SOCIAL PERCEPTION

Arlene Baker Rowe, PhD.

 OBJECTIVES
 Describe the major purpose and functions of social perception.

 Define what is meant by nonverbal communication.

 Describe the five (or perhaps six) basic emotions expressed in

unique facial expressions.

 Describe how nonverbal communications are transmitted (basic

channels of nonverbal communication).

 Identify and describe the five key nonverbal cues that may
allow us to recognize deception. 2
 OBJECTIVES

 Compare and contrast the key elements of Jones and

Davis’ theory of correspondent inference with those of
Kelley’s theory of attribution.

 Describe Asch’s Theory

 Discuss implicit personality theories

 Define self enhancement tactics and other enhancement

tactics. Give examples of each 3
 SOCIAL PERCEPTION
 Social perception is the process through which we seek
to know and understand other people.

 Having an understanding of others is very important

because they play such a central role in our lives, but in
fact, it actually involves many different tasks.

 There are three aspects of social perception: nonverbal

communication, attribution, and impression formation
and management.
4
 WAYS IN WHICH WE LEARN ABOUT
OTHERS
 Non verbal communication

 Attribution

 Impression formation

 Formation management

5
 NON–VERBAL COMMUNICATION
 Communication between individuals that does not involve the
content of spoken language. It relies instead on an unspoken
language of facial expressions, eye contact, and body
language.
 Research reveals that social actions our own and those of other
people are affected by temporary factors or causes.

 Changing moods, shifting emotions, fatigue, illness, drugs

even hidden biological processes such as the menstrual cycle
can all influence the ways in which we think and behave.

6
 FIVE BASIC EMOTIONS
 Five basic emotions are represented
clearly on the human face:
 Anger

 Fear

 Disgust

 Happiness

 Sadness

 Surprise has also been suggested as

a basic emotion reflected clearly in
facial expressions, but evidence
concerning this suggestion is
mixed. So it may not be as basic or
as clearly represented in facial
expressions as other emotions. 7
 BASIC CHANNELS
 There are five channels
through which
communication takes
place.

 Facial expressions
 Eye contact

 Bodily movements
 Posture

 Touching 8
ATTRIBUTION: UNDERSTANDING THE
CAUSE OF OTHERS’ BEHAVIOUR

 Attribution is the process through which

we seek to identify the causes of others’
behavior and so gain knowledge of their
stable traits and dispositions.

9
ATTRIBUTION THEORY

10
 THEORIES OF ATTRIBUTION
 Jones and Davis’s (1965) stated
that the theory of
correspondent inference—
asks how we use information
about others’ behavior as a basis
for inferring their traits.

 In other words, the theory is

concerned with how we decide,
on the basis of others’ overt
actions, whether they possess
specific traits or dispositions
likely to remain fairly stable
over time. 11
 THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION
 The theory considers only behavior that seems to have
been freely chosen, while largely ignoring ones that
were somehow forced on the person in question.

 Second, we pay careful attention to actions that show

what Jones and Davis term non-common effects—effects
that can be caused by one specific factor, but not by
others.

12
 THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION
 Jones and Davis suggest that we also pay greater
attention to actions by others that are low in social
desirability than to actions that are high on this
dimension.

 In other words, we learn more about others’ traits from

actions they perform that are somehow out of the
ordinary than from actions that are very much like those
of most other people.

13
 THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION
 Therefore according to the theory proposed by Jones and
Davis, we are most likely to conclude that others’
behavior reflects their stable traits (i.e., we are likely to
reach correspondent inferences about them), when that
behavior

 (1) is freely chosen;

 (2) yields distinctive, non-common effects

 (3) is low in social desirability

14
 KELLY’S THEORY OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
 The theory wants to know why other people have acted
as they have or why events have turned out in a specific
way.

 Such knowledge is crucial, for only if we understand the

causes behind others’ actions or events that occur can we
hope to make sense out of the social world.

