person perception lecture 2 differences between person perception and perception of physical objects...
TRANSCRIPT
Person perception
Lecture 2
Differences between person perception and perception of physical objects
Complexity of inferences– „going beyond the information given” (Jerome Bruner)– Indirect inferences (observable cues inferences about
dispositions)
• Influence of affect and emotions• The perceving and the perceived are of the same kind –
both humans– Source of biases or accurate perceptions
• „I know that you know that I know” – the perceiving is being perceived and reacted to– Self-fulfilling prophecies– Labeling effects– Source of bias
What is being perceived
• Appearance, skin color, gender• Nonverbal behavior• Verbal communications• Behaviors (shyness, self-confidence, anxiety,
etc.)
Nonverbal messages
• Gestures
• Physical distance
• Eye contact
• Others (touch, intimacy of conversational content, tone of voice etc.)
• Behaviors (blushing, trembling, fidgeting etc.)
Gestures
Physical distance
Spontaneous distance dependent on type of interaction
Spontaneous distance dependent on age and type of relationship
Spontaneous distance dependent on age and gender
Eye contact
Focusing on a face...
Frequency of eye contact during a conversation
Physical distance and amount of eye contact
Impression formation
Role of affect in impression formation
Robert B. Zajonc
Affect as basic form of cognition
• Affective appraisal– Approach-avoidance
– Good-bad
• Cognition– True – false
• The majority of categorizations are underlain by affective bi-polar categorizations (liked – disliked, positive-negative, desirable-undesirable)
Two types of perceptual cues
• Preferenda cues of how to feel
• Discriminanda cues of how to distinguish between objects
Evaluation as the basic component of meaning
• Charles Osgood (1957): „The measurement of meaning”
• Connotation vs. denotation
• Semantic differential as instrument for measurement of meaning
Semantic differential
good bad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hard soft
fast slow
light heavy
rough smooth
Father
good bad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hard soft
fast slow
light heavy
rough smooth
Future
good bad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hard soft
fast slow
light heavy
rough smooth
Love
good bad
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
hard soft
fast slow
light heavy
rough smooth
Poland
Other dimensions and results of factor analysis
Three dimensions of meaning
• Evaluation (good-bad) (50% variance)
• Potency (strong-weak)
• Activity (active-passive)
• Potency+Activity = Dynamism
• Evaluation + Dynamism = two basic dimensions of AFFECT
Dimensions of semantic space
James Russell & Albert Mehrabian – „circumplex” of affective reactions
High arousal (dynamism)
Excitement
Pleasant
Relaxation
Low arousal (dynamism)
Boredom
Unpleasant
Fear
hectic excitingalive
exhiliratinginteresting
arousing
stimulating sensational
pleasing
pretty beautiful
pleasantnice
serene
restfulpeacefulcalm
tranquil
rushed
intense
frenzied
panicky
tenseforceful
uncomfortable
dissatisfying
displeasing
repulsive
unpleasant
unstimulating
dulldreary
boring
inactive
idle
monotoneous
active
lazy slow
drowsy
High arousal
Low arousal
unpleasant
pleasant
After: Russell, Lanius, 1984
Affective and descriptive rules of trait inference
Two meanings of a social information
• Affective meaning (evaluation): – Is it good or bad:– Do I like it or not?
• Descriptive meaning– What does it mean?, – What property does it describe?
Two types of inferences
• According to affective similarity– Eg. economical generous; careful
courageous
• According to descriptive similarity– Eg. generous extravagant; careful
cowardly
Affective representation (affectively balanced structure)
+
+
+
-+ -
-
-
+
-+
Descriptive representation (affectively imbalanced structure)
+
+
+
-- +
-
+
-
+-
Affective inferences used:
• When little information is available • When we don’t understand the situation
– Discriminanda cannot be applied
• When the cognitive set is to evaluate and not to diagnose/describe
• When quick decision is required– Need for approach or avoidance reaction
• When the situation is emotionally involving• With lower level of cognitive development (e.g.
