PYB202: Wk 3 - Perceiving Others

Perceiving Other People

Overview

  • The general setup involves a perceiver gathering information about another person.
  • The focus can vary: forming an overall impression, extracting quick information, or understanding attributions for behavior.
  • The process can be broken down into the following parts:
    • Initial information intake (thin slices).
    • Attribution making: theories on deciding if behavior is due to internal or external factors.
    • Forming overall impressions from multiple pieces of information.
    • The influence of different pieces of information on the overall impression.
    • The stickiness of initial impressions, even with new information, and the problems this can cause.

Initial Information Intake: Thin Slices

  • Thin Slices: Brief amounts of information used to form impressions.
    • The thinnest slice: a static photograph.
    • Short video clips.
  • Face Perception Research
    • People make very quick judgments when viewing faces.
    • People are shown photographs and asked to rate traits like trustworthiness, competence, likability, aggressiveness, and attractiveness.
    • High consensus among judges on these ratings, suggesting shared cues are used for judgments.
      • Note: Consensus doesn't guarantee accuracy.
  • Computer Modeling of Facial Cues
    • Researchers use computer modeling to identify facial features associated with different trait ratings (e.g., high vs. low trustworthiness).
    • Videos are created to morph faces from neutral to high/low trait levels to illustrate these cues.
    • Example: changes in eyes and face shape for trustworthiness.
    • Disclaimer: These are cues people use, not guarantees of actual traits.
    • These models allow researchers to control for factors like smiling to isolate specific cues.
  • Speed of Judgments
    • The duration of exposure to the stimuli (photos) doesn't significantly change the judgments. This suggests the process occurs very quickly.
  • Teachers Example
    • Video clips of teachers (e.g., three 10-second clips with no audio), shown to people to rate teaching effectiveness.
    • Ratings can be overall or on specific attributes.
    • Researchers check for consensus among raters and correlation with end-of-semester evaluations to gauge accuracy.
    • Findings:
      • High agreement even with minimal information.
      • Good consensus and correlations even with shorter clips (15 seconds, 6 seconds).
      • Effects hold even when controlling for physical attractiveness.
    • Conclusion: People can glean a lot from minimal cues, particularly body language.

Lie Detection

  • People are generally poor at detecting lies, even with training.
  • Research Setup
    • Participants watch videos of people instructed to either lie or tell the truth.
    • Viewers judge whether each person is lying or truthful.
    • Accuracy rates are compared to a guessing rate of 50%.
  • Accuracy Findings
    • University students: accuracy around 52.82% (no better than guessing).
    • CIA, FBI, military: slightly higher, but not significantly better than chance.
    • Police investigators, trial judges, psychiatrists: accuracy around 57.61%, not significantly better than chance.
    • US Secret Service agents: the only group significantly better than chance, but still only 64% accurate.
  • Follow-up Study on Psychologists
    • Clinical psychologists and those specializing in deception were tested.
    • This group performed better than chance but still far from perfect.
  • Reasons for Poor Lie Detection
    • People focus on the wrong cues, especially facial expressions.
    • Many common beliefs about lying cues are inaccurate.
  • Helpful Cues
    • Listen to the voice: Hesitations, speeding up, and raised pitch can be indicators.
    • Look for signs of cognitive effort: Have people tell events backward.

Attribution Theory

  • Attribution: Explaining the causes of behavior (answering "why").
  • Examples:
    • Losing a tennis match: Could be due to lack of skill, stronger opponent, environmental conditions, or injury.
    • Saying one likes their job: Could be tailored to the audience, genuine liking of the work or coworkers, or pressure to say positive things.

Fritz Heider and Naive Psychology

  • People act as "naive psychologists," trying to understand behavior to predict and control outcomes.
  • People construct theories to explain observed behavior.

