Person perception

Lecture 2

Differences between person perception and perception of physical objects

Complexity of inferences– „going beyond the information given” (Jerome Bruner)– Indirect inferences (observable cues inferences about

dispositions)• Influence of affect and emotions• The perceving and the perceived are of the same kind –

both humans– Source of biases or accurate perceptions

• „I know that you know that I know” – the perceiving is being perceived and reacted to– Self-fulfilling prophecies– Labeling effects– Source of bias

What is being perceived

• Appearance, skin color, gender• Nonverbal behavior• Verbal communications• Behaviors (shyness, self-confidence, anxiety,

etc.)

Nonverbal messages

• Gestures• Physical distance • Eye contact• Others (touch, intimacy of conversational

content, tone of voice etc.)• Behaviors (blushing, trembling, fidgeting

etc.)

Gestures

Physical distance

Spontaneous distance dependent on type of interaction

Spontaneous distance dependent on age and type of relationship

Spontaneous distance dependent on age and gender

Eye contact

Focusing on a face...

Frequency of eye contact during a conversation

Physical distance and amount of eye contact

Impression formation

Role of affect in impression formation

Robert B. Zajonc

Affect as basic form of cognition

• Affective appraisal– Approach-avoidance– Good-bad

• Cognition– True – false

• The majority of categorizations are underlain by affective bi-polar categorizations (liked – disliked, positive-negative, desirable-undesirable)

Two types of perceptual cues

• Preferenda cues of how to feel• Discriminanda cues of how to distinguish

between objects

Evaluation as the basic component of meaning

• Charles Osgood (1957): „The measurement of meaning”

• Connotation vs. denotation

• Semantic differential as instrument for measurement of meaning

Semantic differential

good bad

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hard soft

fast slow

light heavy

rough smooth

Father

good bad

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hard soft

fast slow

light heavy

rough smooth

Future

good bad

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hard soft

fast slow

light heavy

rough smooth

Love

good bad

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

hard soft

fast slow

light heavy

rough smooth

Poland

Other dimensions and results of factor analysis

Three dimensions of meaning

• Evaluation (good-bad) (50% variance)• Potency (strong-weak)• Activity (active-passive)• Potency+Activity = Dynamism• Evaluation + Dynamism = two basic

dimensions of AFFECT

Dimensions of semantic space

James Russell & Albert Mehrabian – „circumplex” of affective reactions

High arousal (dynamism)

Excitement

Pleasant

Relaxation

Low arousal (dynamism)

Boredom

Unpleasant

Fear

hectic excitingalive

exhiliratinginteresting

arousing

stimulating sensational

pleasing

pretty beautiful

pleasantnice

serene

restfulpeacefulcalm

tranquil

rushed

intense

frenzied

panicky

tenseforceful

uncomfortable

dissatisfying

displeasing

repulsive

unpleasant

unstimulating

dulldreary

boring

inactive

idle

monotoneous

active

lazy slow

drowsy

High arousal

Low arousal

unpleasant

pleasant

After: Russell, Lanius, 1984

Affective and descriptive rules of trait inference

Two meanings of a social information

• Affective meaning (evaluation): – Is it good or bad:– Do I like it or not?

• Descriptive meaning– What does it mean?, – What property does it describe?

Two types of inferences

• According to affective similarity– Eg. economical generous; careful

courageous • According to descriptive similarity

– Eg. generous extravagant; careful cowardly

Affective representation (affectively balanced structure)

++

+-

+ -

-

-

+

-+

Descriptive representation (affectively imbalanced structure)

++

+-

- +

-

+

-

+-

Affective inferences used:• When little information is available • When we don’t understand the situation

– Discriminanda cannot be applied• When the cognitive set is to evaluate and not to

diagnose/describe• When quick decision is required

– Need for approach or avoidance reaction• When the situation is emotionally involving• With lower level of cognitive development (e.g.

children)

Descriptive inferences used:

• When enough information• When looking for explanation and not

evaluation• In a neutral situation that enables

distancing• Higher level of cognitive devlopment,

cognitive complexity

Trait inferences: principles and effects

Going beyond the information given

• Effects in impression formation– halo effect,– leniency effect

• Implicit theories of personality

Jerome Bruner

Halo effect

+

+

+

+

+

++

Leniency effect

--

--

+

--

--+

+

+

Other effects in person perception

• Primacy / recency• Information set effect• Evaluation effects

– Polarization effect: • more extreme evaluations influence general impression

more– Negativity effect:

• Negative evaluations influence general impression more than positive evaluations

– Positivity effect• Positive evaluations influence general impression more

than negative evaluations

Asch study – primary vs. recency effect

List A List BIntelligent EnviousIndustrious StubbornImpulsive CriticalCritical ImpulsiveStubborn IndustriousEnvious Intelligent

