Chapter 1-6: Social Perception - Vocabulary Flashcards
Nonverbal communication: what it is and why it matters
Nonverbal communication is all the ways we send and receive messages without using words. Think about it as talking without speaking. These cues include:
Facial expressions: How your face shows emotions (e.g., a smile for happiness, a frown for sadness).
Tone of voice: How you say something, not just what you say (e.g., a calm, soft voice vs. a loud, angry voice).
Gestures: Hand movements or other body actions (e.g., waving hello, pointing).
Body position/movement: How you stand or sit, and how you move (e.g., slumped shoulders might mean sadness, standing tall might mean confidence).
Touch: How you interact physically (e.g., a friendly pat on the back, a hug).
Eye gaze: Where and how long you look at someone (e.g., direct eye contact, avoiding someone's eyes).
These signals can be on purpose (like waving hello) or accidental (like blushing when embarrassed). They often give away our true feelings, attitudes, and personality, and help us understand others.
Your face is particularly powerful for showing emotions and information, often called the "crown jewel" of nonverbal communication.
We often make quick judgments about people based on tiny, brief observations (this is called thin slicing). For example, meeting someone for just a few seconds can give us an initial impression, even if it might not always be correct or could be biased.
Universality of facial expressions and Darwin’s view
Charles Darwin believed that certain basic emotions shown on our faces are understood worldwide, by all humans, no matter their culture. We "speak" and "read" these facial expressions in the same way.
He thought these emotional displays were left over from useful reactions our ancestors had. For example, a disgust face (wrinkling your nose, closing your mouth) might have started as a way to avoid bad smells or tastes, helping to expel harmful things. A fear face (wide eyes, open mouth) might have evolved to help us take in more sensory information to spot danger.
Researchers Suskin and colleagues found that fear and disgust expressions use opposite muscle movements. Fear makes us open up our senses (like eyes widening to see more), while disgust makes us close off our senses (like a wrinkled nose to block smells).
The Pixar movie Inside Out shows five main emotions (Anger, Disgust, Joy, Fear, Sadness) as characters. These are common emotions seen and understood across different cultures.
Psychologists generally agree on six main universal emotions, with ongoing discussion about others.
Cross-cultural studies on universality and pride
A famous study by Ekman & Friesen (1971) looked at how a remote tribe in New Guinea, called the Fore, understood emotions. They showed the Fore tribe pictures of American faces expressing six basic emotions. The Fore people could match these expressions to stories in a similar way that Westerners could, confirming that these emotions are universal.
The six universal emotions identified are: ext{anger}, ext{happiness}, ext{surprise}, ext{fear}, ext{disgust}, ext{sadness}.
More recent research shows that while many emotions are universal, how they are displayed can be slightly affected by culture. For instance, pride has a specific look and body posture that is recognized across cultures.
A typical pride display includes a small smile, head tilted back slightly, an expanded chest, and arms either raised or hands on hips.
This specific "pride display" was correctly understood (decoded) in countries like the United States and Italy, and even by an isolated tribe in West Africa. This shows it's a widely recognized signal.
Tracy & Matsumoto studied pride and shame at the 2004 Olympic/Paralympic Games. They found that both sighted and blind athletes around the world showed pride (like the body language described above) when they won. Shame was often shown when losing, though this varied more in cultures that value strong individualism, like the U.S. and Western Europe.
Researchers are still looking into other emotions like contempt, anxiety, determination, envy, and embarrassment to see if they also have unique, universally understood displays.
Decoding challenges and implications for people with facial paralysis
Reading facial expressions isn't always easy because:
Facial ambiguity: Sometimes different parts of the face show different emotions. For example, someone might have a slight smile but worried eyes, making it hard to tell what they truly feel.
Context matters: The situation can completely change how we interpret an expression. A frown might mean anger in one context, but sadness or deep thought in another.
Cultural rules: Different cultures have different rules about how and when to show emotions, which can lead to misinterpretations.
People who have conditions causing facial paralysis (like Parkinson's disease, Bell's palsy, or Mobius syndrome) might be mistakenly seen as less happy or not as friendly as they truly are because their faces can't move to express emotions clearly. To get around this, they often use other ways to communicate their feelings, such as using more emotional words, laughing more, changing their voice, or using more body movements.
Display rules and cultural shaping of nonverbal channels
Display rules are like unspoken rules in a culture that tell us when, where, and how it's okay to show certain emotions. These rules are not universal.
Here are some examples of how cultures differ:
In American culture, it's often more acceptable for women to cry and show grief openly, while men are sometimes discouraged from doing so.
In Japanese culture, people might hide negative emotions with a smile and generally show fewer strong facial expressions compared to Western cultures.
