1. Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others
Chapter 2
Person Perception: Forming Impressions of Others
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall

2. Six General Principles
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Six General Principles
People form impressions of others:
Quickly and with minimal information
Pay attention to salience features
Context of person’s behavior
Categorizing or grouping stimuli
Our enduring cognitive structures
Perceiver’s own needs and goals

3. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
People often decide very quickly what others are like based on minimal information.

4. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Roles
People tend to think of others within a role context first and only then according to personality traits

5. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Physical Cues
Appearance and behavior are key determinants of our first impressions

6. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Salience
People pay attention to stimuli that stand out against a background
The most salient cues are stand out:
Brightness, noisiness, motion, and novelty

7. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
We move very quickly from observable information (appearance & behavior) to personality trait inferences
Traits are more economical to remember
Trait inferences occur automatically
We use Implicit Personality Theory: beliefs about which personality traits go with other traits

8. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Central Traits
Some traits may be more central than others, that is, highly associated with many other characteristics
“Warm-Cold” appears to be such a trait (Kelley, 1950)

9. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Categorization
We tend to perceive people as members of groups or categories rather than as distinct individuals
Consequences of categorizing people
stereotyping
can lead to errors

10. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
The Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Impressions range from stereotypical, category-based impressions to much more individuated impressions
Individuated impression processing is called dual processing, where people process information in a careful, systematic fashion

11. What Information Do We Use?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
What Information Do We Use?
Context Effects
Contrast biases refer to a biasing effect on judgments away from the environmental context (sees communicator’s position as different)
Assimilation biases refer to biasing of a judgment in the same direction as the context (sees communicator’s position as similar)

12. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
We move quickly from observations of appearance and behavior to inferences about personality
Negativity Effect
Negative traits tend to affect impressions more than positive ones (especially negative moral traits)
Positivity Bias
Overall we tend to evaluate others positively

13. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
We infer what others are like from what emotions they express

14. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
The Averaging Principle
Averaging is used to combine separate pieces of information about people, some of which are positive and others of which are negative
A weighted averaging model, in which traits are weighted by importance, provides the best predictions

15. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
Our perceptions of others’ personal qualities undergoes a shift of meaning depending on context

16. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
Halo Effect: A liked person is assumed to have many other good qualities. People tend to form evaluatively consistent impressions of others.

17. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
Resolving Inconsistencies
Information that is inconsistent with other impressions may be remembered especially well
However, being “cognitively busy” prevents us from thinking about inconsistent information so we forget it
We may differentiate incongruent information by context
Sometimes we just recognize incongruities without integrating them

18. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
Schemas are organized, structured sets of cognitions, including:
knowledge about the object,
relationships among its attributes,
and specific examples

19. Integrating Impressions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Integrating Impressions
Schemas
Stereotypes are beliefs about typical characteristics of members of a group or social category
Prototypes are the abstract ideal of a schema
Exemplars are particular instances of a category

20. Motivated Person Perception
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Motivated Person Perception
Our goals and feelings about other people influence the information we gather about them
Need for accuracy about another leads to more systematic processing
We remember more about another when we expect to interact with him or her

21. Motivated Person Perception
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Motivated Person Perception
Factors influencing our reactions to others
Other’s similarity to self
Our prior experiences
Our prior expectations
Our beliefs about traits as stable or malleable
Our own emotional state or mood

22. Taylor, 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Attribution Theory is the area of psychology concerned with when and how people ask “why” questions.
Heider (1958) argued that we have needs to understand and to control the environment. These needs lead us to make attributions.
We are especially likely to make attributions when events are negative or unexpected.

23. Attribution Theory Dispositional (internal) Attributions
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Dispositional (internal) Attributions
Refer to traits, attitudes, enduring internal states
versus
Situational (external) Attributions
Refer to aspects of the external environment, including other people

24. Attribution Theory Correspondent Inference Theory
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Correspondent Inference Theory
(Jones and Davis, 1965)
Assumes that we seek to make “correspondent inferences”
The behavior (e.g., rude) corresponds to an underlying characteristic of the person (rude)
We use information about the social context to see if we can make a correspondent inference

25. Attribution Theory We tend to make a correspondent inference when
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
We tend to make a correspondent inference when
A behavior is not socially desirable
A behavior is freely chosen
A behavior has a “non-common effect”
A behavior is not part of a social role

26. Attribution Theory Noncommon Effects
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Noncommon Effects
For example, if you are choosing between
two graduate school programs that are
equally reputable, both at good
universities and both offer a stipend,
You choose the one with an internship;
one might infer that the additional
training is important to you

27. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Kelley’s Covariation Model (1967) states that people try to see if a particular cause and a particular effect go together across situations.

28. Attribution Theory Consistency
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Consistency
Is the person’s response consistent over time?
Consensus
Do other people have similar responses?
Distinctiveness
Does the person respond similarly to other similar stimuli?

