1. Social Perception Seminar 4
Social Perception
Seminar 4

2. Before we start the class…
You will get one question from me.
Write your answer on a piece of paper.
Do NOT discuss with your neighbor
[I will reveal the purpose towards the end of the class]
Imagine you cut someone’s queue in the canteen. Why would that happen?
Imagine you are jobless after graduating from Ashoka. Why would that happen?
Imagine someone cut your queue in the canteen. Why would that happen?
Imagine your friend is jobless after graduating from Ashoka. Why would that happen?

3. People want to understand others
How do we do that?

4. Non-verbal communication
Part 1
Non-verbal communication

5. Non-verbal communication (NVC)
How people communicate, intentionally or unintentionally, without words
Facial expression
Tone of voice
Hand gestures
Body position/posture
Touch
Eye gaze
Functions of NVC
Express emotion
Conveying attitudes
Communicating one’s personality traits
Facilitating verbal communication
Note— has almost no NVC; makes clear communication much more difficult, especially for “sensitive” issues.
Is non-communication (e.g., silence) a type of NVC?

6. Popularity of NVC in “pop-psychology”

7. Does NVC vary across cultures? Yes.
Gestures
Display rules

8. Does NVC vary across cultures? No.
Facial expression of emotion
1872: Charles Darwin: The expression of emotions in man and animals
Concluded that NVC of emotions was species-specific, not cultural-specific
What was Darwin’s methodology? (Remember that this was in 1800s)

9. The universal emotions
Originally based on (field) experiments
by Paul Ekman (1970s)
Use photographs of posed facial emotions
Present to others (cityfolks, isolated villages)
“What is this emotion?”
Evaluate the consistency within/between cultures

10. Try this!
The classic
And you have this…

11. Only 6?
Remains very contentious whether there are even universal emotions in the first place
New!
Jack et al. (2012). Facial expressions of emotion are not culturally universal. PNAS.

12. Gender bias in facial emotion recognition
M/F facial expressions changed very slowly from
1. Neutral to happy
2. Neutral to anger
Example
When you see a new emotion, press [Space]
Time
Bijlstra et al. (2014). Stereotype associations and emotion recognition. Pers Soc Psy Bull.

13. Results
What would you predict?

14. Part 2
Personality schemas

15. Implicit personality theories
Schemas about what personality traits go together
Assumption #1: People do not fill in their schemas with random content (recall: last class)
Assumption #2: People are unaware that the traits they filled in are due to such schemas.

16. Inferences about “unseen” traits
Ali
attractive +
honest
(inferred)
intelligent +

17. When inconsistency happens
Violates implicit personality theory
What happens?
Attempt to reinterpret
Attribute to situation
Forgetting
Repress? Denial?
Change implicit theory (unlikely, but possible)
Ali
attractive +
Dishonest*
(--)
intelligent +

18. Evaluatively mixed representations
Jack
Artistic (painter)
(++)
Disorganized
(--)
Temperamental
(--)

19. Part 3
attributions

20. Attributions Explanations we make about other people’s behavior
What is the person doing?
Why is the person doing so?

21. Attributions are important
She wants to fulfil her duty.
She loves me.
“My wife cooked dinner tonight.”
She wants me to buy her that handbag.
She did something wrong last night.

22. Attributions are important
Taxes have remained the same for 40 years already.
Country needs money.
“The minister wants to raise taxes.”
The minister has no clue what s/he is doing.
The minister wants more money

23. Attributions are important
Needs to lower unemployment rate
What?!?!
“Iran wants to build its own nuclear program.”
Wants to use nukes as bargaining chips
Wants to attack US

24. Basic distinction Internal attributions External attributions
Explanations about the person’s disposition (e.g., personality, intentions, “character”)
External attributions
Explanations about the person’s situation

25. Why are attributions important?
Example: Attributions within marriages
“List the positive and negative things your partner did recently”
Event (IV1)
Marriage Type (IV2)
Attribution (DV)
Positive things
Satisfied marriage
Internal
Dissatisfied marriage
External
Negative things
What direction is the causality?