Eye contact rules vary greatly: in the U.S., direct eye contact is usually seen as a sign of honesty and attention. But in Nigeria, Puerto Rico, or Thailand, direct eye contact, especially with elders or superiors, can be considered disrespectful.
Personal space preferences also differ: Americans usually like to have a larger personal "bubble" around them. In contrast, cultures in the Middle East, South America, and Southern Europe are generally comfortable with people standing much closer and touching more often during conversations.
Emblems are specific hand gestures or body movements that have a clear, agreed-upon meaning within a specific culture, but they are not universal. Their meanings can change completely from one place to another. Examples:
A thumbs-up gesture typically means "okay" or "good job" in the U.S. However, in France, it can mean "excellent," in Japan it might refer to a "boyfriend," and in Iran or Sardinia, it can be a rude or obscene gesture.
The V-sign (holding up two fingers) often means "peace" or "victory" when the palm faces outwards towards the crowd. But if you reverse the hand so the palm faces inwards (towards yourself), it can be taken as an insult in places like Australia and the UK.
Because nonverbal cues, especially emblems and display rules, are so deeply shaped by culture and context, miscommunication can easily happen if we assume everyone understands them the same way.
First impressions and impression management
We form first impressions incredibly quickly, sometimes judging someone's face in less than 10^{-1} ext{ seconds} (less than a tenth of a second).
Thin slicing means making quick judgments about someone after only very brief observations. These quick impressions can sometimes be quite accurate but can also be heavily influenced by stereotypes and biases.
For example, a study showed that even short, 10-second silent video clips of a professor teaching could predict how students would rate that professor at the end of the semester. This suggests that even brief initial judgments can be quite informative.
Impression management is about the conscious or unconscious ways we try to control how other people see us. This happens in many situations, such as:
Job interviews: Giving a firm handshake, dressing professionally, maintaining eye contact, and sitting with good posture all contribute to a positive impression.
Online presence: Choosing a professional virtual background for video calls, carefully curating social media profiles, or selecting specific photos for dating apps are all forms of impression management.
The structure and organization of your responses, even online, can also shape how others perceive your competence and thoughtfulness.
Even your body language can change how you feel and act. Adopting a "high-power pose" (like standing tall with hands on hips) can actually make you feel more powerful and confident, potentially leading to better performance in challenging situations like a speech or interview.
Attribution theory: how we infer causes of others’ behavior
Attribution theory explores a fundamental question: Why did this person act the way they did? It's about how we explain people's behavior, especially when we can only see their actions.
Fritz Heider, a founder of this theory, suggested that people are like amateur scientists. We constantly try to figure out why things happen and what causes people's behavior.
There are two main types of explanations, or attributions:
Internal (dispositional) attribution: This means we think the person's behavior is due to something within them. It's about their personality, attitude, character, or disposition. Example: "She's late because she's a disorganized person."
External (situational) attribution: This means we think the behavior is caused by something outside the person, like the environment, the situation, or circumstances. Example: "She's late because there was a lot of traffic."
Consider a father yelling at his young daughter in a store. An internal attribution would be: "He's an angry, impatient father." An external attribution would be: "His daughter just ran into the street, and he was scared and reacting to a dangerous situation."
In relationships, attribution patterns can affect satisfaction. For example, in some troubled marriages, good behaviors by a partner might be attributed externally ("He did the dishes because he wants something"), while negative behaviors are attributed internally ("She's always so critical because that's just her personality"). This can lead to more conflict.
Covariation model (Kelly): how we decide internal vs external attributions
Psychologist Harold Kelley developed the covariation model, which says we look at different pieces of information to decide if behavior is due to internal (person) or external (situation) factors. We consider how a person's behavior changes (covaries) across different times, places, people, and situations.
We use three key types of information:
Consensus information: Do other people behave the same way towards this person or thing? (Is everyone doing it?)
High consensus: Many people behave this way. Example: Everyone complains about Alex's work.
Low consensus: Only this person behaves this way. Example: Only the boss yells at Alex.
Distinctiveness information: Does this person behave this same way to other people or things? (Is this behavior unique to this situation, or do they do it all the time?)
High distinctiveness: The person acts this way only in this specific situation (or towards this specific person/thing). Example: The boss only yells at Alex, but is nice to everyone else.
Low distinctiveness: The person acts this way in many different situations (or towards many different people/things). Example: The boss yells at everyone, not just Alex.
Consistency information: Does this person always behave this way in this specific situation? (Is this a regular pattern?)
High consistency: The person always behaves this way in this situation. Example: The boss always yells at Alex when assigning tasks.
