Person Perception (Taylor, Sears, Peplau

7/26/2019 Person Perception (Taylor, Sears, Peplau

1/30

Person Perception

Social PerceptionTaylor, Sears, Peplau

12thed.

Baron and Branscombe

13thed.


2/30

Our impressions of others are themost important judgments e form.!e use hate"er information isa"ailable to ma#e such judgments,about their personalities or formhypotheses about the #inds of

persons they are.


3/30

There are some general rules about ho people formimpressions of others

1. People form impressions of others $uic#ly on the basis of

minimal information a"ailable and go on to impute

general traits on them.2. People pay special attention to the most salient features

of the persons, rather than pay attention to e"erything.

!e notice the $ualities that ma#e the person distincti"eor unusual.

3. Processing information about people in"ol"es percei"ingsome coherent meaning in their beha"ior. To an e%tent,e use the conte%t of a person&s beha"ior to infer its

meaning instead of judging that in isolation.


4/30

'. !e organi(e our perceptions by categori(ing orgrouping stimuli. )ather than seeing people asindi"iduals, e tend to see people as members ofgroups. People earing lab coats are doctors *all are

same, doctors+. !e use our enduring cogniti"e structures to ma#e

sense of people&s beha"ior. -f someone is a teacher,professor, doctor etc., e percei"e him according to

his profession.. / percei"er&s on needs and personal goals

in0uence ho he or she percei"es others. Perceptionof a person you meet only once is dierent from theperception you form about your ne roommate.


5/30

!hat information do euse

Roles: !hen e try to organi(e information aboutothers, #noing their social role is important, e"ermore important than their traits. There are manyays to be e%tro"erted *being comedian, politician,

etc.+ but the information about concrete roles(like being cheerleader, politician) providesinformation than only knowing raw traits.

)ole schemas are more useful than traits for recall.

People sitting in a seminar are easy to recall thanpeople described by general traits *li#e selfcentered or courageous people+. !hen beha"ior isout of conte%t it creates ambiguity.


6/30

!hat information do euse

Physical cues: our 4rst impressionsoften dra on other people&sappearance and beha"ior to infer

$ualities about them *5i"ingston,2661+. That can lead to formation ofremar#ably detailed impressions.

*seeing someone in bur$a or in jeanslead us to dierent impressions+. !ee"en infer personality traits from a

person&s face *7ielder and Schenc#,


7/30

Salience8 people direct their attention to those aspects theperceptual 4eld that stand out i.e. the 4gure and ground principle.

/ttention is dran to bright, noisy, colorful, unusual, and no"elstimuli. / man in bright red seater stands out.

Salience has a number of conse$uences

1. Salient beha"iors dra more attention than subtler ones. *Taylorand 7is#e, 19:;+

2. Salient beha"iors in0uence perception of causality, as peopleith more salient aspects are considered to be ha"ing morein0uence o"er their social conte%t. / front ro student as#ing a

$uestion ould be considered more dominating than the bac#ro student as#ing the same amount of $uestions.

3. Salient aspects dra the e%treme e"aluations. *e"aluations occurring at the most super4cial le"el+.


8/30

7rom Beha"iors to traits

7rom obser"able information such as appearance,beha"ior, and e"en gestures, e $uic#ly formpersonality trait inferences about hat the personis li#e. *?arons#i, 2663+. -t is a more economical

and general ay. !e try to summari(e aspects of beha"ior in trait

forms instead of describing and recalling each ande"ery aspect.

Implicit Personality heory:Traits areinterlin#ed so inferring one trait leads to connect itith other similar traits and ma#ing an o"er"ie ofthe personality. *Sedi#ides @ /nderson, 199'+.


9/30

!entral trait: / trait that is highly associated ith many ofa person&s other characteristics is called a .

"elley#s ($%&') eperiment8 students ere gi"en a Aarm&and Acold& description of a guest lecturer prior to the lecture./ll other aspects ere same. /fter the lecture of about 26minutes, students ere as#ed to gi"e impressions about thelecturer.

tudent receiving warm description reported thelecturer to be less self centered, more sociable, morepopular, less formal, less irritable, more humorous,less ruthless.

