person and a spontaneous trait inference
spontaneous motive and trait inferences, only
about kindness. In addition, the spontaneous
when they perceive the target behavior as
motive inference about
to help（another
voluntary. Thus, perceivers do not merely
person） was formed from not only target s
form spontaneous inferences from a target s
kind behavior but also from the situational
behavior. Rather, they take into account both
information that the target person acted under
the behavior and situational circumstances. A
no-situational force.
Subsequently, the
spontaneous trait inference would be formed
spontaneous trait inference about kindness
from a spontaneous motive inference only
was formed based on the inferred motive to
when the target person behaves voluntarily.
help another person. In sum, our hypothesis
Even in implicit processing, we consider the
was supported. A spontaneous motive inference
situational circumstances, and the spontaneous
was formed based not only on an actor s
motive inference mediates the relationship
behavior but also on the situation in which the
between the situational circumstances and
actor behaves, and that a spontaneous trait
spontaneous trait inference. Motive inferences,
inference was formed based on the inferred
even if implicitly made, are important for trait
motive.
inferences, and situational circumstances are
While our hypothesis was supported in the
important for spontaneous inferences.
free-choice situation, it was not supported in
Previous studies have argued that processing
the no-choice situation. When participants
to integrate inferences does not occur under
observed the kind behavior of the target
implicit processing（Gilbert 1989）
. However, the
person that he was instructed to help another
present study suggests that perceivers
person, an association between the target
spontaneously infer an actor s traits based on
person and the implied motive to conform to
their inferences of the actor s motives. This
the rule, and an association between the target
depends on not only the target behavior but
person and the implied trait about obedience
also situational circumstances. From this
were not different than those in the other two
perspective, we can integrate various inferences
situations, i.e., the free-choice and control
even when under implicit processing. However,
conditions. It is indicated that they inferred
there is an issue to examine. In a previous study
neither motive nor trait spontaneously. In light
on explicit processing, participants inferred
of these results for spontaneous inferences, it
motives from the behavior that the supervisor
should be necessary that the target person acts
forced the actor to perform（Reeder et al.
on his free will. Perceivers determine whether
2004）.However, in the present study, in the no-
the target behavior is voluntary or not in light
choice situation, motive inferences did not
of situational circumstances. That is, perceivers
occur spontaneously. This suggests that
111
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
perceivers are able to judge whether a person
Acknowledgements
is behaving voluntarily or involuntarily, but,
during implicit processing, they are unable to
This study was supported by Strategic Research
infer alternative motives from situational
Foundation at Private Universities, 2010―2012,
circumstances. Reeder et al.（2004）showed
from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
that participants formed various motive
Science and Technology, Japan（program
inferences corresponding to situational
number: S1002008）
.
circumstances when they observed the same
behavior. In future research, in line with the
work of Reeder et al.（2004）
, it is necessary to
explore whether perceivers form various
References
Gilbert, D. T.（1989）Thinking lightly about others:
Automatic components of the social inference
spontaneous motive inferences corresponding
process. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh（eds.）
to different situational circumstances when
Unintended thought. New York: Guilford Press,
they observe the same behavior occurring in
different situational circumstances, and if they
also form various spontaneous trait inferences
corresponding to spontaneous motive
inferences.
What type of function does implicit processing
189―211.
G i l b e r t , D . T . , & M a l o n e , P . S . （ 1 9 9 5 ）T h e
correspondence bias.
,
,
21―38.
Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S.（1988）On
cognitive busyness: When person perceivers
meet persons perceived.
,
, 733―740.
have in our decision making? Recent studies
Ham, J., & Vonk, R.（2003）Smart and easy: Co-
have argued that spontaneous trait inferences
occurring activation of spontaneous trait
are utilized when perceivers make conscious
inferences and spontaneous situational
judgments as an index for predictions about
the future behavior of the actor（McCarthy &
inferences.
,
, 434―447.
Ham, J., & Vonk, R.（2011）Impressions of impression
Skowronski 2011）.They revealed that perceivers
management: Evidence of spontaneous suspicion
predicted subsequent target s behavior in a
of ulterior motivation.
,
trait-consistent manner when they were
exposed to trait-implicative behaviors describing
, 466―471.