Low consistency: The person rarely behaves this way in this situation. Example: The boss rarely yells at Alex.
Let's use the example: The boss yells at Hannah. How do we explain it?
If there's low consensus (only this boss yells at Hannah), low distinctiveness (the boss yells at everyone), and high consistency (the boss always yells at Hannah): We'd likely make an internal attribution about the boss (e.g., "The boss is an angry, mean person").
If there's high consensus (everyone yells at Hannah), high distinctiveness (the boss only yells at Hannah, not others), and high consistency (the boss always yells at Hannah): We'd likely make an external attribution about Hannah or the situation (e.g., "Hannah must be doing something wrong," or "The situation with Hannah is always frustrating").
If the consistency is low (the boss rarely yells at Hannah), it's hard to make a clear attribution, whether internal or external.
Practical note: We often don't have all this information, so we might make attributions relying more on consistency and distinctiveness than on consensus.
Fundamental Attribution Error and perceptual salience
The fundamental attribution error (also called correspondence bias) is a common mistake we make: when we look at other people's behavior, we tend to put too much emphasis on their internal traits (their personality, disposition) and not enough on the external situation or circumstances.
A classic example: The Rosa Parks bus seat incident. A special bus sign asked people to keep one seat empty to honor Rosa Parks. Many riders didn't leave the seat empty at first. While it might be easy to assume they were all disrespectful or prejudiced, journalists later found that most noncompliant riders simply hadn't seen the small, poorly placed sign. Here, the error would be to attribute their behavior to their character (internal) instead of the lack of a visible sign (situational).
Why does this bias happen?
Perceptual salience: When we observe someone, they are the focus of our attention, they "pop out" more than the background or situation. Because the person is so noticeable, we tend to attribute their actions to them.
Limited information: We often don't have enough information about the situation someone is in. Even when we do, our minds are busy, and we might not take the time to fully adjust our initial internal explanation to account for the situation.
Self-serving attribution bias: This is a bias we apply to ourselves. We tend to explain our successes by pointing to our own internal abilities or efforts ("I aced the test because I'm smart and I studied hard!") and our failures by blaming external factors like luck or the situation ("I failed because the test was unfair and the teacher didn't explain it well"). This helps protect our self-esteem.
Defensive attribution and the belief in a just world (Lerner): This is the belief that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people – essentially, people get what they deserve. This belief can lead to blaming victims of crime or misfortune, as a way to feel safer ourselves (if we believe the victim "deserved" it, then it won't happen to us if we're "good"). It can also be used to justify unfairness or inequality in society.
Culture, thinking styles, and social perception
Our culture strongly influences how we process information and explain behavior.
Western cultures (like North America and Western Europe) tend to emphasize the individual. People are often seen as independent, and their behavior is usually explained by their personal traits and dispositions. This promotes an analytic thinking style, where people focus on individual objects and their specific qualities, without paying as much attention to the surrounding context.
East Asian cultures (like China, Japan, Korea) tend to emphasize the group and harmony. People are seen as connected to their communities, and their behavior is often understood in the context of their social roles and environment. This promotes a holistic thinking style, where people focus on the entire context, the relationships between different elements, and the bigger picture.
It's important to remember these are general trends, not absolute rules. There's a lot of variety within any culture, and individuals can use both thinking styles.
Brain research (fMRI) even suggests that our cultural experiences can literally shape how we perceive things. For example, people showed more brain activity (meaning it took more effort) when they were asked to think in a way that goes against their usual cultural thinking style.
The fundamental attribution error (overestimating internal factors for others' behavior) tends to be stronger in Western, individualistic cultures. People in collectivistic cultures are more likely to consider situational explanations and the broader context when explaining why someone acted a certain way.
Bicultural research (Hong et al., 2003) showed this clearly. Chinese college students in Hong Kong, when briefly exposed to American cultural cues (like pictures of the U.S. flag or famous American landmarks), made more personality-based (dispositional) attributions when explaining why a fish was swimming ahead of a group. But when primed with Chinese cultural cues, they made more situation-based attributions. This shows how flexible our attribution styles can be based on cultural context.
Cultural values also influence how we talk about success and failure.
In many Asian cultures, modesty and group harmony are highly valued. So, people might attribute their successes to others or to favorable circumstances, rather than boasting about their own abilities. Self-criticism and emphasizing group interdependence can be reinforced by social norms.
Karma is a religious concept (from cultures like Hinduism and Buddhism) that relates to moral actions and their consequences, often across many lifetimes. While different from the Western "just-world belief," it serves a similar purpose by offering an explanation for why good or bad things happen to people.
