Social Perception & Attribution

Ultra-Detailed Lecture Notes: Social Perception & Attribution

1. Evolutionary and Cognitive Foundations of Social Perception

1.1 Neurobiological Basis of Face Processing

  • Fusiform Face Area (FFA):

    • Located in the fusiform gyrus (temporal lobe).

    • Specialized for facial recognition (Kanwisher et al., 1997).

    • Also activates for objects resembling faces due to anthropomorphism (e.g., cars with headlight "eyes").

    • fMRI studies show stronger FFA activation when judging trustworthiness (Winston et al., 2002).

  • Superior Temporal Sulcus (STS):

    • Processes facial expressions and biological motion.

    • Critical for inferring intentions (Harris et al., 2005).

1.2 Evolutionary Adaptations in Face Perception

  • Hyperactive Agent Detection Device (HADD):

    • Evolved tendency to perceive agency in ambiguous stimuli.

    • Pareidolia: False positives (e.g., seeing faces in clouds) were less costly than missing real threats.

  • Newborn Face Preference:

    • Farroni et al. (2005): Infants as young as 9 minutes old prefer face-like patterns.

    • Controlled via preferential looking paradigms (two stimuli shown simultaneously).

1.3 Cross-Cultural Universality

  • Consistent face perception patterns across cultures (Zebrowitz, 1997).

  • Minor variations: Collectivist cultures slightly better at integrating facial + contextual cues (Masuda et al., 2008).


2. Mechanisms of Impression Formation

2.1 Speed and Automaticity

  • Willis & Todorov (2006):

    • Exposure Time | Judgment Accuracy Correlation

      • 100ms: r = .88

      • 500ms: r = .90

      • Unlimited: r = .92

    • Warmth judgments (trustworthiness) form faster than competence judgments.

2.2 Thin-Slice Methodology

  • Ambady & Rosenthal (1993):

    • 3 experimental conditions:

      1. 30-second silent clips of teachers.

      2. 10-second clips.

      3. 5-second clips.

    • All predicted end-of-semester evaluations equally well.

    • Key Implication: Diagnostic behavioral cues are extracted almost instantaneously.

2.3 Dimensional Models of Social Judgment

Fiske's Warmth-Competence Model
  • Accounts for 82% of variance in person perception (Fiske et al., 2006).

  • Neural correlates:

    • Warmth → Amygdala activation (threat detection).

    • Competence → Prefrontal cortex (status evaluation).

Wiggins' Circumplex Model
  • 8 interpersonal traits mapped along:

    • Affiliation (warmth-coldness).

    • Power (dominance-submissiveness).

  • E.g., "aloof" = low warmth + medium dominance.


3. Real-World Consequences of Facial Perception

3.1 Political Elections

  • Todorov et al. (2005):

    • Method:

      1. Photos of 2004 U.S. Congressional candidates.

      2. Naive participants rated "competence" after 1-second exposures.

    • Findings:

      • Higher perceived competence predicted 68.8% of Senate races.

      • Effect size comparable to incumbency advantage.

  • Antonakis & Dalgas (2009):

    • Swiss children (5-13 years) chose French election winners at 71% accuracy.

    • Used boat captain selection paradigm to assess competence.

3.2 Criminal Sentencing

  • Wilson & Rule (2015):

    • Sample: 700 Florida inmates (50% death row).

    • Procedure:

      1. Remove all contextual info from photos.

      2. MTurk workers rated trustworthiness (1-7 scale).

    • Results:

      • Each 1-point increase in untrustworthiness → 22% higher death sentence likelihood.

      • Effect remained after controlling for race, attractiveness.

3.3 Financial Outcomes

  • CEO Selection (Rule & Ambady, 2009):

    • Fortune 500 CEOs rated higher in:

      • Power (jaw width, brow prominence).

      • Maturity (facial structure).

    • Correlation between perceived power and company revenue: r = .32.

  • Peer-to-Peer Lending (Duarte et al., 2012):

    • Trustworthy-looking borrowers:

      • 1.5x more likely to receive loans.

      • Received 0.5% lower interest rates.


4. Attribution Processes and Biases

4.1 Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)

  • Meta-Analytic Evidence (Gawronski, 2004):

    • Stronger in individualistic cultures (d = 0.61).

    • Moderated by cognitive load (d increases by 0.23 under load).

  • Neuroscience Perspective:

    • Dispositional attributions activate temporoparietal junction (TPJ).

    • Situational attributions require dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) effort.

4.2 Covariation Theory: Advanced Applications

Kelley's ANOVA Model

Information Type

High

Low

Consensus

Situational

Dispositional

Consistency

Dispositional

Situational

Distinctiveness

Situational

Dispositional

Example:

  • John laughs at comedian.

    • Low consensus (others don't laugh) + High consistency (John always laughs) + Low distinctiveness (laughs at all comedians) → Internal attribution.

4.3 Primacy Effect: Cognitive Mechanisms

  • Asch's (1946) Serial Position Effects:

    • Trait Order | Mean Favorability

      • Intelligent→Envious: 4.2/7

      • Envious→Intelligent: 2.8/7

    • Recency effects emerge only with:

      • Time delays between traits.

      • Explicit memory instructions.

  • Neural Basis:

    • Early items receive deeper encoding in hippocampus.

    • Later items suffer from attentional depletion (Gershberg & Shimamura, 1994).


5. Methodological Innovations and Future Directions

5.1 Computational Modeling in Face Perception

  • Todorov's Data-Driven Approach:

    1. Generate 1,000+ facial morphs.

    2. Collect trait ratings for each.

    3. Use PCA to extract "face space" dimensions.

    • Found: Trustworthiness maps onto anger/happiness expressions.

5.2 Cross-Species Comparisons

  • Borgi et al. (2014):

    • Infants and monkeys show identical baby schema responses.

    • Suggests evolutionary ancient mechanism.

5.3 AI and Attribution

  • Current research on whether:

    • People apply FAE to robots.

    • Algorithmic face judgments replicate human biases.


6. Critical Evaluation and Study Design

6.1 Limitations of Key Studies

Study

Limitation

Todorov (2005)

Ecological validity (static photos vs. dynamic campaigns).

Jones & Harris (1967)

Dated political context (Castro relevance today).

Gilbert et al. (1988)

Artificial cognitive load task.

6.2 Proposed Novel Experiment

Title: "The Effect of Facial Masks on Competence Judgments in Job Interviews."
Design:

  • IV: Mask wearing (present/absent).

  • DV: Hiring recommendations + competence ratings.

  • Hypothesis: Masks disrupt competence judgments more than warmth.


7. Synoptic Integration with Other Topics

  • Link to Social Cognition: Dual-process theories (automatic vs. controlled attribution).

  • Link to Intelligence: Facial IQ judgments correlate only r = .12 with actual IQ (Zebrowitz et al., 2002).

  • Link to Psychometrics: Challenges in measuring implicit person perception.


Key References for Further Reading:

  • Todorov, A., et al. (2008). Social, Cognitive, and Affective Neuroscience.

  • Gilbert, D.T. (1998). Annual Review of Psychology.

  • Zebrowitz, L.A. (2017). Annual Review of Psychology.