Transcript View Presentation

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.
What Information Do We Use?

Roles

People tend to think of others within a
role context first and only then
according to personality traits
What Information Do We Use?

Physical Cues

Appearance and behavior are key
determinants of our first impressions
What Information Do We Use?

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
What Information Do We Use?

Effects of Salience




Draws attention
Influences perceptions of causality
Produces evaluatively extreme judgments
Produce more consistency of judgment
What Information Do We Use?

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
What Information Do We Use?

Which Traits?

We tend to evaluate others along two
dimensions:


Competence
Interpersonal qualities
What Information Do We Use?

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)
What Information Do We Use?

Categorization

We automatically perceive stimuli as
part of a group or category
What Information Do We Use?

Consequences of Categorization



leads to category-based social
judgments (stereotyping)
speeds processing time
can lead to errors
What Information Do We Use?

The Continuum Model of Impression
Formation

Impressions range from stereotypic,
category-based impressions to
individuated impressions (dual
processing)
What Information Do We Use?

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
What Information Do We Use?

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)
What Information Do We Use?

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)
Integrating Impressions

Schemas


Prototypes are the abstract ideal of a
schema
Exemplars are particular instances of a
category
Integrating Impressions

Schemas



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
A
A
A
behavior
behavior
behavior
behavior
is not socially desirable
is freely chosen
has a “noncommon effect”
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 choice
Harvard
MA
Large
Exceptional
$$$$
UMass
MA
Large
Excellent
$$
Amherst
MA
Small
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


Consensus


Is the person’s response consistent over
time?
Do other people have similar responses?
Distinctiveness

Does the person respond similarly to
other similar stimuli?
Attribution Theory
Why did Mary laugh at the comedian?
Distinctiveness
Consensus
Consistency
Attribution
High—she
High—
High—she
Stimulus
Low—she always Low—hardly
Person
laughs at
comedians
anyone else
laughed
High—she
High
Low—hardly
Low—she
Context
didn’t laugh at
anyone else
—she
didn’t laugh at
anyone else
everyone else
laughed
anyone else
laughed
always laughs
at him
always laughs
at him
rarely laughs at
comedians
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


Gestures


Vary by culture
Eye Contact


Indicates friendliness
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 higherpitched 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.