Practical and ethical implications
First impressions can quickly lead to stereotypes and unfair judgments. Understanding "thin-slice judgments" helps us recognize when we should pause, get more information, and override our initial gut reactions to avoid bias.
Our attribution processes (how we explain behavior) influence daily decisions in relationships, how we solve conflicts, who we hire, and how we educate. If we're not careful, these processes can perpetuate biases. For example, if a teacher always attributes a student's poor performance to a lack of intelligence (internal) rather than a difficult home situation (external), it can impact how they support that student.
Cultural context is crucial for accurately understanding others' emotions and behaviors. In today's diverse world, recognizing different "display rules" and cultural norms for communication is essential for effective cross-cultural communication and preventing misunderstandings.
The just-world belief and the tendency to blame victims have significant ethical consequences. Recognizing these biases helps us respond to crime and misfortune with more empathy and make fairer judgments, rather than assuming victims are responsible for their suffering.
Real-world connections and examples mentioned in the chapter
Reality TV's Popularity: Our fascination with reality television stems from our natural human tendency to observe and try to understand others' behavior using their nonverbal cues and actions, just like we do in real life.
Employment: Impression management is a critical skill for job seekers. From a firm handshake to appropriate attire, confident eye contact, and good posture in an interview, these nonverbal signals influence whether someone gets hired. Interestingly, adopting a "power pose" can even internally boost a person's confidence and performance during an interview.
Media and Politics: First impressions and attribution biases heavily influence public opinion. For example, early election results and how candidates present themselves can shape how the public interprets their character and competence, sometimes even before all facts are known.
Everyday Misunderstandings: Many daily communication problems come from misreading nonverbal cues. This could be differences in how much eye contact is expected, what's considered appropriate personal space, or the varied meanings of gestures (emblems) across cultures.
Education and Research: The concepts discussed, like attribution and cultural thinking styles, are studied using psychological experiments, often involving priming (subtly exposing people to certain ideas) to understand how these factors affect our social perception.
Quick reference: key terms and core ideas
Nonverbal communication: Sending and receiving information without words, using things like facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, posture, touch, and eye gaze.
Facial expressions: How our faces show universal emotions (like ext{anger}, ext{happiness}, ext{surprise}, ext{fear}, ext{disgust}, ext{sadness}) which are sometimes modified by culture.
Pride and shame displays: Pride has a distinct cross-cultural look (face, posture, gesture), while shame recognition can vary more based on cultural display rules.
Display rules: Culturally specific guidelines for when, where, and how to express emotions (e.g., when it's okay to cry).
Emblems: Hand gestures or body movements that have a specific, agreed-upon meaning within a single culture (e.g., thumbs up can mean different things worldwide).
Thin slicing: Making rapid judgments or impressions from very brief observations, often in a fraction of a second.
Impression management: Our conscious or unconscious efforts to control how others see and perceive us (e.g., how we act in an interview).
Power pose: Body postures that can make a person feel more powerful and confident, potentially improving performance.
Attribution theory: The study of how we explain other people's behavior, deciding between internal (personality) or external (situational) causes.
Covariation model: Kelley's model that says we use three types of information—consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency—to figure out if behavior is internal or external.
Fundamental attribution error: Our strong tendency to overestimate a person's personality (internal factors) and underestimate the situation (external factors) when explaining others' behavior.
Just-world belief: The belief that people generally get what they deserve; this can lead to blaming victims.
Culture and thinking styles: How culture shapes our thoughts—analytic thinking (focus on individual objects, common in individualistic cultures) vs. holistic thinking (focus on context and relationships, common in collectivistic cultures).
Karma: A religious concept (like in Asian cultures) about the moral consequences of actions over lifetimes, similar in function to the just-world belief.
Reflection prompts for study
Imagine you see someone with a poker face. How might your cultural background influence whether you think they are hiding something or simply being polite?
Can you recall a time you made a quick judgment (thin slicing) about someone that turned out to be wrong? What factors contributed to your initial error?
Think about a time a friend canceled plans last minute. How could you use the covariation model (considering consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency) to figure out why they canceled?
Describe a situation where you might have committed the fundamental attribution error about someone's behavior. What situational factors might you have overlooked?
If you were working in a team with people from very different cultural backgrounds, how would understanding cultural differences in attribution (analytic vs. holistic thinking) help you communicate more effectively and avoid misunderstandings?
Concluding note
This chapter highlights that our understanding of others—our social perception—is a fascinating mix of quick, often accurate signals and complex interpretations deeply shaped by culture and our own biases. It emphasizes that while some nonverbal cues are universal, context, cultural norms, and cognitive shortcuts play a huge role in how we make sense of the world and the people in it.
