1. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Micro-Organizational Behavior: Perception

2. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. What is Perception? Perception is the process through which people select, organize, and interpret information.Perception is the process through which people select, organize, and interpret information. Social Perception represents the process of combining, integrating and interpreting information about others to gain an accurate understanding of them.Social Perception represents the process of combining, integrating and interpreting information about others to gain an accurate understanding of them. What affects perception?What affects perception?

3. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. What is attribution? Attribution is the process through which individuals attempt to determine the causes behind other’s behavior.Attribution is the process through which individuals attempt to determine the causes behind other’s behavior. –How does one determine the causes of another’s behavior –Correspondent Inferences—we infer from their behavior

4. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 3 Correspondent Inferences: Judging Dispositions Based on Behavior Description (what someone does) Observe someone fall off a ladder Clumsy (what someone is like) Act Example Disposition Correspondent Inference Assume that person is...

5. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Accuracy? What are some of the challenges in judging others accurately?What are some of the challenges in judging others accurately? How can these be overcome?How can these be overcome?

6. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Causal Attribution of Responsibility Why?Why? –Internal causes of behavior—explanations based on actions for which the individual is responsible –External causes of behavior—explanations based on situations over which the individual has no control

7. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Kelley’s Theory of Causal Attribution Consensus—do others behave similarlyConsensus—do others behave similarly Consistency—does the person being judged behaves similarly at other timesConsistency—does the person being judged behaves similarly at other times Distinctiveness—does the person being judged behave similarly in other situationsDistinctiveness—does the person being judged behave similarly in other situations

8. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 4 Kelley’s Theory of Causal Attribution: A Summary No one else complains (consensus is low) This person always complains in this restaurant (consistency is high) This person also complains in other settings (distinctiveness is low) She complained because she is difficult to please (internal attribution) Several others also complain (consensus is high) This person always complains in this restaurant (consistency is high) This person does not complain in other settings (distinctiveness is high) She complained because the restaurant is terrible (external attribution) You observe an individual complaining about the food, service, and decor in a restaurant. To answer “Why?” you note that... You conclude that...

9. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Perceptual Biases The Fundamental Attribution ErrorThe Fundamental Attribution Error The Halo EffectThe Halo Effect Similar-to-me EffectSimilar-to-me Effect First Impression ErrorFirst Impression Error Selective PerceptionSelective Perception

10. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 5 The Halo Effect low low low low low high high high high high Characteristic 1 Characteristic 2 Characteristic 3 Characteristic 4 Characteristic N The more favorably someone is perceived on some characteristics, the more likely that individual is perceived favorably on other characteristics too.

11. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 6 First-Impression Error Poor Excellent Poor Excellent TIME Poor Excellent Poor Excellent Initial PerformanceInitial Impression TIME Current Performance Current Impression Quality of Actual Work PerformedEvaluation of Work Performed Quality of Actual Work PerformedEvaluation of Work Performed Current impression matches initial impression Current Impression does not match current performance

12. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Stereotypes Beliefs that all members of specific groups share similar traits and are prone to behave in the same way.Beliefs that all members of specific groups share similar traits and are prone to behave in the same way. Why do we rely on stereotypes?Why do we rely on stereotypes?

13. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. Overcoming Biases Don’t overlook external causes of others’ behaviorDon’t overlook external causes of others’ behavior Identify and confront your stereotypesIdentify and confront your stereotypes Evaluate people based on objective factorsEvaluate people based on objective factors Avoid making rash judgmentsAvoid making rash judgments

14. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 7 How do job applicants present themselves favorably? Self-promotion Personal stories Opinion conformity Entitlements Other enhancements Directly describing oneself in a positive manner for the situation at hand (e.g., I am a hard worker). Describing past events that make oneself look good (e.g., “In my old job, I worked late anytime it was needed”). Expressing beliefs that can be assumed to be held by the target (e.g., agreeing with something the interviewer says). Claiming responsibility for successful past events (e.g., “I was responsible for the 90% sales increase that resulted”). Making statements that flatter, praise, or compliment the target (e.g., “I am very impressed with your company’s growth in recent years”). 100% 96% 54% 50% 46%

15. ILRCornellILRCornell Copyright 1999 by Brent Smith, Ph.D. 8 How do job applicants present themselves favorably? Enhancements Overcoming Obstacles Justifications Excuses Claiming that a positive event was more positive than it really was (e.g., ”Not only did our department improve, but it was the best in the entire company”). Describing how one succeeded in the face of obstacles that would have lowered performance (e.g., “I managed to get a 3.8 average although I worked two part-time jobs”). Accepting responsibility for one’s poor performance but denying the negative implications of it (e.g., “Our team didn’t win a lot, but it’s just how you play the game that really matters”). Denying responsibility for one’s actions (e.g., “I didn’t complete the application form because the placement center ran out of them”). 42% 33% 17% 13%