social perception. “non-verbal behavior (nvb)” – facial expression – tone of voice – hand...
TRANSCRIPT
““non-verbal behavior (NVB)”non-verbal behavior (NVB)”
– Facial expression– Tone of voice– Hand gestures
The “OK” sign Thumbs-up Nodding vs.
shaking the head V-for-victory sign
Body position/posture
Touch
Eye gaze
Popularly called “body language”, but broader than that
Function of NVBFunction of NVB
Expressing (sending) and reading (receiving):– Emotion– Attitudes– Personality traits
Facilitating verbal communication– email
Verbal-nonverbal consistencyVerbal-nonverbal consistency
Often consistent, sometimes notSarcasm
– I’m so happy for you!
factors that can decrease factors that can decrease accuracy in face perceptionaccuracy in face perception
Intentional efforts to conceal emotions– Richards & Gross (1999)
Consequences
Display rulesAffect blends/ambiguity
•"it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the - if he - if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not - that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement ... Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have
said no. And it would have been completely true."
"People have got to know whether or not their
president is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook." "The White House has no involvement whatever in this particular incident."
Concealment of Concealment of emotionsemotions——can people be “caught”?can people be “caught”?
Two paradigms, two different questions: – from whom or what is the participant trying to
conceal their emotions?
– Machines (e.g. electrodes) typically, sensitive equipment can pick up true feelings.
– Other people Easier to “fool” human observers than
machines. Gender differences
Important distinction:Important distinction:Studies not having anything to do with
deception– Females better than males
Participants asked to guess who is being deceptive vs. honest– Females worse than males– “politeness” hypothesis
WhyWhy are women are women (in general) more sensitive to emotions/ (in general) more sensitive to emotions/
non-verbal behavior?non-verbal behavior?
Something about gender per se Social role theory (Eagly, 1987)
– Women better because (a) well-practiced, and (b) occupy subordinate positions
– Research more supportive of this hypothesis– Two sources of converging evidence
Cross-cultural work (Hall, 1978) Experimental research (Snodgrass, 1985, 1992)
Experimental evidence for social role Experimental evidence for social role theory: Snodgrass, 1985theory: Snodgrass, 1985
males and females assigned to superior (boss) vs. inferior (employee) roles
Four type of dyads DV: accuracy in reading partner’s emotions Results:
– Gender makes absolutely no difference!– All driven by role: employee always more accurate than
boss– Converges on non-laboratory approach by Hall (1978)
A sampling of some interesting recent findings A sampling of some interesting recent findings in the person perception literaturein the person perception literature
Power of “impression sets” (vs. memory sets) to organize information about others
Automaticity in trait inferences about others– Newman & Uleman (1989)
“Messenger” effects (Carlston & Mae, 2003)
Bob
“Mary is dishonest”
Internal vs. external attributionsInternal vs. external attributions
Internal –dispositional causesExternal—situational causes
Recent examples in the news….– Colin Powell and WMD– Martha Stewart– Michael Jackson
Dear Dr. ________, I am writing to you to ask if would send me information
regarding graduate program in psychology for the Fall 2000-Spring 2001 academic year. I am interested very much in the type of program offer you offer their. I have been told by many people that Washington University has one of better phd programs and I think I would enjoy attending. Just so you know, I have been graduated three years now, and I am still looking for a good job. I have had some bad luck finding something, but I am still hopefull. Hope to hear from you soon.
Sincerely
Inferences about “unseen” traitsInferences about “unseen” traits
Olivia
intelligent
+
attractive
+ honest(inferred)
False memories
Surprise at inconsistencySurprise at inconsistency/attempts to reconcile/attempts to reconcile
Olivia
intelligent
+
attractive
+ Dishonest*(--)
*violates implicit personality theory; could lead to
•Attempt to reinterpret
•Attribute to situational forces
•Forgetting
•Change implicit theory (unlikely, but possible)
Evaluatively mixed Evaluatively mixed representationsrepresentations
Jack
Artistic (painter)(++)
Temperamental(--)
Disorganized (--)
Interesting issue—asymmetries Interesting issue—asymmetries in priming (Neely, 1991)in priming (Neely, 1991)
Artistic primes temperamental more strongly than…
Temperamental primes artistic
Ostrich primes bird more strongly than… Bird primes ostrich
Note: such effects occur for speeded naming tasks, but not lexical decision tasks
Culture and implicit personality Culture and implicit personality theoriestheories
Creative (Western cultures)Shi Gu (China)
Interesting issue—due to – Language, or– Reality?
Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no)
Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Conspiracy during 2004 election?
30% yes
70% no
Actual distribution of attitudes
53%yes
47%no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
34%yes
66% no
Extremely large FCE = +22 Fairly accurate
“yes, there was”
“no, there wasn’t”
Sara Jessica Parker attractive?
57% yes
43% no
Actual distribution of attitudes
64%yes 36%
no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
53%yes
47% no
(Small) FCE = +7 Fairly accurate
“Yeah—hot!” “No”
Johnny Depp attractive?
61% yes 39%
no
Actual distribution of attitudes
66%yes 34%
no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
50%yes
50% no
Fairly accurate Moderate FCE +11
“Yeah—hot!”“No”
Fundamental Christian movement a positive force in U.S.?
23% yes
77% no
Actual distribution of attitudes
48%yes
52%no
Perceived distribution of attitudes
42%yes
58% anti
One interpretation: No real FCE here. Rather, all students (regardless of views) perceive WU students as more pro-Fundamental Christian than they really are
yes
no
Famous errors in person perceptionFamous errors in person perception
The “false consensus” error (e.g. Ross, Greene, & House, 1977)
– What it is Tendency to believe that one’s own attributes
are more common than they really are
– Why you get it Selective exposure Cognitive Accessibility Motivation
Do you feel that fundamental Christian movement is a positive force in the United States? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think that Sarah Jessica Parker is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think that Johnny Depp is attractive? ____ (yes vs. no)Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Do you think there was conspiracy (i.e. an organized efforts to illegally taint the vote-counting) during the presidential election of 2004, to ensure that Bush was re-elected? ___ (yes vs. no)
Others in this room that agree with you ____ (expressed in %)
Famous errors… continuedFamous errors… continued
The “fundamental attribution error” (e.g. Jones & Harris, 1967)
– What it is Tendency to overestimate influence of dispositional
factors when judging others
– Why you get it Selective exposure (again) Perceptual salience Different processes underlying attributions
– dispositional automatic
– Situational controlled
pro-Castro anti-Castro
No choice
choice
Jones and Harris (1967)Jones and Harris (1967)
Anchoring and adjustment heuristic—insufficient adjustment!
Insensitivity to the power of the situation
Est
ima
te o
f ess
ay
wri
ter’
s a
ttitu
de
60%
Stages of social perceptionStages of social perceptionObserve specific behavior
Identification (encoding)
Inferences about other traits
Inferences about the causes of behavior (attribution)
Automatic dispositional attribution
Controlled situational “correction”—but only if perceiver has ability and motivation
Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull (1988)allall participants run in “no choice” condition. participants run in “no choice” condition.
Pro
abortion
Anti-
abortion
“Pro-Abortion”
“Anti abortion”
“unbusy” participants “busy” participants
Self-serving attributionsSelf-serving attributions
Usual pattern for self—– Positive events—internal– Negative events—external
Reversed for depressed individualsSports—winners vs. losers
– Rams vs. Patriots—2002 Superbowl–
Unrealistic optimism Unrealistic optimism (Weinstein, 1980)(Weinstein, 1980)
Basic effectCriticisms of this paradigm
– Referent group unclear?
Bottom line—effect holds up, even controlling for possible problems
Belief in a just worldBelief in a just world (Lerner, 1980) (Lerner, 1980)
Good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people
Two ways of conceptualizing– Cultural belief system– Individual difference variable
highlow
Lambert et al. (1999)Lambert et al. (1999) Belief in a just world But we find only weakly related to perceived
risk—WHY? Buffering hypothesis!
– Maybe just world beliefs “only matter” when world is viewed as “threatening” in the first place
– Who sees world as threatening? High RWA