children)
Descriptive inferences used:
• When enough information
• When looking for explanation and not evaluation
• In a neutral situation that enables distancing
• Higher level of cognitive devlopment, cognitive complexity
Trait inferences: principles and effects
Going beyond the information given
• Effects in impression formation– halo effect,– leniency effect
• Implicit theories of personality
Jerome Bruner
Halo effect
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Leniency effect
--
--
+
--
--+
+
+
Other effects in person perception
• Primacy / recency• Information set effect• Evaluation effects
– Polarization effect: • more extreme evaluations influence general impression
more– Negativity effect:
• Negative evaluations influence general impression more than positive evaluations
– Positivity effect• Positive evaluations influence general impression more
than negative evaluations
Asch study – primary vs. recency effect
List A List B
Intelligent Envious
Industrious Stubborn
Impulsive Critical
Critical Impulsive
Stubborn Industrious
Envious Intelligent
List A List B
Generous
Wise
Happy
Good natured
Humorous
Sociable
Popular
Reliable
Important
Humane
Good-looking
Persistent
Serious
Strong
24
18
32
18
52
56
35
84
85
36
74
82
97
94
10
17
5
0
21
27
14
91
90
21
35
87
100
73
Explanations of primacy effect
• Solomon Asch: change of the information meaning dependent on the expectations created after the first information
• Norman Anderson: attention declines with successive information
Information set effect
Number of information pieces
evaluation
Logarithmic function between overall evaluation and number of univalent information
Trait inferences
Implicit theories of personality
Solomon Asch (years 40s/50s)
• Central and peripheral traits– warm vs. cold
Solomon Asch: central and peripheral traits
• List A– Intelligent
– Skillful
– Industrious
– Warm
– Determined
– Practical
– Careful
• List B– Intelligent
– Skillful
– Industrious
– Cold
– Determined
– Practical
– Careful
Effects of differences on the „warm- cold” dimension
• generous• wise• happy• kind• humorous• sociable• popular• humane• altruistic• Imaginative
No differences for the dimension:
Polite - blunt
Seymour Rosenberg (1968)
• Multidimensional scaling of personality traits
• Semantic space of personality traits
• Two main dimensions of implicit personality theories: Social good-bad vs. Intellectual good-bad
Positive intellectual traits
Negative intellectual traits
Negative social traits
Positive social traits
persistent scientificdetermined
skilfulIndustrious
intelligent
imaginative
serious
important
discriminating
daring
reserved
cautiouspracticalartistic
coldunsociable
humorless
unpopularunhappy
dominating
vainhonest
modest
toleranthelpfulsincere
happypopular
sociable
humorous
good-naturedwarm
naive
submissive
impulsive
clumsy
superficialunreliable
foolish
unintelligent
After: Rosenberg, Nelson, Vivekanathan, 1968
Rosenberg et als. (1968) – original results
Self- and other-profitable traits
Theory of Guido Peeters
Guido Peeters
Catholic University of Leuven, Belgia
Self-profitable traits vs. other-profitable traits
• Self-profitable (S-P): Competence, abilities, skills – traits profitable/unprofitable for the owner of the trait
• Other-profitable (O-P): Moral and social traits – profitable or unprofitable for other people
Guido Peeters: Self-profitable (SP) vs. other-profitable (OP) traits
• SP– Intelligent– Active– Passive– Enterprising– Clumsy– Slow– Thrifty– Self-confident– Flexible– Unpunctual– Talented– Diligent– Extravagant
• OP– Honest– Evil– Friendly– Dishonest– Selfish– Helpful– Responsible– Reliable– Mean– Generous– Cold– Ruthless– Modest
OP (other-profitable) vs. SP (self-profitable)
generous(OP+)
mean(OP-)
extravagant(SP-)
economical(SP+)
Spends money
Does not spend money
Other-profitable Self-profitable
OP (other-profitable) vs. SP (self-profitable)
conceited(OP-)
modest(OP+)
self-confident(SP+)
shy(SP-)
Self-confidence
Lack of self-confidence
other-profitable Self-profitable
Whom do you prefer?
A. Honest friend
B. Dishonest friend
A. Intelligent friend
B. Stupid friend
Whom do you prefer?
A. Honest enemy
B. Dishonest enemy
A. Intelligent enemy
B. Stupid enemy
SP vs. OP
• Positive object & SP+ positive evaluation– Friend + intelligent positive evaluation
• Negative object & SP+ negative evaluation– Enemy + intelligent negative evaluation
• Positive object & OP+ positive evaluation– Friend + honest positive evaluation
• Negative object & OP+ positive evaluation– enemy + honest positive evaluation
SP vs. OP and context dependence
• SP traits change their meaning dependent on the context (different in vitro than in vivo)
• OP traits are context-independent (the same in vitro and in vivo)
• OP traits are better manifestations of approach-avoidance than SP traits (we avoid/approach others not ourselves)
• OP is the real evaluative dimension
Morality vs. competences
(theory of Glenn Redder)
Glenn D. Reeder
University of Illinois
Behaviortrait
inference schemata
Morality vs. competences
• Morality:– honest, moral, truthful, responsible, sincere, loyal,
faithful
– dishonest, immoral, hypocritical, irresponsible, corrupt, traitor
• Competences:– Skilled, intelligent, resourceful, pragmatic, talented,
diligent, enterprising
– clumsy, loser, unintelligent, incompetent, lazy, helpless
What is more probable?
• (A) That an intelligent person will behave stupidly ?
• (B) That a stupid person will behave intelligently?
