Social Perception

• Social perception involves the processes through which we seek to understand other people.
It plays a key role in social behavior and social thought.
• In order to understand others’ emotional states, we often rely on nonverbal communication—
an unspoken language of facial expressions, eye contact, and body movements and postures.
• While facial expressions for all basic emotions may not be as universal as once believed, they
do often provide useful information about others’ emotional states. Useful information on this
issue is also provided by eye contact, body language, touching, and even scent.
• Growing evidence indicates that facial expressions are an especially important source of
nonverbal information about others.
• The facial feedback hypothesis suggests that we not only show what we feel in our facial
expressions, but these expressions influence our emotional states.
• If we pay careful attention to certain nonverbal cues, we can recognize efforts at deception by
others—even if these people are from a culture other than our own.
• Whether emotions are perceived as “inside” people or largely between them seems to depend
on cultural factors.
Attribution theory is concerned with how ordinary people explain the causes of behavior and events.

“Attribution theory deals with how the social perceiver uses information to arrive at causal explanations for events. It
examines what information is gathered and how it is combined to form a causal judgment”. (Fiske and Taylor (1991)

Dispositional vs Situational Attribution

1. Dispositional Attribution
Dispositional attribution assigns the cause of behavior to some internal characteristic
of a person, rather than to outside forces.
When we explain the behavior of others we look for enduring internal attributions,
such as personality traits. This is known as the fundamental attribution error.
For example, we attribute the behavior of a person to their personality, motives or
beliefs.
2. Situational Attribution
Situational Attribution - The process of assigning the cause of behavior to some
situation or event outside a person's control rather than to some internal
characteristic.
When we try to explain our own behavior we tend to make external attributions, such
as situational or environment features.
Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory (1)

Jones and Davis (1965) thought that people pay particular attention to intentional behavior (as opposed to accidental or
unthinking behavior).

The theory helps us understand the process of making an internal attribution. It is assumed that we tend to do this when
we see a correspondence between motive and behavior. For example, when we see a correspondence between someone
behaving in a friendly way and being a friendly person.

Dispositional (i.e., internal) attributions provide us with information from which we can make predictions about a person’s
future behavior. The correspondent inference theory describes the conditions under which we make dispositional attributes
to the behavior we perceive as intentional.

Davis used the term correspondent inference to refer to an occasion when an observer infers that a person’s behavior
matches or corresponds with their personality. It is an alternative term to dispositional attribution.
Jones & Davis Correspondent Inference Theory (2)

Jones and Davis say we draw on five sources of information:

1. Choice: If a behavior is freely chosen it is believed to be due to internal (dispositional) factors.

2. Accidental vs. Intentional Behavior: Behavior that is intentional is likely to be attributed to the person’s personality, and
behavior which is accidental is likely to be attributed to situation / external causes.
3. Social Desirability: Behaviors low in sociable desirability (non conforming) lead us to make (internal) dispositional
inferences more than socially undesirable behaviors. For example, if you observe a person getting on a bus and sitting on
the floor instead of one of the seats. This behavior has low social desirability (non conforming) and is likely to correspond
with the personality of the individual.
4. Hedonistic Relevance: If the other person’s behavior appears to be directly intended to benefit or harm us.
5. Personalism: If the other person’s behavior appears to be intended to have an impact on us, we assume that it is
“personal”, and not just a by-product of the situation we are both in.
Kelley's Covariation Model (1)

Kelley’s (1967) developed a logical model for judging whether a particular action should be attributed to some
characteristic (dispositional) of the person or the environment (situational).

The term covariation simply means that a person has information from multiple observations, at different times
and situations, and can perceive the covariation of an observed effect and its causes.
He argues that in trying to discover the causes of behavior people act like scientists. More specifically they take
into account three kinds of evidence.
 Kelley's Covariation Model (2)

•Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E.g.,  Alison smokes a
cigarette when she goes out for a meal with her friend.  If her friend smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If
only Alison smokes, it is low.
Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations.  If Alison only
smokes when she is out with friends, her behavior is high in distinctiveness. If she smokes at any time or place,
distinctiveness is low.
Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs.  If Alison only
smokes when she is out with friends, consistency is high.  If she only smokes on one special occasion, consistency
is low.
An example to help understand this particular attribution theory.

Our subject is called A. their behavior is laughter. A. is laughing at a

comedian.
 Kelley's Covariation Model (2)

•Consensus: the extent to which other people behave in the same way in a similar situation. E.g.,  Alison smokes a cigarette when she goes out
for a meal with her friend.  If her friend smokes, her behavior is high in consensus. If only Alison smokes, it is low.

(If everybody in the audience is laughing, the consensus is high. If only A. is laughing consensus is low.)
•Distinctiveness: the extent to which the person behaves in the same way in similar situations.  If Alison only smokes when she is out with
friends, her behavior is high in distinctiveness. If she smokes at any time or place, distinctiveness is low.