29. Attribution Theory High—she didn’t laugh at anyone else High—
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Why did Mary laugh at the comedian?
Distinctiveness
Consensus
Consistency
Attribution
High—she didn’t laugh at anyone else
High—
everyone else laughed
High—she always laughs at him
Stimulus
Low—she always laughs at comedians
Low—hardly anyone else laughed
Person
High —she didn’t laugh at anyone else
Low—she rarely laughs at comedians
Context

30. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
The discounting principle suggests that we are less likely to attribute an effect to a particular cause if more than one cause is likely.
E.g., if a salesperson is nice to us, we don’t necessarily assume he or she is intrinsically friendly

31. Attribution Theory Biases in the Attribution Process
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Biases in the Attribution Process
Considerable research suggests that there are several prominent biases in the ways we make causal attributions
Fundamental Attribution Error: people tend
to overestimate how much a person’s
actions are due to dispositions, such as
personality, rather than, for example, the
situation

32. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
The fundamental attribution error may occur because people make dispositional attributions automatically,
and then only later use situational information to discount it.
People don’t tend to get to the second step unless the contextual information is very compelling or salient

33. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
There are some cultural differences in attributions.
People in all cultures seem to share the correspondence bias (tendency to infer behaviors as due to dispositions)
But people in non-Western cultures are more likely to take situational and contextual information into account

34. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Actor-Observer Bias suggests that observers overestimate the importance of an actor’s dispositions for causing the actor’s behavior;
actors overestimate the importance of the situation in explaining their own behaviors Perceptual: actors look at the situation, observers look at actors
Access to different information: actors have more background about themselves

35. Attribution Theory False Consensus Effect
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
False Consensus Effect
Why do we tend to see our own behavior and opinions as typical?
We have a biased sample of similar others among our friends
Our own opinions are more accessible/salient
We fail to realize that our choices reflect our construals and that others have different perceptions
We are motivated to see ourselves as normal & good.

36. Attribution Theory The Self-Serving Attributional Bias
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
The Self-Serving Attributional Bias
We tend to take credit for our successes but deny blame for our failures
Although, people may accept responsibility for failure especially if it is a factor they can control.

37. Attribution Theory Where do Biases Come From?
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Attribution Theory
Where do Biases Come From?
Cognitive shortcuts in service of efficiency
Needs and motives (biases to enhance self-esteem and perceptions of control)

38. Accuracy of Judgments Our judgments are both accurate and inaccurate.
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
Our judgments are both accurate and inaccurate.
We tend to be accurate about external visible attributes.
We are less accurate about inferred internal states (traits or feelings).

39. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
Why are people’s personalities difficult to judge accurately?
Lack of objective criteria
People have idiosyncratic criteria for judging others
They agree more about likeability than about traits
Personality traits tend to predict behavior in only a limited set of circumstances

40. Accuracy of Judgments Pragmatic Accuracy: knowing enough about
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
Pragmatic Accuracy: knowing enough about
a person to achieve one’s relationship goals.
For example, romantic partners are
fairly accurate about each other on
personal qualities that are relevant to
the relationship
Thus, pragmatic accuracy need not be
terribly accurate

41. Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
We are fairly accurate in our perception of others’ emotional states
Facial expressions of emotions may be part of our evolutionary heritage

42. Accuracy of Judgments Universal continuum of emotions Happiness/Joy
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
Universal continuum of emotions
Happiness/Joy
Surprise, Amazement
Fear
Sadness
Anger
Disgust, Contempt
Interest, Attentiveness
We easily distinguish emotions that are at least three categories apart

43. Accuracy of Judgments Two dimensions of emotion: Pleasantness Arousal
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Accuracy of Judgments
Two dimensions of emotion:
Pleasantness
Arousal
We easily distinguish pleasant from unpleasant emotions, as well as arousing emotions from non-arousing ones
The pleasantness dimension is easiest to distinguish

44. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
Body Language
Even small amounts of nonverbal behavior can convey substantial information
Channels
Visible
Facial expressions, gestures, posture, appearance
Paralinguistic
Pitch, amplitude, rate, voice quality of speech

45. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
The Visible Channel
Distance
Indicates friendliness
Gestures
Vary by culture
Eye Contact [not made in some cultures]
Indicates interest (friendship or threat)
Facial Expressions

46. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
Paralanguage: information conveyed by speech other than words, such as pitch
Paralanguage involves variations in speech other than verbal content
A simple statement can mean entirely different things depending on emphasis and inflection

47. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
People, who have access to multiple channels of communication, tend to be more accurate in judging others’ emotions.
Generally, the verbal channel tends to be the most influential.

48. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
The problem of deception: Are people successful or unsuccessful liars?
Nonverbal leakage: True emotions tend to “leak” out through nonverbal channels
Some nonverbal channels leak more than others because they are less controllable
The body is more likely than the face to reveal deception

49. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
Lying: The Giveaways
Liars blink more, hesitate more, make more speech errors, speak in higher-pitched voices, and have more dilated pupils

50. Nonverbal Communication
People use nonverbal behaviors to convey intended impressions
Display rules are cultural norms regarding how one conveys emotion to others

51. Nonverbal Communication
Taylor, Copyright 2006, Prentice Hall
Nonverbal Communication
There are gender differences in the use of nonverbal behavior.
Girls and women are more expressive in their display of most emotions and are more accurate interpreters of nonverbal cues than men are
Women are better at communicating happiness; Men at communicating anger
Both nature and nurture
And culture seem to be involved