26. Pessimists explain negative events as:
Attribution to self
Pessimists explain negative events as:
Global
Nothing goes right in my life
I’m a loser
I can’t do anything right
Internal
it’s always my fault…
Stable (unchangeable)
it’ll always be that way…
Clinical implications
The basic principles behind CBT:
Cognitive attributions  Problems
Buchanan & Seligman (1995). Explanatory style.

27. Kelley’s covariation model
According to pop psychology… Guys, imagine you’re out on a date and a woman displays this behavior. Is this woman interested in you?
“Pay attention to the way she touches her hair. Gentle movements, such as mindlessly twirling a strand around her finger or running her fingers through it slowly are signs that she's very interested. Quick, jerky movements indicate that she's embarrassed or impatient, especially when paired with wandering eyes.”

28. Kelley’s covariation model
Three factors
Consistency: Does A always behave that way?
Distinctiveness: How A behave towards C, D, E, F?
Consensus: How C, D, E, F behave towards A C D A B E F

29. Kelley’s covariation model
“John is in a club. John laughs at the comedian"
Does J always behave that way?
How J behave towards others?
How others behave towards J?
Consistency
Distinctiveness
Consensus
Attribution
High
(always laughs at people)
Low
(laughs at other comedians as well)
(only J is laughing)
Personal attribution
(J doesn’t laugh elsewhere)
(everyone is laughing)
Stimulus attribution (something about that particular target(
(doesn’t laugh at the comedian at other clubs)
(laughs at other comedian at the club)
Circumstance attribution
Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, High Consistency = Personal Attribution High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, High Consistency = Stimulus Attribution High Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, Low Consistency = Circumstance Attribution

30. Wait a minute…
Kelley’s covariation is a computational model. To consider that many factors, people surely need time – to gather and think over facts. Is there a default mode of judging others?

31. The fundamental attribution error
The tendency to overestimate influence of
dispositional factors when judging others
Sounds commonsense.
How can we prove it scientifically?

32. The classic experiment (1967)
Historical context: Cuban missile crisis (1962)

33. The classic experiment (1967)
Read an essay written by a fellow classmate on Castro.
Participants were told that classmate had:
DV: “What is the writer’s real attitude towards Castro?”
Anti-Castro essay
Pro-Castro essay
Choice
No choice

34. The logic behind the experiment
If people understood the situational constraints of the writer
If people underestimated the situational constraints of the writer
Assumption: Choices reflect true attitudes

35. How do you know this explanation is correct?
What is one mechanism?
Perceptual salience: People can see only the behavior, but not the situation
Sounds credible.
How do you know this explanation is correct?

36. One famous demonstration
confederate
Can see ___, but not ___
Can see ___, but not ___
Can see ___, and ___
Can see ___, and ___
Can see ___, but not ___
Can see ___, but not ___
confederate

37. One famous demonstration

38. Real world implications
Police interrogation videos

39. Stages of social perception
Observe 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

40. What about people judging themselves?
Remember the answer(s) you wrote? This was meant to demonstrate the ________-serving bias Statistically speaking, it's logically impossible for both ratios of _________:_________ attributions to be correct simultaneously for all people. What does it tell you about humans?

41. What about people judging themselves?
Spotlight effect: people tend to believe they are noticed more than they really are You think you’re important. But you are really not that important.
Yeah right
It’s all about ME!
Gilovich et al. (2000). The spotlight effect in social judgment. J Per Soc Psy.

42. Evidence: Spotlight effect
Imagine you have to wear this shirt
to give a short speech
Guess the number of people who will notice your shirt

43. Summary People want to understand others (and ourselves)
We rely on cues, which may or may not be diagnostic
Our judgments of others, and ourselves, are sometimes bias