The trait inferences that e tend to e"aluate in others are interms of their task related or intellectual capacitiesand their interpersonal or social capacities*im @)osenberg, 19;6+


10/30

Categori(ation

!ategori*ation: percei"ing people as members of groups orcategories rather than as distinct indi"iduals.

?ender, race, religion, socioeconomic class all in0uence ourperceptions. Percei"ers do not respond to salient stimuli in isolation,they immediately percei"e stimuli as part of some group or

category. The categori(ation leads to social judgments about people in

stereotypical ay.

Categori(ing a person also increases the speed of processing.Breer, Dull, and 5ui *19;1+, presented participants ith photos ofpeople in three categories Agrandmother& Asenior citi(en& Ayoungoman& ith labels. Then they pro"ided additional informationabout each photo and measured the time to ma#e impressions.-nformation consistent ith the prototype of the category asprocessed $uic#ly *e.g. #indly for grandmother+

-ndi"iduals prefer category judgments o"er indi"iduated judgments.


11/30

Continuum model of impressionformation8 Dual Processing

+ual processing: People can process informationin a careful, systematic fashion or in a more rapid,eEcient fashion.

!e ha"e the ability to ma#e both category based,

stereotypical judgments and more indi"iduatedjudgments.

Fore depends on the conte%t, usually e prefercategori(ation but if that categori(ation is not

supported by a"ailable data at hand e might turnto indi"iduated processing *someone doingsomething uni$ue not consistent ith hisGherstereotype *7is#e @ Heuberg, 1996+.

Sometimes e use heuristics, sometimes e don&t.


12/30

Conte%t Iects

!ontet -ects:Social judgments are strongly dependent on the conte%tin hich it is made *Bless @ !an#e, 2666+.

To types of conte%t eects

!ontrast:*biased+ tendency to percei"e a communicator&s position asfurther aay from the indi"idual&s on position than it actually is. Photosof people are rated as much less attracti"e hen they are preceded by

attracti"e faces *!in#, Bless @ -gou, 2661+.

ssimilation:Percei"ing a communicator&s position as closer to one&son position than it actually is. !hen attracti"e and unattracti"e faces arepresented simultaneously, unattracti"e faces are rated relati"ely attracti"e

/ssimilation is more li#ely to occur hen processing information atcategorical or stereotypical level. -t is less li#ely hen beha"ioralinformation about a person is processed more thoroughly *Thompson et al.199'+

On hearing reports about other people&s beha"ior e usually ta#e intoconsideration the conte%t in hich the beha"ior is reported.


13/30

-ntegrating -mpressions

=o do e combine the piecemeal information into an o"erall impression

I"aluation8 the goodness or badness of another person, object or concept*Osgood, Suci, @ Tannebaum, 19:+.

/egativity -ect: e tend to pay special attention to negati"e or morethreatening aspects. -mpressions are in0uenced more by negati"e traitsthan by positi"e traits *Ohman, 5und$rist, @ Iste"es, 2661J Kon#, 1993+.

Positivity 0ias: People percei"e people positi"ely more often thannegati"ely. The reason is that most beha"ior is positi"e. People generally actin good ays. /lso hen e ha"e positi"e e%pectations from others, etend to retain that positi"e information about others.

motional information:Percei"ers notice emotionally charged informationand ma#e great use of it in their judgment about others. !e infer from

people&s emotions about ho they are. -n a study people sa a "ideotape ofa person ho as in a neutral , happy or angry mood. The happy moodelicited more stereotypical, heuristic processing of information about theperson&s characteristics, hile neutral mood elicited more thorough andsystematic processing of information.

veraging Principle: I"aluating information about a person is a"eraged

together to form an o"erall impression */nderson, 19;+.


14/30

!e impute meanings in perception about otherpersons and try to ma#e a meaningful impression.hift of meaning for the same trait can occur ifthe beha"ior is judged in a ne conte%t. *the

meaning of intelligence changes if people #nothe person they are going to see is arm, friendlyand if they #no the person is cold, ruthless.

People tend to form e"aluati"ely consistent

characteri(ations of others, e"en if they ha"e onlya fe pieces of information a"ailable. That leadsto 1alo e-ect


15/30

!e do remember inconsistent information about otherpersons *if someone tells us that our ac$uaintance isnot li#e that as - thought+. -n order to integrate thisinformation into our congruent schematic set, e ha"e

to or# a lot to 4gure out hat and ho to do. !henpeople are cogniti"ely too busy in other tas#s, the biasto remember inconsistent information is eliminated.

