Chapter 4 Perceiving Persons Social Psych

Interpersonal range

looking at people as individuals rather than the group they are apart of

First impressions

everyone is a threat or a source

heuristics

information processing rules of thumb that allow us to make quick assessments but often lead to error

Physical features

height, attire, vocal patterns, face shape, facial hair all attribute to first impressions

confirmatory hypothesis testing

looking at information any only looking for information that fits your hypothesis

self-fulfilling prophecy

When a person's false expectations about another person cause the person to behave in ways that confirm those expectations

schema consistent attributions

interpret the causes of behavior or events in a way that aligns with the existing framework, often leading to biased, stereotypical, or confirmatory conclusions

change of meaning hypothesis

interpret the word differently based on how you learn it

stereotype content model

determining whether people are a resource or a threat

What are the two dimensions for the stereotype content model?

1. competence

2. warmth/ trustworthiness

6 universal emotions

1. anger- threat

2. happiness- not a threat, could be a resource

3. sadness- not a threat, but there might be a threat in environment

4. disgust- sensory threat

5&6. fear & surprise- something unexpected happened, could be good or bad

theory of mind

a person's ability to figure out what a person will do/ react

we are bad at deception (T/F)

true

eyes are a good sign of deception (T/F)

false

Perilingual cues

tone of voice

Perilingual cues are a sign of deception (T/F)

true

attribution

process of determining causes of behavior

jones correspondent inference theory

predicts that people try to infer from an action whether the act corresponds to an enduring personal trait of the actor

Has 3 major factors

1. Degree of choice

How much control you have over your behavior

2. Degree of expectedness

Is this behavior unusual

3. range of possible explanations

the more possible reasons there are for something, the less weight we put on one reason

Kelley's covariation theory

consensus, consistency, distinctiveness

consensus

how many people do this thing

consistency

within a person and situation regardless of everyone else

distinctiveness

do you act the same way in all situations, or this one special

persons attributions

tells us about the person

(low consensus, high consistency, low distinctiveness)

normative attributions

doesn't tell us about the person but the groups norms

situational sttributions

is an explanation for a person's behavior that is credited to factors external to the actor

judgment bias

having information and deciding how to interpret it

representativeness heuristic

does it look like what you would think of as random

availability heuristic

how easily something comes to mind

schema consistent attributions (Biases)

if you have multiple explanations about why someone did what they did you will pick the one that goes along with what you already think of them

fundamental attribution error

overestimating a person's behavior based on their personality instead of the situation

Primacy

only remembering the first and last the best, everything in the middle doesn't stick

recency effect

What's most recent is what we remember best

confirmatory hypothesis testing

looking for what you expect to find, not looking for things that contradict your current opinion

self enhancement biases

trying to make ourselves look/feel better compared to other people

wishful seeing

we try to see what we want to see

just world beliefs

we want to believe that life is fair and bad things cant happen to us

Summation

equal weight across all dimensions

information integration theory

a weighted sum

Factors that influence weight

Schema = more weight

Culture/ personal values

valence- negatives outweigh positives

primacy

mood/emotion

priming- what you've been made to think about recently

If someone has a weak positive it is still seen as a positive

false, it is seen as a negative

halo effect

If you know one positive you assume other positives

rusty halo/ pitchfork

If know one negative you assume other negatives

implicit personality theory

What traits go with what traits

false consensus effect

filling in gaps with your own opinions