This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Social Perception Lecture Overview Communication: More than meets the eye Effects of Expectations on First Impressions Attribution Theory Nonverbal Behavior The way in which people communicate, intentionally or unintentionally, without words. Nonverbal cues include:
facial expressions gestures tone of voice body positions and movement the use of touch eye gaze Presidential Candidates' Nonverbal Cues Rudy Giuliani: The Republican and former New York City mayor tends to talk with one side of his mouth in an upward curl which may convey disgust. John Edwards: The 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate has traded his dazzlingly optimistic smile for a more purposeful, even grim look perhaps in an effort to convey gravitas. John McCain: The Republican senator from Arizona has a "puffer fish" look an upsidedown smile, lips pressed together, cheeks blown out revealing exasperation, presumably with the status quo. Communication: More than meets the eye Instructor Evaluations and First Impressions Predicting Divorce (Gottman) Defensiveness, stonewalling, criticism, contempt Communication: More than meets the eye Secrets of the Bedroom (Gosling) Administered MMPI on 80 college students: Extraversion: Are you sociable or retiring? Fun loving or reserved? Agreeableness: Are you trusting or suspicious? Helpful or uncooperative? Conscientiousness: Are you organized or disorganized? Selfdisciplined or weak willed? Emotional Stability: Are you worried or calm? Insecure or secure? Openness to new experiences: Are you imaginative or downtoearth? Independent or conforming? Communication: More than meets the eye Secrets of the Bedroom (Gosling) Obtained ratings from friends of the participants on the Big Five. Recruited a group of strangers to tour the bedrooms of the 80 subjects who completed the MMPI. Strangers rated on a scale of 15 the personality of the inhabitant of the room based on the artifacts within it. Friends better than strangers at predicting extraversion and agreeableness. Strangers better than friends at predicting conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to new experience. Communication: More than meets the eye Suing Your Family Doctor (Levinson) Recorded the conversations of doctors and patients Never sued doctors: Half of the doctors had never been sued, Half sued at least twice Spent 3 minutes longer with patients More likely to make orienting comments More likely to engage in active listening No differences in quality of care or the detail that they went into about the patients condition or medication. Communication: More than meets the eye Suing Your Family Doctor (Levinson) In another study (Ambady), 40 s clips of the conversation were analyzed. The clips were content filtered. Judges rated the clips for warmth, hostility, dominance, and anxiousness Ratings predicted above chance who got sued and who didn't. Expectations and First Impressions What process do we use to organize traits to produce a unified impression? (Asch, 1946) Group A: intelligent, skillful, industrious, warm, determined, practical, cautious Group B: intelligent, skillful, industrious, cold, determined, practical, cautious Making a good impression
Group A (warm): A person who believes certain things to be right, wants others to see his point, would be sincere in an argument, and would like to see his own point won. Group B (cold): A rather snobbish person who feels that his success and intelligence set him apart from the runofthe mill individual. Calculating and unsympathetic. Making a good impression
1. GenerousUngenerous 2. ShrewdWise 3. HappyUnhappy 4. IrritableGood Natured ... 18. HonestDishonest Making a good impression
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 W arm ( n= 90) Cold ( n= 76) Generous Good Natured Humorous W ise Happy Making a good impression
0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Polite ( n= 20) Blunt ( n= 26) Generous Good Natured Humorous W ise Happy Expectations and Evaluations (Kelley, 1950)
12 10 8 6 4 2 0
I ntelligent Self Centered Humorless W arm I nstructor Cold I nstructor Causal Attribution: Answering the "Why" Question Internal, dispositional attribution: External, situational attribution: The inference that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude, character, or personality. The inference that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in. The assumption is that most people would respond the same way in that situation. Kelley's Covariation Model: Internal versus External Attributions
The covariation model focuses on observations of behavior across time, place, actors, and targets. It examines how the perceiver chooses either an internal or an external attribution. We make such choices by using information on: Consensus Information about the extent to which other people behave the same way toward the same stimulus as the actor does. Distinctiveness Consistency Information about the extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli. Information about the extent to which the behavior between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances. Covariation Model
Claire laughs hysterically at her date's jokes. WHY? Is it something about Claire? Is it something about her date? Causes covary with effects, so must determine when effect occurs/does not occur in presence/absence of hypothesised cause. Consensus Information - does this stimulus produce same effect in other actors? (Does everyone laugh hysterically at her date's jokes?) Consistency Information - does stimulus always produce this reaction in this actor? (Does Claire always laugh hysterically at her date's jokes?) Distinctiveness Information - does only this stimulus cause this effect in this actor? (Does Claire laugh hysterically at only at her date's jokes?) Why did Claire laugh at her date's jokes?
CONSENSUS INTERNAL Low (Claire) Claire is the only one who laughs at her date's jokes EXTERNAL High (her date) Everyone laughs at her date's jokes PECULIAR High or Low CONSISTENCY High Claire always laughs at her date's jokes High Claire always laughs at her date's jokes Low DISTINCTIVENESS Low Claire laughs at everyone's jokes High Claire doesn't laugh at everyone's jokes High or Low The Correspondence Bias The tendency to believe that people's behavior matches (corresponds to) their dispositions. People do what they do because of the kind of people they are, not because of the situation they are in. The correspondence bias is so pervasive that many social psychologists call it the fundamental attribution error. Correspondence Bias (Nisbett et al., 1973) Correspondence Bias (Nisbett et al., 1973)
4.5 Number of Reasons Given 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Own Liking Friend's Liking Disposit ion Sit uat ion Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross et al., 1977)
General Knowledge Compared to Others 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Host Const est ant Observer Rat ings of Host Rat ings of Cont est ant Person making the rating Perceptual Salience One reason we make the fundamental attribution error is that when we try to explain someone's behavior, our focus of attention is usually on the person, not on the surrounding situation. Taylor and Fiske (1975) SelfServing Attributions SelfServing Bias Explanations for one's successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one's failures that blame external, situational factors. The tendency to perceive ourselves favorably on insurance forms (Toronto News, 1977): "As I reached an intersection, a hedge sprang up, obscuring my vision, and I did not see the other car." "A pedestrian hit me and went under the car." Attribution and Depression
Nondepressed Folks: Positive Events Negative Events Depressed Folks: Positive Events Negative Events Attributed to Internal Lasting Causes External Temporary Causes External Temporary Causes Internal Lasting Causes False Consensus Effect (Ross, Green & House, 1977)
Percentage of people who would sign 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Did Sign Did not Sign Attributions When Negative Outcomes are Attributed to Discrimination (Kaiser & Miller, 2001)
Student was perceived as more of a complainer. Participants formed less favorable impression of student who complained. Personal Resp 5 Rating of Student 4 3 2 1 0 Complaining Discrimination I mpression ...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/06/2008 for the course PSYC 101 taught by Professor Graham during the Spring '07 term at UCSD.
- Spring '07