1. Social Perception

2. “non-verbal behavior (NVB)”
Popularly called “body language”, but broader than that
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

3. Function of NVB Expressing (sending) and reading (receiving):
Emotion
Attitudes
Personality traits
Facilitating verbal communication

4. Verbal-nonverbal consistency
Often consistent, sometimes not
Sarcasm
I’m so happy for you!

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

7. Perception of Emotions
The six universal emotions (Paul Ekman)

9. factors that can decrease accuracy in face perception
Intentional efforts to conceal emotions
Richards & Gross (1999)
Consequences
Display rules
Affect blends/ambiguity

11. Detecting lying

12. "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook
"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."
"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."

13. Concealment of emotions—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

14. 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

15. Why are women (in general) more sensitive to emotions/ 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)

16. Experimental evidence for social role theory: 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)

17. Person perception

18. A sampling of some interesting recent findings in 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)
“Mary is dishonest”
Bob

19. Internal vs. external attributions
Internal –dispositional causes
External—situational causes
Recent examples in the news….
Colin Powell and WMD
Martha Stewart
Michael Jackson

20. 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

21. Implicit personality theories

22. Inferences about “unseen” traits
Olivia
attractive +
honest
(inferred)
False memories
intelligent +

23. Surprise at inconsistency /attempts to reconcile
Olivia
*violates implicit personality theory; could lead to
Attempt to reinterpret
Attribute to situational forces
Forgetting
Change implicit theory (unlikely, but possible)
attractive +
Dishonest*
(--)
intelligent +

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

25. Interesting issue—asymmetries 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

26. Culture and implicit personality theories
Creative (Western cultures)
Shi Gu (China)
Interesting issue—due to
Language, or
Reality?

27. 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 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 %)
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 %)

28. Conspiracy during 2004 election?
Actual distribution of attitudes
“no, there wasn’t”
70% no
“yes, there was”
30% yes
Perceived distribution of attitudes
66% no
53%
yes
47% no
34%
yes
Extremely large FCE = +22
Fairly accurate

29. Sara Jessica Parker attractive?
Actual distribution of attitudes
“Yeah—hot!”
“No”
57% yes
43% no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
64%
yes
53%
yes
47% no
36% no
Fairly accurate
(Small) FCE = +7

30. Johnny Depp attractive?
Actual distribution of attitudes
“Yeah—hot!”
“No”
61% yes
39% no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
66%
yes
50%
yes
50% no
34% no
Moderate FCE +11
Fairly accurate

31. Fundamental Christian movement a positive force in U.S.?no
77% no
Actual distribution of attitudes
yes
23% yes
Perceived distribution of attitudes
58% anti
52% no
48%
yes
42%
yes
One interpretation: No real FCE here. Rather, all students (regardless of views) perceive WU students as more pro-Fundamental Christian than they really are

32. Famous 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

33. 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 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 %)
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 %)

34. Famous 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

35. Jones and Harris (1967) choice No choice pro-Castro anti-Castro
60%
choice
No choice
Estimate of essay writer’s attitude
pro-Castro anti-Castro
Anchoring and adjustment heuristic—insufficient adjustment!
Insensitivity to the power of the situation

36. 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

37. Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988) all participants run in “no choice” condition.
Pro
abortion
“Pro-Abortion”
“Anti abortion”
Anti-
abortion
“unbusy” participants “busy” participants

38. Self-serving attributions
Usual pattern for self—
Positive events—internal
Negative events—external
Reversed for depressed individuals
Sports—winners vs. losers
Rams vs. Patriots—2002 Superbowl

39. Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980)
Basic effect
Criticisms of this paradigm
Referent group unclear?
Bottom line—effect holds up, even controlling for possible problems

40. Belief in a just world (Lerner, 1980)
Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people
Two ways of conceptualizing
Cultural belief system
Individual difference variable
low
high

41. 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

42. Right-wing authoritarianism Belief in a just world
World perceived as a dangerous, scary place?
Personal buffer against threat?
YES NO
HIGH PERCEIVED RISK
YES NO
LOW PERCEIVED RISK