Chapter 4

Perceiving Persons

The Process of Impression Formation

Two main factors have been studied in attempts to analyse this process:

1. The order in which information is received

2. The association and independence of characteristics or attributes (e.g., traits)

Order Effects in Impression Formation

Some early work by Asch:

Look at List A: This person is

intelligent

industrious

impulsive

critical

stubborn

envious

Using this list, Asch found that it produces an impression of an able person who possesses certain shortcomings, which are not serious enough to overshadow person's merits.

Look at List B. This person is:

envious

stubborn

critical

impulsive

industrious

intelligent

Using this list, Asch found that it produces an impression of a person who is a problem and whose abilities are hampered by his serious difficulties

Guess what? Two lists are identical! But, presenting traits in a different order had marked influence on the impression formed of the person.

Some work by Luchins

Produced a considerably more elaborate experiment with two entire paragraphs describing a person.

Some info. depicted P as extraverted ( = E)

Other info. depicted P as introverted ( = I)

I & E information presented in different orders in the two paragraphs. I first or E first.

A primacy effect was reliably produced. A what?

Info. presented first had strongest impact on impression (ergo: P seen as most like first bits of info. = the primacy effect)

Huh?

Primacy Effect =

E info first ------- I info second

Person rated as more extraverted (10.4) than introverted (6.4)

In a variation in which the attention of the reader was distracted, the primacy effect was substantially nullified by a recency effect.

Huh?

Recency Effect =

E info given --- Distractor task given --- I info then given. In this case:

Person rated as less extraverted (10.0) than introverted (12.1)

Info. presented last had strongest impact on impression (ergo: P seen as most like lasts bits of info. = the recency effect)

The association and independence of characteristics or attributes

Asch (Again!): Gave Ss this info:

intelligent

skillful

industrious

(List C)warm VERSUS cold (List D)

determined

practical

cautious

Which person will be seen as more

generous,wise, happy, reliable, important, good-natured, polite?

 

Why? (Gestalt)

The warm - cold variable in impressions of real people (Kelley's study of professors)

 

Processes involved in Perceiving Others: (a.k.a. Social Cognition)

Social Cognition Defined:

The manner in which we interpret, analyze, remember, and use information about the social world

 

Topics studied in social cognition:

Schemas and prototypes

Heuristics

Potential sources of error

Relationship between affect and cognition

These are all really abstract concepts, but have very real consequences!

 

Schemas and prototypes

Schemas

Mental frameworks containing information relevant to specific situations or events. (restaurants; funerals; going on a date; taking a test).

Formally defined: "...a cognitive structure that represents knowledge about a concept or type of stimulus, including its attributes and the relations among those attributes" (Fiske & Taylor, 1986, p. 98)

Example from Fiske & Taylor: Nancy vs. Jack (to be read to students by Tamara)

Substituting Jack for Nancy (including their roles) leads us to make use of our prior knowledge (schemas) about sexual harassment or college sports; guides how we turn the story into a coherent one; helps us fill in gaps; helps us remember story. The schemas we apply changes completely the meaning we attribute to

usual procedures
nature of the doctor's sympathetic reactions
reasons for fidgeting
motivation for speaking to professor

Once established, they help us interpret these situations and what's happening in them.

Can be a form of cognitive "short hand"

 

Prototypes

Mental models of the typical qualities of members of some group or category (fraternity members; professors; musicians)

 

Think of the most typical or prototypical instance of "a game." Now, think of other examples games that are games but aren't such typical examples. Idea is: We categorize events, activities, people, etc. with the prototypical features in mind, looking to see whether a new instance fits the category (e.g., of games) by evaluating how similar it is to the prototype.

 

Types of schemas

There are many, many different types of schemas:

Person schemas

Mental framework suggesting that certain traits and behaviors go together, and that persons possessing those characteristics form a certain type (think of Asch).

 

Role schemas

Mental framework containing information about how persons playing specific roles generally act, and what they are like (salesperson)

 

Scripts (Event schemas)

Mental frameworks for specific situations about what is expected to happen in a given setting

 

All types of schemas provide us with a cognitive scaffolding

 

Once established they save us a great deal of mental effort

We have them because we are cognitive misers.

 

Impact of schemas on social cognition

They impact what we attend to

We are likely to notice information/ events that are inconsistent with schema. It stands out to us.

Restaurant: no table setting; no salt/pepper; no menu ....

 

Effects on encoding of incoming information

Information consistent with well-formed schemas is easier to encode

When schemas are first being developed, inconsistent information is more readily noticed and encoded

First day in a foreign restaurant: have to sit on the floor and eat with your hands. You'll notice this and probably store it in your memory as exceptions to your restaurant schema!

Tendency seems to stem from the fact that unexpected or inconsistent information is surprising and we need to work harder to understand it (Srull & Weyer, 1989)

 

Effects on retrieval of encoding information

If we activate a schema (by priming it), the schema influences what information we retrieve from memory

What is priming? It is the effect of "prior context" on how we interpret incoming information.

I want you to imagine that you are on vacation at the beach. The water is warm as it laps up against your legs and seems to glide effortlessly as it ebbs and flows from the sand out to the horizon and back again............... (l.d.)