What is more probable?
• (A) That an honest person will behave dishonestly?
• (B) That a dishonest person will behave honestly?
+
-
+
- -
+
-
+Competences
Morality
Intelligence
Lack of intelligence
Inference schemata
Intelligentbehavior
Stupid behavior
Honesty
Dishonesty
Honestbehavior
Dishonestbehavior
+
-
+
- -
+
-
+Intelligence
Lack of intelligence
Inference schemata
Intelligentbehavior
Stupid behavior
Honesty
Dishonesty
Honestbehavior
Dishonestbehavior
Diagnostic behaviors
-- -- + + +
Positivity effect
-- -- + + --
Negativity effect
Morality vs.competences and evaluation effects
Intelligent behavior + stupid behavior trait ‘intelligence’
Loyal behavior + disloyal behavior trait ‘disloyalty’
Inferring traits of self vs. others
Studies by Bogdan Wojciszke
Self vs. others
• Self – descriptions in terms of competences• Description of others – in terms of morality
After: Wojciszke, 1994
After: Wojciszke, 1994
Moral Unmoral
Competent Virtuous success
Sinful success
Uncompetent Virtuous failure Sinful failure
After: Wojciszke, 1994
The biggest sins of Polish people
• Survey PBS – 10 February 2005
The biggest sins
Pole• Drinking and gluttony 24,0%• Dishonesty 19,8%• Greed 11,7%• Laziness 11,3%• Envy 11,0%• Jealousy 8,0%• Stealing 8,0%• Boorishness 5,5%• Corruption 5,5%• Intolerance 5,5%• Conceit 5,6%• Complaining 4,4%• Egoism 3,5%• Callousness 2,9%• Stupidity 2,5%
Myself• Laziness 16,0%• Drinking and gluttony 9,0%• Smoking 4,6%• Dishonesty 4,0%• Lack of self-confidence 3,5%• Lack of perseverance 3,2%• Anger 3,0%• Naivete 2,4%• Talking too much 2,4%• Workaholism 2,3%• Unpunctuality 1,9%• Envy 1,6%• Dissolution 1,5%• Jealousy 1,5%• Nervousness 1,5%
The biggest sins
Pole
• Don’t know 7,8%
• Poles have no sins, drawbacks
2,8%
Myself
• Don’t know10,0%
• I have no sins, drawbacks
23,1%
Sins and age
Sin
Age
Dishonesty
Pole Self
Laziness
Pole Self
Envy
Pole Self
18-24 11,9 11,5 17,1 34,6 4,4 5,2
25-39 18,4 4,6 13,6 19,0 10,4 0,0
40-59 19,7 1,4 10,8 11,5 13,7 1,8
60 and more 27,3 2,2
5,2 6,9 11,9 0,8
I have so sins/ drawbacks
Age 18-24 12,0
25-39 21,8
40-59 21,6
over 60 34,7
education Elementary 19,0
Professional 33,0
High 22,4
University 12,1
Residence place Over 200,000 16,9
50 – 200,000 16,3
Below 50,000 27,1
country 27,5
Moralization of the social world
• Accounting for people’s behavior in terms of their moral intentions
• Negative image of others (negativity effects)
• Suspicion and conspiracy theories (dispositional attributions)
• Evaluation and not explanation of people’s behaviors
Warmth vs. competences
Theory by Susan Fiske
Stereotypes built on two dimensions
• Warmth
• Competence
After: Joanna Konieczna (2003)
Stereotypes of Poles and Ukrainians held by Ukranians (compensation mechanisms)
Dimensions of person perception; summary
• S. Rosenberg: intellectual good-bad vs. social good-bad
• G. Peeters: self-profitable vs. other-profitable
• G. Reeder: ability vs. morality
• Susan Fiske: competence vs. warmth
Integration of partial evaluations into overall impression
Models of information integration: cognitive algebra
• Linear models (bottom up)– Additive models (Triandis & Fishbein) – Averaging– Weighted average (N. Anderson)
• Configurational model (S. Asch) (top down)– Impression:
• Holistic: the whole is more than sum of elements• Meaning of individual parts dependent on the whole
Asch vs. Anderson: which model is more accurate?
• Both may be true• S. Fiske & Neuberg (1990): two
modes of information integration: category-based integration versus piece-meal integration. – Category-based: evaluation of
an object derived from global evaluation of the category (e.g. stereotype)
– Piece-meal: global evaluation a product of partial evaluations of specific features of an object
The continuum model of person perception
Category-based vs. piece-meal
• Time pressure category-based
• Interdepedence piece-meal
• Position in hierarchy– Subordinates piece-meal – Superiors category-based
Subordinate when in front of a superior should have a miserable and a dumb appearance in order not to embarass the superior with his comprehension ability