Percieving Others

7/28/2019 Percieving Others

1/75

Perceiving Others: Impression

Formation and Attribution


2/75

Perceiving Others

social cognition: content and process

explicitly talking about perceiving other

people in our world


3/75

Perceiving Others

Why is it important to understand others inour social world?

we are interdependent, social beings

getting ahead, getting along

accurate predictions


4/75

Perceiving Others

What are other people like?

impression formation

What are other people likely to do?

attribution


5/75

Impression Formation

How do we make initial judgments of others?

What sorts of information do we use?

Note: We often form impressions ratherquickly, sometimes without anydirectevidence.


6/75


What are the raw materials?

some questions about Austin:

How old is he?

Gender?

Marital status?

What is his favorite leisure time activity?


7/75


What are the raw materials?

some questions about Austin:

Is he intelligent?

Extraverted?

Friendly?

Dishonest?


8/75


observations

visible cues

age, gender, marital status


9/75


physical attractiveness

one of the most powerful influences on our

initial impressions of others Physical beauty is the sign of an interior beauty,

a spiritual and moral beauty.

Johann Schiller

what-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype (Dion,Berscheid, & Walster, 1972)


10/75



rate the ability of alleged VPs based on photos

2 (attractiveness) X 2 (gender)

ratings of ability

(Heilman & Stropek, 1985)


11/75



rate the ability of alleged VPs based on photos

2 (attractiveness) X 2 (gender)

ratings of ability

moreattractive man = higher in ability

lessattractive woman = higher in ability



12/75




lessattractive woman = higher in ability Why?



13/75




lessattractive woman = higher in ability women more likely to get ahead based on appearance,

less likely to occur that way for men



14/75


15/75



physical appearance (e.g., height, beauty) exerts a

powerful influence on our impressions of others


16/75


17/75


implicit personality theories

what characteristics go together

If you said friendly, did you notsay dishonest?


18/75



once we make assumptions based on one trait

(e.g., friendly), we use our IPT to drawconclusions about other traits (e.g., honest)


19/75



some traits more central, thus more descriptive

e.g., hostile vs. tidy

central traits more powerful when formingimpressions

e.g., Kelleys warm/cold variables


20/75


stereotypes

intelligent?

leisure time activities?


21/75


22/75

Problems with Impression

Formation reliance on schemas and heuristics can be

problematic

over-reliance on first impressions


23/75



problematic


actor/observer differences

focus on dispositional, not situational, cues


24/75



problematic


actor/observer differences

expectancies can influence behaviors

e.g., Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)


25/75


Formation expectancies can influence behaviors

What is the non-verbal behavior of whites when

they interact with African-Americans?hypothesis: attitudes influence non-verbal

behavior

immediacy behaviors: orient ourselves closer,maintain eye contact, and lean forward whileinteracting

(Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974)


26/75



white male participants: interviews with another

white male or an African-American maletold they were to select a teammate for a

subsequent, competitive task



27/75



when interviewing an African-American:

sat further away shorter interviews

more speech errors

fewer immediacy behaviors



28/75


29/75



when treated with fewer immediacy behaviors

(i.e., like the African-Americans), they were rated: less competent

less composed

liked less

also, they liked the interviewer less



30/75


31/75

Perceiver Target Person

1. tentative expectation

(e.g., friendly)


32/75


33/75



(e.g., friendly) 2. ambiguous behavior(could be friendly)

3. expectation strengthenedbyperceptual confirmation


34/75





4. biased hypothesis testing(e.g., warm, friendly overtures)


35/75






5. expectation-

consistent response

confirmation bias


36/75






5. expectation-

consistent response

6. expectation furtherstrengthened bybehavioralconfirmation(fundamental

attribution error)

confirmation bias


37/75






5. expectation-

consistent response

6. expectation furtherstrengthened bybehavioralconfirmation(fundamental

attribution error)

7. self-concept change?

confirmation bias


38/75

Overall Evaluations

we rely on different types of information

e.g., physical appearance, verbal and nonverbal

behavior, implicit personality theories

How do we organize the information into an

overall evaluation of the person?


39/75

Overall Evaluations

two schools of thought

cognitive algebra

evaluate first, then integrate based on weights assigned to individual traits

e.g., practical (.25) + mean (.75)

bottom-up process


40/75

Overall Evaluations

two schools of thought

holistic impressions (Gestalt)

integrate first, then evaluate the person e.g., implicit personality theories

top-down process


41/75

Nonverbal Behavior

A World of Gestures


42/75

Attribution

What are people like?

impression formation

What are people likely to do?attribution


43/75

Attribution

attribution theory: a group of theories thatdescribe how people explain the causes of

behaviorWhy do people behave the way that they do?