We generally remember information that is part of schema or consistent with schema (shades of S. Bem: females remembered more weight-relevant words when they were weight-schematic)

 

Impact of prototypes on social behavior

Growing evidence that the more favorable our prototype of a social category or group, and the more similar we see ourselves to being like the prototype, the more likely we are to behave like those people

Gibbons, Gerrard, & McCoy (1995):

study of teenagers' prototypes of

teenager girls who get pregnant and

boys who get them pregnant

 

Heuristics: Mental shortcuts/rules of thumb

Heuristics are rules that allow us to make social judgments rapidly with reduced cognitive effort

Provides an organizing system to reduce the complexities of observable data

Help us avoid information overload

Usually they lead to sound judgments

Sometimes they lead us to make errors

Types of Heuristics

Representativeness heuristic

Tendency to base judgments on extent to which current stimulus or situation resemble other stimuli or categories 

Often such judgments are accurate, but sometimes wrong because not all members of category fit the prototype

We may overlook other useful information such as base rates

Lawyer/Engineer example:

Your task is to decide whether this person is a lawyer or engineer. The person was drawn "at random" from a sample of 100 people. 30% of the people are known engineers and 70% known lawyers. We also know this about the person sampled: "Steve os very shy and withdrawn, with very little interest in people or in the world of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for order and structure, and a passion for detail. He scuba dives in his spare time and at one time in his life was a heavy cocaine user." Is Steve an engineer or a lawyer?

Illustrates:

 

we tend to ignore the prior probability of outcomes

we are relatively insensitive to predictive value of information. Info. about Steve could have equally well described a librarian -- yet, we used a prototype (most engineers are meek, et.c.) in assessing relevance of the information

we also use information that may be of little true diagnostic value in assessing Steve's occupation&emdash; known as the "illusion of validity" (hearing that Steve was a heavy cocaine user or scuba diver might make us back off in our certainty that he is an engineer, even though this information may in reality not be a fully reliable or accurate diagnostic indicator of this occupation)

 

Availability heuristic

Tendency to make judgments based on how easily specific kinds of information can be brought to mind

Often judgments are accurate, but sometimes wrong

Car buying example

"K" example

What are major causes of death in the U.S.?

 Availability heuristic can lead to false consensus effect (FCE)

the tendency to assume that others behave or think as we do to a greater extent than really is the case (What % of people believe that abortion is wrong?) 

Reflects operation of availability heuristic:

We may find it easier to remember instances in which people agree with us than disagree

We tend to choose as friends people who tend to share our views

FCE happens because we want to believe that others agree with us; gives us confidence in our beliefs

 

Availability heuristic also demonstrates priming

Effect that occurs when some stimuli or events increase availability of information (remember our laundry detergent)

Reyes, Thompson, & Bower (1980) manipulated availability by varying the vividness of trial evidence while keeping its strength constant

Given evidence implying defendant was drunk:

Nonvivid version: he staggered and fell against a table at a party:

Vivid version: he staggered and fell against a table at a party; knocked bowl of guacamole onto white carpet

48 hours later, subjects in vivid condition were more likely to find defendant guilty

 

Potential sources of error in social cognition

Acting according to our feelings when rational thought would lead us to other choices

Paying greater attention to information that is unexpected or inconsistent than to expected or consistent information

The greater the amount of attention we give to information, the more likely we are to encode and remember it, the more likely it is to influence social judgments (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) 

It is not always true that information we pay greater attention to exerts stronger effects on our social judgments.

 

Sometimes we discount in our judgments information that is "too inconsistent"-- although we certainly do notice it

For ex: Judgments of JFK's character long withstood leaks about his promiscuous behavior

 

We are overly optimistic about how long it will take to complete a task--the planning fallacy (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994)

Due to: Taking a planning mode of thought which focuses on the future: how we will do the task

Not looking backward to remember how long it has taken to perform similar tasks in the past 

We make external attributions for past failures to complete tasks in expected amount of time, which reduces relevance of those experiences to current project

 

Paying much greater attention to negative information or stimuli than to positive information--automatic vigilance (Shiffrin, 1988)

Makes adaptive sense--negative information may alert us to dangers that we need to respond to

But may cause difficulties if it leads to inappropriate responses

 

Sometimes we think too much:

Wilson & Schooler (1991) -- When individuals engage in very careful analysis of reasons for judgments they may think of reasons that are most prominent and accessible

These may not be the most important factors in their judgments; they may be misled by the reasons they concoct and make less accurate judgments 

Jam rating experiment: Participants who simply rated jams came closer to matching ratings of experts than participants who explained their reasons for their ratings

Counterfactual or "if only" thinking -- tendency to evaluate events by "what might have been"

We often feel greater sympathy for people who experience negative outcomes after unusual actions than for people experiencing the same outcome after typical actions (missed airplane flight example)

It seems to be easier to imagine alternatives to unusual behavior, i.e., that person could have acted in normal way

 

We often feel more regret for actions that turn out badly than for actions we didn't perform, but could also have turned out badly

 

However, Gilovich and Medvec (1994) show that with the passage of time we tend more to regret things that we failed to do. Why?

Actions that turn out badly may be reversed or rationalized; missed opportunities more difficult

Failure to act often comes from fear; with time we feel less justified about feeling afraid

Easier to know consequences of actions; speculation about consequences of failure to act not close-ended (many possible outcomes)

 

Magical thinking -- thinking based on assumptions that are not rational, but are still compelling (Rozin & Nemeroff, 1990) 

Examples:

Law of contagion -- when two objects touch they pass off properties to each other  

Law of similarity -- objects that resemble each other share fundamental properties

 

Affect and Cognition & Attribution notes continue on the following page..... 

 

Back to Psy 3510 Homepage

Back to Psy 3510 Lecture Notes


© Copyright 2004 Tamara J Ferguson
Send e-mail comments regarding this site to: fatamara@cc.usu.edu