Social Perception

““non-verbal behavior (NVB)”non-verbal behavior (NVB)”

– Facial expression– Tone of voice– Hand gestures

The “OK” sign Thumbs-up Nodding vs.

shaking the head V-for-victory sign

Body position/posture

Touch

Eye gaze

Popularly called “body language”, but broader than that

Function of NVBFunction of NVB

Expressing (sending) and reading (receiving):– Emotion– Attitudes– Personality traits

Facilitating verbal communication– email

Verbal-nonverbal consistencyVerbal-nonverbal consistency

Often consistent, sometimes notSarcasm

– I’m so happy for you!

On the allure of body language in “pop-psychology”

Perception of EmotionsPerception of Emotions

The six universal emotions (Paul Ekman)

factors that can decrease factors that can decrease accuracy in face perceptionaccuracy in face perception

Intentional efforts to conceal emotions– Richards & Gross (1999)

Consequences

Display rulesAffect blends/ambiguity

Detecting lyingDetecting lying

•"it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the - if he - if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not - that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement ... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have

said no. And it would have been completely true."

"People have got to know whether or not their

president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook." "The White House has no involvement whatever in this particular incident."

Concealment of Concealment of emotionsemotions——can people be “caught”?can people be “caught”?

Two paradigms, two different questions: – from whom or what is the participant trying to

conceal their emotions?

– Machines (e.g. electrodes) typically, sensitive equipment can pick up true feelings.

– Other people Easier to “fool” human observers than

machines. Gender differences

Important distinction:Important distinction:Studies not having anything to do with

deception– Females better than males

Participants asked to guess who is being deceptive vs. honest– Females worse than males– “politeness” hypothesis

WhyWhy are women are women (in general) more sensitive to emotions/ (in general) more sensitive to emotions/

non-verbal behavior?non-verbal behavior?

Something about gender per se Social role theory (Eagly, 1987)

– Women better because (a) well-practiced, and (b) occupy subordinate positions

– Research more supportive of this hypothesis– Two sources of converging evidence

Cross-cultural work (Hall, 1978) Experimental research (Snodgrass, 1985, 1992)

Experimental evidence for social role Experimental evidence for social role theory: Snodgrass, 1985theory: Snodgrass, 1985

males and females assigned to superior (boss) vs. inferior (employee) roles

Four type of dyads DV: accuracy in reading partner’s emotions Results:

– Gender makes absolutely no difference!– All driven by role: employee always more accurate than

boss– Converges on non-laboratory approach by Hall (1978)

Person perceptionPerson perception

A sampling of some interesting recent findings A sampling of some interesting recent findings in the person perception literaturein the person perception literature

Power of “impression sets” (vs. memory sets) to organize information about others

Automaticity in trait inferences about others– Newman & Uleman (1989)

“Messenger” effects (Carlston & Mae, 2003)

Bob

“Mary is dishonest”

Internal vs. external attributionsInternal vs. external attributions

Internal –dispositional causesExternal—situational causes

Recent examples in the news….– Colin Powell and WMD– Martha Stewart– Michael Jackson

Dear Dr. ________, I am writing to you to ask if would send me information

regarding graduate program in psychology for the Fall 2000-Spring 2001 academic year. I am interested very much in the type of program offer you offer their. I have been told by many people that Washington University has one of better phd programs and I think I would enjoy attending. Just so you know, I have been graduated three years now, and I am still looking for a good job. I have had some bad luck finding something, but I am still hopefull. Hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely

 

Implicit personality theoriesImplicit personality theories

Inferences about “unseen” traitsInferences about “unseen” traits

Olivia

intelligent

+

attractive

+ honest(inferred)

False memories

Surprise at inconsistencySurprise at inconsistency/attempts to reconcile/attempts to reconcile

Olivia

intelligent

+

attractive

+ Dishonest*(--)

*violates implicit personality theory; could lead to

•Attempt to reinterpret

•Attribute to situational forces

•Forgetting

•Change implicit theory (unlikely, but possible)

Evaluatively mixed Evaluatively mixed representationsrepresentations

Jack

Artistic (painter)(++)

Temperamental(--)

Disorganized (--)

Interesting issue—asymmetries Interesting issue—asymmetries in priming (Neely, 1991)in priming (Neely, 1991)

Artistic primes temperamental more strongly than…

Temperamental primes artistic

Ostrich primes bird more strongly than… Bird primes ostrich

Note: such effects occur for speeded naming tasks, but not lexical decision tasks

Culture and implicit personality Culture and implicit personality theoriestheories

Creative (Western cultures)Shi Gu (China)

Interesting issue—due to – Language, or– Reality?

Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no)

Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Conspiracy during 2004 election?

30% yes

70% no

Actual distribution of attitudes

53%yes

47%no

Perceived distribution of attitudes

34%yes

66% no

Extremely large FCE = +22 Fairly accurate

“yes, there was”

“no, there wasn’t”

Sara Jessica Parker attractive?

57% yes

43% no

Actual distribution of attitudes

64%yes 36%

no

Perceived distribution of attitudes

53%yes

47% no

(Small) FCE = +7 Fairly accurate

“Yeah—hot!” “No”

Johnny Depp attractive?

61% yes 39%

no

Actual distribution of attitudes

66%yes 34%

no

Perceived distribution of attitudes

50%yes

50% no

Fairly accurate Moderate FCE +11

“Yeah—hot!”“No”

Fundamental Christian movement a positive force in U.S.?

23% yes

77% no

Actual distribution of attitudes

48%yes

52%no

Perceived distribution of attitudes

42%yes

58% anti

One interpretation: No real FCE here. Rather, all students (regardless of views) perceive WU students as more pro-Fundamental Christian than they really are

yes

no

Famous errors in person perceptionFamous errors in person perception

The “false consensus” error (e.g. Ross, Greene, & House, 1977)

– What it is Tendency to believe that one’s own attributes

are more common than they really are

– Why you get it Selective exposure Cognitive Accessibility Motivation

Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no)

Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)

Famous errors… continuedFamous errors… continued

The “fundamental attribution error” (e.g. Jones & Harris, 1967)

– What it is Tendency to overestimate influence of dispositional

factors when judging others

– Why you get it Selective exposure (again) Perceptual salience Different processes underlying attributions

– dispositional automatic

– Situational controlled

pro-Castro anti-Castro

No choice

choice

Jones and Harris (1967)Jones and Harris (1967)

Anchoring and adjustment heuristic—insufficient adjustment!

Insensitivity to the power of the situation

Est

ima

te o

f ess

ay

wri

ter’

s a

ttitu

de

60%

Stages of social perceptionStages of social perceptionObserve specific behavior

Identification (encoding)

Inferences about other traits

Inferences about the causes of behavior (attribution)

Automatic dispositional attribution

Controlled situational “correction”—but only if perceiver has ability and motivation

Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)allall participants run in “no choice” condition. participants run in “no choice” condition.

Pro

abortion

Anti-

abortion

“Pro-Abortion”

“Anti abortion”

“unbusy” participants “busy” participants

Self-serving attributionsSelf-serving attributions

Usual pattern for self—– Positive events—internal– Negative events—external

Reversed for depressed individualsSports—winners vs. losers

– Rams vs. Patriots—2002 Superbowl–

Unrealistic optimism Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980)(Weinstein, 1980)

Basic effectCriticisms of this paradigm

– Referent group unclear?

Bottom line—effect holds up, even controlling for possible problems

Belief in a just worldBelief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) (Lerner, 1980)

Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people

Two ways of conceptualizing– Cultural belief system– Individual difference variable

highlow

Lambert et al. (1999)Lambert et al. (1999) Belief in a just world But we find only weakly related to perceived

risk—WHY? Buffering hypothesis!

– Maybe just world beliefs “only matter” when world is viewed as “threatening” in the first place

– Who sees world as threatening? High RWA

World perceived

as a dangerous, scary place?

Personal buffer

against threat?

HIGH PERCEIVED RISK

LOW PERCEIVED RISK

Right-wing authoritarianism

Belief in a just world

YES

NO

NO

YES