Nonverbal communication: what it is and why it matters
Nonverbal communication is all the ways we send and receive messages without using words. Think about it as talking without speaking. These cues include:
Facial expressions: How your face shows emotions (e.g., a smile for happiness, a frown for sadness).
Tone of voice: How you say something, not just what you say (e.g., a calm, soft voice vs. a loud, angry voice).
Gestures: Hand movements or other body actions (e.g., waving hello, pointing).
Body position/movement: How you stand or sit, and how you move (e.g., slumped shoulders might mean sadness, standing tall might mean confidence).
Touch: How you interact physically (e.g., a friendly pat on the back, a hug).
Eye gaze: Where and how long you look at someone (e.g., direct eye contact, avoiding someone's eyes).
These signals can be on purpose (like waving hello) or accidental (like blushing when embarrassed). They often give away our true feelings, attitudes, and personality, and help us understand others.
Your face is particularly powerful for showing emotions and information, often called the "crown jewel" of nonverbal communication.
We often make quick judgments about people based on tiny, brief observations (this is called thin slicing). For example, meeting someone for just a few seconds can give us an initial impression, even if it might not always be correct or could be biased.
Universality of facial expressions and Darwin’s view
Charles Darwin believed that certain basic emotions shown on our faces are understood worldwide, by all humans, no matter their culture. We "speak" and "read" these facial expressions in the same way.
He thought these emotional displays were left over from useful reactions our ancestors had. For example, a disgust face (wrinkling your nose, closing your mouth) might have started as a way to avoid bad smells or tastes, helping to expel harmful things. A fear face (wide eyes, open mouth) might have evolved to help us take in more sensory information to spot danger.
Researchers Suskin and colleagues found that fear and disgust expressions use opposite muscle movements. Fear makes us open up our senses (like eyes widening to see more), while disgust makes us close off our senses (like a wrinkled nose to block smells).
The Pixar movie Inside Out shows five main emotions (Anger, Disgust, Joy, Fear, Sadness) as characters. These are common emotions seen and understood across different cultures.
Psychologists generally agree on six main universal emotions, with ongoing discussion about others.
Cross-cultural studies on universality and pride
A famous study by Ekman & Friesen (1971) looked at how a remote tribe in New Guinea, called the Fore, understood emotions. They showed the Fore tribe pictures of American faces expressing six basic emotions. The Fore people could match these expressions to stories in a similar way that Westerners could, confirming that these emotions are universal.
The six universal emotions identified are: ext{anger}, ext{happiness}, ext{surprise}, ext{fear}, ext{disgust}, ext{sadness}.
More recent research shows that while many emotions are universal, how they are displayed can be slightly affected by culture. For instance, pride has a specific look and body posture that is recognized across cultures.
A typical pride display includes a small smile, head tilted back slightly, an expanded chest, and arms either raised or hands on hips.
This specific "pride display" was correctly understood (decoded) in countries like the United States and Italy, and even by an isolated tribe in West Africa. This shows it's a widely recognized signal.
Tracy & Matsumoto studied pride and shame at the 2004 Olympic/Paralympic Games. They found that both sighted and blind athletes around the world showed pride (like the body language described above) when they won. Shame was often shown when losing, though this varied more in cultures that value strong individualism, like the U.S. and Western Europe.
Researchers are still looking into other emotions like contempt, anxiety, determination, envy, and embarrassment to see if they also have unique, universally understood displays.
Decoding challenges and implications for people with facial paralysis
Reading facial expressions isn't always easy because:
Facial ambiguity: Sometimes different parts of the face show different emotions. For example, someone might have a slight smile but worried eyes, making it hard to tell what they truly feel.
Context matters: The situation can completely change how we interpret an expression. A frown might mean anger in one context, but sadness or deep thought in another.
Cultural rules: Different cultures have different rules about how and when to show emotions, which can lead to misinterpretations.
People who have conditions causing facial paralysis (like Parkinson's disease, Bell's palsy, or Mobius syndrome) might be mistakenly seen as less happy or not as friendly as they truly are because their faces can't move to express emotions clearly. To get around this, they often use other ways to communicate their feelings, such as using more emotional words, laughing more, changing their voice, or using more body movements.
Display rules and cultural shaping of nonverbal channels
Display rules are like unspoken rules in a culture that tell us when, where, and how it's okay to show certain emotions. These rules are not universal.
Here are some examples of how cultures differ:
In American culture, it's often more acceptable for women to cry and show grief openly, while men are sometimes discouraged from doing so.
In Japanese culture, people might hide negative emotions with a smile and generally show fewer strong facial expressions compared to Western cultures.
