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 doesnt 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

Positivity Bias

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

Others 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 UMass Amherst

MA Large Exceptional $$$$

MA Large Excellent $$

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 persons response consistent over time? Do other people have similar responses? Does the person respond similarly to other similar stimuli?

Distinctiveness

Attribution Theory
Why did Mary laugh at the comedian?
Distinctiveness Consensus Consistency Attribution Stimulus

Highshe

didnt laugh at anyone else laughs at comedians

High
everyone else laughed anyone else laughed anyone else laughed

Highshe Highshe Lowshe

always laughs at him Person always laughs at him Context rarely laughs at comedians

Lowshe always Lowhardly High

she didnt laugh at anyone else

Lowhardly

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 dont necessarily assume he or she is intrinsically friendly

Attribution Theory

By and large, research findings show that peoples 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 dont 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 peoples 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 peoples 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 persons self-perception if they know a person well People are more accurate if the targets 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

We easily distinguish emotions that are at least three categories apart

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

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

Pitch, amplitude, rate, voice quality of speech

Paralinguistic

Nonverbal Communication

The Visible Channel

Distance

Indicates friendliness Vary by culture Indicates interest (friendship or threat)

Gestures

Eye Contact

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?

Some nonverbal channels leak more than others because they are less controllable

True emotions tend to leak out through nonverbal channels

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.