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 goodbad hardsoft fast slow lightheavy rough smooth Father

goodbad hardsoft fast slow lightheavy rough smooth Future

goodbad hardsoft fast slow lightheavy rough smooth Love

goodbad hardsoft fast slow lightheavy 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 exciting alive exhilirating interesting arousing stimulatingsensational pleasing pretty beautiful pleasantnice serene restful peaceful calm tranquil rushed intense frenzied panicky tense forceful uncomfortable dissatisfying displeasing repulsive unpleasant unstimulating dull dreary boring inactive idle monotoneous active lazyslow 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 AList B IntelligentEnvious IndustriousStubborn ImpulsiveCritical Impulsive StubbornIndustrious EnviousIntelligent

List AList B Generous Wise Happy Good natured Humorous Sociable Popular Reliable Important Humane Good-looking Persistent Serious Strong

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 scientific determined skilful Industrious intelligent imaginative serious important discriminating daring reserved cautious practical artistic cold unsociable humorless unpopular unhappy dominating vain honest modest tolerant helpful sincere happy popular sociable humorous good-natured warm naive submissive impulsive clumsy superficial unreliable 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 Behavior  trait 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 Intelligent behavior Stupid behavior Honesty Dishonesty Honest behavior Dishonest behavior

Intelligence Lack of intelligence Inference schemata Intelligent behavior Stupid behavior Honesty Dishonesty Honest behavior Dishonest behavior 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

MoralUnmoral Competent Virtuous successSinful success Uncompetent Virtuous failureSinful 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% Laziness11,3% Envy 11,0% Jealousy8,0% Stealing8,0% Boorishness5,5% Corruption5,5% Intolerance5,5% Conceit 5,6% Complaining4,4% Egoism3,5% Callousness2,9% Stupidity2,5% Myself Laziness16,0% Drinking and gluttony9,0% Smoking 4,6% Dishonesty4,0% Lack of self-confidence3,5% Lack of perseverance 3,2% Anger3,0% Naivete2,4% Talking too much2,4% Workaholism2,3% Unpunctuality 1,9% Envy 1,6% Dissolution1,5% Jealousy 1,5% Nervousness 1,5%

The biggest sins Pole Don’t know7,8% 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 ,9 11,517,1 34,64,4 5, ,4 4,613,6 19,010,4 0, ,7 1,410,8 11,513,7 1,8 60 and more27,3 2,25,2 6,911,9 0,8

I have so sins/ drawbacks Age , , ,6 over 6034,7 educationElementary19,0 Professional33,0 High22,4 University12,1 Residence placeOver 200,00016,9 50 – 200,00016,3 Below 50,00027,1 country27,5

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