Chapter 2 Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others.

Chapter 2

Person Perception: Forming Impressions

of Others

Six General Principles minimal information salience context categorization enduring cognitive structures needs and goals

What Information Do We Use?

People often decide very quickly what others are like based on minimal information.


Roles People tend to think of others within a

role context first and only then according to personality traits


Physical Cues Appearance and behavior are key

determinants of our first impressions


Salience People pay attention to the figure

rather than to the ground or setting The most salient cues are used most

heavily Brightness, noisiness, motion, and

novelty


Effects of Salience Draws attention Influences perceptions of causality Produces evaluatively extreme

judgments Produce more consistency of judgment


We move very quickly from observable information (appearance & behavior) to personality trait inferences Traits are more economical to

remember Trait inferences occur automatically We use implicit personality theories to

infer traits from other traits


Which Traits? We tend to evaluate others along two

dimensions: Competence Interpersonal qualities


Central Traits Some traits may be more central than

others, that is, highly associated with many other characteristics

“Warm-Cold” appears to be such a trait (Kelley, 1950)


Categorization We automatically perceive stimuli as

part of a group or category


Consequences of Categorization leads to category-based social

judgments (stereotyping) speeds processing time can lead to errors


The Continuum Model of Impression Formation Impressions range from stereotypic,

category-based impressions to individuated impressions (dual processing)


Dual Processing We generally tend to use category-

based inference because it is easy and quick

We use individuated information when we are motivated to be accurate the person doesn’t fit our categories we have other reasons for wanting to

know the person better


Context Effects Contrast biases judgments away from

the context (sees them as different) Assimilation biases judgments in the

same direction as the context (sees them as similar)


Context Effects Assimilation occurs more when

people are using category-based processing

Contrast occurs more when people are using individuated information

Integrating Impressions We move quickly from

observations of appearance and behavior to inferences about personality

Integrating Impressions Negativity Effect

Negative traits tend to affect impressions more than positive ones (especially negative moral traits)

Positivity Bias Overall we tend to evaluate others

positively

Integrating Impressions We infer what others are like from

what emotions they express

Integrating Impressions The Averaging Principle

averaging is used to combine separate pieces of information about people, some of which are positive and others of which are negative

A weighted averaging model, in which traits are weighted by importance, provides the best predictions

Integrating Impressions Our perceptions of others’ personal

qualities undergoes a shift of meaning depending on context

Integrating Impressions People tend to form evaluatively

consistent impressions of others (halo effect)

Integrating Impressions Resolving Inconsistencies

Information that is inconsistent with other impressions may be remembered especially well

However, being “cognitively busy” prevents us from thinking about inconsistent information so we forget it

We may differentiate incongruent information by context

Sometimes we just recognize incongruities without integrating them

Integrating Impressions Schemas are organized, structured

sets of cognitions including knowledge about the object, relationships among its attributes, and specific examples

Integrating Impressions Schemas

Person schemas Role schemas Group schemas (stereotypes)


Prototypes are the abstract ideal of a schema

Exemplars are particular instances of a category


When we have little information about another, we use prototypes to make inferences about them

When we have a little more information, we use both exemplars and prototypes

When we have a great deal of information, we use more well-developed schemas as well as exemplars

Motivated Person Perception Our goals and feelings about other

people influence the information we gather about them

Motivated Person Perception Need for accuracy about another

leads to more systematic processing

We remember more about another when we expect to interact with him or her

Motivated Person Perception Communicating information about

another leads to more evaluatively consistent impressions

Motivated Person Perception When we are preoccupied we are

more likely to make trait inferences

Motivated Person Perception Factors influencing our reactions to

others Other’s similarity to self Our prior experiences Our prior expectations Our beliefs about traits as stable or

malleable Our own emotional state or mood

Attribution Theory Attribution theory is the area of

psychology concerned with when and how people ask “why” questions. Heider (1958) argued that we have needs to

understand and to control the environment. These needs lead us to make attributions.

We are especially likely to make attributions when events are negative or unexpected.

Attribution Theory dispositional or internal

attributions Refer to traits, attitudes, enduring

internal states versus

situational or external attributions Refer to aspects of the external

environment, including other people

Attribution Theory Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones

and Davis [1965]) Assumes that we seek to make

“correspondent inferences” The behavior (e.g., rude) corresponds to an

underlying characteristic of the person (rude) We use information about the social context

to see if we can make a correspondent inference

Attribution Theory We tend to make a correspondent

inference when A behavior is not socially desirable A behavior is freely chosen A behavior has a “noncommon effect” A behavior is not part of a social role

Attribution Theory Noncommon Effects

A student is choosing between 3 colleges

You attribute their motive as the distinctive effect for that choiceHarvard UMass Amherst

MA MA MA

Large Large Small

Exceptional

Excellent Excellent

$$$$ $$ $$$$

Attribution Theory The Covariation Model (Kelley,

1967) says that people try to see if a particular cause and a particular effect go together across situations.

Attribution Theory Consistency

Is the person’s response consistent over time?

Consensus Do other people have similar

responses? Distinctiveness

Does the person respond similarly to other similar stimuli?