What are they likely to do in the future?


44/75

Attribution

types of attributions

personal attributions -- internal

situational attributions -- external


45/75

Two Theories of Attribution

correspondence inference theory(Jones & Davis,1965)

Kelleys covariation model (Kelley, 1972)


46/75


correspondence inference theory

we are best able to make inferences about a

persons underlying disposition (e.g., trait,attitude, intent) when actions are freely chosenand unexpected


47/75



1. Is the behavior freely chosen?

2. Is the behavior expected?3. What are the intended effects?


48/75



trivial

ambiguityintended

effects

freely chosen

expectedness

high low

high


49/75



trivial

ambiguity

intriguing

ambiguityintended

effects

freely chosen

expectedness

high low

high


50/75



trivial

ambiguity

intriguing

ambiguity

trivial clarity

intended

effects

freely chosen

expectedness

high low

high


51/75



trivial

ambiguity

intriguing

ambiguity

trivial claritycorrespondent

inference

only here that

behavior should betaken at face value

intended

effects

freely chosen

expectedness

high low

high


52/75


Kelleys covariation model

start with a behavior

your friend recommends a moviefigure out the reason for the behavior

Is it something about the movie?

Is it something about your friend?

Is it something unpredictable?


53/75



gather information

Do other people recommend the movie? Does your friend still recommend the movie when

you ask a week later?

Does your friend recommend all movies?


54/75



three types of information:

CONSENSUS Do other people react/behave the same way?

Do other people recommend the movie?


55/75




CONSISTENCY Is the persons reaction/behavior the same over time?

Does your friend still recommend the movie whenyou ask a week later?


56/75




DISTINCTIVENESS Does the other person react/behave the same waywith other stimuli?

Does your friend recommend all movies?


57/75



Is it something about the movie (i.e., external)?

high consensus: other people recommend high consistency: recommendation holds over time

high distinctiveness: doesnt recommend all movies


58/75



Is it something about your friend (i.e., internal)?

low consensus: only your friend recommends it high consistency: recommendation holds over time

low distinctiveness: recommends all movies


59/75



What if consistency is low?

attribution that something unusual is going on


60/75


61/75

Problems with Attribution

fundamental attribution errorIs Alex Trebek intelligent? Why?


62/75


fundamental attribution errorstaged a quiz show

questioner, contestant, or spectatorquestioner: write 10 challenging questions

e.g., Which team won the Stanley Cup in 1968? Whowas the first governor of Idaho?

(Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz, 1977)


63/75



questioner, contestant, or spectatorcontestants: attempted to answer the questions

about 40% correctly



64/75



questioner, contestant, or spectatorall participants: ratings of contestants and

questioners general knowledge on a scale of 0-100



65/75



questioner, contestant, or spectatorspectators: rated the questioners above average and

contestants below average in general knowledge

even contestants rated themselves lower than the

questioners



66/75


fundamental attribution errormay not be universal (Morris & Peng, 1994)

explanation for mass murders

American newspapers vs. Chinese newspapers


67/75


actor/observer effectan extension of the FAE

others behavior: dispositional attributionsown behavior: situational attributions


68/75


self-serving biaseslocate the causality of the behavior in the place

that most benefits us


69/75


These players playedgreat all year, their bestin the big games and

they deserve it, theyreally deserve it. Bill Belichick, coach

New England Patriots


70/75


Theyre an elite team.We played sloppy, butthey made us play

sloppy at times.Terrell Owens, wide

receiver PhiladelphiaEagles


71/75


self-serving biasesbasking-in-reflected-glory (BIRG): increasing

our self-esteem by associating with others whoare successful


72/75


self-serving biasesbasking-in-reflected-glory (BIRG)

cut-off-reflected-failure (CORF): maintainingour self-esteem by cutting off or denying ourassociation with others who have failed


73/75


self-serving biasesbasking-in-reflected-glory (BIRG)

cut-off-reflected-failure (CORF) Cialdini et al. Study 1: number of students who wore school

paraphernalia (e.g., sweatshirts) after football games

Study 2: called students after football games to askwhat they remembered about the game


74/75


75/75

Next Time

the social self: how the self-concept isinfluenced by our social world

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	farah-noreen
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Percieving Others

Documents