Scientists have long been interested in understanding how language shapes the way people relate to others, yet it remains unclear how formal aspects of language influence person perception. We tested whether the attribution of intentionality to a person is influenced by whether the person’s behaviors are described as what the person was doing or as what the person did (imperfective vs. perfective aspect). In three experiments, participants who read what a person was doing showed enhanced accessibility of intention-related concepts and attributed more intentionality to the person, compared with participants who read what the person did. This effect of the imperfective aspect was mediated by a more detailed set of imagined actions from which to infer the person’s intentions and was found for both mundane and criminal behaviors. Understanding the possible intentions of others is fundamental to social interaction, and our findings show that verb aspect can profoundly influence this process.
AronsonE.MillsJ. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.
2.
CarreirasM.CarriedoN.AlonsoM.A.FernandezA. (1997). The role of verb tense and verb aspect in the foregrounding of information during reading. Memory & Cognition, 25, 438–446.
3.
ChomskyN. (1975). Reflections on language. New York, NY: Pantheon.
4.
ComrieB. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
DeauxK.MajorB. (1977). Sex-related patterns in the unit of perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 297–300.
6.
FiskeS.T. (1989). Examining the role of intent: Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and prejudice. In UlemanJ.S.BarghJ.A. (Eds.), Unintended thought: Limits of awareness, intention, and control (pp. 253–283). New York, NY: Guilford.
7.
GleitmanL.PapafragouA. (2005). Language and thought. In HolyoakK.MorrisonR. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 633–661). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
8.
GrayH.M.GrayK.WegnerD.M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619.
9.
GriceP. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ.L. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York, NY: Academic Press.
10.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
11.
HeiderF.SimmelM. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. American Journal of Psychology, 57, 243–259.
12.
HigginsE.T.RholesW.S.JonesC.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141–154.
13.
JonesE.E.DavisK.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 371–388). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14.
JonesE.E.HarrisV.A. (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1–24.
15.
KelleyH.H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107–128.
16.
KozakM.MarshA.A.WegnerD.M. (2006). What do I think you’re doing? Action identification and mind attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 543–555.
17.
LassiterG.D. (1988). Behavior perception, affect, and memory. Social Cognition, 6, 150–176.
LeyensJ.P.PaladinoM.P.RodriguezR.T.VaesJ.DemoulinS.RodriguezA.P.GauntR. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186–197.
20.
LoftusE.F.PalmerJ.C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589.
21.
MaddenC.J.ZwaanR.A. (2003). How does verb aspect constrain event representations?Memory & Cognition, 31, 663–672.
NewtsonD. (1973). Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 28–38.
26.
NewtsonD.RinderR. (1979). Variation in behavior perception and ability attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1847–1858.
27.
PinkerS. (1997). How the mind works. New York, NY: Norton.
28.
PreacherK.J.HayesA.F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.
29.
SchlenkerB.R. (1997). Personal responsibility: Applications of the triangle model. In CummingsL.L.StawB. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 19, pp. 241–301). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
30.
ShaverK.G. (1985). The attribution of blame. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
31.
SrullT.K.WyerR.S. (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.
TagliamonteS.A.LawrenceH. (2000). I used to dance, but I don’t dance now: The habitual past in English. Journal of English Linguistics, 28, 324–353.
34.
VendlerZ. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160.
35.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
WegnerD.M.GiulianoT. (1982). The forms of social awareness. In IckesW.J.KnowlesE.S. (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 165–198). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
37.
WhorfB.L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. New York, NY: Wiley.
38.
WilderD. (1978a). Effects of predictability on units of perception and attribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 281–284.
39.
WilderD. (1978b). Predictability of behaviors, goals, and unit of perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 604–607.
40.
ZwaanR.A.RadvanskyG.A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 162–185.