Attribution Theory

Distinctiveness Consensus Consistency Attribution

High—she didn’t laugh at anyone else

High—

everyone else laughed

High—she always laughs at him

Stimulus

Low—she always laughs at comedians

Low—hardly anyone else laughed

High—she always laughs at him

Person

High —she didn’t laugh at anyone else

Low—hardly anyone else laughed

Low—she rarely laughs at comedians

Context

Why did Mary laugh at the comedian?

Attribution Theory The discounting principle suggests

that we are less likely to attribute an effect to a particular cause if more than one cause is likely. E.g., if a salesperson is nice to us, we

don’t necessarily assume he or she is intrinsically friendly

Attribution Theory By and large, research findings

show that people’s inferences do follow the patterns described by the covariation and discounting principles

Attribution Theory Biases in the Attribution Process

Considerable research suggests that there are several prominent biases in the ways we make causal attributions

Attribution Theory Fundamental Attribution Error

We are more likely to attribute others’ behavior to their dispositions than to the situation they are in

Attribution Theory The fundamental attribution error

may occur because people make dispositional attributions automatically, and then only later use situational information to discount it. People don’t tend to get to the second

step unless the contextual information is very compelling or salient

Attribution Theory There are some cultural

differences in attributions. People in all cultures seem to share

the correspondence bias (tendency to infer behaviors as due to dispositions)

But people in non-Western cultures are more likely to take situational and contextual information into account

Attribution Theory The Actor-Observer Bias is that we

tend to attribute other people’s behavior to their dispositions but our own to situations (Jones & Nisbett, 1972) Perceptual: actors look at the situation,

observers look at actors Access to different information: actors

have more background about themselves

Attribution Theory False Consensus Effect

We tend to see our own behavior and opinions as typical. Why?

We have a biased sample of similar others among our friends

Our own opinions are more accessible/salient We fail to realize that our choices reflect our

construals and that others have different perceptions

We are motivated to see ourselves as normal & good.

Attribution Theory The Self-Serving Attributional Bias

We tend to take credit for our successes but deny blame for our failures

Attribution Theory The self-serving bias may actually be

quite adaptive. There is more evidence that people take

credit for their successes than that they deny responsibility for failures. People may accept responsibility for failure especially if it is a factor they can control.

The self-serving bias is more likely in casual than in close relationships.

Attribution Theory Where do Biases Come From?

Cognitive shortcuts in service of efficiency

Needs and motives (biases to enhance self-esteem and perceptions of control)

Accuracy of Judgments Our judgments are both accurate

and inaccurate. We tend to be accurate about

external visible attributes. We are less accurate about inferred

internal states (traits or feelings).

Accuracy of Judgments Why are people’s personalities difficult

to judge accurately? Lack of objective criteria People have idiosyncratic criteria for judging

others They agree more about likeability than about

traits Personality traits tend to predict behavior in

only a limited set of circumstances

Accuracy of Judgments People agree more about observable

traits than about less observable ones People agree more with the person’s

self-perception if they know a person well

People are more accurate if the target’s behavior is not overly variable

People are more accurate if they are outcome dependent on the target

Accuracy of Judgments We are fairly accurate in our

perception of others’ emotional states Facial expressions of emotions may

be part of our evolutionary heritage

Accuracy of Judgments Continuum of emotions

Happiness/Joy Surprise, Amazement Fear Sadness Anger Disgust, Contempt Interest, Attentiveness

We easily distinguish emotions that are at least three categories apart

Accuracy of Judgments Two dimensions of emotion:

Pleasantness Arousal

We easily distinguish pleasant from unpleasant emotions, and arousing emotions from non-arousing ones The pleasantness dimension is easiest

to distinguish

Nonverbal Communication Even small amounts of nonverbal

behavior can convey substantial information

Channels Visible

Facial expressions, gestures, posture, appearance Paralinguistic

Pitch, amplitude, rate, voice quality of speech

Nonverbal Communication The Visible Channel

Distance Indicates friendliness

Gestures Vary by culture

Eye Contact Indicates interest (friendship or threat)

Facial Expressions

Nonverbal Communication Paralanguage

Paralanguage involves variations in speech other than verbal content

A simple statement can mean entirely different things depending on emphasis and inflection

Nonverbal Communication The more channels of

communication people have access to, the more accurate they are in judging others’ emotions.

However, the verbal channel tends to be the most influential.

Nonverbal Communication Are people successful or

unsuccessful liars? True emotions tend to “leak” out

through nonverbal channels Some nonverbal channels leak

more than others because they are less controllable The body is more likely than the face

to reveal deception

Nonverbal Communication People are more likely to perceive

a deceptive message as less truthful, but on the whole, people are not wonderful lie-detectors

The Giveaways Liars blink more, hesitate more, make

more speech errors, speak in higher-pitched voices, and have more dilated pupils

Nonverbal Communication People use nonverbal behaviors to

convey intended impressions Display rules are cultural norms

regarding how one conveys emotion to others

Nonverbal Communication There are gender differences in the

use of nonverbal behavior. Girls and women are more expressive in

their display of most emotions and are more accurate interpreters of nonverbal cues

Women are better at communicating happiness; Men at communicating anger

Both nature and nurture seem to be involved.

Chapter 2 Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others.

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 2 Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others.