List A List B

GenerousWiseHappyGood naturedHumorousSociablePopularReliableImportantHumaneGood-lookingPersistentSeriousStrong

2418321852563584853674829794

101750212714919021358710073

Explanations of primacy effect

• Solomon Asch: change of the information meaning dependent on the expectations created after the first information

• Norman Anderson: attention declines with successive information

Information set effect

Number of information pieces

evaluation

Logarithmic function between overall evaluation and number of univalent information

Trait inferences

Implicit theories of personality

Solomon Asch (years 40s/50s)

• Central and peripheral traits– warm vs. cold

Solomon Asch: central and peripheral traits

• List A– Intelligent– Skillful– Industrious– Warm– Determined– Practical– Careful

• List B– Intelligent– Skillful– Industrious– Cold– Determined– Practical– Careful

Effects of differences on the „warm- cold” dimension

• generous• wise• happy• kind• humorous• sociable• popular• humane• altruistic• Imaginative

No differences for the dimension:

Polite - blunt

Seymour Rosenberg (1968)

• Multidimensional scaling of personality traits

• Semantic space of personality traits

• Two main dimensions of implicit personality theories: Social good-bad vs. Intellectual good-bad

Positive intellectual traits

Negative intellectual traits

Negative social traits

Positive social traits

persistent scientificdetermined

skilfulIndustrious

intelligentimaginative

serious

important

discriminating

daring

reserved

cautiouspracticalartistic

coldunsociable

humorless

unpopularunhappy

dominating

vainhonest

modest

toleranthelpfulsincere

happypopular

sociable

humorous

good-naturedwarm

naive

submissive

impulsive

clumsy

superficialunreliable

foolish

unintelligent

After: Rosenberg, Nelson, Vivekanathan, 1968

Rosenberg et als. (1968) – original results

Self- and other-profitable traits

Theory of Guido Peeters

Guido Peeters

Catholic University of Leuven, Belgia

Self-profitable traits vs. other-profitable traits

• Self-profitable (S-P): Competence, abilities, skills – traits profitable/unprofitable for the owner of the trait

• Other-profitable (O-P): Moral and social traits – profitable or unprofitable for other people

Guido Peeters: Self-profitable (SP) vs. other-profitable (OP) traits

• SP– Intelligent– Active– Passive– Enterprising– Clumsy– Slow– Thrifty– Self-confident– Flexible– Unpunctual– Talented– Diligent– Extravagant

• OP– Honest– Evil– Friendly– Dishonest– Selfish– Helpful– Responsible– Reliable– Mean– Generous– Cold– Ruthless– Modest

OP (other-profitable) vs. SP (self-profitable)

generous(OP+)

mean(OP-)

extravagant(SP-)

economical(SP+)

Spends money

Does not spend money

Other-profitable Self-profitable

OP (other-profitable) vs. SP (self-profitable)

conceited(OP-)

modest(OP+)

self-confident(SP+)

shy(SP-)

Self-confidence

Lack of self-confidence

other-profitable Self-profitable

Whom do you prefer?

A. Honest friendB. Dishonest friend

A. Intelligent friend B. Stupid friend

Whom do you prefer?

A. Honest enemyB. Dishonest enemy

A. Intelligent enemyB. Stupid enemy

SP vs. OP

• Positive object & SP+ positive evaluation– Friend + intelligent positive evaluation

• Negative object & SP+ negative evaluation– Enemy + intelligent negative evaluation

• Positive object & OP+ positive evaluation– Friend + honest positive evaluation

• Negative object & OP+ positive evaluation– enemy + honest positive evaluation

SP vs. OP and context dependence

• SP traits change their meaning dependent on the context (different in vitro than in vivo)

• OP traits are context-independent (the same in vitro and in vivo)

• OP traits are better manifestations of approach-avoidance than SP traits (we avoid/approach others not ourselves)

• OP is the real evaluative dimension

Morality vs. competences (theory of Glenn Redder)

Glenn D. Reeder

University of Illinois

Behaviortrait

inference schemata

Morality vs. competences

• Morality:– honest, moral, truthful, responsible, sincere, loyal,

faithful– dishonest, immoral, hypocritical, irresponsible, corrupt,

traitor• Competences:

– Skilled, intelligent, resourceful, pragmatic, talented, diligent, enterprising

– clumsy, loser, unintelligent, incompetent, lazy, helpless

What is more probable?

• (A) That an intelligent person will behave stupidly ?

• (B) That a stupid person will behave intelligently?

What is more probable?

• (A) That an honest person will behave dishonestly?