Some incongruent beha"iors are situation speci4c,some are mildly congruent, so are remembered easily.

!hen they are so incongruent and diEcult to manage,people sometimes accept the incongruency.


16/30

chemas: a schema is an organi(ed, structured set of cognitions,including some #noledge about the category, some relationshipsamong the "arious cognitions about it, and some speci4c e%amples*Taylor, and Croc#er, 19;1+.

/nother name for stereotypes.

Schemas help us process comple% bodies of information bysimplifying and organi(ing them.

Person schemas are structures about people.

Schemas can be of single persons *e.g. schemas of famous leaders,schema of a cultured person+ or person types *e.g. schema of

intro"ert+ tereotypes:Schemas about groups. /ttributing speci4c traits to

particular group of people.

Schemas about other rele"ant categories related to groups.Schemas about group leaders and group folloers.


17/30

Prototype: -n draing inferencesabout another person, e often draon the prototype of the schema. The

prototype is the abstract ideal of theschema. Schema of a football playere ha"e an abstract idea of hat a

football player is. emplars: the prototypes are

formed on the basis of speci4c

e%amples.


18/30

2otivated Person Perception

Our impressions about other people are aectedby our moti"es.

Telling participants about forming a coherentimpression of other person *impression formationgoal+ or to remember the separate bits ofinformation they might be e%posed to*remembering goal+ leads to dierent formations.

Lnder 4rst condition people ma#e more coherentimpressions than the second condition.


19/30

/nticipating future interactions ith someonecreates dierent social goals than simplytrying to learn about that person.

De"ine, Sedi#ides, 7uhrman *19;9+ as#edpeople to learn information about 4"e personsunder "arious goal conditions.

/nticipated interaction, form an impression,

compare to self, compare to friend, remember, ?reatest recall for anticipated interaction,

sloest recall for the remembering group.


20/30

The need to be accurate usually more e%tensi"e and less biasedinformation about the person.

-n a study *Heuberg, 19;9+ students ere as#ed to inter"ie ajob candidate. =alf ere led to e%pect that the candidate asunpleasant and the other half didn&t get any e%pectation

information. =alf the students ere encouraged to form accurate impressions

about the target, the others ere not. The students ho did notha"e the goal of accuracy generally formed negati"e impressionsand consistent ith their e%pectations. !hile those students ho

had been encouraged to form accurate impressions formed morepositi"e impressions acti"ely undermining the e%pectations theyere ha"ing.

So the goal of more accurate leads to more thorough processingof information con4rming dual processing of information


21/30

/ttributing the Causes ofBeha"ior

3ones and +avis#s !orrespondent Inference heory

People engage in "ariety of actions but only a fe ofthose re"eal their personal $ualities *e.g. smiling,

greeting, mannerism+

+ispositional4Internal attribution: percei"ing aperson&s actions as stemming from stable characteristicssuch as personality.

ituational attribution: Percei"ing the cause ofperson&s action as due to situational forces.

!orrespondent inference theory: =o people inferthat a person&s action is due to his or her enduringpersonal characteristics.


22/30


!e use the conte%t to infer hether other person&s beha"ior isdispositional or situational.

1. Social desirability8 if the beha"ior is against socially desirable normsthen it is percei"ed as ha"ing dispositional origin

2. !hether beha"ior is freely chosen or restricted by social constraints

3. People consider the intended conse$uences of another&s beha"ior heninferring the causes of beha"ior. !hen a person&s actions produce manyconse$uences, it is hard to #no the person&s actual moti"es hen itproduce distinct conse$uences then it is easy to infer the moti"esunderlying beha"ior. *gi"ing up high paying job for something else+

'. noing hether the beha"ior is part of a social role. -f a 4re 4ghters

helps to put o 4re, it might be due to his profession.. !e interpret others& beha"ior on the basis of our pree%isting

e%pectations about their true dispositions. *a #non liberalGobstinateperson occasionally con4rming to parents might not be percei"ed as"ery con4rmati"e+.