Eye contact rules vary greatly: in the U.S., direct eye contact is usually seen as a sign of honesty and attention. But in Nigeria, Puerto Rico, or Thailand, direct eye contact, especially with elders or superiors, can be considered disrespectful.
Personal space preferences also differ: Americans usually like to have a larger personal "bubble" around them. In contrast, cultures in the Middle East, South America, and Southern Europe are generally comfortable with people standing much closer and touching more often during conversations.
Emblems are specific hand gestures or body movements that have a clear, agreed-upon meaning within a specific culture, but they are not universal. Their meanings can change completely from one place to another. Examples:
A thumbs-up gesture typically means "okay" or "good job" in the U.S. However, in France, it can mean "excellent," in Japan it might refer to a "boyfriend," and in Iran or Sardinia, it can be a rude or obscene gesture.
The V-sign (holding up two fingers) often means "peace" or "victory" when the palm faces outwards towards the crowd. But if you reverse the hand so the palm faces inwards (towards yourself), it can be taken as an insult in places like Australia and the UK.
Because nonverbal cues, especially emblems and display rules, are so deeply shaped by culture and context, miscommunication can easily happen if we assume everyone understands them the same way.
First impressions and impression management
We form first impressions incredibly quickly, sometimes judging someone's face in less than 10^{-1} ext{ seconds} (less than a tenth of a second).
Thin slicing means making quick judgments about someone after only very brief observations. These quick impressions can sometimes be quite accurate but can also be heavily influenced by stereotypes and biases.
For example, a study showed that even short, 10-second silent video clips of a professor teaching could predict how students would rate that professor at the end of the semester. This suggests that even brief initial judgments can be quite informative.
Impression management is about the conscious or unconscious ways we try to control how other people see us. This happens in many situations, such as:
Job interviews: Giving a firm handshake, dressing professionally, maintaining eye contact, and sitting with good posture all contribute to a positive impression.
Online presence: Choosing a professional virtual background for video calls, carefully curating social media profiles, or selecting specific photos for dating apps are all forms of impression management.
The structure and organization of your responses, even online, can also shape how others perceive your competence and thoughtfulness.
Even your body language can change how you feel and act. Adopting a "high-power pose" (like standing tall with hands on hips) can actually make you feel more powerful and confident, potentially leading to better performance in challenging situations like a speech or interview.
Attribution theory: how we infer causes of others’ behavior
Attribution theory explores a fundamental question: Why did this person act the way they did? It's about how we explain people's behavior, especially when we can only see their actions.
Fritz Heider, a founder of this theory, suggested that people are like amateur scientists. We constantly try to figure out why things happen and what causes people's behavior.
There are two main types of explanations, or attributions:
Internal (dispositional) attribution: This means we think the person's behavior is due to something within them. It's about their personality, attitude, character, or disposition. Example: "She's late because she's a disorganized person."
External (situational) attribution: This means we think the behavior is caused by something outside the person, like the environment, the situation, or circumstances. Example: "She's late because there was a lot of traffic."
Consider a father yelling at his young daughter in a store. An internal attribution would be: "He's an angry, impatient father." An external attribution would be: "His daughter just ran into the street, and he was scared and reacting to a dangerous situation."
In relationships, attribution patterns can affect satisfaction. For example, in some troubled marriages, good behaviors by a partner might be attributed externally ("He did the dishes because he wants something"), while negative behaviors are attributed internally ("She's always so critical because that's just her personality"). This can lead to more conflict.
Covariation model (Kelly): how we decide internal vs external attributions
Psychologist Harold Kelley developed the covariation model, which says we look at different pieces of information to decide if behavior is due to internal (person) or external (situation) factors. We consider how a person's behavior changes (covaries) across different times, places, people, and situations.
We use three key types of information:
Consensus information: Do other people behave the same way towards this person or thing? (Is everyone doing it?)
High consensus: Many people behave this way. Example: Everyone complains about Alex's work.
Low consensus: Only this person behaves this way. Example: Only the boss yells at Alex.
Distinctiveness information: Does this person behave this same way to other people or things? (Is this behavior unique to this situation, or do they do it all the time?)
High distinctiveness: The person acts this way only in this specific situation (or towards this specific person/thing). Example: The boss only yells at Alex, but is nice to everyone else.
Low distinctiveness: The person acts this way in many different situations (or towards many different people/things). Example: The boss yells at everyone, not just Alex.
Consistency information: Does this person always behave this way in this specific situation? (Is this a regular pattern?)
High consistency: The person always behaves this way in this situation. Example: The boss always yells at Alex when assigning tasks.