• (B) That a dishonest person will behave honestly?

+

-

+

- -

+

-

+Competences

Morality

Intelligence

Lack of intelligence

Inference schemata

Intelligentbehavior

Stupid behavior

Honesty

Dishonesty

Honestbehavior

Dishonestbehavior

+

-

+

- -

+

-

+Intelligence

Lack of intelligence

Inference schemata

Intelligentbehavior

Stupid behavior

Honesty

Dishonesty

Honestbehavior

Dishonestbehavior

Diagnostic behaviors

-- -- + + +

Positivity effect

-- -- + + --

Negativity effect

Morality vs.competences and evaluation effects

Intelligent behavior + stupid behavior trait ‘intelligence’

Loyal behavior + disloyal behavior trait ‘disloyalty’

Inferring traits of self vs. others

Studies by Bogdan Wojciszke

Self vs. others

• Self – descriptions in terms of competences• Description of others – in terms of morality

After: Wojciszke, 1994

After: Wojciszke, 1994

Moral Unmoral

Competent Virtuous success

Sinful success

Uncompetent Virtuous failure Sinful failure

After: Wojciszke, 1994

The biggest sins of Polish people

• Survey PBS – 10 February 2005

The biggest sinsPole

• Drinking and gluttony 24,0%• Dishonesty 19,8%• Greed 11,7%• Laziness 11,3%• Envy 11,0%• Jealousy 8,0%• Stealing 8,0%• Boorishness 5,5%• Corruption 5,5%• Intolerance 5,5%• Conceit 5,6%• Complaining 4,4%• Egoism 3,5%• Callousness 2,9%• Stupidity 2,5%

Myself• Laziness 16,0%• Drinking and gluttony 9,0%• Smoking 4,6%• Dishonesty 4,0%• Lack of self-confidence 3,5%• Lack of perseverance 3,2%• Anger 3,0%• Naivete 2,4%• Talking too much 2,4%• Workaholism 2,3%• Unpunctuality 1,9%• Envy 1,6%• Dissolution 1,5%• Jealousy 1,5%• Nervousness 1,5%

The biggest sins

Pole

• Don’t know 7,8%• Poles have no sins, drawbacks

2,8%

Myself

• Don’t know10,0%

• I have no sins, drawbacks 23,1%

Sins and age

SinAge

DishonestyPole Self

LazinessPole Self

EnvyPole Self

18-24 11,9 11,5 17,1 34,6 4,4 5,2

25-39 18,4 4,6 13,6 19,0 10,4 0,0

40-59 19,7 1,4 10,8 11,5 13,7 1,8

60 and more 27,3 2,2

5,2 6,9 11,9 0,8

I have so sins/ drawbacks

Age 18-24 12,0

25-39 21,8

40-59 21,6

over 60 34,7

education Elementary 19,0

Professional 33,0

High 22,4

University 12,1

Residence place Over 200,000 16,9

50 – 200,000 16,3

Below 50,000 27,1

country 27,5

Moralization of the social world

• Accounting for people’s behavior in terms of their moral intentions

• Negative image of others (negativity effects)

• Suspicion and conspiracy theories (dispositional attributions)

• Evaluation and not explanation of people’s behaviors

Warmth vs. competences

Theory by Susan Fiske

Stereotypes built on two dimensions

• Warmth• Competence

After: Joanna Konieczna (2003)

Stereotypes of Poles and Ukrainians held by Ukranians (compensation mechanisms)

Dimensions of person perception; summary

• S. Rosenberg: intellectual good-bad vs. social good-bad

• G. Peeters: self-profitable vs. other-profitable

• G. Reeder: ability vs. morality• Susan Fiske: competence vs. warmth

Integration of partial evaluations into overall impression

Models of information integration: cognitive algebra

• Linear models (bottom up)– Additive models (Triandis & Fishbein) – Averaging– Weighted average (N. Anderson)

• Configurational model (S. Asch) (top down)– Impression:

• Holistic: the whole is more than sum of elements• Meaning of individual parts dependent on the whole

Asch vs. Anderson: which model is more accurate?

• Both may be true• S. Fiske & Neuberg (1990): two

modes of information integration: category-based integration versus piece-meal integration. – Category-based: evaluation of

an object derived from global evaluation of the category (e.g. stereotype)

– Piece-meal: global evaluation a product of partial evaluations of specific features of an object

The continuum model of person perception

Category-based vs. piece-meal

• Time pressure category-based• Interdepedence piece-meal• Position in hierarchy

– Subordinates piece-meal – Superiors category-based

Subordinate when in front of a superior should have a miserable and a dumb appearance in order not to embarass the superior with his comprehension ability