(If A. only laughs at this comedian, the distinctiveness is high. If A. laughs at everything, then distinctiveness is
low.)
•Consistency: the extent to which the person behaves like this every time the situation occurs.  If Alison only smokes when she is out with
friends, consistency is high.  If she only smokes on one special occasion, consistency is low.

(If A. always laughs at this comedian the consistency is high.  If A. rarely laughs at this comedian, then
consistency is low.)
Kelley's Covariation Model (3)

One problem, however, is that we may not have enough information to make that kind of judgment. For example, if we don’t
know A. that well, we wouldn’t necessarily have the information to know if their behavior is consistent over time.  So what
do we do then?

According to Kelley we fall back on past experience and look for either

1) Multiple necessary causes. For example, we see an athlete win a marathon, and we reason that she must be very fit,
highly motivated, have trained hard etc., and that she must have all of these to win

2) Multiple sufficient causes. For example, we see an athlete fail a drug test, and we reason that she may be trying to cheat,
or have taken a banned substance by accident or been tricked into taking it by her coach. Any one reason would be
sufficient.
 Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or over-attribution effect) is the tendency for
people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-
emphasizing situational explanations.

In other words, people have a cognitive bias to assume that a person's actions depend on what "kind" of person that
person is rather than on the social and environmental forces that influence the person.

 The fundamental attribution error describes the habit to misunderstand dispositional or personality-based explanations for behavior,
rather than considering external factors. The fundamental attribution error is most visible when people explain and assume the
behavior of others.

 When evaluating others' behaviors, the situational context is often ignored in favor of assuming the disposition of the actor to be the
cause of an observed behavior. This is because, when a behavior occurs, attention is most often focused on the person performing the
behavior. Thus the individual is more salient than the environment, and dispositional attributions are made more often than
situational attributions to explain the behavior of others.