23/30


1arold "elly#s ($%56) !ovariation heory

People try to see if a particular cause and particular eect gotogether across dierent situations.

!e use three types of information to "alidate our tentati"e causal

attributions. !onsistency, distinctiveness, consensus

!onsistency:the e%tent to hich an indi"idual responds to a gi"enstimulus or situation in the same ay on dierent occasions

!onsensus:the e%tent to hich other people react to somestimulus or e"ent in the same manner as the person e areconsidering

+istinctiveness8 the e%tent to hich an indi"idual responds in thesame manner to dierent stimuli or e"ents.

=igh distincti"eness, high consistency, high consensus leads tomore attribution of trait oriented beha"ior.


24/30

Biases in /ttribution

7undamental attribution error (Ross, $%66)

People often o"erestimate people&s action asoriginating from dispositions then they actually are.

-f someone does not greet us on some occasion, e

may thin# that the person is cold, unelcoming

The research shos that the attributional judgmentsare usually made spontaneously, automatically, ehere about other people&s beha"ior *?ilbert @

Fallone, 199+ Lsing information to see beha"ior in situational

conte%t seems to be a secondary option *?ilbert etal. 1992+.


25/30


utomatic processing8 this occurshen after an e%tensi"e e%perienceith a tas# or type of information, e

reach the stage here e canperform the tas# or process theinformation in a seemingly eortless,

automatic and non consciousmanner.

!ontrolled processing8 systematic,

logical and highly eortful processing


26/30


!hen people are cogniti"ely busy*thin#ing about other things+ they donot go for deeper processing and

seeing beha"ior in proper conte%t. -f e #no people ell then e usually

ma#e situational attribution.

The dispositional attribution tendencyis more seen in people in LS/ andestern countries than in /sia.


27/30


ctor89bserver bias: (3ones and /isbett, $%6)

There is a discrepancy in attributing beha"ior hilejudging others and judging oneself.

Dispositional attribution is seen more hen e judge

others hile judging our on beha"ior e situationalattribution.

One of the reasons is the actor has more informationa"ailable for oneself than about the other people.

-t may be due to dierent perspecti"es. The "isual4eld of the obser"er is dominated by the actor andhisGher most salient aspects *leading to dispositional

judgment+. !hile the actor himGherself is not justfocusing on the most salient aspects of hisGher on

beha"iors e"en situation is more salient.


28/30


7alse !onsensus e-ect

People tend to imagine *by e%aggeration+ e"eryone responds the aythey do. !e tend see our on beha"ior as typical.

Students in a campus ere as#ed to al# around the campus for 36minutes earing a large board containing the message .Some students agreed and some refused. Both groups said that aboutto thirds of other students in the campus ould do hat they did. Bothgroups pro"ed rong shoing the false consensus they had. *)oss,?reene, =ouse, 19::+.

)easons might be people see# out company of others ho are similar tothem in many ays. So they guess other people ould do the same.

Our on opinions are most salient so sometimes it becomes ob"ious thatothers should do the same

Sometimes e ma#e subjecti"e solutions to problems according to ouron construal of situations ignoring many ambiguous details.

People need to see their on beliefs good and appropriate and projectthis to others


29/30


7alse Lni$ueness Iect8

!e tend to o"erestimate our abilities and underestimate others& abilities. *Far#s, 19;'+.

elf8erving ttributional 0ias People see their positi"e beha"iors as internally

caused hile their negati"e beha"iors as causedby e%ternal circumstances.

Kictory in a match is seen as due to ability hilea defeat is seen as due to situational factors.


30/30

7acial I%pressions and?estures

People typically possess basic emotions

/nger, happiness, fear, sadness and disgust *-(ard, 1991+

The "ariety of mi%ed emotions are spontaneously re0ectedby our facial e%pressions

?old medal inners smile clearly as do bron(e medalinners, hile sil"er medal inners rarely smile. Or shosocial smiling

!e e%change ga(es ith people e are more familiar orfeel close to. !hile a"oiding eye contact might sho

unfriendliness or shyness. Continuous long durational ga(e might be termed as

Staring

7acial 7eedback 1ypothesis

Person Perception (Taylor, Sears, Peplau

Documents

Transcript of Person Perception (Taylor, Sears, Peplau