Types of Attributions

  • Personal (Dispositional) Attributions: Something about the person caused the behavior.
    • Example: Losing tennis match because they're bad at tennis.
  • Situational Attributions: Something external to the person caused the behavior.
    • Example: Losing tennis match because the sun was in their eyes.

Internal vs. External Attributions

  • Personal / Dispositional / Internal: Anything internal to the person.
    • Stable: Ability (good/bad athlete).
    • Personality: Positive disposition.
    • Unstable: Mood.
    • Effort: Lack of practice.
  • Situational / External: Anything external to the person.
    • Task difficulty.
    • Other people.
    • Luck.
  • Heider believed that attributing behavior to something stable is helpful for predicting and controlling the environment.

Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones and Davis)

  • Focuses on when we can assume behavior corresponds to a personality trait.
    • Example: Someone shouts = aggressive person.
  • Correspondent inferences are more likely under certain conditions:
    • Freely Chosen Behavior: More informative than dictated behavior. Example: Choosing a debate position reveals more than being assigned one.
    • Norms and Roles Influence: Behavior going against norms is more informative. Example: Complaining about a job despite organizational pressure.
    • Standout Features: Choices with one standout feature are more informative. Example: Choosing a difficult vacation suggests a love for achieving difficult things.

Quiz Examples

  • Sarah gets a book:
    • Saying "I don't really like reading" reveals more because it goes against politeness norms.
  • Chris accepts a job:
    • Accepting a job with high pay but a long commute and boring work reveals more about valuing money.
  • Alex has a vegetarian pasta on a flight:
    • Choosing it when other options are available reveals more about values.

Fidel Castro Essay Study (Jones and Harris)

  • Participants read essays about Fidel Castro and were told the author either chose their position or was assigned it.
  • Results: Attitudes are attributed more strongly when choice is involved.
  • Supports the theory: Dispositional attributions are stronger with free choice.

Covariation Model

  • People act as naive scientists.
  • Covariation Principle: Behavior is attributed to the factor that is present when the behavior occurs and absent when it does not.
  • Covariation Information:
    • Consensus: What do other people do in the situation?
    • Distinctiveness: How does the person react to different stimuli?
    • Consistency: What happens on different occasions with the same person and stimulus?

Rachel and Bart Example

  • Rachel is nice to Bart. Why?
    • Consensus: Are other people nice to Bart?
    • Distinctiveness: Is Rachel nice to everyone?
    • Consistency: Is Rachel always nice to Bart?
  • High Consensus, High Distinctiveness, High Consistency: Attribute to the stimulus (Bart is a great guy).
  • Low Consensus, Low Distinctiveness, High Consistency: Attribute to the person (Rachel is a nice person).

Deadpool Example

  • Someone says Deadpool is a good movie. Is it the person or the movie?
    • Consistency: Do they consistently like the movie?
    • Consensus: Do other people like the movie?
    • Distinctiveness: Do they like all movies?

Limitations of the Covariation Model

  • People don't always perfectly follow the model.
  • Covariation information can be difficult to determine.
  • The model is complex.
  • The model requires multiple observations.

Attributional Biases

  • Fundamental Attribution Error: Tendency to overlook situational factors and make internal attributions for other people's behavior.
    • Example: Assuming someone is aggressive because they shouted, without considering situational factors.
    • Castro essay study: People still attribute attitudes even when told the position was assigned.
  • Quiz Master Study: Participants rated the quiz master as more knowledgeable, even though roles were randomly assigned.

Two-Step Process of Attribution (Gilbert and Malone)

  • Step 1: Identify the behavior (automatic).
  • Step 2: Make a dispositional inference (automatic). Example: the quiz master looks smart, therefore the quiz master is smart.
  • Step 3: Factor in the situation (effortful, requires motivation and ability).
    • Example: Adjusting judgment downward because the quiz master has an unfair advantage.