 However, when evaluating one's own behavior, the situational factors are often exaggerated when there is a negative outcome, while
dispositional factors are exaggerated when there is a positive outcome.
• In order to obtain information about others’ lasting traits, motives, and intentions, we often engage in attribution—efforts
to understand why they have acted as they have. According to Jones and Davis’s theory of correspondent inference, we
attempt to infer others’ traits from observing certain aspects of their behavior—especially behavior that is freely chosen,
produces noncommon effects, and is low in social desirability.
• According to another theory, Kelley’s theory of causal attribution, we are interested in the question of whether others’
behavior stemmed from internal or external causes. To answer this question, we focus on information relating to
consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness.
• Two other important dimensions of causal attribution relate to whether specific causes of behavior are stable over time and
controllable or not controllable.
• Another issue relating to attribution concerns the extent to which we attribute events in our lives to fate—what was “meant
to be”—or to personal causes. Individuals who believe strongly in the existence of God are more likely to attribute
improbable but important events to “what was meant to be”; this is also true of people whose cultural heritage accepts
complex causality for important events.
• Attribution is subject to many potential sources of bias. One of the most important of these is the correspondence bias—
the tendency to explain others’ actions as stemming from dispositions even in the presence of situational causes.
• Despite major changes in gender roles in recent decades, many people continue to attribute emotional displays by women
to dispositional factors (“they are emotional”) whereas attributing the same levels of emotion among men to external
causes.
• Two other attributional errors are the actor–observer effect—the tendency to attribute our own behavior to external
(situational causes) but that of others to internal causes—and the self-serving bias—the tendency to attribute positive
outcomes to internal causes but negative ones to external causes. The self-serving bias is especially strong for negative
events, which are often attributed to external agents who cause them.
• Attribution has been applied to many practical problems, often with great success. For instance, it has been applied to
understanding the causes of depression, andto treating this important mental disorder.
• Attribution also appears to operate in electronic communication over the Internet (e.g., through e-mail).
• Attribution is subject to many potential sources of bias. One of the most important of these is the correspondence bias—
the tendency to explain others’ actions as stemming from dispositions even in the presence of situational causes.
• Despite major changes in gender roles in recent decades, many people continue to attribute emotional displays by women
to dispositional factors (“they are emotional”) whereas attributing the same levels of emotion among men to external
causes.
• Two other attributional errors are the actor–observer effect—the tendency to attribute our own behavior to external
(situational causes) but that of others to internal causes—and the self-serving bias—the tendency to attribute positive
outcomes to internal causes but negative ones to external causes. The self-serving bias is especially strong for negative
events, which are often attributed to external agents who cause them.
• Attribution has been applied to many practical problems, often with great success. For instance, it has been applied to
understanding the causes of depression, andto treating this important mental disorder.
• Attribution also appears to operate in electronic communication over the Internet (e.g., through e-mail).
• Most people are concerned with making good first impressions on others because they believe that these impressions will
exert lasting effects.
• Research on impression formation—the process through which we form impressions of others— suggests that this is true.
Asch’s classic research on impression formation indicated that impressions of others involve more than simple summaries
of their traits and that some traits (central traits) can influence the interpretation of other traits.
• First impressions are formed very quickly and even if based on limited information, can be somewhat accurate. However,
confidence in the accuracy of such impressions is not closely related to their actual accuracy.
• In order to make a good impression on others, individuals often engage in impression management (self-presentation).
• Many techniques are used for this purpose, but most fall under two major headings: self-enhancement—efforts to boost
one’s appeal to others, and other-enhancement— efforts to induce positive moods or reactions in others.
• Existing evidence indicates that impression management works; it often succeeds in generating positive first impressions
of the people using it.
• The use of such tactics is not closely related to behavior at later times, however. For instance, the people hired for jobs
because they use impression management effectively don’t necessarily become high-performing employees.
 Summary & Review
• Social perception involves the processes through which we seek to understand other people. It plays a key role in social behavior
and social thought. In order to understand others’ emotional states, we often rely on nonverbal communication—an unspoken
language of facial expressions, eye contact, and body movements and postures. While facial expressions for all basic emotions
may not be as universal as once believed, they do often provide useful information about others’ emotional states. Useful
information on this issue is also provided by eye contact, body language, touching, and even scent. Growing evidence indicates
that facial expressions are an especially important source of nonverbal information about others. Recent findings indicate that
handshaking provides useful nonverbal cues about others’ personalities, and can influence first impressions of strangers. Scent
also serves as a nonverbal cue, and subtle cues concerning women’s menstrual cycle can be transmitted in this way.
• The facial feedback hypothesis suggests that we not only show what we feel in our facial expressions, these expressions influence
our emotional states. If we pay careful attention to certain nonverbal cues, we can recognize efforts at deception by others—even
if these people are from a culture other than our own. Whether emotions are perceived as “inside” people or largely between
them seems to depend on cultural factors.
• In order to obtain information about others’ lasting traits, motives, and intentions, we often engage in attribution—efforts to
understand why they have acted as they have. According to Jones and Davis’s theory of correspondent inference, we attempt to
infer others’ traits from observing certain aspects of their behavior - especially behavior that is freely chosen, produces
noncommon effects, and is low in social desirability. According to another theory, Kelley’s theory of causal attribution, we are
interested in the question of whether others’ behavior stemmed from internal or external causes. To answer this question, we
focus on information relating to consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness. Two other important dimensions of causal
attribution relate to whether specific causes of behavior are stable over time and controllable or not controllable.
 Summary & Review
• Another issue relating to attribution concerns the extent to which we attribute events in our lives to fate—what was “meant to be”—or
to personal causes. Individuals who believe strongly in the existence of God are more likely to attribute improbable but important
events to “what was meant to be”; this is also true of people whose cultural heritage accepts complex causality for important events.
Attribution is subject to many potential sources of bias. One of the most important of these is the correspondence bias—the tendency
to explain others’ actions as stemming from dispositions even in the presence of situational causes. Despite major changes in gender
roles in recent decades, many people continue to attribute emotional displays by women to dispositional factors (“they are emotional”)
while attributing the same levels of emotion among men to external causes.
• Two other attributional errors are the actor–observer effect—the tendency to attribute our own behavior to external (situational causes)
but that of others to internal causes - and the self-serving bias—the tendency to attribute our positive outcomes to internal causes but
negative ones to external causes. The self-serving bias is especially strong for negative events, which are often attributed to external
agents who cause them. Attribution has been applied to many practical problems, often with great success. For instance, it has been
applied to understanding the causes of depression, and to treating this important mental disorder. Attribution also appears to operate in
electronic communication over the Internet (e.g., through e-mail).
• Most people are concerned with making good first impressions on others because they believe that these impressions will exert lasting
effects. Research on impression formation—the process through which we form impressions of others— suggests that this is true. Asch’s
classic research on impression formation indicated that impressions of others involve more than simple summaries of their traits and
that some traits (central traits) can influence the interpretation of other traits. First impressions are formed very quickly and even if
based on limited information, can be somewhat accurate. However, confidence in the accuracy of such impressions is not closely related
to their actual accuracy. In order to make a good impression on others, individuals often engage in impression management (self-
presentation). Many techniques are used for this purpose, but most fall under two major headings: self-enhancement—efforts to boost
one’s appeal to others—and other-enhancement—efforts to induce positive moods or reactions in others. Existing evidence indicates
that impression management works; it often succeeds in generating positive first impressions of the people using it. The use of such
tactics is not closely related to behavior at later times, however. For instance, the people hired for jobs because they use impression
management effectively don’t necessarily become high-performing employees.