Implicit action encoding influences personal-trait judgments

Abstract

When an observed action (e.g., kicking) is compatible to a to be produced action (e.g., a foot-key response as compared to a finger-key response), then the self-produced action is more fluent, that is, it is more accurate and faster. A series of experiments explore the notion that vision-action compatibility effects can influence personal-trait judgments. It is demonstrated that when an observed individual carries out an action that is compatible with the participants' response, (1) this individual is identified more fluently, and (2) the observed individual's personality is attributed with the properties of the observed action. For example, if it is easier to identify one individual with a foot-response when he is seen kicking a ball, as compared to typing, he is perceived to be more 'sporty'. In contrast, if it is easier to identify one individual with a finger response when he is seen typing as compared to kicking a ball, he is associated with the 'academic' trait. These personal-trait judgment effects can be observed with explicit measures, where participants are asked to rate the sporty/academic nature of the person on a scale. They are also obtained when implicit measures are taken in a priming task, where participants are never explicitly asked to rate the personalities of the individuals. A control experiment rules out that these personal-trait effects are merely due to an association of motor responses (foot, finger) to individuals while identifying them, but that these effects depend on a prior manipulation of vision-action fluency.

Fig. 1

Examples for the movies used in Experiment 1 (action movies). The upper two rows show the ‘sporty’ kicking actions carried out by the two individuals. The lower two rows show the ‘academic’ typing actions carried out by the two individuals.

Fig. 2

The upper two panels show the vision–action compatibility effects obtained in Experiment 1 (action movies) for RTs (upper left panel) and Error rates (upper right panel). The bars on the left show the data when an individual had to be identified with a finger response and the bars on the right show the data when an individual had to be identified with a foot response. The white bars show the data when the person was presented typing on a keyboard. The black bars show the data for when the person was kicking a football. The lower two panels show the person-trait judgment effects obtained for John (lower left panel) and George (lower right panel). The bars on the left show the ratings of how sporty a person appeared. The bars on the right show how academic a person appeared. The white bars show the data for when the person was identified by a finger response. The black bars show the data for when the person was identified by a foot response.

Fig. 3

Stimuli used in Experiment 2 (static images without action). From left to right: George sitting next to a keyboard, George standing next to the football, John sitting next to a keyboard, and John standing next to a football.

Fig. 4

The upper two panels show the vision–action compatibility effects obtained in Experiment 2 (static images without action) for RTs (upper left panel) and Error rates (upper right panel). The bars on the left show the data when an individual had to be identified with a finger response and the bars on the right show the data when an individual had to be identified with a foot response. The white bars show the data when the person was presented typing on a keyboard. The black bars show the data for when the person was kicking a football. The lower two panels show the person-trait judgment effects obtained for John (lower left panel) and George (lower right panel). The bars on the left show the ratings of how sporty a person appeared. The bars on the right show how academic a person appeared. The white bars show the data for when the person was identified by a finger response. The black bars show the data for when the person was identified by a foot response.

Fig. 5

The upper four panels show examples of the stimuli used in the implicit person priming task (Experiment 3, action Movies, implicit personality assessment). From left to right: two academic scenes and two sporty scenes. The lower half shows the time course of the trials in the implicit personal-trait judgment task of Experiment 3.

Fig. 6

The two upper panels show the vision–action fluency effects obtained in Experiment 3 (action Movies, implicit personality assessment) for RTs (upper left panel) and Error rates (upper right panel). The bars on the left show the data when an individual had to be identified with a finger response and the bars on the right show the data when the individual had to be identified with a foot response. The white bars show the data when the individuals were presented typing. The black bars show the data when the individuals were presented kicking a ball. The lower two panels show the RTs (left panel) and Error rates (right panel) in the implicit personality-priming task (Experiment 3). The bars on the left show the data for the identification of sporty scenes and the bars on the right show the data for the identification of the academic scenes. The white bars show the data for scenes preceded by a photograph of the person that had to be identified with a finger response. The black bars show the data for scenes preceded by the image of the person that had to be identified with a foot response.