Cultural Influences

  • Western cultures promote an independent view of the self, encouraging the fundamental attribution error.
  • Eastern cultures a more interdependent view of the self. Because the self is connected with other people, this promotes more of a focus on situation over western cultures.
  • Choi et al study: Culture and saliency of the situation interact to influence attributions. You basically have to have both factors working together to get people not to make the fundamental attribution error. For example, if you're from a culture where you're more attuned to the situations, if you're from the eastern culture and you just went through that experience where you were assigned to write, an essay on a particular topic. So you know what it's like not to have a choice. And then you read an essay that someone else wrote where they didn't have a choice, then you can recognize that actually that doesn't tell you anything about the person's true attitude because the situation can explain it.

Just World Hypothesis

  • We like to believe that we live in a just world, where bad things happen to bad people.
  • Threats to this belief can lead to victim-blaming to restore a sense of safety.
  • Example: Blaming Thermomix users for burns, rather than the appliance itself.
  • Internal attributions track with the threat.

Impression Formation: Putting It All Together

  • How do we combine multiple traits to form an overall impression?
  • Assume a Piecemeal (Average) process vs Holistic process of impression formation.

Central Traits (Ash)

  • Some traits carry more information value (central traits).
  • Warm vs. cold are central traits that significantly influence overall impressions, more so than polite vs. blunt.

Two Central Dimensions of Evaluation

  • Warmth: Intent (good or ill).
  • Competence: Ability to achieve goals. Examples:
    • Lisa Simpson: High competence, high warmth.
    • Homer Simpson: Low competence, high warmth.
    • Monty Burns: High competence, low warmth.
    • Moe: Low competence, low warmth.
  • Same dimensions apply to evaluating in-groups and out-groups.

How We Take in Information

  • Impact Factors:
    • What we learn first carries more weight (primacy effect).
    • Interpretation Factor: Early information can bias the interpretation of later information.
  • The valence of the information also matters. So negative info tends to stand out more and be distinctive.

Confirmation Bias (Perseverance of Impressions)

Confirmation Biases

  • How initial impressions can persist even with new information.
  • Biased interpretation of later information.
  • Active elicitation of information that supports the initial view.

Studies on Belief Perseverance

  • Hannah Study:
    • Participants given background information about a child (high vs. low socioeconomic status) and then watched a video of her taking a test.
    • Initial expectations (stereotypes) influenced interpretations of her performance, even though the video was the same for everyone.
    • They were using the same process to make their evaluations, but biasing the interpretation of her.
  • Firefighter Study:
    • Participants were given case studies supporting a particular association: firefighters who take risks are better at the job or firefighters who are cautious are better at the job.
    • Even when the basis for their belief was debunked, people continued to believe the association they had explained until considering the opposite case.
  • Extrovert/Introvert Interview Study:
    • The selection of questions constrained other person's behavior. People will tend to ask them the questions that coincide with pre-existing beliefs about someone.
    • If the interviewer expects interviewee to be an extrovert they will ask the question of What would you do to liven up a party compared to What kind of events make you feel like a lone wolf?

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

  • One step further from Confirmation Bias is self-fulfilling prophecy. If those beliefs constrain actions and elicit actions that cause beliefs to come true.
  • Expectations are confirmed through a cycle. Extrovert expected, extrovert question selected, and behavior confirms it.
  • Rosenthal and Jacobson Study: (Pygmalion effect)
    • Teachers told certain students were "bloomers" (randomly assigned).
      • These students showed greater intellectual gains. Even though every single student was completely randomly assigned. So there would not be an expectation that there would be. Students ended up gaining IQ as a result. Not just grades. These teachers are also having an increased effect. These students also benefited from factors like climate. Teachers were nicer, they gave opportunity, and feedback from them.
        Climate, Input, Response and Feedback

Summary

  • We take in information quickly.
  • Some tasks are tricky, like knowing if people are lying.
  • We make attributions, though sometimes biased.
  • When putting information together, some bits carry more weight.
  • Initial impressions can be sticky, and information can further support our view.