Much empirical work has focused on individual impression formation. The study of impression formation at a dyadic or intersubjective level, however, has been neglected. This study was concerned with the motivation to achieve a consensual impression, as well as the cognitive capacity to do so. Dyads that have both the motivation to achieve consensus and cognitive capacity (i.e., were nondistracted) were expected to be particularly concerned with label-consistent information; consistent information previously has been shown to aid achieved consensus. In particular, nondistracted dyads working toward consensus were expected to increase time allocation to, questioning about, and efforts toward fit about consistent information. These processes would indicate more controlled processing of target attributes, as well as efforts to achieve a consensual impression. In the experiment dyads received information about a stigmatized target person, and then were asked to discuss their impressions of the target. Dyads were either instructed to reach a consensus or not so instructed, and were either distracted or not distracted during their discussion. Results indicated that dyads did process information differentially depending on their consensus motivation, in that consensually motivated dyads spent a greater amount of time discussing attribute information. These dyads did not, however, distinguish between label-irrelevant and label-consistent information. Moreover, contrary to predictions, distraction did not interact with consensus motivation. Distraction, it seems, had little effect on consensual processing, suggesting that consensus motivation is resilient to reduced cognitive capacity; thus consensual processes may be less controlled than was previously anticipated, and may even be automatic. Finally, perceived dyadic closeness emerged as an important factor in that low closeness dyads worked hard to ascertain their common ground (i.e., they showed more nonverbal signs of ascertaining agreement and more efforts to ascertain agreement about label-consistent information). The possibility that consensual processing may be automatic or spontaneous as a function of dyadic closeness, and the importance of intersubjective social cognition are discussed