Low consistency: The person rarely behaves this way in this situation. Example: The boss rarely yells at Alex.
Let's use the example: The boss yells at Hannah. How do we explain it?
If there's low consensus (only this boss yells at Hannah), low distinctiveness (the boss yells at everyone), and high consistency (the boss always yells at Hannah): We'd likely make an internal attribution about the boss (e.g., "The boss is an angry, mean person").
If there's high consensus (everyone yells at Hannah), high distinctiveness (the boss only yells at Hannah, not others), and high consistency (the boss always yells at Hannah): We'd likely make an external attribution about Hannah or the situation (e.g., "Hannah must be doing something wrong," or "The situation with Hannah is always frustrating").
If the consistency is low (the boss rarely yells at Hannah), it's hard to make a clear attribution, whether internal or external.
Practical note: We often don't have all this information, so we might make attributions relying more on consistency and distinctiveness than on consensus.
Fundamental Attribution Error and perceptual salience
The fundamental attribution error (also called correspondence bias) is a common mistake we make: when we look at other people's behavior, we tend to put too much emphasis on their internal traits (their personality, disposition) and not enough on the external situation or circumstances.
A classic example: The Rosa Parks bus seat incident. A special bus sign asked people to keep one seat empty to honor Rosa Parks. Many riders didn't leave the seat empty at first. While it might be easy to assume they were all disrespectful or prejudiced, journalists later found that most noncompliant riders simply hadn't seen the small, poorly placed sign. Here, the error would be to attribute their behavior to their character (internal) instead of the lack of a visible sign (situational).
Why does this bias happen?
Perceptual salience: When we observe someone, they are the focus of our attention, they "pop out" more than the background or situation. Because the person is so noticeable, we tend to attribute their actions to them.
Limited information: We often don't have enough information about the situation someone is in. Even when we do, our minds are busy, and we might not take the time to fully adjust our initial internal explanation to account for the situation.
Self-serving attribution bias: This is a bias we apply to ourselves. We tend to explain our successes by pointing to our own internal abilities or efforts ("I aced the test because I'm smart and I studied hard!") and our failures by blaming external factors like luck or the situation ("I failed because the test was unfair and the teacher didn't explain it well"). This helps protect our self-esteem.
Defensive attribution and the belief in a just world (Lerner): This is the belief that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people – essentially, people get what they deserve. This belief can lead to blaming victims of crime or misfortune, as a way to feel safer ourselves (if we believe the victim "deserved" it, then it won't happen to us if we're "good"). It can also be used to justify unfairness or inequality in society.
Culture, thinking styles, and social perception
Our culture strongly influences how we process information and explain behavior.
Western cultures (like North America and Western Europe) tend to emphasize the individual. People are often seen as independent, and their behavior is usually explained by their personal traits and dispositions. This promotes an analytic thinking style, where people focus on individual objects and their specific qualities, without paying as much attention to the surrounding context.
East Asian cultures (like China, Japan, Korea) tend to emphasize the group and harmony. People are seen as connected to their communities, and their behavior is often understood in the context of their social roles and environment. This promotes a holistic thinking style, where people focus on the entire context, the relationships between different elements, and the bigger picture.
It's important to remember these are general trends, not absolute rules. There's a lot of variety within any culture, and individuals can use both thinking styles.
Brain research (fMRI) even suggests that our cultural experiences can literally shape how we perceive things. For example, people showed more brain activity (meaning it took more effort) when they were asked to think in a way that goes against their usual cultural thinking style.
The fundamental attribution error (overestimating internal factors for others' behavior) tends to be stronger in Western, individualistic cultures. People in collectivistic cultures are more likely to consider situational explanations and the broader context when explaining why someone acted a certain way.
Bicultural research (Hong et al., 2003) showed this clearly. Chinese college students in Hong Kong, when briefly exposed to American cultural cues (like pictures of the U.S. flag or famous American landmarks), made more personality-based (dispositional) attributions when explaining why a fish was swimming ahead of a group. But when primed with Chinese cultural cues, they made more situation-based attributions. This shows how flexible our attribution styles can be based on cultural context.
Cultural values also influence how we talk about success and failure.
In many Asian cultures, modesty and group harmony are highly valued. So, people might attribute their successes to others or to favorable circumstances, rather than boasting about their own abilities. Self-criticism and emphasizing group interdependence can be reinforced by social norms.
Karma is a religious concept (from cultures like Hinduism and Buddhism) that relates to moral actions and their consequences, often across many lifetimes. While different from the Western "just-world belief," it serves a similar purpose by offering an explanation for why good or bad things happen to people.