15
 KELLY’S THEORY OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
 In our attempt to answer the why questions about others’
behaviour we focus on three major types of information:
Consensus: The extent to which others react to a

given stimulus or event in the same manner as the

person under consideration.
Consistency: The extent to which the person under

consideration reacts to the stimulus or event in the

same manner on other occasions.
Distinctiveness: The extent to which the person

under consideration reacts in the same way to other,

different stimuli or events.
16
 KELLY’S THEORY OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
 According to Kelley’s theory, we are most likely to attribute
another’s behavior to internal causes under conditions in
which consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency
is high.

 In contrast, we are most likely to attribute another’s

behavior to external causes when consensus, consistency,
and distinctiveness are all high.

 Finally, we usually attribute another’s behavior to a

combination of internal and external factors when consensus
is low but consistency and distinctiveness are high. 17
KELLEY’S THEORY OF CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION

18
KELLEY’S THEORY OF ATTRIBUTION

19
 KELLY’S THEORY OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTIONS
 The basic assumptions of Kelley’s theory have been
confirmed in a wide range of social situations, so it
seems to provide important insights into the nature of
causal attributions.

 However, research on the theory also suggests the need

for certain modifications or extensions.

20
 OTHER DIMENSIONS OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTION
 While we are often very interested in knowing whether
others’ behavior stemmed mainly from internal or
external causes, this is not the entire story. In addition,
we are also concerned with two other questions:

 (1) Are the causal factors that influenced their behavior

likely to be stable over time or likely to change?

 (2) Are these factors controllable—can the individual

change or influence them if he or she wishes to do so ?
21
 OTHER DIMENSIONS OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTION
 These dimensions are independent of the internal–
external dimension we have just considered.

 For instance, some internal causes of behavior tend to be

quite stable over time, such as personality traits or
temperament .

 In contrast, other internal causes can, and often do,

change greatly—for instance, motives, health, and
fatigue
22
 OTHER DIMENSIONS OF CAUSAL
ATTRIBUTION

 Similarly, some internal causes are controllable—

individuals can, if they wish, learn to hold their tempers
in check; other internal causes, such as chronic illnesses
or disabilities, are not.

 The same is true for external causes of behavior: some

are stable over time (e.g., laws or social norms telling
how we should behave in various situations) whereas
others are not (e.g., bad luck).
23
ATTRIBUTION: SOME BASIC SOURCES
OF ERROR
 Jones (1979) labeled
correspondence bias the
tendency to explain others’
actions as stemming from or
corresponding to dispositions
even in the presence of clear
situational causes.

 This bias seems to be so

general in scope that many
social psychologists refer to
it as the fundamental
attribution error. 24
ATTRIBUTION: SOME BASIC SOURCES
OF ERROR
 In short, we tend to perceive others as acting as they do
because they are “that kind of person,” rather than
because of the many external factors that may influence
their behavior.

 This tendency occurs in a wide range of contexts but

appears to be strongest in situations where both
consensus and distinctiveness are low, as predicted by
Kelley’s theory, and when we are trying to predict others’
behavior in the far-off future rather than the immediate
future.
25
 THE ACTOR–OBSERVER EFFECT
 The fundamental attribution error, powerful as it is,
applies mainly to attributions we make about others—we
don’t tend to “over attribute” our own actions to external
causes.

 This fact helps explain another and closely related type

of attributional bias known as the actor–observer effect-
the tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational
(external) causes but that of others to dispositional
(internal) ones

26
 THE ACTOR–OBSERVER EFFECT

 Thus, when we see

another person trip and
fall, we tend to attribute
this event to his or her
clumsiness.

 If we trip, however, we are

more likely to attribute
this event to situational
causes, such as ice on the
sidewalk. 27
 THE ACTOR–OBSERVER EFFECT
 Why does the actor–observer effect occur? In part
because we are quite aware of the many external factors
affecting our own actions but are less aware of such
factors when we turn our attention to the actions of other
people.