Hassin, R. R., Aarts, H., & Ferguson, M. J.（2005）
Automatic goal inferences.
the target person. That is, perceivers would
predict the target person s behavior based on
spontaneous trait inferences. In future research,
it would be fruitful to explore how spontaneous
inferences affect conscious judgments if implicit
,
, 129―140.
Heider, F.（1958）
. New York: John Wiley.
Lupfer, M. B., Clark, L. F., & Hutcherson, H. W.（1990）
Impact of context on spontaneous trait and
situational attributions.
processing about the target, and how this is
,
altered by situational circumstances and the
McCarthy, R. J., & Skowronski, J. J.（2011）What will
target s motives.
, 239―249.
Phil do next? Spontaneously inferred traits
influence predictions of behavior.
,
112
, 321―332.
Can Spontaneous Trait Inferences be Based on Spontaneous Motive Inferences?（TANIGUCHI, YAGI）
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R.（1986）Inferences about
predictable events.
of overconfident attributional inferences. In S.
Chaiken & Y. Trope（eds.）
,
,
, 331―343.
New York:
Guilford Press, 161―178.
Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R.（2001）The go/no-go
association task.
,
, 625―664.
Uleman, J. S., Newman, L., & Moskowitz, G. B.（1996）
People as flexible interpreters: Evidence and
Reeder, G.D., Kumar, S., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., &
issues from spontaneous trait inference.
Trafimow, D.（2002）Inferences about the
28,
morality of an aggressor: The role of perceived
motive.
211―279.
Van Overwalle, F., Van Duynslaeger, M., Coomans, D.,
,
, 789―803.
& Timmermans.（2012）Spontaneous goal
Reeder, G. D., Vonk, R., Ronk, M. J., Ham, J., &
Lawrence, M.（2004）Dispositional attribution:
Multiple inferences about motive-related traits.
,
,
inferences are often inferred faster than
spontaneous trait inferences.
,
, 13―18.
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S.（1984）When are social
judgments made? Evidence for the
530―544.
Todd, A. R., Molden, D. C., Ham, J., & Vonk, R.（2011）
The automatic and co-occurring activation of
spontaneousness of trait inferences.
,
, 237―252.
multiple social inferences.
,
, 37―49.
Trope, Y. & Gaunt, R.（1999）A dual-process model
（Recieved: 30 May 2016）
（Accepted: 6 September 2016）
113
立命館人間科学研究 第35号 2017. 2
実践と論考
自発的な動機推論に基づく自発的特性推論の生起可能性
谷 口 友 梨・八 木 保 樹
（大阪市立大学大学院文学研究科・立命館大学総合心理学部）
本研究の目的は，人物のとった行動から自発的（無自覚・無意図的）に生じる推論に焦点を当て，
他者の行動を目にした際，行動の生起状況に応じた行為者の動機の推論が自発的に生じ，推論動機
に基づいた特性推論が自発的に生じるかを実験的に検討した。実験参加者は大学生 53 名で，3 つの
条件に無作為に割り振った。1 つめの条件は対象人物が自ら進んで人を手助けする行動を，2 つめの
条件では対象人物が指示されて人を手助けする行動をそれぞれ提示し，後の認知課題のため，記憶
す る こ と を 求 め た。3 つ め の 条 件 で は い ず れ の 行 動 も 提 示 し な か っ た。 そ の 後，Go/No-Go
Association Task を用い，行為者に対する自発的な動機と特性の推論の検出を行った。結果，自ら
進んで人を手助けする行動の場合，生起状況から「助ける」という動機の自発的推論が生じ，この
動機に基づき「親切」という特性が自発的に推論された。一方，指示されて人を手助けする行動の
場合，特定の動機や特性の推論は生じなかった。これより，潜在的な処理であったとしても，行動
の生起状況から行為者の意図の同定を行い，行為者が自身の意思で行動したと判断した場合のみ，
状況から動機の自発的推論が生じ，動機に基づいた特性の推論が自発的に生じることが示唆された。
キーワード：自発的推論，Go/No-Go Association Task，行動の生起状況，動機，特性
立命館人間科学研究，No.35，103 114，2017.
114