Practical and ethical implications
First impressions can quickly lead to stereotypes and unfair judgments. Understanding "thin-slice judgments" helps us recognize when we should pause, get more information, and override our initial gut reactions to avoid bias.
Our attribution processes (how we explain behavior) influence daily decisions in relationships, how we solve conflicts, who we hire, and how we educate. If we're not careful, these processes can perpetuate biases. For example, if a teacher always attributes a student's poor performance to a lack of intelligence (internal) rather than a difficult home situation (external), it can impact how they support that student.
Cultural context is crucial for accurately understanding others' emotions and behaviors. In today's diverse world, recognizing different "display rules" and cultural norms for communication is essential for effective cross-cultural communication and preventing misunderstandings.
The just-world belief and the tendency to blame victims have significant ethical consequences. Recognizing these biases helps us respond to crime and misfortune with more empathy and make fairer judgments, rather than assuming victims are responsible for their suffering.
Real-world connections and examples mentioned in the chapter
Reality TV's Popularity: Our fascination with reality television stems from our natural human tendency to observe and try to understand others' behavior using their nonverbal cues and actions, just like we do in real life.
Employment: Impression management is a critical skill for job seekers. From a firm handshake to appropriate attire, confident eye contact, and good posture in an interview, these nonverbal signals influence whether someone gets hired. Interestingly, adopting a "power pose" can even internally boost a person's confidence and performance during an interview.
Media and Politics: First impressions and attribution biases heavily influence public opinion. For example, early election results and how candidates present themselves can shape how the public interprets their character and competence, sometimes even before all facts are known.
Everyday Misunderstandings: Many daily communication problems come from misreading nonverbal cues. This could be differences in how much eye contact is expected, what's considered appropriate personal space, or the varied meanings of gestures (emblems) across cultures.
Education and Research: The concepts discussed, like attribution and cultural thinking styles, are studied using psychological experiments, often involving priming (subtly exposing people to certain ideas) to understand how these factors affect our social perception.
Quick reference: key terms and core ideas
Nonverbal communication: Sending and receiving information without words, using things like facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, posture, touch, and eye gaze.
Facial expressions: How our faces show universal emotions (like ext{anger}, ext{happiness}, ext{surprise}, ext{fear}, ext{disgust}, ext{sadness}) which are sometimes modified by culture.
Pride and shame displays: Pride has a distinct cross-cultural look (face, posture, gesture), while shame recognition can vary more based on cultural display rules.
Display rules: Culturally specific guidelines for when, where, and how to express emotions (e.g., when it's okay to cry).
Emblems: Hand gestures or body movements that have a specific, agreed-upon meaning within a single culture (e.g., thumbs up can mean different things worldwide).
Thin slicing: Making rapid judgments or impressions from very brief observations, often in a fraction of a second.
Impression management: Our conscious or unconscious efforts to control how others see and perceive us (e.g., how we act in an interview).
Power pose: Body postures that can make a person feel more powerful and confident, potentially improving performance.
Attribution theory: The study of how we explain other people's behavior, deciding between internal (personality) or external (situational) causes.
Covariation model: Kelley's model that says we use three types of information—consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency—to figure out if behavior is internal or external.
Fundamental attribution error: Our strong tendency to overestimate a person's personality (internal factors) and underestimate the situation (external factors) when explaining others' behavior.
Just-world belief: The belief that people generally get what they deserve; this can lead to blaming victims.
Culture and thinking styles: How culture shapes our thoughts—analytic thinking (focus on individual objects, common in individualistic cultures) vs. holistic thinking (focus on context and relationships, common in collectivistic cultures).
Karma: A religious concept (like in Asian cultures) about the moral consequences of actions over lifetimes, similar in function to the just-world belief.
Reflection prompts for study
Imagine you see someone with a poker face. How might your cultural background influence whether you think they are hiding something or simply being polite?
Can you recall a time you made a quick judgment (thin slicing) about someone that turned out to be wrong? What factors contributed to your initial error?
Think about a time a friend canceled plans last minute. How could you use the covariation model (considering consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency) to figure out why they canceled?
Describe a situation where you might have committed the fundamental attribution error about someone's behavior. What situational factors might you have overlooked?
If you were working in a team with people from very different cultural backgrounds, how would understanding cultural differences in attribution (analytic vs. holistic thinking) help you communicate more effectively and avoid misunderstandings?
Concluding note
This chapter highlights that our understanding of others—our social perception—is a fascinating mix of quick, often accurate signals and complex interpretations deeply shaped by culture and our own biases. It emphasizes that while some nonverbal cues are universal, context, cultural norms, and cognitive shortcuts play a huge role in how we make sense of the world and the people in it.