 Thus, we tend to perceive our own behavior as arising

largely from situational causes, but that of others as
deriving mainly from their traits or dispositions.

28
THE SELF-SERVING BIAS: “I’M GOOD; YOU ARE LUCKY”
 The tendency to attribute our own
positive outcomes to internal causes
but negative ones to external factors
is known as the self-serving bias,
and it appears to be both general in
scope and powerful in its effects.

 Why does this tilt in our

attributions occur? Several
possibilities have been suggested,
but most of these fall into two
categories: cognitive and
motivational explanations.

 The cognitive model suggests that

the self-serving bias stems mainly
from certain tendencies in the way 29
we process social information .
THE SELF-SERVING BIAS: “I’M GOOD;
YOU ARE LUCKY
 Specifically, it suggests that we attribute positive
outcomes to internal causes, but negative ones to
external causes because we expect to succeed and have a
tendency to attribute expected outcomes to internal
causes more than to external causes.

 In contrast, the motivational explanation suggests that

the self-serving bias stems from our need to protect and
enhance our self-esteem or the related desire to look
good to others.

30
THE SELF-SERVING BIAS: “I’M GOOD;
YOU ARE LUCKY
 While both cognitive and motivational factors may well
play a role in this kind of attributional error, research
evidence seems to offer more support for the
motivational view.

 Regardless of the origins of the self-serving bias, it can

be the cause of much interpersonal friction.

 It often leads people working with others on a joint task

to perceive that they, not their partners, have made the
major contributions, and to blame others in the group for
31
negative outcomes.
 IMPRESSION FORMATION
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
 Impression formation is the
process through which we
form impressions of others.

 We often form first

impression of this person—a
mental representation that is
the basis for our reactions to
him or her.

 Forming first impressions

seems to be relatively
effortless. 32
 RESEARCH ON IMPRESSION
MANAGEMENT
 Solomon Asch studied how we go about forming quick
impressions of others just by looking at them and
interacting very little with them.

 Asch, basing his work on the ideas of Gestalt

psychology, suggested that we do not form impressions
by simply adding up the traits we observe.

 Instead, we see how an individual’s traits are related to

each other, so we see them as one, integrated person.
33
 SOLOMON ASCH’S RESEARCH
 On the basis of many studies Asch concluded that forming
impressions of others involves more than simply combining
individual traits.

 As he put it: “There is an attempt to form an impression of the

entire person . “

 As soon as two or more traits are understood to belong to one

person they cease to exist as isolated traits, and come into
immediate interaction.

 The subject perceives not this and that quality, but the two 34
entering into a particular relation
 SOLOMON ASCH’S RESEARCH
 While research on impression formation has become far
more sophisticated since Asch’s early work, many of his
basic ideas about impression formation have withstood
the test of time.

 Thus, his research exerted a lasting impact and is still

worthy of careful attention even today.

35
 HOW QUICKLY ARE IMPRESSIONS
FORMED?
 Until quite recently, one general conclusion from social
psychological research on first impressions was this:
They are formed quickly but are often inaccurate.

 In the past few years, however, a growing body of

research evidence suggests that these conclusions should
be modified.

36
 HOW QUICKLY ARE IMPRESSIONS
FORMED?
 Many studies have reported that even working with
what are known as thin slices of information about
others—for instance, photos or short videos of them—
perceivers’ first impressions are reasonably accurate.

 People do better in forming first impressions of some

characteristics than others but overall, they can
accomplish this task fairly well very quickly and with
better-than-chance accuracy.

37
 IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES:
SCHEMAS
 Implicit personality
theories are beliefs about
what traits or characteristics
tend to go together.

 These theories, which can

be viewed as a specific kind
of schema, suggest that
when individuals possess
some traits, they are likely
to possess others, too.

38
 IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES:
SCHEMAS

 Such expectations are strongly

shaped by the cultures in
which we live.

 For instance, in many societies

but not all it is assumed that
“what is beautiful is good” that
people who are attractive also
possess other positive traits,
such as good social skills and
an interest in enjoying the
good things in life.
39
 IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES:
SCHEMAS
 Similarly, in some cultures but again, not in all—there is
a schema for “the jock” a young male who loves sports,
prefers beer to wine, and can, on occasion (e.g., during
an important game), be loud and coarse.

 Again, once an individual is seen as having one of these

traits, he or she is seen as possessing others because
typically, we expect them to covary (to go together).

40
 IMPLICIT PERSONALITY THEORIES:
SCHEMAS

 These tendencies to assume that certain traits or characteristics

go together are very common and can be observed in many
contexts.
 For instance, you may well have implicit beliefs about the
characteristics related to birth order.

 A large body of research findings indicates that we expect first-

borns to be high achievers who are aggressive, ambitious,
dominant, and independent, while we expect middle-born to be
caring, friendly, outgoing, and thoughtful.

 Only children, in contrast, are expected to be independent, self-

41
centered, selfish, and spoiled
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: TACTICS
FOR LOOKING GOOD TO OTHERS
 Impression management is our
efforts to produce a favorable
first impression on other people.

 Individuals use many different

techniques for boosting their
image, most of these fall into
two major categories: self-
enhancement—efforts to
increase their appeal to others

 Other-enhancement—efforts to
make the target person feel good
in various ways. 42
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: TACTICS
FOR LOOKING GOOD TO OTHERS
 With respect to self-enhancement, specific strategies
include efforts to boost one’s appearance either physical
or professional.

 Physical appearance relates to the attractiveness and

physical appeal of the individual, while professional
appearance relates to personal grooming, appropriate
dress, and personal hygiene.

 The existence of huge beauty aids and clothing industries

suggests ways in which people attempt to improve both
43
aspects of their appearance.
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT: TACTICS
FOR LOOKING GOOD TO OTHERS
 Another major group of impression management tactics
are known as other-enhancement.

 In these strategies, individuals basically seek to induce

positive moods and reactions in others through the use of
a variety of tactics

 Perhaps the most commonly used tactic of this type is

ingratiation—flattering others in various ways

44
 WHY DO PEOPLE ENGAGE IN
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT?

 So far, we have assumed that people engage in

impression management for one straightforward reason:
to enhance others’ reactions to them.

 This is certainly the primary reason for such behavior.

But research findings indicate that there many others,
too.

45
 WHY DO PEOPLE ENGAGE IN
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT?
 For instance, efforts at impression management (often
termed self-presentation) may serve to boost the moods
of people who engage in it.

 This might be the case because efforts to appear

cheerful, happy, and pleasant might—through the kind of
mechanisms suggested by the facial feedback hypothesis
—generate actual increases in such feelings.

 In other words, by attempting to appear happy and

positive, people may actually encourage such feelings
46
 WHY DO PEOPLE ENGAGE IN
IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT?

 In short, although we
generally engage in
impression management in
order to increase others’
evaluations of us, there may
be some extra benefits to
such tactics for the people
who use them.

 Attempting to “look good” to

others can often make us feel
better in very basic ways 47
 QUIZ
1.All of the following are examples of nonverbal
communication except:
 A) eye contact
 B) body language  4. The concept of
C) facial expression
impression formation is


 D) all of the above are examples of nonverbal

behaviour
also referred to as
 A) social desirability
2.Which of the following are not one of Kelley’s three
pieces of information that we use when making an  B) self presentation
attribution?
 A) effort  C) self monitoring
 B) consensus
 C) consistency  D) self serving bias
 D) distinctiveness

 3. According to Kelley’s theory if John is raving

about a movie that he saw, and no one else who saw
the movie particularly like it, and we know that John
is always raving about every movie that he sees, one
would make a------------------- attribution.
 5. Explain the implicit
 A) external personality theories. 48
 B) situational
 C) dispositional
 D) discounting
 REFERENCES

 Lecture notes _ Social Perception

 Branscombe, N. Baron, R., Bryne, D. Social Psychology

(online text)

49